From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Bass Ackwards GURPS Attribute Modifier Method
Date: 17 Aug 1992 17:19:47 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

In article <1992Aug16.222926.28203@cco.caltech.edu> trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip) writes:
>wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins) writes:
>
>>Trip writes:
>
>>>If your point system isn't measuring utility, why have one?
>
>>You could have a point system to reflect what people of equivalent
>>experience would be like.
>
>Why do you care? It constrains character conception at least as much as
>a utility point system, and doesn't provide any benefit in return.

GURPS points don't measure utility.  They measure development.  Unlike
Hero, character points in GURPS aren't a measure of how powerful things
are, and aren't central to the game.  Character points in GURPS are used
for character generation and advancement, and that's it.

Why not use points to measure utility?  Because any measurement of utility
is meaningless, because utility is completely situational and has no
"universal" meaning.  As an extreme example, if a wall is a "100 point"
wall, it's still less useful than a "5-point" informant when you're trying
to solve a crime.  Sure, that seems obvious, but that's the point -- it's
obvious that there are so many kinds of "utility" that it's meaningless to
try to assign a single number to the concept.

That is, unless you restrict yourself, as Champions pretty much does, to
trying to measure "combat utility", which works in the stereotipical Champs
session where skills, etc., are merely the hooks by which the GM arranges
the big fight between the good buys and the bad guys at the end of every
session.  But even in that limited context, a single number is not very
useful.  Sure, a 250 point character can generally flatten a 25 point
character in combat, but even then there are exceptions -- a 25 point
mentalist could posess a 250 point dumb brick, for example, that make even
a measure of "combat utility" of dubious meaning.

On the other hand, the way GURPS uses character points (as a measure of
effort) is useful in many ways that "utility" is not.  Skill costs are
based on the effort it takes to learn a skill, so you can use that to
determine how much someone has to study to learn skills, or how much time
they've spent educating themselves.  As your character develops, you can
learn easier skills more rapidly than hard ones, so characters develop more
naturally.  Sure, this doesn't guarantee that as characters are generated
and played that they'll be equal in utility, but they will be equal in
development, with different PC's being mroe or less useful at various
things.

>>>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).
>
>>That's what it's supposed to be, but I've rarely seen it work based on
>>the system. It usually requires the GM to balance things by hand, or
>>things will go wrong. I'd rather make up characters, and simply let the
>>GM tweak. The point costs may not be the same, but it will be better
>>balanced.
>
>Yah, except that the GM's boyfriend's character will somehow be much
>more effective than anyone else's. It's the same thing as dice vs
>diceless (oh no!!!): the system/dice/points are perceived as 'objective'
>so people don't feel that they're getting hosed by the GM.

Exactly.  The character points provide a framework for players to create
and advance characters.  This framework gives the players a feeling that
they know how things work, so that they have some control and can plan
ahead, and also gives players a feeling that things are fair because
everyone's using the same rules.

>>>difficulty points system produces characters who have spent the same
>>>amount of time studying. What use is this?
>
>>To get people of equivalent age? Roughly equal EXPERIENCE, but
>>different utility for different things?
>
>Isn't it sufficient to say 'Make up characters who are all 27-29 years
>old, who have been in the Extra Special Forces since they graduated
>college?' Age has little to do with amount of knowledge; I know people
>who, when they were my age, were vastly more skilled and comptent than I
>am. Also, you're ruling out the 'talented young punk' and 'grizzled
>veteran' sorts. Experience and age are matters that should be decided in
>the campaign, not in the system.

Sure.  Character points aren't a "game world" thing -- they're purely a
tool to make players happy.  In real life, some people are better or worse
than others, have more or less training, and so on.  But in a *game*,
players tend to have more fun if their characters start off on an equal
footing.  Not that the characters need to be identical, certainly, but they
should all start out with the same opportunities.  If everyone starts out
with 200 character points, and generates their character using the same
rules, then things are "fair."

>>The problem is this: Is a commando more useful than a computer hacker?
>>The problem with utility systems is that certain comparisons are, IMO,
>>impossible to make.
>
>I don't know. What kind of game are you running? In a high-combat game
>of almost any genre, the commando is more useful. In a low-combat,
>high-tech game, the hacker will be more useful.

Great.  So character point values change when you go from a "combat"
scenario to a "mystery" scenario to a "hacking the net" scenario to ... 

>>>>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.
>
>>What does your comment have to do with mine? What about comparing
>>medicinal knowledge to stealth? To sword skill? To firearms? It's TOO
>>VARIABLE, that's my point. I'm not talking about levels of detail, I'm
>>talking about impossible judgement.
>
>I agree that mapping skills to point costs needs to be done differently
>for each campaign. This does not invalidate the concept of a
>utility-based point system.

I believe it does, unless you're willing to either restrict all players to
a single campaign, or have them recalculate their characters repeatedly as
the campaign shifts it's focus.  And what happens to the "balanced utility"
when someone with a bunch of cheap "useless" low-tech skills, high strength
and health, and so on, in a Sci-Fi universe where all of those things can
be augmented by technology easily and inexpensively, when the group gets
stuck on a low-tech planet -- suddenly the "useless" skills become vital to
the party's survival, and that character's point value triples?  If your
goal is to balance the utility of all PC's, this problem is a killer.  What
good is it to start out with everyone having "100 point" characters if they
end up ranging from 50 to 200 points if the campaign shifts settings or
styles.

>>>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.
>
>>Again, these things vary from game to game. What about skills which are
>>used a lot, but aren't very 'useful', vs skills which are rarely used
>>but very powerful?
>
>Sounds like they fit about the third and second categories respectively.
>Maybe the first category for the latter, if it's powerful enough (eg,
>the 'Win With Style' skill which only comes up every five adventures).
>
>All the problems you've pointed out about utility systems are real, and
>should be fixed, but they just don't support the idea of difficulty
>systems at all. All your cries of 'impossible!' are missing a '(between
>campaigns)'. Obviously many skills will have different utility levels in
>different campaigns. Utility point systems that don't take this into
>account are broken. It does *not* follow that the whole idea of a
>utility point system is useless.

But beyond that, the point values will need to shift between scenarios,
unless the campaign sticks with only one sort of play forever.  And then
the GM has to tell everyone "OK, we're done with that adventure stuff --
we're doing a mystery now, so recalculate your characters according to the
mystery point costs".  Absurd...

Why would you want a measure of the "utility" of characters anyway?  As a
GM, I'd never use such a thing to design my scenarios, due to the
limitations I've mentioned.  I read the character sheets, and design
something appropriate to those people.

>>I may be describing an experience-based game with randomness in
>>generation, which AD&D can be described as, but the difference between a
>>completely experience-based GURPS and AD&D is that AD&D sucks. (Or, to
>>be more intellectual, is poorly implemented)
>
>Funny, that's what a lot of people say about GURPS. Probably has
>something to do with the lack of generality and the silly confused
>point system.

You mean the point system that you don't understand, right?

>Disclaimer: I play Hero because it's the least flawed game on the market
>for what I want it for, which is an objective, consistent way of
>describing things in the campaign (characters, weapons, long falls,
>whatever). I do think the point system/character creation needs some
>fixing up, but it's not yet annoying enough for me to do something about
>it. When it is, I'll fix it.

That's nice.  I play GURPS because it's the least flawed game on the market
for what I want it for, which is an objective, consistent way of describing
things in the campaign (characters, weapons, long falls, whatever).  I do
think that there are some times where I disagree with the tradeoff between
precision and playability, or with specific point values, but a few simple
"house rules" fixed things just fine.

>Trip				|   Everybody's playing the game
>President, ECNG			|   But nobody's rules are the same
>(trip@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu)	|   Nobody's on nobody's side
>				|			-_Chess_

-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.