Advantages List: Cinematic vs Realistic

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Luck is magical cinematic as character ability. Even if a meta-gaming feature to improve survivability.

Yea, the fact that Tactical Shooting claims (I've been told, I don't own it (yet)) Luck and Danger Sense are both realistic makes me think the author only requires that something be balanced and not-game-breaking to be "realistic".

I'm seriously considering moving at least Danger Sense back to cinematic. I'm okay leaving Luck in metagame.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Except that running the numbers leads to people living past 110 far too often for realism.

This is far too deep to actually matter. GURPS isn't (and has never been) meant to be a reality simulator.

Also people start aging much sooner than 50.

Nothing stops you from taking Unfit, Reduced Move, Minor Handicaps and so on at any age in GURPS.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I've answered this in the appropriate thread, because I suspect this is going to be a long thread drift.

I understand others disagree. I meant to merely state my stance, and leave it at that. I vaguely remember how none of us were likely to change our views as we reached them from different gaming paradigms rather than real world views.

Perhaps threads like this should come up with shorthand for our various gaming paradigms.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Yea, the fact that Tactical Shooting claims (I've been told, I don't own it (yet)) Luck and Danger Sense are both realistic makes me think the author only requires that something be balanced and not-game-breaking to be "realistic".

I'm seriously considering moving at least Danger Sense back to cinematic. I'm okay leaving Luck in metagame.

I have it, but forgot until just now. I doubt it says those traits are realistic unmodified. Authors probably meant undefined heightened perception alerting people to dangerous situations. I would call that a realistic limited version of those traits.

Danger sense would alert a person to a magical trap they had no way of reasonably detecting. That ain't realistic.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Yea, the fact that Tactical Shooting claims (I've been told, I don't own it (yet)) Luck and Danger Sense are both realistic makes me think the author only requires that something be balanced and not-game-breaking to be "realistic".

I'm seriously considering moving at least Danger Sense back to cinematic. I'm okay leaving Luck in metagame.

Originally Posted by Tactical Shooting p. 36

Danger Sense represents the realistic ability to process subconscious sensory input and alert you to the fact that something’s wrong. It can warn you of ambushes, sniper fire, booby traps, and muggers lurking in dark alleys. It may be the secret to the survival of many successful gunfighters – more so than Luck, which also impacts activities that aren’t life-threatening.

I've seen this in actual combat in real life. Some people do seem to get very good at this, too. This kind of thing is eerie, but totally explicable and very real.

Originally Posted by ibid.

When the bullets start flying, you can’t have enough Luck. Shootists have always experienced this: when a bullet penetrates your helmet but misses the skull; when a projectile spends most of its energy covering range and is blocked by a tobacco tin in your pocket (see Tin Star Armor, p. 7); or when a bad guy stands still for the five seconds it takes a .50-caliberbullet to reach him.

I'd say more, but since this is one of those things, why don't we just take it the appropriate thread.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

This is far too deep to actually matter. GURPS isn't (and has never been) meant to be a reality simulator.
Nothing stops you from taking Unfit, Reduced Move, Minor Handicaps and so on at any age in GURPS.

You're rationalizing. You can't say something is realistic, then back track with that defense when called on its cinematic-ness.

If you don't like aging to be in games, then why are you even talking about Gurps aging rules?

[SCAR]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Excellent advice and you can see I've taken much of it to heart.

your welcome.

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Double-Jointed: link me to a you-tube video of somebody whose every joint is ball-and-socket and I'll take this off the cinematic list. :)

Hmm. I'm not going to change my choice here. The text in Basic doesn't make a clear distinction as non-realistic (I think), and to my mind it fits contortionists and similar performers.

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Intuition - realistic, but Danger Sense - not realistic? Explain yourself, man.

As mentioned in my previous post, I still see Danger Sense as fundamentally supernatural, even if the trait can represent mundane effects.
Intuition can definitely represent mundane effects; very strong knowledge on a subject can lead to an intuitive understanding of problems and situations - this may be aspected, but that doesn't invalidate the mundane nature.

I think the discussions of several traits (not just me), does demonstrate that there is not going to be a complete agreement on how to categorize every trait cleanly!

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

You're rationalizing. You can't say something is realistic, then back track with that defense when called on its cinematic-ness.

When did I say that? I'm saying that GURPS isn't based on actuarial tables at all, not even a little bit. Not ever. Nu-uh. Insurance Adjustor: The Statisticaling would be a very different game. GURPS is an adventure fiction simulator, it has a built-in sense of verisimilitude, but verisimilitude is fidelity to people's expectations about the world, not to real world actuarial probability.

If you don't like aging to be in games, then why are you even talking about Gurps aging rules?

I have no idea how you are even getting that from what I posted.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

When did I say that. I'm saying that GURPS isn't based on actuarial tables at all, not even a little bit. Not ever. Nu-uh. Insurance Adjustor: The Statisticaling would be a very different game. GURPS is an adventure fiction simulator, it has a built-in sense of verisimilitude, but verisimilitude is fidelity to people's expectations about the world, not to real world actuarial probability.
I have no idea how you are even getting that from what I posted.

This advantage is realistic.
But it makes characters do unrealistic things.
GURPS isn't "simulationist".

You're turning my side into a straw man.
Lack of understanding what advantages actually do is not acting like an "insurance adjustor". It's basic understanding of math and R.A.W.
Have you never read Murphy's rules?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by SCAR

...

As mentioned in my previous post, I still see Danger Sense as fundamentally supernatural, even if the trait can represent mundane effects.
Intuition can definitely represent mundane effects; very strong knowledge on a subject can lead to an intuitive understanding of problems and situations - this may be aspected, but that doesn't invalidate the mundane nature.

I think the discussions of several traits (not just me), does demonstrate that there is not going to be a complete agreement on how to categorize every trait cleanly!

People can't agree on how reality itself works. I wouldn't expect us to agree on what Gurps aspects are realistic. But it's a fun exercise for discussion.

Intuition aspected may be realistic. But many cinematic advantages are, I'd bet. But how should we label them?
Discriminatory Smell is not meant for humans, but a limited form is perfectly realistic. I had it before diabetes.

In between realistic and cinematic?