From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:49:13 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Jul27.161302.19657@rchland.ibm.com>
seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) writes:

>In article <Bs1xpz.DJD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, joshua salter <jsalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>|> 
>|> 	I have purchased HERO, and found my old copy of GURPS to compare them.
>|> I was unable to come to a conclusion. My findings:
>|> 
>|> 	HERO's Merits			|	GURPS Merits
>|>    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>|>    well-defined Characteristics +1	|   simplistic Attributes -1
>|>    Good combat rules	+1		|   Good combat rules	+1
>|>    un-scaled attribute costs	0	|   scaled attribute costs	+1
>|>    reasonably cost-effecient	0	|   supplements needed -1
>|>    not many supplements -1		|   lotsa cool supplements out +1
>|> 
>|> 	I'm using both to see which game works better in action, (long campa-
>|> igns). Suggestions on what supplements to buy? (For each.)
>|> 
>--- 
>Oh goody!  Another GURPS-Hero flamewar!!

Which belongs in rec.games.frp.advocacy... My software doesn't permit me to
direct follow-ups there, but I would suggest people transfer this thread
there.

>Why does everyone love games (exaggeration warning) that
>have 200 page rule books 150 pages of which are detailed combat rules and 
>5 pages of which are vague social interaction rules?  Are everyone's games
>really that dominated by combat?

No. But assuming that both actually occur in your world, you *need* rules
for combat far more than you need rules for social interaction. You can (and
should) act out the social interaction; if you try acting out the fighting,
you're likely to have trouble :-)

This applies more generally than just to combat. You need detailed rules for
everything that cannot reasonably be acted out during the playing session -
combat, magic, acrobatic feats, etc. Detailed rules for things that *can* be
acted out are worse than useless: they just get in the way of roleplaying.

The main purposes of social interaction rules seem to me to be: (a) to give
the GM some idea how to set up the social structure of his world; (b) to
help a player play a character who is more competent socially than the
player is. For the first of these purposes, the social interaction rules
*should* be vague: as a system designer, you shouldn't be dictating the
social structure of the GM's world.

For the purpose of helping a player play a socially able character, some
detail is required, though a lot of GM discretion still needs to be allowed.
For example, GURPS rules like the Fast-Talk and Savoire-Faire skills are of
this type, and give a mechanism for resolving particular types of socoal
interaction. The mechanism is fairly clear - i.e. an ordinary skill roll -
but the GM needs a lot of discretion to decide on suitable modifiers to the
roll: there are a vast number of different things that could influence its
success. You *could* produce a detailed table of modifiers to such rolls,
but it would probably be far bigger and less complete than the combat
modifier tables - and they're big enough :-(

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...