Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UniversalMonster" data-source="post: 1871124" data-attributes="member: 1034">I guess Hero and Gurps might have counted, maybe, if your'e talking about use of tactical options- those do provide some. But the lack of a class or levelling system really crippled both of them for me. Over the course of a campaign, you would never see any rise in intensity. by exposing all the options in points you never got focused characters. You'd always end up with 4-6 characters with similar builds, rather than a team dynamic that D&D provides. And thats part of the skill in the game. I can easily imagine a scenario where a group of skilled and unskilled players of D&D met at a tournament, got blindly handed pre-genned characters and participated in a judged game where rankings were awarded for player skill. I suspect that you could even rate from paragon down to rank amateur just based on watching. With Gurps or Hero, I honestly can't imagine there being much difference being made by player skill. Caveats- I intensely dislike both Gurps and Hero at least in their 1990-1998 incanrnations which is the only time I had any experience with either (well, brief flirtation with Gurps lite when that little booklet came out). I considered Gurps especially to be a failure as a workable system.  I don't mind if anyone disagrees with me, but I am not going to change my mind about that. My neandarthal opinion is that "me no like Gurps. Or Hero." Earthdawn, on the other hand, I like. </blockquote>

Verification