Coming back to DnD
Mitzi
Pokemon style charaters. I'd like to try a real rgp game with her
like DnD. She is 9 and can read and do math at a much higher grade
level. What would be the best game to start with? Original DnD (not
advanced) to keep it simple? Any suggestion for a two player game...
Me DM and she the PC? Maybe I put a NPC with her or put my own PC and
play both DM and PC????
MP
Wolfie
few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
Rich
I would start with with basic D&D or something... maybe with one of the
earlier starting modules like B2 Keep on the Borderlands or T1 Village of
Hommlet or something you make up yourself. For her age, I would be sure to
include a caste of interesting NPC's for her to meet and interact with. For
a one player game, give her a hulking brute to tag along with her (throw in
a few personality quirks to be sure that she'll think is funny), maybe make
it a half-ogre NPC. My own daughter is 4, I've been thinking about how I
might introduce her to the game myself so be sure to let us know how it
goes.
Halzebier
>My daughter keeps getting these new Roleplaying games that envolve
>Pokemon style charaters. I'd like to try a real rgp game with her
>like DnD. She is 9 and can read and do math at a much higher grade
>level. What would be the best game to start with?
There's a nice introductory set for D&D 3e called "D&D Adventures" or
something. It's an orange boxed set with floor plans, counters,
pregenerated characters and simplified rules. A bit like hero quest,
but it should be easy to build on.
Regards,
Hal
Frank Emanuel
"Wolfie" <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031109145259...@mb-m27.aol.com...
> I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D. Then
in a
> few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
I like GURPS but I wouldn't say it is easier. Basic D&D would be much easier
IMHO. Something with a choice of pre-rolled characters to get her started.
Frank
Insane Ranter
"Wolfie" <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031109145259...@mb-m27.aol.com...
in a
> few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
Grups easier that the old Red boxed D&D ? Your joking right?
Wolfie
quickly and posted in haste. To be honest I have never played "red box" I
started at first edition.
Insane Ranter
"Wolfie" <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
Ah ok then..
Brandon Cope
> I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D. Then in a
> few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
I'm a big GURPS fan, but I think the mechanics of FUDGE would be
*much* easier for a 9 yo to handle. The FUDGE Expanded Edition has a
worked out fantasy example in the back of the book.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
>
> For
> a one player game, give her a hulking brute to tag along with her (throw in
> a few personality quirks to be sure that she'll think is funny)
Maybe the NPC is her character's brother?
Brandon
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D. Then in a
>few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
Um...GURPS easier than D&D???
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
>On 09 Nov 2003 19:52:59 GMT, needso...@aol.comnospam (Wolfie)
>wrote:
>
>>I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D. Then in a
>>few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
>
>Um...GURPS easier than D&D???
Yeah, I'd say it is, by far. At least if you get some help with
character generation, and leave most of the optional rules for later.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.
Zarchery
I'd get her started on basic 3/3.5E D&D (whatever copy you have the
books for). It seems pretty simpler, much more so than the older
editions I've seen. She could start out as a simple fighter or
barbarian--always an excellent class for the newbies.
-----Zarchery-----
Brandon Cope
> In article <4usuqvgdpehqqutuu...@4ax.com>,
> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
> >On 09 Nov 2003 19:52:59 GMT, needso...@aol.comnospam (Wolfie)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D. Then in a
> >>few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
> >
> >Um...GURPS easier than D&D???
>
> Yeah, I'd say it is, by far. At least if you get some help with
> character generation, and leave most of the optional rules for later.
D&D 3.x, anyway (or so I've been told)*. I don't think it's true for
the old red cover D&D ...
* Specifically, you can create a GURPS character at just about any
point level with about equal difficulty. I've been told it's a royal
pain to start a D&D 3.x character at high levels (10+).
Brandon
Malachias Invictus
"Wolfie" <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D.
You are shitting us, right?
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Michael Scott Brown
news:ca4d1755.0311...@posting.google.com...
Cope also hates D&D and doesn't understand the game system, which makes
his contributions to such a thread ironic, to say the least.
-Michael
Wolfie
>
>You are shitting us, right?
I don't know anything about "red box." But GURPS has something that D&D doesn't
have: It is intuitive.
FUDGE Might also be a good choice as someone metioned earlier.
Malachias Invictus
"Wolfie" <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >> I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D.
> >
> >You are shitting us, right?
>
> I don't know anything about "red box." But GURPS has something that D&D
doesn't
> have: It is intuitive.
Where are you getting this from? *Neither* system is particularly
intuitive.
First Prophet of Kaos
>My daughter keeps getting these new Roleplaying games that envolve
>Pokemon style charaters. I'd like to try a real rgp game with her
>like DnD.
What makes D&D more real than a Pokemon-style game?
Just curious. I don't have a real answer to your question.
--
When in doubt, RTFM.
First Prophet of Kaos
It drifted enough for his contribution to be reasonable, this time.
Brandon Cope
Attention MSB or Burke-bot: the original poster talked about the
original D&D, not 3.x. If you are going to troll, don't make it so
easy to smack you down for your ignorance.
Brandon
Malachias Invictus
> lei...@pvv.ntnu.no (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) wrote in message
news:<bontdi$16$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no>...
> > In article <4usuqvgdpehqqutuu...@4ax.com>,
> > Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
> > >On 09 Nov 2003 19:52:59 GMT, needso...@aol.comnospam (Wolfie)
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D.
Then in a
> > >>few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
> > >
> > >Um...GURPS easier than D&D???
> >
> > Yeah, I'd say it is, by far. At least if you get some help with
> > character generation, and leave most of the optional rules for later.
>
> D&D 3.x, anyway (or so I've been told)*. I don't think it's true for
> the old red cover D&D ...
>
> * Specifically, you can create a GURPS character at just about any
> point level with about equal difficulty.
Not really. Higher point characters are more difficult to create & balance.
> I've been told it's a royal
> pain to start a D&D 3.x character at high levels (10+).
You were told wrong. I can fudge up a 10+ level character, *with*
equipment, in less than 20 minutes.
Jeff Heikkinen
Do you mean original D&D, as in the old beige booklets, or the "red
box" basic D&D? The two are VERY different.
Too much is left undefined in the first, but Basic would make a good
starting point, or the D&D Adventure Game (out of print, but not too
hard to find nevertheless) which has the advantage of being for the
almost-current edition of the game (3.0 as opposed to 3.5).
James Quick
cop...@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
<Snipping attributions. Suffice to say, MSB and Brandon are at it
again...>
Someone other than MSB or Brandon said:
> > > > I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D.
> > > > Then in a few years you could teach her D&D and see what she thinks.
> > >
> > > I'm a big GURPS fan, but I think the mechanics of FUDGE would be
> > > *much* easier for a 9 yo to handle. The FUDGE Expanded Edition has a
> > > worked out fantasy example in the back of the book.
> >
> > Cope also hates D&D and doesn't understand the game system, which makes
> > his contributions to such a thread ironic, to say the least.
>
> Attention MSB or Burke-bot: the original poster talked about the
> original D&D, not 3.x. If you are going to troll, don't make it so
> easy to smack you down for your ignorance.
Brandon is correct: Fudge is easier than GURPS.
Brandon is incorrect: MSB said nothing of 3e, only claimed you know
nothing of D&D
MSB is incorrect: Brandon seems qualified to talk on GURPS and FUDGE.
MSB is correct: Brandon doesn't understand D&D. Any version.
Please note that Brandon also seems to agree that he does not
understand 3e, since he only refutes the claim by referencing earlier
versions.
Please note that MSB is right on another point: Brandon's presence
here is ironic, since he does not understand, like, or play D&D.
This summataion of the last two posts to this thread has been brought
to you by the term "Anal", the number "32,768" and the letter "ñ".
--
James Quick [][][] jamesqu...@hotmail.com
Profanity is the first resort of the inarticulate motherfucker.
-- Elizabeth D. Brooks, among others.
Jack Rudd
Jack Rudd
Jeff Heikkinen
> (The OP's 9-year-old daughter) could start out as a simple fighter or
> barbarian--always an excellent class for the newbies.
And would get her into the mentality early on that girls can kick ass
with the best of them, which is pretty cool.
Michael Scott Brown
news:vr0510q...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I've been told it's a royal
> > pain to start a D&D 3.x character at high levels (10+).
>
> You were told wrong. I can fudge up a 10+ level character, *with*
> equipment, in less than 20 minutes.
Malachias is probably overestimating by a factor of two - and note that
the equipment part is the most time consuming.
High level character is *easy*, as long as you're willing to do single
classed. The 'basic formulas' for the various classes are easily memorized
through repeated usage (fighter: d10hd, 1/1 BAB, 2 skill/level, good fort
save, 1+1/2 levels bonus feats, use of all weapons & armor). This allows
you to immediately cough up a 10th level fighter's stats (10d10 hp, +10/5
BAB, 2 +intbonus skills at 13 ranks, fort save of 2+(10/2)=+7, other saves
of (10/3) +3, 6 bonus feats), and all you have to do is pick your feats
(plus your four general ones) and which skills you want to max out. Bam.
The rest is race and stats and equipment. <yawn>
-Michael
Rupert Boleyn
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>Not really. Higher point characters are more difficult to create & balance.
I've never found them harder to create. Harder to balance, and much
harder to optimise - definately. An the optimisation isn't really
optional - if the characters aren't at least somewhat optimsed
someone's is bound to be completely crap.
>> I've been told it's a royal
>> pain to start a D&D 3.x character at high levels (10+).
>
>You were told wrong. I can fudge up a 10+ level character, *with*
>equipment, in less than 20 minutes.
Yep, and doing it 'right' doesn't take a lot longer than a 1st level
character, and most of that is simply doing the gear - a wealthy
character in GURPS would have the same issue.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Rupert Boleyn
a tablet of ether:
>I'd get her started on basic 3/3.5E D&D (whatever copy you have the
>books for). It seems pretty simpler, much more so than the older
>editions I've seen. She could start out as a simple fighter or
>barbarian--always an excellent class for the newbies.
I generally recommend barbarian or sorcerer for newbies, depending on
whether they want magic or ass-kicking goodness. A poor choice of
feats can damaghe a fighter for a long time, and the need for
pre-planning with clerics and wizards makes them less than ideal for
someone new to traditional D&D-style roleplaying.
Arian
I agree. My elder daughter, now 10, decided last year that she wanted to
play PnP D&D, after watching me play endless hours of Baldur's Gate and
its Infinity Engine successors, and after making several characters
herself to wander round the virtual Forgotten Realms with.
I pointed out that we couldn't duplicate her BG characters with the
rule-sets I had, seeing I owned no edition of AD&D, and she wanted to be
able to multiclass. I suggested we buy 3E, seeing it has even more
flexible multiclassing rules than the 2E rules of BG, and that's what we
did.
Her current character is a halfling rogue, and she manages quite well.
She needs prompting about game-mechanics now and then, but so do the
other players. For that matter, so does the DM. :-)
Mitzi: as far as sending either an NPC or a PC of your own with your
daughter's character goes, my comment is, what's the difference? :-)
PCs and NPCs and even monsters are created in very similar ways in 3.x.
The same character can count as an NPC if their player is also the DM
and as a PC if someone else is the DM, pretty much.
The good thing about DM-controlled characters is that they can provide
in-character prompting to help newbies. The bad thing about them is that
they can steer the decision-making if you aren't careful. An interesting
balancing act. ;-)
--
Arian
Address me by name at North-net (with no hyphen), a 3-letter company
trading in the great south land.
Brandon Cope
> news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > lei...@pvv.ntnu.no (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) wrote in message
> news:<bontdi$16$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no>...
> > > In article <4usuqvgdpehqqutuu...@4ax.com>,
> > > Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
> > > >On 09 Nov 2003 19:52:59 GMT, needso...@aol.comnospam (Wolfie)
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D.
> Then in a
> > > >>few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
> > > >
> > > >Um...GURPS easier than D&D???
> > >
> > > Yeah, I'd say it is, by far. At least if you get some help with
> > > character generation, and leave most of the optional rules for later.
> >
> > D&D 3.x, anyway (or so I've been told)*. I don't think it's true for
> > the old red cover D&D ...
> >
> > * Specifically, you can create a GURPS character at just about any
> > point level with about equal difficulty.
>
> Not really. Higher point characters are more difficult to create & balance.
I would say that *low* point characters are more difficult to create
ana balance. Try 25 points vs 250 points.
> > I've been told it's a royal
> > pain to start a D&D 3.x character at high levels (10+).
>
> You were told wrong. I can fudge up a 10+ level character, *with*
> equipment, in less than 20 minutes.
The same amount of time it takes you to make a 1st level character?
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> In article <ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com>,
> cop...@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
>
> <Snipping attributions. Suffice to say, MSB and Brandon are at it
> again...>
>
> Someone other than MSB or Brandon said:
> > > > > I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D.
> > > > > Then in a few years you could teach her D&D and see what she thinks.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a big GURPS fan, but I think the mechanics of FUDGE would be
> > > > *much* easier for a 9 yo to handle. The FUDGE Expanded Edition has a
> > > > worked out fantasy example in the back of the book.
> > >
> > > Cope also hates D&D and doesn't understand the game system, which makes
> > > his contributions to such a thread ironic, to say the least.
> >
> > Attention MSB or Burke-bot: the original poster talked about the
> > original D&D, not 3.x. If you are going to troll, don't make it so
> > easy to smack you down for your ignorance.
<snip>
> This summataion of the last two posts to this thread has been brought
> to you by the term "Anal", the number "32,768" and the letter "ñ".
I'd tell you to go screw yourself, but you're already at it.
Brandon
Courtney Love
>High level character is *easy*, as long as you're willing >to do single
>classed. The 'basic formulas' for the various classes are >easily memorized
>through repeated usage (fighter: d10hd, 1/1 BAB, 2 >skill/level, good fort
>save, 1+1/2 levels bonus feats, use of all weapons & >armor).
Also remember:
Fighter BAB = level
Sorc/Wiz BAB = 1/2 level (rnd. down)
Others BAB = 3/4 level (rnd. down)
Good saves = +2 at 1st level, then +1 per 2 levels (2nd = +3, 4th = +4, 6th =
+5. etc.)
Other saves = 1/3 level (rnd. down)
Using this even a multiclassed character shouldn't take more than 20 minutes
unless you're adding templates or having to pore through splatbooks for
optional rules like new feats, spells, equipment, etc.
"Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor
citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang, as when
single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."
--Benjamin Franklin
James Quick
> James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<JamesQuick1967-D84...@news.verizon.net>...
>
> > This summataion of the last two posts to this thread has been brought
> > to you by the term "Anal", the number "32,768" and the letter "ñ".
>
> I'd tell you to go screw yourself
Because you are only here to troll.
Wolfie
>intuitive.
GURPS: Hit points are always about the same unless you increase the score that
represents how tough he is.
D&D: A person for an ill defined reason can take tons more damage if he has
gone on more adventures.
GURPS: Advancement in most cases can actually be broken down to the exact
amount of time it takes to improve a skill.
D&D: You can become a Demi Deity in the span of a couple of days in game if you
faught enough battles in that time.
Those are just examples of how the rules for GURPS feel more natural and easier
for someone to understand if they are just getting into role playing. Remember
a new player will base thier oppinions on how things actually work, not how the
extreamly abstract D&D system works.
I have once actually had a D&D session with a new player and a higher level PC
in the same game. The PCs both took about the same damage from the same
opponent. Unfortunatly the only explanation I had for him as to why he was
almost dead and his friend who took the same damage was just fine was "uumm..
he was higher level."
D&D can be great fun. I have played it for years. I simply believe that GURPS
or perhaps FUDGE is has a much more natural feel to it, perfect for a newbie.
Not to mention it took me weeks to get AD&D 1 and 2 and D&D 3.5 down when it
took me about a day and a half to understand the basics of GURPS well enough to
get through several play sessions as a GM. My players also learned GURPS much
quicker so I know it isn't just me. Been playing D&D for years and still have
too look up rules, for many months I haven't had to look at a GURPS book for
anything other than a stat block and character creation.
That is my opinion. Dislike it all you want.
James Quick
needso...@aol.comnospam (Wolfie) wrote:
> >Where are you getting this from? *Neither* system is particularly
> >intuitive.
>
> GURPS: Hit points are always about the same unless you increase the score
> that represents how tough he is.
>
> D&D: A person for an ill defined reason can take tons more damage if he has
> gone on more adventures.
I recently made a vow to myself I was going to stop being such a mean
bastard on Usenet. Posts like this make keeping that vow difficult.
First - neither of your examples really address issues of
intuitiveness.
Second - this example only illustrates a lack of understanding of hit
points on your part. MSB will be glad to explain it to you in full
detail if you ask him nicely, but i have to keep that vow I mentioned.
> GURPS: Advancement in most cases can actually be broken down to the exact
> amount of time it takes to improve a skill.
>
> D&D: You can become a Demi Deity in the span of a couple of days in game if
> you faught enough battles in that time.
Third - This example is so fraught with error i have no idea where to
begin. You don't seem to get that D&D is not about realism, where
GURPS tries to be. Realism is not necessarily more intuitive for a
fantasy game anyway.
> I have once actually had a D&D session with a new player and a higher level
> PC in the same game. The PCs both took about the same damage from the same
> opponent. Unfortunatly the only explanation I had for him as to why he was
> almost dead and his friend who took the same damage was just fine was "uumm..
> he was higher level."
Your failing, not the game.
> That is my opinion. Dislike it all you want.
I thank you for your permission, though I needed it not.
Jeff Heikkinen
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:20:08 -0500, Zarchery <no...@no.com> carved upon
> a tablet of ether:
>
> >I'd get her started on basic 3/3.5E D&D (whatever copy you have the
> >books for). It seems pretty simpler, much more so than the older
> >editions I've seen. She could start out as a simple fighter or
> >barbarian--always an excellent class for the newbies.
>
> I generally recommend barbarian or sorcerer for newbies, depending on
> whether they want magic or ass-kicking goodness.
"Butt-kicking for goodness!"
Jeff Heikkinen
> "Michael Scott Brown" mbr...@rand.org wrote:
>
> >High level character is *easy*, as long as you're willing >to do single
> >classed. The 'basic formulas' for the various classes are >easily memorized
> >through repeated usage (fighter: d10hd, 1/1 BAB, 2 >skill/level, good fort
> >save, 1+1/2 levels bonus feats, use of all weapons & >armor).
>
> Also remember:
>
> Fighter BAB = level
> Sorc/Wiz BAB = 1/2 level (rnd. down)
> Others BAB = 3/4 level (rnd. down)
>
> Good saves = +2 at 1st level, then +1 per 2 levels (2nd = +3, 4th = +4, 6th =
> +5. etc.)
> Other saves = 1/3 level (rnd. down)
>
> Using this even a multiclassed character shouldn't take more than 20 minutes
> unless you're adding templates or having to pore through splatbooks for
> optional rules like new feats, spells, equipment, etc.
>
said it's equipping that takes time.
Courtney Love
>If that part *alone* takes 20 minutes, you have issues. >As others have
>said it's equipping that takes time.
No one said it did.
Michael Scott Brown
> GURPS: Hit points are always about the same unless you increase the score
that
> represents how tough he is.
Which you can do by ... going on adventures.
> D&D: A person for an ill defined reason can take tons more damage if he
has
> gone on more adventures.
The reason is defined *very* clearly.
To make the post you made requires you to be an ignorant fuckwit.
> GURPS: Advancement in most cases can actually be broken down to the exact
> amount of time it takes to improve a skill.
Which you do somehow by ... going on adventures.
> D&D: You can become a Demi Deity in the span of a couple of days in game
if you
> faught enough battles in that time.
You might care to compare for a moment how many CP a gurps character
would have in 3 days if he, too, survived (somehow) the equivalent of
200,000 D&D XP.
> Those are just examples of how the rules for GURPS feel more natural and
easier
> for someone to understand if they are just getting into role playing.
Funny; I only saw examples of how you are an ignorant fuckwit who cannot
compare like quantities.
> I have once actually had a D&D session with a new player and a higher
level PC
> in the same game. The PCs both took about the same damage from the same
> opponent. Unfortunatly the only explanation I had for him as to why he
was
> almost dead and his friend who took the same damage was just fine was
"uumm..
> he was higher level."
Learn the game system, then, fuckwit.
-Michael
Stephenls
> "Butt-kicking for goodness!"
"Hmm. I like justice, and I like punching people. What to do...
"Ah. I know. PUNCH PEOPLE FOR JUSTICE!"
--
Stephenls
Geek
"That was the funnest coma ever." -Willow
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>Where are you getting this from? *Neither* system is particularly
>>intuitive.
>
>GURPS: Hit points are always about the same unless you increase the score that
>represents how tough he is.
>
>D&D: A person for an ill defined reason can take tons more damage if he has
>gone on more adventures.
>
>GURPS: Advancement in most cases can actually be broken down to the exact
>amount of time it takes to improve a skill.
Except when the skill was improved by spending points gained from
adventuring. Except when the skill improved by improving the governing
stat.
And how is it intuitive that increasing my intelligence makes me
stronger willed and more perceptive? How about that dropping my IQ
from ten to nine and buying my will and perception back to ten gets me
_one_ point. A -1 to all IQ based skills is worth _ONE_ point? That's
really intuitive. How about that DR costs less than Hit Points even
though they're almost always better?
>D&D: You can become a Demi Deity in the span of a couple of days in game if you
>faught enough battles in that time.
Bollocks. The rules state you can only gain one level per adventure.
>Those are just examples of how the rules for GURPS feel more natural and easier
>for someone to understand if they are just getting into role playing. Remember
>a new player will base thier oppinions on how things actually work, not how the
>extreamly abstract D&D system works.
What? A new player will base their opinions on how things work, not on
how they work?
>I have once actually had a D&D session with a new player and a higher level PC
>in the same game. The PCs both took about the same damage from the same
>opponent. Unfortunatly the only explanation I had for him as to why he was
>almost dead and his friend who took the same damage was just fine was "uumm..
>he was higher level."
IOW you're poor at explaining simply concepts like hit points.
>D&D can be great fun. I have played it for years. I simply believe that GURPS
>or perhaps FUDGE is has a much more natural feel to it, perfect for a newbie.
I'm not sure how a game that lets you dodge bullets is "more natural"
than one that lets you learn how to roll with blows.
>Not to mention it took me weeks to get AD&D 1 and 2 and D&D 3.5 down when it
>took me about a day and a half to understand the basics of GURPS well enough to
>get through several play sessions as a GM. My players also learned GURPS much
>quicker so I know it isn't just me. Been playing D&D for years and still have
>too look up rules, for many months I haven't had to look at a GURPS book for
>anything other than a stat block and character creation.
So, do you use GURPS' advanced combat?
Rupert Boleyn
a tablet of ether:
>"Butt-kicking for goodness!"
Indeed.
Brandon Cope
> In article <ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com>,
> cop...@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
>
> > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<JamesQuick1967-D84...@news.verizon.net>...
> >
> > > This summataion of the last two posts to this thread has been brought
> > > to you by the term "Anal", the number "32,768" and the letter "ñ".
> >
> > I'd tell you to go screw yourself
>
> Because you are only here to troll.
Saying that FUDGE would be easier for a 9 yo to learn than D&D 3.x is a troll?
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vr0510q...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I've been told it's a royal
> > > pain to start a D&D 3.x character at high levels (10+).
> >
> > You were told wrong. I can fudge up a 10+ level character, *with*
> > equipment, in less than 20 minutes.
>
> Malachias is probably overestimating by a factor of two - and note that
> the equipment part is the most time consuming.
Picking equipment in just about every game system is time consuming,
with the exceptions of character templates that come pre-equipped (eg
d6 Star Wars).
> High level character is *easy*, as long as you're willing to do single
> classed.
And if you aren't?
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:43:17 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> >
> >Not really. Higher point characters are more difficult to create & balance.
>
> I've never found them harder to create. Harder to balance, and much
> harder to optimise - definately. An the optimisation isn't really
> optional - if the characters aren't at least somewhat optimsed
> someone's is bound to be completely crap.
If no one optimizes, this isn't a problem. OTOH, I tend to be more
generous to characters who aren't min/maxed, so the initial advantage
of an optimized character is gone after a few adventures (yes, I
punish players for min/maxing and I let them know this in advance).
Brandon
JB
> > High level character is *easy*, as long as you're willing to do
single
> > classed.
>
> And if you aren't?
A bit longer, depending on class combinations and PrCs given that some
need route planning. That said you could probably knock up any 20th
level character combo within 20 minutes.
Malachias Invictus
"Wolfie" <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031111001421...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> >intuitive.
>
> GURPS: Hit points are always about the same unless you increase the score
that
> represents how tough he is.
...or buy more hit points (which you get as part of a "level package" in
D&D), or use the optional Stun Points rules...
> D&D: A person for an ill defined reason can take tons more damage if he
has
> gone on more adventures.
It is hardly ill-defined. You are only taking an increasingly smaller
portion of that damage, avoiding the rest through luck, skill, heroic mojo,
etc. It is a cinematic game, so the rules reflect cinematic reality. That
fact does not make D&D less intuitive than GURPS.
> GURPS: Advancement in most cases can actually be broken down to the exact
> amount of time it takes to improve a skill.
...which is promptly thrown out the window when one spends experience points
on skills, rather than using the studying rules for increasing skills.
> D&D: You can become a Demi Deity in the span of a couple of days in game
if you
> faught enough battles in that time.
Clue: you can do the same thing in GURPS. Running a ton of high experience
adventures in a short period of time is going to cause huge increases in
power in either game.
> Those are just examples of how the rules for GURPS feel more natural and
easier
> for someone to understand if they are just getting into role playing.
Yeah? If I have a high IQ in GURPS, after a single adventure, I can become
an accomplished doctor, surgeon, dentist, engineer, lawyer, and
cryptoanalyst. Is that intuitive?
> Remember a new player will base thier oppinions on how things actually
work, not how the
> extreamly abstract D&D system works.
I based my opinions on the fact that this is a *game*; one trying to
represent cinematic fantasy.
> I have once actually had a D&D session with a new player and a higher
level PC
> in the same game. The PCs both took about the same damage from the same
> opponent. Unfortunatly the only explanation I had for him as to why he
was
> almost dead and his friend who took the same damage was just fine was
"uumm..
> he was higher level."
Well, that just shows that you are not very adept at explaining such things.
> D&D can be great fun. I have played it for years. I simply believe that
GURPS
> or perhaps FUDGE is has a much more natural feel to it, perfect for a
newbie.
I do not think "natural feel" is what determines how easy a given game is
for a newbie to learn.
> Not to mention it took me weeks to get AD&D 1 and 2 and D&D 3.5 down
Really? I had the basics of 1st Edition down in one evening, without anyone
explaining it to me. I updated to 3.0 with a day and a half of light
reading.
> when it took me about a day and a half to understand the basics of GURPS
well enough to
> get through several play sessions as a GM.
That took me about 2 days of light reading.
> My players also learned GURPS much quicker so I know it isn't just me.
> Been playing D&D for years and still have too look up rules, for many
months
> I haven't had to look at a GURPS book for anything other than a stat block
and
> character creation.
It sounds like you have spent more time memorizing GURPS.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Malachias Invictus
> And how is it intuitive that increasing my intelligence makes me
> stronger willed and more perceptive? How about that dropping my IQ
> from ten to nine and buying my will and perception back to ten gets me
> _one_ point. A -1 to all IQ based skills is worth _ONE_ point? That's
> really intuitive.
You are forgetting the "Talented Beginner" vs. "Trained Veteran" character
concepts; specifically, how the former is always superior to the latter at a
given point total.
> How about that DR costs less than Hit Points even
> though they're almost always better?
Incidentally, GURPS Gulliver fixes this, by adding a new game mechanic:
Toughness. A point of Toughness is similar to DR, only it can only subtract
from base damage (it has no effect on the multiplied damage for cutting and
impaling attacks, and is in fact subtracted from the base damage *after* the
multiplier is applied). Toughness costs 5 character points per point, and
for another 3, it is upgraded to DR (making full DR 8 character points per
point).
> >D&D: You can become a Demi Deity in the span of a couple of days in game
if you
> >faught enough battles in that time.
>
> Bollocks. The rules state you can only gain one level per adventure.
You *could* have quite a few adventures in that short period of time,
though. For example, you could run an adventure based upon the "24"
concept - each adventure session represents an hour of in-game time.
> So, do you use GURPS' advanced combat?
I was wondering that...
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Using this even a multiclassed character shouldn't take more than 20 minutes
>unless you're adding templates or having to pore through splatbooks for
>optional rules like new feats, spells, equipment, etc.
It can take a long time to put together a higher level wizard, but
that's mostly decision making load; if you can make up your mind
quickly, it's not bad. Same for equipment or with higher level
rogues, skill points.
Wayne Shaw
It certainly doesn't take any longer to put together a 5/5
Fighter/Rogue than it would a 10th level rogue, for example. The more
spellcasting classes you lump in the longer it can take in my
experience, but then, until 3.5 multiple spellcasting classes was a
pretty foolish operation (and still can be depending on what they
are).
Malachias Invictus
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:43:17 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> >
> >Not really. Higher point characters are more difficult to create &
balance.
>
> I've never found them harder to create. Harder to balance, and much
> harder to optimise - definately. An the optimisation isn't really
> optional - if the characters aren't at least somewhat optimsed
> someone's is bound to be completely crap.
Exactly. I consider optimization an integral part of the character creation
process.
> >> I've been told it's a royal
> >> pain to start a D&D 3.x character at high levels (10+).
> >
> >You were told wrong. I can fudge up a 10+ level character, *with*
> >equipment, in less than 20 minutes.
>
> Yep, and doing it 'right' doesn't take a lot longer than a 1st level
> character, and most of that is simply doing the gear - a wealthy
> character in GURPS would have the same issue.
Exactly. The only thing that would take significant time would be a Fighter
picking out feats, or a Wizard choosing spells. Even then, there are some
pretty solid packages one could choose (e.g. the Whirlwind feat tree will
suck up those loose feats quite nicely).
Malachias Invictus
I have. Making low point characters is trivially easy.
> > > I've been told it's a royal
> > > pain to start a D&D 3.x character at high levels (10+).
> >
> > You were told wrong. I can fudge up a 10+ level character, *with*
> > equipment, in less than 20 minutes.
>
> The same amount of time it takes you to make a 1st level character?
No. It takes a bit longer. I can make a first level character in less than
10 minutes.
Michael Scott Brown
news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > High level character is *easy*, as long as you're willing to do
single
> > classed.
>
> And if you aren't?
Then you have no right to complain about it being more time consuming
when you create a MORE COMPLEX CHARACTER. The system is very good to use
precisely because it can support *both* extremes.
-Michael
Malachias Invictus
No, you hanging out here only to bitch about a D&D when you do not even play
it is trolling.
Wolfie
board.
A comparision I once made for a player that I will now repeat: D&D is sort of
like an abstract painting. Maybe you can tell they are humans in the picture
but only just human. GURPS is similar to that of a good portrait, it is still
just a flat canvas but you can make out features and possably even recognize
the person in the picture. If you like abstract paintings then play D&D, if
you like portraits or landscapes better, play GURPS (metaphor don't bother to
tell me art has nothing to do with gaming tastes). My oppinion is that people
will understand portraits better. They take less time to figure out what the
painting is of.
And for those of you who decided I can't explain simple gaming concepts or to
resort to name calling rather than explain your own oppinion you have helped a
smile cross my lips. Thank you, a smile is always a welcome thing.
Peace out
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
>Well, my oppinion was recived about as well as I thought it would be on a D&D
>board.
>
>A comparision I once made for a player that I will now repeat: D&D is sort of
>like an abstract painting. Maybe you can tell they are humans in the picture
>but only just human. GURPS is similar to that of a good portrait, it is still
>just a flat canvas but you can make out features and possably even recognize
>the person in the picture. If you like abstract paintings then play D&D, if
>you like portraits or landscapes better, play GURPS (metaphor don't bother to
>tell me art has nothing to do with gaming tastes). My oppinion is that people
>will understand portraits better. They take less time to figure out what the
>painting is of.
Look, I rather like GURPS, but I've found it hard to get players
because they find large chunks of the rules over-fiddly. Less
abstraction does not a more realistic or more intuitive game make.
As for GURPS being more realistic and less abstract - how do you
justify the way skills and stats interact, then? Or wealth levels and
how they affect how many hours a week you must work in a job, and how
much money you earn from a job?
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
>"Michael Scott Brown" <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message news:<bop958$uq$1...@lumberjack.rand.org>...
Then, like doing a high-point skill-based character in GURPS properly
(including point rebates for defaults from other skills, etc.), it
takes time unless you're working from a template of some sort.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
>It certainly doesn't take any longer to put together a 5/5
>Fighter/Rogue than it would a 10th level rogue, for example. The more
>spellcasting classes you lump in the longer it can take in my
>experience, but then, until 3.5 multiple spellcasting classes was a
>pretty foolish operation (and still can be depending on what they
>are).
IME the most time consuming part of writing up most high-level
spellcasters is doing their prepared spells, especially if you cvan't
be sure what situation they'll be in, so you need to sort out several
lists.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
>If no one optimizes, this isn't a problem.
IME it is, because someone will probably get closer to 'optimum', even
if they don't plan that way.
>OTOH, I tend to be more
>generous to characters who aren't min/maxed, so the initial advantage
>of an optimized character is gone after a few adventures (yes, I
>punish players for min/maxing and I let them know this in advance).
Lucky I'm not in your game - that's a challenge to the power gamer in
me - to mini-max without getting caught.
Rupert Boleyn
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>Exactly. The only thing that would take significant time would be a Fighter
>picking out feats, or a Wizard choosing spells. Even then, there are some
>pretty solid packages one could choose (e.g. the Whirlwind feat tree will
>suck up those loose feats quite nicely).
Back in 3e we had a one-off game with a group of 17th level
characters. It took almost no time to make up my fighter, and the
hardest part was trimming back the feats wanted so I could actually
get them all. I simply decided I wanted him to be as utterly awesome
with a bastard sword as possible and went from there, and that chewed
up most of the feats.
Rupert Boleyn
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:ufa1rvs04dsrmbnvn...@4ax.com...
>
>> And how is it intuitive that increasing my intelligence makes me
>> stronger willed and more perceptive? How about that dropping my IQ
>> from ten to nine and buying my will and perception back to ten gets me
>> _one_ point. A -1 to all IQ based skills is worth _ONE_ point? That's
>> really intuitive.
>
>You are forgetting the "Talented Beginner" vs. "Trained Veteran" character
>concepts; specifically, how the former is always superior to the latter at a
>given point total.
No, I'm well aware of that - I just don't see that as intuitive. In
fact RL experience suggests that that's not actually how the world
works.
>> How about that DR costs less than Hit Points even
>> though they're almost always better?
>
>Incidentally, GURPS Gulliver fixes this, by adding a new game mechanic:
>Toughness. A point of Toughness is similar to DR, only it can only subtract
>from base damage (it has no effect on the multiplied damage for cutting and
>impaling attacks, and is in fact subtracted from the base damage *after* the
>multiplier is applied). Toughness costs 5 character points per point, and
>for another 3, it is upgraded to DR (making full DR 8 character points per
>point).
I know, but GURPS itself is broken in this area.
>> >D&D: You can become a Demi Deity in the span of a couple of days in game
>if you
>> >faught enough battles in that time.
>>
>> Bollocks. The rules state you can only gain one level per adventure.
>
>You *could* have quite a few adventures in that short period of time,
>though. For example, you could run an adventure based upon the "24"
>concept - each adventure session represents an hour of in-game time.
True, but you'd better have a _lot_ of healing, and man would I not
want to play a spellcaster.
Jeff Heikkinen
Michael Scott Brown
> A comparision I once made for a player that I will now repeat: D&D is
sort of
> like an abstract painting. Maybe you can tell they are humans in the
picture
> but only just human. GURPS is similar to that of a good portrait, it is
still
> just a flat canvas but you can make out features and possably even
recognize
> the person in the picture. If you like abstract paintings then play D&D,
if
> you like portraits or landscapes better, play GURPS (metaphor don't
bother to
> tell me art has nothing to do with gaming tastes). My oppinion is that
people
> will understand portraits better. They take less time to figure out what
the
> painting is of.
By that analogy, your own post is a bit of pointless cubist drivel.
> And for those of you who decided I can't explain simple gaming concepts
or to
> resort to name calling rather than explain your own oppinion you have
helped a
> smile cross my lips. Thank you, a smile is always a welcome thing.
I think we can all assure you that your ignorance and stupidity
entertained us, as well.
It's good to have a talent, wolfie. It is somewhat too bad that you got
the short straw, though.
-Michael
Brandon Cope
> "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<JamesQuick1967-09D...@news.verizon.net>...
> > > In article <ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com>,
> > > cop...@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
> > >
> > > > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<JamesQuick1967-D84...@news.verizon.net>...
> > > >
> > > > > This summataion of the last two posts to this thread has been
> brought
> > > > > to you by the term "Anal", the number "32,768" and the letter "ñ".
> > > >
> > > > I'd tell you to go screw yourself
> > >
> > > Because you are only here to troll.
> >
> > Saying that FUDGE would be easier for a 9 yo to learn than D&D 3.x is a
> troll?
>
> No, you hanging out here only to bitch about a D&D when you do not even play
> it is trolling.
I wasn't bitching about the game, either, dickweed.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > High level character is *easy*, as long as you're willing to do
> single
> > > classed.
> >
> > And if you aren't?
>
> Then you have no right to complain about it being more time consuming
> when you create a MORE COMPLEX CHARACTER.
I certainly do have the right to do so. Creating a warrior/wizard in
GURPS is negligably more time consuming than creating a wizard.
> The system is very good to use
> precisely because it can support *both* extremes.
Yes, GURPS is very good to use since it can support both extremes.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
Actually, no, it's harder than higher point characters and I have
enough experience to know you are lying your ass off.
Brandon
Wolfie
>entertained us, as well.
> It's good to have a talent, wolfie. It is somewhat too bad that you got
>the short straw, though.
>
>-Michael
Glad to be of service :) I enjoy your messages very much please keep posting.
Wolfie
>because they find large chunks of the rules over-fiddly. Less
>abstraction does not a more realistic or more intuitive game make.
>
>As for GURPS being more realistic and less abstract - how do you
>justify the way skills and stats interact, then? Or wealth levels and
>how they affect how many hours a week you must work in a job, and how
>much money you earn from a job?
You make a few points. However, I didn't claim that GURPS wasn't abstract I
just meant it was LESS abstract which is true by just about anyones standards.
I will agree that character creation can be a bit "fiddly" as you put it, but
it actually isn't harder than D&D (in my opinion of course) to make a
character. It just seems to occasionally overwhelm players with options rather
than D&D's class system where you have about 11 choices for a starting
character (yes I know that coment will be fuel for flames).
As for how GURPS skills work: I believe this is much less abstract than how D&D
handles it. I understand why someone with a high DX score would be better at
sword play than a cluts if they both put in about the same amount of time
practicing. It is less abstract than the New Level=New Skill points system of
3e (or the virtually non-existant skill system of 2e and before you were either
so good at something you didn't need a roll or you couldn't do it at all).
Even so D&D skills are still modified by an attribute so Im not sure exactly
what you mean.
As for the mostly optional jobs system for GURPS I find it to be less of an
abstraction and more of an estimate of they type of job. Of course it may be
more abstract then getting an exact amount of stolen goods from murdering a
poor family of orcs and picking the pockets of their corpses just because they
lived in a dungeon...
I do thank you for your thoughtful post rather than the Usenet standard flaming
puke fest.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
>I certainly do have the right to do so. Creating a warrior/wizard in
>GURPS is negligably more time consuming than creating a wizard.
That would be true in D&D, as well.
Malachias Invictus
> > No, you hanging out here only to bitch about a D&D when you do not even
play
> > it is trolling.
>
> I wasn't bitching about the game, either, dickweed.
You do it all the time, Brandi.
Malachias Invictus
"Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y" <lei...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:bontdi$16$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <4usuqvgdpehqqutuu...@4ax.com>,
> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
> >On 09 Nov 2003 19:52:59 GMT, needso...@aol.comnospam (Wolfie)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D. Then
in a
> >>few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
> >
> >Um...GURPS easier than D&D???
>
> Yeah, I'd say it is, by far. At least if you get some help with
> character generation, and leave most of the optional rules for later.
Those are some major qualifiers. You can strip down D&D, too, incidentally.
Malachias Invictus
Bitch, you have proven time and time again that you are a whining idiot.
Creating low point characters is trivially easy - I can crank out a 25 point
character in less than 10 minutes. On the other hand, I usually take about
an hour for a 250 point character, including fine tuning. Fuck you and your
presumptive bullshit.
Malachias Invictus
"Wolfie" <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> Well, my oppinion was recived about as well as I thought it would be on a
D&D
> board.
>
> A comparision I once made for a player that I will now repeat: D&D is sort
of
> like an abstract painting. Maybe you can tell they are humans in the
picture
> but only just human. GURPS is similar to that of a good portrait, it is
still
> just a flat canvas but you can make out features and possably even
recognize
> the person in the picture. If you like abstract paintings then play D&D,
if
> you like portraits or landscapes better, play GURPS (metaphor don't bother
to
> tell me art has nothing to do with gaming tastes). My oppinion is that
people
> will understand portraits better. They take less time to figure out what
the
> painting is of.
I find this to be an exceedingly silly an inappropriate analogy.
Malachias Invictus
"Jeff Heikkinen" <o...@s.if> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a1b1b8e8...@news.easynews.com...
> Wayne Shaw, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > until 3.5 multiple spellcasting classes was a pretty foolish
> > operation (and still can be depending on what they
> > are).
> How do you feel 3.5 changed this compared to 3.0?
They added the Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight Prestige Classes...
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
>As for the mostly optional jobs system for GURPS I find it to be less of an
>abstraction and more of an estimate of they type of job. Of course it may be
>more abstract then getting an exact amount of stolen goods from murdering a
>poor family of orcs and picking the pockets of their corpses just because they
>lived in a dungeon...
The "optional" jobs system that has at least a page devoted to it in
just about every GURPS setting book? The way it interacts with a
character's wealth level is very abstract - if my PC is Wealthy he
needs to work less than the Average Joe and will earn more, even if
they're doing the same job, and even if my character currently has no
money. Somehow because he's Wealthy he just gets a better job and more
money.
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
>You make a few points. However, I didn't claim that GURPS wasn't abstract I
>just meant it was LESS abstract which is true by just about anyones standards.
Actually in some areas it's more abstract. GURPS actually splits
weapons up less finely than D&D, and lumps more of them into a
particular weapon skill than D&D generally does. Of course D&D os more
abstract in dealing with how a character learns to use weapons, so
most characters effectively learn all martial weapons as one 'thing',
but not all characters do that, and those that don't actually learn
them on a finer scale than they do in GURPS. For example, in GURPS the
Broadsword skill covers broadswords, thrusting broadswords, the
one-handaed use of bastard swords (both blunt-tipped and thrusting),
and 'light clubs'. In D&D the using a longsword is a single feat, as
is the one-handed use of a bastard sword.
>I will agree that character creation can be a bit "fiddly" as you put it, but
>it actually isn't harder than D&D (in my opinion of course) to make a
>character. It just seems to occasionally overwhelm players with options rather
>than D&D's class system where you have about 11 choices for a starting
>character (yes I know that coment will be fuel for flames).
Chargen is fairly simple, but getting a good character out of it is
often harder than it looks. IMO adding templates to sourcebooks was
one of the brighter moves SJG has made - they greatly cut down on the
chance that a new player will accidentally miss out a skill that their
character really needs for his intended role, career, or background.
Requiring players to use them also cuts down on the chance that the
newbie's character will be massively weaker than the long-timers
because of differing levels of optimisation. However, templates aren't
in the basic rules, and without them it's all too easy for a mewbie to
end up with a 'skills not talent' type character, and in GURPS that's
a character that's underpowered for its points level - it's as simple
as that.
>As for how GURPS skills work: I believe this is much less abstract than how D&D
>handles it. I understand why someone with a high DX score would be better at
>sword play than a cluts if they both put in about the same amount of time
>practicing. It is less abstract than the New Level=New Skill points system of
>3e (or the virtually non-existant skill system of 2e and before you were either
>so good at something you didn't need a roll or you couldn't do it at all).
>Even so D&D skills are still modified by an attribute so Im not sure exactly
>what you mean.
Because of the way GURPS lumps lots of things into only few stats (IQ
especially), and the massive impact stats have on skills, you get a
very abstracted feel - 'bright people are good at mentals skills and
seeing things and resisting evil influences, dexterous people are good
at physical tasks' - and they are. This feels like a super-hero comic.
Fitz
<rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>The "optional" jobs system that has at least a page devoted to it in
>just about every GURPS setting book? The way it interacts with a
>character's wealth level is very abstract - if my PC is Wealthy he
>needs to work less than the Average Joe and will earn more, even if
>they're doing the same job, and even if my character currently has no
>money. Somehow because he's Wealthy he just gets a better job and more
>money.
Sounds like a good reflection of real life to me :)
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fitz
http://fitz.jsr.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wolfie
>Creating low point characters is trivially easy - I can crank out a 25 point
>character in less than 10 minutes. On the other hand, I usually take about
>an hour for a 250 point character, including fine tuning. Fuck you and your
>presumptive bullshit.
I find it much easier to create higher total characters as well. You should
take time to think before you display your lack of verbal agility.
Wolfie
>
You have the right to think about it that way.
Silly? Perhaps. But I don't think its very inappropriate.
Wolfie
>just about every GURPS setting book? The way it interacts with a
>character's wealth level is very abstract - if my PC is Wealthy he
>needs to work less than the Average Joe and will earn more, even if
>they're doing the same job, and even if my character currently has no
>money. Somehow because he's Wealthy he just gets a better job and more
>money.
You are incorrect.
If your character looses his money he looses the Wealthy advantage it is as
simple as that. If a poor character gets rich he gains levels of wealth. And
you need to replace the word Need with "doesn't have too" your character can
work as much as he wants.
Keep in mind most "adventurers" don't have jobs.
Wolfie
>often harder than it looks. IMO adding templates to sourcebooks was
>one of the brighter moves SJG has made - they greatly cut down on the
>chance that a new player will accidentally miss out a skill that their
>character really needs for his intended role, career, or background.
>Requiring players to use them also cuts down on the chance that the
>newbie's character will be massively weaker than the long-timers
>because of differing levels of optimisation. However, templates aren't
>in the basic rules, and without them it's all too easy for a mewbie to
>end up with a 'skills not talent' type character, and in GURPS that's
>a character that's underpowered for its points level - it's as simple
>as that.
This has a bit of truth to it. New players will simply need help (Just like in
D&D). Keep in mind the end result of this "fiddliness" is that you can create
ANY type of person you want, you don't have to use a cookie cutter. I dislike
templates for that reason.
>Because of the way GURPS lumps lots of things into only few stats (IQ
>especially), and the massive impact stats have on skills, you get a
>very abstracted feel - 'bright people are good at mentals skills and
>seeing things and resisting evil influences, dexterous people are good
>at physical tasks' - and they are. This feels like a super-hero comic.
Only if you want it to feel like a super-hero comic. In the very popular
Compendium 1 then have rules that devide up many of the things you just
described. Any rule in GURPS (Other than success rolls and damage rolls) are
optional and can be replaced by optional rules.
If you are talking about a GURPS game that uses only the Basic Set information
without any optional rules at all you are talking about a very unusual game.
While you are correct about GURPS putting more things into a single stat this
also makes it newbie friendly which is what the origional posted wanted.
Anyway, giving a person numbers to stand for something they can do is very
abstract no matter how you handle it 4 stats, 6, 10.. is always going to be
abstract.
However if you want to talk about abstract lets talk about HP, AC, and BAB.
Have to admit GURPS wins there.
A perfect exaple of an extreamly easy comic-booky system is Tri-Stat. You can
learn Tri-Stat in about 20 minutes.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:29:30 +1300, Rupert Boleyn
><rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>The "optional" jobs system that has at least a page devoted to it in
>>just about every GURPS setting book? The way it interacts with a
>>character's wealth level is very abstract - if my PC is Wealthy he
>>needs to work less than the Average Joe and will earn more, even if
>>they're doing the same job, and even if my character currently has no
>>money. Somehow because he's Wealthy he just gets a better job and more
>>money.
>
>Sounds like a good reflection of real life to me :)
But in RL it's not being Wealthy that lets you do this, it's what
GURPS calls Contacts and what we call being "an undeserving arsehole".
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
>You are incorrect.
>
>If your character looses his money he looses the Wealthy advantage it is as
>simple as that.
Not really. Lots of wealthy people in RL have negative net wealth.
>If a poor character gets rich he gains levels of wealth.
Only if he pays for it in points.
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
>This has a bit of truth to it. New players will simply need help (Just like in
>D&D). Keep in mind the end result of this "fiddliness" is that you can create
>ANY type of person you want, you don't have to use a cookie cutter. I dislike
>templates for that reason.
Pity that if you want someone with average stats and high skills
you'll end up with someone much less competent for their points than a
similar character with more of their points dumped into stats.
In GURPS natural talent beats experience.
>>Because of the way GURPS lumps lots of things into only few stats (IQ
>>especially), and the massive impact stats have on skills, you get a
>>very abstracted feel - 'bright people are good at mentals skills and
>>seeing things and resisting evil influences, dexterous people are good
>>at physical tasks' - and they are. This feels like a super-hero comic.
>
>Only if you want it to feel like a super-hero comic. In the very popular
>Compendium 1 then have rules that devide up many of the things you just
>described. Any rule in GURPS (Other than success rolls and damage rolls) are
>optional and can be replaced by optional rules.
But the optional ones are more optional than the standard ones. That
these options exist, and that they turned up later tells us that other
people have also found this area of GURPS to be flawed.
>However if you want to talk about abstract lets talk about HP, AC, and BAB.
>Have to admit GURPS wins there.
Not really. GURPS has Hits, HT, hit points, SPD, PD, and DR. Then
there's SS, Acc, 1/2D and min ST. Add in the somewhat muddled way HT,
hits, and hit points work these days and you'd better hope your newbie
is satisfied with taling the GM's word about what's going on.
>A perfect exaple of an extreamly easy comic-booky system is Tri-Stat. You can
>learn Tri-Stat in about 20 minutes.
Now BESM, etc., is a system I'd recommend for teaching newbies about
rpgs. It's not perfect by any means, but it is simple to use.
Brandon Cope
> "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, you hanging out here only to bitch about a D&D when you do not even
> play
> > > it is trolling.
> >
> > I wasn't bitching about the game, either, dickweed.
>
> You do it all the time, Brandi.
Still afraid to use your own name, Maly Ivy?
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<vr24g7c...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > ana balance. Try 25 points vs 250 points.
> > >
> > > I have. Making low point characters is trivially easy.
> >
> > Actually, no, it's harder than higher point characters and I have
> > enough experience to know you are lying your ass off.
>
> Bitch, you have proven time and time again that you are a whining idiot.
Look who's talking, Molly.
> Creating low point characters is trivially easy - I can crank out a 25 point
> character in less than 10 minutes.
Probably looks like utter crap, too.
> On the other hand, I usually take about
> an hour for a 250 point character, including fine tuning. Fuck you and your
> presumptive bullshit.
Twenty-seven 25-point characters in four paid articles says otherwise.
You have also failed your reading comprehension roll again; 'longer'
and 'harder' are not synonymous.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> On 11 Nov 2003 23:53:32 GMT, needso...@aol.comnospam (Wolfie)
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> >As for the mostly optional jobs system for GURPS I find it to be less of an
> >abstraction and more of an estimate of they type of job. Of course it may be
> >more abstract then getting an exact amount of stolen goods from murdering a
> >poor family of orcs and picking the pockets of their corpses just because they
> >lived in a dungeon...
>
> The "optional" jobs system that has at least a page devoted to it in
> just about every GURPS setting book?
Just about the only times the jobs tables have ever mattered in my
campaigns is when the PCs were looking for a hireling.
In fact, the campaign I started this summer was the first one in over
13 years of GMing GURPS that the PCs actually had jobs they drew a
regular salary from.
Brandon
Malachias Invictus
"Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<vr2u7fi...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > No, you hanging out here only to bitch about a D&D when you do not
even
> > play
> > > > it is trolling.
> > >
> > > I wasn't bitching about the game, either, dickweed.
> >
> > You do it all the time, Brandi.
>
> Still afraid to use your own name, Maly Ivy?
No. Still afraid to ask me for my name, and too stupid to Google it,
Brandi?
Malachias Invictus
"Wolfie" <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >Bitch, you have proven time and time again that you are a whining idiot.
> >Creating low point characters is trivially easy - I can crank out a 25
point
> >character in less than 10 minutes. On the other hand, I usually take
about
> >an hour for a 250 point character, including fine tuning. Fuck you and
your
> >presumptive bullshit.
>
> I find it much easier to create higher total characters as well.
Well *bully* for you, fuckwit.
> You should take time to think before you display your lack of verbal
agility.
Done sucking Brandi's dick yet?
Malachias Invictus
"Wolfie" <needso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >I find this to be an exceedingly silly an inappropriate analogy.
> You have the right to think about it that way.
> Silly? Perhaps. But I don't think its very inappropriate.
Okay, perhaps "stupid and bearing no resemblance to the actual relationship
between the two gaming systems" is a better way to put it.
Malachias Invictus
"Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<vr2uo83...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<vr24g7c...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say that *low* point characters are more difficult to
create
> > > > > ana balance. Try 25 points vs 250 points.
> > > >
> > > > I have. Making low point characters is trivially easy.
> > >
> > > Actually, no, it's harder than higher point characters and I have
> > > enough experience to know you are lying your ass off.
> >
> > Bitch, you have proven time and time again that you are a whining idiot.
>
> Look who's talking, Molly.
I am not the one proselytizing GURPS in a D&D newsgroup, boy.
> > Creating low point characters is trivially easy - I can crank out a 25
point
> > character in less than 10 minutes.
>
> Probably looks like utter crap, too.
None of the groups I have played with seem to think so, and you wouldn't
know, would you?
> > On the other hand, I usually take about
> > an hour for a 250 point character, including fine tuning. Fuck you and
your
> > presumptive bullshit.
>
> Twenty-seven 25-point characters in four paid articles says otherwise.
Really? The fact that you have characters in an online magazine means you
know it that I am wrong about the time it takes me to make a character?
> You have also failed your reading comprehension roll again; 'longer'
> and 'harder' are not synonymous.
You really need to stop thinking of cocks when you post to this group,
Brandi.
Malachias Invictus
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:21:35 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:> >news:ufa1rvs04dsrmbnvn...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> And how is it intuitive that increasing my intelligence makes me
> >> stronger willed and more perceptive? How about that dropping my IQ
> >> from ten to nine and buying my will and perception back to ten gets me
> >> _one_ point. A -1 to all IQ based skills is worth _ONE_ point? That's
> >> really intuitive.
> >
> >You are forgetting the "Talented Beginner" vs. "Trained Veteran"
character
> >concepts; specifically, how the former is always superior to the latter
at a
> >given point total.
>
> No, I'm well aware of that - I just don't see that as intuitive.
That was my point ;-)
> >> How about that DR costs less than Hit Points even
> >> though they're almost always better?
> >
> >Incidentally, GURPS Gulliver fixes this, by adding a new game mechanic:
> >Toughness. A point of Toughness is similar to DR, only it can only
subtract
> >from base damage (it has no effect on the multiplied damage for cutting
and
> >impaling attacks, and is in fact subtracted from the base damage *after*
the
> >multiplier is applied). Toughness costs 5 character points per point,
and
> >for another 3, it is upgraded to DR (making full DR 8 character points
per
> >point).
>
> I know, but GURPS itself is broken in this area.
Agreed.
> >> >D&D: You can become a Demi Deity in the span of a couple of days in
game
> >if you
> >> >faught enough battles in that time.
> >>
> >> Bollocks. The rules state you can only gain one level per adventure.
> >
> >You *could* have quite a few adventures in that short period of time,
> >though. For example, you could run an adventure based upon the "24"
> >concept - each adventure session represents an hour of in-game time.
>
> True, but you'd better have a _lot_ of healing, and man would I not
> want to play a spellcaster.
The adventure would have to be set up with scrolls, Pearls of Power, and
other such things in order to actually work, but it could be done. In
GURPS, you could do it even more easily, actually.
Wayne Shaw
<rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:24:05 GMT, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> carved
>upon a tablet of ether:
>
>>It certainly doesn't take any longer to put together a 5/5
>>Fighter/Rogue than it would a 10th level rogue, for example. The more
>>spellcasting classes you lump in the longer it can take in my
>>experience, but then, until 3.5 multiple spellcasting classes was a
>>pretty foolish operation (and still can be depending on what they
>>are).
>
>IME the most time consuming part of writing up most high-level
>spellcasters is doing their prepared spells, especially if you cvan't
>be sure what situation they'll be in, so you need to sort out several
>lists.
I don't even try; I just do a default list and rearrange if I think
they'd really have other selections.
Wayne Shaw
>Wayne Shaw, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:14:57 -0000, "JB" <JB...@talk21.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> >> > High level character is *easy*, as long as you're willing to do
>> >single
>> >> > classed.
>> >>
>> >> And if you aren't?
>> >
>> >A bit longer, depending on class combinations and PrCs given that some
>> >need route planning. That said you could probably knock up any 20th
>> >level character combo within 20 minutes.
>> >
>>
>> It certainly doesn't take any longer to put together a 5/5
>> Fighter/Rogue than it would a 10th level rogue, for example. The more
>> spellcasting classes you lump in the longer it can take in my
>> experience, but then, until 3.5 multiple spellcasting classes was a
>> pretty foolish operation (and still can be depending on what they
>> are).
>
>How do you feel 3.5 changed this compared to 3.0?
Two words: Mystic Theurge.
Michael Scott Brown
consuming
> > when you create a MORE COMPLEX CHARACTER.
>
> I certainly do have the right to do so. Creating a warrior/wizard in
> GURPS is negligably more time consuming than creating a wizard.
Funny, the slowest part about wizardry-making in D&D is picking spells.
Hey! You have to pick spells in Gurps, too!
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
> If no one optimizes, this isn't a problem. OTOH, I tend to be more
> generous to characters who aren't min/maxed, so the initial advantage
> of an optimized character is gone after a few adventures (yes, I
> punish players for min/maxing and I let them know this in advance).
In other words, creating powerful characters doesn't take any longer
than creating wimpy characters, because you screw over anybody who tries
to make a powerful character, and therefore the players don't do it?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Malachias Invictus
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbr4tt0.v...@szonye.com...
Yep. Brandi certainly is a gem.
Wolfie
>>
>>If your character looses his money he looses the Wealthy advantage it is as
>>simple as that.
>
>Not really. Lots of wealthy people in RL have negative net wealth.
Well.. in GURPS you would loose the advantage.
>>If a poor character gets rich he gains levels of wealth.
>
>Only if he pays for it in points.
>
Nope, he would be forced to do so. He would either have to commit points that
haven't been earned yet or take disadvantages to pay it off.
Mouse
>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vr24g7c...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
>> > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<vr0510q...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > > "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:ca4d1755.03111...@posting.google.com...
>> > > > lei...@pvv.ntnu.no (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) wrote in message
>> news:<bontdi$16$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no>...
>> > > > > In article <4usuqvgdpehqqutuu...@4ax.com>,
>> > > > > Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
>> > > > > >On 09 Nov 2003 19:52:59 GMT, needso...@aol.comnospam (Wolfie)
>> > > > > >wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >>I suggest GURPS to start her with. Much easier to learn than D&D.
>> Then in a
>> > > > > >>few years you could teach here D&D and see what she thinks.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Um...GURPS easier than D&D???
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yeah, I'd say it is, by far. At least if you get some help with
>> > > > > character generation, and leave most of the optional rules for
>> later.
>> > > >
>> > > > D&D 3.x, anyway (or so I've been told)*. I don't think it's true for
>> > > > the old red cover D&D ...
>> > > >
>> > > > * Specifically, you can create a GURPS character at just about any
>> > > > point level with about equal difficulty.
>> > >
>> > > Not really. Higher point characters are more difficult to create &
>> balance.
>> >
>> > I would say that *low* point characters are more difficult to create
>> > ana balance. Try 25 points vs 250 points.
>>
>> I have. Making low point characters is trivially easy.
>
>Actually, no, it's harder than higher point characters and I have
>enough experience to know you are lying your ass off.
>
>Brandon
Brandon - have you ever tried HERO? (Not that this thread could get
any *more* off-topic)
I've played GURPs and HERO both, and have found that HERO is
significantly easier for character creation, both at low point-levels
and high.
Might be worth a look.