4E's hit point philosophy

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It's certainly much more courteous and professional for people associated with SJ Games to do so and indicate that they are willing to work toward solutions in an area where GURPS underperforms (like David Pulver and Kromm do in this regard) than blame the customer for playing wrong and denigrate his tastes as disease-inducing because he dares to ask for better emulation, in order to facilitate his roleplaying experience.

I question your use of the term "disease-inducing"; the closest thing I've said is "break out in hives," and that's my opinion of strict simulationism, not a company statement. I believe my previous post is pretty clear in that regard.

I also think "blame the customer for playing wrong" is awfully harsh; what I've said is that I don't think GURPS is the best tool for some kinds of encounters, and trying to shoehorn those encounters into GURPS as written is going to lead to frustration and difficulties. (As this thread demonstrates!)

What I will say -- in my capacity as a gamer, not as a company spokesperson -- is that I think the more rules you load onto GURPS to make it a better simulation engine, the more daunting you make the game for casual players, and the more likely it is that those players will abandon the entire game in favor of something that chooses gameplay over realism. I don't think that's a desirable outcome for the line, for the company, OR for the fans.

Edited to add: I'm not in the least opposed to the creation of such rules for the players who want them. I do not think they should be the default, and I certainly don't think that the lack of those rules is a flaw of a system designed to appeal to as wide a base as possible.