The Gaming Den

If I look at the acrobatics rules, it is probably : Greater than 3 feet wide : DC 0* * No Acrobatics check is needed to move across these surfaces unless the modifiers to the surface (below) increase the DC to 10 or higher. And Slightly sloped (<45°) +2 to the DC Or Severely sloped (>45°) +5 to the...

Why would anyone think it was a good idea - or even acceptable to handle an opposed roll in 3 comparisons instead of 1? That is serious THAC0 bullshit, and it's not OK. (Roll + Skill - Penalties) vs. (Roll + Skill - Penalties) If you make anything that is mathematically equivalent to that, but uses...

That quote I used in the cooking example for -6 or -7? It's part of a list of examples for +10 to -10. Unless it's some sort of cake worth televising, wedding cakes are comparatively easy. People make them on a regular basis for a career, though it is somewhat of a specialty. That puts it somewhere...

Subtraction IS system specific, or at least, a common artifact of roll-under. Subtraction sucks, yo. If you put a "play" button on a device, you'll likely put it in the shape of a triangle, or label a button with a picture of a triangle, pointing right. It's functionally identical to usin...

Your cooking example used words like "handwave" and "probably modeled", and did not fill me with confidence. I couldn't tell if the discussed soft fail / great success states were proscribed outcomes per rules, or regular variety mindcaulk to fill in uses for them since the rule...

d20 does have a "degree of success" not mentioned yet, too: "take 10" or "take 20". A pastry chef could probably take 10 indicate that making a wedding cake won't result in an episode of The Three Stooges. A master chef could 'take 20" to prepare a meal from puffe...

Here's where I see roll-under being not as good as addition to reach target number, even when they're the same thing (in the algebraic sense). To model a cooking challenge in d20, I can eyeball the difficulty of something like climbing a rope. and climbing a rock face without tools, and other examp...

Failure doesn't mean no food comes out, just that the intended meal was not obtained. This right here is why GURPS is bullshit. Why roll under systems in general are bullshit. There is a vast spectrum of shittiness between "burnt cornflakes" and "the crust on the liquid center cake c...

Momo, how would you describe an Administration skill 12 then, in the different settings ? What does it mean to the King steward from a Bronze Age Babylon, and to a computer AI from a 22th century low-orbit station ? The Administration skill is pretty abstract - it gives you a reaction bonus with bu...

Seriously? You don't see how starting with a fixed system is a limitation? Limiting yourself to a single system that is already defined is pretty much the definition of a limitation. Okay, that's true. I should have said I don't see how GURPS keeps you from building functional Mage-setting mechanic...

fectin wrote:It just never comes up as a game. I've read through some sourcebooks, which are good, but have no basis for opinion on the mechanical bits.

Fair. Thanks for the perspective.

Generic systems don't work though. And if I want to fix a game, that usually means it needs a mechanics overhaul while trying to stay true to the spirit (setting/ flavour etc) of the game. If I work from the GURPS rules, I'm limited by those and I'd be better off starting from scratch. I don't see ...

d20 benefits greatly from classes and levels. Once you pick a class, most of the options just aren't for you any more, and even with the big ones like full casters you start at lower levels as a newb and still have very few spells you're allowed to choose from. Then each level or two gets you a sma...

Here's my genre impression from each game: Hero classifies it as being more dramatic when The Hulk lifts a buss than when Superman lifts a bus, because The Hulk has to put his groin into it, where other games might say lifting a bus is interesting no matter who does it. GURPS is about making it fun...

Nobody really talks about GURPS because it's not worth the effort to grok or mock for a lot of people. It's a solid 3d6 bell curve system with a lot of fiddly bullshit that, as has been mentioned earlier, has no absolute meaning attached to it. So you have the setting and splat books, which are loo...

AncientHistory and I did an OSSR for GURPS Cyberpunk , and I think that's the only GURPS product that has gotten a full review on this site. -Username17 Yep! That's what I was referencing when I mentioned: • Overestimating The Impact: Maybe GURPS isn't as big as I thought it was and the one review ...

Build points are essentially meaningless in GURPS. People have already touched on how some things are expensive because they are powerful and some things are expensive because they are rare, weird, or hard. That's a problem, but there's another part to it. The lack of genre also means that, with no...

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52202&view=next some other discussion here: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52202&view=next http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54384: So I just didn't look back far enough. Thanks, guys. [hr] I don't know if "most" people do, but at the very least a...

#NotAGame. Well, .... It doesn't have many monster books, let us say. And the breadth of possible characters means someone needs to build a world and genre for them to make sense in before anyone even starts. Let's just say it's a lot of work upfront, for everyone. Do most people use prebuilt world...

[*] A game should only have just as much material needed to adhere to its design space and no more. More material makes the game harder to understand, makes books more expensive and time-consuming to make, and makes it harder for people to agree on a vision. This isn't something that can be adhered...

So I've been reading reviews and opinions etc. for a while now and I'm a bit puzzled by the almost-complete lack of any mention of GURPS. Not as something to be played and/or adjusted like D&D, not something to be mocked as an abject failure like Pathfinder, not something with possibly desirable...

So, if P(pizza | ~box) = P(pizza), then P(box|pizza) = P(box|~pizza) ... and now I've forgotten what we were trying to argue. Well I'll admit I got lost pretty quickly in all that, but it looks like your final result is "If pizza and box are independent, then box and pizza are independent"...

Third: Okay, we have someone who eats pizza 1 out of 50 nights. Prior 0.02. This person throws the box away the same night 50% of the time and throws it away the next night 50% of the time. Other factors are considered negligible. If we see a pizza box, the probability that he had pizza tonight goe...

First: True, 0 people in agreement does mean there's a chance you're just speaking gibberish. But there are people who will nod and smile without understanding you, so it's not qualitatively different from 1 or 50 in that way. Second: I don't understand how "People will agree with you even if y...

Maybe this is a matter of terminology, then, or maybe my stance isn't the same as it originally was, but: If going from 1 person in agreement to 0 people in agreement makes you X amount less confident in the truth of a statement, then going from 0 people in agreement to 1 person in agreement should ...