D20 vs. GURPS; OR Cinematic vs. Gritty

10 views
Skip to the first unread message

Robin David White

unread,
23 Dec 2002, 17:51:3723/12/2002
to
Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've heard
it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
true?

Thanks!

Robin David White

The Sophist

unread,
23 Dec 2002, 18:05:1923/12/2002
to

Here's one difference: cinematic heroes are larger than life, like
Legolas and Gimli taking down a hundred orcs a piece in the battle of
Helm's Deep. A gritty hero can usually be taken down by three or four
ordinary punks if they gang up on him (fewer if they get lucky). As to
whether it's true, it is very hard to do gritty D20, but GURPS is quite
flexible; while 100 point characters with standard rules will tend to
make for a fairly gritty game, giving PCs more points or introducing
some of the cinematic optional rules can change things completely.


--
Aaron Boyden

"I may have done this and that for sufferers; but always I seemed to
have done better when I learned to feel better joys."
-Thus spoke Zarathustra

Jeremy Reaban

unread,
23 Dec 2002, 18:08:4223/12/2002
to

"Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...

Cinematic = like in a movie (or novel).

Gritty = like in real life

For instance, Die Hard. One Cop with a pistol and without shoes vs. a
dozen or so terrorists and mercenaries with smgs & assault rifles. In
a cinematic system, the cop wins (and in the book, it was a really old
cop...Frank Sinatra once played the same character when he was in his
50s or, and I think that was the first book in the series). In real
life, the cop would like be killed almost immediately.

In Die Hard 2 (which was actually based on a completely different book
by another author, 58 Minutes, IIRC), the cop goes up against most
terrorists and rogue special forces. The latter should have chewed him
up if it were in real life.

Or James Bond. Bond and the super-villain are super tough. Look at
say, Jaws (the guy with metal teeth). He survived a variety of mishaps
that would have killed a normal person, even a large one his size.
Bond is average sized (scrawny, in Pierce Brosnan's case).

Obviously some movies are realistic, but most are not.

Another example - the opening bit of A Fistful of Dollars. "Get 3
coffins ready..". The Man with No Name (Clint Eastwood) comes up to 4
guys and out draws them all. ("My mistake...4 coffins.")

Anyway, I would say that d20 does a fairly good job of doing cinematic
games, but can do gritty do if you alter the hit point and armor
systems (which has been done). D20 handles the Die Hard series
well - he gradually loses hit points and gets diriter and nicked up in
the movies, but no real harm done.

It also handles the Clint Eastwood bit.

I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
works well, try CORPs). But it's 'gritty' simply because of how it
handles damage - hit point total stays the same (and low). Add an
inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
cinematic.


Scott Eaker

unread,
23 Dec 2002, 19:17:2923/12/2002
to

> I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
> works well, try CORPs). But it's 'gritty' simply because of how it
> handles damage - hit point total stays the same (and low). Add an
> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
> cinematic.

So what's unrealistic about a fixed "hit point" system? You want gritty
deadly realism, look into Millenium's End from Chameleon Eclectic (out of
print, but maybe you can find a copy for a buck or two on eBay). Your
character gets shot, he or she stands a decent chance of snuffing it.
Sounds about right to me. I don't care if you're a 98-pound librarian or a
Navy SEAL, lead bullets are toxic.
>
>
>
>


Douglas Berry

unread,
23 Dec 2002, 19:29:1623/12/2002
to
On 23 Dec 2002 14:51:37 -0800, a wanderer, known to us only as
robinda...@yahoo.ca (Robin David White) warmed at our fire and
told this tale:

"Cinematic" means, literally the things you see in the movies. Heroes
taking on dozens of enemies, leaping across chasms, and looking good
while doing it. Think of "Conan" or "Indiana Jones."

"Gritty" is down here in the real world. Getting hit by a chair
causes a concussion and you spend three days puking and with double
vision. Trying to leap a thirty-foot gap results in a fall. People
who take gunshot wounds tend to die or be serverely hurt.

GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more real-world
capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards
ideals (the Fighter, the Wizard, etc.) and the combat is fairly
abstract and allows all sorts of outs to keep characters alive.
--

Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

Peter Knutsen

unread,
23 Dec 2002, 22:48:2123/12/2002
to

Douglas Berry wrote:

> GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more real-world
> capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards

Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make a
party of 4-5 "specialists", they'll have skills so high that they are
able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
under extremely unfavourable circumstances.

They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them part
won't be easy either. And if the campaign is low on violence (which is
a novel thought for Jeremy Reaban) , they'll "smash" through all
obstacles, Bribing their way through, Bluffing, Disarming incredibly
complex and difficult Traps, Detecting every Lie the NPCs try to pull
off, Jumping, Climbing and Riding over impeding terrain at breakneck
speed, and so forth... That can be as cinematic as the traditional
D&D-style hack'n'slash, if not *more*.

And it's not something GURPS has a patent on doing, you can make that
kind of characters, and have that kind of campaign, in all systems
that are skill-based and have point-based character creation. But I'd
say that GURPS does it the best, because it's so easy to get very high
skills.

> ideals (the Fighter, the Wizard, etc.) and the combat is fairly
> abstract and allows all sorts of outs to keep characters alive.

One "feature" of d20 is the massive hit point buffer, which just about
removes the risk of instant-death, if you're at full hitpoints. It
strikes me that this also removes the aspect of courage, of taking
heroic risks, because drawing your sword and charging the orcs is not
really dangerous, hence not truly a brave act, if you've got triple
digit hitpoints and can only loose them so slowly that you'll have
plenty of time to retreat, if the fight isn't going as you expected.

So how about adding "courageous acts" to the definition of
"cinematic"? I'm tired of lame d20 propaganda based on unexamined
assumptions.


I also object to your incorrect use of the term "real world", when you
talk about "real world characters". Plenty of extremely capable
characters exist on our planet, in our era. We're not all 1st level
characters (to use d20 speak) or built on 25 points (to use GURPS
speak). It's a common fallacy to assume that because *most* people are
average, *everybody* is average.

--
Peter Knutsen

Shawn Fisher

unread,
23 Dec 2002, 23:29:2623/12/2002
to
>Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...

I've played both GURPS and DnD in carnations going back to (the GURPS Boxed
Set and DnD Red Book). GURPS does BOTH cinematic and realistic. DnD does
only EPIC level play. In GURPS, one can choose to create 0 point grunts with
Basic combat, or 500 point Chambara fighters with 4 attacks in a second. In
DnD you get 1st level thieves terrified of the combat abiliites of the
domestic house cat (look it up), and eventually earth shaking, terrifyingly
powerful characters. GURPS cannot compete with DnD in the EPIC level
adventure, when one man slays an army, or a mage destroys a castle. You can
do it in GURPS, but it takes some optional rules, and then will probably not
get the desired results. However, DnD will not work on the lower level
either. I play GURPS because it does what I want, giving the GM and players
mroe choices over the assumptions in the game (be they realistic or
cinematic). Even with D20, the guts of they game cannot be modified without
making the supplemental material all but useless.
In Short, play D20 to kill ancient dragons in one blow, or shrug off its
flame. Play GURPS to do other stuff.

Shawn A. Fisher
safi...@swbell.net
-----------------------------------------------------
"Greater love has no one than this,
that he lay down his life for his friends."
--John 15:13

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother."
--Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3


Chris Camfield

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 00:00:2224/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:17:29 GMT, "Scott Eaker" <scott...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
>> works well, try CORPs). But it's 'gritty' simply because of how it
>> handles damage - hit point total stays the same (and low). Add an
>> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
>> cinematic.
>
>So what's unrealistic about a fixed "hit point" system?

I don't think he was saying there's anything unrealistic about fixed hit points.
An _increasing_ hit point system (without penalties for being wounded) can make
gaming pretty cinematic.

Then again, technically Feng Shui has a fixed hit point system (with some wound
penalties at severe levels of damage) but is definitely cinematic. :-)

Chris

Johnny1A

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 01:00:4124/12/2002
to
"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@connectria.com> wrote in message news:<v0f5t08...@corp.supernews.com>...


There are degrees of 'gritty', of course. For ex, the one cop vs a
half dozen criminals with better weapons (Die Hard 1) has a slim, SLIM
real-world chance, if he plays it smart (which McClean didn't, of
course). It he struck from behind, was very cagy, and was very very
lucky, he might just be able to survive and kill his enemies.

James Bond is _pure_ cinematic, to the point of being almost an
intentional spoof of itself.

Shermanlee

Johnny1A

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 01:02:0424/12/2002
to
The Sophist <sop...@brown.edu> wrote in message news:<3E079698...@brown.edu>...

> Robin David White wrote:
> > Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've heard
> > it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> > while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
> > What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
> > true?
>
> Here's one difference: cinematic heroes are larger than life, like
> Legolas and Gimli taking down a hundred orcs a piece in the battle of
> Helm's Deep.

In fairness, Legolas killed many of those with a ranged weapon, and
Gimli didn't fight them all at once. It's cinematic, but not utterly
impossible.

Shermanlee

Wrathchild

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 04:14:1924/12/2002
to

"Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...

> Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've heard
> it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
> What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"?

Good definitions have aready been offered :-) Generally, Cinematic = Like
the Cinema and Gritty = close to Real Life.

and (2) Is it
> true?

As a fairly hard user of both systems I'd say that in their (most) standard
forms, the rule of thumb that d20/D&D 3rd ed. is for the cinematic and GURPS
is for the realistically oriented is basically true.

However, both systems have options (in the case of GURPS) or different
versions (in case of d20) that allow them to accomodate the fundamental
style of the other. Wether or not this is done adequately is IME so much a
matter of personal tastes that only your own experiences will do.

For me GURPS is first choice, as it is the more flexible and descriptive
system of the two IMO. And if I want to pull out the cinematic stuff it is
there in a form thats integrated and doesn't need for the rest of things to
change. With GURPS I can use almost anything without encountering the need
to change stuff and houserule. Not so with d20. Even though d20 is much
better that earlier editions (A)D&D and a fine system in itself.


--
Wrath
-------------------
" Somebody stop me! "


mcv

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 05:23:0624/12/2002
to
In rec.games.frp.gurps Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:

: I also object to your incorrect use of the term "real world", when you

: talk about "real world characters". Plenty of extremely capable
: characters exist on our planet, in our era. We're not all 1st level
: characters (to use d20 speak) or built on 25 points (to use GURPS
: speak). It's a common fallacy to assume that because *most* people are
: average, *everybody* is average.

I don't think it's even true that most people are average. Most people
are either above or below average. It's quite possible for a GURPS
character to have a negative point value. I assume my grandmother, as
well as many other elderly people, would have a negative point value in
GURPS terms, for example.


mcv.

David Johnston

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 05:58:3024/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
wrote:

>
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more real-world
>> capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards
>
>Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make a
>party of 4-5 "specialists", they'll have skills so high that they are
>able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
>under extremely unfavourable circumstances.
>
>They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them part
>won't be easy either.

Won't be that hard.

Let's have a look at combat Fred

Fred has ST 13, DX 17, IQ 12, HT 14,

That would be, what, 195 points in characteristics?

And a dodge of, what, 8?

Let's give Fred a BB gun just to be sporting.


Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
adjusted for range.

Fred goes first and kills one of the guys with guns by shooting him in
the eye.

2 of the remaining guys make their to hit rolls.

Odds are good that Fred will dodge one of those two guys and get hit
by the second one. Of course Fred with a Health of 14 is unlikely
to die, until he hits -70 health and will probably hobble around
endlessly popping bad guys in the eye until all the bad guys are
dead, but he will get hit.

Brandon Cope

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 06:44:3624/12/2002
to
"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@connectria.com> wrote in message news:<v0f5t08...@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
> > Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've
> heard
> > it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> > while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions:
> (1)
> > What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
> > true?
>
> Cinematic = like in a movie (or novel).
>
> Gritty = like in real life
>
> For instance, Die Hard. In real

> life, the cop would like be killed almost immediately.

Not necessarily. He would likely die before the end, but "immediately"
is a bit excessive.

BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
pretty bad before he wins. OTOH, Bond rarely gets his hair mussed (he
also has a completely absurd set of skills, another difference).
Finally, Cinematic heroes normally are much better skilled that their
opponents, have absurd luck *and* mastermind villains who suddenly act
stupid; Gritty Heroic heroes aren't much better skilled than their
opponents, have the same absurd luck but generally don't have stupid
masterminds.

> I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
> works well, try CORPs).

Damn, and I thought I was having fun playing it for the last 12 years.
I must be delusional, then.

> Add an
> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
> cinematic.

Stun points, anyone?

A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

David Johnston

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 07:45:5224/12/2002
to
On 24 Dec 2002 03:44:36 -0800, cop...@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:

>"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@connectria.com> wrote in message news:<v0f5t08...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
>> > Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've
>> heard
>> > it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
>> > while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions:
>> (1)
>> > What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
>> > true?
>>
>> Cinematic = like in a movie (or novel).
>>
>> Gritty = like in real life
>>
>> For instance, Die Hard. In real
>> life, the cop would like be killed almost immediately.
>
>Not necessarily. He would likely die before the end, but "immediately"
>is a bit excessive.
>
>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>pretty bad before he wins.

And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
at a time.

>> Add an
>> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
>> cinematic.
>
>Stun points, anyone?

Suck. The problem with stun points is that you never get stunned.
They also never really worked out how to handle hit locations with
stun points that I can see.

Sea Wasp

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 08:04:3224/12/2002
to

As generally used here, "cinematic" means "plays like an
action-adventure film or novel". Larger-than-life heroes who basically
don't go down before lesser foes, spectacular feats of brawn and skill
beyond those expected in real life, and so on. "Gritty" means "plays
more like a Real Life version". Grittier games by this standard make
even your James Bondish superspy vulnerable to Thug #2; he may never GET
to meet Goldfinger.

As for whether it's true... yes and no. The overall design of D20 tends
to favor the cinematic/heroic scope, while the overall design of GURPS
tends to favor the more gritty/realistic approach. However, you can be
grim'n'gritty with d20 and cinematic with GURPS if you want. Often this
involves tweaking the rules, or using optional rules presented in the
books. GURPS has a number of cinematic options (in the old GURPS Lensman
supplement, they had to pull out all the stops to allow proper cinematic
action, so a number of those rules got concentrated in that supplement).

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm

JDJarvis

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 10:35:1224/12/2002
to
robinda...@yahoo.ca (Robin David White) wrote in message news:<5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com>...

1.
Cinematic- action adventure movies where the hero can out run
explosions and getting shot in the shoulder is "just a flesh wound".
Bad guys always seem to aim just behind a hero who runs accross an
open field.

Griity- getting shot once really sucks. Life is brutual and short. for
the uncautious.

2.
nope.

A 250 point plus GURPS character is plenty cinematic and not a bit
gritty.

A 1st level anything in most d20 setting I've seen is plenty gritty in
the "pop your dead department". It can be even worse in some d20
setting like d20CoC where any moderately noticeable wound is likely to
be lethal regardless of hp totals.

if a game is griity or not it depends a whole lot more on setting then
on rules.

Ozzy

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 11:20:1624/12/2002
to
Chris Camfield a écrit :
>

> An _increasing_ hit point system (without penalties for being wounded) can make

Or a _gradual_ High Pain Threshold!
l'm using a leveled HPT that progressively reduce the wounds penalties.
Thus there is no "absolute" immunity to shock and the most heroic and
cinematic PCs/NPCs can still be stunned but by heavy/big shots/strikes,
like we often see in movies (the hero/villain is not stunned by 10
street brawlers, but can be by the other big guy!).

--
Cordialement

==! Attention à l'e@mail !==
Enlever 'INVALID' pour répondre
Remove 'INVALID' to reply
==!----------------------!==

mcv

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 11:40:0824/12/2002
to
In rec.games.frp.gurps David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
: wrote:
:>
:>Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make a
:>party of 4-5 "specialists", they'll have skills so high that they are
:>able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
:>under extremely unfavourable circumstances.
:>
:>They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them part
:>won't be easy either.

: Let's have a look at combat Fred

: Fred has ST 13, DX 17, IQ 12, HT 14,

: That would be, what, 195 points in characteristics?

: And a dodge of, what, 8?

: Let's give Fred a BB gun just to be sporting.

: Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
: adjusted for range.

: Fred goes first and kills one of the guys with guns by shooting him in
: the eye.

: 2 of the remaining guys make their to hit rolls.

: Odds are good that Fred will dodge one of those two guys and get hit
: by the second one. Of course Fred with a Health of 14 is unlikely
: to die, until he hits -70 health and will probably hobble around
: endlessly popping bad guys in the eye until all the bad guys are
: dead, but he will get hit.

If he neglects to use his no doubt impressive Stealth skill and doesn't
even use halfway decent cover, then yes, he will get hit, and deserves
to die.


mcv.

Wayne Shaw

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 11:53:5224/12/2002
to
On 24 Dec 2002 03:44:36 -0800, cop...@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:

>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>pretty bad before he wins. OTOH, Bond rarely gets his hair mussed (he
>also has a completely absurd set of skills, another difference).
>Finally, Cinematic heroes normally are much better skilled that their
>opponents, have absurd luck *and* mastermind villains who suddenly act
>stupid; Gritty Heroic heroes aren't much better skilled than their
>opponents, have the same absurd luck but generally don't have stupid
>masterminds.

In fact, Alan Rickman's character in Die Hard was one of the most
genuinely scary cinematic villains I've seen. He thinks on his feet,
as he shows twice in the movie, and that's a _very_ rare feature in
movie villains; it's usually reserved for heroes.


Charlton Wilbur

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 12:45:1224/12/2002
to
>>>>> "mcv" == mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> writes:

mcv> It's quite possible for a GURPS character to have a negative
mcv> point value. I assume my grandmother, as well as many other
mcv> elderly people, would have a negative point value in GURPS
mcv> terms, for example.

I don't know your grandmother, but I'd imagine that she's probably
learned a heck of a lot in her life -- lots of points in skills there.
"Elderly" often translates to "lots of physical disadvantages," but
that doesn't mean that elderly people can't have lots of skills or
mental or social advantages.

Charlton

Bill Seurer

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 14:01:1624/12/2002
to
David Johnston wrote:
> Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
> adjusted for range.
>
> Fred goes first and kills one of the guys with guns by shooting him in
> the eye.
>
> 2 of the remaining guys make their to hit rolls.
>
> Odds are good that Fred will dodge one of those two guys and get hit
> by the second one. Of course Fred with a Health of 14 is unlikely
> to die, until he hits -70 health and will probably hobble around
> endlessly popping bad guys in the eye until all the bad guys are
> dead, but he will get hit.
>

Sounds like Fred has an IQ of about 5, not 12. So he just stands out in
the open and shoots at these guys? Uhh, HELLO! What do you EXPECT to
happen? He OUGHT to get gunned down and raise the average IQ of the
human race in the process.

Give fred a real gun (even "just" a .45), put him somewhere with some
cover, and he'll take down the thugs.

Douglas Berry

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 13:56:5224/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:45:52 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) warmed at our fire and told
this tale:

>>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die


>>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>>pretty bad before he wins.
>
>And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
>of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
>at a time.

Hit also gets hurt, and by the end of the movie is limping around and
a complete mess.

Richard Brown

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 14:06:0424/12/2002
to
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in message news:<3e081eae...@news.telusplanet.net>...


With the ROF of an SMG and pulling tricks like walking a burst into a
target, firing from cover, and dodge and drop I think you
underestemate your 4 guys with SMG's. Even if Fred managed to kill
all the average guys, he'd likely bleed to death on the way to the
hospital (using the optional bleeding rules).

David Johnston

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 14:12:4324/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:56:52 -0800, Douglas Berry
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:45:52 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
>rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) warmed at our fire and told
>this tale:
>
>>>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
>>>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>>>pretty bad before he wins.
>>
>>And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
>>of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
>>at a time.
>
>Hit also gets hurt, and by the end of the movie is limping around and
>a complete mess.

GURPS does that too.

Douglas Berry

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 14:17:0024/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, a wanderer, known to us only as
Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:

>


>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more real-world
>> capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards
>
>Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make a
>party of 4-5 "specialists", they'll have skills so high that they are
>able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
>under extremely unfavourable circumstances.

And how common are 250 pt characters? In Special Ops (2nd ed) a Navy
SEAL is "only" 200 points. A 250 point character is going to be a
legend in SpecWar circles. Hell, Airborne Rangers are "only" 117
points, and I know what it takes to be one of those!

>They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them part
>won't be easy either. And if the campaign is low on violence (which is
>a novel thought for Jeremy Reaban) , they'll "smash" through all
>obstacles, Bribing their way through, Bluffing, Disarming incredibly
>complex and difficult Traps, Detecting every Lie the NPCs try to pull
>off, Jumping, Climbing and Riding over impeding terrain at breakneck
>speed, and so forth... That can be as cinematic as the traditional
>D&D-style hack'n'slash, if not *more*.

Anything is possible, and I never said other wise. I just said that
the characters tend more towards real-world capabilities. I stand by
that.

Look at GT: Ground Forces. Along with Imperial Marine BattleDress and
Sylean Rangers you get the template to play an Army cook if you so
wish. I have played in overpowered GURPS games, and found them
boring. GURPS works best when the characters are heroic, but
reasonable.

>And it's not something GURPS has a patent on doing, you can make that
>kind of characters, and have that kind of campaign, in all systems
>that are skill-based and have point-based character creation. But I'd
>say that GURPS does it the best, because it's so easy to get very high
>skills.

Try Hero. It's designed exactly for that sort of abuse.

>> ideals (the Fighter, the Wizard, etc.) and the combat is fairly
>> abstract and allows all sorts of outs to keep characters alive.
>
>One "feature" of d20 is the massive hit point buffer, which just about
>removes the risk of instant-death, if you're at full hitpoints. It
>strikes me that this also removes the aspect of courage, of taking
>heroic risks, because drawing your sword and charging the orcs is not
>really dangerous, hence not truly a brave act, if you've got triple
>digit hitpoints and can only loose them so slowly that you'll have
>plenty of time to retreat, if the fight isn't going as you expected.

True, which is why there are creatures that can do dozens of points of
damage in the Monster Manual (my only experience with d20 so far has
been with D&D, so bear with me.) The cave troll in FOTR for example.
Your triple-diget paladin is slaying orcs right and left when suddenly
they release something really formidable into the fight. An Ogre
Mage, perhaps, or a young dragon that has agreed to work with the orcs
for a share of the treasure.

Or you just make it clear that retreat is not an option. To reference
the Two Towers for a moment; what if Aragorn had been told that he had
to hold the gates until the women and children could be evacuated?
Suddenly, he can't withdraw. He needs to stay there, flailing away
and those hit points keep dropping...

>So how about adding "courageous acts" to the definition of
>"cinematic"? I'm tired of lame d20 propaganda based on unexamined
>assumptions.

I play both, have written for one, and like both systems. I've seen
courageous acts in both styles, but the difference *to me* is the
overall style of play supported.

>I also object to your incorrect use of the term "real world", when you
>talk about "real world characters". Plenty of extremely capable
>characters exist on our planet, in our era. We're not all 1st level
>characters (to use d20 speak) or built on 25 points (to use GURPS
>speak). It's a common fallacy to assume that because *most* people are
>average, *everybody* is average.

No, I used to be a 160 point Airborne Ranger. I also know that of the
70 people in my class, 26 graduated. And we had a surprisingly high
number of people stick it out. Today, I'm probably down to a 25 point
character due to health problems.

There are ~6 billion people on the Earth. Some are going to be much,
much better than average. But by definition the vast majority are
going to come close to that 25-point average.

David Johnston

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 14:21:0224/12/2002
to
On 24 Dec 2002 11:06:04 -0800, rbr...@myriad.com (Richard Brown)
wrote:

Recoil reduces accuracy after the first burst to the point where,
given the modest skill of the goons, the subsequent bursts are nothing
to worry about.

and pulling tricks like walking a burst into a
>target,

Hm. I'm not familiar with that rule.

>firing from cover,

Firing from cover is useless when when dealing with an opponent who
can reliably pop you in the eye every time he fires.


David Johnston

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 15:43:4024/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:45:12 GMT, Charlton Wilbur
<cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:

>>>>>> "mcv" == mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> writes:
>
> mcv> It's quite possible for a GURPS character to have a negative
> mcv> point value. I assume my grandmother, as well as many other
> mcv> elderly people, would have a negative point value in GURPS
> mcv> terms, for example.
>
>I don't know your grandmother, but I'd imagine that she's probably
>learned a heck of a lot in her life -- lots of points in skills there.

Assuming she hasn't forgotten anything.

David Johnston

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 15:50:5824/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:01:16 -0600, Bill Seurer <Bi...@seurer.net>
wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
>> adjusted for range.
>>
>> Fred goes first and kills one of the guys with guns by shooting him in
>> the eye.
>>
>> 2 of the remaining guys make their to hit rolls.
>>
>> Odds are good that Fred will dodge one of those two guys and get hit
>> by the second one. Of course Fred with a Health of 14 is unlikely
>> to die, until he hits -70 health and will probably hobble around
>> endlessly popping bad guys in the eye until all the bad guys are
>> dead, but he will get hit.
>>
>
>Sounds like Fred has an IQ of about 5, not 12. So he just stands out in
>the open and shoots at these guys?

Happens in the movies quite a lot.


>
>Give fred a real gun (even "just" a .45),

Actually, whether or not Fred has a real gun or not doesn't matter
when he can hit a target in the eye every time. The BB gun was
just a joke, because he doesn't need more than that to kill or
incapacitate his opponents. The issue was not whether Fred
can kill his opponents, because he can, very easily. The issue
is whether his opponents can hit him, and whether or not being
really good keeps his opponents from hitting him. Of course
I suppose that it would help if Fred ran away. He can easily outrun
his opponents and then turn around and pop them from a distance
that they can't hit him at, but the first round could be antsy.

John Kim

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 16:25:0424/12/2002
to

David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Bill Seurer <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
[Re: High-skill "Fred" vs four thugs with SMGs in GURPS]

>> Sounds like Fred has an IQ of about 5, not 12. So he just stands out
>> in the open and shoots at these guys?
>
>Happens in the movies quite a lot.

It depends what kind of movies. It seems to me that even
James Bond will think twice if he is caught in the open with four
goons with submachine guns surrounding him. In such situations he
will tend to surrender and then use a gadget or trick to turn the
tables on the thugs -- not simply shoot it out.

For characters who are supposed to dodge four guys with
submachine guns, one should look at the various cinematic
advantages. I know there is "Trained by a Master" for martial
artists, but I'm not sure what the equivalent is for gunmen.


David Johnston

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 17:14:5924/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:25:04 -0000, jh...@darkshire.org (John Kim)
wrote:


> For characters who are supposed to dodge four guys with
>submachine guns, one should look at the various cinematic
>advantages. I know there is "Trained by a Master" for martial
>artists, but I'm not sure what the equivalent is for gunmen.

Advantages like that in Gurps tend to increase the number of
attacks you are allowed to make rather than actually making it
harder to hit you. Of course you can always plug in bullet-proof
nudity, but that gets really frustrating when a naked woman tries
to kick your ass since no matter how good you are, you can never
hit her.

Mark Jones

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 17:00:1924/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:45:52 GMT, beaten and sobbing,
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)' confessed his crimes:

>>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
>>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>>pretty bad before he wins.

And it's one of the best action movies around. Though, of course, the
sequels suck like a whore behind on her rent.

>And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
>of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
>at a time.

And he doesn't immediately go into Bad Ass Mode (tm). His first
thought is to avoid the bad guys and _get help_. Hence setting off
the sprinklers and fire alarm, then using the walkie-talkie to call
for help from the roof. His first conversation with the master
villain is to ask if they'd like to open the front door for him.

Not that he expects them to do it, but he certainly would _like_ it if
they'd let him out. He fights because he has no choice besides
surrender (and that isn't much of an option).


--

"TV that makes us think is great. This, on the other hand, is TV that makes us
guess."
-MKahnFan explaining the argument over Spike's soul.

Mark Jones

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 17:02:2824/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 08:53:52 -0800, beaten and sobbing, Wayne Shaw
<sh...@caprica.com>' confessed his crimes:

Yep. And right up to the very end, despite all that McClane has done
(killing most of his goons, rescuing the hostages on the roof, etc.)
he was STILL GOING TO GET AWAY WITH THE MONEY. Here was a villain who
really understood that "no battle plan survives contact with the
enemy."

Mark Jones

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 17:09:1624/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:17:00 -0800, beaten and sobbing, Douglas Berry
<grid...@mindspring.com>' confessed his crimes:

>Look at GT: Ground Forces. Along with Imperial Marine BattleDress and
>Sylean Rangers you get the template to play an Army cook if you so
>wish. I have played in overpowered GURPS games, and found them
>boring. GURPS works best when the characters are heroic, but
>reasonable.

What do you consider an overpowered GURPS game?

>>One "feature" of d20 is the massive hit point buffer, which just about
>>removes the risk of instant-death, if you're at full hitpoints. It
>>strikes me that this also removes the aspect of courage, of taking
>>heroic risks, because drawing your sword and charging the orcs is not
>>really dangerous, hence not truly a brave act, if you've got triple
>>digit hitpoints and can only loose them so slowly that you'll have
>>plenty of time to retreat, if the fight isn't going as you expected.

[snip]

>Or you just make it clear that retreat is not an option. To reference
>the Two Towers for a moment; what if Aragorn had been told that he had
>to hold the gates until the women and children could be evacuated?
>Suddenly, he can't withdraw. He needs to stay there, flailing away
>and those hit points keep dropping...

One of the reasons I like the D20 Call of Cthulhu rules is that they
have a rule making "instant death" possible for _anyone_, no matter
how many hit points they might have. Any time a character takes more
than X hits of damage from a single attack, the character must make a
CON save or just die. If I were going to run a D20 game of any flavor
(including D&D) I'd definitely use that rule.

Stephenls

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 20:26:3224/12/2002
to
Mark Jones wrote:

> One of the reasons I like the D20 Call of Cthulhu rules is that they
> have a rule making "instant death" possible for _anyone_, no matter
> how many hit points they might have. Any time a character takes more
> than X hits of damage from a single attack, the character must make a
> CON save or just die. If I were going to run a D20 game of any flavor
> (including D&D) I'd definitely use that rule.

That rule is present in vanilla D&D3e. It's just that in 3e, it's 50
points of damage, whereas in CoCd20 it's ten points.
--
Stephenls
Geek

Xiphias Gladius

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 21:47:5124/12/2002
to

You have a different definition of "frustrating" than I do.

Or, perhaps, simply different experiences with naked women attempting
to kick your ass.

- Ian

Joseph Teller

unread,
24 Dec 2002, 22:12:1124/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:17:00 -0800, Douglas Berry
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>There are ~6 billion people on the Earth. Some are going to be much,
>much better than average. But by definition the vast majority are
>going to come close to that 25-point average.

This may be statistically true, if you include all the 3rd world
population, but when you are dealing folks from the USA, Canada,
Europe, and the developed nations of the Pacific (Australia, Japan,
etc) the so-called 1st and 2nd world countries, the statistics change
drastically. Especially if you only consider working-age adults (not
teenagers, children or retirees).

I suspect that you'll find lots of people who are in the 50 to 100
point range, and thanks to the costs for certain advantages, you will
find folks in the 200 to 300 point range (at least 5% of the
population) if you hold exactly to the IQ value equivilants on
attributes, the weight rules of ST, the point values for Wealth etc.
(Remember 10% of the world's population controls 90% of the Wealth,
and that wealth should cost them points under the mechanics rules.
Same is true of powerful ally groups etc.).

GURPS is an imperfect model, just like any other system. It handles
emulating 'ordinary folks' better than drastically advantaged folks or
well educated folks who live the Heinlin model of life (and there are
surprising more of them than most folks believe.... because most folks
will put points to raise stats to ridiculous levels when modeling
people rather than paying points for skills in quantity to properly
emulate all the folks with a 10-12 points value in IQ or DX).

Joe

--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Teller joet...@mindspring.com
www.fantasylibrary.com

Bill Seurer

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 00:24:3625/12/2002
to
Xiphias Gladius wrote:
> Or, perhaps, simply different experiences with naked women attempting
> to kick your ass.

It's kicking the OTHER side I'd be more worried about.

David Johnston

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 00:37:5825/12/2002
to
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 22:12:11 -0500, Joseph Teller
<fantas...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:17:00 -0800, Douglas Berry
><grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>There are ~6 billion people on the Earth. Some are going to be much,
>>much better than average. But by definition the vast majority are
>>going to come close to that 25-point average.
>
>This may be statistically true, if you include all the 3rd world
>population, but when you are dealing folks from the USA, Canada,
>Europe, and the developed nations of the Pacific (Australia, Japan,
>etc) the so-called 1st and 2nd world countries, the statistics change
>drastically. Especially if you only consider working-age adults (not
>teenagers, children or retirees).
>
>I suspect that you'll find lots of people who are in the 50 to 100
>point range, and thanks to the costs for certain advantages, you will
>find folks in the 200 to 300 point range (at least 5% of the
>population) if you hold exactly to the IQ value equivilants on
>attributes, the weight rules of ST, the point values for Wealth etc.
>(Remember 10% of the world's population controls 90% of the Wealth,
>and that wealth should cost them points under the mechanics rules.

Since the default for a normal campaign is first world, it would be
more accurate to say that third world peasants would be below
the average in terms of point total. Then again, they're probably
fitter than the average working-age adult in the west, thanks to
not being a fat desk jockey.

Brandon Cope

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 00:47:5025/12/2002
to
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<bebh0vs3o62nrhb5k...@4ax.com>...

> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:45:52 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) warmed at our fire and told
> this tale:
>
> >>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
> >>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
> >>pretty bad before he wins.
> >
> >And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
> >of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
> >at a time.
>
> Hit also gets hurt, and by the end of the movie is limping around and
> a complete mess.

By the end of movie 1, McClain had probably been hurt more than Bond
in all his movies combined. In DH 2 and 3 McClain didn't get hurt as
much, but still more than a Bond.

A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

Stephenls

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 03:11:5825/12/2002
to
Brandon Cope wrote:

> By the end of movie 1, McClain had probably been hurt more than Bond
> in all his movies combined. In DH 2 and 3 McClain didn't get hurt as
> much, but still more than a Bond.

I dunno, in /Die Another Day/ Bond gets tortured in a North Korean
prison for 18 months straight, where they do things like sting him with
scorpions and then give him the antivenom. That's badly hurt.

'Course, he recovers rather well. It would have been a cooler story if
he'd suffered horrendous trauma and spent the rest of the movie getting
over it.
--
Stephenls
Geek

Len Carpenter

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 09:31:2325/12/2002
to
"Stephenls" <step...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E09684E...@shaw.ca...

Here's where I wish the Bond movies had stayed a little truer to the
novels--not so much in the books' plots, which dragged at times, but in the
nature and qualities of the character. In the books, Bond wound up in the
hospital at the end of nearly half of them--shot, stabbed, poisoned, burned,
tortured, given a "Brooklyn stomping" by the bad guys . . .

The topper was where he suffered amnesia at the end of _You Only Live Twice_,
sailed into the hands of the Russians, was brainwashed, and nearly
assassinated M at the beginning of _The Man with the Golden Gun_.

Len Carpenter

Brandon Cope

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 11:19:3925/12/2002
to
Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<jhmh0vsr043229h9v...@4ax.com>...

> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:17:00 -0800, beaten and sobbing, Douglas Berry
> <grid...@mindspring.com>' confessed his crimes:
>
> >Look at GT: Ground Forces. Along with Imperial Marine BattleDress and
> >Sylean Rangers you get the template to play an Army cook if you so
> >wish. I have played in overpowered GURPS games, and found them
> >boring. GURPS works best when the characters are heroic, but
> >reasonable.
>
> What do you consider an overpowered GURPS game?

I know this question was directed at me, but ...

I prefer characters starting with 100-150 points. They can grow to
200+ points, but there is a large difference between a 100 point PC
who has earned 100 points and a 200 point PC just starting.

Christopher Köbel

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 12:51:4725/12/2002
to
> A 250 point plus GURPS character is plenty cinematic and not a bit
> gritty.

I like to disagree. 250 Points will make a fairly normal – if competent
in his field - person with one or two Patrons, Wealth and Status, and
enough contacts to get along well in the world. You can reach 250 CP
levels without necessarily getting cinematic.
Points don't tell very much – unlike Levels and Classes in The Other
Game.

Best regards (and a nice Christmas),
Christopher

Shawn Fisher

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 13:00:4125/12/2002
to
"Christopher Köbel" <dieKo...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:20021225...@mis.configured.host...
>I like to disagree. 250 Points will make a fairly normal - if competent

>in his field - person with one or two Patrons, Wealth and Status, and
>enough contacts to get along well in the world. You can reach 250 CP
>levels without necessarily getting cinematic.
>Points don't tell very much - unlike Levels and Classes in The Other
>Game.

Yep. 50 points in Wealth is much less cinematic than 50 additional points in
DX and Chambara fighting skills.
I've run medieval games with 400 point PCs, and they would have been bested
by 100-150 point straight fighters.
But add in all the prereqs for a King and his high barons, and they get real
expensive in a hurry. Status, Wealth,
Claim to Hospitality, Ally Group, Allies, Contacts, etc. One of the barons
ended up with 50 points in 1-3 point contacts.
His spy network was worth its weight in gold, however.
I didn't see any of these PCs as particularly cinematic, btw.

--
Shawn A. Fisher
safi...@swbell.net
-----------------------------------------------------
"Greater love has no one than this,
that he lay down his life for his friends."
--John 15:13

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother."
--Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3


Johnny1A

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 14:47:1825/12/2002
to
JJa...@foster-miller.com (JDJarvis) wrote in message news:<6fd19b61.02122...@posting.google.com>...
> robinda...@yahoo.ca (Robin David White) wrote in message news:<5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com>...
> > Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've heard
> > it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> > while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
> > What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
> > true?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Robin David White
>
> 1.
> Cinematic- action adventure movies where the hero can out run
> explosions and getting shot in the shoulder is "just a flesh wound".
> Bad guys always seem to aim just behind a hero who runs accross an
> open field.
>
> Griity- getting shot once really sucks. Life is brutual and short. for
> the uncautious.
>
> 2.
> nope.

>
> A 250 point plus GURPS character is plenty cinematic and not a bit
> gritty.

Actually, that depends to some degree on _what_ those 250 points are spent on.

Shermanlee

Bill Seurer

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 18:34:0125/12/2002
to
Brandon Cope wrote:
> I prefer characters starting with 100-150 points. They can grow to
> 200+ points, but there is a large difference between a 100 point PC
> who has earned 100 points and a 200 point PC just starting.

I had my guys start with 50 point characters and grew them into 350+
point characters in one campaign I ran a few years back. Even at the
end they still whined about being such weaklings (they most assuredly
weren't!). Recently I had them make 300 point characters at the start
and they are very different. The numbers are similar but without the
history of the character they just don't feel right somehow.

Timothy Little

unread,
25 Dec 2002, 18:38:4625/12/2002
to
Christopher Köbel <dieKo...@t-online.de> wrote:
>I like to disagree. 250 Points will make a fairly normal – if
>competent in his field - person with one or two Patrons, Wealth and
>Status, and enough contacts to get along well in the world.

Personally, I think the point cost for contacts is grossly inflated,
at least in comparison with other social advantages. That's true even
of the reduced costs found in the Compendium. Sure, contacts are
useful -- but having a few dozen fairly reliable but mostly
unavailable sources scattered across the country is *not* as valuable
as 100 points in other social advantages.

I mean, just look at it: for 15 points, you can get a well above
average loyal ally who will risk their own life to help you, available
nearly all the time. 15 points in Contacts doesn't even get you a
single fully reliable record clerk, who would give you nothing but
information anyway. 15 points in Reputation or Charisma gives you a
+3 reaction from *everyone*, enough to shift the average NPC reaction
to "good". It's more than enough to double your wealth. It's enough
to shift your social status upward dramatically.


> You can reach 250 CP levels without necessarily getting cinematic.
>Points don't tell very much – unlike Levels and Classes in The
>Other Game.

I do agree with you in general. Points in GURPS are a very poor
indicator of ability.


- Tim

Jürgen Hubert

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 06:52:1126/12/2002
to

"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3e081eae...@news.telusplanet.net...

> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
> wrote:


> >They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them
part
> >won't be easy either.
>
> Won't be that hard.
>
> Let's have a look at combat Fred
>
> Fred has ST 13, DX 17, IQ 12, HT 14,
>
> That would be, what, 195 points in characteristics?
>
> And a dodge of, what, 8?
>
> Let's give Fred a BB gun just to be sporting.
>
>

> Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
> adjusted for range.

That either means they are _very_ good, or _very_ close - they'd need
a base skill level of 16 for a distance of 10 yards, for example.

Those range penalities are a killer. And what's Fred doing out in the
open? If he's smart, he'll seek some cover. "Head and Shoulders"
exposed give a -4 to attack rolls, which drops the effective skill
level to 8. And if they don't aim, that drops to _4_ because it's
below the Snap Shot number for their SMGs (10 or 11 for all the SMGs
in the Basic Set). And if they _do_ aim... well, this might increase
their chance of hitting them, but also gives Fred more time to kill
_them_.

Oh, and don't forget the recoil penalties for shooting in burst mode!

Usually, a GURPS firefight in which both sides are aware of each other
will consist of both sides diving for cover, and lots of bullets going
astray...

Sure, there's a good chance that Fred might get hit, if the thugs are
smart enough not to just blaze away. But it's not automatic.


- Jürgen Hubert

My Two Cents: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/
Current Topic: "Shooting Nazis into Space"


Jürgen Hubert

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 06:56:4626/12/2002
to

"Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ehbh0vkej1mat5fsq...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, a wanderer, known to us only as
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >
> >Douglas Berry wrote:
> >
> >> GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more
real-world
> >> capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards
> >
> >Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make
a
> >party of 4-5 "specialists", they'll have skills so high that they
are
> >able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
> >under extremely unfavourable circumstances.
>
> And how common are 250 pt characters? In Special Ops (2nd ed) a
Navy
> SEAL is "only" 200 points. A 250 point character is going to be a
> legend in SpecWar circles. Hell, Airborne Rangers are "only" 117
> points, and I know what it takes to be one of those!

Well, if you want to play a cinematic game with GURPS, I'd say it
won't matter how common such people are... ;-)

Jürgen Hubert

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 06:07:0626/12/2002
to

"Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...

> Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've
heard
> it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions:
(1)
> What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
> true?

We've recently finished a year-long GURPS Warhammer campaign (taking
the characters from 100 to 300 points), and it wasn't all that gritty.
Though perhaps this was the result of the house rules we used...

Jürgen Hubert

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 06:11:1126/12/2002
to

"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@connectria.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:v0f5t08...@corp.supernews.com...
>

> I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
> works well, try CORPs). But it's 'gritty' simply because of how it
> handles damage - hit point total stays the same (and low). Add an
> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
> cinematic.

High-HT characters in GURPS (HT 13 and up) are really tough - they
frequently stay alive after suffering from more than 50 points of
damage! Though they are quite likely to fall unconscious after a
combat (Nature's way of saying "Don't push yourself!").

Yes, GURPS can be gritty - but high-point characters that put many of
their points into HT and advantages like "Hard to Kill" can endure
enough punishment to equal any mid-level D&D character...


- Jürgen Hubert

Urbis: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/index.html
Cryogenic Vaults: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/ts/vaults/index.html


Jürgen Hubert

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 06:59:4526/12/2002
to

"Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ca4d1755.02122...@posting.google.com...

This is one of the few things that truely bug me about GURPS - a
newly-created 200-point character tends to be more "point-effective"
than one who started with 100 points and earned an additional 100
points...

Unfortunately, I don't know a good solution to this, either.

Xiphias Gladius

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 12:09:5726/12/2002
to
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:31:23 GMT, "Len Carpenter" <red...@early.com>
wrote:


>Here's where I wish the Bond movies had stayed a little truer to the
>novels--not so much in the books' plots, which dragged at times, but in the
>nature and qualities of the character. In the books, Bond wound up in the
>hospital at the end of nearly half of them--shot, stabbed, poisoned, burned,
>tortured, given a "Brooklyn stomping" by the bad guys . . .

This is why "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is my favorite Bond
flick.

- Ian

msa...@cc.hut.fi

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 12:15:2226/12/2002
to
In rec.games.frp.gurps Brandon Cope <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<bebh0vs3o62nrhb5k...@4ax.com>...

--
Mikko "One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them."

Douglas Berry

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 12:56:3226/12/2002
to
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:59:45 +0100, a wanderer, known to us only as
"Jürgen Hubert" <jhu...@gmx.de> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:

>This is one of the few things that truely bug me about GURPS - a


>newly-created 200-point character tends to be more "point-effective"
>than one who started with 100 points and earned an additional 100
>points...

Yes, but the 100+100 character is probably going to be more well
rounded and able to do more things, albeit at a lower skill level.

When I run GURPS, I tend to, along with straight CP awards, hand out
things like 1-pt Contacts and Favors and 1-pt Area Familiarities. If
the adventure spent most of its time in the Roman catacombs, for
example, then the characters would get an 8- on the AK. Be usuful if
they every where there again.

--

Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

David Johnston

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 14:59:1126/12/2002
to
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:52:11 +0100, "Jürgen Hubert" <jhu...@gmx.de>
wrote:

>
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:3e081eae...@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them
>part
>> >won't be easy either.
>>
>> Won't be that hard.
>>
>> Let's have a look at combat Fred
>>
>> Fred has ST 13, DX 17, IQ 12, HT 14,
>>
>> That would be, what, 195 points in characteristics?
>>
>> And a dodge of, what, 8?
>>
>> Let's give Fred a BB gun just to be sporting.
>>
>>
>> Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
>> adjusted for range.
>
>That either means they are _very_ good, or _very_ close - they'd need
>a base skill level of 16 for a distance of 10 yards, for example.

I was assuming a base skill level of 14 and reasonably close range.
Combat Fred is, after all. killing his opponents by shooting them in
the eyes. Although the tremendous importance of distance modifiers is
one of the things that keeps GURPS from being a good "cinematic" game
without a great deal of fudging. It's not just a question of of
whether a character can avoid getting hit, but of whether you can
handle combat swiftly without having look things up in play.

>
>Those range penalities are a killer. And what's Fred doing out in the
>open? If he's smart, he'll seek some cover.

That would be irrelevant to my thesis, which is that it isn't really
that hard to hit a 250 point character as opposed to, say, a 100
point character. A 100 point charcter can seek cover just as well
as a 250 point character.

msa...@cc.hut.fi

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 16:27:1226/12/2002
to
In rec.games.frp.gurps David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:25:04 -0000, jh...@darkshire.org (John Kim)

: wrote:
:> For characters who are supposed to dodge four guys with
:>submachine guns, one should look at the various cinematic
:>advantages. I know there is "Trained by a Master" for martial
:>artists, but I'm not sure what the equivalent is for gunmen.

: Advantages like that in Gurps tend to increase the number of
: attacks you are allowed to make rather than actually making it
: harder to hit you.

How about a few levels of enhanced dodge for starters.

Brandon Cope

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 16:53:5326/12/2002
to
"J rgen Hubert" <jhu...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<auer86$6mmki$8...@ID-166792.news.dfncis.de>...

> "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:ca4d1755.02122...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > I prefer characters starting with 100-150 points. They can grow to
> > 200+ points, but there is a large difference between a 100 point PC
> > who has earned 100 points and a 200 point PC just starting.
>
> This is one of the few things that truely bug me about GURPS - a
> newly-created 200-point character tends to be more "point-effective"
> than one who started with 100 points and earned an additional 100
> points...
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know a good solution to this, either.

I can think of one (I didn't come up with the idea, but I don't
remember who did). Have the players create playable* 100 point
characters. Then, give them 100 CPs to spend, with increasing stats
costing double (as normal for in play improvements) and most
advantages unavailable. This doesn't work quite as well as an
'naturally' evolved character, but it may help.

* There, of course, will be players who will create a 100 point
character with, say, 10 half-point skills and all the other points in
stats and advantages that can't be gained in play. Assuming you want
to keep such creatures in your campaign, you probably need to have
other limits, like no more than 120 points in stats (I've noticed 100
point PCs average around 70-90) and at least 20 points in skills.

Mark Jones

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 17:52:4726/12/2002
to
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 09:56:32 -0800, beaten and sobbing, Douglas Berry
<grid...@mindspring.com>' confessed his crimes:

>Yes, but the 100+100 character is probably going to be more well


>rounded and able to do more things, albeit at a lower skill level.
>
>When I run GURPS, I tend to, along with straight CP awards, hand out
>things like 1-pt Contacts and Favors and 1-pt Area Familiarities. If
>the adventure spent most of its time in the Roman catacombs, for
>example, then the characters would get an 8- on the AK. Be usuful if
>they every where there again.

I've been thinking of doing something like that. Now that my 350
point Werewolf/Mage game is on hiatus, I'm going to switch to
something much lower powered, 150 point Swashbucklers or Traveller. I
may give a lot of experience in the forms you mention.

I've also considered requiring the players to give me a "wish list" of
skills/advantages they want to improve or acquire, and then limiting
CP purchases to that list on the assumption that that's what the
characters have been working to improve.
--

"It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see."
"_Real_ things?"
--Egg Shen and Jack Burton

Mark Jones

unread,
26 Dec 2002, 17:55:3326/12/2002
to
On 26 Dec 2002 13:53:53 -0800, beaten and sobbing, cop...@yahoo.com
(Brandon Cope)' confessed his crimes: