GURPS 4E - Racial Destiny

[Gnoman]

I've been reading through my GURPS 4E collection again, and since I've been unable to find a game I decided to just convert races and characters from my main D&D setting (most of the races have pretty significant changes from stock) to get a better handle on the rules. My first attempt was my dwarves, which are all fated to fight and die in this setting's version of Armageddon (this analogy is kind of weak, as the Final Day doesn't end the world, just the majority of the population and most of civilization). This manifests in all dwarven births stopping at a certain point in the timeline, and every single one of them is compelled to march to Cor Madden's Field and not come back (in the first war against the evil god that ruled the world, the dwarf king promised aid to the rebellion, but forbade it when the time came, which would have caused the rebellion to fail if a large number of Orcs hadn't defected and opened the fortress gates instead of exterminating the nearly destroyed army that they had been brought in to fight. The rebel leader, who died in the battle, cursed the dwarves with his final breath, and the gods enforced his curse because he died a king.)


If I was building a character, this would be a textbook case of either a major (15 point) Destiny Advantage or disadvantage, but is it appropriate for a racial trait?

[Ts_]

Well, I don't think it's a Destiny in the racial package.

First, it sounds more like a Duty to me with the backstory you gave. Yes, it will happen at some point, but a Destiny is about that something great or bad happening to you and afterwards everyone will talk about how good/bad you were. After the Final Day, people might not remember you that much ... (And an individual dwarf would only have a minor destiny, as not everyone can be the great hero.)

Duty would be, at it's most unlikely frequency:
Duty (Serve in Final Day war, quite rarely -2, extremely hazardous -5, involuntary -5) [-12]. (These are not % modifiers, but absolutes.)

Rarely is a 9% chance each "adventure", which is quite high for the end of the world, but who knows.

Second, it doesn't apply to all dwarves, only to those being born close enough to the Final Day that it would matter in their lives. For all other dwarves, its true cost is [0] because it doesn't come up in their lives. That would make it a Feature.

If you want to be creative with the points while keeping the players in the dark whether the end of the world is near, you could say it's a combination of disadvantages:

Feature (Fight in the Final Day thingy, no more babies ...) [0]
Duty (Dwarven Final Day Reservist Training, quite rarely) [-2]
Social Stigma (Dwarves break contracts, -3 reaction from merchants et cetera) [-5]
Quirk (Not guaranteed to still be around next year) [-1]

That would express what it means for the game while keeping the flavor.
* Occassionally, a dwarf returns home to do some fighting training that has some probability of injury.
* There's a reaction penalty based on the historical events (which only matters to some people, but to those strongly), and people only make 1 year plans (contracts, etc.) with dwarves as you never know when they march off to fight and never return ...

Or you could just as well roll positive reactions into this, like that dwarves are honored for their commitment to the Final Day fight.

Note that if you really want the Final Day to happen any time soon, you should add the dangerous Duty. Also see the way Terminally Ill is priced as a comparison: If you have more than 2 years to live, it's not a disadvantage for an adventurer.

Regards
Ts

[Gnoman]

That all makes a lot of sense.

[aspekt]

That all makes a lot of sense.

Wait...did GURPS just make sense there for a minute? I suppose there's a first time for everything.

Well done with the explication Ts. I still cant wrap my head around most of that system.

[Knaight]

Wait...did GURPS just make sense there for a minute? I suppose there's a first time for everything.

Well done with the explication Ts. I still cant wrap my head around most of that system.

Honestly, you get used to it. I find that it extremely reliably makes sense, and is an extremely good simulation tool most of the time. I also find that it's just too crunchy to GM, though it's a system that I'm more than willing to play in.

[aspekt]

Honestly, you get used to it. I find that it extremely reliably makes sense, and is an extremely good simulation tool most of the time. I also find that it's just too crunchy to GM, though it's a system that I'm more than willing to play in.

Ya I was being sort of sarcastic but I do have trouble with some of it.

On another note I took your (and some others) advice in another thread and just purchased FUDGE. I like it quite a bit and hope to use it soon(tm).

[Knaight]

Ya I was being sort of sarcastic but I do have trouble with some of it.

On another note I took your (and some others) advice in another thread and just purchased FUDGE. I like it quite a bit and hope to use it soon(tm).

It's a good system. I think that was the thread where I described it as GURPS, but without all the GURPSness; this thread nicely highlights a piece of that, where GURPS can be some trouble before it's wrangled. Ts_'s method is very much sound (it's a lot better than what I'd probably have come up with, and I'm just going to go ahead and second it), but it's a bit counter-intuitive.

[Gnoman]

Now that I've spent some time with the books, I'm considering starting up a VTT game of "one-shot" adventures to get some play experience (I don't like Play-by-post games at the best of times, and GURPS seems particularly ill-suited). Would either of you be interested, scheduling permitting?

[aspekt]

Sadly the only internet I have is via my mobile phone browser. Data charges are insane.

It's one of my only complaints about living in a rural area.