another generic post
Gregory Lowell Gliedman
>As usual, there is a lot of agument about which game (or perhaps which
>version) is better. Realism seems to be the usual criteria, which is
>of course subjective.
>As far as I am concerned, the only real criteria is how well the rules
>help the GM make the game enjoyable. Yes, a truly great GM can use almost
>any system, but these tend to be few and far between. Most systems seem
>to compromise playability by either blatantly unrealistic rules that
>players just can't stomach (and cause them to preform actions that they
>wouldn't otherwise do in order to take advantage of game mechanics), over-
>complication (try HtH combat in Aftermath), or lacking in coverage to the
>point where the GM either has to improvise more often than not or narrowly
>restrict what the game covers. Believe it or not, these things can be
>felt during game play, and they do make it less fun.
>As far as I am able to tell, RPGs are supposed to imitate heroic fiction. This
>means characters which, while perhaps uni-dimensional, are relatively
>consistant in how they effect the world, and changes in physical laws are
>restricted to when they are necessary for the story, and not tossed out when
>not convenient. Think what it would be like to read a fantasy novel and
>find out that DnD physical laws were in use? One-minute rounds. Survivable
>terminal velocity onto spikes over stone floors. Characters who routinely
>shrug off lightning bolts, cast spells in the DnD fashion, have 25 magic items,
>etc. As someone mentioned earlier, even the comic books have had to not go
>by these rules! Imagine a novel based on the allegedly-playable 900th level
>characters! I'd certainly scoff, unless it was done for laughs (maybe).
While I agree with your comments about game criteria (the "best" game is the one
that is the most enjoyable) I find myself having some problem about your follow
up comments. The difference between heroic fiction and RPG's is that in heroic
fiction, the outcome is irrespective of the abilities of the protagonist--the
outcome is whatever the author chooses it to be. PC's in role playing have no
such "protection" (if they do it's called "GM cheating"). Imagine a novel in
which the protagonist is killed halfway through in a pit trap. No author would
do that to a character, why should a GM do it to a player?
As far as 900th level characters are concerned, since when is the threat of
physical harm central to storytelling? I'd scoff at a novel in which the
prime character conflict is avoiding being hit by a lightning bolt. A novel
based on an omnipotent character would not focus on physical threat but rather
character interplay and the like. As for a novel about an omnipotent character
(or at least a near omnipotent one), try _The_Flies_ by Jean-Paul Satre. The
character of Zeus is along those lines, and I can assure you, it was not
done for laughs.
>I have played lots of DnD, but sadly less of other games (I seem to keep
>finding groups of Gygax worshippers, so if other games are to be played,
>I have to GM). DnD (and make no mistake--this criticism is based only on
>the fact that I have had such a bad experience with the beast, and I am
>quite sure that there are many others which are just as bad (but thankfully
>outside of my experience) is just poor heroic fantasy.
>
>And so finally, what I would like to know is if people really find DnD more
>fun than other ones, because I certainly don't. If you do, then I for one
>would consider the above diatribe inconsequential. But if so, perhaps I could
>be elightened, because all I get from uncle Gygax is a glorified boardgame
>with simplistic goals and systems, about as entertaining and challenging as
>maybe Monopoly. I really am hesitant to call it an RPG at all.
I don't find AD&D to be more enjoyable than other games, but rather just as
enjoyable. Frankly "realism", particularly as it applies to combat, I find
to be one of the least important aspects of the role playing experience. Any
game which is run by a good GM, and contains a good plotline filled with
interesting characters and challenges (not nessecarily of a physical nature)
I find to be a good game. Perhaps the gamers in which you have had your
experiences with AD&D have been of the kill-the-monster-get-the-treasure
variety (and I will be the first to admit that AD&D gets a lot of those), but
there is nothing inherent in the game system that prevents it from being a
good role playing experience. The goals in any game are set up by individual
groups--the only Warhammer games I have seen played were mindbogglingly bad,
but that is not the fault of the system, and I haven't written off the game
itself. I suggest that you do the same for AD&D
-Greg Gliedman
glie...@oxy.edu
Ron Youngquist
1> Any game which is run by a good GM, and contains a good plotline filled with
1> interesting characters and challenges (not nessecarily of a physical nature)
1> I find to be a good game.
2> The goals in any game are set up by individual groups
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Greg. However, since the comments above were
in the context of a defense of AD&D (in its various versions?), I'd like to add
some comments of my own.
If a group of players comes to terms with the manner in which they like to
conduct their games (see 2 above), then that group of players has a means
for evaluating different RPGs.
I don't think that anyone interested in developing characters with in-depth
personalities should choose AD&D. My experience with AD&D spans 10 years, two
campaigns, and perhaps 20 single-session and two-or-three session games.
Without a concerted effort to introduce personality into one's character, one
almost never develops any character depth, and even with effort, it can take
a number of character-levels to really straighten things out. I think that
AD&D is an excellent escape, but is prone to shallowness. It also tends to
emphasize combat more than many other systems. If this is what your players
want, that's great. But I think many players prefer systems which support and
encourage more character development in terms of personality. I've had some
exposure to Runequest and played a lot of GURPS, and I doubt that I'll ever
play AD&D again without a serious GURPS bent.
Yes, Greg, it's possible to have an AD&D campaign that's not a simple hack-n-
slash, but it's not easy. I encourage everyone to try a class-based game and
a skill-based game, decide which one you like better, and play, play, play.
And if your reason for playing AD&D is simplicity, stick with the older
version, or play D&D. If you're attracted to proficiencies, you will
introduce enough complexity that you would be better off playing a more
realistic skill-based system.
/* Ron Youngquist ro...@locus.com (213)337-5963 */
Jeff Stehman
>
> I don't think that anyone interested in developing characters with in-depth
> personalities should choose AD&D. My experience with AD&D spans 10 years, two
> campaigns, and perhaps 20 single-session and two-or-three session games.
> Without a concerted effort to introduce personality into one's character, one
> almost never develops any character depth, and even with effort, it can take
> a number of character-levels to really straighten things out.
I'm curious how long it normally takes you to work out
personalities in other systems. In all the systems I've played it
generally takes me three or four sessions before I start to have a feel
for a character.
Jeff Stehman
Howard F Martin
>
> I'm curious how long it normally takes you to work out
>personalities in other systems. In all the systems I've played it
>generally takes me three or four sessions before I start to have a feel
>for a character.
>
>
> Jeff Stehman
Actually, I've had lots of fun when I get a character for which my DM has
made a whole background, and general personality. I take it as part of a
challenge to be able to role-play a character as someone other than myself.
I have played characters from a Absent-minded mage, always trying out new
spells, and usually having to be risen from his spellbook to do much of
anything (Especially fun for roleplaying during combats, ``Hey Cedrist!
Hey! We need some help with these things!'' ``Hmm ... Oh? Wait a second,
I seem to remember just the spell for this occasion!'' He dives back into the
book ...) To a Nasty, hedonistic Elf ``Anti-Ranger/Mage'' who acts (and expects
to be treated like) royalty ...
That's what the game is all about tho- If you don't start with a personality/
background, pick one immediately! Don't slowly build. Fleshing out afterwards
is one thing, but having a firm base to begin with is essential ... (*Note -
These are only personal views of the author*)
Consequently, these types of characters all seem to make for a more
roleplaying, not hack and slag, type of game. And although sometimes our
DM will get annoyed with players arguments, he won't stop them, 'cause he
knows that we're all acting in character, and the discussions and arguements
only add, not detract from the game ... Roleplaying clean and clear ...
From th' Land o' Sunshine an' Sharks,
Bruce
Disclaimer: All the above words and their spellings were spontaniously
created by their own will, and thus I have absolutely no
control about what was said, where it was said, and how it was
spelled ...
Ron Youngquist
>From article <70...@oolong.la.locus.com>, by ro...@altair.la.locus.com.la.locus.com (Ron Youngquist):
>>
>> I don't think that anyone interested in developing characters with in-depth
>> personalities should choose AD&D.
>> almost never develops any character depth, and even with effort, it can take
>> a number of character-levels to really straighten things out.
>
> I'm curious how long it normally takes you to work out
>personalities in other systems. In all the systems I've played it
>generally takes me three or four sessions before I start to have a feel
>for a character.
Before I answer, I think I should state what I see as the major differences
between the two systems I've spent the most time playing: AD&D and GURPS.
1) Character creation
a) AD&D is pretty simple, but the random element gets in the way of coming
up with the type of character you might have in mind.
b) GURPS has no random element in character creation. You get some number
of GM-determined points with which to make a character. You can get
extra points by taking disadvantages and personality quirks, which
rewards you for developing personality.
2) Character advancement
a) Experience points for how much treasure you collect and how many monsters
you kill.
b) Character points for how well you roleplay your character.
3) Basic assumptions
a) Simple, restrictive classes, easy for DM.
b) Somewhat involved, skill-based characters increase GM's workload.
Now, perhaps I've provided some evidence for why it only takes me a few hours
of play to get a feel for a GURPS character. I think this comes at the expense
of GM workload, which is complicated by the fact that NPCs are difficult to
come up with on the spot and flesh out along the way.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated.
Marc LeBlanc
70...@oolong.la.locus.com:
> That's what the game is all about tho- If you don't start with a personality/
>background, pick one immediately! Don't slowly build. Fleshing out afterwards
>is one thing, but having a firm base to begin with is essential ... (*Note -
>These are only personal views of the author*)
I couldn't agree more!
Recently I started GMing a campaign in a system, which, to my great
fortune, few of the players were familiar with. When faced with the
question, "what sort of character do you want to play?" the players
came up with *personalities*, rather than character classes or the
like. In my mind, a CHARACTER is just that, a personality, not a set
of numbers. The numbers should follow from the persona, not the other
way around. Concerning systems, My personal opposition to AD&D is
based on the difficulty of bending character data to fit the persona.
Players get used to starting with "joe random fighter", and end up
with "Joe random fighter" N levels later. It doesn't have to be this
way, but the system lends itself to it.
Standard disclaimer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc LeBlanc mleb...@athena.mit.edu
Ian Brown
In article <86...@hubcap.clemson.edu>, ste...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jeff Stehman) writes...
>
> I'm curious how long it normally takes you to work out
>personalities in other systems. In all the systems I've played it
>generally takes me three or four sessions before I start to have a feel
>for a character.
Actually, I've had lots of fun when I get a character for which my DM has
made a whole background, and general personality. I take it as part of a
challenge to be able to role-play a character as someone other than myself.
That's what the game is all about tho- If you don't start with a
personality/background, pick one immediately! Don't slowly build.
Fleshing out afterwards is one thing, but having a firm base to begin
with is essential ... (*Note - These are only personal views of the
author*)
What I do (facilitated by the fact there are only two of us in the
'group' I play with [anyone in the Hanover, NH area interested in
getting together sometime?] and the fact that we made up our own rules),
is design a character (including stats - as GMs both of us just match
the character against things that are a challenge to whatever abilities
the character has, so if you want to play a demi-god, thats fine, just
expect the opposition to have equal abilities). The design includes a
background and ideas for a personality.
However, I get the most enjoyment out of situations that allow me to
further the development of that personality (like determining how the
character reacts to certain things or what his favorite color is or
whatever). Just about every session I try to add something to or refine
some portion of the character's personality.
--
===============================================================================
Ian Brown
..!dartvax!creare!inb
Howard F Martin
(Homer Dired) writes...
>In the games I find myself in (and yes, some of the difference of opinion
>may simply lie here), there were always these great attempts on the part of
>both players and DMs to add some flesh to their characters. To try to not
Personally, I think this is where your problem starts ...
>simplistically or just like their last X clerics. In DnD it is very easy
>to lose interest in this activity, since the "character" isn't defined by
>rules, etc., but by abstractions, subjective opinions, etc. Ever have a DM
By defined, do you mean terms such as GURPS has with their Advantage/
Disadvantage Area for points? Because while it may give you a psychotic
tendancy or phobia to role-play, your character is still JUST a person.
They've got to have normal desires, hopes and fears, just like all the other
people in thier universe. This goes for all the games I play ... I have not
yet found a game that ``defines'' a character in the rules. (BTW: I play
D&D, AD&D, TW2000, Traveler, Warhammer FRP, Shadowrun, DC Heros, Marvel
Super Heros, And Several different Gurps scenarios ...)
>DnD is far, far to combat-dependant. By making death a minor inconvenience
>("What? They've raised the price of resurrection again! How am I gonna afford
>to fix my full plate?"), you cheapen life and the characters as well. I have
>had (under several DMs) characters who were actually suicidal, just because
>it was interesting, and I knew that there wasn't going to be any permanent
>effects (and of course there wasn't any, except in the case of a character who
>i actually liked, so I refused to let the DM make the players bring him back)
>were out of the question.
If you'll notice in the Player's Hand-book, under constitution, There is a
clause that says that the INITAL Con score is the number of times a
character can be be raised from the dead/resurrected, and while the loss
of Con may be restored by magical means, this magic DOES NOT restore the
initial score. Thus a character may have 14, 15, even 18 lives, but that's
it ... Maybe with the intervention of a God, but that ought to be pretty
rare ...
>and those had more loot! Sessions without combat tend to drag down instantly
>as soon as players realize that since they have no skills, it is the skills
>of the PLAYERS, not the character that count, and no one is going up a level
>anyway, so who the fuck cares? If I wanted to flout my cryptographic skills,
Using the proficiencies, and class benefits (Like fighteres being able to
get more information in a fighter's bar than a mage with an 18 Charisma, or
something to that effect), AND a personality for your character (I thrive
on that!), you can role-play in any gaming system. Sure, your character may
not have the easiest time doing something, but *that's life*. Even your
characters have a life. It may be only when you play them, but remember, while
you do, think of all the things you would be doing in such a situation. Most
GM's (at least the ones I know) give experience for say, enjoying the view
from the top of a cliff, over-looking a spread of beautiful lands (I usually
play rangers or Druids) or even a character with a low charisma trying to
hit on a bar-maid. Now these have to be taken with a grain of salt, you can't
just go around hitting on bar-maids forever (well, and get experience points
too :^)
>There are good GMs and bad ones, stimulating adventures and boring ones. But
>if you are a world-champion driver, why drive a Yugo?
My question exactly ...
>================[Hans Visser: fus...@milton.u.washington.edu]================
From th' Land o' Sunshine an' Sharks,
Bruce ...
*******************************************************************************
*Disclaimer: All spellings of words in the above message are the beliefs of *
* the author, and have no ulterior motives ... *
*******************************************************************************
Spawn of the Cannibal Nazis
I find it very odd that someone back there considers AD&D as unsupportive
of role-playing. That may be true if you follow the letter of the rules
but that is true of any game.
The quality of the game is not the responsibility of the game writer
but of the DM and the players.
Glad someone finally said it. Two of the best pieces of role-playing I have
ever seen were in AD&D games. One of them you're reading about now (my lover
Lord Daniel as Navero the Sweet but Bumbling), and the other was in a summer
campaign where Lord D. played Sean Dukas-- take everything you know about
Navero and replace it with its polar opposite and you have Sean Dukas. I played
a fun-loving jester in that game, and the palpable threat Sean posed to my
character (he has this little way of trying to assault/rape any female
human/demihuman) was scary.
--
| Brandi Weed bw...@jarthur.claremont.edu !uunet!jarthur!bweed |
Homer Dired
perhaps I should explain.
Basically, its a question of why DnD, not so much as opposed to nothing,
but as opposed to other games? Why play a game with simplistic classes, with
combat rules that must either be suffered through or changed to the point
of irrecognition, with combat-dependant character advancement when you don't
have to?
In the games I find myself in (and yes, some of the difference of opinion
may simply lie here), there were always these great attempts on the part of
both players and DMs to add some flesh to their characters. To try to not
play all of their characters either totally stereotypical and rather
simplistically or just like their last X clerics. In DnD it is very easy
to lose interest in this activity, since the "character" isn't defined by
rules, etc., but by abstractions, subjective opinions, etc. Ever have a DM
run a character for a short time (for whatever the reason) and get upset
because your idea of what that character would do clashes heavily with the
DM's?
DnD is far, far to combat-dependant. By making death a minor inconvenience
("What? They've raised the price of resurrection again! How am I gonna afford
to fix my full plate?"), you cheapen life and the characters as well. I have
had (under several DMs) characters who were actually suicidal, just because
it was interesting, and I knew that there wasn't going to be any permanent
effects (and of course there wasn't any, except in the case of a character who
i actually liked, so I refused to let the DM make the players bring him back)
were out of the question.
In a game where you seem to engage in 10 or more combats a session, you stop
caring. So what if you kill a dragon? God knows you've killed others before,
and those had more loot! Sessions without combat tend to drag down instantly
as soon as players realize that since they have no skills, it is the skills
of the PLAYERS, not the character that count, and no one is going up a level
anyway, so who the fuck cares? If I wanted to flout my cryptographic skills,
I'd join the armed forces.
There are good GMs and bad ones, stimulating adventures and boring ones. But
if you are a world-champion driver, why drive a Yugo?
--
"You can kill some of the people all of the time, and you can kill all
of the people some of the time, but you can't kill all of the
people all of the time... because then who'll grow the food?" -E,KM'sP
Glenn Thain
>My personal opposition to AD&D is based on the difficulty of bending
>character data to fit the persona.
Huh?
>Players get used to starting with "joe random fighter", and end up
>with "Joe random fighter" N levels later. It doesn't have to be this
>way, but the system lends itself to it.
This isn't a systemic problem, it's a cultural problem having to do with
how the game is approached. I've seen a lot of systems fall into the same trap
and I'm curious as to why you single out D&D as being more represenative of
the problem.
D&D is no more, no less character flexible in a capable Dm's hands than
any other system.
Best,
Glenn
Robert Schmid [Astro]
>Basically, its a question of why DnD, not so much as opposed to nothing,
>but as opposed to other games? Why play a game with simplistic classes, with
>combat rules that must either be suffered through or changed to the point
>of irrecognition, with combat-dependant character advancement when you don't
>have to?
>
>
>("What? They've raised the price of resurrection again! How am I gonna afford
>to fix my full plate?"), you cheapen life and the characters as well. I have
>
version of DnD unrecognizable. However, somewhere in the original
DMG Gygax states that this is an outline, that it can and should
be changed.
I like DnD BECAUSE it is simple. Because it is NOT BOGGED down
with useless numbers. We spend multiple gaming sessions w/o
EVER seeing combat and my players are constantly warming the
tar and feathers if I don't deliver them a game soon.
As for resurrection? It comes and goes depending on the current
Lord of Death. There's an easy one. Not to mention in many
cases no one would WANT to resurrect a dead hero because it would
cheapen their sacrifices. On the other hand I've given a
couple of players a taste of immortality and they can't stand it.
One of them is begging for death right now.
"Death, one of those small obstacles of adolesence."
-Ptolemyth the forgotten.
Rest in Peace beloved one. Aerilia owes you much.
Jeff Stehman
Most everything you talk about is campaign/dm dependent, not
game dependent. I've been in campaigns where resurrection was fairly
common, but I've never been in one where it trivialized death. I've
never been in a campaign where combat was the only way to gain xp. I've
been in plenty of combats that were trivial, although I can assure you
that *my* players weren't in too many situations like that (he chuckles
evilly). The main reason I started gming WFRP is because of the
atmosphere and environment the game provides, but another reason was
that combat system is more lethal than AD&D's. Note the "more". If
a dm has trouble keeping AD&D interesting simply because combat isn't
dangerous, he's just rolling dice. I've seen such dms change with a
change of system, but it wasn't because of the new system's rules; it
was just the slap in the face that such a radical change provided.
I don't like AD&D, but then, I don't like any system I've ever played
or read.
My ideal system would have a dozen or so non-combat, non-spell
casting skills. I see no need to try to put a number on most "skills".
That leads to rolling dice against them which, in most cases, is
ridiculous. If my character does a lot of cooking and is great/fair/
horrible at it, I'll have that in my character description. I don't
need a number because I see no reason to roll dice against such a
skill--perhaps once in a life time, but I'd rather trust a gm to make
up a number for a once-in-a-life-time roll than carry a useless stat
around with me all the time. AD&D was one of few systems that kept
such nonsense out of my way.
This also avoids a lot of the problems that arise about how
characters improve. "I'm sorry, you don't have any skill that lets
you build a solar still." "But my character was with Fred's last week
and helped him build one." "You'll have to wait until you spend a
little xp for it." How much study and how many applications would you
require before a character can build a solar still? Then you have
other problems. Just because a character can build a solar still
doesn't mean he knows anything else about desert survival. Do you
have skills for all the necessary skills or do you just let them bleed
together into one skill? I don't like either way. My preference would
be to just remember that this character once helped build a solar
still.
Roleplaying such abstract skills can be done in great detail if
the players or gm know anything about the skill (or think they do--it
doesn't really matter), or glossed over if they don't--"Yeah, you
manage to come up with some way to get water in the desert."
And when it comes to personality, I don't want stats,
ads/disads, or anything like that. I want a personality. To put a
character's complete personality down on paper would require a small
book. How can I expect rules to explain it or even sketch it?
Jeff Stehman
Black Widow of the Sadistic Eunuchs from the End of Time
>but as opposed to other games? Why play a game with simplistic classes, with
>combat rules that must either be suffered through or changed to the point
>of irrecognition, with combat-dependant character advancement when you don't
>have to?
Because (at least for beginning players):
1) It's the most common system around-- not only do lots of people have copies,
but because it's so well-known, you can even find it in some mainstream
bookstores (GURPS is starting to show up too, though).
2) It *is* simple. Character generation in GURPS is great if you've got a
concept in mind, but I doubt most novices are that well-thought-out at
the start... simpler to see what you were given and mold a personality
around that
>DnD is far, far to[o] combat-dependant. By making death a minor inconvenience
>("What? They've raised the price of resurrection again! How am I gonna afford
>to fix my full plate?"), you cheapen life and the characters as well.
A legitimate complaint. However, a clever DM can manage to end-run this as
well. The only game where I saw a lot of resurrections go on was the Navero
campaign, and I think that was more out of pity than anything else (Dan just
had the most incredible unluck with Navero).
>In a game where you seem to engage in 10 or more combats a session, you stop
>caring. So what if you kill a dragon? God knows you've killed others before,
>and those had more loot! Sessions without combat tend to drag down instantly
>as soon as players realize that since they have no skills, it is the skills
>of the PLAYERS, not the character that count, and no one is going up a level
>anyway, so who the fuck cares?
Admittedly, AD&D doesn't aid noncombatant situations all that well, but the
case you describe still depends heavily on the players. In both the Navero
and Sean/Boopsie campaigns, characters would bicker, discuss, and argue-- in
character-- just because they could and it was fun.
Mary K. Kuhner;335 Mulford
[discussing AD&D]
>Sessions without combat tend to drag down instantly
>as soon as players realize that since they have no skills, it is the skills
>of the PLAYERS, not the character that count, and no one is going up a level
>anyway, so who the fuck cares?
I've heard this argument from the other side:
"Ho hum, a negotiating session. I'll just make a few rolls against
my Orate skill--oops, a failure, better make a Fast Talk roll to keep
out of trouble. GM, when do we get to do something interesting?"
Or in other words, it's possible to argue that having skills which cover
all the interesting non-combat possibilities reduces them to a series
of dull die rolls.
I realize that GMs who use social skills often demand that the player
roleplay out the argument his/her character is using, relying on the
mechanics of the skill only as a guideline for chances of success,
but there's something to be said for not having fixed mechanics at all--
it's simpler and avoids intruding a rule where it may be annoying.
Large portions of my AD&D-variant campaign have involved the party
attempting to persuade/browbeat/blackmail/bribe other people to do
what they want. I've discussed the possibility of introducing social
skills (Interrogate, Negotiate, etc.) with my players, but they don't
feel it's necessary--we do pretty well just roleplaying out the
arguments.
I remember with particular fondness the two times the party impersonated
enemy leaders in order to impress low-ranking enemies. Very tense,
very exciting. I didn't feel much need of die rolls to settle those
situations.
The combat-oriented AD&D advancement is so terribly easy to fix that
I don't see it as a major problem. I give out EXP in a pretty
arbitrary fashion, based loosely on whether the players and I think
that they accomplished anything during the session. But it doesn't
much matter how you give out EXP, as long as you can trust your players
not to be worrying about it.
Why is the badness of AD&D such a big concern? If you like something
else better, why not try GMing a game of it? If it really is superior,
your players will realize as much.....
Mary Kuhner
Elliot Wilen
> D&D is no more, no less character flexible in a capable Dm's hands than
>any other system.
Hm. I think that good GM's and players can work a lot of personality
into the D&D class/level system, but I wouldn't go that far. I think
that the D&D system would be hard-put to accommodate some characters. A
philosopher, for example. I suppose you could make him a fighter so as
to minimize the inappropriate special abilities he'd get from the other
classes, but even as a fighter the character would have a number of
abilities (not least of which would be 10-sided hit dice!) which
wouldn't really fit.
Mind you,I've not looked deeply into the latest version. Perhaps a
philosopher could be shoehorned into the Rogue superclass in AD&D 2nd.
ed.?
--Elliot Wilen
Ian Brown
I think that the majority of people here seem to think (and I consider
myself one of them) that it is the style of the GM and the players that
will really define the way a game will go, rather than the rules system
followed. AD&D can be modified to suit whatever style one desires, if
thats the way you want to go (and it may be the easiest way for a lot of
people because they know AD&D and find modifying it easier than learning
a new system from scratch - or maybe they modified it to suit them
before they could find a system that did what they wanted.)
Personally I found AD&D classes too restrictive (I played a lot of bards
and Elven fighter/MU/thieves because I wanted to get a particular mix of
skills that was, at least with the version of AD&D the group I was with
was using, hard to get.) However, I think I could have easily created a
new class or modified existing classes, if that was the way I wanted to
go - it wasn't, but then I like to design new games. Another thing that
turned me off AD&D was the group that I was part of, but that has
nothing to do with AD&D, just with a couple of influential player/GMs
(most of the people playing did both at times.)
Glenn Thain
(Homer Dired) writes:
>
I went back to AD&D-V2 because it is a flexible, easily understood system
that is played by a vast majority of people. This allows me to share my world
and my storyteling skills with strangers. It allows me to integrate characters
easily and quickly, it allows me to teach non-hobbists quickly, it is, IMHO
a good system that deserves my attention. (This was after being a _Fantasy
Hero_ die-hard.)
>Why play a game with simplistic classes?
The class system is desirable in that it gives the framework by which a
characterization can be developed quickly. Many people have problems creating
a charactrization from scratch, D&D provides a frame to work off of.
>with combat rules that must either be suffered through or changed to the
>point of irrecognition, with combat-dependant character advancement when you
>don't have to?
You don't have to change anything, the combat works just fine. It is the
perceptional values that are imposed here that don't allow for it to "work
right". As for why, when I don't have to, I like the simplicity. I find the
D&D system works just fine, provided you leave it alone in most cases. Many
people are not enamoured of "realism" in their role-playing and many people
are not into complex charts and graphs. I perfer a math simple, flexible
system that people can learn quickly. D&D provides this. (Well, AD&D-V2).
>Ever have a DM run a character for a short time (for whatever the reason)
>and get upset because your idea of what that character would do clashes
>heavily with the DM's?
This isn't system dependent, this is beyond that.
>
>DnD is far, far to combat-dependant. By making death a minor inconvenience
>("What? They've raised the price of resurrection again! How am I gonna afford
>to fix my full plate?"), you cheapen life and the characters as well. I have
>had (under several DMs) characters who were actually suicidal, just because
>it was interesting, and I knew that there wasn't going to be any permanent
>effects (and of course there wasn't any, except in the case of a character
>who i actually liked, so I refused to let the DM make the players bring him
>back) were out of the question.
This isn't system dependent. I can do the same thing in Fantasy Hero.
>In a game where you seem to engage in 10 or more combats a session, you stop
>caring. So what if you kill a dragon? God knows you've killed others before,
>and those had more loot! Sessions without combat tend to drag down instantly
>as soon as players realize that since they have no skills, it is the skills
>of the PLAYERS, not the character that count, and no one is going up a level
>anyway, so who the fuck cares? If I wanted to flout my cryptographic skills,
>I'd join the armed forces.
These aren't system dependent either. Your complaint stems from
generalizations and mis-perceptions about what D&D is/can be. You are holding
the system responsible for the inneptitude of the DM. I can do this with
any system.
>
>There are good GMs and bad ones, stimulating adventures and boring ones. But
>if you are a world-champion driver, why drive a Yugo?
Because one man's Yugo is another man's Ferrari.
Glenn
"Change one tape, the entire process is re-geared."
Walter Milliken
>fus...@milton.acs.washington.edu (Homer Dired) writes:
>
>[discussing AD&D]
>
>>Sessions without combat tend to drag down instantly
>>as soon as players realize that since they have no skills, it is the skills
>>of the PLAYERS, not the character that count, and no one is going up a level
>>anyway, so who the fuck cares?
>
>I've heard this argument from the other side:
>
>"Ho hum, a negotiating session. I'll just make a few rolls against
>my Orate skill--oops, a failure, better make a Fast Talk roll to keep
>out of trouble. GM, when do we get to do something interesting?"
>
>Or in other words, it's possible to argue that having skills which cover
>all the interesting non-combat possibilities reduces them to a series
>of dull die rolls.
>
>I realize that GMs who use social skills often demand that the player
>roleplay out the argument his/her character is using, relying on the
>mechanics of the skill only as a guideline for chances of success,
>but there's something to be said for not having fixed mechanics at all--
>it's simpler and avoids intruding a rule where it may be annoying.
>
I missed out on this argument last time around, I think, so I'll toss
in a few random thoughts now...
In general, I like having the notion of game mechanics for social
skills. There are two main reasons for this:
1) Some players (myself included) don't do well with some types of
social skills, making it very difficult to roleplay a character with
such skills correctly. I'd *like* to do it, I just don't do it well.
And I *do* enjoy running such characters. So the skill system (I use
GURPS, for those readers who don't know this already) gives me a boost
in having a character who can be effective in a situation I,
personally, would not handle well.
Granted, this is no excuse for merely rolling dice. What I normally do
is tell the GM "I'm using Fast-Talk/Diplomacy/<whatever>" and then
give a general description of what I'm trying to say and do. I *can*
cope with this, I just can't manage to do it *in character*.
2) There are some situations where playing out a scene wouldn't serve
much purpose, and might risk boring the other players. This happens
most often to me (when GMing) when the party has split up and one
character is trying to do something off by himself that might take a
long time, and doesn't really advance the game much. Bargaining
sessions for routine equipment, etc. are a good case in point. For
these situations, it's nice to have a quick & dirty game mechanic to
fall back on. The character gets to feel useful, but the side
situation doesn't bog down the game.
Important situations should naturally be played out. I only use this
sort of thing to keep the game moving.
I think some of the reason we disagree on this concept is that we're
different types of gamers. From your posts, I'd say you probably fall
into the "roleplayer" category, while I'm more of the "problem-solver"
type. This leads to my liking for game mechanics to cover most
situations, just so I have a feel for the parameters of the problems
my character is dealing with. Both approaches are valid, in my
opinion -- I enjoy gaming with "roleplayers" as much as
"problem-solvers", and a mixture of the two in a group seems to work,
in my experience.
Ultimately, the trick in gaming seems to be to use the mechanics to
keep the game on track, but not to swamp the game in a morass of
meaningless detail. Unfortunately, people seem to differ on what
constitutes "meaningless detail."
---Walter
Howard F Martin
(Elliot Wilen) writes...
>Hm. I think that good GM's and players can work a lot of personality
>into the D&D class/level system, but I wouldn't go that far. I think
>that the D&D system would be hard-put to accommodate some characters. A
>philosopher, for example. I suppose you could make him a fighter so as
>to minimize the inappropriate special abilities he'd get from the other
>classes, but even as a fighter the character would have a number of
>abilities (not least of which would be 10-sided hit dice!) which
>wouldn't really fit.
>
>Mind you,I've not looked deeply into the latest version. Perhaps a
>philosopher could be shoehorned into the Rogue superclass in AD&D 2nd.
>ed.?
>
>--Elliot Wilen
One of the things that I like about 1st Ed. AD&D was that my GM (and frequently
other players) were not afraid to ``create'' character classes, modifying
special abilities and powers from other groups. For instance, Steven Deadelus,
is a ``traveling sage'' (I know Dragon came out with a Sage class, but this
was before that ...), who worked out to have full sage abilities (But being a
traveling sage, he didn't usually have access to major libraries, so if the GM
wanted to point out a fact, or start us on an adventure, I got to find it in my
books ...), and he was a mage at half his level. He was a tremendus success, and
my GM and I came up with the basic powers and abilities over the last hour of a
five hour driving trip back from college. My advice is not to try to ``fit in''
a character class. If it doesn't fit, make a subclass. Philosophers would get
some of the abilities of our sage class, with a special skill, ``Lecture''.
Lecture allows the character, in a non-hostile setting, to lecture to all
within earshot. The lecture then holds all persons involved and results with
one of the following outcomes (Save vs. Paralyzation cancels):
Boredom - Works like a `Sleep' spell with a duration equal to 1 round per
1 turn of lecturing.
Confusion - Works like a `Feeblemind' Spell with a duration equal to
1 round per hour of lecturing.
Fascination - As per spell with a duration equal to the lecture length.
Making up neat things like that made our campaign a good role-playing one,
plus we had characters that were new to the players, and everyone got a
character class they liked.
From th' Land o' Sunshine an' Sharks,
Bruce ...
Robert Schmid [Astro]
>that the D&D system would be hard-put to accommodate some characters. A
>philosopher, for example. I suppose you could make him a fighter so as
The rules of AD&D were meant to be bent and broken. I have played a
Discordian Monk (chaos), I have DM a nine year old child (character
not player), a satyr, a dragon, an interdimensional bounty hunter,
a demon and a plain old human female.
(Notice the lack of class distinctions). If you want a game with
rules go play Avalon Hill or Parker Brothers.
Glenn Thain
(Elliot Wilen) writes:
>Hm. I think that good GM's and players can work a lot of personality
>into the D&D class/level system, but I wouldn't go that far.
It really is, so long as your willing to be flexible and put the time
needed in to develop a complete background.
>
>Mind you,I've not looked deeply into the latest version. Perhaps a
>philosopher could be shoehorned into the Rogue superclass in AD&D 2nd.
>ed.?
Well.....edition2 is why I returned. In the DMG there is a section on
designing character classes that works reasonably well, (I don't think they
have enough limitations but my previous biases show ;-), I designed an
Amerindian shaman with great success. Not that I couldn't have done it
in other systems, it's just that the AD&D-V2 was what I was willing to play.
I could probably do a good philosopher, but what the hell are
philosopher's doing in a high fantasy adventure? It's my opinion that some
character types belong on the sidelines and this is one of them. (Too many
weird characters seen under the HERO system is the problem).
Best,
Glenn
Elliot Wilen
Aha! There! I got you! :-) What are philosophers doing in a high
fantasy adventure indeed? In sooth, they prolly don't belong in high
fantasy, not as characters central to the story. But what if I don't
want to play Conan, preferring instead something pseudohistorical or
novelistic?
What if <ahem> I do not wish to emphasize combat utility as a
primary character trait? What if I don't want to emphasize utility at
all?
[Many are still grinding their teeth over that smiley; others are
anxiously readying their left index fingers on the 'F' key; still
others are wondering whether it's fair to flame me for mispelling
"probably"--bear with me, all.]
A fair question, I do think. I might well imagine a game which is
oriented mainly toward "being" one's character instead of
problem-solving and conflict-resolution with cold steel. Life doesn't
have to be dangerous to be interesting (I hope). The problem *is* a
cultural one--some people want to be challenged directly, and for them
playing a philosopher or a greengrocer's son seems pointless; but
others are more interested in helping to tell a story while
getting some vicarious enjoyment out of one character's foibles and
interactions with other characters. For the latter type of player (and
of course there's some of both in everyone), a philosopher could be
quite a lot of fun. He may usually have to play one-on-one with the
GM, or else spend a lot of time ducking and hiding while the other
characters handle trouble, but he can be fun. So I hope that answers
the question of what the philosopher is doing in the game.
Now it's good to hear that a philosopher class can be developed for
D&D. However, my philosopher is actually a youngish sort who might not
want to spend the rest of his life getting beaten about the head
(figuratively) by his professors and (literally) by the local
bullies. Can he learn how to use a shortsword (only)? And if he gets
shanghaied by the army passing through town, will he be able to pick
up some real martial skills, along with first aid and perhaps the
ability to sneak quietly? I'm sure this can all be done, but only if
one moves progressively toward a skill-based system and pretty much
lets the guy be classless.
The problem is that D&D requires constant revision to handle characters
who don't easily fit a pre-established class, while many other games
can handle such characters with ease. As for giving beginning players
something to latch onto, there are always "package deals", "templates"
and "character type" suggestions (as in GURPS Basic, page 10, or the
GURPS worldbooks).
I'm not trying to convert you, Glenn. Your reasons for using AD&D-V2
(aside from the fact that it's none of my damn business) make a lot of
sense for what you want. But I do think that the claims which are made
on behalf of skill-based systems--better flexibility and greater access
to breadth of character--have more than a grain of truth.
--Elliot Wilen
Sean Barrett
>
>What if <ahem> I do not wish to emphasize combat utility as a
>primary character trait? What if I don't want to emphasize utility at
>all?
>
>oriented mainly toward "being" one's character instead of
>problem-solving and conflict-resolution with cold steel. Life doesn't
>have to be dangerous to be interesting (I hope).
>
> being able to learn to use a short-sword, etc, deleted]
>
At my group's gaming session two weeks ago, since we were switching from
playing Marvel Super Heroes to Paranoia but taking one week off, we
sat around talking about a number of things. One thing we talked about
was meta-gaming (play a group of guys sitting around a table, playing
a role-playing game. Let the guys sitting around the table have some
special abilities (to make things a little more interesting), for
instance, mind control, or telepathy. This game could get complicated;
can the meta-game referee control the inner game DM, or was a meta-game
player needed to play the DM, for instance. Also, meta-meta-gaming
was discussed, but we got too confused).
However, we moved on to imagining a game called "Campus Life", in which
you would play ordinary college students living in a dorm. Character
generation would determine your major, your previous courses and grades
and GPA's (but the courses would have no effect on what practical
information you actually knew of course).
In the discussion which followed, 2 out of the 5 people in the group
kept thinking combat oriented ("You can blow up the guy with the
obnoxiously loud stereo/blow up the [insert-favorite-stereotype-here]/
etc."), while the rest of us were thinking of other things ("If
somebody's gonna blow someone else up, we need rules for the Judiciary
Board...").
Certainly, in the world we imagined, there were no classes, only skills.
(Especially a "role-playing" skill for those late-nite D&D games... we
never did figure out how to deal with the effects of alcohol on other
skills.)
Not to say that classes are not appropriate in some imagined worlds.
Sean "buz...@eng.umd.edu" Barrett
Sam Jones
Okay, I'd like to introduce my own favorite RPG game. It's called
baseball. It's similar to the usual one, only I've made a few minor changes:
1) It's played indoors.
2) There's no bats, balls, mitts, or uniforms.
3) Instead of the usual setup, there's a ref and an varying number of players.
4) We have pencils, character sheets, and a set of rules.
Now, some people would say I'm a little strange to take a set of rules so
that I can adapt them, or, if I really want to be practical, ignore them, but
keep in mind, I'm doing it without buying $50+ of rules which I don't intend to
follow. I must admit that I am buying a set of rules, which I mention in step
4 of my adjustments. They're called Gurps, 3rd edition.
YOS,
Sam Jones
(squiggly upside-down-
rightside-up signature)
Sam Jones
Ian Brown
(Elliot Wilen) writes:
>Hm. I think that good GM's and players can work a lot of personality
>into the D&D class/level system, but I wouldn't go that far.
It really is, so long as your willing to be flexible and put the time
needed in to develop a complete background.
The latter is true regardless of the system - if you want personality
you need to take the time to develop it. The former I'm so sure about -
if you mean be flexible with your conception of the character then I'd
have to say that the system is getting in the way - not a good sign -
if, on the other hand, you mean that you are being flexible with the
system (and the system allows for this in a graceful manner), then OK.
>
>Mind you,I've not looked deeply into the latest version. Perhaps a
>philosopher could be shoehorned into the Rogue superclass in AD&D 2nd.
>ed.?
Well.....edition2 is why I returned. In the DMG there is a section on
designing character classes that works reasonably well, (I don't think they
have enough limitations but my previous biases show ;-), I designed an
Amerindian shaman with great success. Not that I couldn't have done it
in other systems, it's just that the AD&D-V2 was what I was willing to play.
A question is whether or not it would have been easier with another system?
I could probably do a good philosopher, but what the hell are
philosopher's doing in a high fantasy adventure? It's my opinion that some
character types belong on the sidelines and this is one of them. (Too many
weird characters seen under the HERO system is the problem).
A philospher could be a very interesting character in such an adventure.
In one of my E-mail games there is a historian/storyteller who has
proved to be very helpful - he allows me, as GM, to give information to
the players in a way that is natural - ie. he 'remembers' something
about whatever it is that I want to give them information about. He is
also interesting because of his tendency to get excited about strange
things (like being chased by a mythical beast - he wanted to stop and
learn more about it...)
Best,
Glenn
Walter Milliken
> [quotes from the thread on PC characterization in (A)D&D]
>
>Before I answer, I think I should state what I see as the major differences
>between the two systems I've spent the most time playing: AD&D and GURPS.
>
>1) Character creation
> a) AD&D is pretty simple, but the random element gets in the way of coming
> up with the type of character you might have in mind.
> b) GURPS has no random element in character creation. You get some number
> of GM-determined points with which to make a character. You can get
> extra points by taking disadvantages and personality quirks, which
> rewards you for developing personality.
Just to be fair (sort of -- I'm firmly on the GURPS side, of course),
GURPS has a random character generation system, but I've never seen
anyone use it, probably because people play GURPS to get away from
that.
I think the argument that it's easier for a novice to pick up on the
character generation process in AD&D is quite true. It usually takes
me about an hour to design a GURPS character, and I'm pretty much of
an expert at doing that. This could be fixed somewhat by defining
somewhat customizable "generic" characters who were typical instances
of various sorts of professions (read "classes"). I haven't seen much
along those lines, though I've been tempted to do some myself.
On the other hand, I think it's probably easier to pick up on the
basic game mechanics for GURPS, since it doesn't need tables. Perhaps
the use of THAC0 has fixed this in AD&D somewhat, but I assume it
still has a bunch of saving throw numbers. I've GMed novices playing
GURPS at cons -- they can pretty much pick up the mechanics from the
character sheet, if they aren't forced to use the Advanced Combat
stuff. It takes less than ten minutes to explain the mechanics, I've
found. Most of that is for the Basic Combat system.
>2) Character advancement
> a) Experience points for how much treasure you collect and how many monsters
> you kill.
> b) Character points for how well you roleplay your character.
I think most AD&D DMs have fixed this problem with house rules and/or
common sense, and it should be considered a dead issue.
>3) Basic assumptions
> a) Simple, restrictive classes, easy for DM.
> b) Somewhat involved, skill-based characters increase GM's workload.
Actually, having GMed both, I'd say they were about equal here. This
probably has more to do with the *type* of adventure than the game
system. *I* find it easier to GM GURPS than AD&D, but that's almost
certainly because I've had a lot more experience since I last played
AD&D.
>Now, perhaps I've provided some evidence for why it only takes me a few hours
>of play to get a feel for a GURPS character. I think this comes at the expense
>of GM workload, which is complicated by the fact that NPCs are difficult to
>come up with on the spot and flesh out along the way.
I usually have a feel for GURPS characters *before* I play them,
though I admit I don't usually have all their quirks figured out, nor
do I usually have a detailed history.
NPCs aren't really hard -- I usually do them improv, since the players
rarely get the NPC to exercise all his skills during an interaction.
I usually scribble down basic stats, a few relevant skills, and any
characterization notes when they first meet the NPC. Major NPCs get
partial or full character sheets, but I've found they often don't
start out major. One recurring -- can't call her a villain, exactly
-- major nuisance, maybe, NPC in one of my campaigns started out as a
throwaway NPC who was trying to infiltrate the party and steal some
stuff they were guarding. So she evolved a full description only over
a number of game sessions, as new things came up each time the
characters ran into her. The trick with NPCs is not to worry about
points -- just give them what they need/ought to have/you want them to
have.
---Walter
Jeff Stehman
> In article <71...@oolong.la.locus.com>, rony@altair (Ron Youngquist) writes:
>>Now, perhaps I've provided some evidence for why it only takes me a few hours
>>of play to get a feel for a GURPS character. I think this comes at the expense
>>of GM workload, which is complicated by the fact that NPCs are difficult to
>>come up with on the spot and flesh out along the way.
>
> I usually have a feel for GURPS characters *before* I play them,
> though I admit I don't usually have all their quirks figured out, nor
> do I usually have a detailed history.
Yes, yes, I usually know all about my characters personality and
general outline of history before I start playing, too. I may even know
how I want them to be and how I want them to be perceived, but that
doens't mean I have a feel for them. I have see how they will react to
life before I know what they are really going to be like. After I run
them through several situations and maybe up their blood-pressure once
or twice, then I can begin to feel comfortable with them.
Jeff Stehman
Mary K. Kuhner;335 Mulford
> Yes, yes, I usually know all about my characters personality and
>general outline of history before I start playing, too. I may even know
>how I want them to be and how I want them to be perceived, but that
>doens't mean I have a feel for them. I have see how they will react to
>life before I know what they are really going to be like. After I run
>them through several situations and maybe up their blood-pressure once
>or twice, then I can begin to feel comfortable with them.
> Jeff Stehman
Have you ever had a character suddenly change from your initial expectations
during the first session or two of play? I have, and it makes me leery
of systems with explicit definition of personality. I'm not a good
enough roleplayer to force a character to behave the way I've defined
him/her.
Kalvin Montmorecy was originally conceived as an autocratic, closed-
minded, rather fanatical sorceror. Somewhere between sessions two
and three he mysteriously changed, becoming rather innocent, very
kindly, but dangerously impulsive and imprudent (rolling a Wisdom of
3 in character generation may have had a bit to do with this).
Since Kalvin became my favorite character ever, I'm not at all sorry
this happened; and a system which forced me to stick with my initial
definition of the character would probably have caused me trouble.
I'm not claiming this is a great way to do characters, merely that
it's something that happens to a lot of players which needs to be
taken into consideration.
Mary Kuhner
mkku...@enzyme.berkeley.edu
David Goldfarb
)ste...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jeff Stehman) writes:
)> Yes, yes, I usually know all about my characters personality and
)>general outline of history before I start playing, too. I may even know
)>how I want them to be and how I want them to be perceived, but that
)>doens't mean I have a feel for them. I have see how they will react to
)>life before I know what they are really going to be like. After I run
)>them through several situations and maybe up their blood-pressure once
)>or twice, then I can begin to feel comfortable with them.
)
)> Jeff Stehman
)
)Have you ever had a character suddenly change from your initial expectations
)during the first session or two of play? I have, and it makes me leery
)of systems with explicit definition of personality. I'm not a good
)enough roleplayer to force a character to behave the way I've defined
)him/her.
[example deleted]
)
)I'm not claiming this is a great way to do characters, merely that
)it's something that happens to a lot of players which needs to be
)taken into consideration.
)
)Mary Kuhner
There's an obvious solution if you're playing Hero or GURPS and this
happens. Talk to the GM about changing your disadvantages (or whatever the
problem is) to something with equivalent point values that is more in line
with your new conception! Your character sheet is paper, not stone in which
the stats and abilites are graven, after all. Any reasonable GM should per-
mit this.
(This, by the way, is my answer to the question that comes up from
time to time about what happens when a GURPS character who has taken the
Poverty disadvantage comes into wealth as the result of an adventure. You
simply change the disadvantage to something different. Perhaps the money
leads to the character's acquiring a Dependent, or an Enemy. It might make
sense that a poor character who gains money would become Miserly. There are
all sorts of possibilities other than simply having to buy off the Poverty
disadvantage with Character Points or somehow lose the money.)
David Goldfarb gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Insert standard disclaimer)
"And if you said, 'Jump in the river,' I would,
Because it would probably be a good idea..."
--Sinead O'Connor
Jeff Stehman
From article <1990Apr18....@agate.berkeley.edu>, by gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb):
> )
> )Have you ever had a character suddenly change from your initial expectations
> )during the first session or two of play? I have, and it makes me leery
> )of systems with explicit definition of personality.
>
> happens. Talk to the GM about changing your disadvantages (or whatever the
> problem is) to something with equivalent point values that is more in line
> with your new conception! Your character sheet is paper, not stone in which
> the stats and abilites are graven, after all.
There is a just as obvious and easier solution if you're not
playing Hero or GURPS--just change the character. You don't even have
to worry about what ads/disads you might need to modify. :-)
Jeff Stehman
Charles Jacob Cohen
The main reason I now play GURPS instead of AD&D is because GURPS,
IMHO, is better suited for roleplaying (boy am I going to get flack for
this :-) ). I also like the combat system, and the magic spell point
system.
But I do have one gripe. In (A)D&D, at magic user, after about
11 th level, can on her own cast some very powerfull spells, with only
at most about a days preparation (memorization, etc). In GURPS, although
there are some powerfull spells, no wizard can cast them alone, even
assuming a very powerfull powerstone. As a DM I created a character
who was about 16th in magic use, and he caused terror to the player
characters, but I don't see any way of achieving that effect with
GURPS.
So here is my question - how can you get powerfull wizards in
GURPS? I came up with one solution. At a cost of 5 experience points,
a character with magical aptitude can "buy" a magical fatigue point.
Therefore, after spending 50 ep (which in my campaign would take at
least 12 gaming sessions!), a wizard with 10 strength would still have
a 10 strength but an effective casting strength of 20 (the magical
fatigue points are used first). These points are recovered normally
(like resting). With this, the spell caster could now cast more
powerfull spells on her own.
Another problem - magic items. I think it takes way too long
to create a magic item using the slow and sure method. For example,
a 400 point magic item that gives your boots the power of levitation
(I don't have the book in front of me) will take 400 days, at one
point a day. My idea is to allow the mage to use more than one point
a day, but the same amount everyday, up to the maximum of her magical
strength. So, if she had a magical strength of 20, it would only take
20 days to create the items.
Any comments? Has anyone else changed the GURPS magic system
to allow for powerfull spell casting? It seems odd to me that to
create an NPC like Merlin would require about 10,000 experience
points (okay, so I exagerate!).
- Castellan the Invincible
--
There once was a young lady named Bright,
Who could travel much faster than light.
She left home one day, In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.
Glenn Thain
edu (Elliot Wilen) writes:
>
>Aha! There! I got you! :-) What are philosophers doing in a high
>fantasy adventure indeed? In sooth, they prolly don't belong in high
>fantasy, not as characters central to the story. But what if I don't
>want to play Conan, preferring instead something pseudohistorical or
>novelistic?
Skewered again by your rapier-like logic! ;-)
This changes the parameter of the discussion a bit. We were talking about
developing characters under the D&D family and whether or not one was hindered
because of the lack of skills. You posed an example as a general instance,
I replied and now we're getting beyond that.
The genere that the D&D family tries to re-create is not "generic fantasy
gaming" but "swords and sorcery" a.k.a Conan, Fafard and the Mouser,
John Carter type of fantasy. Which is very different from the fantasy in most
of the literature that is churned out today.
Going beyond the scope of the genere is hard, not totally impossible, but
it is beyond the scope of the D&D family.
>What if <ahem> I do not wish to emphasize combat utility as a
>primary character trait? What if I don't want to emphasize utility at
>all?
Part of the fantasy element for me is some abstraction over what I can
and cannot do. Many of the current point systems pride themselves on being
able to quantify the character's every ability and in some ways this is
just as bad as not being well defined. In the HERO system it is doubtable that
you'll be able to cover all the bases adaquetly without some freebie points,
and still get an interesting character. I understand from some of the GURPS
adepts that this is true there too......that it is very hard to get all the
languages and minor skills that one needs. These are abstracted in the D&D
family by the use of class. I always assumed that the classes defined the
areas of expertise that the people had then the levels defined the proficency.
As you increased in levels and adventured your abilities increased, albeit in
a very random fashion. So.....fighters know about fighting and warfare and
things that have to do with that, clerics know about matters spiritual, etc.
A mixed party is desireous because each class has a set of skills that are
unique, thus allowing a person to shine.
>Now it's good to hear that a philosopher class can be developed for
>D&D. However, my philosopher is actually a youngish sort who might not
>want to spend the rest of his life getting beaten about the head
>(figuratively) by his professors and (literally) by the local
>bullies. Can he learn how to use a shortsword (only)? And if he gets
>shanghaied by the army passing through town, will he be able to pick
>up some real martial skills, along with first aid and perhaps the
>ability to sneak quietly? I'm sure this can all be done, but only if
>one moves progressively toward a skill-based system and pretty much
>lets the guy be classless.
You can do it under the class system in V2, get all that you want and
more. I could have done it under D&D and it wouldn't have been all that
painful.
The problem we're dealing with is one of cultural bias, "the D&D family
uses classes so therefore it is rigid and inflexible." Well.....I can say the
same thing about skill based systems, "the skill based systems require points
for everything and I can't generate enough points for my begining conception."
It's a two edged sword. Both have things that recomend them, both have
obstacles to overcome.
>The problem is that D&D requires constant revision to handle characters
>who don't easily fit a pre-established class, while many other games
>can handle such characters with ease. As for giving beginning players
>something to latch onto, there are always "package deals", "templates"
>and "character type" suggestions (as in GURPS Basic, page 10, or the
>GURPS worldbooks).
Brrrpppppptttt! That's cultural bias speaking. Flexiblity can be achieved
in the D&D family as in the skill family. We're still bantering a non-system
specific thing here, how do characters develop and what tools are present to
help that. The skill system offers an already pre-conceived system of skills
while you could just jot down what you think the character knows in the D&D
family of games. Both have a lot of merit and flexiblity.
>
>I'm not trying to convert you, Glenn. Your reasons for using AD&D-V2
>(aside from the fact that it's none of my damn business) make a lot of
>sense for what you want. But I do think that the claims which are made
>on behalf of skill-based systems--better flexibility and greater access
>to breadth of character--have more than a grain of truth.
Well, you can think how you like, ;-), I don't see that skill based
systems, (as they are currently employed), as having the edge and you haven't
offered any proff to the contrary other than "can I play a philosopher", which
is really beyond the genere of the D&D family. However, it's always a pleasure
to debate with you Elliot, you always take the opposite side and give me alot
to think about.
So.....here's the question. Why do you believe that skill based systems
have an edge in the swords and sorcery genere and is there a real systems
edge or just a perception of one?
Best,
Glenn
Walter Milliken
> Yes, yes, I usually know all about my characters personality and
>general outline of history before I start playing, too. I may even know
>how I want them to be and how I want them to be perceived, but that
>doens't mean I have a feel for them. I have see how they will react to
>life before I know what they are really going to be like. After I run
>them through several situations and maybe up their blood-pressure once
>or twice, then I can begin to feel comfortable with them.
I guess my style is a bit different from yours, Jeff. While I do tend
to evolve my characters somewhat after creation, my "feel" for the
character doesn't change that much. I frequently "discover" new
things about them, but the basic model of the character doesn't get
modified a great deal..
Perhaps we're just quibbling about the meaning of "feel." Certainly I
*enjoy* playing a character more after he or she has gotten some
significant amount of playing time. Early on, I'm often more
concerned with the mechanics of the character, until the actions
become more like second nature, and don't take active thought. If
that's what you mean by "feel," then I'd agree with you.
---Walter
Walter Milliken
>Have you ever had a character suddenly change from your initial expectations
>during the first session or two of play? I have, and it makes me leery
>of systems with explicit definition of personality. I'm not a good
>enough roleplayer to force a character to behave the way I've defined
>him/her.
Only to a minor extent. I wouldn't claim to be a good roleplayer --
perhaps it's just that I'm pretty good at figuring out what I want in
the character in the first place. I've been playing long enough that
I usually know what kinds of characters I enjoy playing, and will fit
into the campaign reasonably. Or maybe I'm just stubborn.... Also,
those personality traits aren't permanent -- people change, and GURPS,
at least, explicitly acknowledges that advantages and disadvantages
can change.
For a starting character, the GM should be understanding about minor
modifications to personality, especially if they haven't come into
play yet. I dislike players trying to make radical changes in
characters the other players have gotten used to, though.
My experience is that the characters in a new campaign will "shake
down" after a session or two. Characters being added by existing
players to an existing campaign are usually easier, at least for me.
When everything else is a bit vague, one's character conceptions tend
to be, too.
>Kalvin Montmorecy was originally conceived as an autocratic, closed-
>minded, rather fanatical sorceror. Somewhere between sessions two
>and three he mysteriously changed, becoming rather innocent, very
>kindly, but dangerously impulsive and imprudent (rolling a Wisdom of
>3 in character generation may have had a bit to do with this).
Did you have this conception *before* rolling the dice, and change it
after? You seem to imply this somewhat. As a GM, I'd find this
change a bit radical after a couple games. In some sense, he's a
different character entirely.
>Since Kalvin became my favorite character ever, I'm not at all sorry
>this happened; and a system which forced me to stick with my initial
>definition of the character would probably have caused me trouble.
Redesigning the character is always an option. As long as the point
balance didn't change much, as a GM, I wouldn't mind terribly as long
as the other players are made aware of the fact that things have been
"rewritten", or there's some reasonable explanation for the change
that obviates "backwriting" the campaign.
>I'm not claiming this is a great way to do characters, merely that
>it's something that happens to a lot of players which needs to be
>taken into consideration.
Yes, I've seen it happen. Some character designs *sound* interesting
and don't work well in play, or aren't much fun. A good GM has to
deal with this, in *any* system. Other players, at least have to be
made aware of significant changes that their characters would be aware
of.
---Walter
Homer Dired
response...
There seems to be an idea out there that DnD is some kind of default, that
it is somehow a less-complicated version of skill-based games, and since it
requires a lot of GM thought and player input and god knows what else to
make it playable, it is somehow more flexible.
There are times when I find GURPS (or Phoenix Command, which aside from
Paranoia are probably the only games I'd play and still be able to hold my
lunch) too complicated, too precise in its definitions. Sometimes I
don't want to know all the bizarre scientific disciplines that a person
knows, or want to go through a lot of time and effort to make an NPC.
But I'd never (NEVER) "revert" to DnD to accomplish this.
Why? DnD is most definitely not a default. It uses lots of tables and
charts, characters have lots of necessary definitions (especially with
proficiencies, etc., and the god-awful amount of magic that TSR seems to
think that all caharcter NEED, except for NPCs who evidently don't go
through TSR modules...). What is a 5th-level fighter? Is it a 14-STR, 14-CON,
14-DEX, AC 3, 27.5 Hp guy with a THACO of 16, and a longsword that does
1-8/1-12, or a 18/96-STR, 18-CON, 17-DEX, AC -5, 75 Hp guy who (with his
specialization and +4 longsword) has a THACO of 9 and does 1-8/1-12 + 11?
The simplicity and helpfulness of classes with such great individual
differences eludes me. Ever try to make up an NPC party on the fly which
would be equal to a same-level PC party? Hah! Good luck! I'd much rather
spend the time trying to decide who they are and what they are there for
than lots of "all-this-only-deals-with-combat-and-I'll-be-damned-if-I-use-
all-this-time-and-there-ain't-a-fight" BS. Where is my simplicty, my easy
to-understand rules? Ever try to take a new player and have them roll up
a character? In our RPG myths this is supposed to be fun for all involved!
But lets not forget having to say "Just make it a fighter, trust me.", or
"Somebody tell (x) what spells to get."
Lots of the arguments in favor of DnD appeal to me, they really do. Simplicty
and flexibility appeal to me a great deal, as do plans where every little
skill detail doesn't have to be worked out for every stereo-store salesman.
But I just don't buy the idea that DnD works for any of this. (Hit points
by character levels! Oh, the pain, the pain...).
--
"You can kill some of the people all of the time, and you can kill all
of the people some of the time, but you can't kill all of the
people all of the time... because then who'll grow the food?" -E,KM'sP
================[Hans Visser: fus...@milton.u.washington.edu]================
Ron Youngquist
> Personnally, I'm inventing my own system. Skills will be general (like sword
>use), with specialization required. However, character background affects what
>skills may be learned and to what level. (ie- The Priests of Gromzig can learn
>witchcraft, many woodscraft skills, some herbalism, healing, but also have
>numerous limitations on behavior, such as pacifism and they have to remain
>within one mile of a good sized stand of trees at all times or be stripped of
>their powers) In other words, a 'class', background which allows certain skills
>and powers, comes with limitations on behavior and a cultural effect. What do
>you think?
>-Lord Teka
Great idea. You're decreasing the complexity of a purely skill-based system
by creating a number of templates, while still maintaining a certain degree
of flexibility. I think this is a very key idea for GMs using a skill-based
system. It makes the game easier for you and your players, and it adds a lot
of character to your world. Hint: if you have PCs of a certain class, give
them a little leeway to define the class; it makes your job easier and you'll
probably be delightfully surprised at how player creativity can help to flesh
out your world.
By the way, the various worldbooks for GURPS can give you a nice headstart on
these kinds of templates, if you find one of their worlds to your liking. Note
that adding restrictions in a class-based system can be be done just as easily,
and can result in wildly varying "cultural flavor" in your gameworld without
being overly restrictive.
/* Ron Youngquist ro...@locus.com (213)337-5963 */
Bruce Onder
>average MIT student is a 4th level Thief." Now, while that doesn't
>say whether a particular student has a dex of 9 or 18, it does give a
>good overall concept of what abilities the student is likely to have.
>How would you put that sentence in GURPS?
>
>S. Tucker
In GURPS, we have a different saying.
"The average MIT student has all 40 points of disads ad Odious Personal
Habits."
:)
Bruce
--
*******************************************************************************
* Bruce W. Onder * stb!bon...@anes.ucla.edu * "What -- I say -- *
* SAMOHI Computer Lab * bon...@stb.info.com * what's goin' on *
* Santa Monica, CA * ...!stb!bonder * here?" -- F. Leghorn *
Elliot Wilen
>more flexible person, reflecting the individual nature of a 'hero'. BUT, these
>systems are weak in that there are TREMENDOUS numbers of skills that distract.
>This includes swimming, driving, phoning, etc (for a present-day game)
"TREMENDOUS"? Well...
I'm feeling uncomfortable with all these articles that seem to talk
about "skill-based" and "class-based" games in the abstract. The
truth of it is that we all have limited experience with both
kinds--nobody can reasonably discuss "the set of all possible class-based
systems" or "the set of all possible skill-based systems".
In my experience there are skill-based systems with a relatively small
number of skills, such as Runequest II and Fantasy Hero, and there are
skill-based systems with TREMENDOUS numbers of skills, like Ysgarth.
I count around 30 skills in RQII, around 40 in FH--not including
specific weapons. Ysgarth must have several hundred, and (for all the
reasons that have been discussed) I think that's overdoing it.
> On the other side, class based games have the advantage of simplicity, and an
>actually good deal of realism. In ancient times, learning occured in classes,
>not as a free form thing.
I assume you mean that people generally had a set of skills which were
mostly related to their cultural and social background. If so, then whole-
hearted approval and agreement from this end. If not, then puzzlement.
> Personnally, I'm inventing my own system. Skills will be general (like sword
>use), with specialization required. However, character background affects what
>skills may be learned and to what level. (ie- The Priests of Gromzig can learn
>witchcraft, many woodscraft skills, some herbalism, healing, but also have
>numerous limitations on behavior, such as pacifism and they have to remain
>within one mile of a good sized stand of trees at all times or be stripped of
>their powers) In other words, a 'class', background which allows certain skills
>and powers, comes with limitations on behavior and a cultural effect. What do
>you think?
It sounds much like the character generation system from Runequest III
or Harnmaster. The difference is that once a character has been created,
the only limitations on what he may learn during play are social. For
example, an RQ Nomadic Hunter will begin the game with a good riding
skill and zero literacy, but he can learn to read during the game if
he can find a teacher and he's willing to put in the time. An RQ
Shaman, on the other hand, won't be able to improve some of his skills
beyond a certain level because of all the duties he must perform for
his tribe. He'll also refuse to have anything at all to do with
Sorcery, because primitives and barbarians think it's sick.
--Elliot Wilen
Elliot Wilen
> My native language is English,
>and I studied Latin in school. I think in English, with a little
>Latin thrown in where the English is lacking. I believe Latin is a
>superior language to English, but not the orders of magnitude superior
>that would be necessary to make me change my default.
Point taken, although I think you're selling English short. No English
author could have written the Aeneid, but no Latin author could have
written King Lear.
[Quoting someone else:]
>>(Hit points by character levels! Oh, the pain, the pain...)
>
>I don't understand the severity of your suffering here. For defensive
>ability, D&D uses hit points while GURPS sorts it out into HT, luck,
>and parry, block, or dodge skill. (Have I missed any?) In either case
>the character with more experience fights longer before falling over.
It's partly an issue of deadliness: even a low-level D&D character
feels more secure in a fight than an experienced character in other
games. (But *not* a first-level character. They die like flies if you
aren't careful.) The main issue (for me at any rate) is figuring out
what actually happens when a D&D character loses hit points. Is the
arrow I just shot sticking out of your fighter's body, or is it
imbedded in his defensive ability?
I also think that the abstraction of hit points can lead some players to
take a cavalier attitude to having bits of metal stuck in their
characters' bodies. "Mark off 5 h.p." hasn't quite the dramatic impact
of "You've got a bad leg wound and you'll be limping for the rest of
the combat."
>Here's a question for you. Somebody around here once claimed, "The
>average MIT student is a 4th level Thief." Now, while that doesn't
>say whether a particular student has a dex of 9 or 18, it does give a
>good overall concept of what abilities the student is likely to have.
>How would you put that sentence in GURPS?
Um, if people had been playing GURPS then it never would have occurred
to them to formulate such a sentence: they'd never have been
conditioned to think of people as "classes". I'll take a stab at it
anyway: "The average MIT student would make a pretty good thief. He or
she has a fair knowledge of locks (Lockpicking 12 or higher) and has
had some experience hiding from security guards (Stealth 10 or higher).
Many are also avid rock and rooftop climbers (Climbing 11 or higher)."
Can MIT students pick pockets and backstab? If so, I'd better watch out!
--Elliot Wilen
Kurt Piersol
character points required to create a magic item with the 1 CP = 100
Magical energy, one finds point costs which are quite comparable with
similar advantages taken with limitations. For example, a loyal weapon
costs abut 20 character points, or the total gained from about 7
adventures. This doesnt seem all that cheap to me. Especially since the
character could have bought better stats, or 5 decent new skills, or 5 handy
spells. A great weapon can easily cost 50-100 CPs or more.
As for mages walking around with 100 points of energy for spellcasting, no
one I know is going to waste a character point on a charging band of Orcs,
or even on moderately powerful opponents. They'll save it for duels of
sorcery and trying to toast the main bad guy. Of course, if the bad guy is
worth his salt, he'll blow a CP himself to keep up. Great for those
cinematic campaigns...
I haven't playtested the rule in combat yet, and have reserved it so far
to magic item creation. I hate the present rules with a passion. A sword
powerful enough to give a significant combat advantage can take 10 man
years of work in official GURPS. Nobody spends ten man years on an item
that can get blown away by a missed parry, so assume 10-20(!!) man years
of effort. At prices charged for skilled labor, this is well over a
million dollars or the equivalent.
The result of such an insane price level in a typical
medieval world would be that anyone carrying a magic item would be a
constant target for thieves, assassins, etc. Try wearing your million
dollar diamond ring into some seedy part of town sometime, and you'll get
the picture. In short, I don't think Magic item creation passes anything
like a Reality Check.
I like Walter's burnout suggestion a lot. Allow the mage his climactic
battle, then snuff out his powers for a week from overload. The fighters
then get to get him home.
Kurt Piersol
Usenet: {sun,...}!apple!Piersol
Internet: Pie...@apple.com
AppleLink: Piersol.k
Disclaimer: The opinions presented in this flame do not in any way
represent the opinions of anyone, even myself whilst I was writing it.
Michael Pederson
>In article <71...@oolong.la.locus.com>, rony@altair (Ron Youngquist) writes:
>> [quotes from the thread on PC characterization in (A)D&D]
>>
>>Before I answer, I think I should state what I see as the major differences
>>between the two systems I've spent the most time playing: AD&D and GURPS.
>>
>>1) Character creation
>> a) AD&D is pretty simple, but the random element gets in the way of coming
>> up with the type of character you might have in mind.
>> b) GURPS has no random element in character creation. You get some number
>> of GM-determined points with which to make a character. You can get
>> extra points by taking disadvantages and personality quirks, which
>> rewards you for developing personality.
>
>Just to be fair (sort of -- I'm firmly on the GURPS side, of course),
>GURPS has a random character generation system, but I've never seen
>anyone use it, probably because people play GURPS to get away from
>that.
I've made up ONE character using the random character generation in GURPS,
just to see what it was like. The character came out to be 315 points
(whereas the standard character is built on 100 points). It had ungodly
ability scores (for a GURPS character) one advantage, one disadvantage, and
six skills, none of them were related.
>I think the argument that it's easier for a novice to pick up on the
>character generation process in AD&D is quite true. It usually takes
>me about an hour to design a GURPS character, and I'm pretty much of
>an expert at doing that. This could be fixed somewhat by defining
>somewhat customizable "generic" characters who were typical instances
>of various sorts of professions (read "classes"). I haven't seen much
>along those lines, though I've been tempted to do some myself.
I've seen some stuff along the line of "generic" characters. In the local
games, there are people who show up for one or two sessions only, so the
GM's have some prepared "generic" characters lying around. For magic, it's
usually a fighter type (low IQ). The supers can get weird, though. Plus,
I'm starting up a Space campaign, and I plan to have a few "generic"
characters available for use.
>On the other hand, I think it's probably easier to pick up on the
>basic game mechanics for GURPS, since it doesn't need tables. Perhaps
>the use of THAC0 has fixed this in AD&D somewhat, but I assume it
>still has a bunch of saving throw numbers. I've GMed novices playing
>GURPS at cons -- they can pretty much pick up the mechanics from the
>character sheet, if they aren't forced to use the Advanced Combat
>stuff. It takes less than ten minutes to explain the mechanics, I've
>found. Most of that is for the Basic Combat system.
AD&D (second edition) still has plenty of tables. And with all of the optional
stuff, I think there's even more than in the old edition. (One of the optional
tables is an encumbrance chart that lists the encumbrance for every move rate
between one and 12, yup, all twelve. Takes up half a page.)
I'll agree that the Advanced Combat stuff is about the only thing that's really
complicated in GURPS. I've been playing for about two and half years, and the
only thing that I don't completly have the hang of, is the advanced combat. I
picked up the rest in just the first two or three sessions. Out of the group
that I play with, there's only a few people who make good use of all of the
maneuvers available.
Just my $0.05.
(Inflation: it gets everything.)
-Michael Pederson
Walter Milliken
>Now my 'real' reason: I'm so accustomed to D&D that I can easily
>visualize the system workings and the effects a proposed change would
>have. I can't do that with GURPS or any other system that I didn't
>grow up with. Try this comparison. My native language is English,
>and I studied Latin in school. I think in English, with a little
>Latin thrown in where the English is lacking. I believe Latin is a
>superior language to English, but not the orders of magnitude superior
>that would be necessary to make me change my default.
Well, I grew up with AD&D, and didn't have much trouble thinking about
GURPS. In fact, I found it *easier* to decide what effects changes
would have than I did in AD&D, which I initially had more experience
with. I suspect it's more a matter of mind-set than experience.
>I don't understand the severity of your suffering here. For defensive
>ability, D&D uses hit points while GURPS sorts it out into HT, luck,
>and parry, block, or dodge skill. (Have I missed any?) In either case
>the character with more experience fights longer before falling over.
Yeah, but a GURPS character can't survive a 100' fall using luck,
parry, dodge, or block. And experience doesn't help much, either....
If the only source of injury comes from fighting, AD&D hit points work
fine. They don't handle non-combat health problems as well, though.
Incidentally, most GURPS characters don't have "luck" -- just a few
with a particular advantage. And it isn't a numerical value like hit
points -- just a mechanic for getting better defensive rolls, if you
want to use it that way.
>Here's a question for you. Somebody around here once claimed, "The
>average MIT student is a 4th level Thief." Now, while that doesn't
>say whether a particular student has a dex of 9 or 18, it does give a
>good overall concept of what abilities the student is likely to have.
>How would you put that sentence in GURPS?
"The average MIT student has some passable thieving skills." Not to
mention a whole *lot* of quirks.... BTW, I hope that a "4th-level
Thief" isn't *all* that the average MIT student is.
---Walter
Tim Shippert
>I've made up ONE character using the random character generation in GURPS,
>just to see what it was like. The character came out to be 315 points
>(whereas the standard character is built on 100 points). It had ungodly
>ability scores (for a GURPS character) one advantage, one disadvantage, and
>six skills, none of them were related.
Try using "average dice" for stats, i.e. add 1 to each die if it's 1-3, and
subtract 1 if it's 4-6. This gives stats from 6 to 15, centered on 10-11,
which to me is a better range. Actually, you might just want to add one or
two to the total, depending on how high you want the average PC stat to be.
Also, when rolling for skills, you really only need to roll a couple until
you get some feel for how the character is shaping up, and then do it
manually from there. And if he's starting to look too wild, just start
over.
--
--
Tim Shippert ship...@tybalt.caltech.edu
Persons attempting to find a motive in this post will be prosecuted;
persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons
attempting to find a point in it will be shot. -M. Twain (paraphrased)
Walter Milliken
>As for mages walking around with 100 points of energy for spellcasting, no
>one I know is going to waste a character point on a charging band of Orcs,
>or even on moderately powerful opponents. They'll save it for duels of
>sorcery and trying to toast the main bad guy. Of course, if the bad guy is
>worth his salt, he'll blow a CP himself to keep up. Great for those
>cinematic campaigns...
You must have met different people than I have. I can see blowing one
character point in a single game, since most sessions net the
character more than one point. And 100 energy points goes a *long*
way for some spells. Try looking at Create Elemental, for example....
> A sword
>powerful enough to give a significant combat advantage can take 10 man
>years of work in official GURPS. Nobody spends ten man years on an item
>that can get blown away by a missed parry, so assume 10-20(!!) man years
>of effort. At prices charged for skilled labor, this is well over a
>million dollars or the equivalent.
I'm not sure what you mean by "significant combat advantage." I don't
recall a simple +1 as being *that* expensive. Though it's true that
the weapon enchantments are much less cost-effective than the armor
ones.
BTW, 10-20 mage-years costs about $100k-$200k by standard GURPS Magic
pricing. (10-20 * 365 * approx $25/mage-day)
>The result of such an insane price level in a typical
>medieval world would be that anyone carrying a magic item would be a
>constant target for thieves, assassins, etc.
If it gives the owner a significant advantage in power over most
people, that sounds perfectly reasonable. The basic item costs are
biased toward most magic items being rare. I suspect this might be a
reaction to the archetypical "Monty Haul" D&D campaign, where magic
items seem to grow on trees. If you want more common magic items, I'd
be much happier simply cutting the energy costs for items, rather than
making more energy available to mages.
> In short, I don't think Magic item creation passes anything
>like a Reality Check.
Uh... that would be a very good trick. Unless you've got access to
knowledge I don't....
---Walter
Steve Benz
> I don't think that anyone interested in developing characters with in-depth
> personalities should choose AD&D...
All around, the personalities of most of the characters I've played that
have ended up with "in-depth" personalities generally have little or nothing
to do with their skills, abilities, and talents. Oh, they might have
certain hangups that are related to their particular talents (i.e. having
an inferiority complex) but I really don't see level/skill advancement
mechanisms as having a terribly dramatic effect on a character's personality.
Consider it this way. Suppose the fantasy universes we create in our minds
were real, then the rule system we choose to build them upon would be the
natural laws of the that universe. Would the personalities of the inhabitants
of these worlds be inherintly stronger under one set of natural laws than
another?
- Steve
Ken Burnside
local mana level. Making it in a high mana area would DRASTICALLY reduce
the time and effort of making the thing. In a low mana area, they'd be
almost impossible to find.
Also, a sword that does only +1 to damage is MUCH more powerful in GURPS
than a sword that does +1 to damage in AD&D. Characters are much more
vulnerable to damage in GURPS.
As far as wizardly duels go...what self respecting wizard goes ANYWHERE
without a powerstone? Good powerstones (say about 3-5 power) are relatively
cheap in the Magic rules.
Also, considering that the base amount of money (approximately three months
accumulated savings) in Magic is only $1000, the $25 dollars/day for a wizard
is actually pretty close to reality. (This is assuming a wizard of about
15 skill...higher skill costs more. Lower skill probably isn't worth looking
into.)
Also...question for Walter: Will the Magery advantage help in detecting
invisible beings, or beings using items that grant invisibility? This came
up when we had a magically adept sneak theif skulking about...I know that
the magery advantage gives an IQ+Magery level roll to be able to detect
a magical item. Not what the item does...but that the item "tingles".
Ken Burnside
Ron Youngquist
I wrote:
>> I don't think that anyone interested in developing characters with in-depth
>> personalities should choose AD&D...
Steve Benz (ste...@cs.utexas.edu) replies:
>
>All around, the personalities of most of the characters I've played that
>have ended up with "in-depth" personalities generally have little or nothing
>to do with their skills, abilities, and talents...
>
>Consider it this way. Suppose the fantasy universes we create in our minds
>were real, then the rule system we choose to build them upon would be the
>natural laws of the that universe. Would the personalities of the inhabitants
>of these worlds be inherintly stronger under one set of natural laws than
>another?
An interesting question. However, aside from the answer, certain systems
allow, and indeed, encourage, better roleplaying by defining more than a
character's combat abilities and general associations. I'm not saying that
such definition cannot occur in AD&D, only that some other systems seem to
support it better.
I'm also an advocate of systems which allow a character options which are as
similar as possible to "real" options. This allows a player to come up
with creative solutions that could work in reality and are not hampered
by the technical details of the game. If you have an agreeable GM, he/she
may bend the rules for you, but it's nicer when he/she doesn't have to.
If the reality supported by the game rules is too different from the reality
we're accustomed to, there's either too much to learn, or too much of a
restriction on creativity.
Walter Milliken
>Actually...one modifier on the 20 Man-Year enchanted broadsword is the
>local mana level. Making it in a high mana area would DRASTICALLY reduce
>the time and effort of making the thing. In a low mana area, they'd be
>almost impossible to find.
No, I don't think so. About the only affect high mana would have
under the standard rules is to double the recharge rate for
powerstones. That moves the breakpoint of the cost curve up from
around 100 energy to around 200 energy. Much above that, though, and
the standard rules leave you back with $25/energy point. Probably
there ought to be *some* benefit to doing slow&sure enchantments in a
high mana zone, though.
>Also...question for Walter: Will the Magery advantage help in detecting
>invisible beings, or beings using items that grant invisibility? This came
>up when we had a magically adept sneak theif skulking about...I know that
>the magery advantage gives an IQ+Magery level roll to be able to detect
>a magical item. Not what the item does...but that the item "tingles".
I don't know why you're asking me -- I'm no more official than any of
the other GURPS players here on the net. But I'll take a stab at it
anyway.
The rule I use is that the IQ+Magery roll only works on enchanted
items. On a critical success, I might let it work for "permanent"
spells, as well. Creatures with natural (magical) invisibility would
*not* be detectable this way (though Detect Magic, Mage Sense, and
Mage Sight would pick up the aura of the spell itself). Someone with
an item that casts Invisibility? That's a bit tougher. I'd say not,
unless the item itself was directly visible to normal vision. Again,
the various Knowledge spells would work on it.
---Walter
Walter Milliken
>In article <55...@bbn.COM> mill...@bbn.com (Walter Milliken) writes:
>> [my grumbling about how useful 100 energy points would be]
>
>This is a good point. However, since virtually every adventure has several
>conflict points, and the magical energy points only stick around for a
>minute or so, it's very unlikely anyone will spend the point except in the
>most dire circumstances.
With the 1-minute restriction, it's *somewhat* less troubling, but
still nasty.
>After all, they may only get three CP in a given
>session, and there are usually at least three or four places where a
>potent spell might be handy.
True, but it does mean that once per game, at least, the mage might do
something *really* obnoxious. When I have the PCs outnumbered 10:1, I
want them to *think*, not cast a mega-spell. Gaming style difference,
I suppose....
>Elementals are an excellent example of how a
>lot of points might be spent, but the results are likely to be less than
>wonderful. Once control is lost, the problems caused by the elemental are
>likely to be greater than those averted.
Depend on where the PCs are. If they're in the middle of an orc camp,
they probably don't *care* what the elemental will do after the hour
is up. Also, as I play elementals as a GM, only fire elementals are
likely to be really troublesome if left loose.
>There's a simple fix for this problem, which is to balance it by adjusting
>the number of points gained per CP spent.
Yes, that would help. I think 100 is excessive -- I'd probably go for
30-50, if I wanted to do this at all.
>> BTW, 10-20 mage-years costs about $100k-$200k by standard GURPS Magic
>> pricing. (10-20 * 365 * approx $25/mage-day)
>
>Assume modern standards of education are necessary to become a wizard
>capable of enchantment. Perhaps an engineer? Then calculate a good
>engineer's salary and multiply by 20 years. Sound closer to a million? 1.5
>Million? If mages are rarer than engineers, then increase prices
>accordingly. The standard $25 per mage day is one of the more amusing
>aspects of the GURPS Magic rules.
No, it fits in fine with the rest of the job rules in Magic. If you
pay them more than that, all mages would be incredibly wealthy
relative to other characters. That doesn't (usually) fit the genre.
It's true that the prices would be a lot higher in the modern world.
I thought you were talking about prices in the context of the game
world. There's about an order of magnitude difference between $1 in
Magic and $1 in a modern (late 20th century) setting.
>> > In short, I don't think Magic item creation passes anything
>> >like a Reality Check.
>>
>> Uh... that would be a very good trick. Unless you've got access to
>> knowledge I don't....
>
>One can reality check anything that has analogies to the real world.
>Analogy is often suspect, of course, but what else do we have? So let's
>use the tool: How many highly skilled people work for $25 per day? How
>many people carry around $1,000,000 in highly portable wealth? How many
>people work for 20 years on a single project? How many people go into 20
>man-year projects on speculation?
OK, part of the problem is which $ we're using. Your $1,000,000 is
$100,000 in Magic (though the game-world effect is the same, either
way).
Now, let's look at a basic magic sword: +1 to hit, +1 to damage.
That's a pretty good sword in GURPS, actually. Both those
enchantments are 250 energy, or about 2/3 mage-year each. And it
works out to about $10,000 cost (in Magic terms). That's roughly
15-20 times the cost of a standard quality broadsword ($400-750). A
fine broadsword costs around $2500, and does +1 damage. Those figures
are taken from historical data, I believe, so they should be
reasonably accurate. It makes sense to me that a magical sword with
similar properties would cost somewhere in the same ballpark. And,
because of the breakage problem, you probably want to *start* with a
fine-quality weapon, if you can get one.
>I feel GURPS Magic really blows its reality check on questions like these.
>Sure, nobody knows the details of magic item construction. But we can
>examine the likelihood of anyone bothing with enchantment of items with
>some pretty simple economic checks.
True, the more powerful enchantments (anything above about 100-200
energy) don't get done much, as it stands. That's *fine* with me.
>So if no one gets to keep magical items, and they never get used except in
>ceremonies, and anyone who has one can expect to die in a few days or
>weeks, then GURPS Magic's item creation system passes reality checks.
If you're talking about the more powerful items, yes, exactly.
Trivial magic items (100 energy or less) are a lot more common,
though.
>If
>adventurers are actually allowed to hold on to the items, and they can be
>found in use during battle, on long trips from home, etc., then GURPS
>needs to tone down the price of the items.
If you want hot and cold running magic items in every household, cut
the energy cost by 10 or so. That will make most items *quite* cheap.
A factor of 2-3 reduction will make magic items *very* popular with
the nobles and other wealthy people, but the man on the street will
still only have "trivial" magic, probably.
Frankly, I like it the way it is -- probably a backlash reaction from
my AD&D days, where much of the power of charcters was due to what
they owned, and not so much due to their own abilities.
---Walter
Brett Slocum
>> BTW, 10-20 mage-years costs about $100k-$200k by standard GURPS Magic
>> pricing. (10-20 * 365 * approx $25/mage-day)
>
>capable of enchantment. Perhaps an engineer? Then calculate a good
>engineer's salary and multiply by 20 years. Sound closer to a million? 1.5
>Million? If mages are rarer than engineers, then increase prices
>accordingly. The standard $25 per mage day is one of the more amusing
>aspects of the GURPS Magic rules.
I think you forget that we are talking about a TL 3 economy here. You are
applying modern standards to a medieval setting. I think you fail the
reality check. The job rates given for mages puts them at the top of
the economic scale, with the exception of nobles and such. For the
time period, they are making an engineer's salary. Let's see.
$25/day times 600 years of inflation at a modest rate of 1%/year is
$150/day. Gee, I'm an engineer, and that's almost exactly what I make.
Gosh, maybe $25/day IS realistic.
>> > In short, I don't think Magic item creation passes anything
>> >like a Reality Check.
>>
>> Uh... that would be a very good trick. Unless you've got access to
>> knowledge I don't....
>
>One can reality check anything that has analogies to the real world.
>Analogy is often suspect, of course, but what else do we have? So let's
>use the tool: How many highly skilled people work for $25 per day? How
>many people carry around $1,000,000 in highly portable wealth? How many
>people work for 20 years on a single project? How many people go into 20
>man-year projects on speculation?
Well, what about the Free Software Foundation's GNU project. Here is
a project that is at least 20 person-years worth of work. Probably
more like 50. And what is the end result? An operating system that
they want to GIVE AWAY! Very little economic benefit here. But they
are getting donated time, donated engineers (from a Japanese computer
company), donated cash. People are devoted to this project, like no
other project I've seen for a LONG time. In a similar manner, a
group of dedicated ceremonial mages could take on a similar project,
if they thought someone was willing to pay in the end, or if they
could usee it for their own means. Since the $25/day is a reasonable
number, the resulting costs are more reasonable than you portray.
Now, I don't think that the GURPS Magic item creation system is perfect,
but I think you are exaggerating its faults.
--
Brett Slocum <uunet!hi-csc!slocum> or <hi-csc!slo...@uunet.uu.net>
Sip. SPIT! "DAMN good coffee ... and Hot, too!" -Agent Dale Cooper, Twin Peaks.
Kurt Piersol
writes:
> Gee, I'm an engineer, and that's almost exactly what I make.
> Gosh, maybe $25/day IS realistic.
Once upon a time, the idea in GURPS jobs and price tables was to have a
dollar be a dollar be a dollar. No matter what time you were in, no matter
where, a local "dollar" would give equivalent value. Notice, for instance,
how GURPS Horror had dollar prices for items listed in Victorian London.
This has since passed away, but I was attempting to apply it here. I was
speaking in relative terms, so those not familiar with the particulars of
GURPS Fantasy could understand. Let's put the issue of the particular
number to rest by agreeing that $25 medieval = $150 modern, and say that a
20 man year project = $150*365*20 Modern = $1,095,000 Modern = $182,500
Medieval. Agreed?
> >How many highly skilled people work for $25 per day? How
> >many people carry around $1,000,000 in highly portable wealth? How many
> >people work for 20 years on a single project? How many people go into 20
> >man-year projects on speculation?
>
> Well, what about the Free Software Foundation's GNU project. Here is
> a project that is at least 20 person-years worth of work. Probably
> more like 50. And what is the end result? An operating system that
> they want to GIVE AWAY! Very little economic benefit here. But they
> are getting donated time, donated engineers (from a Japanese computer
> company), donated cash. People are devoted to this project, like no
> other project I've seen for a LONG time. In a similar manner, a
> group of dedicated ceremonial mages could take on a similar project,
> if they thought someone was willing to pay in the end, or if they
> could use it for their own means. Since the $25/day is a reasonable
> number, the resulting costs are more reasonable than you portray.
Do you believe that the GNU implementors would be as dedicated if their
end user was a single individual who just wanted his own personal
operating system? Imagine further that there is going to be a single copy
of the OS, which might break irreplaceably if there happened to be a disk
failure. Yet further, that it would only work on the individual's personal
laptop machine. Beginning to sound less reasonable? Yet, doesn't this also
sound like the situation of a potent magic wand, staff, sword, or ring?
Subject to loss & breakage, easy theft, irreplaceable, and 20 man years of work. Who would ever build one?
Forget the value of the materials involved (which is irrelevant to the
energy costs we've been discussing), and name me some instances of 20 man
years of work going into a single item for use by a single individual.
Then tell me how many exist in private hands, as opposed to being held by
a government (and therefore 'benefitting' large numbers of people in
theory). Now make sure the item is also portable and concealable (like
most magic items in GURPS). Can you name a single thing? I certainly can't
name one right now. Even the crown jewels of England don't qualify, as they are really owned by the British government and people. The pleasure yachts of the super-rich might qualify, but really aren't nearly as stealable as most magic items. Maybe Faberge eggs? Nope, Karl Faberge (sorry, Karl, about the lack of accent marks ;-) ) turned them out in less than a year individually, although the materials were precious.
If nothing with these economic characteristics exists in the world today, does this constitute failure of a reality check?
Mark Luedtke
> However, aside from the answer, certain systems
>allow, and indeed, encourage, better roleplaying by defining more than a
>character's combat abilities and general associations. I'm not saying that
>such definition cannot occur in AD&D, only that some other systems seem to
>support it better.
Certain systems allow, and indeed, encourage, bnetter roleplaying by allowing
the player and GM (DM) the freedom to define more of a character's personality
without system dependant concepts. I'm not saying definition by the system is
bad, just that some systems allow greater freedom by not trying to tie people
into system concepts.
I think this is a silly discussion. Kind of like "which is better, a .45 or
9mm."
--
Mark Luedtke ma...@neptune.amd.com
This was typed by an infinite number of monkeys.
Bob Sloane
Followup-To: 1...@bbn.com> <4a26f5...@hi-csc.uucp>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 13
In article <4a26f5...@hi-csc.UUCP>, slo...@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum) writes:
> $25/day times 600 years of inflation at a modest rate of 1%/year is
> $150/day. Gee, I'm an engineer, and that's almost exactly what I make.
> Gosh, maybe $25/day IS realistic.
Hmmm. I think you might have forgotten to compound the inflation rate
here. My calculations show that $25 would grow to $9789.53 after 600
years of 1% inflation. Your salary would be increased by 1% of its
current value every year, not by 1% of $25. Perhaps you should ask for
a raise. :-)
--
USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045
E-mail: slo...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, slo...@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
Walter Milliken
>Once upon a time, the idea in GURPS jobs and price tables was to have a
>dollar be a dollar be a dollar. No matter what time you were in, no matter
>where, a local "dollar" would give equivalent value. Notice, for instance,
>how GURPS Horror had dollar prices for items listed in Victorian London.
>This has since passed away, but I was attempting to apply it here.
Actually, it really *hasn't* passed away. Simple things that are
available at all tech levels (basic food, drink, simple tools) do cost
pretty much the same. But starting *wealth* varies. The average
modern individual owns a lot more than one from TL3, simply because
the culture is, in some sense, wealthier, or at least more productive.
>Forget the value of the materials involved (which is irrelevant to the
>energy costs we've been discussing), and name me some instances of 20 man
>years of work going into a single item for use by a single individual.
Expensive cars would come close, and they're often stolen, though
they're not exactly portable in the sense you mean. I don't know how
many man-years go into making a Ferrari or a Rolls, but it's probably
a few. I doubt it's as high as 20, but then there are a lot of GURPS
magic items that take less than 3 man-years, including reasonable
magic swords.
I'd also wonder about some of the finely-crafted swords from Japan's
feudal period -- I have no idea how long it took to make them, but I
assume that it would be more than a few weeks.
Seems to me that some of the finest watches, still handmade, are in
the several man-year ballpark.
>Then tell me how many exist in private hands, as opposed to being held by
>a government (and therefore 'benefitting' large numbers of people in
>theory).
But feudal lords *were* a government. I seem to recall that they
weren't at all averse to spending tax money on expensive projects.
Your crown jewels example is a case in point. So if King Whoozis
wants a fancy magic sword, he gets one. No problem.
True, the average soldier will be lucky to get *anything* magical to
use. I don't find this to be a problem -- they often didn't get good
armor, either.
>If nothing with these economic characteristics exists in the world
>today, does this constitute failure of a reality check?
But such things do exist, e.g., the British crown jewels. You can't
say that excluding government spending silliness correctly reflects
reality either, can you?
---Walter
William Henry Timmins
One detail being neglected (concerning prices, etc.) is that most of
the players are middle to upper class citizens of industrial nations.
Ie- the prices, salaries, and standards of living that we are accustomed
to is much greater than the world average. This would be akin to playing
medieval GURPS, with all the characters being nobles.
I AM aware that there are wealth levels. One thing that confuses the
issue is that in ancient times wealth wasn't a matter of salary, for the
most part. It was usually (for the rich) land and treasure that the
person owned. Traders' wealth was measured in the gold they had
accumulated, and the routes that they traveled. Wealth is not simple.
-Lord Teka
-Violence is the last refuge of the royally pissed.