Quest No More edition.
>>47062660
Has /tg/ grown faster since the creation of /qst/? Has interest in GURPS died down pending the next Pyramid?
Don't we argue enough?
Is the GURPS community on /tg/ simply not a cancerous enough to sustain a general?
>>47064596
Could be finals time hobeslize. I'm too old to follow what the kiddies are doing these days
>tfw almost 30
>>47064596
Sorry, your thread was obviously cancerous quest baiting, and was thus ignored.
It's not actually that popular on /tg/ to make metathreads to bitch about people who play different types of games than you.
Housekeeping skill.
>>47065271
As a GM, I usually let players do without. How about you?
>>47065271
Sounds particularly useful if you expect to regularly generate corpses without other people finding those corpses and connecting them to you.
>>47065821
>>47065873
Just trying to start an argument with the most controversial GURPS topics I can think of.
Which basically boils down to mandatory Driving skill, or the Housekeeping skill in general, mandatory or not.
>>47065909
The Drivning skill debate has always seemed weird to me. Of course it's a skill that needs investment. But then again, It might be a cultural thing.
Speaking of which, do you guys assume players can swim without a point invested?
>>47065873
I never realized what an essential "Cleaner"-skill it was before.
>>47066001
Well, swimming under one's own volition, by raw, gives a +4 to skill I think, which I think makes it equal to HT, so in nominal circumstances, a fairly healthy person can swim fine without any points.
However, anything more complicated than swimming in a gentle pool, or crossing a very slow brook, or if you are pushed in or fall in instead of walking or jumping in, then it immediately becomes difficult.
>>47066115
But only if you rule that they get a default in that skill. Do you?
>>47066115
Don't know how RAW this is, but there's also the issue of fear or panic. Someone with no points in Swimming may be terrified of being in water deep enough that they can't stand; if this triggers a Fear check and they fail, the Stunned result could still lead to a high number of drownings. Treading in relatively calm water with a cool head is straightforward enough for the untrained, but having a cool head is the big issue IMO.
>>47066139
>Swimming HT/Easy
>Default: HT-4
Spelled out pretty plainly that they get a default bruh.
>>47066139
Is it common not to give defaults? I give them often because I have very novice players and I think it helps illustrate how bad of an idea it was to skip, say all negotiation skills.
"Sure, you don't need Fast-Talk, Diplomacy, Sex Appeal, Carousing, Savoir faire, or streetwise, roll a contest IQ-5 versus will and see if anyone listens to your just slightly challenging plea for aid."
>>47066275
To be fair, they could replace it with a reaction roll; they don't have to rely on their abysmal defaults.
>>47066214
>Only individuals from a society where a skill is known may attempt a default roll against that skill.
So would this cover anyone from a society where some people can swim? I always saw defaults as something to be judged on a case-by-case basis if it made sense for a character to have one or not.
>>47066323
Sure can, but it was an example.
>>47066331
Damn near every civilization and area has a concept of swimming. Landlocked civilizations still needed water, and as such tended to spring up around rivers, lakes, and actual springs, which would still allow for the Swimming skill.
While you are right that a desert-dweller who'd never seen more water than a single mouthful at a time in his entire life would not be able to default on Swimming, I feel that is a very very rare exception more than a general rule; I would expect a backstory to explicitly state something along the lines of "cannot try to swim" more that I would expect every other backstory to explicitly state "can at least try to swim." Defaulting should be assumed true unless given reason to doubt, not assumed false unless given reason to believe.
>>47066464
I always thought more along the lines of "Not even sailors in euro-medieval society could swim. Therefor, no swimming defaults".
>>47066537
(for that kind of society, that is.)
>>47066464
>campaign in the desert
>somehow I manage to drown
I knew I shouldn't have taken that cursed disadvantage
>>47066537
Obviously, you can run your games however you want and I'm not here to diss them, but I personally feel that's way too brutal in a game like GURPS where you have countless discrete skills. A lot of actions are covered by skills, and not allowing an attempt just doesn't seem accurate. Getting by on harsh defaults is also more dramatic than "no you can't try."
As for the old time-y sailors not being able to swim, I would chalk that up to default penalty or minimal point investment, stormy seas (because what trained seaman falls off a ship on a clam and peaceful day), and the aforementioned roll vs. Fear. Add those together and you have a whole lotta dead sailors.
>>47066597
Nigga you can't just lead with that and not go anywhere. Give us at least a couple lines of greentext storytiem.
>>47066748
>>47066597
If it means anything, I think the brevity made for an immaculate presentation.
>>47066597
>>47066748
I put my money on "Drowned in oasis". Probably after going an unhealthy amount of time without drinking, for added irony.
http://pseudoboo.blogspot.com/2016/05/crafting-changing-enhancementslimitatio.html
I just came up with something that I think is a really simple idea, but I've never seen it before. Taking enhancements and limitations for advantages, and then doing a simple conversion to Cost Factors, and then using that to make modified versions of weapons for fantasy style upgrades that don't make sense in the paradigm of nominal enchantments like follow ups for enchantments.
>>47066748
>>47066850
>>47066893 got it right.
We were looking for some monsters that stole some guy's treasure that were hiding in the middle of a bigass desert.
We didn't prepare ourselves that well and we were pretty thirsty until we found an oasis.
>approach the oasis carefully
>"Do we see anything?"
>"Nah"
>We all jump to the oasis to drink
>"You know what? Fuck it, random encounter"
>"But you-"
>"You're cursed lmao"
>be ambushed by some huge serpent thing that keeps knocking me down
>ends up pinning me down
>my head is -just- under the water's surface
>party can't take the serpent down
>GM makes me fail my first roll, fail the next ones
>drown in a 40 cm deep kiddie pool
At last it became a nice anecdote to tell.
>>47067097
*at least
>>47066984
That is a really cool idea; I'm stealing it for my magical smithing giants in my upcoming game, as it's a lot more intuitive that my current system.
>>47066331
If they saw someone swimming, they can try to repeat it. Also, in my opinion if you you survive in water on your own and manage to get to the land, than you get your 1 point in swimming.
Rolled 4, 6, 6 = 16 (3d6)
Roll to not die.
Since I'm between campaigns, I'm playing around with figuring out stats for some Game of Thrones characters. Should I aim for Gregor Clegane to be able to chop a horse's head off fairly regularly (with an All-Out Attack (Strong)), or do you think it's enough for him to be able to do so occasionally?
>>47066115
Not quite. Page 354. If you enter water intentionally you roll Swimming at +3. Swimming defaults to HT -4.You roll when you go in and every 5 minutes.
If you fail you go under water, breath water and lose 1 FP. You get to roll again in 5 seconds, and lose FP again if you fail, or get your head above water if you succeeded.
Bad conditions can penalize the roll, and you take twice your normal encumbrance penalty.
So someone without the skill has less then a 50-50 chance to stay on the surface if they intentionally enter the water themselves, and will almost certainly be unable to swim if they are thrown or fall into water. In turbulent water they will almost certainly fail like you pointed out.
So.. You can try to brave calm water if you don't have the skill, but it's risky.
>>47071424
I'd try to get him to having a better then 50-50, when using All Out Strong and Extra Effort. ST 17-20 should do that fine.
>>47071424
With sword? Occasionally.
>>47071428
If the location is well known (family pool) or engineered in a way to be friendly to swimmers (such as a pool at the local YMCA club or school), i'd be willing to grant the unfamiliar swimmer a bonus to any Swimming roll while within it.
Quarterstaff
Innate Attack: Crushing 2 [3 CP]. Melee Reach 1, 2 [-25%], Melee Attack (Dual) [+10%], Melee Attack (ST-Based) [+100%] -> 5.55/[6 CP].
Enhanced Parry 2 (Staff) [10 CP]
Gadget (DR 4 -15%, SM-9 -0%, Can Be Stolen With a Quick Contest of ST -30%)
Total cost: 16 x .55 = 8.8/[9 CP]
---
If i've built this Gadget correctly, it should represent a melee weapon that can attack at Range 1 and 2, can be used to execute a Dual-Weapon Attack, deals thr+2 cr or sw+2 cr damage (wielder's choice), and parries at +2. Should I have made a mistake somewhere in the building process, please inform me of it.
Now, if I give it Power Blow at Will+5 [24] so that the wielder can focus their stamina into truly prodigious impacts, does this mean that warriors who already have Power Blow add 24 CP to their own Skill Level while armed with the staff?
>>47066214
>Someone with no points in Swimming may be terrified of being in water deep enough that they can't stand...
This is represented by taking a phobia.
>>47071359
10 HT, -4 default... that's a critical failure. Y'know that tablespoon of water people are always saying you can drown in? You just drowned in it.
>>47071359
Fuck, /gurpsgen/ has gotta have insane HT to not fail that roll.
>>47072300
Phobia represents a fear deep enough (huehuehue) to terrify you with the mere threat of it. I was talking more about the "oh shit I'm going to drown, better flail ineffectually" reaction I've seen with a lot of non-swimmers; those that don't freak out, though, tend to do fine (or at least a hell of a lot better). To me, that looks like the difference between a failed Fear check and a successful one.
>>47071428
Don't forget the +4 "routine task" bonus. If you're just popping down to the swimming hole for a bit of relaxation, a 10 HT average human has a (10-4+3+4) 13 effective skill, more than enough to spend a day at the pool without drowning.
>>47072359
>I was talking more about the "oh shit I'm going to drown, better flail ineffectually" reaction I've seen with a lot of non-swimmers; those that don't freak out, though, tend to do fine (or at least a hell of a lot better). To me, that looks like the difference between a failed Fear check and a successful one.
In that case, I'd say that's probably what's represented by not getting the +3 for deliberately entering the water: that sounds like the reaction of a non-swimmer that's been forced into the water by something else, not someone who just wants to go for a swim. I'd say the effective -3 (or, to be precise, not getting the +3) is a good representation for that moment of panic, no need to complicate things with extra checks.
>>47072369
I think the +3 covers most of what would normally be considered the routine task bonus; you're entering the water willingly, meaning you're in control of the situation, and in a safe manner, meaning you're not being chased by orcs or anything like that. I'd say the +4 *replaces* the +3.
Realistically, though, if you're the sort of person that pops down to the swimming hole for a bit of relaxation, you're going to either a) have a point in Swimming, or b) hang out where you can stand, hug the wall, or do something to otherwise avoid actually swimming.
>>47072426
I suppose so. I was assuming freaked-out flailing was independent of the Swimming roll itself, but I guess when it comes down to it, the people that can't swim but manage to keep their cool and tread water successfully are just succeeding at their default roll rather than not be penalized by a different roll.
>>47072369
People seem to forget that the way GURPS Skills work best is in adventuring situations...not everyday life that is typically flavor text/exposition in most gaming sessions.
It has been mentioned before elsewhere that if real life airport pilots functioned strictly by the RAW rules in Characters/Campaigns on how Skill rolls work, the sheer volume of Critical Failures in a year would make their airports deathtraps.
>>47072525
>I'd say the +4 *replaces* the +3.
You can rule that way in your game, sure, but that's not how the rules work. If it were meant to be incompatible with the +4 bonus for a routine task, it would say that.
Your game is your game, just be aware that that would be a house rule.
>>47072625
Yeah. There's nothing that says the TDM (Task Difficulty Modifier) table doesn't mesh with the built-in +3 for willingly entering a body of water on a Swimming roll.
Goddamn the entire crafting section of LTC2 is pants-on-head retarded, and looking at the forum threads on it, I'm not the only one that thinks so.
Has anyone here made any fixes or homebrews for low-tech crafting?
>>47072878
I haven't looked at it in a while but what was bad? The only thing I didn't like was cinematic cost factors being "+1 CF, add one to any weapon attribute." Felt like it was phoning it in rather than overly complicated.
>>47072018
Naw, in those places you'd just have someone to spot you if you mess up and a shallow pool you can stand in.
>>47072369
You don't get a routine task bonus if you don't know how to swim. There's nothing routine about getting in water deeper then you are tall if you don't know how to swim.
So trying to swim in calm water deeper then you are tall every 5 miniuts you have a 62% chance to end up going under for a moment. When you do go under, you typically take about 10 seconds to recover and lose 2 FP.
Or you could spend the time to get 1 point in the skill while working in the shallow end with a teacher.
>>47072625
>>47072675
That's assuming free-swimming in water deeper then you are tall is a routine task for someone that doesn't know how to swim. That simply isn't logical.
is there another general where I can find the rulebooks? I'm just trying to get into gurps and might want to get my D&D group to switch. Good idea?
>>47074099
OP-pic has all required information.
>>47073903
>"+1 CF, add one to any weapon attribute."
Well, how else do you stat fantasy bullshit that doesn't make any sense?
Does the appearance of the flanged mace at TL2 rather than earlier with other maces have anything to do with practical or technological limitations of the time that I'm not aware of or is it just an accident of history/game mechanic?
>>47073903
In no particular order:
>Impossible requirements for high-quality gear.
Making a Fine or Balanced weapon requires a margin of success of at least twelve and Very Fine requires AT LEAST EIGHTEEN in a system where trained professionals have skills in the 12-14 range.
>Does not mesh with other standards and assumptions of the skill system.
In literally every other case, MoS 5+ on a skill roll is supposed to be some extraordinary success and 10+ is fucking legendary, but 11+ is the minimum with these crafting rules to see any sort of bonus. This ties into the earlier complaint that is just doesn't match up with expected skill levels, in that you need fucking cinematic levels of skill to produce Very Fine blades. If it took skill-18, that's one thing — canonically that's Master to once-a-generation level of skill — but skill-25 is bordering on the realistically impossible. Even with the most generous assumptions, that makes every Very Fine weapon the martial equivalent of a Stradivarius violin. The craft perks help very little; with Masterwork Blade, a skill-16 master armorer still only produces a Fine blade about 60% of the time, a Cheap blade 30% of the time, will manage to ruin their materials 10% of the time, and *cannot* produce a Very Fine blade in any circumstance. They would need to also use Crucible Steel AND roll a critical success (3 or 4) to make a Very Fine blade.
>Pricing.
Strongly linked to the first two in that, given these impossible (or at the very least exceptionally unlikely) conditions requires for Fine/Very Fine gear, the pricing does not match the difficulty to produce. A Fine spear costs a measly $120 despite needing a ludicrously-skilled armorer. A Very Fine dagger costs $400, less than a Cheap Saber, Thrusting Bastard Sword, or Greatsword, but requires a legendary godlike armorer
>cont. 1/2
>>47072878
>>47073903
I also just realized I meant LTC3, specifically the Manufacturing chapter.
>>47074528
>2/2
>Complexity = Time rather than Difficulty.
The way crafting as introduced by LTC3 works is that you find the cost of labor by subtracting the product's final cost form the cost of material; CoLabor determines the time it take, and the craftsman rolls at the end of this time. While this approach works fine for straightforward and products like the wooden ladder in the example, it seems weird there's no penalty discussed for more complex/expensive work, just time. A skill-10 apprentice is just as likely to finish a simple project as he is a complicated one, it's just that the latter will take longer.
>MoS-based quality.
This one's a more personal nitpick, but I'm not a fan of how the quality of the gear is determined by MoS rather than penalty. It seems weird to have armorers "accidentally" make better gear than intended rather than set out to make better gear intentionally. I think if we resolved the earlier issues of Complexity and Time/Difficulty, this would be resolved as well.
>Doesn't use Long Tasks rules.
The most minor of nitpicks, but I'm including it. It's strange that the system ignores the existing rules for long-term tasks from p. BS346 given how well they'd work. It'd also straighten up the issue with an head armorer being better off with having a horde of unskilled assistants rather than a small number of competent apprentices.
There's just a lot I don't like about these rules. Sorry for the walls o' text.
>>47074237
Probably because bronze armor was shit and blunt maces worked well enough if they were even used against armor.
Also, according to wiki flanged maces weren't really popular until 12 century, probably because of plate armor.
>>47074056
The task is still routine, even if you personally don't do it often. It's routine to the general use of the skill, not necessarily to the person doing the task. The point is that you're calm, not in a dangerous situation, and the task is one that doesn't involve much risk on its own in average conditions.
GURPS is not the kind of system to have the difficulty change based on the skill of the user: they use skill levels for user skill, and modifiers for task difficulty. The task itself has a static difficulty, it's the user's skill that represents... well, user skill.
>>47075349
Routine literally means you do follow it often. That's what a routine task is. You get the bonus for things you do a lot, like driving to work.
>the task is one that doesn't involve much risk on its own in average conditions.
It absolutely is dangerous for people that don't know how to swim to get in water deeper then they are tall without protective gear or a life guard. If you want to swim spend the one frigging point you need to swim. Otherwise, stay out of the deep end of the pool. None of that advice is exactly earth shaking.
>>47074916
Bronze armor wasn't really shit, but cost between 10 and 30 times as much as comparable iron armor, to the point that recovering a noblemen's armor if he died was a huge deal.
I can't seem to find a way to have an innate attack that originates in the target area, something like a classic fantasy fire spell or the like that creates a burst of flame in the target's space (or an area effect centered on the area), rather than creating one in your hand and then throwing/shooting it at the target.
Is there an enhancement like this somewhere that I'm just missing?
>>47077557
Malediction? B.106
>>47077557
Alternatively, use Surprise Attack for +150% or Cosmic: No Active Defense for +300%
>>47077782
Hm, that seemed more like an internal thing, but it might work if I throw in Based On DX. The only thing is that it shouldn't ignore DR, since it's still creating an effect outside of the target. Is there any official guidance on how much it should cost without bypassing DR?
>>47078014
That still technically requires you to make an attack roll as a ranged attack, using a projectile that goes between you and the target. I'm not trying to bypass defenses, I'm just trying to create an effect directly at the target's location... they can still dodge and apply DR, I just wouldn't have to worry about intervening obstacles and the like (plus, it's partially a flavor thing, but I like flavor to be backed up by mechanics).
>>47078076
How they would defend if effect just appears directly on them?
>>47078156
Say, for example, that it's a blast of fire that erupts from a point in space: you place that point in space right next to them, and they can still see the flame as it forms in midair and starts to expand, and have a chance to step out of its area. It's not like you blink an eye and they're instantly surrounded in fire, it's an actual expanding fireball that just happens to start in their space.
>>47078178
I think the Retribution power in Dungeon Fantasy 11 is something you should take a look at.
>>47078551
Hmm... I guess they really just want you to reflavor it if you want something that's not a projectile that goes from you to the target. I suppose I can live with that. Thanks for pointing it out.
>>47078679
Glad I could help. It's really great that they show their work, so you can modify the power to suit your needs.
>>47074140
Well, they somehow managed to find a point value for lot of unrealistic "exotic" and "supernatural" advantages, so I was thinking that maybe there could be a differentiation between:
+x CF to change from damage type y to z;
+a CF to add +1 damage;
+b CF to add 1 to parry;
+c CF to add 1 to db
Though, I wrote this blog post here:
http://pseudoboo.blogspot.com/2016/05/crafting-changing-enhancementslimitatio.html
And though I'm not sure how balanced it is, it creates a wide variety of CF enhancements for weapons (and other items).
>>47074528
>>47074583
Ah, LTC3, shoulda realized from context.
I am almost certain that long task modifiers are allowed, are they not?
I think the point of the huge MOS is to make the fine/very fine weapons the product of one great master who has honed his craft for a lifetime, and still even then make them a magnum opus type of creation. I think the book talks about perks you can buy to also give huge boosts in skill for crafting specific item types too though, so when you consider two one point perks for +5 each, that require 20 points (+6) total to buy, a fine swordsmith could be made with *only* about 22 points invested. An additional 15 to skill can then be bought with 22 more points, and that makes creating very fine weapons a pretty reasonable occurrence. I think it's a wee bit gamist, and definitely inconsistent, but I don't dislike it.
>>47079011
>I think the point of the huge MOS is to make the fine/very fine weapons the product of one great master who has honed his craft for a lifetime, and still even then make them a magnum opus type of creation.
If the prices reflected that incredible rarity, I would agree with you. That is not reflected in the price though; like I said, a Very Fine dagger comes out to less than a Cheap greatsword. It's a bit embarrassing for your magnum opus to be intrinsically worth less than what a first-year apprentice can crap out in a couple days. Going by LTC3 alone, Very Fine gear should be a legendary artifact with a price through the fucking roof, so either we scrap the crafting system or change prices and CFs throughout GURPS to reflect the once-a-millennium level of skill required to produce Fine or Very Fine works. I personally suggest the former rather than the latter.
>I think the book talks about perks
I also talked about perks and how what would be considered a master armorer in traditional GURPS terms needs two perks (somewhat reasonable) and a critical success on the roll (unreasonable) to manage to make something Very Fine.
I'm just a little bit over the character limit, but everything that follows is basically one paragraph/idea, so it's getting shunted to the next post in its entirety.
>>47079417
>long task modifiers
You mean Extra Time? That's allowed, but considering the time invested vs. the bonus gained, it really doesn't help; the +5 for extra time comes out to a x30 multiplier for time spent, so you have a lone thrusting bastard sword taking almost *ten months of labor* with no assurance of quality.
I was talking about the Long Tasks rules, where instead of figuring the time and rolling once at the end, you roll at the end of each shift to add the hours worked towards a required total. For example, instead of working 10 days and rolling Armory to see how it came out, you roll after each eight-hour workday, ticking 8 hours off the required 80 on a success, 12 on a critical success, 4 on a failure, and royally fucking things up on a critical failure. Under LTC3's system, unskilled or minimally skilled laborers add just as many work-hours towards a project's completion as a trained professional. With Long Task, the competency of the assistants is important, as a failed roll means slower progress and a critically failed one means you have to work harder to fix their mistakes.
Honestly, I think a crafting system that uses penalties rather than MoS and Long Tasks rather than a single all-or-nothing roll at the end would feel a lot better. What does /tg/ think?
>>47079468
Maybe, calculate the price of the thing you want to make, calculate how much of that price comes from raw material and labor, and then use a system similar to the enchantment system from sorcery by reverse engineering "enchantment points" from the price?
>>47079468
Guy not too familiar with crafting, here;
Why not just add CF for "very fine", factor crafting time/materials off of that, and do crafting rolls as normal rather than requiring the huge MoS?
Would let a fine craftsman crank out high-quality stuff, albeit more expensively and take more time (which makes sense).
>>47080469
That was my initial plan, but I would like to factor in a penalty as well because it seems odd that a craftsman would have the same difficulty with a $50, $500, and $5000 piece of gear. Is that realistic though? I honestly don't know and I'm just going with my gut, but if it turns out that realistically time really is the main factor rather than skill, I'll gladly drop the issue.
>>47081295
Just spit balling here, but what if you add the total CF over 1 as the penalty to the crafting roll?
Alternatively, leave as-is but use the success over time method requiring multiple rolls, making it more likely for a skilled craftsman to make fine weapons more quickly, and lower chanecessary of screwing up and having to start over (because of high skill and most likely fewer rolls overall)?
>>47081498
*lower the chance of screwing up
>>47081498
#1 is fine for Fine since that has a CF+4, but Very Fine is CF+19 and would still be impossible (Skill 16 - CF 19 + 2 equipment bonus...). #2 is solid though.
>>47082896
So maybe #2, combined with multiple rolls for Long Tasks (factoring time and cost AFTER applying relevant CFs), would fit the bill?
Still no penalties, but favors high skill craftsmen in both time and cost. Also means that low skill craftsmen will probably screw up on Very Fine or even Fine stuff, over the course of all those rolls. Could take many tries to produce even one.
Whereas the high skill person will make them with considerably more regularity, and faster at each one too.
>>47083122
I like it! It's basically RPM's answer to novice mages.
>>47084194
I didn't even realize it but you're right. I may use this for my own campaign going forward, as I like that aspect of RPM a lot.
You could even model master craftsman advantages after some of the RPM stuff (albeit much cheaper); I could easily see Higher Purpose (Crafting Swords of Legend), Exquisite Crafts Adept, Aspected Crafting, or other such things.
Might be an interesting way to bring in unbelievably skilled but not overtly sorcerous "magic craftsmen" as well, through the application of metatronic generator rules. So you could have the "one in ten million" craftsman who built a hammer for a god living on a mountain somewhere, or something.
>>47084355
That last bit was actually the reason I started this whole thing in the first place. I wanted to mesh innate enchantment with the Armory skill rather than have mundane craftsmen with Armory and magical craftsmen with Enchantment or Alchemy (Metal) or High Craft.
>>47084487
Oh, well perfect then. You should be well on your way, just rename a few advantages and slap some (crafting weapons only) limitations on 'em.
Is there a PDF of the Discworld rpg?
