Discussion:
Point cost of limited abilities
(too old to reply)
Peter Knutsen
2007-05-13 18:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Some time ago, there was discussion about the point cost of limited
abilities in RPG rules systems with point-based character creation.

The example used was a Speak With Animals ability, which is a fairly
common phenomenon in the fantasy genre.

The system discussed (IIRC it was the only one) was Hero System.


Here are some more data points:

In GURPS 4th Edition, Speak With Animals has a base cost of 25 character
points and applies to all animals. If the ability is limited to animals
of the air *and* land (or to aquatic animals), the cost is reduced by
40%. If the ability is limited to one "class" of animals, such as
"birds", the cost is reduced by 50%. If limited to one "family", such as
"parrots", the cost is reduced by 60%. If limited to one species, such
as "macaws", the cost is reduced by 80%.


My own Modern Action RPG does not have a Speak With Animals ability, but
it does have a comparable ability, Animal Talent, which allows a
character to empathize with and tame animals. It can be purchased in an
unlimited version with strengths of 2d6, 3d6 or 4d6, with each extra d6
increasing the cost by 150%, from 8 points to 20 points to 50 points.

There's no Animal Talent ability that is fully limited to one species or
category of animals, but one can get limited bonus die, if one purchases
the first 2d6 without limits.

The design reason is that it does not make sense, within the genre, for
a human to have some ability with dogs or horses but *no* ability with
other animals. That which makes sense within the genre, and which is
therefore offered to the players as a choice, is to make a character
with some ability with all animals but who has *better* ability with one
species or category.

(This rules out, as a PC concept, a vampire-like character who can only
do things with bats, rats, wolves and perhaps cats, but who has no
ablity whatsoever with other animals. But I'm okay with that. The MA RPG
does allow for some fairly weird character types, but not this.)

The first 2d6, never limited, costs 8 points. The 3rd d6 costs 12
points, but if it applies only to one type of animals, such as canines
or equines, it is 1/3 cost, meaning that Animal Talent 2d6 (+1d6 with
canines or equines) costs 12 points, whereas a full 3d6 costs 20 points.

Likewise if one wants Animal Talent 2d6 (+2d6 with canines), the final
2d6 would normally cost 42 points (50-8), but this is reduced by 2/3 to
14 points, so that the final cost of Animal Talent 2d6 (+2d6 with
canines) costs 22 points, whereas the full and unlimited 4d6 ability
costs 50 points.

There's also Animal Talent 3d6 (+1d6 with one type), but I won't go into
that. Animal Talent dice, limited to one category (i.e. broader than
"type"), are 3/5 the cost of normal dice, compared to 1/3 cost for
type-specific dice.

Likewise the Empathy Gift can be purchased in a version that has limited
power on one sex but more power on the other. Sex-specific bonus dice
are 75% the cost of general dice, so that while Empaty 3d6 costs 20
points, Empathy 2d6 (+1d6 vs Men) costs 16 points.


There needs to be a version of the "Cloud Mind" Mystic Gift that is
stronger versus one sex than the other, of course, and there is, but the
cost structure is the same as with Empathy above (the limited die costs
75% of an unlimited die), so I won't go into that.

Instead I'll mention another version of the "Cloud Mind" Mystic Gift,
which can be boosted either 1 or 3 times per week with an extra d6. The
basic 2d6 ability costs 20 points (for comparison, the strongest
version, 3d6, costs 60 points).

The cost mark-up for a Cloud Mind ability that can be boosted by +1d6
once per week is +20% cost, and if it can be boosted by +1d6 3 times per
week then the cost is increased by +80% to, respectively, 24 points and
34 points.

Note that there's no "Ability building" system, in MA RPG, which is
available to the players. The players select from a menu of abilities in
the rule book, with the intent that this menu should contain everything
that is both desirable and in-genre for the system.


The Sagatafl "Power" build system still exists only in very vague form,
but the basic workings of the system is that the base point cost of a
Power is determined by the character's attributes in some way. Speak
With Animals would (naturally!) be a "Nature Power", so the
cost-determining attributes would (probably) be Faith and Will. The
higher the lowest of these two is, the cheaper the Power will be.

Powers are purchased in levels, with level 2 costing twice as much as
level 1, level 3 costing twice as much as level 2, and so forth. Half
levels cost 40% more than the previous level, when they are needed.

A Speak With Animal Power of level 1 would thus allow the character to
understand and speak to a single species, such as ravens. A Power of
level 2, i.e. costing twice as many points, would allow the character to
speak with a single broad category of animals, such as birds. A Power
level of 3, costing four times as many points as level 1, would allow
the character so speak with all animals.

A power of level 0.5 would probably be meaningless, and therefore not
able to exist, although perhaps one could invent a character who can
speak with only one specific animal, e.g. his horse (but then why not
make the horse be his Familiar instead, using those rules?). A power of
1.5 would let the character speak with 2 or 3 species of animals,
provided that they are related in such a way (biologically or
thematically) that it meets the GM's approval. A power level of 2.5
would let the character speak with 2 or 3 broad categories of animals. A
power level above 3 would be meaningless.


Now, those are my examples.

On to some thoughts:

Are players happy with putting Limitations on their abilities, in
systems such as GURPS and Hero System? One might naively assume that
since players do in fact put Limitations on their abilities, they must
be happy with it, but there are several alternative explanations:

B. The players purchase Limited abilities because they cannot afford
abilities without Limitations, due to being given a very tight point
budget by the GM.

C. The players purchase Limited abilities as a form of self-censorship
because they believe that the GM would reject abilities that do not have
Limitations on them (or which have too few, such as 1 or 2, Limitations
on them).

D. The players purchase Limited abilities because they know for a fact
that the GM of that specific campaign will reject characters who have
abilities that are not Limited.

We can't rule out, of course, that (A) players apply Limitations to
their character's abilities because those Limitations fit the character
concept and anyway the players feel that the cost difference between the
abilities with and without Limitations are such that they (the players)
are getting a fair deal.

What kinds of success criteria can one posit, if any?

Not seeing any characters with Limited Mystic Gifts in the first MA RPG
playtest campaign is certainly insufficient.

I'm not making a GURPS or Hero System-like system here. I'm simulating a
genre, even if it is a very broad genre. I therefore offer those
abilities which I predict that players will want. I dream up character
concepts and then I check whether my rules system allows their cretion;
if it doesn't allow it, I have discovered a problem which it is my duty,
as a game designer, to fix.

One could argue that a -25% point cost discount for one sex-specific die
(or for two sex-specific dice) is too little. I may change that to a
-30% or -35% or even -40% discount. In that area, my chief concern is
that none of the offered choices must be obviously better than the
others. If 2d6 (+1d6 vs one sex) costs only a very few points more than
a "flat" 2d6 Gift, then no player would ever take the "flat" 2d6
version, and that *is* a game design failure.

This is a subset of the menu offered:
8 points: Empathy 2d6
16 points: Empathy 2d6 (+1d6 vs one sex)
20 points: Empathy 3d6
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Magister
2007-05-17 03:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Knutsen
Are players happy with putting Limitations on their abilities, in
systems such as GURPS and Hero System? One might naively assume that
since players do in fact put Limitations on their abilities, they must
B. The players purchase Limited abilities because they cannot afford
abilities without Limitations, due to being given a very tight point
budget by the GM.
C. The players purchase Limited abilities as a form of self-censorship
because they believe that the GM would reject abilities that do not have
Limitations on them (or which have too few, such as 1 or 2, Limitations
on them).
D. The players purchase Limited abilities because they know for a fact
that the GM of that specific campaign will reject characters who have
abilities that are not Limited.
We can't rule out, of course, that (A) players apply Limitations to
their character's abilities because those Limitations fit the character
concept and anyway the players feel that the cost difference between the
abilities with and without Limitations are such that they (the players)
are getting a fair deal.
I'd be in group (A).

Perhaps also (A') players in systems that are not granular enough
to support their character concepts might pay for a general ability
and
then use it as a limited ability that is not available at a lower
cost. This
can be a useful way for players rather than the GM to increase the
challenge level of the campaign if they wish. I played several D&D
characters who chose suboptimal weapons or spells just because
they were eccentric, in a campaign that was non-lethal enough that
the other players didn't pressure me not to do this. The players in
this group would not think they are getting a fair deal, just an
acceptable one. It probably wouldn't happen if your campaign has
a high enough degree of challenge.

Conversely, in GURPS Supers I don't recall ever using a limitation
to make a character concept affordable; I revised the character
concept in other ways (usually discarding an entire ability) or
abandoned it if it couldn't be realized within the point budget as
originally planned.

I can't imagine having to do (C) or (D); those sound like a
hostile GM.

--
Magister
gleichman
2007-05-17 11:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magister
I can't imagine having to do (C) or (D); those sound like a
hostile GM.
Or one who is enforcing proper genre conventions upon his world.
Peter Knutsen
2007-05-26 12:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by gleichman
Post by Magister
I can't imagine having to do (C) or (D); those sound like a
hostile GM.
Or one who is enforcing proper genre conventions upon his world.
I'm talking about a character design situiation in which the player has
an actual choice. It could either be a superhero campaign, or a fantasy
setting in which there's a huge variety of magic, such that the player
is free to "design" his character's magical powers.

Some of the Limitations in Hero System, such as Gestures or
Concentration, strike me as a appropriate. A few others are perhaps
slightly too generous (my impression is that if a power can only affect
half of the world's targets, e.g. if it works only against one sex, then
that's a (-1) Limitation, where I'd have preferred a (-3/4) Limitation),
and many others strike me as too miserly, removing much of the power's
utility in exchange for a very small reduction in point cost.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Magister
2007-06-05 01:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by gleichman
Post by Magister
I can't imagine having to do (C) or (D); those sound like a
hostile GM.
Or one who is enforcing proper genre conventions upon his world.
If the genre conventions are clear and the GM is happy to make
consistent rulings, then the players could ask for the unlimited
ability,
and be allowed to or will be told that it is not available -- the
ability
they end up with is not limited if the unlimited one is not allowed
in the rules of the world. Those situations do not seem to be
part of the classification of the original poster.

Especially in case (C), where the players think that the unlimited
ability would not be allowed, but don't actually test that judgement
by offering such a character to the GM -- in which case they would
either have the unlimited ability or at least be in group (D) --
what's
discouraging them from doing so, if it isn't a hostile GM?

--
Magister

Magister
2007-05-17 04:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Knutsen
Are players happy with putting Limitations on their abilities, in
systems such as GURPS and Hero System? One might naively assume that
since players do in fact put Limitations on their abilities, they must
B. The players purchase Limited abilities because they cannot afford
abilities without Limitations, due to being given a very tight point
budget by the GM.
C. The players purchase Limited abilities as a form of self-censorship
because they believe that the GM would reject abilities that do not have
Limitations on them (or which have too few, such as 1 or 2, Limitations
on them).
D. The players purchase Limited abilities because they know for a fact
that the GM of that specific campaign will reject characters who have
abilities that are not Limited.
We can't rule out, of course, that (A) players apply Limitations to
their character's abilities because those Limitations fit the character
concept and anyway the players feel that the cost difference between the
abilities with and without Limitations are such that they (the players)
are getting a fair deal.
I'd be in group (A).

Perhaps also (A') players in systems that are not granular enough
to support their character concepts might pay for a general ability
and
then use it as a limited ability that is not available at a lower
cost. This
can be a useful way for players rather than the GM to increase the
challenge level of the campaign if they wish. I played several D&D
characters who chose suboptimal weapons or spells just because
they were eccentric, in a campaign that was non-lethal enough that
the other players didn't pressure me not to do this. The players in
this group would not think they are getting a fair deal, just an
acceptable one. It probably wouldn't happen if your campaign has
a high enough degree of challenge.

Conversely, in GURPS Supers I don't recall ever using a limitation
to make a character concept affordable; I revised the character
concept in other ways (usually discarding an entire ability) or
abandoned it if it couldn't be realized within the point budget as
originally planned.

I can't imagine having to do (C) or (D); those sound like a
hostile GM.

--
Magister
Ben Finney
2007-05-17 13:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Knutsen
Are players happy with putting Limitations on their abilities, in
systems such as GURPS and Hero System? One might naively assume that
since players do in fact put Limitations on their abilities, they
must be happy with it, but there are several alternative
explanations: [...]
We can't rule out, of course, that (A) players apply Limitations to
their character's abilities because those Limitations fit the
character concept and anyway the players feel that the cost difference
between the abilities with and without Limitations are such that they
(the players) are getting a fair deal.
The GURPS and HERO systems (and other similar "anything is possible
for the right price" systems) allow the description of character
abilities by point-costed rules mechanics. Just about any ability,
ranging vastly in power levels and game effects, can be described
using those mechanics.

Most of that enormously broad spectrum will be inappropriate for any
particular setting; the GM must pick and choose the level of power
acceptable for character abilities, in general and/or in specific
cases brought up by the players.

I think one thing missing from your set of options is: an ability
chosen for a player character has particular limitations applied
because that's what the GM *allows* for the setting.

Just because the rules mechanics allow me to build an "earthquake"
ability as anything from world-cracking earth ruptures all the way
down to miniscule tremors, and specifies a point cost depending on the
enhancements, limitations, and power level, doesn't mean the GM must
accept all of that range for the power in the setting we play in. The
GM can, and should, apply discretion as to what level of power, and
what limitations, are appropriate for that ability in the particular
setting.

In my experience, most players in most groups would appreciate the GM
applying this discretion, assuming it's done fairly. The GM is, after
all, the one that presumably knows most about the setting and what
challenges will be presented; focusing the set of available abilities,
enhancements, and limitations allows the players to describe what they
want their characters to do *and* have the GM give feedback on what
will be too little or too much for the setting.
--
\ "I like my dental hygenist, I think she's very pretty; so when |
`\ I go to have my teeth cleaned, while I'm in the waiting room I |
_o__) eat an entire box of cookies." -- Steven Wright |
Ben Finney
psychohist
2007-05-22 16:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Peter Knutsen posts, in part:

In GURPS 4th Edition, Speak With Animals has a
base cost of 25 character points and applies to
all animals. If the ability is limited to animals
of the air *and* land (or to aquatic animals), the
cost is reduced by 40%. If the ability is limited
to one "class" of animals, such as "birds",
the cost is reduced by 50%. If limited to one
"family", such as "parrots", the cost is reduced
by 60%. If limited to one species, such
as "macaws", the cost is reduced by 80%.

Interesting. I also use class, family, and species, skipping the
order and genus categorization levels in my Eastern Isles system.

The way I use them is slightly different, though. Each skill is
typically broken down at only one level of categorization. The base
cost is to learn the skill for one element of that level. Learning
additional elements costs a discounted cost.

I also have another way by which skills can be related. Some skills
automatically give one a lower level of other similar skills. For
example, this is how I handle terrain skills - if one has a certain
level of hillyer, one will effectively also have a lower level in the
plains and mountains, as well as a lower level of beastlore in the
hills. This "imaging" effect is independent of the relatedness effect
that affects skill costs.

Warren J. Dew
Peter Knutsen
2007-05-26 12:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Knutsen
In GURPS 4th Edition, Speak With Animals has a
base cost of 25 character points and applies to
all animals. If the ability is limited to animals
of the air *and* land (or to aquatic animals), the
cost is reduced by 40%. If the ability is limited
to one "class" of animals, such as "birds",
the cost is reduced by 50%. If limited to one
"family", such as "parrots", the cost is reduced
by 60%. If limited to one species, such
as "macaws", the cost is reduced by 80%.
Interesting. I also use class, family, and species, skipping the
order and genus categorization levels in my Eastern Isles system.
Maybe there's something inherently offputting in the Linnean system? I
could probably have researched it had I wanted to, and I'm sure that
Sean Punch could have done so while designing the new GURPS 4th Edition,
but he chose not to.
Post by Peter Knutsen
The way I use them is slightly different, though. Each skill is
typically broken down at only one level of categorization. The base
cost is to learn the skill for one element of that level. Learning
additional elements costs a discounted cost.
That sounds a bit like Hero System, where some skills, such as Survival
or Gambling, lets you chose one "area", and then for additional points
you can "broaden" the applicability of the skill.

In Sagatafl, to the extent that I do this, I usually handle it with
binary skills, or in the case of wilderness skills I use regular
(numerically rated) skills.
Post by Peter Knutsen
I also have another way by which skills can be related. Some skills
automatically give one a lower level of other similar skills. For
Similar to defaults in Sagatafl. In some cases the rules say (or will
say) that a specific skill can substitute for certain other skills at
(usually) 1/2 or 1/3 value, because they cover some of the same ground.
Post by Peter Knutsen
example, this is how I handle terrain skills - if one has a certain
I'm actually very surprised to hear that your Laratoa system has terrain
familiarity skills. Would you care to tell me some more about them, and
how they work?


It seems to me that in most other RPG systems, there's a Survival skill,
often forcibly specialized to one terrain type (Woods, Plains, Desert,
Arctic) so that you have to learn it multiple times if you wish your
character to be able to cope with several terrain types. The designers
of such systems then subsequently utilize that Survival skill, or try
to, in capacities other than survival.

With Sagatafl I took the consequence of including actual Terrain
Familiarity skills, which then serve to "cap" the separate Survival
skill (which, like other wilderness skills, you learn only once ever -
not once per terrain type), so that a character's effective Survival
skill (or Tracking skill, or Camping skill, or Hiking skill) cannot
exceed a multiple of the Terrain Familiarity skill (it's been quite a
while since I put Sagatafl development officially "on hold", but IIRC
the cap is x1.5 for Survival, x2.5 for Campaing, and x2 for other
wilderness skills).
Post by Peter Knutsen
level of hillyer, one will effectively also have a lower level in the
plains and mountains, as well as a lower level of beastlore in the
hills. This "imaging" effect is independent of the relatedness effect
that affects skill costs.
Highlands terrain is a subject that really bothers me, and I've ended up
not including it, in neither Sagatafl or Modern Action RPG, because it
does not seem to me to be a terrain type that is sufficiently distinct
from mountaineous.

Of course your solution, where Terrain Familiarity skills "default" to
each other, is workable, and I might do something similar in Sagatafl
eventually, but I can't in Modern Action RPG, because I've deliberately
chosen a coarsegrained "binary" approach to Native Terrain.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Loading...