Re: Coming back to DnD

I will not spare the time to reply to every single thing in your post seeing as
it is long and I am growing bored with the topic.

You like games where characters are always assumed to be able to train for any
skill imaginable in the background of any adventure. This leads to many
complications such as lack of material to study and in some cases lack of time
in which to study. This is completely unrealistic and has no base in the real
world at all. If you have fun with this silliness then please continue.

I however enjoy a system that will only let characters learn things that they
have actually taken the time to study and made sure they had the proper
resorces with which to do so. Yes, it takes more time. Yes, it takes a little
more effort. Yes, one must take a few moments to think about your characters
before you put the final touches on an adventure. Yes, it requires you to let
characters themselves help lead the events of the game.

I have played D&D for about 6 years in various editions. I have played GURPS
for about 1 year and I have had about as much fun with it as I have with the 6
years of D&D put together. It takes a little bit more work but, the world makes
alot more sense.

If you don't like the system thats fine. I am done with this topic because
everyone is saying the same things to each other over and over again. Plus...
the insults are becoming dry, nothing like the standard that was maintained for
the first 700 or so articles...

Don't bother to address me in any further messages in this thread seeing as I
probably won't read them. 

Now, if you will excuse me. I have a game to play.

>Subject: Re: Coming back to DnD
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  (Courtney Love)
>Date: 12/2/2003 10:56 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>[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
>
>
>
>
>
>