Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Roleplaying in General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-19-2021, 09:53 AM   #41
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
And yet soooooo many people started their D&D characters at 5th level every time...
I wouldn't start a DF campaign at 25-50 points, which is where a level 1 with average stats in OD&D would probably be. Just not 250.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 11:40 AM   #42
Stormcrow
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
I wouldn't start a DF campaign at 25-50 points, which is where a level 1 with average stats in OD&D would probably be. Just not 250.
Personally, I am dead-set against trying to equate D&D levels with GURPS point costs. They just don't measure the same things at all.

But, let's look more closely at your statement. You say that 25-50 points would be about where a level 1 OD&D character would be. GURPS Campaigns says that 25-50 points is for "ordinary folks, such as accountants and cab drivers."

A level 1 OD&D character is an experienced soldier, a beginning magic-user just out of apprenticeship, or an acolyte cleric. Of these, the first is easiest to compare to the list of point levels in GURPS. Most obvious is "Competent (50-75 points): Athletes, cops, wealthy gentry." The average experienced medieval soldier isn't necessarily the equivalent of a star athlete or a seasoned (and trained) cop, so "competent" seems the right power level equivalent for a D&D Veteran.

The D&D Medium can cast one spell. The D&D and GURPS magic system have completely different underlying assumptions and mechanisms, so comparing by magical capability isn't straightforward. I would suggest that 3LBB OD&D's most powerful 1st-level magic-user spell is Sleep, and the equivalent GURPS spell, Mass Sleep, requires that you put at least one point each into Mass Sleep, Sleep, Daze, and Foolishness, and that you have an IQ of at least 13 and Magery of at least 0. That's a minimum of 69 character points just to cast the equivalent of a 1st-level D&D spell, and most magic-users who want to reach the higher "levels" in GURPS will need another 10, 20, or 30 points in Magery. You're not fitting all that in 25-50 points without burdening yourself with all sorts of disadvantages that your D&D cousin doesn't suffer. "Competent" seems necessary again.

The Acolyte is hardest to quantify, because although they haven't got any magic spells, they do fight almost as well as a Veteran. They're about equal to a not-so-experienced soldier. Plus, they have something approximately equal to True Faith (15 points). So even if a not-so-experienced soldier was the equivalent of an ordinary accountant or cab driver (I don't think so), that True Faith is going to bump them to the next category.

So if you wanted to start a dungeon crawl in the spirit of 3LBB OD&D, characters should probably around 75 points. And that's assuming you're only interested in the "powers" that characters get. If you want all the interesting social stuff that GURPS offers, like Wealth and Status and Reputation and so on, you're going to want a bit more. Maybe about 100 points or so.

Say... maybe there's a REASON that GURPS used to assume that most characters started at 100 points...? ;) "With a little experience, these individuals could become full-time adventurers."
Stormcrow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 11:42 AM   #43
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
I mean, I don't have a problem with using 250 point characters for dungeon crawling. I just have a problem with viewing them as starting characters, because zero to hero is a pretty key component of the dungeon fantasy genre.
Zero to hero is key in many versions of dungeon fantasy, but I think Kromm has said it is not key to his vision of dungeon fantasy. I think of it like art: arguing about whether something is true impressionism can get in the way of enjoying something that a unique artist puts in front of you. And an artist and an art historian might tell different stories about the belle époque, but if you are there to enjoy the art is there a good reason to get into an argument with the artist about influences on Picasso?
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper

This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature

Last edited by Polydamas; 05-19-2021 at 11:46 AM.
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 12:52 PM   #44
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
Of these, the first is easiest to compare to the list of point levels in GURPS. Most obvious is "Competent (50-75 points): Athletes, cops, wealthy gentry." The average experienced medieval soldier isn't necessarily the equivalent of a star athlete or a seasoned (and trained) cop, so "competent" seems the right power level equivalent for a D&D Veteran.

...

So if you wanted to start a dungeon crawl in the spirit of 3LBB OD&D, characters should probably around 75 points. And that's assuming you're only interested in the "powers" that characters get. If you want all the interesting social stuff that GURPS offers, like Wealth and Status and Reputation and so on, you're going to want a bit more. Maybe about 100 points or so.
DF largely lacks the social (and general non-adventuring) stuff, to a similar extent as DnD lacks it. So, given that GURPS characters who have the non-adventuring stuff and are roughly comparable to 1st level DnD Veterans when it comes to adventuring are in the [50-75] range, it follows that an adventuring-only variant of those GURPS characters (for use in DF) would be roughly in the [25-50] range. That said, at least in 3.5e, level 2 isn't really twice as good as level 1 - a level 1 3.5e DnD character may well be more comparable to a [50-75] GURPS character (which is right around the level of a Bargain Henchman, at 62 points), with later levels being in the [25-50] range; a level 10 DnD Fighter may well be closer to [400] (and a DF Knight more akin to a level 6 Fighter... but note the [+25-50]/level roughly includes the benefits of having appropriate Wealth by Level, so you'd need to compare a DF Knight to a properly-equipped level 6 Fighter, not one equipped with starter gear).


All that said, I think the DF vs DnD tangent is largely detracting from the thread at this point. My purpose behind bringing it up was just to highlight the difference in approach to a similar genre by the two systems.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 01:34 PM   #45
Stormcrow
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
DF largely lacks the social (and general non-adventuring) stuff, to a similar extent as DnD lacks it. So, given that GURPS characters who have the non-adventuring stuff and are roughly comparable to 1st level DnD Veterans when it comes to adventuring are in the [50-75] range, it follows that an adventuring-only variant of those GURPS characters (for use in DF) would be roughly in the [25-50] range.
D&D doesn't lack it. That was my point earlier: D&D didn't start as just a "kill the monster and take its stuff" game. You had to command henchmen and hirelings. You had to negotiate with monsters. You had to find buyers for your loot and sages for your information. You had to find guides and pick up rumors. At higher levels, you became a Lord or a Wizard or a High Priest, commanding armies, owning land, and dealing in politics. All these things are described in that very first boxed set. Whatever people did with it afterward, this is what the designers had in mind, and they said so.

Quote:
All that said, I think the DF vs DnD tangent is largely detracting from the thread at this point. My purpose behind bringing it up was just to highlight the difference in approach to a similar genre by the two systems.
I think it's been very good in highlighting some of the unspoken assumptions people have been making about exactly what they think "dungeon fantasy" actually means, what D&D was designed to do, and how we disagree on how GURPS would do something similar. How can we say Specific System A does Particular Genre B better than Generic System C if we don't agree on exactly what B is, what A was designed to do, and how closely C resembles A?
Stormcrow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 02:30 PM   #46
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
D&D doesn't lack it. That was my point earlier: D&D didn't start as just a "kill the monster and take its stuff" game. You had to command henchmen and hirelings. You had to negotiate with monsters. You had to find buyers for your loot and sages for your information. You had to find guides and pick up rumors. At higher levels, you became a Lord or a Wizard or a High Priest, commanding armies, owning land, and dealing in politics. All these things are described in that very first boxed set. Whatever people did with it afterward, this is what the designers had in mind, and they said so.
With the exception of the higher-level bits (commanding armies, owning land, and dealing with politics), DF has all of those. I should have emphasized I was talking about the non-adventuring bits of characters. I doubt any edition of DnD would have accounted for Samwise Gamgee's skill in housekeeping and horticulture, and certainly DF wouldn't bother with it, but the default GURPS you were looking to for point guidelines? Absolutely, Sam would have had respectable skill levels in Housekeeping, Gardening, Savoir-Faire (Servant), and so forth. That said, I'm really only familiar with 3.5e DnD, so it's possible I'm mistaken and in early editions characters were markedly more fleshed out (although given I've heard it was common to not even give them names or backstories until they managed to gain a few levels - to see if they'd last long enough for it to be worth it - I doubt it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
I think it's been very good in highlighting some of the unspoken assumptions people have been making about exactly what they think "dungeon fantasy" actually means, what D&D was designed to do, and how we disagree on how GURPS would do something similar. How can we say Specific System A does Particular Genre B better than Generic System C if we don't agree on exactly what B is, what A was designed to do, and how closely C resembles A?
That's fair, it just seemed like the thread was derailing into a discussion of how to properly convert between the two.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 02:56 PM   #47
Stormcrow
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
With the exception of the higher-level bits (commanding armies, owning land, and dealing with politics), DF has all of those.
Sure. Which means it's about more than "kill the monster and take its stuff."

Quote:
I should have emphasized I was talking about the non-adventuring bits of characters. I doubt any edition of DnD would have accounted for Samwise Gamgee's skill in housekeeping and horticulture, and certainly DF wouldn't bother with it, but the default GURPS you were looking to for point guidelines? Absolutely, Sam would have had respectable skill levels in Housekeeping, Gardening, Savoir-Faire (Servant), and so forth.
If those are "non-adventuring" skills, and Sam is meant to go on the adventure, then a player would NOT be expected to spend lots of points on them. Try that, and your player will complain, "Why did you let me spend all these points on Gardening if there's never any gardening to do?"

Quote:
That said, I'm really only familiar with 3.5e DnD, so it's possible I'm mistaken and in early editions characters were markedly more fleshed out (although given I've heard it was common to not even give them names or backstories until they managed to gain a few levels - to see if they'd last long enough for it to be worth it - I doubt it).
This part is definitely a tangent.

I wasn't talking about non-adventuring activities. The original D&D assumes you might have some of those in your background, but it's not going to give you any rules about them. Do what you want. The system doesn't claim to define everything about your character, only your basic abilities in generic terms (strength, intelligence, etc.), your special abilities (turning undead, spells, etc.), and your equipment. The DM would judge all else. If your character grew up on the shore, for instance, you might logically know how to fish, and if fishing became important in the adventure, the DM would decide whether it was true and how much you caught. Or, suppose you're playing Sam in a D&D version of The Lord of the Rings. You don't need to write a Gardening skill on your character sheet. You're Sam; you know how to garden. If it becomes important on an adventure, the DM will judge accordingly. This was turned into an official rule with AD&D: there is a list of "secondary skills," things like hunting, fishing, armorer, bowyer. No rules on how to use them; they're just things you learned in the background, and if you try to use them on adventures, the DM will take this into account.

But yes, "backstories" weren't expected in early D&D — it was assumed you were young and eager to adventure, so your background wasn't all that important. The point was to create new stories based on your adventures. If a special ability was required that hadn't been mentioned before, like fishing, some DMs would let players announce that their character had grown up on the shore and learned to fish — and then this would become part of the character's backstory, so they couldn't suddenly claim to have learned rock-climbing as well because they lived in the mountains. You could still try if you didn't have the skill, but you'd be penalized in however the DM worked it out.

Other early DMs just gave everyone a chance to do everything regardless of any backstory or lack thereof. Some rolled against ability scores, some didn't. The point is that early D&D didn't include MOST of the things you might try on an adventure on your character sheet or in the rule books, but that never meant you weren't expected to try them anyway.
Stormcrow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2021, 06:53 AM   #48
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
Sure. Which means it's about more than "kill the monster and take its stuff."
That's the main gameplay loop. Certainly, there could be an overarching plot, and there could be nuances to the main loop (sometimes it's more trick/befriend/subdue the monsters, sometimes the "monsters" are bandits, sometimes the "stuff" is a reward for dealing with the monsters rather than something they had, or maybe the "stuff" is largely useless to the party but they are paid handsomely to safely retrieve it - alchemical reagents, a stolen heirloom, a kidnapped princess, etc), but that's the focus, and all the traits in play are basically in support of said main loop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
If those are "non-adventuring" skills, and Sam is meant to go on the adventure, then a player would NOT be expected to spend lots of points on them.
Sure, but the guidelines from Basic Set that you used in your earlier post to peg where a first level DnD character would be at aren't DF guidelines. They are guidelines that are meant to cover all genres, including those where Gardening, Housekeeping, etc are relevant to the adventure at hand ("These flowers have incompatible soil requirements with the rest of the plants in this garden, they must have been planted recently to conceal something - grab me that shovel!" "Finally stopped bleeding on the carpet? Good - I'll get to work tidying the place up so nobody knows we were here, you keep a lookout to make sure nobody sees us" etc).

That's the point I was getting at - a character designed for DF on a budget of [100] is going to be a more competent delver than a character designed for a more generic setting on a budget of [100], even if both are "veteran soldiers" - the former only has traits relevant to delving, while the latter is going to have more "civilian" traits eating up his budget.

"Competent [50-75]" assumes you're accounting for everything GURPS allows you to define about the character, so in a setting where a lot of that stuff doesn't matter and thus isn't accounted for (like DF), you can reach that same level of competency with fewer points. If you took a [50-75] DF character and added in the "missing" traits (that is, those unimportant and thus unaccounted for in DF), you'd likely end up with something more like a [75-100] character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
I wasn't talking about non-adventuring activities. The original D&D assumes you might have some of those in your background, but it's not going to give you any rules about them. Do what you want. The system doesn't claim to define everything about your character, only your basic abilities in generic terms (strength, intelligence, etc.), your special abilities (turning undead, spells, etc.), and your equipment. The DM would judge all else. If your character grew up on the shore, for instance, you might logically know how to fish, and if fishing became important in the adventure, the DM would decide whether it was true and how much you caught. Or, suppose you're playing Sam in a D&D version of The Lord of the Rings. You don't need to write a Gardening skill on your character sheet. You're Sam; you know how to garden. If it becomes important on an adventure, the DM will judge accordingly. This was turned into an official rule with AD&D: there is a list of "secondary skills," things like hunting, fishing, armorer, bowyer. No rules on how to use them; they're just things you learned in the background, and if you try to use them on adventures, the DM will take this into account.
Seeing as your examples involve things that are adventure-relevant, this indicates that how many GURPS points a DnD character from that edition was worth was highly DM-dependent - perhaps your DM's tended to be lenient as to how many such activities characters could be competent at (and how competent they were), while Anthony's DM's tended to be harsher; that could certainly explain why you have different estimates of what a starting character would be "worth" in GURPS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
But yes, "backstories" weren't expected in early D&D — it was assumed you were young and eager to adventure, so your background wasn't all that important.
So, are they fresh-faced and wide-eyed, or are they veteran soldiers? Those two groups usually don't have a lot of overlap (more a "before" and "after," really). Granted, DF certainly doesn't really require backstories either.
(As an aside, on the topic of essentially generating your backstory as you play, depending on what's needed at the time, GURPS could allow this with a wider interpretation of "Schrodinger's Advantage" that also allows for skills; this isn't something mentioned in DF to my knowledge, but could be useful if wanting that sort of old-school experience)
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2021, 07:33 AM   #49
sgtcallistan
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chatham, Kent, England
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by panton41 View Post
snip realized how many of them were designed around a publisher's in-house system they used for several, often very different, settings. Which got me realizing many of the official GURPS settings really wouldn't work well in another system.

So it kind of dawned on me (rather recently) that the years I spent trying to shoehorn other system's settings into GURPS would have been better spent just learning those systems and to use GURPS for the things it does better. (Though, honestly, I think GURPS could do Shadowrun better than the actual Shadowrun system.)

Does this make sense to other people here?
I feel the opposite is true, in my experience.
The Indiana Jones games' system was two-film specific, but the background information and suggestions definitely influenced my 'Amazing Adventures in Archaeology' GURPS games.
So did Thrilling tales, some of Justice, Inc, GURPS Cliffhangers, and more recently Thrilling Tales and Savage Worlds.
GURPS is the framework, the info comes from any source that fits, my mind does the rest.

I found no shoe-horning was needed; taking all this lightly and letting it simmer in my mind while going through the motions at work results in a game I run pretty well at weekends.
My players say it's my best one. - after Knights of the Star. :-)

So with things taken from other games and systems, it's really as you describe, but taken lightly, it's not work to let it happen, rather than worry about compatibility: the style arises from the player's and GM's actions and knowledge of the environment, rather than a system.

Last edited by sgtcallistan; 05-20-2021 at 07:37 AM. Reason: additional
sgtcallistan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2021, 08:05 AM   #50
Stormcrow
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
Default Re: Game Settings Written for the Game System vs. Generic Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
So, are they fresh-faced and wide-eyed, or are they veteran soldiers? Those two groups usually don't have a lot of overlap (more a "before" and "after," really).
I'm not going to respond to the rest — it's definitely off-topic now, and as usual we're not going to agree.

The answer to your question here is: they can be either, but they're generally assumed to be fresh-faced and wide-eyed, with combat capabilities equal to a veteran soldier, just as a Seer and an Adept have, even though they're unlikely ever to have fought in an army.

But the assumption is not binding, and if you want to play someone who gets into adventuring after a decade of mercenary work, or anyone else who starts adventuring later on in life, there's no reason you can't.

So to put all this into the Specific vs. Generic discussion:

Dai Blackthorn (Pre-Banestorm)
STR 8; INT 12; WIS 10; DEX 15; CON 12; CHA 11.
Neutral Apprentice Thief.
Dagger; Thieves' tools; Leather armor; Ring worth 4 sp; Pouch with 2 sp.

(This is a complete character in OD&D.)

What happened to all his skills? All the physical stuff is taken care of by his thiefly special abilities, while the social stuff is covered by his ability scores in conjunction with an understanding of his background ("Street kid, thief"). Can we not play him in as much depth as in GURPS? Have we lost anything in going from detailed GURPS to less-detailed D&D? Not really: the DM just takes what the player wants to do, considers Dai's ability scores as a measure of how likely it is to succeed, possibly rolls something if random determination is desired, and tells the player what happens. Which is pretty much what you do in GURPS too, only GURPS tells you exactly how capable the character is at any task without the GM considering things. HOW actions are resolved is different, but WHAT you want to do WHY you want to do it, and WHAT HAPPENS can be the same if you want them to be.
Stormcrow is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.