Classless D20
Joe Rowe
Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and how
progression, etc is handled.
Thanks,
Joe.
Matthias
<joe....@NOBLOODYSPAMwheatley-associates.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and how
>progression, etc is handled.
Why would you want to do that? d20 achieves a near-perfect balance between
the traditional class/level system and infinite character customization.
IM(H)O, Classless levelless systems are boring and generate bland vanilla
characters.
--
Matthias
xeno...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Frontier/5946
John Simpson
<joe....@NOBLOODYSPAMwheatley-associates.co.uk> wrote:
>Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and how
>progression, etc is handled.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/
--
Peace,
John Simpson
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
"A gentleman is a man who knows how to play the bagpipes, but chooses not to."
Joe Rowe
I WILL take a look, but doesn't that say GURPS?
Ta,
Joe.
"John Simpson" <see...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:omfpot442hueqt6lq...@4ax.com...
Dunk
Much like vampire and Warhammer do, or in the same way as Warhammer actually
does create a Career system with a list of skills, feats and advances that
have to be purchaced to progress to the next career.
Zef
Alex Johnson
Uh, you can't do that. The d20 system license defines that you must use
level advancement and classes just like they defined or it's not really
d20. Of course you could adopt some of their conventions, like
depending on the d20, and just not call it d20 and you are okay.
Justin Bacon
>Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and how
>progression, etc is handled.
1. Convert all the class abilities into feats (where this has not already been
done).
2. Write up a simple chart:
Raise HP +1: 1 XP
Raise a Skill +1: 1 XP
Raise a Save +1: 4 XP
Gain a Feat: 8 XP
Raise BAB +1: 8 XP
Raising An Attribute: 40 XP
(Actually, to simplify things I would probably making BAB a stackable Feat for
mechanical purposes. And I might even bite the bullet and conflate Save
increases into the Feat system, too -- at the cost of some precision there.)
3. Award XP appropriately. If you still like the idea of large XP awards, you'd
need to adjust those values. I have them semi-balanced with each other at the
moment (they probably need some fine-tuning), but you'd have to do some
additional mathematical finagling if you wanted to actually use the existing XP
charts and hope to keep things feeling roughly the same. It would be easier to
simply multiply those values by 100, and then strip out the entire XP system
and start from scratch.
4. Adapting the current magic system is a bit more difficult. If you wanted to
keep things really simple, I'd suggest taking the current 20-step charts for
the wizard and sorceror and assigning a 10 XP cost to move from one step on the
chart to the next. Pulling numbers out thing air: 8 XP for the Bard chart;
maybe 4 XP for the Ranger chart (as it starts at 4th level).
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>IM(H)O, Classless levelless systems are boring and generate bland vanilla
>characters.
Only if the people using them are uncreative, boring, bland people.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Drew Id
news:999072676.17261.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and how
> progression, etc is handled.
As for going class-less, just create one generic class, and seperate out
skill points and "ability points". You use skill points just as you would in
d20, except that all skills are cross-class skills.
You can spend ability points to make some number of skills into class
skills. You can also spend ability points to raise your hit points, BAB, to
gain a feat, to gain a class ability, or to gain spellcasting abilities. All
of the class abilities, spellcasting abilities, and feats would have to
weighed to balance out, and prerequisites for all of these abilities should
be required in the same way that feats have prerequisites now. Some
conversion between skill points and ability points would also be needed, but
it should come at a penalty, such as 5 skill points give 1 ability point,
and 1 ability point gives 3 skill points.
As for going level-less, if a current encounter or adventure is
appropriately challenging, the PC's would be rewarded with a certain small
number of ability and/or skill points. Once they save up enough of these
points, they can spend them to buy a new ability.
Wisedemon
"Alex Johnson" <spe...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:3B8D0173...@jhu.edu...
> Uh, you can't do that. The d20 system license defines that you must use
> level advancement and classes just like they defined or it's not really
> d20. Of course you could adopt some of their conventions, like
> depending on the d20, and just not call it d20 and you are okay.
... I can't find the link - but I recall that Call of the Cthulthu was going
to be classless.
john v verkuilen
>Why would you want to do that? d20 achieves a near-perfect balance between
>the traditional class/level system and infinite character customization.
>IM(H)O, Classless levelless systems are boring and generate bland vanilla
>characters.
As Justin said, classless systems are only boring if (a) the users are
pretty uncreative and (b) the system has only a few "dominant strategies."
If the system allows for more possible character motifs that are pretty
useful all the way up, you'll see a lot more character differentiation.
White Wolf's class and level-free system does not IMO generate vanilla
characters with all the same abilities. Characters must specialize to become
good at anything. Even fairly powerful characters will be good at maybe two
basic sets of tasks--stealth, magic, combat, social, etc. It's damn hard
to become good at three. The GM should point this particular fact out, too.
(Side note: Why the criticism of vanilla? Real, good vanilla is subtle but
one of the best flavors around. Lots of the stuff you get is crappy
artificial vanilla. Try, say, Haagen Daz vanilla to see what I mean--that's
the good stuff.)
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
Dissertation pages written: 65
Brandon Cope
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:10:33 +0100, "Joe Rowe"
> <joe....@NOBLOODYSPAMwheatley-associates.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and how
> >progression, etc is handled.
>
> Why would you want to do that? d20 achieves a near-perfect balance between
> the traditional class/level system and infinite character customization.
Either you're trolling or you're high. Class/level systems are
inherently inferior to skill-based systems. They are not nearly as
flexible for character design/improvement. The "all at once"
improvement of level-based systems is terribly unrealistic.
> IM(H)O, Classless levelless systems are boring and generate bland vanilla
> characters.
No, classless, levelless systems expose players who have no ability to
roleplay but who have used the crutch of stereoptyped character
classes to hide this deficiency.
Bad roleplayers are boring and generate bland vanilla characters. They
just tend to play classed/leveled systems.
So there.
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope
Brandon Cope
> "John Simpson" <see...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:omfpot442hueqt6lq...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:10:33 +0100, "Joe Rowe"
> > <joe....@NOBLOODYSPAMwheatley-associates.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and how
> > >progression, etc is handled.
> >
> > http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/
>
Yes, which means it's actually good.
Brandon
Reginald
Disclaimer: IANAL
Under the d20 Trademark License, it is possible. Just modify the description
of the class in your product as "non class." The level advancement part is
tricky. That you may not be able to change, except the XP chart.
Under the OGL only, you have free reign.
Hong Ooi
>
>(Side note: Why the criticism of vanilla? Real, good vanilla is subtle but
>one of the best flavors around. Lots of the stuff you get is crappy
>artificial vanilla. Try, say, Haagen Daz vanilla to see what I mean--that's
>the good stuff.)
Vanilla? Go chocolate, I say!
--
Hong Ooi | "Know where the Roman legionaries
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | learned to use the gladius from?
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | Gladiators."
Canberra, Australia | -- B.
Jay Walsh
since you can't give instructions on character creation, "level"
advancement, etc.
so I am not really sure what the point of the d20 OPEN system is, since you
can't do anything with it, other than creat dnd 3e standard worlds with
absolutely nothing different in game mechanics. They state that you could
create level/class-less system but then later on state enough restrictions
that you can't accomplish it. from what I read.
Jay
Drew Id <sean_...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:toq7umk...@corp.supernews.com...
Justin Bacon
>Matthias wrote:
>> Why would you want to do that? d20 achieves a near-perfect balance between
>> the traditional class/level system and infinite character customization.
>
>Either you're trolling or you're high. Class/level systems are
>inherently inferior to skill-based systems.
Well, since I just got done blasting Matthias for cluelessness, I suppose it's
your turn for going in the opposite direction of foolish extremity: Class
systems are inherently superior to skill-based systems if you're looking for a
way to enforce archetypal character types. Class systems are also inherently
superior to skill-based systems if you're looking to speed up character
creation (and/or make character creation easier for new players).
As Matthias says, however: D20/D&D3 does a very good job of giving you the
advantages of a class system (reinforcement of archetypal characters; quicker
character creation; and easily grasped character creation for newbies) with the
flexibility of a skill/point system.
>No, classless, levelless systems expose players who have no ability to
>roleplay but who have used the crutch of stereoptyped character
>classes to hide this deficiency.
And, if this is the case, why would you *want* take the crutch away from them?
If I have a crippled friend who cannot walk without his crutches, I don't yank
them away from him and "expose" him as a gimp.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>> I WILL take a look, but doesn't that say GURPS?
>
>Yes, which means it's actually good.
GURPS is the only game system in existence where people buy the sourcebooks IN
SPITE of the rule system. I don't think "good" and "GURPS" belong in the same
sentence together, unless one or the other has been coupled with the word
"not".
A decent system? Sure. A system that is very good at providing a lot of detail?
Sure. GURPS has its strong points. It is just cursed with the fact that all of
those strong points are served better elsewhere. GURPS continues to exist
because its support material is of incredibly high quality and quantity.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>so I am not really sure what the point of the d20 OPEN system is, since you
>can't do anything with it, other than creat dnd 3e standard worlds with
>absolutely nothing different in game mechanics. They state that you could
>create level/class-less system but then later on state enough restrictions
>that you can't accomplish it. from what I read.
You are very confused. There is nothing preventing you from using the OGL to
create a version of D20 without classes and levels.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Ed Chauvin IV
Doesn't matter, WotC owns the D20 Trademark and thus does not have to abide by
any license agreement with themselves in order to get permission from themselves
to publish a game.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>"Alex Johnson" <spe...@jhu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Joe Rowe wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and
>> > how progression, etc is handled.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Joe.
>>
>> Uh, you can't do that. The d20 system license defines that you must
>> use level advancement and classes just like they defined or it's not
>> really d20. Of course you could adopt some of their conventions,
>> like depending on the d20, and just not call it d20 and you are okay.
>
>Disclaimer: IANAL
Hey, neither am I!
>Under the d20 Trademark License, it is possible. Just modify the description
>of the class in your product as "non class." The level advancement part is
>tricky. That you may not be able to change, except the XP chart.
Change it? You're not even allowed to describe it. Character creation and
advancement are not permitted.
The best solution appears to be defining a new class that has numerous optional
per-level benefits.
Brandon Cope
> Brandon wrote:
> >> I WILL take a look, but doesn't that say GURPS?
> >
> >Yes, which means it's actually good.
>
> GURPS is the only game system in existence where people buy the sourcebooks IN
> SPITE of the rule system. I don't think "good" and "GURPS" belong in the same
> sentence together, unless one or the other has been coupled with the word
> "not".
Would you care to list what you consider to be bad about it? I've
played it for about ten years and have found very little to complain
about.
Brandon Cope
> Brandon Cope write:
> >Matthias wrote:
> >> Why would you want to do that? d20 achieves a near-perfect balance between
> >> the traditional class/level system and infinite character customization.
> >
> >Either you're trolling or you're high. Class/level systems are
> >inherently inferior to skill-based systems.
>
> Well, since I just got done blasting Matthias for cluelessness, I suppose it's
> your turn for going in the opposite direction of foolish extremity: Class
> systems are inherently superior to skill-based systems if you're looking for a
> way to enforce archetypal character types.
If you're looking for it, yes.
> Class systems are also inherently
> superior to skill-based systems if you're looking to speed up character
> creation (and/or make character creation easier for new players).
Not true. Many skill-based systems use templates to speed up character
creation.
> As Matthias says, however: D20/D&D3 does a very good job of giving you the
> advantages of a class system (reinforcement of archetypal characters; quicker
> character creation; and easily grasped character creation for newbies) with the
> flexibility of a skill/point system.
I can't speak for D&D3; I haven't played it and don't plan to.
However, after I first played a skill-based system (Traveller), I
found class/level systems to be too restrictive.
> >No, classless, levelless systems expose players who have no ability to
> >roleplay but who have used the crutch of stereoptyped character
> >classes to hide this deficiency.
>
> And, if this is the case, why would you *want* take the crutch away from them?
> If I have a crippled friend who cannot walk without his crutches, I don't yank
> them away from him and "expose" him as a gimp.
This is a rather poor analogy. The crippled friend is unlikely to ever
be able to walk if you take his crutches away; a poor roleplayer can
only get better by being *forced* to roleplay.
Mike Miller
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and how
> > progression, etc is handled.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joe.
>
> Uh, you can't do that.
Sure you can. The game police can't fault you for creating house
rules that modify the d20 system. They just get pissy when you try
to publish something that violates the d20 license.
> The d20 system license defines that you must use level advancement and
> classes just like they defined or it's not really d20.
The d20 system license now applies to gamers and house rules?
> Of course you could adopt some of their conventions, like
> depending on the d20, and just not call it d20 and you are okay.
I can run a game of strictly-by-the-book, no house rules D&D3E
and call it Susan if it makes me happy, or play Rolemaster and call
it d20 if I feel like it. Despite such gross changes of the d20
system, I'm reasonably sure I'll 'be okay.'
To boil down my poor wit above: How do you know the original poster
was talking about publishing a classless/levelless d20 rather than
just looking for tested house rules to modify the game?
More on topic, I'd be interested in seeing a way of divorcing
classes and class levels from d20. I rather liked Justin Bacon's
preliminary suggestions.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Scott Baxter
> >
> >"Alex Johnson" <spe...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3B8D0173...@jhu.edu...
> >> Uh, you can't do that. The d20 system license defines that you must use
> >> level advancement and classes just like they defined or it's not really
> >> d20. Of course you could adopt some of their conventions, like
> >> depending on the d20, and just not call it d20 and you are okay.
> >
> >... I can't find the link - but I recall that Call of the Cthulthu was going
> >to be classless.
From what I've read, d20 CoC is going with a single class whose main
purpose is to control skill and feat acquisition. Not that I expect the
levelling mechanic to be a real big deal - a high level d20 CoC
character should be about as common as a BRP CoC character with all
skills in the 90s.
--
Scott Baxter
"listen:there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's go"
- e. e. cummings
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
>
> Would you care to list what you consider to be bad about it? I've
> played it for about ten years and have found very little to complain
> about.
The point system is irretrievably broken. No matter what your point
budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly more powerful characters for
fewer points. "Strictly more powerful" meaning "all skills, stats, and
advantages are at the same level or higher, and disadvantages are
fewer and/or lower level". This produces pervasive, substantial
distortions throughout the system. Lots of character types -- such as
the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
point budgets.
In actual mechanics, the lifting rules are broken. So is the table for
ranged attacks. The combat rules offer no mechanism for skirmish lines
forming. Combats take far too little character time. The invention
rules are broken. The skills are inconsistently wide or narrow --
there are some hugely broad skills, like Physics, and some absurdly
narrow skills like No-Landing Extraction. The system for wealth is
broken. The social skills and NPC reaction rules aren't really a
coherent subsystem.
I'm sure it's possible that GURPS's strengths match what your group
does, but for me, I kept tripping over the weaknesses in the rules.
Neel
Joe Rowe
> To boil down my poor wit above: How do you know the original poster
> was talking about publishing a classless/levelless d20 rather than
> just looking for tested house rules to modify the game?
Spot on, I have no intentions (as yet -- far too much work) of publishing
the work i'm doing. Which is converting a friends old game to d20 (from a
system of his own, using books from here and there).
And I'm not sure which classes would fit the game best (and it seems alot of
work)... being a "dark future" game set in 2050, post holocaust. I currently
have 2 template classes: Martial and Academic, with perhaps profession
routes for each class???
Although the levels do give an easy method of scaling power levels, dont
they? ;)
> More on topic, I'd be interested in seeing a way of divorcing
> classes and class levels from d20. I rather liked Justin Bacon's
> preliminary suggestions.
So did I... although I'm not quite sure about gauging power levels?
And I dont have to worry about Magic, because there is none. :)
Ta,
Joe.
PS: Thanks for your input so far everyone.
Robert Scott Clark
>On 30 Aug 2001 01:16:11 -0700, Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Would you care to list what you consider to be bad about it? I've
>> played it for about ten years and have found very little to complain
>> about.
>
>The point system is irretrievably broken. No matter what your point
>budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly more powerful characters for
>fewer points. "Strictly more powerful" meaning "all skills, stats, and
>advantages are at the same level or higher, and disadvantages are
>fewer and/or lower level". This produces pervasive, substantial
>distortions throughout the system. Lots of character types -- such as
>the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
>point budgets.
I've seen this said several times, and it's still incorrect. Here's
what you do... Buy a high dex and int, put a few points in skills just
like you would for a prodigy character, say "hey, this character is
grizzled and old, and the high stats represent a broad experience with
many skills, not high natural ability - I will voluntarily take
penalties whenever pure stats would be more important than skill, even
though I will get no points for limiting myself in this way."
A point system only need to be balanced when people make optimal
decisions, the system only needs to limit the max power achievable.
>
>In actual mechanics, the lifting rules are broken. So is the table for
>ranged attacks.
And what would be the problem with this?
>The combat rules offer no mechanism for skirmish lines
>forming.
Very few RPGs offer any limitations on maneuvering in combat, so
anything involving positioning is normally inconsequential.
Other than D&D's AoO rules, I can't think of any major RPG that does.
>Combats take far too little character time.
A side effect of having a very detailed move-by-move combat system as
opposed to a highly abstract one. Hell, look at Champions. A good
combat might be over in 1/2 a second character time.
>The invention
>rules are broken.
Yup
>The skills are inconsistently wide or narrow --
>there are some hugely broad skills, like Physics, and some absurdly
>narrow skills like No-Landing Extraction.
Which makes perfect sense if you are going for playbalance and rule
simplicity and character differentiation.
>The system for wealth is
>broken.
Yup
>The social skills and NPC reaction rules aren't really a
>coherent subsystem.
There's a game out there where this isn't true??? Where is it? I
would love to see it.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
John Simpson
Krishnaswami) wrote:
>On 30 Aug 2001 01:16:11 -0700, Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Would you care to list what you consider to be bad about it? I've
>> played it for about ten years and have found very little to complain
>> about.
>
>The point system is irretrievably broken. No matter what your point
>budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly more powerful characters for
>fewer points. "Strictly more powerful" meaning "all skills, stats, and
>advantages are at the same level or higher, and disadvantages are
>fewer and/or lower level". This produces pervasive, substantial
>distortions throughout the system.
Sorry, but I don't know what you're getting at here.
>Lots of character types -- such as
>the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
>point budgets.
Skills cost points, and must be paid for. If you're trying to
create the only grizzled old vet in the party, on the same budget,
you're going to have to give some advantages, or take more
disadvantages.
An alternative is for the GM to allow a higher-point-total
character, much as it would take a higher xp-total in D&D.
>In actual mechanics, the lifting rules are broken. So is the table for
>ranged attacks.
"Broken" isn't very illuminating.
>The combat rules offer no mechanism for skirmish lines
>forming.
I'll take your word for that. It's not a feature I've ever looked
for in a game.
>Combats take far too little character time.
Too little for what? I rather like the "nasty, brutish and short"
approach of GURPS, and generally prefer it to the minute-long rounds
of AD&D.
>The invention rules are broken.
Again, "broken" is not a useful statement, except to those who
already know what you mean.
>The skills are inconsistently wide or narrow --
>there are some hugely broad skills, like Physics, and some absurdly
>narrow skills like No-Landing Extraction.
These seem okay to me. The science of physics is probably of
limited use in most games, and is not as immediately practical as is,
say, No-Landing Extraction.
It all depends upon what a particular campaign emphasizes, though.
If scientific research is more useful in a given campaign setting, the
GM's duty is to make characters pay for it. This is a consequence of
creating a cross-genre system--it's *going* to need adjustment more
often than is something like D&D.
>The system for wealth is broken.
"Broken," as usual, doesn't explain what you find wrong with it, but
I'll note that I've never gotten interested in the wealth rules.
Never needed them yet.
>The social skills and NPC reaction rules aren't really a
>coherent subsystem.
I can't tell just what your objection is here, and I'm not sure why
you would want a "coherent subsystem." As a collection of discrete
skills, it seems useful enough to me. Reactions never struck me as
something needing rolls on a regular basis. I know, generally, how my
NPCs will react, and take into account the bonuses inherent in
ceertain skills/advantages.
>I'm sure it's possible that GURPS's strengths match what your group
>does, but for me, I kept tripping over the weaknesses in the rules.
That's an intelligent comment. A rule that doesn't suit the needs
of a particular gamer might as well be called "weak," and you're wise
to look elsewhere. I play rules-light now, and so am not into
nit-picking.
--
Peace,
John Simpson
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
"So...what's the story with these role-playing rejects?" --Spike
Justin Bacon
>>Lots of character types -- such as
>>the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
>>point budgets.
>
>I've seen this said several times, and it's still incorrect. Here's
>what you do... Buy a high dex and int, put a few points in skills just
>like you would for a prodigy character, say "hey, this character is
>grizzled and old, and the high stats represent a broad experience with
>many skills, not high natural ability - I will voluntarily take
>penalties whenever pure stats would be more important than skill, even
>though I will get no points for limiting myself in this way."
IOW, you'll apply a patch to the broken rule system.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>> Class systems are also inherently
>> superior to skill-based systems if you're looking to speed up character
>> creation (and/or make character creation easier for new players).
>
>Not true. Many skill-based systems use templates to speed up character
>creation.
In which case they're template-based games, not skill-based games. D&D3 is
about three microns away from being a template game, anyway, so I'm not sure
what you're complaining about.
>I can't speak for D&D3; I haven't played it and don't plan to.
>However, after I first played a skill-based system (Traveller), I
>found class/level systems to be too restrictive.
IOW, you're speaking from ignorance. Got it.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>Would you care to list what you consider to be bad about it? I've
>played it for about ten years and have found very little to complain
>about.
1. The point system is supposed to provide for balanced characters.
Unfortunately, GURPS does not assign point values using a consistent
methodology -- so that point system *doesn't* provide for balanced characters.
Specfically: Some things are rated by their combat effectiveness; other things
are rated by their real world difficulty; and other things are rated by rarity.
Any *one* of these things could be used as a methodology around which to build
a point system -- but attempting to model all three using one set of point
values means that your point system doesn't accomplish anything.
2. GURPS is supposed to be a generic game system, but its fundamental design
principles don't make it practical as such. For example, if I wanted to use
GURPS to roleplay in the world of Robert Jordan's WHEEL OF TIME I would be
stuck either: a) Using an exsting magic system with sub-par results; or b)
Designing a new magic system from scratch. And I do mean from scratch. Most
other generic games understand the need to provide meta-system tools which
allow the GM to customize the engine to fit the needs of whatever he wants to
do -- but GURPS has decided to take the encyclopedic approach by attempting to
cover every possible exigency. Unfortunately, no encyclopedia of that nature is
ever going to be large enough.
3. GURPS is a fairly solid ruleset when it comes to a fairly gritty realism and
normal human power levels. It begins to fall apart rapidly outside of that
range. (The utter mediocrity of GURPS Supers is an excellent example of this.)
4. GURPS has an over-reliance on attributes. It is *far* more expensive
(point-wise) to build a grizzled vet than a talented youngster.
5. The system is riddled with poorly designed artifacts: The lifting rules, for
example. The wealth system is another example.
6. Skills are not broken down in a consistent fashion. Some skills are
extremely narrow; while others are extremely broad. There seems to be only a
minimal amount of consistency applied to how these distinctions are made --
and, in many cases, those distinctions are rampantly inappropriate for certain
genres. (Which is another dint in GURPS' claims of genericity.)
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Mike Miller
> > More on topic, I'd be interested in seeing a way of divorcing
> > classes and class levels from d20. I rather liked Justin Bacon's
> > preliminary suggestions.
> So did I... although I'm not quite sure about gauging power levels?
Entirely point-based systems are a pretty solid way of gauging
relative power levels. More points, more power. Give every player a
fixed amount of points to begin with and they'll have PCs of about
the same power level (depending on how they optimize). GURPS does
this, and you can pervert White Wolf's character generation system
into a purely ("freebie") point-based system. Oh, and Shadowrun offers
a point-based character gen system in its Player's Companion as an
alternative to the usual "priority" based system.
But you want to stick to d20, right?
I'm just thinking about this, and Shadowrun might have something
with its priority system. (If you're not familiar with SR) You
assign priorities to each major area of character generation:
Race
Attributes
Skills
Magic
Equipment/Cash
And then prioritize them A to E. 'A' gave the most points/cash/most
bonus-blessed race/biggest juju while E gave the worst. From what
I remember:
Attributes: A - 30pts; B - 27pts; C - 24pts; D - 20pts; E - 17pts
Skills: A - 50pts; B - 40pts; C - 30pts; D - 27pts; E - 29pts
Equipment/Cash: A - $1M; B - $400K; C - $90K; D - $20K; E - $5K
Magic: A - full mage; B - limited ability adept; C-E: nothing
Race: A - shapeshifter; C - elf, troll; D - orc, dwarf; E - human
Give or take a bit. Skill points and attribute points aren't
interchangeable. Anyway, something like that may work in d20 with
some thought. You, the DM, picks a set value for each level of
priority in each area of character generation.
For your d20 game, you have:
Skills
Feats
Attributes
Starting Equipment/Cash
(no magic or race to worry about)
Set a number of skill points, feat picks, attribute points, and
cash per priority level.
For advancement, convert XP points/feats you can buy. Shadowrun hands
out generic "karma points" - XP are just as good, though far more
numerous. You actually spend the karma points in SR to advance (rather
than just keeping a running total as in d20), and that's not a bad
idea - you don't have to think about levels if you never accumulate
XP. GURPS and White Wolf also hand out XP/character points that you
spend rather than total up.
Let's see. Spending XP to raise skills and whatnot. White Wolf and
Shadowrun use variants of "Current (or next) Skill (or attribute)
level multiplied by some value" to figure out the cost in XP, karma,
whatever. This should work for spending d20 XP, too.
What sounds good?
*Raise skill by 1: Current skill level x 50 XP
*Raise attribute by 1: Current attribute x 1000 XP
*New feat: 10000 XP
Or something like that.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: 1. The point system is supposed to provide for balanced characters.
The Powers that be deny this. Points are an unholy mishmash of power,
rareity, and difficulty, as you noted, and this is *deliberate*.
It doesn't regulate any of these things as well as a more focused
design would have, but it gives decent coverage of them all.
If game balance matters a lot to you, GURPS will really annoy
you though.
If the ability to construct arbitrary characters appeals to you,
GURPS is yummy like FUDGE.
: 2. GURPS is supposed to be a generic game system, but its fundamental design
: principles don't make it practical as such.
I agree it has assumptions that are suboptimal some genres,
as you note later.
: For example, if I wanted to use
: GURPS to roleplay in the world of Robert Jordan's WHEEL OF TIME
<magic system>
However, this is a poor example, IMHO. It is impossible to
accurately model any arbitrary magic system that may come out
after the game is published.
"GURPS fails to do the impossible" is a poor criticism. ;)
: 4. GURPS has an over-reliance on attributes.
You could say D&D has an over-reliance on level.
: 5. The system is riddled with poorly designed artifacts: The lifting rules, for
: example. The wealth system is another example.
All systems have this. CR system anyone?
: 6. Skills are not broken down in a consistent fashion.
Much like D&D. Skill with a sword is a pile of feats and levels.
Skill with a pen is a subset of single skill, despite its
acknowledged superiority. ;)
Regards,
martinl
Bryan J. Maloney
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
The problem is due to choices of terminology on the part of Ryan Dancey.
(Gee, Ryan Dancey using ambiguous and opaque terminology--whodathunkit?)
The problem is that there is the game "system" referred to as "D20" and
then there is the trademark license referred to as "d20". While "d20"
uses "D20", not all "D20" necessarily falls under the "d20" license.
Yes, this is a terminological situation that only a sadist on acid or a
lawyer could even begin to consider tolerable, but it's the situation
that was imposed. Of course, I'm not at all surprised, given levels vs.
levels vs. levels (which is slightly improved over the older usage of
levels vs. levels vs. levels vs. levels).
--
"A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right."
Brandon Cope
> On 30 Aug 2001 01:16:11 -0700, Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Would you care to list what you consider to be bad about it? I've
> > played it for about ten years and have found very little to complain
> > about.
>
> The point system is irretrievably broken.
No, it's not.
> No matter what your point
> budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly more powerful characters for
> fewer points. "Strictly more powerful" meaning "all skills, stats, and
> advantages are at the same level or higher, and disadvantages are
> fewer and/or lower level".
Yes, this is an example of "min-maxing." A good GM will forbid such
characters or demand they be altered.
> This produces pervasive, substantial
> distortions throughout the system.
No, it doesn't. Most players create balanced characters. You are
blaming an entire game system for
> Lots of character types -- such as
> the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
> point budgets.
The grizzled old vet is the only tough one I know of and he mainly
becomes a problem if he has a lot of physical skills.
> In actual mechanics, the lifting rules are broken.
Do you mean using extra effort for lifting or the normal lifting
rules?
> So is the table for ranged attacks.
How so? You don't like the penalty progression?
> The combat rules offer no mechanism for skirmish lines
> forming.
Most players don't use miniatures so this is not a problem of the
system. As someone else pointed out, most games don't have rules for
skirmish lines.
> Combats take far too little character time.
Not really. Only fights between to characters of fairly equal skill
should be long, and they usually are.
> The invention rules are broken.
How? Too easy? Too hard?
> The skills are inconsistently wide or narrow --
> there are some hugely broad skills, like Physics, and some absurdly
> narrow skills like No-Landing Extraction.
NLE originated in GURPS Special Ops, where it needed to be specific.
Physics, in most games, is not used that often (or not as important as
other "conflict resolution" type skills). In a science-heavy game,
there is no reason the GM can't require Physics specializations.
> The system for wealth is broken.
How? Do you mean Poor characters who later earn a lot of money during
play? The GM can rule that they have debts/obligations that drain most
of their adventuring income. Temporary Wealth/Poverty is in Compendium
I and only affects starting money.
> The social skills and NPC reaction rules aren't really a
> coherent subsystem.
They're better than just about every other game system I've seen.
> I'm sure it's possible that GURPS's strengths match what your group
> does, but for me, I kept tripping over the weaknesses in the rules.
You want to play grizzled rich physicists inventing weird technnology
to help them in lengthy skirmish-level combat?
Hmm, interesting character type there ...
Bryan J. Maloney
Leuschen) wrote:
> Justin Bacon (tria...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : 1. The point system is supposed to provide for balanced characters.
>
> The Powers that be deny this. Points are an unholy mishmash of power,
The Powers that Be deny this *now*. Having played GURPS from its first
release, I'd say that this is not always the case. The denial is not
one of design but of realization that they have backed themselves into a
situation where the only way to get at least a little egg off their
faces is to admit the situation and pretend that "Yeah, we *meant* to do
it that way all the time." As more material is published, more accretia
pile on and more accidents become _post facto_ "intentional decisions".
Bryan J. Maloney
wrote:
> I'm sure it's possible that GURPS's strengths match what your group
> does, but for me, I kept tripping over the weaknesses in the rules.
Actually, the major strength GURPS has for me is that enormous pile of
weaknesses. But I also treat from-the-book GURPS as a FUDGE-like
metasystem. In other words, I don't run GURPS, I run games that use a
GURPS-like engine.
Bryan J. Maloney
<see...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Lots of character types -- such as
> >the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
> >point budgets.
>
> Skills cost points, and must be paid for. If you're trying to
> create the only grizzled old vet in the party, on the same budget,
> you're going to have to give some advantages, or take more
> disadvantages.
The problem is that GURPS gives far too much for 1/2 point investment in
a skill compared to what it gives for 8 points in that skill.
> >The combat rules offer no mechanism for skirmish lines
> >forming.
>
> I'll take your word for that. It's not a feature I've ever looked
> for in a game.
It has to be added.
>
> >Combats take far too little character time.
>
> Too little for what? I rather like the "nasty, brutish and short"
> approach of GURPS, and generally prefer it to the minute-long rounds
> of AD&D.
I agree with you here to some extent. Combats tend to be very short
from what I've read of people actually trying to kill each other.
Bashing away for ten or twenty minutes isn't the way it happens.
> >The skills are inconsistently wide or narrow --
> >there are some hugely broad skills, like Physics, and some absurdly
> >narrow skills like No-Landing Extraction.
>
> These seem okay to me. The science of physics is probably of
> limited use in most games, and is not as immediately practical as is,
> say, No-Landing Extraction.
The problem is that GURPS handles this breadth INCONSISTENTLY. There's
no rhyme nor reason to how these are assigned. Thus, altering them
becomes more of a chore.
Bryan J. Maloney
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
> Brandon Cope write:
> >Matthias wrote:
> >> Why would you want to do that? d20 achieves a near-perfect balance
> >> between
> >> the traditional class/level system and infinite character
> >> customization.
> >
> >Either you're trolling or you're high. Class/level systems are
> >inherently inferior to skill-based systems.
>
> Well, since I just got done blasting Matthias for cluelessness, I suppose
> it's
> your turn for going in the opposite direction of foolish extremity: Class
> systems are inherently superior to skill-based systems if you're looking
> for a
> way to enforce archetypal character types. Class systems are also
> inherently
> superior to skill-based systems if you're looking to speed up character
> creation (and/or make character creation easier for new players).
You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Screwdrivers
are INHERENTLY inferior to socket wrenches!!!!!
Hunter
>Justin Bacon (tria...@aol.com) wrote:
>Much like D&D. Skill with a sword is a pile of feats and levels.
>Skill with a pen is a subset of single skill, despite its
>acknowledged superiority. ;)
What one skill is the use of the pen? You need a full range of feats and
skills to use that pen well.
Alex Johnson
>
> Thanks Mike,
>
> > To boil down my poor wit above: How do you know the original poster
> > was talking about publishing a classless/levelless d20 rather than
> > just looking for tested house rules to modify the game?
>
> Spot on, I have no intentions (as yet -- far too much work) of publishing
> the work i'm doing. Which is converting a friends old game to d20 (from a
> system of his own, using books from here and there).
The first time I read your request I got the distinct impression that
you were producing a product you wanted to brand with d20 and sell. If
you don't plan on selling this game, then you can do anything you want
(regarding character creation) since the d20 license does not apply to
non-commercial ventures. You could call it d20, but it really wouldn't
be since a d20 license will not be granted unless you go to the trouble
of publishing it and petitioning for a license.
Alex
unterhund
news:ca4d1755.0108...@posting.google.com...
> You want to play grizzled rich physicists inventing weird
technnology
> to help them in lengthy skirmish-level combat?
Huzzah! That's what I'm trying to do with my fiendish half-orc
half-dragon bard! I was having problems explaining it to the DM,
though. Thank you, Brandon, for putting it into a single coherent
sentence.
--
Patrick "or not" Clark
unte...@lycos.com
http://unterhund.8m.com
Robert Scott Clark
By doing what I described, you do not have to change a single solitary
rule written in the book. All that is changed is the description -
the special effect as it were - of the actual ability described by the
points.
But, I'll give you a chance. What rule of GURPS did I need to change
to do what I described? And I'm talking about a rule, not flavour
text.
>Justin Bacon
>tria...@aol.com
Robert Scott Clark
>Brandon Cope wrote:
>>> Class systems are also inherently
>>> superior to skill-based systems if you're looking to speed up character
>>> creation (and/or make character creation easier for new players).
>>
>>Not true. Many skill-based systems use templates to speed up character
>>creation.
>
>In which case they're template-based games, not skill-based games.
Only if you are forced to choose a template.
A skill based game with optional templates has all of the flexibility
of a pure skill system with the ease of character creation of a class
based game.
> D&D3 is
>about three microns away from being a template game, anyway, so I'm not sure
>what you're complaining about.
>
>>I can't speak for D&D3; I haven't played it and don't plan to.
>>However, after I first played a skill-based system (Traveller), I
>>found class/level systems to be too restrictive.
>
>IOW, you're speaking from ignorance. Got it.
>
>Justin Bacon
>tria...@aol.com
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
the standard disclaimer: this is just my experience, and if you have
fun with GURPS, good for you. :)
On 30 Aug 2001 13:26:18 -0700, Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ne...@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote in message
news:<slrn9oscnu...@brick.cswv.com>...
>> On 30 Aug 2001 01:16:11 -0700, Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Would you care to list what you consider to be bad about it? I've
>> > played it for about ten years and have found very little to complain
>> > about.
>>
>> The point system is irretrievably broken.
>
> No, it's not.
>
>> No matter what your point budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly
>> more powerful characters for fewer points. "Strictly more powerful"
>> meaning "all skills, stats, and advantages are at the same level or
>> higher, and disadvantages are fewer and/or lower level".
>
> Yes, this is an example of "min-maxing." A good GM will forbid such
> characters or demand they be altered.
No, it's not, not when you can run into the problem with PCs whose
stat levels are in the 10-12 range and who have as few as 2 skills in
the 13-15 range.
>> This produces pervasive, substantial distortions throughout the
>> system.
>
> No, it doesn't. Most players create balanced characters. You are
> blaming an entire game system for
>
>> Lots of character types -- such as
>> the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
>> point budgets.
>
> The grizzled old vet is the only tough one I know of and he mainly
> becomes a problem if he has a lot of physical skills.
"A lot" of physical skills is 3 physical skills. The cost of 1 level
of DX is 25 points max, and the cost of 1 level of a physical skill
(after you hit DX+2 for Average difficulty skills) is 8 points. Any
character with even a secondary focus in any kind of physical activity
easily hit this limit.
IME, the amount of GM hand-holding needed in GURPS chargen is such
that there really isn't any point in keeping the point system. "Pick
some stats, and try not to step on any other PC's niche" has worked
better for me. That is, it's less time-intensive and produces better
balanced PCs than using the point system.
>> In actual mechanics, the lifting rules are broken.
>
> Do you mean using extra effort for lifting or the normal lifting
> rules?
Extra effort. The problem only came up once, after which we decided to
just wing it.
>> So is the table for ranged attacks.
>
> How so? You don't like the penalty progression?
In particular it interacted very poorly with the called shot
mechanism. Forex, someone who could reliably hit a standing target at
200 yards with an AK-47 and iron sights could equally reliably manage
head shots in melee at 7 yards, which is kind of odd.
This is one of the reasons I'm fond of D&D3e -- modifiers have an
absolutely flat effect.
>> The combat rules offer no mechanism for skirmish lines
>> forming.
>
> Most players don't use miniatures so this is not a problem of the
> system. As someone else pointed out, most games don't have rules for
> skirmish lines.
"Most players ignore the broken rules" does not mean the rules aren't
broken. :)
If the system goes to the trouble of providing rules for skirmish
combat, the rules better *work* or they're dead weight. What's really
aggravating is that GURPS's immediate ancestor, The Fantasy Trip, had
a very simple and effective rule for this, so SJ should have known
better.
>> Combats take far too little character time.
>
> Not really. Only fights between to characters of fairly equal skill
> should be long, and they usually are.
>> The invention rules are broken.
>
> How? Too easy? Too hard?
Both. Too hard for medium skill characters and too easy for high-skill
characters. It's that bell curve at work. (In this context medium
skill is 16-20.)
>> The skills are inconsistently wide or narrow -- there are some
>> hugely broad skills, like Physics, and some absurdly narrow skills
>> like No-Landing Extraction.
>
> NLE originated in GURPS Special Ops, where it needed to be specific.
> Physics, in most games, is not used that often (or not as important
> as other "conflict resolution" type skills). In a science-heavy
> game, there is no reason the GM can't require Physics
> specializations.
The trouble is that there's no system here -- some skills are narrow
and some are broad, and they are all priced the same way. It's only
historical accident that determines why some skills are broad and some
are narrow, and it means that some perfectly good character concepts
turn out to be bottomless point sinks.
You can tinker with the rules to fix this, but at some point the
effort to benefit ratio goes below 1.
>> The system for wealth is broken.
>
> How? Do you mean Poor characters who later earn a lot of money during
> play? The GM can rule that they have debts/obligations that drain most
> of their adventuring income. Temporary Wealth/Poverty is in Compendium
> I and only affects starting money.
No, the fact that specific wealth multipliers were burned into the
rules, and that prices don't seem to have been chosen with the wealth
levels described in mind. Sure prices can be changed, but it's a PITA.
>> The social skills and NPC reaction rules aren't really a
>> coherent subsystem.
>
> They're better than just about every other game system I've seen.
Your mileage obviously varies. The fact that social skills generally
didn't affect reaction rolls at all unless you had them at 20+ was a
definite oddity.
>> I'm sure it's possible that GURPS's strengths match what your group
>> does, but for me, I kept tripping over the weaknesses in the rules.
>
> You want to play grizzled rich physicists inventing weird
> technnology to help them in lengthy skirmish-level combat?
Heh, that's pretty funny. I was running secret agents in a
hard-sf/cyberpunk late-21st century, actually.
I think the problem was that I just kept running into corner cases in
the mechanics -- rules X and Y were okay by themselves, but in a
situation wherre both applied things got screwy. I still really like
GURPS sourcebooks though -- I have a couple of feet of them on my
shelf. Latest purchase: Kenneth Hite's _Cabal_. :)
Neel
Robert Scott Clark
>Since I slag GURPS pretty hard here, I want to preface the post with
>the standard disclaimer: this is just my experience, and if you have
>fun with GURPS, good for you. :)
>
>On 30 Aug 2001 13:26:18 -0700, Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>ne...@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote in message
>news:<slrn9oscnu...@brick.cswv.com>...
>>> On 30 Aug 2001 01:16:11 -0700, Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Would you care to list what you consider to be bad about it? I've
>>> > played it for about ten years and have found very little to complain
>>> > about.
>>>
>>> The point system is irretrievably broken.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>>
>>> No matter what your point budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly
>>> more powerful characters for fewer points. "Strictly more powerful"
>>> meaning "all skills, stats, and advantages are at the same level or
>>> higher, and disadvantages are fewer and/or lower level".
>>
>> Yes, this is an example of "min-maxing." A good GM will forbid such
>> characters or demand they be altered.
>
>No, it's not, not when you can run into the problem with PCs whose
>stat levels are in the 10-12 range and who have as few as 2 skills in
>the 13-15 range.
But it isn't a problem. It you have two ways of doing something,
don't be an idiot, choose the better one.
Any game system that allows any choice whatsoever will have the
posibility of making sub-par characters if a player really wants two -
in D&D a character with stats 15 15 15 10 10 10 could be a fine
fighter, or a really crappy mage.
>
>>> This produces pervasive, substantial distortions throughout the
>>> system.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Most players create balanced characters. You are
>> blaming an entire game system for
>>
>>> Lots of character types -- such as
>>> the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
>>> point budgets.
>>
>> The grizzled old vet is the only tough one I know of and he mainly
>> becomes a problem if he has a lot of physical skills.
>
>"A lot" of physical skills is 3 physical skills. The cost of 1 level
>of DX is 25 points max, and the cost of 1 level of a physical skill
>(after you hit DX+2 for Average difficulty skills) is 8 points. Any
>character with even a secondary focus in any kind of physical activity
>easily hit this limit.
But look at the points here, the first level that a stat costs 25 is
at 16 (I think, I don't have my books in front of me). What is that,
50 points into the stat, or 1/2 the starting points of a standard
GURPS character, and the levels of the skill pointes start at 1/2
point at stat -2 (or less)
So... your 8 points vs 25 points is false in most cases. More likely
it is 1 or 2 points to increase a skill vs 15 points to increase a
stat, and that is 7 skills, not 3.
And there is a point to being able to buy up many skills at once for a
cheaper price than the individual skills. 2 skills are not twice as
good as one skill. Being able to fight well with an axe and a sword
is not twice as good as fighting with a sword, as you will normally be
fighting with one or the other. Being able to sneak OR talk your way
out of something is not twice as good as being able to do one or the
other, because often either will get you out of the same jam.
Any game that tries to make an intelligent point buy system will have
groups of skills (especially closely related one) cost less than the
individual skills. In D&D, past a certain point it makes less sense
to take weapon proficiencies and more to take a level of fighter. In
champions you can learn a skill, a close skill group, a broad skill
group, or just get a bonus on all skills.
Colin Neilson
> >
> >Yes, which means it's actually good.
>
> GURPS is the only game system in existence where people buy the sourcebooks IN
> SPITE of the rule system. I don't think "good" and "GURPS" belong in the same
> sentence together, unless one or the other has been coupled with the word
> "not".
Not completly true. I often buy supplements for Palladium games even
though I can't stand the system. I also know a number of people that
play GURPS regularly and never play anything else. Still, you are
correct that it has no relationship to a classless D20 system, and I
personally don't care for the system much myself.
Colin
Joseph Michael Bay
>ne...@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote:
>>>ne...@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote in message
>>>> On 30 Aug 2001 01:16:11 -0700, Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> No matter what your point budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly
>>>> more powerful characters for fewer points. "Strictly more powerful"
>>>> meaning "all skills, stats, and advantages are at the same level or
>>>> higher, and disadvantages are fewer and/or lower level".
>>> Yes, this is an example of "min-maxing." A good GM will forbid such
>>> characters or demand they be altered.
>>No, it's not, not when you can run into the problem with PCs whose
>>stat levels are in the 10-12 range and who have as few as 2 skills in
>>the 13-15 range.
>But it isn't a problem. It you have two ways of doing something,
>don't be an idiot, choose the better one.
If you presume that two characters of equal point value should
be "equally capable" adventurers (whatever the hell *that* means),
the GURPS point system doesn't work. That's kind of a non-issue,
really, because you can't really make meaningful comparisons
between characters with different character concepts.
It's true, though, that there are more and less efficient ways
of spending points, and thus you could make two characters with
say a dozen mental skills, but one puts points into IQ and the
other doesn't, and although they each have "botany 14" or whatever,
the smarter one is built on fewer points. Same sort of thing
with Eidetic Memory. Ideally this wouldn't be the case if point
value represents "general competence" or something like that.
Of course, if a point represents a "nearly-meaningless place
holder" or only part of a character's ability it's not really
much of an issue.
Even so, it's not "broken" to the extent that it's unplayable.
You need to make good decisions in character creation, as Robert
points out. If, as the GM or GURU or whatever, you're designing
"appropriately powered opposition" based on the characters'
point value, you have to differentiate between a 100-point
mercenary and a 100-point librarian, don't you? So the point
total on its own isn't really a good power indicator.
--
Joe Bay
Stanford University
Department of Something or Other
Brandon Cope
> ne...@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote:
> >
> >The point system is irretrievably broken. No matter what your point
> >budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly more powerful characters for
>
> I've seen this said several times, and it's still incorrect. Here's
> what you do... Buy a high dex and int, put a few points in skills just
> like you would for a prodigy character, say "hey, this character is
> grizzled and old, and the high stats represent a broad experience with
> many skills, not high natural ability - I will voluntarily take
> penalties whenever pure stats would be more important than skill, even
> though I will get no points for limiting myself in this way."
Ah, no, this isn't really the best way to do it. The grizzled veteran
(GV) will have only moderately above-average attributes, 12-13 (IQ may
be a bit higher, though). Rather than sinking points into the higher
attributes (14-16) of a talented beginner (TB), he puts them into
skills. The one area where the GV will have trouble is physical
skills, because he's hit the 8/level mark faster than the TB. However,
he can compete fairly well in mental skills (Tactics, Area Knowledge,
Fast Talk, etc.) that the TB will frequently not have high levels in.
Hunter
wrote:
>ne...@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote:
>Any game that tries to make an intelligent point buy system will have
>groups of skills (especially closely related one) cost less than the
>individual skills. In D&D, past a certain point it makes less sense
>to take weapon proficiencies and more to take a level of fighter. In
>champions you can learn a skill, a close skill group, a broad skill
>group, or just get a bonus on all skills.
That is exactly what RMSS does.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>>But it isn't a problem. It you have two ways of doing something,
>>don't be an idiot, choose the better one.
>
>
>If you presume that two characters of equal point value should
>be "equally capable" adventurers
There, I only had to read one sentence. You already have a false
assumption. Why would it matter if two characters of equal point
value were approximately equal? What beneficial effect would that
provide during character creation?
The important effect of a point system is to allow two players given
the same number of points to build relatively equal characters.
These are two different things.
"two players with 100 points should be able to build characters with
relatively equal ability" <> "all possible combinations that add up
to 100 points should be relatively equal in terms of ability"
The first is the first step in balance. The second is absurd and
impossible for any system that allows any freedom whatsoever.
Glenn Olson
>tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote in message news:<20010829220047...@mb-mb.aol.com>...
>> Well, since I just got done blasting Matthias for cluelessness, I suppose it's
>> your turn for going in the opposite direction of foolish extremity: Class
>> systems are inherently superior to skill-based systems if you're looking for a
>> way to enforce archetypal character types.
>
>If you're looking for it, yes.
>
>> Class systems are also inherently
>> superior to skill-based systems if you're looking to speed up character
>> creation (and/or make character creation easier for new players).
>
>Not true. Many skill-based systems use templates to speed up character
>creation.
Which, oddly enough, can be used to enforce archetypal characters...
>I can't speak for D&D3; I haven't played it and don't plan to.
>However, after I first played a skill-based system (Traveller), I
>found class/level systems to be too restrictive.
Um...
You must be pretty bored then, hanging out in a newsgroup where most
of the conversation is about a class/level based system...
>> And, if this is the case, why would you *want* take the crutch away from them?
>> If I have a crippled friend who cannot walk without his crutches, I don't yank
>> them away from him and "expose" him as a gimp.
>
>This is a rather poor analogy. The crippled friend is unlikely to ever
>be able to walk if you take his crutches away; a poor roleplayer can
>only get better by being *forced* to roleplay.
I consider it a case of 'twisted ankle' - it'll heal in time. While
it's weak, crutches are a good idea; as it gets stronger, switch him
to a cane.
Or put up with him hobbling around till he gets better.
--
"I want to be pretty *and* kick butt"
- 19 y/o girl's reaction to Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4894-2001Jun14.html
Joe Rowe
> you were producing a product you wanted to brand with d20 and sell. If
> you don't plan on selling this game, then you can do anything you want
I'm aware of that, although I was just wandering if anyone else had some
homebrews for classless d20. It just seems that some people prefer it, and
less work for me thinking up x number of classes.
> (regarding character creation) since the d20 license does not apply to
> non-commercial ventures. You could call it d20, but it really wouldn't
> be since a d20 license will not be granted unless you go to the trouble
> of publishing it and petitioning for a license.
Sorry for the confusion, it seemed the easiesy way to imply I was using the
d20/OGL as the basis for the game, with a few "tweaks".
Joe.
Joe Rowe
> relative power levels. More points, more power. Give every player a
> fixed amount of points to begin with and they'll have PCs of about
> the same power level (depending on how they optimize). GURPS does
> this, and you can pervert White Wolf's character generation system
> into a purely ("freebie") point-based system. Oh, and Shadowrun offers
> a point-based character gen system in its Player's Companion as an
> alternative to the usual "priority" based system.
I guess so. Although I think levels give a greater APPEARANCE of
power/achievment...
Even Legend of Five Rings has Ranks, with its point based progression.
Perhaps a combination of Class/Level/Point based system, or do you think
that would just get confusing?
You reach Level x, upon spending x number of XP's/Progression Points?? And
this could further effect things like saves, etc.. a bit like WHFRP.. you
have to buy the advancments to complete a career/level??
> But you want to stick to d20, right?
Yeah, In all honesty I've read the D&D and SWars book, but havent played the
system yet, although it seems pretty "clean", being my reason for basing it
on d20.
> I'm just thinking about this, and Shadowrun might have something
> with its priority system. (If you're not familiar with SR) You
> assign priorities to each major area of character generation:
Fortunatley I am.
> Give or take a bit. Skill points and attribute points aren't
> interchangeable. Anyway, something like that may work in d20 with
> some thought. You, the DM, picks a set value for each level of
> priority in each area of character generation.
And in the companion they are even more configurable.
> For your d20 game, you have:
>
> Skills
> Feats
> Attributes
> Starting Equipment/Cash
> (no magic or race to worry about)
> What sounds good?
> *Raise skill by 1: Current skill level x 50 XP
> *Raise attribute by 1: Current attribute x 1000 XP
> *New feat: 10000 XP
Bit pricey ;) but that sounds like general/right idea.
Thanks Mike.
Joe.
Mike Miller
> You could call it d20, but it really wouldn't
> be since a d20 license will not be granted unless you go to the trouble
> of publishing it and petitioning for a license.
Wow, so formal.
Do you ever use house rules for, say, D&D, and still call it D&D?
A few tweaks to the rules hardly seems grounds for declaring the
invention of a totally new game.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller
> Even Legend of Five Rings has Ranks, with its point based progression.
> Perhaps a combination of Class/Level/Point based system, or do you think
> that would just get confusing?
Yes, confusing. Not insurmountable, maybe necessary.
> You reach Level x, upon spending x number of XP's/Progression Points?? And
> this could further effect things like saves, etc.. a bit like WHFRP.. you
> have to buy the advancments to complete a career/level??
I was thinking of the problem of trying to gauge appropriate threats
for classless, levelless PCs and was thinking of something I do for
my Shadowrun characters:
Keep a total of all the XP (karma) I've earned in addition to my
current amount.
With or without actually assigning levels to PCs, you can keep track
of all the XP they've earned and check their "level" against the
regular master level chart in the PHB. Useful for looking up critters
in a chart they can defeat.
This level might also provide a useful price multiplier for skill
costs, HP costs, BAB costs, etc.
Though - something I've noticed in SR - advanced equipment and money
are wonderful force equalizers between PCs and foes of differing levels.
(I hate it when my PCs I've been running for years get shot up by
some street punk with an SMG). An assault rifle or rocket launcher
should make a "1st level" PC dangerous to a 20th level PC. You might
not need levels as badly in your no-magic, futuristic setting for
scaling threats to the PCs' abilities.
> > What sounds good?
> > *Raise skill by 1: Current skill level x 50 XP
> > *Raise attribute by 1: Current attribute x 1000 XP
> > *New feat: 10000 XP
>
> Bit pricey ;) but that sounds like general/right idea.
Yes, pricey. First time guestimate for prices, but I didn't want
every PC buying 20 feats with their first 20K XP so I erred to the
side of caution. Thinking about this, you'd also need prices for
hit points, BAB, saving throws, etc since you might/will not have
levels to hand them out automatically.
>
> Thanks Mike.
Sure.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Jeff Heikkinen
> But, I'll give you a chance. What rule of GURPS did I need to change
> to do what I described? And I'm talking about a rule, not flavour
> text.
Um, the one that says when you have to make a roll against a given stat,
you roll against THAT STAT, not something else? That was the whole POINT
of your suggestion as I understood it.
Jeff Heikkinen
> Yes, this is an example of "min-maxing." A good GM will forbid such
> characters or demand they be altered.
IOW, by your own admission, no good GM will use the rules as written.
That's as good a definition of "broken" as I've ever heard.
> > Combats take far too little character time.
>
> Not really. Only fights between to characters of fairly equal skill
> should be long, and they usually are.
Here I must agree, assuming you want the realistic genre GURPS portrays.
People who favor D&D, however, don't necessarily consider that a
desirable goal.
Jeff Heikkinen
>
> Uh, you can't do that. The d20 system license defines that you must use
> level advancement and classes just like they defined or it's not really
> d20.
Ryan Dancey disagrees with you, and he invented the thing. You don't
have to use the WHOLE d20 ruleset.
On the other hand, note that you can't talk about character creation and
advancement, or even mention that character creation is possible. You can
describe the abilities of different levels of characters, yes, but you
can't say how one goes about getting from one level to another. So you
would have your work cut out for you trying to define an alternative to
the existing system. But in theory at least, not only don't you have to
use the existing experience system, you CAN'T.
Justin Bacon
>>> I will voluntarily take
>>>penalties whenever pure stats would be more important than skill, even
>>>though I will get no points for limiting myself in this way."
>>
>>IOW, you'll apply a patch to the broken rule system.
>>
>
>By doing what I described, you do not have to change a single solitary
>rule written in the book. All that is changed is the description -
>the special effect as it were - of the actual ability described by the
>points.
>
>But, I'll give you a chance. What rule of GURPS did I need to change
>to do what I described? And I'm talking about a rule, not flavour
>text.
Quoted. A penalty is not flavor text.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Matthias
Probably a little bit of both. :)
How did I do, Ron?
--
Matthias
xeno...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Frontier/5946
Justin Bacon
>: 1. The point system is supposed to provide for balanced characters.
>
>The Powers that be deny this.
Then they shouldn't have written that in their rulebook.
>: For example, if I wanted to use
>: GURPS to roleplay in the world of Robert Jordan's WHEEL OF TIME
><magic system>
>
>However, this is a poor example, IMHO. It is impossible to
>accurately model any arbitrary magic system that may come out
>after the game is published.
>
>"GURPS fails to do the impossible" is a poor criticism. ;)
You should've read my post before attempting to reply to it. What part of
"meta-system tools" did you fail to comprehend?
>: 4. GURPS has an over-reliance on attributes.
>
>You could say D&D has an over-reliance on level.
You failed to address the resultant inability to model grizzled veterans, for
example. D&D has no problem modeling grizzled veterans: Low stats, high level.
D&D has no problem modeling talented rookies: High stats, low level.
>: 5. The system is riddled with poorly designed artifacts: The lifting rules,
>for
>: example. The wealth system is another example.
>
>All systems have this. CR system anyone?
The CR system works *exactly* the way it is supposed to. If something works the
way it's supposed to, then its not poorly designed.
>: 6. Skills are not broken down in a consistent fashion.
>
>Much like D&D. Skill with a sword is a pile of feats and levels.
>Skill with a pen is a subset of single skill, despite its
>acknowledged superiority. ;)
But D&D is not attempting to be a generic game. Therefore, this is not a flaw
in D&D.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Jeff Heikkinen
associates.co.uk said...
> Thanks Mike,
>
> > To boil down my poor wit above: How do you know the original poster
> > was talking about publishing a classless/levelless d20 rather than
> > just looking for tested house rules to modify the game?
>
> Spot on, I have no intentions (as yet -- far too much work) of publishing
> the work i'm doing. Which is converting a friends old game to d20 (from a
> system of his own, using books from here and there).
>
> work)... being a "dark future" game set in 2050, post holocaust. I currently
> have 2 template classes: Martial and Academic, with perhaps profession
> routes for each class???
>
> Although the levels do give an easy method of scaling power levels, dont
> they? ;)
>
> > More on topic, I'd be interested in seeing a way of divorcing
> > classes and class levels from d20. I rather liked Justin Bacon's
> > preliminary suggestions.
>
> So did I... although I'm not quite sure about gauging power levels?
>
Perhaps something like Earthdawn's system would be useful to you, since
people keep bringing up a certain other FASA game with certain
similarities to it.
ED has classes and levels (though they aren't called that), but instead
of your level defining your skills, your skills define your level.
Skills in that system are actually called Talents and include things that
are represented in D&D by skills, feats, class abilities, and even your
hit dice and BAB, so it's a very broad concept. Your level in ED defines
which Talents you are *allowed* to take, and has very little other game
function other than a rough measure of overall power; each time you gain
a level, the list of Talents you can choose from grows by two to six.
To be a certain level, you simply need to get X different skills up to Y
level of proficiency, where both X and Y increase by 1 each time you
level up. The Talents you use to qualify must include at least one of the
new Talents that were added to your list last time you gained a level.
(If I remember correctly, to qualify for the second level you have to get
two ranks each in six of your Talents. ED Ranks are not directly
comparable to D&D skill ranks, so that's not quite so easy as it may
sound.)
I think some Talents have other prerequisites besides class and level
(ie other specific Talents), and know for a fact that some can be taken
at different levels by different classes. An extensive system of
prerequisites might allow you to have levels but no classes, while still
encouraging archetypal characters.
I haven't looked at my ED books in a long time, by the way, so the above
may contain inaccuracies, but I think it's all basically correct.
Matthias
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:10:33 +0100, "Joe Rowe"
><joe....@NOBLOODYSPAMwheatley-associates.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Does anyone have any ideas/concepts/etc for class/levelless d20, and how
>>progression, etc is handled.
>
>Why would you want to do that? d20 achieves a near-perfect balance between
>the traditional class/level system and infinite character customization.
>IM(H)O, Classless levelless systems are boring and generate bland vanilla
>characters.
I guess now I should post what I really think. :)
It doesn't matter how a character is generated by the game engine, so long
as it (a) generates characters with attributes that are appropriate to the
setting and genre and (b) is airtight as far as game balance is concerned.
I've played skill-based systems before, like Shadowrun and COC. They
accomplish what they set out to do, but in the simplest times, I find
comfort in the classes of D&D and other d20 games. Some might call it a
crutch to offset bad RP skills, but I see classes as a kind of "character
kindergarten" in which you give your character the very basics of
personality traits until it develops its own habits, quirks, as the game
develops. There are enough stereotypes within each class that not all
undeveloped members of a class necessarily behave the same. Not to sound
blasphemous, but the kits in 2nd Edition class splatbooks can be used as
inspiration in this regard, to provide the next step on the road to
uniqueness, not to enhance any character gamewise but as a focus for
character development. Not every rogue will be a thief, not every ranger a
Drizzt, not every wizard a Gandalf.
John Kim
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote:
>>: 4. GURPS has an over-reliance on attributes.
>>
>>You could say D&D has an over-reliance on level.
>
>You failed to address the resultant inability to model grizzled veterans,
>for example. D&D has no problem modeling grizzled veterans: Low stats,
>high level. D&D has no problem modeling talented rookies: High stats,
>low level.
This is utterly false. GURPS can model grizzled veterans by
exactly the same premise: low stats, high skills. Now, you could
correctly point out that the grizzled veteran in GURPS costs too many
points for what he is "really" worth. Thus, most GURPS players will
choose to play a talented rookie over a grizzled veteran because it
is more effective.
This same problem is true in D&D3, however. The point value
mechanic in D&D is Challenge Rating. For PC's and NPC's, CR is based
solely on level, ignoring stats entirely. Thus, a 7th level grizzled
veteran with low stats has exactly the same CR as a 7th level shining
hero with high stats. This just shows that the CR system is broken.
Just as in GURPS, players in D&D3 will try to take as high
stats as possible. The difference is that in GURPS, a player *can*
choose to play a character who is more skilled but less stat-heavy.
In D&D3, the player has no option to choose between a grizzled
veteran vs talented beginner. He *must* play a talented beginner.
If allowed to start out over 1st level, then he plays a talented
veteran -- but he cannot trade off stats and skills like he can
in GURPS.
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Justin Bacon
> This is utterly false. GURPS can model grizzled veterans by
>exactly the same premise: low stats, high skills. Now, you could
>correctly point out that the grizzled veteran in GURPS costs too many
>points for what he is "really" wort
Which was, in fact, what the argument was.
> This same problem is true in D&D3, however. The point value
>mechanic in D&D is Challenge Rating. For PC's and NPC's, CR is based
>solely on level, ignoring stats entirely. Thus, a 7th level grizzled
>veteran with low stats has exactly the same CR as a 7th level shining
>hero with high stats. This just shows that the CR system is broken.
You're mistaken. CR takes more into account than stats and skills. This is
explicitly detailed in the DMG -- re: equipment, resources, and adjusted CR/EL.
>In D&D3, the player has no option to choose between a grizzled
>veteran vs talented beginner. He *must* play a talented beginner.
>If allowed to start out over 1st level, then he plays a talented
>veteran -- but he cannot trade off stats and skills like he can
>in GURPS.
Let me say it again: D&D3 is not a generic game. D&D3 is designed for exactly
the type of play you describe. A game which does what it's designed to do is
not broken.
But the D&D3 engine for modeling characters does not limit you to the options
available for default PCs.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Martin Leslie Leuschen
<very hostilely - I'll try not to escalate>
: Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote:
: >: 1. The point system is supposed to provide for balanced characters.
: >
: >The Powers that be deny this.
: Then they shouldn't have written that in their rulebook.
I actually agree here - for people coming from many other
games, it is natural to assume that any 'cost' mechanism
is there to provide game balance.
However, failure to mention something that becomes obvious
fairly quickly is not a *huge* flaw.
Frex, D&D doesn't explicitly say that all spells of the
same are not power-balanced, and one initially assumes
they should be. They aren't. (One could argue about
how deliberate this is.)
: >: For example, if I wanted to use
: >: GURPS to roleplay in the world of Robert Jordan's WHEEL OF TIME
: ><magic system>
: >
: >However, this is a poor example, IMHO. It is impossible to
: >accurately model any arbitrary magic system that may come out
: >after the game is published.
: >
: >"GURPS fails to do the impossible" is a poor criticism. ;)
: You should've read my post before attempting to reply to it. What part of
: "meta-system tools" did you fail to comprehend?
Um, I did comprehend. That's the entire point of "It is
impossible to accurately model any arbitrary magic system
that may come out after the game is published." - magic
meta-systems fail. Either they are so general that you
have to do everything yourself, or they go into specifics
and you have to change those. If you want the very general
version, the 3d6 vs Skill, combat system, and ad/disad
system are a pretty good one.
In any case _GURPS Magic_ is not a meta-system tool at all,
but a very specific single magic system with spell lists.
It happens to be flexible enough that many people use it
more generally, but I don't see how you got the impression
that a book that is over 50% listings of specific spells is
a 'meta system.'
: >: 4. GURPS has an over-reliance on attributes.
: >
: >You could say D&D has an over-reliance on level.
: You failed to address the resultant inability to model grizzled veterans,
As another poster pointed out, modeling grizzled vets is no
problem at all. It is just more points.
: D&D has no problem modeling grizzled veterans: Low stats, high level.
More points vs. more levels is a poor showing for D&D.
In D&D starting out at higher level than your fellow
adventurers is rarely done. No one is a vet, or (if
starting at higher levels) everyone is. In GURPS putting
more points into skills is common.
In general, GURPS can model things much more easily
than D&D, with the exception of certain fantasy achetypes,
which are D&D's specialty. This makes sense, since
being able to model almost anything is GURPS' specialty.
: The CR system works *exactly* the way it is supposed to.
Sorry, but that's LOL funny. CR sort of works, but not
"*exactly* the way it is supposed to," unless it is *supposed*
to be a wildly inaccurate way of determining the challenge of
higher level encounters.
: >Much like D&D. Skill with a sword is a pile of feats and levels.
: >Skill with a pen is a subset of single skill, despite its
: >acknowledged superiority. ;)
: But D&D is not attempting to be a generic game. Therefore, this is not a flaw
: in D&D.
Right, D&D doesn't even try. GURPS does, and to a certain extent,
succeeds. Like a generic magic meta system, a perfect generic
skill meta-system is going to be impossible. Provide any
detail and things will have to be changed for specific uses.
Setting-books have to provide detail. Some things will have
to be changed.
GURPS has plenty of flaws. It's still a pretty good game.
D&D is in the same boat.
Regards,
martinl
Reginald
"John Kim" <jh...@cosmic.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote:
> > > : 4. GURPS has an over-reliance on attributes.
> > >
> > > You could say D&D has an over-reliance on level.
> >
> > You failed to address the resultant inability to model grizzled
> > veterans, for example. D&D has no problem modeling grizzled
> > veterans: Low stats, high level. D&D has no problem modeling
> > talented rookies: High stats, low level.
>
> This is utterly false. GURPS can model grizzled veterans by
> exactly the same premise: low stats, high skills. Now, you could
> correctly point out that the grizzled veteran in GURPS costs too many
> points for what he is "really" worth. Thus, most GURPS players will
> choose to play a talented rookie over a grizzled veteran because it
> is more effective.
>
> This same problem is true in D&D3, however. The point value
> mechanic in D&D is Challenge Rating. For PC's and NPC's, CR is based
> solely on level, ignoring stats entirely. Thus, a 7th level grizzled
> veteran with low stats has exactly the same CR as a 7th level shining
> hero with high stats. This just shows that the CR system is broken.
Since both are at 7th level, both are veterans. It just so happens that one
has a higher ability scores than the other. But high ability score is no
longer that important, unlike past editions AD&D, since the skills uses
skill rank.
I have seen cases where skill-based systems places high priority on ability
scores, so that it is efficient to have high ability scores that can affect
skill checks related or associated with that ability. Screw with improving
skill level.
> Just as in GURPS, players in D&D3 will try to take as high
> stats as possible. The difference is that in GURPS, a player *can*
> choose to play a character who is more skilled but less stat-heavy.
> In D&D3, the player has no option to choose between a grizzled
> veteran vs talented beginner. He *must* play a talented beginner.
> If allowed to start out over 1st level, then he plays a talented
> veteran -- but he cannot trade off stats and skills like he can
> in GURPS.
Must play a talented beginner? I have played in hundreds of D&D campaign
where I am mixed up with party of PCs of various levels. In 3e, the place
less emphasis on high ability score (and bonus) with regards to skills. This
was a good improvement over the failing nonweapon proficiency system of the
past.
John Kim
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>John H. Kim wrote:
>>In D&D3, the player has no option to choose between a grizzled
>>veteran vs talented beginner. He *must* play a talented beginner.
>>If allowed to start out over 1st level, then he plays a talented
>>veteran -- but he cannot trade off stats and skills like he can
>>in GURPS.
>
>Let me say it again: D&D3 is not a generic game. D&D3 is designed
>for exactly the type of play you describe. A game which does what
>it's designed to do is not broken.
Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. As I read it, you said
that GURPS could not handle grizzled veterans while D&D3 had no problem
with it -- which implied to me that you were judging the two systems
on the same standards.
Judged side-by-side, GURPS handles grizzled veterans better
than D&D3. In both games, you can trivially make a low-stat, high-skill
veteran as an NPC. In addition, GURPS also gives the option of making
such a character as a PC, albeit at a cost in effectiveness. D&D has
no such option.
I can accept that D&D wasn't intended to handle grizzled
veterans as PC's, and thus it isn't a flaw per se. However, it is
wrong to simultaneously say that GURPS "can't handle" grizzled veterans
while D&D3 has "no problem" with them.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>>
>> This same problem is true in D&D3, however. The point value
>> mechanic in D&D is Challenge Rating. For PC's and NPC's, CR is based
>> solely on level, ignoring stats entirely. Thus, a 7th level grizzled
>> veteran with low stats has exactly the same CR as a 7th level shining
>> hero with high stats. This just shows that the CR system is broken.
>
>You're mistaken. CR takes more into account than stats and skills.
>This is explicitly detailed in the DMG -- re: equipment, resources,
>and adjusted CR/EL.
Perhaps I missed something. Let me try a test case. I have a
4th level Fighter with 18 Str, 18 Dex, 18 Con, 13 Wis, 13 Int, 11 Cha.
I also have a 4th level Fighter with 11 in each ability. Give them
both the standard 1st level package of equipment, say. Now what are
their Challenge Ratings?
John Kim
Reginald <reg...@cchnl.com> wrote:
>"John Kim" <jh...@cosmic.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>> Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> You failed to address the resultant inability to model grizzled
>>> veterans, for example. D&D has no problem modeling grizzled
>>> veterans: Low stats, high level. D&D has no problem modeling
>>> talented rookies: High stats, low level.
>>
>> This is utterly false. GURPS can model grizzled veterans by
>> exactly the same premise: low stats, high skills.
>> For PC's and NPC's, CR is based solely on level, ignoring stats
>> entirely. Thus, a 7th level grizzled veteran with low stats has
>> exactly the same CR as a 7th level shining hero with high stats.
>
>that one has a higher ability scores than the other. But high ability
>score is no longer that important, unlike past editions AD&D, since
>the skills uses skill rank.
Well, I was comparing to GURPS, not to AD&D2. GURPS uses the
same basic stat/skill interaction as D&D3: i.e. you buy up skill rank
on individual skills, but a high stat adds to all skills based on
that stat. In D&D3, a high ability score is also important for
the Feats and spells which you get access to.
-*-*-*-
>
>I have seen cases where skill-based systems places high priority on
>ability scores, so that it is efficient to have high ability scores
>that can affect skill checks related or associated with that ability.
>Screw with improving skill level.
Well, this isn't really an issue with D&D3 because you have
very little option to improve your ability scores. 1 point (equal to
+0.5 modifier) every 4 levels doesn't go very far. GURPS is similar
in a way. In GURPS, you are encouraged to be a talented beginner at
the start, but after that you are encouraged to increase your skills
with experience. This is because stats cost double when raised with
XP, and also because stats have a rising cost.
The topic of the thread nominally is coming up with a
classless point system for D20/D&D, which would potentially lets you
trade off between being a low-stat veteran and a talented beginner.
Justin Bacon
> Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. As I read it, you said
>that GURPS could not handle grizzled veterans while D&D3 had no problem
>with it -- which implied to me that you were judging the two systems
>on the same standards.
D&D3 can, in fact, handle grizzled veterans. It can't handle using such
characters as beginning PCs (because you are supposed to start all new
characters at 1st level -- hence, low skills).
The specific problem here is not "GURPS can't do it" or "D&D3 can't do it" --
it's that GURPS can't do it without changing the rules by which you
build/develop characters (ie, changing the number of points). And, furthermore,
that GURPS is *supposed* to be able to handle grizzed veterans -- while
supposedly building characters of equal ability with the same point pool.
The problem is that GURPS doesn't do the things its supposed to do. This is not
the case with D&D3.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>: Then they shouldn't have written that in their rulebook.
>
>I actually agree here - for people coming from many other
>games, it is natural to assume that any 'cost' mechanism
>is there to provide game balance.
>
>However, failure to mention something that becomes obvious
>fairly quickly is not a *huge* flaw.
Uh, no. They don't "neglect to mention it" -- they state the exact opposite.
>In any case _GURPS Magic_ is not a meta-system tool at all,
>but a very specific single magic system with spell lists.
Uh, yes. That's the problem.
>It happens to be flexible enough that many people use it
>more generally, but I don't see how you got the impression
>that a book that is over 50% listings of specific spells is
>a 'meta system.'
I don't have the slightest clue why you refuse to read my messages before
responding to them: I said that GURPS did *not* employ a meta-system approach.
>: You failed to address the resultant inability to model grizzled veterans,
>
>As another poster pointed out, modeling grizzled vets is no
>problem at all. It is just more points.
IOW, the system is broken. Got it.
>: D&D has no problem modeling grizzled veterans: Low stats, high level.
>
>More points vs. more levels is a poor showing for D&D.
Levels are not points, moron.
>Sorry, but that's LOL funny. CR sort of works, but not
>"*exactly* the way it is supposed to," unless it is *supposed*
>to be a wildly inaccurate way of determining the challenge of
>higher level encounters.
You're going to have back this up with some actual facts.
>: But D&D is not attempting to be a generic game. Therefore, this is not a
flaw
>: in D&D.
>
>Right, D&D doesn't even try. GURPS does, and to a certain extent,
>succeeds.
Which is irrelevant. I don't even know how D&D3 got into this discussion. GURPS
is a broken, flawed system. Deal with it.
>Like a generic magic meta system, a perfect generic
>skill meta-system is going to be impossible.
The trick is to provide a skill system which doesn't make any value judgments
about what is and is not important. A generic game shouldn't be trying to make
those decisions. If anything, the generic game should be giving me OPTIONS --
not straitjackets. GURPS gives me straitjackets.
>GURPS has plenty of flaws. It's still a pretty good game.
>D&D is in the same boat.
Great. When you actually get around to pointing out an actual, substantive flaw
in D&D3, let me know.
JB
Ed Chauvin IV
You can use it, you just can't tell your players how it works. ;-)
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Robert Scott Clark
What on earth are you talking about now.
In GURPS, +1 IQ is +1 to all IQ based skills, +1 to willpower, and +1
to a couple of other things, the description that it represents the
character's reasoning ability, intelligence, whatever, is merely
flavor text - it has no bearing on the mechanics of the game.
You could easily redefine the stat to be "connection to the spirits of
the world which assist the character with certain skills and
abilities" and nothing within the game mechanics would need to be
changed.
>Justin Bacon
>tria...@aol.com
John Simpson
<bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <fs8sotgmt04k43f4u...@4ax.com>, John Simpson
><see...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >Lots of character types -- such as
>> >the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
>> >point budgets.
>>
>> Skills cost points, and must be paid for. If you're trying to
>> create the only grizzled old vet in the party, on the same budget,
>> you're going to have to give some advantages, or take more
>> disadvantages.
>
>The problem is that GURPS gives far too much for 1/2 point investment in
>a skill compared to what it gives for 8 points in that skill.
I hadn't noticed a problem with the
a-little-study-is-far-better-than-none approach. The no-default
skills such as piloting seem to take care of the situations where it
would strain the suspension of disbelief too far.
I suppose the fix is in how much training the GM mandates to reach
the eight-point level?
>> >The skills are inconsistently wide or narrow --
>> >there are some hugely broad skills, like Physics, and some absurdly
>> >narrow skills like No-Landing Extraction.
>>
>> These seem okay to me. The science of physics is probably of
>> limited use in most games, and is not as immediately practical as is,
>> say, No-Landing Extraction.
>
>The problem is that GURPS handles this breadth INCONSISTENTLY. There's
>no rhyme nor reason to how these are assigned. Thus, altering them
>becomes more of a chore.
I can believe that, but I also think that the varying utility of a
skill across myriad campaigns makes the alteration *necessary*. If
one is modeling an academic career, say, or a military training
program, and trying to be "realistic," then the training time becomes
far more important than point costs. And the point costs can, as
you've noted, be rearranged to suit the flavor of a campaign. That's
the GM's job.
A GM can make a character jump through all sorts of hoops before
allowing the spending of points to reach a certain skill level. This
seems a strength to me, rather than a weakness. The point-buy scheme
alone is far too simple to simulate the learning process. Before
complaining about the rules, one should chastise the GM who thinks
he's being realistic by merely allotting points.
--
Peace,
John Simpson
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
"A gentleman is a man who knows how to play the bagpipes, but chooses not to."
Bruce Grubb
cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott Clark) wrote:
>tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
>
>>Brandon Cope wrote:
>>>> Class systems are also inherently
>>>> superior to skill-based systems if you're looking to speed up character
>>>> creation (and/or make character creation easier for new players).
>>>
>>>Not true. Many skill-based systems use templates to speed up character
>>>creation.
>>
>>In which case they're template-based games, not skill-based games.
>
>Only if you are forced to choose a template.
>
>A skill based game with optional templates has all of the flexibility
>of a pure skill system with the ease of character creation of a class
>based game.
Correct. Templates are real easy to create if one has a good enough handle
one what is need. Look at my AD&D to GURPS converstion sheet
<http://members.aol.com/BruceG6069/ADnD_to_GURPS.html> the 'major' old AD&D
classes are there done as GURPS templates. Also unlike AD&D where slight
modification to a class resulted in the 'yet another bloody class' syndrome
it is far easier to teak a template.
Bruce Grubb
ne...@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote:
>On 30 Aug 2001 01:16:11 -0700, Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Would you care to list what you consider to be bad about it? I've
>> played it for about ten years and have found very little to complain
>> about.
>
>The point system is irretrievably broken. No matter what your point
>budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly more powerful characters for
>fewer points. "Strictly more powerful" meaning "all skills, stats, and
>advantages are at the same level or higher, and disadvantages are
>fewer and/or lower level".
Accully this is somewhat hard to pull of even withthe No disadvantage points
option out of the Compandium I.
>This produces pervasive, substantial
>distortions throughout the system. Lots of character types -- such as
>the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
>point budgets.
SInce a grizzles old vet would be full fledged hero matteral (150-200 pts) is
makes sence you cannot build one with the Hero potentual pt total (100 pt)
>In actual mechanics, the lifting rules are broken. So is the table for
>ranged attacks.
How so?
>The combat rules offer no mechanism for skirmish lines
>forming. Combats take far too little character time. The invention
>rules are broken.
I am not sure how these rules are messed up please explain.
>The skills are inconsistently wide or narrow --
>there are some hugely broad skills, like Physics, and some absurdly
>narrow skills like No-Landing Extraction.
I agree with this. Also the Compandium I wastes a lot of space on a bunch of
-1 disadvantages and needlessly compliates varients of one advantage (Magery
for example) when simple enhancements and limitations could have achieved the
same effect.
>The system for wealth is
>broken. The social skills and NPC reaction rules aren't really a
>coherent subsystem.
I agree the Wealth rules are totally FUBARed; Incanus' Color of Money article
<http://www.incanus.com/games/gurps/wealth.html> is a vast improvement.
Bruce Grubb
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <fs8sotgmt04k43f4u...@4ax.com>, John Simpson
><see...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >Lots of character types -- such as
>> >the grizzled old vet -- can't be created in GURPS on the standard
>> >point budgets.
>>
>> Skills cost points, and must be paid for. If you're trying to
>> create the only grizzled old vet in the party, on the same budget,
>> you're going to have to give some advantages, or take more
>> disadvantages.
>
>The problem is that GURPS gives far too much for 1/2 point investment in
>a skill compared to what it gives for 8 points in that skill.
This is not true as most skills have defaults: attribute-4 for Easy, -5 for
average, and -6 for hard to very hard. So to go from default to 1/2 point in
a skill improves the skill 3 steps (only 2 steps in the case of Mental VH
skills) while investing 8 points will improve the skill *4* steps.
>> Too little for what? I rather like the "nasty, brutish and short"
>> approach of GURPS, and generally prefer it to the minute-long rounds
>> of AD&D.
>
>I agree with you here to some extent. Combats tend to be very short
>from what I've read of people actually trying to kill each other.
>Bashing away for ten or twenty minutes isn't the way it happens.
This was a common problem in AD&D when even with magical weapons it took
forever to get the HPs doesn to the 'danger' lavel.
>> >The skills are inconsistently wide or narrow --
>> >there are some hugely broad skills, like Physics, and some absurdly
>> >narrow skills like No-Landing Extraction.
>>
>> These seem okay to me. The science of physics is probably of
>> limited use in most games, and is not as immediately practical as is,
>> say, No-Landing Extraction.
>
>The problem is that GURPS handles this breadth INCONSISTENTLY. There's
>no rhyme nor reason to how these are assigned. Thus, altering them
>becomes more of a chore.
I agree with which and the what the Compandium I handles varients of a common
advantage is not very intellegent either.
Bruce Grubb
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
>3. GURPS is a fairly solid ruleset when it comes to a fairly gritty realism and
>normal human power levels. It begins to fall apart rapidly outside of that
>range. (The utter mediocrity of GURPS Supers is an excellent example of this.)
Many GURPS players agree that Supers from a balance standpoint is SNAFU-FUBAR
Central. When compared to Magic knacks Super powers tend to be far cheaper
for the same ability. This means defence against said overly cheap power had
to be similarlly overlycheap. This is why DR is so insanely cheap compared
to Toughness.
It wonldn't have been as bad if not fore the fact that many of the Super
ability when straight into the Compandium I without any seeming effort to
balance the things.
>5. The system is riddled with poorly designed artifacts: The lifting rules, for
>example. The wealth system is another example.
The current Lifting rules came from guess where. You got it Supers. The
Wealth rule are admitedly messed up but not to the level AD&D epesically 1st
edition handled its wealth.
John Kim
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>Martin Leuschen wrote:
>> Sorry, but that's LOL funny. CR sort of works, but not "*exactly*
>> the way it is supposed to," unless it is *supposed* to be a wildly
>> inaccurate way of determining the challenge of higher level encounters.
>
>You're going to have back this up with some actual facts.
Well, I already gave a very clear example of this which you
ignored in your last answer. I will repeat it here, because it cuts
to the heart of the whole issue of talented beginner vs low-stat
grizzled veteran.
What is the Challenge Rating for a 6th-level Fighter with
18 Str, 18 Dex, 18 Con, 13 Int, 13 Wis, and 11 Cha? Now what is
the CR for a 6th-level Fighter with 11 in every ability? It is a
very simple question, and I think you should have to answer it before
you make any more comments about how "broken" the GURPS point system
is.
Reginald
"John Kim" <jh...@cosmic.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, I was comparing to GURPS, not to AD&D2. GURPS uses the
> same basic stat/skill interaction as D&D3: i.e. you buy up skill rank
> on individual skills, but a high stat adds to all skills based on
> that stat. In D&D3, a high ability score is also important for
> the Feats and spells which you get access to.
True, I grant you that, which is why in D&D3e they offered an increase of
ability score. It's up to a game publisher to also include such feature for
characters.
> > I have seen cases where skill-based systems places high priority on
> > ability scores, so that it is efficient to have high ability scores
> > that can affect skill checks related or associated with that ability.
> > Screw with improving skill level.
>
> Well, this isn't really an issue with D&D3 because you have
> very little option to improve your ability scores. 1 point (equal to
> +0.5 modifier) every 4 levels doesn't go very far. GURPS is similar
> in a way. In GURPS, you are encouraged to be a talented beginner at
> the start, but after that you are encouraged to increase your skills
> with experience. This is because stats cost double when raised with
> XP, and also because stats have a rising cost.
>
> The topic of the thread nominally is coming up with a
> classless point system for D20/D&D, which would potentially lets you
> trade off between being a low-stat veteran and a talented beginner.
No class, no problem (just make one generic class and offer different
background class skill packages the character can choose from). No level, it
may be a problem. You're going to need level to differentiate the experience
level of a veteran despite his low stat to a talented beginner who wish to
start off as an Ensign (Harry Kim).
Again, in a game like D&D3e everybody think they have to start at low level
(1st-level). You don't.
John Kim
[Re: GURPS]
>The point system is irretrievably broken. No matter what your point
>budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly more powerful characters for
>fewer points. "Strictly more powerful" meaning "all skills, stats, and
>advantages are at the same level or higher, and disadvantages are
>fewer and/or lower level".
Well, I don't particularly like GURPS and I certainly agree
that the point system has its flaws. However, I question your standards
here. The GURPS point system allows you to produce an enormous variety
of playable characters as PC's. Even if we stick to only characters
for the heroic fantasy genre, it easily allows a much greater variety
of characters as PC's than, say, D&D3.
You and Justin Bacon seem to be going off on some bizarre
philosophical argument that GURPS should be held up to some Platonic
ideal. It's a game... you play it for fun. The GURPS point system as
it stands produces a huge variety of PC's. Sure, a better system is
possible (I am partial to the HERO system, myself). But if you are
going to judge it, you need to compare it to other games - not to
some nonexistant ideal of what you think it should be.
John Kim
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>John Kim wrote:
>> As I read it, you said that GURPS could not handle grizzled veterans
>> while D&D3 had no problem with it -- which implied to me that you
>> were judging the two systems on the same standards.
>
>This is not the case with D&D3.
Well, this is getting off topic, but I find this attitude
bizarre. Personally, what I care about is what a game system *does*.
If a game is bland and mediocre, it doesn't matter whether the designer
intended it to be that way -- it is still a flaw in my book. What
I care about is how well the game functions in actual play.
i.e. I am using my pocket tool to cut wires. You say "Hey,
that pocket tool is broken" and hand me a wirecutter. After a bit,
I realize that my pocket tool worked better at cutting wires than
your wirecutter. You reply: "Well, yes, but the pocket tool is broken
because it is *supposed* to also tweeze body hair and doesn't work
for that." :-)
John Kim
>> point system for D20/D&D, which would potentially lets you trade
>> off between being a low-stat veteran and a talented beginner.
>
>No class, no problem (just make one generic class and offer different
>background class skill packages the character can choose from).
Hmm. By the usual rules, this would mean that all characters
are locked into the exact same progression of Base Attack Bonus,
saving throws, spellcasting, and other class abilities as each
other. (i.e. Either all characters of a given level have Sneak
Attack or none of them do.) This seems unplayable to me.
A point system needs to make BAB, saves, magic, and other
abilities into selectable choices. The simplest method is just to
assign a relative cost to them. i.e. When you go up a level, you
get a minimum of 2+Int skill points and 1d4+Con hit points.
You also get 100 character points to spend. +1 BAB costs 40,
a new Feat costs 30, up 1 hit die (d4->d6->d8->d10->d12) costs 6,
+1 Save costs 9, +1 skill point costs 4.
This also needs to give point costs and prerequisites for
special class powers like Sneak Attack, spellcasting, and so forth.
It is pretty non-trivial, IMO.
Glenn Olson
Clark) wrote:
>>If you presume that two characters of equal point value should
>>be "equally capable" adventurers
>
>There, I only had to read one sentence. You already have a false
>assumption. Why would it matter if two characters of equal point
>value were approximately equal? What beneficial effect would that
>provide during character creation?
It would reduce the penalties inflicted on those who favour character
concept over min/maxing the mechanics.
>The first is the first step in balance. The second is absurd and
>impossible for any system that allows any freedom whatsoever.
While I would agree, my answer to your question still stands.
IOW, I don't expect to achieve perfection but I see no reason to stop
at 'good enough.' (Of course, my complaint about GURPS has nothing to
do with this; mine is a bit more intangible, and admittedly very
petty. Which is why I've avoided this tangent.)
--
Can't tell one side from the other...
they're all jerks.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
anymore.
On 1 Sep 2001 07:03:48 GMT, John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>Neelakantan Krishnaswami <ne...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>[Re: GURPS]
>> The point system is irretrievably broken. No matter what your point
>> budget is, it's *easy* to create strictly more powerful characters for
>> fewer points. "Strictly more powerful" meaning "all skills, stats, and
>> advantages are at the same level or higher, and disadvantages are
>> fewer and/or lower level".
>
> Well, I don't particularly like GURPS and I certainly agree that the
> point system has its flaws. However, I question your standards
> here. The GURPS point system allows you to produce an enormous
> variety of playable characters as PC's. Even if we stick to only
> characters for the heroic fantasy genre, it easily allows a much
> greater variety of characters as PC's than, say, D&D3.
That's not why the point system is there. If it were, telling the
players "assign the stats you like" would let you do one better in
character diversity. The point system exists to balance characters, so
that two players can create equally adventure-worthy characters, and
so the GM can judge the quality of the opposition the PCs will face. I
dislike it, because it fails utterly in this regard. The D&D Challenge
Ratings work better, and these are numbers the game designers
literally pulled out of thin air.
To forestall your usual criticism, this is not idle theory -- I've
actually told the players to just make up some stats, and gotten more
diverse and better-balanced characters than when we used the point
system. As far as I'm concerned, the GURPS point build system is
simply a failure.
> You and Justin Bacon seem to be going off on some bizarre
> philosophical argument that GURPS should be held up to some Platonic
> ideal.
Nope. I'm relating problems I had with GURPS in actual play.
Neel
Martin Leslie Leuschen
Robert Scott Clark
>On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:52:49 GMT, cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott
>Clark) wrote:
>
>>>If you presume that two characters of equal point value should
>>>be "equally capable" adventurers
>>
>>There, I only had to read one sentence. You already have a false
>>assumption. Why would it matter if two characters of equal point
>>value were approximately equal? What beneficial effect would that
>>provide during character creation?
>
>It would reduce the penalties inflicted on those who favour character
>concept over min/maxing the mechanics.
I do not agree that it would have this effect.
If you like a concept, think of a concept. THEN, create that concept
as efficiently as possible with the points given.
Points have nothing to do with concepts and everything to do with
internal game mechanics. If you don't like dealing with things on the
mechanics level, then you should definately stick to games without
such a heavy investment in their use.
Lets pretend I am creating a very lucky gambler in a game. This
character is unlucky in everything else (love, being in the wrong
place at the wrong time, taking blind shots in the dark, whatever),
but is a very good gambler because of his luck rather than much skill
on his part.
Now I look at my system to build this character. It has a luck stat
that can be used to influence rolls (lets pretend points to spend on
re-rolls), and a gambling skill that determines how good a gambler the
character is (a direct skill roll). Giving the character a luck
attribute high enough that he could always be good at gambling would
be prohibatively expensive and would have the effect of making it
possible for him to be "lucky" at anything.
A more intelligent way to build the character would be to trash the
luck attribute, and pump lots of points into the gambling skill. The
mechanics of the character would fit the concept perfectly.
But some people would complain, "hey, but that character isn't lucky,
he's just really skilled at gambling."
If you happen to be one of the people that think that way and you are
DM/GM, then your players have my deepest sympathy.
This mindset is caused by people who confuse the word lables and
flavour descriptions with the actual game mechanics effects.
The above "luck" is more properly defined as "stat that allows points
to be spent for re-rells" no matter if the flavour description says
"how lucky the character is", "minor telepathic and psychokinetic
powers that enable subtle influence over the world", or "divine
guidance". If you have a character that would be best described by
the ability to re-rell dice, then buy "luck" and don't get hung up on
the description.
And likewise with the "skill" of gambling. If you need someone who is
good at gambling, but the skill higher and don't worry that the
default description for a "skill" is "something learned through
practice and training."
How the character is defined through the mechanics is totally
unimportant to the character concept, only the resulting ability is
important.
Ed Chauvin IV
That's funny. I don't only see one post by Drew Id in this thread, and it's
pretty tame. Definitely not plonkworthy. Not only that, your headers seem to
indicate that you were replying to one of Justin Bacon's posts.
BTW, make sure you wash your hands before eating. You don't want any of the
earwax to transfer from your fingers to your food.
John Kim
Neelakantan Krishnaswami <ne...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>>[Re: GURPS point system being "irretrievably broken"]
>> I question your standards here. The GURPS point system allows you
>> to produce an enormous variety of playable characters as PC's. Even
>> if we stick to only characters for the heroic fantasy genre, it
>> easily allows a much greater variety of characters as PC's than,
>> say, D&D3.
>
>That's not why the point system is there. If it were, telling the
>players "assign the stats you like" would let you do one better in
>character diversity. The point system exists to balance characters, so
>that two players can create equally adventure-worthy characters, and
>so the GM can judge the quality of the opposition the PCs will face.
The GURPS point system is not designed for rating the challenge
of opposition. I would think that is pretty obvious. The GURPS Bestiary
books do not list point totals for their creatures, and GURPS adventures
(as far as I have seen) do not list point totals for NPC's.
Moreover, it *does* produce balanced characters -- at least,
it produces a variety of balanced characters. Sure, not *all* PC's are
balanced and there are things it could do better. However, this is
an impossible goal. No mechanical system can do so.
My problem is that you have been comparing it only to systemless
play or some nebulous ideals. Comparing it to systemless play says
fairly little about the GURPS system in particular and more about
systemless play vs. rules-based play in general.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>I dislike it, because it fails utterly in this regard. The D&D Challenge
>Ratings work better, and these are numbers the game designers literally
>pulled out of thin air.
This is nonsense. The GURPS point system doesn't even apply
to most monsters, say (i.e. there is no way to produce a point total
even in theory). Moreover, I would say that in places where it is
used (i.e. NPC's) the GURPS point system is at least as good as the
D&D3 Challenge Rating. CR for NPC's ignores stats, skill, feats,
and spells in favor of simple level -- which is a lousy approximation,
IMO.
Jason Corley
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:52:49 GMT, cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott
> Clark) wrote:
>>>If you presume that two characters of equal point value should
>>>be "equally capable" adventurers
>>
>>There, I only had to read one sentence. You already have a false
>>assumption. Why would it matter if two characters of equal point
>>value were approximately equal? What beneficial effect would that
>>provide during character creation?
> It would reduce the penalties inflicted on those who favour character
> concept over min/maxing the mechanics.
Those who do prefer character concept over min/maxing the mechanics
usually *do not care* about those penalties. This is the unpleasant fact
which eats at the heart of every discussion about game balance - that many
players just could not care less about it.
--
***************************************************************************
"I was pleased to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't
know."----- Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_
Jason Corley | le...@aeonsociety.org | ICQ 41199011
Hunter
wrote:
Only for an NPC or a one shot. That method handicaps that character later. He
could never become as "skilled" as a low talent character.
A better way would be give the character an advantage of a bonus when playing
games of chance, and make it the same cost as buying that much skill.
>And likewise with the "skill" of gambling. If you need someone who is
>good at gambling, but the skill higher and don't worry that the
>default description for a "skill" is "something learned through
>practice and training."
Except when it comes to advancing. High skill usually means low progression.
A low skill high talent person should advance faster than a high skill average
talent person. In mechanics terms they both advance the same.
>How the character is defined through the mechanics is totally
>unimportant to the character concept, only the resulting ability is
>important.
The flaw in this is in improving the character. A gifted but unskilled person
should be able to improve faster than a normal skill person.
Robert Scott Clark
>>A more intelligent way to build the character would be to trash the
>>luck attribute, and pump lots of points into the gambling skill. The
>>mechanics of the character would fit the concept perfectly.
>
>Only for an NPC or a one shot. That method handicaps that character later. He
>could never become as "skilled" as a low talent character.
>
>A better way would be give the character an advantage of a bonus when playing
>games of chance, and make it the same cost as buying that much skill.
>
Seriously, what the living hell are you talking about? I cannot
respond to this post, because I do not understand what you are
suggesting. Are you talking about trying to get a point break in a
system with gradually increasing costs by buying up the same skill on
two different scales?
>>And likewise with the "skill" of gambling. If you need someone who is
>>good at gambling, but the skill higher and don't worry that the
>>default description for a "skill" is "something learned through
>>practice and training."
>
>Except when it comes to advancing. High skill usually means low progression.
>A low skill high talent person should advance faster than a high skill average
>talent person.
Wrong.
If the purpose of the points is to gauge relative power, then a
character with power level X should be buildable with X points.
If you are allowing a "talented" person to advance faster (ie with
fewer points) than a less talented person, then you have automatically
got a system where balance is totally and utterly impossible.
If you have points that are supposed to represent relative potential
power, then concepts like "learns faster" do not belong in the system
- you learn as fast as you gain points - the end.
>In mechanics terms they both advance the same.
Which is the way it should be if points represent balance.
>
>>How the character is defined through the mechanics is totally
>>unimportant to the character concept, only the resulting ability is
>>important.
>
>The flaw in this is in improving the character. A gifted but unskilled person
>should be able to improve faster than a normal skill person.
No, two players gaining with the same number of points per session
should increase the power of their characters at the same rate. If
you want one character to improve faster, give him more XP. (damn, I
wonder what the creation cost of "gets twice as much XP" is.)
Seriously, look at what you are saying. Your system could never
possibly in any world be balanced. If two characters start off
balanced, and one advances faster, then they will no longer be
balanced.
Justin Bacon
> What is the Challenge Rating for a 6th-level Fighter with
>18 Str, 18 Dex, 18 Con, 13 Int, 13 Wis, and 11 Cha? Now what is
>the CR for a 6th-level Fighter with 11 in every ability? It is a
>very simple question, and I think you should have to answer it before
>you make any more comments about how "broken" the GURPS point system
>is.
They're both CR 6. What's your point, John? Are you completely unaware of what
the CR system is meant to do?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>>>But, I'll give you a chance. What rule of GURPS did I need to change
>>>to do what I described? And I'm talking about a rule, not flavour
>>>text.
>>
>>Quoted. A penalty is not flavor text.
>
>What on earth are you talking about now.
Having a conversation like you is like talking to a shapeshifter -- you keep
changing. You siad, and I quote (again):
"I will voluntarily take penalties whenever pure stats would be more important
than skill, even though I will get no points for limiting myself in this way."
That is not flavor text (as you claimed). That is a modification of the rules.
IOW, a patch you have applied to the broken rule system.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
> You and Justin Bacon seem to be going off on some bizarre
>philosophical argument that GURPS should be held up to some Platonic
>ideal.
No, John. A rule is broken if it does not do what the designers state it is
supposed to do. The point system does not do what the designers state it is
supposed to do. Therefore, the point system is broken.
Ironically, you are the one who are attempting to hold *D&D* to some sort of
"Platonic ideal", instead of judging the rules based on whether or not they
accomplish what the designers wanted them to accomplish.
(Note, whether or not a rule is "broken" does not have any bearing on whether
or not a rule is "bad".)
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Robert Scott Clark
The point is that YES, he does know they are both CR6. And that a
system that rates the challenge presented by these two vastly and
incredibly different characters as being equal is flawed.
Robert Scott Clark
Points spent represent a maximum limitation on available power.
Voluntarily lowering a bonus is no different than choosing not to
spend all of your points.
The equivalent in D&D would be a player who wanted to create a fighter
that never learned to use edged weapons. You just make a fighter and
say "BTW, this guy doesn't know how to use edged weapons" That's not
changing the rules, that's choosing not to be an anal retentive ass.
Hunter
wrote:
>no_ad...@this.time.org (Hunter) wrote:
>
>
>>>A more intelligent way to build the character would be to trash the
>>>luck attribute, and pump lots of points into the gambling skill. The
>>>mechanics of the character would fit the concept perfectly.
>>
>>Only for an NPC or a one shot. That method handicaps that character later. He
>>could never become as "skilled" as a low talent character.
>>
>>A better way would be give the character an advantage of a bonus when playing
>>games of chance, and make it the same cost as buying that much skill.
>>
>
>Seriously, what the living hell are you talking about? I cannot
>respond to this post, because I do not understand what you are
>suggesting.
An advantage as in ad/disad. I just suggested that the cost be equivalent to
what that much skill would cost.
Are you talking about trying to get a point break in a
>system with gradually increasing costs by buying up the same skill on
>two different scales?
>
NO. I'm modeling an unskilled but lucky person. He is buying the skill only
on one scale, but his learning isn't penalized for being lucky.
>>>And likewise with the "skill" of gambling. If you need someone who is
>>>good at gambling, but the skill higher and don't worry that the
>>>default description for a "skill" is "something learned through
>>>practice and training."
>>
>>Except when it comes to advancing. High skill usually means low progression.
>>A low skill high talent person should advance faster than a high skill average
>>talent person.
>
>Wrong.
>
>If the purpose of the points is to gauge relative power, then a
>character with power level X should be buildable with X points.
>
>If you are allowing a "talented" person to advance faster (ie with
>fewer points) than a less talented person, then you have automatically
>got a system where balance is totally and utterly impossible.
Nope. I'm saying that 'natural talent' shouldn't penalize a person from
improving his skill as fast as an untalented person with the same amount of
skill.
>If you have points that are supposed to represent relative potential
>power, then concepts like "learns faster" do not belong in the system
>- you learn as fast as you gain points - the end.
Except that buying 1 level in a skill doesn't cost the same as buying the 9th
level.
>>In mechanics terms they both advance the same.
>
>Which is the way it should be if points represent balance.
Then the game is broken. If it doesn't model the character and character
advancement accurately.
>>
>>>How the character is defined through the mechanics is totally
>>>unimportant to the character concept, only the resulting ability is
>>>important.
>>
>>The flaw in this is in improving the character. A gifted but unskilled person
>>should be able to improve faster than a normal skill person.
>
>No, two players gaining with the same number of points per session
>should increase the power of their characters at the same rate. If
>you want one character to improve faster, give him more XP.
Wrong. There are two characters, both have +5 [1]at gambling, one from being
lucky (+4 to gambling) at games of chance and the other from pure skill.
Give both characters the same amount of XP, the lucky character should be able
to pay the cost as if he only had +1 in gambling, since the other 4 is not from
skill.
> (damn, I wonder what the creation cost of "gets twice as much XP" is.)
>
>Seriously, look at what you are saying. Your system could never
>possibly in any world be balanced. If two characters start off
>balanced, and one advances faster, then they will no longer be
>balanced.
Talented people gaining the same xp are not balanced. A talented beginner will
outpace a average veteran in RL if both start at the same "power level" and game
the same amount of xp. That is a fact of life.
[1] Or another break point where improving that skill would cost more than it
did to gain the last +.