Matt Riggsby wrote:
On 7/27/06, Michael Sarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There seems to be little reason to keep track of character points after
character generation with this system. If the players and GM like it,
then it makes sense, but I'd never want to play in a game like this. If
the character point system isn't broken, then it should be used to
regulate game balance.
The CP system isn't broken. It's just not relevant. Or rather, it's
just that awards from the GM shouldn't be taken as the sole source of
increasing a character's point value. Buying cybernetics with cash
will change a character's point value for reasons which are entirely
sensible in the game setting, and he shouldn't be saddled with the
requirement of "buying it off."
You're right and I agree with you 100%. But I'm not saying that the
player should have to buy off the cybernetic enhancement. I'm saying
that the point value of the character should increase just as it would
if the player bought the enhancements during character generation. The
GM should evaluate the upgraded character and place a point a value on
the upgrades.
As I've said before, this is a setting in which it is realistic and
believable for characters to suddenly acquire considerable abilities
far in excess of the rate of CP awards the GM may hand out. For a
character with a stack of Euros and a desire to do violence, it would
be *implausible* for him not to go down to the chop shop and get wired
nerves or an implanted shotgun, thus suddenly increasing his point
value considerably. Forcing him to pay that off, in the form of not
increasing his skills while his companions do or just as suddenly
acquiring rafts of compensating disads, would be even more implausible.
Again, we are in 100% agreement. The character should be free to act
within the game world. The character point system should reflect the new
point value of the character, though.
Game balance is nice, but neither reality nor most fictional worlds
are balanced. Therefore, attempts by the GM to force a balance between
PC point levels is likely to be a distracting intrusion into the game
reality. You can certainly keep track of point value changes ("My
blind character just bought some eyes, so he's at 200 points now
rather than 150."). I would, if only so I had a general gague for how
powerful existing characters were in case new players wanted to join.
This is EXACTLY the reason that you should track character points, and
why something bought at the beginning of the game should be priced the
same as it is in the middle of the game. In addition, tracking the true
point value of the characters allows the GM to provide windfall points
to those character that are lagging behind in point total. This is
exactly what we did for our cyberpunk game where I played a Japanese pop
star who did not want to get cybered. As the group bought more
cyberware, my character got increases in wealth, reputation, and status.
But unless you play RPGs as a game where the primary point is
acquiring abilities (that is, if you tend heavily towards G in the GNS
triangle), there's no need to "regulate play
balance" and compensate for changes in characters which make in-game
sense.
Well, it's nice to keep the characters at the same relative point level,
even if you don't favor the G-spot. From a purely N point of view, it
helps to drive the story if everyone can contribute to it at the same
level. Having the characters' true point values known can aid this process.
-Mike
--
Michael Sarno
“The light of the soul is bright,
but dense clouds of human ignorance obscure it.”
-Deng Ming-Dao
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
