From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: RE: Advantages
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:15:28 GMT

CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L000) writes:

> GURPS super powers, psi and cyberware are all advantages, and are all
> unnatural abilities.

You have a good point.  My gaming experience is limited to relatively
realistic characters.  I've never dealt with super powers, psi, or cyberware.
For games like that, a separate list of special characteristics (ie. "Neural
module gives x% bonus in such-and-such situation") might be appropriate.
However, "advantages" are not the only way to handle such things.

I've seen psi dealt with quite well as skills (in Harnmaster).  Cyberware
might be handled better on a separate cyberware sheet, or on an equipment
sheet. I've never even considered super powers, but they might be treated as
skills rather than as attributes.

Hmmm, in GURPS, what is the average ratio for rolling vs attributes, and
rolling vs advantages, over rolling vs skills?  Also, in a typical campaign,
how many rolls does the average character make?  For our Legacy campaigns,
the figures are probably 1/10 or less, and maybe 5-10 rolls an eight hour
session. Also, how many skills does the average GURPS character have?

> GURPS simply takes the four traits *no* being can leave undefined
> and calls them attributes.

I think much of this argument is based on disagreement over what can be
acceptably undefined.  If GURPS can much intelligence, creativity, senses,
willpower, and whatever else into one figure, why strength and health?  Why
not "physical"?  You could have three attributes: Physical, Mental, and
EverythingElse.  :)

You could even have one attribute (what could be simpler?): Everything.  :-)

Of course, the problem with one--or four--attributes is that there is no
differentiation between characters as far as attributes go.  You could put
all the differentiation into "advantages and disadvantages", but the
complexity--for the same level of character detail and differentiation--would
probably be the same as having a larger number of attributes and skills.

> As far as I am concerned, a separate Sense or Will attribute is
> unnecessary: it will be IQ for most, so why waste space?

Simple answer: so that you can have characters who see great, but aren't good
at math; who are very persistent, yet have lousy hearing; who (if what I've
heard of GURPS is correct) can be a great scientist, but a lousy musician.
If you're going to allow those characters through advantages and
disadvantages, you have the same essential complexity as if you had Vision,
Intelligence, Willpower, Hearing, etc, attributes.

> If everything should be an attribute, then you must be willing to accept
> *everything*! That means fantasy PCs with a 0 stat in about 150 boxes
> marked "Morph Power", "Telepathy Power", "Absorption", "Chip Jacks".....

No, unless your characters travel through different genre worlds, why write
down stats from genres you aren't playing in?  You later write: " The
advantage system is highly free-form and individualistic."  You contradict
that by rigidly requiring that the same character sheet apply to every genre.

> And I will repeat my claim: I find that clearly defined advantages, which
> not every character has and which are nicely described and not just a
> numerical game mechanic, are valuable for promoting both the uniqueness and
> the realistic "feel" of PCs.

To me, the idea that two characters with the same IQ are both equally good as
physicists and pianists (both roll vs IQ?) removes both uniqueness and
realistic feel.  My Legacy character is different in both those skills from
any other character, and even if the skill level was the same, the three base
attributes would likely be different, indicating a different approach to a
particular problem.

My character has 21 prime and secondary attributes, and 38 skills.  That
defines his abilities in most situations.  If you compare that with a GURPS
character with the same level of ability definition (ability to fix a
computer, for example), the GURPS character will either require just as many
numbers.  If it has fewer numbers, the character is less unique.

If the GURPS character has only four attributes, three advantages, and five
skills, it is simply much less defined as the Legacy character above.  If
computer repair ability is dependent on only IQ, for example, you could have
the entire group with exactly the same ability.  Talk about sameness!  :(

> One cannot easily reduce a GURPS character to a dimension n matrix of
> numbers.

I see no reasons why it couldn't be reduced to a set of attributes and
skills, with some notes to cover special situations.

> The advantage system is highly free-form and individualistic. It prevents
> sameness and gives value to exceptional ability in one area while relieving
> the player of the bother of recording non-exceptional ability in one
> hundred areas.

The alternative to the advantage system is not recording the values of every
possible ability.  If you never learned (opened) a skill in Legacy, you don't
record it.

I get the impression from this discussion that some gamers have this
impression of having to somehow "manage" every attribute and skill
simultaneously, as if fixing a computer would require the player to check
every attribute and skill on the sheet.  In any situation, I generally only
need to look up one number--a skill or attribute.  That takes an
insignificant amount of time and effort. All the other numbers on the sheet
are ignored.

I'm still waiting for an explanation for the "complexity" of 15 attributes.
:-)

I'm not against the concept of "advantages and disadvantages"; they have
their uses.  Legacy uses them in some situations.  One of our group is
arachnophobic: -3D10 to WIL when faced by spiders.

The present argument arose when someone tried to argue that GURPS was simple
because it had only four attributes.  I argued that the "advantages" take the
part of attributes, and will be just as complex as more attributes for a
given level of character detail.

The present GURPS system, that is being so fanatically defended, seems to me
to be based on S. Jackson's little pocket games, for which four attributes
made sense.  To me, stretching it out with advantages doesn't seem to make an
elegant system.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy