From: wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Bass Ackwards GURPS Attribute Modifier Method
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:10:57 GMT
	<1992Aug15.213410.16542@cco.caltech.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Sigh.

>>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.

	No, it's not the same. My point is that utility varies MUCH more than
people think. Thus, utility point systems should be fairly loose. The
more specific the point system, the worse things will get.

>>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

	You could have a point system to reflect what people of equivalent
experience would be like.

>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

	 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.

>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? 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.

>>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.

	Changing point costs would be tweaking the system to what YOU think it
should be. Which is similar to Hero, but you might prefer GURPS
mechanics.

>>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.

>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').

	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?

>>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?

	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)

-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
<B1 c+ f+ w g+ k+ s+ r- e+ p>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc