[gurps] Re: Rule of 16?

[hal at buffnet.net]

>1) You stated that the mage was under-powered compared to the fighter,
>then you specifically disallow one of the main balancing factors?

Rather than respond on a point by point response to comments Chris made in
his last post, I will start with this one, and then "ramble" as it were...

Balance seems to be the primary point being raised by Chris in the line
above, and subsequent responses made in the same post (ie everything else)
seems to flow from that, so lets look at why I tend to discount GURPS
GRIMOIRE spells and why I tend to specify certain aspects of the game as
being limited by exclusion of the specific rules.  As a GM, I very much
dislike "Script Immunity".  GURPS has a plethora of advantages and
disadvantages, that it is extremely difficult to build any one "Immune to
everything" type of character.  This is by design for the most part.  But,
balance is a tricky issue.  Sometimes, people think of things that the
original designer did not.  Anthony, for example, made a highly visible
point about "balance" when he specified a one trick pony, where if a spell
was used as given in GURPS MAGIC as introduced in GURPS GRIMOIRE, could
have devastating results in game.  The spell?  ENLARGE OBJECT.  For 1
fatigue per pound of the object's original weight, the object can be
enlarged by one SM category.  If you took for example, a single wooden
object like a plate, and made it such that it was 7" in diameter, it would
be treated as a 1 lb 7" object, with a SM value of -6.  A mage with a 15
point powerstone could enlarge that item until it was an object that weighs
20,000 tons, and had a SM value of +9.  This gives it a largest dimension
value of 70 yards (essentially a 35 yard diameter object as it started off
as a plate).  Imagine if you will, a one lb seven inch wooden disc, dropped
from a height of 10 yards atop of "ground zero" suddenly becoming 70 yard
wide and 20,000 tons object.  Valid under the rules as written?  Sure.
Balanced?  Hell NO.  There are other spells which have a similar problem.
In some instances, there are spells which produce if not identical results,
then functionally identical results to other spells, but do so for a far
less energy cost than the other spell that originally debuted in GURPS
MAGIC for 3e.

Now, for the other issues.  If I wanted to, not that I had the money, and
not that I think KROMM would really do this, but if I wanted to bribe Sean
with $100,000 Canadian (after all, the US dollar isn't worth what it once
was), and he slipped it through the other editors at SJGames, and published
the following as "canon" for GURPS, I could have the following spell become
part of the standard rules...

INSTANT DEATH:    Special
This spell invokes instant death, no saving roll allowed for any given
character or diety.  Such a death will not permit the return of the being
to life via Resurrection of any kind.  Dead is DEAD.  If this spell is
cast, it also removes all memory of its USE in the game universe.  As a
special spell, this spell has no range modifiers.  It will kill any
creature or being that the caster knows of regardless of where that being
is.  It will strike across dimensions or even those who are in an astral
plane or any other plane of existence. 

Requisites: Magery 1
Time to cast: 1
Duration: Permanent
Energy to cast: 1


Would you expect that any of the Game Masters would permit this spell in
their games despite it being "official"?  I suspect not.  I know I
wouldn't!   (so no, Sean, I'm not paying you $100,000 Canadian <g>)

So, that brings up the next valid point.  In a "reasonable" contest, one
has to weed out the unreasonable spells.  I consider quite a few of the
spells in GURPS GRIMOIRE and the NEW Spells never seen before until GURPS
MAGIC for 4e was published, to be highly unreasonable.  Spells that combine
three spells into one, and do it for less energy than for all three spells
combined is just "unreasonable" in my eyes.

So, here was the original challenge - use only those spells contained
within GURPS MAGIC (Why?  It is easier to exclude the spells in GURPS
GRIMOIRE entirely than to make a list of those spells I consider
unreasonable - takes up less discussion time as people say one spell is
abusive while other say it is not abusive.   Next - why the ban on
Signature gear?  Point for point, it is more effective than Wealth until
you reach the 20 point cost level, then VERY WEALTHY is a better buy.

10 points gains you $2,000
20 points gains you $5,000
30 points gains you $20,000

Signature gear:
10 points buys you $6,000 equipment (assuming normal wealth and starting
wealth of $1,000 to begin with)
20 points buys you $11,000 equipment (ditto)
30 points buys you $16,000 equipment (ditto)

Using the original rules of 1 point can be traded in for money, the rules
disparity for the point cost is even more pronounced.
10 points: $2,000 (assuming normal wealth and starting wealth of $1,000 to
begin with)
20 points: $3,000 (ditto)
30 points: $4,000 (ditto)

So why use it if it is "unreasonable"?  There is a clash between the
"original wealth rules" of GURPS 3e and even clashes with the wealth rules
for 4e.  It is to put it mildly, munchkin bait.  Come to think of it, there
is one other advantage Signature Gear offers over that of simple Wealth.
Usually, it seems to be that players are expected to spend no more than 20%
of their starting wealth on adventuring gear unless they are wanderers etc.
 Signature gear is not constrained by such a limit.

Last thought and I'll bring this email post to a close...

Part of the problem with creating characters in a game is that wealth as an
advantage does a lot more than give a player character money, it gives him
the ability to exchange money for things that are possessions, things that
can confer advantages upon player characters.  When a character purchases
Armor, he is in effect, purchasing a limited form of Damage Resistance no?
When he buys a healing potion, he is in effect erasing the damage done to
him already - a form of extra hit points right?  When he buys a fine sword,
he is in effect, increasing his relative ST for inflicting damage by one ST
level, and perhaps buying a weapon that won't break as easily.

Give a character TOO much starting wealth, and he can buy things over and
above his basic innate abilities or skills or what have you.  I'm not
complaining mind you.  I'm just trying to explain my thought processes.  If
for example, you permit a mageborn to buy a powerstone with the wealth
advantage, which usually specifies that equipment costs can be no more than
20% of the starting wealth unless certain conditions are met - then you are
in essense saying "Ok, you may augument your Fatigue value by a given
amount".  If the mage can do it, so can the witch hunter.  A 30 point
powerstone is worth 18,500 according to GURPS MAGIC for 4e.  Multiply that
by x5 to get the starting wealth required, and the cost is such that the
player needs to buy an advantage confering a x100 starting wealth or filthy
rich (50 points).  If the rule is that you can use all of your starting
wealth on equipment, the game becomes even more "odd" in the sense that you
can buy a LOT of magic items for a mere $100,000 in cost.  Signature gear
bypasses all of that.  It becomes an issue of "I can buy more and better
things than you can buy.  D&D almost always makes it that magic items make
the character, instead of the Character makes the character.  If I wanted
to, I could buy a signature gear item in the form of a ring.  That ring
contains 3 charges of a given "magical effect".  Its cost?  A mere $18,000
(rounding up, it is closer to about 17,000 actually).  With that ring, and
an unaware mage player, I can use the ring to effect a really nasty
surprise.  What surprise?  Imagine using money to buy invisibility potions,
then sneak up on a mage who didn't have the benefit of any warning spells
or mage sight or what have you.  Then imagine using a lesser wish to
specify a roll of a three when slinging a stone at an unarmored mage while
aiming at either his cranium or his vitals?  Is that a valid contest?  Is
it anything but a one shot surprise attack?  Since a crit success on an
attack removes any possiblity of an active defense roll by the defender, it
is pretty much a done deal if the attack can inflict sufficient damage in
one blow.

Limiting wealth by limiting how many character points is one method to
illustrate what I started out by saying that a well played fighter up
against a mage of equal points, should be able to win easily enough.  It
all depends on the spell mix.  If someone said "Ok Hal, create a playable
character for a convention play, and the goal of the adventure is to take
on a mage in his lair - WITCH HUNTER is probably the character I'd build.
Sans the Magic Resistance 2, there isn't anything truly remarkable about
him - and I would STILL take him into play against a resident Mage
defending his lair.  I'd be cautious as all hell - and I might lose my
character, but I'd go in there with an appreciation for the Mage's
disadvantages.  I would also be vastly surprised if the GM set me up to
take on a 600 point character after all the magical equipment is accounted
for, all of the defensive building's lair costs are accounted for, etc.  A
100 point character against a well designed 600 point character SHOULD
lose.  On the other hand?  If I managed to secure a win despite it all, I
would definitely have a sense of pride in the accomplishment.

So, those are my thoughts.  Keep the starting wealth for equipment to a
minimum, Keep the unreasonable spells out of the mix with the understanding
that they are in fact, unbalancing.  Keep the rest of the spells in from
GURPS MAGIC 3e, and see what can be done.  Under those circumstances, you
will be able to test for capability of the character versus capabilities of
his possessions.