From: stealthmode@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 06:46:50 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 14 Message-ID: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.141.241.40 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jun 06 06:46:50 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/778) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x56.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 193.141.241.40 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDstealthmode Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8061 Hi all, Wanting to GM a Star Wars campaign using a skill-based system. What do you think of FUDGE? (Good and bad points?) GURPS? Thanks, Mike Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: "Klaus Æ. Mogensen" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Lines: 31 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:43:23 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.47.129.93 X-Complaints-To: abuse@get2.net X-Trace: news.get2net.dk 960288463 195.47.129.93 (Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:47:43 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:47:43 MET DST Organization: get2net Internet Kunde Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!netnews.globalip.ch!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.get2net.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8077 wrote: > > Wanting to GM a Star Wars campaign using a skill-based system. > > What do you think of FUDGE? (Good and bad points?) Don't know it all that well, but it is more a tool-kit for making games than a game in itself. The simplicity of the mechanics should be fairly well suited for Star Wars, though. > GURPS? Much too complex for Star Wars, IMO. Combat isn't very heroic, crippling wounds are quite common. I quite like WEG's old Star Wars game, which _is_ skill based. Any reason you don't want to use that? Instant Fuzion might be a good choice for a very simple SW game. Or standard Fuzion for something a bit more detailed. You can find both, with lots of plug-in modules, at www.thefuze.com . -- Klaus Æ. Mogensen http://hjem.get2net.dk/Klaudius Exaggeration facilitates comprehension Understatement facilitates credibility ###### From: "Sidhain" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Lines: 25 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:58:10 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.27.216.233 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 960314290 63.27.216.233 (Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:58:10 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:58:10 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!logbridge.uoregon.edu!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8060 Fudge-- Personally it would require too much work to make it useful, having to define everything from the ground up. > > GURPS? > > Much too complex for Star Wars, IMO. Combat isn't very heroic, > crippling wounds are quite common. > Unless of Course you use the Cinematic Rules which is suited to Star Wars and changes the dynamics enough (Cinematic--like movies!) > I quite like WEG's old Star Wars game, which _is_ skill based. > Any reason you don't want to use that? I concur though I liked the West End Games SWRPG for eas of play. ###### From: Richard Persky Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:34:42 -0500 Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-77-2.ots.utexas.edu X-Trace: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu 960316516 4432 128.83.254.130 (6 Jun 2000 18:35:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cc.utexas.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jun 2000 18:35:16 GMT Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-No-Archive: yes X-Face: 6F7#MVzUSs/x51+){yy"2T^4:UF;>18.rUcZ>7BdF/M%JN5~?Ckr4;Rrs0o_IDo'iOCu3\, stealthmode@my-deja.com wrote: > Wanting to GM a Star Wars campaign using a skill-based system. Have you seen the GURPS adaptation of Star Wars at ? It's a bit grittier and deadlier than the movies (Stormtroopers can actually shoot and _hit the thing they were aiming at_!), but it's quite well done. -- ###### Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc From: "David L. Pulver" X-Sender: dlpulver@hermes Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.13.25.100 Lines: 12 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.13.25.103 X-Original-Trace: 6 Jun 2000 14:44:33 -0500, 216.13.25.103 Organization: Kingston Online Services Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:41:30 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.246.3.130 X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 960316668 199.246.3.130 (Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:37:48 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:37:48 CDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.slurp.net!news2.kos.net!news.kos.net!hermes!dlpulver Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8112 On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Klaus =C6. Mogensen wrote: >=20 > Much too complex for Star Wars, IMO. Combat isn't very heroic, > crippling wounds are quite common. Irrevalent. In Star Wars movie, the times that people are wounded they are killed or crippled. Including Luke. The question is: can characters *avoid* being hit better in GURPS or Fudge, not whether they can soak up massive damage. =20 ###### From: Johann Hibschman Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: 06 Jun 2000 12:10:33 -0700 Organization: UC Berkeley Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Reply-To: johann@physics.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: leporello.berkeley.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 960318634 3975 128.32.92.106 (6 Jun 2000 19:10:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jun 2000 19:10:34 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8342 Sidhain writes: > Fudge-- > Personally it would require too much work to make it useful, having > to define everything from the ground up. Again, personally, I can't agree with that. Plain Vanilla Fudge works very well. There is a big Fudge culture of tweaking the rules, but it's really not needed. The basic rules work pretty well, as is. Heck, I could apply it to Star Wars in under 15 minutes. Define weapons (Blasters +2 damage, rifles +3 damage, light sabers +5 damage), make sure that a Dodge attribute is always used to defend in firefights, at least as long as you're moving, for that cinematic feel, define a few Force gifts, and you're set. Fudge is so easy to customize, it's sometimes hard to resist the temptation. I do it all the time. But the rules are solid. And if you let people use subjective character creation, you don't even have to worry about the balance between the Jedi and everyone else. -- Johann Hibschman johann@physics.berkeley.edu ###### From: "Sidhain" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Lines: 39 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:17:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.27.186.20 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 960329845 63.27.186.20 (Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:17:25 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:17:25 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc01.blue.aol.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8193 ... > Sidhain writes: > > > Fudge-- > > > Personally it would require too much work to make it useful, having > > to define everything from the ground up. > > Again, personally, I can't agree with that. Plain Vanilla Fudge works > very well. There is a big Fudge culture of tweaking the rules, but > it's really not needed. The basic rules work pretty well, as is. > > Heck, I could apply it to Star Wars in under 15 minutes. Define > weapons (Blasters +2 damage, rifles +3 damage, light sabers +5 > damage), make sure that a Dodge attribute is always used to defend in > firefights, at least as long as you're moving, for that cinematic > feel, define a few Force gifts, and you're set. > > Fudge is so easy to customize, it's sometimes hard to resist the > temptation. I do it all the time. But the rules are solid. And if > you let people use subjective character creation, you don't even have > to worry about the balance between the Jedi and everyone else. > > And I don't agree--Plain Vanilla FUDGE had no "attributes" they must be set by the GM, in the time it takes me to define what I want for characters as a GM I could have written a whole basic system form the ground up. Now 5 Point Fudge--maybe. I don't dislike Fudge, but for me it takes more work to balance itself before being useful for me. In order to keep this from digressing any further Try Big Eyes Small Mouth, with Hot Rod and Gun Bunnies, and Big Robots, Cool Starships Supplements it makes the ideal system for Star Wars (Psionics=Force) and so on... ###### From: jwalters@toad.net Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Message-ID: <393d7ec6.3486011@news.toad.net> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 36 Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:03:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.114.201 X-Complaints-To: abuse@toad.net X-Trace: news.abs.net 960332298 209.150.114.201 (Tue, 06 Jun 2000 18:58:18 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 18:58:18 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!nntp.abs.net!news.abs.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8199 On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:58:10 GMT, "Sidhain" wrote: >Fudge-- >Personally it would require too much work to make it useful, having to define everything from >the ground up. > Fudge is an extremely flexible system, but you have to do alot more of it by yourself than you do with other systems (e.g., picking how many stats you want, and what they are good for). I love the "FUDGE dice" resolution mechanics, but I am less pleased with the systems given for combat and paranormal powers. >> > GURPS? >> >> Much too complex for Star Wars, IMO. Combat isn't very heroic, >> crippling wounds are quite common. >> > >Unless of Course you use the Cinematic Rules which is suited to Star Wars and changes the >dynamics enough >(Cinematic--like movies!) The "Imperial Stormtroopers School of Marksmanship" rule is a perfect example of such a cinematic rule that would work for Star Wars. Still, GURPS combat can get very complex if you let it, and it is deadly unless you tone it done cinematically. The basic resolution mechanics are straight forward. GURPS isn't as easily customizable as FUDGE, but it is flexible enough, and there are loads of supplements available. Each system has psionics rules available, but I would have to do a lot of tweaking in either system to get rules for the Force that satisfied me. ###### X-Originating-Host: 216.70.79.61 Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Lines: 21 From: Thomas Bagwell Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Message-ID: <03038394.b68026f2@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Bytes: 567 X-Wren-Trace: eGhNZWR9OnA7PHJibC9+ZHZ3WGBsZSQwbmtqKzMtJ2YwPmY+P2YrNw== Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:40:59 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.2.34 X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse@remarq.com X-Trace: WReNphoon3 960346396 10.0.2.34 (Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:53:16 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:53:16 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!WReNclone!WReNphoon3.POSTED!WReN!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8307 In article <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, stealthmode@my- deja.com wrote: >Hi all, > >Wanting to GM a Star Wars campaign using a skill-based system. > >What do you think of FUDGE? (Good and bad points?) > >GURPS? I would try FUDGE before GURPS. Actually, I think Instant Fuzion may work very well for Star Wars. Personally, I would like to see a Star Wars version of Over the Edge... Tom B. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! ###### From: Peter Knutsen Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 05:30:39 +0200 Organization: http://www.knutsen.dk Lines: 145 Message-ID: <393DC1DF.E1E22D19@knutsen.dk> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: msx-esp-39-1.ppp.cybercity.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.cybercity.dk 960348488 82721 212.242.17.130 (7 Jun 2000 03:28:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cybercity.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2000 03:28:08 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.cybercity.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8174 stealthmode@my-deja.com wrote: > > Hi all, Hi > Wanting to GM a Star Wars campaign using a skill-based system. A very good idea! First of all, I find the Fantasy genre immensely suitable for roleplaying games (you get much fewer assumption- clashes, compared to Modern or Science Fiction), secondly, skill-based systems are inherently superior to systems based on restrictive classes. > What do you think of FUDGE? (Good and bad points?) Good points: ------------ The rules document contains a lot of good ideas. It is skill based. Conflict resolution uses a formal mechanic that involves dice. Quite well written (okay grammar and sentence structure) Freeware Bad points: ----------- While the rules document contains many good idea (in fact I'd recommend people to read it just for the ideas) it contains extremely few rules. This is odd since when you download a freeware RPG rules set, you presumably want some rules. Skills are not the least tied to attributes. Attributes have no influence over skills. Character creation is extremely informal and subjective, and GM opinion is *required* (the GM must form an opionon on whether a finished character is appropriate - you can't just say that "if the rules were followed, the character is automatically accepted" because the rules density is appalingly low). While conflict resolution is not fudge-heavy (unless the GM wants it to be), character creation can not avoid fudge- heaviness. (Many people like to speak of rules-light or rules-minimalism. I call it fudge-heaviness instead, because I feel that the word "rules-light" carries positive connonations that I do not agree with) Lack of shopping lists. You have to decide yourself whether Computer Programming is an Easy, Normal or Hard skill. Since each character might have a dozen skills, with six players (not an unrealistic number for a Star Wars campaign, I suppose) that's 72 additional decitions piled on the GMs shoulders. Decisions that you would not be forced to make in a RPG rules system with shopping lists. After skills comes Gifts and Faults (some Gifts and Faults should clearly have *double* value, and it would only be fair to assign half value to others. This puts another decision-making burden on the GMs shoulders - the GM will have to create rules system *during* character creation, which I find absurd) This last item is a guess: While there are many FUDGE supplements available on the net, people who use FUDGE tend to be strongly opposed to the use of rules in roleplaying games (I know this sounds absurd, but a lot of people are), so my qualified guess is that while you will find a lot of FUDGE stuff on the net, little of it will be rules, and only a small fraction of the optional rules found in the WWW will be of good quality (since FUDGE players tend to view rules as a kind of manure that you'd prefer to have as little to do with as possible) Summary: -------- Klaus AE. is correct in referring to FUDGE as a rules-system- construction-set rather than as a rules-system. Also, FUDGE can be described as a severely dilluted and stripped GURPS, the same way the "Star Wars" movies might be described as a severely dilluted and stripped and ghost-like kind of science fiction. So GURPS is to FUDGE what reading a Poul Anderson novel is to watching a Star Wars movie. > GURPS? There are several unofficial "GURPS Star Wars" writeups on the WWW, some days ago I even downloaded a PDF file that was for- matted as a GURPS Star Wars supplement book, i.e. more formal than the typical writeup (table of Contents, maybe even an index) GURPS consists of a simple set of core rules and a host of optional rules, almost all of the optional rules are gathered in only two books, Compendium I and II. You can turn GURPS into a "cinematic" rules system if you apply the correct rules, but again I agree with Klaus that it would be easier to use a system that is inherently cinematic such as WEGs Star Wars/D6. Unlike FUDGE, players of GURPS tends to be keenly aware of the fact that the presence of explicit rules helps and supports the roleplaying experience, as well as ensuring that the GM behaves more like a monarch (noble rule limited by tradition) than a dictator (ignoble rule with no bounds of limits - a dictator can do anything he fancies). This means that most GURPS supplements found on the WWW contains rules, usually rules of high quality. Also, GURPS players and GMs are good and dedicated researchers, so the non-rules material would also tend to be of high quality. Still, FUDGE is free, while you can't really play GURPS without purchasing Basic and Compendium I, and for cinematic play you *need* Compendium II. And the good thing about GURPS supplements (whether those that are commercially published by SJG, or those that are put up on the WWW for free) is that they can be used to support any roleplaying game campaign, because the "G" in GURPS means "generic". (I don't play GURPS, yet I own several GURPS supplements and I plan on purchasing many more. Also, my wishlist of Out-Of-Print GURPS supplements contains nearly a dozen entries) If you're still considering running your Star Wars campaign under the GURPS rules, I wrote a list of "pros and cons" for GURPS in news:uk.games.roleplay some days ago. I can repost it in here (if asked), or you can visit the UK group and search for it. > Thanks, > Mike -- Peter Knutsen ###### From: Peter Knutsen Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 05:42:36 +0200 Organization: http://www.knutsen.dk Lines: 42 Message-ID: <393DC4AC.83DE1D5B@knutsen.dk> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: msx-esp-39-1.ppp.cybercity.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.cybercity.dk 960349202 83590 212.242.17.130 (7 Jun 2000 03:40:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cybercity.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2000 03:40:02 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.cybercity.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8175 "David L. Pulver" wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Klaus Æ. Mogensen wrote: > > > > Much too complex for Star Wars, IMO. Combat isn't very heroic, > > crippling wounds are quite common. > > Irrevalent. In Star Wars movie, the times that people are wounded > they are killed or crippled. Including Luke. > > The question is: can characters *avoid* being hit better in GURPS or > Fudge, not whether they can soak up massive damage. Good point :-) Let's postulate a typical GURPS character, created without any cinematic rules He has DX 15 and HT 13 (not unusual) and one level if Increased Speed. This gives him a Speed of 8. Then he has the following Advantages: Trained by a Master Combat Reflexes Enhanced Dodge Enhanced Parry Luck (30 point version) Danger Sense CR and ED improves Dodge (initially equal to Speed) from 8 to 10, which is damn impressive. The other advantages are helpfull, without directly making the character harder to hit. No weird, optional, cinematic, nonrealistic or non-core rules were used (GURPS Compendium I is of course a core rules book). -- Peter Knutsen ###### From: Peter Knutsen Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 05:42:47 +0200 Organization: http://www.knutsen.dk Lines: 90 Message-ID: <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: msx-esp-39-1.ppp.cybercity.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.cybercity.dk 960349213 83590 212.242.17.130 (7 Jun 2000 03:40:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cybercity.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2000 03:40:13 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.online.be!ams.uu.net!news.cybercity.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8164 Johann Hibschman wrote: > > Sidhain writes: > > > Fudge-- > > > Personally it would require too much work to make it useful, having > > to define everything from the ground up. > > Again, personally, I can't agree with that. Plain Vanilla Fudge works > very well. There is a big Fudge culture of tweaking the rules, but > it's really not needed. The basic rules work pretty well, as is. World-specific definitions is not the problem. The problem is that FUDGE refuses to define anything, requiring the GM to define all the skills and Gifts/Faults used in the game. Worst-case scenario is that the GM has to define stuff during character creation, which delays a process that is already uncomfortable to many roleplayers. Skills needs to be defined as Easy, Normal or Hard to learn. Gifts and Faults needs to be defined in value relative to the typical Gift/Fault (some should clearly have double value, such as Blind, in order to balance things, and it is easy to concieve of Gifts or Faults that deserves only half normal value) > Heck, I could apply it to Star Wars in under 15 minutes. Define > weapons (Blasters +2 damage, rifles +3 damage, light sabers +5 > damage), make sure that a Dodge attribute is always used to defend in > firefights, at least as long as you're moving, for that cinematic > feel, define a few Force gifts, and you're set. What category (E/N/H) are the following skills? And for the purpose of Attribute Limits (a kludgy optional rule, that attempts to at least create a nebolous bond between attributes and skills, says that it costs double to raise a skill above the value of the governing attribute) what attribute are the below skills tied to? Dodge Brawling Wrestling Pilot Fighter Craft Computer Programming Droid Psychology Jedi History Light Saber Fencing Atlethics Running Sprinting Architecture Electronic Lockpicking How would you weight the following Gifts/Faults? (remember also to state which of them are actually Gifts, and which are Faults) Jedi Code of Honour Status: Wanted Criminal Red-Green Colour Blind Colour Blind Blind Poor Low-light Vision Status: Member of New Republic Parliament Status: President of New Republic Status: Imperial Grand Admiral Phobia of Jedis (psiphobia?) Dark Jedi Patron: Luke Skywalker > Fudge is so easy to customize, it's sometimes hard to resist the > temptation. I do it all the time. But the rules are solid. And if > you let people use subjective character creation, you don't even have > to worry about the balance between the Jedi and everyone else. But that's the problem. Mature people who value consistency and in-party balance can not use FUDGE without having to spend hours turning FUDGE into a character creation *system*. > -- > Johann Hibschman -- Peter Knutsen ###### From: Richard Persky Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:53:21 -0500 Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4AC.83DE1D5B@knutsen.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-46-45.ots.utexas.edu X-Trace: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu 960353638 27458 128.83.112.173 (7 Jun 2000 04:53:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cc.utexas.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2000 04:53:58 GMT Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-No-Archive: yes X-Face: 6F7#MVzUSs/x51+){yy"2T^4:UF;>18.rUcZ>7BdF/M%JN5~?Ckr4;Rrs0o_IDo'iOCu3\, Peter Knutsen wrote: > Let's postulate a typical GURPS character, created without any > cinematic rules > Then he has the following Advantages: > Trained by a Master > Combat Reflexes > Enhanced Dodge > Enhanced Parry > Luck (30 point version) > Danger Sense > No weird, optional, cinematic, nonrealistic or non-core rules > were used (GURPS Compendium I is of course a core rules book). Um, according to their descriptions in Compendium I, Trained by a Master, Enhanced Dodge, and Enhanced Parry are all cinematic. (Of course, we're talking about Star Wars here and those advantages are definitely appropriate for Jedi, so it doesn't hurt the case for GURPS any.) -- ###### From: jhkim@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: 7 Jun 2000 04:53:29 GMT Organization: University of California, Irvine Lines: 35 Message-ID: <8hkkg9$gvj$1@news.service.uci.edu> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393d7ec6.3486011@news.toad.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.ps.uci.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!csulb.edu!news.service.uci.edu!cascade.ps.uci.edu!jhkim Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8299 A few comments in general about GURPS for _Star Wars_. wrote: >> [attribution lost] >>> Much too complex for Star Wars, IMO. Combat isn't very heroic, >>> crippling wounds are quite common. [...] >The "Imperial Stormtroopers School of Marksmanship" rule is a perfect >example of such a cinematic rule that would work for Star Wars. >Still, GURPS combat can get very complex if you let it, and it is >deadly unless you tone it done cinematically. Well, the basic GURPS combat system is pretty fast and simple: around the same level of complexity as objective FUDGE or the D6 system. In the original _Star Wars_ trilogy, as I recall, blaster and light-saber hits are almost always serious wounds; and drawn-out fistfights with no lasting harm rarely seem to occur. So I don't see any problem with either of the stated complaints. The problems I see are the the cinematic options in GURPS are pretty silly and over-the-top (i.e. _Star Wars_ doesn't actually have characters bounce back from being crippled to being fine, as in the "flesh wounds" rule, for example). A more balanced "Hero Point" system would be in order, I think. Also, the Psionics system doesn't seem easy to convert to represent the Force. It can reproduce some effects like TK and mind-control, but the general structure doesn't fit well, IMO. -- John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you jhkim@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins" ###### From: Johann Hibschman Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: 06 Jun 2000 22:10:27 -0700 Organization: UC Berkeley Lines: 142 Message-ID: References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> Reply-To: johann@physics.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: leporello.berkeley.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 960354629 7805 128.32.92.106 (7 Jun 2000 05:10:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2000 05:10:29 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!news-hog.berkeley.edu!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8346 Peter Knutsen writes: > Johann Hibschman wrote: >> Again, personally, I can't agree with that. Plain Vanilla Fudge works >> very well. There is a big Fudge culture of tweaking the rules, but >> it's really not needed. The basic rules work pretty well, as is. > World-specific definitions is not the problem. > The problem is that FUDGE refuses to define anything, requiring > the GM to define all the skills and Gifts/Faults used in the > game. Worst-case scenario is that the GM has to define stuff > during character creation, which delays a process that is > already uncomfortable to many roleplayers. I don't think this is a problem, in practice. Most people, when describing a character, are perfectly happy to come up with descriptive gifts and faults such as "tough", "charming voice", "ugly", or "obsessive/compulsive". Well, it hasn't been a problem for me. I gather, from your reaction, that is has for you. What can I say? > Skills needs to be defined as Easy, Normal or Hard to learn. Not really; just say everything is Normal, if you don't want to bother. Nothing depends on there being easy, normal, and hard skills. > Gifts and Faults needs to be defined in value relative to the > typical Gift/Fault (some should clearly have double value, > such as Blind, in order to balance things, and it is easy to > concieve of Gifts or Faults that deserves only half normal > value) Again, not really. First, this only matters if you're using the objective character creation system. It doesn't come up at all if you're doing subjective. And second, if you are going objective, a choice of "granular size" of a gift is just as good as any other. If it seems worth double-normal, then, hey, make it so. >> Heck, I could apply it to Star Wars in under 15 minutes. Define >> weapons (Blasters +2 damage, rifles +3 damage, light sabers +5 >> damage), make sure that a Dodge attribute is always used to defend in >> firefights, at least as long as you're moving, for that cinematic >> feel, define a few Force gifts, and you're set. > What category (E/N/H) are the following skills? First shot. All normal. On second thought, yep, all normal. That was easy. > And for the purpose of Attribute Limits (a kludgy optional rule, > that attempts to at least create a nebolous bond between attributes > and skills, says that it costs double to raise a skill above the > value of the governing attribute) what attribute are the below > skills tied to? Screw it. Tying attributes to skills is a mistake. Don't use that rule. > How would you weight the following Gifts/Faults? > (remember also to state which of them are actually Gifts, > and which are Faults) Again, this only matters if you're using the objective character creation system. You seem to take that as a given. > Jedi Code of Honour Fault > Status: Wanted Criminal Fault > Red-Green Colour Blind Fault > Colour Blind Fault > Blind 2 Faults, except, perhaps, for a Jedi > Poor Low-light Vision Fault > Status: Member of New Republic Parliament Gift > Status: President of New Republic Gift > Status: Imperial Grand Admiral Gift > Phobia of Jedis (psiphobia?) Fault > Dark Jedi neither; just say you're a jedi > Patron: Luke Skywalker Gift Did you really need me to tell you this? Again, is there a problem? I don't think so. Some of these would simply not work in most games, and, there, they should be forbidden. Does it work in the game to have a character be the President of the New Republic? If so, fine. If not, pricing it at 4 gifts isn't going to make it fit any better. If you have a character conception that fits in with the setting, why waste time quibbling over whether a given gift or fault is better or worse than another? I mean, if you can't trust a player not to try to use "Fault: Color-blind to Indigo," "Fault: Fear of flying ninja weasels", and "Gift: omnipotent being from dimension X", do you really want to be gaming with him or her? I don't like the adversarial relationship you seem to imagine between the players and the GM or between the players and the character creation rules. Optimization is not the point of character creation. Making someone who will fit in well with the overall story is. >> Fudge is so easy to customize, it's sometimes hard to resist the >> temptation. I do it all the time. But the rules are solid. And if >> you let people use subjective character creation, you don't even have >> to worry about the balance between the Jedi and everyone else. > But that's the problem. Mature people who value consistency and > in-party balance can not use FUDGE without having to spend hours > turning FUDGE into a character creation *system*. Subjective Fudge is perfectly consistent and balanced. Everyone gets to play exactly the character they want to, so everyone's expectations are equally fulfilled. The GM is there to prevent absurdities, as usual. Game balance is a convenient fiction, even in GURPS. Is ST really worth the same in a fantasy world as in a science fiction world? Is HT worth the same in a combat-intensive world as in a politics-intensive world? No and no. The same thing applies to all skills, advantages, and disadvantages. The points are a convenient fiction. Why are there characters in GURPS which are _better_ than other characters in all regards, but which are _cheaper_? The Fudge objective system, even with its rough-hewn gifts and faults, seems to do at least as good a job in creating balanced characters as GURPS does. It, at least, does not hold up some overly-precise point-value fiction to fool people into thinking they're being objective. -- Johann Hibschman johann@physics.berkeley.edu ###### From: carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: 7 Jun 2000 07:34 CST Organization: Geochemical and Environmental Research Group - TAMU Lines: 46 Distribution: world Message-ID: <7JUN200007343495@gerg.tamu.edu> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gergl1.gerg.tamu.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2000 12:31:04 GMT X-Lunar-Date: 1 day, 19 hrs, 51 mins until the first quarter of the moon (U.T.) News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50AAXP Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!news.tamu.edu!gerg.tamu.edu!carl Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8187 In article , "Sidhain" writes... }.... }> Sidhain writes: }> }> > Fudge-- }> }> > Personally it would require too much work to make it useful, having }> > to define everything from the ground up. }> }> Again, personally, I can't agree with that. Plain Vanilla Fudge works }> very well. There is a big Fudge culture of tweaking the rules, but }> it's really not needed. The basic rules work pretty well, as is. }> }> Heck, I could apply it to Star Wars in under 15 minutes. Define }> weapons (Blasters +2 damage, rifles +3 damage, light sabers +5 }> damage), make sure that a Dodge attribute is always used to defend in }> firefights, at least as long as you're moving, for that cinematic }> feel, define a few Force gifts, and you're set. }> }> Fudge is so easy to customize, it's sometimes hard to resist the }> temptation. I do it all the time. But the rules are solid. And if }> you let people use subjective character creation, you don't even have }> to worry about the balance between the Jedi and everyone else. }> }> } }And I don't agree--Plain Vanilla FUDGE had no "attributes" they must be set }by the GM, in the Actually, they don't have to be. You might want to, but you don't have to. As the above stated, just tell everyone they need to include a Dodge attribute (as well as the one standard attribute - Damage Capacity). Other than that, they are free to do as they will. Or, they are free to do so if it doesn't drive you, the GM, nuts... }Now 5 Point Fudge--maybe. }I don't dislike Fudge, but for me it takes more work to balance itself }before being useful for me. We're talking "Star Wars" here. There is no balance. If you play a C3POesque droid you are not balanced with the person playing a Jedi Knight (sure, you may know more than 3 million forms of communication, or whatever, but that just means people can ignore your suggestions in over 3 million different ways). --- Carl ###### From: "unterhund" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:01:29 -0600 Organization: ArosNet Internet Services Lines: 38 Message-ID: <8hlo69$1l0k$1@news.aros.net> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC1DF.E1E22D19@knutsen.dk> Reply-To: "unterhund" NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.219.23.51 X-Trace: news.aros.net 960390153 54292 208.219.23.51 (7 Jun 2000 15:02:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@aros.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2000 15:02:33 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!xmission!vyzynz!news.aros.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8194 Warning: severe snippage ahead . . . "Peter Knutsen" wrote in message news:393DC1DF.E1E22D19@knutsen.dk... > Unlike FUDGE, players of GURPS tends to be keenly aware of the > fact that the presence of explicit rules helps and supports > the roleplaying experience, . . . Peter, your opinions on FUDGE are well-known and pointless to argue against. Opinions in general are that way. Allow me, then, to restrict my comments to the use of the word "fact" in your statements above. Simply put, it's not a fact. As has been so rightfully pointed out so many times before, there is *NO* system that has *explicit* rules for every possibility, unless you count the "GM has final say" included in most rulesets. (And if you do, what exactly is the problem with FUDGE again?) If you have never seen a situation come up in a roleplaying game that was not explicitly covered by the rules outside of GM fiat, I pity the lack of player and GM imagination in the games you've been party to. Right now I'm GMing a generic sword & sorcery campaign using Risus (http://www.io.com/~sjohn/risus.htm) as the system. If you think FUDGE is short on rules, take a look at this one. Yet it's working great for us. One player has explicitly stated how much better the system is than others she's played, because there's so much less hassle involved. The lack of rules for sailing ships--something that's very important to the campaign right now--has not hindered the "roleplaying experience" in the least. In fact, the lack of rules *helps* the experience, as we all have more time for actually playing the roles we've created for ourselves, instead of spending our time trying to remember rules or looking them up for every situation. -- Patrick Clark, roleplaying system slut (I'll play any game) unterhund@mailcity.com http://unterhund.8m.com ###### From: "A.F. Simpson" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 10:36:34 -0700 Organization: University of Leicester Lines: 20 Message-ID: <393E8822.5CB@le.ac.uk> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393d7ec6.3486011@news.toad.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc42.cmht.le.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: rook.le.ac.uk 960370138 14635 143.210.176.54 (7 Jun 2000 09:28:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@le.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2000 09:28:58 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.germany.net!news.vas-net.net!server2.netnews.ja.net!leicester!usenet Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8371 jwalters@toad.net wrote: > Fudge is an extremely flexible system, but you have to do alot more of > it by yourself than you do with other systems (e.g., picking how many > stats you want, and what they are good for). I love the "FUDGE dice" > resolution mechanics, but I am less pleased with the systems given for > combat and paranormal powers. I have a bolt-on combat system for FUDGE on my web-page at: http://www.moglit.demon.co.uk/rpg/combat.htm I'm still meddling with it and it's designed for quite brutal combat, but you might get some ideas from it. (Hmm...I also noticed there's a table missing - basically, projectile weapons should cause more damage at short range, less at long range.) love Anna ###### From: Richard Persky Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 18:15:38 -0500 Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393d7ec6.3486011@news.toad.net> <8hkkg9$gvj$1@news.service.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-116-21.ots.utexas.edu X-Trace: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu 960419737 5957 128.83.168.165 (7 Jun 2000 23:15:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cc.utexas.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2000 23:15:37 GMT Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-No-Archive: yes X-Face: 6F7#MVzUSs/x51+){yy"2T^4:UF;>18.rUcZ>7BdF/M%JN5~?Ckr4;Rrs0o_IDo'iOCu3\, jhkim@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) wrote: > Also, the Psionics system doesn't seem easy to convert to represent > the Force. It can reproduce some effects like TK and mind-control, > but the general structure doesn't fit well, IMO. IMHO, GURPS magic fits Jedi abilities better than does GURPS psi. -- ###### From: jwalters@toad.net Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Message-ID: <393ee051.5159960@news.toad.net> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4AC.83DE1D5B@knutsen.dk> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 31 Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:02:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.114.5 X-Complaints-To: abuse@toad.net X-Trace: news.abs.net 960422235 209.150.114.5 (Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:57:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:57:15 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!news.abs.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8495 On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:53:21 -0500, Richard Persky wrote: >In article <393DC4AC.83DE1D5B@knutsen.dk>, Peter Knutsen > wrote: > >> Let's postulate a typical GURPS character, created without any >> cinematic rules > >> Then he has the following Advantages: >> Trained by a Master >> Combat Reflexes >> Enhanced Dodge >> Enhanced Parry >> Luck (30 point version) >> Danger Sense > >> No weird, optional, cinematic, nonrealistic or non-core rules >> were used (GURPS Compendium I is of course a core rules book). > > Um, according to their descriptions in Compendium I, Trained by a >Master, Enhanced Dodge, and Enhanced Parry are all cinematic. (Of >course, we're talking about Star Wars here and those advantages are >definitely appropriate for Jedi, so it doesn't hurt the case for GURPS >any.) I'm also suprised that you would call a character with 236 points worth of attributes and advantages "typical". That's enough for a low-level super, and too high for any non-Jedi character in a Star Wars setting. ###### From: Peter Knutsen Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 03:15:51 +0200 Organization: http://www.knutsen.dk Lines: 52 Message-ID: <393EF3C7.BB13AFFF@knutsen.dk> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: msx-esp-39-1.ppp.cybercity.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.cybercity.dk 960426796 48601 212.242.17.130 (8 Jun 2000 01:13:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cybercity.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jun 2000 01:13:16 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!skynet.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!ams.uu.net!news.cybercity.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8471 Johann Hibschman wrote: > > Peter Knutsen writes: > > Gifts and Faults needs to be defined in value relative to the > > typical Gift/Fault (some should clearly have double value, > > such as Blind, in order to balance things, and it is easy to > > concieve of Gifts or Faults that deserves only half normal > > value) > > Again, not really. First, this only matters if you're using the > objective character creation system. It doesn't come up at all if > you're doing subjective. And second, if you are going objective, a > choice of "granular size" of a gift is just as good as any other. If > it seems worth double-normal, then, hey, make it so. There is no subjective character creation *system*- > Again, is there a problem? I don't think so. Some of these would > simply not work in most games, and, there, they should be forbidden. > Does it work in the game to have a character be the President of the > New Republic? If so, fine. If not, pricing it at 4 gifts isn't going > to make it fit any better. If you have a character conception that > fits in with the setting, why waste time quibbling over whether a > given gift or fault is better or worse than another? > > I mean, if you can't trust a player not to try to use "Fault: > Color-blind to Indigo," "Fault: Fear of flying ninja weasels", and > "Gift: omnipotent being from dimension X", do you really want to be > gaming with him or her? I don't like the adversarial relationship you > seem to imagine between the players and the GM or between the players > and the character creation rules. Optimization is not the point of > character creation. Making someone who will fit in well with the > overall story is. It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of the GM not needing to interfere with character creation. A character creation defines a multidimensional trait-space and says to the player "You can pick any point inside the boundaries of this trait-space". The GM will only need to interfere to check if the point chosen lies within or outside of the trait-space. > -- > Johann Hibschman johann@physics.berkeley.edu -- Peter Knutsen ###### From: Peter Knutsen Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 03:18:21 +0200 Organization: http://www.knutsen.dk Lines: 25 Message-ID: <393EF45D.2BB6BC22@knutsen.dk> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4AC.83DE1D5B@knutsen.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: msx-esp-39-1.ppp.cybercity.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.cybercity.dk 960426945 48601 212.242.17.130 (8 Jun 2000 01:15:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cybercity.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jun 2000 01:15:45 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.cybercity.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8457 Richard Persky wrote: > > In article <393DC4AC.83DE1D5B@knutsen.dk>, Peter Knutsen > wrote: > > > Let's postulate a typical GURPS character, created without any > > cinematic rules [postulation] > Um, according to their descriptions in Compendium I, Trained by a > Master, Enhanced Dodge, and Enhanced Parry are all cinematic. (Of > course, we're talking about Star Wars here and those advantages are > definitely appropriate for Jedi, so it doesn't hurt the case for GURPS > any.) No such optional rules as "Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship" or "Bulletproof Nudity" are employed. > -- > -- Peter Knutsen ###### Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> Organization: Society for the Retention of Apostrophes in Names X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: sos@katie.vnet.net (Steffan O'Sullivan) Lines: 29 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 03:08:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.82.1.7 X-Trace: ralph.vnet.net 960433706 166.82.1.7 (Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:08:26 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:08:26 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!skynet.be!newsfeed.online.be!ams.uu.net!zur.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!ralph.vnet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8532 Peter Knutsen wrote: > >Skills needs to be defined as Easy, Normal or Hard to learn. No they don't. >Gifts and Faults needs to be defined in value relative to the >typical Gift/Fault No they don't. >But that's the problem. Mature people who value consistency and >in-party balance can not use FUDGE without having to spend hours >turning FUDGE into a character creation *system*. That's not the problem with Fudge, that's the problem with the interaction between Fudge and that type of player. Your mistake is assuming that all players react as you do to such rules. They don't. Fudge is not a problem in those areas for many people. It *is* a problem thus for some people, true, but those folks are not the target audience for Fudge, so it's not really a problem after all: those people will play a different game, one with more structure, closer to their tastes. Problem solved. -- -Steffan O'Sullivan | Are you a US citizen with an apostrophe in sos@vnet.net | your name? If so, please read: Plymouth, NH, USA | www.io.com/~sos | http://www.io.com/~sos/apostrophe.html ###### Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> From: tkb@tkb.mpl.com (T. Kurt Bond) Date: 07 Jun 2000 23:53:59 -0400 Message-ID: Lines: 43 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.77.4.83 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.77.4.83 X-Trace: 7 Jun 2000 23:57:59 -0400, 198.77.4.83 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.77.1.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!News.Mountain.Net!198.77.4.83 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8523 sos@katie.vnet.net (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes: > Peter Knutsen wrote: > >Skills needs to be defined as Easy, Normal or Hard to learn. > > No they don't. > > >Gifts and Faults needs to be defined in value relative to the > >typical Gift/Fault > > No they don't. > > >But that's the problem. Mature people who value consistency and > >in-party balance can not use FUDGE without having to spend hours > >turning FUDGE into a character creation *system*. > > That's not the problem with Fudge, that's the problem with the > interaction between Fudge and that type of player. Your mistake is > assuming that all players react as you do to such rules. They don't. > Fudge is not a problem in those areas for many people. It *is* a > problem thus for some people, true, but those folks are not the target > audience for Fudge, so it's not really a problem after all: those > people will play a different game, one with more structure, closer to > their tastes. Problem solved. I agree with Steffan O'Sullivan's comments. (Though not having seen Peter Knutsen's original post, I still dare to hope the following makes sense in this conversation.) Mind you, even if one does use FUDGE's objective system; and does bother to categorize skills as Easy, Average, Hard, or Very Hard; and does define Gifts/Faults relative to typical Gift/FAults: it can *still* be simpler and faster than calculating a typical GURPS character. (The GM just looks at a character's list of skills and marks the ones that aren't average, for instance.) And as I'm sure that someone somewhere will say/will have said "but FUDGE isn't a complete system", I'll just comment that I have emperical evidence proving otherwise: I have played enjoyable games using FUDGE as published without any additional rules. -- T. Kurt Bond, tkb@tkb.mpl.com ###### From: Johann Hibschman Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: 08 Jun 2000 00:40:18 -0700 Organization: UC Berkeley Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> <393F26DC.FD12928C@knutsen.dk> Reply-To: johann@physics.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: leporello.berkeley.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 960450019 3382 128.32.92.106 (8 Jun 2000 07:40:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jun 2000 07:40:19 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news-x.support.nl!128.32.206.60.MISMATCH!news-hog.berkeley.edu!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8644 Peter Knutsen writes: Hi, I thought I'd reply to a few things over here, since I think you stated them a bit better in this branch. I won't be long, since there doesn't seem to be much of a point. I prefer a vastly different style of role playing from the one you seem to espouse. You like rules which work with your style, I like rules which work with mine. That pretty much sums it all up. > So it's a fact that the high rules-density in my campaign > liberates the players and allows them to excercise their > creativity much more than what you can do in the typical > FUDGE campaign. The common and most widespread perception > is that rules restrict your creativity but in fact it's > the other way around. Lack of rules restricts your > creativity while the presence of rules liberates you and > allows more freedom: > "Freedom through rule and law, not through lack of it!" It's a fact that every statement which begins with "it's a fact" is really an opinion. :-) I *think* I can see where you're coming from, but it's a stretch. You fear that direct GM intervention will cause characters to be more uniform and that this will somehow stifle player creativity. I find that "anything that makes sense" encourages more creativity than "design a 100pt character". I guess it just depends on who you tend to deal with. What can I say? My experience seems directly contrary to yours. > I'd also like you to comment on my reply to Johann about > my preferred style of character creation, which is that > the GM defines the boundaries and any character that > falls within the boundaries is automatically accepted. This is interesting. When I GM, I do exactly the same. I define boundaries and any character which falls within the boundaries is accepted. It's just that the my boundaries tend to be descriptive, more like "People who live in a village by the river" than "100 point characters, with no stats higher than 15." If they want to play the blacksmith, fine. The fletcher, fine. Forest rangers? Great. The village idiot? More power to them. And so on. The ninja weaponmaster? Probably not. > The anxiety that the GM might not like your free-form created > character, may declare you a Powergame, Min/Max'er or Munchkin, > is also crippling for player-creativity. By having explicit > rules you avoid that problem alltogether, since there is no > need for the GM to approve the mechanical part of the > character (the social part/world-integration must still be > approved, of course). See, in my mind, the mechanical part of a character is mostly unimportant. If you have the rest of the character in mind, the mechanics follow. And if the character makes sense, so will the mechanics. But, as usual, this is a style thing. You like rule-sets that I would never even dream of using. Contact points. I like ones you wouldn't use. It's hard to debate, when you don't agree on the postulates. > Or do *you* have unlimited brain capacity, Steffan? Is that > what you're claiming? For God's sake, has there ever been a more blatant example of putting words into someone else's mouth? Sir, unhand that straw man! Oy. :-) -- Johann Hibschman johann@physics.berkeley.edu ###### From: Peter Knutsen Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:51:02 +0200 Organization: http://www.knutsen.dk Lines: 326 Message-ID: <393F88A6.B09C4877@knutsen.dk> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> <393F26DC.FD12928C@knutsen.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: msx-esp-3a-13.ppp.cybercity.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.cybercity.dk 960464907 17965 212.242.17.206 (8 Jun 2000 11:48:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cybercity.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jun 2000 11:48:27 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!unlisys!news.snafu.de!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.cybercity.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8449 Johann Hibschman wrote: > > Peter Knutsen writes: > > So it's a fact that the high rules-density in my campaign > > liberates the players and allows them to excercise their > > creativity much more than what you can do in the typical > > FUDGE campaign. The common and most widespread perception > > is that rules restrict your creativity but in fact it's > > the other way around. Lack of rules restricts your > > creativity while the presence of rules liberates you and > > allows more freedom: > > > "Freedom through rule and law, not through lack of it!" > > It's a fact that every statement which begins with "it's a fact" is > really an opinion. :-) But my players are liberated. They can do anything they want to do, make any characters they want to. Don't you believe me? > I *think* I can see where you're coming from, but it's a stretch. You > fear that direct GM intervention will cause characters to be more I don't so much fear it (except during character creation. Then I admit that I hate fearing that the GM will reject the character, which is why I want to be told the acceptable space before I create, so I don't have to fear rejection), but I find it awkward, The less the GM intervenes, the better I can suspend disbelief. > uniform and that this will somehow stifle player creativity. I find > that "anything that makes sense" encourages more creativity than Yes, that's true. Lack of rules means that some of the stranger traits (very odd Gifts and Faults) won't be taken. But how do you know that my idea of what "makes sense" is the same as your idea of what "makes sense". This is exactly why I like having written defitions of what is acceptable and what is not. It also helps to have traits defined. Does Ambidextry means that you are equally good with your right and left arm, and can use them interchangeably, or does it mean that you can use both your arms at the same time, without negative skill modifiers? Some roleplayes subscribe to one definition, others to the other. > "design a 100pt character". I guess it just depends on who you tend > to deal with. > > What can I say? My experience seems directly contrary to yours. > > > I'd also like you to comment on my reply to Johann about > > my preferred style of character creation, which is that > > the GM defines the boundaries and any character that > > falls within the boundaries is automatically accepted. > > This is interesting. When I GM, I do exactly the same. I define > boundaries and any character which falls within the boundaries is > accepted. It's just that the my boundaries tend to be descriptive, > more like "People who live in a village by the river" than "100 point > characters, with no stats higher than 15." > > If they want to play the blacksmith, fine. The fletcher, fine. > Forest rangers? Great. The village idiot? More power to them. And > so on. The ninja weaponmaster? Probably not. Your example is not clear, because it fails to explain why the ninja weaponmaster is unacceptable. Also it is not clear to me why the ninja weaponmaser is outside the boundaries. Is it a cultural issue (meaning that there are no ninja at all in that culture)? Even then, he could be a visitor from a different culture, maybe a defector from a ninja cult, living in exile? But what if I wanted to roleplay the ilegitimate son of the Emperor, with the provision that the Emperor is aware of my character and will do much to support him, provided that the character does not try to take the throne and otherwise avoids telling people who his father is? It would be a very powerful Patron, which is why it can only work in a more- or-less pointbased context. In a non-point-based context, the GM can only say "that trait is too powerful, you can't have it" I, however, can say "That trait is very powerful, so it will cost you 40 Character Points. With that high cost (which could by you 3-4 Average Advantages or boost your Attributes quite a bit) do you still want it?" In FUDGE, I'd say "this Gift will cost 4 times that of a normal Gift. So you can either have this Patron: Emperor, or you can have *four* out of these Gifts: Literacy, Danger Sense, Ambi- dextry, Charisma, Iron Will, Tough Skin, Empathy, Steel Glance, Poison-Resistant or Advanced Technology: Steel Weapons & Armour. Still interested?" I maintain that my method is vastly superior to the non-point- based one. Things can be done with my method that can't be done with the other one (which is presumably yours). I like allowing players to create characters that are not off the norm. The RPG rules system I'm using does not share this assumption, so I had to create optional rules for playing character with non-normal Starting Wealth, Social Status, Appearance and so on. It wasn't hard, and it worked well with the players. But I just like a character creation system that allows the creation of as diverse characters as possible. The Gift "Patron: Emperor" would not be outside the boundaries you've defined, because it's quite possible that in his youth, the Emperor did visit a lot of villages and have affairs with multiple women. It's also quite possible that he is somehow aware that he has one or more ilegitimate children (maybe he only had one affair, or maybe he had multiple one-night stands but one prolonged affair with a peasant woman?). Yet a character with Patron: Emperor would have a much higher over-all competence than a character with Gift: Danger Sense, because the character with the Patron would be able to call on favours from his father (even blackmail him, as a last resort although that would encourage assassination), and if imprisoned the Emperor would make sure he was set free quickly. In short the two Gifts are not balanced, one is better than the other, and because of that you need to have defined that some traits (Gifts or Faults) are worth half-value or double- value or triple-value. > > The anxiety that the GM might not like your free-form created > > character, may declare you a Powergame, Min/Max'er or Munchkin, > > is also crippling for player-creativity. By having explicit > > rules you avoid that problem alltogether, since there is no > > need for the GM to approve the mechanical part of the > > character (the social part/world-integration must still be > > approved, of course). > > See, in my mind, the mechanical part of a character is mostly > unimportant. If you have the rest of the character in mind, the > mechanics follow. And if the character makes sense, so will the > mechanics. > > But, as usual, this is a style thing. You like rule-sets that I would > never even dream of using. Contact points. I like ones you Contact Points are just how many Contacts you get to start the game with. Your Leadership attribute (a kind of Charisma) determines how many CPs you have, and you then spend those CPs to purchase Contacts and Friends (a Contact could be a wizard or a weaponsmith or a burglar - a Friend could be the same type of character except he or she values you highly, maybe because you saved his or her life). You can also buy an advantage that works like a multiplier of Contact Points (to get double or triple what you'd normally get). This simulates the fact that charming people tends to have more contacts (know more people), while still making it possible (though inefficient in terms of pointcost) for less charming characters to have many contacts. One of the players in my campaign made use of the CP system by purchasing a Very Unusual Friend, and then leaving me to decide what type of Friend it was. (A normal Contact costs 1 CP, but a Contact that is somehow atypical, such as an Assassin or a Poison Brewer, is Unusual and costs 2 CP. A Very Unusual contact, such as a Demon Knight, Vampire or Faerie Noble, would cost 3 CP. A Friend costs x3 what a Contact would cost). I decided to give him a very experienced Jewish Mage/Cleric, a Rabbi (although he is less in touch with Jahve than he used to be) and a master Kaballist. Solomon ben Melchior currently lives in Cairo, and he is suspected of being the one who caused the Caliph of Bagdhad to go insane and commit suicide in the early 990's. Instead of taking a single Very Unusual Friend, the player could have chosen a total of 9 Normal Contacts, such as Thief, Spy, Elementalist Mage, Christian Healer, Alchemist Mage, Mercenary Officer, Combat Mage, Magewarrior, Burglar, Scholar, Bard... Those nine Contacts would all be favourably inclined towards his PC, and would do him small favours if asked, larger favours if given a little monetary compensation, they might be hirable for work if paid well (with the added bonus that the PC knows they exist. Instead of going to London and asking if anybody knows of a skilled archer, he can go to London and visit an archer he already knows, and ask if he's available for a job). These nine Contacts could also be spread all over Europe and the Middle East, giving greater flexibility (any Contact would provide shelter and food, for instance, and would try to help even in areas outside of the main skills of the Contact). Contacts will also take small efforts to look out for the interests of the PC, so if the PC is suddenly declared an outlaw in an area, any Contacts living there are likely to write him a letter to warn him. So it's a balcaned choice. He could have chosen 9 Normal Contacts 3 Very Unusual Contacts 3 Normal Friends 1 Very Unusual Friend Or he could have chosen to not spend Points on a CP multiplier which would have meant that he'd only have 6 CPs instead of 12 (he purchased a second Normal Friend). But he choose a "Very Unusual Friend", GM's Surprise, and I gave him a Friend that both suited his background (the PC is from a Jewish background although he doesn't have any faith himself) and can provide a lot of help in various conflicts. Currently the Rabbi is helping the PC by trying to locate a deceased Arabic brother-in-arms of the PC who died but was raised as an undead. When (it's not an "if" because he's very persistent, and a wielder of powerful magics) he locates the undead, he'll contact the PC so that he can travel to Arabia and put his sword-brother to rest. A mere Contact would not go to such great lengths to help the PC, without serious monetary compensation. Also, a "Normal"-grade Contact or Friend would lack the ressources to be assured of finding the undead. But with Solomon, it's merely a question of time. In general, the CP system ensures that the PCs are better tied to and integrated into the gameworld, because there will always be someone they know. A system where you have to go out of your way (purchase the Contact advantage in GURPS) to actually know another character from the gameworld, is a bad thing. Using my system, any character (even one with very low Leadership attribute) will have at least one character, a typical number is 3 per PC, but a character created around a Spy concept could have 30 Contacts or more. > wouldn't use. It's hard to debate, when you don't agree on the > postulates. > > > Or do *you* have unlimited brain capacity, Steffan? Is that > > what you're claiming? > > For God's sake, has there ever been a more blatant example of putting > words into someone else's mouth? Sir, unhand that straw man! Oy. > :-) But it seems to me that Steffan would be able to do his players a better service if he delegated part of the decision-making work to rules. For instance, since I handle mechanical character creation with explicit rules, it takes me little mental effort, and 2 minutes of time, to type a character into my customized spreadsheet to see if the numbers are within the "allowable space" or not. Apart from the time, this is routine work, so it's not mentally taxing. Steffan, on the other hand, must spend maybe fifteen minutes perusing each character sheet, to make sure nothing unacceptable is on it. Not only must he spend time, he must also perform hard mental work which means he's more exhausted during play (let's assume he has to peruse five character sheets right before the session starts) than I'd be. I want to be the best GM possible during play, I want to be able to dedicate as much of my mental capacity to simulating the gameworld, especially the social aspects, and I achieve this by delegating the-stuff-that-can-be-handled-by-rules to rules. It's like a computer running a first-person shooter game with 3D graphics. It has a certain amount of data processing power, part of which is spent rendering the 3D graphics, part of which is spent doing AI for the enemies of the player. If you install a 3D graphics acceleration card in the computer, the CPU is seriously relieved. The 3D Graphics card now handles most of the graphics-rendering, which means there is more processing power that can simulate the AI of the enemy, which results in better AI. Not only more challenge, but also more fun (it gets boring real quick if your enemies are as smart as ants) If I had to handle a sword duel without using any rules, just my own judgement and combat experience, it would be extremely taxing, and even though I'd do my best, try as hard as possible to produce outcomes that are realistic and consistent with how the duelists are defined (in terms of skills and attributes), after the duel was over, I'd be mentally exhausted, like after a difficult oral exam where I had had to work hard to give the best performance possible. Due to the exhaustion, I'd be completely burnt out and unable to perform as a GM after the maybe 15 minutes it would take to mentally simulate the sword duel. Instead of doing that, I leave certain activities (such as swordplay) to a rule set, which means that I can "give my best" in other areas such as simulating the details of the social gameworld, NPC personalities and motivations, NPC guilds and organizations, largescale factions such as secret societies and national governments. Or, to use the computer analogy, from me the players will get both better graphics and better enemy AI. > -- > Johann Hibschman johann@physics.berkeley.edu -- Peter Knutsen ###### From: edromia@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:16:32 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 276 Message-ID: <8hokcu$83n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> <393F26DC.FD12928C@knutsen.dk> <393F88A6.B09C4877@knutsen.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.17.12.66 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jun 08 17:16:32 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95; DigExt) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x60.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 12.17.12.66 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDedromia Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!netnews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8500 Okay, let's say I'm about to run a FUDGE campaign. We'll assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that my players and I know each other and are comfortable discussing our expectations and wants with each other. We'll also assume that everyone can communicate reasonably well in English. How would we (my players and I) handle the problems you bring up below? > > > So it's a fact that the high rules-density in my campaign > > > liberates the players and allows them to excercise their > > > creativity much more than what you can do in the typical > > > FUDGE campaign. > > > > It's a fact that every statement which begins with "it's a fact" is > > really an opinion. :-) > > But my players are liberated. They can do anything they want to > do, make any characters they want to. > > Don't you believe me? (But first I'll address this quickly. It may indeed be a fact that your players are liberated -- I can give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you [although I cannot verify it as fact]. What is *not* a fact is that you can liberate your players with your system MORE than I can liberate my characters with my system. That's an opinion, and it relies heavily on what you mean by "liberate", exactly, and what aspects of creativity you consider important and desirable in your campaign.) > I don't so much fear it (except during character creation. Then > I admit that I hate fearing that the GM will reject the character, > which is why I want to be told the acceptable space before I > create, so I don't have to fear rejection). Okay, problem one: fear of rejection. Seeing as how we've already made the assumption that my players and I are comfortable with each other, and can communicate our desires and expectations clearly, this sort of apprehension will be minimized. A random stranger joining the game at a moment's notice would be at a disadvantage, of course, but my campaign is not tailored to work for everyone. Since FUDGE is also not tailored to work for everyone, and has never, ever claimed otherwise, this is not really an issue. Random strangers so rarely drop in on my games at a moment's notice, anyway. > But how do you know that my idea of what "makes sense" is the > same as your idea of what "makes sense". Problem 2: differing perspectives. Communication helps here, too. Player #1 (we'll call him Bob), wants to be a fireman. He tells me his idea, and I say, "No, a fireman wouldn't really make sense." He asks me why. I explain to him my understanding of a fireman and why one wouldn't fit in the world I've created. Bob realizes that he and I have been talking at cross-purposes, and explains what *his* understanding of a fireman entails, and I realize that actually, that does make sense. I suggest that, in my world, such a person would more likely be called a "hose-bearer", and ask if he's okay with that, and Bob says sure, glad we cleared that up. And the creation process proceeds apace. It helps that Bob and I are talking about this over a couple of beers, incidentally. > It also helps to have traits defined. Does Ambidextry means that > you are equally good with your right and left arm, and can use > them interchangeably, or does it mean that you can use both > your arms at the same time, without negative skill modifiers? > Some roleplayes subscribe to one definition, others to the > other. Problem 3: clear-cut definitions. Once again, communication. Player #2 (Joe), asks me, "Is it okay for my character to be ambidextrous?" I ask him back, "Well, do you mean you can use either arm with equal facility, but only one at a time, or do you mean you can use both arms simultaneously without any loss of coordination?" Joe asks, "Does it matter?" I say, "No, you can have either one. I just want to make sure I understand your definition of 'ambidextrous.'" Joe thinks about it. "Okay, I'll take the second one." > > This is interesting. When I GM, I do exactly the same. I define > > boundaries and any character which falls within the boundaries is > > accepted. It's just that the my boundaries tend to be descriptive, > > more like "People who live in a village by the river" than "100 > > point characters, with no stats higher than 15." > > > > If they want to play the blacksmith, fine. The fletcher, fine. > > Forest rangers? Great. The village idiot? More power to them. > > And so on. The ninja weaponmaster? Probably not. > > Your example is not clear, because it fails to explain why the > ninja weaponmaster is unacceptable. Also it is not clear to me > why the ninja weaponmaser is outside the boundaries. Is it > a cultural issue (meaning that there are no ninja at all in > that culture)? Even then, he could be a visitor from a different > culture, maybe a defector from a ninja cult, living in exile? Okay, the problem here is that you're assuming that the players would know next to nothing about the game world and are unable to ask the GM for clarification. In my FUDGE campaign, this would be absurd. So problem 4: misconceptions about game-world boundaries. My players have been well-briefed about the game-world and the culture that their characters will be familiar with -- in this case (for simplicity's sake), Medieval-era western Europe. Everyone design a character along the theme of "people living in a small, rural village next to a river." If anyone has any questions, they come to me. Joe asks, "Is there a smithy, and can I be the guy who runs it?" and I say "Yes there is, and yes you can." Player #3 (Ben) asks, "How about a ninja weaponmaster?" I say, "That wouldn't really work, Ben. There aren't any cultures in this part of the game-world that correspond to ninja." Ben thinks for a bit, then says, "But what if my character was from a different part of the world, living in exile, and just hiding out in this small village? He blends right in; no-one even realizes he's a weaponmaster." At this point I have two choices. I can say, "Actually, Ben, there aren't any cultures ANYWHERE in the game world that correspond to the ninja. I can think of some other rationales for why a highly trained warrior would be hiding out in this village, though; let me run them by you and see how they grab you." Or I can say, "Actually, Ben, that's a keen idea. Run with it, and have another beer." > But what if I wanted to roleplay the ilegitimate son of the > Emperor, with the provision that the Emperor is aware of my > character and will do much to support him, provided that the > character does not try to take the throne and otherwise > avoids telling people who his father is?" JOE: "Can my blacksmith actually be the illegitimate son of the Emperor?" ME, OPTION 1: "It's a neat idea, but like I said earlier, when I gave you all a clear overview of the campaign setting and what you can expect from it, you're all supposed to be peasants in this game. Ties to royalty won't really work." ME, OPTION 2: "That sounds really cool. Let's work it in." > It would be a very powerful Patron, which is why it can only work in > a more-or-less pointbased context. What a bizarre assertion. Watch this: JOE: "Are you sure? That would be a very powerful patron..." ME: "Don't worry about it, Joe. Put it on your sheet." See how easy that was? > In a non-point-based context, the GM can only say > "that trait is too powerful, you can't have it" Well, obviously that's not true. As I just demonstrated, you could also say "Go ahead, take the trait." Or you could say, "You can take it, but you'll have to trim some of your other traits down in the interest of game balance." Or you could say, "The Emperor is well-known for adhering to the strictest Puritanism imaginable; it is inconceivable that he would sire an illegitimate child. Besides, the Emperor is also well-known for being completely impotent." Or you could say "There is no Emperor; you live in an anarchic commune state." > I maintain that my method is vastly superior to the non-point- > based one. Things can be done with my method that can't be > done with the other one (which is presumably yours). See, the reason you keep having this silly argument with everyone is because you keep making statements like this. It runs counter to the most basic common sense to say "You can't have an illegitimate heir to the Emperor in non-point-based system." Of course you can; you just can't assign a point value to it. But if you're playing in a non-point- based system, then it's probably safe to assume that no one wanted to assign a point value to it in the first place, so why is it an issue? You can create as diverse and as non-standard a character as the game setting and the campaign expectations allow -- all without points. And here's liberation for you: you could even create a character that, if translated into a point-based system, would fall outside the acceptable range of points. As long as you communicate with the GM and work out an idea that both the player and GM find acceptable. > Contact Points are just how many Contacts you get to start the > game with. Your Leadership attribute (a kind of Charisma) > determines how many CPs you have, [...and so forth...] This sounds like a great system, but he wasn't asking you to justify it. You don't *need* to justify it. The point is simply: you prefer an objective point-based system for this sort of thing; others prefer a more with a more subjective, descriptive approach. > But it seems to me that Steffan would be able to do his > players a better service if he delegated part of the > decision-making work to rules. No, he would be providing a better service to people who game the way *you* do; not to the people whom FUDGE is designed to cater to. > For instance, since I handle mechanical character creation > with explicit rules, it takes me little mental effort, and > 2 minutes of time, to type a character into my customized > spreadsheet to see if the numbers are within the "allowable > space" or not. Apart from the time, this is routine work, so > it's not mentally taxing. > > Steffan, on the other hand, must spend maybe fifteen minutes > perusing each character sheet, to make sure nothing unacceptable > is on it. Not only must he spend time, he must also perform > hard mental work which means he's more exhausted during play > (let's assume he has to peruse five character sheets right > before the session starts) than I'd be. Now you're assuming that Steffan and those of us who prefer subjective systems are energized/exhausted by the same things you are. This isn't true. How effective a GM I am is largely a function of how much fun I am having. I *enjoy* the character creation process. I *enjoy* coming up with an evocative description and filling in details about background and motivations. I *enjoy* finding creative ways to make unconventional characters within the constraints of a given setting or paradigm. And I *enjoy* helping other players do this as well. So the fifteen minutes per sheet that I spend before the game begins (notice also that you're making certain assumptions about when exactly the game "begins") actually energizes me, gets me psyched up for playing, and helps me "tune" myself into the game world so that I can present a more immersive and convincing environment for my players. Conversely, I dislike rules. I can never remember them or keep them straight in my head. If I had to deal with a ruleset comprehensive enough to accurately simulate (notice also that you're assuming that the goal of any non-point-system advocate is similar to your own: specifically, to "simulate") the physical properties of the game world, it would bog me down and tire me out. I would never be able to keep track of them all and make sure that they are being applied consistently and judiciously, and no matter how many times you tried to explain to me how simple it all is, I still wouldn't like it. All the energy that could be going towards making the game more fun for my players (notice I'm not trying to make it fun for *your* players -- because *your* players clearly enjoy a completely different style of play) is being burned off trying to manage all these rules. The rules aren't doing me any service at all. > If I had to handle a sword duel without using any rules, just > my own judgement and combat experience, it would be extremely > taxing, and even though I'd do my best, try as hard as > possible to produce outcomes that are realistic and consistent > with how the duelists are defined (in terms of skills and > attributes), after the duel was over, I'd be mentally > exhausted, like after a difficult oral exam where I had had > to work hard to give the best performance possible. Due to the > exhaustion, I'd be completely burnt out and unable to perform > as a GM after the maybe 15 minutes it would take to mentally > simulate the sword duel. I handle swordfights with no rules (okay, maybe one or two -- but almost certainly less than you) all the time. It's exciting and energizing for my players *and* me. And I guarantee you that it takes less time than it would if I used rules to "simulate" the fight. I have no doubt that you provide a vastly entertaining game to your players, and that your rulesets make you a more effective GM. But your assumptions about other peoples' styles of play, and your contention that your method is better by some objective standard (as if anyone measures GM effectiveness in terms of "brain-joules expended over time" ?!?) are just silly. For as long as I've been lurking on this board, I've never figured out why you have so much trouble grasping that. -M. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> <393F26DC.FD12928C@knutsen.dk> Organization: Society for the Retention of Apostrophes in Names X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: sos@katie.vnet.net (Steffan O'Sullivan) Lines: 52 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:15:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.82.1.7 X-Trace: ralph.vnet.net 960639333 166.82.1.7 (Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:15:33 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:15:33 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!peerfeed.news.psi.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!ralph.vnet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8879 Peter Knutsen wrote: >Steffan O'Sullivan wrote: >>Peter Knutsen wrote: >> That's not the problem with Fudge, that's the problem with the >> interaction between Fudge and that type of player. Your mistake is >> assuming that all players react as you do to such rules. They don't. > >But if you do not simulate the fact that some Gifts are worth >more than others, then you are limiting the creativity of the >player during character creation, because certain gifts become >not-allowed due to being too powerful. Reread my response above, please. >So it's a fact that the high rules-density in my campaign >liberates the players and allows them to excercise their >creativity much more than what you can do in the typical >FUDGE campaign. It's not a fact. Let me restate it so it *is* a fact: >So it's a fact that the high rules-density in Peter's campaign >liberates his players and allows them to excercise their >creativity much more than what he could do using Fudge. Do you see the difference? Peter, everything you complain about in Fudge is true - *for you*. It is *not* universally true. If you phrased your complaints as I have above, there would be nothing I could say against them, because I would agree that you are writing the truth. >I'd also like you to comment on my reply to Johann about >my preferred style of character creation, which is that >the GM defines the boundaries and any character that >falls within the boundaries is automatically accepted. Sure, I'll happily comment on that: that's a great way to do it - for you. I'd hate it, but obviously it works better for you than what I would use, so stick with it. >Or do *you* have unlimited brain capacity, Steffan? Is that >what you're claiming? No, and never. All I'm claiming is that you consistently project your tastes as universal truths and that you're wrong about that. -- -Steffan O'Sullivan | Are you a US citizen with an apostrophe in sos@vnet.net | your name? If so, please read: Plymouth, NH, USA | www.io.com/~sos | http://www.io.com/~sos/apostrophe.html ###### From: "Uncle Bear" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: 10 Jun 2000 21:02:01 EDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 30 Message-ID: <8huoe9$bgo@journal.concentric.net> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> <393F26DC.FD12928C@knutsen.dk> Reply-To: "Uncle Bear" NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.1.208.39 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.via.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8999 Wow. There are times when I wonder why I don't plug my stuff harder on usenet, then I read the crap the nice people like Steffan go through and remember. -Uncle Bear *** Try Imagination's Toybox A Cinematic Universal Roleplaying System It's Free. It's Easy. Did I Mention It's Free? http://www.unclebear.com/toybox Steffan O'Sullivan wrote in message ... >>Or do *you* have unlimited brain capacity, Steffan? Is that >>what you're claiming? > >No, and never. All I'm claiming is that you consistently project your >tastes as universal truths and that you're wrong about that. > >-- > -Steffan O'Sullivan | Are you a US citizen with an apostrophe in > sos@vnet.net | your name? If so, please read: > Plymouth, NH, USA | > www.io.com/~sos | http://www.io.com/~sos/apostrophe.html ###### From: "S. John Ross" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: 11 Jun 2000 06:04:46 GMT Organization: Diogenes Studios Lines: 12 Message-ID: <01bfd36b$04d9b080$326902d0@john---sandra> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <393DC4B7.1953B601@knutsen.dk> <393F26DC.FD12928C@knutsen.dk> <8huoe9$bgo@journal.concentric.net> X-Trace: hiram.io.com 960703486 19056 208.2.105.50 (11 Jun 2000 06:04:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@io.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!hiram.io.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:8960 | Wow. There are times when I wonder why I don't plug my stuff harder on | usenet, then I read the crap the nice people like Steffan go through and | remember. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. -- || S. John Ross || Husband · Cook · Writer || In That Order || http://www.io.com/~sjohn/fonts.htm - FONTS FOR GAMERS ###### From: joshualevy@geocities.com Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:26:17 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 48 Message-ID: <8i3dg7$id7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 171.71.10.49 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jun 12 19:26:17 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.51C-CISCOENG [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x63.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 171.71.10.49 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjoshualevy Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:9245 In article <8hi6on$dl9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, stealthmode@my-deja.com wrote: > Wanting to GM a Star Wars campaign using a skill-based system. > What do you think of FUDGE? (Good and bad points?) > GURPS? 1. Do you want to create your world from scratch? 2. Do you want to create your world from building blocks? 3. Do you want to have your world created for you? If the answer to #1 is yes: use FUDGE If the answer to #2 is yes: use GURPS (or similar "generic" rules) If the answer to #3 is yes: you must use Star Wars(tm) RPG. The biggest difference between FUDGE and GURPS is not rules, it is support material. GURPS has lots, FUDGE has less. At the same time FUDGE requres more acts of creation on the GM's part. Personally, I prefer creating plots, characters, etc, so I prefer GURPS. If I wanted to spend more time creating rules, basic equipment, and settings, I would prefer FUDGE. However, I would also read Peter Knutsen's postings, which discuss some of the rules differences between FUDGE and GURPS. (Although I consider rules differences between these systems to be pretty uninportant in terms of choosing between the two.) As a GM, I don't want to spend the time recreating Star War's laser guns and magic, so I'd choose GURPS, which already has similar constructs. To me, time spent figuring out the basic attributes I want characters to have, or how Jedi's powers work, is just wasted. I'm not a rules engineer; I'm a software engineer with little time to prep for GMing. In GURPS the worst that can happen, is that I need to design an X-wing. Most likely, I can use something which already exists. In FUDGE, first I need to design the spaceship rules, then design the spaceship. Not for me. I think that FUDGE (and also Storyboard) are great "test bed" rules systems. Also, they are good ways to create and discuss game independant material. Joshua Levy Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: bokman7757@aol.com (Bokman7757) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Lines: 8 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 23 Jun 2000 07:29:14 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000623032914.04990.00000863@ng-ci1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:10542 << I mean, if you can't trust a player not to try to use "Fault: Color-blind to Indigo," "Fault: Fear of flying ninja weasels", and "Gift: omnipotent being from dimension X", do you really want to be gaming with him or her? >> Just throw in situations like "Cut the Indigo wire!", "Attack of the Flying Ninja Weasels from Beyond Time", and "Return of the Even More Omnipotent Being From Dimension Y." ###### From: bokman7757@aol.com (Bokman7757) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: FUDGE or GURPS? Lines: 8 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 23 Jun 2000 07:36:21 GMT References: <8hokcu$83n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000623033621.04990.00000864@ng-ci1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:10538 << Or you could say "There is no Emperor; you live in an anarchic commune state." >> "We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. All decisions through that officer..." "Be quiet!" "Have to be ratified at a weekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, or by a two-thirds majority..." "I order you to be quiet!"