Re: Coming back to DnD

[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (Wolfie) wrote:

>Notice I said he had to have access to the new spells he wants to learn? He
>needs the ability to study what he wants to learn before he spends points in
>them.

In other words, he can spend points on a spell he didn't use in the adventures,
which violates the rule that you can only spend points on what you used in an
adventure.  Gee, D&D let you spend points on something you didn't use in an
adventure, either, but according to you that's silly.  How in the freaking name
of Odin do you survive in this world?

>If you have an air-headed GM.

I hope I never do have you or Cope as one.

>Far more likely he would practice and study to
>earn the points on his character's time. 

His character's time?  Oh, I see.  When the character is actually taking part
in an adventure, it's not the character's time.  It's the GM's time.  The
character has no say in what happens.  Sort of like being on the job, huh? 
Your boss (the GM) tells you what you can and can't do, but when you go home
you do what you want?  Is that what you're asserting?

>If a commando has an interest from
breaking safes wouldn't it make sense that he tries to get >in situations or
take missions where he would get to use his skills? It >does to me.

"Screw you, captain.  I'm not going to suit up and go plant mines on ship
hulls.  I'm  going to sit right here and wait until there's a safe to crack.  I
don't want to waste my valuble points on Demolitions skill!  Now buzz off until
you've got a *real* mission for me, sir!"

>A fighter
>goes into situations where he fights, same idea.

Fighters aren't just sword-swingers (well, they don't have to be).  While
fighting regularly will usually make a fighter more proficient, it doesn't mean
that has to be his primary interest.   Let the character spend the points as
they choose, otherwise it's just an excercise in GM manipulation.

>Read the above. If the player goes looking for a safe to crack or looks for
>someone to teach him he can put points in the skill. >You are assuming that
the
>only safes encountered in the game will have been writen out in advance by the
>GM.

As stated in the rules, a character can only put points into skills and/or
attributes that were signficantly used in the adventure.  If a DM doesn't write
safes into the adventures the PC can't put points into safecracking.

>What is wrong with the player saying "Hey, I heard there is a mission that
>involves getting passed security systems and covertly breaking in and stealing
>some important items. We should tell the commander he can count on us for this
>one."

You write crap like this and then try to assert that GURPS is more realistic? 
Let's simplify this:  what's wrong with the player saying "Hey, I heard we got
called in for duty?  I hope our characters get enough XPs to go up a level--I'm
about to get my 5th rank in Open Lock."  Because then the players don't
know--or care--whether there's a safe involved.  That one will still get to put
the points where they like.

>Your views hear lead me to believe you don't give your characters much choice
>in what they do in the game.

They lead you to believe that because you're either abysmally stupid or
intentionally deceptive.  I've said over and over I'm on the side of character
choice (which is why I like D&D) while GURPS (and you) are on the side of this
alleged realism, which handicaps player choice.

>Just because GURPS limits what skill points can be
>put into doesn't mean that it limits the PCs as far as what they are allowed
to
>do to earn those points.

I see, I see.  So your GURPS games go something like this:

GM:  The old man sits in the chair in your office, pulls out a cigarette--

Player:  Hold on.  Is there a safe involved?

GM:  Well, he hasn't said anything yet.

Player:  OK, just so long as there's a safe.  I want to add some points to my
Safecracking skill.

GM:  Well, it seems he wants you to find his missing daughter, heir to his
fortune, and--

Player:  Screw that, I'm leaving.  I go around town looking for someone who
needs a safe to crack.  I'm not doing anything else until I do.

>I hope that you learn that GURPS isn't what you >currently think it is.

I've both played and GMed GURPS, so I know what it is.

>PCs use their skills regularly in GURPS too. What on >earth is your point?

You ARE stupid if you don't realize it by now.  If a player in GURPS wants to
spend points on a skill they have to use it (except spells, of course, for some
odd reason) in the game.  The DM thus has to make sure that skill gets called
for in a game if he wants to allow the player to spend points on it.

>The
>GM doesn't have to jerry-rig anything any more than he would have to do in a
>D&D game.

Yes he does.  We're talking about advancement here.  Do you have ADD or
something?  The GM in GURPS has to put in various skill-use situations if the
player is to be allowed to spend points on them.  The GM in D&D does not, so
the adventures can be as varied as imagination allows without penalizing the
players.

>Even a good D&D DM will set up situations designed for a certain
>character to play his part over the others for a little while. 

Which has NOTHING to do with advancement.  That's the beauty of D&D--you can
advance regardless of whether a certain skill was used or not.

>It is also your job to create a believable world.

As believable as one gets in a fantasy setting, that is.  And I've done many,
many of those.

>That part of your job is made
difficult if the plays can go on a dungeon crawl and come >out as the worlds
>best lumber jacks. I hope there were alot of trees in the >dungeon to explain
>that one.

You are either trolling or else you're one of the most butter-brained people
I've ever interacted with.  You've been told over and over that D&D characters
train in the background, that adventures just provide them with XPs to advance
in level, and that they can spend the points how they like.  You then, despite
all this, spout inanities like those above.  They train IN the background and
don't gain XPs for chopping down trees in the dungeon.  They take the
experience they have and, when they go up a level, put the points in whatever
skill they have been studying ALL THROUGH THE LEVEL, like, say, Profession
(lumberjack)!

>I mean there is a problem if this has to happen.

If you and Cope are to be believed, this is pretty common in GURPS that the
player is told how to play their character.  I find that weird and unsettling.

>No. If he wants to learn how to crack safes then he better >find ways to put
>himself into situations where he can do so.

And as a commando, of course he has all this freedom to choose his missions. 
How lucky for him.  Or, to put it  in metagaming terms, it's the player's fault
if he didn't find the right GM to put the right elements (safecracking) into
every adventure so the player can develop what they want without being
penalized.

>Your sarcasm doesn't work because that isn't true in >GURPS

That's how the reward system is structured in GURPS.

>and if as you have
>claimed you have been playing 25 years you should >know that.

I didn't say I'd played GURPS for 25 years, if that's what you're insinuating. 
I said I'd played and DMed RPGs for more than 25 years now.  One of the games
I've played and DMed is GURPS.  I've told you some of my reasons for deciding
not to continue with it; there are others.

>If the soldier
>recieved training in communications then he can put points in it, if he
>recieved training or the player told the GM his character was practicing his
>Urinary Marksmanship skill he could put points into it as long as his
character
>was actually in a situation where he could practice or recieve training.

I'm talking about award points from an adventure.  You keep going off on this
"training" tangent, possibly because you don't understand me (possibly? 
likely!) or possibly because you can't think of a way to face the actual
subject.  Understand:  a GURPS player can only put award points in a skill the
GM felt was used significantly.  If you didn't use Safecracking, you can't put
points in it.  So EITHER the GM has to put safes to crack in most adventures or
you have to spend off-time training in it, while the players whose skills are
being met in the game get to spend points on what they want PLUS study more
stuff in the off-hours if they choose, thus penalizing the safe-cracking
commando.

Or, of course, the player could just give up GURPS and play D&D so they never
have either problem again.

>Only if he put many points into it or had alot of hours >on the shooting
range.

"If he put many points into it"?  Dodo, what do you think I'm talking about? 
Those freaking points get put into what gets used on an adventure!  If your
adventure involves shooting stuff, you can only put the points into that. 
That's the problem with GURPS.

See, for a fighter type, killing stuff is his JOB.  Casting spells is a
wizard's JOB.  D&D's class/level system makes sure classes automatically get
better at their JOB as they go up by tying the most fundamental abilities of
each class to the level (BAB for fighters, spells for wizards, etc.)  The skill
selection allows the player to customize their character freely while not being
penalized in normal game play.

With GURPS, if your JOB doesn't coincide with your interests, too bad for you. 
You better burn the midnight candle.  And while in certain respects that can be
called realistic, it's tedious and not as much fun.  This IS a game after all;
why take unnecessary crap from a DM over how you are allowed to mold your
character?  You've got a boss at your job that does that!  Note, too, that this
is a DM talking.

>If he did both of those and is still a bad shot then he has a now DX score
>representing his poor ablity to shoot. 

In other words, the GM penalizes the character for not conforming to the GM's
idea of what the character should be.  Why does ANYONE play in such a game?

>Most people have a 9-10 DX score in
>GURPS in wich case alot of training would be required >to get a good shot.

You're still on this "training" kick when we're discussing advancement, I see.

>Strange how myself and my players enjoy it so much since I am this manical
>control freak that lets my players do ablsoutly nothing unless I say so.

I'll take your word for it.

>You have major issues with the GURPS system and I >dare say you don't
understand
>how best to apply the rules.

Do you know what irony is?  Because you just took the trophy for that one.

>Like any system one must know when to stick to the
>rules and when to be relaxed on them.

Oh, so now you're saying you don't FOLLOW the GURPS rules on advancement, but
you're supporting them anyway?  What load of filth!

>I have a repuation of being a lenient GM even among >people that play D&D.

Do tell.

>This is simply false.

No, it's true.

>If you set up a game where gladitorial melee combat was
>important and your players all decided to make 60 year old historians and
>wizards you would have to make big changes to your game plan for them to be
>able to have their characters make sense or have fun.

That's not true, but even if it were, what does that have to do with
advancement?  Like I have said over and over, training in what the player WANTS
to develop happens in the background.  ALL characters get better at combat &
saves by virtue of being in dangerous situations, some faster than others based
on class.  In your bad example, the historian who survives goes and uses his
experiences to write better history.  Maybe it sharpens his prose, shortens his
writing style.  The wizard says "I guess I better pick some more touch spells
for situations like this" and goes to research them.  Who cares?  It's up to
the player to decide what they get out of a given experience.

>In D&D if the historian
>got enough "story awards" from doing his job and recovering some old tomes by
>using social skills he could us that XP to by a level of barbarian as long as
>he met the prerequisites.

It would certainly be a different sort of game where nothing but story awards
got handed out.  However, yes he could do that.  Why not?  Maybe one of the old
tomes was "Iron John" by Robert Bly and he decided he wanted to uncover the
primitive man within.  Who cares why?  It's up to the player.

>GURPS rules minor limitations on this matter simply
>keep stupid players from doing such things while D&D >lets this happen.

See, you give away a lot about yourself with statements like this.  You think
it's stupid for a player to develop their character the way they want.  That's
ridiculous.  The player's playing to have fun.  It's fun to control your
player's development, not have some GM say "Well, you can't develop
safe-cracking because you didn't crack any safes this time.  Go to your room
and study if you want to do that, fool!"

>So having to train and study to learn something is a >penalty?

In THAT situation, yes.  Are you really as thick-headed as you appear?

>It is simply how
>things are done unless you want the characters to learn in some supernatural
>way.

Training in the background isn't supernatural.  However,  your ability to cross
the street without getting mowed down by a truck probably is.

>Ask the same question of yourself.

That's stupidly irrelevant.  Why should a CHARACTER go on adventures when he
wants to crack safes if no safes will be part of the adventure?  He's wasting
his time.  He's better off sitting around filling out Time Use sheets to get
what he wants.

>If the character concept is so poor that he
>has no reason to be doing what he is doing then it >wouldn't be allowed in my
>game anyway and I hope not yours either.

I see.  The player is punished because the GM doesn't like what the player
wants for his charcter.  You're just making GURPS sound even suckier than it
already does.

>It is unless you believe studying to learn something is >unrealistic.

That isn't what I've said, but then again you're demonstrated the comprehension
of a rock, so that's not surprising.

>Then you have a new or bad GM. Training can't be >forgotten so easily to make
>your point. It is a major part of most GURPS games. It is >part of the system.

Get off this training tangent!  Stick to the topic of advancement.  That's what
my beef with the system is (in this thread, anyway).  Do you really have no
coherent defence of the award point system?

>Your example is humorus.

I'm sure some found it humorous, as well.  Nice way for you to skip over
answering the question, though.

>If the player wanted rock em' sock em' action then a >politician is probably a
>bad character choice.

Once again you're using the "players must be punished for making their own
character choices" defence.  This, as I say, is stupid and demeaning to the
player.  However, your own example is negated by Governor Schwartzengroper in
my home state.

>Although if the character had an interest in boxing he
>could go to a studio and take lessons or work out to >learn how to box.

Which has nothing to do with ADVANCEMENT.

>You see
>in GURPS people don't learn things without actually studying or practicing, it
>tries to make sense.

Stop talking about between-games training.  Or have you given up trying to
defend the award point system we're talking about?

>Haven't gotten the point yet I see.

Oh, the irony!  Unless it's just the sort of flailing-about parroting that
people sometimes employ when they can't be bothered to think on their own.

>This is exactly what happens in GURPS. 

No, it's NOT.  GURPS says you can ONLY spend points on what you did.  D&D says
you can spend points on whatever you want UNLESS there's a good reason why you
can't.  That's not the same thing.

>Its simply written down in the book as
>rule and guidline.

Is it a rule or a guideline?  Pay attention to your answer:  you probably can't
discern this, but it is actually important to your argument.

>While D&D's system ignores the issue all together unless the
>GM decides to start ruling against stupid things.

You're just showing you know nothing about D&D when you say that.  The system
assumes training in the background.  That's not the same as ignoring it.

>I understand this just fine.

And yet, you continue to post crap that makes it look like you don't.  Your
motives are enigmatic.

>I also undersand how it can create many humorusly
>unbelievable situations.

You clearly don't, if you believe that.

>If the character did this then he would be allowed to >spend a few points in
the
>skill. He studied. 

Dude, you're hopeless.

>This doesn't have to happen in D&D. If he made no mention ever that his
>character was even at all interested in becoming a salior and he made no
metion
>of ever buy or bringing said books along or ever reading them or talking to
>anyone that understands the topic he could still become a good sailor by
>fighting enemy soldiers unless the DM makes up rules that prevent him from
>doing so.

What part of "studying in the background" are you having trouble understanding?
 The very fact that this character chooses Profession (sailor) when he goes up
a level shows he interested in it and wants to develop it.  I was just showing
you how it could be rationalized.

>This would be an acceptable way to learn the skill in >GURPS.

Which has nothing to do with my point.

>Right, but almost every one of those situations were >potential combat that
was
>avoided.

That's ONE example, certainly not the only one.

>It all involves combat or damage in some manner.

So?

>Farmers in D&D would
>only get better at farming by putting themselves in >dangerous situations.

No, farmers in D&D get better at fighting by putting themselves in dangerous
situations.  They get better at farming by spending skill points on it.  If one
wanted to track NPC XPs I suppose a rules set could be developed, but the game
doesn't need it.  NPCs are whatever level the GM decides they are. 

>In GURPS farmers can study and earn points just like >anyone else.

Are you such a control freak that you play out the lives of your NPCs as well?


"Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor
citizens.  A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang, as when
single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."

--Benjamin Franklin