From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:35:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <21JAN93.13193659.0105@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:
>respond to Sea Wasp: his exact problem with GURPS is a bit lost on
>me, but since there's nothing else I want to respond to here, I may
>as well use my alloted net.time today to fire back at him . . .

	If it's lost on you, it's almost pointless for me to respond.

	That said, pointless, meaningless flames are, of course, the
POINT of advocacy (witness [witless?] the eternal flamewar between the
godlike Dave Nalle, True Lord of Points, and Nick Janow, Random
Generator Extraordinare...), so who am I to withdraw...?

>Hmm. Did I admit that? I don't think so. So fine: you've PLAYED GURPS
>(oooooh -- upper case: is Sea Wasp maaaad?)

	Yes. Quite mad. But they've never managed to CATCH me.

>*tried* to play :) If you are a *skilled* gamer, and if you actually
>make an effort to use the rules to your advantage instead of letting
>them use you,

	So what you are saying is that GURPS really isn't any better than
any OTHER system. In GURPS you STILL have to control the game just
as much as any other. Funny, I thought that GURPS was promoted as 
relieving all that...

>Heh? Let me spell it out: guns, are guns, are guns. The round from a
>gun has "x" energy, in any setting. Same goes for cars, drugs, and
>any other tool or toy commonly seen in gaming worlds. Whether you
>have a Supers campaign or a realistic historical campaign based on
>the Three Musketeers, a man will die in GURPS, just as in real-life,

	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.


>that cover all of the important stuff. 'Guess I'm just a girly-man.
>Like that's such a meaningful and well-thought-out insult. *Yawn*

	Meaningful and well thought out? What is this, soc.philosophy?
Go eat a GURPS worldbook! This is ADVOCACY, you dweeb!

>> ALl those skills and advantages work precisely the same way.
>>Flavorless. There's no difference IN GAME between casting a fireball,
>>shooting a gun, controlling a mind, or flying a  ship.

>What? Huh? You *are* talking about GURPS?

	Sure am.

 Let's see: casting a
>fireball requires a spell roll, fatigue cost & concentration time,
>then you have to aim and fire the attack;

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

 firing a gun expends
>bullets, not fatigue, and requires an external weapon, not an
>internal power, and requires a Guns skill roll, not rolls against
>a spell called Fireball and the Fireball Throwing skills.

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

 Where
>all of the skills above are of different difficulties and are
>based on different attributes. Where the damage results are
>radically different. Where the requirements to the attacking
>character are completely different.

	All of the above are true in ANY game -- that is, that the 
situation, from the character's point of view, is different. Most
games also have the different skill or knowledge requirements.
Nothing different about GURPS here.

 Controlling a mind? That's
>a spell or a psi power - each has its *own* mechanics, which
>differ from those for guns and Fireballs as well as each other.

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

>Flying a ship requires Piloting rolls -- different again.

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

>     All of these have different and appropriate mechanics, and
>yet the system can handle them all *well*. Where's the problem?

	Huh? Somehow I fail to see what different MECHANICS come
in there. All skills are done precisely the same way. Obviously you
tag different NAMES onto them, but they are all based on the same
dice, distributed the same way, and .... well, flavorless. 
       Rolemaster has tons of skills also, but the mechanics of each
one, despite being rolled on the same dice (for most, anyway),
vary rather impressively because of the interaction of multiple parts
of the character. GURPS varies the cost of the skills in essentially
one way: what your stat is (and there ain't many stats to vary). RM
(not my favorite system, but good for comparison here) varies the cost
by category of skill, other related skills, stats, and so on.
	
>Yes, I'd agree. Having to face unfounded harassment over my choice of
>game system from people like you, Sea Wasp, is a -300 or so.

	Unfounded? It's founded on the fact that someone has to deal 
with your pointmongering kind. :) Besides, .advocacy was so DEAD there.

>let's stick to averages, OK? GURPS IQ is general knowledge and
>experience, as well as "intelligence": so someone with 18 IQ has
>probably spent 90% of their life in school, and *will* have a great
>deal of knowledge.

	Good Gog, it's worse than I thought! I thought GURPS was just
cramming all the potential intelligence into one undifferentiated 
stat. It crams all the WORK in there, too? Gag me with a phaser.

>>to  play certain kinds of characters. Consider the fact that in a high-tech
>>campaign, it is virtually suicide (pointwise) to make a physically strong
>>character. This indicates that the designers expected high-tech players

>OK -- fine. You spend 2000 hours in the gym, becoming a physical god.
>I'll spend that time on the range, and in a combat shooting course.
>In GURPS terms, we've spent equal points: you on ST, me on Guns, Fast
>Draw(Pistol), Speed-Load and Armoury(Small Arms). Unless you are
>capable of teleportation, you have to close ground to murder me for
>being a girly-man and a GURPS player. I employ S.O.P on most combat
>shooting courses, and pull out my pistol and put 6 rounds in you
>before you can even see my eye colour. In a high tech environment,
>he who subscribes to outdated techniques, dies. Oh, well. The designers
>of GURPS cannot be held responsible for this reality. Sorry.

	Yes, they can. Because, as you just pointed out, IN MOST GAME
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE STRENGTH WON'T MATTER in that hi-tech universe. So
why SHOULDN'T a player be able to get his combat machine a high ST
easily -- so that the character can do those little things he's supposed
to be able to do and adheres to the character concept -- when, BY YOUR
OWN EXAMPLE, it won't unbalance the game?

	In other words, if in most game circumstances there's no effective
difference between Ahnold Schwartzenegger's Commando and a commando with
all the same skills, but just an average or slightly higher ST, why
demand such mondo costs? 

	The design fails at that point. There it's no longer enforcing
BALANCE; it's enforcing specific kinds of concepts for set results.

>What is this ST thing you keep raving about?

	It's the easiest example of the problem, that's what.

>its value at high TL. However, if the character does not capitalize
>on his innate advantages, he is a dolt. The game system cannot make
>a character look balanced if it is played stupidly. No system can.
>Don't blame GURPS for that.

	No, I blame GURPS for not allowing the concept to EXIST without
all sorts of extra points. Points which most GURPS players appear to
go into cardiac arrest rather than allow. To be fair, most point based
game players seem to have the same problem -- that is, one or two points
difference start causing them to see spots in front of their eyes, and
anything more than that causes cardiac arrest.

>So fine: get a group of players who will tolerate a 75 to 250 point
>spread in abilities.


	I'd love to. Never saw a group of pointmongers who would even
come CLOSE to that. Hell, convincing them to waver five or ten points
in a 250 point game requires severe and unending torture with hot branding
irons. 

	Better to just play a game where no one pretends that all the
characters will be equal.
	
	(I say that GURPS is only balanced under the right circumstances)
>Bzzzzt. Wrong. I've balanced it in a huge spectrum of settings,

	Read your own line. YOU balanced it. If the GM balanced it, the
credit is the GMs. Not the system. 


					Sea Wasp