Re: Coming back to DnD

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Courtney Love) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  (Brandon Cope) wrote:
> 
> >With the prerequisite system, spells do. Psionics are probably an
> >exception because a "Powers of the mind"/experimentation angle.
> 
> You don't get it, do you?  Or are you being deliberately obtuse?  You think the
> GURPS system of experience is better because the points gained from adventuring
> can only be spent on skills, etc. the charcter used in the adventure.

No, I don't. It's a rule I and many (perhaps most) GURPS GMs ignore.

> >It doesn't. Your "example" doesn't show it does, either.
> 
> My emphasis was on the "limiting" part, not the "classes" part, which is a
> different topic.  Pay attention.  Your beef with D&D is that it puts LIMITS on
> the player's attempt to build a character.  However, GURPS puts LIMITS on the
> player's ability to advance the character.

A limit which GURPS GMs tend to ignore.
 
> >This is not nearly the factor you think.
> 
> Sure it is.  If you want to be a commando that can crack safes and you don't
> get to repeatedly break into safes during the game, you don't get to spend
> points on that skill.

OTOH, spend 100 hours training how to break into safes and you get a
free 0.5 points in the skill.
 
> In D&D, you as GM can rule that a desert nomad can't learn swimming, but you
> can't say "Well, I don't want you to spend skill points on Speak Language
> because you never spoke that language during the last level."

A GM can forbid anything he wants in his campaign. He should have a
good reason for it, but he doesn't have to tell the player why at the
time.
 
> In GURPS, the GM says "You can spend points on these skills and/or these
> abilities, but not on this new stuff unless you want to study between
> adventures."  You're limiting the PCs when you do that.

Like I said, most GURPS GMs ignore the rule, so this doesn't apply.
 
> >And yet my players over the years have not complained about my
> >"autocratic theories" but rather have kept playing.
> 
> This statement of yours doesn't prove that you WOULD notice whether or not your
> players are happy.  Sometimes players will play in a bad game if it's the only
> one available, for instance.
 
Which doesn't apply in my case.
 
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope