From: trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip)
Subject: Re: Bass Ackwards GURPS Attribute Modifier Method
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:34:10 GMT

wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins) writes:

>This discussion is another illustration of one central problem with
>GURPS.

>As you may know, GURPS has TWO different point-system philosophies,
>which, IMO, clash continuously throughout.  The first philosophy is
>that of charging for difficulty. [...] The second is 'utility', [...]

>Now, there is one central problem with utility based point balancing,
>which is the reason I stopped playing GURPS (it's one of my favorite
>systems out there, next to Ars Magica).  The problem is that utility is
>a VARIABLE. To truly do utility right, you must be able to predict the
>entire future usefullness of a trait, otherwise the player will have an
>unfair (dis)advantage.

Isn't this about the same as saying that a system is completely useless
because it isn't perfectly realistic? No system is ever perfect, in any
aspect. But some are good enough.

>So, the problem with this discussion is whether attributes should be
>based on rarity (ie- for a given race, which attributes are 'easier'
>and 'harder' to get), or on utility (how useful are the attributes)

If your point system isn't measuring utility, why have one? A utility
system ensures (or at least tries to), that characters are equally
useful, which generally promotes maximal fun (ie, no one ends up never
doing anything except watch Joe Stud solve all the problems). A
difficulty points system produces characters who have spent the same
amount of time studying. What use is this?

>In my opinion, people running GURPS should decide which method they
>want. In terms of utility, attributes should be adjusted in terms of
>which are more useful (perhaps, which have more skills, etc). Skill
>difficulties should be based on how useful the skill is, not how
>difficult it is to learn.

Or just play Hero. Changing GURPS point costs to be based on utility
instead of designer's whim sounds like much more work than learning a
new system.

>Then you get the joy of trying to reason out what really is more
>useful than the others. :) (IMO, this is impossible to do)

If you want a list of every single skill that can possibly exist in
your campaign, in order of utility, then no, you can't do it. I'm not
sure why you'd want to try. Does your combat system detail the effects
of each possible attack hitting each square centimeter of the human
body at each possible angle? I didn't think so.

Grouping skills into 'Often critically important', 'Often useful and
occasionally critical', 'Occasionally useful', and 'never used
on-screen' should be plenty of resolution for anyone who actually wants
to game. (As opposed to people who just want to slam things for not
being 'perfect').

>Or, do things based on difficulty. With this method, point balance is
>less important. Attribute costs should be adjusted by race. The total
>attribute cost should not exceed a certain maximum, but can be as low
>as desired (no advantage is gained by going very low). Or, perhaps, a
>random attribute total could be decided. Ads/disads should be decided
>on. Perhaps 'talent' type ads/disads could, again, have some max
>number.  Skills would be left alone. Social ads/disads would be dropped
>(it's only background)

Sounds like you're describing AD&D. Why not just play that?

Trip			     |Running for my life and never looking back
President, ECNG		     |In case there's someone right behind
(trip@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu)|To shoot me down and say he always knew I'd fall
			     |				-_Chess_