From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:36:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <21JAN93.19009760.0069@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L000) writes:
>In article <2292@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:

	[Doc Kromm writes about bullets killing bystanders in SH genre]
	[and I reply:]
>> And THAT is dead wrong for the genre. Especially the superheroes
>>in the classic setting. Bombs go off, bullets fly, bystanders are HURT,
>>but even bystanders generally don't DIE. Hell, if you are "realistic"
>>with superhero combats, those brawls that wreck multiple city
>>blocks should rack up four-digit death tolls. They don't.

>Maybe I am biased: in my games, they *do*. For that matter, in my
>super"hero" games, there are none of these morally-driven nice-guy
>"heroes":

	Then you aren't playing in the genre at all, and your claims
about whether or not GURPS handles these well is at best very, very
weak. The true SUPERHERO genre includes the nice people like Captain
America, Superman, and Spider-man, in the days of the Comics Code.

>stuff on real-life, then a realistic game can hack it. Comics belong
>there: in the comics. Not too much fun to game, IMNSHO.

	Fine. Your opinion. In my completely godlike opinion, you're
wrong. I've had acres of fun playing superheroes. We add SOME realism,
but nowhere near THAT level.

>Sea Wasp's groovy tune . . .

	No, just my transcription of the classic GURPS hit.

>> "Roll 3d6. Compare to skill. You want low."
>> "Roll 3d6. Compare to skill. You want low."
>> "Roll 3d6. Compare to skill. You want low."
>> "Roll 3d6. Compare to skill. You want low."

>Where's the problem? Do you really feel the sidedness, and number
>of dice, and whether you shoot low or high, is relevent to the fun
>you can have playing a game, the flavour of a GM's world, or the
>quality of the game? Gads! You're a worse case than I thought!

	No, I feel that it CAN make a difference with ALL OTHER THINGS
being equal. That is, it's just a little more boring if all your RL
actions are completely identical.

>There is no "high-ST PC slush fund". Why should high ST get special
>consideration over high DX, IQ or HT? In my games, a 13 to 14 ST is
>considered awsomely strong, and humans rarely see the likes of 16+
>ST, ever. I see reality this way, and that's how I run my game.
	
	Well, that's a matter of wierd scale on your part. 13 and 14,
according to the GURPS book, is pretty good but not at all remarkable.
16 is pretty impressive, but you don't get awesome until 18. At least,
that's according to the book.

	Now I understand your prior comment about never having met
someone with an 18 INT. On your scale, an 18 INT must equate to 
the nearly meaningless IQ of 350, with all that potential used
to its fullest.

	According to the book, it's genius level -- Einstein, etc.
I think I have met one or two of these people. I know that if you
give Einstein a 200, and give IQ a standard deviation of 15, I'm
only 2 deviations behind. 16 versus an 18? Who knows. 

	How you can consider a system realistic that crams both
potential and accomplishment into one number, I don't know. It's
as silly as someone taking, say, those IQ numbers above as being
actually MEANINGFUL.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy