D20 vs. GURPS; OR Cinematic vs. Gritty
Robin David White
it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
true?
Thanks!
Robin David White
The Sophist
Here's one difference: cinematic heroes are larger than life, like
Legolas and Gimli taking down a hundred orcs a piece in the battle of
Helm's Deep. A gritty hero can usually be taken down by three or four
ordinary punks if they gang up on him (fewer if they get lucky). As to
whether it's true, it is very hard to do gritty D20, but GURPS is quite
flexible; while 100 point characters with standard rules will tend to
make for a fairly gritty game, giving PCs more points or introducing
some of the cinematic optional rules can change things completely.
--
Aaron Boyden
"I may have done this and that for sufferers; but always I seemed to
have done better when I learned to feel better joys."
-Thus spoke Zarathustra
Jeremy Reaban
"Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
Cinematic = like in a movie (or novel).
Gritty = like in real life
For instance, Die Hard. One Cop with a pistol and without shoes vs. a
dozen or so terrorists and mercenaries with smgs & assault rifles. In
a cinematic system, the cop wins (and in the book, it was a really old
cop...Frank Sinatra once played the same character when he was in his
50s or, and I think that was the first book in the series). In real
life, the cop would like be killed almost immediately.
In Die Hard 2 (which was actually based on a completely different book
by another author, 58 Minutes, IIRC), the cop goes up against most
terrorists and rogue special forces. The latter should have chewed him
up if it were in real life.
Or James Bond. Bond and the super-villain are super tough. Look at
say, Jaws (the guy with metal teeth). He survived a variety of mishaps
that would have killed a normal person, even a large one his size.
Bond is average sized (scrawny, in Pierce Brosnan's case).
Obviously some movies are realistic, but most are not.
Another example - the opening bit of A Fistful of Dollars. "Get 3
coffins ready..". The Man with No Name (Clint Eastwood) comes up to 4
guys and out draws them all. ("My mistake...4 coffins.")
Anyway, I would say that d20 does a fairly good job of doing cinematic
games, but can do gritty do if you alter the hit point and armor
systems (which has been done). D20 handles the Die Hard series
well - he gradually loses hit points and gets diriter and nicked up in
the movies, but no real harm done.
It also handles the Clint Eastwood bit.
I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
works well, try CORPs). But it's 'gritty' simply because of how it
handles damage - hit point total stays the same (and low). Add an
inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
cinematic.
Scott Eaker
> I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
> works well, try CORPs). But it's 'gritty' simply because of how it
> handles damage - hit point total stays the same (and low). Add an
> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
> cinematic.
So what's unrealistic about a fixed "hit point" system? You want gritty
deadly realism, look into Millenium's End from Chameleon Eclectic (out of
print, but maybe you can find a copy for a buck or two on eBay). Your
character gets shot, he or she stands a decent chance of snuffing it.
Sounds about right to me. I don't care if you're a 98-pound librarian or a
Navy SEAL, lead bullets are toxic.
>
>
>
>
Douglas Berry
robinda...@yahoo.ca (Robin David White) warmed at our fire and
told this tale:
"Cinematic" means, literally the things you see in the movies. Heroes
taking on dozens of enemies, leaping across chasms, and looking good
while doing it. Think of "Conan" or "Indiana Jones."
"Gritty" is down here in the real world. Getting hit by a chair
causes a concussion and you spend three days puking and with double
vision. Trying to leap a thirty-foot gap results in a fall. People
who take gunshot wounds tend to die or be serverely hurt.
GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more real-world
capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards
ideals (the Fighter, the Wizard, etc.) and the combat is fairly
abstract and allows all sorts of outs to keep characters alive.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Peter Knutsen
Douglas Berry wrote:
> GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more real-world
> capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards
Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make a
party of 4-5 "specialists", they'll have skills so high that they are
able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
under extremely unfavourable circumstances.
They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them part
won't be easy either. And if the campaign is low on violence (which is
a novel thought for Jeremy Reaban) , they'll "smash" through all
obstacles, Bribing their way through, Bluffing, Disarming incredibly
complex and difficult Traps, Detecting every Lie the NPCs try to pull
off, Jumping, Climbing and Riding over impeding terrain at breakneck
speed, and so forth... That can be as cinematic as the traditional
D&D-style hack'n'slash, if not *more*.
And it's not something GURPS has a patent on doing, you can make that
kind of characters, and have that kind of campaign, in all systems
that are skill-based and have point-based character creation. But I'd
say that GURPS does it the best, because it's so easy to get very high
skills.
> ideals (the Fighter, the Wizard, etc.) and the combat is fairly
> abstract and allows all sorts of outs to keep characters alive.
One "feature" of d20 is the massive hit point buffer, which just about
removes the risk of instant-death, if you're at full hitpoints. It
strikes me that this also removes the aspect of courage, of taking
heroic risks, because drawing your sword and charging the orcs is not
really dangerous, hence not truly a brave act, if you've got triple
digit hitpoints and can only loose them so slowly that you'll have
plenty of time to retreat, if the fight isn't going as you expected.
So how about adding "courageous acts" to the definition of
"cinematic"? I'm tired of lame d20 propaganda based on unexamined
assumptions.
I also object to your incorrect use of the term "real world", when you
talk about "real world characters". Plenty of extremely capable
characters exist on our planet, in our era. We're not all 1st level
characters (to use d20 speak) or built on 25 points (to use GURPS
speak). It's a common fallacy to assume that because *most* people are
average, *everybody* is average.
--
Peter Knutsen
Shawn Fisher
news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
I've played both GURPS and DnD in carnations going back to (the GURPS Boxed
Set and DnD Red Book). GURPS does BOTH cinematic and realistic. DnD does
only EPIC level play. In GURPS, one can choose to create 0 point grunts with
Basic combat, or 500 point Chambara fighters with 4 attacks in a second. In
DnD you get 1st level thieves terrified of the combat abiliites of the
domestic house cat (look it up), and eventually earth shaking, terrifyingly
powerful characters. GURPS cannot compete with DnD in the EPIC level
adventure, when one man slays an army, or a mage destroys a castle. You can
do it in GURPS, but it takes some optional rules, and then will probably not
get the desired results. However, DnD will not work on the lower level
either. I play GURPS because it does what I want, giving the GM and players
mroe choices over the assumptions in the game (be they realistic or
cinematic). Even with D20, the guts of they game cannot be modified without
making the supplemental material all but useless.
In Short, play D20 to kill ancient dragons in one blow, or shrug off its
flame. Play GURPS to do other stuff.
Shawn A. Fisher
safi...@swbell.net
-----------------------------------------------------
"Greater love has no one than this,
that he lay down his life for his friends."
--John 15:13
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother."
--Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3
Chris Camfield
>> I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
>> works well, try CORPs). But it's 'gritty' simply because of how it
>> handles damage - hit point total stays the same (and low). Add an
>> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
>> cinematic.
>
>So what's unrealistic about a fixed "hit point" system?
I don't think he was saying there's anything unrealistic about fixed hit points.
An _increasing_ hit point system (without penalties for being wounded) can make
gaming pretty cinematic.
Then again, technically Feng Shui has a fixed hit point system (with some wound
penalties at severe levels of damage) but is definitely cinematic. :-)
Chris
Johnny1A
There are degrees of 'gritty', of course. For ex, the one cop vs a
half dozen criminals with better weapons (Die Hard 1) has a slim, SLIM
real-world chance, if he plays it smart (which McClean didn't, of
course). It he struck from behind, was very cagy, and was very very
lucky, he might just be able to survive and kill his enemies.
James Bond is _pure_ cinematic, to the point of being almost an
intentional spoof of itself.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> Robin David White wrote:
> > Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've heard
> > it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> > while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
> > What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
> > true?
>
> Here's one difference: cinematic heroes are larger than life, like
> Legolas and Gimli taking down a hundred orcs a piece in the battle of
> Helm's Deep.
In fairness, Legolas killed many of those with a ranged weapon, and
Gimli didn't fight them all at once. It's cinematic, but not utterly
impossible.
Shermanlee
Wrathchild
"Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
> Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've heard
> it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
> What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"?
Good definitions have aready been offered :-) Generally, Cinematic = Like
the Cinema and Gritty = close to Real Life.
and (2) Is it
> true?
As a fairly hard user of both systems I'd say that in their (most) standard
forms, the rule of thumb that d20/D&D 3rd ed. is for the cinematic and GURPS
is for the realistically oriented is basically true.
However, both systems have options (in the case of GURPS) or different
versions (in case of d20) that allow them to accomodate the fundamental
style of the other. Wether or not this is done adequately is IME so much a
matter of personal tastes that only your own experiences will do.
For me GURPS is first choice, as it is the more flexible and descriptive
system of the two IMO. And if I want to pull out the cinematic stuff it is
there in a form thats integrated and doesn't need for the rest of things to
change. With GURPS I can use almost anything without encountering the need
to change stuff and houserule. Not so with d20. Even though d20 is much
better that earlier editions (A)D&D and a fine system in itself.
--
Wrath
-------------------
" Somebody stop me! "
mcv
: I also object to your incorrect use of the term "real world", when you
: talk about "real world characters". Plenty of extremely capable
: characters exist on our planet, in our era. We're not all 1st level
: characters (to use d20 speak) or built on 25 points (to use GURPS
: speak). It's a common fallacy to assume that because *most* people are
: average, *everybody* is average.
I don't think it's even true that most people are average. Most people
are either above or below average. It's quite possible for a GURPS
character to have a negative point value. I assume my grandmother, as
well as many other elderly people, would have a negative point value in
GURPS terms, for example.
mcv.
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more real-world
>> capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards
>
>Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make a
>party of 4-5 "specialists", they'll have skills so high that they are
>able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
>under extremely unfavourable circumstances.
>
>They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them part
>won't be easy either.
Won't be that hard.
Let's have a look at combat Fred
Fred has ST 13, DX 17, IQ 12, HT 14,
That would be, what, 195 points in characteristics?
And a dodge of, what, 8?
Let's give Fred a BB gun just to be sporting.
Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
adjusted for range.
Fred goes first and kills one of the guys with guns by shooting him in
the eye.
2 of the remaining guys make their to hit rolls.
Odds are good that Fred will dodge one of those two guys and get hit
by the second one. Of course Fred with a Health of 14 is unlikely
to die, until he hits -70 health and will probably hobble around
endlessly popping bad guys in the eye until all the bad guys are
dead, but he will get hit.
Brandon Cope
> news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
> > Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've
> heard
> > it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> > while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions:
> (1)
> > What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
> > true?
>
> Cinematic = like in a movie (or novel).
>
> Gritty = like in real life
>
> life, the cop would like be killed almost immediately.
Not necessarily. He would likely die before the end, but "immediately"
is a bit excessive.
BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
pretty bad before he wins. OTOH, Bond rarely gets his hair mussed (he
also has a completely absurd set of skills, another difference).
Finally, Cinematic heroes normally are much better skilled that their
opponents, have absurd luck *and* mastermind villains who suddenly act
stupid; Gritty Heroic heroes aren't much better skilled than their
opponents, have the same absurd luck but generally don't have stupid
masterminds.
> I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
> works well, try CORPs).
Damn, and I thought I was having fun playing it for the last 12 years.
I must be delusional, then.
> Add an
> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
> cinematic.
Stun points, anyone?
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope
David Johnston
>"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@connectria.com> wrote in message news:<v0f5t08...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
>> > Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've
>> heard
>> > it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
>> > while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions:
>> (1)
>> > What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
>> > true?
>>
>> Cinematic = like in a movie (or novel).
>>
>> Gritty = like in real life
>>
>> For instance, Die Hard. In real
>> life, the cop would like be killed almost immediately.
>
>Not necessarily. He would likely die before the end, but "immediately"
>is a bit excessive.
>
>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>pretty bad before he wins.
And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
at a time.
>> Add an
>> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
>> cinematic.
>
>Stun points, anyone?
Suck. The problem with stun points is that you never get stunned.
They also never really worked out how to handle hit locations with
stun points that I can see.
Sea Wasp
As generally used here, "cinematic" means "plays like an
action-adventure film or novel". Larger-than-life heroes who basically
don't go down before lesser foes, spectacular feats of brawn and skill
beyond those expected in real life, and so on. "Gritty" means "plays
more like a Real Life version". Grittier games by this standard make
even your James Bondish superspy vulnerable to Thug #2; he may never GET
to meet Goldfinger.
As for whether it's true... yes and no. The overall design of D20 tends
to favor the cinematic/heroic scope, while the overall design of GURPS
tends to favor the more gritty/realistic approach. However, you can be
grim'n'gritty with d20 and cinematic with GURPS if you want. Often this
involves tweaking the rules, or using optional rules presented in the
books. GURPS has a number of cinematic options (in the old GURPS Lensman
supplement, they had to pull out all the stops to allow proper cinematic
action, so a number of those rules got concentrated in that supplement).
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
JDJarvis
1.
Cinematic- action adventure movies where the hero can out run
explosions and getting shot in the shoulder is "just a flesh wound".
Bad guys always seem to aim just behind a hero who runs accross an
open field.
Griity- getting shot once really sucks. Life is brutual and short. for
the uncautious.
2.
nope.
A 250 point plus GURPS character is plenty cinematic and not a bit
gritty.
A 1st level anything in most d20 setting I've seen is plenty gritty in
the "pop your dead department". It can be even worse in some d20
setting like d20CoC where any moderately noticeable wound is likely to
be lethal regardless of hp totals.
if a game is griity or not it depends a whole lot more on setting then
on rules.
Ozzy
>
> An _increasing_ hit point system (without penalties for being wounded) can make
Or a _gradual_ High Pain Threshold!
l'm using a leveled HPT that progressively reduce the wounds penalties.
Thus there is no "absolute" immunity to shock and the most heroic and
cinematic PCs/NPCs can still be stunned but by heavy/big shots/strikes,
like we often see in movies (the hero/villain is not stunned by 10
street brawlers, but can be by the other big guy!).
--
Cordialement
==! Attention à l'e@mail !==
Enlever 'INVALID' pour répondre
Remove 'INVALID' to reply
==!----------------------!==
mcv
: On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
: wrote:
:>
:>Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make a
:>able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
:>under extremely unfavourable circumstances.
:>
:>They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them part
:>won't be easy either.
: Let's have a look at combat Fred
: Fred has ST 13, DX 17, IQ 12, HT 14,
: That would be, what, 195 points in characteristics?
: And a dodge of, what, 8?
: Let's give Fred a BB gun just to be sporting.
: Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
: adjusted for range.
: Fred goes first and kills one of the guys with guns by shooting him in
: the eye.
: 2 of the remaining guys make their to hit rolls.
: Odds are good that Fred will dodge one of those two guys and get hit
: by the second one. Of course Fred with a Health of 14 is unlikely
: to die, until he hits -70 health and will probably hobble around
: endlessly popping bad guys in the eye until all the bad guys are
: dead, but he will get hit.
If he neglects to use his no doubt impressive Stealth skill and doesn't
even use halfway decent cover, then yes, he will get hit, and deserves
to die.
mcv.
Wayne Shaw
>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>pretty bad before he wins. OTOH, Bond rarely gets his hair mussed (he
>also has a completely absurd set of skills, another difference).
>Finally, Cinematic heroes normally are much better skilled that their
>opponents, have absurd luck *and* mastermind villains who suddenly act
>stupid; Gritty Heroic heroes aren't much better skilled than their
>opponents, have the same absurd luck but generally don't have stupid
>masterminds.
In fact, Alan Rickman's character in Die Hard was one of the most
genuinely scary cinematic villains I've seen. He thinks on his feet,
as he shows twice in the movie, and that's a _very_ rare feature in
movie villains; it's usually reserved for heroes.
Charlton Wilbur
mcv> It's quite possible for a GURPS character to have a negative
mcv> point value. I assume my grandmother, as well as many other
mcv> elderly people, would have a negative point value in GURPS
mcv> terms, for example.
I don't know your grandmother, but I'd imagine that she's probably
learned a heck of a lot in her life -- lots of points in skills there.
"Elderly" often translates to "lots of physical disadvantages," but
that doesn't mean that elderly people can't have lots of skills or
mental or social advantages.
Charlton
Bill Seurer
> Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
> adjusted for range.
>
> Fred goes first and kills one of the guys with guns by shooting him in
> the eye.
>
> 2 of the remaining guys make their to hit rolls.
>
> Odds are good that Fred will dodge one of those two guys and get hit
> by the second one. Of course Fred with a Health of 14 is unlikely
> to die, until he hits -70 health and will probably hobble around
> endlessly popping bad guys in the eye until all the bad guys are
> dead, but he will get hit.
>
Sounds like Fred has an IQ of about 5, not 12. So he just stands out in
the open and shoots at these guys? Uhh, HELLO! What do you EXPECT to
happen? He OUGHT to get gunned down and raise the average IQ of the
human race in the process.
Give fred a real gun (even "just" a .45), put him somewhere with some
cover, and he'll take down the thugs.
Douglas Berry
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) warmed at our fire and told
this tale:
>>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
>>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>>pretty bad before he wins.
>
>And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
>of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
>at a time.
Hit also gets hurt, and by the end of the movie is limping around and
a complete mess.
Richard Brown
With the ROF of an SMG and pulling tricks like walking a burst into a
target, firing from cover, and dodge and drop I think you
underestemate your 4 guys with SMG's. Even if Fred managed to kill
all the average guys, he'd likely bleed to death on the way to the
hospital (using the optional bleeding rules).
David Johnston
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:45:52 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
>rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) warmed at our fire and told
>this tale:
>
>>>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
>>>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>>>pretty bad before he wins.
>>
>>And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
>>of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
>>at a time.
>
>Hit also gets hurt, and by the end of the movie is limping around and
>a complete mess.
GURPS does that too.
Douglas Berry
Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more real-world
>> capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards
>
>Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make a
>party of 4-5 "specialists", they'll have skills so high that they are
>able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
>under extremely unfavourable circumstances.
And how common are 250 pt characters? In Special Ops (2nd ed) a Navy
SEAL is "only" 200 points. A 250 point character is going to be a
legend in SpecWar circles. Hell, Airborne Rangers are "only" 117
points, and I know what it takes to be one of those!
>They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them part
>won't be easy either. And if the campaign is low on violence (which is
>a novel thought for Jeremy Reaban) , they'll "smash" through all
>obstacles, Bribing their way through, Bluffing, Disarming incredibly
>complex and difficult Traps, Detecting every Lie the NPCs try to pull
>off, Jumping, Climbing and Riding over impeding terrain at breakneck
>speed, and so forth... That can be as cinematic as the traditional
>D&D-style hack'n'slash, if not *more*.
Anything is possible, and I never said other wise. I just said that
the characters tend more towards real-world capabilities. I stand by
that.
Look at GT: Ground Forces. Along with Imperial Marine BattleDress and
Sylean Rangers you get the template to play an Army cook if you so
wish. I have played in overpowered GURPS games, and found them
boring. GURPS works best when the characters are heroic, but
reasonable.
>And it's not something GURPS has a patent on doing, you can make that
>kind of characters, and have that kind of campaign, in all systems
>that are skill-based and have point-based character creation. But I'd
>say that GURPS does it the best, because it's so easy to get very high
>skills.
Try Hero. It's designed exactly for that sort of abuse.
>> ideals (the Fighter, the Wizard, etc.) and the combat is fairly
>> abstract and allows all sorts of outs to keep characters alive.
>
>One "feature" of d20 is the massive hit point buffer, which just about
>removes the risk of instant-death, if you're at full hitpoints. It
>strikes me that this also removes the aspect of courage, of taking
>heroic risks, because drawing your sword and charging the orcs is not
>really dangerous, hence not truly a brave act, if you've got triple
>digit hitpoints and can only loose them so slowly that you'll have
>plenty of time to retreat, if the fight isn't going as you expected.
True, which is why there are creatures that can do dozens of points of
damage in the Monster Manual (my only experience with d20 so far has
been with D&D, so bear with me.) The cave troll in FOTR for example.
Your triple-diget paladin is slaying orcs right and left when suddenly
they release something really formidable into the fight. An Ogre
Mage, perhaps, or a young dragon that has agreed to work with the orcs
for a share of the treasure.
Or you just make it clear that retreat is not an option. To reference
the Two Towers for a moment; what if Aragorn had been told that he had
to hold the gates until the women and children could be evacuated?
Suddenly, he can't withdraw. He needs to stay there, flailing away
and those hit points keep dropping...
>So how about adding "courageous acts" to the definition of
>"cinematic"? I'm tired of lame d20 propaganda based on unexamined
>assumptions.
I play both, have written for one, and like both systems. I've seen
courageous acts in both styles, but the difference *to me* is the
overall style of play supported.
>I also object to your incorrect use of the term "real world", when you
>talk about "real world characters". Plenty of extremely capable
>characters exist on our planet, in our era. We're not all 1st level
>characters (to use d20 speak) or built on 25 points (to use GURPS
>speak). It's a common fallacy to assume that because *most* people are
>average, *everybody* is average.
No, I used to be a 160 point Airborne Ranger. I also know that of the
70 people in my class, 26 graduated. And we had a surprisingly high
number of people stick it out. Today, I'm probably down to a 25 point
character due to health problems.
There are ~6 billion people on the Earth. Some are going to be much,
much better than average. But by definition the vast majority are
going to come close to that 25-point average.
David Johnston
wrote:
Recoil reduces accuracy after the first burst to the point where,
given the modest skill of the goons, the subsequent bursts are nothing
to worry about.
and pulling tricks like walking a burst into a
>target,
Hm. I'm not familiar with that rule.
>firing from cover,
Firing from cover is useless when when dealing with an opponent who
can reliably pop you in the eye every time he fires.
David Johnston
<cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "mcv" == mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> writes:
>
> mcv> It's quite possible for a GURPS character to have a negative
> mcv> point value. I assume my grandmother, as well as many other
> mcv> elderly people, would have a negative point value in GURPS
> mcv> terms, for example.
>
>I don't know your grandmother, but I'd imagine that she's probably
>learned a heck of a lot in her life -- lots of points in skills there.
Assuming she hasn't forgotten anything.
David Johnston
wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
>> adjusted for range.
>>
>> Fred goes first and kills one of the guys with guns by shooting him in
>> the eye.
>>
>> 2 of the remaining guys make their to hit rolls.
>>
>> Odds are good that Fred will dodge one of those two guys and get hit
>> by the second one. Of course Fred with a Health of 14 is unlikely
>> to die, until he hits -70 health and will probably hobble around
>> endlessly popping bad guys in the eye until all the bad guys are
>> dead, but he will get hit.
>>
>
>Sounds like Fred has an IQ of about 5, not 12. So he just stands out in
>the open and shoots at these guys?
Happens in the movies quite a lot.
>
>Give fred a real gun (even "just" a .45),
Actually, whether or not Fred has a real gun or not doesn't matter
when he can hit a target in the eye every time. The BB gun was
just a joke, because he doesn't need more than that to kill or
incapacitate his opponents. The issue was not whether Fred
can kill his opponents, because he can, very easily. The issue
is whether his opponents can hit him, and whether or not being
really good keeps his opponents from hitting him. Of course
I suppose that it would help if Fred ran away. He can easily outrun
his opponents and then turn around and pop them from a distance
that they can't hit him at, but the first round could be antsy.
John Kim
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Bill Seurer <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
[Re: High-skill "Fred" vs four thugs with SMGs in GURPS]
>> Sounds like Fred has an IQ of about 5, not 12. So he just stands out
>> in the open and shoots at these guys?
>
>Happens in the movies quite a lot.
It depends what kind of movies. It seems to me that even
James Bond will think twice if he is caught in the open with four
goons with submachine guns surrounding him. In such situations he
will tend to surrender and then use a gadget or trick to turn the
tables on the thugs -- not simply shoot it out.
For characters who are supposed to dodge four guys with
submachine guns, one should look at the various cinematic
advantages. I know there is "Trained by a Master" for martial
artists, but I'm not sure what the equivalent is for gunmen.
David Johnston
wrote:
> For characters who are supposed to dodge four guys with
>submachine guns, one should look at the various cinematic
>advantages. I know there is "Trained by a Master" for martial
>artists, but I'm not sure what the equivalent is for gunmen.
Advantages like that in Gurps tend to increase the number of
attacks you are allowed to make rather than actually making it
harder to hit you. Of course you can always plug in bullet-proof
nudity, but that gets really frustrating when a naked woman tries
to kick your ass since no matter how good you are, you can never
hit her.
Mark Jones
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)' confessed his crimes:
>>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
>>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
>>pretty bad before he wins.
And it's one of the best action movies around. Though, of course, the
sequels suck like a whore behind on her rent.
>And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
>of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
>at a time.
And he doesn't immediately go into Bad Ass Mode (tm). His first
thought is to avoid the bad guys and _get help_. Hence setting off
the sprinklers and fire alarm, then using the walkie-talkie to call
for help from the roof. His first conversation with the master
villain is to ask if they'd like to open the front door for him.
Not that he expects them to do it, but he certainly would _like_ it if
they'd let him out. He fights because he has no choice besides
surrender (and that isn't much of an option).
--
"TV that makes us think is great. This, on the other hand, is TV that makes us
guess."
-MKahnFan explaining the argument over Spike's soul.
Mark Jones
<sh...@caprica.com>' confessed his crimes:
Yep. And right up to the very end, despite all that McClane has done
(killing most of his goons, rescuing the hostages on the roof, etc.)
he was STILL GOING TO GET AWAY WITH THE MONEY. Here was a villain who
really understood that "no battle plan survives contact with the
enemy."
Mark Jones
<grid...@mindspring.com>' confessed his crimes:
>Look at GT: Ground Forces. Along with Imperial Marine BattleDress and
>Sylean Rangers you get the template to play an Army cook if you so
>wish. I have played in overpowered GURPS games, and found them
>boring. GURPS works best when the characters are heroic, but
>reasonable.
What do you consider an overpowered GURPS game?
>>One "feature" of d20 is the massive hit point buffer, which just about
>>removes the risk of instant-death, if you're at full hitpoints. It
>>strikes me that this also removes the aspect of courage, of taking
>>heroic risks, because drawing your sword and charging the orcs is not
>>really dangerous, hence not truly a brave act, if you've got triple
>>digit hitpoints and can only loose them so slowly that you'll have
>>plenty of time to retreat, if the fight isn't going as you expected.
[snip]
>Or you just make it clear that retreat is not an option. To reference
>the Two Towers for a moment; what if Aragorn had been told that he had
>to hold the gates until the women and children could be evacuated?
>Suddenly, he can't withdraw. He needs to stay there, flailing away
>and those hit points keep dropping...
One of the reasons I like the D20 Call of Cthulhu rules is that they
have a rule making "instant death" possible for _anyone_, no matter
how many hit points they might have. Any time a character takes more
than X hits of damage from a single attack, the character must make a
CON save or just die. If I were going to run a D20 game of any flavor
(including D&D) I'd definitely use that rule.
Stephenls
> One of the reasons I like the D20 Call of Cthulhu rules is that they
> have a rule making "instant death" possible for _anyone_, no matter
> how many hit points they might have. Any time a character takes more
> than X hits of damage from a single attack, the character must make a
> CON save or just die. If I were going to run a D20 game of any flavor
> (including D&D) I'd definitely use that rule.
That rule is present in vanilla D&D3e. It's just that in 3e, it's 50
points of damage, whereas in CoCd20 it's ten points.
--
Stephenls
Geek
Xiphias Gladius
You have a different definition of "frustrating" than I do.
Or, perhaps, simply different experiences with naked women attempting
to kick your ass.
- Ian
Joseph Teller
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>There are ~6 billion people on the Earth. Some are going to be much,
>much better than average. But by definition the vast majority are
>going to come close to that 25-point average.
This may be statistically true, if you include all the 3rd world
population, but when you are dealing folks from the USA, Canada,
Europe, and the developed nations of the Pacific (Australia, Japan,
etc) the so-called 1st and 2nd world countries, the statistics change
drastically. Especially if you only consider working-age adults (not
teenagers, children or retirees).
I suspect that you'll find lots of people who are in the 50 to 100
point range, and thanks to the costs for certain advantages, you will
find folks in the 200 to 300 point range (at least 5% of the
population) if you hold exactly to the IQ value equivilants on
attributes, the weight rules of ST, the point values for Wealth etc.
(Remember 10% of the world's population controls 90% of the Wealth,
and that wealth should cost them points under the mechanics rules.
Same is true of powerful ally groups etc.).
GURPS is an imperfect model, just like any other system. It handles
emulating 'ordinary folks' better than drastically advantaged folks or
well educated folks who live the Heinlin model of life (and there are
surprising more of them than most folks believe.... because most folks
will put points to raise stats to ridiculous levels when modeling
people rather than paying points for skills in quantity to properly
emulate all the folks with a 10-12 points value in IQ or DX).
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Teller joet...@mindspring.com
www.fantasylibrary.com
Bill Seurer
> Or, perhaps, simply different experiences with naked women attempting
> to kick your ass.
It's kicking the OTHER side I'd be more worried about.
David Johnston
<fantas...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:17:00 -0800, Douglas Berry
><grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>There are ~6 billion people on the Earth. Some are going to be much,
>>much better than average. But by definition the vast majority are
>>going to come close to that 25-point average.
>
>This may be statistically true, if you include all the 3rd world
>population, but when you are dealing folks from the USA, Canada,
>Europe, and the developed nations of the Pacific (Australia, Japan,
>etc) the so-called 1st and 2nd world countries, the statistics change
>drastically. Especially if you only consider working-age adults (not
>teenagers, children or retirees).
>
>I suspect that you'll find lots of people who are in the 50 to 100
>point range, and thanks to the costs for certain advantages, you will
>find folks in the 200 to 300 point range (at least 5% of the
>population) if you hold exactly to the IQ value equivilants on
>attributes, the weight rules of ST, the point values for Wealth etc.
>(Remember 10% of the world's population controls 90% of the Wealth,
>and that wealth should cost them points under the mechanics rules.
Since the default for a normal campaign is first world, it would be
more accurate to say that third world peasants would be below
the average in terms of point total. Then again, they're probably
fitter than the average working-age adult in the west, thanks to
not being a fat desk jockey.
Brandon Cope
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:45:52 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) warmed at our fire and told
> this tale:
>
> >>BTW, I would *never* lump the Die Hard movies with James Bond. The Die
> >>Hard movies are what I call Gritty Heroic; the hero gets beat up
> >>pretty bad before he wins.
> >
> >And GURPS does that damn well. For one thing, the McClain spends most
> >of his time sneaking around and avoids meeting more than one bad guy
> >at a time.
>
> Hit also gets hurt, and by the end of the movie is limping around and
> a complete mess.
By the end of movie 1, McClain had probably been hurt more than Bond
in all his movies combined. In DH 2 and 3 McClain didn't get hurt as
much, but still more than a Bond.
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope
Stephenls
> By the end of movie 1, McClain had probably been hurt more than Bond
> in all his movies combined. In DH 2 and 3 McClain didn't get hurt as
> much, but still more than a Bond.
I dunno, in /Die Another Day/ Bond gets tortured in a North Korean
prison for 18 months straight, where they do things like sting him with
scorpions and then give him the antivenom. That's badly hurt.
'Course, he recovers rather well. It would have been a cooler story if
he'd suffered horrendous trauma and spent the rest of the movie getting
over it.
--
Stephenls
Geek
Len Carpenter
news:3E09684E...@shaw.ca...
Here's where I wish the Bond movies had stayed a little truer to the
novels--not so much in the books' plots, which dragged at times, but in the
nature and qualities of the character. In the books, Bond wound up in the
hospital at the end of nearly half of them--shot, stabbed, poisoned, burned,
tortured, given a "Brooklyn stomping" by the bad guys . . .
The topper was where he suffered amnesia at the end of _You Only Live Twice_,
sailed into the hands of the Russians, was brainwashed, and nearly
assassinated M at the beginning of _The Man with the Golden Gun_.
Len Carpenter
Brandon Cope
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:17:00 -0800, beaten and sobbing, Douglas Berry
> <grid...@mindspring.com>' confessed his crimes:
>
> >Look at GT: Ground Forces. Along with Imperial Marine BattleDress and
> >Sylean Rangers you get the template to play an Army cook if you so
> >wish. I have played in overpowered GURPS games, and found them
> >boring. GURPS works best when the characters are heroic, but
> >reasonable.
>
> What do you consider an overpowered GURPS game?
I know this question was directed at me, but ...
I prefer characters starting with 100-150 points. They can grow to
200+ points, but there is a large difference between a 100 point PC
who has earned 100 points and a 200 point PC just starting.
Christopher Köbel
> gritty.
I like to disagree. 250 Points will make a fairly normal – if competent
in his field - person with one or two Patrons, Wealth and Status, and
enough contacts to get along well in the world. You can reach 250 CP
levels without necessarily getting cinematic.
Points don't tell very much – unlike Levels and Classes in The Other
Game.
Best regards (and a nice Christmas),
Christopher
Shawn Fisher
news:20021225...@mis.configured.host...
>I like to disagree. 250 Points will make a fairly normal - if competent
>in his field - person with one or two Patrons, Wealth and Status, and
>enough contacts to get along well in the world. You can reach 250 CP
>levels without necessarily getting cinematic.
>Game.
Yep. 50 points in Wealth is much less cinematic than 50 additional points in
DX and Chambara fighting skills.
I've run medieval games with 400 point PCs, and they would have been bested
by 100-150 point straight fighters.
But add in all the prereqs for a King and his high barons, and they get real
expensive in a hurry. Status, Wealth,
Claim to Hospitality, Ally Group, Allies, Contacts, etc. One of the barons
ended up with 50 points in 1-3 point contacts.
His spy network was worth its weight in gold, however.
I didn't see any of these PCs as particularly cinematic, btw.
--
Shawn A. Fisher
safi...@swbell.net
-----------------------------------------------------
"Greater love has no one than this,
that he lay down his life for his friends."
--John 15:13
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother."
--Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3
Johnny1A
> robinda...@yahoo.ca (Robin David White) wrote in message news:<5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com>...
> > Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've heard
> > it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> > while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
> > What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
> > true?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Robin David White
>
> 1.
> Cinematic- action adventure movies where the hero can out run
> explosions and getting shot in the shoulder is "just a flesh wound".
> Bad guys always seem to aim just behind a hero who runs accross an
> open field.
>
> Griity- getting shot once really sucks. Life is brutual and short. for
> the uncautious.
>
> 2.
> nope.
>
> A 250 point plus GURPS character is plenty cinematic and not a bit
> gritty.
Actually, that depends to some degree on _what_ those 250 points are spent on.
Shermanlee
Bill Seurer
> I prefer characters starting with 100-150 points. They can grow to
> 200+ points, but there is a large difference between a 100 point PC
> who has earned 100 points and a 200 point PC just starting.
I had my guys start with 50 point characters and grew them into 350+
point characters in one campaign I ran a few years back. Even at the
end they still whined about being such weaklings (they most assuredly
weren't!). Recently I had them make 300 point characters at the start
and they are very different. The numbers are similar but without the
history of the character they just don't feel right somehow.
Timothy Little
>I like to disagree. 250 Points will make a fairly normal – if
>competent in his field - person with one or two Patrons, Wealth and
>Status, and enough contacts to get along well in the world.
Personally, I think the point cost for contacts is grossly inflated,
at least in comparison with other social advantages. That's true even
of the reduced costs found in the Compendium. Sure, contacts are
useful -- but having a few dozen fairly reliable but mostly
unavailable sources scattered across the country is *not* as valuable
as 100 points in other social advantages.
I mean, just look at it: for 15 points, you can get a well above
average loyal ally who will risk their own life to help you, available
nearly all the time. 15 points in Contacts doesn't even get you a
single fully reliable record clerk, who would give you nothing but
information anyway. 15 points in Reputation or Charisma gives you a
+3 reaction from *everyone*, enough to shift the average NPC reaction
to "good". It's more than enough to double your wealth. It's enough
to shift your social status upward dramatically.
> You can reach 250 CP levels without necessarily getting cinematic.
>Points don't tell very much – unlike Levels and Classes in The
>Other Game.
I do agree with you in general. Points in GURPS are a very poor
indicator of ability.
- Tim
Jürgen Hubert
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3e081eae...@news.telusplanet.net...
> >They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them
part
> >won't be easy either.
>
> Won't be that hard.
>
> Let's have a look at combat Fred
>
> Fred has ST 13, DX 17, IQ 12, HT 14,
>
> That would be, what, 195 points in characteristics?
>
> And a dodge of, what, 8?
>
> Let's give Fred a BB gun just to be sporting.
>
>
> Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
> adjusted for range.
That either means they are _very_ good, or _very_ close - they'd need
a base skill level of 16 for a distance of 10 yards, for example.
Those range penalities are a killer. And what's Fred doing out in the
open? If he's smart, he'll seek some cover. "Head and Shoulders"
exposed give a -4 to attack rolls, which drops the effective skill
level to 8. And if they don't aim, that drops to _4_ because it's
below the Snap Shot number for their SMGs (10 or 11 for all the SMGs
in the Basic Set). And if they _do_ aim... well, this might increase
their chance of hitting them, but also gives Fred more time to kill
_them_.
Oh, and don't forget the recoil penalties for shooting in burst mode!
Usually, a GURPS firefight in which both sides are aware of each other
will consist of both sides diving for cover, and lots of bullets going
astray...
Sure, there's a good chance that Fred might get hit, if the thugs are
smart enough not to just blaze away. But it's not automatic.
- Jürgen Hubert
My Two Cents: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/
Current Topic: "Shooting Nazis into Space"
Jürgen Hubert
"Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ehbh0vkej1mat5fsq...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, a wanderer, known to us only as
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >
> >Douglas Berry wrote:
> >
> >> GURPS is grittier than d20. The characters tend to be more
real-world
> >> capable, and the combat system is deadly. d20 works more towards
> >
> >Try 250 CP characters with high attributes and skills. If you make
a
> >party of 4-5 "specialists", they'll have skills so high that they
are
> >able to absord huge negative modifiers and still do their sthicks,
> >under extremely unfavourable circumstances.
>
> And how common are 250 pt characters? In Special Ops (2nd ed) a
Navy
> SEAL is "only" 200 points. A 250 point character is going to be a
> legend in SpecWar circles. Hell, Airborne Rangers are "only" 117
> points, and I know what it takes to be one of those!
Well, if you want to play a cinematic game with GURPS, I'd say it
won't matter how common such people are... ;-)
Jürgen Hubert
"Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
> Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've
heard
> it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions:
(1)
> What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
> true?
We've recently finished a year-long GURPS Warhammer campaign (taking
the characters from 100 to 300 points), and it wasn't all that gritty.
Though perhaps this was the result of the house rules we used...
Jürgen Hubert
"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@connectria.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:v0f5t08...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
> works well, try CORPs). But it's 'gritty' simply because of how it
> handles damage - hit point total stays the same (and low). Add an
> inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
> cinematic.
High-HT characters in GURPS (HT 13 and up) are really tough - they
frequently stay alive after suffering from more than 50 points of
damage! Though they are quite likely to fall unconscious after a
combat (Nature's way of saying "Don't push yourself!").
Yes, GURPS can be gritty - but high-point characters that put many of
their points into HT and advantages like "Hard to Kill" can endure
enough punishment to equal any mid-level D&D character...
- Jürgen Hubert
Urbis: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/index.html
Cryogenic Vaults: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/ts/vaults/index.html
Jürgen Hubert
"Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ca4d1755.02122...@posting.google.com...
This is one of the few things that truely bug me about GURPS - a
newly-created 200-point character tends to be more "point-effective"
than one who started with 100 points and earned an additional 100
points...
Unfortunately, I don't know a good solution to this, either.
Xiphias Gladius
wrote:
>Here's where I wish the Bond movies had stayed a little truer to the
>novels--not so much in the books' plots, which dragged at times, but in the
>nature and qualities of the character. In the books, Bond wound up in the
>hospital at the end of nearly half of them--shot, stabbed, poisoned, burned,
>tortured, given a "Brooklyn stomping" by the bad guys . . .
This is why "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is my favorite Bond
flick.
- Ian
msa...@cc.hut.fi
: Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<bebh0vs3o62nrhb5k...@4ax.com>...
--
Mikko "One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them."
Douglas Berry
"Jürgen Hubert" <jhu...@gmx.de> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>This is one of the few things that truely bug me about GURPS - a
>newly-created 200-point character tends to be more "point-effective"
>than one who started with 100 points and earned an additional 100
>points...
Yes, but the 100+100 character is probably going to be more well
rounded and able to do more things, albeit at a lower skill level.
When I run GURPS, I tend to, along with straight CP awards, hand out
things like 1-pt Contacts and Favors and 1-pt Area Familiarities. If
the adventure spent most of its time in the Roman catacombs, for
example, then the characters would get an 8- on the AK. Be usuful if
they every where there again.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:3e081eae...@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >They won't stand up very well to being hit. But the hitting them
>part
>> >won't be easy either.
>>
>> Won't be that hard.
>>
>> Let's have a look at combat Fred
>>
>> Fred has ST 13, DX 17, IQ 12, HT 14,
>>
>> That would be, what, 195 points in characteristics?
>>
>> And a dodge of, what, 8?
>>
>> Let's give Fred a BB gun just to be sporting.
>>
>>
>> Put him up against 4 guys with guns, SMGs. Skill level...um...12,
>> adjusted for range.
>
>That either means they are _very_ good, or _very_ close - they'd need
>a base skill level of 16 for a distance of 10 yards, for example.
I was assuming a base skill level of 14 and reasonably close range.
Combat Fred is, after all. killing his opponents by shooting them in
the eyes. Although the tremendous importance of distance modifiers is
one of the things that keeps GURPS from being a good "cinematic" game
without a great deal of fudging. It's not just a question of of
whether a character can avoid getting hit, but of whether you can
handle combat swiftly without having look things up in play.
>
>Those range penalities are a killer. And what's Fred doing out in the
>open? If he's smart, he'll seek some cover.
That would be irrelevant to my thesis, which is that it isn't really
that hard to hit a 250 point character as opposed to, say, a 100
point character. A 100 point charcter can seek cover just as well
as a 250 point character.
msa...@cc.hut.fi
: On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:25:04 -0000, jh...@darkshire.org (John Kim)
: wrote:
:> For characters who are supposed to dodge four guys with
:>submachine guns, one should look at the various cinematic
:>advantages. I know there is "Trained by a Master" for martial
:>artists, but I'm not sure what the equivalent is for gunmen.
: Advantages like that in Gurps tend to increase the number of
: attacks you are allowed to make rather than actually making it
: harder to hit you.
How about a few levels of enhanced dodge for starters.
Brandon Cope
> "Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:ca4d1755.02122...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > 200+ points, but there is a large difference between a 100 point PC
> > who has earned 100 points and a 200 point PC just starting.
>
> This is one of the few things that truely bug me about GURPS - a
> newly-created 200-point character tends to be more "point-effective"
> than one who started with 100 points and earned an additional 100
> points...
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know a good solution to this, either.
I can think of one (I didn't come up with the idea, but I don't
remember who did). Have the players create playable* 100 point
characters. Then, give them 100 CPs to spend, with increasing stats
costing double (as normal for in play improvements) and most
advantages unavailable. This doesn't work quite as well as an
'naturally' evolved character, but it may help.
* There, of course, will be players who will create a 100 point
character with, say, 10 half-point skills and all the other points in
stats and advantages that can't be gained in play. Assuming you want
to keep such creatures in your campaign, you probably need to have
other limits, like no more than 120 points in stats (I've noticed 100
point PCs average around 70-90) and at least 20 points in skills.
Mark Jones
<grid...@mindspring.com>' confessed his crimes:
>Yes, but the 100+100 character is probably going to be more well
>rounded and able to do more things, albeit at a lower skill level.
>
>When I run GURPS, I tend to, along with straight CP awards, hand out
>things like 1-pt Contacts and Favors and 1-pt Area Familiarities. If
>the adventure spent most of its time in the Roman catacombs, for
>example, then the characters would get an 8- on the AK. Be usuful if
>they every where there again.
I've been thinking of doing something like that. Now that my 350
point Werewolf/Mage game is on hiatus, I'm going to switch to
something much lower powered, 150 point Swashbucklers or Traveller. I
may give a lot of experience in the forms you mention.
I've also considered requiring the players to give me a "wish list" of
skills/advantages they want to improve or acquire, and then limiting
CP purchases to that list on the assumption that that's what the
characters have been working to improve.
--
"It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see."
"_Real_ things?"
--Egg Shen and Jack Burton
Mark Jones
(Brandon Cope)' confessed his crimes:
>* There, of course, will be players who will create a 100 point
>character with, say, 10 half-point skills and all the other points in
>stats and advantages that can't be gained in play. Assuming you want
>to keep such creatures in your campaign, you probably need to have
>other limits, like no more than 120 points in stats (I've noticed 100
>point PCs average around 70-90) and at least 20 points in skills.
120 points in stats? My house rule is an 80 point limit (adopted from
GURPS SpecOps). And I don't double the stat cost in play, but I _do_
limit increases to stats to 3 points over where it starts. If you
start with a ST10, you will never be able to buy it higher than ST13.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On 26 Dec 2002 13:53:53 -0800, beaten and sobbing, cop...@yahoo.com
>(Brandon Cope)' confessed his crimes:
>
>>* There, of course, will be players who will create a 100 point
>>character with, say, 10 half-point skills and all the other points in
>>stats and advantages that can't be gained in play. Assuming you want
>>to keep such creatures in your campaign, you probably need to have
>>other limits, like no more than 120 points in stats (I've noticed 100
>>point PCs average around 70-90) and at least 20 points in skills.
>
>120 points in stats? My house rule is an 80 point limit (adopted from
>GURPS SpecOps).
So, no competitive weightlifters in your campaign?
J. J.
"Brandon Cope" <cop...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:ca4d1755.02122...@posting.google.com...
I was a bit "sadistic" when the characters for the fantasy campaign I GM
were made.
75 points, able to keep a normal job according the the job tables, then they
got 25 points extra to spend as normal game-earned CPs.
Now some characters have passed the 150 point line and consider themselves
competent, but not powerfull. And in truth, they are competent at what they
do, most of the time anyway.
All in all, it turned out well.
Paul Henrichsen
[snip]
> This is one of the few things that truely bug me about GURPS - a
> newly-created 200-point character tends to be more "point-effective"
> than one who started with 100 points and earned an additional 100
> points...
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know a good solution to this, either.
The closest I've ever come to a solution is to tell the players that they
have 100 points. Then giving faster experience for the first few sessions.
Another thing I've tried is starting them at 100 and then giving a them
additional points which must be spent in an "after start fashion"
Unfortunately, neither method leads to the skill base broadening that long
term play generally does, but both avoid the Stat/point optimization that
frequently happens with starting chaacters.
Paul
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GS d(-) s-; a- C++ U L- E? W++ N+ !O M V PS+(--) PE++ Y+
PGP- t+ 5 X+ R+(++) tv b+++ DI++ D G e h-- r% x
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Bill Seurer
> So, no competitive weightlifters in your campaign?
Are competetive weightlifters necessary for a campaign? He's not going
to have any Einsteins or Dread Pirates Roberts either.
mcv
: <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
:>>>>>> "mcv" == mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> writes:
:>
:> mcv> It's quite possible for a GURPS character to have a negative
:> mcv> point value. I assume my grandmother, as well as many other
:> mcv> elderly people, would have a negative point value in GURPS
:> mcv> terms, for example.
:>
:>I don't know your grandmother, but I'd imagine that she's probably
:>learned a heck of a lot in her life -- lots of points in skills there.
: Assuming she hasn't forgotten anything.
She's still sharp, but her move is so low that her HT and DX must be
pretty abismal too. And they probably are. I never so her do any lifting
either. She may have skills, but her low stats and physical disadvantages
are quite a drain on her points. And I don't think her various skills are
quite that exceptional. But maybe her family counts as quite a decent
Ally Group too, and I forgot to take that into account. And the fact
that she sold her house (mortgage completely paid) at the height of the
house prices in Netherland may add some points of Wealth too.
I didn't mention my grandfather (from the other side of the family) here,
because dispite his rapidly declining health, he's still quite active,
intelligent, an excellent debater and in possession of a healthy amount
of hobbies. He doesn't drive his own car anymore, but he does still ride
bicycle for short distances.
mcv.
David Johnston
>In rec.games.frp.gurps David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>: On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:45:12 GMT, Charlton Wilbur
>: <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>:>>>>>> "mcv" == mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> writes:
>:>
>:> mcv> It's quite possible for a GURPS character to have a negative
>:> mcv> point value. I assume my grandmother, as well as many other
>:> mcv> elderly people, would have a negative point value in GURPS
>:> mcv> terms, for example.
>:>
>:>I don't know your grandmother, but I'd imagine that she's probably
>:>learned a heck of a lot in her life -- lots of points in skills there.
>
>: Assuming she hasn't forgotten anything.
>
>She's still sharp, but her move is so low that her HT and DX must be
>pretty abismal too. And they probably are. I never so her do any lifting
>either. She may have skills, but her low stats and physical disadvantages
>are quite a drain on her points. And I don't think her various skills are
>quite that exceptional. But maybe her family counts as quite a decent
>Ally Group too, and I forgot to take that into account.
Bear in mind: "An Ally built on 75 points or fewer is actually a
Dependant".
Mark Jones
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)' confessed his crimes:
Sure...if they want to put all 80 points into ST. Or they could spend
points on Weightlifting skill (based on ST) and use that instead of
the stat to make rolls.
But seriously, no. I wanted to keep characters (PCs and NPCs alike)
closer to the norm, and the 80 point limit was a good way to do it.
There _are_ exceptions, of course. Werewolf characters in my
Mage/Werewolf game gain ST+10 in Crinos form, and Vampires can pump up
their ST with blood points or Potence, but otherwise most people are
going to be ST 10-13, with a few who put most of their stat points
into ST at 14 or 15. And that's what I wanted--I wanted the Crinos
werewolves and blood-pumped Vampires to be _much_ stronger than Joe
(N)PC.
I also used enhanced ST rules, so that your effective ST for lifting,
throwing, jumping (everything but damage) was (ST*ST)/10. Which meant
that a ST20 Crinos (or Vampire) had an effective ST44 for lifting
things*, which made them even scarier.
*this applied to everyone, so ST10 didn't change, but a ST11 character
had a ST12 for lifting purposes, and so on.
Mark Jones
<Bi...@seurer.net>' confessed his crimes:
Exactly. You could, if you liked, put all your points into one stat
and raise it to 16, but nobody has wanted to do that. Players (and
NPCs--I use the same rule for them) have stats that tend to be
somewhat above average across the board without becoming excessive.
And given that most of my games have run from 200 to 350 points,
there've been plenty of points left over for advantages and skills.
If you spent 80 points for ST11 DX13 IQ12 and HT12, you could still
spend lots of points to buy Weightlifting, Physics or Fencing skills
at remarkable levels.
ALuddy
>
> I can think of one (I didn't come up with the idea, but I don't
> remember who did). Have the players create playable* 100 point
> characters. Then, give them 100 CPs to spend, with increasing stats
> costing double (as normal for in play improvements) and most
> advantages unavailable. This doesn't work quite as well as an
> 'naturally' evolved character, but it may help.
Yeah, the "organically grown" 200 point character ends up more rounded,
and with fewer holes in his character concept. These kinds of "holes"
tend to become evident in play, and over time, tend to get filled in. I
tend to see _everybody_ with at least a point each in Stealth, First
Aid, Riding, Climbing, Swimming, and Tactics, for example.
Also, in our group (YMMV), experienced characters frequently buy off
disads that maybe didn't fit well with the character concept, but the
player thought he need the points, so ... Things like Impulsive are fun
to play, but can get old, especially if you have taken on a few
responsibilities. And if the players come into money, things like One
Hand sometimes (depends on the campaign) start to make less sense (in a
Fantasy campaign, have Regeneration cast; in a SciFi campaign, buy a
bionic replacement). At 200 points, they tend to have fewer of those
sorts of disads, plus a few more Duties and such acquired during play.
ALuddy
Timothy Little
>120 points in stats? My house rule is an 80 point limit (adopted from
>GURPS SpecOps).
Special Ops also says that all characters must also have HT 13+ and no
stat below 10, doesn't it? No geniuses in the special forces then.
Further, anyone who qualifies as a pro athlete in ST is necessarily
no better than average in DX and IQ.
I was not impressed with that supplement at all, especially when it
grossly and unnecessarily blew out the costs of dozens of skills.
Then of course it had to rip the training time guidelines to shreds to
cater for that huge blowout. And so on.
In my opinion, imposing a point cap on attributes is just another way
of saying that you think the costs of high attributes are too low.
Why not just increase the costs of high attributes?
- Tim
Timothy Little
>>So, no competitive weightlifters in your campaign?
>
>Sure...if they want to put all 80 points into ST. Or they could spend
>points on Weightlifting skill (based on ST) and use that instead of
>the stat to make rolls.
Two problems:
1) Compendium put "weightlifter" strength at 17, costing 100 points.
"Star weightlighter" costs even more.
2) They'll be competing against weightlifters who have both higher ST
*and* a similar amount of training in Weightlifting skill. So they
won't have much chance of winning.
>I also used enhanced ST rules, so that your effective ST for lifting,
>throwing, jumping (everything but damage) was (ST*ST)/10.
Which puts the ST 16 weightlifter at an even worse disadvantage
compared with his ST 17 competitors than I thought.
- Tim
Mark Jones
t...@freeman.little-possums.net (Timothy Little)' confessed his crimes:
>Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>>So, no competitive weightlifters in your campaign?
>>
>>Sure...if they want to put all 80 points into ST. Or they could spend
>>points on Weightlifting skill (based on ST) and use that instead of
>>the stat to make rolls.
>
>Two problems:
>
>1) Compendium put "weightlifter" strength at 17, costing 100 points.
>"Star weightlighter" costs even more.
I don't much care where the book says Weightlifter starts.
>2) They'll be competing against weightlifters who have both higher ST
>*and* a similar amount of training in Weightlifting skill. So they
>won't have much chance of winning.
Who will have higher ST and a similar amount of Weightlifting skill?
The 80 point limit on stats applies to NPCs and PCs alike. Nobody
except a werewolf, vampire or other supernaturally-strong critter is
going to have a (starting) ST of 17 or more, and they're going to have
their own problems.
>>I also used enhanced ST rules, so that your effective ST for lifting,
>>throwing, jumping (everything but damage) was (ST*ST)/10.
>
>Which puts the ST 16 weightlifter at an even worse disadvantage
>compared with his ST 17 competitors than I thought.
There aren't going to be any ST17 weightlifters. Or, if there are,
they'll be ST17 because they've been around long enough to buy up
their ST from 16 or lower--and starting characters shouldn't _expect_
to be competitive at that level.
Mark Jones
t...@freeman.little-possums.net (Timothy Little)' confessed his crimes:
>Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>120 points in stats? My house rule is an 80 point limit (adopted from
>>GURPS SpecOps).
>
>Special Ops also says that all characters must also have HT 13+ and no
>stat below 10, doesn't it? No geniuses in the special forces then.
>Further, anyone who qualifies as a pro athlete in ST is necessarily
>no better than average in DX and IQ.
Unless you base their performance on skill levels, rather than raw
attributes. I tend to view the stat level chart as _really_
reflecting what that skill level means. It doesn't matter whether
your DX is 9 or 16, it matters what your skill roll is.
>I was not impressed with that supplement at all, especially when it
>grossly and unnecessarily blew out the costs of dozens of skills.
>Then of course it had to rip the training time guidelines to shreds to
>cater for that huge blowout. And so on.
The cap on points for stats is the only thing I've ever used from that
supplement, I admit. I didn't find much else in it useful, but I've
used that 80 point rule in all my games ever since.
>In my opinion, imposing a point cap on attributes is just another way
>of saying that you think the costs of high attributes are too low.
>Why not just increase the costs of high attributes?
Because an absolute cap avoids arguments about whether a stat is
overpriced, and prevents high-DX, 1/2-point skill characters (which I
generally hate). The players get 80 points to distribute amongst the
stats as they see fit, and then they spend the rest of their points on
skills and advantages. But if having a really high ST or DX or IQ or
HT is _that_ important to the character concept, they can do it--but
it's going to limit the other stats.
Johnny1A
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 08:53:52 -0800, beaten and sobbing, Wayne Shaw
> <sh...@caprica.com>' confessed his crimes:
>
> >On 24 Dec 2002 03:44:36 -0800, cop...@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
>
> >In fact, Alan Rickman's character in Die Hard was one of the most
> >genuinely scary cinematic villains I've seen. He thinks on his feet,
> >as he shows twice in the movie, and that's a _very_ rare feature in
> >movie villains; it's usually reserved for heroes.
>
> Yep. And right up to the very end, despite all that McClane has done
> (killing most of his goons, rescuing the hostages on the roof, etc.)
> he was STILL GOING TO GET AWAY WITH THE MONEY. Here was a villain who
> really understood that "no battle plan survives contact with the
> enemy."
That fact that the villain was after money was refreshing in itself,
too. Too many Hollywood villains in the last 20 years have either
been misguided altruists or guided by some utterly lunatic motivation.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 22:12:11 -0500, Joseph Teller
> <fantas...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:17:00 -0800, Douglas Berry
> ><grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>There are ~6 billion people on the Earth. Some are going to be much,
> >>much better than average. But by definition the vast majority are
> >>going to come close to that 25-point average.
> >
> >This may be statistically true, if you include all the 3rd world
> >population, but when you are dealing folks from the USA, Canada,
> >Europe, and the developed nations of the Pacific (Australia, Japan,
> >etc) the so-called 1st and 2nd world countries, the statistics change
> >drastically. Especially if you only consider working-age adults (not
> >teenagers, children or retirees).
> >
> >I suspect that you'll find lots of people who are in the 50 to 100
> >point range, and thanks to the costs for certain advantages, you will
> >find folks in the 200 to 300 point range (at least 5% of the
> >population) if you hold exactly to the IQ value equivilants on
> >attributes, the weight rules of ST, the point values for Wealth etc.
> >(Remember 10% of the world's population controls 90% of the Wealth,
> >and that wealth should cost them points under the mechanics rules.
>
> Since the default for a normal campaign is first world, it would be
> more accurate to say that third world peasants would be below
> the average in terms of point total. Then again, they're probably
> fitter than the average working-age adult in the west, thanks to
> not being a fat desk jockey.
Fitter is a relative thing. They may average tougher in some ways,
but they're rather less likely to have defective vision corrected, for
example, or to survive some diseases that are dealt with regularly in
the West. Further, poor nutrition can leave it's own nasty
side-effects just as too much nutrition does ill for 1st world types.
Shermanlee
Douglas Berry
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) warmed at our fire and told
this tale:
>>120 points in stats? My house rule is an 80 point limit (adopted from
>>GURPS SpecOps).
>
>So, no competitive weightlifters in your campaign?
Sure. 10-pt unusual background "Competitve Weightlifter" and they can
spend as much as they like on ST, HT and Weightlifting (Physical/Easy)
Douglas Berry
t...@freeman.little-possums.net (Timothy Little) warmed at our fire
and told this tale:
>I was not impressed with that supplement at all, especially when it
>grossly and unnecessarily blew out the costs of dozens of skills.
>Then of course it had to rip the training time guidelines to shreds to
>cater for that huge blowout. And so on.
I invite you to spend one day at Ranger School. we got one hour
scheduled sleep, and learned to sleep in fifteen-minute catnaps.
The learning rate is, if anything, understated.
Hong Ooi
>
>One "feature" of d20 is the massive hit point buffer, which just about
>removes the risk of instant-death, if you're at full hitpoints.
Note that things at that level of play tend to dish out massive amounts of
damage as well, if they don't bypass the hit point mechanic altogether.
High-level D&D is, if anything, _more_ deadly than low-level play. One
botched save, or a couple of rounds against a pumped uber-monster's full
attack, and it's curtains.
This is why 3E has a new "true resurrection" spell which basically restores
you to full health without any ill-effects, for the low, low cost of 5,000
gp. If you want to continue the canonical D&D playing style of killing lots
of evil beasties for great justice, you need something like this, or plan
on your characters having short lifespans.
>It
>strikes me that this also removes the aspect of courage, of taking
>heroic risks, because drawing your sword and charging the orcs is not
>really dangerous, hence not truly a brave act,
Do not confuse character courage with player courage.
--
Hong Ooi | "What's so great about Australia anyway?
ho...@zipworld.com.au | It is a salted Jezebel of scorched
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | earth forsaken by God."
Sydney, Australia | -- CMB
Brandon Cope
> On 26 Dec 2002 13:53:53 -0800, beaten and sobbing, cop...@yahoo.com
> (Brandon Cope)' confessed his crimes:
>
> >* There, of course, will be players who will create a 100 point
> >character with, say, 10 half-point skills and all the other points in
> >stats and advantages that can't be gained in play. Assuming you want
> >to keep such creatures in your campaign, you probably need to have
> >other limits, like no more than 120 points in stats (I've noticed 100
> >point PCs average around 70-90) and at least 20 points in skills.
>
> 120 points in stats? My house rule is an 80 point limit (adopted from
> GURPS SpecOps).
80 points seems really low, even for a 100 point campaign. While most
of the PCs in my campaigns tend to fall within 10 points of that, it
seems a bit too restrictive. OTOH, if you are a member of the cult of
stat normalization, it makes some sense.
> And I don't double the stat cost in play, but I _do_
> limit increases to stats to 3 points over where it starts. If you
> start with a ST10, you will never be able to buy it higher than ST13.
I've only see one PC in 12 years improve a stat (IQ 12 to IQ 13),
that's only because I noticed he had over 30 unspent points (he wasn't
saving them for anything) and I told him if he didn't spend them I'd
stop awarding his character CPs ;)
Brandon Cope
> Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> >120 points in stats? My house rule is an 80 point limit (adopted from
> >GURPS SpecOps).
>
> grossly and unnecessarily blew out the costs of dozens of skills.
2/e was a vast improvement. Even SEALs are only 200 point characters.
> In my opinion, imposing a point cap on attributes is just another way
> of saying that you think the costs of high attributes are too low.
*I* suggested it as a way of controlling munchkin players in a 100+100
point campaign. I don't use a point cap on attributes.
David Johnston
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2002 14:51:37 -0800, a wanderer, known to us only as
>robinda...@yahoo.ca (Robin David White) warmed at our fire and
>told this tale:
>
>>Hi folks. Robin White here with another newbie question. I've heard
>>it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
>>while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
>>What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
>>true?
>
>"Cinematic" means, literally the things you see in the movies.
More accurately the things that you _only_ see in action movies like
Indiana Jones or Star Wars and their successors and predecessors
featuring people like Errol Flynn and Vin Diesel.
Mark Jones
(Brandon Cope)' confessed his crimes:
>Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<o22n0vofh5l5t75lb...@4ax.com>...
>> 120 points in stats? My house rule is an 80 point limit (adopted from
>> GURPS SpecOps).
>
>80 points seems really low, even for a 100 point campaign. While most
>of the PCs in my campaigns tend to fall within 10 points of that, it
>seems a bit too restrictive. OTOH, if you are a member of the cult of
>stat normalization, it makes some sense.
Eighty points lets you have 12s straight across, or an 11 in three
stats and one at 14, which puts you above average across-the-board
with one exceptional stat. I don't think that's too restrictive.
Cult of stat normalization? I suppose that fits me. I prefer
characters to have stats fairly close to the average, though mostly
its because I prefer moderate stats and more points in skills.
SD Anderson
> "Jeremy Reaban" <j...@connectria.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:v0f5t08...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
>
> > I would say Gurps doesn't do anything well (For a gritty system that
> > works well, try CORPs). But it's 'gritty' simply because of how it
> > handles damage - hit point total stays the same (and low). Add an
> > inflating hit point system to it, and presuambly it could do
> > cinematic.
>
> High-HT characters in GURPS (HT 13 and up) are really tough - they
> frequently stay alive after suffering from more than 50 points of
> damage! Though they are quite likely to fall unconscious after a
> combat (Nature's way of saying "Don't push yourself!").
>
> Yes, GURPS can be gritty - but high-point characters that put many of
> their points into HT and advantages like "Hard to Kill" can endure
> enough punishment to equal any mid-level D&D character...
And if they wear armor, which in GURPS provides Damage Resistance
along with a reduction in the odds of being hit, they probably can
withstand more damage than any mid-level D&D character.
SD Anderson
There are other disads for reducing her movement. Since she rides
a bike, we can eliminate most variations of "Lame". Besides, I'll bet
her ability to smack young whippersnappers in the ear is still up in
the high teens. ;-)
Timothy Little
>The 80 point limit on stats applies to NPCs and PCs alike.
Wow -- that's a *radical* departure from the basic GURPS assumptions.
So nobody in the whole world has ST 14 and DX 14 unless they're unfit
or mentally subnormal?
- Tim
Jürgen Hubert
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3e0b43b2....@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:52:11 +0100, "Jürgen Hubert" <jhu...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> >Those range penalities are a killer. And what's Fred doing out in
the
> >open? If he's smart, he'll seek some cover.
>
> That would be irrelevant to my thesis, which is that it isn't really
> that hard to hit a 250 point character as opposed to, say, a 100
> point character. A 100 point charcter can seek cover just as well
> as a 250 point character.
Well, that depends on how you look at it - a 250 point character can
swiftly spot and dispatch his opposition, _before_ they have time to
aim. I'd say that that _does_ reduce his chance of getting hit
significantly... ;-)
- Jürgen Hubert
Urbis: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/index.html
Cryogenic Vaults: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/ts/vaults/index.html
Jürgen Hubert
"Hong Ooi" <ho...@zipworld.com.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dgnn0vgljlorii1vb...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:48:21 +0100, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
wrote:
>
> >
> >One "feature" of d20 is the massive hit point buffer, which just
about
> >removes the risk of instant-death, if you're at full hitpoints.
>
> Note that things at that level of play tend to dish out massive
amounts of
> damage as well, if they don't bypass the hit point mechanic
altogether.
> High-level D&D is, if anything, _more_ deadly than low-level play.
One
> botched save, or a couple of rounds against a pumped uber-monster's
full
> attack, and it's curtains.
And it gets ever more unlikely that your character will fall
unconscious instead of dead. With low-level opponents, you are
unlikely to fall from positive hit points to -10 in one blow. With
high-level ones, that's extremely easy...
In our group, we used a house rule that a character died at -(10 + 1/2
character level, rounded down) hit points...
- Jürgen Hubert
My Two Cents: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/
Current Topic: "Shooting Nazis into Space"
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:3e0b43b2....@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:52:11 +0100, "Jürgen Hubert" <jhu...@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >Those range penalities are a killer. And what's Fred doing out in
>the
>> >open? If he's smart, he'll seek some cover.
>>
>> That would be irrelevant to my thesis, which is that it isn't really
>> that hard to hit a 250 point character as opposed to, say, a 100
>> point character. A 100 point charcter can seek cover just as well
>> as a 250 point character.
>
>Well, that depends on how you look at it - a 250 point character can
>swiftly spot and dispatch his opposition, _before_ they have time to
>aim.
A valid point. That Fred can with a rate of fire of 3, shoot three
mooks in the eyes before they can twitch, does reduce the number of
people who will be shooting back.
Brandon Cope
> On 26 Dec 2002 22:45:48 -0800, beaten and sobbing, cop...@yahoo.com
> (Brandon Cope)' confessed his crimes:
>
> >Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<o22n0vofh5l5t75lb...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> 120 points in stats? My house rule is an 80 point limit (adopted from
> >> GURPS SpecOps).
> >
> >80 points seems really low, even for a 100 point campaign. While most
> >of the PCs in my campaigns tend to fall within 10 points of that, it
> >seems a bit too restrictive. OTOH, if you are a member of the cult of
> >stat normalization, it makes some sense.
>
> Eighty points lets you have 12s straight across, or an 11 in three
> stats and one at 14, which puts you above average across-the-board
> with one exceptional stat. I don't think that's too restrictive.
Most players -- even non-munchkins -- would disagree with you.
> Cult of stat normalization? I suppose that fits me. I prefer
> characters to have stats fairly close to the average, though mostly
> its because I prefer moderate stats and more points in skills.
That's pretty much the definition of stat normalization.
Jürgen Hubert
And if you are playing in cinematic mode, how often are your enemies
going to aim when you are aware of them? It's far more likely that
they will shoot on full auto, because that's more impressive, though
not necessarily more effective...
And if your enemies _do_ aim at the PCs while the PCs are unaware of
them... well, that's when you need to use the Imperial Stormtrooper
Marksmanship Academy rule from CI78: The first shot or burst always
misses, so that the PCs become aware of their opposition without
getting wounded.
And there's plenty of precedence for this in the movies, too... ;-)
Jürgen Hubert
"SD Anderson" <10225...@compuserve.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ad847902.02122...@posting.google.com...
> "J rgen Hubert" <jhu...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:<auer82$6mmki$5...@ID-166792.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Yes, GURPS can be gritty - but high-point characters that put many
of
> > their points into HT and advantages like "Hard to Kill" can endure
> > enough punishment to equal any mid-level D&D character...
>
> And if they wear armor, which in GURPS provides Damage Resistance
> along with a reduction in the odds of being hit, they probably can
> withstand more damage than any mid-level D&D character.
Too true - I've recently finished a campaign with several high-HT
characters wearing plate mail, and it was damn hard to challenge these
guys...
David Pidcock
"Shawn Fisher" <safi...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:GoRN9.401$Qs1.14...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
>
> I've played both GURPS and DnD in carnations going back to (the GURPS
Boxed
> Set and DnD Red Book). GURPS does BOTH cinematic and realistic. DnD does
> only EPIC level play. In GURPS, one can choose to create 0 point grunts
with
> Basic combat, or 500 point Chambara fighters with 4 attacks in a second.
In
> DnD you get 1st level thieves terrified of the combat abiliites of the
> domestic house cat (look it up), and eventually earth shaking,
terrifyingly
> powerful characters.
Don't forget the old D&D Mage who, at 1st level, has one spell he can
cast ONCE per day ! How pathetic. Admittedly, at first level, he also had
the same thaco as a fighter :) But then with all the new rules, I'm sure
they've fixed all that now.
> GURPS cannot compete with DnD in the EPIC level
> adventure, when one man slays an army, or a mage destroys a castle. You
can
> do it in GURPS, but it takes some optional rules, and then will probably
not
> get the desired results.
Depends on what you mean by Epic !
I'm pretty sure that a Mage with sufficient points can level a castle.
Earthquake spells, Rain of Stones, all sorts of options there. As for one
man slaying an army. Give me Trained by a Master and a Dodge of 15+ with
some enchantend and lightened Leather armour and I think I can take it :)
Or even a knight with enchanted Full-Plate. Don't forget, most D&D
characters are bristling with magic items. A knight in FullPlate +5 PD and
+5 DR could quite possibly walk through the battlefield without a scratch.
You don't need optional rules to accomplish this sort of play.
Of course - you do have to ask yourself ... Do I WANT this kind of game?
Part of the reason I love GURPS is because it's easier to limit this kind
of abuse despite the fact that it is possible. In AD&D, players _expect_ to
be able to do such things, and you have to work hard to stop it. It's
endemic to the rules. In GURPS- the rules are your tool, not your master.
You can make them do whatever you want, and optional rules are encouraged,
rather than blasphemy.
> However, DnD will not work on the lower level
> either.
It works - it's just not fun.
> I play GURPS because it does what I want, giving the GM and players
> mroe choices over the assumptions in the game (be they realistic or
> cinematic). Even with D20, the guts of they game cannot be modified
without
> making the supplemental material all but useless.
> In Short, play D20 to kill ancient dragons in one blow, or shrug off its
> flame. Play GURPS to do other stuff.
Play GURPS to do anything. Play D20 to cater to your groups
closed-mindedness about how games should be played. :)
-David
David Pidcock
"Robin David White" <robinda...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5aea08d.02122...@posting.google.com...
> it said recently that D20 is only appropriate for "cinematic" RPGs,
> while GURPS is only appropriate for "gritty" RPGS. Two questions: (1)
> What the heck is meant by "cinematic" and "gritty"? and (2) Is it
> true?
>
>
The fact is :
D20 is the GURPSification of AD&D. They took the basic assumptions of D&D
and tried to genericize it. They tacked on advantages and disadvantages
(whatever they call them) and tried to expand the skill system.
But the underlying assumption is that you've got 4 basic class types and
everything is derived from them. And with Levels still in the mix, you lose
some granularity.
Lets face it, it's a case of too little too late for the system. But as
everyone knows, it's not about the system. It's about the sales.
James Quick
"David Pidcock" <no...@thisaddress.net> wrote:
> The fact is :
> D20 is the GURPSification of AD&D.
Umm, no. Not even close.
> They took the basic assumptions of D&D
> and tried to genericize it. They tacked on advantages and disadvantages
> (whatever they call them) and tried to expand the skill system.
They made a skill system (there was not one before, though there was an
attempt at one in an optional book. There are no advantages and
disadvantages. Have you even read the book? It is not generic, either.
It makes multitudes of world assumptions, and is nowhere near as bland
as out-of-the-can GURPS is.
> But the underlying assumption is that you've got 4 basic class types and
11 basic types, unless you are boiling it down to Arcane Spell Caster,
Divine SpellCaster, Skilled Person, and Combatant -- which is way more
boiled down than D&D does.
> everything is derived from them. And with Levels still in the mix, you lose
> some granularity.
Yes, but that is a feature, not a bug. Classes and levels do a lot to
help keep game balance, niche protection, and ease of play in the game.
> Lets face it, it's a case of too little too late for the system. But as
> everyone knows, it's not about the system. It's about the sales.
Too little too late for you, perhaps, but the system is immensely
popular, and therefore seems to be The Right Amount, At The Right Time,
for most, YMMV. Who cares if you have a "superior" system, if no one
wants to play?
--
James Quick
jamesqu...@hotmail.com
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing
the world he didn't exist. -- Roger Kint
Douglas Berry
"Jürgen Hubert" <jhu...@gmx.de> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>Too true - I've recently finished a campaign with several high-HT
>characters wearing plate mail, and it was damn hard to challenge these
>guys...
Which is as it should be. Most combats between combatants in full
plate ended when one was too exhausted to raise his weapon and asked
for quarter. At least until those pesky longbows showed up...
One thing I liked about Harn Master. Two knights will batter each
other until they are both gasping for breath with nothing more than a
few bruises and minor cuts.
James Quick
"David Pidcock" <no...@thisaddress.net> wrote:
> Don't forget the old D&D Mage who, at 1st level, has one spell he can
> cast ONCE per day ! How pathetic. Admittedly, at first level, he also had
> the same thaco as a fighter :) But then with all the new rules, I'm sure
> they've fixed all that now.
As I suspected from your other post, you have not even read the game you
are criticising.
>
> > GURPS cannot compete with DnD in the EPIC level
> > adventure, when one man slays an army, or a mage destroys a castle. You
> > can do it in GURPS, but it takes some optional rules, and then will
> > probably not get the desired results.
>
> Depends on what you mean by Epic !
> I'm pretty sure that a Mage with sufficient points can level a castle.
> Earthquake spells, Rain of Stones, all sorts of options there. As for one
> man slaying an army. Give me Trained by a Master and a Dodge of 15+ with
> some enchantend and lightened Leather armour and I think I can take it :)
A D&D mage at Epic Levels can do more than level a single castle, he can
alter reality to his whim, level a continent, etc. And our Epic Level
fighter can do far more than "think [he] can take it". He _can_ take an
army out.
> Of course - you do have to ask yourself ... Do I WANT this kind of game?
Some people may.
> Part of the reason I love GURPS is because it's easier to limit this kind
> of abuse despite the fact that it is possible. In AD&D, players _expect_ to
> be able to do such things, and you have to work hard to stop it.
D20 is not AD&D. Aside from that... <sarcasm>Yes, you must stop it. Gawd
forbid players get to have their characters do what they want. The GM is
there to put a stop to that kind of crap, thank gawd.</sarcasm>
Of course, designing a campaign is up to the GM, and if he lays out the
groundrules ahead of time, the players must expect to work within them.
That is not system-dependent.
> It's
> endemic to the rules. In GURPS- the rules are your tool, not your master.
> You can make them do whatever you want, and optional rules are encouraged,
> rather than blasphemy.
Bah. You have no idea what is endemic to the rules of D20; you have
never read d20.
> > However, DnD will not work on the lower level
> > either.
>
> It works - it's just not fun.
Bah. You have no idea what works. Fun is not inherent to the system, it
is up to the players and the GM to make the game fun. This can be done
with any system short of Synnabar, IME. Games can be un-fun using almost
any system as well.
> > I play GURPS because it does what I want, giving the GM and players
> > mroe choices over the assumptions in the game (be they realistic or
> > cinematic). Even with D20, the guts of they game cannot be modified
> > without making the supplemental material all but useless.
Wrong. You guys should not make blanket statements like this without
understanding the system better.
> > In Short, play D20 to kill ancient dragons in one blow, or shrug off its
> > flame. Play GURPS to do other stuff.
>
> Play GURPS to do anything. Play D20 to cater to your groups
> closed-mindedness about how games should be played. :)
Any game that can be done in GURPS can be done with D20 (though a lot of
work may need to be done to make up the rules for that setting. GURPS
has the advantage of having done this already of the span of the last
10+ years).
Play GURPS to get in with a bunch of close-minded elitists, play D20 to
have fun playing a game with people you like. ;-)
Bill Seurer
> In article <8R%O9.90668$vb3.3...@news2.west.cox.net>,
> "David Pidcock" <no...@thisaddress.net> wrote:
>>They took the basic assumptions of D&D
>>and tried to genericize it. They tacked on advantages and disadvantages
>>(whatever they call them) and tried to expand the skill system.
>
> They made a skill system (there was not one before, though there was an
> attempt at one in an optional book.
Huh? D&D2 had a skill system. A totally sucky one but it was right
there in the PH.
> There are no advantages and
> disadvantages.
Feats are advantages all with cost 1. Unfortunately that means that
many feats are mostly useless and seldom (if ever) taken while others
are almost too good to not take if you can.
>> But the underlying assumption is that you've got 4 basic class types and
>
> 11 basic types, unless you are boiling it down to Arcane Spell Caster,
> Divine SpellCaster, Skilled Person, and Combatant -- which is way more
> boiled down than D&D does.
No, 4. The assumption for calculating ELs and such is that a "party"
consists of a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Mage. Go check on the DnD
newsgroup where this is discussed frequently.
James Quick
Bill Seurer <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
> >> But the underlying assumption is that you've got 4 basic class types and
> >
> > 11 basic types, unless you are boiling it down to Arcane Spell Caster,
> > Divine SpellCaster, Skilled Person, and Combatant -- which is way more
> > boiled down than D&D does.
>
> No, 4. The assumption for calculating ELs and such is that a "party"
> consists of a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Mage. Go check on the DnD
> newsgroup where this is discussed frequently.
The assumption of that party for balancing encounters has _exactly_
_zero_ to do with saying that those are the only basic class types.
And I am on the dnd newsgroups, and there, people seem to understand the
difference.
Wrathchild
"James Quick" <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:JamesQuick1967-8A2...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> In article <8R%O9.90668$vb3.3...@news2.west.cox.net>,
> "David Pidcock" <no...@thisaddress.net> wrote:
>
> > The fact is :
> > D20 is the GURPSification of AD&D.
>
> Umm, no. Not even close.
Well, he's not the only one with that reaction - but then again he - as I -
is most familiar with GURPS and new things tend to be viewed through the
lens of what we already know, and comparisons are made accordingly.
To me the "GURPSification" was a feature that vastly improved what had gone
before. But now that I've gamed the d20/3rd ed. system for a year and a half
I acn honestly say that i still prefer GURPS. IMHO the class systematic
maked d20 more "straightjacket"-y when compared to GURPS. Sure, you can
multiclass, but there are many pitfalls - or at least consequenses you must
be aware of to make funcitonal choices. This is of course also true of
GURPS, but to a much lesser extent IME - and as I say, I do have
experience - and much of it - with both systems. I respect d20 as a good and
functional system. I prefer GURPS as more functional and meaningful system
IMO.
And these thins _will_ remain matters of taste. And thus debateable but not
subject to any kind of "truth" criteria.
--
Wrath
------------------------------------
" I know Kung Fu ! "
" Show me ... "