Question about Monster Hunters

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by CousinX

But there's not really a single "core GURPS rule set" to fear for ... GURPS is a toolbox, and MH is another "worked example" / quick-start campaign frame built from those tools, like DF and Action. The magic system in MH is an implementation of several of the tools from Thaumatology, built to provide something genre-appropriate for "Modern Heroic-Cinematic Occult" games.

Toolkits can overextend themselves or become too inaccessibly complex.

I don't think it contributes to any kind of "de-coherence" of the GURPS system ... in fact, I'd say it provides a good worked example of some of the options in Thaumatology, which can themselves be a little overwhelming to newcomers.

I think if it strictly did that there would be no risk. I worry about the parts that are newly made up from 'whole cloth'. Not about their particular quality, but about the scope/rules-creep.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

Thaumatology already gives you the building blocks to come up with hundreds of different magic systems fitting different campaign needs. I'm sure this won't be the last worked and elaborated example that goes beyond just saying what was picked from Column A and Column B in Thaumatology to add some new stuff to make it work smoothly.

You're saying that to scare me, aren't you? :)

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

You're saying that to scare me, aren't you? :)

He's saying that, because you seem to be complaining that a GURPS author used published material from a GURPS book as it was intended (to put together new magic systems), in another GURPS book, and that this use makes the system "incoherent". Which is just ... strange and makes me wonder if you'd rather a "dead" system with no support, so the publisher can't keep springing new material on you.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Bruno

He's saying that, because you seem to be complaining that a GURPS author used published material from a GURPS book as it was intended (to put together new magic systems), in another GURPS book, and that this use makes the system "incoherent".

There appears to be a misunderstanding. Using published material to develop genre-specific short-cuts (e.g. Psionic Powers) does not make me worry. As I mentioned in a post before the one you replied to, it's the made up from whole cloth part that I think runs a risk of letting the system get too ... arcane. Uncontrolled such a trend could lead to the dreaded 'you can't use MH characters in DF'.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by ed_209a

You can always count on RPK to give 110%...

Har :)

I'm pretty sure he can add, though *innocent*

[Novembermike]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I'm sure it's well written and well thought out. My fear is for the coherence of GURPS as a rule set -- I'm not sure proliferating magic systems goes in the right direction.

Gurps benefits from having a consistent set of rules for the realistic aspects and a pick your own style for the supernatural elements. If I want to play Harry Potter I need a different magic system than for Dungeon Quest, Buffy the Vampire Slayer or The Dying Earth. GURPS lets you drop in the magic system that makes sense and ignore all the others.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

There appears to be a misunderstanding. Using published material to develop genre-specific short-cuts (e.g. Psionic Powers) does not make me worry. As I mentioned in a post before the one you replied to, it's the made up from whole cloth part that I think runs a risk of letting the system get too ... arcane. Uncontrolled such a trend could lead to the dreaded 'you can't use MH characters in DF'.

See, this is the thing. It's not made up whole cloth - the parts are stitched together from various existing systems, into a genre-and-SETTING specific magic system.

[PK]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Regarding the magic system it mentions, is it a totally new system, or is it an elaboration of one of the variations described in Thaumatology?

A little of both.

The basic concept behind Ritual Path magic (RPM) is that casters must learn Paths; each Path represents a subject (think Noun or a Realm; e.g., Path of Body, Path of Magic). Each Path cannot exceed the lower of Thaumatology skill or (12 + Magery).

Casters use these Paths to work rituals. A ritual's energy cost is determined by the Verb being used; e.g., a Sense Magic spell costs less than a Transform Magic spell. In addition, effects are rated as Lesser or Greater based on how blatant or gamebreaking they are; Greater effects cost even more energy. There are then lots of modifiers to customize the spell (e.g., how much damage it does, its duration, its range), and all of those affect the energy cost as well. Casters have a few ways to obtain energy, but the main one is by accumulating it.

So, the idea of Paths and the rules for accumulating energy are adapted from Path/Book magic. The way that the effects and Paths interact is a loose adaptation of both Noun/Verb magic and Realm Magic. The Lesser/Greater split was inspired by both the original Mage: The Ascension magic rules and the Nobilis miracle rules. But the way that it all comes together is definitely unique enough that I feel it's most accurate to refer to it as a completely new system.

Originally Posted by tg_ambro

Oh joy. Will this be another intrepid endeavor in frugality combined with an unwillingness to pay for source material?

<MOD> Don't start. </MOD>

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I'm sure it's well written and well thought out. My fear is for the coherence of GURPS as a rule set -- I'm not sure proliferating magic systems goes in the right direction.

Ah, so you were one of the few who disliked the last half of Thaumatology then? I understand; not everyone was a bit fan of the Basic Set and Magic's fantasy-styled spell system, but I did hear from a few people who feel like even a system as universal as GURPS needs to have just one system, not a dozen or more.

Personally, I disagree, but I respect your opinion. In my mind, the basic spell system serves one need . . . but Path/Book magic serves another, Realm magic serves yet another, and now Ritual Path magic serves another still. I just don't think that "magic" is a narrow enough concept that you can easily tie it down -- by its very definition, it works best when tailored to the setting, or at least the genre.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Uncontrolled such a trend could lead to the dreaded 'you can't use MH characters in DF'.

Well, I wouldn't recommend using a MH caster in a DF setting, no. But that's because, as I say above, I think that magic in DF should work very differently than magic in MH. The two settings are radically different. Technically, there's no reason you couldn't say "both systems work!" and import a MH witch over into a pseudofantasy world to fight alongside a DF wizard -- I mean, it's not like Basic Set magic and RPM can't accomplish more-or-less the same things -- but that would be a weird crossover that damaged the fidelity of both genres, IMO.

[tg_ambro]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

There appears to be a misunderstanding. Using published material to develop genre-specific short-cuts (e.g. Psionic Powers) does not make me worry. As I mentioned in a post before the one you replied to, it's the made up from whole cloth part that I think runs a risk of letting the system get too ... arcane . . .

Yeah . . . no. Sometimes creators have to create! This fact should be celebrated. Also, I have another thread about using the magic system for other genres that shows it isn't locked down, or lock down characters, to the Monster Hunting genre. Like anything else in GURPS, it's just another elegant tool for me to use.

Uncontrolled such a trend could lead to the dreaded 'you can't use MH characters in DF'.

I don't see that happening. I can understand why you shouldn't let certain kinds of magic play together. But I cannot envision GURPS deliberately (or even accidentally) seperating Power-, RPM-, or Tactical-based magic from eachother by Holy Writ. This is pretty much the same reason for why I wouldn't throw together a Shojo heroine, a Hunter-Esque Zombie, and a Cleric of Pelor as a party; Too many genre assumption clashes, and what not. Although if I were running an Infinite Worlds campaign . . .

EDIT: I was pretty much Ninja'd by RPK on the last part. Such is life :)

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

There appears to be a misunderstanding. Using published material to develop genre-specific short-cuts (e.g. Psionic Powers) does not make me worry. As I mentioned in a post before the one you replied to, it's the made up from whole cloth part that I think runs a risk of letting the system get too ... arcane. Uncontrolled such a trend could lead to the dreaded 'you can't use MH characters in DF'.

You pretty much can't use MH characters in DF, just as you can't use Action or Transhuman Space characters in DF. MH, Action, and THS are all set in modern times or the future, and it shows in the characters. MH characters are TL8, and as such have skills for TL8 technology.

The feel of magic is very different in MH than in DF, too, and that's because MH uses a different magic system from DF, but not because MH's magic system is significantly different from a worked example of one of Thaumatology's various magic systems. If MH had been using just a single variant magic system from Thaumatology, then you still couldn't just drop an MH character in DF without having the same exact problems.

In any case, the bits that are made up 'from whole cloth' just flesh out the MH magic system to be more full, rather than being just a toolkit system like the ones in Thaumatology. In order to make it a worked example, some things needed to be made up, just like some things needed to be made up when Psionics was turned into a worked example of the Powers system.