No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:::: Okay, but what's the purpose of describing rules, general or otherwise? Sure, we could do it, but why do we want to? Anyone who has the books can read about Strength. Anyone who doesn't have the books shouldn't be relying on us to tell them how things work. Who are we serving by telling them, in this case, that lower self-control numbers are harder to resist?[[User:Grouchy Chris|Grouchy Chris]] 22:05, November 3, 2010 (UTC) |
:::: Okay, but what's the purpose of describing rules, general or otherwise? Sure, we could do it, but why do we want to? Anyone who has the books can read about Strength. Anyone who doesn't have the books shouldn't be relying on us to tell them how things work. Who are we serving by telling them, in this case, that lower self-control numbers are harder to resist?[[User:Grouchy Chris|Grouchy Chris]] 22:05, November 3, 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Hmm... I suppose the fact that lower self control numbers are harder to resist isn't signifigant. My concern is people knowing "A self-control number is a number that indicates a character's susceptibility to some mental disadvantages" which is just enough information for people to have any idea what a Self-Control Number is. The people we're serving are people who don't know the rules very well (which isn't just new people as anyone could forget rules they've learnt), having possession of the rulebooks doesn't mean that someone automatically knows and understands every rule within them, and by introducing each rule in a general way (at least the purpose of it, if not the mechanics) we make it possible for anyone to understand the subjects we're talking about in the articles. --[[user:Modred|Modred]] ([[user talk:Modred|talk]]). 02:02, November 4, 2010 (UTC) |
:::::Hmm... I suppose the fact that lower self control numbers are harder to resist isn't signifigant. My concern is people knowing "A self-control number is a number that indicates a character's susceptibility to some mental disadvantages" which is just enough information for people to have any idea what a Self-Control Number is. The people we're serving are people who don't know the rules very well (which isn't just new people as anyone could forget rules they've learnt), having possession of the rulebooks doesn't mean that someone automatically knows and understands every rule within them, and by introducing each rule in a general way (at least the purpose of it, if not the mechanics) we make it possible for anyone to understand the subjects we're talking about in the articles. --[[user:Modred|Modred]] ([[user talk:Modred|talk]]). 02:02, November 4, 2010 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Also if it is in GURPS lite I'm sure they not worried about it being "free" --{{User:Roguebfl/sig2}} 06:36, November 4, 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 06:36, 4 November 2010
I feel that describing the mechanics of the self-control number strays into copying rules out of the rulebooks, and that should be cut out. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and do that.Grouchy Chris 01:45, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I dissagree, We are talking the General concept, not here can be used with out the rule book. It does not cover what levels or proces you can get, merely the concepts, And only those needed to understand what gets written on a character sheet -- Roguebfl talk contribs email 21:04, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
- No rule, by itself, will let you play the game without the rule book. But I don't think the purpose of an article on a particular game mechanic should be to repeat what's in the rulebooks, however brief the treatment the article gives it. The purpose of the article should be to point the reader to references in the rule books, and to rulings made by Kromm, so that they can read what they need to know in sources provided by SJG. If we start saying "this rule works like this," even very briefly, we're stepping out of the role of providing a reference, and stepping into the role of explaining rules, which is what GURPS books are for. I think we should keep away from that.Grouchy Chris 21:27, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I think that on subjects like the Attributes, well we should describe what an attribute is (most gamers will know just from the name anyway), and we should describe what an advantage is, and I think Self-Control numbers fall in that category of "general rules" that I think it might be ok to repeat, certainly we can't possibly define how every (or really any) advantage, disadvantage, spell, or skill work (I'm not sure about attributes... I suppose just the names might be descriptive enough for them). Like we could describe the system for success rolls 'roll 3d6 and check to see if you're below the target number', cause that's a general thing, it applies to all skills/spells/&c. --Modred (talk). 21:41, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, but what's the purpose of describing rules, general or otherwise? Sure, we could do it, but why do we want to? Anyone who has the books can read about Strength. Anyone who doesn't have the books shouldn't be relying on us to tell them how things work. Who are we serving by telling them, in this case, that lower self-control numbers are harder to resist?Grouchy Chris 22:05, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... I suppose the fact that lower self control numbers are harder to resist isn't signifigant. My concern is people knowing "A self-control number is a number that indicates a character's susceptibility to some mental disadvantages" which is just enough information for people to have any idea what a Self-Control Number is. The people we're serving are people who don't know the rules very well (which isn't just new people as anyone could forget rules they've learnt), having possession of the rulebooks doesn't mean that someone automatically knows and understands every rule within them, and by introducing each rule in a general way (at least the purpose of it, if not the mechanics) we make it possible for anyone to understand the subjects we're talking about in the articles. --Modred (talk). 02:02, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, but what's the purpose of describing rules, general or otherwise? Sure, we could do it, but why do we want to? Anyone who has the books can read about Strength. Anyone who doesn't have the books shouldn't be relying on us to tell them how things work. Who are we serving by telling them, in this case, that lower self-control numbers are harder to resist?Grouchy Chris 22:05, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I think that on subjects like the Attributes, well we should describe what an attribute is (most gamers will know just from the name anyway), and we should describe what an advantage is, and I think Self-Control numbers fall in that category of "general rules" that I think it might be ok to repeat, certainly we can't possibly define how every (or really any) advantage, disadvantage, spell, or skill work (I'm not sure about attributes... I suppose just the names might be descriptive enough for them). Like we could describe the system for success rolls 'roll 3d6 and check to see if you're below the target number', cause that's a general thing, it applies to all skills/spells/&c. --Modred (talk). 21:41, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
- No rule, by itself, will let you play the game without the rule book. But I don't think the purpose of an article on a particular game mechanic should be to repeat what's in the rulebooks, however brief the treatment the article gives it. The purpose of the article should be to point the reader to references in the rule books, and to rulings made by Kromm, so that they can read what they need to know in sources provided by SJG. If we start saying "this rule works like this," even very briefly, we're stepping out of the role of providing a reference, and stepping into the role of explaining rules, which is what GURPS books are for. I think we should keep away from that.Grouchy Chris 21:27, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
Also if it is in GURPS lite I'm sure they not worried about it being "free" -- Roguebfl talk contribs email 06:36, November 4, 2010 (UTC)