Canon or GURPS

JCD · 05-12-2008, 09:40 PM

Which rule set "works" better, i.e. gives reliable and believable results most consistently? I know this is a bit objective, but frankly the combat system in normal IN seems a bit...uneven, and I'm not sure that I ever understood Celestial Combat at all!

Some aspects didn't seem to transfer over particularly well but overall which rule set do you use? Which parts work, and which would you keep the orignial rules? Would those aspects work better in a diceless environment, i.e. GM ajudication?

darksaba · 05-13-2008, 02:18 AM

In my view the 'canon' rules work better. The GIN rules are huge and slightly unwieldy and currently out of date. That said GIN is much better laid out and more intuitive to understand. If I'm honest reading GIN will certainly help your understanding of the core rules and enable you to play a better game.

William · 05-13-2008, 10:56 AM

I use GURPS IN natively and so I can't speak to the original rules very much. However, they worked well for my games. The detailed skillset and Ad/Disad rules for GURPS made for characters with definite personalities and competencies. Personally, as a GM, I could have mastered combat better; it's much simpler in regular IN.

I will say that for my earlier human-centered game, the style would have been very different in regular IN. GURPS humans are much closer to par with celestials, especially when guns are involved.

Archangel Beth · 05-14-2008, 10:14 AM

I like both forms, actually, with the exception of Kyriotates (I would fudge and use the IN Force-count rules on the fly), and I've heard that the Ethereal Combat rules have... issues. (For which I do really apologize. O:< )

JCD · 05-15-2008, 11:03 PM

That makes sense I suppose. For example, Castle Falkenstein had a good conversion except with magic. Keeping the card system in place for that added some atmosphere and avoided the issue.

Exactly what issues were they? While I had the game, I could never induce my players to try it out. The religion thing (which is funny as I was arguably the most religious of the lot).

William · 05-16-2008, 11:18 AM

Beth's referring mostly to some situations that came up in my game, which I discussed here. I chose to run a Marches-oriented game, which broadened the scope of possible NPCs and settings considerably -- the game became almost traditional fantasy. (On the down side, it was very hard to get humans on scene consistently.) We had to make some modifications to the Ethereal combat rules to make combats shorter; a celestial with a high IQ will take a long time to fail a consciousness roll and disperse, and in the meantime there's not much you can do to somebody whose Mind Hits are already at 0! So we made it auto-fail, IIRC.

Ditto celestial combat, by the way, which took ages unless we auto-stripped a Force every time someone was reduced to 0 Soul Hits before they reset.

Stylistically, there is also the problem that almost every combat statistic in the Marches ends up defaulting to or off of IQ. There's practically no point to any of the physical statistics in a realm where everything is mental.

However, these are very specialized problems. If your game is mostly corporeal, with occasional jaunts to the Marches, it will be a lot more reasonable.

05-12-2008, 09:40 PM	#1
JCD Join Date: May 2008 Location: Birthplace of the Worst Pizza on the Planet	Canon or GURPS Which rule set "works" better, i.e. gives reliable and believable results most consistently? I know this is a bit objective, but frankly the combat system in normal IN seems a bit...uneven, and I'm not sure that I ever understood Celestial Combat at all! Some aspects didn't seem to transfer over particularly well but overall which rule set do you use? Which parts work, and which would you keep the orignial rules? Would those aspects work better in a diceless environment, i.e. GM ajudication?

05-13-2008, 02:18 AM	#2
darksaba Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Cardiff UK	Re: Canon or GURPS In my view the 'canon' rules work better. The GIN rules are huge and slightly unwieldy and currently out of date. That said GIN is much better laid out and more intuitive to understand. If I'm honest reading GIN will certainly help your understanding of the core rules and enable you to play a better game. __________________ Whats worse, thinking you're paranoid, or knowing you should be? Google+

05-13-2008, 10:56 AM	#3
William Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upper Peninsula of Michigan	Re: Canon or GURPS I use GURPS IN natively and so I can't speak to the original rules very much. However, they worked well for my games. The detailed skillset and Ad/Disad rules for GURPS made for characters with definite personalities and competencies. Personally, as a GM, I could have mastered combat better; it's much simpler in regular IN. I will say that for my earlier human-centered game, the style would have been very different in regular IN. GURPS humans are much closer to par with celestials, especially when guns are involved.

05-14-2008, 10:14 AM	#4
Archangel Beth In Nomine Line Editor Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Frozen Wastelands of NH	Re: Canon or GURPS I like both forms, actually, with the exception of Kyriotates (I would fudge and use the IN Force-count rules on the fly), and I've heard that the Ethereal Combat rules have... issues. (For which I do really apologize. O:< ) __________________ --Beth Shamelessly adding Superiors: Lilith, GURPS Sparrials, and her fiction page to her .sig (the latter is not precisely gaming related)

05-15-2008, 11:03 PM	#5
JCD Join Date: May 2008 Location: Birthplace of the Worst Pizza on the Planet	Re: Canon or GURPS That makes sense I suppose. For example, Castle Falkenstein had a good conversion except with magic. Keeping the card system in place for that added some atmosphere and avoided the issue. Exactly what issues were they? While I had the game, I could never induce my players to try it out. The religion thing (which is funny as I was arguably the most religious of the lot).

05-16-2008, 11:18 AM	#6
William Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upper Peninsula of Michigan	Re: Canon or GURPS Beth's referring mostly to some situations that came up in my game, which I discussed here. I chose to run a Marches-oriented game, which broadened the scope of possible NPCs and settings considerably -- the game became almost traditional fantasy. (On the down side, it was very hard to get humans on scene consistently.) We had to make some modifications to the Ethereal combat rules to make combats shorter; a celestial with a high IQ will take a long time to fail a consciousness roll and disperse, and in the meantime there's not much you can do to somebody whose Mind Hits are already at 0! So we made it auto-fail, IIRC. Ditto celestial combat, by the way, which took ages unless we auto-stripped a Force every time someone was reduced to 0 Soul Hits before they reset. Stylistically, there is also the problem that almost every combat statistic in the Marches ends up defaulting to or off of IQ. There's practically no point to any of the physical statistics in a realm where everything is mental. However, these are very specialized problems. If your game is mostly corporeal, with occasional jaunts to the Marches, it will be a lot more reasonable.