On 7/27/06, Michael R. Stork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
