From: mmadsen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen)
Subject: Thoughts on GURPS
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Reply-To: mmadsen@ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:57:53 GMT

Well, we've recently fallen back into the GURPS vs. the World flame war,
so I thought I'd add some thoughts.

So you can understand me a little better (and where I'm coming from):  I
started roleplaying with AD&D (my brother let me play when I was six --
no, I didn't know what I was doing), played it for years, then moved
to Hero (Champions) and a few years ago moved to GURPS.  While I feel
that GURPS can be improved, it's the best system I've encountered.

GURPS' point system is one of the best thought out systems I've seen --
not flawless, but better than Hero.  With its diminishing returns to
scale, it yields characters with "likelihoods" fitting "reality".  The
points represent how likely such and such a stat or advantage is to exist
as well as how much characters will want to "buy" it -- supply _and_
demand.  Thus, characters are only "unlikely" in their area of expertise:
detectives are ridiculously smart and perceptive, barbarians are really
strong and tough, and so on.

Now, since everyone enjoys reading about _flaws_ more than strengths, I'll
start complaining.  While keeping the costs of all stats the same aided
simplicity, strength (which always gets targeted for complaints) is
defined as linear, unlike the other stats.  A ST of 20 is supposed to
be twice as strong as a ST of 10, not some fraction of 10 standard
deviations above average (as with DX, IQ, & HT).  While an IQ of 15 is
roughly three standard deviations above the norm, being fifty percent
stronger than average is ludicrously common.  In fact, I believe there
are more than a few people who can bench press over 600 lbs. (they're
called American Gladiators :^) -- that's about four times average, for
a strength of 40!  So, the complaint about the ST-sink is well founded,
but also easily fixed.

Now, as I described before, GURPS points reflect the likelihood of a
stat or advantage existing.  This works quite nicely, because in a world
where combat advantages (toughness, etc.) are useful, the heroes will be
uncommonly good in that field, as in literature.  The heroes of mystery
novels are uncommonly good detectives, the heroes of sword & sorcery are
incredibly strong and tough, and so on.  The players "buy" those abilities
that are worth the "cost" of their unlikelihood.  The problem arises in
genres where characters often have talents that aren't useful and are quite
rare.

For instance, epic heroes are often "good" in every way: good
looking, musically talented, pious, and so on, in addition to being
"usefully" strong and tough.  They really don't have much to gain by having
a nice voice and a cleft chin, so players won't spend the points, even
if the genre dictates it.  Likewise, superheroes often know every science
imaginable but use only one science to solve some mystery every adventure.
This issue, Batman uses his knowledge of molecular biology to blah, blah,
blah.  What if he didnt' know mol. bio.?  Well, we would've written the
story differently.  Thus, the players, knowing this, don't have the same
incentive to spend their points.

To solve this problem, I think we have to depart from standard GURPS
philosophy.  Point _costs_ should vary slightly from genre to genre
(not setting to setting, genre to genre!) even if the talents mean the
same thing in each setting.  In the modern commando hero genre (Rambo,
Arnold, etc.), the hero is _far_ stronger than is likely or useful.
It's not really worth it to be that strong, because, while it does have
its advantages, we all know that a gun equalizes the difference between
Arnold and the average fourteen-year-old.  When talents are expected
-- but _not_ worth buying -- there should be some kind of point break
for the players.  Being a rich superhero shouldn't be expensive, being
a strong (cinematic) commando shouldn't be expensive, and so on.

The main point I think people need to understand is that, for example,
while strength is less useful in a modern setting than in a medieval one,
that is not reason enough to change the price.  In a mystery campaign you
_shouldn't_ have body-builders running around.  It's only when some talent
is less useful, but _expected_ of the characters, that it should have its
price reduced.

Matt Madsen
mmadsen@ics.uci.edu