Dungeon Fantasy 7: Attack of the Healbots

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Really? I'm very surprised to hear that said.

Just in terms of crunch alone

I'm not talking about crunch.

[Rev. Pee Kitty]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I think there were far too few crunchy bits in "DF6: Clerics".

My guess is that if RPK had written "DF7: Clerics", there'd have been a lot more crunchy bits.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I'm not talking about crunch.

Uh... okay. So you're talking about "crunchy bits" but not "crunch"? I'm afraid you'll have to clarify your phrasing for me, then, as that seems (to me) akin to saying, "I'd like more salty food, but not food with salt in it, please."

[Rev. Pee Kitty]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It wasn't. Rev. Pee Kitty and I made a jillion comments. Poor Phil . . .

Summoners' review made Clerics' look tame, though. I definitely owe Phil a drink for that one -- or I could be nice and say that I wrote him a novel as a present. :)

(Note to public: Not 'cause the draft had that many issues, mind you. More that Kromm and I, independently, had a slew of ideas, suggestions, and changes for the poor man.)

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Uh... okay. So you're talking about "crunchy bits" but not "crunch"?

One shrugs. It's Peter.

Anyone who says I don't do crunchy bits should have to explain GURPS Thaumatology, of course, but I'm not going to care under this circumstance.

[b-dog]

Clerical magic items:

I feel that I would have done something a little differently here. I would have had some moral power that would be equivalent to mana for magic clerical magic items like maces, staffs and the like. That way a holy warrior could find swords and armor enchanted with the power of good and would be unuseable to neutral of evil characters just as an unholy warrior or cleric would have evil items that would be harmful to good characters. I think that this moral power could be nonspecific to deity but only to moral outlook. Some items would be very specific and those would be involved in worship rituals but those involved in combat could just use the generic moral power. This would allow the temples to create their own magic items for their holy warriors and clerics without having to hire a mage.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

One shrugs. It's Peter.

Anyone who says I don't do crunchy bits should have to explain GURPS Thaumatology, of course, but I'm not going to care under this circumstance.

Few, if any, crunchy bits in GURPS Thaumatology.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Few, if any, crunchy bits in GURPS Thaumatology.

So, how about instead of being annoyingly mysterious and weird you explain what you mean by crunchy bits?

[Athanbeli]

I guess Peter K. is referring to the general frame of G:Thaumatology, which is choke full of fascinating ideas (I LOVE the book), but is also crowded with 'maybe', 'if the GM wishes so', 'this might be balanced', and so on. It always requires work and careful considerations from the GM, and provides fewer plug&play bits. To me, Thaumatology is 70% discussion and 30% ready made rules.
Still, the book is great. I just hope there won't be another 'Magic-theory book' after those in Magic, Fantasy and Thaumatology. The same topic being tackled multiple times in different books is a bit confusing to me.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Few, if any, crunchy bits in GURPS Thaumatology.

In your rarified and largely unshared opinion, sure. However, by the standards of the RPG hobby, the book is basically start-to-finish crunch. "Crunch" and "crunchy bits" aren't separate things for most people, and are widely accepted to mean "rules and stats," full stop. You seem to be talking about worked examples, which are generally regarded as something closer to a bridge between crunch and fluff than as crunch of their own.

Originally Posted by Athanbeli

I guess Peter K. is referring to the general frame of G:Thaumatology, which is choke full of fascinating ideas (I LOVE the book), but is also crowded with 'maybe', 'if the GM wishes so', 'this might be balanced', and so on.

Well, that's how GURPS is . . . it's a central part of the core game-design philosophy to provide tools and suggestions. If Peter doesn't like that, he can always stop bemoaning it in our forums, which are for people who play our games, not for people who want to pick them apart.

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

That should work; they could also divert some points from other skills into buying Occultism or Thaumatology. I'd suggest deleting a few spells from their lists to balance the additions, just to keep things looking fair.

Specific Gods aren't bound to follow a template precisely and exactly or they will Perish or anything. PCs don't have to, templates by GURPS definition are optional. Why should GODS?