[DF] AD&D Levels and GURPS Will

[Dragondog]

Originally Posted by SolemnGolem

I'm confused by this part of the post. Are you speaking to sir_pudding at this point, or to b-dog, or to somebody else?

I think Toadkiller_Dog's entire post was for b-dog. With comments for all of us.

[Kromm]

Literal conversion – with names, trademark abilities, and perhaps images – is illegal. The license isn't out there to acquire, and it's unwise even to condone fan conversions on a forum that resides on hard drives at SJ Games and that has several SJ Games staff members reading and posting regularly. There are gray areas – like raiding the same folklore, legends, and myths that AD&D raided for its creatures and concepts – but those don't cover everything.

Loose conversion is another matter: "A monster that does something like this," "A spell that produces this kind of effect," "A character whose abilities are like these," etc. As long as it's vague, that's fine. But note that loss of specifics and shifts in emphasis are inevitable when you play things loose and vague.

Finally, there's the gap between the game systems. Even if we had a license and the right to convert literally, we would have to accept that GURPS and AD&D have many largely irreconcilable differences. One is a point-build game that supports freeform character design in many genres, the other is a level-based game that supports rigid classifications in one genre. Thus, the only useful conversion is in spirit, not in letter . . . "A mind flayer has tentacles, psi powers, and magic resistance" is about as high-fidelity as you can get. The details of each of those bits won't roll over well, because "tentacles," "psi powers," and "magic resistance" mean different things in the two systems.

Now stack up the gray areas of similar source materials, the vagueness of loose conversion, and the differences of meaning between the two systems. The results of anything filtered through all that will be thrice-diffused, and only resemble the original in the most general sense. The process could be dubbed "interpretation," and perhaps "adaptation," but "conversion" would be far too hopeful.

The issue in this thread has been mainly that the OP is trying to bang a square peg into a round hole by converting in letter, not in spirit. Rather than accept that GURPS characters are built freeform on points, and that GURPS and AD&D handle cutoffs and ability limits in drastically different ways, the OP wants to impose AD&D's builds, cutoffs, and limits on GURPS top-down. That simply won't work, because AD&D's hundreds or thousands of pages of assumptions differ too radically from GURPS' reams of assumptions. You can't borrow one bit piecemeal without tangling with all the other bits . . . so it's best not to try.

The argument won't be resolved until the OP simply accepts that pegging challenges to point levels isn't how GURPS does things. GURPS pegs challenges to specific character capabilities, so it isn't meaningful to look at points. "You need Will 20 to have a chance" is fine all by itself; there's no good reason to tack on ". . . and you also need at least 400 points." If Will isn't enough, then you have to add things like ". . . and at least level 3 with a power Talent." That's the correct conversion in spirit. Level in AD&D does not correspond to points in GURPS, but to "the aggregate ability with the key features of a specific profession." Someone who spends his points cunningly might well be quite a worthy challenger, even if technically a beginner; someone who spends his points unwisely might be so much fodder, even if technically experienced. That's a difference in philosophies that doesn't convert.

[PK]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The issue in this thread has been mainly that the OP is trying to bang a square peg into a round hole by converting in letter, not in spirit.

It's not unlike some of the Dilbert-eque parodies out there about trying to port concepts into inappropriate fields:

Marketing Guy: "Have you seen the new Smart Rack-and-Pinion steering they've got on the latest cars?"

Engineering Guy: "Yeah, it's great. Give you amazing control."

MG: "I'd like you to do something similar with our new line of computers."

EG: "Excuse me?"

MG: "Yeah, take that same cornering ability and tight turning radius and make our new PCs like that."

EG: "Okay, so you want me to make the computers easier to use and with a faster response time?"

MG: "No! I'm talking about taking tight corners! Sudden turns without loss of control! That sort of thing."

EG: "So . . . you mean literally? How is that even possible?"

MG: "You're the engineer, aren't you? Jeez, and I thought you guys went to school for this stuff."

Cars and computers have a lot of things in common. They're mechanical devices that rely on electricity. They're found in most first-world households. They both need complex diagnostics when they have a problem. And so on. But that doesn't mean that you can port a concept directly between them. You have to translate it into a completely new paradigm -- in the example above, between a "handling on the road" paradigm and the "running programs" one.

D&D and GURPS have a lot of things in common. They're both pen-and-paper roleplaying games. They're both "standard," goal-oriented, GM-led systems. They both offer a good amount of detail for specific situations, especially combat. And so on. But they're also very different in a fundamental way, and you can't just port concepts directly between them. You have to translate it. So here, you have to translate the concept from a "characters are a combination of class and level" paradigm to a "characters are a collective of various individual traits" one.

No matter how hard you try, you can't directly translate "character level" into a GURPS concept -- it just doesn't exist -- any more than you could translate "rack-and-pinion steering" directly into a computer design. You have to look at why the original system implemented that feature, and then see how you'd accomplish the same overall goal in the new one.

[Zed]

And then there's the "feel" of the games being played.

Some examples:
D&D: in one round you can to x, y z actions. full, complete actions.
GURPS: You can do whatever you like, but it will be cut up in 1-second segments.

Firing a bow in D&D is an action. Firing a bow in GURPS is several seconds worth of activity. Same for spells and many other things.

D&D: A monster bites yer arm. You take 30 points of damage out of 100 (or whatever). You have ~1/3 less points of "life" left. No other impact on character there a resources being decreased.
GURPS: A monster bites yer arm. That arm took more damage then it can handle and becomes crippled and useless. Also, you take penalties to any die rolls next round.

GURPS is way more gritty. You actually have to be pretty canny to de-grit it. Lots of realistic stuff like getting stabbed hurting and being inconvenient, etc.

The point being: the actual game play will have a different feel to it, not just the character sheet. You can walk into a hail of arrows in D&D and not care. In GURPS, unless you are majorly using optional rules, even getting hit once means bad news.

Mechanics impact the game style and feel.

Just to one up Rev's analogy...

You can eat your dinner with a fork and knife or you can eat it with chopsticks (or even with your hands - for the Ember fans out there). The food will be the same. But the meal will be a much different experience depending on what utensils you use.

But if you really like, you can eat your steak with chop sticks and your chow mein with a fork. :D its all good as long as you enjoy the meal.

~Z