Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This self-rebuttal says it more effectively than I ever could.

Methinks you misunderstand "subjective" challenges if you think I proved your point somehow. What do you think a "subjective challenge" means?

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This is a flat out personal attack, and I expect you to apologize.

Really? Sure, when you apologize to me for the following posts, all of which I see, as a winging GM, as personal attacks.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I believe we can construct a sufficiently strong rebuttal to usefully reduce the frequency of chimes by showing most cases of statless winging to be optional at best and more generally a form of fudging or other deprecated game-breaking behaviors.

Here you equate winging with fudging and you later call fudgers liars and cheats.

You also say of the games of winging GMs

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This is in addition to the unquantified advantage that an unfinalized character has in being able to use abilities granted on the spot or even retroactively. This not only fubars simulationism for most settings, it fubars gamism (can't beat the GM unless he wants to), and puts a big dent in narrativism (no foreshadowing, encourages deus ex machina).
A point cost-ed and completed character, however, has a reasonably finite set of abilities that allows an objective challenge however one-sided .

This is also a personal attack on me as a winging GM. But if we want to get to the moment when you are talking about me trooper6 in specific rather than me as a winging GM in general, when discussing my advice for wining by using the RAW that gives all average people stats of 10, and professional skills of 12 as a base to start with you call it...

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

And without it being so obviously a bad choice that they might be tempted to follow such a bad practice on the advice of others?

So once you apologize to winging GMs, myself included, and to me personally for calling my base method of winging obviously bad advice that should not be followed by others I'd be pleased as punch to apologize to you.

Moving on.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Are you saying a jazz player need never bother to learn to play through a complete score? If a jazz player takes a gig with the As If In Stone Symphony, are they doing to appreciate him sticking his favorite lick in a leitmotif?

Many Jazz players don't take gigs at symphonies. Really most don't. Why would they? Throughout the history of jazz there have been many brilliant jazz musicians who don't even read western notation. Similarly, most symphonic musicians don't sit in on jazz sessions...and were they to do so, they would be unable to even begin anywhere, because they don't know how to improvise.

I find rpg sessions far more like jazz jam sessions that a symphony concert, some GMs seem to imagine their sessions as symphonies and they as conductors. But that isn't the only way to play. Improvising is a skill that takes preparation, technique and can be learned. And giving advice on how to learn those skills is "obviously a bad idea" or "bad advice."

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This is not my experience. Do you think you could illustrate this in an objective fashion?

This quote is regarding pre-statting and winging being able to produce the same results, which you doubt.

Can I illustrate this in an objective fashion? Well, since I pre-stat and post-stat and wing, I look at character record sheets for pre-statted and post-statted/winged general NPCs I've made (let's say a guard) and they are the same. Furthermore, when I pre-stat, I use the same process as when I wing and post-stat.

But you probably won't take my word on it in terms of these being my own experiences, since you never do. So...

Here is the Character Record Card I filled out for the police of the Zagissi Airport for my last GT:ISW campaign. This is based on the character record card that is part of the GURPS system and can be downloaded here:
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/resourc...andTimeUse.pdf

Average Police--
ST-11.....DX-11.....IQ-12.....HT-10 __________________
ST-11.....DX-11.....IQ-12.....HT-10 __________________
ST-11.....DX-11.....IQ-12.....HT-10 __________________
ST-11.....DX-11.....IQ-12.....HT-10 __________________
Per-13.....SPD-5.25.....Ddg-9.....Parry(Hand)-10
Thrust-1d-2.....Swing-1d
Combat Reflexes. Legal Enforcement Powers
Guns (Pistol)-13.....Brawling-13.....Search-13.....Piloting (Contragrav)-11.....Intimidation-12.....Detect Lies-12.....Diplomacy-11
Armour.....Location.....DR
Ballistic Vest/10.....Torso.....16/4 (piercing,cutting/all others)
Ballistic Helm.....Skull.....24

That is pre-statting for an average NPC. If I were to wing that NPC, I think okay 10 is average for everyone, but these are cops...okay, give them a +1 to ST & DX because of their training...and I think cops have to be smart, so I'll give the +2 IQ. Let's see. 12 is professional for a skill, 14 for a combat skill...but I don't think these cops see too much action...so I'll split the difference. Give them 13 Guns and Brawling. The other skills I would have winged at the levels they are. Prestatting and winging, I would have come up with the same generic cop--because my thought process is the same when I make a character. Note, that with post-statting, I just would write down what I winged, and then filled in any details I did on the fly...generally names and if I made little tweaks to individualize the cops. Life for example, O'Mally might have been described as very beefy, and maybe I gave him ST13, but IQ11.

Now, I want to point out the information I put down is the information the
Character record sheet says is all that is necessary.

Also note, since you bring up level of detain in published adventures. Caravan to Ein Arris, on page 14, has three Fighters, who make up all of the Brigands of the camp. And there is no more information there than in my pre-stat or what I would have done winging. If you look at pg 20, there is a whole box on improvising adventures, and the stats they give for the lion is less than what I have in my stat boxes, and there is no point total given for the lion.

Note also Lair of the Fat Man, pg. 8, the guards are similarly lightly statted.

Light stats like that I can wing, no problem, and they end up the same.

Not only do my pre-stats and my wings end up the same. But they are also in line with how SJG does them. So, I rather don't see how my base winging method is obviously bad advice and a bad idea that should not be followed by others.

On to the whole person of color thing...you ask:

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Without being a gimp of some sort, how are you comparing?

You started the comparison of using GURPS stats where everybody gets a 10 for free as per the rules with being a person of color watching an all-white media and wondering if they were the same...

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This is an example of w*ng*ng that actually involves a fair amount of preparation. It's not necessarily good preparation - *everyone* is above average and fit for service as infantry, despite it being intended to simulate a believable, realistic universe of variety, which as one of the numerous gimpy people of the world makes me wonder if this is a taste of what people of color get watching all-white media - but it is a valid form of preparation.

So you wonder if using the RAW that state an average person has stats of 10 (where it then goes to follow when you are winging, or pre-statting, if someone is less than average you reduce some stats, QED) equates to people of color (of which I am one) watching all white media. So I tell you no, not for me it doesn't. GURPS default for the average person is 10 in the stats. RAW. So I make an average person, they have 10 in all stats. I want to make someone stronger? I add strength. I want to make someone weaker? I subtract strength. If I felt the RAW were wrong somehow, and all the average people in the world were really 9 in all stats and -60pt characters, I could just rework the base in my head for all 9s. This has nothing whatsoever with my experience with white supremacy in the media. Where I do not exist, or if I do it is generally in stereotypical ways.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Really? Sure, when you apologize to me for the following posts, all of which I see, as a winging GM, as personal attacks.

I attacked the ideas and methods, not the person using them. I have carefully not denigrated a particular person or group of people here. If people want to own up to doing things I have condemned, that's their choice, and all this is in keeping with general forum standards. You directed your insult to me specifically, which is not.

Originally Posted by trooper6

You started the comparison of using GURPS stats where everybody gets a 10 for free as per the rules with being a person of color watching an all-white media and wondering if they were the same...

I was wondering if my experience as a disabled person of your constructed world of all able-bodied people was in some way similar to a person of color's experience to all-white media. A person would have both experiences to judge, and ideally you'd need several people who have experienced both to give a consensus, rather than a person with only one or the other.

[Joseph R]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Are you also offended on my behalf by his personal attack on me?

If you are referring to the following...

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This is a flat out personal attack, and I expect you to apologize.

...then my answer is: No, I am not offended on your behalf.

I don't think that I should really have to explain why the two are not comparable. I would have hoped that the difference was obvious. However, your having made the comparison suggests that I should make it clear to you:

I was 'offended on trooper6's behalf' not because I thought that your statement was a personal attack, but because I found the question quite culturally and/or racially insensitive, generally. To remind you of the context...

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Without being a gimp of some sort, how are you comparing?

...It was thus offensive on those grounds. Whether trooper6 him/her self actually was offended in this instance is almost secondary - you were asking the question on a public forum where anyone, 'of colour' or otherwise, could read it. While we're at it, I also found your initial statement to be an insensitive one, and I hoped that others would simply read it as you being stupid rather than deliberately offensive. Then when trooper6 responded to it, I then thought that you would realise your mistake and shut up on that point. You did not, and so I chose to make sure you are aware that your comments might be offending more than that one person.

Conversely, I am not 'offended on your behalf' by trooper6's "flat out personal attack", as you put it. Taken in the context of that whole post by trooper6, and also under the circumstances of the discussion up to that point, I did not see that as particularly 'attacking'.

But here is the distinction that you seem to have failed to grasp: trooper6's comment may have been taken as personally insulting by you (whether intended as such, or not), but your comments may have been taken as insulting by more than just one person (whether you intended it, or not).

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by copeab

Methinks you misunderstand "subjective" challenges if you think I proved your point somehow. What do you think a "subjective challenge" means?

Are they somehow related to the "onjective" ones you mentioned earlier?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Are they somehow related to the "onjective" ones you mentioned earlier?

You used "objective challenge" in post #626.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by it; how are you defining "objective challenge"?

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Unwitting Pawn

Conversely, I am not 'offended on your behalf' by trooper6's "flat out personal attack", as you put it. Taken in the context of that whole post by trooper6, and also under the circumstances of the discussion up to that point, I did not see that as particularly 'attacking'.

It was name-calling and assigning of pejoratives to me personally. Not attacking ideas or behavior, but denigration of me personally.

Originally Posted by Unwitting Pawn

Whether trooper6 him/her self actually was offended in this instance is almost secondary - you were asking the question on a public forum where anyone, 'of colour' or otherwise, could read it

My mentioning a possibility of empathizing with non-whites because as a white disabled person, I'm also a member of a frequently marginalized group is offensive? Damn!

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I attacked the ideas and methods, not the person using them. I have carefully not denigrated a particular person or group of people here. If people want to own up to doing things I have condemned, that's their choice, and all this is in keeping with general forum standards. You directed your insult to me specifically, which is not.

You say winging is a form of fudging. Further, you call fudgers liars and cheats. That is denigrating particular persons.

And my "insult" to you is basically looking at your own words and sentiments to others and telling you to speak for yourself. Let me quote my "insult":

Originally Posted by trooper6

The bolded is my problem with you. Your posts come across judgemental and self-righteous. Your posts come across as if you think your way is the only way and you are insulting to those who do things differently. No Jeff, winging stats is not a bad practice nor obviously a bad choice. If you don't like it, don't do it. But just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad. And just because you apparently don't have the ability to think stats on your feet without becoming an incoherent, railroading, deus ex machina, hostile, unfair GM doesn't mean that other people have those problems.

You, within this thread, have regularly asserted that if a person wings, their games are incoherent, they have deus ex machinas, they are the tools of hostile GMs who change things so that they can beat the players, etc. These are the claims *you* make--without any evidence by the way. You say that when a GM wings, these things follow. What you saw as a personal attack was me pointing out, in a less diplomatic way than I cared to, that you should be using I-statements. Maybe *you* can't wing without the game being incoherent (since it is you who make the claims that winging leads to incoherency)...but do not speak for others. I can wing and my games are not incoherent. So, stop speaking for other peoples experiences. Telling you to stop claiming expertise over the others is not a personal attack and not something I'm going to apologize for. You say it is impossible to wing without breaking simulation, I responded that if *you* aren't able to do it, that doesn't make it impossible.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I was wondering if my experience as a disabled person of your constructed world of all able-bodied people was in some way similar to a person of color's experience to all-white media. A person would have both experiences to judge, and ideally you'd need several people who have experienced both to give a consensus, rather than a person with only one or the other.

Do you know my ability status or what physical or health issues I have to deal with?
Also, I have said repeatedly, that all 10s in stats, Skill-12 for a professional level is a)RAW, and b) a baseline to start winging with. If one wants to make people less able, subtract a point from some of the stats to make them "Below Average" by the book's standards. Or add a point if one wants them to be "Above Average" by the book's standards. If a GM want this one to have a phobia, throw that on there as well. Just because I use the book's own averages as average doesn't mean that there are no people who aren't able-bodied in my game world.

Let me be very clear for you.

The book says that an Average person has a 10 in all 4 stats. And a professional level in a skill is 12. Further Stat of 8-12 fall within human average.

To improvise a person on the fly, start with the guidelines the book has given, and then tailor to taste. This may mean adding a point to ST, or subtracting one. A GM may decide that this particular NPC is in a wheelchair, or this other one has Combat Reflexes. All of that is as easily done on the fly as it is beforehand.

[LemmingLord]

If you have a problem with a post, take it outside.

---

Now, the best part about NOT using points to stat characters is that you are freed from the point of view of the GURPS authors to be truly generic and compatible with other game sytems. Things like "everyone get's a resistance roll" for example. Feel free to pull out any old game manual from any old system and have your NPCs or monsters have the abilities mentioned in them.. no need to turn them into GURPS stats.. wing any inconsistencies. It doesn't matter what system you use to describe something. Some things are going to be very easy to just jot down and veyr hard to find some official GURPS point based advantage for.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

If you have a problem with a post, take it outside.

My bad. Sorry about that Lemming.