Why is GURPS better than D&D?
Bruce Grubb
Trevor Hyde <Trevo...@mu.edu> wrote:
>"BOB!!" <en...@pinn.net> wrote in news:3BA04382...@pinn.net:
>> But any game system which purports to allow fantasy role-playing in the
>> swords and sorcery genre is inferior if it only fits one particular
>> concept of what a swords and sorcery genre is.
>
>That is a perfect distillation of a totally non-sensical argument.
>Can't you see how wrong that statement is? Many of the most
>atmospheric RPG systems are extremely limited in scope. Feng Shui,
>Call of Cthulu, Stormbringer, VtM, Paranoia, James Bond, Toon, etc.
But is D&D atmospheric? And there is nothign preventing GURPS form being
atmospheric as domonstrated by books like Steampunk and Horror.
>It is often an issue of bredth versus depth: GURPS allows lots of
>flexibility, but specialized systems are often better simulations
>of a particular environment.
TO a certain degree but there are some genre so wide (like SUperheroes) that
NO system has done it right across the board. Either the powerhouses are
fine but the Mystery Men are all SNAFUed or the Mystery Men are fine but
Powerhouses are FUBARed.
>Do you think that GURPS allows a simulation of any type of environment?
>Admittedly, it is an excellent system, but the mechanics still constrain
>what can be done with it.
Considering the Compandiums extend those mechanics to the point that much of
the Basic Set goes out the window espically in terms of combat this has been
a nonisuue since those books came out some 5 years ago.
>The combat system is deadly, which is more
>realistic than most systems. However, that is not a good simulation of
>lots of epic fantasy, where the hero is able to take on armies. Even
>with system kludges (500-point characters), it does not work as well
>as D&D for simulating such unreal worlds.
Accually if you use the relevent cinematic advantages and rules in the
Compandiums GURPS does as good if not a better job of it.
I go tot a lot of trouble to point this out in in my AD&D to GURPS convertion
sheet <http://members.aol.com/BruceG6069/ADnD_to_GURPS.html>:
AD&D levels & GURPS point levels
It is tempting to try and relate AD&D levels to GURPS point levels especially
since both systems define what an 'average' person is: 0 th level in AD&D and
25 pts in GURPS. There are three main problems with this idea.
First, beyond 150 points the type of rules (realistic or cinematic) used have
more of a bearing on the 'power' of GURPS characters than just the point
total. A 150 pt cinematic character will have access to abilities that would
allow them to run rings around a 200 pt realistic character.
Second, attributes play radically different roles in AD&D and GURPS. In GURPS
attributes are the foundation on which all other abilities like secondary
attributes (fatigue, perception, will) and skills (both combat and non
combat) are based or derived from; by contrast in AD&D most of these
abilities are determined by class and level with the attributes at best
serving as modifiers (which generally happen at 15+).
As a result there is a great incentive in AD&D to use one of the many
alternative attribute generation systems which are skewed toward the 14-18
end of the 3d6 curve to get the bonus modifiers. Converting such AD&D
characters even those of low level produces high point GURPS characters even
when adjusting for certain attributes which are better [and generally more
cheaply] represented as advantages.
Finally, and most importantly GURPS characters are far more variable in
skills than AD&D characters. This means that even 25-75 pts GURPS characters
can have certain skills at or beyond those of mid to high level AD&D
characters. It should be noted that by GURPS standards the skill levels of
even high level AD&D characters are quite reasonable.
[...]
AD&D Hit points
AD&D hit points represent in GURPS a whole host of advantages, skills, and
rules. A good rule of thumb here is that GURPS' standard 'realistic'
advantages, skills, and rules are suitable only up to about 3rd level AD&D
characters. For 4th level and beyond some of the cinematic advantages,
skills, and/or rules must be used.
'realistic' advs examples: High Pain Threshold, Increased Speed, Luck
(including Daredevil), Passive Defence, Resistant to Poison, and Temperature
Tolerance.
cinematic advs examples: Enhanced Block, Enhanced Dodge, and/or Enhanced
Parry, Hard to Kill, and Weapon Master
skills examples: Body Language ('realistic') and Blind Fighting (cinematic).
cinematic rules examples: Flesh Wound (B183) and Stun Damage (CII 151)
>I previously argued that
>the magic system is mechanistic, which is a poor fit in lots of fantasy
>worlds or gothic environments.
The one advantage is that D&D worlds regardless of the mechanics behind them
have is favors. Compared Forgotten Realms to GURPS Fantasy
<http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/yrth/>; Forgotten Realms is definitly has
more a a logical feel to it than Yrth does.
My main beef with Yrth in Fantasy 1st edition is that the attitudes of
Christanity and Islam are too 'modern' and there is no logical reasons
given for them to be like this.
Contrary to popular belief Christianity was fragmented long before Martin
Luther was even born. Instead of a Catholic-Protestant conflict there was
a Western-Eastern conflict. The Eastern or Byzantine Christians were
remarkable tolerant for their day, letting Jews, Muslims, and even
non-Christans to go about their buisness in relative peace as were their
Muslim contempories.
Into this relatively enlighted world came the intolerant Crusaders who
seemed to hate everybody else: Byzantine Christians, Jews, and especially
Muslims. In fighting the intolerant Crusaders for 200 years the Muslims
had become equally intolerant by 1250. It was a case of 'Fight the Dragon
too long and you become the Dragon.' with a vengence.
On Yrth there is no clear reason why such a conflict would continue as the
Holy Land that was the prize for the real crusades is not present and
nothing of that order is presented. There is little logic for the
intolerant form of Islam presented in GURPS Fantasy to exist nor that the
western form of Christianity would predominate. IMHO the more tolerant
Byzantine Christianity would be the one to flurish in a world with active
magic and real life intellegent beings other than humans.
>It seems like there is a lot of groupthink going on here. You get too
>many people together with the same opinion, and little contact with
>others of different opinions, and they become convinced that their
>opinions have some sort of objective truth to them. GURPS is a good
>system for some things, but it is not perfect. Maybe you should post
>the above quoted line to another RPG newsgroup, like one devoted to
>D&D or the White Wolf system.
Just remeber you *did* suggest the crossposting. :-)
HADSIL
right.
Gerald Katz
Twin Towers forever!
Seraph
HADSIL <had...@cs.comtowers> wrote in message
news:20010914025017...@mb-cb.news.cs.com...
| You need something to put under the game table should the legs be just
not
| right.
Do you suggest using GURPS or D&D for this purpose? (Or possibly a copy of
F.A.T.A.L. ?) :)
~Seraph
He who has more possessions than he can use,
deprives someone who could use them well.
- Lao Tzu
Hong Ooi
_de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
where TSR was born.
--
Hong Ooi | "From Webster's Third International
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | Unabridged Dictionary: gullible (adj)
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | easily deceived or cheated: readily
Canberra, Australia | duped" -- JR
Buzz
> GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
> _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
> where TSR was born.
*Wisconsin*
In what rulebook does the subject of Pi come up?
(And is there such a ruling? Why would Congress [federal gov] make a
ruling about Indiana/Wisconsin [state gov]?)
Or have I been trolled? :)
---
"We are on the verge of unzipping the secrets of creation and peering into
the pants of God Himself."
buzz[at]enteract[dot]com
->http://www.bhtch.com
-->http://www.secular-johnson.org
Clangador
>_de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
>where TSR was born.
Is this humor?
~Clangador
-=[----------------------------=-
| Quote: "Never look a gift squid in the beak."
| Krossplanes Used Books & Games
| http://krossplanes.com/store.htm
-=[----------------------------=-
Scott Baxter
Buzz wrote:
>
> In rec.games.frp.dnd Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
> > _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
> > where TSR was born.
>
> *Wisconsin*
>
> In what rulebook does the subject of Pi come up?
>
> (And is there such a ruling? Why would Congress [federal gov] make a
> ruling about Indiana/Wisconsin [state gov]?)
In 1897, part of the Indiana Legislature passed a bill that was
basically a bunch of mathematical crackpottery, which if taken to its
logical conclusion implied that pi=3. They actually did so because a
crackpot posing as a mathematician (hey, it's often not a long stretch)
had told his representative that he'd made a wonderful discovery, and
that if Indiana passed it into law Indiana textbooks could publish it
for free where all other textbooks would have to pay royalties. The
House, apparently not understanding the bill but liking the idea of free
stuff, passed it.
However, Indiana has a bicameral legislature. At least one actual
mathematician had found out what was going on when the House bill passed
third reading. It was kicked up to the Senate, who basically treated it
as a joke (it was referred to the Committee on Temperance, for example,
who approved it). A Senator Hubbell moved that the bill be indefinitely
postponed since it was costing the Senate the huge sum of $250 a day to
joke about it, and the motion carried.
So pi = 3 wasn't enacted in Indiana, Wisconsin, or anywhere else. But it
makes a fun story at parties. Well, math parties.
--
Scott Baxter
"listen:there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's go"
- e. e. cummings
Blackstar Deittrich
"Buzz" <bu...@shell-2.enteract.com> wrote in message
news:9ntajk$rcv$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Directly? Never.
BUT, in the D&D 3E rules, fractions and decimals do not exist, only whole
numbers.
And somehow, in violation of standard mathematical practice, all results are
rounded down, instead of .5 or up being rounded up.
Therefore, in 3E D&D, PI, which usually equals 3.14........ only equals 3.
Bryan J. Maloney
<scott....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> In 1897, part of the Indiana Legislature passed a bill that was
> basically a bunch of mathematical crackpottery, which if taken to its
> logical conclusion implied that pi=3. They actually did so because a
> crackpot posing as a mathematician (hey, it's often not a long stretch)
> had told his representative that he'd made a wonderful discovery, and
> that if Indiana passed it into law Indiana textbooks could publish it
> for free where all other textbooks would have to pay royalties. The
> House, apparently not understanding the bill but liking the idea of free
> stuff, passed it.
>
> However, Indiana has a bicameral legislature. At least one actual
> mathematician had found out what was going on when the House bill passed
> third reading. It was kicked up to the Senate, who basically treated it
> as a joke (it was referred to the Committee on Temperance, for example,
> who approved it). A Senator Hubbell moved that the bill be indefinitely
> postponed since it was costing the Senate the huge sum of $250 a day to
> joke about it, and the motion carried.
>
> So pi = 3 wasn't enacted in Indiana, Wisconsin, or anywhere else. But it
> makes a fun story at parties. Well, math parties.
I'm astonished. Somebody else on this planet knows the truth about
this...
--
"A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right."
Bryan J. Maloney
<hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
> _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
> where TSR was born.
I cannot believe that all Australians are as ignorant as you are.
There is no Congress in the state of Indiana.
The Indiana state legislature (which is not Congress) never enacted any
such bill. It was proposed but defeated.
TSR originated in Wisconsin.
I'm from the USA and I can tell New South Wales from Queensland, from
any of your other states.
Gordon
news:3BA2434D...@sympatico.ca...
Hey, no fair. If you're actually going to include facts, where's the fun?
--
Gordon
"I have as much authority as the Pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."
Peter
Blackstar Deittrich wrote:
> And somehow, in violation of standard mathematical practice, all results are
> rounded down, instead of .5 or up being rounded up.
>
> Therefore, in 3E D&D, PI, which usually equals 3.14........ only equals 3.
Are you REALLY that anal ? It's just a game, don't get some up tight
about the once in a million time you'd need to know pi for some sort of
ruling. If you bog down your games with such technicalities, it must be
terribly boring for your players.
--
Visit my Starwars Online RPG website
http://www.geocities.com/the_g8kpr
Check out the poll, and sign the guestbook
Blackstar Deittrich
"Peter" <pdf...@ca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:3BA2688C...@ca.inter.net...
Goddamn you are stupid, follow the message up to what is was a response to.
I was explaining the joke from a D&D 3E point of view, as opposed to the
bizarre legislation point of view presented by another
Fitz
<bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <q6t3qtsic73lu0per...@4ax.com>, Hong Ooi
><hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
>> _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
>> where TSR was born.
>
>I cannot believe that all Australians are as ignorant as you are.
>
>There is no Congress in the state of Indiana.
There isn't? Poor people. How do they get babies? Some kind of
state-mandated artificial insemination?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fitz
http://mojobob.netnet.net.nz
http://fitz.jsr.com
http://usa.spis.co.nz/fitz
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bryan J. Maloney
<pdf...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
> Are you REALLY that anal ? It's just a game, don't get some up tight
> about the once in a million time you'd need to know pi for some sort of
> ruling. If you bog down your games with such technicalities, it must be
> terribly boring for your players.
It's very important if a wizard pisses off the Queen of the Faeries and
demands that he sing pi.
(My players fear the way I run Faeries. It's funny, but it's scary.)
lizard
>
> HADSIL <had...@cs.comtowers> wrote in message
> news:20010914025017...@mb-cb.news.cs.com...
> | You need something to put under the game table should the legs be just
> not
> | right.
>
> Do you suggest using GURPS or D&D for this purpose? (Or possibly a copy of
> F.A.T.A.L. ?) :)
>
Robert A. Uhl
<bdeit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> And somehow, in violation of standard mathematical practice, all results are
> rounded down, instead of .5 or up being rounded up.
Isn't there an odd form of rounding used in accounts in which .1-.4
are rounded down, .6-.9 rounded up and .5 rounded up or down,
depending on the evenness/oddness of the resulting number?
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural, fundamental,
and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right
(within the limits of the Non-Aggression Principle) to obtain, own,
and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon--handgun, shotgun, rifle,
machinegun, anything--any time, anywhere, without asking anyone's
permission. --L. Neil Smith
Gordon
news:bjm10-77D167....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <q6t3qtsic73lu0per...@4ax.com>, Hong Ooi
> <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
> > _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
> > where TSR was born.
>
> I cannot believe that all Australians are as ignorant as you are.
>
> There is no Congress in the state of Indiana.
Where do little Indianans come from, then?
--
Gordon
"You see, when one Hoosier loves another Hoosier *very* much... "
Hong Ooi
>In rec.games.frp.dnd Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
>> _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
>> where TSR was born.
>
>*Wisconsin*
My mistake, sorry. It was an act of Congress in Wisconsin, as you say. I
find this easy to believe, given how Vice-President Dan Quayle came from
Wisconsin.
>
>In what rulebook does the subject of Pi come up?
Blackstar Diettrich (if that is his REAL NAME) explained this very
succinctly. There are no fractions in D&D, because it is against the law.
>
>(And is there such a ruling? Why would Congress [federal gov] make a
>ruling about Indiana/Wisconsin [state gov]?)
>
>Or have I been trolled? :)
Heavens above! Would I do that? Please let me reassure you that I always
check my facts before posting nonsense to UNsenet.
Jim Davies
Can you give some examples of just how bad this game is? Or would that
make your furniture dangerously unstable?
-
Jim Davies
----------
Mind your manners, son! I've got a tall pointy hat!
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>In article <q6t3qtsic73lu0per...@4ax.com>, Hong Ooi
><hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
>> _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
>> where TSR was born.
>
>I cannot believe that all Australians are as ignorant as you are.
Excuse me, Bryan "PQQterzebie" Maloney. Please stop claiming that
Australians are ignorant! You do not want me to PLQNK you, do you?
>
>There is no Congress in the state of Indiana.
Sorry, it was a Parliament. My mistake.
>
>The Indiana state legislature (which is not Congress) never enacted any
>such bill. It was proposed but defeated.
I think not. If you check the annals of the Indiana Congress, I think you
will find NO ACT OF PARLIAMENT defeating that bill. And please, no jokes
about annal congress. ThaADVANCEnks!
>
>TSR originated in Wisconsin.
Which is the capital of Indiana. THANK YOU THANK YOU. I WIN.
>
>
>I'm from the USA and I can tell New South Wales from Queensland, from
>any of your other states.
Suure, but that's EASY! Everyone knows that Queenslanders are from a
different planet. Now can you tell the difference between the state of New
South Wales, and the state of ACT? I BET YOU CAN'T!
Hong "HAW HAW!" Ooi
Hong Ooi
>"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:bjm10-77D167....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> In article <q6t3qtsic73lu0per...@4ax.com>, Hong Ooi
>> <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> > GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
>> > _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
>> > where TSR was born.
>>
>> I cannot believe that all Australians are as ignorant as you are.
>>
>> There is no Congress in the state of Indiana.
>
>Where do little Indianans come from, then?
I always thought that the term for such people was "Indians". And the
supporters of that famous baseball team from Indiana, the Chicago Red Sox,
are known as "Red Indians".
Hong "nice people, pity they keep insisting that Pi is 3" Ooi
Bruce Grubb
"Blackstar Deittrich" <bdeit...@aol.com> wrote:
Accually x.5 is normally rounded to the nearest *even* number ie 1.5 and 2.5
both round to 2. In terms of game mechanics that are good reasons to always
round down - it reduces the kind of point fiddling one saw in Champains 3rd
edition.
dave brohman & shoshana bir
--
RPG author: Secrets & Societies, Creature Collection II,
Vigil Watch: Warrens of the Ratmen, Relics & Rituals
Check these out at: http://www.swordsorcery.com/
Detryxtyr
>>> _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
>>> where TSR was born.
>>
>>*Wisconsin*
>
>My mistake, sorry. It was an act of Congress in Wisconsin, as you say. I
>find this easy to believe, given how Vice-President Dan Quayle came from
>Wisconsin.
>
>
was from Indiana.
I would recommend you get your facts straight.
Captain Geek
Scott Baxter
> BUT, in the D&D 3E rules, fractions and decimals do not exist, only whole
> numbers.
>
> And somehow, in violation of standard mathematical practice, all results are
> rounded down, instead of .5 or up being rounded up.
>
> Therefore, in 3E D&D, PI, which usually equals 3.14........ only equals 3.
That would be cool if it were true, but sadly it's not. Rounding
fractions down is just a general guideline applying to some of the
division resulting from the rules (you don't round fractional skill
ranks spent on cross-class skills, for example) rather than an
all-encompassing rule for all fractions. Nice try, but you'll need to
read the rules a bit more closely to get a Murphy's Rules-worthy story
out of it.
David DeLaney
Before posting nonsense to Usenet? I highly recommend it.
Dave "I always do" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Die Spammers, Die!
Surely, that hideous abomination that is Fantasy Wargaming surpasses all
in the competition for Top Table Leveler.
--
Mike Cantrell
Credat Judaeus Apella.
hikaru
"dave brohman & shoshana bir" <shosh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BA2C21A...@sympatico.ca...
> It isn't.
>
> --
It is... sometimes.
D&D is excellent for high fantasy roleplay.its also good for first timers,
especially 3e.The learning curve, raising of abilities relatively quickly,
and ease of skills , makes it a nice beginners game.
However,GURPS is *the* finest rpg product for futuristic roleplay (their
cyberpunk, ultratech 1&2, and biotech sourcebooks are bar none the best
researched books of their kind in existence), and is probably the best for
modern or real world role play .their historical source books are
excellent,and the spec ops/black ops/espionage sourcebooks allow excellent
low violence , high action james bond spy games. And, despite the inheirent
problems with any superhero rpg, the only supers rpg *possiby* better then
GURPS supers is BESM.
GURPS is the *only* system to use in a time travel/parellel universe
(sliders) campaign. The compatibility of the rules with any genre, time, or
tech is awesome.
GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
Yes, it can be a bit complicated (the rule book for vehicle creation is
actually as big as the basic rulebook), but there are options for increasing
or decreasing the details at the GMs discretion.
I love both systems, Im GMing a D&D game right now. But for ultratech ( I am
sorta well known for my cyberpunk games I GM), I use nothing but GURPS.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Trav
hik...@rfci.diespamdie.net
11/Sept/01: Never forget. Never forgive.
dave brohman & shoshana bir
>
> "dave brohman & shoshana bir" <shosh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3BA2C21A...@sympatico.ca...
> > It isn't.
>
> D&D is excellent for high fantasy roleplay.its also good for first timers,
> especially 3e.The learning curve, raising of abilities relatively quickly,
> and ease of skills , makes it a nice beginners game.
> However,GURPS is *the* finest rpg product for futuristic roleplay (their
> cyberpunk,
YYMV. GURPS Cyberpunk is, bar none, the worst RPG supplement ever
made IMO.
> GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
In GRUPS, EVERYTHING can kill you. ;)
> Yes, it can be a bit complicated (the rule book for vehicle creation is
> actually as big as the basic rulebook), but there are options for increasing
> or decreasing the details at the GMs discretion.
> I love both systems, Im GMing a D&D game right now. But for ultratech ( I am
> sorta well known for my cyberpunk games I GM), I use nothing but GURPS.
Our group has played GURPS for well more than 10 years and yet we
keep coming back to good ol' D&D. Strangely enough, we found GURPS
too limiting.
> 11/Sept/01: Never forget. Never forgive.
Amen brother. Amen.
Bruce Grubb
"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote:
>"dave brohman & shoshana bir" <shosh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:3BA2C21A...@sympatico.ca...
>> It isn't.
>>
>> --
>
>It is... sometimes.
>D&D is excellent for high fantasy roleplay.its also good for first timers,
>especially 3e.The learning curve, raising of abilities relatively quickly,
>and ease of skills , makes it a nice beginners game.
>However,GURPS is *the* finest rpg product for futuristic roleplay (their
>cyberpunk, ultratech 1&2, and biotech sourcebooks are bar none the best
>researched books of their kind in existence), and is probably the best for
>modern or real world role play .their historical source books are
>excellent,and the spec ops/black ops/espionage sourcebooks allow excellent
>low violence , high action james bond spy games. And, despite the inheirent
>problems with any superhero rpg, the only supers rpg *possiby* better then
>GURPS supers is BESM.
>GURPS is the *only* system to use in a time travel/parellel universe
>(sliders) campaign. The compatibility of the rules with any genre, time, or
>tech is awesome.
>
>GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
GURPS also has 'cinematic rules' which allow the GM to tweek the deadlyness
factor. Another factor of GURPS is that the 'gerne' worldbooks (Like Magic,
Religion, and Spirits) are easily adaptible to other game systems. We fore
example did not like how AD&D1 did magic and so modified GURPS Fantasy Magic
1st ed so mages had an alternative.
>Yes, it can be a bit complicated (the rule book for vehicle creation is
>actually as big as the basic rulebook), but there are options for increasing
>or decreasing the details at the GMs discretion.
>I love both systems, Im GMing a D&D game right now. But for ultratech ( I am
>sorta well known for my cyberpunk games I GM), I use nothing but GURPS.
GURS also has a flexablity that can give other games a good old shot in the
arm.
Chuang Shyue Chou
> Our group has played GURPS for well more than 10 years and yet we
> keep coming back to good ol' D&D. Strangely enough, we found GURPS
> too limiting.
May I know why you would continue to play GURPS for more than ten years if
you find it limiting?
Mad Hamish
<hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote:
>
>"dave brohman & shoshana bir" <shosh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:3BA2C21A...@sympatico.ca...
>> It isn't.
>>
>> --
>
>It is... sometimes.
>D&D is excellent for high fantasy roleplay.its also good for first timers,
>especially 3e.The learning curve, raising of abilities relatively quickly,
>and ease of skills , makes it a nice beginners game.
>However,GURPS is *the* finest rpg product for futuristic roleplay (their
>cyberpunk, ultratech 1&2, and biotech sourcebooks are bar none the best
>researched books of their kind in existence),
and does that make it the most playable or best choice for the
atmosphere that is desired for a particular setting?
>and is probably the best for modern or real world role play
again, depends upon what you are doing.
>.their historical source books are
>excellent,and the spec ops/black ops/espionage sourcebooks allow excellent
>low violence , high action james bond spy games.
If you like the GURPS approach and approaches.
> And, despite the inheirent
>problems with any superhero rpg, the only supers rpg *possiby* better then
>GURPS supers is BESM.
Opinion. Based upon the posting on the supers newsgroups Champions is
the most popular....
I've read that the guy who actually wrote the GURPS supers rules
reckoned that they were failures but under the GURPS system they were
always going to be failures...
>GURPS is the *only* system to use in a time travel/parellel universe
>(sliders) campaign. The compatibility of the rules with any genre, time, or
>tech is awesome.
Gurps or Hero system would probably be the choices here.
I'd probably actually go for Hero System.
Of course you could use a diceless system, TORG, Amazing Engine...
depends, again, on what you're trying to cover.
>
>GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
and that is not appropriate for all Genres or all games.
>
>Yes, it can be a bit complicated (the rule book for vehicle creation is
>actually as big as the basic rulebook), but there are options for increasing
>or decreasing the details at the GMs discretion.
>I love both systems, Im GMing a D&D game right now. But for ultratech ( I am
>sorta well known for my cyberpunk games I GM), I use nothing but GURPS.
I'd say it's probably fair enough for some genres of science fiction.
I'd say it'd be complete wrong for Space Opera (e.g. Star Wars, I
haven't looked at GURPS Lensmen - I do intend to - but I'd be amazed
if it got the feeling of the series of books with the GURPS engine)
Jim Davies
>And, despite the inheirent
>problems with any superhero rpg, the only supers rpg *possiby* better then
>GURPS supers is BESM.
No way...if there's one thing GURPS doesn't work for, it's Supers.
It's far too gritty, and the power levels get completely screwed up.
I've only got 1st ed Supers, which is not much good. Apparently 2nd ed
is better, but still not good enough.
>GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
Which is one reason why it doesn't work for supers.
If you want to play GURPS Supers, play Champions instead.
dave brohman & shoshana bir
The GM often in charge of running games prefered it for some things.
We have played many gmaes over the years, some more than others, for
various reasons.
Cross-platform sourcebooks.
We used a *LOT* of house rules.
We were bored with D&D at the time.
Several new players joined (at various times) who were familiar with
GURPS.
We knew some GURPS supplement authors and wanted to support our mates.
One guy wouldn't play anything else.
dave brohman & shoshana bir
>
> "hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> typed:
>
> >And, despite the inheirent
> >problems with any superhero rpg, the only supers rpg *possiby* better then
> >GURPS supers is BESM.
>
> No way...if there's one thing GURPS doesn't work for, it's Supers.
> It's far too gritty, and the power levels get completely screwed up.
> I've only got 1st ed Supers, which is not much good. Apparently 2nd ed
> is better, but still not good enough.
>
> >GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
>
> Which is one reason why it doesn't work for supers.
>
> If you want to play GURPS Supers, play Champions instead.
The onlsy systedm I've ever seen that was good for a Supers game
was MArvel Superheroes. It threw all sense of realism out the window
and went way over the top, exactly where supers should be.
Arthur Samuels
news:sqt7qts6vecmu9n8k...@4ax.com...
> If you want to play GURPS Supers, play Champions instead.
For four-color comic-book style gaming, absolutely. However, GURPS works
great for realistic, down-and-dirty supers settings like Wild Cards, where
getting punched by Golden Boy WILL kill you. The only thing that saved
Demise when he got belted around by Golden Boy was his regenerative powers -
which didn't manage to save him when Mackie Messer chopped off his head.
- Arthur
Blackstar Deittrich
"Arthur Samuels" <arth...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:aL7p7.1070$D95.4...@news.uswest.net...
series was just too short...
One of the few series I've really enjoyed beyond 3 or 4 books, even Joel
Rosenberg's Guardians Of the Flame is starting to I dunno... drag.. the old
magic isn't there anymore
Clifford A. Anderson
news:q6t3qtsic73lu0per...@4ax.com...
> GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
> _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
> where TSR was born.
Now THAT'S some hard logic to beat! heheheheheheheh.
Clifford A. Anderson
news:bjm10-77D167....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <q6t3qtsic73lu0per...@4ax.com>, Hong Ooi
> <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > _de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
> > where TSR was born.
>
>
>
> The Indiana state legislature (which is not Congress) never enacted any
> such bill. It was proposed but defeated.
>
>
>
> I'm from the USA and I can tell New South Wales from Queensland, from
> any of your other states.
Do you make a regular habit out of flaming an obvious joke? You need to
switch to decaf, man, you are WAY too high strung about this whole you being
better than everyone else thing.
Clifford A. Anderson
> Suure, but that's EASY! Everyone knows that Queenslanders are from a
> different planet. Now can you tell the difference between the state of New
> South Wales, and the state of ACT? I BET YOU CAN'T!
>
> Hong "HAW HAW!" Ooi
OK, >NOW< you're trolling them... but you're doing it in such an amusing
and humorous way. Good for you!
Clifford A. Anderson
news:bgrubb-27817C....@web.zianet.com...
> Accually x.5 is normally rounded to the nearest *even* number ie 1.5 and
2.5
> both round to 2. In terms of game mechanics that are good reasons to
always
> round down - it reduces the kind of point fiddling one saw in Champains
3rd
> edition.
And that would answer the Accountancy Rounding vs. Mathematical Rounding
that came up earlier, from the sounds of it.
It's amazing what GURPS geeks can argue about sometimes.
Clifford A. Anderson
> Our group has played GURPS for well more than 10 years and yet we
> keep coming back to good ol' D&D. Strangely enough, we found GURPS
> too limiting.
This is not meant as a flame, so please don't take it as such. It is
just a simple question; If you find GURPS too limiting and choose not to
play it, why do you come to the warzone that is sometimes labelled
rec.games.frp.gurps?
Joseph Michael Bay
>GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
>_de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
>where TSR was born.
IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE YOU HEATHEN VIENNA SAUSAGE EATER! WHY
DON'T YOU GO BACK TO YOUR TYROLEAN HAT AND YOUR LEATHER SHORTS
WITH THE SUSPENDERS AND DRINK BEER OUT OF A BIG MUG AND SLAP
MEN ON THE ASS IN "NON-HOMOEROTIC" FOLK DANCING?
--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
.. or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." at Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University
Detryxtyr
>great for realistic, down-and-dirty supers settings like Wild Cards, where
>getting punched by Golden Boy WILL kill you. The only thing that saved
>Demise when he got belted around by Golden Boy was his regenerative powers -
>which didn't manage to save him when Mackie Messer chopped off his head.
>
> - Arthur
Actually, I beleive there was a scene in a later book where Dr. Tachyon went to
the morgue holding Demise's body. The head was starting to grow back. Dr.
Tachyon made sure THAT didn't happen.
Captain Geek
Malachias Invictus
"Jim Davies" <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
news:sqt7qts6vecmu9n8k...@4ax.com...
> "hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> typed:
>
> >And, despite the inheirent
> >problems with any superhero rpg, the only supers rpg *possiby* better
then
> >GURPS supers is BESM.
>
> No way...if there's one thing GURPS doesn't work for, it's Supers.
It works well for the Batman types, but is totally broken for the heavies.
> It's far too gritty, and the power levels get completely screwed up.
> I've only got 1st ed Supers, which is not much good. Apparently 2nd ed
> is better, but still not good enough.
Agreed.
> >GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
>
> Which is one reason why it doesn't work for supers.
Well, the cinematic rules fixes that problem. In fact, I use them when I
want D&Desque fantasy.
> If you want to play GURPS Supers, play Champions instead.
Bingo.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 90,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Geoff Watson
Clifford A. Anderson <cliff.ba...@fix.it.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tqad9mm...@corp.supernews.com...
section at the top of the message.
Geoff.
Bruce Grubb
Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> typed:
>
>>And, despite the inheirent
>>problems with any superhero rpg, the only supers rpg *possiby* better then
>>GURPS supers is BESM.
>
>No way...if there's one thing GURPS doesn't work for, it's Supers.
>It's far too gritty, and the power levels get completely screwed up.
>I've only got 1st ed Supers, which is not much good. Apparently 2nd ed
>is better, but still not good enough.
>
>>GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
>
>Which is one reason why it doesn't work for supers.
Accually at the low end of the spectrum (like Wild Cards) GURPS Supers works
real well.
>If you want to play GURPS Supers, play Champions instead.
Champions has is own sort of problems and with the cinemative rules in the
Compadium II it is possible to do 4-color Supers as well. Of course really
powerful character are completely off the chart even in Champions.
Clifford A. Anderson
news:3ba55d3d$0$30141$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
D'oh. Thanks for pointing out my lack of attention... So, this thread
IS a troll. hehehehehe
Cheers!
Malachias Invictus
"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote:
> "dave brohman & shoshana bir" <shosh...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It is... sometimes.
> D&D is excellent for high fantasy roleplay.its also good for first timers,
> especially 3e.The learning curve, raising of abilities relatively
quickly,
> and ease of skills , makes it a nice beginners game.
The class structure is an especially good tool for beginners as well.
> However,GURPS is *the* finest rpg product for futuristic roleplay (their
> cyberpunk, ultratech 1&2, and biotech sourcebooks are bar none the best
> researched books of their kind in existence),
I did not like Cyberpunk much (and if you have the other three, it is
largely redundant), but the "Tech" books are awesome.
> and is probably the best for modern or real world role play.
I have found it to be so.
> their historical source books are excellent,
Very much so.
> and the spec ops/black ops/espionage sourcebooks allow excellent
> low violence, high action james bond spy games.
Not my genre, although S. John Ross' Total Bad Ass Advantages for action
characters would be fun to play.
> And, despite the inheirent problems with any superhero rpg, the only
supers rpg *possiby* better then
> GURPS supers is BESM.
You have to be shitting me. GURPS Supers is horribly broken. Ever hear of
Champions?
> GURPS is the *only* system to use in a time travel/parellel universe
> (sliders) campaign. The compatibility of the rules with any genre, time,
or
> tech is awesome.
Well, yeah.
> GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
If you play gritty realism, yes. Throw in the cinematic rules and you can
dance for days, just like in D&D.
> Yes, it can be a bit complicated (the rule book for vehicle creation is
> actually as big as the basic rulebook),
Vehicles (and its companions) is mainly for gearheads; not my thing.
> but there are options for increasing
> or decreasing the details at the GMs discretion.
Yep.
> I love both systems
Me too, although that was not the case before D&D 3E.
Malachias Invictus
"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3ba43699...@news.bigpond.com...
> <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote:
> and does that make it the most playable or best choice for the
> atmosphere that is desired for a particular setting?
Of course it doesn't; however, the fact that it is *adaptable* to a variety
of settings and capable of being used as a tool for creating different types
of atmosphere is definitely a considerable strength of the system.
> >and is probably the best for modern or real world role play
>
> again, depends upon what you are doing.
I cannot think of a system better for this, actually.
> >.their historical source books are
> >excellent,and the spec ops/black ops/espionage sourcebooks allow
excellent
> >low violence , high action james bond spy games.
>
> If you like the GURPS approach and approaches.
Well, you can say that about any system.
> Opinion. Based upon the posting on the supers newsgroups Champions is
> the most popular....
That is what I use for Superhero roleplaying.
> I've read that the guy who actually wrote the GURPS supers rules
> reckoned that they were failures but under the GURPS system they were
> always going to be failures...
Sounds like a bunch of excuses for writing an unbalanced clusterfuck of a
supplement.
> >GURPS is the *only* system to use in a time travel/parellel universe
> >(sliders) campaign. The compatibility of the rules with any genre, time,
or
> >tech is awesome.
>
> Gurps or Hero system would probably be the choices here.
> I'd probably actually go for Hero System.
In my opinion, Hero is a poor choice for anything other than Superhero genre
roleplaying. I have tried it for fantasy, and it was very clunky and
cumbersome. It is optimized for high-power stuff, and ignores fine
gradations at lower levels.
> >GURPS is a system where it pays to be smart. Violence will *kill* you.
>
> and that is not appropriate for all Genres or all games.
Of course not. However, GURPS is not stuck in that mode; there are
Cinematic rules and such for more "over the top" action.
> >I love both systems, Im GMing a D&D game right now. But for ultratech ( I
am
> >sorta well known for my cyberpunk games I GM), I use nothing but GURPS.
>
> I'd say it's probably fair enough for some genres of science fiction.
> I'd say it'd be complete wrong for Space Opera
I have had it work pretty good for Space Opera (a "Star Wars"esque setting,
with psionics and magic).
Bruce Grubb
No one of the other posters suggested that the thread be crossposted
rec.games.frp.dnd and so "Ask and ye shall receive." resulted.
Bokman7757
>>GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
>>_de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
>>where TSR was born.
>
>
>IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE YOU HEATHEN VIENNA SAUSAGE EATER! WHY
>DON'T YOU GO BACK TO YOUR TYROLEAN HAT AND YOUR LEATHER SHORTS
>WITH THE SUSPENDERS AND DRINK BEER OUT OF A BIG MUG AND SLAP
>MEN ON THE ASS IN "NON-HOMOEROTIC" FOLK DANCING?
Now, look, I never... on second thought, that doesn't seem like such a bad
idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
msa...@cc.hut.fi
: "hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote:
:> It is... sometimes.
:> D&D is excellent for high fantasy roleplay.its also good for first timers,
:> especially 3e.The learning curve, raising of abilities relatively
: quickly,
:> and ease of skills , makes it a nice beginners game.
: The class structure is an especially good tool for beginners as well.
I have found just the opposite. D&D makes so many assumptions that
players must know, and so many things don't reseble the real world at
all that it is quite difficult game for beginners. Especially class
structure is quite difficult, because it has no resemblance in real
world.
Ideally I would GM anything freeform (or close to freeform) to
beginners. For example GURPS played in a way that GM makes and keeps
the character sheets and takes care of all system related stuff sounds
like a good way to get a newbie in. After all, it's the roleplaying
part that most newbies are interested, not the game mechanics part.
You should however note that I don't usually master a game to 13-year
old boys, who might actually like D&D as a starting game. I know that
I did in the 80s when I started.
--
Mikko Särelä "On my arrival to the United States
<i...@iki.fi> I was surprised to find so much
distinguished talent among the
citizens and so little among the
heads of government."
Alexis de Tocqueville - 1835
Bruce Grubb
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:3ba43699...@news.bigpond.com...
>> <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote:
>
>> I've read that the guy who actually wrote the GURPS supers rules
>> reckoned that they were failures but under the GURPS system they were
>> always going to be failures...
>
>Sounds like a bunch of excuses for writing an unbalanced clusterfuck of a
>supplement.
I agree. GURPS Magic gave a rough idea on what many powers would cost but
instead of doing that the writer of Super desided to make the powers 'cheap'
to reduce the point total of doing a Super campaign; the result was Unbalance
Central. Not that Super didn't have some good ideas; Enhancements and
Limitations for example but the Compandium I doesn't use them in a consistant
manner which results in a lot of wasted space (Magery for example could be
consolitated)
This brings up my minor beef with the Compandium I - the amount of space used
to detail 1 pt Quirks like Careful, Chauvinistic, Congenial,
Distractible, Dull, Humble, Imaginative, Proud, Staid, and Uncongenial.
Andy Luker
"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote in message
news:X3Jo7.497997$ai2.37...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > It isn't.
> >
> > --
>
> cyberpunk, ultratech 1&2, and biotech sourcebooks are bar none the best
for
> modern or real world role play .their historical source books are
> excellent,and the spec ops/black ops/espionage sourcebooks allow excellent
inheirent
> problems with any superhero rpg, the only supers rpg *possiby* better then
> GURPS supers is BESM.
> (sliders) campaign. The compatibility of the rules with any genre, time,
or
> tech is awesome.
I feel the modern/future options are, unfortunately let down by the firearm
combat system, though I concur with you on the SF source books
Arthur Samuels
news:VB9p7.114458$K6.46941099@news2...
> Any news on whether there will be anymore Wild Cards novels? At 15, the
First off, here's the biggest fan site I know of:
http://www.mixmaster.org/wildcards/
I read an interview with George RR Martin several months ago that hinted
at a new project - possibly an e-book. Haven't heard anything since.
> One of the few series I've really enjoyed beyond 3 or 4 books, even Joel
I personally didn't care for books 7-10, but at number 11 it started to
pick up again. Oddly enough, the fan website lists book 11 as being the one
many fans grumble about.
> Rosenberg's Guardians Of the Flame is starting to I dunno... drag.. the
old
> magic isn't there anymore
I loved the first four, after that, it dropped off. The problem for me
was that it was starting to focus less and less on the original characters,
and more and more on the natives of the fantasy world. Most of the appeal
for me was the way it saw the cliched medieval fantasy world through the
eyes of people from modern Earth. That happened less and less as the series
progressed.
I'm also still waiting for another Myth book, and the next book in the
"War against the Chtorr" series. I think both of those are defunct: Asprin
seems to have lost his enthusiasm, and Gerrold has written himself into a
corner; the Chtorr have pretty much won.
- Arthur
Zephyr
"Andy Luker" <an...@apjluker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9o5c32$ec7$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
you down with the modern firearm rules?
Buzz
>> >and is probably the best for modern or real world role play
>>
>> again, depends upon what you are doing.
>
> I cannot think of a system better for this, actually.
CORPS.
Of course, it doesn't have nearly the range of support material or
extensive player base.
---
"We are on the verge of unzipping the secrets of creation and peering into
the pants of God Himself."
buzz[at]enteract[dot]com
->http://www.bhtch.com
-->http://www.secular-johnson.org
Buzz
> Surely, that hideous abomination that is Fantasy Wargaming surpasses all
> in the competition for Top Table Leveler.
The non-rule sections of that book are wonderful, though. A great
resource of advice and info on more historical fantasy. And the chapter
heading illustrations are gorgeous.
Buzz
> It isn't.
I would encourage anyone who hasn't to check out CORPS by BTRC
(www.btrc.net).
A while back, before D&D3e came out, I got back into the hobby after a
long hiatus. I was checking out point-based systems and heard a lot about
CORPS on *.misc. So, I went to the site and d/l'ed the fast-play rules.
For comparison, I also went and d/l'ed GURPSLite.
CORPS fast-play: In *5* pages, it described a system so well-conceived and
elegant that I immediately ordered the game.
GURPSLite: In *35* pages it managed to confuse and annoy me. I was going
to buy the Basic set just to check it out, but this pretty much put me off
completely.
Every time I get a hankering to buy GURPS, I re-read the Lite rules, just
in case I just didn't get it the first time. Upon subsequent readings, I
get it, but I just don't think it's all that great.
Anyway, I realize that my opinion is pretty uninformed, but it seems to me
that the primary appeal of GURPS is simply the breadth of materials
available and the quality of the sourcebooks. CORPS seems a better system
at the core, though. Of course, to each their own.
And stupid comparisons like "GURPS is better than D&D" is an argument
better left to kids on the playground. A) it's apples and oranges, and 2)
anyone who disses D&D or talks about its limitations hasn't played 3e. 3e
is a whole new game. Try it. You might like it.
Read rulebooks with an open mind and choose the game that best suits your
sensibilities. 'Nuff said.
Jeremy Reaban
"Buzz" <bu...@shell-3.enteract.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> Anyway, I realize that my opinion is pretty uninformed, but it seems
to me
> that the primary appeal of GURPS is simply the breadth of materials
> available and the quality of the sourcebooks. CORPS seems a better
system
> at the core, though. Of course, to each their own.
I think more than one person has said that CORPS is Gurps done right.
Although to be fair, a lot of stuff that works badly in GURPS woudln't
work at all in CORPS
Sidhain
2)
> anyone who disses D&D or talks about its limitations hasn't played 3e. 3e
> is a whole new game. Try it. You might like it.
>
I did, I ran a single adventure and played in a 4+ month campaign. It was
frustrating to not be able to play a character the way I wanted, to be
hindered by a game where combat skill isn't even considered a /skill/, where
Magic is poorly designed and lacks both elegance of system (Ars Magica,
Talislanta 4)--or barring that reasonably designed functionality (Gurps,
BESM)
Andy Luker
"Zephyr" <zep...@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:jQqp7.494$Tu4.1...@ratbert.tds.net...
>
> "Andy Luker" <an...@apjluker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9o5c32$ec7$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> firearm
> > combat system, though I concur with you on the SF source books
> >
> Um, just a question, but could you give a few examples of what is letting
> you down with the modern firearm rules?
>
Range/ movement penalties
Target movemnet should be more significant at long range thab short
blowthrough rules
Shooting someone with 5.56 nato will be as damaging as 460 weatherby
hit location penalties
to easy for limbs, which doesnt match the target size rules
recoil penalties
fully automatic rules
Walking the burst - makes full auto more accurate than single shots
Multiple target rules - walking the burst a waste of time as accuracy is
lost
(lack off ) rules for supression fire
accuracy & 1/2 damage rules
Easy to hit up to 1/2 damage but then impossible beyond
armour being near compulsary to survive a firefight
PD = dodge bonus
Generally people will be hit
damage
rare for rifles to not cripple a limb/have someone rolling for
concsiousness.
Rupert Boleyn
<an...@apjluker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Range/ movement penalties
> Target movemnet should be more significant at long range thab short
The easy fix is to calculate these seperately - at least that way
movement is as significant at long as at short range.
>blowthrough rules
> Shooting someone with 5.56 nato will be as damaging as 460 weatherby
Not quite - for brain hits and on large game the .460 does more
damage. Also the 5.56 is more likely to do a minimal amount than the
.460 is. This isn't that unrealistic - a .460 round is almost
certainly going to plough right through a person and retain a goodly
amount of its energy, whereas a 5.56 bullet won't do that.
>hit location penalties
> to easy for limbs, which doesnt match the target size rules
Yes.
>recoil penalties
What's wrong with them?
>fully automatic rules
> Walking the burst - makes full auto more accurate than single shots
It can be. Note that High Tech (and others) advocates only allowing
1/2 Acc for auto-fire, which mitigates this.
> Multiple target rules - walking the burst a waste of time as accuracy is
>lost
>
>(lack off ) rules for supression fire
This would be a general lack of morale rules, or did you mean a lack
of rules for what happens when someone walks into a hex that's being
fired upon?
>accuracy & 1/2 damage rules
> Easy to hit up to 1/2 damage but then impossible beyond
I agree.
>armour being near compulsary to survive a firefight
> PD = dodge bonus
> Generally people will be hit
The rules in HT for back fever, etc. help with this. GURPS, like most
games makes being hit less lethal than RL and ups the hit chance to
compensate - makes the game more fun, usually.
>damage
> rare for rifles to not cripple a limb/have someone rolling for
>concsiousness.
This is reasonably realistic, though those that make their first
conciousness chack shouldn't have to re-check so often, IMO - which
may not be a good thing, of course.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
dave brohman & shoshana bir
Cos this post was cross-posted to rec.games.frp.dnd.
--
RPG author: Secrets & Societies, Creature Collection II,
Vigil Watch: Warrens of the Ratmen, Relics & Rituals
Check these out at: http://www.swordsorcery.com/
Buzz
> I think more than one person has said that CORPS is Gurps done right.
The author himself, even! :)
> Although to be fair, a lot of stuff that works badly in GURPS woudln't
> work at all in CORPS
Like what?
starbe...@my-deja.com
>AD&D levels & GURPS point levels
>
>It is tempting to try and relate AD&D levels to GURPS point levels especially
>since both systems define what an 'average' person is: 0 th level in AD&D and
>25 pts in GURPS. There are three main problems with this idea.
Is it possible, at least to some degree, to use an entirely point-based
character building system in D&D 3e. See for example:
http://hiddenway.tripod.com/dnd/freeform.html
This produces reasonably good results, although it is of necessity limited by
the envelope of the core classes.
Bob
Foolish earth humans, your puny diatribes are no match for my delete key...
Buzz
> I did, I ran a single adventure and played in a 4+ month campaign. It was
Well, that's good to hear.
> frustrating to not be able to play a character the way I wanted, to be
Were you limited by the system or by the DM?
> hindered by a game where combat skill isn't even considered a /skill/, where
Sure it is. It's a skill that improves by:
a. Going up in level
b. Acquiring feats as you go up in level
c. Acquiring special abilities based on your class
d. Use of skills in conjunction with fighting that increase with level
(skill points)
It's a level-based game. Some "skills" are absorbed within the class
features. You're confusing your own dislike of level-based systems for a
design flaw. The only "hindrance" here is that you don't particularly like
the system.
> Magic is poorly designed and lacks both elegance of system (Ars Magica,
> Talislanta 4)--or barring that reasonably designed functionality (Gurps,
> BESM)
Opinion. A system that is "poorly designed" is one that's difficult to
understand or hard to adjudicate. 3e's magic system meets neither of these
criteria; it's easy to understand and easy to run. Is it everyone's cup of
tea? Obviously not, but that doesn't make it "broken" or anything.
Let me point out that I am by no means arguing that 3e is "better" or
GURPS is "crap." Such comparisons, as I said before, are just stupid. Both
are arguably some of the better RPG systems in existence, and both have
their quirks as well.
Charles Frederick Goodin
Arthur Samuels <arth...@qwest.net> wrote:
>"Jim Davies" <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
>news:sqt7qts6vecmu9n8k...@4ax.com...
>
>great for realistic, down-and-dirty supers settings like Wild Cards, where
>getting punched by Golden Boy WILL kill you. The only thing that saved
>Demise when he got belted around by Golden Boy was his regenerative powers -
>which didn't manage to save him when Mackie Messer chopped off his head.
Nah, Demise gave GB the ol' death-stare, which only _almost_ killed him.
And his regenerative powers would have saved him after Mackie chopped off
his head, but first Mackie exploded his head, and then Tachyon had him
cremated before the new head could grow on his body. I'm pretty sure that
if you cut Demise in half and waited a few weeks, you'd have two Demises.
And GURPS Supers works _great_ for Wild Cards. It's just not very good
for four-colour stuff.
--
chuk
Andy Luker
"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3ba6824c...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:47:18 +0100, "Andy Luker"
> <an...@apjluker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
is as significant at long as at short range.
>
> >blowthrough rules
> > Shooting someone with 5.56 nato will be as damaging as 460 weatherby
>
> Not quite - for brain hits and on large game the .460 does more
> damage. Also the 5.56 is more likely to do a minimal amount than the
> certainly going to plough right through a person and retain a goodly
> amount of its energy, whereas a 5.56 bullet won't do that.
They will ,under the rules, both do only crippling damage to limbs & HT
damage to torso & HTx3 to vitals. The extrea damage the 460 does on a brain
hit is a moot point in most cases.
>
> >recoil penalties
>
> What's wrong with them?
>
> >fully automatic rules
> > Walking the burst - makes full auto more accurate than single shots
>
> It can be. Note that High Tech (and others) advocates only allowing
> 1/2 Acc for auto-fire, which mitigates this.
>
> > Multiple target rules - walking the burst a waste of time as accuracy
is
> >lost
> >
> >(lack off ) rules for supression fire
>
> This would be a general lack of morale rules, or did you mean a lack
> of rules for what happens when someone walks into a hex that's being
> fired upon?
both
> >armour being near compulsary to survive a firefight
> > PD = dodge bonus
> > Generally people will be hit
>
> The rules in HT for back fever, etc. help with this.
Unfortunately they boil down to "pick a penalty" when most people (myself
included) have no experience of shooting under life threatening stress that
is little help.
Rupert Boleyn
<an...@apjluker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:3ba6824c...@news.paradise.net.nz...
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:47:18 +0100, "Andy Luker"
>> <an...@apjluker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>is as significant at long as at short range.
>>
>> >blowthrough rules
>> > Shooting someone with 5.56 nato will be as damaging as 460 weatherby
>>
>> Not quite - for brain hits and on large game the .460 does more
>> damage. Also the 5.56 is more likely to do a minimal amount than the
>> 460 is. This isn't that unrealistic - a .460 round is almost
>> certainly going to plough right through a person and retain a goodly
>> amount of its energy, whereas a 5.56 bullet won't do that.
>
>They will ,under the rules, both do only crippling damage to limbs & HT
>damage to torso & HTx3 to vitals. The extrea damage the 460 does on a brain
>hit is a moot point in most cases.
I dom't see a huge problem with that, especially for limb hits - a
busted arm is a busted arm, and aside from bleeding and amputations
(which aren't covered by the standard rules anyway) there's no reason
why one round should be different from another past this point.
Douglas Cole
Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>>They will ,under the rules, both do only crippling damage to limbs & HT
>>damage to torso & HTx3 to vitals. The extrea damage the 460 does on a brain
>>hit is a moot point in most cases.
>>
>
> I dom't see a huge problem with that, especially for limb hits - a
> busted arm is a busted arm, and aside from bleeding and amputations
> (which aren't covered by the standard rules anyway) there's no reason
> why one round should be different from another past this point.
>
>
>
In my home-grown weapons spreadsheet that I've developed to model this
stuff, the two catridges under comparison have the following stats:
M855 5.56x45mm: 6d+1{1.3}
.460 Weatherby: 12d+1{2.8}
The number in curly brackets serves two purposes. It defines the "wound
channel modifier" which multiplies damage after penetration, and also
defines the blow through for the torso (there are several rule variants
on this, for simplicity let's say blow-through is HT*WCM = 13 and 28
respectively).
The .460 in this model is nearly twice as lethal as the 5.56 round. The
.223 blows through after 13 hits (rolling for unconsciousness, bleeding
due to extreme fragmentation effects), while the .460 carves a huge
hole, doing up to 28 points to the torso (x3 for vitals, and the rest,
as per usual).
dhc
Rupert Boleyn
<dougl...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>In my home-grown weapons spreadsheet that I've developed to model this
>stuff, the two catridges under comparison have the following stats:
>
>M855 5.56x45mm: 6d+1{1.3}
>.460 Weatherby: 12d+1{2.8}
>
>The number in curly brackets serves two purposes. It defines the "wound
>channel modifier" which multiplies damage after penetration, and also
>defines the blow through for the torso (there are several rule variants
>on this, for simplicity let's say blow-through is HT*WCM = 13 and 28
>respectively).
>
>The .460 in this model is nearly twice as lethal as the 5.56 round. The
>.223 blows through after 13 hits (rolling for unconsciousness, bleeding
>due to extreme fragmentation effects), while the .460 carves a huge
>hole, doing up to 28 points to the torso (x3 for vitals, and the rest,
>as per usual).
I must admit that my houserules usually apply the HP and "large bore"
damage multipliers _after_ blow-through is applied, so on a HT10
person a torso hit by a .460 solid would have a cap of 15 points, 22
if it were a HP. I used to do the same to AP rounds, butI figure that
a max of 5 points of damage is way too low for having a bullet go
right through your gut, even if it didn't tumble.
Bruce Grubb
starbe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <bgrubb-3A047C....@web.zianet.com>, Bruce Grubb says...
>>AD&D levels & GURPS point levels
>>
>>It is tempting to try and relate AD&D levels to GURPS point levels especially
>>since both systems define what an 'average' person is: 0 th level in AD&D and
>>25 pts in GURPS. There are three main problems with this idea.
>
>Is it possible, at least to some degree, to use an entirely point-based
>character building system in D&D 3e. See for example:
>
>http://hiddenway.tripod.com/dnd/freeform.html
>
>This produces reasonably good results, although it is of necessity limited by
>the envelope of the core classes.
There is a -big- difference between coming up with a point-based system for
something like D&D3 and a level equating to a certain point total in GURPS.
Remember that reasons that I stated that this was a problem
<http://members.aol.com/BruceG6069/ADnD_to_GURPS.html>:
First, beyond 150 points the type of rules (realistic or cinematic) used have
more of a bearing on the 'power' of GURPS characters than just the point
total. A 150 pt cinematic character will have access to abilities that would
allow them to run rings around a 200 pt realistic character.
Second, attributes play radically different roles in AD&D and GURPS. In GURPS
attributes are the foundation on which all other abilities like secondary
attributes (fatigue, perception, will) and skills (both combat and non
combat) are based or derived from; by contrast in AD&D most of these
abilities are determined by class and level with the attributes at best
serving as modifiers (which generally happen at 15+).
As a result there is a great incentive in AD&D to use one of the many
alternative attribute generation systems which are skewed toward the 14-18
end of the 3d6 curve to get the bonus modifiers. Converting such AD&D
characters even those of low level produces high point GURPS characters even
when adjusting for certain attributes which are better [and generally more
cheaply] represented as advantages.
Finally, and most importantly GURPS characters are far more variable in
skills than AD&D characters. This means that even 25-75 pts GURPS characters
can have certain skills at or beyond those of mid to high level AD&D
characters. It should be noted that by GURPS standards the skill levels of
even high level AD&D characters are quite reasonable.
--
The cost of each 'class' is simially not equal:
--
Note that I made some modifications to the classes to bring them more in line
with their Medieval (TL 3) inspirations and less cinematic. In the case of
the Monk the class has been totally altered into a mixture of traveling sage
and natural healer which is better suited a Medieval Europian campaign.
These are the basic shell class templates, specific members of these groups
will have modifications. For example certain orders of Clerics and Monks will
have Claim to Hospitality advantage. Similarly Rangers and Druids will tend
have the Animal Empathy advantage though it is not a requirement for either
of those two class templates.
For each class here are two set of numbers separated by a ';' The first is
the class base cost calculated on Advantages and Disadvantages alone;
campaign differences will cause changes in these totals. The second number is
the minimum cost of the skills required by the class.
Notice that each skill has a letter with its number; this denotes the base
level you have that skill at:
e = at DX or IQ, a = attribute -1, h = attribute -2, and v = attribute -3
For example CWS-Flail (1h) means you know the skill at DX-2 while Survival*
(1a) is known at IQ-1.
* - Mental (IQ) skill.
CWS - Combat/Weapon (DX) skill.
? - optional
Fighter (0; 4): CWS-Sword/Mace (1a)/CWS-Flail (1h), Brawling (1e), Shield
(1e), Armoury/TL* (1a)
Ranger (15+/10+; 10): Fighter + Magery (15+) or Power Investiture (10+);
CWS-Bow (1h), Animal Handling* (1h), Naturalist* (1h), Survival* (1a),
Tracking* (1a), Veterinary/TL* (1v),
Palidin (35/50+; 9): Fighter + Blessed or Power Investiture [Clerical Magic]:
[powers lost if Chivalric and/or Religious Codes broken, severe penance]
(10+), Rep +2 [from Religion] (10), Status 2 (10), Comfortable Wealth or
Patron (10), Literacy (10); True Faith? (15), Vow - Chivalric Code of Honor
(-15); Riding (1a), Lance (1a), Heraldry* (1a), Savoir-Faire* (1e), Spells
(1h/1v per spell)
Cavalier (15+; 8): Fighter + Comfortable Wealth or Patron (10), Status 2
(10), Vow - Chivalric Code of Honor (-15); Literacy (10); Riding (1a), Lance
(1a), Heraldry* (1a), Savoir-Faire* (1e)
Cleric (20/35+; 6): Clerical Investment (5+), Blessed or Power Investiture
[Clerical Magic] (10+), True Faith? (15), Legal Immunity [w/ Diplomatic
pouch] (15), Literacy (10); Duty [Church/Religion] (-10), Vow [no edged
weapons] (-10); CWS-Ax/Mace (1a)/CWS-Flail (1h), First Aid/TL* (1e),
Occultism* (1a), Theology* (1h), Healing, Necromatic, and Other spells*
(1h/1v per spell),
Druid (15/30+; 11): Cleric [no Diplomatic pouch] + Animal Handling* (1h),
Naturalist* (1h), Survival* (1a), Tracking* (1a), Veterinary/TL* (1h)
Monk (0; 10): Legal Immunity [w/ Diplomatic pouch] (10), Literacy (10); Duty
[Church/Order] (-10), Vows [poverty, chastity, and obedience] (-10);
CWS-Staff (1h), Occultism* (1a), Theology* (1h), Naturalist* (1h), Survival*
(1h), Literature* (1h), History* (1h), First Aid/TL* (1e), Diagnosis/TL*
(1h), Physician/TL* (1h)
Mage (25+; 3): Literacy (10), Magery (15+); Alchemy/TL* (1v), Thanumatology*
(1v), Spells (1h/1v per spell)
Thief (2+; 8): Acute Hearing +1 (2); Acrobatics (1h), Climing (1a), Escape
(1h), Lockpicking/TL* (1a), Pickpocket (1h), Stealth (1a), Streetwise* (1a),
Traps/TL* (1a).
Bard (35; 6): Literacy (10), Magery (15+); Bardic Immunity (10); CWS-Mace
(1a)/CWS-Flail (1h), Bard* (1a), Bardic Lore* (1h), Musical Instrument* (1h),
Poetry* (1a), Singing* (1e).
Note: Magery and Power Investiture both add to the spell skill level making
the base level higher. It is suggested that Proficiency slots be counted as
skills of the equivalent difficulty level regardless of cost. A conversion
table for AD&D for the d20 proficiency is provided to determine what
equivalent mean
Douglas Cole
Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>
> I must admit that my houserules usually apply the HP and "large bore"
> damage multipliers _after_ blow-through is applied, so on a HT10
> person a torso hit by a .460 solid would have a cap of 15 points, 22
> if it were a HP. I used to do the same to AP rounds, butI figure that
> a max of 5 points of damage is way too low for having a bullet go
> right through your gut, even if it didn't tumble.
>
>
Actually, unless it hits an organ like a full bladder, the liver, or a
kidney, small caliber intestinal wounds are more likely to kill from
peritonitis than actual immediate trauma or blood loss. Of course, all
that assumes an AP bullet with enough structural integrity to zip
through without tumbling or fragmenting.
The bullet size modifier for the .223 is actually only 0.8 if you don't
assume a fragmenting bullet. If you assume that it fragments due to
high velocity, then you get the 1.30. Hmm. did I misspeak up there in
my snip? It should have been blow through of 13 and 28. Hopefully
that's what I said.
dhc
Rupert Boleyn
<dougl...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I must admit that my houserules usually apply the HP and "large bore"
>> damage multipliers _after_ blow-through is applied, so on a HT10
>> person a torso hit by a .460 solid would have a cap of 15 points, 22
>> if it were a HP. I used to do the same to AP rounds, butI figure that
>> a max of 5 points of damage is way too low for having a bullet go
>> right through your gut, even if it didn't tumble.
>>
>>
>
>
>Actually, unless it hits an organ like a full bladder, the liver, or a
>kidney, small caliber intestinal wounds are more likely to kill from
>peritonitis than actual immediate trauma or blood loss. Of course, all
>that assumes an AP bullet with enough structural integrity to zip
>through without tumbling or fragmenting.
Yeah, I know. However it's not like 10 points of damage is
life-threatening in and of itself (not counting the bleeding later),
but at least it'll slow a character down, whereas a 5 point wound
won't even do that, so I consider it too low. As I'm not willing to go
to the rouble that you are I'm stuck with GURPS' granularity in this,
so AP bullets only get capped after blow-through.
>The bullet size modifier for the .223 is actually only 0.8 if you don't
>assume a fragmenting bullet. If you assume that it fragments due to
>high velocity, then you get the 1.30. Hmm. did I misspeak up there in
>my snip? It should have been blow through of 13 and 28. Hopefully
>that's what I said.
I think it was.
Groovis
> Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> writes:
>
> >GURPS is better than D&D because D&D has that silly rule that says Pi is
> >_de jure_ 3, as enacted by an act of Congress in the state of Indiana,
> >where TSR was born.
>
>
> IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE YOU HEATHEN VIENNA SAUSAGE EATER! WHY
> DON'T YOU GO BACK TO YOUR TYROLEAN HAT AND YOUR LEATHER SHORTS
> WITH THE SUSPENDERS AND DRINK BEER OUT OF A BIG MUG AND SLAP
> MEN ON THE ASS IN "NON-HOMOEROTIC" FOLK DANCING?
Hmm... wouldn't that be Austria?
Not that I think that actually happens in Austria (or does it?). And
what's wrong with drinking beer out of a big mug?
Buzz
> Second, attributes play radically different roles in AD&D and GURPS. In GURPS
> attributes are the foundation on which all other abilities like secondary
> attributes (fatigue, perception, will) and skills (both combat and non
> combat) are based or derived from; by contrast in AD&D most of these
> abilities are determined by class and level with the attributes at best
> serving as modifiers (which generally happen at 15+).
Everything is clear now. You don't seem to have any expeirence with 3rd
edition. Unless you're erroneously using "AD&D" to refer to it. Since you
claim that modifiers don't happen until stats reach 15+, and you mention
Proficiency slots, I suspect that you're talking 1e/2e, as this is not the
case at all in 3e.
You might want to actually take a look at the game you're criticizing
before you incite flamewars like this. You really don't know what you're
talking about.
Bruce Grubb
wrote:
>In rec.games.frp.dnd Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>> Second, attributes play radically different roles in AD&D and GURPS. In
>> GURPS
>> attributes are the foundation on which all other abilities like secondary
>> attributes (fatigue, perception, will) and skills (both combat and non
>> combat) are based or derived from; by contrast in AD&D most of these
>> abilities are determined by class and level with the attributes at best
>> serving as modifiers (which generally happen at 15+).
>
>Everything is clear now. You don't seem to have any expeirence with 3rd
>edition. Unless you're erroneously using "AD&D" to refer to it. Since you
>claim that modifiers don't happen until stats reach 15+, and you mention
>Proficiency slots, I suspect that you're talking 1e/2e, as this is not the
>case at all in 3e.
True BUT this does NOT change the first and MAIN reason that you cannot do
such a converstion easily:
First, beyond 150 points the type of rules (realistic or cinematic) used have
more of a bearing on the 'power' of GURPS characters than just the point
total. A 150 pt cinematic character will have access to abilities that would
allow them to run rings around a 200 pt realistic character.
Also while D&D3 did fix a lot of things that were a mess in AD&D there is
still the inherrent problem pointed further down the sheet that the differet
class have in GURPS terms different point totals. The basic fighter template
is the cheapest while a specilist like the Palidin is very expensive even at
low levels where things like Blessed, Power Investiture, and True Faith don't
come into play.
Bruce Grubb
wrote:
>In rec.games.frp.dnd Sidhain <sid...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I did, I ran a single adventure and played in a 4+ month campaign. It was
>
>Well, that's good to hear.
>
>> frustrating to not be able to play a character the way I wanted, to be
>
>Were you limited by the system or by the DM?
>
>> hindered by a game where combat skill isn't even considered a /skill/, where
>
>Sure it is. It's a skill that improves by:
>
>a. Going up in level
True but is there a logic in how it improves? One my pet peaves with AD&D1
which was fixed somewhat in AD&D2 was that abilities improved across the
board regardless of how often one used them. As a result one could have a
fighter that had usef nothing but swords suddenly pick up a spear and use it
with the same skill as the sword even if he had never even -seen- a spear
before.
>b. Acquiring feats as you go up in level
I just thought of a bad joke involving feet. Nahhh. :-)
>c. Acquiring special abilities based on your class
Even in GURPS certain advantages are really skill it just far simpler game
mechanicswise to represent them otherwises (Literacy and Combat Reflexes for
example)
>d. Use of skills in conjunction with fighting that increase with level
>(skill points)
>
>It's a level-based game. Some "skills" are absorbed within the class
>features. You're confusing your own dislike of level-based systems for a
>design flaw. The only "hindrance" here is that you don't particularly like
>the system.
As I tried to show with my conversion sheet classes also tend to be composed
of advantages and disadvantages as well as a group of related skills.
>> Magic is poorly designed and lacks both elegance of system (Ars Magica,
>> Talislanta 4)--or barring that reasonably designed functionality (Gurps,
>> BESM)
>
>Opinion. A system that is "poorly designed" is one that's difficult to
>understand or hard to adjudicate. 3e's magic system meets neither of these
>criteria; it's easy to understand and easy to run. Is it everyone's cup of
>tea? Obviously not, but that doesn't make it "broken" or anything.
GURPS Supers 1st edition was a prime example of something that was easy to
understand and adjudicate AND was also poorly designed from the standpoint of
the rest of the GURPS system. On it own merits of running a Supers campaign
it worked well but the moment any other worldbook (Magic and later Psionics)
entered the picture was when the headaches started.
Castle Falkenstein has similar problem in how it handles the Magery advantage
- in a manner totally different from either the Basic Set or Magic. Worse
the explination of why Magic like spell don't work in the Falkenstein setting
makes about as much sence as the Ranger casting Magic user spells in armor in
AD&D1 given all the reason mages could't wear armor did.
>Let me point out that I am by no means arguing that 3e is "better" or
>GURPS is "crap." Such comparisons, as I said before, are just stupid. Both
>are arguably some of the better RPG systems in existence, and both have
>their quirks as well.
D&D3 hasa better time of handling the high end of the high fantasy spectrum
than GURPS but GURPS does have an advantage of a more flexable magic system
that is more adaptable to non Vance magical worlds (Slayers, Ruin Explorers,
Myth series, etc)
Mark Green
Gurps character generation is a lot more flexible, as against D&D
which is pretty rigid at 1st level. Generating a gurps character at
least forces you to think a bit about the character which will
encourage the player to make it a real and animated character, whereas
a D&D character can wind up being 'oh, i'll be a cleric this game, my
feats are x, y and z, let's go'.
On the other hand, gurps' generation is a lot slower, more
munchkinable, and can produce characters that require a lot of Gm
jumping around in order to make them playable (either that or that
requires the Gm to flat out scream 'no!!'). As an example of these,
in various Gurps campaigns, we had an morphing thieving Ellyl (who was
excellent at stealth, but had to hide in combat, because her weapon
dealt d6-5 damage and her hit points were basically nil - whoever
wrote that bit in the Gurps races book about Ellyl poisoners being
broken was talking junk ime), a dwarf who took many broken
disadvantages to get his Bow skill up so high he could make called
shots to people's eyes and hit a lot of the time, and a mage who was a
talking horse (oddly enough in Gurps this is one of the best races for
a mage!). The Gm (same guy in all cases) allowed all these characters
and the game was very entertaining with them, but he is a very
experienced Gm and knew how to deal with that. A novice Gm might be
better off with the more restrictive generation of D&D. (Oddly
enough, our D&D 2E Gm wanted to play a psychotic distrustful totally
evil Gargoyle in the Gurps party. THAT nearly got vetoed.)
Gurps magic is just plain better than D&D imho. D&D has the problem
that a first level mage has almost nothing to do in a session but sit
there and get bored since they have so few spells and they do so
little compared to other party members. A Gurps first level mage has
plenty of options, but the initial spells are less powerful even if
the player went the whole way to magery 3 in character generation.
As far as system goes, though, it's much of a muchness. Gurps's
curve is more sensible than D&Ds: 3d6 for a heavily curved 3-18 is ime
preferable to D&D's totally flat 1-20. It makes your abilities more
restricted, but also more dependable, which is a better way ime of
getting heroic roleplay.
(Btw, the shift key on this keyboard is screwy. Hence the lousy
capitalisation above. :) )
But then again, what about other fantasy systems - we've had some
interesting heroic RP using Feng Shui modded for fantasy..
Buzz
> True but is there a logic in how it improves? One my pet peaves with AD&D1
> which was fixed somewhat in AD&D2 was that abilities improved across the
> board regardless of how often one used them. As a result one could have a
> fighter that had usef nothing but swords suddenly pick up a spear and use it
> with the same skill as the sword even if he had never even -seen- a spear
> before.
Why complain about the way AD&D2 hadnled things? AD&D2 is no longer in
print and no longer supported. Worry about D&D3, if you must.
As far as the swords/spears agrument, yes, even D&D3 simplifies weapon
proficiency. A lot of people don't see this as a shortcoming, however. One
can make counter-arguments about more strict weapon skill systems, e.g.,
why should someone who's a master longswordsman suddenly be totally
clueless when has to use a shortsword?
[snip]
>>Let me point out that I am by no means arguing that 3e is "better" or
>>GURPS is "crap." Such comparisons, as I said before, are just stupid. Both
>>are arguably some of the better RPG systems in existence, and both have
>>their quirks as well.
>
> D&D3 hasa better time of handling the high end of the high fantasy spectrum
> than GURPS but GURPS does have an advantage of a more flexable magic system
> that is more adaptable to non Vance magical worlds (Slayers, Ruin Explorers,
> Myth series, etc)
D&D3 has two "non-Vancian" systems for magic: sorcery and psionics. Both
are basically point-based spell systems.
Again, whatever floats your boat. To some people, flexibility can be a
hindrance, because it generally means extra complexity or more work.
FUDGE, for example, is incredibly flexible, but you certainly can't play
it "out of the box." From what little I know about GURPS, the situation is
similar.
I really enjoy 3e and don't find it particularly limiting; compared to
1e/2e, it's positively liberating. To each their own.
Buzz
So, it's a criticism of D&D3 that it doesn't convert to GURPS well?
It's not a criticism of GURPS that it can't handle the "simplistic class
system" of D&D3?
Apples and oranges. Play what you like.
Buzz
> As far as system goes, though, it's much of a muchness. Gurps's
> curve is more sensible than D&Ds: 3d6 for a heavily curved 3-18 is ime
> preferable to D&D's totally flat 1-20. It makes your abilities more
> restricted, but also more dependable, which is a better way ime of
> getting heroic roleplay.
I don't know if the comparison makes a lot of sense. From what I
understand, the 3d6 roll in GURPS is not modfied, right? It's the target
number that changes.
With d20, the target number changes *and* the roll is modified by ability.
As long as the same probability is maintained (i.e., action blah has X%
change of succeeding), what difference does it make what mechanic is used?
I dunno. I'm no math expert, but this seems like another apples vs.
oranges argument. Any math experts are free to school me on this, though.
Trevor Hyde
news:9o5nmu$2m8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
> (www.btrc.net).
Tell me more about this one. The light version doesn't have quite
enough information for me to decide to buy it. You might want to
make this a new thread (crossposted to both these groups, as it
would be a comparison to both systems), or just email me if you
don't think anyone else would be interested. Here are my reasons
for playing GURPS:
1. Skill based systems allow for interesting non-combat based
characters. From the first perusal, CORPS looks like it has
this. Tell me more.
2. Development is freeform, not limited by classes, and not in
big steps (i.e., no level system). CORPS likely has this. Tell
me more.
3. Combat is movement based, and rewards intelligent play. Our
group is comprised of older wargamers, who like to see tactical
movement. GURPS is tactical from the ground up (much like TFT
before it). Lots of systems have tactical stuff grafted on
later, and it just doesn't work the right way. Important issues:
giving ground defensively, weapon reach (a pike changes how
combat works), etc. Modern combat should be entirely tactical,
so damage based systems like D&D typically do not handle it
even semi-realistically (i.e., the first successful hit usually
determines the outcome, not an accumulation of damage). I cannot
see any hints of this in the light CORPS rulebook, so how does
the full rulesbook handle it?
4. Realistic damage rules. GURPS does ok on this one, but there
is room for improvement. Keeping track of wounds, rather than just
damage totals, helps. Bleeding rules could use work. CORPS looks
like it might excel on this front, just based on what I am seeing
on the character sheet. This is one of the areas where D&D has
traditionally sucked big eggs, since it is based upon a heroic
fanatasy model (where it excels). Tell me more about CORPS.
5. Source material. However, the GURPS stuff is so informationally
based (rather than system-specific), that it can easily be used
with other systems.
Trevor
Buzz
> Tell me more about this one. The light version doesn't have quite
> enough information for me to decide to buy it. You might want to
> make this a new thread (crossposted to both these groups, as it
> would be a comparison to both systems), or just email me if you
> don't think anyone else would be interested. Here are my reasons
> for playing GURPS:
FWIW, I'll do my best. It's been a while since I've actually used it.
There are some people on *.misc that can go into greater detail.
> 1. Skill based systems allow for interesting non-combat based
> characters. From the first perusal, CORPS looks like it has
> this. Tell me more.
CORPS is indeed, skill-based. It is similar to HERO and GURPS in that
characters are created using points to buy stats, skills, powers, as well
as get bonus points from disadvantages. No classes or templates.
> 2. Development is freeform, not limited by classes, and not in
> big steps (i.e., no level system). CORPS likely has this. Tell
> me more.
Uh, that's it in a nutshell. No templates, no classes. You decide upon a
starting point total (i.e., a power level appropriate to the campaign) and
go. The GM is also free to develop their own "skill tree", i.e., those
skills and their subskills available in the milleu. CORPS doesn't describe
any skills specifically, iirc. They assume that the name of the skill
should adequately describe what can be done with it. They give sample
skill trees for fantasty, contemporary, and futuristic settings. The GM
goes from there.
There is a specific section on powers, though. You're generally not going
to find anything as powerful as you would in HERO or BESM; this is more
street-level. Sin City as opposed to X-men. The game was originally
conceived as an X-Files style campaign, so the power level reflects that.
> 3. Combat is movement based, and rewards intelligent play. Our
> group is comprised of older wargamers, who like to see tactical
> movement. GURPS is tactical from the ground up (much like TFT
> before it). Lots of systems have tactical stuff grafted on
> later, and it just doesn't work the right way. Important issues:
> giving ground defensively, weapon reach (a pike changes how
> combat works), etc. Modern combat should be entirely tactical,
> so damage based systems like D&D typically do not handle it
> even semi-realistically (i.e., the first successful hit usually
> determines the outcome, not an accumulation of damage). I cannot
> see any hints of this in the light CORPS rulebook, so how does
> the full rulesbook handle it?
Combat is quite detailed, and, iirc, it uses a wound system, not any kind
of hit point system. Combat is detailed and lethal. There is a four-page
combat example that details a few seconds of combat. Very exacting (hit
locations, etc.) but pretty easy to grasp.
> 4. Realistic damage rules. GURPS does ok on this one, but there
> is room for improvement. Keeping track of wounds, rather than just
> damage totals, helps. Bleeding rules could use work. CORPS looks
> like it might excel on this front, just based on what I am seeing
> on the character sheet. This is one of the areas where D&D has
> traditionally sucked big eggs, since it is based upon a heroic
> fanatasy model (where it excels). Tell me more about CORPS.
As I mentioned before, iirc, it uses a wound system. Detailed and
realistic. Wounds impair your ability to do things with the wounded body
part, and overall.
> 5. Source material. However, the GURPS stuff is so informationally
> based (rather than system-specific), that it can easily be used
> with other systems.
This is one place where CORPS can't compete, unfortuneately. Of course,
there are GURPS to CORPS conversions out there.
Strider Starslayer
> As far as the swords/spears agrument, yes, even D&D3 simplifies weapon
> proficiency. A lot of people don't see this as a shortcoming, however. One
> can make counter-arguments about more strict weapon skill systems, e.g.,
> why should someone who's a master longswordsman suddenly be totally
> clueless when has to use a shortsword?
See now your making assumptions based on things you don't know; GURPS
generally defaults simmilar weapons to one another at a slight peanalty <I
belive broadsword defaults to shortsword at -2> and that makes sence, if
you trained to use a sword much longer then the near-knife you suddenly have
in your hands your not going to be quite as proficent in it, but not all of
your experence is out the window.
Buzz
>> As far as the swords/spears agrument, yes, even D&D3 simplifies weapon
>> proficiency. A lot of people don't see this as a shortcoming, however. One
>> can make counter-arguments about more strict weapon skill systems, e.g.,
>> why should someone who's a master longswordsman suddenly be totally
>> clueless when has to use a shortsword?
> See now your making assumptions based on things you don't know; GURPS
> generally defaults simmilar weapons to one another at a slight peanalty <I
> belive broadsword defaults to shortsword at -2> and that makes sence, if
> you trained to use a sword much longer then the near-knife you suddenly have
> in your hands your not going to be quite as proficent in it, but not all of
> your experence is out the window.
Notice, though, that I was not addressing GURPS in particular. 1e/2e used
various weapon proficiency systems, some of which had similar weapons
categories, some of which had someone who could use a broadsword having no
idea how to use a dagger.
I wasn't assuming anything about GURPS, I was
just making a point about the ends of the spectrum. D&D3e isn't
inherrently "bad" because all fighters can use almost all weapons with
equal basic proficiency; that they can do so adds to the heroic,
high-fantasy milleu. It's also one less rule construct you have to worry
about. That GURPS takes an opposite view doesn't make it inherrently
better or worse. GURPS, as I understand it, is more suited to gritty
realism, so this system seems to suit it. Of course, this type of system
can add levels of bookkeeping that some people aren't interested in, or
that don't fit their campaign's milleu.
Again, opinions aren't evidence. Whatever floats your boat.
Sidhain
> As far as the swords/spears argument, yes, even D&D3 simplifies weapon
> proficiency. A lot of people don't see this as a shortcoming, however. One
> can make counter-arguments about more strict weapon skill systems, e.g.,
> why should someone who's a master longswordsman suddenly be totally
> clueless when has to use a shortsword?
>
Because the weapons are used /very/ differently? I mean sure the longsword
expert would know which end to use, but little more--the techniques used
with a shortsword don't resemble those of a longer bladed sword (short
swords are predominantly stabbing/piercing weapons--thrusting mostly, the
vast majority of longer swords were slashing/cutting weapons.)
Besides you are obviously not familiar with Gurps since
Broadsword/Shortsword skills do default at a better level to each other
(meaning if your good with one your more likely to be passable to good with
the other)
Bokman7757
>> As far as system goes, though, it's much of a muchness. Gurps's
>> curve is more sensible than D&Ds: 3d6 for a heavily curved 3-18 is ime
>> preferable to D&D's totally flat 1-20. It makes your abilities more
>> restricted, but also more dependable, which is a better way ime of
>> getting heroic roleplay.
>
>I don't know if the comparison makes a lot of sense. From what I
>understand, the 3d6 roll in GURPS is not modfied, right? It's the target
>
>number that changes.
>
>With d20, the target number changes *and* the roll is modified by ability.
>
>As long as the same probability is maintained (i.e., action blah has X%
>
>change of succeeding), what difference does it make what mechanic is used?
>
>I dunno. I'm no math expert, but this seems like another apples vs.
>oranges argument. Any math experts are free to school me on this, though.
Having a "curved" probability a la GURPS means you're most likely to get
numbers in the middle of the scale- you're more likely to roll a 10 or 11 than
an 18. In a "flat" probability like D&D all results are equally possible- a 1
is just as likely as a 20. A lot of people seem to prefer "bell curves", but
it's almost a matter of taste- for some it does matter, others don't care, and
they're both right.
Clifford A. Anderson
news:9oaapp$rs$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In rec.games.frp.dnd Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> > Also while D&D3 did fix a lot of things that were a mess in AD&D there
is
> > still the inherrent problem pointed further down the sheet that the
differet
> > class have in GURPS terms different point totals. The basic fighter
template
> > is the cheapest while a specilist like the Palidin is very expensive
even at
> > low levels where things like Blessed, Power Investiture, and True Faith
don't
> > come into play.
>
> So, it's a criticism of D&D3 that it doesn't convert to GURPS well?
>
> It's not a criticism of GURPS that it can't handle the "simplistic class
> system" of D&D3?
>
> Apples and oranges. Play what you like.
I think you misunderstand his point; He's saying that there is an
imbalance to the character classes that can be demonstrated if the
characters were expressed in a point system. So, for example, a Fighter is
a more powerful template than a Paladin at lower levels.
Of course, the proper counter to this would be that at later levels, the
weaker low-level guys come into their own and tend to surpass those that
started out more powerful at lower levels. This means that while it would
be true that in GURPS, they would have disparate variance at character
creation, this variance will shift over time until it feels generally
balanced if taken as a whole.
For the record, I play both 3e and GURPS, and have no particular
preference. Right now I'm sick of D&D, but not because I am sick of >D&D<,
but because I am sick of Fantasy and feel like some good, old-fashioned
Sci-Fi.
Rupert Boleyn
<cliff.ba...@fix.it.yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think you misunderstand his point; He's saying that there is an
>imbalance to the character classes that can be demonstrated if the
>characters were expressed in a point system. So, for example, a Fighter is
>a more powerful template than a Paladin at lower levels.
How about "were expressed in GURPS' point system"? I'm sure that one
could design a point-based system that had each class' abilities add
up to the same point value. Afterall D&D's classes are supposed to be
balanced, so it should be possible. GURPS' view on the 'cost' of
various skills, advantages, etc., isn't the only possible or useful
one.
Clifford A. Anderson
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 13:32:19 -0800, "Clifford A. Anderson"
> <cliff.ba...@fix.it.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you misunderstand his point; He's saying that there is an
> >imbalance to the character classes that can be demonstrated if the
> >characters were expressed in a point system. So, for example, a Fighter
is
> >a more powerful template than a Paladin at lower levels.
>
> How about "were expressed in GURPS' point system"? I'm sure that one
> could design a point-based system that had each class' abilities add
> up to the same point value. Afterall D&D's classes are supposed to be
> balanced, so it should be possible. GURPS' view on the 'cost' of
> various skills, advantages, etc., isn't the only possible or useful
> one.
Unless you are arguing that all classes in 3e are exactly the same
strength at first level, then your point is moot. The balance in 3e comes
over the lifetime of the class, not just at first level.
SD Anderson
[snip]
> a dwarf who took many broken
> disadvantages to get his Bow skill up so high he could make called
> shots to people's eyes and hit a lot of the time,
Ok, I'm curious. What are the broken disads that raised his bow
skill up?
Assuming 40 points as the set limit he couldn't get any more points
than any other PC, unless they opted to take fewer disads. Bow as a
skill is EXPENSIVE.
You're expressly at a minus nine (-10 if the target has a helmet).
To get his eye shot up to a 12 (the snap shot minimum score for the
short bow - he's a dwarf! That's his bow no arguments about that! -
Skill at Snap Shot being a good dividing line between 'amachoor' and
pro) requires a lot more points than his total disads.
The penalty of nine and a base skill for the shot of 12 means he
needs a Bow skill of 21.
Dwarf DX at 9 Gain ten points pay 96 points for skill, net cost 86
pts. Low DX can be rather crippling however. Since he only gains
five points for dropping DX to 8 but pays 8, it's a net loss to go the
next level.
Dwarf DX at 10 Bow 21 costs 88 pts - under the skill points/age
rule, he's spent 44 years of his life training with a bow.
Dwarf DX at 12: 20 pts for the DX which will come in handy for
other skills, move, initiative and dodge. 72 points in skill, 92
total.
Dwarf DX at 14 45 for DX, 56 pts for skill 21, 101 pts total.
Benefits for DX good.
Dwarf DX at 15: 60 for DX, 48 for skill 21, 108 pts total
Dwarf DX at 17: 100 for DX, 32 for skill 21. total 132. A lot of
default skills are good at this level of DX.
However, the 40 points generated by disads (broken or otherwise) is
a rather small factor in those costs, whatever DX skill your Dwarf
has.
Of course I am presuming a 12 skill (slightly under a 3/4 chance of
success base) as 'a lot of the time' and that the acc and aiming
bonuses balance out range/movement/size/cover penalties. Perhaps he
had a lower score. My idea of 'a lot of the time' may vary from
yours.
Bokman7757
>I think you misunderstand his point; He's saying that there is an
>imbalance to the character classes that can be demonstrated if the
>characters were expressed in a point system.
This assumes that the values of certain abilities in GURPS are exactly the same
as the values of those abilities in D&D.
Chad Lubrecht
And that the abilities in GURPS are perfectly balanced.
Maybe you should argue that GURPS is obviously broken because it
assigns different points to "balanced" D&D characters...
Mark Jones
submarine on 19 Sep 2001 14:34:55 GMT, but the the following SOS was
heard:
>D&D3 has two "non-Vancian" systems for magic: sorcery and psionics. Both
>are basically point-based spell systems.
>
>Again, whatever floats your boat. To some people, flexibility can be a
>hindrance, because it generally means extra complexity or more work.
>FUDGE, for example, is incredibly flexible, but you certainly can't play
>it "out of the box." From what little I know about GURPS, the situation is
>similar.
I'm currently playing a sorceror in a DnD3 campaign, and enjoying it
a lot precisely _because_ it's a more flexible magic system. I know
fewer spells than a wizard of equivalent level, but I can cast them
as I choose without preplanning. That's worth a _lot_ to me.
But that flexibility is only relative. I'd enjoy playing a magic
user in GURPS (or Feng Shui or Mage) more.
Bruce Grubb
wrote:
>In rec.games.frp.dnd Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>> Also while D&D3 did fix a lot of things that were a mess in AD&D there is
>> still the inherrent problem pointed further down the sheet that the differet
>> class have in GURPS terms different point totals. The basic fighter
>> template is the cheapest while a specilist like the Palidin is very
>> expensive even at low levels where things like Blessed,
>> Power Investiture, and True Faith don't come into play.
>
>So, it's a criticism of D&D3 that it doesn't convert to GURPS well?
You are reading things that are NOT being said. The original statemant was
"It is tempting to try and relate AD&D levels to GURPS point levels
especially since both systems define what an 'average' person is: 0 th level
in AD&D and 25 pts in GURPS. There are three main problems with this idea."
While it is possible to do a point based set up for D&D3 the inherent problem
of doing so is that each class has is own point value. This in turn results
in 'cheap' class having a load of points left over to get other 'goodies'
that the more expensive class simply can't even afford. Also the class get
special abilities at different time which to
>It's not a criticism of GURPS that it can't handle the "simplistic class
>system" of D&D3?
I already demonstrated that GURPS *can* simulate a class system via
templates; seemd to missed that so hear it is again:
Bruce Grubb
sin...@pacifier.com (Mark Jones) wrote:
>Buzz <bu...@shell-2.enteract.com>'s OS imploded like a damaged
>submarine on 19 Sep 2001 14:34:55 GMT, but the the following SOS was
>heard:
>
>>D&D3 has two "non-Vancian" systems for magic: sorcery and psionics. Both
>>are basically point-based spell systems.
>>
>>Again, whatever floats your boat. To some people, flexibility can be a
>>hindrance, because it generally means extra complexity or more work.
>>FUDGE, for example, is incredibly flexible, but you certainly can't play
>>it "out of the box." From what little I know about GURPS, the situation is
>>similar.
>
>I'm currently playing a sorceror in a DnD3 campaign, and enjoying it
>a lot precisely _because_ it's a more flexible magic system. I know
>fewer spells than a wizard of equivalent level, but I can cast them
>as I choose without preplanning. That's worth a _lot_ to me.
Big deal. Many DMs allowed mages to 'cast spells on the fly' as far back as
AD&D1. Besides IIRC AD&D2 had this option in the Players Options and it
still was far inferior to GURPS Magic.
As long as his Fatigue holds out a GURPS Mage can cast -any- nonenchanment
spell he knows as many times as he wants. Also a GURPS mage can on the
casting choose how powerful the spell is which has a direct effect on the
energy uses. Also if they know it a high enough skill the spall may have NO
energy cost which mean they could *always* cast that particular spell.
D&D mages are still locked into the Vance inspired systme of casting x spells
per day/study period.