Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9702690" data-attributes="member: 4937">As someone that used to run GURPS I entirely disagree.I mean, in say 1999 I would have agreed with you.&nbsp; Although, I was at that time using the GULLIVER house rules out of frustration with the lack of realism of GURPS.&nbsp; I also hadn't at the time realized that the GURPS skill system was the most badly designed system in all of gaming.&nbsp; I was at the time bamboozled by all of exactly what I'm talking about here, with all the complexity of its process simulation where if you read it you go, &quot;Of course.&nbsp; That makes sense.&quot;&nbsp; Because some skills are harder than others, and if you train on one skill then that ought to make you better at related ones, and so on and so forth.&nbsp; I too was equating realism with &quot;Has a subsystem to cover the mental steps that occur to you.&quot;But a realistic system wouldn't be like that.&nbsp; It would need to make accurate predictions in the way that F=ma and V=IR and so forth make accurate predictions.&nbsp; And the trouble is that most &quot;realistic&quot; systems cover up that all the numbers are arbitrarily chosen behind all the &quot;We thought of that&quot; steps.&nbsp; All those steps bury the math, increase the complexity of analysis, soothe your suspension of disbelief, but don't necessarily make any more accurate predictions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9702690, member: 4937"] As someone that used to run GURPS I entirely disagree. I mean, in say 1999 I would have agreed with you. Although, I was at that time using the GULLIVER house rules out of frustration with the lack of realism of GURPS. I also hadn't at the time realized that the GURPS skill system was the most badly designed system in all of gaming. I was at the time bamboozled by all of exactly what I'm talking about here, with all the complexity of its process simulation where if you read it you go, "Of course. That makes sense." Because some skills are harder than others, and if you train on one skill then that ought to make you better at related ones, and so on and so forth. I too was equating realism with "Has a subsystem to cover the mental steps that occur to you." But a realistic system wouldn't be like that. It would need to make accurate predictions in the way that F=ma and V=IR and so forth make accurate predictions. And the trouble is that most "realistic" systems cover up that all the numbers are arbitrarily chosen behind all the "We thought of that" steps. All those steps bury the math, increase the complexity of analysis, soothe your suspension of disbelief, but don't necessarily make any more accurate predictions. [/QUOTE]

Verification