More random thoughts on RPGs
THERE ARE NO SILVER BULLETS
One problem I have with GURPS (as I have with any pure point-build system) is that they are inherently unrealistic and do not match the real world in some very important ways, or they fail to be generally applicable. What do I mean by this?
For real people in the real world, some indivduals have a "talent" for a given skill area and some don't. I spent a good six years trying to learn how to play the guitar and the clarinet. While I learned to play mechanically, there was no "soul" to my playing. I just wasn't any good at all at it, even though I worked hard for a long time. At the same time, I had what I regard as a "natural talent" for mathematics and working with computers - what other people found darn near impossible, I did with ease, and I did it over forty years ago (although I've gotten better with experience, I started at a higher level than most people reach after several years of experience). Some people find learning languages trivial, others remain steadfastly mono-lingual (sometimes despite making considerable efforts to change their skill set). Some people are what John Campbell called "chronosetting" and some are what he called "chronoplastic"; by this, he meant that some people could learn any one set of skills when young, but once learned, they could not continue learning, and some people could continue learning and changing their entire way of live and living well into old age, "reinventing" themselves several times over the decades. The pure point build systems do not accurately reflect any of these real world characteristics. (And before you point out that random-roll or hybrid skill systems don't really handle these problems well - or the problem of unused skills decaying with time - I'll point out that I agree with you). No system I've found yet (including OTHER SUNS) satisfies all my criteria for a "realistic", a "good", and a playable system simultaneously.
So, with points assigned on an "easy", "normal", "hard" basis for skills, we have a disconnect between reality and the game.
At the same time, if the intent is "play balance", then the points assigned to skills are dependent upon the individual campaign and its style. In the simplist case, suppose we have two different campaigns using a simple build-point skill system: there are only two skills available, "killing things and not being killed", and "figuring out things". If the campaign is a set of war/combat scenarios, the former skill has greater campaign value than the latter, if the campaign is a set of police/detective scenarios, then the latter is by far more important. So a set of point-to-skill listings that work for one campaign may well not work for another, if the two have wildly different "game objectives" for the players.
Even if the games are, in theory, identical (two "out of the box" CHAMPIONS campaigns, for example) the "real" value of given skills and powers (and, more importantly, disadvantages) can vary dramatically - especially over time. For the CHAMPIONS example, consider the situation of someone taking a disadvantage of a 1.5 x damage (stun) from a "common" attack. As I learned and played it, up through 4th edition rules, this meant that a villain would show up about every other session that that character was in, with the "common" attack that he took extra damage from. But unless I kept making new villains (or having the old ones break out of jail repeatedly), the hero would quickly run out of villains opposing him with the "common" attack. And if I kept making new villains to replace the ones defeated, using precisely the same power-mixes, they would start looking like they came out of a cookie-cutter-villain-factory (something that I always disliked seeing - both in my own campaigns and in those of other referees).
Now OTHER SUNS has some distinct problems in that people don't lose unused skills (every skill is "like learning to ride a bicycle, you never forget") and the weapons are far too ineffective compared to real world equivalents (particularly in the area of artillery and explosives - they're WAY downsized as to killing power, despite the murderous effects that they do have). Also, like GURPS and the point-build systems, OS doesn't handle the differences in raw talent (although the use of skill modifiers and INT for improvement ameliorates this problem A LITTLE BIT). As I recall, AFTERMATH handled the talent/no-talent problem a bit better than OS in this regard, but it had its own problems.
I'm not happy with any system, but I've long since recognized that a good system will not help a lousy referee, nor a lousy system will not hold back a good referee. And is a reason I am always interested in seeing how other referees handle games (especially in systems, like GURPS, where I haven't as much experience). Even if I don't approach things the same as they do, I might be able to steal some of their techniques, "only, please, to call it research".
(And before anyone out there thinks I'm down on all systems except my own, think again: I loved CHAMPS, and I enjoyed the few SHADOWRUN games I've played in, and I'd love to try someone ELSE'S GURPS campaigns - I just wish that there were a "perfect" system out there somewhere. And yes, I know what I'm asking for, but "a man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
One problem I have with GURPS (as I have with any pure point-build system) is that they are inherently unrealistic and do not match the real world in some very important ways, or they fail to be generally applicable. What do I mean by this?
For real people in the real world, some indivduals have a "talent" for a given skill area and some don't. I spent a good six years trying to learn how to play the guitar and the clarinet. While I learned to play mechanically, there was no "soul" to my playing. I just wasn't any good at all at it, even though I worked hard for a long time. At the same time, I had what I regard as a "natural talent" for mathematics and working with computers - what other people found darn near impossible, I did with ease, and I did it over forty years ago (although I've gotten better with experience, I started at a higher level than most people reach after several years of experience). Some people find learning languages trivial, others remain steadfastly mono-lingual (sometimes despite making considerable efforts to change their skill set). Some people are what John Campbell called "chronosetting" and some are what he called "chronoplastic"; by this, he meant that some people could learn any one set of skills when young, but once learned, they could not continue learning, and some people could continue learning and changing their entire way of live and living well into old age, "reinventing" themselves several times over the decades. The pure point build systems do not accurately reflect any of these real world characteristics. (And before you point out that random-roll or hybrid skill systems don't really handle these problems well - or the problem of unused skills decaying with time - I'll point out that I agree with you). No system I've found yet (including OTHER SUNS) satisfies all my criteria for a "realistic", a "good", and a playable system simultaneously.
So, with points assigned on an "easy", "normal", "hard" basis for skills, we have a disconnect between reality and the game.
At the same time, if the intent is "play balance", then the points assigned to skills are dependent upon the individual campaign and its style. In the simplist case, suppose we have two different campaigns using a simple build-point skill system: there are only two skills available, "killing things and not being killed", and "figuring out things". If the campaign is a set of war/combat scenarios, the former skill has greater campaign value than the latter, if the campaign is a set of police/detective scenarios, then the latter is by far more important. So a set of point-to-skill listings that work for one campaign may well not work for another, if the two have wildly different "game objectives" for the players.
Even if the games are, in theory, identical (two "out of the box" CHAMPIONS campaigns, for example) the "real" value of given skills and powers (and, more importantly, disadvantages) can vary dramatically - especially over time. For the CHAMPIONS example, consider the situation of someone taking a disadvantage of a 1.5 x damage (stun) from a "common" attack. As I learned and played it, up through 4th edition rules, this meant that a villain would show up about every other session that that character was in, with the "common" attack that he took extra damage from. But unless I kept making new villains (or having the old ones break out of jail repeatedly), the hero would quickly run out of villains opposing him with the "common" attack. And if I kept making new villains to replace the ones defeated, using precisely the same power-mixes, they would start looking like they came out of a cookie-cutter-villain-factory (something that I always disliked seeing - both in my own campaigns and in those of other referees).
Now OTHER SUNS has some distinct problems in that people don't lose unused skills (every skill is "like learning to ride a bicycle, you never forget") and the weapons are far too ineffective compared to real world equivalents (particularly in the area of artillery and explosives - they're WAY downsized as to killing power, despite the murderous effects that they do have). Also, like GURPS and the point-build systems, OS doesn't handle the differences in raw talent (although the use of skill modifiers and INT for improvement ameliorates this problem A LITTLE BIT). As I recall, AFTERMATH handled the talent/no-talent problem a bit better than OS in this regard, but it had its own problems.
I'm not happy with any system, but I've long since recognized that a good system will not help a lousy referee, nor a lousy system will not hold back a good referee. And is a reason I am always interested in seeing how other referees handle games (especially in systems, like GURPS, where I haven't as much experience). Even if I don't approach things the same as they do, I might be able to steal some of their techniques, "only, please, to call it research".
(And before anyone out there thinks I'm down on all systems except my own, think again: I loved CHAMPS, and I enjoyed the few SHADOWRUN games I've played in, and I'd love to try someone ELSE'S GURPS campaigns - I just wish that there were a "perfect" system out there somewhere. And yes, I know what I'm asking for, but "a man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"