Friday, December 28, 2007

D&D and GURPS

This article isn't the usual fare, and some of you folks might find yourselves a little bored. Well hold on to your hats, because I'm going in headfirst. That's right, I'm going to write about one of the nerdiest topics avialble: tabletop role-playing games.

A lot of my friends know that I'm a huge fan of GURPS. I am also a pretty big fan of D&D third edition (and 3.5). For those who don't know, GURPS is the brainchild of Steve Jackson (produced by Steve Jackson Games) and stands for Generic Universal Role Playing System. D&D was originally created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and stands for Dungeons and Dragons (the "grandfather of all role-playing games"). Today it is produced by Wizards of the Coast.

What I want to do is compare the two systems. Both have had many editions and (especially in the case of D&D) are not entirely recognizable from their original incarnations, so I'm going to compare the best of what each has to offer (which just so happens to be the newest of each as well): GURPS Fourth Edition and D&D 3.5e.

Before the days of D&D Third Edition, I wouldn't have been able to understand why anyone (supposing they had tried both) would choose to play D&D over GURPS Third Edition (Fourth wasn't available yet). However, when Wizards of the Coast bought out the right to D&D from TSR (or they simply bought TSR, I can't remember), they turned the game upside-down and inside-out and gave it the mother of all beautiful revisions, turning D&D into a much more incredible, streamlined beast, with the creation of D&D 3rd edition. Now, 3rd edition still had some kinks, which they ironed out with the releast of 3.5e.

Personally, I still prefer GURPS over D&D. But with D&D 3.5e, I can see why someoen would choose D&D over my beloved GURPS.

It used to be that GURPS wasn't quite so streamlined, either. You would buy the Basic Set, and if you really wanted to enrich your campaign with cool abilities you'd have to buy a few books that might not even be relevant to the genre you wanted to play (namely, GURPS Supers). There were several additional rules, abilities, skills, and the like that should have been included in the Basic Set but were found throughout a lot of supplemental books. Not only that, but everything was black and white! The books had a boring format compared to D&D. But Fourth Edition changed all that. With Fourth Edition everything was streamlined into two core books. No more buying obscure supplements to have the extra rules you need for your campaign! It was reformatted, easier to understand, and prettier with full-color pages and graphics!

To be fair, D&D is still the prettier of the two. The layout of the D&D books is both practical and eye-catching. There are more images and the graphics really make the game feel more immersive. As far as its beauty goes, GURPS Fourth is comparable to AD&D 2nd.

D&D is easier than GURPS for new roleplayers to step into. Roll your stats, choose your Race, Class, Skills, and Equipment, and jump right into the game. GURPS tries to make it easier to jump into with Character Templates, but it would take a lot of work by a GM (Game Master) to make a GURPS campaign as easy to get into for players as a D&D campaign would be. Which brings up another point: GURPS is not as easy as D&D for GMs to set up a campaign with, either.

The reason D&D is easier for new players is twofold; 1, D&D is limited to a specific genre: fantasy, and; 2, D&D limits players on customizing their characters and limits GMs on customizing their campaigns.

Unlike D&D, GURPS is not restricted to only one genre in which to play. To be fair, the d20 system (the core rules system for D&D) isn't limited to any particular setting, but GURPS gives you all the tools to custom-create the exact setting you want. There are no "core d20" books to purchase with guidelines on creating your own campaign. You could get the core rules online or infer them from any d20-based book (such as D&D), but it would take a lot of work to create you own setting with it. GURPS hands you all of the tools to do so straight out of the core rulebooks. You could search for a d20-based book in the setting you want, but that isn't always very easy. With GURPS, you could just create the setting you want.

That's the primary difference between the two gaming systems. D&D gives you ease-of-use while GURPS provides ultimate customization. Each method has its advantages and drawbacks. In D&D your characters are limited to one of several classes. While you can customize your Class with Skills and Feats and such, and even the capability to multiclass, D&D still doesn't reach the level of customization GURPS offers. In GURPS, you really can create any character you can imagine (with GM's permission, of course).

The main drawback with GURPS is that everything isn't just ready-to-play. D&D has all of the important stuff set up: stats for Races and Classes, tons of pre-built Monsters, etc. With GURPS it takes a little it of work by the GM to set everything up. Some supplements are helpful, but not as much as they should be.

When it comes to combat both systems have their faults. In D&D combat is very unrealistic, with characters just hashing away at each other's hit points without ever suffering any real wounds. GURPS can be a little overly-detailed with its hex-based grid and one-second-long turns! I do like some of the details in D&D's system (such as attacks of opportunity), as well as the realism and more exciting feel of GURPS combat (hits are less common and can actually cause wounds, not just a loss of hit points).

All in all both systems are pretty good, and while I prefer GURPS Fourth, I can see why someone might choose D&D 3.5e instead. If you haven't played either and you're wondering which system to get into, it's easy to test-drive either one. GURPS has a free version called GURPS Lite which can be found at most gaming stores or on their website. Also, most nerds have D&D books, so just ask a friend to look at them, or play.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, December 22, 2007

The Holiday Season

What holiday should one celebrate at this time of year? The answer is easy if you're religious. Simply celebrate the holiday of your chosen religion. Hanukkah (which has passed now) if you're Jewish, Christmas if you're Christian (and no, I don't want to hear that "Christmas is pagan" crap), or Yule, Saturnalia, or the Winter Solstice if you're a pagan reconstructionalist (or other neo-Pagan).

But what if you aren't religious? What holidays are available to the non-religious? One option is to celebrate the holiday your religious family members celebrate. Christmas if you're related to Christians, Hanukkah if you have Jewish relatives, etc. Christmas can also be an option if you want to argue that Christmas has been secularized and no longer belongs strictly to Christians.

If you're like me, you don't want to celebrate a holiday solely because you have relatives that celebrate it. You may also not want to argue that Christmas is secular just so you can have an excuse to celebrate someone else's holiday. Well, if that's the kind of person you are, there are only a few holidays left. The more well-known ones are HumanLight and the Winter Solstice.

HumanLight is celebrated on December 23rd and celebrates human inventiveness, reason, and discovery. It's celebrating hope for humankind. Mostly it's a holiday for secular humanists and other non-religious types (though not all humanists celebrate it). It's a very good cause for celebration, mind you, but there's just one drawback-- it's a completely arbitrary date.

The Winter Solstice is the shortest day of the year and usually lands on December 21st (although this year it's the 22nd-- today). There are a multitude of reasons a neo-Pagan might celebrate this day, but if you aren't religious, you're only left with one rather arbitrary reason: it's the shortest day of the year. It feels more like an excuse to celebrate rather than a reason to celebrate.

I should mention Festivus, whose very reason for celebration is its own arbitrariness. As the saying goes, "A Festivus for the rest of us!" It started from an episode of Seinfeld and has actually grown quite popular as an alternative to Christmas (which it doesn't pretend not to be). At least it makes no effort to hide what it is.

Well there you have it. Choose one, or none, as you will. Happy holidays (or not).

Powered by ScribeFire.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

On Logic

Logic only shows us valid and invalid forms of argument. Too many people misuse the word 'logic' or treat it like some kind of magical weapon. I even hear statements that logic is the sole domain of atheists. Let me tell you something: logic is no one's slave.

Consider this argument:
God is love.
Love exists.
Therefore, God exists.

This is a completely logically valid argument. That is, the conclusion logically follows from the premises. But is it true? Is it sound? These are questions that logic cannot answer. Logic cannot tell us what the truth is. It can only tell us if an argument is valid. If we accept the premises as true, then we accept the conclusion as true. If not, then not. (If you didn't notice, I'd just formed a logically valid argument.)

Logic is a construct. As such it cannot stand alone. Logic is a lot like math. Math is meaningless on its own, but incredibly useful in the right context. Consider the following formula:
x = y+1
a * x = n

Now, that seems meaningless on its own. However, let x = the retail sales tax in the state of Kansas (i.e. about 7.52%, or 0.0752). Using the formula, y = 1.0752, which is the multiplier you'd use to discover the final cost of a product after tax. Let a = the initial cost of the product, and let n = the final cost (rounded to the nearest hundredth). If we want to buy a $1 candy bar, the actual cost would be $1.08.
0.0752+1 = 1.0752
1 * 1.0752 = 1.08 (rounded to the nearest hundredth)

Suddenly the formula is a lot more useful. But not by itself. It only becomes useful when values are introduced that we already consider valuable. It means nothing on its own. Math does not "belong" to anyone--it is only a tool to be used. Logic is exactly the same way.

In a forum I was recently posting in, someone posted a topic asking for a White History Month. When a regular poster told him to crawl back under the rock where he belonged, he demanded a "logical" response. So I gave him one.

1 Premise: You belong under a rock.
2 Premise: You crawl rather than walk.
3 Corollary: Were you to return to the rock where you belong, you would crawl to get there. (From 1 and 2)
4 Premise: Those who do not contribute to the forum should leave.
5 Premise: You do not contribute to the forum.
6 Conclusion: Crawl back under the rock where you belong.


I just proved, logically, that he should crawl back under the rock where he belongs. If you accept the premises, the conclusion follows. Perhaps the word he was looking for was "rational" rather than "logical." But then, why should anyone bother posting a rational response to such an irrational topic?

Let's try to recap, here. Logic is a method to determine the validity of an argument. That is, it helps us differentiate between valid and invalid forms of argument. Note that an argument's validity has nothing to do with its truth value. Consider the following argument:
People have gills.
Animals with gills can breathe underwater.
People can breathe underwater.

This argument is valid even though it is obviously untrue. The argument is not true because the first premise is not true. However, the conclusion follows from the premises, making it a valid argument.

Logic is not your badge of authority, so stop treating it like one.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Windows sucks

Thank you, Windows, for crashing just as I finished my latest article, just before I saved it. Fuck you, Windows, you just lost another customer.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

I Don't Want to Share Your Christmas

Are you celebrating Christmas? I'm not. Why should I? I'm not Christian. I'm not religious in any way. I have no reason to celebrate Christmas. Do you celebrate Christmas? You know what, don't bother answering, because I don't care. And that's how it should be.

I get a lot of people telling me what I should celebrate Christmas, for one reason or another. Non-Christians will tell me that Christmas isn't really a Christian holiday. You know what? I don't care. Christians who encourage me to celebrate Christmas insist that they wouldn't be offended and would love to see me enjoy it. They say that the Christians who tell me not to celebrate Christmas "aren't True Christians." You know what? I don't care.

Before I stopped celebrating Christmas, I got this same crap, only in reverse, from both Christians and non-Christians. Christians would act offended at my celebration of their holiday, while non-Christians would accuse me of facilitating a sort of "Christian dominance" in American culture. Well, I say to both parties: I don't care. I just don't care.

Common sense tells us that Christmas is a Christian holiday. I mean, it's called Christmas. Sure, it stole traditions from Yule and from Saturnalia. And I'm not saying that Christmas is an original holiday. It isn't. If we say that Christmas is a Christian holiday, well: I'm not a Christian. And if we say that it's a pagan holiday, well: I'm not a pagan, either. Is this why I don't celebrate? It might be. Is it any of your business? Not really.

I have to wonder why atheists are sometimes criticized for not celebrating Christmas (often by other atheists), but Muslims and Jews aren't. I've even been told that my lack of celebration is "stupid" and "rebellious," by an atheist that didn't even bother to ask me why it is that I don't celebrate! Would anyone call me "stupid" or "rebellious" for not celebrating Ramadan or Hanukkah? I haven't been called these things for not celebrating those holidays, but I find it interesting to note that the people who accuse me of rebelliousness not only don't bother to ask why I don't celebrate Christmas, they don't bother to ask if I grew up in a Christian household, as opposed to a Muslim household or a Jewish household (or any other religious household).

Use your imagination for a minute. Assume that I grew up in a Jewish household. Now, as a non-religious person who celebrates neither Hanukkah nor Christmas, wouldn't it be ironic for people to accuse me of being rebellious for not celebrating Christmas? What if I was a religious Hanukkah-celebrating Jew? How much sense would it make for someone to call me rebellious (for not celebrating Christmas) then?

As a non-religious person, I have no reason to celebrate religious holidays, including Christmas. Furthermore, Christmas simply has no appeal to me. But I don't need to justify the fact that I don't celebrate. I'm not on trial--something that people often forget. I have the freedom not to celebrate whatever holiday for whatever reason I want. I don't have to explain myself to anyone. Learn to accept the fact that I don't celebrate your holiday, and get over it. Your holiday isn't a big deal to me, so don't force it on me. That's impolite.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Labels: , , ,