From John's review of EDIT: THREE EEE THIRD EDITION FOLKS NOT FOURTH I GOT IT WRONG WHATS IT TO YOU CRACKERJACK

QuoteSince so much rests in the 4* attributes, it can be hard to maintain skill niches in a group of PC's, beyond mental types vs physical types. For example, suppose a PC group has a sage has a 16 IQ but no outdoor skills of any type, and ranger who has 10 IQ and 8 points in tracking and lots of other outdoor skills. For just 1/2 point, the sage can get "Tracking" skill better than the ranger.

*In fact, just 2, as far as skill selection is concerned. Right?  If all skills are derived either from DX or IQ, you're going to end up with bunches of magic-users who are potentially great at shadowing, tracking, survival, observation, scrounging...

Q1: Is the above correct?

Q2: Why just DX/IQ? Irrational holdover from Fantasy Trip or sound design decision?

Q3: In GURPS, are fighters who are a) superstrong, b) clumsy, c) kinda dumb a dysfunctional concept?

Q4: Did 1 through 3 get fixed in 4E? (GM Fiat is not a fix.)

I want to like this game, but the above sounds like a major turn-off.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityFrom John's review of 4E:



*In fact, just 2, as far as skill selection is concerned. Right?  If all skills are derived either from DX or IQ, you're going to end up with bunches of magic-users who are potentially great at shadowing, tracking, survival, observation, scrounging...

Q1: Is the above correct?

Q2: Why just DX/IQ? Irrational holdover from Fantasy Trip or sound design decision?

Q3: In GURPS, are fighters who are a) superstrong, b) clumsy, c) kinda dumb a dysfunctional concept?

Q4: Did 1 through 3 get fixed in 4E? (GM Fiat is not a fix.)

I want to like this game, but the above sounds like a major turn-off.

There are a few skills based on HT or ST, but the vast majority (99%) are based on those two, yeah.

Superstrong fighters are suboptimal uses of points mostly, but that can be chalked up to the basic lethality of any given hit, and the vast amount of points it takes ot be 'strong enough' for it to really matter.  On the other hand, a fighter is best served by being very healthy!

I don't know if it has changed since 3e, but is used to be that in GURPS a wizard needed a decent amount of strength as spells exhausted Strength (fatigue really, based on ST).

An average DX fighter, in a low level game (100 pts or less...) is not that bad off, particularly if he is, yes, strong, and decently armored and healthy.  He can make up the deficiency in DX in his chosen weapon skill cheaper than just upping DX, he just won't have the broader expertise of the High DX character.  On the other hand, he can use heavier armor and weapons... Also, as I recall, in 4E, strength is half the cost of DX to raise...

EDIT:: To add, this also discounts the role of advantages and 'sub attributes'. your low IQ ranger might have acute senses which would add to all perception based rolls (tracking, fer ex), which your sage is unlikely to have. Or you could just let the Sage track and have the ranger do all the physically demanding forest tasks and not worry that in D*D tracking is the ranger's job. The Sage becomes Sherlockian with the ranger doing the ninja work...

A1. Except they wouldn't be as good a magic user as the guy who DIDN'T take all those other skills and instead invested in magic. If they want to be a good magic user instead of just having some spells and other skills, they gotta spend the points on the magic spells.

Also there are times where 8 points in a skill means something vs just 2, especially if there is reason to make a skill check based on another stat than IQ. If the tracking is long and arduous and must be done in a hurry over days and days, the guy with the higher skill will be better able to pace himself knowing better what is involved and therefore when it comes time to use HT with the skill, be better off, assuming that there isn't an equal disparity in HT.

A2. I wouldn't know, you'll have to ask the game developers. I will say it works for me. It makes sense to me logically and in game.

A3. No. Except maybe against that lightly armored weak really skilled guy who can dodge like the dickens. That weak guy just better hope he hits a lot more in a lot more critical areas. Cause one good strike from the strong/clumsy/stupid guy might just take him out. WHAM!

A4. The cost for DX and IQ have gone up in 4e. Up enough to ameliorate the above? I think so.

Speaking of GURPS 4e - in the first place, the review is incorrect in that in 4e, you can't get 1/2 point in skills; the minimum is 1 character point. Secondly, a sage with IQ 16 will have spent 120CP on that high intelligence. 150CP total is "hero material", 200+CP is essentially superhuman. So with 120CP in one stat, either

• they have IQ 16 and a lot of Disadvantages, severely limiting their usefulness), or
  
• their IQ is almost all they have, meaning they're masters of a few things and useless at everything else
• you have a high CP campaign, in which case the GM and players have decided they want to have ridiculous things like, "spend 1CP and you're an expert."

In the last case, if you've a high CP campaign you'll have high challenges, too - so that a skill level of 14 or so isn't very good, since the GM will often be saying, "roll that skill -10".

GURPS 4e has effectively six attributes, not four - Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Health, Will and Perception. Will and Per are based on IQ, however there's good reason to specialise in one or two of the three, and a fairly common house rule has Will and Per based on 10, not on IQ.

Most but not all skills are based on DX or IQ. None are based on ST. A few are based on HT, and quite a few on Will and Perception. Those based on Perception (Tracking, etc) are quite significant as "adventurer" sorts of skills. A ranger or thief sort of character will definitely have to have high Perception to be successful. So the "review" of 4e talking about Tracking being based on IQ is entirely wrong.

Also, there's a thing called "relative skill level." If for example your Broadsword skill is 3 above DX, you'd write it as DX+3. Now, there may come times when you'll use your Broadsword skill with another attribute. For example, to watch someone else fight and guess their fighting skill would be Broadsword using IQ. To look at a broadsword for sale and try to figure out its quality would use Per. And so on. This requires imagination from the GM. In this way, no one attribute comes to dominate in importance.

Taking the sage and ranger as an example again, IQ costs 20/level, and Per costs 5/level, beginning at whatever the IQ level is.

So the ranger could have IQ 10

• and Per 16 [30], while the sage has IQ 16 [120] and Per 16
• . Thus, the ranger has 90CP spare to spend on skills. If they took the 8CP in Tracking as described, they'd have Tracking (A) Per+2 [8] - 18. The sage with Per 16
• and Tracking (A) Per-1 [1] - 15 will be definitely inferior at Tracking, and the ranger will have 82CP still to spend.

An effective character in most campaigns won't be maxed out in one skill, but have a range of skill relevant to their profession. A good ranger isn't just a good at Tracking, but good at Survival, some weapon skill for hunting, Traps, Stealth, Area Knowledge, Naturalist, and so on. So while someone who's a specialist in one area may have a particular skill better than a specialist in another area, they won't have the range of skills required to do the job. The sage can't be a replacement ranger. They can replace them in one or two skills, but not in the job as a whole.

There are no "dysfuctional concepts" for characters except in relation to the particular game world. In one GM's game world a stupid strong fighter may do wonderfully, in mine they may do badly. It just depends on the GMing and game world. Given that GURS has a heap of skills, to make the most of that a sensible GM will ensure that a broad range of skills is needed in the adventuring party. If you only ever ask them to roll for two or three skills, then a system with two or three hundred skills is the wrong choice for you. Choose soemthing simpler.

Skills  and Advantages are weighted more heavily in terms of niche protection in 4e than in 3rd edition.  This is further emphasised with the Powers rules, where it becomes all about crafting specific advantages.  In my experience, niches are very narrow in GURPS.  It is preferable to really sink your points into one or two things and become masters at that, then to try and be a generalist.  

so Q1:  No, not in my experience.  Though there can be some overlaps here and there.  There are so many skills and the difference between 13 and 14 is both significant and expensive, so generally players will spend points on the things they want to be good at.

Q2:  Sound design decision.  If you want to have high DX or IQ, it's going to cost, which cuts down on the wide range of skills you can take, thus encouraging specialization.  Worked very effectively in my experience.  Especially when you throw powers into the mix (another place to spend points).

Q3: Absolutely not.  I've played a really strong, dumb and charismatic fighter (wannabe social climber) who did some serious damage.  He was very dominant in a fight and fun to roleplay.  It was basically an ST-based build.  I've also played an HT-based build, a super tough guy in the sense that he was almost impossible to take down.  He couldn't dish out that much damage, but he could soak it all day (he was sort of modeled on the idea of Concrete, the comic book character, but he was a drunken old man whose powers were all about withstanding pain, deadly atmospheres, poisons, etc.).  This also proved very effective in that he kept alive and was a distracting target for the baddies to waste their time and ammo on.

Q4:  Absolutely.  It was a fundamental shift and has been very succesful.  I am not alone in this opinion.  I have moved to lighter, quicker systems, but in terms of emulation and mechanics, GURPS is an impressive piece of engineering.  

That review actually sounds like a review of 3rd edition.  Who is John?  Is there a link?

John Kim. It's a review of 3e, here.

And this is very much a problem that I had with 3e, or should I say whenever I contemplated playing it, since I didn't get in more than a handful of test sessions. It seemed that whenever I designed a character, he'd end up with high attributes and then 1/2 point skills over a wide range.

Walker, exactly, it's a 3E review, I should have made that clear. By John Kim:

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/reviews/gurps.html

KA: I'm looking at GurpsLite 4E, and it says that Perception and Will are derived attributes equal to IQ. It doesn't mention they're raiseable/lowerable independently from it. It also seems as though they are little more than the bases for "Notice X" or "Resist X" rolls?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWalker, exactly, it's a 3E review, I should have made that clear. By John Kim:

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/reviews/gurps.html

KA: I'm looking at GurpsLite 4E, and it says that Perception and Will are derived attributes equal to IQ. It doesn't mention they're raiseable/lowerable independently from it. It also seems as though they are little more than the bases for "Notice X" or "Resist X" rolls?

In the complete version they can be bought up as attributes from a base of the primary attribute, along with similar, but less useful ones for strength.

In the Companions they first raised the option of perception and will as sub attributes, that's presumably the 'source' of the idea of basing them at ten as a houserule (it was one option presented).

Ah, well, that's important. Thanks! They should at least have mentioned that in Lite.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWalker, exactly, it's a 3E review, I should have made that clear.

Yes, because your original post says "From John's review of 4E"

Quote from: Pierce InverarityKA: I'm looking at GurpsLite 4E, and it says that Perception and Will are derived attributes equal to IQ. It doesn't mention they're raiseable/lowerable independently from it. It also seems as though they are little more than the bases for "Notice X" or "Resist X" rolls?

In general you'll find "lite" versions of rpgs cut down on the number of options you have in all respects. In the complete 4e, Will and Per can both be raised/lowered for +/-5 CP per level, with the text recommending not past 20 or more than 4 lower than IQ without GM permission.

In the complete game, they're the basis for a number of skills.
   Will: Autohypnosis, Captivate*, Dreaming*, Enthrallment*, Exorcism*, Intimidation, Meditation, Mental Strength*, Persuade*, Power Blow*, Suggest*, Sway Emotions*

Per: Detect Lies, Fishing, Lip Reading, Observation, Scrounging, Search, Survival, Tracking, Urban Survival

* cinematic/supernatural skills

Will is also used as the basis for Fright Checks. This would be very important in a horror game, or a realistic-themed game where regular people come into contact with violence for the first time. It's also used to resist mind-affecting magic, and social skills. So if some NPC tries to intimidate the PC...

Per as a "notice" trait is pretty important. Quite a wide variety of adventurers - from mercenaries to detectives - need to be able to notice stuff, from ambushes to smudged fingerprints.

Consider for example a warrior who put all their points in fighting skills, and had an average Per, against a warrior who put some points into Stealth, with less fighting skills as a result. The second guy could ambush the first, rendering the first guy's superior fighting skills irrelevant.

Or consider a warrior who maxed out fighting with an average Will, they'd end up commanded by a warrior who put points into Leadership skill and Will.

And again, as I said, there's the thing where the GM can ask for a skill roll based on some other attribute. "You want to know how good a swordsman this other guy is? Okay, roll Broadsword, but based on Per instead of DX." Then the DX 14 [80] Per 9 [-5] guy says, "hmmm... um..." while the DX 13 [60] Per 13 [15] guy gets to assess the other guy's skill level, and gain a bonus in the fight following it.

So there are a heap of options for a PC, provided the GM allows those options. For example, I've had a GURPS GM who always made us roleplay social interactions, and rarely let us roll for Diplomacy, Intimidation, etc - so there was no sense spending points on those skills. This same GM asked for multiple Perception and Stealth checks - if you wanted to stealthily cross a street and enter a building, you'd have to make a Stealth check from the first to the second garbage bin, then from the bin to the shop doorway, then from the shop doorway to the street corner, and so on. So we had to max out Per and Stealth. The GM wasn't really allowing us options, it was as though three-quarters of the skills didn't even exist. Someone playing in that game might get the sense that GURPS was unbalanced; it's not, just the GMing was.

A good GURPS GM will make use of the options in the book. If you're only going to ask for rolls for skills X and Y, then why even have skill Z? Choose some system without it. So that's the thing - GURPS is a big and complicated system, it offers you lots of options. If you like lots of options, and using the skills and attributes creatively in play, then it's good for you. If like just a few options, and not having to think about how to run or play the game, choose something simpler.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityFrom John's review of 4E:



*In fact, just 2, as far as skill selection is concerned. Right?  If all skills are derived either from DX or IQ, you're going to end up with bunches of magic-users who are potentially great at shadowing, tracking, survival, observation, scrounging...

Q1: Is the above correct?

Q2: Why just DX/IQ? Irrational holdover from Fantasy Trip or sound design decision?

Q3: In GURPS, are fighters who are a) superstrong, b) clumsy, c) kinda dumb a dysfunctional concept?

Q4: Did 1 through 3 get fixed in 4E? (GM Fiat is not a fix.)

I want to like this game, but the above sounds like a major turn-off.

That didn't make a lick of sense.

 How many of these reviewers go into a review with a bias against the product or pre-conceived notions?


 Look, most of the screwed up stuff from 3rd edition GURPS was fixed with the release of 4th edition GURPS.
 As Zachary joked with me at GenCon - at least SJG  can stick with an edition of their game for more than 5 years.


- Ed C.

Yeah, that's a review of GURPS 3rd ed from 2000, long before 4th ed came out.  Pierce cited it incorrectly as 4th edition.  Pierce, could you edit the top reference?  

I've had some experience with 4E since then, though not a lot.  Still, my impression is while the problem was reduced by some of the new options, the underlying issue that Pierce mentioned is still there to some degree.  Details of my review will no longer apply under 4th ed GURPS, but we can still discuss the general point.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronConsider for example a warrior who put all their points in fighting skills, and had an average Per, against a warrior who put some points into Stealth, with less fighting skills as a result. The second guy could ambush the first, rendering the first guy's superior fighting skills irrelevant.

Or consider a warrior who maxed out fighting with an average Will, they'd end up commanded by a warrior who put points into Leadership skill and Will.

Well, this is looking at it in isolation, which is irrelevant to the question of niche protection that was my point in the review.  The real comparison would be if you looked at parties of 3 to 5 characters.  Even in 3rd ed GURPS, the fighter could buy Charisma separately from IQ.  

Suppose that in one group, the high-DX fighter spends a bunch of points for Leadership and Will.  In another, instead the high-IQ mage puts 1 point in Leadership to get the same score.  Since the group as a whole doesn't need a lot of leaders, the former is inefficient.  The fighter in the first group would get something for his points spent, but it is inefficient for the group.  

The underlying issue is that IQ has a lot of sub-abilities folded into it (Per, Will, skills, spells) - and that buying up the sub-abilities by individuals in the group is much less efficient than buying up the base stat.  It's better in some respects under 4E than it was, but it's still frequently big savings to buy up the base stat.

Basically it boils down to this:

 Its not D&D.

 Whatever cliches you got used to about fighers, wizards, clerics, rogues, rangers,  etc.... aren't going to apply much with GURPS.

However there is a thread somewhere on the SJG forums where KROMM or someone posted GURPS templates that get you characters pretty close to those typical classes of D&D characters - there will be some differences tho...also more oppurtunity for customizing them with GURPS.


- Ed C.

John: DONE

Other than that: Yes, absolutely, coming fresh to the game, no prior experience, it looks like later editions tried to lump several stats onto IQ.

This may well work now in 4E, but it's interesting to see that GURPS has its own set of quirks. I used to assume it was this paragon of bland but perfect rationality, but to my uneducated mind SJ seems to love TFT too dearly to ditch that two-stats-only mechanic.

Quote from: jhkimWell, this is looking at it in isolation, which is irrelevant to the question of niche protection that was my point in the review.  The real comparison would be if you looked at parties of 3 to 5 characters.

In a game where the GM is careful to ensure that almost all skills and advantages chosen are useful, and where all disadvantages actually disadvantage a character, a specialist in X will overall always outperform a specialist in Y who happens to have some skills in X area, and vice versa.

Someone who wants their character to excel in a niche will take not simply one or two skills and max out, but will take 6-12 skills, some relevant advantages, and choose attributes to complement these. A character in another niche can certainly have one or two skills which exceed those of the first one, but they'll be overall worse in that other niche.

I can understand that you don't believe me, many players of GURPS 4e don't believe it, they create some character with a single huge attribute and just five skills, then are confused and upset when they turn out to be crap in play.

Now, if the GM never asks for particular skills to be rolled against, there will certainly be character builds which in effect act as you describe. If the sage gets high Tracking and the GM only ever asks for Tracking rolls, and never Survival, Scrounging, Observation, etc - then yes, the scout's wide range of skills won't help them, and the sage can outperform them. But no system is proof against stupid and unimaginative GMs.

Assuming a GM with a couple of brain cells to rub together, and assuming that the player knows how to build a character to occupy a niche - rather than just maxing out a few skills - then in GURPS 4e the specialist will overall do better in their specialty than some other specialist will.

Your complaint reminds me of the guy who played d4-d4, chose for his character to be "Fair" in twenty different traits, then complained,
"I'm not Good at anything. And this other guy is a better shot than me, and I'm supposed to be a soldier."
"No," I said, "you're Fair at many things, as you chose to be. You chose not to be Good at anything."
"This system is stupid."

Like I said, many GURPS 4e players think the same. It's because they've had stupid GMs who only ask them to roll against a few skills. Whereas if the GM asks you to roll against (say) 12 different skills each session, then it really shows who's crawled into their niche properly, and who's just put one skilled toe into it.