From: CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: RE: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:12:58 GMT
Organization: McGill University


     First off, apologies to the non-GURPS and non-flaming elements
on r.g.f.misc, as well as here: the portions of this flamewar that
can be readily attributed to Kromm were, in fact, posted here - but
they ended up on r.g.f.misc due to my inattentiveness towards the
"followups" box on my reader! That said, I am afraid I will have to
respond to Sea Wasp: his exact problem with GURPS is a bit lost on
me, but since there's nothing else I want to respond to here, I may
as well use my alloted net.time today to fire back at him . . .

The players . . .

In article <2266@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>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:

The play:

>>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.

Hmm. Did I admit that? I don't think so. So fine: you've PLAYED GURPS
(oooooh -- upper case: is Sea Wasp maaaad?). So have I, and probably
for a hell of a lot longer and in more genres than you've ever even
*tried* to play :) If you are a *skilled* gamer, and if you actually
make an effort to use the rules to your advantage instead of letting
them use you, GURPS carries no bias. It's odd that I've GMed Supers,
Fantasy, Cyberpunk, Psionics and Martial-Arts scenarios (amongst
others), at the 100 to 600 point levels, and I have yet to encounter
a bias, or have a player tell me that (s)he felt the system was biased
in any way, towards any genre or character type. I'd love to know
what the hell you're talking about.

>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.

Heh? Let me spell it out: guns, are guns, are guns. The round from a
gun has "x" energy, in any setting. Same goes for cars, drugs, and
any other tool or toy commonly seen in gaming worlds. Whether you
have a Supers campaign or a realistic historical campaign based on
the Three Musketeers, a man will die in GURPS, just as in real-life,
if struck in the heart by a bullet. True, superpowers, magic, psi,
mystic martial-arts "ki" powers et al. are **unrealistic**. GURPS lets
them be that way. No problem. But, (big but) the existence of things
which are unrealistic does not preclude the rest of the universe
being realistic. In GURPS, your Supers are bulletproof, fine: but Joe
average still dies if shot. This is the realism GURPS players talk
about: how does this show a bias?

> 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...

So you think that brutally strong characters are balanced, and it
is unreasonable to not allow them cheaply? I see. May I point out
that in a Fantasy campaign, where spells top out at 3 dice, a
warrior with high ST will be "unbalanced", while in a Supers game,
high ST is cheap, in view of the points you have to spend: because
it is both appropriate and balanced. "Prime example" of what, Sea
Wasp? Your inability to understand the rules?

> 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.

Did I say otherwise? I agree that CoC is a better system for low-
powered horror, for example. However, few of the dedicated systems
can handle elements from outside the sphere of their dedication,
and fewer can handle crossover. GURPS provides a *decent* system
for most genres, and an *excellent* degree of integration and
cross-compatibility between genres. That's why it is billed as the
*Generic* *Universal* RPS, and not the Game to End All Games RPS!

>>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.

> 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.

So: you *really* need *all* the GURPS supplements for a truly
rounded game? College fund be damned! You won't *be* in college
for as long as it would take you to play out a decent adventure
in *each* and *every* genre covered by GURPS. Be realistic!

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

Yeah -- Rolemaster wrote the spell down 6 times, with 6 different
names and slightly varied special effects, and called it 6 spells.
GURPS just presents a good selection of logically laid out spells
that cover all of the important stuff. 'Guess I'm just a girly-man.
Like that's such a meaningful and well-thought-out insult. *Yawn*

> 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.

What? Huh? You *are* talking about GURPS? Let's see: casting a
fireball requires a spell roll, fatigue cost & concentration time,
then you have to aim and fire the attack; firing a gun expends
bullets, not fatigue, and requires an external weapon, not an
internal power, and requires a Guns skill roll, not rolls against
a spell called Fireball and the Fireball Throwing skills. Where
all of the skills above are of different difficulties and are
based on different attributes. Where the damage results are
radically different. Where the requirements to the attacking
character are completely different. Controlling a mind? That's
a spell or a psi power - each has its *own* mechanics, which
differ from those for guns and Fireballs as well as each other.
Flying a ship requires Piloting rolls -- different again.
     All of these have different and appropriate mechanics, and
yet the system can handle them all *well*. Where's the problem?

> CRUSH! KILL! DESTROY! DANGER, STEVE JACKSON!

Such a creative lad, no?

> You won't have any trouble, of course; "Plays GURPS" is a 300 point
>disad right there.

Yes, I'd agree. Having to face unfounded harassment over my choice of
game system from people like you, Sea Wasp, is a -300 or so.

> 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.

Yes, and an 18 IQ is about 4 IQ higher than the smartest people you
know, and maybe 2 higher than you seem to feel about yourself ;-).
Point: guess what? You're talking about ***very*** unrepresentative
GURPS characters. Our debate here is about GURPS in general, so
let's stick to averages, OK? GURPS IQ is general knowledge and
experience, as well as "intelligence": so someone with 18 IQ has
probably spent 90% of their life in school, and *will* have a great
deal of knowledge.

> 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) .

OK -- fine. You spend 2000 hours in the gym, becoming a physical god.
I'll spend that time on the range, and in a combat shooting course.
In GURPS terms, we've spent equal points: you on ST, me on Guns, Fast
Draw(Pistol), Speed-Load and Armoury(Small Arms). Unless you are
capable of teleportation, you have to close ground to murder me for
being a girly-man and a GURPS player. I employ S.O.P on most combat
shooting courses, and pull out my pistol and put 6 rounds in you
before you can even see my eye colour. In a high tech environment,
he who subscribes to outdated techniques, dies. Oh, well. The designers
of GURPS cannot be held responsible for this reality. Sorry.

>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

What is this ST thing you keep raving about? Olympic weightlfiters
train for longer than it took me to get my BSc and MSc combined just
to compete. The weightlifter gets real strong, reaches his plateau,
and fades eventually. I just keep studying, and getting more informed.
I know more students than professional weightlifters . . .

> 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.

Sure he could be done: but the rules say that being absurdly strong
is a big advantage, and it *is*. You can fire bigger guns, punch out
anyone, carry twice the kit and still walk & wear down from fatigue a
lot more slowly. This is an advantage in any genre. It does not lose
its value at high TL. However, if the character does not capitalize
on his innate advantages, he is a dolt. The game system cannot make
a character look balanced if it is played stupidly. No system can.
Don't blame GURPS for that.

> 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.

So fine: get a group of players who will tolerate a 75 to 250 point
spread in abilities. Just make sure the less competant ones know
where they stand. GURPS can do this just fine. If you can't find a
group of players imaginative enough to do this, too bad. Again: *do*
*not* *blame* *the* *system* for >>your<< shortcomings!

> BALANCE is the responsibility of the GM and the players.

What'd I just say? :)

>GURPS can only balance in certain areas

Bzzzzt. Wrong. I've balanced it in a huge spectrum of settings, at
many power levels. Either I'm a super-GM, and I *know* you won't
admit to that, Sea Wasp, or GURPS *is* capable of balance.

Sorry for the cost in bandwidth, folks.
-Kromm

_______________________________________________________________________
|    "It's true! When you load    |   This reality has experienced    |
|     WordPerfect into memory     |          . . . failure.           |
|     backwards, you see a GIF    |      Please try again later.      |
|      of the face of Satan!"     |___________________________________|
|               -=-               |Dr Manfred Kromm can be reached at:|
|     -Secrets of the Masons-     |-----> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA <-----|
|               -=-               |McGill University, Montreal, Canada|
|_________________________________|___________________________________|