Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;648711I don't doubt you're a fanboy of the game.  Let me know when everyone has bought every add-on for this extremely popular game.

Hint: just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it's not a good seller/popular.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;648678Are Munchkin players supposed to know about D&D?  Anyway, it's just a gag/pun joke card game that is fun to play once maybe.  Because after you've read all the jokes...  re-gift.  I like how people will say how sales of a game have doubled in the last week if they sold 2 boxes.

My wife and I know three separate couples who have nothing to do with RPGs (not even MMOs) and who love Munchkin.  It's got way more appeal than you think it does.

Yeah, there's good reasons not to like the game - it's a bit too long for how interesting it is, it's jokes tend to be funny-once, and the more expansions you throw in the slower it gets.

But that aside, SJGames wouldn't be talking about how their #1 challenge each year was keeping Munchkin in print if it wasn't selling like hotcakes.  Someone's buying it, and someone's keeping it.

Quote from: Silverlion;648634I live in Texas. Far away from SJG, and its pretty damn popular here. (My brother in law, who is NOT into RPG's at all, brought over a copy to play.)

I've seen arrive at game stores looking for Munchkin People who'd never played any RPGs. It has happened enough times to feel that Koltar up there isn't wrong in his view. (I've spent an inordinate time hanging out at game stores it seems.)

Not that I don't agree with your thoughts. But you realise SJG is based out of Austin. As in Austin, Texas.

Chaosium's huge D100 System book probably doesn't fit some people's idea of Basic Role Playing, either.

RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, Elfquest, Hawkmoon, Ringworld, Worlds of Wonder (really Basic Role Playing, Magic World, Future World and Super World) -- how about that kind of line as a model?

It doesn't mean you can't also publish a bullet-stopper for the cognoscenti!

No GURPS Bestiary any more? That's a shame. I haven't actually played GURPS in ages, but I pull out that book fairly often for use with other games. In that context, it supplements (and sometimes supplants) a handbook of natural history that is not so geared to gamer needs.

Quote from: David Johansen;647147So, what about it?  Is there potential to build a modular open source 3d6 engine with a realistic tactical bent that offers a compatible touch stone for personal creations without the resistance of a controlling publisher that lacks the vision or desire to go forward?

I'd be interested in that. And I'd be willing to put in a fair amount work on the project.

My main concern would be this: I do think there are some problems with GURPS that I'd like to see fixed, and my ideas for changes might lead to some clashes with others of differing visions.

Personally, I hate GURPS 4th edition. 3rd is/was one of my favorite games specifically because the core rules included just enough info to run gritty fantasy, scifi or pulp games. You added additional setting books to get more options for whatever sort of game you wanted to play, like Magic or Autoduel. 4th reversed that model by essentially including EVERYTHING into the core rules, which is overwhelming to say the least. It's a lot easier to add stuff as needed than remove it (in my opinion). The skill list is ridiculously bloated, for instance. Also the layout...ughh. And I know it's a "universal" game, but changing the sample characters from generic fantasy to world-hopping ubermensch was dumb.

The real gripe I have with 4th is essentially that all the flavor was ripped out and what was once a good rpg became a toolkit for making an rpg. I already own HERO, I don't need another version that is even more complex.

Not a fan of GURPS, I liked HERO only marginally better...
If I had to chose an universal system these days I'd go with Dreampark for a rule-light game or Chaosium's Basic If I wanted something more realistic/rule-intensive.

Quote from: Brad;650667The real gripe I have with 4th is essentially that all the flavor was ripped out and what was once a good rpg became a toolkit for making an rpg. I already own HERO, I don't need another version that is even more complex.

That is a good point. I'll agree that GURPS 3rd did have its own definite flavor (I'm not familiar with 4th to really make statements about that, but I get the impression that it has moved in a more HERO-like direction).

Although, there are some basic differences between GURPS and HERO even as tool kits---for example, GURPS is more gritty, with more difference between human level characters, than what you'd get with HERO.

Quote from: warp9;650659I'd be interested in that. And I'd be willing to put in a fair amount work on the project.

My main concern would be this: I do think there are some problems with GURPS that I'd like to see fixed, and my ideas for changes might lead to some clashes with others of differing visions.

So what? Others would probably have changes of thier own that would be different from yours.

In open source games there is room for a whole lot of variants and different takes on things.

Quote from: warp9;650659My main concern would be this: I do think there are some problems with GURPS that I'd like to see fixed, and my ideas for changes might lead to some clashes with others of differing visions.

I'm curious what those changes might be, please elaborate.

Personally, I'm getting more and more mileage out of Savage Worlds every day.  While I prefer GURPS as a system, Savage Worlds has more going for it in terms of accessibility and speed.  PEG is also more open to licensing and expansion, so you wind up with more published material for a wide range of genres which makes my life as a GM easier.

Quote from: warp9;650683Although, there are some basic differences between GURPS and HERO even as tool kits---for example, GURPS is more gritty, with more difference between human level characters, than what you'd get with HERO.

Sure, that's true, but HERO 6th does gritty better than GURPS 4th does heroic. Neither is ideal, but GURPS still isn't the universal game promised. Looking at my books, GURPS 4th definitely moved more toward HERO scaling for attributes, whereas 3rd is much grainier for sub-heroic characters. In 3rd, you could differentiate between normal humans much more than 4th, which is similar to HERO. So, to reiterate, you're correct, but MUCH less so than before.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650688So what? Others would probably have changes of thier own that would be different from yours.

In open source games there is room for a whole lot of variants and different takes on things.

If we can accommodate everybody's ideas, that sounds great to me.

Quote from: Dave;650706I'm curious what those changes might be, please elaborate.

There are a number of changes I'd like to see.

As I'm sure is true with most of the other people on this forum, I've been influenced by a whole bunch of different games. Although, for me, the ones that are most relevant to the present discussion are: GURPS, HERO, EABA, and, to some extent, Mayfair's DC Heroes System. And, if I were to remake GURPS, I'd probably end up with something which looks like a combination of those systems.

As far as GURPS goes, I like the fact that a guy with an 8 DEX performs DEX-based skills much differently than a 12 DEX guy (as opposed to HERO's 9 + stat/5 approach, where 8 DEX counts the same as a 12 DEX). I'd definitely like to stay with the idea that each point counts.

I know that GURPS 4th has moved to a "STR squared" scale for lifting (rather than the linear lift pattern in 3rd edition), however, I'd like to see GURPS go to an exponential/logarithmic scale (similar to what you see with EABA, or Mayfair's DC Heroes). Although, rather than the more extreme progression which a game like DC Heroes had, I'd either go with a doubling per 5 points, or even doubling per 10 points for a slower progression.

As I mentioned above, there are a whole bunch of other possible changes that I might (or might not) want to go with. It would take a while to detail them all, still, I'll give one more example of a change I might like to see. . . .

This idea might be fairly controversial (and taken from a more simulationist perspective), but I'd like to add in Size as a base attribute. Set a default value for Strength based on the Square-Cube Law, and take proportional strength into account. My proposal would complicate matters a bit (which I'm sure would not be popular with people who think that GURPS is already too complicated), but it would allow for the elephant vs squirrel effect where you have bigger-slower characters/creatures vs smaller-faster ones. I can say more about the specifics of this idea, if people are curious.

Quote from: Brad;650714Sure, that's true, but HERO 6th does gritty better than GURPS 4th does heroic. Neither is ideal, but GURPS still isn't the universal game promised. Looking at my books, GURPS 4th definitely moved more toward HERO scaling for attributes, whereas 3rd is much grainier for sub-heroic characters. In 3rd, you could differentiate between normal humans much more than 4th, which is similar to HERO. So, to reiterate, you're correct, but MUCH less so than before.

Is the normal range for human attributes in GURPS different now that they have new scaling?

Okay, interesting.  I do want Strength to be simple but I want the progression to be exponential or logarithmic.

In spite of a few individuals on the SJG forums who insist no human should ever have an attribute higher than 11 officially 3 - 18 represents the full human spectrum from infants to near superhumans like Batman or Conan.  15 is generally seen as the high end of the reasonable human range.

Anyhow, the 9 + Stat / 5 is one of my objections to HERO.

My own thoughts relate more to presentation and availability at present.  The core of the game shouldn't be more than 64 pages and should cover magic and powers in that range.  The stat set should be small and be set up so finer variation like manual dextertity can be broken down from it.  Combat should be simulationist but fast.  I think stepping away from one second rounds would probably be good as it's an obstacle many people complain about.  Perhaps there should be a seconds per action rule to represent various initiative levels and super speed.  Incidentally these rules thoughts relate directly to gaining wide acceptance rather than personal preference.  There's always room for optional rules.

In terms of format and open use I'd propose that the core should be free and usable in personal projects without liscence.  A committee would hand out a trademarked line brand based on core compatability.  I don't think they should have the power to restrict objectionable material because I don't want the core game to become the committee's private project.  To succeed it would need to be open to the world but internally compatible.  That's where I feel FUZION failed.  I so wanted FUZION to do well but the reality was that it couldn't succeed because it was a liscenced product which drove away companies like Gold Rush Games and lacked internal compatability control.  To succeed the game would need to be truly open while retaining compatability between different companies and creators.