From: trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip)
Subject: Re: Bass Ackwards GURPS Attribute Modifier Method
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:29:26 GMT

wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins) writes:

>Trip writes:

>>Isn't this about the same as saying that a system is completely useless
>>because it isn't perfectly realistic? No system is ever perfect, in any
>>aspect. But some are good enough.

>No, it's not the same. My point is that utility varies MUCH more than
>people think. Thus, utility point systems should be fairly loose. The
>more specific the point system, the worse things will get.

I quite agree. In fact, I feel the same way about most aspects of a
system. I fail to see why this means utility point systems are
unworkable.

>>If your point system isn't measuring utility, why have one?

>You could have a point system to reflect what people of equivalent
>experience would be like.

Why do you care? It constrains character conception at least as much as
a utility point system, and doesn't provide any benefit in return.

>>system ensures (or at least tries to), that characters are equally
>>useful, which generally promotes maximal fun (ie, no one ends up never
>>doing anything except watch Joe Stud solve all the problems).

>That's what it's supposed to be, but I've rarely seen it work based on
>the system. It usually requires the GM to balance things by hand, or
>things will go wrong. I'd rather make up characters, and simply let the
>GM tweak. The point costs may not be the same, but it will be better
>balanced.

Yah, except that the GM's boyfriend's character will somehow be much
more effective than anyone else's. It's the same thing as dice vs
diceless (oh no!!!): the system/dice/points are perceived as 'objective'
so people don't feel that they're getting hosed by the GM.

>>difficulty points system produces characters who have spent the same
>>amount of time studying. What use is this?

>To get people of equivalent age? Roughly equal EXPERIENCE, but
>different utility for different things?

Isn't it sufficient to say 'Make up characters who are all 27-29 years
old, who have been in the Extra Special Forces since they graduated
college?' Age has little to do with amount of knowledge; I know people
who, when they were my age, were vastly more skilled and comptent than I
am. Also, you're ruling out the 'talented young punk' and 'grizzled
veteran' sorts. Experience and age are matters that should be decided in
the campaign, not in the system.

>The problem is this: Is a commando more useful than a computer hacker?
>The problem with utility systems is that certain comparisons are, IMO,
>impossible to make.

I don't know. What kind of game are you running? In a high-combat game
of almost any genre, the commando is more useful. In a low-combat,
high-tech game, the hacker will be more useful.

>>>Then you get the joy of trying to reason out what really is more
>>>useful than the others. :) (IMO, this is impossible to do)

>>If you want a list of every single skill that can possibly exist in
>>your campaign, in order of utility, then no, you can't do it. I'm not
>>sure why you'd want to try. Does your combat system detail the effects
>>of each possible attack hitting each square centimeter of the human
>>body at each possible angle? I didn't think so.

>What does your comment have to do with mine? What about comparing
>medicinal knowledge to stealth? To sword skill? To firearms? It's TOO
>VARIABLE, that's my point. I'm not talking about levels of detail, I'm
>talking about impossible judgement.

I agree that mapping skills to point costs needs to be done differently
for each campaign. This does not invalidate the concept of a
utility-based point system.

>>Grouping skills into 'Often critically important', 'Often useful and
>>occasionally critical', 'Occasionally useful', and 'never used
>>on-screen' should be plenty of resolution for anyone who actually wants
>>to game.

>Again, these things vary from game to game. What about skills which are
>used a lot, but aren't very 'useful', vs skills which are rarely used
>but very powerful?

Sounds like they fit about the third and second categories respectively.
Maybe the first category for the latter, if it's powerful enough (eg,
the 'Win With Style' skill which only comes up every five adventures).

All the problems you've pointed out about utility systems are real, and
should be fixed, but they just don't support the idea of difficulty
systems at all. All your cries of 'impossible!' are missing a '(between
campaigns)'. Obviously many skills will have different utility levels in
different campaigns. Utility point systems that don't take this into
account are broken. It does *not* follow that the whole idea of a
utility point system is useless.

>I may be describing an experience-based game with randomness in
>generation, which AD&D can be described as, but the difference between a
>completely experience-based GURPS and AD&D is that AD&D sucks. (Or, to
>be more intellectual, is poorly implemented)

Funny, that's what a lot of people say about GURPS. Probably has
something to do with the lack of generality and the silly confused
point system.

Disclaimer: I play Hero because it's the least flawed game on the market
for what I want it for, which is an objective, consistent way of
describing things in the campaign (characters, weapons, long falls,
whatever). I do think the point system/character creation needs some
fixing up, but it's not yet annoying enough for me to do something about
it. When it is, I'll fix it.

Trip				|   Everybody's playing the game
President, ECNG			|   But nobody's rules are the same
(trip@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu)	|   Nobody's on nobody's side
				|			-_Chess_
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc