GURPS Sucks? Anyone?
Ilkka Mannisto
could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
before my players do!
pulver
Try the rec.games.frp.gurps newsgroup. You'll get a more productive
discussion of its strengths and weaknesses.
Really, though, it depends on the genre you are playing in. For example,
if you are running a classic fantasy campaign with GURPS Magic, there are
some things you need to know... if you're trying a space campaign, other
issues are worth considering, and so on.
Peter Knutsen
>
> The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
It does suck.
> could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
Certainly. GURPS is a very good system, but it has some flaws.
> my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
> before my players do!
I'll start a list, and then suggest some fixes
A. Skills levels are determined by your stat+training.
This does not have to be a major problem, but it is in GURPS,
because there are only 2 stats that are relevant for skills,
Dexterity(DX) and Intelligence (IQ). So people are encouraged
by the system to create characters who have a very high DX,
a very high IQ, or both a high DX and IQ.
The two other stats are Strength and Health (ST and HT) but
they only affect 1% of the skills in the game. They're usful
for people who expect to fight much, but not for anybody
else
B. The skill progression system encourages you to spend only
the minimum amount of points on each skill. Almost all skills
have a default rating which is equal to (stat-4, stat-5 or
stat-6). Now this is what happens.
If you spend half a point on a skill, it increases by 3
levels.
If you spend, in total, one whole point on a skill, it
goes up by 4 levels, relative to the default.
If you spend, in total, two whole points on a skill, it
goes up by 5 levels, relative to the default.
If you spend, in total, four whole points on a skill, it
goes up by 6 levels, relative to the default.
It's obvious to everyone that the first 1/2 point is very
cost-effective. Spending more points on a skill becomes
progressingly less and less effective. So when i create
a GURPS character, I tend to make the relevant stat very
high (either IQ or DX, sometimes both although this is
costly) and then spend only 1/2 a point on those skills I
want.
It's not because I'm a powergamer, but I'd simply feel stupid
if I spent more points on all my skills, and lowered the stat.
The brokenness of this is that GURPS does not encourage you to
differentiate your skill levels.
Imagine a Thief-type character who has spent a lot of time
climbing walls and picking locks, but not worked very much
with traps. He'd spend 1/2 point on traps, and maybe 2 or
4 points on climbing and picking locks. But if we assume
that those three skills are of the same Difficulty (average),
though I'm too lazy to check if that's the case, then his
Climbing and Lockpicking skill would be only 2 levels higher
than his Traps skill. Maybe they'd be 12, 12 and 10 respectively)
And he had to spend a lot of points to get those two skills to
12.
I have made a fix for this, however, which is at the end of
this posting.
Another "problem" with GURPS is that combat is dangerous.
It's not like in D&D or AD&D, where you get more and more
hitpoints. Instead, your chance of survival is determined
by your skills and abilities. So here's some advice for
fighter-types
A. Make sure you have a high weapon skill
B. Wear armour!
C. Have a high Health (=hitpoints)
D. If you can afford it, spend 10 points on the Toughness 1
advantage, this provides additional protection.
E. Consider taking Combat Reflexes advantage for 15 points,
as this will help you defend yourself, and also improve
your chance of getting the first attack.
The good thing about GURPS is that it has a lot of advantage
and disadvantages. These are important. They let you
customize your character. RPG systems that are purely
skill-based (unlike GURPS) will often create "bland"
characters.
But GURPS asks you the question: What type of "archetype" would
you like to be?
For a fighter-type, these advantages can be useful, but you won't
be able to afford them all:
Alertness
Ambidextry
Combat Reflexes
Danger Sense
Enhanced Block/Dodge/Parry (expensive)
Extra Hitpoints
Fearlessnes
Fit (or Very Fit)
High pain treshold
Rapid healing
Trained by a Master
Toughness
Weapon Master (cinematic, but also expensive)
A thief or spy character could use these:
Acute sense (either hearing, vision or smell/taste)
Alertness
Charisma
Danger Sense
Daredevil
Double-jointed
Empathy
Intuition
Litteracy (useful for a spy)
Manual Dexterity
Night vision
A knowledge-based character could use these:
Eidetic Memory
Language Talent
Litteracy
Sanctity
Strong will
Unfazeable
Versatile
There are something like a hundred advantages avaible, I've
only listed the most obvious.
Likewise, you can take disadvantages to tailor your character.
Apart from giving you more points to spend on "good stuff",
they also help you characterize your character.
Just a few examples:
Alcoholism
Flashbacks
Honesty
Low pain treshold
Pacifism (several degrees of severity are avaible)
Vow (like "can not use edged weapons")
Here comes a list of links to web-ressources, as well as some
general advice I wrote to someone in news:rec.games.frp.gurps
about which books he ought to buy.
Steve Jackson Games
http://www.sjgames.com/
GURPS section of SJG
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/
GURPS lite
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/
Click here to download GURPS lite right away
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/gurpslit.pdf
If you don't have Acrobat Reader, you can download it from here
http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html
Then there's the GURPS helpfile by Chris Yuoung, this list
all the skills and advantages/disadvantages from the Basic Book,
so you can use it along with GURPS lite.
Helpfile for windows 3.x
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/utilities/inst31.zip
Helpfile for Windows 95 (and 98)
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/utilities/inst95.zip
The newest version of the GURPS FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions).
It's very long, and you don't have to read it, but it might be
useful if a question arises.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/faq/
Finally, this piece of software helps you create characters,
it's the GURPS Character Assisant by Armin Sykes.
It's shareware, but is fully functional for 30 true days
(i.e. you can use it one day, then wait 3 months, use it
again and you have 28 days left). You can do pretty much
anything imaginable, but it does run a bit slow, except
on high-end Pentiums (it runs nicely on a 333 MHz)
http://www.teleport.com/~armin/gca/
That should be all the free stuff there is, except for the
Pyramid and Roleplayer articles on-line, but you really don't
need them to play.
The next step, when you've outgrown the free stuff, is to
buy two books, the Basic Book (3rd Edition) and Compendium I.
Compendium II is nice to have, it contains a lot of extra
weapons and expanded rules for combat, and campaign guidelines,
but in my opinion, it's not as useful as Compendium I (which
contains a *lot* of new advantages and disadvantages, as
well as several hundred new skills)
If you want inspiration for your campaign, or a ready-made campaign
world, take a look at this page:
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/
Some of the books are campaing worlds, other are genre books
(GURPS "Space" for instance, just gives a lot of ideas and can
be used for hard science fiction or space opera, while GURPS
Fantasy (according to what i've heard) is a specific world,
not generic fantasy)).
There are over 150 different GURPS books, only about 40 are
"in print" but it should be possible to find some of the others
in shops around the country.
And finally, my proposed fix for the skill progression system.
This can't be implemented in the current version of GCA
(GURPS Character Assistant), but the programmer has promised
me that it will be possible to use this system in the next
version:
The problem is that putting points in skills aren't cost-
effective. Spending them on ads, and attributes gives you much
more. Some weeks ago I suggested that the skill system should be
changed, so that as you spend points on a skill, the skill goes
up faster.
The official skill system works like this:
0 points default, which might be stat-4 for an P/E skill
1/2 pt stat-1
1 pt stat
2 pt stat+1
4 pt stat+2
8 pt stat+3
16 pt stat+4
24 pt stat+5
Now, those 24 points increased the skill by a total of 9
levels, from stat-4 to stat+5. But notice which points were
most efficient? The first 2 points increased your skill by
5 levels! The next 22 points increased your stat by 4
levels.
0 points new default, stat-5 for a P/E skill
1/2 pt stat-3
1 pt stat-1
2 pt stat+1
4 pt stat+2
8 pt stat+3
16 pt stat+4
24 pt stat+5
This involves lowering all default values by 1, but I don't
think that's a problem. The advantage of the above table is
that the first half point only gives a +2, instead of a +3.
The second halfpoint also gives a +2, instead of a +1.
And the second whole point give a +2, also instead of a +1.
Points old new
spend
0 -1
1/2 +3 +1
1 +4 +3
2 +5 +5
See the advantage?
When I create a GURPS character, I'm severely tempted to just put
1/2 point into a lot of skills. That first halfpoint is soooo gooood!
The second halfpoint is almost stupid, you ought to spend it on
something useful, instead of a skill.
With the new system, you penalize high-stat characters slightly,
because they have a harder time defaulting skills, but it's not
much. And you encourage players to decide which skills they
want their character to have trained just slightly (1/2),
some (1) and a lot(2).
As it is now, I just write down the skills I'd like, then I spend
half a point on each. Then I find out I have some more points to
spend, so I go looking for more skills to add.
With the new system, I'll start of by spending 1/2 point on all
the skills, then I'll select maybe half of them, and spend another
1/2 point on those. Then I'll select some of those skills, maybe
half of them, and spend another whole point, because those are the
skills my character uses a lot and ought to be good at.
And the best thing about it is, I won't feel stupid doing it.
A long posting, but I hope some of it can help you.
--
Peter Knutsen
Bryan J. Maloney
> The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
> could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
> my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
> before my players do!
Okay, as a guy who turns to GURPS first whenever I look at running
something, I'd say that I'm familiar with its flaws.
Number one all-time greatest flaw:
The fact that attributes are the most important part of the game. Your
skills are based primarily upon your attribute scores, specifically upon
IQ and DX, with only a couple skills based on HT or ST. Thus, GURPS is
the DX/IQ game. The system's method is severely flawed in that GURPS PCs
are invariably "incredibly talented children", that is, all their
character points are in attributes and a tiny fraction are in skills, but
nearly all their many skills are at 14+ levels (roll level or less on
3d6). Thus, GURPS says that highly skilled people are never skilled by
virtue of their training but by virtue of whatever it is that "attributes"
model. If we're allowed to question the modeling integrety of AD&D, we
can do the same for GURPS.
Since GURPS prides itself on being "realistic", I have specifically asked
SJG for what research this design decision was based upon--I have yet to
receive an answer.
It is a very simple way to do things, though. If you want to reduce the
effect of attributes, the simplest way to do that is have skills based on
(AT/2)+5 instead of AT, where AT is the attribute in question. Thus,
characters will have to put more points into skills. For fractions, I
would say that characters gain the benefit of the 0.5 leftover from the
division only if they pay the price intermediate between skill levels in
character points.
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
SD Anderson
from a few weeks ago under "Bad Things about GURPS" and get an
argument that if anything is LONGER than the AD&D Sucks thread.
John Scott
> The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
> could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
> my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
> before my players do!
Complete digression, but it must be getting close to Christmas because I
saw this thred title, read it as "GURPS Socks? Anoyone" and thought "hmm
... I know a couple of people who'd like those for a present."
Happy Christmas
John
--
Welcome to Usenet, where having the last word is more important than
being right. Have a nice day.
**The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this**
j.f....@brighton.ac.uk Karl...@postmaster.co.uk
Brett Slocum
The Illuminated Masters let Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> write:
>I'll start a list, and then suggest some fixes
>
>A. Skills levels are determined by your stat+training.
<snip>
> The two other stats are Strength and Health (ST and HT) but
> they only affect 1% of the skills in the game. They're usful
> for people who expect to fight much, but not for anybody
> else
Unless you happen to run, spend any time in disease-ridden areas, *ever* expect
to survive a fight, or do any of a number of activities that GMs are so likely
to ask you to do a HT roll, etc. If you won't do any of these, then leave HT at
8. ;-)
>B. The skill progression system encourages you to spend only
> the minimum amount of points on each skill.
<snip>
>It's obvious to everyone that the first 1/2 point is very
>cost-effective.
<snip>
>The brokenness of this is that GURPS does not encourage you to
>differentiate your skill levels.
>Imagine a Thief-type character who has spent a lot of time
>climbing walls and picking locks, but not worked very much
>with traps. He'd spend 1/2 point on traps, and maybe 2 or
>4 points on climbing and picking locks. But if we assume
>that those three skills are of the same Difficulty (average),
>though I'm too lazy to check if that's the case, then his
>Climbing and Lockpicking skill would be only 2 levels higher
>than his Traps skill. Maybe they'd be 12, 12 and 10 respectively)
>And he had to spend a lot of points to get those two skills to
>12.
Remember that the difference between skill 10 and 12 is the difference between
50% and 74%. That's pretty differentiated in my mind. Where the point of
diminishing returns cuts in is higher on the scale, where the percentage change
is *much* smaller.
Yes, the system encourages you to spend as much as you can afford on attributes,
but there comes a point when it is still better to put the points into skills.
And after the character starts in play, the cost of attributes doubles, making
skills the only effective way to go.
In general, if I give players more than 100 points to spend on characters, I
have them spend the first 100 normally, and then the rest of the points are
given 'after character creation', when attribute costs double and certain
advantages are not available. This tends to make more reasonable characters than
simply giving them 500 points to spend.
>Another "problem" with GURPS is that combat is dangerous.
>It's not like in D&D or AD&D, where you get more and more
>hitpoints. Instead, your chance of survival is determined
>by your skills and abilities.
This can be modified if using the Cinematic options, like Stun points, "It's
Only a Flesh Wound", and other things.
> So here's some advice for fighter-types
>
>A. Make sure you have a high weapon skill
Always a good idea, no matter what system you use, including real-life.
>B. Wear armour!
Another great idea!
>C. Have a high Health (=hitpoints)
And you said these were useless.
>D. If you can afford it, spend 10 points on the Toughness 1
> advantage, this provides additional protection.
Or High Pain Threshold.
>E. Consider taking Combat Reflexes advantage for 15 points,
> as this will help you defend yourself, and also improve
> your chance of getting the first attack.
Always a good thing for professional soldiers.
>The official skill system works like this:
>0 points default, which might be stat-4 for an P/E skill
>1/2 pt stat-1
>1 pt stat
>2 pt stat+1
>4 pt stat+2
>8 pt stat+3
>16 pt stat+4
>24 pt stat+5
This is the Physical/Easy skill progression.
>Now, those 24 points increased the skill by a total of 9
>levels, from stat-4 to stat+5. But notice which points were
>most efficient? The first 2 points increased your skill by
>5 levels! The next 22 points increased your stat by 4
>levels.
So, do you find that it is easier to learn the most advanced parts of a skill,
but more difficult to learn the basic parts of a skill?
>0 points new default, stat-5 for a P/E skill
>1/2 pt stat-3
>1 pt stat-1
>2 pt stat+1
>4 pt stat+2
>8 pt stat+3
>16 pt stat+4
>24 pt stat+5
>
>This involves lowering all default values by 1, but I don't
>think that's a problem. The advantage of the above table is
>that the first half point only gives a +2, instead of a +3.
>The second halfpoint also gives a +2, instead of a +1.
>And the second whole point give a +2, also instead of a +1.
So, now the first 2 points buy you 6 levels and the next 22 points buy you 4
levels. You've just made your problem worse. You would have been better off
keeping the default where it is, and making 1/2 point give default+1, 1 point
give default+2, etc. Or raise the default to stat-2. But then you wreck the
default system.
I think a better idea is to cap the cost of new levels to 4 points for physical
skills, if you have serious trouble with how much upper levels cost. This would
make it so the first 2 points buy you 5 levels, and the next 14 points buy you 4
levels. I think this is realistic. Then leave the defaults where they are, and
make 1/2 points buy default+2, and a full point buys default+4. All you've done
is move where a 1/2 point gets you, and the rest of the system remains intact.
>When I create a GURPS character, I'm severely tempted to just put
>1/2 point into a lot of skills. That first halfpoint is soooo gooood!
>The second halfpoint is almost stupid, you ought to spend it on
>something useful, instead of a skill.
This is true, unless you actually want to be able to use your skill effectively.
A skill level of 11 is pretty piss-poor in a tense, life-and-death situation.
Getting that +11.6% by spending another measley 1/2 point is tempting. Also, the
bar is pretty high when looking for something other than skills to spend points
on. Unless you can get 5 points together, your selection of advantages is
pretty slim (well, OK, acute senses are cheap). You also end up with characters
who can perform a lot of different things at mediocre levels, but can't do any
one thing well enough to actually get paid for it.
>As it is now, I just write down the skills I'd like, then I spend
>half a point on each. Then I find out I have some more points to
>spend, so I go looking for more skills to add.
>With the new system, I'll start of by spending 1/2 point on all
>the skills, then I'll select maybe half of them, and spend another
>1/2 point on those. Then I'll select some of those skills, maybe
>half of them, and spend another whole point, because those are the
>skills my character uses a lot and ought to be good at.
>And the best thing about it is, I won't feel stupid doing it.
Gosh, I've spent as much as 8 points on a physical skill and not felt stupid
about it, since that raised me from mediocre to an expert (skill 13 to 17 at DX
14). And 8 points won't buy you an extra level of DX at that level (cost = 15
points).
---
Brett Slocum <slo...@io.com> | ICQ 13032903 | MiB #0666 (Twin Cities CL)
* Illuminated Site of the Week: http://www.sjgames.com/ill/illsotw/
* GURPS site: http://www.io.com/~slocum/gurps.html
* Tekumel Web Ring Admin: http://www.io.com/~slocum/webring/
"Ah'm yer pa, Luke." -- if James Earl Ray was the voice of Darth Vader
Steffan O'Sullivan
combat is dangerous.
>It's not like in D&D or AD&D, where you get more and more
>hitpoints. Instead, your chance of survival is determined
>by your skills and abilities. So here's some advice for
>fighter-types
>
Actually, there's a point of diminishing returns with armor - in fact,
there's a point where more armor equals more death! I found this to be
true in years of running GURPS Fantasy games: the characters with DR2-3
armor survive. When the party moved to DR4+, I found I, as GM, had to
introduce stronger foes to challenge them. Stronger foes tend to
require more damage dice, meaning a greater variance in posssible
damage. An occasional roll of all 6s with three-plus dice can kill a
character outright, even in plate mail ...
I found that when the players kept their characters' armor at the 2-3
level, the foes needed to make the game challenging were rarely strong
enough to kill them in a single blow on the occasional high roll,
simply because I, as GM, rolled fewer damage dice.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "I suppose there's nothing that braces one
s...@vnet.net | more thoroughly than the spectacle of the
Chapel Hill, NC | forces of darkness stubbing their toe ..."
www.io.com/~sos | -P.G. Wodehouse
Peter Knutsen
Brett Slocum wrote:
>
> Quick responses:
>
> The Illuminated Masters let Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> write:
>
> >I'll start a list, and then suggest some fixes
> >
> >A. Skills levels are determined by your stat+training.
> <snip>
> > The two other stats are Strength and Health (ST and HT) but
> > they only affect 1% of the skills in the game. They're usful
> > for people who expect to fight much, but not for anybody
> > else
>
> Unless you happen to run, spend any time in disease-ridden areas, *ever* expect
> to survive a fight, or do any of a number of activities that GMs are so likely
> to ask you to do a HT roll, etc. If you won't do any of these, then leave HT at
> 8. ;-)
I'll say leave it at 9, since that frees 10 points total, whereas HT 8
only frees an additional 5 points. So HT 8 is not cost-effective.0
> >B. The skill progression system encourages you to spend only
> > the minimum amount of points on each skill.
>
> <snip>
>
> >It's obvious to everyone that the first 1/2 point is very
> >cost-effective.
>
> <snip>
>
> >The brokenness of this is that GURPS does not encourage you to
> >differentiate your skill levels.
> >Imagine a Thief-type character who has spent a lot of time
> >climbing walls and picking locks, but not worked very much
> >with traps. He'd spend 1/2 point on traps, and maybe 2 or
> >4 points on climbing and picking locks. But if we assume
> >that those three skills are of the same Difficulty (average),
> >though I'm too lazy to check if that's the case, then his
> >Climbing and Lockpicking skill would be only 2 levels higher
> >than his Traps skill. Maybe they'd be 12, 12 and 10 respectively)
> >And he had to spend a lot of points to get those two skills to
> >12.
>
> Remember that the difference between skill 10 and 12 is the difference between
> 50% and 74%. That's pretty differentiated in my mind. Where the point of
That's true, but if he character has a high stat already, then the
difference could be between 13 and 15, or 15 and 17. This is much
less (due to the bell curve that 3d6-based skill checks make)
> diminishing returns cuts in is higher on the scale, where the percentage change
> is *much* smaller.
Yes, that's true. The difference between 15 and 17 is very small. But
a skill of 17 can take some large modifiers, compared to skill-15.
> Yes, the system encourages you to spend as much as you can afford on attributes,
> but there comes a point when it is still better to put the points into skills.
> And after the character starts in play, the cost of attributes doubles, making
> skills the only effective way to go.
>
> In general, if I give players more than 100 points to spend on characters, I
> have them spend the first 100 normally, and then the rest of the points are
> given 'after character creation', when attribute costs double and certain
> advantages are not available. This tends to make more reasonable characters than
> simply giving them 500 points to spend.
That's a great suggestion (it's also in Compendium II, one of the later
chapters) for characters who are supposd to be "veteran adventurers and
such", instead of "talented farm boys" (Luke Skywalker style).
> >Another "problem" with GURPS is that combat is dangerous.
> >It's not like in D&D or AD&D, where you get more and more
> >hitpoints. Instead, your chance of survival is determined
> >by your skills and abilities.
>
> This can be modified if using the Cinematic options, like Stun points, "It's
> Only a Flesh Wound", and other things.
Yes, but GURPS Basic set 3rd Edition does produce dangerous combat.
Not that there's anything wrong with dangerous combat :-)
> > So here's some advice for fighter-types
Notice word FIGHTER-types
> >
> >A. Make sure you have a high weapon skill
>
> Always a good idea, no matter what system you use, including real-life.
I don't know about real life, it's quite peaceful where I live.
> >B. Wear armour!
>
> Another great idea!
>
> >C. Have a high Health (=hitpoints)
>
> And you said these were useless.
Not for fighter-types.
> >D. If you can afford it, spend 10 points on the Toughness 1
> > advantage, this provides additional protection.
>
> Or High Pain Threshold.
Don't you think DR 1 is better?
> >The official skill system works like this:
> >0 points default, which might be stat-4 for an P/E skill
> >1/2 pt stat-1
> >1 pt stat
> >2 pt stat+1
> >4 pt stat+2
> >8 pt stat+3
> >16 pt stat+4
> >24 pt stat+5
>
> This is the Physical/Easy skill progression.
Yes, I've been made aware of that, but the interesting part is the
top of the list, which is similair for all skill difficulties
(excep values are 1, 2 or 3 points lower for A, H and VH skills
respectively)
> >Now, those 24 points increased the skill by a total of 9
> >levels, from stat-4 to stat+5. But notice which points were
> >most efficient? The first 2 points increased your skill by
> >5 levels! The next 22 points increased your stat by 4
> >levels.
>
> So, do you find that it is easier to learn the most advanced parts of a skill,
> but more difficult to learn the basic parts of a skill?
No, but GURPS work like this:
The first 100 hours you spend learning a skill improves your ability
A LOT.
The next 100 hours only improves it a little but.
And the next 200 hours has the same puny effect as the second 100
hours.
> >0 points new default, stat-5 for a P/E skill
> >1/2 pt stat-3
> >1 pt stat-1
> >2 pt stat+1
> >4 pt stat+2
> >8 pt stat+3
> >16 pt stat+4
> >24 pt stat+5
> >
> >This involves lowering all default values by 1, but I don't
> >think that's a problem. The advantage of the above table is
> >that the first half point only gives a +2, instead of a +3.
> >The second halfpoint also gives a +2, instead of a +1.
> >And the second whole point give a +2, also instead of a +1.
>
> So, now the first 2 points buy you 6 levels and the next 22 points buy you 4
> levels. You've just made your problem worse. You would have been better off
> keeping the default where it is, and making 1/2 point give default+1, 1 point
No, because I'd still like the first several "raises" to have a very
noticable effect (more than +1). But to avoid getting very high skills
with few points, I had to lower the default. In fact I've later proposed
a different progression in news:rec.games.frp.gurps
0 p default -1
.5p defailt+1
1 p default+3
2 p default+5
4 p default+6
Which at later levels are 100% similair to vanilla 3rd Edition GURPS.
> give default+2, etc. Or raise the default to stat-2. But then you wreck the
> default system.
Yes, you're right about the fault of your own proposal (I'm afraid this
sounds a bit harsh, but it's not intended to)
> I think a better idea is to cap the cost of new levels to 4 points for physical
> skills, if you have serious trouble with how much upper levels cost. This would
No, because I'm interested in the earlier levels. I have no problem with
the maximum cost per level being 8.
> make it so the first 2 points buy you 5 levels, and the next 14 points buy you 4
> levels. I think this is realistic. Then leave the defaults where they are, and
> make 1/2 points buy default+2, and a full point buys default+4. All you've done
This is quite similair to my new proposal, except that it also makes the
2nd
whole point slightly more powerful, but alleviates this by lowering the
default
by 1.
> is move where a 1/2 point gets you, and the rest of the system remains intact.
We seem to agree 95%
> >When I create a GURPS character, I'm severely tempted to just put
> >1/2 point into a lot of skills. That first halfpoint is soooo gooood!
> >The second halfpoint is almost stupid, you ought to spend it on
> >something useful, instead of a skill.
>
> This is true, unless you actually want to be able to use your skill effectively.
> A skill level of 11 is pretty piss-poor in a tense, life-and-death situation.
But what if you can have 20 such skills? That still makes you a
jack-of-all
trades character. Expert at nothing, but can be useful in almost any
situations.
(Actually, whenver I design a GURPS character, I always decide for
myself
one area where my character has no skill other than defaults. This can
be combat, scientific, social, or thief/spy skills. My method of
characterization is to choose one area to avoid rather than one
area to specialize in)
> Getting that +11.6% by spending another measley 1/2 point is tempting. Also, the
Yes, but with a high skill, that half point won't increase your chance
of
succes by +11.6%. Not unless your GM loves negative modifiers to your
skill rating.
> bar is pretty high when looking for something other than skills to spend points
> on. Unless you can get 5 points together, your selection of advantages is
> pretty slim (well, OK, acute senses are cheap). You also end up with characters
> who can perform a lot of different things at mediocre levels, but can't do any
> one thing well enough to actually get paid for it.
That may not be a problem to some people.
> >As it is now, I just write down the skills I'd like, then I spend
> >half a point on each. Then I find out I have some more points to
> >spend, so I go looking for more skills to add.
> >With the new system, I'll start of by spending 1/2 point on all
> >the skills, then I'll select maybe half of them, and spend another
> >1/2 point on those. Then I'll select some of those skills, maybe
> >half of them, and spend another whole point, because those are the
> >skills my character uses a lot and ought to be good at.
> >And the best thing about it is, I won't feel stupid doing it.
>
> Gosh, I've spent as much as 8 points on a physical skill and not felt stupid
> about it, since that raised me from mediocre to an expert (skill 13 to 17 at DX
> 14). And 8 points won't buy you an extra level of DX at that level (cost = 15
> points).
No, but if you have 2 skills that you want really high, it's still
cheaper
to spend 15 points on higher DX or higher IQ (provided the two skills
are based on the same stat) than to spend 8 points on each skill.
An addition to what you mentioned about high-point characters:
The GM must approve of the 100-point character before the player
is allowed to spent the rest of the points (50, 100 or 150 points).
So the "basic" 100 point character must be "viable".
Else nothnig prevents people from creating a "maximum potential,
no ability" character with the first 100 poitns and then spending
the additional points on ability.
An outline:
Basic character:
Take very high stats
Take Eidetic Memory or Magery 3 or Combat Reflexes+Toughness
Take any neat advantages you want
Take a disadvantage that can be bought of after play has started
(phobias are good)
Take low Wealth rating (this can be bought of)
Take no skills whatsoever
Additional points:
Buy of low Wealth (go from Poverty to Comfortable, for instance)
Buy of any other disadvantages
Buy mental skills, spells or weapon/combat skills
Buy any other skills you find useful
To avoid this, the GM must check that the basic character is
viable. This is quite easy to do.
> Brett Slocum <slo...@io.com> | ICQ 13032903 | MiB #0666 (Twin Cities CL)
Peter Knutsen
David P. Summers
> The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
> could someone bash the GURPS system a little,
Well, GURPS certainly gets is share of bashing already....
> because I'm going convert
> my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
> before my players do!
Well, I'll just give some advice. First, don't get too hung up
on details. If you don't know what a rule for a specific situation
is (and GURPS has a lot of optional rules) just skip it. When you
players are making up a characters, just have them make characters
that match their concept. (It isn't essential to get every stats,
skill, advantage, etc. just right). Second, don't be afraid to
change things you don't like, GURPS is flexible
and you should take advantage of that. Finally, one thing you might
do is set a limit to the points a starting character can spend
on atributes (100 points for 100 point characters is common).
Also, if they are all new characters, you might allow them to hold
a certain number of points back (say 10 points) for things they
didn't realize they should have for the character concept.
SD Anderson
fighter-types
> A. Make sure you have a high weapon skill
> B. Wear armour!
> C. Have a high Health (=hitpoints)
> D. If you can afford it, spend 10 points on the Toughness 1
> advantage, this provides additional protection.
> E. Consider taking Combat Reflexes advantage for 15 points,
> as this will help you defend yourself, and also improve
> your chance of getting the first attack.
Don't forget High Pain Threshold, for any character
occupation.
Matt Madsen
Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
> Skills levels are determined by your stat+training.
> This does not have to be a major problem, but it is in GURPS,
> because there are only 2 stats that are relevant for skills,
> Dexterity(DX) and Intelligence (IQ). So people are encouraged
> by the system to create characters who have a very high DX,
> a very high IQ, or both a high DX and IQ.
The problem isn't that there are only two skill-stats; it's
that those stats are vastly underpriced compared to skills.
There's no reason not to have a DX of at least 11, for instance.
Those 10 points always pay off (for any reasonable character).
If you change the point costs to, say, a flat 20 points per
point of DX or IQ, you can reduce the problem dramatically.
Matt Madsen
Mike Harvey
>
> The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
> my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
> before my players do!
Okay, just to give you all something to argue about over Christmas and
on into next year... (listed in no particular order)
(1) The damage types are broken. For example, armor is more effective
against impaling damage than against other types of damage.
(1a) Combat is too deadly. You can't even knock a person unconscious
without reducing them to zero hits.
(1b) Using high-tech weapons and armor (like a 10d6 damage vs DR 35
armor), characters tend to get killed randomly due to normal variation
of the dice.
(1c) Active defenses are too low.
(2) The point-cost system is broken, making GURPS a min-maxer's
delight. Attributes are either way too cheap, or skills are too
expensive, or both.
(3) There are waaay too many skills, advantages, and disadvantages. It
is virtually impossible to remember them all, yet the GM is expected to
know when a player does *not* have a skill and what it defaults to.
What is the point of having 'Shortsword' if the GM forgets it exists and
lets the players use 'Broadsword' instead? (That is not a good example,
since both skills appear together on the same page. But it does
illustrate the problem...) Anyone can attempt to make an exhaustive
list of the thousands of character traits that exist in all possible
worlds, but a *good* system distills these down into a manageable number
of archetypes. GURPS would benefit greatly from a meta-system like HERO
uses...
(4) Anyone with high IQ automatically has lots of Willpower... unless
the player specifically takes the Weak Will disadvantage. Since almost
nobody ever does, all wizards have incredible willpower.
(5) The IQ 14, Magery 3 wizard. Enough said.
(6) The extra-effort strength rules are broken.
(7) The magic system is riddled with weaknesses:
(7a) The prerequisite system means that all wizards with spell X also
have prerequisites A, B, and C, so wizards start to look the same after
a while.
(7b) The system is very low-powered, and not well-suited to high
fantasy.
(7c) It costs too much to create permanent magic items.
(7d) The system is not very generic.
(7e) They tried to integrate magic with technology and science, which
ruins the flavor. I wonder what they were thinking, since the four
elemental colleges are not exactly a scientific grouping, yet the spells
within the colleges often make references to science or physics.
(8) Dice mechanics are very limited, perhaps broken. Critical successes
and failures are way too common, especially in spellcasting. Dice
cannot roll higher than 16, even though skills can reach 25+.
(8a) Combat and magic skills use a different standard of "what is
considered good" than noncombat skills, though there is no discernable
reason for this, and the basic skill mechanic is *supposed* to be the
same for all skills. GURPS makes heavier use of modifiers than any game
I've ever seen, and you can easily spend 2/3 of your time in combat
looking up and applying various modifiers to skill rolls.
(9) GURPS does not scale well. It does okay for 'normal' characters,
but the larger than life heroes of fiction and legend do not work well
at all. This is not any one specific thing, just the whole system is
geared toward normal realistic people.
(10) GURPS uses hit points. I don't necessarily think this is bad, but
lots of people hate hit points passionately, and it *does* purport to be
a realistic system.
(11) SJG constantly displays its pet peeves. Like the special rules for
chainmail, or the constant harping against cinematic games.
I could go on, but that's enough to get you started... :-) Some people
like it, and that's okay: GURPS has some nice features too. But these
are the thngs I don't like.
Mike
Christian or Denise Walker
Ilkka Mannisto <iman...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in article
<367A2D...@cc.hut.fi>...
> The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
> could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
> my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
> before my players do!
>
GURPS can be a GM's nightmare, especially for fantasy. There are several
books required (fantasy folk, magic and the basic set) and there is no
longer in print a monster manual type book.
Making NPCs is a real pain in the butt and takes quite a bit of time.
Ranged combat is a real drag. You constantly have to reference charts for
range, movement, size, recoil modifiers of weapons, yadda, yadda, yadda.
There are three stats for the physical body, but all mental abilities come
from a single stats: IQ.
While GURPS supports many different genres, it may be difficult to find
support for any one, unless that happens to be science fiction.
Skills are too dependent upon attributes. You can be great in a wide
variety of skills without having to spend much time training in those
skills.
If you don't use random hit location combat, then combat becomes too lethal
because you have to pound someone into submission to defeat them. But if
you do use random hit locations all the party members end up crippled from
leg, hand, foot and arm hits.
--
Remove the 'nospam' to reply via e-mail
********************************************
"Hmmmm...I've never eaten Hobbit before. What the hell,
I say we kill him and fry him up!!"
- Dave from Knights of the Dinner Table #16
*******************************************
gaming fun at http://users.deltanet.com/~antissa
Frank & Jennifer Sronce
Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
> combat is dangerous.
> >It's not like in D&D or AD&D, where you get more and more
> >hitpoints. Instead, your chance of survival is determined
> >by your skills and abilities. So here's some advice for
> >fighter-types
> >
> >B. Wear armour!
>
> Actually, there's a point of diminishing returns with armor - in fact,
> there's a point where more armor equals more death! I found this to be
> true in years of running GURPS Fantasy games: the characters with DR2-3
> armor survive. When the party moved to DR4+, I found I, as GM, had to
> introduce stronger foes to challenge them. Stronger foes tend to
> require more damage dice, meaning a greater variance in posssible
> damage. An occasional roll of all 6s with three-plus dice can kill a
> character outright, even in plate mail ...
>
> I found that when the players kept their characters' armor at the 2-3
> level, the foes needed to make the game challenging were rarely strong
> enough to kill them in a single blow on the occasional high roll,
> simply because I, as GM, rolled fewer damage dice.
>
> --
> -Steffan O'Sullivan | "I suppose there's nothing that braces one
> s...@vnet.net | more thoroughly than the spectacle of the
> Chapel Hill, NC | forces of darkness stubbing their toe ..."
> www.io.com/~sos | -P.G. Wodehouse
Yes, it's always been a kind of good point about AD&D- your equipment
isn't THAT important compared to how skilled your character is. I've
always had some problems with games where armor provides a flat amount of
protection, because you soon get to the point where certain weapons are all
but useless against you. Realistic, perhaps, but not always desireable.
Kiz
Alan D Kohler
wrote:
>Ilkka Mannisto wrote:
>>
>> The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
>
>It does suck.
Nah.
>
>> could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
>
>Certainly. GURPS is a very good system, but it has some flaws.
I agree with most of your following observations... but find that they
disqualify GURPS as a "very good system." Many purely skill-based
systems suffer a blight of unfocussed or inconsistant characters, but
the way that GURPS mechanics discourage any sort of specialization
makes it the worst of the bunch and positions it poorly against other
skill-based systems.
A point that you did not mention, but plays into what you were saying
about skills, is that, as you mentioned, a typcial GURPS character
will kick up Dex, IQ, or both at least to the 12 to 14 point range. On
top of the fact that the skills double in cost every level, in the
range that typical skills falls on the 3d6 curve is the "down-slope"
of the curve. This means that in addition to doubling the cost every
level, the amount of percentage increase you get for every successive
point you buy is decreasing. I'm all for a diminishing returns type
cost scale, but GURPS overdoes it.
As for converting your campaign, if you happen to mean an AD&D
campaign, I really would consider looking elsewhere. While one of
GURPS' strength is its source material, I have found its fantasy
material lacking in comparison to its offerings for other genres.
Typical complaints (which I share) are that it's magic system requires
too specific of skills, and that its fantasy material is bland
(fantasy folk) or just plain silly (fantasy, fantasy adventures).
For fantasy campaign, I think you would get a much better product if
you buy the HERO system rules and Fantasy Hero. Fantasy Hero is for
the fantasy gamer what GURPS Space is for space gamers: an all-purpose
reference that gives the GM an abundance of useful tools and genre
conventions in one product.
Alan D. Kohler
(hawkwind@SPAMMERS_MUST_DIE.olg.com)
"The best bluffers are those who don't think they are bluffing"
Bryan J. Maloney
> Gosh, I've spent as much as 8 points on a physical skill and not felt stupid
> about it, since that raised me from mediocre to an expert (skill 13 to
17 at DX
> 14). And 8 points won't buy you an extra level of DX at that level (cost = 15
> points).
What if you have five DX-based skills? What if you have ten DX-based skills?
Peter Knutsen
Mike Harvey wrote:
>
> Ilkka Mannisto wrote:
> >
> > The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
> > could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
> > my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
> > before my players do!
>
> Okay, just to give you all something to argue about over Christmas and
> on into next year... (listed in no particular order)
>
> (1) The damage types are broken. For example, armor is more effective
> against impaling damage than against other types of damage.
But isn't this realistic? If you are skewered by a rapier, it's
likely to cause severe damage to one of your internal organs.
Armour prevents this. An edged or blunt weapon is much less likely
to cause "deep" damage, so they have no or a lower damage multiplier.
> (1a) Combat is too deadly. You can't even knock a person unconscious
> without reducing them to zero hits.
Agree on that part.
> (1b) Using high-tech weapons and armor (like a 10d6 damage vs DR 35
> armor), characters tend to get killed randomly due to normal variation
> of the dice.
But there's not very much variation on 10d6. A result between 30
and 40 will occur... (Okay, I don't have a formula, but it's
a very good guess) 90% of the time.
> (1c) Active defenses are too low.
I'd rather say that they're not very varied.
Your average character may have Dodge 5. A brute-strength
fighter Dodge 6, and your super-dextrous Rogue Dodge 7
or 8.
> (2) The point-cost system is broken, making GURPS a min-maxer's
> delight. Attributes are either way too cheap, or skills are too
> expensive, or both.
I've proposed a fix for this. I'm not saying that it makes GURPS
the perfect system, but it does alleviate the problem.
> (3) There are waaay too many skills, advantages, and disadvantages. It
> is virtually impossible to remember them all, yet the GM is expected to
I don't have any problems. It's just a question of buying Compendium I,
where all the stuff is collected. Now I do belive that I have
a memory better than average, but perhaps that makes me better
suited for the GM part than most?
Okay, I'm not claiming that GURPS needs all those skills (there
are several hundred in Comp. I), but a large number of advantages
and disadvantages is great, because they allow you to tailor
your character.
> know when a player does *not* have a skill and what it defaults to.
> What is the point of having 'Shortsword' if the GM forgets it exists and
> lets the players use 'Broadsword' instead? (That is not a good example,
> since both skills appear together on the same page. But it does
> illustrate the problem...) Anyone can attempt to make an exhaustive
Defaults are very simple, they're something like "other skill"-2 or
-3. Easy to learn.
> list of the thousands of character traits that exist in all possible
GURPS has less than a thousand character traits.
> worlds, but a *good* system distills these down into a manageable number
> of archetypes. GURPS would benefit greatly from a meta-system like HERO
> uses...
If you're saying that GURPS should have fewer traits, but they
should be more tweakable, then I won't disagree with you.
> (4) Anyone with high IQ automatically has lots of Willpower... unless
> the player specifically takes the Weak Will disadvantage. Since almost
> nobody ever does, all wizards have incredible willpower.
I've made a fix for this too. There's the same problem with
Perception (Sense Rolls), but this is included in my fix.
Will = (10+IQ)/2 rounded down
Sense= (10+IQ)/2 rounded up
The different rounding procedures are vital, if both values are
rounded down, for instance, then even IQ values (8, 10, 12, 14)
will become very attractive, and odd IQ values (7, 9, 11, 13, 15)
will become unattractive for players.
You should also have a "Lowered Perception" disadvantage to
support this rules-fix. It costs -3 points per level (a higher
cost would make it easy to abuse) and each level lowers
all your Sense rolls by 1. (It works as negative Alertnes)
> (5) The IQ 14, Magery 3 wizard. Enough said.
Yeah. The whole magic system is bland. I've been told that
GURPS Magic fixes this, but I'm more inclined to turn to anotehr
system if I want to GM a magic-intensive game.
> (6) The extra-effort strength rules are broken.
I have no opinion on that.
> (7) The magic system is riddled with weaknesses:
Perhaps. I think it's too bland to be useful.
A good magic system should somehow inspire mage players to be
creative.
> (8) Dice mechanics are very limited, perhaps broken. Critical successes
> and failures are way too common, especially in spellcasting. Dice
> cannot roll higher than 16, even though skills can reach 25+.
But if your 25 skill character is trying to use his skill under
adverse conditions, then he can take a -9 modifier and still
have a very high chance (98%) of succes. So that's what high
skills are good for.
> (8a) Combat and magic skills use a different standard of "what is
> considered good" than noncombat skills, though there is no discernable
> reason for this, and the basic skill mechanic is *supposed* to be the
> same for all skills. GURPS makes heavier use of modifiers than any game
> I've ever seen, and you can easily spend 2/3 of your time in combat
> looking up and applying various modifiers to skill rolls.
That's not my impression. The backstab and Garotte examples in
Basic book and CI are very clear and each example invovles only
2 modifiers.
> (9) GURPS does not scale well. It does okay for 'normal' characters,
> but the larger than life heroes of fiction and legend do not work well
> at all. This is not any one specific thing, just the whole system is
> geared toward normal realistic people.
GURPS defines a normal character as someone with 25 points spent
on good stuff, balanced by bad stuff.
The recommended point value for characters is 100 points.
I find that GURPS can support characters up to 200 points with
no problems, 250 points works very well. Higher values will
cause problems.
That part about 25-point is normal puzzles me a bit. I can just
about squeeze myself into a 75-point character (but this does
include the costly Eidetic Memory advantage). So I'm supposed
to be almost as tough as a regular adventurer (except I'd
last 2-3 seconds if he has a broadsword)
> (11) SJG constantly displays its pet peeves. Like the special rules for
> chainmail, or the constant harping against cinematic games.
GURPS can support cinematic games. There's the stun rules, which
effectively gives player character and major NPC's 5 times
as many hitpoints.
And many of the advantages (and skill) are obviously cinematic
(unrealistic, but supports fictional conventions)
> I could go on, but that's enough to get you started... :-) Some people
> like it, and that's okay: GURPS has some nice features too. But these
> are the thngs I don't like.
Some of the can be fixed. But GURPS is not a perfect system.
I'd say its greatest feature is the large selection of advantages
and disadvantages. If you just have a meta-system, it's too
much work for the players and GM making actual advantages
out of the meta-advantages (unlike I've misunderstood what
meta means)
> Mike
Peter Knutsen
SD Anderson
??? Pandos with Tactics at his IQ pays 4 points. Raising that
level to IQ + 1 costs two points. Stays at two points to skill
level infinity too. doubling? ALL skills peak at level cost so
the character with a skill above it's Governing attribute has a
straight linear cost.
Lizard
wrote:
>In article <367A2D...@cc.hut.fi>, Ilkka Mannisto <iman...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>> The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
>> could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
>> my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
>> before my players do!
>
>Complete digression, but it must be getting close to Christmas because I
>saw this thred title, read it as "GURPS Socks? Anoyone" and thought "hmm
>... I know a couple of people who'd like those for a present."
>
Coming March 1999, by David Pulver (probably) with illustrations by
Dan Smith (of course):GURPS Socks!
Featuring socks from TL 0 (for use with gURPS Ice Age) to the
monohypernanoweave socks of TL 16+, GURPS Socks is the first in a
proposed series of GURPS supplements covering clothing. Included in
this 256 page supplement are:
The new foot hit location chart!
Weaving skill by TL!
Advanced hypothermia rules, concentrating of heat loss through the
feet!
The damage value of rocks, caltrops, hot sand, cold snow, and other
foot-related dangers, including a long sidebar on the hazards of the
D4. (Have you ever stepped on one? Ouch!)
Special sock-construction rules!
Foot fungus, and other diseases. Rules and modifiers for determining
if socks are infected. Detailed damage and healing rules. ("OK, you've
got advanced Athletes Foot. That's a -1 to MOV and you have to make a
DX roll at -3 if you want to perform a step manuever.")
At long last! Clarified, enhanced, revised, and final this time we
MEAN it rules for Extra Limbs! (Feet only. Extra Arms will be covered
in GURPS Gloves, due out in May.)
Cyberwear socks!
And much, much, more!
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Alan D Kohler
Quit being pedantic. Yes, we all know that skills have a plateau. But
for characters with the typical range of starting stats and an
unmodified roll, the plateu begins in the region of the 3d6 curve
where the drop-off in percentage per point is the highest; ergo it
doesn't accomplish much.
Spence Sanders
initial problem with newcomers. When you buy the core rulebook everything
is so spread out genre wise that a new gamer winds up playing something
else. There is little to no support for actual play in the rulebook, for
that you have to buy a supplement. I'm talking _new_ gamers. For
experienced players this isn't a problem, though you still need the genre
specific supplements. Hero has the same problem. If you get the stand
alone Hero Rulebook it doesn't have any support either. A _new_ player
doesn't have any examples to enable him to "catch on" to how it all works.
I think that is why everyone associates Hero as Champions (I know the
original game was Champs). Hero in the now is a generic game, but the most
bought book is the BBB that contains the superheroic supplement and campaign
books as well. In general most people will play a new game in the genre
that it comes with. Only later with experience do people cross patch rule
systems and genres. I like Hero better because I played it first so GURPs
seams klunky to me. The same can be said about Hero (being klunky that is)
by people who used GURPs first. If you are looking for a universal system
GURPs is a good one. With the cost of games nowadays buying the rulebook
isn't that much of a loss if you decide it isn't good and you don't want to
play it after all. And remember GURPs has MANY sourcebooks available.
Its not my favorite system but I don't think you will be disappointed with
it at all. GURPs is a good and seasoned system. Well worth the time.
Spence
pulver
Cute. You forgot Windsocks. That was in the outline's second page.
But it just ain't going to happen. Dan Smith refuses to draw anyone who
isn't wearing silk stockings.
Staffan Johansson
> The problem isn't that there are only two skill-stats; it's
> that those stats are vastly underpriced compared to skills.
> There's no reason not to have a DX of at least 11, for instance.
> Those 10 points always pay off (for any reasonable character).
My GURPS GM changed the skill system so that skills are based on
(10+stat)/2 instead of stat. This makes skills more attractive. IIRC, he
also changed the skill costs, but I can't recall exactly how.
--
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
Drive defensively. Buy a tank.
Bertil Jonell
Ilkka Mannisto <iman...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
>could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
>my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
>before my players do!
It uses archaic units of measure.
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
woodelf
<pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
> > (1) The damage types are broken. For example, armor is more effective
> > against impaling damage than against other types of damage.
>
> But isn't this realistic? If you are skewered by a rapier, it's
> likely to cause severe damage to one of your internal organs.
> Armour prevents this. An edged or blunt weapon is much less likely
> to cause "deep" damage, so they have no or a lower damage multiplier.
historically, armor-piercing weapons have been impaling/piercing weapons,
because armor is less effective at stopping them than bludgeoning or
slashing weapons. so (most) armor should be least effective vs. impaling
weapons.
> Okay, I'm not claiming that GURPS needs all those skills (there
> are several hundred in Comp. I), but a large number of advantages
> and disadvantages is great, because they allow you to tailor
> your character.
> If you're saying that GURPS should have fewer traits, but they
> should be more tweakable, then I won't disagree with you.
you've answered yourself here: as near as i can tell, CORPS handles the
same ground as GURPS, and it has something like two-score dis/ads,
compared to the hundreds that GURPS has. if anything, a system like that
makes it easier, IMHO, to tailor characters, because you have a framework
for building the inevitable dis/ad that isn't listed, rather than just
comparing to the existing ones.
woodelf <*>
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf/
I did not realize that similarity was required for the exercise of
compassion. --Delenn
Alan D Kohler
(woodelf) wrote:
>In article <367B1065...@knutsen.dk>, Peter Knutsen
><pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
>
>> > (1) The damage types are broken. For example, armor is more effective
>> > against impaling damage than against other types of damage.
>>
>> But isn't this realistic? If you are skewered by a rapier, it's
>> likely to cause severe damage to one of your internal organs.
>> Armour prevents this. An edged or blunt weapon is much less likely
>> to cause "deep" damage, so they have no or a lower damage multiplier.
>
>historically, armor-piercing weapons have been impaling/piercing weapons,
>because armor is less effective at stopping them than bludgeoning or
>slashing weapons. so (most) armor should be least effective vs. impaling
>weapons.
It's also plain physics. The same force applied over a smaller area is
a higher pressure, and tend to punch trough barriers better. Don't
beleive me, have a woman step on one foot with a flat soled shoe, and
have the same woman step on the other with a stilletto heel. ;-)
Scott Taylor
<Pine.BSF.4.02A.98122...@dillinger.io.com>...
>
> Cute. You forgot Windsocks. That was in the outline's second page.
>
> But it just ain't going to happen. Dan Smith refuses to draw anyone who
> isn't wearing silk stockings.
You know it gets bad when he starts putting the dinosaurs in the
damn things...
:-)
Scott Taylor
Freelancer for Hire
Have Powerbook, Will Travel
Brett Slocum
>In article <367a93a5...@news.io.com>, slo...@io.com (Brett Slocum) wrote:
>
>
>> Gosh, I've spent as much as 8 points on a physical skill and not felt stupid
>> about it, since that raised me from mediocre to an expert (skill 13 to
>17 at DX
>> 14). And 8 points won't buy you an extra level of DX at that level (cost = 15
>> points).
>
>What if you have five DX-based skills? What if you have ten DX-based skills?
Well, if you have 5 DX-based skills all bought to the 8-point level, then
increase your DX by 1 and halve the cost of the five skills. Now you have 5 more
points to spend. If you have 10 DX-based skills all bought to 8-point level, do
the same thing only increase your DX by 2. You'll still have 40 points spent on
those ten skills. But don't feel stupid for spending some points on skills.
I don't see the problem here.
Bryan J. Maloney
(Bertil Jonell) wrote:
> In article <367A2D...@cc.hut.fi>,
> Ilkka Mannisto <iman...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
> >The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
> >could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
> >my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
> >before my players do!
>
> It uses archaic units of measure.
Excellent if one is running a fantasy campaign, bites rocks for anything
else if you're not a USArian.
Bryan J. Maloney
Walker" <ant...@nospamdeltanet.com> wrote:
> books required (fantasy folk, magic and the basic set) and there is no
> longer in print a monster manual type book.
On the schedule for a reprint, 1999.
> Making NPCs is a real pain in the butt and takes quite a bit of time.
Hadn't noticed. I generally do all NPCs on the fly.
> There are three stats for the physical body, but all mental abilities come
> from a single stats: IQ.
Yup. I've toyed with "Ultimate GURPS", wherein there is but a single
stat: Attribute.
> Skills are too dependent upon attributes. You can be great in a wide
> variety of skills without having to spend much time training in those
> skills.
Agreed.
>
> If you don't use random hit location combat, then combat becomes too lethal
Nonsense. You DO use the hit location modifiers for specific called
shots, don't you? Your players ARE bright enough to go for that, aren't
they? You ARE bright enough to use it against the PCs, aren't you?
> because you have to pound someone into submission to defeat them. But if
> you do use random hit locations all the party members end up crippled from
> leg, hand, foot and arm hits.
It makes combat actually dangerous. AD&D is good for playing
non-dangerous combat. GURPS works better for a dangerous-combat setting.
Bryan J. Maloney
> But isn't this realistic? If you are skewered by a rapier, it's
> likely to cause severe damage to one of your internal organs.
> Armour prevents this. An edged or blunt weapon is much less likely
> to cause "deep" damage, so they have no or a lower damage multiplier.
The problem is that some impaling weapons were made to likewise be
armor-piercing. GURPS has ignored the existence of every one of them.
> I'd rather say that they're not very varied.
> Your average character may have Dodge 5. A brute-strength
> fighter Dodge 6, and your super-dextrous Rogue Dodge 7
> or 8.
Active defenses include Parry, and the cheapest way to get a Dodge 8
without Cinematic/Superhero rules is to have DX and HT of 16--I don't see
that combination too often in non-Cinematic campaigns.
> Yeah. The whole magic system is bland. I've been told that
> GURPS Magic fixes this, but I'm more inclined to turn to anotehr
No, it merely extends it.
> That part about 25-point is normal puzzles me a bit. I can just
Let's see:
All attributes in the 9-11 range.
Average appearance and wealth.
Maybe a connection or two.
Driving at 12, likewise for any job-related skills.
25 points can cover ordinary blokes.
Bryan J. Maloney
<michael...@intel.com> wrote:
> (1) The damage types are broken. For example, armor is more effective
> against impaling damage than against other types of damage.
Agreed.
> (1a) Combat is too deadly. You can't even knock a person unconscious
> without reducing them to zero hits.
Not too deadly. Remember, they have to take another HT worth of damage
before they have a *chance* of dying. Zero hits, unless they're bleeding,
is not dead, nor is there any chance of death. You don't have a chance of
dying in GURPS until you've taken at least HT*2 hits in damage.
> (1b) Using high-tech weapons and armor (like a 10d6 damage vs DR 35
> armor), characters tend to get killed randomly due to normal variation
> of the dice.
Indeed. Likewise, there is no such thing as a "grazing blow" with modern
or later weapons.
> (1c) Active defenses are too low.
"Too low" is hard to quantify. I agree that the basic model for GURPS
melee combat is based on stand-and-bang SCA type stuff rather than the
dynamic, defensive combat actually practiced by the Europeans.
> (3) There are waaay too many skills, advantages, and disadvantages. It
> is virtually impossible to remember them all, yet the GM is expected to
> know when a player does *not* have a skill and what it defaults to.
It's easy to know when a player doesn't have a skill--have a copy of his
character sheet.
> (4) Anyone with high IQ automatically has lots of Willpower... unless
> the player specifically takes the Weak Will disadvantage. Since almost
Definitely a problem.
> (5) The IQ 14, Magery 3 wizard. Enough said.
You forgot Eidetic memory!
> (7) The magic system is riddled with weaknesses:
I don't use the vanilla magic system, since I prefer the Voodoo system.
> (8) Dice mechanics are very limited, perhaps broken. Critical successes
> and failures are way too common, especially in spellcasting. Dice
> cannot roll higher than 16, even though skills can reach 25+.
Ever hear of "modifiers"? I would say that a 1/100 chance each of a
critical success/failure isn't too excessive, given that most games come
out at this or even *more* common possibilities.
> (8a) Combat and magic skills use a different standard of "what is
> considered good" than noncombat skills, though there is no discernable
> reason for this, and the basic skill mechanic is *supposed* to be the
Yes there is. GURPS is the son of Wizard/Melee, which were combat games
first and roleplaying games second.
> same for all skills. GURPS makes heavier use of modifiers than any game
> I've ever seen, and you can easily spend 2/3 of your time in combat
> looking up and applying various modifiers to skill rolls.
This can be a problem if you don't have the charts before you.
> (10) GURPS uses hit points. I don't necessarily think this is bad, but
> lots of people hate hit points passionately, and it *does* purport to be
> a realistic system.
But so few people wanted to buy WarpWorld/TimeLords that BTRC discontinued
'em. Not a lot of other non-hit-point systems out there (and "damage
level" systems like WoD have hit points--everybody has five hit points).
> (11) SJG constantly displays its pet peeves. Like the special rules for
> chainmail, or the constant harping against cinematic games.
Yup. If chain's so rotten, why did special weapons have to be invented to
pierce it?
Bryan J. Maloney
nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) wrote:
> historically, armor-piercing weapons have been impaling/piercing weapons,
> because armor is less effective at stopping them than bludgeoning or
> slashing weapons. so (most) armor should be least effective vs. impaling
> weapons.
Depends on the weapon. Smallswords and rapiers would have a harder time
against armor than would a tuck.
ed
20 Dec 1998 23:52:45 GMT:
>In article <367A2D...@cc.hut.fi>,
>Ilkka Mannisto <iman...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>>The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
>>could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
>>my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
>>before my players do!
>
> It uses archaic units of measure.
>
Only to a European.
To a benighted Brit like myself, being educated across the time we
started switching to metric, I measure temperature in Celcius, distance
in Feet, yards and miles, weight in ounces, pounds and stone, but larger
weights in metric tonnes due to the fact I only encounterd such things
in Physics.
So I also use the S.I. system in Scientific circumstances, being a
Physicist by training.
So, allow us old folk our yards, cubic yards and pounds.
Please
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk | Dragons Rescued | _////
http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/ | Maidens Slain | o_/o ///
For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGs, | Quests P.O.A. | __\ ///__
Science-Fiction and other stuff | | <*>
Bertil Jonell
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <75k2kd$a6p$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se>, d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se
>(Bertil Jonell) wrote:
>> Ilkka Mannisto <iman...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>> >The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
>> >could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
>> >my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
>> >before my players do!
>>
>> It uses archaic units of measure.
>
>else if you're not a USArian.
To me a 'cubic foot' or 'cubic yard' doesn't have any mideval flavour:
Hogshed on the other hand...
bill.d...@ibm.net
A) I've never heard this term before.
B) Shouldn't it be spelled USAryan?
C) I find this offensive either because:
1. The Aryans were a group of relatively light skinned Asians
that invaded and conquered India and set up aa rigid Caste
system that I don't want to be associated with.
2. The term Aryan was used by Hitler to denote the pure
German stock of his people, and I definitely don't want to be
associated with Hitler.
The term our country's people have chosen for themselves is American. I
realize that the peoples of other North and South American countries may
resent our use of the term when they too can be described as american, but
frankly I don't care. Everyone else continually claims the right to name
their own group (sometimes changing names every ten years), and we should be
able to also!
Bryan J. Maloney wrote in message ...
>In article <75k2kd$a6p$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se>, d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se
>(Bertil Jonell) wrote:
>
>> In article <367A2D...@cc.hut.fi>,
>> Ilkka Mannisto <iman...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>> >The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
>> >could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
>> >my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
>> >before my players do!
>>
>> It uses archaic units of measure.
>
>Excellent if one is running a fantasy campaign, bites rocks for anything
>else if you're not a USArian.
>
Bryan J. Maloney
(Bertil Jonell) wrote:
> To me a 'cubic foot' or 'cubic yard' doesn't have any mideval flavour:
> Hogshed on the other hand...
They aren't sufficiently archaic, in that ONE case. Use minim, ounce,
dram, cup, pint, quart, pottle, gallon, bushel, peck, and quarter. All
but pottle are still units of US volume measure.
Andy Wills
>
> In article <nbarmore-201...@karahkan.cs.wisc.edu>,
> nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) wrote:
>
> > historically, armor-piercing weapons have been impaling/piercing weapons,
> > because armor is less effective at stopping them than bludgeoning or
> > slashing weapons. so (most) armor should be least effective vs. impaling
> > weapons.
>
> Depends on the weapon. Smallswords and rapiers would have a harder time
> against armor than would a tuck.
That's more a function of less initial energy than slashing vs.
piercing. A slashing rapier would be even less effective against armor
than a piercing one.
-Andy
Alan D Kohler
It's also a function of material strength. I have a gut feeling that
if you tried to jam a slender rapier headlong into a sturdy steel
breastplate, you'd snap the rapier in two.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >
> > In article <nbarmore-201...@karahkan.cs.wisc.edu>,
> > nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) wrote:
> >
> > > historically, armor-piercing weapons have been impaling/piercing weapons,
> > > because armor is less effective at stopping them than bludgeoning or
> > > slashing weapons. so (most) armor should be least effective vs. impaling
> > > weapons.
> >
> > Depends on the weapon. Smallswords and rapiers would have a harder time
> > against armor than would a tuck.
>
> That's more a function of less initial energy than slashing vs.
> piercing. A slashing rapier would be even less effective against armor
> than a piercing one.
Tucks and smallswords are both thrusting weapons. Likewise, a thrust with
a rapier. However, the tuck would still be more effective.
Bryan J. Maloney
hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com (Alan D Kohler) wrote:
> It's also a function of material strength. I have a gut feeling that
> if you tried to jam a slender rapier headlong into a sturdy steel
> breastplate, you'd snap the rapier in two.
And what about a tuck?
Also, how "slender" is this "slender rapier"? What era? What country?
Bryan J. Maloney
> USArian?
>
> A) I've never heard this term before.
> B) Shouldn't it be spelled USAryan?
No. It should be spelled "USArian", and it was coined in the early 19th
century to mean "somebody from the USA", as opposed to "somebody from a
continent called America"
As I am a USArian, I have the right to call myself such.
Therefore, the rest of your non-argument is just that.
Christian or Denise Walker
Steve <S...@spis.co.nz> wrote in article <367F02...@spis.co.nz>...
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > : As I am a USArian, I have the right to call myself such.
>
>
> Jim Walters replied:>
> > You have the right to call yourself a purple wombat if you want to.
It's
> > just that people will look at you strangely if you do. Similarly, you
can
> > call yourself a "USArian" if you want to. It's just that most people
> > won't understand you if you do. Even then, most of the people who do
> > understand you will still prefer the term that is the recognized
standard
> > around the world for "citizen of the USA" - American.
>
> Hey, I understood immediately, and I think it's a little less
> presumptuous than American (denying all the other countries in north and
> south america the title?)
>
I'm an American and until Maloney explained it I though he meant USAryan,
which is pretty offensive. On being presumptuous, that is typical
anti-American garbage. I asked by buddy's Mexican father if he felt
threatened by the use of the term American by anglos. He looked at me like
I was an idiot. I asked a Canadian friend and he said, "Why the hell would
I want to use the term American? That's already is use by you idiots. I'm
a Canadian, dammit."
> I'm also rather fond of calling the USA "Americaland - subsiduary of
> Disneyland" - sure has been entertaining recently...
>
Really? I'm not laughing.
--
Remove the 'nospam' to reply via e-mail
********************************************
"Hmmmm...I've never eaten Hobbit before. What the hell,
I say we kill him and fry him up!!"
- Dave from Knights of the Dinner Table #16
*******************************************
gaming fun at http://users.deltanet.com/~antissa
Christian or Denise Walker
Alan D Kohler <hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com> wrote in article
<367aecbd...@news.olg.com>...
> Many purely skill-based
>systems suffer a blight of unfocussed or inconsistant characters, but
> the way that GURPS mechanics discourage any sort of specialization
> makes it the worst of the bunch and positions it poorly against other
> skill-based systems.
>
Christian wrote:
Huh? My players seem to have few problems carving out a little niche for
themselves. Each seems to have their own colorful personality, skills and
abilities. Check out http://users.deltanet.com/~antissa/pccorner2.html for
a description of their characters. Pretty clear identities there.
> As for converting your campaign, if you happen to mean an AD&D
> campaign, I really would consider looking elsewhere. While one of
> GURPS' strength is its source material, I have found its fantasy
> material lacking in comparison to its offerings for other genres.
Agreed. I hate being a fantasy game master due to the lack of resources
that could make my job easier. AD&D is the king in that department.
*sighs with envy*
> Typical complaints (which I share) are that it's magic system requires
> too specific of skills, and that its fantasy material is bland
> (fantasy folk) or just plain silly (fantasy, fantasy adventures).
More agreement. The magic system really blows and requires a fair amount
of points tinkering, calculations and general difficulty.
All in all, though, it is my fav system.
Frank & Jennifer Sronce
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> > (7) The magic system is riddled with weaknesses:
>
> I don't use the vanilla magic system, since I prefer the Voodoo system.
>
Can somebody offer a description of what the Voodoo system is like? I
also consider the "standard" GURPS magic system to be kind of bland and
unimpressive.
Is GURPS Voodoo worth getting if I can find it somewhere?
Kiz
Pinochet
Steve wrote in message <367F02...@spis.co.nz>...
>Hey, I understood immediately, and I think it's a little less presumptuous than
>American (denying all the other countries in north and south america the
title?)
I don't recall ever encountering any people in those countries who happen to
desire
any such title... Would you please point them out for me? Is there a country
with
an official protest on while somewhere perhaps? And what about the South
Africans...surely the other countries in that area must be upset about that!
(Course in many cases they have other names for groups within said country, but
hey, so does the US..)
(And hey, Presumption is what America is about, that's *our* job.)
Jim Walters
:> USArian?
:>
:> A) I've never heard this term before.
:> B) Shouldn't it be spelled USAryan?
: No. It should be spelled "USArian", and it was coined in the early 19th
: century to mean "somebody from the USA", as opposed to "somebody from a
: continent called America"
: As I am a USArian, I have the right to call myself such.
You have the right to call yourself a purple wombat if you want to. It's
just that people will look at you strangely if you do. Similarly, you can
call yourself a "USArian" if you want to. It's just that most people
won't understand you if you do. Even then, most of the people who do
understand you will still prefer the term that is the recognized standard
around the world for "citizen of the USA" - American.
--
Jim Walters jwal...@clark.net
"My race is pacifist and does not believe in war.
We kill only out of personal spite." Brain Guy - MST3K
Alan D Kohler
wrote:
>In article <367ec409....@news.olg.com>,
>hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com (Alan D Kohler) wrote:
>
>> It's also a function of material strength. I have a gut feeling that
>> if you tried to jam a slender rapier headlong into a sturdy steel
>> breastplate, you'd snap the rapier in two.
>
>And what about a tuck?
>
>Also, how "slender" is this "slender rapier"? What era? What country?
Gawd, I don't know. That's why I said "gut feeling" instead of quoting
you material strengths and stress and strain figures.
Steve
> : As I am a USArian, I have the right to call myself such.
Jim Walters replied:>
> You have the right to call yourself a purple wombat if you want to. It's
> just that people will look at you strangely if you do. Similarly, you can
> call yourself a "USArian" if you want to. It's just that most people
> won't understand you if you do. Even then, most of the people who do
> understand you will still prefer the term that is the recognized standard
> around the world for "citizen of the USA" - American.
Hey, I understood immediately, and I think it's a little less
presumptuous than American (denying all the other countries in north and
south america the title?)
I'm also rather fond of calling the USA "Americaland - subsiduary of
Disneyland" - sure has been entertaining recently...
Steve
Doug Pirko
Steve <S...@spis.co.nz> wrote
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > : As I am a USArian, I have the right to call myself such.
> Hey, I understood immediately, and I think it's a little less
> presumptuous than American (denying all the other countries in north and
> south america the title?)
There isn't another country in North or South America that refers to itself
as "X of America." So I don't think you'll find many Venezualans,
Hondurans, or Canadians (yea!) really begrudingly surrendering the right to
call themselves Americans.
Now if you speak of North or South Americans, the non-national nature is
assumed.
Douglas, amongst the North Americans!
Iron Czar
thusly:
> I like Hero better because I played it first so GURPs
>seams klunky to me. The same can be said about Hero (being klunky that is)
>by people who used GURPs first.
Just to throw in an anecdote here, I played Champions before GURPS was
even released, and considered it clunky at the time, because of the
combat system. I did like the character creation very much, despite
the min-maxing problems with the system--Champions was the first game
for which I sat down and made literally a couple of dozen characters
in one sitting.
Nowadays, I prefer GURPS. Character creation works better in my
opinion, though it does still have some problems (which are shared by
Hero,) combat works better and is more easily modified to the style of
the campaign, task resolution is better and GURPS has a skill system
that is better fleshed out than Hero's rather skeletal skill
structure.
Iron Czar
http://www.erienet.net/~ironczar
Bryan J. Maloney
<fsr...@myriad.net> wrote:
I say that it is. And I'm going to use some of my Christmas-related off
time to finally polish up my expansion for the Voodoo rituals.
The way the system works is that there is a base skill: Ritual Magic.
Magic is grouped into "Paths". Skill in a Path cannot exceed skill in
Ritual Magic. Individual spells have rolls that default from the Path
skill. One can increase the individual spell rolls. Now, it is possible
to cast *ANY* spell by merely knowing Ritual Magic, since the Path skills
default from it, but the casting penalties are magnificently enormous.
The only thing the system suffers from is a limited selection of Paths and
spells.
Furthermore, it is a *ritual* system, so the fastest possible casting time
is 1d6 seconds, and that takes very hefty casting penalties. If you want
mages to be typical game-style walking artillery, Voodoo is not for you.
If you want them to be obsessed with preparations, ritual, and planning,
much closer to the archetypes in the literary genre of fantasy, then
Voodoo is worth looking at.
Likewise, it gives hulking barbarians their proper place back. No longer
do they have to dodge fire-bolt blasting low-budged comic book
supherheroes. Instead, they have to track down Thulsa Doom in his tower,
for he is preparing his vile ritual of somethingorother, and it'll be a
doozy. Our hero's own mage companions are, by necessity of being
itinerant and not having time to prepare, handy in a pinch, but not able
to magically duke it out toe-for-to against Mr. I'm in a Tower, Ain't I
Hot Stuff. Ultimately, it will come down to the warrior's sword...
Bryan J. Maloney
> I'm also rather fond of calling the USA "Americaland - subsiduary of
> Disneyland" - sure has been entertaining recently...
Nope, it's America 98, a product of Microsoft.
Bryan J. Maloney
Walker" <ant...@nospamdeltanet.com> wrote:
> > I'm also rather fond of calling the USA "Americaland - subsiduary of
> > Disneyland" - sure has been entertaining recently...
> >
>
> Really? I'm not laughing.
We know which Disadvantage YOU got ten points for when you were born!
Of course, I would have to say that, upon further reflection, the analyses
of the culture of the Nacerima are probably the most cogent ever offered.
James Nicoll
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <367eb...@news1.ibm.net>, <bill.d...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>> USArian?
>>
>> A) I've never heard this term before.
>> B) Shouldn't it be spelled USAryan?
>
>No. It should be spelled "USArian", and it was coined in the early 19th
>century to mean "somebody from the USA", as opposed to "somebody from a
>continent called America"
>
>
over USarian is that it doesn't sound like it has a connection to the
Late Unpleasantness in Europe concerning an aberant offshoot of a failed
linguistic model and it doesn't sound like a US varient of a Christian
heresy either. YMMOV.
James Nicoll
--
March 20, 1999: Imperiums To Order's 15th Anniversary Party. Guests include
Rob Sawyer [SF author], Jo Walton [game designer and soon to be published
fantasy author] and James Gardner [SF author]. DP9 is a definite maybe.
Imperiums is at 12 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Paul MacDonald
> I think in Esperanto the phrase would be Usonian. The advantage
> over USarian is that it doesn't sound like it has a connection to the
> Late Unpleasantness in Europe concerning an aberant offshoot of a failed
> linguistic model and it doesn't sound like a US varient of a Christian
> heresy either. YMMOV.
Yeah, but Franky Wright already used the term "Usonian" for a style of
architecture.
Paul MacDonald
SD Anderson
> Well, if you have 5 DX-based skills all bought to the 8-point
> level, then increase your DX by 1 and halve the cost of the
> five skills. Now you have 5 more points to spend. If you have
> 10 DX-based skills all bought to 8-point level, do the same
> thing only increase your DX by 2. You'll still have 40 points
> spent on those ten skills. But don't feel stupid for spending
> some points on skills.
As has been pointed out many times, GURPS IQ and DX do not
necessarilly represent the raw stat. IQ specifically includes
general education and it's equivalent in motor based skills can
represent a DX increase, particularly after character creation.
A player can presume a college education consists of an IQ
boost with minimal points spent on specific skills, or the player
can choose to follow the background concieved and spend points
based on the amount of time the character spent studying a skill.
The first is usually 'cost effective'. However, 'cost
effectiveness' is NOT required by the rules.
SD Anderson
> Can somebody offer a description of what the Voodoo system
> is like? I also consider the "standard" GURPS magic system to
> be kind of bland and unimpressive.
> Is GURPS Voodoo worth getting if I can find it somewhere?
In reverse order: Yes.
The ritual magic system presumes there are numerous types of
magic and each has it's own very hard skill ie Ritual Magic
(Santeria) vs Ritual Magic (Wicce) that default to each other at
-5.
The equivalent of a college of magic is a 'Path', which are
also MvH skills and default to the Ritual Magic skill at -6.
Finally there are spells, called Rituals in this system,
essentially manuevers off of the path skill. (Modification: no
one point or half point purchases, you pay 2 points to improve a
ritual, stopping at the Path's level.)
Most rituals default to the Path at -0 to -10.
Initiation: Advantages that function like advanced magery.
SD Anderson
> A) I've never heard this term before.
been found in Elizabethan English had the USA existed as a nation
back then ;)
> B) Shouldn't it be spelled USAryan?
No. Aryan refers to a language group. 'arian' is a suffix
used for words like librarian, historian etc.
> C) I find this offensive either because: 1. The Aryans were a
> group of relatively light skinned Asians that invaded and
> conquered India and set up aa rigid Caste
Linguistics and archeology disagree with you. Quick version:
a group of people discovered the chariot and swept through the
mideast, conquering much of Europe and the subcontinent, even
holding parts of Egypt as the Hyskos.
James Nicoll
SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> USArian?
>> A) I've never heard this term before.
> It's a modernized use of the term USAite, which would have
>been found in Elizabethan English had the USA existed as a nation
>back then ;)
>
>> B) Shouldn't it be spelled USAryan?
>
> No. Aryan refers to a language group. 'arian' is a suffix
>used for words like librarian, historian etc.
Also an unsuccessful branch of Christianity.
ed
Dec 1998 21:46:26 GMT:
>In article <u7IbGxdL#GA....@nih2naab.prod2.compuserve.com>,
>SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>> USArian?
>>> A) I've never heard this term before.
>> It's a modernized use of the term USAite, which would have
>>been found in Elizabethan English had the USA existed as a nation
>>back then ;)
>>
>>> B) Shouldn't it be spelled USAryan?
>>
>> No. Aryan refers to a language group. 'arian' is a suffix
>>used for words like librarian, historian etc.
>
> Also an unsuccessful branch of Christianity.
That is, I believe, Arian
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk | Dragons Rescued | _////
http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/ | Maidens Slain | o_/o ///
For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGs, | Quests P.O.A. | __\ ///__
Science-Fiction and other stuff | | <*>
Pinochet
Bryan J. Maloney wrote in message ...
>In article <367F02...@spis.co.nz>, Steve <S...@spis.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I'm also rather fond of calling the USA "Americaland - subsiduary of
>> Disneyland" - sure has been entertaining recently...
>
Heck no! It's America, Empire in Training. Prepare for the shock troops!
th...@my-dejanews.com
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> I think in Esperanto the phrase would be Usonian.
Actually, it's "usonano."
FWIW, I misunderstood "Usarian" to mean "ayrian-american."
Thomas
Esperantist at large
http://www.esperanto.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brett Slocum
<ant...@nospamdeltanet.com> write:
>Alan D Kohler <hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com> wrote in article
><367aecbd...@news.olg.com>...
>
>> As for converting your campaign, if you happen to mean an AD&D
>> campaign, I really would consider looking elsewhere. While one of
>> GURPS' strength is its source material, I have found its fantasy
>> material lacking in comparison to its offerings for other genres.
>
>Agreed. I hate being a fantasy game master due to the lack of resources
>that could make my job easier. AD&D is the king in that department.
>*sighs with envy*
For a example of a campaign converted to GURPS from AD&D, look no further than
Robert Knop's Runelands campaign: http://www.wco.com/~rknop/Omar/gurps_rl/.
He mostly converts the magic system, but that's the hardest part of any fantasy
conversion (as I so well know from attempting to convert the Chivalry and
Sorcery system).
As far as resources to support a non-Yrthian fantasy campaign, I think GURPS has
a fair amount of support (Bestiary, Fantasy Bestiary, Fantasy Folk, Magic,
Grimoire, Religion, Wizards, and Magic Items 1 & 2, plus cultural support in
Vikings, Celtic Myth, Arabian Nights, Greece, Imperial Rome, Egypt, Aztecs,
Camelot, China, Conan, Japan, Middle Ages, and Robin Hood, plus evil thang
support in Undead, Blood Types, and the lycanthrope rules in Bestiary). I
acknowledge that many of these are out of print, but most of them are pretty
easy to get used (I've done it). Also, some of them are coming back into print,
such as Fantasy Bestiary, Magic Items, and the best news: Cardboard Heroes are
coming back! All 13 sets of fantasy figures will be released in one big set of
400 stand-up figures, plus 300 flat counters.
And for Yrth, you've got Fantasy, Orcslayer, Harkwood, Fantasy Adventures,
Tredroy, and the upcoming Abydos: City of Death supplement from David Pulver.
So, for Yrth, I agree. Not a lot of support. But for homebrew worlds, there's a
ton of support.
And my favorite method of supporting my GURPS campaigns: steal stuff from other
companies' materials. An adventure is an adventure is an adventure. I've pulled
from as disparite sources as: Talislanta, Chivalry and Sorcery, Harn, Glorantha,
Cidri from TFT, Tunnels and Trolls, Middle Earth, World of Darkness, and Men in
Black (yea, some aliens showed up).
>> Typical complaints (which I share) are that it's magic system requires
>> too specific of skills, and that its fantasy material is bland
>> (fantasy folk) or just plain silly (fantasy, fantasy adventures).
>
>More agreement. The magic system really blows and requires a fair amount
>of points tinkering, calculations and general difficulty.
Hmmm, I guess I don't think of Fantasy Folk as bland, nor Yrth as silly.
Certainly "Sahudese Fire Drill" is a silly adventure. But it's one of the
funniest things I've ever seen.
There is so much material on customizing the magic system that tweaking it
shouldn't be a big chore. If you don't want spell lists, use "Improvised Magic
as the Only Magic" from Roleplayer
(http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/Roleplayer/Roleplayer19/OnlyImprovMagic.html).
Check out S. John Ross' Unlimited Mana rules (among others)
(http://www.io.com/~sjohn/blueroom.htm). If you want a subtle magic system,
check out Voodoo: The Shadow War. If you want an ultra-powerful magic system,
check out GURPS Mage: the Ascension. For more examples of magic system stuff,
check out my GURPS Articles list under Magic
(http://www.io.com/~slocum/gurpsart.html). Lots and lots of options are out
there.
---
Brett Slocum <slo...@io.com> | ICQ 13032903 | MiB #0666 (Twin Cities CL)
* Illuminated Site of the Week: http://www.sjgames.com/ill/illsotw/
* GURPS site: http://www.io.com/~slocum/gurps.html
* Tekumel Web Ring Admin: http://www.io.com/~slocum/webring/
"Ah'm yer pa, Luke." -- if James Earl Ray was the voice of Darth Vader
Brett Slocum
The Illuminated Masters let Mike Harvey <michael...@intel.com> write:
>(1) The damage types are broken. For example, armor is more effective
>against impaling damage than against other types of damage.
Hmm, let's look at this. First of all, chainmail is *much* less effective
against impaling damage than other damage types. Next let's look at an example.
Defender D is in hardened leather armor (DR 2). Attacker A has a 2d6 crushing
weapon. Attacker B has a 2d6 cutting weapon. Attacker C has a 2d6 impaling
weapon. All hit and all roll a 6 on damage dice. Attacker A does 4 points of
damage. Attacker B does 6 points of damage (x1.5 damage multiplier). Attacker C
does 8 points of damage (x2 damage multiplier). Hmmm. Looks like armor is more
effective against crushing and cutting damage than impaling.
>(1a) Combat is too deadly. You can't even knock a person unconscious
>without reducing them to zero hits.
Head hits can knock a person out without dropping them to zero. So, aim at the
head.
>(2) The point-cost system is broken, making GURPS a min-maxer's
>delight. Attributes are either way too cheap, or skills are too
>expensive, or both.
I've never had much trouble with this. Sure, you can tweak things to get more
efficient characters. So what. GURPS is far less of a minmaxers delight than
Hero is.
>(3) There are waaay too many skills, advantages, and disadvantages. It
>is virtually impossible to remember them all, yet the GM is expected to
>know when a player does *not* have a skill and what it defaults to.
Not every campaign uses all these things. My Traveller campaign uses a pretty
small subset of the stuff in Compendium I. And that's why they printed those
Advantage, Disadvantage and Skill charts in the back. Make your own reference
sheets.
>What is the point of having 'Shortsword' if the GM forgets it exists and
>lets the players use 'Broadsword' instead? (That is not a good example,
>since both skills appear together on the same page. But it does
>illustrate the problem...)
Well, it's written on the character sheet. When I GM, I have each character's
sheet in front of me for reference. Also, what the hell is the harm of using
Broadsword instead of Shortsword? It ain't going to ruin the game.
>Anyone can attempt to make an exhaustive
>list of the thousands of character traits that exist in all possible
>worlds, but a *good* system distills these down into a manageable number
>of archetypes.
Well, try playing GURPS Lite (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/). The essence
of GURPS distilled down to 32 pages. Includes character creation, combat,
success rolls, magic, adventuring, and game mastering.
>GURPS would benefit greatly from a meta-system like HERO
>uses...
Some people think that Magic works differently than Psionics and Tech and
Superpowers, and therefore think that the rules should have some variation to
them to represent that. A metasystem usually (and Hero is a good example)
produces effect-based systems that only care what happens to the target. These
are very bland, IMO.
>(4) Anyone with high IQ automatically has lots of Willpower... unless
>the player specifically takes the Weak Will disadvantage. Since almost
>nobody ever does, all wizards have incredible willpower.
Easily fixed by using the optional rules from Compendium II. Base will off 10
modified by Strong/Weak Will.
>(5) The IQ 14, Magery 3 wizard. Enough said.
Easily fixed by using optional rules from Magic.
>(7) The magic system is riddled with weaknesses:
>(7a) The prerequisite system means that all wizards with spell X also
>have prerequisites A, B, and C, so wizards start to look the same after
>a while.
Only if they all have spell X. I could see this being a problem with the limited
number of spells available in GURPS Basic, but with Magic (and Grimoire) there
are so many spell choices, that few mages will have this problem.
>(7b) The system is very low-powered, and not well-suited to high
>fantasy.
Easily fixed with simple mods. Remove the Rule of Three for missile spells.
Remove the cap on 3 levels of Magery. Use Unlimited Mana rules from S. John Ross
(http://www.io.com/~sjohn/blueroom.htm). Use Improvised Magic as the Only Magic
(http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/Roleplayer/Roleplayer19/OnlyImprovMagic.html). See
Robert Knop's AD&D GURPS magic system
(http://www.wco.com/~rknop/Omar/gurps_rl/).
>(7c) It costs too much to create permanent magic items.
Then cut the cost. It's pretty easy to say "All magic items henceforth cost half
as much to build."
>(7d) The system is not very generic.
It says very clearly that it isn't generic. It is a magic system based on
various assumptions (academic/apprentice/skill-based model). It never tries to
be a generic, build-your-own magic system.
>(7e) They tried to integrate magic with technology and science, which
>ruins the flavor. I wonder what they were thinking, since the four
>elemental colleges are not exactly a scientific grouping, yet the spells
>within the colleges often make references to science or physics.
Minor quibble. Just ignore the scientific text. It doesn't really come up that
much.
>(8) Dice mechanics are very limited, perhaps broken. Critical successes
>and failures are way too common, especially in spellcasting.
This isn't my experience, but if you don't like it, make a change. Maybe, on a
Critical Failure, let them roll again. If they succeed, it's a simple failure.
Likewise, on a critical success, make them confirm it. If the next roll is a
failure, then the result is a simple success.
>Dice
>cannot roll higher than 16, even though skills can reach 25+.
Rarely do skills exceed 20. The only time I had it happen was with a 2500 point
God character. And the extra skill lets you do things like shoot arrows through
eyeslits of crusader's helmets while riding horseback.
>(8a) Combat and magic skills use a different standard of "what is
>considered good" than noncombat skills, though there is no discernable
>reason for this, and the basic skill mechanic is *supposed* to be the
>same for all skills.
Explain this more. AFAIC, everything uses the same mechanic. Are you referring
to the Critical Failure table for spells and combat? Don't you think that
perhaps it is a little more dangerous to bungle in combat or using powers Man
Was Not Meant to Know than writing a computer program?
> GURPS makes heavier use of modifiers than any game
>I've ever seen, and you can easily spend 2/3 of your time in combat
>looking up and applying various modifiers to skill rolls.
You haven't play many games. Anything out of the FGU stable had 4x the modifiers
of GURPS (Aftermath, C&S, Space Opera, etc.). Most everything you need is
listed on the character sheet. And there is no rule that says you have to use
every modifier. I rarely use 90% of the combat mods. It is better to have them
and not need them, than to need them and not have them.
>(9) GURPS does not scale well. It does okay for 'normal' characters,
>but the larger than life heroes of fiction and legend do not work well
>at all. This is not any one specific thing, just the whole system is
>geared toward normal realistic people.
Fallacy. It's just easier to abuse any system when given more points to play
with. 100 point characters are already 'Hero material', and given that the
average person is 25 points. If you want cinematic action, use cinematic rules
in Compendium II.
>(10) GURPS uses hit points. I don't necessarily think this is bad, but
>lots of people hate hit points passionately, and it *does* purport to be
>a realistic system.
It also purports to be playable. Show me a more realistic system than hit points
that is more playable. Now, I'm rather fond of the "Well / Wounded / Serious /
Critical / Dead" system, but it ain't very realistic.
>(11) SJG constantly displays its pet peeves. Like the special rules for
>chainmail, or the constant harping against cinematic games.
I'm not sure I understand this. What I hear is constant harping by non-SJGames
people about cinematic games, and volleys from SJGames people like Kromm saying
"GURPS does cinematic!" with examples.
Brett Slocum
>In article <367B1065...@knutsen.dk>, Peter Knutsen
><pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
>
>> But isn't this realistic? If you are skewered by a rapier, it's
>> likely to cause severe damage to one of your internal organs.
>> Armour prevents this. An edged or blunt weapon is much less likely
>> to cause "deep" damage, so they have no or a lower damage multiplier.
>
>The problem is that some impaling weapons were made to likewise be
>armor-piercing. GURPS has ignored the existence of every one of them.
Impaling weapons, die for die, *are* more effective against armor. The problem
is swinging vs. thrusting. Most impaling weapons are thrust weapons and the
human body (and physics) isn't as good at applying muscle power to a thrust.
Look at the military pick: impaling and swing.
>> I'd rather say that they're not very varied.
>> Your average character may have Dodge 5. A brute-strength
>> fighter Dodge 6, and your super-dextrous Rogue Dodge 7
>> or 8.
>
>Active defenses include Parry, and the cheapest way to get a Dodge 8
>without Cinematic/Superhero rules is to have DX and HT of 16--I don't see
>that combination too often in non-Cinematic campaigns.
The cheapest way to get a high dodge is to wear armor. A breastplate does
wonders for getting a 10 Dodge.
>> Yeah. The whole magic system is bland. I've been told that
>> GURPS Magic fixes this, but I'm more inclined to turn to anotehr
>
>No, it merely extends it.
And adds a bunch of options to make it less bland. The magic in Basic is most
useful for adding magic to mostly non-magic campaigns, like Horror. If you're
doing fantasy with a decent amount of magic in it, you should be using Magic,
and probably Grimoire.
>> That part about 25-point is normal puzzles me a bit. I can just
>
>Let's see:
>
>All attributes in the 9-11 range.
>Average appearance and wealth.
>Maybe a connection or two.
>Driving at 12, likewise for any job-related skills.
>
>25 points can cover ordinary blokes.
Add in Disadvantages, and you can have a pretty effective character in 25
points. If you use Bill Seurer's 145 point rule, then a normal get 70 points.
Brett Slocum
>In article <367AFD9C...@intel.com>, Mike Harvey
><michael...@intel.com> wrote:
>> (11) SJG constantly displays its pet peeves. Like the special rules for
>> chainmail, or the constant harping against cinematic games.
>
>Yup. If chain's so rotten, why did special weapons have to be invented to
>pierce it?
Since the era of chainmail is also the era of slashing weapons, sure, they had
to figure out that a pick will go through much easier. Hmm, impaling weapons
don't look so bad now.
Brett Slocum
<ant...@nospamdeltanet.com> write:
>GURPS can be a GM's nightmare, especially for fantasy. There are several
>books required (fantasy folk, magic and the basic set) and there is no
>longer in print a monster manual type book.
The only book I'd say is *required* for a high magic fantasy setting with mage
PCs is Magic, beyond the usual Basic. I say this, because I've done it. If you
don't have PC mages, then Basic is all you really need, since the magic is all
behind the GM screen. Unless you want to use those races in Fantasy Folk, all
the race creation rules are now in Compendium I.
>Making NPCs is a real pain in the butt and takes quite a bit of time.
99% of my NPCs are made up on the fly off the top of my head. And only that if
they need to make a roll. Or I use 'stock' NPCs: guards, physicians, brigands,
gang-bangers, cops, etc. If I need a fully-fleshed out NPC (bad ass villian,
let's say), then I'll do up a sheet for them. But I usually don't bother
point-balancing to get within 100 points. If that's too much, then get a copy of
the GURPS Character Assistant (GCA) (www.misersoft.com). It will speed up all
your character generation, except the character concept part.
>Ranged combat is a real drag. You constantly have to reference charts for
>range, movement, size, recoil modifiers of weapons, yadda, yadda, yadda.
All that should be listed on the character sheet. And if it's too much, ignore
most of the mods. I do, and my games haven't suffered.
>There are three stats for the physical body, but all mental abilities come
>from a single stats: IQ.
Then go play C&S with over a dozen stats, or Hero with about a dozen stats and
several calculated stats. Or go play TFT with 3 stats (ST, DX, IQ).
I also don't find this to be a problem.
>While GURPS supports many different genres, it may be difficult to find
>support for any one, unless that happens to be science fiction.
Or Yrth, or Autoduel, or Supers, or Illuminati, or Cyberpunk, or Horror, or Time
Travel. Frankly, GURPS Time Travel is their most supported genre, since every
damn one of those pesky historicals is infinitely useful for a TT campaign.
Granted that many of these are out of print, but I recently filled huge holes in
my collection at very reasonable cost, so they are out there. Just don't expect
to get GURPS Japan or GURPS Swashbucklers for less than $30, unless it's in the
used bin at your FLGS. But never fear, these and other titles are being
reprinted or getting new editions next year. Currently on the docket: Fantasy
Bestiary, Cardboard Heroes, Magic Items, Psionics, and a new edition of Special
Ops.
Brett Slocum
>In article <75k2kd$a6p$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se>, d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se
>(Bertil Jonell) wrote:
>
>> In article <367A2D...@cc.hut.fi>,
>> Ilkka Mannisto <iman...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>> >The discussion seems to be all the time about how much AD&D suck, so
>> >could someone bash the GURPS system a little, because I'm going convert
>> >my campaign to gurps. I'd just like to know the flaws of the system
>> >before my players do!
>>
>> It uses archaic units of measure.
>
>Excellent if one is running a fantasy campaign, bites rocks for anything
>else if you're not a USArian.
Which is why they have a conversion chart in the front of Basic 3ER.
Bryan J. Maloney
> A few quick comments and then more in-depth later, when I have my books.
>
> The Illuminated Masters let Mike Harvey <michael...@intel.com> write:
>
> >(1) The damage types are broken. For example, armor is more effective
> >against impaling damage than against other types of damage.
>
> Hmm, let's look at this. First of all, chainmail is *much* less effective
> against impaling damage than other damage types. Next let's look at an
Here's the thing. The poor guy seems unable to distinguish between
"impaling" type damage and "thrusting" type attacks...
Bryan J. Maloney
> Look at the military pick: impaling and swing.
Look at the tuck: Impaling, armor-piercing, and thrust. However, in the
GURPS rules, the tuck is identical to the rapier. Why? If the rules are
so utterly perfect, why do they not model the fact that a tuck was
designed to penetrate armor and is more effective at doing so than is a
rapier?
Bryan J. Maloney
<8spam8gra...@7not7sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
Actually, we're already there. Season's Greetings from the Metropole to
the Periphery and the Provinces...
J. Hunter Johnson
>
>> Look at the military pick: impaling and swing.
> Look at the tuck: Impaling, armor-piercing, and thrust. However, in
> the GURPS rules, the tuck is identical to the rapier. Why? If the
> rules are so utterly perfect, why do they not model the fact that a
> tuck was designed to penetrate armor and is more effective at doing
> so than is a rapier?
Where is the tuck in GURPS rules?
Hunter
David P. Summers
> presumptuous than American (denying all the other countries in north and
> south america the title?)
There is a bit of hypocracy in much of this. Some contries object to
calling it the "United States". Other object to "America". But they
all subsitute another phrase that a different country would oject
to (Mexico calls it "the North" which doesn't really work for
Canada) because, like people in the USA, they also find that
"Someone from the United States of America" is a bit of a
mouthfull.
--
Name_David P. Summers
Email_...@Alum.MIT.edu
SD Anderson
> Where is the tuck in GURPS rules?
Better yet, given the absence of a tuck in many FRPG weapon
lists, WHAT EXACTLY IS A TUCK? ;)
HAL
Since this seems more (by title) about the strengths and weaknesses of
GURPS than about whether the United States of America sucks (and nowhere
does it say what the United States of America sucks on/at), I will address
the one person who seems seriously interested in what are the problems
and/or advantages of GURPS.
Specifically: I have been playing GURPS since Man to Man came out.
What I like about it versus what I don't like about it.
First off, I like the fact that GURPS made an attempt to create a decent
tactical game. Like all games, there is the playability versus reality
probllem. One thing I would like to point out to you, is that the way I
got my wife (a fencer by the way) to play (aside from the fact that I
gamed every weekend when she and I first met <grin>) was the simple fact
that she never ever read the rules. She hates reading "dry" books. But
she LOVES about GURPS is that you can place yourself there on the "spot"
and think "what would I do if I were really there?". She has cold cocked
a man with the bell guard and pommel (GURPS has rules for that). She has
sucker punched a man on the solar plexus and in the abdominal (GURPS has
rules for that). She has used a wicked undercut such that she severed a
man's jewels <wince> from behind.
Then of course, when she built a character on 150 points, and created a
high Dex combat monster - she found that combat wasn't something that she
could take for granted. Real life game situation: skill 26 swordswoman
based upon Red Sonja meets up with an expert swordsman (skill 18). She
calls him a right rude <unprintable> and challenges him to a duel to the
first blood. Thinking that with a parry of 13 on 3d6 even without armor
on, she could easily best this man. So confident, that despite having
faster reflexes, she let him attack first. Unfortunately, she rolled a
crit failure (18) and his attack drew first blood - by crippling her sword
arm (temporarily). Then, out of pique - she challenged him yet again,
claiming that he had gotten lucky, and that with her off hand, she was
better than he was. He agreed to a second rematch, and this time, he was
able to parry her attack, and when he went on the attack himself, he
discovered a weak point in her defense (he rolled a crit success while
trying to hit her arm - ie a roll of a 4 on 3d6!).
"Child, when you think you have learned something, come back to this
master and I will teach you more yet..." was his reply.
I ask you, where can you find a D&D 10 level fighter taking on a 3rd
level fighter and get the same kind of drama?
Ok, how did I get my gaming group to the level that it is now with
GURPS? I started them off small and worked them up to it. First off, I
would use maybe 50% of the rules and ignore the "specialties". Then,
little by little, I gradually gave them more and more rules to use/enjoy.
Currently, my players use all of the rules and some of the "house rules"
that I have created to fix those rules of GURPS I do not agree with, or
are missing.
Which brings me to the rules regarding GURPS and where it can fail.
Realism: there are some rules in GURPS that seem outright unrealistic.
The grappling rules are one set of rules I am not fond of as they stand.
Also, there are no realistic rules for pain. After a fight is over with,
pain can be downright frightening! It doesn't just go away...
Ok - how do I deal with NPC generation? Simple <grin>. Important NPC's
I create as I would any character. Players in my gaming group are often
amazed that I can spit out a character using just GURPS BASIC SET in less
than 10 minutes. They also never know when they are up against an
IMPORTANT NPC or a spear-bearer. Why? Because spear-bearers are just
that, there for the scenery, there to perhaps die, perhaps kill the PC's,
or perhaps just interact peacefully with them. I don't have to do
anything other than this:
"How well trained is this guy? Well trained? Ok, skill is 14."
"how strong is this guy? Average? Stronger than averaage, very strong?
Ok, strength is 15 - looking up the damage ratings in the quick data
pullout chart, here is his damage ratings".
"how well equipt is this guy? Poorly? Ok, give him spear, hatchet,
knife, leather shirt, linen pants, and leather boots. Oh, and a small
shield".
It isn't all that difficult to create NPC's on the fly. Wanna know why?
If you are familiar with reality, you can bet there is a skill that
handles the situation, or a rule. And more often than not, those rules
will be based off of the stats.
Want to learn an easy way to train yourself to be a good GM for GURPS as
a system? Start off simple. Just read through the combat chapters (that
holds the most drama and fear for players). Learn the basics such as
attack, defense, movement. Then... <evil grin>:
Pretend you are there. What would you do? The enemy has disarmed you (or
you foolishly rolled a crit failure that makes you drop your weapon).
What do you do? If you have a shield, you perhaps start interposing it
between you and him in a desparation defense (all out defense anyone?).
Then, you look about on the ground for a club or the sword you dropped...
(how does one pick up something in combat?) Suppose you can't find your
sword (How does one make a vision roll?) but instead find a club - what
kind of damage does it do?
In short, practice on yourself first. If you don't know something, look
it up. In time, you will become used to knowing about "where" in the book
you will find information regards to a specific question - that people
will swear you have the book memorized. Never be afraid to look in the
index - GURPS is great in that respect!
Once GM'ing for yourself become second nature, and I can assure you,
that it will after a time - you will find that GM'ing for players will
become a snap.
Also? If you can't remember a rule right off hand, you will at least be
able to think of something realistic to handle the situation. If you find
later on, that you were wrong? Just take the player aside and say "I
won't replay the scene, but I made a mistake in your favor. This is how
the rule really works".
GURPS MAGIC:
Ok - it can be somewhat frustrating to use GURPS MAGIC I will admit.
However, this need not be a problem <grin>.
Easy way to convert "level" based spells to a GURPS game:
1) each "level" is an advantage that must be purchased. It represents a
body of knowledge that must be known before you can even attempt to cast
spells of that "level". It could be as cheap as 5 points per level, or it
could be 5,10,15,20,25, and 30 points for 5th level spells!
2) treat each spell as a skill. In other words, if you have points
invested in the spell itself, then you base the success chance off of IQ
(or IQ+magery) as per the normal "mental skills" rules of GURPS.
An alternative method for "level" based spells of other games:
There is a skill in GURPS titled "thaumatology" - the study of magic
theory. Require that "levels" be based upon this skill.
Skill 10 or less = 1st level
skill 11 or 12 = 2nd level
skill 13 or 14 = 3rd level
Skill 15 or 16 = 4th level
skill 17 or 18 = 5th level
skill 19 to 22 = 6th level
skill 23+ = 7th level.
Then you can base the skill level of the spell as follows:
Skill in spell = Thaumatology - 2 x spell level.
In short - GURPS is ADAPTABLE. If a rule doesn't exist - the basic
structure is such that you can create rules *on the fly*!
Example: my pain rules are simple: take the worst wound you took in
battle. This is the most painful one you have. Halve the damage and this
is the pain penalty you receive during non-combat situations. Thus,
normally, if your skill were 14 - and you took an 8 point wound? Your
skill would be 14-4 (1/2 of your worst wound) due to the distraction of
pain. As it heals, every two points of healing reduces the pain down one
level.
So, with any luck - I have given you something to think about regards to
GM'ing GURPS. It can be used with only the "Basic" options, or you can
introduce more and more complexity until you and your group are satisfied.
Hal
SD Anderson
> Hmm, let's look at this. First of all, chainmail is *much*
> less effective against impaling damage than other damage types.
> Next let's look at an example.
> Defender D is in hardened leather armor (DR 2). Attacker A has
> a 2d6 crushing weapon. Attacker B has a 2d6 cutting weapon.
> Attacker C has a 2d6 impaling weapon.
This is where his complaint comes in. Most impaling weapons
don't DO 2d6. Arc and momentum let most cutting and many
crushing weapons use a character's swing damage as a base while
most impaling weapons use thrust.
Given a warrior with a 14 ST, he does a base 2d sw and 1d
thrust. Make the weapon a shortsword, no adjustments needed for
damage. Foe has scale mail, DR 4. On average, the impaling
attack gets -0.5 points past the DR, total damage: 0. On
average, the cutting attack gets 3 points past the DR bumped to
4.5 (4). What would work best is to give weapons that had armor
piercing functions AP effects instead of putting a vulnerability
to attack type on a few armors.
Pinochet
Bryan J. Maloney wrote in message ...
>In article <75r4rj$71u$2...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Pinochet"
><8spam8gra...@7not7sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
>> Heck no! It's America, Empire in Training. Prepare for the shock troops!
>
>Actually, we're already there. Season's Greetings from the Metropole to
>the Periphery and the Provinces...
No, we're still novices at the Empire bit. Need some more OJT.
Steve
> (And hey, Presumption is what America is about, that's *our* job.)
I can't disagree with that...
Steve
Knight
charaacter generation system. The way the rules work make it easy to
frob, fiddle or tweak them to your heart's content.
Robert Knop
>The Illuminated Masters let "Christian or Denise Walker"
><ant...@nospamdeltanet.com> write:
>>GURPS can be a GM's nightmare, especially for fantasy. There are several
>>books required (fantasy folk, magic and the basic set) and there is no
>>longer in print a monster manual type book.
>The only book I'd say is *required* for a high magic fantasy setting with mage
>PCs is Magic, beyond the usual Basic. I say this, because I've done it. If you
>don't have PC mages, then Basic is all you really need, since the magic is all
>behind the GM screen. Unless you want to use those races in Fantasy Folk, all
>the race creation rules are now in Compendium I.
Yes. If you want world support, there's nothing stopping you from using a
fatasy world from another publisher. Yes, this may require some work to
convert game stats, but frequently the bulk of setting products is just
that: setting. Descriptions in non-game terms that will translate
anywhere. (Magic systems are the one exception, as they tend to be both
rules-heavy and world-specific.) Often, you can find conversions on the web
which have already done what work needs to be done for you.
One fine example is Harn. If you want to play a realistic, medieval fantasy
game (especially a low-magic one, though a high-magic one works as well),
it's an excellent world. What's more, the world description doesn't really
contain anything in the way of game mechanics. And, sure enough, there are
a couple of articles on the web about playing GURPS in Harn.
However, I do agree that it's tragic that both Bestiary and Fantasy Bestiary
are out of print. At least we have the consolation that the latter will
soon come back into print, and as to the former, there are at least a
sampling of animals in the Basic Set.
-Rob
--
-=-=Rob Knop-=-=rk...@ncal.verio.com-=-=http://www.ncal.verio.com/~rknop-=-=
Amiga PGP information at http://www.ncal.verio.com/~rknop/amiga_pgp.html
Visit the Dramatic Exchange at http://www.dramex.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert Knop
>Yes. If you want world support, there's nothing stopping you from using a
>fatasy world from another publisher. Yes, this may require some work to
>convert game stats, but frequently the bulk of setting products is just
>that: setting. Descriptions in non-game terms that will translate
>anywhere. (Magic systems are the one exception, as they tend to be both
>rules-heavy and world-specific.) Often, you can find conversions on the web
>which have already done what work needs to be done for you.
I should add that if such a conversion on the web does exist, there are even
odds that you will find it on Brett Slocum's conversions page:
http://www.io.com/~slocum/gurpsconv.html