Universal Translator: Overpriced at 20?

[OddHat]

Re: Universal Translator: Overpriced at 20?

 

When players purchase a given Skill, Talent, Perk, Power or Disad, and you as GM approve it, they are being permitted to write part of the script. OAF Guy is telling you that sometimes his sword should be taken away from him. Hunted Guy is telling you that sometimes his Hunted should show up. UT Guy is telling you that sometimes he wants situations where no other PC without UT can solve a particular problem.

 

If you don't want that, you're free to rule it out, or fiddle with costs.

 

That said, I agree that the entire cost structure of languages could probably use a fix. I'd make them a Background Skill, with 11- as Native Level and, PER Roll style, only requiring a roll in unusual situations.

 

Most game elements have relative values that really should vary by campaign; that's a given for "Universal" systems.

[casualplayer]

Re: Universal Translator: Overpriced at 20?

 

Whilst we are on the subject I see no good reason that language skills have a different system to every other skill AND' date=' just to ice the cherry on the icing on the cake, Daniel Jackson only works because the producers don't kill him often.[/quote']

 

Cheeky assuming we all know the name of the Stargate brain-boy. Daniel is a pretty good example of UT, or an example of language similarities where knowing Egyptian gets you half points in whatever language they were speaking on Apophis' planet.

[tesuji]

Re: Universal Translator: Overpriced at 20?

 

Whilst we are on the subject I see no good reason that language skills have a different system to every other skill AND, just to ice the cherry on the icing on the cake, Daniel Jackson only works because the producers don't kill him often.

 

FWIW, in the system i currently use, a rather rules light one, i simply rolled "linguistics" in under academics (knowledge) as a specialty just like say history, cultures, literature and so forth.

 

As for Dj... now remember, he did get killed off once and was brought by by fan demand... or a not too successful year away.. or other reasons one can imagine. :-)

[tesuji]

Re: Universal Translator: Overpriced at 20?

 

 

When players purchase a given Skill, Talent, Perk, Power or Disad, and you as GM approve it, they are being permitted to write part of the script. OAF Guy is telling you that sometimes his sword should be taken away from him. Hunted Guy is telling you that sometimes his Hunted should show up. UT Guy is telling you that sometimes he wants situations where no other PC without UT can solve a particular problem.

Absolutely. i agree 100% . thats why in my campaigns 90% of the campaign design is done AFTER i see PCs, so the story we play is "their story" not the story of "group number 12 type generic".

If you don't want that, you're free to rule it out, or fiddle with costs.

Also agree 100%. thats why i change most every system i run or design my own to fit. If i were to say "take UT at 20 pts" i would be saying "and you will find it playing as much a role as +2 speed or gaseous form at double end or +10 CONwould".

 

In most campaigns, i wont make that promise. Heck, to be honest, i wont in any campaign cuz I don't find the groups to enjoy the "only bobbie can talk now" in situations of significance often enough to make it worth that.

 

I would rather give Bobbie UT or language expert for some lesser cost, like maybe make linguistics an INt skill and just let him pay 3 for int skill for langs, and have it show up only that often as needed to show off his 3 pt investment. thats more like "once in a great while" than 20 pts is.

That said, I agree that the entire cost structure of languages could probably use a fix. I'd make them a Background Skill, with 11- as Native Level and, PER Roll style, only requiring a roll in unusual situations.

not recalling right now how knowledge skills work, theirs would be the way i work it. Knowledge Linguistics as a int based skill. Of course, everybody gets an everyman version of "local languages within reason" where a floridian would get english and some spanish for instance.

Most game elements have relative values that really should vary by campaign; that's a given for "Universal" systems.

agreed.

[hancock.tom]

Re: Universal Translator: Overpriced at 20?

 

Like all of the non-scalable' date=' whole cost powers the view on price is heavily influenced by the base points you start with in your genre of choice. [/quote']

 

I disagree with this statement. This issue is probably enough to start another thread about, but here goes.

 

You seem to be saying that UT costs "more" depending on how many points your characters begin with (at least judging from your example regarding the 13%). I don't think that that is necessarily wrong, but I think you are overlooking the fact that most (maybe all) of the fixed cost powers are fixed cost because they are fixed effect, and therefore, they are just as powerful in low powered campaigns as in higher powered ones. In fact, by comparison, they usually seem more powerful in lower power campaigns.

 

Obviously, if you are playing in a 100 point character pulp hero game, any given fixed cost power (like UT, or desolid, or various life supports) is pretty powerful because of the relative weakness of the characters. It seems like super power, or magic even. However, if it is a 1500 point galactic champions game, things like life support or UT are practically expected and have little effect on gameplay at all.

 

The point I am making (trying anyway) is that the value of fixed cost powers shouldn't be compared to the % of the character's total points because in most cases you are getting a greater return when you buy it in a low point total campaign. Sure it "feels" more expensive when you spend 1/5 of your total CP on it, but really you are going to get more out of it then the high powered campaign will, because compared to the other skills and abilities in the game, its pretty powerful. ymmv

[Vanguard]

Re: Universal Translator: Overpriced at 20?

 

Its not a kludge' date=' its how the application works.[/quote']

 

No it's not. It's a stop-gap until Dan either decides he's going to be able to add whatever new stuff to the software (in which case you won't need to use the Custom Adder feature anymore) or it's going to be too difficult/complicated to add it in (in which case we're stuck with the "Custom Adder" work around).

 

It's also there for Campaign Specific stuff that, since Dan can't write custom software for all the different campaigns out there (mainly because we can't afford to pay him and he hasn't figured out time distortion (no matter how much coffee he drinks) to get the time he'd need to do it)