From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:48:01 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <20JAN93.23287310.0073@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:
>In article <2223@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>In article <20JAN93.17014526.0219@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:
>>>Considering how it is one of the few truly universal systems
>>>out there,


>> Uh-HUH. What's a truly universal system, and how do you define
>>it?                                                                    s,

>A truly universal system is one which can handle multiple genres
>and crossovers between them without experiencing major continuity
>problems and without exhibiting a bias towards one particular
>genre.

	So, you ADMIT that GURPS fails the test for universality.
I've PLAYED GURPS, and its design is inherently biased towards/away
from particular things. It's made to be, as its proponents often point
out with glee, "realistic". That means that it can't do Superheroes
as well as a straight SH game, nor any other truly heroic genre.
	Moreover, making certain kinds of characters which, in PLAY,
would be perfectly balanced, can't be done with the same number of points.
The Strength sink is a prime example...
	GURPS is the BASIC of gaming; it CAN do anything, and has provisions
to do so, but it can't do ANYTHING as WELL as a specific game designed for
the genre.

>> Now, if you mean that GURPS is the master of publishing supplements
>>from hell, unrivalled since the demise of the former grandmaster of
>>Add-On-Material, Traveller, I agree.

>Yes: GURPS has a lot of supplements. This allows you to pick and
>choose the materials relevant to your game, and shows that SJG
>thinks each genre is interesting enough to merit a book, not just
>a chapter. I seriously challenge the claims of anyone who thinks
>a truly universal system (as defined by me) can fit in just a few
>books.

	What it REALLY means is that if you want a fully rounded 
universal campaign, you have to spend your entire college fund in
order to get the stuff you want.

>> If you mean that GURPS has managed to cram all kinds of things
>>into a few easily computed and flavorless numbers, I also agree.

>GURPS does not hang genre-specific flags on the numbers: it gives
>you a few basic numbers which are needed in *any* genre, and puts
>the interesting bits in the skills and advantages. If you think
>the GURPS system, with its hundreds of skills (300+) & advantages
>(150-200+), not to mention a vast selection of spells (450+) and
>psi-abilities (50-60+), is "flavourless", then you are obviously
>an uncreative dolt ;->

	450 spells a vast selection? Rolemaster's original release had
four times that many. GURPS is for Girly-men.

	ALl those skills and advantages work precisely the same way.
Flavorless. There's no difference IN GAME between casting a fireball,
shooting a gun, controlling a mind, or flying a  ship. That was one
of my major gripes about Spacemaster's PSI system -- they took their
spell system and just taped  the word Psion over it.
	Things which are different in KIND should be different in FEEL,
or else just ignore the existence of mechanics and go all out roleplay.
Don't compromise.

>Yeeeee-ha! The ol' flamewar has risen from its ashes!

	CRUSH! KILL! DESTROY! DANGER, STEVE JACKSON!

>Sure. "Smart people" here meaning characters of above 50 points, I
>assume, which are *not* the people you meet day-to-day

	Oh? Really? Considering the IQ deviations and so on, I'd require
more than 50 myself.
	You won't have any trouble, of course; "Plays GURPS" is a 300 point
disad right there.
	:)  warming self by the burning bits...

 . . . and
>"adept" meaning 12-14: the level you'd have after a good classroom
>course, as opposed to being an actual expert, with 16-20 skill.
>Yes, I know above-average people with good educations, and even in
>several fields. Where's the problem? Seek abuse, and ye shall find:
>no matter what the system.

	Problem is people who can get, say, an 18 INT (not difficult in
a fairly powerful campaign) and then can do EVERYTHING AT ONCE. Hell,
their DEFAULT skills are as good as someone who was taught the subject.
Even if they have no experience in the field.

>> Balanced: as long as you play according to the methodologies
>>set out by the inventors, yes. But for the same number of points there

>The inventors assumed that the average GURPS player would be an
>experienced gamer, of a somewhat more mature age group than is
>the norm for gamers:

	No, the inventors assumed that the average GURPS player would want
to  play certain kinds of characters. Consider the fact that in a high-tech
campaign, it is virtually suicide (pointwise) to make a physically strong
character. This indicates that the designers expected high-tech players
to avoid anyone with physical prowess greater than, say, the average couch
potato (e) .

>this is not relevent to me. As for reasonable characters that
>can't be built: I've never had a player complain to me yet
>that the PC they wish to built can't be done.

	They can't be done in the same point range as other characters
in the same game. For example, I was in a game with a super-pilot astrogator,
a super reporter/jack of all trades, a super-engineer, and a super-psi.
I just wanted to be the one brick in the party. Now, I COULD have designed
an EFFECTIVE combat monster, sure, but I wanted a particular character 
concept -- including high strength. But the point costs for stats are
so high, and the benefits (especially high tech) so low, that ONE of my
stats had to be quite low. Couldn't be DEX, combat requires it. Couldn't
be INT, too many skills rely on it, even in the combat arena. So it had
to be HT... and that meant that the super-marine could be taken down by
a slap from an anemic bunny rabbit.

	My character would have perfectly balanced in the party, he didn't
intrude on anyone else's specialties... yet he couldn't be done under
the standard rules.

>So: what *do* you like, Sea Wasp? Murderous powergaming systems?
>Clunky ROLL-playing system (complete with 20 dice)? Restrictive
>random-rolled, class-driven systems? I'm curious!

	I prefer just role-playing, thank you. AMBER is pretty much my ideal.
However, I use a bastardized hybrid of D&D/Arduin/Arcanum/my own inventions
which I'm used to.

	Random rolling? Never seen anyone use it, myself. Sure, random
generation is one of the methods, but I've never seen it used straight.
Usually I see random generation used to bias the creation, or maybe to
generate something on which to base an idea if the player just can't
make up his mind, but no one uses random rolls straight.

	The much touted "balance" of GURPS is one of its major flaws.
Even in the books and movies that draw us into these games, the main
characters weren't all built on the same scale. Some people are lucky
and have it all. Others just have some things they do DAMN well.

	BALANCE is the responsibility of the GM and the players. Since
GURPS can only balance in certain areas, either the GMs tend to stay
within those areas (reinforcing their impression of how great GURPS is)
or they come to rely on that balance, and crash and burn when GURPS
fails.
	GMs who HANDLE that well could balance the game just as well if
it was D&D, Rolemaster, Shadowrun, or just let's pretend.

	Just play the game. Game balance, in the sense of something that
justifies rules and game design, is a myth.


				Sea Wasp
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.misc:11566 rec.games.frp.advocacy:3829