[gurps] Mitigators (was Cyberpunk & 4e)

[Matt Riggsby]

On 7/27/06, Michael R. Stork <mstork5 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The only real
> problem I have with this is that it can lead to a fantastic amount of
> munchkinism.

Yep.  No rule system which allows player choice is proof from
potential abuse, so there's no substitute for a GM to say "Why are you
building a physically disabled character with lots of money?"

> Now the GM can certainly come in and stomp
> all over this, but I've known players who would bitch up a storm for
> having the character creation process restricted. The old, "I should be
> able to create my character how ever I want" argument.

Likewise, there's no substitute for a GM who can say to a player
"Perhaps this game isn't for you."  Except, of course, for a player
who can say to the GM "Maybe this game isn't for me" rather than
agitate to play a character who will certainly annoy the GM and
possibly the other players.

> One solution
> though might just be Hal's original Mitigation idea. If a character buys
> Blind for the full amount of points, then you could justify that to mean
> that the eyes aren't just ruined but that the ability to see is
> uncorrectable. The area of the brain that controls sight has been
> damaged say.

There's something to that.  Physical disads wouldn't be "taboo
traits," but buying them off could  be.  The GM might declare that any
physical disadvantage a character might have would have been corrected
if it could be.  Ergo, if he's got it, he can't buy it off.  It's a
bit dubious if cybernetics and biotech are otherwise extremely
advanced, but fairly reasonable for less advanced cyberware.

It strikes me that a character might also have ideological reasons for
keeping disads as well.  Religious vows, for example, or in solidarity
with a "deaf culture" or "blind culture."



-- 
My wife's food blog is quite interesting:
http://thehappysorceress.blogspot.com