Gurps ain't good enough
Mtrichter
H>feature of GURPS ... it's realism.
Realism? In a game where .50 caliber machine gun slugs have a measurable
chance to bounce off of leather jackets?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Clan Pooh Bear
GURPS and modern combat: GURPS is about as realistic as you can be
and still have a roleplaying game involving modern firearms. I think
that's probably my big disagreement with the whole GURPS "realism"
credo. You can't be that realistic with modern gun combat because they
are too powerful. GURPS at it's grim and gritty best still isn't that
much more realistic than Hero.
Axly
*******************************************************************************
* Axly * BLAM. BLAM. *
* Red Sword Targa * "Stop." *
* "Sword's Path: Glory" * BLAM. BLAM. *
* * "Police." *
* * -Officer Axly *
*******************************************************************************
CX6L
Let's see now . . . 13 dice of damage from a BMG slug, so that is -4 PD
(remember, PD is at -1 per 3 full dice of firearms damage - p. HT 7). A
leather jacket is PD 1. So, the net PD is 0 (cannot be negative). This
means the bullet will *not* bounce off the jacket! Or perhaps you meant
DR? Let's see . . . *minimum* damage from 13 dice is 13, versus DR 1 for
a leather jacket. Nope.
SO - where did you get this idea? Why should I take your assessment
of the GURPS firearms rules seriously when you have obviously NOT read
the rules through? Hmm?
Face it, GURPS probably has the *most* realistic firearms combat
system in roleplaying. True, you have to read the entire combat and
injury chapters of the Basic Set, and all of _High Tech_, to realize
this -- but then, that's what rules are like. You must *read* them to
use them. FYI, GURPS has the relative range, accuracy and deadliness
of firearms down pat; has detailed rules for all types of firearms and
ammo; has the only working set of autofire rules I have ever used in a
game; and treats injury in excellent detail, accounting for death,
unconsciousness, stunning, crippling, knockdown, shock and bleeding,
not to mention a decent treatment of hit locations.
If you are one of those people who believes a single .38 slug in
the chest will stop a determined assailant, or that every 5.56 x 45mm
round from an M16A2 will waste a target, then you are living in a
movie reality where guns are 100% lethal to "bad guys" and only do
flesh wounds to "good guys". Wounding is far more common than death
from gunshot, and people do *not* always drop/surrender/die when hit
in a real conflict. Even a .50 can graze, or punch through without
hitting anything vital . . .
-Kromm
______________________________________________________________________
|Dr Manfred Dieter Kromm | cx...@musica.mcgill.ca Peasant Mail |__
| (aka Sean M. Punch) |pu...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca _______________| |
| McGill University |pu...@chopin.physics.mcgill.ca NeXT Mail | |
| High Energy Physics |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| |
|Montreal, Quebec, Canada|"Yes. I am a godless physicist. Evil, too."| |
|________________________|___________________________________________| |
|____________________________________________________________________|
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Mtri...@f555.n163.z1.rubicon.pinetree.org Giggles>>>>>>>>>>>
not the refresher material below.
GURPS 101: Yes there is a slight chance that a slug will not
damage the wearer of a leather jacket (approx. 0.5%). The slug does
not 'bounce off' per se, but if it were going to 'graze' the target,
the leather deflects it *just enough* so that you don't take damage.
The chance is slight, but I think 1 chance out of 216 is pretty
unlikely.
In GURPS terms this is called PD (passive defense) and when
combined with various active defenses (such as dodging) increases the
chance that the attack will miss you altogether.
-john-
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
Plus there's a rule that really *big* attacks (based on dice
of damage) reduce PD. So you probably get *no* roll from that attack
(unless you dodged or something).
-john-
John H Kim
contrasting adaptations of GURPS and Ars Magica to the Amber universe.
I have admitted that in a game which includes Earth or Earth-like
technology, GURPS has a head start in its rules on guns and vehicles, and
this probably makes the adaptation easier.
The most important point I would like to address, though, is the
(IMO) false idea that having material on modern Earth and its own future
technology somehow better prepares GURPS to handle the infinite possibilities
of Shadow. As John states...
jmka...@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH) writes:
>You are simplifying a complex subject. Because Amberites go *everywhere*,
>you'd have to make up a *lot* of stuff. Stuff that GURPS already has.
Eh? GURPS has descriptions of some sci-fi gadgets and rules to cover
them. Fine. This helps me not at all if I want to prepare for the PC's
visiting the night-world of Erebus, where the Witch-King Edward has created
his own sort of bio-technology through his enchantments: with natural gas
powered mortars and living airships.
GURPS does not have rules (skills, descriptions, etc.) to cover this.
GURPS only has stuff if you want to go to a GURPS-style world: where they
use GURPS blasters and GURPS armor suits. If you want a world with different
technology, those rules are not so much help.
Yes, I know there is an advantage to having material to compare to
or work from, but it is hardly overwhelming.
Other points:
>
> There already ARE rules to handle situations where the participants
>have high parries. I don't remember the exact rules right off hand, but
>you basically lower the lower of the two person's skills to a fixed number
>(I think it's 12) and lower the opponent's skill by the same number.
>Voila! Speeded up duels with minimal fuss.
I can recall no such rule in my copy of GURPS Basic. The suggestion
I remember is having combat resolved as a Quick Contest between attacker's
skill and defender's Active Defense - which just kills the chance of
parry altogether.
>
> And speaking of fighting when you are horribly injured....
>It happens in Amber all the time! A certain general managed to kill his
>assailant *after* having his arm lopped off...
But in GURPS, having your arm chopped off only does (your HT/2) in
damage - not much at all. @-)
>
> Nit-picking. By my estimate, GURPS has about 150-250 creatures
>of various genres ready to play, plus a *detailed* system to make more.
>What does Ars Magica have for this? A couple of dozen and *no* real
>rules to 'roll your own'.
I'm sorry. What rules are you referring to in GURPS that are a
'detailed' system to make more?
GURPS has a handful of creatures in its Basic rulebook, and more
(plus more details) in its Bestiaries. Ars Magica also has a handful of
creatures in its Basic Rulebook, and more (plus more details) in its
Bestiary. What difference are you referring to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting
jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | sun. But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for
Columbia University | everyone." - Paul Simon
John H Kim
>|> I don't remember how much the AD&D Vikings campaign book was (I
>|>believe in the $17 range), but I do remember it was noticably more infor-
>|>mative (and better presented) than the GURPS Viking book.
>|>
> I haven't read the Viking book, but I did notice that several
>*other* game companies recommend GURPS China and GURPS Japan as excellent
>references. Hey, if your *competitors* are willing to give credit where
>credit is due....
Yes, Ninja Hero has GURPS Japan in its recommended reading for
additional material. GURPS Horror also recommends Call of Cthulhu. I think
this is a good sign, overall - and I have seen a number of such cross-company
recommendations.
As I have said, GURPS often covers topics which other game companies
do not - and thus deserves some praise. I can think of no comparable
sourcebook to GURPS China, for example.
However, this does not mean that I think its quality is the best on
the market (urged on by the fact that a friend of mine studying Chinese
mysticism despised it).
David H. Thornley
><NCCU...@TWNMOE10.BITNET> writes:
>
>>[OK, I don't know much about GURPS and Hero, so how do the two compare?]
>
>Sure....First, here are my credentials:
>Played Hero system for 3 years and was quite adept at making characters
>when I was first introduced to GURPS and I found GURPS to suit my needs
>much more. That was for one basic reason: The way our group played Hero,
>the game sessions usually consisted of very little roleplaying and was
>usually just combat. Now, granted I am sure it doesn't take everyone this
>long to do combat, but that was how our group handled it. For a game-time
>1-5 minute battle it usually took 3-4 hours! GURPS on the other hand was
>a lot looser in its system (once again, IMHO). So now, here is my opinion
>of break-down for the 2 games:
>
I think the critical words here are "The way our group played Hero". There
is no reason inherent in the Hero system why games must consist of combat
rather than role-playing, and I don't see any reason why GURPS promotes
roleplaying vs. combat any more (or any less). It may be that introducing
a new system into your group would cause them to change their style of play
for some reason, but in that case I suspect the same thing might have
happened had you been playing long combats in GURPS and been introduced to
Hero.
>GURPS - Good as far as system goes becauses of its different "levels".
>You can choose how realistic you want to make combat and contest of
>skills. Good system as far as character generation for fairly
>normal/low-cost characters. Once you get into 200+, characters tend to be
>munchkin. Good for roleplaying.
>
Generally agreed, but I question the "Good for roleplaying" characterization.
>HERO - Great character design. Handles its character design and breakdown
>of powers etc somewhat better actually. Its one weakness with character
>generation is that it doesn't give a great deal of assistance in order to
>create new powers or combine existing powers for good effects. All in
>all, it is much better suited for Superhero characters and the like. But
>thats all, I found it to handle fantasy, cyberpunk, and other genres very
>badly. As stated above, combat usually occupies a lot of time because of
>all the different modifiers/rolls/what-have-you. I like the character
>generation the best for this game.
>
Hero doesn't give assistance on creating new powers? The power system already
in Hero is probably the most flexible one published. If you don't know how
to apply it to fantasy spells, I'd recommend Fantasy Hero and its Companion.
Further, I've found it to work very well in every genre I've tried, and
I have no reason to think it would fail in the genres I haven't. I would be
interested in exactly why you think the game system is at fault.
The Hero combat system is certainly not more slow and cumbersome than the
GURPS advanced system, and there is nothing about Hero that makes it necessary
to fill the evening with combat.
>If anyone wants me to expound on this, I could probably come up with a
>more in-depth analysis. Feel free to say whatever you feel about this
>post. I could really care less. :)
>
I am curious as to what you think GURPS does better than Hero in promoting
role-playing and making the games more fun. The games are very similar in
many ways, and I don't see how one will kill role-playing and one will
promote it.
DHT
Darin Johnson
>>repeated material in GURPS supplements. Many of the same 'new' advantages,
>>skills, and other stuff keep appearing in different supplements:
Seems to me that this can be good as well as bad. If you
only buy one of the supplements, you haven't lost out.
If the material wasn't replicated, you might find yourself
forced to buy two supplements. Ie, if you're playing a
supers campaing, you might not want to buy the psionics
book, or vice versa. If you had a space game, it's nice
to include the gadgets there, rather than having to buy
the separate ultra-tech book. If I'm developing a fantasy
campaign, I don't want to buy the Aliens or Supers book
just to create new races, or vice versa.
However, if the campaign gets involved, then perhaps go for
the other book - but at least you can get a game started
without buying a lot of stuff initially.
However, it would be interesting if things were available in
$5 books that didn't contain a whole lot. Then you could
have small books that told how to create a new race or species
for characters, sample items for a certain tech level,
psionic powers, additional lists of advantages, etc. Then you
buy the books you need and build stuff up from that. However,
the company isn't going to make money that way, so it won't
happen.
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
"I wonder what's keeping Guybrush?"
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|> The most important point I would like to address, though, is the
|>(IMO) false idea that having material on modern Earth and its own future
|>technology somehow better prepares GURPS to handle the infinite possibilities
|>of Shadow. As John states...
|>
|>jmka...@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH) writes:
|>>You are simplifying a complex subject. Because Amberites go *everywhere*,
|>>you'd have to make up a *lot* of stuff. Stuff that GURPS already has.
|>
|> Eh? GURPS has descriptions of some sci-fi gadgets and rules to cover
|>them. Fine. This helps me not at all if I want to prepare for the PC's
|>visiting the night-world of Erebus, where the Witch-King Edward has created
|>his own sort of bio-technology through his enchantments: with natural gas
|>powered mortars and living airships.
|>
|> GURPS does not have rules (skills, descriptions, etc.) to cover this.
|>GURPS only has stuff if you want to go to a GURPS-style world: where they
|>use GURPS blasters and GURPS armor suits. If you want a world with different
|>technology, those rules are not so much help.
|>
|> Yes, I know there is an advantage to having material to compare to
|>or work from, but it is hardly overwhelming.
|>
non covered in Ars Magica. This is not a minor addition to a game system,
it is a Major one. Any rules for non-feet powered vehicles are much more
likely to be covered in GURPS than AM, since AM has no rules for them.
GURPS literally has hundreds of skills vs. the dozens that AM has, in
order to cover many more situations. GURPS has rules for high-grav and
low gravity and the effects of many hostile environments (vaccuum,
radiation, etc.) that AM doesn't have to cover.
|> I can recall no such rule in my copy of GURPS Basic. The suggestion
|>I remember is having combat resolved as a Quick Contest between attacker's
|>skill and defender's Active Defense - which just kills the chance of
|>parry altogether.
|>
Not really. If the defender wins, he parried. If the attacker
wins, the defender didn't parry. =P
|>> Nit-picking. By my estimate, GURPS has about 150-250 creatures
|>>of various genres ready to play, plus a *detailed* system to make more.
|>>What does Ars Magica have for this? A couple of dozen and *no* real
|>>rules to 'roll your own'.
|>
|> I'm sorry. What rules are you referring to in GURPS that are a
|>'detailed' system to make more?
|>
GURPS Aliens. And for even MORE detail you can throw in the
addition stuff in GURPS Uplift from which you can design a species
all the way from pre-sentience up to true intelligence (and stop at
any point inbetween).
|> GURPS has a handful of creatures in its Basic rulebook, and more
|>(plus more details) in its Bestiaries. Ars Magica also has a handful of
|>creatures in its Basic Rulebook, and more (plus more details) in its
|>Bestiary. What difference are you referring to?
|>
Bestiary, Space Bestiary are the main ones. Extra intelligent
and non-intelligent races in many other supplements. Admittedly, they
are spread out, but at least they *are* out there. AND they all aren't
limited to one genre (fantasy).
-john-
do...@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Well, I'll assume you're talking about PD, not DR... otherwise you're just
stupid. Honestly, I don't think it is so bad that you get a PD 1 even against
a .50-cal bullet for wearing a leather jacket. Since the usual defense against
a bullet is a Dodge, this changes the chance of a successful dodge only
slightly. If nothing else, this is due to the fact that the actual target is
smaller than the apparent target. I had an interesting experience a couple
months ago at a renaissance faire, where I fenced against someone wearing a
baggy shirt. I was amazed by how much more difficult he was to hit, simply
because the baggy shirt made it much more difficult to tell where the real
target was. I see a leather jacket giving PD against a bullet as much the same
sort of thing; there is some chance that someone who aims well enough to hit
the apparent target (which is the jacket) will hit in such a place that the
actual target (the torso, I'm assuming) is untouched.
However, since you're so anal retentive that you see a single +1 to someone's
dodge in one particular situation as a tremendous indictment of the system as
a whole, I'm probably wasting my breath for you. This is really for the poor
people out there who you may have fooled. Pity this stupid VMS newsreader
won't let me keep a kill file....
-Doug Gibson
do...@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.
"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
Mtrichter
N>escalating this flame war (er, I mean mature debate) even further --
N>please give me a run down of the merits of GURPS versus the HERO
N>system.
N>I've heard good things about each and would like to know your reactions
N>to both of them in terms of portablility of characters across genres,
N>ability to play in any genre with just the basic sets and/or expansions
N>available.
Both games purport to be generic systems. Neither are the first to make
this claim. (Chaosium had them beat years ago with this claim.)
Before you continue, I should warn you of my bias: I like the Hero system
(although I think it is far from perfect -- or even far from being the
best game around) and I dislike GURPS.
GURPS is generic only in publishing intent. The system is no more or less
generic (that is: capable of supporting multiple genres) than many other
available systems. For example, ICE publishes an SF game and a Fantasy
game which are both based on identical systems -- and adds support for
time travel games, western games and so on with the occasional "genre
book." The difference between GURPS and these other sorts of games is
that GURPS was intended from the outset to be mutated into several other
genres -- and Steve Jackson, although incapable of writing coherent rules,
has done very well in supporting millions of genres.
Where GURPS fails as a generic system is that it isn't generic. With each
genre/world book you get, essentially, a completely different game with
similar base mechanics -- much like you would get if you purchased
Ringworld, Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu. These games are VERY close
together -- much closer than the Chaosium games I just named (all of the
GURPS "subgames" would share one rule book in common) -- but are still
sufficiently different that they cannot really be considered the same
system. It is, for example, very difficult to place a fantasy character
(say a spell caster) into an SF setting without doing a lot of interface
work. (I know this from experience.)
The Hero system, on the other hand, is a much more generic system. It
doesn't have the millions of worldbooks of GURPS precisely because it
doesn't need them. All Hero game genres operate off of the same powers,
skills, advantages, limitations and disadvantages (although some
environments may only be allowed subsets of these). The Hero system of
powers/advantages/limitations provides a powerful metasystem which allows
you to create your own system based upon it (which, further, is usually
fairly compatible with other systems based upon the metasystem). (I,
again, know this from experience -- in fact from experience based upon
doing precisely that which I couldn't under GURPS.)
Because of this, Hero is the better generic system. I leave the
discussions of gaming style preferences, "realism," and so on to the rules
lawyers.
___ WinQwk 2.0b#0
msam...@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
> and still have a roleplaying game involving modern firearms. I think
> that's probably my big disagreement with the whole GURPS "realism"
> credo. You can't be that realistic with modern gun combat because they
> are too powerful. GURPS at it's grim and gritty best still isn't that
> much more realistic than Hero.
>>>>> ....but if a system doesn't actualy mirror the reality of real gun
combat, doesn't it fail?
I have addressed this issue in the "Roleplaying in the West" topic.
The gist goes as follows...
...gun combat is deadly. If you fight with guns, be prepared to be
shot and killed. This means you are going to have to avoid fights,
or pick them *very* carefully.
If a system allows for unrealistic survival rates in a high threat
environment players lose their fear of guns. To accurately portray
a gun environment there *needs* to be fear. Anything else realy
isn't gun combat.
I suggest seeing the movie "The Unforgivin". Most people were very
afraid of guns. Panic in a fight was the norm.
If PCs in a stand up gun fight arn't thinking "oooh, i'm 'gonna die",
there is something wrong.
James J Davis
First, saying ArsMagica has dozens and GURPS has hundreds *is*, in my mind,
a distortion of the truth. GURPS has about 300 skills and ArsMagica has
about 150, for an approximate 2:1 ratio. Using 'hundreds' for GURPS and
'dozens' for ArsMagica indicates an approximate 8:1 ratio. Hey, I know,
it's only hundreds of percent error in reporting, no big deal, right?
But, is an exact number of skills an issue in a RPG? Does it speak to the
RPG's quality, or it's completeness. My favorite game, Hero, has just under
60 skills, and I haven't had a major fit with the skill system. I won't
begin to say it's the best out there, but it is worthwhile.
In actuality, I find the 300 or so skills of GURPS rather amusing. After
all, you have to buy tons of books to get them all anyway, and since they
are listed separately it's harder to memorize the ins and outs of each
skill for easy use. As far as GURPS goes, I'm more inclined to stick with
the skills from GURPS Basic and a smattering of truly useful skills added
on later than to use such a monster skill system.
-james
James J Davis
>|>>|> I can recall no such rule in my copy of GURPS Basic. The suggestion
>|>>|>I remember is having combat resolved as a Quick Contest between attacker's
>|>>|>skill and defender's Active Defense - which just kills the chance of
>|>>|>parry altogether.
>|>>
>|>> Not really. If the defender wins, he parried. If the attacker
>|>>wins, the defender didn't parry. =P
>|>
>|> Do you really not understand the significance of this, or are you
>|>just being obstinate?
> No, you are just being dense. So cut the flaming, because you
>can't win, buddy.
I hardly think it was a flame, buddy. But, the point is that since your
average attack and active defense are vastly different, a Quick Contest
really shafts the defender. For example, let's assume an attacker with
skill 15 and a defender with active defense 8 (same skill: 15). Normally,
in normal combat, the attacker would have a 95.37% chance to hit, with a
25.93% of his hits stopped by active defense for a final 70.64% overall hit
chance. If you handle it as a quick contest, the overall hit chance soars
to 91.70%. The Quick Contest changed the defender's chance of being
missed from about 30% to about 10%, a huge difference to him. And these
are plausible values, too. If we get into wierd numbers, it gets even
worse.
(The calculation of 15 skill vs 8 skill was based on math man was not meant
to know and I didn't calculate myself, so try it out for yourself if you
don't believe me. It does end up being about 9 for 10.)
-james
Avatar of Pooh
>>>>>> ....but if a system doesn't actualy mirror the reality of real gun
> combat, doesn't it fail?
Well, it depends on what you want it to do.
> If a system allows for unrealistic survival rates in a high threat
> environment players lose their fear of guns. To accurately portray
> a gun environment there *needs* to be fear. Anything else realy
> isn't gun combat.
Accurately portraying a gun environment takes a wagonload of rules and
tables. Pheonix Command comes very close to being realistic, and it
takes hours to play a short fight and PC's die left and right. If you
want that, more power to you...but your players may not want to simulate
reality so much as they want to simulate fiction.
Axly
*******************************************************************************
* Axly * "Is Axly tough? Yes. Talented? Yes. Brave? Oh, certainly. *
* Red Sword * He is also erratic, irresponsible, accident-prone, and a *
* Targa * constant threat to public safety. The trick is to keep him *
* * pointed in the right direction. " *
* * -Niki *
*******************************************************************************
do...@abby.chem.ucla.edu
> Hero has an *option* that you pay for equipment you carry, the same
>way GURPS has an *option* that you pay for your cyberware, or super-gadgets.
>This allows a starting character to have, for example, a magic item - which
>is not covered in GURPS.
Actually, it is covered, in chapter 1 (I think) of GURPS Magic Items. I forget
the suggested point cost, but it is there.
Mutant for Hire
>GURPS and modern combat: GURPS is about as realistic as you can be
>and still have a roleplaying game involving modern firearms. I think
>that's probably my big disagreement with the whole GURPS "realism"
>credo. You can't be that realistic with modern gun combat because they
>are too powerful. GURPS at it's grim and gritty best still isn't that
>much more realistic than Hero.
Check out the BTRC games like WarpWorld, Time Lords, and SpaceTime. One
of the most realistic damage systems I've ever seen. There is a difference
between an arrow and a bullet, bullets get column shifts on the "Eventual
Death" table, the one that tells you how long your character can remain
alive without medical help.
Then again, I'd love to see the HERO power system converted to BTRC rules,
or adapting the BTRC damage system to HERO. Could make for one of the
nastiest superhero games around....
--
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 anonym...@charcoal.com
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
David Seal
jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> Yes, this is a gap. However, depending on the campaign - Computer
>Programming as a skill might be no more neccessary than Skywhale Guiding -
>the skill needed to 'ride' the living, thinking airships of a certain
>Shadow.
Yes - though it's surprising how often you do encounter the need for an
apparently irrelevant skill. As a somewhat extreme example, I was playing in
a GURPS fantasy game recently (NB no capital "F" - i.e. I mean a high-magic,
low-tech world, and not specifically the world presented by GURPS Fantasy).
Another character had recently managed to acquire a golem. This golem was
almost new: it knew its name ("Hassan") and a language, and that this
character was now its master, and practically nothing else.
So the first thing the character wants to do is set up some basic rules
about what the golem is to accept as a command - mainly to avoid accidents
(e.g. in planning discussions "... we'll go in with Hassan, attack them if
we can find them, ..." and the golem hears the words "Hassan, attack them"
in the middle!). So he instructs the golem about a number of modes it may be
in - e.g. "sleep mode", in which the only instruction it will obey is
"Hassan, wake up"; "normal mode", in which it will obey most commands, but
not those involving any sort of attack; "combat mode", in which it will obey
attack commands as well; "instruction mode", which is the only mode in which
it will accept alterations to these basic rules; etc.
Of course, the GM needs to get an idea of how well he's done this basic
instruction, so needs a skill roll. The skill? ... Computer Programming/TL3,
of course :-)
The GM commented later that if he'd had to take a bet on a skill that would
never be used in his campaign, Computer Programming would have been very
high on the list!
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
All opinions are mine only...
David Seal
jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> Adapting GURPS involves several points: Amberites will likely have
>very high attributes and extremely high skills. This is a breakdown problem
>for GURPS: High HT (15+) causes problems with the damage rules (or people
>will fight until they are down to -(HTx5). ...
Depending on how you want things to work, this may of course be exactly what
you want... If you don't like it, it's easy to bring in a house rule.
For instance, one I'm considering for this particular problem is "HT rolls
to remain conscious are made at -1 for each HT roll to avoid death you have
had to make". I.e. at 0 down to (-HT)+1 hits, you make HT rolls to remain
conscious; from (-HT) down to (-HT)-4, you make HT-1 rolls to remain
conscious; from (-HT)-5 down to (-HT)-9, you make HT-2 rolls to remain
conscious; etc.
By the time someone is near the "automatic death" (-HTx5) point, they're
having to make rolls against approximately HT/5. So it should be very
difficult to remain conscious right up to the point where you're
automatically going to die, even with a very high HT. However, it's not as
severe as most other suggestions I've seen (e.g. -1 on these rolls per point
of negative HT), and so does allow high HT characters to be terribly wounded
and yet still fighting.
So while I agree that this needs adapting, I don't think it's really all
that hard.
>... High combat skills may result in
>parries of 16+, which requires alterations to the combat system (or fights
>will get really slow and boring).
I think we've discussed this before (:-) and in particular, how feinting
makes a difference. As I remember it, when the two opponents are equally
skilled, feinting is only useful at a few specific weapon skill/parry
combinations, and even then, it's marginal. About the only way that you're
going to land damage is by low probability events - i.e. critical hits and
failures to parry. The fight will therefore be long and settled by some
lucky blows. This may indeed be boring - but I would claim it's exactly what
you would expect of a fight between two highly and equally skilled
combatants.
If there is a significant difference in skill, however, feinting becomes a
lot more useful. E.g. in the example someone posted of characters with
weapon skills of 24 and 20 fighting (let's guess parries of 18 and 16
respectively), the higher skill character expects to be able to reduce his
opponent's defence to around 12 with a feint. Alternating feints and attacks
will certainly speed the combat up, and allow the higher skill character to
take advantage of his higher skill. It is possible to control just how big
this effect is by tuning exactly how you run feints - e.g. whether the
players know how the feint worked out before the actual attack, and whether
you allow e.g. two successive feints to give you their combined bonus.
So my conclusions about high skill fights are: if the characters are equally
skilled, the fight becomes a matter of waiting for one of them to get lucky.
Although this may be boring, it is also IMHO realistic. If one character is
a lot more skilled than the other, he should use feints, both to take
advantage of his skill and to shorten the fight. Again, this seems realistic
to me.
Will G. Austin
David Seal
>I think we've discussed this before (:-) and in particular, how feinting
>makes a difference. As I remember it, when the two opponents are equally
>skilled, feinting is only useful at a few specific weapon skill/parry
>combinations, and even then, it's marginal. About the only way that you're
>going to land damage is by low probability events - i.e. critical hits and
>failures to parry. The fight will therefore be long and settled by some
>lucky blows.
>So my conclusions about high skill fights are: if the characters are equally
>skilled, the fight becomes a matter of waiting for one of them to get lucky.
>Although this may be boring, it is also IMHO realistic. If one character is
>a lot more skilled than the other, he should use feints, both to take
>advantage of his skill and to shorten the fight. Again, this seems realistic
>to me.
Actually, it seems to me that a fight between highly-skilled fighters
can lead to some interesting combats, since the difference becomes one of luck
AND the ability of one character to break the stalemate by doing an unexpected
manuever, using dirty, tricks, etc. . .
>David Seal
>ds...@armltd.co.uk
>
>All opinions are mine only...
>
--
"Your playing the wrong game, Joker, the *old* game. Tonight, you're taking no
hostages. Tonight, I'm taking no prisoners."
-the Batman, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
David Seal
jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> Take magic, for example. GURPS Magic has various sorts of generic
>fire spells like Fireball, Resist Flame, etc. Fantasy Hero has some of those,
>but also has interesting ones - arcane spells which let one view out of
>a nearby fire by looking into one beside you, or explode in flame like a
>fiery Phoenix, etc.
GURPS certainly has a spell which is similar to the first of those, namely
the Pyromancy variant of Divination. It's in the Knowledge college rather
than Fire, but its prerequisites are a lot of Fire spells... (I suppose this
may cause some problems for a single college Fire mage, though IMO any
reasonable GM would allow such a mage to take Pyromancy.)
It's very much up to the GM how Pyromancy and the other Divination spells
work - certainly a legitimate interpretation of Pyromancy is that you see a
view from the nearest fire to whatever your question is about.
As for exploding in flame, I can see a number of ways of doing it, depending
on exactly what you want. E.g. Phantom Flame or Create Fire combined with
Shape Fire (and I'd suggest Resist Fire or an Agni potion as well for the
latter :-), or a suitable Illusion Disguise.
Then there is of course always the possibility of spell research to get the
exact spell you want - it isn't especially difficult provided you're only
looking for a minor variant of something that already exists.
Personally, I find it a lot harder to take an already highly-arcane spell,
remove its existing "customisation" and put in one of my own than it is to
take a fairly basic spell and customise it. This is both because it is
intrinsically more work and because when removing the customisation, I don't
always know when I am removing something essential rather than a "special
effect".
So if I want arcane spells, I'm only really happy with arcane spells from
the system if they're exactly what I want. Otherwise, I'd prefer a fairly
bland spell from the system, with the assurance that it has been play-tested
in that form and so that my customisation is unlikely to spoil it.
Of course, all this fits in with Hero's approach of defining such things by
meta-rules and GURPS's approach of defining things by example. With the Hero
approach, the spell lists are just a set of examples and any new spell can
be worked out from the meta-rules. With the GURPS approach, the spell lists
are also the basis on which the costs of any new spell will be worked out.
This makes it more important to keep them somewhat bland and generic, in
order to make comparisons between them and new spells easier.
Avatar of Pooh
>Check out the BTRC games like WarpWorld, Time Lords, and SpaceTime. One
>of the most realistic damage systems I've ever seen. There is a difference
>between an arrow and a bullet, bullets get column shifts on the "Eventual
>Death" table, the one that tells you how long your character can remain
>alive without medical help.
*shrug* If I want to play a game with realistic damage, I drag out Dragonstar
Rising for a bit. Honestly, I prefer avoiding realistic damage. I've never
found realistic damage to add much to a roleplaying game. It's only use seems
to be as something to throw back and forth on advocacy as a reason to buy
GURPS.
Axly
*******************************************************************************
John Cooper
>In article <74429843...@rubicon.pinetree.org> Mtri...@f555.n163.z1.rubicon.pinetree.org (Mtrichter) writes:
>Re: GURPS r
>>It is, for example, very difficult to place a fantasy characte
>>work. (I know this from experience.)
>
>spellcasting fantasy wizards, undead characters, martial-artists with
>and without mystical powers, psionic characters, modern day soldiers,
>pilots and criminals, aliens from both outer space and other planes of
>existence . . . all in one game. They use low-, high- and ultra-tech,
>magic, cybernetics, etc, which range from the mundane to the stunningly
>unbelievable. The rules are stock GURPS - admittedly, with all of the
>optional rules and most of the worldbooks involved - and it works just
>fine. No tough "interface work" required.
This fascinates me. I am intrigued as to how this was achieved. I do not
dispute your claim, I am only interested in seeing the results for myself.
I am skeptical because my experiences do not match yours, and being
skeptical, I feel that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
>Sure, magic does not balance
>against ultra-tech. So? Why should it? It is both different in nature
>and utterly unrelated in function.
Ah, the heart of the matter. This is one rich area for exploration. Should
these things be balanced? You feel they don't have to be because they are
"unrelated in function." I would have to say it depends on just what
function you are referring to.
Let's take a flamethrower and a Wand of Flame. One is high tech and one is
magic. You would say that technology and magic are unrelated in function,
but I'm not sure I agree. A flamethrower spews flame, sets things on fire
and delivers damage in combat. A Wand of Flame does the same thing. In my
view, they are identical in function and only different in appearance and
construction.
In GURPS, you would have rules for flamethrowers and separate rules for
magic and separate rules for wands. A flamethrower might use similar game
mechanics to the wand and it might not. This is fine if you actually want
rules that retain such minute distinctions, but in the interests of
simplicity and playability, a system might choose to abstract the function
of the flamethrower and the wand and use common mechanics for both.
In Hero, you would start by describing a flamethrower as an Energy Blast
(that does X dice of damage) that operates through a Focus. The wand would
be the same thing. If both of them delivered the same amount of damage,
they would have the same point cost and you would know that they are
completely equivalent in terms of their combat effectiveness. Now if you
wanted to add in all the distinguishing features of a flamethrower versus
a wand, you could. So the flamethrower expends fuel, perhaps described as
an END Reserve that only recharges when "filled up" again. All these
details can be added if desired, and each detail effects the final cost
of the item.
When you're done, all the advantages and limitations that make a flamethrower
unique have been distilled into a point cost that can be compared to the
wand. You will know just how a soldier with a flamethrower stacks up against
a mage with the wand (at least in terms of raw firepower supplied by these
two items). Interestingly enough, the Hero System supplies the tools to
measure anything you want to, not just weapons and magic items. This makes
it easier to mix and match characters from other genres because they can
all be described by a single, unified measuring stick (Character Points).
The real debate ought to be over whether you think the ability to measure
things is useful or not. I happen to think it is an invaluable tool (though
like any tool, should be used properly--describing blenders and other common
items in Hero terms is not a particularly useful exercise, though you could
do it just for fun if you wanted to).
>If you are basing your complaints on
>this kind of thing, then you are not criticising the system - you are
>beefing about a system's inability to fit your particular, twisted
>sense of balance.
What "sense of balance" deserves to be called twisted? What sense of balance
says that it is useful to measure a character's attributes and skills, but
not its equipment? How do you draw this rather arbitrary line?
>>All Hero game genres operate off of the same powers ,
>>skills, advantages, limitations and disadvantages
>
>Which *I* have found "in my experience" makes Hero boring as hell.
>Takes all of the flavour out of it.
I can see how this can happen, and in fact, I've seen it happen myself. It
doesn't mean that just because it *can* happen, that it is endemic to the
game system itself. You are really complaining about the way in which you
and your fellow gamers used the Hero System. Like it or not, you can't
blame the paints and brushes for the fact that your pictures are dull.
Since the Hero System really is "generic," it is up to the players to
add the genre-specific flavor to the campaign. I've found this to be true
of just about any game. The difference is that the Hero System requires
a bit more work than fixed systems like AD&D or GURPS. Someone (perhaps a
supplement writer) has to add flavorful names to spells and put flesh onto the
generic elements. For the flexibility you get, this seems like a small price
to pay. But, of course, each person is going to view this cost differently
(I like the creative exercise, others don't have time, whatever).
BTW, I think that "special effect" (as it applies to the Hero System) is
profoundly underutilized and poorly understood by many players. It can
account for so many of the "little details" that add the kind of flavor
you like, that it is perhaps the Hero System's finest concept. How you
make use of it will often determine how well the system meets your needs
(at least, this is what I have found).
>Please - paying points for a
>gun just because it is a killing attack? For a base or for a car?
>Geeez. How utterly goofy.
Perhaps. For some genres it doesn't make sense to make characters pay for
such things. So don't. The Hero System does not advocate making characters
pay for mundane items like guns and cars (they pay money instead). Keep in
mind that there is nothing mundane about a flying carpet, or the Batmobile,
and for such unique items, characters ought to pay points for them. GURPS
is not even capable of point measuring them, so even if you *wanted* to,
the tools aren't there.
Just because the Hero System allows you to point measure something doesn't
mean Character Points have to be paid for that item. It is useful in and
of itself to know that the mighty Sword of Tears is a 120 Active Point item.
Whether the GM makes a character pay points to keep it is up to her and has
nothing to do with the Hero System itself.
-John
John Cooper
> Speaking of 'rules lawyers'... did anyone see the amazing
>acrobatics that Hero went through to design 'Astral Projection' in
>their mages book? Rather than breaking down and just making a new
>power (horrors!) they did everything they could to shoe-horn it into
>the currently existing rules with limitations/enhancements/ad nauseum.
Good point! Actually, this is an interesting issue.
As a Hero player, I must sometimes struggle with the system's limitations
and am called upon to decide if I should invent my own power or advantage.
The system provides for make-your-own limitations and disadvantages, but
not powers or advantages.
The basic principle is to use the existing tools, but I will admit that
there are times when the existing tools don't mesh well with what I want
to do. I am opposed to the uncontrolled proliferation of new powers that
might produce a situation in which the core rules are spread out over
many books. At the same time, I don't think a moritorium (is that the
right word?) on new powers is healthy for the game overall.
So what's the answer? I'm not sure. I think the system needs to evolve a
little more a little faster, but I would hate to see new editions of the
core rulebook come out every year (or even every other year) just so it
could pull in all the new material and put it under one cover.
Comments?
-John
James J Davis
>As a Hero player, I must sometimes struggle with the system's limitations
>and am called upon to decide if I should invent my own power or advantage.
>The system provides for make-your-own limitations and disadvantages, but
>not powers or advantages.
I haven't particularly had such a problem, and my own house rules delete
some of Hero's existing powers on top of it. Anyway...
>So what's the answer? I'm not sure. I think the system needs to evolve a
>little more a little faster, but I would hate to see new editions of the
>core rulebook come out every year (or even every other year) just so it
>could pull in all the new material and put it under one cover.
Start here, my guess. Propose powers you think are impossible or not
cleanly reachable with given mechanics. People like me (I've been
labeled a 'minimalist', by the way, due to the fact I often advocate
less powers than already exist) are likely to see if an existing construct
is satisfactory or not.
What I think would be necessary is for a book of usage of the Hero system.
There are many clean ways of getting at things that seem far off, but
the problem is that they are known only to a few people. This isn't good,
and proliferation of that knowledge would be a good idea.
-james
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|>> Certainly it is! =) Any non muscle-powered ranged attack is
|>
|>between firing a crossbow and firing a pistol in GURPS?
|> Answer: they have a different rate of fire. (A crossbow has a
|>variable reload time depending on your ST). Also there are different strengths
|>of crossbows just as there are different models of pistols: this changes the
|>damage and max range.
And sniper scopes, and lessened affects due to wind, and different
bullet types, tracer rounds, backfires, jams, etc.
|> Yes, characters could go to a Shadow where machine guns work (i.e.
|>where those GURPS rules would be useful). They could also go to a Shadow
|>where there are Faerie creatures (i.e. where those AM rules would be
|>useful).
There's a lot more guns in the Amber novels than faeries. Unless
you happen to like faeries a WHOLE lot and want to avoid being in amber
at all (or earth!), the gun rules (plus the rest) will be a lot more useful.
|>>GURPS literally has hundreds of skills vs. the dozens that AM has, in
|>>order to cover many more situations.
|>
|> Excuse me? Ars Magica has 75 non-combat skills (not including mage
|>skills), plus 60 weapon skills (each melee weapon has separate attack and
|>parry). However, this is somewhat deceptive because there is a generic
|>"Crafts" skill category, which includes perhaps 15 or so GURPS skills (from
|>Cooking to Ship-building).
If you want to talk about 'generic' categories, you open a whole
WHOPPING can of worms! =) GURPS has at least 6 different 'template'
categories from Engineering to Guns. So that adds on about 100+ right
there! And if are willing to accept any skill from any GURPS rulebook,
you are EASILY in the 'hundreds' category. If I accept all your figures
that give AM about 140 skills or approx 13 dozens.
>>GURPS has rules for high-grav and low gravity and the effects of many hos-
|>>tile environments (vaccuum, radiation, etc.) that AM doesn't have to cover.
|>
|> I am confused as to how much you think those rules would apply, given
|>that in one shadow, vacuum could be filled with sub-ether, and act like an
|>insulator; in another (described in the books), there might be stones which
|>float and move of their own accord. High-grav rules seem a special case at
|>best.
Vaccuum, usually hard to breathe and can hurt like the bejeesus.
Probably need a rule for that. Radiation, boy that stings! AND it can
cause long-lasting effects. Don't see anything on that in AM. High, low
and no gravity. Are you implying that someone who can go ANYWHERE might
miss these? Perhaps, for sheer comfort, they may stick to 1G shadows, but
what if they HAVE to go there. A rule for that stuff would be nice.
|>> GURPS Aliens. And for even MORE detail you can throw in the
|>>addition stuff in GURPS Uplift from which you can design a species
|>>all the way from pre-sentience up to true intelligence (and stop at
|>>any point inbetween).
|>
|> Hmm. IMO, GURPS Aliens is useful mainly simply for assigning a
|>point cost to PC aliens - not as a general creature-creation manual.
|>
No? How do adjudicate these neat powers they have then. With
hundreds of powers/ads/disads to choose from WITH the rules to handle
them, you can make billions of different animals. Without those
handy lists, you make up each creature, have to think up a game
mechanic for EACH power and ability (or disadvantage).
|> Let us say I, as GM, want to design a race of intelligent worms,
|>perhaps 8 feet in length. Now, if I want to use GURPS Aliens, I can look up
|>the limitation, "No limbs". OTOH, if I wanted to design them without it (for
|>GURPS or for Ars Magica), I would just write down, "No limbs" in the
|>description.
Nah. Let's say they have laser beam eyes, can tunnel, have the
unusual ability to emit acid from certain glands, and are a group mind
led by a queen. AM says "Well gee, why don't you make all that up."
GURPS says, "Here are the rules. They integrate with the rest of the
system. And, if you need to know about how tough they are, there's a
point system to use."
Ars Magica was made to handle ONE Genre (which it does well! I
gamemaster it once a week.). It COULD handle more with a lot more
additions. What started this series of posts before it digressed into
minor snipes against various tiny portions of the rules was which game
could you run Amber with the least effort. The answer (between AM and
GURPS anyways) is still GURPS.
-john-
George Harris
I just thought I'd point out again for everyone that this comparison
of adapting Ars Magica and GURPS for an Amber campaign was used to demonstrate
whether (or not) the GURPS *system* (not the sourcebooks) was inherently
more generic than other system. For that reason, the original comparison
was limited to the basic Ars Magica rulebook vs. the basic GURPS rulebook.
In article <1993Aug6.0...@ncsu.edu> jmka...@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH) writes:
>
>|>> Certainly it is! =) Any non muscle-powered ranged attack is
>|>>not covered in Ars Magica. This is not a minor addition to a game system,
>|>>it is a Major one.
>|>
>|> A question for you, then: what is the *game mechanical* difference
>|>between firing a crossbow and firing a pistol in GURPS?
>|> Answer: they have a different rate of fire. (A crossbow has a
>|>variable reload time depending on your ST). Also there are different strengths
>|>of crossbows just as there are different models of pistols: this changes the
>|>damage and max range.
>
> And sniper scopes, and lessened affects due to wind, and different
>bullet types, tracer rounds, backfires, jams, etc.
Gee, are the rules for *all* of these effects in GURPS Basic? If
not you are going outside the bounds of this discussion. If so, well,
theu're still pretty easy to add to Ars Magica, just change the range
mods, wind effects etc. as appropriate. No problem.
>|> Yes, characters could go to a Shadow where machine guns work (i.e.
>|>where those GURPS rules would be useful). They could also go to a Shadow
>|>where there are Faerie creatures (i.e. where those AM rules would be
>|>useful).
>
> There's a lot more guns in the Amber novels than faeries. Unless
>you happen to like faeries a WHOLE lot and want to avoid being in amber
>at all (or earth!), the gun rules (plus the rest) will be a lot more useful.
Hmm, I seem to remeber a GURPS advocate in a previous post saying
we were discussing a *campaign*, not the novels. So, if faeries *could*
appear in an Amber campaign (and they could), you'd want to have rules
for them. Gee, Ars Magica outscores GURPS here. Besides, it's not like
guns were all that frequent in Amber, and GURPS doesn't have rules for
guns using jewelers' rouge anyway.
>|>>GURPS literally has hundreds of skills vs. the dozens that AM has, in
>|>>order to cover many more situations.
>|>
>|> Excuse me? Ars Magica has 75 non-combat skills (not including mage
>|>skills), plus 60 weapon skills (each melee weapon has separate attack and
>|>parry). However, this is somewhat deceptive because there is a generic
>|>"Crafts" skill category, which includes perhaps 15 or so GURPS skills (from
>|>Cooking to Ship-building).
>
> If you want to talk about 'generic' categories, you open a whole
>WHOPPING can of worms! =) GURPS has at least 6 different 'template'
>categories from Engineering to Guns. So that adds on about 100+ right
>there! And if are willing to accept any skill from any GURPS rulebook,
you are going outside of the bounds of the discussion, so it isn't relevant.
>you are EASILY in the 'hundreds' category.
Say 300, say, isn't that 25 dozen?
If I accept all your figures
>that give AM about 140 skills or approx 13 dozens.
Or about 1 and a half hundreds, gosh, Ars Magica has hundreds of
skills, while GURPS only has dozens!
>>>GURPS has rules for high-grav and low gravity and the effects of many hos-
>|>>tile environments (vaccuum, radiation, etc.) that AM doesn't have to cover.
In the basic set?
>|> I am confused as to how much you think those rules would apply, given
>|>that in one shadow, vacuum could be filled with sub-ether, and act like an
>|>insulator; in another (described in the books), there might be stones which
>|>float and move of their own accord. High-grav rules seem a special case at
>|>best.
>
> Vaccuum, usually hard to breathe and can hurt like the bejeesus.
>Probably need a rule for that. Radiation, boy that stings! AND it can
>cause long-lasting effects. Don't see anything on that in AM. High, low
>and no gravity. Are you implying that someone who can go ANYWHERE might
>miss these? Perhaps, for sheer comfort, they may stick to 1G shadows, but
>what if they HAVE to go there. A rule for that stuff would be nice.
The *point*, which seems to have sailed right over your head, is that
the possibilities for hostile environments in Shadow are *so* varied,
that while GURPS may cover ten times as many as Ars Magica *even* with
all the supplements, it probably still misses 99% of the possibilities.
So, in GURPS with all the supplements, you have to improvise 99% of the
time, while in Ars Magica it would be 99.9% of the time. When you look at
that as total work necessary to run the campaign, the difference is
insignificant. Of course, you could, for sheer convenience, stick to the
1% of the shadows that are covered by GURPS, but what if they *have* to
go outside of them?
>|>> GURPS Aliens. And for even MORE detail you can throw in the
>|>>addition stuff in GURPS Uplift from which you can design a species
>|>>all the way from pre-sentience up to true intelligence (and stop at
>|>>any point inbetween).
>|>
>|> Hmm. IMO, GURPS Aliens is useful mainly simply for assigning a
>|>point cost to PC aliens - not as a general creature-creation manual.
>|>
> No? How do adjudicate these neat powers they have then. With
>hundreds of powers/ads/disads to choose from WITH the rules to handle
>them, you can make billions of different animals. Without those
>handy lists, you make up each creature, have to think up a game
>mechanic for EACH power and ability (or disadvantage).
Of course, those handy lists aren't in GURPS Basic, so they're
irrelevant to this discussion.
>
>|>perhaps 8 feet in length. Now, if I want to use GURPS Aliens, I can look up
>|>the limitation, "No limbs". OTOH, if I wanted to design them without it (for
>|>GURPS or for Ars Magica), I would just write down, "No limbs" in the
>|>description.
>
> Nah. Let's say they have laser beam eyes, can tunnel, have the
>unusual ability to emit acid from certain glands, and are a group mind
>led by a queen. AM says "Well gee, why don't you make all that up."
>GURPS says, "Here are the rules. They integrate with the rest of the
>system. And, if you need to know about how tough they are, there's a
>point system to use."
And, they're not in Basic, so it's irrelevant.
> Ars Magica was made to handle ONE Genre (which it does well! I
>gamemaster it once a week.). It COULD handle more with a lot more
>additions. What started this series of posts before it digressed into
>minor snipes against various tiny portions of the rules was which game
>could you run Amber with the least effort. The answer (between AM and
>GURPS anyways) is still GURPS.
That is, of course, *if* you want to spend hundreds of dollars
(or is it only dozens?) and buy all the GURPS supplements. However,
before these posts digressed into what is covered in those supplements,
the original issue was whihc *system* was inherently more adaptable
and flexible. Since all the examples of other things GURPS can cover
are rules in supplements that add on to the system, rather than being
logical extensions from it, their existence does not demonstrate that
GURPS is any more flexible, for one could also add on rules for those
effects to AM as well. So, if you want to spend the hundreds of dollars
on supplements, you're better off with GURPS. If you want to run a multi-
genre campaign with *just* the basic system rules, you're no better off
with GURPS that with AM, and much worse off than with some other games.
> -john-
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more
like prunes than rhubarb does." -Groucho Marx
George...@bbs.oit.unc.edu or, preferably gha...@jade.tufts.edu
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Will G. Austin
In a previous article, James J Davis states:
>What I think would be necessary is for a book of usage of the Hero system.
>There are many clean ways of getting at things that seem far off, but
>the problem is that they are known only to a few people. This isn't good,
>and proliferation of that knowledge would be a good idea.
Personally, I agree--the /only/ problem with the Hero System is
that we see it used only for Champions in the main, and other genres such
as Fantasy Hero don't get support, resulting in a dearth of clean examples
of mechanics used in other, non-superheroic ways. I wouldn't want to see
too many supplements a la GURPS, but just enough to give guidance to the masses.
CX6L
>In article <02AUG93.25...@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CX6L <CX...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
Re: my claim about an integrateed, cross-genre campaign
>This fascinates me. I am intrigued as to how this was achieved. I do not
>dispute your claim, I am only interested in seeing the results for myself.
>I am skeptical because my experiences do not match yours, and being
>skeptical, I feel that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Well, I do *not* plan to start hurling 500K PostScript files around the
net with my campaign notes within, and unfortunately, none of my players
has reliable net access . . . but here's an overview, if you will take
my word for it:
The campaign started out as a "cosmopolitan" fantasy campaign,
meaning that I allowed magic, mystical martial arts talents and psi
right at the start, as written in the GURPS books available at the
time (Summer '90). This was in addition to any and all mundane stuff
from the GURPS library that would fit a low-tech setting. I also
allowed clerical magic (more-or-less scammed from _Magic_) and all
nonhuman fantasy races. Finally, I made it known that I would at least
entertain requests for more unusual stuff - using the Unusual Back-
ground costs in Supers etc . . . as guidelines.
Once the campaign got underway, the adventures rapidly became
less and less traditional fantasy. Black powder made the occasional
cameo, then modern-day folk from our Earth and alternate Earths -
say, one where Hitler won WWII using magic. So firearms and high
tech began to get integrated into the game. Furthermore, each time
a GURPS supplement came out with new rules and abilities that I
liked, I decided who would have them and where they would go, and
included them. Additionally, new players were replacing old ones
as friends had to leave town to pursue their careers, and some of
the existing characters were retired and replaced as players tried
different types of characters. This accelerated the assimilation of
new rules.
Eventually, the adventurers became powerful enough to begin to
mix it up with Djinn, major demons and the occasional manifestation
of faerie power, like the Wild Hunt. I began using Supers and Psionics
rules for this, as well as the race creation rules from Fantasy Folk,
and began giving new PCs more latitude - of this general kind - so
that they could survive the threat level. As well, I began to let
the PCs buy extra hit points, extra fatigue and other "super" powers
as they advanced, by way of simulating their heroic and larger-than-
life nature.
This culminated with an adventure in Hell. This Hell was the
Hell of many, many worlds and beliefs, not just the Christian Hell,
and so tech, magic, psi and so forth were involved. As well, the
various world-jumping info from Time-Travel became useful. When the
party returned, their adventures became focussed around world-jumps
in general, and so I had the opportunity to use many, many genres.
While the PCs always returned home, they always took a little some-
thing with them.
Ultimately, the adventurers had to leave their world, and have
moved to our Earth. They immediately made enemies and friends alike,
and ended up mixing their eclectic selection of talents with high-
tech in both crime and warfare. However, in their romping, they
stepped on the toes of a "Men in Black" style alien race bent on
dominating Earth! The party proceded to face off against these aliens,
who were very high tech and cybered all to hell.
Now, the party had been working for a dark conspiracy for a
while, one that transcends universes, and so ended up being the
conspiracy's soldiers in a war between their conspiracy and the
alien one. A secret war - in an Illuminated setting! When one PC
was killed in battle with the aliens, his dark masters made him
undead and returned him to the fray. A new player is also about to
join up - with an already undead PC.
At this point, the PCs are an undead warrior, a powerful mage,
a mystic ninja master, a fallen priest with true divine inspiration,
and a skilled Earth forger and hacker. They have assembled an army
of NPCs, including a mad scientist, two mercs, a combat pilot and
a crime lord who is also a powerful dark sorceress. They use low-
and modern-tech warfare, captured alien tech, magic, psi and weird
powers to fight aliens with cybernetics and ultratech, all the time
dealing with Earth agencies who also want their bacon . . .
The game is definitely cross-genre, and everything was so
gradual and appropriate, it was hardly any work at all to do!
OK?
-Kromm
______________________________________________________________________
|Dr Manfred Dieter Kromm | cx...@musica.mcgill.ca Peasant Mail |__
| (aka Sean M. Punch) |pu...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca _______________| |
| McGill University |pu...@chopin.physics.mcgill.ca NeXT Mail | |
| High Energy Physics |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| |
|Montreal, Quebec, Canada|"Yes. I am a godless physicist. Evil, too."| |
|________________________|___________________________________________| |
|____________________________________________________________________|
CX6L
Regarding my stance:
>>Sure, magic does not balance
>>against ultra-tech. So? Why should it? It is both different in nature
>>and utterly unrelated in function.
John writes:
>Let's take a flamethrower and a Wand of Flame. One is high tech and one is
>magic. You would say that technology and magic are unrelated in function,
>but I'm not sure I agree. A flamethrower spews flame, sets things on fire
>and delivers damage in combat. A Wand of Flame does the same thing. In my
>view, they are identical in function and only different in appearance and
>construction.
A flamethrower is a man-made item, which can be mass-produced by anyone
with an industrial base, which any military git can be trained to use,
and which can work for whoever picks it up. A wand of fire, OTOH, is an
enchanted item which, generally speaking, requires one of a small sub-
class of people (mages) to operate, and which is - in any fantasy world
that I have played in - a rare item. Magic is usually limited in power
by the amount of energy a caster can safely channel, and hence will have
limited deadliness. A flamethrower is limited only by the quality of its
inanimate parts, which tend to be tougher than flesh, and so tends to be
far more deadly.
>In GURPS, you would have rules for flamethrowers and separate rules for
>magic and separate rules for wands. A flamethrower might use similar game
>mechanics to the wand and it might not. nt
IMHO, it is *better* for a system to make the distinction. It adds both
flavour and depth. In GURPS, the wand would be enchanted with Flame Jet,
be useable only by mages, require a casting time and take fatigue. It
would require a roll versus its power to activate, and then a roll vs.
the user's Magic Jet skill to hit. The flamethrower can be picked up by
anyone and used at the default Guns(Flamethrower) skill (DX-4, plus IQ
bonuses). It has dozens of times the range of a Flame Jet and would be
far more damaging. It also uses "sticky" fuel, and continues to burn
long after the hit. The basic mechanics of *how* you hit and get damaged
are the same, but the special effects vary so much that, really, the
*only* thing the two have in common is that they use fire.
A Flame Jet is better compared to other Jet spells, and to magical
combat spells, in terms of scale, mode of operation etc. Magic and its
limitations are a far more solid common ground, and a far more meaning-
ful grounds for comparison, than is the very weak link of "similar
special effects". Likewise, a flamethrower is better compared to Willy
Pete grenades, napalm and HAFLA projectiles in terms of its mode of
operation and deadliness. These two - tech and magic - work perfectly
well as "closed sets" in GURPS. Why confuse the issue by trying to
say, "An apple is an orange, with the special effect that it has a
thin red skin, white flesh, and contains more malic acid than citric
acid."
>In Hero, you would start by describing a flamethrower as an Energy Blast
>(that does X dice of damage) that operates through a Focus. The wand would
>be the same thing. If both of them delivered the same amount of damage,
>they would have the same point cost and you would know that they are
>completely equivalent in terms of their combat effectiveness. u
But why do I want a point cost? Why do I care about the relative combat
effectiveness? Any Joe can buy a .45 pistol. For the same dough, he
could also get a .30-06 rifle. Now, I do not know about you, but I am
a lot more afraid of the .30-06 than the .45! Yet they would cost a
similar amount of cash, be more-or-less equally easy to use (IME, rifles
are *easier* to use), and would be equally common (again, IME, the
rifle is more common, even though it is deadlier - I live in Canada,
where rifles abound but pistols are a no-no). In Hero terms, though,
the point cost of the rifle would be higher. So? In all practical
and meaningful senses (cost, ease of use, availability), the weapons
would be equally common amongst PCs; only because of the artificial and
meaningless game distinction of points would the pistol be more common.
What purpose does this serve, other than detracting from realism and
common sense?
>When you're done, all the advantages and limitations that make a flamethrower
>unique have been distilled into a point cost that can be compared to the
>wand. You will know just how a soldier with a flamethrower stacks up against
>a mage with the wand (at least in terms of raw firepower supplied by these
>two items).
Oddly, I have found that in GURPS, because all weapons are so well
described and realistic, I know the range, deadliness et al. just by
looking at the stats for the weapon, and can gauge how weapon A and
weapon B stack up without any point cost. In Hero, a focus costing
2 times another is *not* twice as deadly. Sometimes it is less deadly,
sometimes it is far more than twice as deadly. So what point do the
points serve? I *know* that a pistol that fires .44 slugs at 3 dice
apiece, 3 times per turn, accurate to a range of dozens of yards,
at no cost or effort on the part of the user is deadlier than a wand
which fires 3 die fireballs every third turn, at close range. Why do
I care, though, if Fred has a $400 Super Blackhawk and Joe has a
$100,000 Rare Artifact of Great Power and neither has paid points,
or that they are not equal? In my mind, Joe's bad luck, bringing a
stick to a gunfight.
>The real debate ought to be over whether you think the ability to measure
>things is useful or not. I happen to think it is an invaluable tool (though
>like any tool, should be used properly--describing blenders and other common
>items in Hero terms is not a particularly useful exercise, though you could
>do it just for fun if you wanted to).
Get this, though: *I* *do* *not* *care* if the tools used by PCs have
a point cost or not. Points measure *character* power, in a vacuum, in
the raw. Equipment is a dollar-cost/availability logistics problem, and
has no place on character sheets. A hand grenade is hundreds of times
more deadly than a gold statuette used as a club, but costs almost
zilch in comparison. If a character takes his $600 and buys a dozen
M59's, while his buddy takes $600 and buys a gold Buddha, I am not
going to care.
>What "sense of balance" deserves to be called twisted? What sense of balance
>says that it is useful to measure a character's attributes and skills, but
>not its equipment? How do you draw this rather arbitrary line?
When a character is taken prisoner, or switches worlds, or is in a
situation where equipment is useless, or is robbed, all he or she has
is his or her wits and natural talents. His/her personality. His/her
*self*. Equipment is transitory, and changes like socks. Only a
materialistic character even has a decent roleplaying justification
for really caring about such things. Equipment is *not* the "self".
Anyone can have a gun, or two, or a tank, or a car, or what have you,
and I care very little if they do or do not. Equipment breaks, and I
can, as the GM, always have it get stolen/break down/run out of gas
or ammo. Why am I going to subject myself to the extra book-keeping
necessary to describe every article of equipment a PC has, when that
list will change hourly?
>>Please - paying points for a
>>gun just because it is a killing attack? For a base or for a car?
>>Geeez. How utterly goofy.
> there is nothing mundane about a flying carpet ile,
Sez who? If I run a high-powered Arabian Nights game full of PC mages,
they will be as common as a Lada in Russia. A Lada would be a cool
artifact, OTOH (:-). However, both are "just" equipment, albeit one
would be less common than the other in some worlds. Key thing is, a
mage could give a Russian a flying carpet, and the Russian could hand
over his Lada to the mage. So what? Then they both cave in and fly
off in a MiG 29 Fulcrum. Oh, well. If they can beg, borrow, buy or
steal any of the above in my game - more power to them. Too bad if
this unbalances them against Gonad the Barbarian who only has a cheap
sword to use in a fight!
John H Kim
>Of course, all this fits in with Hero's approach of defining such things by
>meta-rules and GURPS's approach of defining things by example. With the Hero
>approach, the spell lists are just a set of examples and any new spell can
>be worked out from the meta-rules. With the GURPS approach, the spell lists
>are also the basis on which the costs of any new spell will be worked out.
>This makes it more important to keep them somewhat bland and generic, in
>order to make comparisons between them and new spells easier.
I'd agree with that.
The implications are greater, though: FH spells, used just as
written, are more flavorful than GURPS Magic spells - and many people
apparently do use these as written.
I would also note that from experience, I see very few people
rewriting GURPS spells, while I constantly see Fantasy Hero GM's coming
up with new spells, colleges, etc.
John H Kim
that it will work well with Amberite level attributes and ability.
ds...@armltd.co.uk (David Seal) writes:
>jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>> Adapting GURPS involves several points: Amberites will likely have
>>very high attributes and extremely high skills. This is a breakdown problem
>>for GURPS: High HT (15+) causes problems with the damage rules (or people
>>will fight until they are down to -(HTx5). ...
>
[suggested rules change deleted]
>
>So while I agree that this needs adapting, I don't think it's really all
>that hard.
Agreed. However, I think the change is significant. With other
changes I feel are needed, I think the total is of comparable size to
modifying Ars Magica to handle guns, at least minimally (a set of missle
weappon stats, autofire rules, perhaps stats/rules for sights and special
ammunition).
>
>As I remember it, when the two opponents are equally skilled, feinting is
>only useful at a few specific weapon skill/parry combinations, and even
>then, it's marginal. About the only way that you're going to land damage is
>by low probability events - i.e. critical hits and failures to parry.
>
>If there is a significant difference in skill, however, feinting becomes a
>lot more useful. E.g. in the example someone posted of characters with
>weapon skills of 24 and 20 fighting (let's guess parries of 18 and 16
>respectively), the higher skill character expects to be able to reduce his
>opponent's defence to around 12 with a feint.
My example had Corwin at Fencing-20, Benedict at Fencing-24. Corwin,
with leather armor and combat reflexes, has a parry of 16, 19 with retreat.
By my estimates, Benedict gains very little by feinting: perhaps a 25%
chance of a hit over two turns using a feint-and-attack, as opposed to the
20% chance he would have with just two attacks.
I have tables comparing hit chances with feinting vs. without. Un-
fortunately, they don't cover up into this range, so I have to extrapolate
(i.e. guess based on the progression). Remember that at skill 16+, there is
a 10% chance of a critical hit on any strike.
Also remember that with two attacks, he has a much better chance of
a critical hit. At his skill, he can take head shots (-5 skill) and still
have a 19- roll; thus he can always use the critical head blow table.
John H Kim
time in the near future I will write a 1-page outline of handling guns
using Ars Magica.
The remaining questions are environments and creatures:
jmka...@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH) writes:
>|> I am confused as to how much you think those rules would apply, given
>|>that in one shadow, vacuum could be filled with sub-ether, and act like an
>|>insulator; in another (described in the books), there might be stones which
>|>float and move of their own accord. High-grav rules seem a special case at
>|>best.
>
> Vaccuum, usually hard to breathe and can hurt like the bejeesus.
>Probably need a rule for that. Radiation, boy that stings! AND it can
>cause long-lasting effects. ...
>Are you implying that someone who can go ANYWHERE might miss these?
Let me put it this way: Corwin in some distant Shadow when suddenly
an opponent casts a spell which sustains a vacuum around him. Now what
happens?
GURPS Space lists some specific rules on what will happen. However,
I say it could happen that way, or it could be that Corwin simply is not
able to breathe. *It depends on the Shadow*. The GM is free to define for
himself what happens.
In one Shadow, rocks may float and move of their own accord -
gravity does not work the same way in that world as on Earth. The fact that
you have rules for 2g worlds does not make it any easier to design the
above world, where rocks float and move on their own.
>
[re. GURPS Aliens]
>
>|> Let us say I, as GM, want to design a race of intelligent worms,
>|>perhaps 8 feet in length. Now, if I want to use GURPS Aliens, I can look up
>|>the limitation, "No limbs". OTOH, if I wanted to design them without it
>|>(for GURPS or for Ars Magica), I would just write down, "No limbs" in the
>|>description.
>
> Nah. Let's say they have laser beam eyes, can tunnel, have the
>unusual ability to emit acid from certain glands, and are a group mind
>led by a queen. AM says "Well gee, why don't you make all that up."
>GURPS says, "Here are the rules. They integrate with the rest of the
>system. And, if you need to know about how tough they are, there's a
>point system to use."
So I can have GURPS tell me how much damage their laser beam eyes
do? GURPS can tell me how fast they tunnel? Why would I want this?
If I am designing a creature, I would like to decide how fast
they can tunnel - I don't want some manual to tell me that. And if I can
decide how fast they tunnel anyhow, why do I need the description of the
tunneling power in GURPS Aliens?
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|> I just thought I'd point out again for everyone that this comparison
|>of adapting Ars Magica and GURPS for an Amber campaign was used to demonstrate
|>whether (or not) the GURPS *system* (not the sourcebooks) was inherently
|>more generic than other system. For that reason, the original comparison
|>was limited to the basic Ars Magica rulebook vs. the basic GURPS rulebook.
Well thank you for clarifying that! After only dozens/fractions of hundreds
of posts. Gee. Sorry, but I think the current discussion is MUCH more interesting.
|> Hmm, I seem to remeber a GURPS advocate in a previous post saying
|>we were discussing a *campaign*, not the novels. So, if faeries *could*
|>appear in an Amber campaign (and they could), you'd want to have rules
|>for them. Gee, Ars Magica outscores GURPS here. Besides, it's not like
|>guns were all that frequent in Amber, and GURPS doesn't have rules for
|>guns using jewelers' rouge anyway.
Yep. IF you want faeries. And, BTW, the rouge works as gunpowder
in Amber. (Wasn't that simple?) Guns are a part of the 'Amber' universe,
so to speak, and unless you simply want to ignore their presence altogether,
you have to deal with them.
[[[[[[[*********Have a clue, please.**************]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
I used 'dozens' because that is a convenient term for the number
of skill that AM has. I used it the same way it's used when you buy
several boxes of donuts (delib. mispelling =P ). I used 'hundreds' for
the number of GURPS skills, because the dozens units were too small for
GURPS the same way 'hundreds' doesn't describe the number of skills in
AM. This is also the same reason I don't describe myself in terms of
miles, or my age in fortnights, or my weight in micrograms.
|>> Vaccuum, usually hard to breathe and can hurt like the bejeesus.
|>>Probably need a rule for that. Radiation, boy that stings! AND it can
|>>cause long-lasting effects. Don't see anything on that in AM. High, low
|>>and no gravity. Are you implying that someone who can go ANYWHERE might
|>>miss these? Perhaps, for sheer comfort, they may stick to 1G shadows, but
|>>what if they HAVE to go there. A rule for that stuff would be nice.
|>
|> The *point*, which seems to have sailed right over your head, is that
|>the possibilities for hostile environments in Shadow are *so* varied,
|>that while GURPS may cover ten times as many as Ars Magica *even* with
|>all the supplements, it probably still misses 99% of the possibilities.
|>So, in GURPS with all the supplements, you have to improvise 99% of the
|>time, while in Ars Magica it would be 99.9% of the time. When you look at
|>that as total work necessary to run the campaign, the difference is
|>insignificant. Of course, you could, for sheer convenience, stick to the
|>1% of the shadows that are covered by GURPS, but what if they *have* to
|>go outside of them?
The *point* which seems to have sailed right over your head, is that
at least GURPS *does* cover many varied environments and gives you working
examples for making more. AM gives about 3? More if you use Maleficium
or other supplements (or is that against your rules?)
Oh, to the point you make that the discussion may or may not have
followed what you consider the proper course or stayed within your straitlaced
boundaries. Sorry, it happens.
-john-
Jeff Freeman
JMK> GURPS 101: Yes there is a slight chance that a slug will not
>damage the wearer of a leather jacket (approx. 0.5%). The slug does
>not 'bounce off' per se, but if it were going to 'graze' the target,
>the leather deflects it *just enough* so that you don't take damage.
There aint no way... not even a .5% chance, that any bit of leather
is going to deflect a 50 cal slug -- well, unless you THREW the
bullet at the defender, I mean.
X OLX 2.1 TD X Jeff Freeman
* Origin: Meridian -*- Mesquite, Tx. (214) 682-0721 -*- (1:124/6008)
John H Kim
>|>strate whether (or not) the GURPS *system* (not the sourcebooks) was
>|>comparison was limited to the basic Ars Magica rulebook vs. the basic
>|>GURPS rulebook.
>Sorry, but I think the current discussion is MUCH more interesting.
Well, I made the initial comparison: and I chose Amber as a setting
precisely because I thought it was an obvious and valid setting, which
almost no sourcebooks applied to.
I still stand by this opinion: there is very little (that I know
of) in GURPS sourcebooks which applies. Hi-Tech covers the development of
*Earth* technology, and has stats for historical *Earth* firearms. I
consider this a fairly minor aid.
>
>|>So, if faeries *could* appear in an Amber campaign (and they could),
>|>you'd want to have rules for them. Gee, Ars Magica outscores GURPS here.
>|>Besides, it's not like guns were all that frequent in Amber, and GURPS
>|>doesn't have rules for guns using jewelers' rouge anyway.
>
> Yep. IF you want faeries. And, BTW, the rouge works as gunpowder
>in Amber. (Wasn't that simple?) Guns are a part of the 'Amber' universe,
>so to speak, and unless you simply want to ignore their presence altogether,
>you have to deal with them.
I remind you that faeries (or at least a clever simulation thereof)
*are* a part of the Amber universe, as well. If you recall in the first
series, Corwin had an encounter with a group of highly faerie-like shortly
before running into the Shadow storm.
In the first series, guns are used in only one scene (although a
quite important one): the battle over Amber. However, of all the fights the
Amberites are in, none of them use guns or even face them.
>
> The *point* which seems to have sailed right over your head, is that
>at least GURPS *does* cover many varied environments and gives you working
>examples for making more. AM gives about 3? More if you use Maleficium
>or other supplements (or is that against your rules?)
Let's consider the various environments which were encountered in
the first series: does GURPS prepare one for the Pattern, a world where
rocks move & float on their own, a faerie cave, a Shadowstorm, or the
Abyss?
Ars Magica, in its supplements, covers a wide variety of _regio_
(faerie, magic, dominion, etc.) These rules, IMO, seem far more applicable
to those Amber environs which we have seen in the series than rules on
vacuum, radiation, etc. from GURPS Space.
Mutant for Hire
>The basic principle is to use the existing tools, but I will admit that
>there are times when the existing tools don't mesh well with what I want
>to do. I am opposed to the uncontrolled proliferation of new powers that
>might produce a situation in which the core rules are spread out over
>many books. At the same time, I don't think a moritorium (is that the
>right word?) on new powers is healthy for the game overall.
One idea is to create the basic power under existing rules, and work
out how much it costs, either absolute or per level. Then encapsulate
this as a new power and then add advantages and disadvantages on it as
normal. The costs might be a trifle off from what they'd be normally,
but with luck, not by much.
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|> >Yes there is a slight chance that a slug will not
|> >damage the wearer of a leather jacket (approx. 0.5%). The slug does
|> >not 'bounce off' per se, but if it were going to 'graze' the target,
|> >the leather deflects it *just enough* so that you don't take damage.
|>
|>There aint no way... not even a .5% chance, that any bit of leather
|>is going to deflect a 50 cal slug -- well, unless you THREW the
|>bullet at the defender, I mean.
|>
You must've missed my follow-up post. There's a rule in
GURPS I forgot to clarify that reduces the chance for high damage
weapons to be deflected by armor. Still the point is a good one.
I've seen bullets deflect off of water! The angle is all important
in this sorta thing.
-john-
Avatar of Pooh
> You must've missed my follow-up post. There's a rule in
>GURPS I forgot to clarify that reduces the chance for high damage
>weapons to be deflected by armor. Still the point is a good one.
>I've seen bullets deflect off of water! The angle is all important
>in this sorta thing.
A large body of water has a huge mass that is fairly cohesive. Bullets
do bounce off water, but this isn't a good argument for saying there
is a chance of them bouncing off a leather jacket.
CX6L
>jmka...@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH) writes:
>> You must've missed my follow-up post. There's a rule in
>>GURPS I forgot to clarify that reduces the chance for high damage
>>weapons to be deflected by armor. Still the point is a good one.
>>I've seen bullets deflect off of water! The angle is all important
>>in this sorta thing.
OK - first, there really is a -1 PD per 3 dice of damage PD Reduction
rule in both _High Tech (2nd ed.)_ and the new _Vehicles_. In _Vehicles_
they even go on to say that PD will be irrelevant for heavy weapons and
you can just ignore it if you like (except for deflector shields et al).
So the, "In GURPS, body armour can bounce huge attacks and that really
sucks!" arguments are now officially and well-and-truly shot down and
should stay down or I will kick them to ensure that they do.
>A large body of water has a huge mass that is fairly cohesive. Bullets
>do bounce off water, but this isn't a good argument for saying there
>is a chance of them bouncing off a leather jacket.
Heh? At a sufficiently steep angle, the bullet (any bullet) is nearly
parallel to the surface it is striking. Since its momentum is almost
*entirely* in a direction parallel to the target, it will not take all
that much momentum *perpendicular* to the direction of motion to make
the round go astray. Now a .50 slug weighs a lot as bullets go, but a
human is still a hell of a lot heavier and could easily deflect the
round *if* the angle is very, very steep.
Now I admit that this angle is not likely to occur in a real fire
fight. In a game, if a "hit" is scored, then it is safe to assume that
"hit" means "solid hit", and that a graze is just when the bullet rolls
low damage . . . but there is the Dodge roll to take into account. This
does not assume the character literally sidesteps the bullet. What it
means is that the target has moved from the spot where he or she was
when the attacker fired. Since Dodge = Move for the most part, it is a
safe assumption that this is intended to reflect the fact that people
move around in combat.
What PD does is take the borderline cases, the cases where the
target will be grazed by the bullet *despite* moving (Dodging), and
give the character a semirigid surface that *may* deflect a shot that
is grazing *anyway*, hence slightly improving the odds of emerging
unhurt.
Although there are PD reduction rules, the fact is that high PD
will still help protect against even .50 rounds. This is really quite
justifiable. There are only a few cases where I would, as a GM, say
that PD is further compromised beyond -1 per 3 dice:
-against special roughened or spurred rounds, like the Law Grip
round, which are designed to bit into armour - I would perhaps
give -1 PD per 2 dice instead
-against hypervelocity, spin-stabilized rounds - roll 1 die: on
a 1-3 the round hits spinning inward and bites into armour, so
ignore PD; on a 4-6 the round hits spinning outward and glances,
so DOUBLE PD, and do not reduce for damage
-against squash-head rounds, which tend to deform even on light
contact. _Vehicles_ has rules for these.
-against physically monstrous rounds (eg - 2.75" rockets, howitzer
shells . . .), which have such a huge cross-section for collision
that PD ought to be irrelevant.
Griffin
>>A large body of water has a huge mass that is fairly cohesive. Bullets
>>do bounce off water, but this isn't a good argument for saying there
>>is a chance of them bouncing off a leather jacket.
>Heh? At a sufficiently steep angle, the bullet (any bullet) is nearly
>parallel to the surface it is striking. Since its momentum is almost
>*entirely* in a direction parallel to the target, it will not take all
>that much momentum *perpendicular* to the direction of motion to make
>the round go astray. Now a .50 slug weighs a lot as bullets go, but a
>human is still a hell of a lot heavier and could easily deflect the
>round *if* the angle is very, very steep.
The point here is not whether it's theoretically possible. The point is
that "Bullets bounce off body X." isn't a good argument for "Bullets
bounce off body Y.". Where is the correlation between leather jackets
and water?
As to whether there is an angle steep enough to allow for deflection
of a .50 cal round, I think that's out of the league of gaming relevance.
If person Y is hit by person X standing anywhere but on top of the
person Y's head, the angles are insufficient to warrant any sort of
deflection roll.
Griffin
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|>A large body of water has a huge mass that is fairly cohesive. Bullets
|>do bounce off water, but this isn't a good argument for saying there
|>is a chance of them bouncing off a leather jacket.
A bullet can bounce off of a cupful of water, or less, if the
angle is steep enough. Water isn't very cohesive unless its frozen! =)
The deflection doesn't have to be much, it has to be 'just enough' to
miss the target. I'm not claiming that a direct trajectory
straight toward a target is going to be affected by leather armor!
-john-
Steffan O'Sullivan
>As to whether there is an angle steep enough to allow for deflection
>of a .50 cal round, I think that's out of the league of gaming relevance.
>If person Y is hit by person X standing anywhere but on top of the
>person Y's head, the angles are insufficient to warrant any sort of
>deflection roll.
As at least three people have pointed out, there is NO deflection
possibility in GURPS when a .50 caliber machine gun bullet hits a
leather jacket. None. The original poster who said their was is in
error.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "It took me 19 years to get 3,000
| hits in baseball. I did it in one
s...@oz.plymouth.edu | afternoon in golf."
| -Hank Aaron
John H Kim
> OK - first, there really is a -1 PD per 3 dice of damage PD Reduction
>rule in both _High Tech (2nd ed.)_ and the new _Vehicles_. In _Vehicles_
>they even go on to say that PD will be irrelevant for heavy weapons and
>you can just ignore it if you like (except for deflector shields et al).
>So the, "In GURPS, body armour can bounce huge attacks and that really
>sucks!" arguments are now officially and well-and-truly shot down and
>should stay down or I will kick them to ensure that they do.
To be replaced by the "Just how much darn money do I have to
spend to get important rules like these?" argument.
I have quite a large collection of GURPS material ($300+ value) -
none of them adventures - and I don't have this sort of highly significant
rule? (Note that I have 1st Ed High Tech - I thought buying the 2nd Ed
was spending entirely too much money for mostly the same thing).
I appreciate the Update from 2nd to 3rd edition, but really I wish
these things could be thought about/playtested more before publishing.
David Summers
>CX6L <CX...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>
>
>>>A large body of water has a huge mass that is fairly cohesive. Bullets
>>>do bounce off water, but this isn't a good argument for saying there
>>>is a chance of them bouncing off a leather jacket.
>
>>Heh? At a sufficiently steep angle, the bullet (any bullet) is nearly
>>parallel to the surface it is striking. Since its momentum is almost
>>*entirely* in a direction parallel to the target, it will not take all
>>that much momentum *perpendicular* to the direction of motion to make
>>the round go astray. Now a .50 slug weighs a lot as bullets go, but a
>>human is still a hell of a lot heavier and could easily deflect the
>>round *if* the angle is very, very steep.
>
>The point here is not whether it's theoretically possible. The point is
>that "Bullets bounce off body X." isn't a good argument for "Bullets
>bounce off body Y.". Where is the correlation between leather jackets
>and water?
The correleation is that in both cases fast moving heavy objects are
being deflected off of surfaces that are relatively soft and deformable.
>
>As to whether there is an angle steep enough to allow for deflection
>of a .50 cal round, I think that's out of the league of gaming relevance.
>If person Y is hit by person X standing anywhere but on top of the
>person Y's head, the angles are insufficient to warrant any sort of
>deflection roll.
Why? A hit is to strike something. Not "strike something solidly
at a fairly perpendicular angle"
--
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any postion on any of this do you think they
would have ME give it?)
David Summers - Sum...@Max.ARC.NASA.Gov
David Summers
>that we see it used only for Champions in the main, and other genres such
>as Fantasy Hero don't get support, resulting in a dearth of clean examples
>of mechanics used in other, non-superheroic ways. I wouldn't want to see
>too many supplements a la GURPS, but just enough to give guidance to the
>masses.
There is a line of reasoning here that escapes me here. Somehow GURPS
became worse when to put out supplements and you're afraid that Hero
will to. If you don't like supplements, why don't you just ignore them?
Avatar of Pooh
>>The point here is not whether it's theoretically possible. The point is
>>that "Bullets bounce off body X." isn't a good argument for "Bullets
>>bounce off body Y.". Where is the correlation between leather jackets
>>and water?
>The correleation is that in both cases fast moving heavy objects are
>being deflected off of surfaces that are relatively soft and deformable.
Bullets react with solids in a much different different manner than
they react to liquids. Anyone who has performed that delightful experiment
of shooting a gallon jug of water with a high powered rifle knows this.
You shoot a leather jacket with a high powered rifle, you get one small
hole. Now, I'm not a ballistic experts, but I know that different substances
react differently to bullets. We don't shoot that silly looking clay to
check how large a temporary wound cavity a bullet will generate for no reason.
David Summers
>sum...@max.arc.nasa.gov (David Summers) writes:
>
>>The correleation is that in both cases fast moving heavy objects are
>>being deflected off of surfaces that are relatively soft and deformable.
>
>Bullets react with solids in a much different different manner than
>they react to liquids. Anyone who has performed that delightful experiment
>of shooting a gallon jug of water with a high powered rifle knows this.
>You shoot a leather jacket with a high powered rifle, you get one small
>hole. Now, I'm not a ballistic experts, but I know that different substances
>react differently to bullets. We don't shoot that silly looking clay to
>check how large a temporary wound cavity a bullet will generate for no reason.
It also might, in fact, be true that a lether jacket is _better_. Just
because a jacket is different doesn't mean it's worse. Moreover, the
water anology _does_ establish that, contrary to what has been implied
here, a suface doesn't have to be rigid and hard to deflect a bullet.
Tommy Wareing
I'm not an expert, I'm just an Amber player setting myself up to get
flamed :-)
1. If you want to play in the Amber universe, why not get the Amber rules?
You've obviously invested enough in both GURPS and Ars Magica that one more
system won't break the bank.
2. The combat example of Corwin vs. Benedict is simple: Benedict wins. I
don't need any stats to figure that out. Benedict always wins. Every time.
Maybe not quickly. But he will win. Unless Corwin cheats. Where does black
tangle-grass crop up in AM or GURPS?
3. Hundreds/Dozens of skills? The more skills you have, then the less
conversion you'll need, but the system's going to be slower all the
time while you use those skills. Amber uses 4 attributes: Psyche,
Strength, Endurance and Warfare. Warfare covers all tactical and
military skills: swordfighting, swordfighting in 0G, swordfighting
under water, swordfighting on horseback, swordfighting on dragon-back,
swordfighting in freefall, swordfighting on ostrich-back,
swordfighting-on-things-that-look-like-ostriches-but-aren't-really.
And guns and armies and chess and so on.
4. Amber uses NO DICE. It can't. There are too many variables.
Remember the good ol' D&D quote: "He's AC 2, and behind me, but I can
smell his BO, and wearing ring mail, which gives me exactly 53.79% of
my back covered by metal, rest's leather, so ..." In Amber, only the GM
knows EXACTLY what's happening. And then DECIDES the result.
5. Anyway who cares? Use whatever system you feel happiest with. :-)
--
_________________________ __________________________________________
/ Tommy Wareing \ / I've been looking for an original sin, \
| p007...@brookes.ac.uk X One with a twist and a bit of a spin |
\ 0865-483389 / \ -- Pandora's Box, Jim Steinman /
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James J Davis
>I was being <cough> sarcastic. I *know* what I said was silly and
>misleading, and I think that was evident from my post - I was just
>trying to lighten things up a tad.
I'm sorry for misintreptating, but it was a reasonable mistake on
my part. I take what people say to generally be honest opinions,
and it's no suprise that I post my honest opinions. I don't read
in satire real well, sorry.
>>So, I stand by my case. It is arguable whether or not PD reduction is
>>a part of a modern GURPS campaign becuase it's in a supplement.
>Well, no - this *isn't* arguable. It is a rule, and if this silly
>debate is just about rules (as they are printed), then it is just
>as applicable as a rule from the _Basic Set_.
Or is it a debate about reasonable usage? A rule which one does not
own is not much of a rule, is it? My point is that you didn't prove
the broad statement you wanted: you proved it within the constraints
of whether or not said rules are available.
>(1) what you cited is not a "fact". It is a distortion of the truth,
> taking one case where Hero excels over GURPS and inflating it,
I hardly think so. I cited a misconception about Hero that has
persisted to this day despite the fact that the rule is far more
accessable than the GURPS rule you quote. I am still aggrivated
that GURPS spreads rules all over the place, but this is just
opinion.
> The "fact" is, GURPS is a far more
> complete, complex and detailed system, and is *still* introducing
> new rules to fine-tune itself; while Hero has taken a mechanic
> (points) and stretched it so thin that you can poke holes in it
> without even meaning to. Hero is a point system: GURPS is that,
> and a great deal more.
GURPS is more complete in that it has more pre-made constructs. Hero
is more complete in that it has more possible constructs. GURPS is
definitely more complex. Too bad for it. It also details more game
words: too bad I don't use pre-made game worlds. Hero is a point system,
and GURPS is too. Hero allows you do to more things and offers more
flexibility at the cost of more danger. GURPS allows you to do less
with the point rules, at the cost of some flexibility. GURPS offers
more if you want thier extra constructs and game worlds. Hero offers
more if you want stuff not offered in GURPS.
>(2) I was not trying to "prove" anything, to you or to anyone else.
Then don't indicate you're attempting to prove something.
> Do *NOT* insert the artifacts of *your*
> method of reasoning into *my* discussions of opinion. While you
> are at it, you can stop being patronizing towards me as well.
By posting you are inviting response. If you don't want response,
don't post. As to patronizing, I don't know what you are talking
about. I've seen you snub people for their lack of understanding
physics, so I only see your request as a double standard anyway.
If you truly don't want to be patronized, don't be so nasty.
> This is not a popularity contest, but do not be
> so quick to smugly berate me as having not proven anything to
> "anyone" until you have the facts, as well as a clue.
And you complain about being patronized while you speak in this
manner? Hahahaha. You just simply degrade people. How sad.
-james
James J Davis
in question (.50 cal bouncing) that 'the complaint doesn't matter in the
first place.' So, no, I'm not just trying to take cheap shots at GURPS.
It's simply that I didn't find Mr. Kromm's end-all arguement the end-
all arguement that he did.
-james
bale...@elde1.epfl.ch
> In article <1993Aug10.0...@Princeton.EDU> mfte...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug9.1...@vivitech.com>, j...@vivitech.com (John Cooper) writes:
>>>First: The Hero System is not designed with absolutes in mind. There is no
>>>way to create a protective field that stops, say, ALL magical effects
>>>completely. If I want to design an artifact that completely protects the user
>>>from ALL magical effects, I have to plot-device it (i.e., just state that it
>>>does what I say) and I have no point cost for it.
Hmmm...AoE Suppressions work wonders (especially if you don't care about the
point cost). Although I do agree that you can just say "I want; therefore, it
is," it's always nice to be able to back it up with some mechanistic babble.
An example of this type of field can be found in _The_Zodiac_Conspiracy_. The
Zodiac's base, The base has as a defense mechanism a constantly operating 20d6
Suppression vs. any offensive power (they basically leave the definition of
"defensive" up to the GM's discresion). That worked to effectively neutralize
my group of erstwhile heros, and the malicious villians to, while they were
there. You might want to try something similar.
Hmmm...maybe I should have put this further down. :)
>>
>>Offhand, I'd probably extend Damage Reduction to the logical conclusion.
>>I'd also make sure the point cost gets uglier, the more general the defense
>>is supposed to work against. But yes, this is an extension to the rule
>>system, however there is a fairly clean method of extension.
>
> Damage Reduction doesn't stop Entangles, it doesn't protect you from TK
> Grabs, it wouldn't stop a Teleportation Usable Against Others, etc...
>
>>>Third: Create Banquet spell. Transform seems to be the thing to use, but
>>>the cost per die isn't based on anything rational when you use it for
>>>creating new objects (rather than transforming existing objects). What does
>>>it mean to have a Cosmetic Creation Transform (5 pts/die)?
>>
>>I'd calculate the BODY weight of the food I was creating, and use the
>>Transform's BODY result for that.
>
> Okay, but a Transform could Create Food or Create Diamonds. BODY weight is
> not a very good way to balance this power.
>
>>Otherwise, stick a limit on the sword
>>that Flight only applies to itself, though what good a sword that can
>>fly can do is beyond me.
>
> Modeling a sword like Farslayer requires that the sword itself have a means
> of reaching its target: flight, in this case. Of course, this may build a
> case for designing the sword as an automaton, but I was trying to avoid
> that.
>
> -John
Actually, Farslayer's means of reaching its target is more a special effect.
Farslayer's power was to slay anyone or anything regardless of distance.
Farslayer would be either a HUGE RKA or BIG transform (Major Transform victim
into a corpse with sword stuck in back :). In either case, the ability for
Farslayer to reach its target wouldn't require a separate power unless it were
going to have other uses than to deliver Farslayer to ground zero. As a matter
of fact, using a Flight power would be counter-productive as that would imply
that Farslayer could be prevented from reaching its intended victim. I would
just use a special effect of Indirect (one of the big versions of this), or
something. Sorry for not being specific, but I'm a tad rusty (just getting
back into HERO by trying to set up a sci-fi campaign set in Traveller's
Imperium). There's another thread over in rgf.misc that addressed the question
of special effect vs. separate power.
In cases like this, you basically have to ask "what does it do?" and then
define the powers, advantages, limitations, and effects from there. BTW...
hang on, better put on asbestos underwear for this, it might attract flames.
BTW, I think that HERO would be superbly suited to set up a campaign based on
Saberhagen's Swords books. Anyone ever try it? Just curious.
As many posters have pointed out, the special effects of powers are what make
them interesting, not the list of advantages and limitations put on them. I've
seen special effects make and break powers. For example, I designed a mutant
with a VPP based on light. Basically, if it could be done with light, he could
do it. Unfortunately, Corona (I created him before I ever even heard of
Sanctuary. :P) was never able to fly, even though the group he associated
really wished he could. I could never figure out a connection; light is just
too darned fast, he always ended up teleporting.
Anyway, I've babbled enough, you get the point. :)
Avatar of Pooh
>In article <davis.744604072@cwis> da...@cwis.unomaha.edu (James J Davis) writes:
>>Start here, my guess. Propose powers you think are impossible or not
>>cleanly reachable with given mechanics. People like me (I've been
>>labeled a 'minimalist', by the way, due to the fact I often advocate
>>less powers than already exist) are likely to see if an existing construct
>>is satisfactory or not.
>Okay, here are a few.
>First: The Hero System is not designed with absolutes in mind. There is no
>way to create a protective field that stops, say, ALL magical effects
>completely. If I want to design an artifact that completely protects the user
>from ALL magical effects, I have to plot-device it (i.e., just state that it
>does what I say) and I have no point cost for it.
Well, you can do it much more easily if you think ahead. If you want an
effect to cancel out all magic effects in your world, then require that
all magic spells be bought with a limitations "Not vs. Anti-Magic Field".
It's then pretty darn easy to use change environment to create the anti-magic
field.
>Second: I want my dragons to be really nasty. I want them to be able to
>attack with more than one "weapon system" at different targets during a
>single Phase.
Well, I can't see what is wrong with simply buying more speed. If you set
the dragon's speed at 12, it will attack 3 times for every once that your
fastest player goes. If you want to get even grosser and have those
3 attack Segments, speeds over 12 result in Segments where you get multiple
Phases.
Personally, I think Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75% is a wonderful way
of making a dragon "really nasty". I've never seen speed as one of the
classical attributes of a wyrm. They are normally shown as being really
tough to hurt, but fairly easy to hit.
Axly
Avatar of Pooh
>dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Avatar of Pooh) writes:
>>That still doesn't follow that there is any relation between leather
>>and water. If I say "Bullets bounce off sufficiently hardened pieces
>>of steel", it doesn't follow that "Bullets bounce off all metals."
>>Lots of people, myself included, have very stupidly shot at a body
>>of water at an angle just to see that, yes, bullets bounce off of
>>water at the right angle. I have yet to hear of anyone bouncing
>>one of a cow.
> You are the one asserting that a bullet couldn't be deflected by
>a jacket. It is up to _you_ to support that claim. Follow...
No, I'm asserting that there is no ballistic reaction similarity between
leather and water.
> The idea that a leather jacket could defelect a bullet was called
>absurd. Why? Presumably because it isn't hard enough (I surely
>didn't see any other reason given). Does a surface have to be hard
>to deflect a bullet? Well, are there any other non-hard surfaces that
>deflect bullets? Yes, water. Therefore you can't conclude that a
>leather jacket is incapable of deflecting a bullet because it isn't
>hard.
That's not the point here. The point is that what looks like a relation
on the surface falls apart if you know thing one about ballistics.
As to whether a leather jacket can deflect a bullet - Don't be stupid.
Kevlar won't stop anything above a pistol round. How is leather going
to stop a high powered rifle round, much less a .50 cal? The odds against
it are so preposterously high that it can be discarded in a roleplaying game.
We can test your theory though. Mail one leather jacket to me, and I promise
I'll shoot it with 216 bullets and see if one bounces. Honest. :)
Axly
Avatar of Pooh
>In article <davis.744926895@cwis> da...@cwis.unomaha.edu (James J Davis) writes:
>>Sorry, but no. Just becuase there is a rule somewhere outside of the
>>basic book doesn't mean it's an integral part of the game.
>Sez you. I happen to disagree. The _Basic Set_ is *not*, repeat, *not*
>the GURPS system, or the rules in a nutshell. The other parts of the
>system are just as valid GURPS rules. If you want *every* special case
>rule to live in _Basic Set_, be prepared for a 2000 page tome.
No. They are just too damn conniving to do it. Why bother putting out
an all encompassing 4th edition ala Hero system when you can screw the
player? *grinds out chords of "Smells like TSR spirit"*
>seen, as well as low-combat GURPS games I know of. Why should such a
>rule - optional, at that - appear in the _Basic Set_?
Gee, because we might need it if we want to play something without
buying GURPS: Whatever The Fuck We're Playing?
Axly
Avatar of Pooh
>I was being <cough> sarcastic. I *know* what I said was silly and
>misleading, and I think that was evident from my post - I was just
>trying to lighten things up a tad.
It didn't work. It's probably because you aren't humorous. Not the
least bit.
> The "fact" is, GURPS is a far more
> complete, complex and detailed system, and is *still* introducing
> new rules to fine-tune itself; while Hero has taken a mechanic
> (points) and stretched it so thin that you can poke holes in it
> without even meaning to. Hero is a point system: GURPS is that,
> and a great deal more.
Yeah, it's lots of expensive supplements produced to gouge the gamer.
> While you
> are at it, you can stop being patronizing towards me as well.
Oh, get off it. You are one of the most partronizing and condescending
posters on this newgroup. You make David Nalle, Mtrichter and even *me*
look reasonable. Are you sure you aren't Scowling Jim Cowling in
disguise?
>(3) You would be surprised how many people respect my opinion, even
> if you do not. This is not a popularity contest, but do not be
> so quick to smugly berate me as having not proven anything to
> "anyone" until you have the facts, as well as a clue.
Let's not turn this into a thread on how many people think you are
a pompous ass.
******************************************************************************
* Axly * "Just because its my gun doesn't mean I'm the one who fired *
* * it." *
* Red Sword * "OK, I fired it, but I didn't think I'd hit any civilians." *
* Targa * "Well, yes, it did occur to me that I might hit one or two *
* * civilians. But I really never thought I would hit all of *
* * them. " *
* * - Axly *
******************************************************************************
Glen Barnett
character interaction point of view, that you've seen?
Glen
Bill Seurer
EVERY game system has some quirkiness. Hell, in Hero I can't kill someone
with a pistol in one shot unless I use the optional hit location rules.
(True for GURPS, too). In AD&D, well, just about everything is weird like
leaping off cliffs with no chance of death.
In (name a game system) it is silly that (name a situation) can happen.
--
- Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Internet: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com America On-Line: BillS...@aol.com
CX6L
>Kevlar won't stop anything above a pistol round. How is leather going
>to stop a high powered rifle round, much less a .50 cal? The odds against
>it are so preposterously high that it can be discarded in a roleplaying game.
Ah! Epiphany! You are discussing *stopping* a bullet, while many of us
are discussing *deflecting* a bullet. I will agree whole-heartedly that
leather jackets, Kevlar, bondage wear, etc . . . will not *stop* a .50
cal - ever. I simply assert that (the controversial GURPS PD Reduction
rules aside) a bullet, even a large calibre one, *may* be deflected by
light body armour. The difference is that *stopping* implies a square-
on, non-oblique hit being slowed by compression and deformation of the
body armour, while *deflection* implies a fairly oblique or grazing hit
being turned aside by receiving an impulse in a direction more-or-less
perpendicular to motion. Many "soft" materials are effectively "hard"
against high-velocity point impact - just ask a diver who has hit the
water the wrong way (and no, I am not saying that water is the same as
leather - however, the physics is the same).
CX6L000
Regarding the following cheery compliments . . .
>It's probably because you aren't humorous. Not the
>least bit.
/and/
>Oh, get off it. You are one of the most partronizing and condescending
>posters on this newgroup.
/and/
>Let's not turn this into a thread on how many people think you are
>a pompous ass.
Gee, thanks. I try to add my $0.02 worth to a few threads, just like
everyone else, and since I happen to be a bit firey in defending my
convictions, I get scragged for it. So I am pompous, condescending,
patronizing and an ass, with no sense of humour? I see. Well, thanks
for giving me so much thought. Just keep in mind that I started out
saying GURPS was OK, *not* that Hero sucked, and I started out with
the intention of clarifying a few rules, not debating semantics. It
was folks like you who decided to direct, "Your system sucks, Kromm.
*You* suck, Kromm. You can't even debate," comments at me who made
me get (in James' words) "nasty". Believe it or not, I am a mild-
mannered physicist and am popular as a GM. Unfortunately, it seems
you have to be a demon or a GURPS basher to be in the "cool crowd"
here on .advocacy.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>Just keep in mind that I started out
>saying GURPS was OK, *not* that Hero sucked, and I started out with
>the intention of clarifying a few rules, not debating semantics. It
>was folks like you who decided to direct, "Your system sucks, Kromm.
>*You* suck, Kromm. You can't even debate," comments at me who made
>me get (in James' words) "nasty". Believe it or not, I am a mild-
>mannered physicist and am popular as a GM. Unfortunately, it seems
>you have to be a demon or a GURPS basher to be in the "cool crowd"
>here on .advocacy.
This has always been the case, Kromm, better get used to it. I have
*never* bashed Hero, I don't remember reading any GURPS fans who do
bash Hero, but for some reason many (not all, thank God) Hero fans are
compelled to bash GURPS. In fact, most GURPS posters say things like,
"If GURPS ever dies, I'll play Hero," which implies they think it a
good system. That's just life on the net.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "Knowledge becomes lumber in a
| week, therefore, get rid of it."
s...@oz.plymouth.edu | -James Stephens
James Davis Nicoll
dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Avatar of Pooh) writes:
>That still doesn't follow that there is any relation between leather
>and water. If I say "Bullets bounce off sufficiently hardened pieces
>of steel", it doesn't follow that "Bullets bounce off all metals."
>Lots of people, myself included, have very stupidly shot at a body
>of water at an angle just to see that, yes, bullets bounce off of
>water at the right angle. I have yet to hear of anyone bouncing
>one of a cow.
Will a Saint Bernard do, instead of a cow? My dog, Tank, got
shot in the head with what looked [from the entry and exit wounds]
a .22. Near as we can figure, the bullet broke the skin, glanced off
the skull, travelled around his head between the bone and skin and
exited out the back of his head. No significant damage done, although he
was *very* gunshy after that. Granted, the head is not a vital hit-location on
a Saint Bernard....
James Nicoll
--
If mail bounces, try jdni...@engrg.uwo.ca
If sarcasm were posted on the net, would anyone notice?
Ismo Peltonen
I still don't understand why someone should pay points for equipment.
I'll now use my own world as an example, as it contains supers, mages,
high-tech, psi, etc. And I use GURPS as a system.
Some people work as free lance rough boys. They kill people for money,
and generally do whatever required as long as the pay is good enough.
They own weapons. But they don't use their pistols and rifles on the
missions. They don't want the kills to be traced back to them. So, they
buy black market weapons for missions and discard them after use.
Now, should the pay points for the weapons? The weapons they buy are
very different depending on the mission. They may have plastic
explosives on one mission, knives on another, and laser carbines on
third. Very different weapons with very different effectiveness.
If they should pay points for the weapons, how should those points be
calculated? Should it be so that they can't buy more weapons than their
weapons pool is worth? Why? They have connections to buy ten pounds of
Plastex-B, so why shouldn't they be able to buy that? Or, if they at
some time just don't get anything but three command knives and a .22
revolver, should a laser carbine just drop from the heaven because their
weapons pool is worth more than what they got?
If they steal a car, should they have a transportations pool before that
so that their point value doesn't just jump? Or should it be impossible
unless they already have a transport pool, and own a car, but the car is
not available?
How can one ever decide the worth of an equipment point pool as people can
buy and sell, steal and be robbed?
If they have innate powers of fast-movement (equal to a car, including
ability to transport equipment as per car) and kinetic-attack-that-requires-
missiles-to-work (equal to a pistol), they pay points, since those can't be
stolen from them while the car or the pistol could be stolen.
--
Elandal (aka Ismo Peltonen) | Hanuripolku 5B15
home (UUCP) Ismo.P...@tower.NullNet.FI | 00420 Helsinki
Univ (internet) Ismo.P...@Helsinki.FI | FINLAND
data +358-0-5072005 voice +358-0-537515
Ismo Peltonen
:
: Sorry, but no. Just becuase there is a rule somewhere outside of the
: basic book doesn't mean it's an integral part of the game. This is
: one of my aggrivations with GURPS: the basic system rules are not all
: in the basic book.
:
: What does this mean? Well, not a lot, really. You have *not* 'officially'
: shot anything down, and the complaint doesn't matter in the first place.
: Look at Hero and it's rules for normal equipment. For *three years* now,
: rules for not paying points for normal equipment have existed in the *basic
: rulesbook*. Does this stop people trying to find fault with the game for 'I
: have to pay points for a flashlight?' and other arguements.
How about this:
My Basic Set (3rd ed) is printed in 1989. After that SJG has thought of
new additions to the rules, and hasn't yet incorporated them into Basic
Set, but has instead published new books with those rules. Some of the
rules will be included in Basic Set 4th ed, but which of those? That
we'll see when Basic 4th ed. is available.
I think it's very appropriate to say that a rule in High-Tech 2nd ed is
an 'official' (TM) (R) (C) (whatever) rule as the book is a lot newer
than Basic Set.
: -james
Avatar of Pooh
>Ah! Epiphany! You are discussing *stopping* a bullet, while many of us
>are discussing *deflecting* a bullet. I will agree whole-heartedly that
>leather jackets, Kevlar, bondage wear, etc . . . will not *stop* a .50
>cal - ever. I simply assert that (the controversial GURPS PD Reduction
>rules aside) a bullet, even a large calibre one, *may* be deflected by
>light body armour.
It may be a possibility, but it sure isn't a probability. Given that the
accuracy of measurement for both GURPS and Hero stops at 1 in 216, both
systems have to throw out some of the more wildly improbable combat
events (unless you are into multi rolls) in order to be even vaguely
realistic. The likelihood of a Kevlar vest deflecting a high powered
rifle round is pretty darn low. The real purpose of modern body armor
is not to stop enemy bullets. It's shrapnel protection pure and simple.
Hero is worse than GURPS as far as dealing with damage like this. Using
the suggested DEF value for heavy Kevlar, the average person will take
about 1 Body from a .30-06 and only 4 points of Body from a .50 cal. I think
the main problem here is that the KA values given for most firearms is
ludicrously low. Given that a .50 cal can punch straight through a brick
building and some light armor vehicles, the value has to be something like
6d6KAP.
Avatar of Pooh
<bouncing bullets off animals>
> Will a Saint Bernard do, instead of a cow? My dog, Tank, got
>shot in the head with what looked [from the entry and exit wounds]
>a .22. Near as we can figure, the bullet broke the skin, glanced off
>the skull, travelled around his head between the bone and skin and
>exited out the back of his head. No significant damage done, although he
>was *very* gunshy after that. Granted, the head is not a vital hit-location on
>a Saint Bernard....
*nod* This happens pretty regularly when an animal has a hard head. I was
referring more to the hide's ability to reflect bullets. Bone is rather
good at making bullets deflect. A brown or black bear, for example, has
a skull so thick that hunters will not usually take a head shot simply
because even a high powered round may deflect off the skull.
Avatar of Pooh
>[about point values of items vs. dollar values]
>I still don't understand why someone should pay points for equipment.
It is used in Hero to preserve the genre of supers. Most supers won't
go out and buy a gun, flashlight, blah blah blah, because that's simply
not how things happen in comics. If you aren't playing supers, then you
pretty much buy whatever you want. There is a difference between having
supers in your campaign and campaigning supers.
The big area of conflict I see is in cybergames where equipment can boost
your stats a lot. Neither GURPS nor Hero seems to handle cyberpunk very
well when compared to those games that were designed to handle it. Of
course we'll immediately hear about 4 billion cybergames played in both
systems where the people feel it works well. It's a matter to taste,
and to me, both fall rather hard on their face in this genre. Only the
most diehard system advocates won't admit there is something their pet
system doesn't do well.
Jeffrey Klein
>[about point values of items vs. dollar values]
>
>I still don't understand why someone should pay points for equipment.
>I'll now use my own world as an example, as it contains supers, mages,
>high-tech, psi, etc. And I use GURPS as a system.
>How can one ever decide the worth of an equipment point pool as people can
>buy and sell, steal and be robbed?
Points suck.
In character creation, they quantify skills, natural ability, and any
neat things your character can do. After creation, they quantify
abstract experience.
They lead to people asking questions like "Does my character have to
spend points to get a prosthetic arm?" where the points in question
represent abstract experience.
Points have one value; they give you a place to stop in character creation.
After that, points suck.
-Jeff
John Cooper
>Sez you. I happen to disagree. The _Basic Set_ is *not*, repeat, *not*
>the GURPS system, or the rules in a nutshell.
But it should be; and that is its fundamental problem. It is what I expect
from a system that calls itself generic, universal, and usable for any and
all genres. The hidden costs of realizing this "universality" with GURPS is
just way too high; or at least much higher than it needs to be.
>The other parts of the
>system are just as valid GURPS rules. If you want *every* special case
>rule to live in _Basic Set_, be prepared for a 2000 page tome.
Had GURPS been designed as a generic system deserving of the title "generic,"
this wouldn't be true. Unfortunately, you now have to buy many hundreds of
pages of material just to get all the rules pertinent to a given genre. The
GURPS approach does not establish genre CONVENTIONS but genre RULES. This is
not generic, and it is not efficient (neither in terms of game design elegance
nor in terms of end-user cost).
You can turn around and say, "But you don't have to use all those extra rules."
You do if they aren't part of the Basic Set and you don't want to invent your
own mechanics. Or if you need to cover a hole in the rules (like bullets
bouncing off leather armor). Or if you want something more interesting than
your stock Elf, Dwarf, and Orc. Or if you want...
>I would rather buy 100-200 page supplements, myself.
I would rather buy supplements for their background information, genre
conventions, and genre-specific instances of generic mechanics and metasystems.
Adding new rules (even optional rules, which there seem to be a lot of in
GURPS) with every supplement is as bad as the rules proliferation in Star
Fleet Battles. What a hopeless system that evolved into...
-John
Avatar of Pooh
>This has always been the case, Kromm, better get used to it. I have
>*never* bashed Hero, I don't remember reading any GURPS fans who do
>bash Hero, but for some reason many (not all, thank God) Hero fans are
>compelled to bash GURPS.
Well, the two big issues that have come up in the last week have been
'GURPS magic vs. Hero magic' and 'GURPS: Where are the rules and
why aren't they all in one book?'.
I'd say "Hero system stifled me from day one." is a bash, at least as
much of one as "I prefer a meta-system for designing my own magic system
and I don't see how you can call yourself generic if you don't have one."
On the GURPS .50 cal "Where are the rules and what are they" topic,
the statement "GURPS is a more complete, complex system ..blah..blah..
..blah ..while Hero has holes in it everywhere." is as much of a
bash as "Why the heck aren't all the rules in the basic book? Are you
guys trying to gouge me?"
Neither 'side' in this discussion has ever refrained from sticking it
to the other side, so dressing all in white and nailing yourselves to
a cross isn't going to draw a lot of sympathy. We are all guilty of
bashing the other system a little more than it needs to be bashed.
However, anyone who insisting that his or her system can do all genres
well *asks* for this level of discussion. No gaming system does all genres
well. GURPS is klunky on Supers and Cyber, Hero sucks oats on Cyber and
blows chunks on Anime. Each one shines at different things too. Most people
think Hero does supers really well, and it's hard to find another system
that could do Bunnies and Burrows as well as GURPS. Both are very good
systems, it's just a matter of taste and genre. Just don't claim the
Archangel Gabriel writes your stuff...
>In fact, most GURPS posters say things like,
>"If GURPS ever dies, I'll play Hero," which implies they think it a
>good system.
I think quite a few Hero fans have stated they use GURPS too. It's just
they have certain problems with it that they would like to see fixed.
These things aren't asking for much. A revised and complete rulebook,
and some meta-rules for generating magic/psi/whatever systems. It's probably
their Hero background that makes them ask for these things, but they are
things that would be highly useful to any gamer.
>That's just life on the net.
Well, Kromm is saying "You (and yes, it's me he is talking to) are picking
on GURPS." No, I'm picking on him. If he decides to get into personal level
flaming instead of a gaming discussion and spews vemom and condenscension
at other people, he's going to get flames back. That is life on the net.
Flames in = Flames out. Those flames aren't for GURPS, they are for him.
Anthony Ragan
bar...@mummy.agsm.unsw.EDU.AU (Glen Barnett) writes:
I was very pleased with "Shadows Over Bogenhafen," for GW's
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. It had action, intrigue, plenty of
opportunities for great character interaction and roleplay, a
darned good mystery, and a dark atmosphere remininscent of some
of my favorite CoC adventures.
Yeah, it's pretty close to being my favorite. :)
--Anthony
ecz...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu -OR- Iris...@aol.com
Dennis F. Hefferman
>cal - ever. I simply assert that (the controversial GURPS PD Reduction
>rules aside) a bullet, even a large calibre one, *may* be deflected by
>light body armour. The difference is that *stopping* implies a square-
>on, non-oblique hit being slowed by compression and deformation of the
>body armour, while *deflection* implies a fairly oblique or grazing hit
>being turned aside by receiving an impulse in a direction more-or-less
>perpendicular to motion. Many "soft" materials are effectively "hard"
And a .50-cal shell "deflected" by a leather jacket will still
break whatever is underneath where it hit.
PD is a no-brainer. First rule I killed in my campaign.
heff...@icarus.montclair.edu Dennis Francis Heffernan
(Yes, the address is spelled wrong and no, it's not my fault.)
Montclair State College Comp Sci/Philosophy
"That's what the short ones are FOR." -- Murphy Brown
Bill Seurer
|> Hero is worse than GURPS as far as dealing with damage like this. Using
|> the suggested DEF value for heavy Kevlar, the average person will take
|> about 1 Body from a .30-06 and only 4 points of Body from a .50 cal. I think
|> the main problem here is that the KA values given for most firearms is
|> ludicrously low. Given that a .50 cal can punch straight through a brick
|> building and some light armor vehicles, the value has to be something like
|> 6d6KAP.
Of course the problem with that is that then no one can survive being hit
by a single .50 cal bullet when of course some people have. Or has Hero
added blowthrough rules in some recent edition? (I only have the
original Fantasy Hero and some earlier edition of Champions).
John H Kim
in this group - in particular on Steffan's bashing of Hero advocates for
bashing GURPS.
s...@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
<CX...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> [Kromm] writes:
>>Just keep in mind that I started out saying GURPS was OK, *not* that
>>Hero sucked, and I started out with the intention of clarifying a few
>>rules, not debating semantics.
>
>This has always been the case, Kromm, better get used to it. I have
>*never* bashed Hero, I don't remember reading any GURPS fans who do
>bash Hero, but for some reason many (not all, thank God) Hero fans are
>compelled to bash GURPS.
Steffan, I am not sure what color glasses you are looking through,
but there is definitely a tint. Nearly *everyone* here has started out
defending their favorite system. Sometime while doing so, they make a bad
remark about someone else's favorite system.
I myself recall Kromm's comments about how he has to pay points for
a flashlight in Hero - commented with "preposterous". This sort of thing,
in turn, provokes someone to defend Hero, who in turn says something about
how "un-universal" GURPS is. This sets another GURPS advocate off, who
complains about how *he* doesn't want to write books and books of material
for every game, and how this makes GURPS much better than Hero.
Now, in turn, Steffan and Kromm have accused the Hero advocates of
being intolerant - which I am sure will provoke some sort of a response
greater than the assumed insult.
____________________________________________________________________________
Of late, I have 'bashed' the GURPS magic system. I have also (in the
past) 'bashed' a variety of other products/systems - from Cyber Hero to
Amber. However, I have *never* bashed any aspect of a system unless I have
(1) played the game, and (2) had a thorough knowledge of the rules.
To me, the primary *purpose* of .advocacy is to point out weaknesses/
flaws in systems (and to a lesser degree strengths of systems). Valid
criticism is *good* - it spurs the process of recognizing problems and
fixing them. Without criticism and comparisons of systems - this newsgroup
would be even more pointless than it currently is.
In any case, I will continue to complain about aspects of systems
I don't like, and praise aspects which I do like. I will, in turn, try to
keep an open mind about points which other people raise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting
jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | sun. But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for
Columbia University | everyone." - Paul Simon
George W. Harris
>
>I still don't understand why someone should pay points for equipment.
I don't understand why you'd think you'd have to. Neither of the
two major point-based game systems (Hero and GURPS) require that you do.
It's not an issue.
[long example deleted]
>Elandal (aka Ismo Peltonen) | Hanuripolku 5B15
>home (UUCP) Ismo.P...@tower.NullNet.FI | 00420 Helsinki
>Univ (internet) Ismo.P...@Helsinki.FI | FINLAND
--
gha...@jade.tufts.edu
George W. Harris "He'd kill us if he had the chance."
Dept. of Mathematics
Tufts University The Conversation
Steffan O'Sullivan
>much of one as "I prefer a meta-system for designing my own magic system
>and I don't see how you can call yourself generic if you don't have one."
I disagree. First, I always state my comments as personal preference,
and that neither is better - just a matter of taste. The GURPS bashing
is sometimes phrased that way, true, but more usually not. More often
than not it's, "GURPS is *NOT* generic ..." or "GURPS is lousy ..."
blah blah blah.
>On the GURPS .50 cal "Where are the rules and what are they" topic,
>the statement "GURPS is a more complete, complex system ..blah..blah..
>..blah ..while Hero has holes in it everywhere."
I never saw this stated.
>Neither 'side' in this discussion has ever refrained from sticking it
>to the other side, so dressing all in white and nailing yourselves to
>a cross isn't going to draw a lot of sympathy.
I don't expect any sympathy from you. In fact, I was merely offering
sympathy to Kromm whose character had been attacked for no good
reason. I have certainly been guilty of flaming, but never the Hero
system. My white hat is quite bespattered, thanks.
>We are all guilty of
>bashing the other system a little more than it needs to be bashed.
>However, anyone who insisting that his or her system can do all genres
>well *asks* for this level of discussion.
Was this second sentence needed? I disagree that anyone who insists a
system can do all genres is *asking* for abuse.
>Just don't claim the
>Archangel Gabriel writes your stuff...
Again, I don't recall anyone ever saying anything that hubristic. If
someone says, "I think GURPS can handle any genre well," this is a true
statement. Saying GURPS doesn't handle a particular genre well is not
a true statement. However, "I don't think GURPS can handle every genre
well," is also a true statement.
>I think quite a few Hero fans have stated they use GURPS too. It's just
>they have certain problems with it that they would like to see fixed.
>These things aren't asking for much. A revised and complete rulebook,
Thsi *will* happen - it's just a matter of time.
>and some meta-rules for generating magic/psi/whatever systems.
This may or may not happen. As I said, I don't really think the Hero
how-to-make-yor-own-magic-system section is all that detailed. (Note
how that's phrased: as a true statement). Hero's default magic system
is not to my taste, and the meta-rules, from that perspective, are
still very skimpy. Granted, they are non-existent in GURPS, but that
doesn't mean "Hero's done it right and GURPS has done it wrong." GURPS
Magic admits it's not generic, so there is no hubris there. Hero's
meta suggestions are only slightly more detailed than FUDGE, which
doesn't pretend at all to fill in all the blanks.
>Well, Kromm is saying "You (and yes, it's me he is talking to) are picking
>on GURPS." No, I'm picking on him. If he decides to get into personal level
>flaming instead of a gaming discussion and spews vemom and condenscension
>at other people, he's going to get flames back. That is life on the net.
>Flames in = Flames out. Those flames aren't for GURPS, they are for him.
Condescension is subjective. You may be reading a condescending tone
where none really exists. A far better way to exist on the net is to
assume someone just has a problem sounding as nice in the written word
as they mean to be.
Frank Cheeseman
What does that "deflect" probability actually represent in game terms?
I assume it means:
Any case where the shooter's aim is true, yet the target takes no damage
So, add the probability of the bullet being deflected (negligible, but
hey, in a game, wildly improbable things are SUPPOSED to happen, or the
big bad guys would always beat the underdogs) PLUS the probability of
any other case where the bullet strikes the visible profile of the
target, but does no damage (in the leather jacket case, for instance,
it is quite possible for a bullet to strike the jacket, pass through
or graze the edge, but pass by, and not injure the man inside.)
My point is, add ALL the possible flukes together, and you probably
won't have too much trouble accepting a 1 in 216 chance.
Please, no flames, I'm just offering a possible way to explain it.
F/C
msam...@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
>>saying GURPS was OK, *not* that Hero sucked, and I started out with
>>the intention of clarifying a few rules, not debating semantics. It
>>was folks like you who decided to direct, "Your system sucks, Kromm.
>>*You* suck, Kromm. You can't even debate," comments at me who made
>>me get (in James' words) "nasty". Believe it or not, I am a mild-
>>mannered physicist and am popular as a GM. Unfortunately, it seems
>>you have to be a demon or a GURPS basher to be in the "cool crowd"
>>here on .advocacy.
>>>>> Just as an aside. Not six months ago it was the exact opposite.
Anyone who dared to speek an unkind word about GURPS got promptly
HOZED in a major way. In was the epitome of the "pack attack".
....so the worm has turned...
Avatar of Pooh
>In article <24b7a3$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Avatar of Pooh) writes:
>|> Hero is worse than GURPS as far as dealing with damage like this. Using
>|> the suggested DEF value for heavy Kevlar, the average person will take
>|> about 1 Body from a .30-06 and only 4 points of Body from a .50 cal. I think
>|> the main problem here is that the KA values given for most firearms is
>|> ludicrously low. Given that a .50 cal can punch straight through a brick
>|> building and some light armor vehicles, the value has to be something like
>|> 6d6KAP.
>Of course the problem with that is that then no one can survive being hit
>by a single .50 cal bullet when of course some people have.
Well, with a minimal damage of 6 Body, it seems rather survivable. Even with
AP, the armor soaks up 3 damage. Without armor, it's a bitch of a hit but
survivable. The average hit is going to yield 21 Body. That's enough to kill
most people with one shot. That seems about right for a .50 cal.
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|>I object categorically to any system which allows any measurable chance of
|>a .50cal (or equivalent) bullet's energy simply dissipating into space
|>because of the presense of a leather jacket. If this makes me seem anal
|>retentive, so be it. It makes proponents of that mechanism seem stupid
|>and I'd personally rather be anal retentive.
|>
The energy doesn't 'dissipate' as you say, it is deflected (PD)
from its course into a person's body. The DR (Damage Resistance) of the
jacket determines how much 'energy' the jacket can absorb.
-john-
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|>[about point values of items vs. dollar values]
|>
|>I still don't understand why someone should pay points for equipment.
|>I'll now use my own world as an example, as it contains supers, mages,
|>high-tech, psi, etc. And I use GURPS as a system.
|>
That's why I liked the rules in Cyperpunk, that allows the GM
to decide whether cyberwear was Points Only, Cash Only, or Cash and
Points.
-john-
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|>As to whether a leather jacket can deflect a bullet - Don't be stupid.
|>to stop a high powered rifle round, much less a .50 cal? The odds against
|>it are so preposterously high that it can be discarded in a roleplaying game.
It is *not* STOPPING the round! (Repeat sentence twice for
emphasis!) As is obvious by your next sentence, you are ignoring what
you *know* about the rules.
|>
|>We can test your theory though. Mail one leather jacket to me, and I promise
|>I'll shoot it with 216 bullets and see if one bounces. Honest. :)
1 in 216 is the least likely result in GURPS. *Shrug* If it was
a d100 system there'd be a 1% chance (assuming the high damage rules is
not in use). If it was a 100d1000 system, you could probably get a much
closer probability, so please take that leather jacket, put it on a dressmaker's
dummy and shoot it 100,000 times and tell us what the exact percentage is.
Hmmm.... If you like, why don't you shoot it an *infinite* number of times
and tell us what the *real* exact percentage is!
|>
|>Axly
-john-
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|>: Sorry, but no. Just becuase there is a rule somewhere outside of the
|>: basic book doesn't mean it's an integral part of the game. This is
|>: one of my aggrivations with GURPS: the basic system rules are not all
|>: in the basic book.
|>:
|>: What does this mean? Well, not a lot, really. You have *not* 'officially'
|>: shot anything down, and the complaint doesn't matter in the first place.
|>: Look at Hero and it's rules for normal equipment. For *three years* now,
|>: rules for not paying points for normal equipment have existed in the *basic
|>: rulesbook*. Does this stop people trying to find fault with the game for 'I
|>: have to pay points for a flashlight?' and other arguements.
|>
|>How about this:
|>My Basic Set (3rd ed) is printed in 1989. After that SJG has thought of
|>new additions to the rules, and hasn't yet incorporated them into Basic
|>Set, but has instead published new books with those rules. Some of the
|>rules will be included in Basic Set 4th ed, but which of those? That
|>we'll see when Basic 4th ed. is available.
|>
Good point. GURPS is a growing, expanding, improving set of rules.
I'd really hate to wait many years (ala AD&D) for new rules, when they can
be provided in the appropriate supplement. Fact is, I hope 4th edition comes
out in two forms: One pretty much like 3rd edition with the basic rules for
Magic, Psi, the sample module, etc., etc. and one with just rules in it. (Ads,
Disads, skills, powers, special combat rules, an so on).
-john-
Darin Johnson
>flaws in systems (and to a lesser degree strengths of systems). Valid
>criticism is *good* - it spurs the process of recognizing problems and
>fixing them. Without criticism and comparisons of systems - this newsgroup
>would be even more pointless than it currently is.
No, the purpose of .advocacy, like all .advocacy groups, it to have
a grand time, flaming people back and forth, and supporting
your poorly thought out opinions by having your veins bulge
out. People wanted the senseless drivel out of the normal
groups, so people created special groups where senseless drivel
was the norm. Of course, some of the best drivel derives from
the notion that there are alternative purposes for .advocacy :-)
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
- Grad school - just say no.
msam...@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
> a grand time, flaming people back and forth, and supporting
> your poorly thought out opinions by having your veins bulge
> out. People wanted the senseless drivel out of the normal
> groups, so people created special groups where senseless drivel
> was the norm. Of course, some of the best drivel derives from
> the notion that there are alternative purposes for .advocacy :-)
> Darin Johnson
> - Grad school - just say no.
>>>>>>>> Yeah, what he said.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
> Steffan, I am not sure what color glasses you are looking through,
>but there is definitely a tint. Nearly *everyone* here has started out
>defending their favorite system. Sometime while doing so, they make a bad
>remark about someone else's favorite system.
Yes, I agree to this.
> I myself recall Kromm's comments about how he has to pay points for
>a flashlight in Hero - commented with "preposterous". This sort of thing,
>in turn, provokes someone to defend Hero, who in turn says something about
>how "un-universal" GURPS is. This sets another GURPS advocate off, who
>complains about how *he* doesn't want to write books and books of material
>for every game, and how this makes GURPS much better than Hero.
This is probably accurate, too. To be honest, I don't read all these
posts all the way through, which is why I could truthfully say that I
never saw any Hero-bashing by Kromm. Since I don't read every word
Kromm writes, I fully admit there could have been some. I didn't read
the part about points for a flashlight being preposterous, for example,
but I believe you. It's the kind of rule that doesn't fit my taste,
either, so I can see someone not liking it, and stating their distaste
as a universal truth.
OTOH, it sure does seem to my subjective point of view that GURPS has
been bashed over the years I've been on the net more than Hero has.
Maybe not as much as AD&D has been bashed, though.
> To me, the primary *purpose* of .advocacy is to point out weaknesses/
>flaws in systems (and to a lesser degree strengths of systems). Valid
>criticism is *good* - it spurs the process of recognizing problems and
>fixing them. Without criticism and comparisons of systems - this newsgroup
>would be even more pointless than it currently is.
True. Valid criticism with intent to improve the overall quality of
the hobby is excellent and vital. Forgive my cynicism, but I doubt
some of the posters really *want* GURPS or Hero or AD&D or Vampire or
<insert system that's been flamed> to improve, though. There seems to
be a religious bent to some flamers to drive a game out of business,
not improve it.
At any rate, since I admit I haven't thoroughly read every post, I
apologize to the Hero fans by claiming all system attacks have been
one-sided. While I didn't see any going the other way, I admit I
didn't read all the posts, so am in no position to make claims such as
I did.
David Seal
jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> I would remind you that even if you use the unwritten rule that
>Corwin does not know if Benedict has made a feint; as long as Corwin
>has room to back up, he can negate Benedict's feint advantage. Each time
>after Benedict attacks, he can step back - not letting Benedict get an
>attack on his next turn.
>
> In any case, despite the edge in skill, the fight is still largely
>alot of rolls waiting around for criticals. (Even assuming Corwin lets
>Benedict get his feinting advantage, roughly 70% of the hits in the
>fight should be criticals.) From experience, I can tell you that that this
>sort of fight frustrates and annoys 90% of the players I have met.
I don't understand this "step back" strategy. Here are the main options as I
see them after Corwin has stepped back:
(1) Corwin attacks Benedict. To do this, he must step back into range, and
Benedict's real attack comes in, still with its feint bonus. Neither
combatant has lost an attack, nor has Corwin eliminated Benedict's feint
bonus. No net gain for Corwin.
(2) Corwin doesn't attack Benedict, but only stepped back one hex. In this
case, Benedict immediately steps forward and attacks him, still with the
feint bonus. Corwin has lost his attack, Benedict hasn't lost anything.
A net loss for Corwin.
(3) Corwin doesn't attack Benedict, and stepped back more than one hex. A
good strategy for Benedict in this case is then to use the Step and Wait
manoeuvre until Corwin renews hostilities. He then gets an attack in
Corwin's turn (probably before Corwin's own attack, because of his
higher weapon skill) *and* one in his own before Corwin can disengage
again.
With this last option, I don't remember offhand whether you can officially
feint as the "attack" part of a Step and Wait manoeuvre (though I would have
no hesitation in allowing it). If so, Benedict can use the first of these
two attacks to renew his feint. All that has happened is effectively that
some time has gone by, without either character gaining anything.
Alternatively, as soon as Benedict notices that Corwin is using this last
tactic, he stops feinting and just attacks all the time, getting two attacks
to Corwin's one. Of course, when he does this, Corwin wants to just slug it
out again... This sets up a classic two player game situation:
Benedict wants to use the "feint" strategy when Corwin uses "slug it out",
and the "slug it out" strategy when Corwin uses "step back after each
attack".
Corwin wants to use "step back after each attack" when Benedict uses
"feint", and "slug it out" when Benedict uses "slug it out".
If played optimally, both combatants will use mixed strategies - i.e. "feint
X% of the time" and "step back after Benedict's attack Y% of the time". On
the assumption that these are the only possible strategies, it would
probably be possible to work out the payoff matrix and solve the resulting
mathematical game to find out just what X and Y should be. Of course, there
are probably other useful strategies, which will complicate the analysis
further.
On top of that, of course, there are the roleplaying aspects. Which
combatants actually *want* to fight? What are they fighting for? Which can
run away faster? What sort of ground does the fight take place on? Etc.,
etc., etc. These can significantly alter the optimal strategies. E.g. if
Corwin doesn't actually want to fight and can run away faster than Benedict
can follow, and there is somewhere to run away to, yes, he should step back.
And keep stepping back... :-)
In short, it seems to me that there is plenty of possible interest in this
combat. Yes, a significant percentage of the blows that land will still
result from simple criticals, but the odds are that the fight will actually
be decided by the others unless one character gets very lucky. The fact that
you can only affect a relatively small percentage of the individual hits may
still allow you a major influence over the final outcome of the fight.
Furthermore, I would *expect* this to be the case for combats at high skill
level. The very fact that Corwin has got skill 20 should IMHO mean that it
is very difficult to get a combat edge over him. You should need quite a lot
of skill levels above him to get quick, decisive results. (In a sense, this
is another case of the diminishing returns that set in at high skill levels.
The advantage of skill 24 over skill 20 is a lot less than e.g. that of
skill 14 over skill 10.)
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
All opinions are mine only...
David Summers
>> You are the one asserting that a bullet couldn't be deflected by
>>a jacket. It is up to _you_ to support that claim. Follow...
>
>No, I'm asserting that there is no ballistic reaction similarity between
>leather and water.
The original assertion (I don't know if it was you) was that a
leather jacket could never deflect a bullet. Presumably because
it isn't hard enough (As I said, I haven't see any other reason
given). If it can be shown that a surface is not hard can deflect
a bullet then the assertion is disproved.
>> Does a surface have to be hard
>>to deflect a bullet? Well, are there any other non-hard surfaces that
>>deflect bullets? Yes, water. Therefore you can't conclude that a
>>leather jacket is incapable of deflecting a bullet because it isn't
>>hard.
>
> That's not the point here. The point is that what looks like a relation
> on the surface falls apart if you know thing one about ballistics.
Yes it is. The above demonstrate how a non-hard surface has been shown
to deflect bullets. Thus demonstrating that they can (see above).
>As to whether a leather jacket can deflect a bullet - Don't be stupid.
>Kevlar won't stop anything above a pistol round. How is leather going
>to stop a high powered rifle round, much less a .50 cal? The odds against
>it are so preposterously high that it can be discarded in a roleplaying game.
We aren't talking about stopping. We are talking about deflecting.
I find it hard to believe (to be frank) that you are not trying to
confuse the discussion. The discussion of deflection off of water
that you have participated in clear demonstrates that deflection
is being discussed and not stopping.
--
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any postion on any of this do you think they
would have ME give it?)
David Summers - Sum...@Max.ARC.NASA.Gov
David Summers
think it's GURPS. As my evidence I provide...
dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Avatar of Pooh) writes:
>No. They are just too damn conniving to do it. Why bother putting out
>an all encompassing 4th edition ala Hero system when you can screw the
>player? *grinds out chords of "Smells like TSR spirit"*
>Gee, because we might need it if we want to play something without
>buying GURPS: Whatever The Fuck We're Playing?
I rest my case.
(To be fair to Hero players this person is not intended
to be a representive example of _players_ just the kind of bashing we
are seeing. To be honest I don't know if he plays Hero).
Jurgen Lerch)
it's strange, isn't it? I'm just about to plan out an Amber campaign to which
I got the idea... and I'll be probably using GURPS (or an in certain ways
similar system of my own), just because I like dice and AMBER is so
wonderful simple to convert to GURPS. You can just tack on the AMBER powers
as GURPS advantages, and you might even keep the same point cost!
On the other hand, I would never have had the idea to use *Ars Magica* for
that purpose, what with God and the Devil and other kinds of things beside
high-tech, that don't fit into an Amber-Universe. And if you insist on having
the AMBER magic system, I think it's far easier to make it up, or, probably,
just *copy* it to GURPS, than to rip the *core* off of Ars Magica and replace
it with something else.
Just my 2 Pf.
Nice Dice
JuL, who likes all three of them
We are the forces of chaos and anarchy | At least, AMIGA makes it better !
Everything they say we are we are |------------------------------------
And we're very proud of ourselves... | IMPORT StdDisclaimer (... Modula,
Jefferson Airplane | NOT C ! :):)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flameproof .sig? Bah, dragons are fireproof anyway! | - Frei f"ur Notizen -
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> I would remind you that even if you use the unwritten rule that
> Corwin does not know if Benedict has made a feint; as long as Corwin
> has room to back up, he can negate Benedict's feint advantage. Each time
> after Benedict attacks, he can step back - not letting Benedict get an
> attack on his next turn.
Whoa! How come? Could you show us an example?
Let's try it:
Ben (steps and) feints. Range is 1.
Corwin attacks (or whatever) and steps back. Range is 2.
Ben steps (range is now 1) and attacks. Splat.
Or did you mean:
Ben feints. Range is 1.
Corwin takes a MOVE maneuver and flees back to x hexes away.
Ben is out of range and must MOVE or ALL-OUT ATTACK to reach Corwin.
This isn't called backing up, it's called running away.
Besides, it IS a pain in the neck to skewer an opponent who just tries
to avoid you and has unlimited room to back up. That's why combat
competitions (karate, boxing, fencing etc.) have severely restricted
playing ground.
Or maybe you meant:
Ben feints and steps back, hoping to step in next turn to attack.
Corwin steps back.
Ben is out of range and quite stupid. Where was his ultra-high warfare?
--------
max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't fly
Voice +358 0 8092681 Official SRP Headquarters | is just an ordinary pig.
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) | - Porco Rosso
SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND |
John H Kim
about the example of the Corwin-Benedict fight using GURPS rules, and
about adapting GURPS to the Amber universe in general.
ds...@armltd.co.uk (David Seal) writes:
>jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>> I would remind you that even if you use the unwritten rule that
>>Corwin does not know if Benedict has made a feint; as long as Corwin
>>has room to back up, he can negate Benedict's feint advantage. Each time
>>after Benedict attacks, he can step back - not letting Benedict get an
>>attack on his next turn.
>
>I don't understand this "step back" strategy. Here are the main options as I
>see them after Corwin has stepped back:
>
>(1) ...
>(2) ...
Sorry - it seemed obvious to me. Let's set up the fight just as in
the 2nd book - Corwin is using Wait as Benedict advances on him. Benedict
steps into range and feints. The question now is which blow lands first -
two possibilities:
(A) Benedict's feint happens first, then Corwin's attacks lands. It is now
Corwins action. He backs up two steps.
Benedict cannot attack him now without an All-Out Attack or Slam.
An All-Out Attack would be stupid. Corwin would most likely parry both
blows and Benedict would be skewered. A Slam also seems risky.
If he advances slowly, Corwin on his next action can Wait,
repeating these events. Benedict and Corwin have evenly traded
blows.
(B) Corwin's attack lands first (longer weapon or same-length weapons and
luck). Benedict now feints, Corwin retreats on his defense. He then
steps back one and Waits.
Again, Benedict cannot attack him without sacrificing his advantage
or worse.
>
>(3) Corwin doesn't attack Benedict, and stepped back more than one hex. A
> good strategy for Benedict in this case is then to use the Step and Wait
> manoeuvre until Corwin renews hostilities.
The fight is drawn from the first series, recall - Corwin doesn't
want to renew hostilities. Benedict is the aggressor.
>
>In short, it seems to me that there is plenty of possible interest in this
>combat. Yes, a significant percentage of the blows that land will still
>result from simple criticals, but the odds are that the fight will actually
>be decided by the others unless one character gets very lucky.
I disagree here. As long as they stick to swordfighting (as
opposed to wrestling, etc.), chances are that it will be decided by a
critical hit or two. I'm not saying that Benedict doesn't have an
advantage - he clearly does.
What I'm saying is that waiting for criticals can be very annoying,
and in running a GURPS Amber campaign, something should be done about it.
Ismo Peltonen
:
: As to whether a leather jacket can deflect a bullet - Don't be stupid.
: to stop a high powered rifle round, much less a .50 cal? The odds against
: it are so preposterously high that it can be discarded in a roleplaying game.
:
: I'll shoot it with 216 bullets and see if one bounces. Honest. :)
The jacket will *not* stop a .50 cal bullet if it comes straight with
high speed and hits the jacket square in the middle. The bullet might
change its course if it hit the jacket in steep angle to the side.
That's what PD is about.
Anyway, if one uses High-Tech 2nd ed rule of PD reduction, it doesn't
even have a chance to bounce of.
Leather jacket has DR of two and the damage from .50 cal bullet is more
than 10d, so if it hits square in the middle, it will pass through very
easily (10d, minimum 10 points, 2 points + 2 points (it will pass
through twice) DR, 6 points still left when it's through).
: Axly
--
Elandal (aka Ismo Peltonen) | Hanuripolku 5B15
home (UUCP) Ismo.P...@tower.NullNet.FI | 00420 Helsinki
Univ (internet) Ismo.P...@Helsinki.FI | FINLAND
data +358-0-5072005 voice +358-0-537515
John Cooper
>Actually, Farslayer's means of reaching its target is more a special effect.
>Farslayer's power was to slay anyone or anything regardless of distance.
>Farslayer would be either a HUGE RKA or BIG transform (Major Transform victim
>into a corpse with sword stuck in back :). In either case, the ability for
>Farslayer to reach its target wouldn't require a separate power unless it were
>going to have other uses than to deliver Farslayer to ground zero. As a matter
>of fact, using a Flight power would be counter-productive as that would imply
>that Farslayer could be prevented from reaching its intended victim. I would
>just use a special effect of Indirect (one of the big versions of this), or
>something. Sorry for not being specific, but I'm a tad rusty (just getting
>back into HERO by trying to set up a sci-fi campaign set in Traveller's
>Imperium). There's another thread over in rgf.misc that addressed the question
>of special effect vs. separate power.
You may know more about Farslayer than I do, so I willingly defer to you on
this. But it was my understanding (from a fellow GM who used Saberhagen's
swords in an AD&D campaign) that Farslayer actually flew to its target, and
if it ever encountered an obstacle, it would sit and wait until the
obstacle went away. What you say implies that Farslayer would simply teleport
into the body of the victim, no matter what the distance, no matter what the
target's exact location. Cool. Works for me. Even so, the sword is an object
that operates like a sword until it is given a specific target to eliminate.
It seems to me that it needs Teleportation in order to carry out its higher
function. I don't see how an RKA could be pulled into service since the
sword itself seeks out its target and the "user" doesn't play any real part
in it.
>BTW, I think that HERO would be superbly suited to set up a campaign based on
>Saberhagen's Swords books. Anyone ever try it? Just curious.
I heartily agree with you on this point! In fact, I'm using Saberhagen's
twelve swords in my Fantasy Hero campaign (thus the Farslayer bit).
>As many posters have pointed out, the special effects of powers are what make
>them interesting, not the list of advantages and limitations put on them. I've
>seen special effects make and break powers. For example, I designed a mutant
>with a VPP based on light. Basically, if it could be done with light, he could
>do it. Unfortunately, Corona (I created him before I ever even heard of
>Sanctuary. :P) was never able to fly, even though the group he associated
>really wished he could. I could never figure out a connection; light is just
>too darned fast, he always ended up teleporting.
I too had a light-based Champs character, Raytracer. He was modeled after
the Living Laser. He could literally turn into "coherent" light. I eventually
gave him FTL and Desol. Now he can turn into a beam of light and travel to
just about anywhere on the Earth in two Phases (if he knows where's he's
going).
-John
John Cooper
>Well, you can do it much more easily if you think ahead. If you want an
>effect to cancel out all magic effects in your world, then require that
>all magic spells be bought with a limitations "Not vs. Anti-Magic Field".
>It's then pretty darn easy to use change environment to create the anti-magic
>field.
Yes, I've already done this for the magic in my world, and the more I think
about it, the more elegant I think it is. Thanks for the reminder...
>>Second: I want my dragons to be really nasty. I want them to be able to
>>attack with more than one "weapon system" at different targets during a
>>single Phase.
>
>Well, I can't see what is wrong with simply buying more speed. If you set
>the dragon's speed at 12, it will attack 3 times for every once that your
>fastest player goes. If you want to get even grosser and have those
>3 attack Segments, speeds over 12 result in Segments where you get multiple
>Phases.
I've seen this Over-12 Speed thing before but I don't know where it comes
from? What rulebook?
The problem is that I only want the dragon to be able to act on, say, six
Phases, but on those six, I want him to be able to do multiple attacks.
I've thought about a new Advantage on Speed called "Multiple Attacks" for
a +1 (or possibly +3/4). Each time it is bought, it simply allows another
attack to be performed during a Phase, but like all attacks, they must all
end the Phase (so the attacks must all come together, and they end the
Phase). Simple to administrate and not too unbalancing since it isn't
very flexible (note that it is only good for attacks; the Advantage is
not called "Multiple Actions" for a good reason).
>Personally, I think Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75% is a wonderful way
>of making a dragon "really nasty". I've never seen speed as one of the
>classical attributes of a wyrm. They are normally shown as being really
>tough to hurt, but fairly easy to hit.
They don't have to be fast, I agree. But they have multiple weapon systems,
and there is no reason I can think of that a dragon wouldn't be capable of
employing them all simultaneously. Especially if you want dragons to be
nasty in combat. Really nasty. The kind of surprise nasty that quickly
sobers Overconfident adventurers... :-)
-John
John Cooper
>I'll now use my own world as an example, as it contains supers, mages,
>high-tech, psi, etc. And I use GURPS as a system.
I think this was explained a number of times already. The Hero System does
not expect mundane items to be paid for with Character Points, particularly
in non-supers campaigns. In supers campaigns, mundane items generally aren't
paid for with CPs either unless an item becomes a fixture of the character
(if your superhero decides to always run around with a .44 magnum, the GM
may decide to make you pay for it since it has become part of your character
concept now).
>How can one ever decide the worth of an equipment point pool as people can
>buy and sell, steal and be robbed?
This is a good question, and in general the answer is that this sort of
thing is highly abstracted. An equipment pool represents the amount of
equipment that a character typically carries during a single "mission".
Stuff will get used, lost, stolen, etc. But the pool can be replenished
by going back to base, or picking up new stuff. In general, the pool only
serves to limit what the character gets to take with him at-start for a
given mission. Anything picked up along the way can be used and doesn't
really violate the integrity of the equipment pool rules.
Thus a commando might have an equipment pool worth enough points to take
an assault rifle, a pistol, a knife, and any assortment of grenades,
explosives and other destructive stuff (that would deserve a point cost)
for a particular mission. Along the way, the commando kills a guard and
takes his pistol as a backup. No problem. Unless the commando plans to
consistently carry an extra pistol with him on all missions, he doesn't
have to pay to increase his pool, and he can certainly use the pistol he
just picked up for the rest of the mission. Similarly, he may get knocked
out and all his stuff may get taken. Fine, he is going to have to find a
way to recover his stuff in order to complete the mission, but as soon as
he gets back to base, it is assumed that he can resupply himself (up to
his pool limit).
A GM has to be prepared to be flexible with this kind of thing, and to
give real-world meaning to the equipment pool and its limitations.
-John
Jeffrey Klein
>In article <24a4u8$o...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Avatar of Pooh) writes:
>
>>>Second: I want my dragons to be really nasty. I want them to be able to
>>>attack with more than one "weapon system" at different targets during a
>>>single Phase.
>>
>>Well, I can't see what is wrong with simply buying more speed.
>
>The problem is that I only want the dragon to be able to act on, say, six
>Phases, but on those six, I want him to be able to do multiple attacks.
>
>I've thought about a new Advantage on Speed called "Multiple Attacks" for
>a +1 (or possibly +3/4). Each time it is bought, it simply allows another
>attack to be performed during a Phase, but like all attacks, they must all
>end the Phase (so the attacks must all come together, and they end the
>Phase). Simple to administrate and not too unbalancing since it isn't
>very flexible (note that it is only good for attacks; the Advantage is
>not called "Multiple Actions" for a good reason).
Or rather, buy Speed with new Limitations -- so, if your dragon has
speed 6 but 3 attacks per phase --
(note: I have no idea how good these Lim ratings are)
base 6 speed
+12 "Only for Attacks" (-1/4)
Delayed -- the extra attacks are delayed until the dragon's
phases at base speed (-1/4)
Must use different attacks in 1 phase (-1/4)
Cannot attack at all if using a non-attack action w/regular speed
(-1/2)
--for a -1.25 limitation, making this speed cost 4 4/9 per attack.
Maybe it should be just -1, so we have a cleaner 5 pts,
for a total of 60 points for the extra attacks.
Or whatever.
-Jeff
John H Kim
A couple of misconceptions here. My general statement was that
GURPS strength was in its worldbooks - when there is a setting to which
worldbooks largely do not apply, GURPS is not much easier to adapt than
a variety of other systems.
I chose Ars Magica and Amber as an off-hand example, actually -
motivated partly because I had adapted Ars Magica for a Gothic fantasy game
two years ago, and found it easy to adapt.
I have agreed that GURPS is somewhat easier to adapt to Amber, since
it has a head start on several minor points (more skills, gun rules).
However, I still say that it is a fairly close match for several reasons -
for example, GURPS mechanics sometimes break down at high stat/skill levels,
especially with high defense rolls, and may need changing.
doer...@ze8.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (J"urgen Lerch) writes:
>I'm just about to plan out an Amber campaign to which I got the idea...
>and I'll be probably using GURPS (or an in certain ways similar system of
>my own), just because I like dice and AMBER is so wonderful simple to
>convert to GURPS.
...
>
>On the other hand, I would never have had the idea to use *Ars Magica* for
>that purpose, what with God and the Devil and other kinds of things beside
>high-tech, that don't fit into an Amber-Universe.
Well, it appears to me that GURPS has a heck of a lot more that
doesn't fit into the Amber universe: vampires, telekinesis, powerstones,
etc. God and the Devil are no more integral to the Ars Magica system
than any of the latter are to GURPS.
>
>And if you insist on having the AMBER magic system, I think it's far easier
>to make it up, or, probably, just *copy* it to GURPS, than to rip the *core*
>off of Ars Magica and replace it with something else.
I have now had several replies to the effect of: "GURPS must be
more universal - it says so in the title". This has now been followed by:
"Ars Magica's magic system is integral to it - it's in the title".
AM's magic system can be taken out the same way that GURPS's magic
system can be - just don't use it.
John Cooper
>I disagree. First, I always state my comments as personal preference,
>and that neither is better - just a matter of taste. The GURPS bashing
>is sometimes phrased that way, true, but more usually not. More often
>than not it's, "GURPS is *NOT* generic ..." or "GURPS is lousy ..."
>blah blah blah.
Well, I'm probably the guy who appears guilty of the "GURPS is not generic"
statements, but in truth I've been very careful to say "GURPS is not generic
in any sense meaningful to me" just so it is clear that I have a personal
definition of what "meaningfully generic" means and that is the only yard-
stick to which I measure the game's merits.
>>and some meta-rules for generating magic/psi/whatever systems.
>
>This may or may not happen. As I said, I don't really think the Hero
>how-to-make-yor-own-magic-system section is all that detailed.
How much detail can a generic metasystem offer?
>Hero's default magic system
>is not to my taste, and the meta-rules, from that perspective, are
>still very skimpy.
I'm always interested in hearing proposed improvements.
>Granted, they are non-existent in GURPS, but that
>doesn't mean "Hero's done it right and GURPS has done it wrong."
True. The fact that Hero has done something and GURPS has done much less in
the way of generic metasystems says a lot to me. Doesn't say a darn thing
to someone who doesn't care about metasystems or doesn't understand their
value. Fine, but then they don't really understand the Hero approach and
aren't in a position to compare it to GURPS. I extoll Hero's virtues as a
means of educating those who aren't familiar with the issues (and are
interested in hearing what some of them are). Since the power of meta-
systems is so painfully self-evident to me, I am left to conclude that
most folks who bash Hero just don't understand what a metasystem is or
how to make use of one effectively. They defend GURPS by saying, "Why
would a character ever pay points for such and such? How completely stupid!"
This sounds like a case of either misunderstanding or complete ignorance.
I feel it is instructive to clear up these misunderstandings and sweep
away the ignorance where possible. Don't you?
I believe that metasystems are not and never were an integral part of the
GURPS design. Over the years, heaps of genre-specific rules have appeared
spread out over many books along with new metasystems (like Fantasy Folk
and Vehicles). Now it looks as though GURPS needs a thorough reorganization
and revision process where it takes a step back and integrates its meta-
systems better and puts more of this kind of thing into a single volume.
For some reason, SJG preferred to flood the market with supplement after
supplement. Now that they've cut back on their production schedule, I
hope they take the opportunity to refine the game and make it better
organized, less fractured, better integrated, and more flexible.
I'm still not sure I like its emphasis on "realistic" combat results
though. Perhaps the cinematic rules could be better integrated. They just
don't seem like a natural part of the game design, and there is no
particularly good reason it has to be treated like a second-class citizen.
Keep in mind that I am a Hero evangelist WHO PLAYS GURPS ON A REGULAR
BASIS. I am not a GURPS guru like many on the net, but I know the rules
from many angles and I understand the GURPS design philosophy quite well.
I just don't happen to agree with it. I doesn't appear to me that many
GURPS players who bash Hero have given Hero much of a chance. I've been
playing GURPS for several years now so no one can accuse me of hating
GURPS so much that I refuse to play it (and thus remain ignorant of its
"advances"). How many GURPS players just gave up on Hero in the 2nd or
3rd edition and refuse to even try it again? There a difference between
a preference and a closed mind...
>GURPS Magic admits it's not generic, so there is no hubris there.
But it is part of a system that promotes itself as generic. To me, this is
not hubris, it is deception (though certainly not malicious).
>Hero's
>meta suggestions are only slightly more detailed than FUDGE, which
>doesn't pretend at all to fill in all the blanks.
Perhaps detailed isn't really a good word. Perhaps comprehensive makes more
sense? I would certainly agree that the Hero System needs to be more
comprehensive, and in fact, needs to be more flexible in some areas. In
other areas, it just plain needs to be fixed (like Multiform). It is not
a perfect implementation, to be sure, but the mere fact that it does supply
a metasystem (and a truly useful one despite its flaws, I feel) sets it
apart from any other system claiming to be generic.
-John