I don't see why. I mean, unless you haven't worked out the very basic technology of the spoon...
Help Me Understand the GURPS Design Perspective
I don't see why. I mean, unless you haven't worked out the very basic technology of the spoon...
John Dallman
Hero
I think the metaphor has got confused. I'm certainly confused about who's saying what.
Argyle King
Legend
(curiosity) What utensil do you typically use while eating ramen noodles?
Also, while I somewhat agree with the earlier discussion that sometimes all you need to know is that the strong guy is strong, I personally feel that there are times when the narrative inconsistency of comics (and really, literature, movies, and storytelling in general) can hamper the quality of the story. Tastes vary, and what is a mental block to buying into a story for one person may not be noticeable at all to someone else; additionally, those media have a different structure than an interactive game -so certain things work better/worse than they might otherwise work when writing for a game.
I suppose I'll put it this way: I'm of the belief that roleplaying games (and arguably comics) are (or should be) a lot like professional wrestling.
When it's done well, I can buy into it -even though I know it's a show. I'm willing to accept a lot of fantastic and unrealistic things, but -when it's done well and done in a way which really sucks in the audience- it's done with an underlying edge of reality. With adequate explanation and good-ish writing to flesh out and define the character, I'm willing to buy into Undertaker being some sort of zombie or undead revenant. He's a supernatural force, but there's some idea about how his powers work and some in-universe shared understanding of his strengths and weaknesses which allows for that character to exist on the same stage as a beer-drinking bald redneck from Texas and have the resulting product somehow make sense. In contrast, when it's done poorly, it's hard to buy into even a simpler character and simpler concepts which lack any of those supernatural elements. I can't necessarily explain why, but there are actually times when a wrestler without any of those elements actually seems less believable.
I guess what I'm trying to say (and perhaps doing poorly) is that I agree that sometimes all you need to know is that strong guy is strong guy. However, sometimes, it can help the story to have some nuance to the hows and whys behind strong guy being strong guy. That's especially true when a narrative experience is being crafted and consumed by a collective group of people.
In the end... I dunno... maybe there are times when chopsticks or just eating straight from the bowl is the right answer.
Also, while I somewhat agree with the earlier discussion that sometimes all you need to know is that the strong guy is strong, I personally feel that there are times when the narrative inconsistency of comics (and really, literature, movies, and storytelling in general) can hamper the quality of the story. Tastes vary, and what is a mental block to buying into a story for one person may not be noticeable at all to someone else; additionally, those media have a different structure than an interactive game -so certain things work better/worse than they might otherwise work when writing for a game.
I suppose I'll put it this way: I'm of the belief that roleplaying games (and arguably comics) are (or should be) a lot like professional wrestling.
When it's done well, I can buy into it -even though I know it's a show. I'm willing to accept a lot of fantastic and unrealistic things, but -when it's done well and done in a way which really sucks in the audience- it's done with an underlying edge of reality. With adequate explanation and good-ish writing to flesh out and define the character, I'm willing to buy into Undertaker being some sort of zombie or undead revenant. He's a supernatural force, but there's some idea about how his powers work and some in-universe shared understanding of his strengths and weaknesses which allows for that character to exist on the same stage as a beer-drinking bald redneck from Texas and have the resulting product somehow make sense. In contrast, when it's done poorly, it's hard to buy into even a simpler character and simpler concepts which lack any of those supernatural elements. I can't necessarily explain why, but there are actually times when a wrestler without any of those elements actually seems less believable.
I guess what I'm trying to say (and perhaps doing poorly) is that I agree that sometimes all you need to know is that strong guy is strong guy. However, sometimes, it can help the story to have some nuance to the hows and whys behind strong guy being strong guy. That's especially true when a narrative experience is being crafted and consumed by a collective group of people.
In the end... I dunno... maybe there are times when chopsticks or just eating straight from the bowl is the right answer.
I doubt that this is very controversial. But what counts as nuance as to the hows and whys behind strong guy being strong guy? In GURPS, that nuance is build points and the associated system build elements. That will produce one sort of play experience (again, my analogous experience in this respect is Rolemaster). In Marvel Heroic RP, that nuance is (probably) a distinction plus a SFX or two plus backstory. That will produce a different sort of play experience, in which the number of tons that strong guy can bench press will be less important to what happens than the framing resulting from character history/backstory plus the immediate details of the GM-established situation.
You can't capture these real difference in experience by reference to nuances about hows and whys.
Argyle King
Legend
I have no experience with the Marvel game. Though, I assume it contains some way to determine who wins when Strong Guy attempts to match strength with Power Lad.
Yes - it has an action resolution system and also it uses fictional considerations to govern the framing of permissible action declarations. This latter consideration becomes important when (eg) Power Man tries to arm wrestle the Hulk. Unless some other factor is at work which makes it possible for Power Man to win (eg the Hulk is suffering a Weakened complication) then the Hulk just wins.
If the framing is permissible then the appropriate dice are pooled, and rolled, and the outcome thereby determined.
Argyle King
Legend
Hulk is recognizably a physically strong Marvel character, so that's likely a better example than using some generic "Strong Guy."
Correct me if I am wrong, but -from what you have said- it sounds as though there is some attempt to quantify what is plausible, given a shared understanding of the fiction.
Below is a small selection of canon Marvel characters:
Thing
Thanos
Beavis & Butthead
To save the world, Hulk needs to compete in an arm wrestling contest and win.
Are the chances or plausibility of defeat at the hands of the various choices different?
aramis erak
Legend
Just shy of even odds for Thing and Thanos... so plausibility 100%...
Beavis and butthead would cheat, so Hulk definitely would lose, then smash them both, but like most of his victims of temper tantrums, somehow survive... If, for some reason, they don't cheat, he snaps both their forearms, dislocate their elbows, and breaks the table by accident.
Thing is, Supers are about the WORST genre for detailed strength scores.. the range is way too wide, and performance in the mags and the films is wonderfully inconsistent...
I think Beavis & Butthead introduces genre issues that the system isn't necessarily the best at handling. Can I make it Aunt May instead? Hulk wins - there's no resolution required.
If it's Emma Frost (the White Queen) then the situation is more interesting, because if she gets to put a telepathic feeling of weakness onto the Hulk then maybe she can defeat him. If she's in a mutant-shutdown zone, then again Hulk wins with no resolution required because Emma Frost as a normal person can't beat the Hulk.
BronzeDragon
Explorer
Damn, OP, you can really pick'em...
GURPS Supers is the worst possible GURPS iteration. It does powers very poorly, and I've never seen it play well at the table.
The system is exceptional at handling realistic games. GURPS WW2 is amazingly well done and runs like a dream in actual play. GURPS Space wouldn't be my first pick (Traveller all the way), but it still plays well. GURPS Vikings, Ancient Rome, Middle Ages, all of those play really well.
As someone put it before, GURPS is a toolkit. It presents you with a great deal of options, but you have to be savvy enough to get yourself organized around what you actually want from the system. The sourcebooks tend to provide that organization, and are often exceptionally well-researched.
But if you really wanna go Supers, just get FASERIP or DC Heroes. A lot fewer headaches and systems actually designed around the interaction of powers.
GURPS Supers is the worst possible GURPS iteration. It does powers very poorly, and I've never seen it play well at the table.
The system is exceptional at handling realistic games. GURPS WW2 is amazingly well done and runs like a dream in actual play. GURPS Space wouldn't be my first pick (Traveller all the way), but it still plays well. GURPS Vikings, Ancient Rome, Middle Ages, all of those play really well.
As someone put it before, GURPS is a toolkit. It presents you with a great deal of options, but you have to be savvy enough to get yourself organized around what you actually want from the system. The sourcebooks tend to provide that organization, and are often exceptionally well-researched.
But if you really wanna go Supers, just get FASERIP or DC Heroes. A lot fewer headaches and systems actually designed around the interaction of powers.
Similar Threads
