Quote from: Fifth Element;402648I have to agree with this. It reminds me of the build-up to 4E, where some people suggested that Wizards should get the CharOp people to playtest the game to make sure nothing's broken. That's the last thing they should do, making changes based on the input of those players who try their best to wrench every last advantage out of a system; you'll never munchkin-proof a ruleset, and you're foolish to try.

Absolutely. 100% agreement.

Quote from: Fifth Element;402648I have to agree with this. It reminds me of the build-up to 4E, where some people suggested that Wizards should get the CharOp people to playtest the game to make sure nothing's broken. That's the last thing they should do, making changes based on the input of those players who try their best to wrench every last advantage out of a system; you'll never munchkin-proof a ruleset, and you're foolish to try.

This also reminds me of the whining from the 'elite' gamers playing WOW... who would happily destroy the game for all the 'casuals'... and a certain core group of GURPS players who keep pushing for more obsessive 'realism'.
The squeakiest wheel often doesn't need greasing at all... just a swift kick.

Quote from: Benoist;402454Users have to realize that a +2 here or +5 there doesn't make a fucking "broken" game. They are in charge. That's THEIR game. They need to grow some balls and move on with the game, instead of obsessing over details!

I agree. In general munchkins have a problem in my Majestic Wilderlands because the heart of the campaign is about the allies and enemies you make. What kind of legacy are you building for yourself. For many of the situations my players find themselves being able to kill everybody doesn't solve the problem.

I like well-designed rules system as much as anybody. But like you said +2 there, +5 here pales in the face of having to deal with the campaign and the setting.

Absolutely. Between the actual social interactions around the table, the game-world going ons, your allies, the factions you deal with, whatever mystery or exploration is on the table at the moment, or are on the back-burner for later, the role playing going on, the management of henchmen and so on, if any... I mean, there's a lot more to the game than just shifting two squares and calculating the number of dice of damage you can dish out in a round, for God's sakes.

'It's your game!' is probably the most worthless statement you could use when people come to you for resolving issues that arise in a game you designed.

'It's all about the setting' also smacks of 'ROLE-PLAY, not ROLL-PLAY' nonsense.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;402670'It's your game!' is probably the most worthless statement you could use when people come to you for resolving issues that arise in a game you designed.

'It's all about the setting' also smacks of 'ROLE-PLAY, not ROLL-PLAY' nonsense.

YES, WE KNOW. The DM touched you in wrong places. Show us on the doll. :rolleyes:

When your errata for an edition of a system are longer than previous editions of the system, you know you're getting carried away.

Quote from: Benoist;402669I mean, there's a lot more to the game than just shifting two squares and calculating the number of dice of damage you can dish out in a round, for God's sakes.

I will add that a well designed detailed combat system, like GURPS and other systems, can add a lot to the game.

And companies can "Get it right"  without catering to the munchkins. For example GURPS 4e is every bit as complex as D&D 4e produced by a lot smaller company. Yet they only have dozen+ errata items for the latest printing of the two core books.

http://www.sjgames.com/errata/gurps/

They had this level of quality for years. So when I see a company releasing 37 pages of errata I got to say what going on here?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;402674When your errata for an edition of a system are longer than previous editions of the system, you know you're getting carried away.

Big time.

Quote from: estar;402677I will add that a well designed detailed combat system, like GURPS and other systems, can add a lot to the game.

And companies can "Get it right"  without catering to the munchkins. For example GURPS 4e is every bit as complex as D&D 4e produced by a lot smaller company. Yet they only have dozen+ errata items for the latest printing of the two core books.

http://www.sjgames.com/errata/gurps/

They had this level of quality for years. So when I see a company releasing 37 pages of errata I got to say what going on here?

You know, I've never played GURPS. Got the 3e and 4e core books, and I like what I see, even if it's all point-buy and stuff, which well, in itself, may be an optimizer's wet dream. I'd love to play some to see how it works in practice, because there seems to be two big camps as far as 4e's concerned: those who really like it, and those who think that it's just too complex now, or that too many things have been changed or whatever.

Kyle, aren't one of these who got sick of GURPS 4e at some point?

Quote from: Benoist;402680those who think that it's just too complex now, or that too many things have been changed or whatever.

I really like but I sympathize with the "too complex" crowd. Over on the SJ Games forums I advocated that the focus should be shifted in producing products that IMPLEMENT Gurps for a popular genre and release a one book RPG for that Genre that is "powered by GURPS" I done this enough that I think they are annoyed with me now. My goal is to get more GURPS players to play with. Their current strategy is to use e23 to cater to existing fan base and rely on what freelance writers are interested in writing. While the main priority is the Munchkin game.

The the larger faction of fans don't want anything to change because they are afraid of losing what little support GURPS currently has. Finally while the folks at SJ Game are great at designing game the one area they suck at is writing ready to run adventures. All the adventures they have either read like mini-sourcebooks or just plain stink.

As for writing for them, they have guidelines up and they do recruit among outsiders from time to time. But the guidelines are convoluted and their standards while high tend to lead to recruiting people that do things how they always done. I.e. write great supplements and sourcebook, so-so settings and bad adventures.  Except to the so-so setting rule was of course Traveller which is one of the all time best editions for detailing the Third Imperium. (although they muffed the Spinward Marches)

So GURPS 4e is a great system. All these issues have little effect on me pesonally because behind me is 20 years of notes, stats, and little rule supplements that make running GURPS a snap for me. But for somebody just starting out they don't have that and it is hit or miss whether they continue the game. I have over a dozen players in the past decade tell me that the they love GURPS because I referee it. But to try to use it on their own they feel lost and that it is too much work.

.

Quote from: estar;402434The hue and cry over errata afflicted other games. While there will always be errata for complex RPG games some companies do a better job than others. For example Mongoose doesn't have a good reputation in this regard while SJ Games is exceptionally good.

So we have 22 pages for the Wizard's 4e PHB. For GURPS 4e errata which is equally as complex they have 18 items for the FIRST printing, 14 items for their latest printing (Characters and Campaigns)....

SJ Games also includes an index in all their GURPS/RPG books as standard practice - most other publishers its hit and miss if they bother including an index or not.
I think the index habit/SOP helps the SJG editors catch errors in books more often and accurately when compared to other publishers.

...and yes, I have an obvious bias. ...however I think indexes are a good thing.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;402674When your errata for an edition of a system are longer than previous editions of the system, you know you're getting carried away.

Hyperbolic claims are hyperbolic.

Early versions of D&D only had a few books.  Saying the errata for dozens of books is longer than a game that had a print run  of a handful of books is unfair comparison, though it gives you a snappy, if inaccurate line.  

If you only look at the length of the core three books errata?  No, it's not.
If you look at the complete run of AD&D books?  Hell, lets just say PHB, MM, DMG, 1st edition?  No, it's not.

When you compile ALL printed books of AD&D 2nd ed into one pile, and all the printed errata of 4ed in another, no it's not.

So witty line.  But you're wrong.

EDIT - oh yeah, and not to mention it's not all "errata".  A good deal of those pages is:

a)  Commentary explaining the rationale behind it, so it's better understood and better able to be used.  One good thing WOTC have done is peeled back the curtain and allowed players and GMs a "peek" behind the scenes, presenting a "why" of certain rules.  It helps for better understanding, and thus, better running of the game.
b)  clarifications and rewording that doesn't change the rule, but just explains it better.  That's not "errata" per se, just putting a better phrasing in so the rule is clearer and better understood.

Meh.  In the past, it was next to impossible to get anything corrected and changed outside a new edition.  Dragon was good in this regard for D&D at the time, but it was still monthly.  Gamers complained that they had to fix mistakes themselves, or that "by the book" DMs would insist on playing errata regardless of how it conflicted with other rules.

WOTC is able to give timely, effective and efficient corrections, clarifications, and replacements, and people still complain.  I notice most of the people who are complaining loudest are ones who hate the game and/or would never play it.  Me?  I'm glad they do it.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;402730Hyperbolic claims are hyperbolic.

Early versions of D&D only had a few books.  Saying the errata for dozens of books is longer than a game that had a print run  of a handful of books is unfair comparison, though it gives you a snappy, if inaccurate line.  

It not inaccurate when compared to other equally complex RPGs like GURPS 4e. Nor it is inaccurate to say there is a problem in light of past experience with other games of similar complexity.

Quote from: estar;402770It not inaccurate when compared to other equally complex RPGs like GURPS 4e.

But there's still the question of the willingness of publishers to release errata and their ease of doing so. Not having GURPS 4e or having played it, I don't know if it has issues to be fixed or not, but that aside, how willing and able a publisher is to release errata or patches or whatever you'd like to call them also affects the volume of errata released. You want something comparable, look at a game of equal complexity and a publisher like WotC.

Seanchai