GURPS Supers Gripes (was Re: GURPS recommendations needed)
Dr Kromm
> -> The "Armored Creampuff" syndrome:
> Since DR costs considerably less than Hit Points, this leads to
> many cases where either you can't hurt an opponent at all, or he dies
> real fast. The sample characters all reflect this.
While I agree that the relative cost of DR and Extra Hit Points is one
of the great mysteries of GURPS, I am not sure that the idea of highly-
armoured but easily-damaged supers that results from it is necessarily a
bad thing. After all, *most* things designed to be used in combat have
tougher armour than guts (tanks, for example, or battleships). This is
an inevitable outcome of escalation in the deadliness of weapons, and I
personally find it comforting that supers, however cinematic, must still
abide by these same rules.
> -> Imbalance WRT Psionics and Magic:
> GURPS Psionics is neccessary to represent many essential powers
> in the setting and genre, but the 2nd Ed superpowers are much weaker
> than their psionic equivalents. (Psionics get many powers together,
> while superpowers must be bought up individually).
Hurm. In your opinion, I suppose. In *my* experience, this is not true.
In fact, I have found that PCs with X points of psionics tend to be
quite a bit *less* capable than PCs with X points in super powers. PK
power 20 costs 100 and lets you do 3d+2 with a TK attack; 100 points
would get you 15d or 16d with a conventional super-powered attack, and
though the TK avoids DR, a 15d attack really does so as well, and can
shoot *through* cover, while TK is LOS only.
> Using Magic is pretty much optional, but it is suggested as an
> option. Mages on 300+ points yields some very strange results. Some
> spells are pointless (ie. missles), while others are devastating if you
> buy up your fatigue for them (ie. Enslave).
*Shrug* What is your philosophical justification for supers being more
resistant to magic than "normals", though? IMHO, if a super has no Will
and cannot resist spells then that is the player's hard luck (and a bad
judgement call). You cannot blame the system for that, I am afraid.
> Dodges are either devastating or worthless in the system, depending
> on if you use the Contest of Skills optional rule. No medium option is
> provided. The cost of added Move/Dodge may be massively mispriced,
> depending on which optional rules you use: Extra Actions from Move makes
> it much more powerful; Dodge Contest of Skills makes it much less so.
Of course, both rules are *optional* and hardly merit slagging the whole
GURPS Supers book. The superpowers in GURPS Supers were balanced on the
assumption that one would be using the combat system in the Basic Set,
and if you proceed to start using all manner of weird and wonderful
optional rules, it is no great surprise that things do not work as well.
> -> Equipment:
> The use of equipment generally messes with balance. Especially with
> the inventing rules for ultratech equipment, gun-toting multi-millionaire
> characters can rapidly get out of hand.
This is a function of how you like to look at things. IMHO, if it is not
part of the *character*, it should not cost points. Equipment is not
part of the character, so too bad. You can argue the balance issue, but
I should point out that *anyone* can get equipment, so if superguy finds
that he is losing out to a "normal" with gear, perhaps he should go out
and get the same gear. Gear + superpowers >> gear alone, IMHO.
-Kromm
________________________________________________________________________
Dr Manfred Dieter Kromm | cx...@musica.mcgill.ca <- Peasant Mail
(aka Sean M. Punch) | pu...@ravel.physics.mcgill.ca <- NeXT Mail
McGill University |--------------------------------------------
High Energy Physics | "Why did you bore a hole in your head?"
Montreal, Quebec, Canada|"To let the people out." "You mean voices?"
| "No. People. Arms, legs - everything."
David Homerick
> In article <37khm9$f...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> > -> The "Armored Creampuff" syndrome:
> > Since DR costs considerably less than Hit Points, this leads to
> > many cases where either you can't hurt an opponent at all, or he dies
> > real fast. The sample characters all reflect this.
> While I agree that the relative cost of DR and Extra Hit Points is one
> of the great mysteries of GURPS, I am not sure that the idea of highly-
> armoured but easily-damaged supers that results from it is necessarily a
> bad thing. After all, *most* things designed to be used in combat have
> tougher armour than guts (tanks, for example, or battleships). This is
> an inevitable outcome of escalation in the deadliness of weapons, and I
> personally find it comforting that supers, however cinematic, must still
> abide by these same rules.
I think the idea here is that anyone can go out and buy DR, in the form
of armor. The Second Chance Hardcorps Vest with inserts has something
like DR 32 (I'm quoting from memory here) for a few hundred dollars or
so. Extra Hit Points are cheaper then high HT, and you can't simply
_buy_ a stronger body.
> > -> Imbalance WRT Psionics and Magic:
> > GURPS Psionics is neccessary to represent many essential powers
> > in the setting and genre, but the 2nd Ed superpowers are much weaker
> > than their psionic equivalents. (Psionics get many powers together,
> > while superpowers must be bought up individually).
> Hurm. In your opinion, I suppose. In *my* experience, this is not true.
> In fact, I have found that PCs with X points of psionics tend to be
> quite a bit *less* capable than PCs with X points in super powers. PK
> power 20 costs 100 and lets you do 3d+2 with a TK attack; 100 points
> would get you 15d or 16d with a conventional super-powered attack, and
> though the TK avoids DR, a 15d attack really does so as well, and can
> shoot *through* cover, while TK is LOS only.
GURPS Psionics is unfortunately designed around books like TO RIDE
PEGASUS and _not_ comic-book style superheros, so it has different
presumptions about what is powerful and what isn't. If you don't want
to flat-out limit certain kinds of powers, you might make them cost more
in UBK.
>> [deleted]
David Homerick cs06...@gaia.ecs.csus.edu
John H Kim
This is a listing of problems I had with _GURPS Supers_, in reply
to a request by Brian Phillips.
Brian Phillips <NCCU...@TWNMOE10.Edu.TW> wrote:
>Could some of the GURPS Supers bashers please spell out exactly whatever
>the hell is wrong with the rules as they stand now rather than giving us
>these blanket "it sucks" statements.
Well, I'll try to oblige...
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(1) POINT COSTS:
-> The "Armored Creampuff" syndrome:
Since DR costs considerably less than Hit Points, this leads to
many cases where either you can't hurt an opponent at all, or he dies
real fast. The sample characters all reflect this.
-> Imbalance WRT Psionics and Magic:
GURPS Psionics is neccessary to represent many essential powers
in the setting and genre, but the 2nd Ed superpowers are much weaker
than their psionic equivalents. (Psionics get many powers together,
while superpowers must be bought up individually).
Using Magic is pretty much optional, but it is suggested as an
option. Mages on 300+ points yields some very strange results. Some
spells are pointless (ie. missles), while others are devastating if you
buy up your fatigue for them (ie. Enslave).
-> Broken Dodges:
Dodges are either devastating or worthless in the system, depending
on if you use the Contest of Skills optional rule. No medium option is
provided. The cost of added Move/Dodge may be massively mispriced,
depending on which optional rules you use: Extra Actions from Move makes
it much more powerful; Dodge Contest of Skills makes it much less so.
In general, the optional rules screw up how the point costs work,
and no warnings are given concerning this.
-> Equipment:
The use of equipment generally messes with balance. Especially with
the inventing rules for ultratech equipment, gun-toting multi-millionaire
characters can rapidly get out of hand.
-> Other Guffaws:
In general, detailed balance seems broken. Laser gets impaling for
free compared to other attacks. Stacking the "Continuous" and "Rapid
Fire" enhancements leads to much more devastating and controlled attacks
for the same points. (Note: this is done by buying up skill in addition -
with +5 skill you will hit with a full burst when you only hit with one
shot before.)
I couldn't tell you other minutia from memory, but the powers are
full of them.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(2) OTHER RULES AND MATERIAL
In general, the book tries to cover everything from four-color
comics to "realistic" superpowers such as _Wild Cards_. As a result, I
think it does all of them poorly.
First of all, the mechanics are complex and horribly disorganized.
Between all of the various options, it is difficult to tell anything for
certain. Various Basic Set rules are overturned, but there is no central
listing of this. A classic IMO is the ridiculous rules for "Ice Damage",
which give laughable results if you actually try them.
Not enough thought is given to the effects of various optional
rules, such as handling of Dodge as a Contest of Skills mentioned above.
-*-*-
Its handling of four-color is simply unworkable, IMO. The mechanics
are way too complex for the fast-and-loose action required. The Stun rules
are generally poorly handled, IMO. The pure stun option is simplistic even
for most four-color (only hurt if you want to), while the other options are
of higher calculational complexity - again bad for the option.
-*-*-
The realistic side suffers mainly from balance, disorganized rules,
and source material (see below).
-*-*-
In general, I think they would have done much better to release
_Supers_ as a rules-oriented supplement like _Magic_. Then they could take
the space to rewrite the rules they needed to (including reference charts!),
and develop more balanced "packages" of optional rules. It could have
a short section on how to create characters from various fictional sources:
from Marvel to Wild Cards.
The IST world would be a supplement to itself.
And for a _decent_ realistic world (see below), they should
rerelease _GURPS Wild Cards_.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(2) SETTING:
This is a fairly personal opinion, but I found the IST world a
morass of contradictions. While claiming to be `realistic', it wallows
in all of the superhero cliches. It is certainly a more socially aware
comic book world, with attention being paid to politics, fashion, and
entertainment. Still, these are not exactly new in comic books
(cf. X-men and others).
In particular, the sample characters all seemed direct from
four-color. They are just as cheesy (if not moreso) than their mainstream
counterparts - complete with skintight suits, cheesy themes, and racist
characterizations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
TomGrant
use some kind of obvious gimmick (like the anti-psi crystals in GURPS
IST). A 500 point psi demolishes equivalent-level non-psi supers.
Another alternative is to place limits on how the character spends points
on psi, like limiting powers (only telepathy-based powers, up to a certain
point level) or demanding broad-based powers (one each from all psi
powers, preventing people from just spending points to get unstoppable
Telecontrol abilities).
Rodney Payne
good example of a realistic setting. I disagree: not only is it in and of
itself not realistic, its handling as a game book is even worse.
While the series dodges some of the `stranger' aspects of four colour
(which should now probably be called `computerised colour') comics, it has
its own problems. The stories, after the first book, rely too heavily on
coincidence. The characters, while they don't wear spandex and don't wax
melodramatic, are just as much four colour `heroes', with all the
associated one dimensional baggage, as Superman ever was. There is a clear
dichotomy between good and evil, which gets more and more silly as the
series progresses. Some of the suposedly `non supered powered' characters
have abilities bordering on the ridiculous (Yeoman), and some of the alien
societal ideas look better suited to Doctor Who than to a realistic universe.
The sourcebook only makes matters worse. It's the only one of the GURPS
range that I'd consider badly written. It provides almost no useful
mechanical information, and the source material is at best repeated from
the novels, and at worst badly in error (and this from one of the novel
authors). The writer (John J. Miller I think)) would have done well to have
had a better grounding in the GURPS rules.
The sourcebook takes the cinematic angle further, giving one character
Zen Archery, and suggesting the use of the cinematic fighting styles from
Supers and Martial Arts. This is not bad in and of itself, but the book
claims to be realistic. There are other cinematic items that I can't
remember off hand.
And a final point: the series may debunk a number of comics mainstays,
but it fails to lift itself above a sexist portrayal of women. Almost all
the female characters are `stunning', and are written from the point of
view of their physical appearance. The same standard is not applied to the
male characters.
If you want an example of realism, I'd suggest taking a look at some the
independant comic titles, especially the mature readers ones. Wild Cards,
for all its potential, just doesn't cut it (IMHO).
--
Rodney Payne | What is the meaning of life? Life has no
| meaning. It's just a fortunate coincidence
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | of carbon chemistry. Forget about it.
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | Anonymous
John H Kim
Some systems do not try for any sort of exact game balance. For
example, in _Heroes Unlimited_ you may (through choices and rolls) end up
with a much more powerful character than some others. A given giant
robot may just be more powerful than your alien. This is fine.
-*-
However, _GURPS Supers_ has a detailed point system where the
character is entirely designed by the player. Player's and GM's alike
often think that how many points a character has is a measure of his
effectiveness.
Thus, I think it is a problem when equal point characters are
highly different in effectiveness. Like it or not, many or most players
are motivated by character advancement and power. If the point system
is broken, players are arbitrarily discouraged from certain character
types and encouraged others.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
If the disparities were an intentional bias to represent a
particular setting or genre, then that would be one thing. For example,
I think that _GURPS Psionics_ works well to represent the "Masters of
Mind" genre of books like _Slan_ and movies like _Akira_, _Scanners_,
and _Firestarter_.
Psionics are intensely powerful, and the point system results in
many huge disparities of power - just like the source material (i.e. one
psionic can can blow up a car, the next more powerful one can blow up a
house). Psionics are virtually unstoppable except by other psionics and
by psionic-specific defenses.
This results in an unbalanced but flavorful system. It still has
problems certainly, but I think it works as simulating the above genre.
-*-*-*-
Unfortunately, I am nigh-certain that the flaws I mentioned in
_GURPS Supers_ are unintentional goofs rather than concious attempts
in developing a new genre: the armored creampuff syndrome; encouraging
normal gadgets while discouraging super-gadgets; the strange roles of
Psionics and Magic; and so forth.
Perhaps I lack some discerning esthetic eye, but I just don't
see this as coming together in a coherent whole. Is there some reason
to encouraged linked advantages by giving them away free? I don't
see it.
One can still have a fun game - but what is wrong with a system
where the points reflect the effectiveness of the characters? It seems
pointless to encourage these strange character types.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
[Regarding the issue of equipment...]
Dr Kromm <CX6...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> wrote:
>jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>> -> Equipment:
>> The use of equipment generally messes with balance. Especially with
>> the inventing rules for ultratech equipment, gun-toting multi-millionaire
>> characters can rapidly get out of hand.
>
>This is a function of how you like to look at things. IMHO, if it is not
>part of the *character*, it should not cost points. Equipment is not
>part of the character, so too bad. You can argue the balance issue, but
>I should point out that *anyone* can get equipment, so if superguy finds
>that he is losing out to a "normal" with gear, perhaps he should go out
>and get the same gear. Gear + superpowers >> gear alone, IMHO.
But things do not balance out in the end. Multi-millionaire
characters are encouraged, and in particular characters who interact well
with technology. For example, a flame-projector has little use for a
rifle, but a master teleporter of the same points can make deadly use of
grenades and other weapons.
It seems preferrable to me to allow the master teleporter, but
to somehow balance the points so that he costs in proportion to the
effectiveness of his powers.
In addition, this is a big problem if when you want to simulate
any of the source genres: from four-color to gritty comics to Wild Cards.
John H Kim
psionics. It is part of a larger concern of general game balance in
_GURP Supers_. I will address the larger issue in the next post, but
this point is particular is clear-cut enough that I wanted to get it
out of the way.
As I mentioned before, I gave the listing of faults I found with
_GURPS Supers_ in response to a request. I do think that the supplement
has merit, but there are problems. Describing those problems is useful
both as a warning to potential users and to facilitate discussion of how
to fix them.
Dr Kromm <CX6...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> wrote:
>jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>> -> Imbalance WRT Psionics and Magic:
>> GURPS Psionics is neccessary to represent many essential powers
>> in the setting and genre, but the 2nd Ed superpowers are much weaker
>> than their psionic equivalents. (Psionics get many powers together,
>> while superpowers must be bought up individually).
>
>Hurm. In your opinion, I suppose. In *my* experience, this is not true.
>In fact, I have found that PCs with X points of psionics tend to be
>quite a bit *less* capable than PCs with X points in super powers. PK
>power 20 costs 100 and lets you do 3d+2 with a TK attack; 100 points
>would get you 15d or 16d with a conventional super-powered attack,
Oh, please. This is a nonsensical comparison. I already said
that the strength of psionics is that you get many powers together. If
you want *only* damage-producing TK, it is *much* cheaper and *much*
nastier. First, look at what Power 20 Telekinesis gets you:
-> Flight at 500 MPH (This alone costs 120pts as a super-advantage).
As an option, 40 or so more points will give you a dodge of 16- by
buying up Levitation skill.
-> 60 ST force applicable at range, which can be used to instantly disarm
opponents, throw a person up to 24 yards, or strike for 7d-9d damage.
With skill, this can also be used for fine work.
-> An internal squeeze attack which with sufficient skill (cheap) can lock
on to any target in LOS and continue to do damage nigh-indefinately at
2d6 per turn.
-> The ability to heat and cool objects to extreme temperatures. As an
attack, this forces a person to roll HT-6 or lose 2 Fatigue, 1 DX, and
1 HT for each point he fails by - regardless of DR or Hit Points.
-*-*-*-
All this is the equivalent of many times its points worth in
superpowers. And remember that the costs of 16- skill is cheap in
comparison to superpower points (around 10pts or so usually - remember
that psionic skills are half the cost of superskills).
-*-*-*-
If you just want damage, 100 points will get you Power-50
Cryokinesis. This will force a roll of HT-25 vs. the shock effect,
averaging loss of 40 Fatigue, 20 DX, and 20 HT for a character with
15 HT - regardless of DR or Hit Points. That just doesn't even
compare. This can be maintained to reduce the target to a popsicle
in a few turns.
John H Kim
In an earlier article, I had the _Wild Cards_ GURPS sourcebook as
a more worthwhile effort towards a "realistic supers" world than the IST
world of _GURPS Supers_. I am not especially partial to the series as a
literary achievement, but it is at least an effort which has some market
appeal.
Rodney Payne <spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>The post I'm responding to made mention at some point that Wild Cards is a
>good example of a realistic setting. I disagree: not only is it in and of
>itself not realistic, its handling as a game book is even worse.
Oog. That would seem to refer to my post.
Sorry about the miscommunication. No, I don't think the Wild
Cards series was particularly realistic. I suggested it as an example of
a supers-genre series which was _more_ realistic than the IST world of
_GURPS Supers_.
The Wild Cards series is full of massive coincidences, plot holes,
and inaccuracies. Nevertheless, I was hard-pressed to think of a better
source for "realistic" supers-genre material. (_Watchmen_, for example,
has only one character with superpowers, so it is hard to count).
No, I am not an avid reader of independent comics. There may
well be better examples out there, I am sure. However, I am not so sure
that they would make a good, sellable GURPS sourcebook.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>The sourcebook only makes matters worse. It's the only one of the GURPS
>range that I'd consider badly written. It provides almost no useful
>mechanical information, and the source material is at best repeated from
>the novels, and at worst badly in error (and this from one of the novel
>authors). The writer (John J. Miller I think)) would have done well to have
>had a better grounding in the GURPS rules.
The mechanics are a mess, but then, so were the mechanics in first
edition _GURPS Supers_, which the sourcebook is based on. The _Supers_
mechanics often make it very difficult to represent certain powers,
and this is *especially* true of first edition.
Have a look at the adventure book _Aces Abroad_ for how Wild
Cards is handled in 2nd Ed _GURPS Supers_. There are still a lot of
kludges and such, but it is at least a more organized handling of the
mechanics.
>
>The sourcebook takes the cinematic angle further, giving one character
>Zen Archery, and suggesting the use of the cinematic fighting styles from
>Supers and Martial Arts. This is not bad in and of itself, but the book
>claims to be realistic.
Given the feats which Yeoman performed, I think that Zen Archery
is a fairly accurate depiction of the novels. Wild Cards does not claim
to be perfectly realistic, but rather to be representative of the stories.
The stories themselves are highly variable in their "realism",
given the multi-author nature of the series. The Wild Cards setting has
always been an excuse for a wide range of stories.
Benjamin Strother
Read the Watchmen series from DC, one of the best comics ever printed.
The Mayfair DC Heroes RPG has a Watchman book, but since the game is
out of print, It isn't easy to find. In Burbank, CA the Last Grenadier
sells both the Heroes game and the Watchman expansion.
Personally I use gamescience's Superhero 2044, and adapt elements from
comics I think are what inspired the whole genre, like Return of the
Dark Knight, The Watchmen, Days of Futures Past, Sin City, The Killing
Joke, etc.
All IMHO,
Ben Strother
bstr...@sol.usc.edu
Will G. Austin
Rodney Payne said:
>The post I'm responding to made mention at some point that Wild Cards is a
>good example of a realistic setting. I disagree: not only is it in and of
>itself not realistic, its handling as a game book is even worse.
I think you're tripping up on the term realistic here. The Wild
Cards series have more realistic elements than your average comic book,
such as the Takisian virus being essentially the root cause for paranormal
activity on a world much like ours (as opposed to people getting zapped by
radiation and developing powers not cancers). But this is only in
reference to standard comic-book fare.
> While the series dodges some of the `stranger' aspects of four colour
>(which should now probably be called `computerised colour') comics, it has
>its own problems. The stories, after the first book, rely too heavily on
>coincidence.
Like many works of fiction. . .
>There is a clear
>dichotomy between good and evil, which gets more and more silly as the
>series progresses.
Did we read the same series?? When I think of
characters as Golden Boy, Fortunato, and the Sleeper, I don't see clear
good and evil--as with most of the Wild Cards characters.
> The sourcebook only makes matters worse. It's the only one of the GURPS
>range that I'd consider badly written. It provides almost no useful
>mechanical information, and the source material is at best repeated from
>the novels, and at worst badly in error (and this from one of the novel
>authors). The writer (John J. Miller I think)) would have done well to have
>had a better grounding in the GURPS rules.
This I agree with. The sourcebook was horrible. But then again, I
feel that is a reflection of the weakness of GURPS Supers mechanics as a
whole. With horrible art as well.
> The sourcebook takes the cinematic angle further, giving one character
>Zen Archery, and suggesting the use of the cinematic fighting styles from
>Supers and Martial Arts. This is not bad in and of itself, but the book
>claims to be realistic. There are other cinematic items that I can't
>remember off hand.
Remember--we're dealing with super-powered metahumans. Cinematic
effects are to be expected with the subject matter. There's no way around
it.
> And a final point: the series may debunk a number of comics mainstays,
>but it fails to lift itself above a sexist portrayal of women. Almost all
>the female characters are `stunning', and are written from the point of
>view of their physical appearance. The same standard is not applied to the
>male characters.
Again, I have to question whether we've read the same books. I
don't feel the series was particularly sexist at all. In fact, from what I
recall, many of the female characters were far from `stunning'.
> If you want an example of realism, I'd suggest taking a look at some the
>independant comic titles, especially the mature readers ones. Wild Cards,
>for all its potential, just doesn't cut it (IMHO).
Again with the realism thing. But, you're right. If you want
*realism*, there are plenty of independent titles out there. If you want a
more realistic treament of superheroic comics, then Wild Cards does cut it.
YMMV due to the fact it's an ensemble series; the quality is highly
variable. But let's not convict it for being something it's not supposed to
be.
>Rodney Payne | What is the meaning of life? Life has no
> | meaning. It's just a fortunate coincidence
>spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | of carbon chemistry. Forget about it.
>rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | Anonymous
>
--
"All you need in this life are a tremendous sex drive and a tremendous ego.
Brains don't count for s*@t."
--an anonymous tavern poster
Timothy Toner
Jeff Kesselman <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Okay, my two cents:
>
>1) Wild Cards is based on the original editor's Champions world, in which
Actually, it's Superworld, a semilamented supes game from Chaosium.
--
than...@interaccess.com / "Want to go to Toner's after this?
DeathUrge, Master of Unknown \ I always like it."
Time and Space. / - John Constantine, _Hellblazer_
"It's a Zen thing. You wouldn't understand."
The Homeless Phantom
>The post I'm responding to made mention at some point that Wild Cards is a
>good example of a realistic setting. I disagree: not only is it in and of
>itself not realistic, its handling as a game book is even worse.
This is a joke, right?
Then again, maybe you're not. Maybe you mistook somebody calling it a
"realistic /supers/ setting" (emphasis mine) for somebody calling it a
"realistic setting." Big difference between the two.
> While the series dodges some of the `stranger' aspects of four colour
>(which should now probably be called `computerised colour') comics, it has
>its own problems. The stories, after the first book, rely too heavily on
>coincidence. The characters, while they don't wear spandex and don't wax
>melodramatic, are just as much four colour `heroes', with all the
>associated one dimensional baggage, as Superman ever was.
Pretty heavy accusations, especially considering they're not backed up with
any evidence. The Turtle is one-dimensional? Jay Ackroyd is one-dimensional?
What exactly do you call "deep"?
> There is a clear dichotomy between good and evil, which gets more and more
>silly as the series progresses.
The heroes of book two (about the Swarm and the Astronomer) include a pimp,
a vigilante killer, an alien stationed on Earth to see how profitable humans
could be for his bosses, and a robot who commits robberies to help his
creator live high on the hog (and who will eventually conspire to get said
inventor killed off.) One of the most prominent "good guys" in the current
series was also one of the most prominent "bad guys" in books 5-7.
That's a funny definition of "clear."
> Some of the suposedly `non supered powered' characters
>have abilities bordering on the ridiculous (Yeoman),
Agreed -- Yeoman is a Heroic human on the level of Batman or Doc Savage,
rather than, say, the protagonists of "Jurassic Park." Not that he isn't
/cool/, but I'd still have to concede that he's not a likely possibility.
Then again, nobody ever said Wild Cards had to be /exactly/ like Earth --
if it was, it wouldn't be Wild Cards. It wouldn't even be science fiction.
>and some of the alien societal ideas look better suited to Doctor Who than
>to a realistic universe.
This slam is only valid if you make the assumption that the entire /concept/
of a world with supers in it automatically disqualifies it as "realistic
supers", which is of course a paradox.
> The sourcebook only makes matters worse. It's the only one of the GURPS
>range that I'd consider badly written.
GURPS Supers itself? "Deathwish?"
> The sourcebook takes the cinematic angle further, giving one character
>Zen Archery, and suggesting the use of the cinematic fighting styles from
>Supers and Martial Arts. This is not bad in and of itself, but the book
>claims to be realistic. There are other cinematic items that I can't
>remember off hand.
No, it claims to be /more/ realistic than comic books.
> And a final point: the series may debunk a number of comics mainstays,
>but it fails to lift itself above a sexist portrayal of women. Almost all
>the female characters are `stunning', and are written from the point of
>view of their physical appearance. The same standard is not applied to the
>male characters.
Fortunato's first girlfriend in book 2 is plain. There are several dozen
female jokers just as repulsive as their male counterparts. Hannah from
One-Eyed Jacks isn't going to win a beauty contest. Neither is Maria Gambione
(from Down and Dirty and elsewhere). Even the women described as attractive
aren't supposed to be supermodels (Cody, Water Lily, various versions of
Legion, the girl Tach was jumped into, Patchwork ...) And as for being
written from the POV of their physical appearance, that's a load of bull.
> If you want an example of realism, I'd suggest taking a look at some the
>independant comic titles, especially the mature readers ones. Wild Cards,
>for all its potential, just doesn't cut it (IMHO).
I'm not sure whether you mean by independent titles stuff like "Love and
Rockets" or stuff similiar to Vertigo. The former is irrelevant and a
pointless comparison, the latter is just plain wrong.
Jeff Kesselman
Timothy Toner <than...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>In article <jeffpkCx...@netcom.com>,
>Jeff Kesselman <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Okay, my two cents:
>>
>>1) Wild Cards is based on the original editor's Champions world, in which
>
>Actually, it's Superworld, a semilamented supes game from Chaosium.
>
jk
John Cooper
>While I agree that the relative cost of DR and Extra Hit Points is one
>of the great mysteries of GURPS, I am not sure that the idea of highly-
>armoured but easily-damaged supers that results from it is necessarily a
>bad thing. After all, *most* things designed to be used in combat have
>tougher armour than guts (tanks, for example, or battleships). This is
>an inevitable outcome of escalation in the deadliness of weapons, and I
>personally find it comforting that supers, however cinematic, must still
>abide by these same rules.
Depends on the superhero genre in question. For a street-level game
(ala Watchmen, Daredevil, Batman, etc.), the heros are not so tough. The
characters in this genre don't have a lot of DR to begin with, and they
can often be built as "normals" with a few special abilities (super
toughness not generally being one of them). The failure of the rules
to handle super-toughness properly will not be noticed by gamers playing
in this genre (and my guess is that this is the only comic book sub-genre
that realism-o-philes will touch).
OTOH, Four-color comic book Bricks are not created this way. Colossus,
the Thing, the Hulk, etc.; they can take a lot of punishment, but when
they get hit with something that "hurts" them (i.e., something that gets
through their "armor"), they get stunned and little more. They do not
die or bleed or suffer from broken bones. To put it simply, comic book
superheros with a lot of "armor" (even in the form of hardened skin and
such) never take HT damage, only Stun damage. GURPS Supers (like GURPS
in general) is not well-suited to four-color superhero gaming, and this
is one reason why.
>Of course, both rules are *optional* and hardly merit slagging the whole
>GURPS Supers book.
It was my impression that no one weakness meritted "slagging" the whole
book. But all the weaknesses (some small, some large) added together
meritted severe criticism.
>This is a function of how you like to look at things. IMHO, if it is not
>part of the *character*, it should not cost points. Equipment is not
>part of the character, so too bad. You can argue the balance issue, but
>I should point out that *anyone* can get equipment, so if superguy finds
>that he is losing out to a "normal" with gear, perhaps he should go out
>and get the same gear. Gear + superpowers >> gear alone, IMHO.
But by genre convention, not everyone uses equipment, availability
notwithstanding. Wolverine does not see the Punisher and think, gee if
only I had a gun!
Like I've said before, Dr. Doom is a 700-point GURPS Supers character
with lots of equipment. The fact that he has armies of robots, several
secret bases, fleets of special vehicles, and a nearly unlimited supply
of weapons counts for nothing in terms of points. There is something
inherently absurd in showing someone Dr. Doom's write-up and stating,
"Cool, eh? And he's only 700 points!"
Okay, fine. My 500-point character buys Filthy Rich, has his own
island fortress, a base in orbit, and the equivalent of the Batmobile,
Batcopter, Batplane, and Bat'mecha. But hey, he's only 500 points!
This is a clear case of a "point system" only going half the distance.
-John
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| John R. Cooper | Internet: j...@vivitech.com, |
| Vivid Technologies, Inc. | jco...@world.std.com |
| Waltham, MA 02154 | AOL: JRCooper (jrco...@aol.com) |
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| | GCS/O d H s g+ p? au>+ a- w v++ C++$ U-- |
| "Rub her feet." | P- L- 3- E N+ K++ W++ M++ V -po+ Y+ t++@ |
| - Long's Notes | 5 j R+++$ G' tv@ b+ D+ B--- e++ u** h--- |
| | f+ r++ n->+ y+++*>$ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jeff Kesselman
1) Wild Cards is based on the original editor's Champions world, in which
most of the first authors were players (I read thsi somewhere and can dig
up the reference if necessary.) As such, you have to EXPECT it to read
like a bunch of good authors playing Champions, which I think it does,
particularly the first coupel of boosk with their multi-charatcer focous.
2) The project was not to produce 'realistic super-heros'. Thsi woudl be
like trying to produce harrmless-plutonium :)
The project was, given a quick and dirty sci-fi explenation for 4 color
heros, what would our world hav been like if they had realy existed? i
happpen to think they did an EXCELLENT job of this. I believe the
characters as real people, with real probloems.
3) Not every woman is described as gorgeous with a '4-color-figure'.
take for example the Indian woman who coudl form change into an elephant
in the over-seas book. Yes, the AMERICAN female aces are described thsi
way. Thsi makes 100% sense given the explaination fo the wildcard virus,
and american culture. The virus as explained re-builds the body under
direction fo the sub-concious. The reason Aces are so rare is because
very few people really have good self-images. Someone with a very good
self image however, WOUDL rebuild themselves according to what society
says in 'good'. Like it or not, in our society, attractiveness (and
youth) are VERY important qualities in women, more so than in men. This
is the signal we get all the time we are growing up. Note that the
female Jokers are NOT so lucky, in fact they tend to be on the hiddeous
side.again, this makes perfect sense. If anything, i thin kyou can take
this as commentary on the expectations of society.
Jeff Kesselman
Howler Monkey
Apparently being the only person in the world who prefers GURPS Supers to
just about any other superhero game, I will take up the cudgels here, not to
flame, but to provide tips as to solving the problems perceived in GURPS
Supers.
> OTOH, Four-color comic book Bricks are not created this way. Colossus,
>the Thing, the Hulk, etc.; they can take a lot of punishment, but when
>they get hit with something that "hurts" them (i.e., something that gets
>through their "armor"), they get stunned and little more. They do not
>die or bleed or suffer from broken bones. To put it simply, comic book
>superheros with a lot of "armor" (even in the form of hardened skin and
>such) never take HT damage, only Stun damage. GURPS Supers (like GURPS
>in general) is not well-suited to four-color superhero gaming, and this
>is one reason why.
First off, there are cinematic rules for this (for instance, the Stun
damage rules) which permit characters to take vast amounts of damage and
survive without permanent physical damage. There are a number of ways you
can use Stun: any gun, knife, or obviously lethal atack could take entirely
off of HT; or half HT, half Stun; or 1/4:3/4, or whatever else. Make it an
Unusual Background Cost: uses Stun rules (100 pts? 150?)
Or the really obvious option, just buy lots of HT/Extra Hit Points and the
Hard To Kill advantage. Cost too much? Sure, it's expensive, but most tanks
don't shrug off self-forging warheads. Why should your PC?
> It was my impression that no one weakness meritted "slagging" the whole
>book. But all the weaknesses (some small, some large) added together
>meritted severe criticism.
Depends on which weaknesses you use and which you don't. If you want to put
together a set of the worst optional rules, then you will get a mess,
obviously.
> But by genre convention, not everyone uses equipment, availability
>notwithstanding. Wolverine does not see the Punisher and think, gee if
>only I had a gun!
No, he doesn't - because he has claws, an adamantium skeleton, incredible
fighting ability, and Hard To Kill +a billion or so. Equipment is not
always a substitute for natural ability in the comics - but then again,
GURPS Supers does not try to emulate four-colour comics. It tries to emulate
"realistic" (or perhaps a better term, logically consistent) comics. If
your opponent does not have a ranged attack (i.e. a gun) and you do, you
have a distinct tactical advantage. In four-colour comics, this is
irrelevant. In "realistic" comics, it is not.
> Okay, fine. My 500-point character buys Filthy Rich, has his own
>island fortress, a base in orbit, and the equivalent of the Batmobile,
>Batcopter, Batplane, and Bat'mecha. But hey, he's only 500 points!
>This is a clear case of a "point system" only going half the distance.
Let's see... your character goes down to the local Dr. McQuark's, I take it,
and drops by the Secret Bases Department, the Automotive Miracles
department, Transportation Specialties Dpeartment, and the Giant Robotic
Instrument o' Death department?
Come on. This is complete tripe and a fallacy besides. Wealth only permits
you to buy things that are easily and readily available in the real world.
If you want an island fortress, fine. Buy the island with your cash.
Islands being what they are, this will cost a fair bit, not to mention that
there really aren't that many big islands for sale in the world. Now pay
the immense cost to truck the construction crews out there to build the
whole mess, pay character points according to the Gadgeteering rules to
build anything that isn't real-world tech (like that force field generator,
the blaster cannon batteries, and the stealth field that keeps the island
hidden from satellites...) - you'll get limitations galore because you can't
carry the stuff around, but there are no 1pt/50 pt. cost breaks in _this_
game...
As for the orbital base, well... you'll need pretty large Connections/Allies/
Patrons/etc. to get access to a Space Shuttle, then *even more* cash to hire
and train a construction crew to work in microgravity (running out of cash
yet?). Again, buy anything that isn't real-world tech with character
points - and that "head of a multinational conglomerate" trick won;t save
you, 'cause you'll have to pay points for big time Status, Allies, Contacts,
Patron, etc. to keep that up.
Now, the Bat-mobile, -plane, and -copter are the same thing. Unless they're
just black-gloss models of a '54 Charger, a Lear, and a Bell JetRanger, you
have to pay points for anything that isn't standard equipment.
Don't get me started on the mecha.
(700 points for Dr. Destroyer.... sheesh. I'd like to meet the idiot who did
_that_ conversion.)
-Chris
Howler Monkey
Dr Kromm
<CX6...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>>I should point out that *anyone* can get equipment, so if superguy finds
>>that he is losing out to a "normal" with gear, perhaps he should go out
>>and get the same gear. Gear + superpowers >> gear alone, IMHO.
>But by genre convention, not everyone uses equipment, availability
>notwithstanding. Wolverine does not see the Punisher and think, gee if
>only I had a gun!
Hurm. I think that I have made my views on genre conventions pretty
clear in the past, however. Quite simply, I do *not* like them and I do
*not* subscribe to them. Gaming is a separate and distinct medium all of
its own and it should not be a slave to the conventions of some other
medium, like fantasy fiction, comic books or pulp movies. It is separate
art and should be forward-looking and progressive. IMHO, if Wolverine
does not use a gun, fine, but Wolverine is a comic book character, which
is quite different from an RPG character. At least in my games, if a PC
is so arrogant that (s)he thinks a gun is unnecessary, even when almost
everyone else has one, fine. In my game, though, I set the conventions,
not the genre. I think that to refuse to carry a gun into a dangerous
situation where other people have guns is just stupid, and I make sure
that the reality of my game world reflects this. It really matters very
little to me that Miller or Lee or whoever does not write comics that
way.
>Like I've said before, Dr. Doom is a 700-point GURPS Supers character
>with lots of equipment. The fact that he has armies of robots, several
>secret bases, fleets of special vehicles, and a nearly unlimited supply
>of weapons counts for nothing in terms of points. There is something
>inherently absurd in showing someone Dr. Doom's write-up and stating,
>"Cool, eh? And he's only 700 points!"
Two points, here. First, let me make it clear that I do not object
to charging a character points for the wealth, technical know-how and
influence necessary to obtain and use exceptionally rare and powerful
gear. What I *do* object to is charging a character points for plain,
old, mundane junk that *anyone* could go out and buy. Kevlar vests and
30-06 rifles should cost dollars, not points. If some dimwit refuses
to wear Kevlar to a gun fight when the armour is freely available to
all, then I do not feel sorry for him. Arrogance like that can get one
killed. I do agree that weird junk that is not available at any price
*should* cost points - and it *does* in GURPS! You need the Wealth, High
Technology and Gadgeteer advantages to have weird gadgets like blasters
at TL 7, and you must dish out character points to buy superpowered gear
like a Ring of Invisibility.
Second, I severly doubt that Dr Doom could be built on 700 points.
I mean, the IQ 20 would cost 175 points, the High Technology advantage
adds 100 points, the Gadgeteer advantage is a further 25 points and then
Filthy Rich plus about 5 levels of Multimillionaire ($150 billion, which
is barely enough, IMHO) is a final 175 points. That is 475 points just
to have the tech, brainpower and resources to build his gear. Some of
his gear (e.g., his armour) is super-gadgetry, which also costs points.
Then he has to pay for the armoury, scientific and engineering skills,
which would easily be 100 more points. He has decent physical stats, for
another 100 points. That is 675-700 points right there. All those super-
powered flunkies and robots would rate as Allies and an Ally Group worth
150-200 points more, putting him into the 800-900 point range. Plus the
"fleshing out" advantages like Strong Will, Psionic Resistance, Eidetic
Memory, Mathematical Ability, Lightning Calculator, Intuition, etc. If
a player could give me a believable Doom for less than 1000 points, I
would be surprised.
IMHO, 1000 points seems quite reasonable for Dr Doom.
>Okay, fine. My 500-point character buys Filthy Rich, has his own
>island fortress, a base in orbit, and the equivalent of the Batmobile,
>Batcopter, Batplane, and Bat'mecha. But hey, he's only 500 points!
>This is a clear case of a "point system" only going half the distance.
Well, I think that Filthy Rich hardly cuts it. In any reasonable
game, the bases in orbit and on the island alone will cost *trillions*
of dollars. That looks like Filthy Rich plus 6 or 7 levels of the
Multimillionaire advantage, for 200+ points right there. You will need
an Ally Group to maintain all of that junk, for another 100-200 points.
You will likely need a ton of administrative skills and technical skills
yourself, which will cost 50 to 100 points. Some social advantages will
be mandatory unless you live in a vacuum. We have not even touched on
the PC himself, who is still a ST 10, DX 10, HT 10 wimp with no combat
or investigative skills. How can you say that the 400-500 points that
this will cost is "not enough"?
-Kromm
--
Dr Manfred Dieter Kromm | E-mail: | 1245 Rue Amherst
(a.k.a. Sean M. Punch) | pu...@ravel.physics.mcgill.ca | Montreal, Quebec
o---------/o\-----------o kr...@io.com | Canada H2L 3K9
/___\ | cx...@musica.mcgill.ca |
GURPS Illuminatus | pu...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca | Work: (514) 398-6506
and Q&A Meister | | Home: (514) 521-4667
George Novodvorsky
: In article <1994Oct20....@vivitech.com> j...@vivitech.com (John Cooper)
: >In article <14OCT94.16...@VM1.MCGILL.CA> Dr Kromm
: <CX6...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
: >>I should point out that *anyone* can get equipment, so if superguy finds
: >>that he is losing out to a "normal" with gear, perhaps he should go out
: >>and get the same gear. Gear + superpowers >> gear alone, IMHO.
: >But by genre convention, not everyone uses equipment, availability
: >notwithstanding. Wolverine does not see the Punisher and think, gee if
: >only I had a gun!
: Hurm. I think that I have made my views on genre conventions pretty
: clear in the past, however. Quite simply, I do *not* like them and I do
: *not* subscribe to them. .... At least in my games, if a PC
^^^^^^^^^^^
: is so arrogant that (s)he thinks a gun is unnecessary, even when almost
: everyone else has one, fine. In my game, though, I set the conventions,
: not the genre. I think that to refuse to carry a gun into a dangerous
: situation where other people have guns is just stupid, and I make sure
: that the reality of my game world reflects this. It really matters very
: little to me that Miller or Lee or whoever does not write comics that
: way.
Well gosh, let's follow that logic a bit. In _my_ games all the characters
_do_ have have an arbitrary number stencilled on their foreheads which
reflects their "experience" (a term widely used in bars), the world
_is_crowded to the rafters with mad wizards whose sole passion in life is
to dig out underground labyrinthsend stock them with monsters, the
atmosphere _is_ the approximateconsistency of molasses so that it takes a
full minute to swing a sword, and the gods really _have_ decreed that
everyone who has slaughtered enough of the above monsters so that the
number on their forehead gets high _can_ survive a fall from orbit and walk
away. Therefore, I decree that D&D (TM&R) is the one true system, and
anyone who claims that it does not simulate the game the way that they want
to play it can go try to benchpress the complete works of E.Gary.G. (TM&R)
until the nausea gets to them.
1) We are here to flame or defend GURPS Supers, the system, not just its
suitability for one very specific style of play. Any game that calls
itself (and I quote) "The Generic Universal Role Playing System (TM&R)",
had darn well better be generic and universal. The argument isn't that
no-one _can_ make a playable GURPS Supers campaign, a good enough GM can
run "Tunnels and Trolls" and make the players like it, but that the system
doesn't do what it alleges to do: provide a Generic Universal (TM&R) Supers
game.
2) Will even Dr. Kromm argue that the overwhelming majority of people do in
fact think of superheroes "the way that Miller or Lee or whoever" write
them, and not just the way that they are portrayed in Dr. Kromm's (sorry,
TM&R) Campaign, no matter how fine that might be?
3) Therefore, GURPS Supers still remains flamebait.
4) Hurm.
George.
These opinions are held by myself and Devon J. Null, the well known
net.personality. Mail all flames to /dev/null, your system (yes, he has an
account there).
John H Kim
_GURPS Supers_. There are two issues here IMO - and neither of them
is whether Dr. Doom is 700 vs 1000 points, or how much an orbital
station should cost.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
1) Genre Simulation
Despite what some other posters have said, _GURPS Supers_ *does*
claim to work as a simulation of four-color comics. And if you want to
have any hope of simulating four-color, then you need to take genre
conventions into account. Thus, either there is a problem with the claim,
or there is a problem with the system.
Dr Kromm <pu...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> If you dislike GURPS Supers and have valid criticisms of it, flame away.
>Just be sure to compare it to other superhero games, not to the depiction of
>superheroes in comics, and please argue for or against the product on the
>basis of its own merit (or lack thereof), not on the basis of whether all
>of GURPS is truly generic and universal or not.
Kromm, I hate to burst your bubble - but just because this problem
is not something you personally care about does not mean that it is
an invalid criticism. If _GURPS Supers_ had claimed solely to cover
the genre of "realistic supers", then perhaps you would have a point.
But it doesn't.
And like it or not, GURPS Basic comes into any discussion of _GURPS
Supers_, since _Supers_ depends on basic rules for play. If, say, aspects
of the basic rules don't work for super-characters, and they are not fixed
in _GURPS Supers_, then that is a problem with the supplement.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
2) General Balance
The other issue is the cost of advantages like multi-millionaire,
gadgeteering, and so forth. As I see it, money and access are way too
cheap on the supers scale - such that it is easy for the supposedly
"super" powers to be overshadowed by the normal gadgets.
I know about this from running my own "realistic supers" game
(using HERO). The PC's slowly got their act together, gathered resources,
and pretty soon many of the superpowers became irrelevant. What is the
point of having a lightning bolt when other can do more damage with their
automatic rifles and grenade launchers? And what happens when Portal
starts bringing in Hellfire missle launchers with his powers?
IMO, _GURPS Supers_ excacerbates this problem by allowing for
relatively easy access to this sort of equipment from the start. With
400-500pt heroes, it is easy to be a multimillionaire who not only can
get ridiculous equipment - but can also supply it to everyone else
in the party.
This can be a problem even without having a specialized Gadgeteer
who has access to TL8+. Modern-day military and other gear can still be
devastating in a world of 400-500pt supers. Grenades, assault rifles, or
even elephant guns and such can tear through defenses such as those in
the IST world. Armor, vehicles, scopes, electronics, and more can further
emphasize this. With a specialized gadgeteer you have TL8+ stuff which
is even more out of hand.
-*-*-*-
Dr Kromm <pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA > wrote:
>I do agree that weird junk that is not available at any price *should*
>cost points - and it *does* in GURPS! You need the Wealth, High Technology
>and Gadgeteer advantages to have weird gadgets like blasters at TL 7, and
>you must dish out character points to buy superpowered gear like a Ring
>of Invisibility.
IMO the problem is that these do not cost _enough_ (with the
exception of super-equipment, which if anything is too expensive).
You don't need blasters. A Barrett model 82 does 13d with good
Accuracy. A super would have to pay 80+ points for that kind of
damage - and he would feel pretty silly if he did, since everyone else
gets that kind of damage for free.
IMO, a super should be able to buy a blasting-type power without
feeling cheated. Your opinion may vary...
Dr Kromm
writes:
> I disagree with both your point and your analogy. The tools of literary
> criticism can be used to evaluate motion picture (though using such tools to
> find 'entertainment value' is problematic).
Yes, well, my very point was that the tools of literary *analysis* (not,
strictly speaking, criticism alone) are not terribly useful for evaluating the
entertainment value of a movie. I think that my analogy is a good one, and I
will stand by it.
> My point however, is that the conventions of fiction, myth, film, and comics
> largely influnce the way many people play these games.
I did not really deny this, though, did I? Throughout my post, I made it
clear that everything that I was saying was "in *my* humble opinion" and that
my observations were based solely on the data that I had gleaned from *my*
gaming experiences in the past. All that I really wanted to do was bring up an
alternative viewpoint. Almost by definition, alternative viewpoints are not
viewpoints that are held by ". . . many people . . .".
> a wholesale rejection of all established genres will only alienate a large
> number of players.
I reject the majority of genre *conventions* but I do not reject the
genres themselves - sorry if that was not very clear. I still use the fantasy
genre, the horror genre and so forth, for example. I just like to maintain the
physical trappings of these genres (e.g., magic swords in fantasy, sharp garden
implements in horror) without constraining my players' choice of personalities
to "stock" genre archetypes when designing their characters and without
constraining my own artistic freedom to "stock" genre plots when designing a
plotline.
> thus making a discussion of GURPS Supers' relation to comic book conventions
> relevant to many people's evaluation of that product
Fair enough. However, GURPS Supers is quite openly (I think) a book that
at best touches on the fringes of the classic comic book genre, and it bothers
me to see people saying things like, "Well, GURPS Supers' treatment of
equipment sucks because it does not reproduce the view towards equipment that I
see in the X-Men." It is sort of like taking GURPS Space - a fine supplement,
but one which is realism-biased like GURPS Supers - and saying that it is
dreadful jsut because it does not do Star Trek very well. A valid point,
inasmuch as the observation is valid, but who ever claimed that simulating
comics - or Star Trek - was ever a goal of GURPS?
> You seem to be authoritatively setting boundaries on this discussion.
Heck, I was the one who changed the subject line, so I wanted to set the
boundaries on the new subject of discussion to justify it. It really is pretty
standard Usenet protocol to set certain limits on a new discussion that you
personally have started.
> please do not tell me I can't discuss it in this forum.
I didn't. Perhaps, though, if you want to discuss the merits of comic book
"reality" in superhero games, you should start another thread to this effect.
Dr Kromm
writes:
> Dr Kromm (pu...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca) wrote:
> "Huh? Well, I truthfully cannot see what it is that you are trying to say
> here, George. All that *I* said in my earlier post was that I *personally*
> dislike it when "genre conventions" are cut from other media (such as novels,
> movies or comics) and then pasted wholesale into RPGs. I went on to say that,
> IMHO (with extra emphasis on the M, there), using non-gaming-native genre
> conventions to judge whether or not a given game is "up to scratch" is
> questionable."
> Could you please clarify this point? Are you saying that GURPS Supers
> and Champions should not be judged by the genre they are trying to
> simulate? In other words, GURPS Humanx should not be judged by how
> well it allows you to simulate the Humanx setting, correct?
You have missed my point entirely, I think. I am arguing that GURPS Supers
*is not* ". . . trying to simulate . . ." a genre. I am saying that GURPS
Supers presents a unique and refreshing perspective on superheroes, one that
tries to get away from Spandex tights and goody-goody, B&W, good versus evil
conflicts. If GURPS Supers does not do comics well, but does present a workable
view of superheroes that is interesting in its own right, then I feel that it
is still a good supplement.
For the record, if GURPS Humanx did a lousy job of simulating Humanx but
nevertheless presented a really good, consistent world for roleplaying, then it
should still be considered to be a good gaming supplement, IMHO. As far as I
can tell, we are arguing whether or not GURPS Supers is a good gaming
supplement (rules-wise, presentation-wise and so on), not whether or not it
presents a good framework for simulating comic book reality.
Dr Kromm
> Kromm, I hate to burst your bubble - but just because this problem
> is not something you personally care about does not mean that it is
> an invalid criticism. If _GURPS Supers_ had claimed solely to cover
> the genre of "realistic supers", then perhaps you would have a point.
Let me put it another way, then. People seem to have taken great pride in
dragging the rest of GURPS into this discussion, despite my claim that this is
quite inappropriate. As an example, I will quote you, John, "...GURPS Basic
comes into any discussion of _GURPS Supers_...". Fine. Then I hope you are
willing to concede that the GURPS system in general has always been openly
realism-oriented and by-and-large non-cinematic, so it is perhaps not really
surprising that its Supers supplement also has this bias. I would further argue
that any GURPS player would know enough to expect this.
It seems contradictory to me for anyone to first claim that all of GURPS
has a bearing on GURPS Supers, but to then turn around and criticize GURPS
Supers for having so many of the traits of the GURPS system. Either exclude the
rest of the system from the discussion and judge GURPS Supers on its own merit,
or else include the rest of the system in the discussion and just accept the
fact that its biases will also extend to Supers.
> As I see it, money and access are way too
> cheap on the supers scale - such that it is easy for the supposedly
> "super" powers to be overshadowed by the normal gadgets.
So what? I am not clear why this is suddenly a big deal in a supers game.
For sure, guns do more damage than my 100-point "realistic" martial-artist's
fists, cars let people move faster than he can run and body armour lets a total
physical slob eat more damage than he can. If he suddenly becomes a 500-point
"super" martial-artist, these disparities are greatly reduced in significance
and effect, not increased. Why is equipment such a big deal in a supers
setting?
> I know about this from running my own "realistic supers" game
> (using HERO). The PC's slowly got their act together, gathered resources,
> and pretty soon many of the superpowers became irrelevant.
Yes. Superpowers are meant to be things that normal people cannot do all
on their own. At least my own definition of superpowers applies only to the
relative capabilities of two people who are naked and cut off from support.
Technology is, by definition almost, a great equalizer. It is a tool and a
weapon for combatting adversity. If it can overcome a good many of the forces
of nature, why should mere human-scaled superpowers be superior to it?
> What is the
> point of having a lightning bolt when other can do more damage with their
> automatic rifles and grenade launchers?
Oh, I don't know. Unlimited ammo? Completely undetectable by sensors and
security staff? Never jams or breaks? Does not cost you a cent to own or
operate? Cannot be taken away from you? Circumvents many of the defenses
designed to work against solid, conventional projectiles? A lot more unusual
and hence flashier and more impressive than a gun?
Rating superpowered attacks in dice of damage and then comparing them to
firearms seems rather pointless to me. Superpowered attacks are not impressive
for their sheer destructive power, they are impressive because they are
extraordinarily rare and are inherent to a character when 99.9999% of *other*
characters have no such capability.
> Modern-day military and other gear can still be
> devastating in a world of 400-500pt supers. Grenades, assault rifles, or
> even elephant guns and such can tear through defenses such as those in
> the IST world. Armor, vehicles, scopes, electronics, and more can further
> emphasize this.
Hold on, now. This kind of gear is normally the sole purview of
governments and armies. Is not generally available to the public, and in many
places, possession of such things is grounds for arrest and even summary
conviction. Right off the top, most of the best technological "equalizers" are
largely unavailable and are illegal to own, greatly increasing the value of
"built-in" superpowers.
Secondly, almost all of the technological items that you name require a
skill to operate them, so even if you buy the gear with dollars, you need to
spend character points on expensive physical skills to use any of it properly.
Finally, all of this gear is subject to breakage, loss and theft - while
superpowers are immune to all of the above. Then there is the issue of
maintenance . . .
IMHO, equipment is so limited as to be laughable. Sure, it can be powerful
and highly effective in an ideal situation where you happen to have the gear
and it is all in working order *and* you are trained to use it. This value of
this raw power is heavily attenuated by all of the inherent difficulties in
holding onto it and using it, though.
> You don't need blasters. A Barrett model 82 does 13d with good
> Accuracy. A super would have to pay 80+ points for that kind of
> damage - and he would feel pretty silly if he did, since everyone else
> gets that kind of damage for free.
Huh? You are saying that every character in your game would be allowed to
own a $10,000+, limited-run military sniper rifle that even the US armed forces
own only a few dozen of? You are saying that you would allow them to buy .50
BMG ammo at the local gun shop? You are willing to concede that all of the PCs
have managed to get in 200 hours of range time with the weapon so that they
will have the right skill to use it? You would let the PCs take the thing
(which is a bulky, high-profile 60 lb+ weapon, depending on the mount and
sights) into urban situations? And the cops would not blink? You really think
that it would be a versatile close-in weapon like a superpower is?
You statement demonstrates my biggest problem with most if not all "points
for equipment" arguments in supers games: they leave out all of the
practicalities and cut right to the dice of damage and points of effect.
At least in my game, a character would have to have Wealth: Wealthy (x5)
[20 pts], either Legal Enforcement Powers: Total [15 pts] or Military Rank 3:
Senior NCO/Warrant [15 pts] and either a Reputation: +4, "Trustworthy guy who
everyone in the world would allow to carry military hardware into a shopping
mall." [20 points] or a powerful Contact or Patron [~20 to 25 pts]. That adds
up to 55 points or so, plus a few points in the right Guns skill. Then the
character would have to buy or requisition the weapon during the course of
play, carry it around without causing a panic and find situations where a
powerful sniper weapon would be useful.
Before you say that this is not in the rules - it is! Check out the
sidebar titled "Gun Control" in GURPS Supers.
I am not clear why you think that a super who paid 80 points for a 13d
attack - that is concealable, free, reliable and completely secret until he
reveals it - is at such a disadvantage. It looks like about 80 points versus
about 60 to me, or an effective -25% limitation for all of the restrictions
that go with the gun. I would rather have the lightning blast.
David Seal
>In article <1994Oct20....@vivitech.com> j...@vivitech.com (John Cooper)
>writes:
>>But by genre convention, not everyone uses equipment, availability
>>notwithstanding. Wolverine does not see the Punisher and think, gee if
>>only I had a gun!
>
> Hurm. I think that I have made my views on genre conventions pretty
>clear in the past, however. Quite simply, I do *not* like them and I do
>*not* subscribe to them. Gaming is a separate and distinct medium all of
>its own and it should not be a slave to the conventions of some other
>medium, like fantasy fiction, comic books or pulp movies. It is separate
>art and should be forward-looking and progressive. IMHO, if Wolverine
>does not use a gun, fine, but Wolverine is a comic book character, which
>is quite different from an RPG character. At least in my games, if a PC
>is so arrogant that (s)he thinks a gun is unnecessary, even when almost
>everyone else has one, fine. In my game, though, I set the conventions,
>not the genre. I think that to refuse to carry a gun into a dangerous
>situation where other people have guns is just stupid, and I make sure
>that the reality of my game world reflects this. It really matters very
>little to me that Miller or Lee or whoever does not write comics that
>way.
Aren't there really two different questions here:
* What sort of campaign do you like to run?
* What do the genre names mean?
You say that you don't like genre conventions and do not subscribe to
them. Fine - you run your campaign according to a different set of
conventions that you have worked out for yourself. But is there any
point in then describing your campaign as being in that genre? Doesn't
doing so simply mislead people about the nature of your campaign? (NB
I'm not saying that you *have* described your campaign as a "4-colour
supers" campaign - just asking whether there would be any point in
doing so, given that it breaks so many of the genre conventions people
associate with that genre.)
The supplement concerned is called GURPS Supers, not e.g. GURPS
High-Powered Campaigns. Furthermore, from what I can gather (it's not
a genre I particularly like, so I've skimmed through a friend's copy
but not bought my own), the text says that it deals with supers
campaigns - probably with an emphasis on "realistic" supers, but also
including 4-colour supers. People can therefore IMHO reasonably expect
the supplement to deal with these genres, including their conventions;
a failure to do this is a legitimate criticism. Your dislike of using
imported genre conventions may make that criticism unimportant for
you; it does not make it an invalid criticism.
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
ekb
> In article <38jper$4...@news.bu.edu> g...@cs.bu.edu (George Novodvorsky) writes:
> Re: my comments on disliking genre conventions
> >Well gosh, let's follow that logic a bit. In _my_ games all the characters
> >_do_ have have an arbitrary number stencilled on their foreheads which
> >reflects their "experience" (a term widely used in bars)
> >anyone who claims that it does not simulate the game the way that they want
> >to play it can go try to benchpress the complete works of E.Gary.G. (TM&R)
> >until the nausea gets to them.
> Huh? Well, I truthfully cannot see what it is that you are trying to say
> here, George. All that *I* said in my earlier post was that I *personally*
> dislike it when "genre conventions" are cut from other media (such as novels,
> movies or comics) and then pasted wholesale into RPGs. I went on to say that,
> IMHO (with extra emphasis on the M, there), using non-gaming-native genre
> conventions to judge whether or not a given game is "up to scratch" is
> questionable.
> You might be trying to suggest (and humorously, I hope) that since D&D
> was one of the earliest RPGs, it sets some kind of gaming-native genre
> conventions which I should not mind following if my logic is consistent. I
> disagree. A gaming system cannot set conventions - the conventions of a given
> campaign are the sole purview of the GM, who should be more of an artist than
> anything else, and who should not rely upon the crutch of the conventions of
> another medium (or the rules, for that matter).
Why are you so down on GM's borrowing conventions or even whole genres from
other media for their games? For many (and I daresay *most*) GM's, the whole
*point* is to present old genres in the new gaming medium, *not* to create a
new genre for their games. The creative part of the exercise is to create a
new world and new characters *within* the genre.
Other media borrow genres from each other all the time, and as a result
there are a number of genres that are each expressed in a number of
different media. Why the heck should *gaming* be any different?
> >1) We are here to flame or defend GURPS Supers, the system, not just its
> >suitability for one very specific style of play.
> In your opinion, that is. I am here to make the "meta" point that whether
> we are talking about GURPS or Hero, supers or fantasy, the use of non-gaming
> genre conventions to argue or rebut gaming-related points is inappropriate.
> To me, it seems about as appropriate as using the techniques of literary
> analysis to critically evaluate the entertainment value of a motion picture;
> i.e., not terribly appropriate.
And now people are going to jump down your throat claiming that your
meta-point is nonsense: Large numbers of gamers *want* "non-gaming" genre
conventions in their games,and we want to make those conventions into gaming
conventions. Genre supplements and licensed worldbooks were written in order
to put those conventions into games, and it is entirely appropriate to use
points from "non-gaming" media to judge how well those game materials
suceeded in their purpose.
Furthermore, many techniques of literary analysis *are* appropriate for
judging the entertainment value of a motion picture.
>
> >itself (and I quote) "The Generic Universal Role Playing System (TM&R)",
> >had darn well better be generic and universal
> Oh, please. This is such an old chestnut that it has moss growing on it.
> First, who bloody well cares? Second, what's in a name, anyhow? So GURPS was
> neither as "G" nor as "U" as you wanted it to be. Your statement to this
> effect is totally irrelevant to the point at hand. We are discussing GURPS
> Supers here, not GURPS at large. Furthermore, it is neither the genericity nor
> universality of GURPS that is being discussed here, it is its treatment of
> equipment in a superhero game (see the subject line - this is why I changed
> it).
Who bloody cares? *Lots* of us care. GURPS was advertised as being a system
that could handle any background - including, by implication, such
backgrounds as 4-color superheroes live in. A lot of us bought GURPS because
of this claim; because we thought that, discounting for hype, it was true;
because that's what we *wanted* in a game system. When we try to get GURPS
to live up to its claims wrt this one aspect (treatment of equipment) in
one genre (4-color supers) you come along and tell us that GURPS
*shouldn't* try to live up to its claims and that we should be happy about
this.
> >2) Will even Dr. Kromm argue that the overwhelming majority of people do
> >in fact think of superheroes "the way that Miller or Lee or whoever"
> >write them
> The majority of the gamers that I have met and played with do not, in
> fact, think of RPG superheroes in anything like the way that superheroes are
> generally portrayed in comics. Whether the majority of gamers that *you* have
> met think this way is, of course, unrelated to my experience, which might well
> be different; but whether the majority of non-gamers (who are themselves a
> clear majority) feel this way is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> >3) Therefore, GURPS Supers still remains flamebait.
> If you dislike GURPS Supers and have valid criticisms of it, flame away.
> Just be sure to compare it to other superhero games, not to the depiction of
> superheroes in comics, and please argue for or against the product on the
> basis of its own merit (or lack thereof), not on the basis of whether all
> of GURPS is truly generic and universal or not.
The "meta-point" being made here is that it *is* valid to compare superhero
games to the deplictions to superheroes in comics, because being able to
emulate the superhero genre in gaming *is* a merit on which superhero games
should be judged.
Furthermore, GURPS Supers inability to properly emulate the superhero genre
is a counterexample to GURPS claim to be truly generic and universal.
"Generic and universal" doesn't mean "able to cover those genres that Dr.
Kromm considers suitable for gaming" but rather "able to cover those genres
that *any* gamer may consider suitable for gaming."
> -Kromm
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
Dr Kromm
writes:
> Dr Kromm (pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA) wrote:
> : You have missed my point entirely, I think. I am arguing that GURPS Supers
> for Hero. Could you tell me what other GURPS books are not true genre
> books, but are instead 'unique and refreshing perspective[s]' on a
> genre? I'd avoid GURPS Aztecs, for example, if it was revisionist, or
> the author's personal view of Aztecs, instead of a
> historically-accurate account.
Except that "Aztecs" is not a *fictional* genre. The GURPS Aztecs book
deals with a *real* culture in a *real* historical period. My beef is with
direct, genre-wise cutting and pasting of *fictional* subject matter from
non-gaming media to gaming. Using real-life research to construct a campaign
world is fine. Sure, GURPS Aztecs may not be a primary source, but it is
certainly a good review of the facts. What I object to is taking a fictional
source in one medium and trying to reconstruct the look and feel of that source
in a second, largely-unrelated medium.
Dr Kromm
writes:
> Aren't there really two different questions here:
> * What sort of campaign do you like to run?
Which is entirely personal, I will admit. I should point out, though, that
I prefixed all of my claims with "IMHO" and so forth. I was discussing the kind
of campaign that *I* would like to run, yes; but I did not intend for my posts
to convert anyone, just to add another point to the data set.
> * What do the genre names mean?
Nothing. Even when a Hollywood flick is billed as a "drama" it may not
have much similarity to what is called "drama" in classical literature. IMHO,
when you cross media, all flags and pointers are set to null, and you can
re-use the "genre" names to mean whatever you like. If there are similarities
across media, well, that is nice, but not vital.
> But is there any point in then describing your campaign as being in that
> genre? Doesn't doing so simply mislead people about the nature of your
> campaign?
As I see it, if the campaign is about people who have unnatural powers, it
is perfectly fine to call those people supernatural or superhuman, and hence it
is perfectly fine to call the campaign a "supers" campaign. Note that I have at
no point referred to my kind of campaign a super*hero* campaign. Really, I
cannot see why I have to adopt the kinds of powers, situations and ethics seen
in superhero comics to be allowed to use the perfectly good descriptive
"supers" to decribe my type of campaign. The description is accurate and should
not deceive anyone.
> Your dislike of using imported genre conventions may make that criticism
> unimportant for you; it does not make it an invalid criticism.
You are completely correct. I apologize for the harshness of my earlier
posts in this regard.
Dr Kromm
> Why are you so down on GM's borrowing conventions or even whole genres from
> other media for their games? For many (and I daresay *most*) GM's, the whole
> *point* is to present old genres in the new gaming medium, *not* to create a
> new genre for their games. The creative part of the exercise is to create a
> new world and new characters *within* the genre.
OK, I will admit that there are people who do what you say - but I would
like to point out that I have never denied that these people exist, nor have I
ever denied them the right to do what they want. (How could I?) All of my
points were "IMHO", which should be disclaimer enough. My point is that the
actual mixing or bending of traditional "pure" genres, and even the wholesale
fabrication of new genres, is to *me* an important part of being a GM. After 15
years of gaming, I *personally* am tired of the "traditional" view of gaming
and have come to see gaming as a different medium from literature, film and
comics and have come to regard genre fabrication as something of a fine art.
> Large numbers of gamers *want* "non-gaming" genre
> conventions in their games,and we want to make those conventions into gaming
> conventions.
I am not denying this, nor have I ever denied this. I simply wanted to
make the point that one *can* escape from genre conventions if one wishes to
and that it might be a refreshing change for those gamers who, like myself,
have grown tired of more traditional views of gaming.
> Furthermore, many techniques of literary analysis *are* appropriate for
> judging the entertainment value of a motion picture.
This is a separate argument, but I should point out that many people whom
I happen know in the field of literature do not agree with you. I am a
physicist myself, and not highly qualified to take up this argument, so I shall
leave it for those who are.
> When we try to get GURPS
> to live up to its claims wrt this one aspect (treatment of equipment) in
> one genre (4-color supers) you come along and tell us that GURPS
> *shouldn't* try to live up to its claims and that we should be happy about
> this.
I did not say that GURPS *shouldn't* live up to its claims in this
respect, I said that it plainly *doesn't*, that's life and why argue about it,
since even GURPS defenders like myself are willing to give you the point
without a fight?
> The "meta-point" being made here is that it *is* valid to compare superhero
> games to the deplictions to superheroes in comics, because being able to
> emulate the superhero genre in gaming *is* a merit on which superhero games
> should be judged.
I personally put very little stock in arguments which attempt to support
or deny the value of a consumer product based upon its ability to emulate
another consumer product - be those products books, games, movies or Coke and
Pepsi. This is a personal quirk. I know that not everyone holds this viewpoint.
I *am* one of those annoying people who says, "Who cares if the movie is
nothing like the book? The movie is entertaining. The book is entertaining. So
they happen to have the same title - so what?"
> Furthermore, GURPS Supers inability to properly emulate the superhero genre
> is a counterexample to GURPS claim to be truly generic and universal.
> "Generic and universal" doesn't mean "able to cover those genres that Dr.
> Kromm considers suitable for gaming" but rather "able to cover those genres
> that *any* gamer may consider suitable for gaming."
I never claimed otherwise. I was just adding my feelings on the matter. I
was just expressing my opinion. I was just adding another data point. I was
simply giving those following the thread an alternative perspective on the
issue. These things are perfectly acceptable on Usenet, are they not? Since I
feel strongly about this issue, my words are strong - but they are intended to
be a strongly-stated *opinion*, not a decree or anything similar.
John H Kim
of opinion, by and large. What role you want hardware to play in your
campaign is a matter of personal preference. Should lightning bolts
overshadow guns, or vice-versa?
I don't think there is a "typical" realistic supers campaign. I
suppose the best solution is for the GM to decide on how he wants this
in advance, and then control the creation of characters so that it comes
about. If you don't want hardware to dominate: don't let multi-millionaire
gadgeteers into the game.
-*-*-*-
Dr Kromm <pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA> wrote:
>John H Kim <jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>> You don't need blasters. A Barrett model 82 does 13d with good Accuracy.
>> A super would have to pay 80+ points for that kind of damage - and he
>> would feel pretty silly if he did, since everyone else gets that kind of
>> damage for free.
...
> At least in my game, a character would have to have Wealth: Wealthy (x5)
>[20 pts], either Legal Enforcement Powers: Total [15 pts] or Military Rank 3:
>Senior NCO/Warrant [15 pts] and either a Reputation: +4, "Trustworthy guy who
>everyone in the world would allow to carry military hardware into a shopping
>mall." [20 points] or a powerful Contact or Patron [~20 to 25 pts]. That adds
>up to 55 points or so, plus a few points in the right Guns skill.
...
> I am not clear why you think that a super who paid 80 points for a 13d
>attack - that is concealable, free, reliable and completely secret until he
>reveals it - is at such a disadvantage. It looks like about 80 points versus
>about 60 to me, or an effective -25% limitation for all of the restrictions
>that go with the gun. I would rather have the lightning blast.
Hello? That 55pts does a hell of a lot more than let you blast
someone. The legal and governmental advantages will help the whole party
out enormously if they get into trouble with the law - which seems quite
likely. After all, the public will object to throwing lightning bolts in
public just as much (if not more) than they object to shooting.
The Wealth can be used to buy armor, vehicles, sensors, and lots
of other equipment besides guns. And remember that Wealth keeps paying as
the campaign goes on.
-*-*-*-
Obviously there is no objective answer here. But personally, I'd
take the 55pts of advantages any day.
John H Kim
Erol K. Bayburt <e...@io.com> wrote:
>Furthermore, GURPS Supers inability to properly emulate the superhero genre
>is a counterexample to GURPS claim to be truly generic and universal.
>"Generic and universal" doesn't mean "able to cover those genres that Dr.
>Kromm considers suitable for gaming" but rather "able to cover those genres
>that *any* gamer may consider suitable for gaming."
Uerrrh?
I don't think there is anything in GURPS which states or implies
the above definition of "GU". GURPS was designed as a realism-biased
system, intended for focus on human-oriented, adventure-oriented games.
Certain genres thus require a considerable amount of adaptation (like
_Supers_ or _Bunnies and Burrows_).
The reason I criticized _GURPS Supers_ was that it specifically
claimed to handle four-color action, but in practice, it does so poorly
if at all. The claim to handle four-color action is *not*, IMO, implicit
in the words "generic" and "universal".
Steve Barr
: In article <38r98m$7...@bruce.uncg.edu> bar...@turing.uncg.edu (Steve Barr)
: writes:
: > Hurm. I tend to pick up GURPS books used as supplimentary material
: > for Hero. Could you tell me what other GURPS books are not true genre
: > books, but are instead 'unique and refreshing perspective[s]' on a
: > genre? I'd avoid GURPS Aztecs, for example, if it was revisionist, or
: > the author's personal view of Aztecs, instead of a
: > historically-accurate account.
: Except that "Aztecs" is not a *fictional* genre. The GURPS Aztecs book
: deals with a *real* culture in a *real* historical period.
Fine. I was just asking if it was written the way you seem to say GURPS
Supers was, i.e. using the subject as a starting point and then the
rest is the author's interpretation.
: My beef is with direct, genre-wise cutting and pasting of *fictional*
: subject matter from non-gaming media to gaming.
You're of course free to have a particular viewpoint. I'm not
questioning it.
: GURPS Aztecs may not be a primary source, but it is
: certainly a good review of the facts.
That's good to know. I'll keep it on my 'list to buy used.'
: What I object to is taking a fictional source in one medium and trying
: to reconstruct the look and feel of that source in a second,
: largely-unrelated medium.
So you think I should avoid GURPS books based on fictional sources
(Fantasy, Camelot(?), Uplift, etc. etc.) because they fail to capture
the look and feel of the genre?
Thanks,
Steve
John Cooper
> You have missed my point entirely, I think. I am arguing that GURPS Supers
>*is not* ". . . trying to simulate . . ." a genre. I am saying that GURPS
>Supers presents a unique and refreshing perspective on superheroes, one that
>tries to get away from Spandex tights and goody-goody, B&W, good versus evil
>conflicts. If GURPS Supers does not do comics well, but does present a workable
>view of superheroes that is interesting in its own right, then I feel that it
>is still a good supplement.
This is all just semantic tap-dancing, as far as I'm concerned. The fact
is that GURPS Supers _was_ trying to simulate the superhero genre and failed.
Only revisionist history (and a deep desire to find value in the supplement)
says otherwise. It's a clever ploy though: when a product misses its target,
the target that it _did_ hit is presented as the one intended all along.
GURPS Cyberpunk was never intended to simulate the cyberpunk genre, GURPS
Space was never intended to simulate the science fiction genre, GURPS Fantasy
was never intended to simulate the fantasy genre, GURPS Espionage was never
intended to simulate the spy genre, GURPS Horror was never meant to simulate
the horror genre, and GURPS Supers was never meant to simulate the superhero
genre. Instead, these books blaze new trails of roleplaying; fresh, new,
"realistic" approaches to existing genres! Yeah, right. Try telling that to
the guy who thought GURPS was good for playing in all genres, not just for
playing in "realistic" sub-variants of them.
> For the record, if GURPS Humanx did a lousy job of simulating Humanx but
>nevertheless presented a really good, consistent world for roleplaying, then it
>should still be considered to be a good gaming supplement, IMHO. As far as I
>can tell, we are arguing whether or not GURPS Supers is a good gaming
>supplement (rules-wise, presentation-wise and so on), not whether or not it
>presents a good framework for simulating comic book reality.
Well, it depends on what criteria you base your judgement on. When I
think of superheros, I think of four-color characters like Superman,
Spiderman, the Hulk, the X-Men, the Avengers, etc. A GURPS supplement
that does not target that expectation fails as a "good gaming supplement"
because it does not address my needs. Oh, the writing may be very nice
and the cover pretty, but that's not enough. Even though the IST world
is well presented and "makes sense" from a grayscale perspective (i.e.,
no B&W morality and no four-color action), the mechanics just don't cut
the mustard for anything but a GURPS-centric, reality-entrenched style
of "superhero" campaign.
IMO, when you do a critical analysis of GURPS Supers, you can't just
look at the IST material and ignore all the mechanics. IST is just an
_example_ world. It is not meant to represent the _only_ world that the
Supers mechanics support. Yet, it _is_ the only kind of world that the
mechanics adequately support, and regardless of how good and consistent
the IST material may seem to you, the book as a whole fails to fullfil its
"generic, universal" promise.
John Cooper
>It is sort of like taking GURPS Space - a fine supplement,
>but one which is realism-biased like GURPS Supers - and saying that it is
>dreadful jsut because it does not do Star Trek very well. A valid point,
>inasmuch as the observation is valid, but who ever claimed that simulating
>comics - or Star Trek - was ever a goal of GURPS?
This is a trick question, right?
GURPS bills itself as a system that can be used to "play in" (i.e.,
simulate) any genre you wish, and many GURPS players perpetuate that
myth in posts on the net. Hell, they've even written up a Star Trek
supplement for the game! Of _course_ GURPS was meant to simulate Star
Trek. The design objectives of the system are to allow players to
simulate _any_ genre they come up with. In principle, all genres are
supportable, not just the "realistic" ones. That includes pulp, four-
color supers, space opera, and anime.
But if you look at GURPS' history, it becomes clear that GURPS was the
evolution of one idea: a fantasy combat system that was more realistic than
AD&D. As it grew into a full roleplaying system, mundane realism became a
Holy Grail, and the game's philosophy crystalized into its current form.
Realism was no longer just a feature, it had become a design imperative.
It had reached the point where introducing "unrealistic" genre elements
like cinematic combat, superhero powers, and galaxy-threatening superscience
meant taking the fundamental subsystems apart and redesigning them. But
that would mean rejecting the existing mechanics in favor of news ones, an
idea that runs contrary to the Universal Mechanics philosophy. But shortcut
attempts at hack solutions (like the optional Stun rules) only turn the
basic game into a patchwork of incompatible mechanics anyway.
GURPS set out to simulate any and all genres but sabotaged its own
objectives by a slavish devotion to faithfully representing mundane reality
regardless of genre. Instead of acknowledging that genre supplements like
GURPS Space Opera would be incompatible with the architecture of the game,
you'd prefer to hack off all the elements that make Space Opera what it is
as a genre, force it to conform to the dictates of GURPS Realism, and call
it a new approach to the genre. Putting "Space Opera" on the cover would be
terribly misleading, IMO. It ought to be called _GURPS Realistic Space
Opera_, but then you can't fool the customer into buying it before he
realizes that he's bought into an oxymoron.
Dr Kromm
> Bother. The issue of equipment in non-comic-book games is a matter
> of opinion, by and large. What role you want hardware to play in your
> campaign is a matter of personal preference. Should lightning bolts
> overshadow guns, or vice-versa?
hardware as being one aspect of the game and the personal power of PCs as being
another, largely unrelated aspect. Hardware is there for anyone who: (i) can
afford it, (ii) knows how to use it, (iii) knows how/where to get it, and (iv)
knows how to avoid having it taken away by the authorities or by enemies.
Points (i) and (ii) definitely require a character point investment in wealth
and technical skills, point (iii) requires a character point investment in
Contacts, Streetwise and/or the Merchant skill, and point (iv) probably
requires some kind of social advantage. To me, this means that for a PC to be a
powerful, hardware-dependent character already costs enough points. I feel
justified in holding this view even after I weigh in the non-equipment fringe
benefits of these point expenditures.
As you have said, it really is a matter of opinion.
Dr Kromm
writes:
> This is all just semantic tap-dancing, as far as I'm concerned. The fact
> is that GURPS Supers _was_ trying to simulate the superhero genre and failed.
> Only revisionist history (and a deep desire to find value in the supplement)
> says otherwise. It's a clever ploy though: when a product misses its target,
> the target that it _did_ hit is presented as the one intended all along.
This is your opinion, and while I respect it, I cannot agree with it.
I fundamentally disagree with your claim that it is "revisionist" for me
to say that GURPS Supers was intended from the start to support what you call a
"GURPS-centric, reality-entrenched" view of superpowered gaming. I think that
this outlook on superpowered gaming was apparent - long before the product was
ever printed - to anyone who cared to follow the product development (I
playtested three drafts by two different authors), and I think that a
realism-based, lower-powered view of superpowers was the goal of the book all
along. I feel that it is unfair to take shots at the author or at his slant on
the subject solely on the basis of the hype on the back cover - which the
author did not even write.
> Instead, these books blaze new trails of roleplaying; fresh, new,
> "realistic" approaches to existing genres! Yeah, right. Try telling that to
> the guy who thought GURPS was good for playing in all genres, not just for
> playing in "realistic" sub-variants of them.
If anyone is really naive enough to buy all of the hype and truly believe
that *any* system - GURPS, Hero or whatever - is the Ultimate System to End All
Systems, then I feel sorry for them. *Every* system has a bias. *Every* system
bills itself as being new, exciting and revolutionary. If you believe
otherwise, then you are asking for too much.
I mean, if you believe the Coke ad campaign, then you believe that by
drinking Coke you will suddenly become beautiful, popular and gain a great
social life. Right. The fact is that products have to sell and that hype helps
make the sale. Hype usually bends the truth. In the case of a game system, this
means that the authors will try to hide their biases and maximize the number of
gamers that the product will reach by claiming that it will cover much more
territory than it really can.
> Well, it depends on what criteria you base your judgement on. When I
> think of superheros, I think of four-color characters like Superman,
> Spiderman, the Hulk, the X-Men, the Avengers, etc. A GURPS supplement
> that does not target that expectation fails as a "good gaming supplement"
> because it does not address my needs.
For one thing, the supplement is called GURPS Supers and not GURPS
Superheroes or GURPS Comics for a reason: it is meant to provide rules for
"supers", i.e., "superhumans". This could mean the child of a demon father in a
fantasy game, a demigod in a mythical historical game, or the Terminator.
If you just looked at the gal in the Spandex suit on the front cover, read
the hype on the back cover and bought the product on the strength of this
alone, then I feel sorry for you. You fell into the oldest trap - you really
did judge the book by the cover. A look inside would quickly reveal that the
emphasis is on supernatural powers for characters (in the same way that Magic
emphasizes spells, Psionics emphasizes psi abilities and Cyberpunk emphasizes
cyberwear). The emphasis is not on "comic-book reality" - but I do not think
that the book gives the impression that this was supposed to be the emphasis
anyhow.
> IMO, when you do a critical analysis of GURPS Supers, you can't just
> look at the IST material and ignore all the mechanics. IST is just an
> _example_ world.
Why look at the IST world at all, unless you, the GM, are stuck for ideas?
I personally find most "stock" worlds to be bad - many of GURPS' included,
despite my love for that system.
>the book as a whole fails to fullfil its "generic, universal" promise.
If you insist upon holding every GURPS supplement to the "GU" criterion
then why play GURPS at all? It is just one of many games. Its authors are
fallible and some supplements are bound to be dogs. Like every system, GURPS
hypes itself, in its case by taking a grandiose name for itself. Oh, well. Of
course GURPS will not cover every genre and sub-genre smoothly, regardless of
how much you push the limits. Did you really believe otherwise? If so, then I
guess you drink Coke, too . . .
John Cooper
> Let me put it another way, then. People seem to have taken great pride in
>dragging the rest of GURPS into this discussion, despite my claim that this is
>quite inappropriate. As an example, I will quote you, John, "...GURPS Basic
>comes into any discussion of _GURPS Supers_...". Fine. Then I hope you are
>willing to concede that the GURPS system in general has always been openly
>realism-oriented and by-and-large non-cinematic, so it is perhaps not really
>surprising that its Supers supplement also has this bias. I would further argue
>that any GURPS player would know enough to expect this.
GURPS Supers did not HAVE to have a realism bias, except for the fact
that the GURPS system itself left Loyd little choice (IMO). GURPS Supers
does in fact try to address the four-color genre but, again, IMO, does
not succeed. Whereas you feel that GURPS Supers never tried to simulate
four-color, that it always intended to treat the genre in a new, "realistic"
manner, I feel it took a shot at four-color, didn't succeed, and inadvertantly
left the realistic sub-genres as the only viable variants.
> It seems contradictory to me for anyone to first claim that all of GURPS
>has a bearing on GURPS Supers, but to then turn around and criticize GURPS
>Supers for having so many of the traits of the GURPS system. Either exclude the
>rest of the system from the discussion and judge GURPS Supers on its own merit,
>or else include the rest of the system in the discussion and just accept the
>fact that its biases will also extend to Supers.
But the bias shouldn't HAVE to extend to Supers. The only reason the
bias extends to Supers is because GURPS can't support any other approach.
GURPS Supers is a _demonstration_ of how GURPS, as a whole, is inadequate
for highly cinematic, four-color play. The reason the mechanics fail to
simulate four-color cinematicism is not because of a deliberate effort to
reject four-color conventions, it's because the core system can not (as it
is now) handle it.
What you call a perfectly logical consequence of the GURPS bias towards
realism, I call a needlessly crippling characteristic of the core system
which infects every genre book it is applied to (Supers being a good
example).
Kevin Carpenter
: (Fantasy, Camelot(?), Uplift, etc. etc.) because they fail to capture
: the look and feel of the genre?
: Thanks,
: Steve
Actually, GURPS Uplift is one of the best Book-to-RPG conversions that
SJG did, but I may be a bit biased, as I think Startide Rising was one of
the best books ever written. <grin>
Bruce Baugh
: : So you think I should avoid GURPS books based on fictional sources
: : (Fantasy, Camelot(?), Uplift, etc. etc.) because they fail to capture
: : the look and feel of the genre?
: Actually, GURPS Uplift is one of the best Book-to-RPG conversions that
: SJG did, but I may be a bit biased, as I think Startide Rising was one of
: the best books ever written. <grin>
I'll second that recommendation for GURPS Uplift, I think. It's very
well-done. It's a good sourcebook for the stories, _and_ very useful for
gaming purposes. The alien species generation system is worth the cost of
the book new all by itself, for me, and the stuff about Brin's delightfully
idiosyncratic FTL system(s) is highly adaptable for other settings.
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|bru...@teleport.com Bruce Baugh, thoroughly unaffiliated with Teleport|
| "An' besides you IS a rabbit." "Not a 'nothing-BUT-a-rabbit', tho'." |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
John H Kim
on, in disagreement with Kromm...
Dr Kromm <pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA > wrote:
>>> I am saying that GURPS Supers presents a unique and refreshing perspective
>>> on superheroes, one that tries to get away from Spandex tights and goody-
>>> goody, B&W, good versus evil conflicts.
...
> For one thing, the supplement is called GURPS Supers and not GURPS
>Superheroes or GURPS Comics for a reason: it is meant to provide rules for
>"supers", i.e., "superhumans". This could mean the child of a demon father
>in a fantasy game, a demigod in a mythical historical game, or the
>Terminator.
...
>A look inside would quickly reveal that the emphasis is on supernatural
>powers for characters [...] The emphasis is not on "comic-book reality" -
>but I do not think that the book gives the impression that this was
>supposed to be the emphasis anyhow.
Uerh? Was this the same _GURPS Supers_ supplement that I recall?
_GURPS Supers_ does present a somewhat different take on the subject than,
say, Marvel or DC Heroes. However, it is still definitely about
*superheroes*, and draws from the comics genre.
The impression is more than the cover and the blurb on the back.
The sample world, sample characters, and illustrations are all about
superheroes - including spandex tights. The IST world is more realistic
than Marvel, but less so than many independent comics. Note, for
example, how the sample characters were divided into good vs evil.
-*-*-*-
When you look at the mechanics, the same focus comes across.
The character creation section talks about creating characters for a
comic-book-type world with lots of costumed supers running around. The
powers and advantages similarly reflect the genre - note the Costume
advantage, super-strength, body of flame, and so forth. Compare it in
focus to, say, _GURPS Aliens_.
The other mechanics are characterized by various notes on rules
for comic-book alternatives (Stun,...) and situations. I don't recall
the 2nd edition version, but 1st edition also had lots of stuff provided
for things like bullet deflection, chambara and wild martial arts, and
so forth.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
I would agree that that is what _GURPS Supers_ *should* have
been about. I think it should have been primarily a mechanics book -
like _GURPS Magic_ - focussed on superhuman powers and scaling up
the action mechanics to superhuman scales.
This would have left out the sample world and characters, along
with various campaign and character creation notes. Instead, it would
have a chapter on adapting various published or original characters and
worlds to the system - displaying the various options. The mechanics
would have tried harder to stay consistent with _Fantasy Folk_ and
_Aliens_ - thus making it easier to pull these rules into other
campaigns.
ErolB1
<pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA > writes:
First, there is a difference between opining that *you* prefer creating
new genres to copying old ones and opining, however humbly, that *everyone
else* should prefer this too. You claimed the latter, and your tacking on
"IMHO" did not change this. Despite your denial above, you *have* denied
people the right to try to emulate 4-color comicbooks in "Supers" games -
you said that it was not kosher to compare the genre treatment of
equipment in the two media, but this comparison is necessary if games are
to successfully emulate comicbooks.
Second, as a gamer of 16 years experience, I can understand your
preference for new genres over old - even if I (mostly) don't agree. There
are gaming cliches that I hate myself ("All Sci-Fi must have Psi" -
Bleah!!!) But IMHO the translation of genres into the gaming medium is not
a Solved Problem, and it is Perfectly All Right to work on it even if you
(or in some cases I) don't care to do the work ourselves.
>> When we try to get GURPS
>> to live up to its claims wrt this one aspect (treatment of equipment)
in
>> one genre (4-color supers) you come along and tell us that GURPS
>> *shouldn't* try to live up to its claims and that we should be happy
about
>> this.
>I did not say that GURPS *shouldn't* live up to its claims in this
>respect, I said that it plainly *doesn't*, that's life and why argue
about it,
>since even GURPS defenders like myself are willing to give you the point
>without a fight?
The point is to *change* GURPS so that it *does* live up to its claims in
this respect. The fact that it currently doesn't isn't, IMHO, an imutable
fact of life: As I see it, the *biggest* barrier to GURPS doing a good job
with cinematic genres is the attitude of the GURPS Powers That Be who view
"cinematic" as equivalent to "silly" and who belittle attempts to create a
serious set of cinematic optional rules for GURPS.
>> The "meta-point" being made here is that it *is* valid to compare
superhero
>> games to the deplictions to superheroes in comics, because being able
to
>> emulate the superhero genre in gaming *is* a merit on which superhero
games
>> should be judged.
> I personally put very little stock in arguments which attempt to
support
>or deny the value of a consumer product based upon its ability to emulate
>another consumer product - be those products books, games, movies or Coke
and
>Pepsi. This is a personal quirk. I know that not everyone holds this
viewpoint.
> I *am* one of those annoying people who says, "Who cares if the
movie is
>nothing like the book? The movie is entertaining. The book is
entertaining. So
>they happen to have the same title - so what?"
It is fraud to sell a product on the basis of false claims. If I'm
convinced to watch a movie on the basis that it's "like the book" and it
isn't, then I've been cheated, no matter how entertaining the movie may
be. If I go to see "Star Wars" and get shown "Hamlet" instead, I'm going
to be upset - and arguments that "Hamlet" is really "better" than "Star
Wars" isn't going to cut much ice with me.
David H. Thornley
>> relevant to many people's evaluation of that product
>
> Fair enough. However, GURPS Supers is quite openly (I think) a book that
>at best touches on the fringes of the classic comic book genre, and it bothers
>me to see people saying things like, "Well, GURPS Supers' treatment of
>equipment sucks because it does not reproduce the view towards equipment that I
>see in the X-Men."
Not just the X-Men, but the entire classic comic book genre. There's something
of a difference here. A superhero game is not seriously flawed because you
can't quite do the X-Men, but is is flawed if you can't do anything like the
X-Men or Spiderman or Batman or ....
>It is sort of like taking GURPS Space - a fine supplement,
>but one which is realism-biased like GURPS Supers - and saying that it is
>dreadful jsut because it does not do Star Trek very well. A valid point,
>inasmuch as the observation is valid, but who ever claimed that simulating
>comics - or Star Trek - was ever a goal of GURPS?
>
No, it's like picking up GURPS Space and finding no provision for interstellar
travel. Star Trek is not a very large piece of science fiction (although
extremely popular) and never dominated the field.
As far as GURPS goals go, that's pretty much up to SJG. It wasn't an
original goal of GURPS to simulate small furry animals, but GURPS Bunnies
& Burrows did a good job. If it had been completely unsuited for playing
small furry animals, but had some concepts you liked, would you have
excused it on the basis that bunnies were never a goal of GURPS?
If I find it difficult to do Star Trek with GURPS Space, that's OK. If
SJG had a license to do GURPS Star Trek, I would be *very* annoyed to find
that it was only designed to play a Deep Space Nine game. If SJG came out
with a GURPS Supers book, I'd be annoyed to find that it didn't handle the
genre that created the long-underwear brigade in the first place.
> I didn't. Perhaps, though, if you want to discuss the merits of comic book
>"reality" in superhero games, you should start another thread to this effect.
>-Kromm
>
Heck, we could consider a thread on the realism of guys with strange and
random abilities running around in brightly-colored tights with stupid
headgear. Superheros aren't realistic. This isn't a matter of taking a
medieval society, adding magic and monsters, and playing it out on the
assumption that people will do what makes sense. This is a matter of
people doing very odd things for no reason whatsoever.
DHT
Dr Kromm
> First, there is a difference between opining that *you* prefer creating
> new genres to copying old ones
Which is precisely what I said . . .
> and opining, however humbly, that *everyone
> else* should prefer this too. You claimed the latter, and your tacking on
> "IMHO" did not change this.
. . . with which I just plain disagree. "IMHO" is generally taken to mean
that the associated statement is solely the view of the author, who makes no
claims as to its truth for anyone else, and who is just stating an opinion, as
the expression clearly implies. If you personally do not think that this is so,
then I apologize; but whether *you* think so or not, I *know* (since I wrote
the damn thing) that I was not handing down a decree or trying to limit the
reader in any way. I was just introducing another view on the subject at hand.
> Despite your denial above, you *have* denied
> people the right to try to emulate 4-color comicbooks in "Supers" games -
What, I had a UN resolution passed that will result in armed intervention
should any roleplayer try to game in a fashion contrary to *my* opinions? Come
on! I cannot *deny* any gamer who reads this the right to do anything. All I
can do is state an opinion, which people are free to ignore (or, for that
matter, worship) if they *want* to. Nothing more.
> you said that it was not kosher to compare the genre treatment of
> equipment in the two media
No, I said that *I* did not feel that it was ". . . kosher to compare the
genre treatment of equipment in the two media . . .", not that I felt that it
was patently absurd for someone else to do so. If you took my statement as a
heavy-handed statement of fact that I got from God or something, then you are
giving my opinions way too much weight. Not my problem.
> But IMHO the translation of genres into the gaming medium is not
> a Solved Problem
Myabe, maybe not - but it sure seems that way to me. I am so tired of
seeing gaming supplements that are essentially genre treatments that I have
stopped thinking, "How could I turn this into a campaign?" when I see a good
movie or read a cool book and I have started thinking about *original* campaign
and genre design as an art.
> The point is to *change* GURPS so that it *does* live up to its claims in
> this respect. The fact that it currently doesn't isn't, IMHO, an imutable
> fact of life: As I see it, the *biggest* barrier to GURPS doing a good job
> with cinematic genres is the attitude of the GURPS Powers That Be who view
> "cinematic" as equivalent to "silly" and who belittle attempts to create a
> serious set of cinematic optional rules for GURPS.
It is much more likely that you are sensing the inertia that goes along
with *any* established practice, not some kind of conscious and heavy-handed
reactionism. Basically, you have to ask whether the relearning and testing
necessary to "improve" GURPS is less tedious and less troublesome than simply
swallowing a few inadequacies and getting down to some gaming. For a tinkerer
(such as yourself), the answer is clearly "Yes". However, not everyone wants to
tinker and not everyone cares enough to want to have to relearn a revamped
system just because some rule is not perfect in someone else's opinion.
> It is fraud to sell a product on the basis of false claims.
Yes, but not on the basis of hyped-up (but not, strictly, untrue) claims,
or on the basis of abstract claims that no one could conclusively prove or
disprove anyway. GURPS claims to be generic and universal. To the extent that
there are rules for almost every genre, it is generic. To the extent that the
same basic rules and mechanics are used in all genres, it is universal. OK, so
the hype made it sound like a completely general meta-system - but so what? The
hype on Hero makes it sound that way, too, but it really sucks for low-powered,
ultra-realistic gaming. Heck, Paranoia promises you that you will get to
vaporize your friends, but that is just silly hype, too :-)
John H Kim
Dr Kromm <pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA > wrote:
>thor...@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>> Heck, we could consider a thread on the realism of guys with strange and
>> random abilities running around in brightly-colored tights with stupid
>> headgear. Superheros aren't realistic.
...
> I think that you have scored a bullseye here, David. This is *exactly*
>what has been motivating my criticisms of the genre and so forth throughout
>this thread.
Hold on. No one here has been said that superheroes were realistic.
In fact, your opponents have been saying just what you are here - that the
genre is highly unrealistic in most respects. In your post, you point out
many of the unrealistic features.
So what point are you trying to make?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
The issue as regards genre in this thread is reduced to a question
of intent. Both sides agree that _GURPS Supers_ fails to represent these
genre conventions. The question is: was that the intent of the book, or
was it simply a failure to attain the goal.
-*-*-*-
IMO, it is a mixture of both. _GURPS Supers_ is clearly derivative
from comics, with the intended "new twist" of injecting some realism -
while at the same time adding optional rules for comics-style play.
As a result, it does produces neither four-color action nor
reality. Rather, it is a strange medium between the two - with mostly
comic-book background, assumptions, and powers (like "Body of Flame"),
but with realistic mechanics.
I find it just odd and twisted, but there are some who like it,
apparently.
Bob Schroeck
>So you think I should avoid GURPS books based on fictional sources
>(Fantasy, Camelot(?), Uplift, etc. etc.) because they fail to capture
>the look and feel of the genre?
That's a loaded question if I ever heard one! <grin>
As the co-author of Camelot, I think I can safely say that no matter how
you want to portray the Arthurian setting, GURPS Camelot can help you do
it, since we presented mythic, cinematic *and* historical backgrounds.
Don't be quick to dismiss worldbooks based on *legend and myth*, because
there is usually some realworld data there for you to use. GURPS Robin
Hood has solid historical detail behind the legendary figures of the
tales, for instance.
Howler Monkey
> For one thing, the supplement is called GURPS Supers and not GURPS
>Superheroes or GURPS Comics for a reason: it is meant to provide rules for
>"supers", i.e., "superhumans". This could mean the child of a demon father in a
>fantasy game, a demigod in a mythical historical game, or the Terminator.
Hmmm. I was under the impression that they didn't use "Comics" because that
really doesn't describe what they were aiming at, and that "Superheroes"
was out due to it being a jointly owned trademark of D.C. and Marvel, who
might object. The phrases "Paranormal", "Supernormal", "Metahuman", "
Metahero/villain" have been used in a variety of places, but none of them
indicate "superhero" terribly well (except "metahero", which isn't all that
well known). It seemed to me that SJG was trying to say Superhero without
saying Superhero, and "Supers" was the closest they could get.
> If you just looked at the gal in the Spandex suit on the front cover,
read the hype on the back cover and bought the product on the strength of
this >alone, then I feel sorry for you. You fell into the oldest trap - you
really >did judge the book by the cover. A look inside would quickly reveal
that the >emphasis is on supernatural powers for characters
Yes, in a comic book vein. I suppose that using the art as a supporting
point will garner claims of "substance, not style", but the book as a whole
is _obviously_ trying to depict a superhero world somewhere between the real
world and four-colour comic books. The art clearly demonstrates a four-
colour style and subject; many of the advantages are specifically geared
towards a superhero genre/concept; most of the sample characters are four-
colour heroes; much of the "running a GURPS Supers campaign" advice is
specifically geared towards a four-colour/costumed heroes style of genre.
Not that GURPS Supers can't be used for building all manner of supernormal
characters - it is specifically mentioned for the purpose of building
powerful Cyborgs in Roleplayer #25 - but I think it should be evident that
the purpose of GURPS Supers ia and always was the simulation of the comic-
book superhero genre.
Of course, we could always ask Loyd...
-Chris
(in the same
way that Magic >emphasizes spells, Psionics emphasizes psi abilities and
Cyberpunk emphasizes >cyberwear). The emphasis is not on "comic-book
reality" - but I do not think >that the book gives the impression that this
was supposed to be the emphasis >anyhow.
Howler Monkey
The Homeless Phantom
>In article<1994Oct31.1...@vivitech.com> j...@vivitech.com (John Cooper)
>writes:
>> This is all just semantic tap-dancing, as far as I'm concerned. The fact
>> is that GURPS Supers _was_ trying to simulate the superhero genre and
>> failed. Only revisionist history (and a deep desire to find value in the
>> supplement) says otherwise. It's a clever ploy though: when a product
>> misses its target, the target that it _did_ hit is presented as the one
>> intended all along.
> This is your opinion, and while I respect it, I cannot agree with it.
> I fundamentally disagree with your claim that it is "revisionist" for me
> to say that GURPS Supers was intended from the start to support what you
> call a "GURPS-centric, reality-entrenched" view of superpowered gaming. I
> think that this outlook on superpowered gaming was apparent - long before
> the product was ever printed - to anyone who cared to follow the product
> development (I playtested three drafts by two different authors), and I
> think that a realism-based, lower-powered view of superpowers was the goal
> of the book all along. I feel that it is unfair to take shots at the author
> or at his slant on the subject solely on the basis of the hype on the back
> cover - which the author did not even write.
Of course, the average RPG consumer isn't privy to product development info,
was never asked to playtest any draft of GURPS Supers, etc. They only have
the hype on the back cover to go by. ?-/
I think it's hard to argue against the idea that GURPS Supers wasn't intended
to accurately simulate /real/ comicbooks (I refuse to use the derogatory term
"4-color", which more appropriately describes a genre that became extinct in
the 1970s except for Americomics) -- Mr. Blankenship makes that rather clear
in his Introduction, and the subtitle of the book is fairly clear, too.
The question here is whether (a) it's TRUE that you can't make GURPS do
real comicbook, and (b) GURPS Supers should have tried to.
Option (A) is false. You CAN make GURPS do comicbook superheroes -- a friend
of mine has rewritten GURPS Supers nearly from scratch, and while it's not
perfect yet, it's getting there.
Option (B) depends on a number of "whys". Did the people at SJG go
"realistic" because they felt inadequate for the job of simulating real
comicbooks? Because they thought a comicbook superheroes genre book would
have no chance to compete against the 3 or 4 well-established superhero
games on the market? Because they'd already created a core group of GURPS
players sold on dirt-intensive realism? Because they either already had, or
knew they could easily get, the rights to the Wildcards series? Because they
honestly felt that people were tired of playing real comicbook superheroes?
Or a combination of the above?
I wasn't around during the development of the supplement, so I don't know the
whole story, and thus I can't answer these questions. From what I've seen in
the present, I would guess a combination of #1 and #3.
>> Instead, these books blaze new trails of roleplaying; fresh, new,
>> "realistic" approaches to existing genres! Yeah, right. Try telling that to
>> the guy who thought GURPS was good for playing in all genres, not just for
>> playing in "realistic" sub-variants of them.
> If anyone is really naive enough to buy all of the hype and truly
> believe that *any* system - GURPS, Hero or whatever - is the Ultimate
> System to End All Systems, then I feel sorry for them. *Every* system has a
> bias. *Every* system bills itself as being new, exciting and revolutionary.
> If you believe otherwise, then you are asking for too much.
Yeah, and "everybody does drugs", so it's ok for me to sell and smoke crack.
Come on -- if that's your definition of "asking too much", then the opposite
of asking too much is eating grass and saying "baaa" a lot. It's ok for
companies to make claims they can't back up, because we're supposed to
expect them to do that? That's a place I'm not following you to.
As far as all systems having biases -- well, of course. Superbabes, Marvel
Super Heroes, and AD&D are particularly screwy, for example. But for any
game which claims to be multi-genre, the consumer has the right to expect
that game's biases to be sufficiently small not to interfere with that game's
ability to simulate a given genre. GURPS doesn't live up to this, and the
sad thing is that it could.
>> Well, it depends on what criteria you base your judgement on. When I
>> think of superheros, I think of four-color characters like Superman,
>> Spiderman, the Hulk, the X-Men, the Avengers, etc. A GURPS supplement
>> that does not target that expectation fails as a "good gaming supplement"
>> because it does not address my needs.
> For one thing, the supplement is called GURPS Supers and not GURPS
> Superheroes or GURPS Comics for a reason: it is meant to provide rules for
> "supers", i.e., "superhumans". This could mean the child of a demon father
> in a fantasy game, a demigod in a mythical historical game, or the
> Terminator.
Yes, it could. And in every case, HERO System would do the task better,
because GURPS Supers is monumentally screwed up.
> If you just looked at the gal in the Spandex suit on the front cover,
>read the hype on the back cover and bought the product on the strength of
>this alone, then I feel sorry for you. You fell into the oldest trap - you
>really did judge the book by the cover.
Man, you must think /I'm/ an utter /idiot/, then, because I judged the book
/before/ I saw the cover. See, I was young, had money to spare, liked the
GURPS system, missed the warning signs presented by the Basic Book's magic
system, and got this crazy idea that if I wanted to play a comicbook super-
hero campaign, it'd be a good idea to buy the book with "GURPS" and "Supers"
in the title.
This, of course, was before I got Illuminated, picked up an IO account,
befriended someone who was "in the know" about product development and the
like, and found out how silly and childish I was being by approaching my
games in any way other than deathly and brutally realistic, even the less-
than-realistic genres.
> A look inside would quickly reveal that the emphasis is on supernatural
> powers for characters (in the same way that Magic emphasizes spells, Psionics
> emphasizes psi abilities and Cyberpunk emphasizes cyberwear). The emphasis
> is not on "comic-book reality" - but I do not think that the book gives the
> impression that this was supposed to be the emphasis anyhow.
I don't have a store owner in my area that lets me take the book home and
read it thru (or read it thru in the store, for that matter), and frankly,
I just can't agree that a "cursory" look thru the book gives the impression
that there's no intention to simulate comicbook superheroes.
>> IMO, when you do a critical analysis of GURPS Supers, you can't just
>> look at the IST material and ignore all the mechanics. IST is just an
>> _example_ world.
> Why look at the IST world at all, unless you, the GM, are stuck for
> ideas? I personally find most "stock" worlds to be bad - many of GURPS'
> included, despite my love for that system.
One looks at the IST world because it is an interesting world (and does not
deserve, frankly, to be lumped in with GURPS Supers). I personally have no
stereotypes on the nature of "stock" worlds vs. my own -- I haven't been
able to achieve the kind of arrogance it would take to assume a campaign
world is bad /merely/ because I didn't create it.
>>the book as a whole fails to fullfil its "generic, universal" promise.
> If you insist upon holding every GURPS supplement to the "GU" criterion then
> why play GURPS at all? It is just one of many games. Its authors are
> fallible and some supplements are bound to be dogs. Like every system, GURPS
> hypes itself, in its case by taking a grandiose name for itself. Oh, well.
> Of course GURPS will not cover every genre and sub-genre smoothly, regardless
> of how much you push the limits. Did you really believe otherwise? If so,
>then I guess you drink Coke, too . . .
I drink Coke because it tastes good, which is the only claim I've ever seen
the Coca-Cola company explicitly make in its advertising. Sure, if I was a
sheep, I might drink it because of all the beautiful and popular people in
the commercials (though I'd probably drink Pepsi then -- it has more B.P.
per capita in their ads). But I'm not, so I only hold them up to what they
actually /say/.
Now with GURPS, it just so happens that SJG explicitly says I can play any
genre with their game system, with a minimum of effort. How explicitly?
Why, it's right there in their name: Generic Universal Role-Playing System.
So yes, I'm "naive" (as long as "glory" means "a knockdown drag-out fight")
enough to hold GURPS up to the claims made in its name and in the intro-
duction to the Basic book.
Yes, all authors are fallible. But is it really too much to ask that a game
purchase I pay money for be of good enough quality that the time spent
beating it into shape doesn't exceed the time I'd have to spend writing
an equivalent supplement in the first place?
Since I've just aligned myself with Mr. Cooper, I might as well answer the
question as to why I still play GURPS. It's because it /is/ still a good
game, one that comes /close/ to fulfilling its stated goals. The fact that
it falls short when it didn't have to, however, is why I keep talking.
H. G.
He beats his fists against the posts
and still insists he sees the ghosts
Joseph G Behrmann
Dr Kromm <pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA > wrote:
>In article <Cynrq...@news.cis.umn.edu> thor...@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H.
>> Heck, we could consider a thread on the realism of guys with strange and
>> random abilities running around in brightly-colored tights with stupid
>> headgear. Superheros aren't realistic. This isn't a matter of taking a
>> medieval society, adding magic and monsters, and playing it out on the
>> assumption that people will do what makes sense. This is a matter of
>> people doing very odd things for no reason whatsoever.
>powers in a game, as there is a long and honourable tradition of this kind of
>thing in the folklore of most cultures (wizards, demigods and so on)and so i
>does not strike me as being so much silly as merely unlikely. However, I have
>a big problem believing that if such powers existed, then everyone with such
>powers would become either a selfish scumbag or a selfless defender of the
>social contract, and that both sides would wear dumb, impractical outfits,
>assume stupid names and behave in an illogical fashion.
Hmm, let's look at the first of the classic "4-color" comics,
Superman. I think that his motivation to do good was quite well spelt
out and appropriate. His opponents were mostly "normal" humans
that were warped, his "do-good" attitude naturally brought him into
conflict with the worst of the worst, not the ones who were just
slightly bad, although that happened too.
Notice also, that he didn't kill his foes either, deeming that
beneath someone of his abilities. Lex Luthor is a "normal" human with
abnormal intelligence and big brassy balls. Superman was the only one
to adopt a "dumb, impratical outfit and assume a stupid name", and he
behaved in a logical fashion, considering his background. The name
and costume were there as a disguise (please no comments on the
quality of that disguise).
Batman was seriously screwed in the head, although his
disguise was well-motivated in origin. In his beginnings, he also
fought mostly "normals". Ever watch any of the old matinee serials of
Batman?
Spiderman and the Fantastic Four are more examples of supers
that act in very consistant manners in regards their powers and they
encounter people who are not all "selfish scumbags", just look at
Galactus as a "sympathetic" villain, or the Puppet-master and his niece.
What the later day comics writers have done to these titles is
a subject for another newsgroup.
In the beginning, the ones that wore the outfits were those
that wanted to be disguised and not be recognized, so that they
wouldn't have people blackmailing their families or surprising them on
the way home from work.
> Fundamentally, I think that weird powers would result in class division,
>and I think that the existence of a metahuman overclass would ultimately force
>a re-evaluation of human nature (in the sense of Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau).
>Comics have always bothered me because they seem to assume that with the advent
>of superpowers, human nature (even of non-supers) somehow changes, and as a
>result there is a gravitation towards the poles of moral behaviour.
I think that if a small subset of the population possessed
super-human powers, they would naturally tend toward three seperate
distinctions, those that used their powers for "good" - trying their
best to protect and enrich humanity, those that used their powers for
"evil" - making a quick buck, scaming the populace, and those that
never used their powers - about which no comic books would be written
since their lives would be boring. I think that the new "gritty,
angst-ridden, big guns, even-bigger-chip-on-my-shoulder" style of
comics, while being dubbed "realistic supers" is merely a reflection
of our times as much as superman was of his. Nowadays, selfishness
and greed are commonplace and even our greatest heroes are tainted
by mud, the information glut has disillusioned our society. In the
early days of comics, heroes were heroes, they didn't have those
foibles in the public eye and neither did the comics that depicted
"super" versions of them.
Some people prefer to play in a more "idealized" setting than
real-life, that's one of the attractions of role-playing, escapism.
Good Guys (tm) versus Bad Guys (tm), with each side wearing the proper
colored hat so that everyone knows what side their one. Knights in
shiny armor rescuing princesses from evil trolls is a staple of our
upbringing, a shadow of our childhood, harkening back to its innocence.
Its a willing suspension of disbelief.
> Moreover, even simple, physical things seem to change in illogical ways in
>comics - people can suddenly survive being punched through walls, Newton's laws
>are violated regularly, and so on. More abstract concepts change for the worse,
I believe that Superman should be able to survive being
punched through walls, don't you? (The concept of who he is, not the
bogus science that rationalizes it - just because they didn't know
better in the '30s doesn't mean we have the right to call them wrong
for writing their fiction from that viewpoint.)
>too. Take tactics: how smart is it to wear a brightly-coloured Spandex suit to
>a gunfight, announce one's presence loudly and then try to incapacitate the
>foe, not kill him? Not very. It makes more sense to sneak up in camo and body
>armour and do the guy in ASAP. Why having flame powers instead of a gun would
>change this is beyond me.
Some people would view that as "cheating" or "dishonorable".
Try reading the "Three Muskateers" or "Le Morte d'Arthur. Maybe some
people want to play it that way. How about the method of fighting
that was common until the American Revolutionary War? Two sides line
up and march at each other and shoot. Not very intelligent if they
are just trying to survive or accomplish a goal. But if you take into
account the fact that some people, myself included, believe that the
ends do not justify the means, that winning isn't everything, and that
certain things, honor included, are more important than life, country,
or accomplishment, then you start to consider that what the 4-color
supers do is "appropriate".
This is not to say that I wouldn't don the camouflage gear and
be sneaky in real-life, I'd chicken out. But I'd like to think that
there are some people who's convictions are greater than their
cowardice and would continue through with it, although it may seem
stupid to someone who doesn't have their point of view. I might like
to play that attitude in a game, and being powerful enough to survive
with that attitude (ala Superman) would really be something.
While this attitude may seem more "cinematic" or a throw-back
to a previous morality base to you, it seems perfectly fine to me.
And if GURPS Supers doesn't allow me to play this method of game
without major hacking, then it doesn't fit the bill. You might like
more "modern" methods of thinking in your games, but I might like
things my way in mine. Since GURPS Supers doesn't handle all genres
of superhero gaming, it is no more generic and universal in its
coverage of superheroes than AD&D is generic and universal in its
coverage of Fantasy gaming.
Joe
--
Joseph Behrmann -- jgb...@pitt.edu -- behr...@psc.edu -- Quote of the day:
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
- A. Szent-Gyorgyi
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
>It is sort of like taking GURPS Space - a fine supplement,
>but one which is realism-biased like GURPS Supers - and saying that it is
>dreadful jsut because it does not do Star Trek very well. A valid point,
>inasmuch as the observation is valid, but who ever claimed that simulating
>comics - or Star Trek - was ever a goal of GURPS?
GURPS -- "*G*eneric *U*niversal RolePlaying System"
I think the words "Generic Universal" suggest that it can simulate comics or
Star Trek. (I do in fact play GURPS. And like it.)
Now, you claim GURPS does not simulate a space fantasy setting Star Trek very
well. I'm afraid I must disagree with that assessment. GURPS beautifully emulates
a setting like Star Trek (TL12, I'd say, with teleportation thrown in). Just like
in ST, fights are deadly but medical equipment is nothing short of mind-boggling.
GURPS Space does not do a very good job doing hard SF, IMHO. It simply isn't
possible to set up a universe like in Heinlein's juvenile novels. The starship
construction rules for reaction drives are so unplayable that I still don't know
how to use them to build a spaceship, and I'm an aerospace major, for heaven's
sake! Even assuming that you did get a functioning spacecraft out of the rules,
the book glosses over the fact that the power of the reaction drive is not simply
related to the transit time.
To be sure, a lot of these hard sf criticisms also apply to every other SFRPG.
Hard sf tends to be a lot more complicated than is convenient for fast
roleplaying.
Neel
Troll
ne...@athena.mit.edu "Neelakantan Krishnaswami" writes:
> To be sure, a lot of these hard sf criticisms also apply to every other SFRPG.
> Hard sf tends to be a lot more complicated than is convenient for fast
> roleplaying.
I think the problem lies with how hard you want your science. I think
GURPS Space offered both hard and soft. It also felt just like a properly
written way to play Traveller, yummy.
--
The Troll
Paul Andrew King
>evolution of one idea: a fantasy combat system that was more realistic than
>AD&D. As it grew into a full roleplaying system, mundane realism became a
>Holy Grail, and the game's philosophy crystalized into its current form.
If you *really* look at GURPS' history you'll see that's half true at
best. I'll accept that Fantasy was the original genre but that's all.
Man to Man was published only as a preview of the full system - it was
never designed as a seperate game. It was GURPS from the start (although
it originally stood for "Great Unnamed Role-Playing System").
Paul K.
ErolB1
<pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA > writes:
>In article <39aq1q$i...@newsbf01.news.aol.com> ero...@aol.com (ErolB1)
writes:
>> First, there is a difference between opining that *you* prefer creating
>> new genres to copying old ones
> Which is precisely what I said . . .
>> and opining, however humbly, that *everyone
>> else* should prefer this too. You claimed the latter, and your tacking
on
>> "IMHO" did not change this.
> . . . with which I just plain disagree. "IMHO" is generally taken to
mean
>that the associated statement is solely the view of the author, who makes
>no
>claims as to its truth for anyone else, and who is just stating an
opinion, >as
>the expression clearly implies. If you personally do not think that this
is >so,
>then I apologize; but whether *you* think so or not, I *know* (since I
>wrote
>the damn thing) that I was not handing down a decree or trying to limit
the
>reader in any way. I was just introducing another view on the subject at
>hand.
If I misread what you wrote, then I appoligize in turn. This is not worth
fighting a flame-war over.
[deletions]
>> But IMHO the translation of genres into the gaming medium is not
>> a Solved Problem
> Myabe, maybe not - but it sure seems that way to me. I am so tired
of
>seeing gaming supplements that are essentially genre treatments that I
>have
>stopped thinking, "How could I turn this into a campaign?" when I see a
>good
>movie or read a cool book and I have started thinking about *original*
>campaign
>and genre design as an art.
Is your objection that there are too many genre treatments and not enough
original backgrounds, or that the genre treatments are not done well? And
how much of your dislike of genre treatments is due to the extensive
treatment of genres you particularly dislike?
If you think 4-color supers (or cinematic genres in general) are stupid,
childish, and silly, then of course you're going to be sick of game
treatments that faithfully emulate that (perceived) stupidity,
childishness, and silliness. How much of your dislike of genre treatments
do you think is due to this?
What I'm talking about is a set of *optional* rules to make GURPS
"friendlier" to those who, like myself, prefer a more cinematic style of
play. There are already such rules, but they are, IMHO, poorly thought
out, poorly organized, and limited in scope. Rewriting and expanding those
rules to bring them up to snuff will be tedious and will take a lot of
testing, but no more so than many of the existing realistic "advanced" and
optional rules. And using them afterwards should be much easier than
fighting the "realism bias" of the standard rules.
>> It is fraud to sell a product on the basis of false claims.
> Yes, but not on the basis of hyped-up (but not, strictly, untrue)
claims,
>or on the basis of abstract claims that no one could conclusively prove
or
>disprove anyway. GURPS claims to be generic and universal. To the extent
>that
>there are rules for almost every genre, it is generic. To the extent that
the
>same basic rules and mechanics are used in all genres, it is universal.
OK, >so
>the hype made it sound like a completely general meta-system - but so
>what? The
>hype on Hero makes it sound that way, too, but it really sucks for
low->powered,
>ultra-realistic gaming. Heck, Paranoia promises you that you will get to
>vaporize your friends, but that is just silly hype, too :-)
But I'm not calling on SJG to live up to their "hype" - I'm just calling
on them to live up to their usual and expected standards of quality. GURPS
High Tech doesn't live up to *its* hype either, but it comes a heck of a
lot closer than GURPS Supers does.
Dr Kromm
> If I misread what you wrote, then I appoligize in turn. This is not worth
> fighting a flame-war over.
My sentiments exactly.
> Is your objection that there are too many genre treatments and not enough
> original backgrounds, or that the genre treatments are not done well?
The former. There are plenty of genre treatments out there, and plenty of
*good* genre treatments out there for gaming, but there are darn few original
genres *invented* purely for gaming without the assistance of novels, movies
and comics. It is not just backgrounds and settings I want to see - you can
have a new background or setting within an old genre. I want to see something
that is a "gaming-specific" genre. In some sense, wild "crossovers" which are
too loose to fit into a tightly-plotted novelization and which would break the
budget of a movie producer are the closest thing I have seen.
> how much of your dislike of genre treatments is due to the extensive
> treatment of genres you particularly dislike?
Not much of it, really. I dislike genre treatments due to their lack of
originality and due to the fact that while they might add depth to the hobby,
they rarely add breadth. My big bitch with published gaming supplements at
large is that they generally beat old standards to death instead of opening up
new bandwidth.
> If you think 4-color supers (or cinematic genres in general) are stupid,
> childish, and silly, then of course you're going to be sick of game
> treatments that faithfully emulate that (perceived) stupidity,
> childishness, and silliness. How much of your dislike of genre treatments
> do you think is due to this?
In the case of cinematic genres - supers in particular - my dislike stems
partly from what I have explained above, but mostly from my experiences with
the type of gamer who I have encountered playing in these sorts of campaigns.
Never have I encountered more militant powergamers who were more competitive
and more argumentative than in cinematic genres. Especially supers.
Rodney Payne
> I think that if a small subset of the population possessed
>super-human powers, they would naturally tend toward three seperate
>distinctions, those that used their powers for "good" - trying their
>best to protect and enrich humanity, those that used their powers for
>"evil" - making a quick buck, scaming the populace, and those that
>never used their powers - about which no comic books would be written
>since their lives would be boring. I think that the new "gritty,
>angst-ridden, big guns, even-bigger-chip-on-my-shoulder" style of
>comics, while being dubbed "realistic supers" is merely a reflection
>of our times as much as superman was of his. Nowadays, selfishness
>and greed are commonplace and even our greatest heroes are tainted
>by mud, the information glut has disillusioned our society. In the
>early days of comics, heroes were heroes, they didn't have those
>foibles in the public eye and neither did the comics that depicted
>"super" versions of them.
A coupla points:
* The idea that modern society is somehow more selfish, greedy, and on the
whole nastier is, well, nostalgic crap. What you're seeing is simply the
result of population increase and division of wealth. The `information
glut [that] has disillusioned our society' is exactly the thing that makes
you perceive that the rate of crime etc has increased. You harken to an
age were a few power hungry political types managed to conceal their
actions and attitudes from the public while subsequently manipulating them
into thinking it's all in their best interests. Think the rate of spousal
abuse is on the increase? It's not. We just hear about it when it happens now.
Think Usenet would have flourished in the age of McCarthyism?
* Please explain your reasoning behind the contention of superhuman moral
polarisation. I'd suggest that, using a basic knowledge of psychology,
people would tend to behave in a way that reaffirmed their self image.
Which would probably not involve running around in spandex underwear. Or
being ultimately good or ultimately evil. More likely they'd vary, on an
individual level, between mild altruism and mild pragmatism. They'd
probably be more active (activist?) because their powers would allow them
to be. But not absolute purity or its opposite. I consider myself a fairly
nice person (wish my friends did :)). I'd probably fight crime to some
extent. I'd probably be considered a vigilante if I had superhuman powers.
I'd possibly rob a bank or two if I needed the cash and could do it non
confrontationally. So, I think would most people.
People are people, not walking (or flying) textbooks on morals.
--
Rodney Payne | What is the meaning of life? Life has no
| meaning. It's just a fortunate coincidence
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | of carbon chemistry. Forget about it.
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | Anonymous
John Cooper
>However, I have a
>big problem believing that if such powers existed, then everyone with such
>powers would become either a selfish scumbag or a selfless defender of the
>social contract, and that both sides would wear dumb, impractical outfits,
>assume stupid names and behave in an illogical fashion.
[snip]
>Comics have always bothered me because they seem to assume that with the
>advent of superpowers, human nature (even of non-supers) somehow changes,
>and as a result there is a gravitation towards the poles of moral behaviour.
> Moreover, even simple, physical things seem to change in illogical ways
>in comics - people can suddenly survive being punched through walls, Newton's
>laws are violated regularly, and so on.
Kromm, it is quite clear that you despise the superhero comic book genre.
Fine. But to claim that GURPS Supers intentionally carries the same bias as
you do is rediculous. GURPS Supers tried to cater to the very genre you
hate, but in failing to do so it indirectly catered to your preferred style
of play instead.
In the end, all we can say is that GURPS Supers meets your needs, but
fails to deliver (for many gamers) a satisfactory representation of a genre
that it clearly intended to address. What it happens to deliver and what
it was supposed to deliver are two different things in this case, and this
is the heart of the matter. This is true no matter how stupid you happen
to think the target genre is!
Dr Kromm
> IMO, it is a mixture of both. _GURPS Supers_ is clearly derivative
> from comics, with the intended "new twist" of injecting some realism -
> while at the same time adding optional rules for comics-style play.
> As a result, it does produces neither four-color action nor
> reality. Rather, it is a strange medium between the two - with mostly
> comic-book background, assumptions, and powers (like "Body of Flame"),
> but with realistic mechanics.
> I find it just odd and twisted, but there are some who like it,
> apparently.
I would be willing to agree with this analysis - perhaps with a few
quibbles, but this thread has gone on (and way off topic) for long enough. Yes,
I *am* one of the few who seem to like GURPS Supers' approach and who consider
it to be superior to a "pure comics" or "pure realism" approach. I still
contend that this was the desired end result for the product. I would suggest
that future flames about GURPS Supers be directed at the problems it has with
character point balance rather than at the genre-simulation issue.
Joseph G Behrmann
>jgb...@pitt.edu (Joseph G Behrmann) writes:
>> I think that if a small subset of the population possessed
>>super-human powers, they would naturally tend toward three seperate
>>distinctions, those that used their powers for "good" - trying their
>>best to protect and enrich humanity, those that used their powers for
>>"evil" - making a quick buck, scaming the populace, and those that
>>never used their powers - about which no comic books would be written
>>since their lives would be boring. I think that the new "gritty,
>>angst-ridden, big guns, even-bigger-chip-on-my-shoulder" style of
>>comics, while being dubbed "realistic supers" is merely a reflection
>>of our times as much as superman was of his. Nowadays, selfishness
>>and greed are commonplace and even our greatest heroes are tainted
>>by mud, the information glut has disillusioned our society. In the
>>early days of comics, heroes were heroes, they didn't have those
>>foibles in the public eye and neither did the comics that depicted
>>"super" versions of them.
>whole nastier is, well, nostalgic crap. What you're seeing is simply the
>result of population increase and division of wealth. The `information
>glut [that] has disillusioned our society' is exactly the thing that makes
>you perceive that the rate of crime etc has increased. You harken to an
>age were a few power hungry political types managed to conceal their
>actions and attitudes from the public while subsequently manipulating them
>into thinking it's all in their best interests. Think the rate of spousal
>abuse is on the increase? It's not. We just hear about it when it happens now.
>Think Usenet would have flourished in the age of McCarthyism?
Hmm, you don't read very well. If you would have read the
part about "didn't have these foibles in the public eye", you might be
saying something different. I never said that the old times didn't
have the same personalities as we have today, I'm saying that nowadays
with the information glut you know everything that happens to everyone
who is even slightly famous. And since people are only human, they
make mistakes. In previous times it would have to have been a larger
mistake than what we hear about to day to make the news. Our heroes
are no longer made of gold, but of silver, they tarnish quickly upon
reaching the spotlight. I never said that crime has increased,
although its true that it has. There have never been so many murders
per capita in our country's history (except perhaps in short stints in
the old west). I believe that you are arguing a completely
non-existant point in my post.
>* Please explain your reasoning behind the contention of superhuman moral
>polarisation. I'd suggest that, using a basic knowledge of psychology,
>people would tend to behave in a way that reaffirmed their self image.
>Which would probably not involve running around in spandex underwear. Or
>being ultimately good or ultimately evil. More likely they'd vary, on an
>individual level, between mild altruism and mild pragmatism. They'd
>probably be more active (activist?) because their powers would allow them
>to be. But not absolute purity or its opposite. I consider myself a fairly
>nice person (wish my friends did :)). I'd probably fight crime to some
>extent. I'd probably be considered a vigilante if I had superhuman powers.
>I'd possibly rob a bank or two if I needed the cash and could do it non
>confrontationally. So, I think would most people.
>
> People are people, not walking (or flying) textbooks on morals.
You'd rob a bonk, just because you had the power to? I guess
that there are fewer moral restraints still in existance these days.
Your perceptions adn your morals make you believe that most people
would act the way that you would, I have the same myopia. I tend to
believe in the goodness of humanity, I would not rob a bank even if I
had the chance to, I'd hurt too many other people by taking their
life-savings. (And don't give the FDIC argument about insurance, if
they cover it then you're just wagering your children's future instead
of some little old lady's.)
I'd like to think that there would people who would "do the
right thing" no matter what the consequences, sure their'd be people
like you who would be morally ambiguous, but there _would_ be people
that weren't. For instance if Ghandhi had super-powers. You seem to
be arguing that there would be noone who was "ultimately good" and by
consequence "ultimately evil". I think that there would be a lot more
"ultimately evil" people than just "partially evil". Remember the old
adiage about power corrupting? It would be the exceptional person who
would resist the temptation to do bad things, whereas the morally
ambiguous person would continually rationalize their actions as
"nonconfrontational" or as "not harming anyone". They would
eventually rationalize worse and worse crimes. I think that the good
types would be pressured into fighting bad types more and more since
there would be far more bad types. They would shine brighter by being
the sliver lining in the dark storm cloud.
Certainly they would vary on an individual level, just as all
humans do, but I'd like to point out that I would prefer to play the
person that isn't morally ambiguous, I can be that way in real-life
easy enough. Being a paramount of morality is very difficult in
real-life, I'd like it to be easier in fantasy.
I'd also like you to address the points I made about batman or
superman or spiderman. What in there characters would lead you to
believe that they shouldn't act the way that they do?
Joe
--
Joseph Behrmann -- jgb...@pitt.edu -- behr...@psc.edu -- Quote of the day:
"Politicians are like diapers...
They both should be changed often, and for the same reason"
Rodney Payne
>>>since their lives would be boring. I think that the new "gritty,
>>>angst-ridden, big guns, even-bigger-chip-on-my-shoulder" style of
>>>comics, while being dubbed "realistic supers" is merely a reflection
>>>of our times as much as superman was of his. Nowadays, selfishness
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>and greed are commonplace and even our greatest heroes are tainted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>by mud, the information glut has disillusioned our society. In the
^^^^^^
>>>early days of comics, heroes were heroes, they didn't have those
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>foibles in the public eye and neither did the comics that depicted
>>>"super" versions of them.
> Hmm, you don't read very well. If you would have read the
>part about "didn't have these foibles in the public eye", you might be
>saying something different.
No, I think you don't write very well (or, more correctly, you didn't
write well here: try not to generalise in future yourself).
You clearly state you think greed and selfishness are commonplace today,
against a backdrop of a more positive past. Thus you *are* making a
personality judgement on people today. If this wasn't your intention, then
fair enough. But it is how your post read.
You separately said that people are more fallible `in the public eye'.
No complaint here. But that doesn't change the fact that you also made an
objective statement about morality and modern society: that it is
inherently more immoral.
>I never said that the old times didn't
>have the same personalities as we have today, I'm saying that nowadays
>with the information glut you know everything that happens to everyone
>who is even slightly famous. And since people are only human, they
>make mistakes. In previous times it would have to have been a larger
>mistake than what we hear about to day to make the news. Our heroes
>are no longer made of gold, but of silver, they tarnish quickly upon
>reaching the spotlight.
See, again you make the duel claim of a) public fallibility b) actual
fallibilty. I know this is picky, but if you make a negative
generalisation about people they'll defend themselves. You should have
written `no longer appear to be made of gold.'
>I never said that crime has increased,
>although its true that it has. There have never been so many murders
>per capita in our country's history (except perhaps in short stints in
>the old west).
I will concede that crime has increased. But I don't think it has anything
to do with people being inherently more greedy or selfish. It's social
factors that cause these things, and to claim that poeple 20 years ago
were more morally pure is just plain niave.
BTW, crime may have increased per capita on the whole (although I'd like
to see figures and proof that it's not just reported crime that has
increased), but in some places things have clearly improved. How many
blacks get lynched in the south now as compared to 1954?
>> People are people, not walking (or flying) textbooks on morals.
> You'd rob a bonk, just because you had the power to? I guess
>that there are fewer moral restraints still in existance these days.
I'd *possibly* rob a bank is what I said. And as for fewer moral
restraints, well, there are, and thank God for it. Thankfully people are
now free to express themselves more without fear of censorship. People
aren't persecuted for their race, ethnicity, beliefs, or sexuality.
I really must get off my soapbox....
>Your perceptions adn your morals make you believe that most people
>would act the way that you would, I have the same myopia.
No, actually, I don't. I think they would act in a variety of ways, but I
seriously doubt they would drift to extremes.
>I tend to
>believe in the goodness of humanity, I would not rob a bank even if I
>had the chance to, I'd hurt too many other people by taking their
>life-savings. (And don't give the FDIC argument about insurance, if
>they cover it then you're just wagering your children's future instead
>of some little old lady's.)
You're assuming:
* I'd steal a lot of money
* I wouldn't distribute it more equitibly. Perhaps I see a problem in 10%
of the population retaining 90% of the wealth. I never said I'd keep it
myself (I should have made that clear), although I'd probably keep some if
I *needed* the cash. Not because I could get away with it.
> I'd like to think that there would people who would "do the
>right thing" no matter what the consequences, sure their'd be people
>like you who would be morally ambiguous, but there _would_ be people
>that weren't. For instance if Ghandhi had super-powers. You seem to
>be arguing that there would be noone who was "ultimately good" and by
>consequence "ultimately evil".
I didn't say noone, I said very few. If Ghandhi had super powers he would
no doubt have maintained his non violent resistence standpoint. Ghandhi
had what's called a cardinal trait: an overiding element of his
personality that led him in a particular direction: this is very rare.
BTW, morally ambiguous by you standards only. I personally feel that the
retention of most of the worlds wealth by a few industrial nations is
immoral. By comparison, robbing a bank of, say, $500, is trivial.
>I think that there would be a lot more
>"ultimately evil" people than just "partially evil". Remember the old
>adiage about power corrupting? It would be the exceptional person who
>would resist the temptation to do bad things, whereas the morally
>ambiguous person would continually rationalize their actions as
>"nonconfrontational" or as "not harming anyone".
But why would only `exceptional people' get superhuman powers?
>They would
>eventually rationalize worse and worse crimes. I think that the good
>types would be pressured into fighting bad types more and more since
>there would be far more bad types. They would shine brighter by being
>the sliver lining in the dark storm cloud.
Only if they were, on the whole, confronted by these `bad types.' Which is
unlikely: why pick on Superman when there are 5000000000 powerless mortals
to take from?
Who's gonna pressure them anyway? Perhaps they'd feel guilty, but I
don't see too many comfortable upper middle class homeowners feeling
guilty about urban squaller.
FYI, I'd most likely be one of those crime fighting types. But I'd no
doubt have my targets, and leave a lot of the criminal element alone.
Which in my case would mean picking on power abuser at all levels. But
then again, I'm an almost annoyingly righteous person (ask my girlfriend :)).
Possibly you'd be one too: but I'd say we're in a minority.
> Certainly they would vary on an individual level, just as all
>humans do, but I'd like to point out that I would prefer to play the
>person that isn't morally ambiguous, I can be that way in real-life
>easy enough. Being a paramount of morality is very difficult in
>real-life, I'd like it to be easier in fantasy.
I have no problem with who you choose to play, or how you choose to play
them. But I doubt if real life plus supers would be anything like most comics.
> I'd also like you to address the points I made about batman or
>superman or spiderman. What in there characters would lead you to
>believe that they shouldn't act the way that they do?
Nothing. I agree that these characters may be inclined to fight crime
(well, maybe not Spiderman, but his reluctance has been used as a plot
device, so I'm OK with it). Supes and Batman have cardinal traits, just
like Ghandhi. Superman is more a symbol than a character anyway (although
he was extremely well done in the 1977 film). But these people are
exceptions: there is no reason to suspect that the only people who obtain
superhuman abilities would have extreme personalities.
ErolB1
<pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA > writes:
>In article <39kcgb$5...@newsbf01.news.aol.com> ero...@aol.com (ErolB1)
writes:
>> If I misread what you wrote, then I appoligize in turn. This is not
worth
>> fighting a flame-war over.
> My sentiments exactly.
'nuff said.
>> Is your objection that there are too many genre treatments and not
enough
>> original backgrounds, or that the genre treatments are not done well?
> The former. There are plenty of genre treatments out there, and
plenty >of *good* genre treatments out there for gaming, but there are
darn few >original genres *invented* purely for gaming without the
assistance of >novels, movies and comics. It is not just backgrounds and
settings I want >to see - you can have a new background or setting within
an old genre. I >want to see something that is a "gaming-specific" genre.
In some sense, >wild "crossovers" which are too loose to fit into a
tightly-plotted >novelization and which would break the
>budget of a movie producer are the closest thing I have seen.
OK then, what about a new but *highly cinematic* genre developed
specifically for gaming? Would you applaud it as a new game-specific
genre? Denounce it for being cinematic? Neither? Both? Would you prefer to
see it done in a system other than GURPS so that the realism of GURPS
would remain uncontaminated by a serious set of optional cinematic rules?
I think that we've been confusing two issues here: Whether GURPS should be
extended to enable it to do genre treatments, and whether GURPS should be
extended to enable it to do cinematic things.
>> how much of your dislike of genre treatments is due to the extensive
>> treatment of genres you particularly dislike?
> Not much of it, really. I dislike genre treatments due to their lack
of
>originality and due to the fact that while they might add depth to the
>hobby, they rarely add breadth. My big bitch with published gaming
>supplements at large is that they generally beat old standards to death
>instead of opening up new bandwidth.
This is *really* a nit, but it seems to be that your metaphor is
backwards: genre treatments add breadth to the hobby but not depth.
>> If you think 4-color supers (or cinematic genres in general) are
stupid,
>> childish, and silly, then of course you're going to be sick of game
>> treatments that faithfully emulate that (perceived) stupidity,
>> childishness, and silliness. How much of your dislike of genre
treatments
>> do you think is due to this?
> In the case of cinematic genres - supers in particular - my dislike
>stems partly from what I have explained above, but mostly from my
>experiences with the type of gamer who I have encountered playing in
>these sorts of campaigns. Never have I encountered more militant
>powergamers who were more competitive and more argumentative than in
>cinematic genres. Especially supers.
Hmm. I have noticed that high-power cinematic games, especially supers,
does tend to release the "inner munchkin." Not that I consider this to be
necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I find that a lot of the problems with
cinematic games stem from the games being not quite cinematic *enough*:
The "inner munchkin" gets released, but is put on a too-short leash. And
as a result, the "inner munchkin" bitches.
John H Kim
of characters with superpowers in the modern world.
I ran a `realistic paranormals' campaign for a while. I think
the basic scenario is very interesting: what would you do if you had
superhuman powers? This is very different from the comics, and I see
no reason to impose things like silly costumes, pseudonyms, and
vigilanteism.
Joseph G Behrmann <jgb...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>>> I think that if a small subset of the population possessed
>>>super-human powers, they would naturally tend toward three seperate
>>>distinctions, those that used their powers for "good" - trying their
>>>best to protect and enrich humanity, those that used their powers for
>>>"evil" - making a quick buck, scaming the populace, and those that
>>>never used their powers - about which no comic books would be written
>>>since their lives would be boring.
Hold on. Are you saying that using your powers to make money
is "evil"? What do you mean by "scamming the populace" - is this like
selling diet programs for $19.95?
With comic-book like powers, I can see a number of reactions, but
not these. Some people would go public and become media stars - some for
the fame and money, some to be role models and to make a difference - but
most would be a mix of the two. Others might stay private and simply use
their powers in smaller ways - help out where they can, and also benefit
themselves where possible.
The remaining possibility is secret activities - often criminal.
Theft is a possibility - but there are probably lots of ways to get rich
with superpowers without getting into trouble with the police and
populace. More likely, there are various power trips one might try:
going places and doing things no one else can. These are probably not
evil - just various misdemeanors (i.e. teleporting into the mayor's
office and taking some of his cigars - just to see what it's like).
Vigilanteism comes to mind: beating up "bad guys", trashing crack
houses, etc.
Mutant for Hire
> I ran a `realistic paranormals' campaign for a while. I think
>the basic scenario is very interesting: what would you do if you had
>superhuman powers? This is very different from the comics, and I see
>no reason to impose things like silly costumes, pseudonyms, and
>vigilanteism.
I once plotted out a fairly realistic superhero world. That is, assume
that the superpowers are the only unrealism, and then let everything
evolve naturally. I did some plausible projections, and it got nasty.
First off, silly costumes were for the most part out. On the other
hand, I decided that a certain amount of costume-ness was necessary,
so I invented a mysterious substance that adapted itself to the
metahuman wearing it, so the dude with the flame powers wouldn't set
his clothes on fire. What were out were masks, hoods, capes, high
heels for women, etc.
Pseudonyms stuck around. Look at professional wrestling. Or for that
matter the way pro baseball players often get nicknames. The real
tendency to give a nickname to someone with special powers is very
irresistable, and most metahumans would try to come up with one
before someone else invented one for them.
Secret identities were out. Period. Given how well identification
methods work these days, it takes an amazing set of powers to really
conceal identity. Forget real life/secret life. It wouldn't work.
The government has too many resources it could use to track down
someone's ID.
I also tossed out supertech for the most part, with one exception.
I did allow for psi-jammers/shields to be invented. I decided to
have that one bit of tech around to keep the mentalists under a
certain amount of control. Supertech would just cause too many
consequences and generate a more SF-style world.
> With comic-book like powers, I can see a number of reactions, but
>not these. Some people would go public and become media stars - some for
>the fame and money, some to be role models and to make a difference - but
>most would be a mix of the two. Others might stay private and simply use
>their powers in smaller ways - help out where they can, and also benefit
>themselves where possible.
Nice concept, but you're forgetting one other force. The government. You
see, the government exists due to monopoly of force, or at least a real
dominance of it. People start walking around with powers, the government
is going to want to make sure these people are controlled, especially if
they have powers that cannot be duplicated by science.
In general, the two factors that will govern the government's response
depend on how many metahumans are around and the power distribution.
Especially the combination of the two at the high end. (this all of
course assumes that metahuman creation is a random affair, pretty
much uncontrollable) If there are few enough, the government will try
to keep all of them under guard while trying to figure out how they got
their powers and how to duplicate/neutralize them.
If there are too many for that, the government will probably just
keep an eye on the weaker ones and the ones with powers that technology
can duplicate and neutralize. Or ones with powers deemed not terribly
hazardous. Such as someone who can telekinetically lift anything smaller
than a spoon. The government will keep a real close eye on those with
mental powers like telepathy and those with clairvoyant powers. Those
who can teleport and other really fringe powers will also be kept under
close observation.
When you get to the upper end of the power spectrum, as well as the
fringe powers, the government is really going to want to keep these
people under control. Failing control, possible execution. There is
the danger that these people will have special powers and then think
that they are beyond normal human laws, something that the people who
enforce said laws do not appreciate. How to keep those mentalists from
taking over secretly. (now you see why I stuck the shielding bit in)
In short, the government would probably set up an agency to oversee
all metahuman activity, and register all of them. Those too weak to
be a danger would merely be checked on every now and then. The real
threats would be recruited. If the subjects refused to cooperate,
stronger measures would be taken. Economic and legal pressure would
be used, finally backed up by threat of death. Recruited metahumans
would be used to keep the others in line, while the goverment made
sure that the metahumans would not think of working together to take
over, a nightmare in the extreme. Forget vigilante superheroes. Anyone
using their powers had better do it with legal authority.
People may think I'm being paranoid, but when you consider what things
are being done in the name of the drug war and terrorism as a threat,
the potential of someone who is a walking tactical nuke to get an
extreme response is not totally unreasonable.
But yes, once you get past the government's registration, the media
will have a field day. Codenames, possibly costumes (not the silly ones,
more like uniforms) and the like. TV shows, and who knows what else.
Also, a lot of people will use their powers legally for financial gain.
People with transmutation powers will be popular. Teleporters could
make a fortune as couriers for stuff that has to move fast.
The public will have a love/hate relationship, or more accurately a
fear/envy relationship. Look at the Weekly World News and imagine what
it would be like in a superhero world where there really were people
who had mind control powers! They admire metahumans, but also try to
probe for weaknesses. Worse than politicians in the way their private
lives would be put up to the spotlight. How the religions would react
is another nasty bit....
> The remaining possibility is secret activities - often criminal.
>Theft is a possibility - but there are probably lots of ways to get rich
>with superpowers without getting into trouble with the police and
>populace. More likely, there are various power trips one might try:
>going places and doing things no one else can. These are probably not
>evil - just various misdemeanors (i.e. teleporting into the mayor's
>office and taking some of his cigars - just to see what it's like).
>Vigilanteism comes to mind: beating up "bad guys", trashing crack
>houses, etc.
Vigilantism is a nightmare. Criminal activity is a bigger one. Imagine
smugglers who can teleport. Hit men who can pass any weapons checks.
Telepaths who can steal company secrets. Mind controllers who can turn
people into their slaves. How do you enforce the law on someone who
can bounce bullets or even anything short of a nuke?
I don't see the cliched supervillians appearing. Most likely, such
metahumans would enter conventional criminal lines, merely upping
the level of firepower. Bricks and blasters being used in place of
thugs with machine guns. The more esoteric powers being used for
new avenues as mentioned above, but for the most part, crooks will
earn their dishonest money along the same old lines.
Well, those are some of my views. Not terribly pretty, but that's
what they are. Comments?
--
Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Synchronicity Daemon, Priest of Shub-Internet
Disclaimer: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but flames are just ignored
mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu mfte...@pucc.bitnet an7...@anon.penet.fi
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
John H Kim
world where various people manifest paranormal `super' abilities. Martin
makes a number of points regarding the government's response to the
appearance of paranormal abilities. While there are good points, I do
think it represents an exaggerated view. Before I go into detail,
two general points:
First, the ability of government agencies and law enforcement
should not be overestimated as a `big brother' view. Plenty of people
without superpowers remain at large despite the government's best efforts
to bring them to justice. Certain powers would make this easy: shapechange,
life support, etc. Other powers have no visible effects which tie them
to the owner (including perhaps telepathy), and thus are virtually
impossible to regulate.
Second, powers like bouncing bullets off one's chest are not all
that dangerous to the government. Frankly, there are a lot more dangerous
people out there. Consider what the U.S. government allows today. It
has armed camps of people with military weapons and political agendas
running loose; it has scientists capable of building nuclear bombs living
free; etc.
Certainly some powers - notably telepathy and other mental powers -
will draw extreme government regulation, because they directly threaten
national security. These individuals, if identified, are primary candidates
for mysteriously disappearing - either recruited or killed. But the vast
majority of the usual `superpowers' are no more of a threat than plenty of
other national resources.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Mutant for Hire <mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>People start walking around with powers, the government is going to want
>to make sure these people are controlled, especially if they have powers
>that cannot be duplicated by science.
...
>If there are few enough, the government will try to keep all of them under
>guard while trying to figure out how they got their powers and how to
>duplicate/neutralize them.
Hmmmm. It depends on the nature of the powers, I suppose.
Certainly something of that sort may happen when the powers first appear:
the government and just about everyone else is shocked and scared, and wants
to investigate. OTOH, I doubt it would stay that way.
A lot depends on the results of the research. If the research
advances, then the face of science and technology will radically change.
If, OTOH, it is established that these powers are not duplicatable and the
origin remains beyond reach, then the research effort may die down to a
constant minimum. There is no longer any reason to keep a tight lid on
it, and many benefits from opening up.
-*-*-*-
In my world, with a few, highly competant paranormals, the
government tried several avenues. As they first appeared in 1930's
England, a paranormal headed a government-sponsored institute to study
the powers. Registry was voluntary, but most of the few who appeared
were willing to at least peripherally cooperate. In the war more
restrictions were emplaced, but that was pretty consistent much normal
for the times.
As paranormals started appearing in the U.S., the FBI naturally
did their best do develop complete profiles on each of them. The
manifesting of powers was generally quiet - and the people were highly
intelligent. While a few manifested telepathic abilities, they never
revealed those abilities - and thus there was no evidence for them.
One PC was tagged by the government as having an apparently paranormal
ability to find people - but he was damn careful to never reveal his
other mental abilities to anyone but his closest friends and
associates.
In the 1960's the government started a paranormal agency,
unofficially known as the Minuteman project. It's stated goal was to hire
paranormals and to find ways that they could use their powers to benefit
society. In truth, it was simply an effort to keep control of paranormals
by giving them a cushy government payroll which they did hardly any work
to maintain. It made it easy to keep an eye on them, and do occaisional
work for the government.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>The real threats would be recruited. If the subjects refused to cooperate,
>stronger measures would be taken. Economic and legal pressure would be
>used, finally backed up by threat of death. Recruited metahumans would be
>used to keep the others in line, while the goverment made sure that the
>metahumans would not think of working together to take over,
...
>People may think I'm being paranoid, but when you consider what things
>are being done in the name of the drug war and terrorism as a threat,
>the potential of someone who is a walking tactical nuke to get an
>extreme response is not totally unreasonable.
My main question is, what do you think constitutes a real threat?
What sort of powers are you talking about? A walking tactical nuke is
obviously a threat, but more reasonable sorts of powers are not, IMO.
Characters in my game had powers like the ability to produce electrical
current at range, from a long bolt to a point arc-welder. Another was a
person immune to damage. Another could fly.
These people are not unique threats, and the measures you are
talking about seem counter-productive and unlikely:
Forced recruitment is stupid - it will *not* produce effective
agents, and will result in severe backlash if they are given the
slightest opportunity. Those who are not caught will emigrate to other
countries with more liberal views, and probably do fairly effective
work for other governments.
A secret study of unwilling paranormals also seems poorly
conceived. The scientists you will get for such top-secret and immoral
experiments will be second-rate - don't kid yourself that the Army actually
has brilliant mad scientists in hiding. Unless the study requires invasive
surgery or other nastiness, then it is far more effective to *hire* and
*encourage* paranormals into aiding in study of the phenomena. Real
scientists will jump at the chance and be willing to put up with the
usual background checks and security arrangements.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Vigilantism is a nightmare. Criminal activity is a bigger one. Imagine
>smugglers who can teleport. Hit men who can pass any weapons checks.
So what? Most public figures aren't that hard to kill in the
first place. You don't need superpowers - just someone with a rifle and
good aim. Smuggling is already a reality in almost all of the free world.
Frankly, it's not all that threatening or different.
Sure, there will be a lot of uproar about it in the first few
years (like atomic technology in the 1950's), but eventually people get
used to it.
>
>Telepaths who can steal company secrets. Mind controllers who can turn
>people into their slaves.
Mental powers certainly do have the potential to threaten
government secrets and other top security information. The consequences
of mental powers seem clear to me. Someone with _secret_ mental powers
will become rich and powerful. Someone with _known_ mental powers will
probably end up dead - because anyone with a secret (government or
otherwise) cannot take the risk that they will find them out.
>
>How do you enforce the law on someone who can bounce bullets or even
>anything short of a nuke?
Well, in many cases it is relatively straightforward. A high-
defense super will be able to cause a lot of havoc if he wants to. But
unless he also is able to disappear, then he will eventually be tracked
down and greater force will be brought to bear. The strength of modern
law enforcement is in its tracking. If new weapons are required, they
will be developed.
OTOH, there may be some people who the law cannot touch. A
combination of powers makes them impossible to regulate. So what? I
suppose it is possible that one of these could be psychotic or some
other menace - but most likely they'll be fairly normal.
In my world there was a group of criminals who remained beyond
the reach of the law. OTOH, after robbing a few banks, they had more
money than they needed, and followed their own private pursuits.
Great Cthulhu
>Mutant for Hire <mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>Vigilantism is a nightmare. Criminal activity is a bigger one. Imagine
>>smugglers who can teleport. Hit men who can pass any weapons checks.
> So what? Most public figures aren't that hard to kill in the
>first place. You don't need superpowers - just someone with a rifle and
>good aim. Smuggling is already a reality in almost all of the free world.
>Frankly, it's not all that threatening or different.
Well, think what an "evil" teleporter could do. Grab bomb, teleport, place
bomb, teleport out. Boom. Pretty much wherever he wants, and not much you
can do about it (NOTHING you can do about it if he's willing to sacrifice
himself, barring "teleport shields" or the like). Granted, smuggling is
relatively easy now, but imagine if there were a couple hundred people in the
world capable of teleporting into the White House with a bomb. Somehow I
don't think the government would be too happy about the "high-speed courier"
that was mentioned earlier in the thread... no telling what he might deliver
or where.
--
-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
"What's this 'lecherous'? Does that mean chaotic?" - overheard at a game con
GS d-(+) H s+:+ !g p? au a- w+ v C++ UH++(++++) P--- L- 3- E N++ K W--- M+ V--
po- Y+ t+ 5- j R++ G+('') tv b+++ !D B--- e++>++++ u+ h---(*) f r+++ n- y+++
John H Kim
world where certain people get "superpowers".
Great Cthulhu <d...@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
>jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>> So what? Most public figures aren't that hard to kill in the
>>first place. You don't need superpowers - just someone with a rifle and
>>good aim. Smuggling is already a reality in almost all of the free world.
>>Frankly, it's not all that threatening or different.
>
>Well, think what an "evil" teleporter could do. Grab bomb, teleport, place
>bomb, teleport out. Boom. Pretty much wherever he wants, and not much you
>can do about it (NOTHING you can do about it if he's willing to sacrifice
>himself, barring "teleport shields" or the like).
Quite true. Think of what an "evil" engineer can do. Mustard
gas is easy to make from common materials. So are explosives. The
amount of damage which he can wreak from a household production center
is staggering - if he had evil associates it could be even worse.
Frankly, I don't think killing the President is all that tough.
Heck - you could fill a plane with explosives and crash it into the
White House (remember the truck in Grenada?). Just think of what the
various crackpots and other nuts have done in the past. Now think about
a skilled, intelligent assassin. Brains and skill still seem far more
dangerous to me.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
The main issue, as I see it, is the number, distribution, and
nature of those superpowers. As an example, I will describe some more a
bout the world of "realistic paranormals" which I ran.
-> Number: There were a very small number of paranormals in my world;
only 120 or so in history, appearing with increasing frequency
starting in 1922.
-> Distribution: The powers were not randomly distributed. The people
who manifested powers were all of an extremely competant,
intelligent, and aggressive personality type. They appeared in
the vicinity of England until 1954, when they began appearing
in the Northeastern United States.
-> Nature: Each power was unique, but many involved manipulation of
various forces. The powers were generally very narrow, but
much could be done within that field.
Now in this case, the competence and personalities of the
paranormals made them a force to be reckoned with, but their numbers
were small enough and their powers apparently limited enough that
paranoia was limited. The English and United States governments
dealt with them on a fairly individual level.
Howler Monkey
>-> Distribution: The powers were not randomly distributed. The people
> who manifested powers were all of an extremely competant,
> intelligent, and aggressive personality type. They appeared in
> the vicinity of England until 1954, when they began appearing
> in the Northeastern United States.
I like this. this brings up some interesting questions about genetics and
correlation between intelligence and paranormal abilities. Excellent grist
for the xenophobic ani-mutant reactionaries propaganda mill.
-Chris
Howler Monkey
Mutant for Hire
> First, the ability of government agencies and law enforcement
>should not be overestimated as a `big brother' view. Plenty of people
>without superpowers remain at large despite the government's best efforts
>to bring them to justice. Certain powers would make this easy: shapechange,
>life support, etc. Other powers have no visible effects which tie them
>to the owner (including perhaps telepathy), and thus are virtually
>impossible to regulate.
If they started using other telepaths and clairvoyancts, it might be
another story. It really depends on power level. Those powerful enough
to be worth going after are going to be gone after. A lot depends on
how valuable these people would be to the government.
> Second, powers like bouncing bullets off one's chest are not all
>that dangerous to the government. Frankly, there are a lot more dangerous
>people out there. Consider what the U.S. government allows today. It
>has armed camps of people with military weapons and political agendas
>running loose; it has scientists capable of building nuclear bombs living
>free; etc.
Japanese Americans weren't all that dangerous during WWII, and yet the
government decided they were dangerous enough to put them all into camps
and confiscate their property. There is a difference between actual
threat and percieved threat. One critical problem is whether powers and
their types can be detected by technological means. If you can't be sure
whether a given metahuman has mind control powers, how are you going to
feel about metahumans as a category?
> Certainly some powers - notably telepathy and other mental powers -
>will draw extreme government regulation, because they directly threaten
>national security. These individuals, if identified, are primary candidates
>for mysteriously disappearing - either recruited or killed. But the vast
>majority of the usual `superpowers' are no more of a threat than plenty of
>other national resources.
See my above point. In addition, with normal people, there is always the
threat of being able to put a bullet into them. Sure there are dangerous
people running around, but at least in theory they are stoppable. What
about the ones who can't be stopped
> Hmmmm. It depends on the nature of the powers, I suppose.
>Certainly something of that sort may happen when the powers first appear:
>the government and just about everyone else is shocked and scared, and wants
>to investigate. OTOH, I doubt it would stay that way.
Depends. Remember that some people always benefit from having scapegoats.
Humans can come up with the ability to scare normal humans about those
with strange powers, playing on fear, envy and other wonderful emotions.
Quite frankly, its a lot easier to scare people than calm them down.
> A lot depends on the results of the research. If the research
>advances, then the face of science and technology will radically change.
>If, OTOH, it is established that these powers are not duplicatable and the
>origin remains beyond reach, then the research effort may die down to a
>constant minimum. There is no longer any reason to keep a tight lid on
>it, and many benefits from opening up.
A lot depends on the interaction of technology and powers. Especially in
dealing with mental powers. If the only way to stop mind control and
telepathy is with another telepath, life gets very messy. Top business and
government officials are key targets. What's to keep them from being
taken over?
> My main question is, what do you think constitutes a real threat?
>What sort of powers are you talking about? A walking tactical nuke is
>obviously a threat, but more reasonable sorts of powers are not, IMO.
>Characters in my game had powers like the ability to produce electrical
>current at range, from a long bolt to a point arc-welder. Another was a
>person immune to damage. Another could fly.
>These people are not unique threats, and the measures you are
>talking about seem counter-productive and unlikely:
Look at the hacker crackdown, and the Clipper project, and the government's
view of encryption in general. And encryption is a purely defensive
manuver. The government is seriously worried about the security of its
machiens and the ability to penetrate the security of any other group
around. The NSA views widespread encryption as a nightmare. The law
enforcement groups are about as cheery about the idea of being unable
to do wiretaps. Now ask how these people would feel about people who
could ignore bullets and blow up anything that got in their way.
If a person could produce electrical currents at range, the person
could make a lot of money as a free lance assassi, or even less
bloodily as a saboteur. A lot of information is stored on computers
these days, a lot of vital equipment contolled by electronics. A
key power surge, produced by someone at range, could get very ugly.
There are evil applications of any power. Even if the government
doesn't do it, various criminal and terrorist groups would be
interested in such abilities.
> Forced recruitment is stupid - it will *not* produce effective
>agents, and will result in severe backlash if they are given the
>slightest opportunity. Those who are not caught will emigrate to other
>countries with more liberal views, and probably do fairly effective
>work for other governments.
Its not terribly bright. But there are varying degrees of force. There
are economic pressures, ideological pressures, as well as the threat
of violence. As for emigration, there is a question of how to keep them
from leaving, though the ones with flight powers and teleporters have
an easy time of it.
The government could secretly support propaganda that made metahumans
look dangerous, and then be generous and offer the poor metahumans a
job, while making sure that few civilian groups would want to hire
such a person. Who wants to work with a telepath, who can read all your
thoughts? Much easier than putting a gun to their head.
> A secret study of unwilling paranormals also seems poorly
>conceived. The scientists you will get for such top-secret and immoral
>experiments will be second-rate - don't kid yourself that the Army actually
>has brilliant mad scientists in hiding. Unless the study requires invasive
>surgery or other nastiness, then it is far more effective to *hire* and
>*encourage* paranormals into aiding in study of the phenomena. Real
>scientists will jump at the chance and be willing to put up with the
>usual background checks and security arrangements.
Never said anything about secret studies. On the contrary, it would have
reasoanbly well known research centers with unlimited funding and
classified results. Never said anything about keeping the existance of
the metahumans secret, unless the existance of such people was limited
in the extreme.
> So what? Most public figures aren't that hard to kill in the
>first place. You don't need superpowers - just someone with a rifle and
>good aim. Smuggling is already a reality in almost all of the free world.
>Frankly, it's not all that threatening or different.
True, but the perception of threat and the reality of such threats are
two different things. You're taking a realistic view of the level of
danger. Whether the media and groups who want control of these new
powers would bother to correct any attempts to blow up the hysteria
is another issue. Most companies face computer security threats from
disgruntled employees rather than from some teenage kid with a cheap
PC clone and a modem. Guess who the government went after?
A big issue is understanding. Guns are understood. Bombs are understood.
Computers aren't very well understood by law enforcement and most
politicians, and so they are scared of the possbilities. Superpowers
would be the same or moreso. Sure, conventional technology is just as
lethal in many cases if not moreso, but the uncertainty scares people
and causes them to lose grip of their reason.
> Sure, there will be a lot of uproar about it in the first few
>years (like atomic technology in the 1950's), but eventually people get
>used to it.
Think about this. We have gun registration in this country. People with
the right powers effectively have a concealed weapon with autofire
and armor piercing capability. We don't allow people to own fully auto
weapons with AP bullets, and concealed weapon permits are damn hard to
get. So what are we going to do with these metahumans?
> Mental powers certainly do have the potential to threaten
>government secrets and other top security information. The consequences
>of mental powers seem clear to me. Someone with _secret_ mental powers
>will become rich and powerful. Someone with _known_ mental powers will
>probably end up dead - because anyone with a secret (government or
>otherwise) cannot take the risk that they will find them out.
And how do you tell if any metahuman has mental powers or not? A lot
of people will be of the opinion its better to shoot them all just on
the off chance that some will have those powers and be hiding them.
Mentalists who do hide their powers and are eventually caught out will
just add to the hysteria.
> Well, in many cases it is relatively straightforward. A high-
>defense super will be able to cause a lot of havoc if he wants to. But
>unless he also is able to disappear, then he will eventually be tracked
>down and greater force will be brought to bear. The strength of modern
>law enforcement is in its tracking. If new weapons are required, they
>will be developed.
Of course, you mentioned that there are people the government can't
track down, and many powers would make it harder. This just reinforces
my point that anyone powerful enough to be a serious danger, even in
potential, will have to be dealt with. Recruitment is a first choice,
the problem with refusal is that someone else may hire the person and
the government be facing the person as an enemy. So they have to
deal with such people.
For the most part, I'm talking about metahumans with powers about the
level of PC's and going on up to Miracleman level powers. Anyone who
doesn't look like a threat will be registered and kept tabs on, just
to make sure if they aren't a serious danger. Sure, the person can
only levitate something as heavy as a spoon, but what if that's just
because they are a tremendously powerful telepath?
> OTOH, there may be some people who the law cannot touch. A
>combination of powers makes them impossible to regulate. So what? I
>suppose it is possible that one of these could be psychotic or some
>other menace - but most likely they'll be fairly normal.
On the other hand, if these people were that powerful and everyone
around them knew it, how would they be treated? It would be almost
impossible for these types to lead a normal life. Oftentimes, people
who get treated as dangerous end up being dangerous because they're
fed up with being judged unfairly, and if condmened, they might as
well be condemned for a reason. Besides, who knows how your average
person would react if they suddenly were able to do just about anything
without threat of preprisal?
Say someone with powerful levels of offensive force but weak defenses
was attacked by someone who was paranoid about metahumans using their
powers unfairly on normal humans. Even a group of humans attacking one
person. If the person uses their powers to defend themselves, even
against a group of humans, it reinforces the perception that metahumans
have no hesitations about using their powers on people.
> In my world there was a group of criminals who remained beyond
>the reach of the law. OTOH, after robbing a few banks, they had more
>money than they needed, and followed their own private pursuits.
Small question, how did they store this money? How were they able to
keep from having their bank accounts frozen and their credit lines
wiped out? Did everyone know about them? WHere did they go to live,
and how did the local government feel about having such people around.
Also, what if their interests were political power, rather than just
living a life of luxury?
To sum up, percieved threat and real threat, are too different things.
The Japanese camps during WWII are a perfectly good example of this,
as well as the hacker hysteria. The less well understood something is,
the greater the hysteria. The first few years after metahumans are
understod will be very bad. Also, because they are being treated as
potential threats, they may be forced to respond in ways that reinforce
that perception.
Secondly, the government doesn't like to give up control. Take away
existing methods of law enforcement and the officers get very unhappy.
The current uproar over encryption and the FBI telephone proposal are
two examples of that. Ultimately, law enforcement comes from the ability
to put holes in people with bullets and keeping certain levels of
violence out of the public's hands. Metahumans mess with that as well.
John H Kim
people gain paranormal `superpowers'. Specifically, this is about the
reaction of the government and the populace. Obviously, a lot has to do
with the power level and distribution of these abilities.
If you get bunch of people with power on the order of Miracleman,
then you may get events on the order of Miracleman - paranormals setting
up their own governments, playing with world politics, etc. I played in
a campaign of this sort, known as the "Godgame". Each PC had god-like
powers and was capable of global-level manipulations.
What I was originally talking about was a more usual, low-level
comic-book sorts of powers...
Mutant for Hire <mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>What sort of powers are you talking about? A walking tactical nuke is
>>obviously a threat, but more reasonable sorts of powers are not, IMO.
>>Characters in my game had powers like the ability to produce electrical
>>current at range, from a long bolt to a point arc-welder. Another was a
>>person immune to damage. Another could fly.
...
>For the most part, I'm talking about metahumans with powers about the
>level of PC's and going on up to Miracleman level powers. Anyone who
>doesn't look like a threat will be registered and kept tabs on, just
>to make sure if they aren't a serious danger.
Uh, which PC's are those? That is, I don't recall defining a
standard power level for PC's in this thread.
In the Godgame, my PC was a telekinetic/claivoyant who could throw
a car a mile on the other side of the globe. OTOH, PC's in my paranormals
game had about the level of power described above: one could seperate
charge; one could open a portal to a warehouse-sized pocket dimension; etc.
One had long-range mental powers, but he really avoided using them for fear
of being discovered.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>A big issue is understanding. Guns are understood. Bombs are understood.
>Computers aren't very well understood by law enforcement and most
>politicians, and so they are scared of the possbilities. Superpowers
>would be the same or moreso.
...
>Look at the hacker crackdown, and the Clipper project, and the government's
>view of encryption in general.
Oh, please. I'm sorry - the electronic world fails to impress
me with a vision of a dark, government-repressed world. The life of a
person on the Net is just not all that rough. I don't see the skilled
hackers being threatened and recruited into hunting down their fellows.
Sure, the government doesn't understand computers, and cracks down
on illogical points. It doesn't like losing control, I'm sure, and is
unfair to a number of people. OTOH, piracy and hacking are rampant on
the Net. It is not exactly a repressed place with everyone under the
shadow of Big Brother. A lot of businesses are directly threatened by
the capabilities of skilled hackers, and their fears occaisionally
materialize.
-*-*-*-
Another parallel would be to imagine that sometime earlier in
this century a hideous power is unleashed, capable of destroying millions
of people in a flash from a package the size of a suitcase. Hundreds of
people have access to this secret, and could destabilize the globe by
giving those secrets to other countries.
As it happens, the above is true. And, in fact, someone did
give the plans to the Russians. In response, the government and the
populace did have a fair amount of paranoia. And that paranoia is
still around. OTOH, nuclear scientists are not all that restricted -
then or now - despite their hideous potential.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>On the other hand, if these people were that powerful and everyone
>around them knew it, how would they be treated? It would be almost
>impossible for these types to lead a normal life. Oftentimes, people
>who get treated as dangerous end up being dangerous because they're
>fed up with being judged unfairly, and if condmened, they might as
>well be condemned for a reason.
I certainly agree. Unless a paranormal successfully conceals
his powers, then he will be unable to lead a normal life. He will
have to put up with a lot of paranoia by some peole; and with the
curiosity and attention of others. The government may insist on
doing some test, and later tracking his movements. He may be barred
from high security areas by law. The media will undoubtably print
varying portraits of him, as well as activities real or imagined.
And so forth.
I'm sure most people would not want this sort of treatment, and
many would view it as oppressive and unfair.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>To sum up, percieved threat and real threat, are too different things.
>The Japanese camps during WWII are a perfectly good example of this,
>as well as the hacker hysteria. The less well understood something is,
>the greater the hysteria. The first few years after metahumans are
>understood will be very bad. Also, because they are being treated as
>potential threats, they may be forced to respond in ways that reinforce
>that perception.
Sure, I agree. And the hysteria may rear its head later as
various scandals and such break. The hacker crackdown is a fine example.
Sure, paranormals will have to put up with some unfair treatment. OTOH,
they have superhuman powers which will improve their lives in various
ways. (As the curse goes: "May you live in interesting times.")
During WWII in my campaign, English paranormals were effectively
under house arrest - watched by the authorities at all times. Of course,
that was during the war. Later, the hysteria dies down. A fairly
constant thread in the tabloids speculated about secret paranormal
influences and activities.
-*-*-*-
>
>Secondly, the government doesn't like to give up control. Take away
>existing methods of law enforcement and the officers get very unhappy.
Sure. The government will take steps to be able to regulate
the paranormals - that's only to be expected. In my campaign, the FBI
made it a practice to bring in and register paranormals without any
real legal justification. A court ruling in the early 80's curbed but
did not stop this.
Yes, life will not always be easy for a paranormal. They have
to work for their privacy, and are subject to occaisional bouts of illogic
from the government or from other folk. What I took issue with was the
idea of forced recruitment, government paranormal teams who hunt down
others, etc.
Mutant for Hire
> This again regards the idea of a realistic world where various
>people gain paranormal `superpowers'. Specifically, this is about the
>reaction of the government and the populace. Obviously, a lot has to do
>with the power level and distribution of these abilities.
That was a point I was making. On the other hand, I tend to assume that
there are enough people of the powerlevel of the average starting HERO
or GURPS character, which is pretty potent, and that there are people
will greater levels of power.
> What I was originally talking about was a more usual, low-level
>comic-book sorts of powers...
Even low level can get pretty warped if you get enough of them out
there.
> Oh, please. I'm sorry - the electronic world fails to impress
>me with a vision of a dark, government-repressed world. The life of a
>person on the Net is just not all that rough. I don't see the skilled
>hackers being threatened and recruited into hunting down their fellows.
Guess what happened during Operation Sundevil? Hackers were held at
gunpoint while anything remotely electronic was confiscated. And we're
talking about physically nonthreatening people like hackers. And you
can ask Steve Jackson about how benign the US government is.
> Sure, the government doesn't understand computers, and cracks down
>on illogical points. It doesn't like losing control, I'm sure, and is
>unfair to a number of people. OTOH, piracy and hacking are rampant on
>the Net. It is not exactly a repressed place with everyone under the
>shadow of Big Brother. A lot of businesses are directly threatened by
>the capabilities of skilled hackers, and their fears occaisionally
>materialize.
Well, the government was pretty much clueless about the Net period
for the longest time. Now they're starting to become aware of the
implications and some people aren't terribly happy about it. Including
Al Gore, friend of the Internet.
> As it happens, the above is true. And, in fact, someone did
>give the plans to the Russians. In response, the government and the
>populace did have a fair amount of paranoia. And that paranoia is
>still around. OTOH, nuclear scientists are not all that restricted -
>then or now - despite their hideous potential.
On the other hand, we did have the McCarthy hearings, where the
reptuations of a lot of people were totally wiped out, including
nuclear scientists. Due process got lost along the way. McCarthy
was brought down, true, but that's because he made the mistake of
taking on the military.
> I certainly agree. Unless a paranormal successfully conceals
>his powers, then he will be unable to lead a normal life. He will
>have to put up with a lot of paranoia by some peole; and with the
>curiosity and attention of others. The government may insist on
>doing some test, and later tracking his movements. He may be barred
>from high security areas by law. The media will undoubtably print
>varying portraits of him, as well as activities real or imagined.
>And so forth.
Which was what I was arguing for at least, and in the case of
powerful metahumans, some sort of recruitment. Some people are too
dangerous to be allowed to go around on their own, and if they
don't have their power based in economic or political leverage,
but in raw force, then its a very tense situation. And people with
mental powers might not be allowed loose at all. And if there was
no way to separate the mentalists from the non-mentalists, the
non-mentalists might get the same treatment.
> Sure, I agree. And the hysteria may rear its head later as
>various scandals and such break. The hacker crackdown is a fine example.
>Sure, paranormals will have to put up with some unfair treatment. OTOH,
>they have superhuman powers which will improve their lives in various
>ways. (As the curse goes: "May you live in interesting times.")
A lot of metahuman powers only work along combat lines. And what use
is mind control powers other than in an oppressive context? A brick
might be cheaper and more effective than a forklift in some places,
but some people might prefer the forklift as being safer and more
understandable.
> During WWII in my campaign, English paranormals were effectively
>under house arrest - watched by the authorities at all times. Of course,
>that was during the war. Later, the hysteria dies down. A fairly
>constant thread in the tabloids speculated about secret paranormal
>influences and activities.
The question becomes, what happens when some paranormal tries to take
over some high official using their powers, and what happens after
that? One thing to consider is that many high officials will consider
people with powers to be a direct threat to them, especially those
with mental powers.
> Yes, life will not always be easy for a paranormal. They have
>to work for their privacy, and are subject to occaisional bouts of illogic
>from the government or from other folk. What I took issue with was the
>idea of forced recruitment, government paranormal teams who hunt down
>others, etc.
I've pointed out that this is mainly for those with mental powers, or
with physical powers high enough to constitute a serious threat. If a
person can constitute a serious danger to the government, the
government is going to have to deal with it. Often, the powers of the
person will be such that it is going to take another person with
powers to bring them in.
As for forced recruitment, I've pointed out there are levels of
force. First you make a generous offer and hope they take it. Then
if it is refused, try other pressures. Work for us or die is usually
a last line result, and not too common. Most likely they'd shoot
the person first.