From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: GURPS Rewrite
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:40:15 GMT

hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John Kim) writes:
> >         One thing I would like to see is a 'fast-resolution' combat for
> > high-defense-roll characters that merges with the normal system. Currently,
> > the only suggestion that GURPS makes is to resolve hitting as a quick
> > contest between attack skill and defense roll - which pretty much makes
> > defenses obselete, and all-out attacks the 'in' choice.
>
>My understanding was that the contest of skills was meant to shorten combat
>by making it more lethal. It wasn't meant to speed up the combat resolution
>process. You still end up making the same number of rolls.

	It was intended to shorten combat by making defense rolls less of a 
sure thing at higher values, to be used when defense rolls (especially Dodges) 
rose up above 13 or less. The trouble is that at these high defense rolls, 
there is a *massive* break between the two systems, and no suggestion about 
creating a middle ground or even getting them to scale similarly. In the base 
system, as you go up in skill, you have an increased chance to parry an equal 
opponent. In the optional system, as you go up in skill your chances to parry 
an equal opponent go *down*. 

>
> >         I do. It is a major headache for balancing and preventing abuse,
> > as well as *alot* of choices due to the number of skills. I am personally
> > in favor of generalized skill aptitudes to handle 'new skill bases' because
> > they complicate things very little and are easy to balance - but I've
> > already ranted about those enough.
>
>If you don't want the added complication, you can just use the base attribute
>and ignore the secondary attribute. As it stands right now, some skills get
>benefits from secondary attributes (music, language, etc.) while others do
>not. By clearly assigning each skill to a primary and secondary attribute, it
>makes the system cleaner and, IMHO, more elegant.

	Yes, but it means adding to the description of *every* skill (of which 
there are many), and getting into questions of whether it is 'Reflexes' or 
'Precision' which guides Motercycle driving (for example). It adds to the 
complexity of the system - which does make it more descriptive or realistic, 
but not cleaner. 

>
>I'm not sure what you mean by 'new skill bases', but there is a rule in the
>fantasy folk supplement that allows a race to receive a bonus in a set of
>skills as an advantage. I think this rule could be generalized into a 'talent'
>advantage. (Ex: a character could have a 'green thumb' advantage that gives
>a bonus to all science skills having to do with plants.)

	Gosh, what a startlingly innovative idea! (Jovial sarcasm). I posted 
a generalized aptitude system twice a little while ago. I think that these 
are much more elegant since they do not significantly add to the complexity 
of the system - since they are based on organization that is already there. 
I can send it to anyone by email if they're interested. 

>
> >         There should be consistent determinations of what levels in skills
> > are 'good', 'expert', and 'world-class'. Unfortunately, since mental skills
> > have radically different costs than physical skills at higher levels,
> > 'world-class' physical skills are very different from 'world-class' mental
> > skills.
> >         The rules should be clear that although a 20 physical skill is
> > incredible, perhaps one-of-a-kind, a 20 mental skill is not nearly so
> > impressive.
>
>I think humans are pretty puny physically, so it's not surprising that we
>have to work so hard to become skilled at physical tasks.
>
>I'm not sure what constitutes an expert. However, I would think that a
>graduate degree, or the equivalent, should probably be the standard. If the
>CP cost required to achieve an 18 in the required skills can be satisfied
>by the equivalent of such a degree, then the points are probably about right.
>Has anybody worked out the CP cost needed to achieve a PhD? (Including study
>and class time.)

	Exactly. That's what I'm talking about. We define 'expert' by the 
level of professional sports, say, and graduate degrees - by the amount of 
work which it takes to get that level of skill. If someone equivalently 
talented in dance spent an equal amount of time studying as a graduate 
student, then we would call him/her an 'expert'. 
	Therefore, one cannot say that 18 is 'expert' in both physical and 
mental skills. You need a separate scale for each. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And when they catch you, 
Columbia University         | they will kill you."         - Watership Down
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc