From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:18:39 GMT


	Uh, Kromm. There's not much point in arguing with Seawasp, but 
I would think that is obvious. I would just like to point out that you 
started this with what I believe is a misinterpretation. The original 
GURPS comment follows (from an inane argument in r.g.f.m over where the 
legend of fey/fay/fayerie *really* comes from): 

CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:
>dunkelza@titan.ucs.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC) writes:
>>sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>>>Keith, you seriously need to examine what you are posting.  You are
>>>spouting great gobs of gibbering insanity that have nothing to do with
>>>reality.  I don't know which weird books you got this stuff from, but I
>>>guarantee you it is extraordinarily bogus.
>
>>  This from a man who designs for GURPS.
>
>Oho! Just what is that supposed to mean? Someone want to slam GURPS
>again? Considering how it is one of the few truly universal systems
>out there, and the *only* one which is remotely realistic, balanced
>*and* well-designed, I'd like to know how you can say it is "bogus"!

	I believe Keith's statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
GURPS *system*, but rather was a comment on the authenticity of its 
products. In the enormous volume of material which GURPS generates, there 
are alot of books which have lousy research and editing. 
	Certainly there are plenty of fine GURPS books out there, and I 
think the SOS is responsible for a number of them. But I can see where 
someone would look at some of the wrong books and get a bad impression. 
SJG often seems far more concerned with getting books onto the shelves 
quickly than with quality control, although that is changing. 
	I was not terribly impressed with the 'authenticity' of GURPS 
Vikings, China, Fantasy (which had many horrific portrayals of other 
cultures), Ultra-tech (for a 'realistic' game, as opposed to Space 
Opera), and Horror. And I'm sure that if I was willing to spend more 
money buying overpriced world-books, I would find many more like them. 


CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:
>seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>It's made to be, as its proponents often point out with glee, 
>>"realistic". That means that it can't do Superheroes as well as a 
>>straight SH game, nor any other truly heroic genre.
>                                              ^^^^^ (Note)
>
>True, superpowers, magic, psi, mystic martial-arts "ki" powers et al. 
>are **unrealistic**. GURPS lets them be that way. But, the existence of 
>things which are unrealistic does not preclude the rest of the universe
>being realistic. In GURPS, your Supers are bulletproof, fine: but Joe
>average still dies if shot. This is the realism GURPS players talk
>about: how does this show a bias?

	It shows a bias as far as *genre* goes. Many people are interested 
RPG's which do not simulate 'real life', but rather those which simulate 
the 'unreality' of certain types of cinema and fiction. There's nothing 
wrong with wanting to role-play 'real-life plus superpowers', but there 
are many people who are interested in role-playing the comics, which is 
considerably different. I know that you have expressed disdain for those 
who don't play for true realism at times, but I think it is simply a matter 
of preference. 

	Certainly GURPS is a decent choice in the field of a universal, 
medium complexity, realistic role-playing game. I think you would be far 
more convincing in defending it if you assessed its faults and strengths 
in an organized fashion rather than trying to counter everything that 
Seawasp says. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "You're on the cutting room floor, Chaplin.
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | Not a good place to be."
Columbia University         |                  (from the movie 'Chaplin')