From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: GURPS: Timeliness of Books
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:28:09 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <u894793.711687884@bruny> u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy D
Little) writes:

>laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) writes:
>
>>>[discussion about Hacking, a Very Hard skill, default from Programming, Hard]
>>So as a general rule, skills should only default from skills which are
>>harder, to avoid just this situation.  Unfortunately the "trap" that Loyd
>>got caught in is that:
>>1. Hacking is harder than Programming
>...
>>2. It makes sense that skill in Programming should provide a default
>>ability in Hacking.
>...
>>3. The default skill rules have a somewhat obscure provision for allowing
>>skills to be bought up from default, but continue to rise as the skill
>>being defaulted from rises.
>
>This is not fine.  However, it works for any combination of skills *except*
>Mental/VeryHard defaulting to a Mental/Hard skill.
>
>(Well, it could happen if a physical skill defaults to a mental one, but I
>haven't seen this happen)

The case that springs to mind (at least in GURPS edition 2 - I don't know
edition 3 well enough yet, owing to the campaigns I play in being old
established edition 2 ones):

Riding is a physical skill, but has a default off Animal Handling, a mental
skill. This is extremely useful if merely used (rather than abused): it
makes it possible for virtually any character to be a competent rider, which
can be important in some campaigns. I've certainly used it on a number of
occasions to make mages viable characters in a campaign.

But the same rule could certainly be abused: gaining Riding skill levels at
an ultimate rate of 2 points/level rather than 8 points/level would pay off
very quickly for a character who was trying to be the most expert rider in
the world.

>>Fixes that come to mind include:
>>1. making Programming as difficult as Hacking,
>>2. freezing skills once they're bought up from default, or
>>3. make Hacking as easy as Programming.
>
>I don't really like either (1) or (3), since they involve changing assumptions
>that I find to be well-founded in experience.
>(2) has the property of making defaults almost useless - study in a related
>field should make it easier to learn the other field.

Another possible fix: limit how much you can learn about a skill from an
"easier" default, by putting a maximum on such defaults. The maximum should
be chosen for each such default, on a common sense basis. E.g. I'd probably
limit the Riding default from Animal Handling to somewhere in the region of
12 or 13: you can become a competent rider by being skilled at controlling
the horse, but to become really expert, you need to develop your own
physical ability at riding as well. The Hacking default from Programming
might be in the same area: to become an expert hacker, you need to study
things that simply aren't used in ordinary programming. The maximum
Physician default from First Aid would be a lot lower - maybe 9: first aid
simply doesn't cover all sorts of things that physicians need to know.

Yet another fix is to allow the defaults, but take care about when players
may use them. E.g. for the Physician default from First Aid, only allow it
to be used for the sort of things that a first aider would know about - e.g.
treating injuries. If instead it's a matter of treating a strange disease,
the default simply cannot be used. Similarly, the Riding default from Animal
Handling could be used to avoid being thrown, etc., during ordinary riding,
but you couldn't use it for things like staying on the horse during a jump:
this demands your own physical skill as well as control of the horse. This
is of course more demanding on the GM than the other fixes, since he has to
adjudicate things on a case-by-case basis during play rather than more
globally and before play has started.

Both of these could of course also be applied to defaults that don't suffer
from this problem, with some possible benefits in realism. But it would be a
lot more work!

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...