GURPS is by far my favorite RPG and the one I've played/run the most. However, if the 1-second turns and aesthetics are putting you off... GURPS is very probably not the game for you.

4e fixed a lot of the issues I had with 3e, but egads! it is fucking ugly. Magic in particular. I have no idea why they thought that was a good idea. I vastly preferred 3e's largely unified and stylized B/W art. And as others have noted, while 4e is much more solid mechanically, you pretty much have to be familiar with GURPS already to dive into the 4e Basic Set and get much use out of it unless you're patient. I mean, there's a reason SJG believed there was a market for "How to Be a GURPS GM" (which is actually a great manual, but still).

In any case, I've personally never had any issue with combat pacing or speed in GURPS. It's generally over quite quickly (WAY more quickly than when I was running/playing D&D), plus it feels very meaty and rewarding. I've also found that GURPS scales crunch-wise quite well, it's pretty easy for me to calibrate for a given campaign.

If you aren't afraid of the front-loaded nature of prepping and tuning a GURPS campaign, it runs quite smoothly and low-overhead in play IME and I do very little prep work (mostly just daydreaming and noting a few down). It's more flexible than many give it credit for. If you're not afraid of putting in elbow grease, and you can stomach the generic nature of it and its granularity, you might well find yourself enjoying it. However, the entry fee in terms of energy and investment is more than many are willing to expend, which is fair.

I will recommend that if you do decide to try it, get one of the pre-fab lines to start: Dungeon Fantasy RPG as mentioned earlier, or one of the main GURPS line ones like Action! (that whole line is fantastic and simplifies/streamlines TONS), Monster Hunters, After the End, Dungeon Fantasy (yes I know it's stupid they named the standalone effectively the same fucking thing), Steampunk, etc. because it really is super convenient to have a bunch of premade character templates, rules tweaks and campaign advice right up front.

3es quickstart seems to be alot of folks benchmark for Gurps. It is a surprisingly solid little booklet.

Quote from: Omega;11204143es quickstart seems to be alot of folks benchmark for Gurps. It is a surprisingly solid little booklet.

It was the basis for the "Powered by GURPS" line, which included Hellboy, the Transhuman Space HC, Discworld, and so on. GURPS Lite 3E's 32 pages were included in those books, along with any specific ads/disads/skills/etc. needed for those specific settings, and that's all you needed. They were stand-alone games, independent of the Basic Set and the Supplements.

Wish they went in that direction for 4E. Start with a solid core, and only give people the mods they specifically need for each setting. That would have kept the game far more accessible, while still being cross-compatible and built on a consistent chassis.

Quote from: Pat;1120226SJG games decided to appeal to the vocal diehards with 4th edition, which made the Basic Set comprehensive, but intimidating and a terrible way to learn the game.

I personally judge a game very harshly by what is in the core book alone. So it is good that GURPS 4e was comprehensive or I would have written it off as an overly complicated system that doesn't let you do much.... More so than I already do.

The lack of vehicle rules and the very brief descriptions on what skills actually do in the core book makes the game less useful to me than something like Savage Worlds. GURPS has skill defaults at least but that is just a very complicated system that must of convinced the authors their skill system was deep. D&D3e managed to have a table for every skill, so GURPS not being at least that in-depth of disappointing. GURPS is also very combat heavy in crunch. If I am going heavier in crunch than Savage Worlds, then I would appreciate that crunch concentrated more in areas where I find SW lacking such as out-of-combat mechanics and crafting rules.

They also removed the vehicle construction rules from the new Car Wars.

Perhaps they are planning some later book with those rules in it?

Quote from: estar;1120399Quick test, there isn't any rules for jumping in the 3 LBB, so does mean if i use those rules in a campaign character can't jump?

That's pretty much the way it went down in most of the groups I played when rules didn't specify how to handle things. In my experience, when the rules don't specify how things work, people don't automatically come up with creative ways to handle them on the spot. They usually either rule that it's impossible (after much deliberation, grinding the game to a halt) or sorta gloss over it and assume that characters eventually manage to do something just to get play going again (also after much deliberation). Even when people come up with creative ways to handle stuff not specified in the rules, that often takes place after the session is completed (usually days later) and the GM has had time to think it over and come up with something.

The lack of rules to specify how different actions work in the game isn't a feature, its the absence of one. The game's setting has no direct bearing on determining exactly the distance that a character can jump--it may affect how far the character may ultimately jump (if characters are in a low gravity planet, they might be able to jump farther than normal), but it doesn't tell me exactly how much distance it is. None of that stuff is obvious, it requires either specific information or for GMs and players who don't care much about the specifics to just gloss over and ignore it.

And that's the reason why such rules eventually made it into D&D and every other game. It wasn't that people who didn't know (cuz they books didn't tell them) made the wrong assumption, but that assuming that these things should be "obvious" does not make them so. And when players need specific details the rules either have to provide them, or they'll have to make them up for their own campaign group.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120445That's pretty much the way it went down in most of the groups I played when rules didn't specify how to handle things. In my experience, when the rules don't specify how things work, people don't automatically come up with creative ways to handle them on the spot. They usually either rule that it's impossible (after much deliberation, grinding the game to a halt) or sorta gloss over it and assume that characters eventually manage to do something just to get play going again (also after much deliberation). Even when people come up with creative ways to handle stuff not specified in the rules, that often takes place after the session is completed (usually days later) and the GM has had time to think it over and come up with something.

The lack of rules to specify how different actions work in the game isn't a feature, its the absence of one. The game's setting has no direct bearing on determining exactly the distance that a character can jump--it may affect how far the character may ultimately jump (if characters are in a low gravity planet, they might be able to jump farther than normal), but it doesn't tell me exactly how much distance it is. None of that stuff is obvious, it requires either specific information or for GMs and players who don't care much about the specifics to just gloss over and ignore it.

And that's the reason why such rules eventually made it into D&D and every other game. It wasn't that people who didn't know (cuz they books didn't tell them) made the wrong assumption, but that assuming that these things should be "obvious" does not make them so. And when players need specific details the rules either have to provide them, or they'll have to make them up for their own campaign group.

That's silly.

This problem more depends on rule construction (or you play in groups of incredibly rigid people). The Black Hack has no rules for jump distance, so whether or not you can jump a gap depends on if the GM wants it to be a challenge, part of the scenery, or a wall. If it's a challenge, you make an attribute check. Stars Without Number also lacks a jump distance, you have an Exert skill and vague skill DCs if the GM feels like you need to make a check.

But yes, if jump rules were missing in GURPS, WotC D&D, or Pathfinder, then yeah the game would come grinding to a halt because the system spends a lot of time simulating and doesn't help you make calls. Savage Worlds is designed around understanding its edge cases and pointing them out, but even it has jump rules.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120445That's pretty much the way it went down in most of the groups I played when rules didn't specify how to handle things. In my experience, when the rules don't specify how things work, people don't automatically come up with creative ways to handle them on the spot. They usually either rule that it's impossible (after much deliberation, grinding the game to a halt) or sorta gloss over it and assume that characters eventually manage to do something just to get play going again (also after much deliberation). Even when people come up with creative ways to handle stuff not specified in the rules, that often takes place after the session is completed (usually days later) and the GM has had time to think it over and come up with something.

I understand where you are coming from.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120445The game's setting has no direct bearing on determining exactly the distance that a character can jump--it may affect how far the character may ultimately jump (if characters are in a low gravity planet, they might be able to jump farther than normal), but it doesn't tell me exactly how much distance it is.

The setting has everything to do determining how far a character jumps, if I told you that unless otherwise stated it works like it would in the 12th century western europe, you could then look in a book to find out how far the average person can jump because that how it would work on the planet Earth. The same as if we played a Barsoom campaign that the lower gravity give character born on earth greater strength and movement capabilities compared to the inhabitants of Barsoom.

The same applies even when the setting is fantastic like the world of looney tune cartoons. If something isn't covered in the rules you look at the source material and get the answer.

And if the players don't know then the referee should be knowledgeable enough about the setting to teach the players what they need to know.

Conversely if one used a set of rules that allowed character to do a 40' standing long jump but yet contend the setting is similar to that of western europe of the 12th century that an issue. The rules doesn't reflect the setting of the campaign and need to be changed so they do. The players can rightly point out the inconsistency in the referee's ruling and what been described about the setting.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120445The lack of rules to specify how different actions work in the game isn't a feature, its the absence of one.

And yet the wargaming and the tabletop RPG community of the early 70s prior to the release of D&D didn't have the issue that you are talking about. It been documented that they relied on tersely written mechanics. For everything else got the details from various books and publications. The most fantastic material also drawing inspiration from film and tv. Since they are the ones who invented tabletop roleplaying in the first place perhaps something being missed by the present day hobby.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120445It wasn't that people who didn't know (cuz they books didn't tell them) made the wrong assumption, but that assuming that these things should be "obvious" does not make them so.

Or the referee needed to be a better coach and teacher. Or the players should be asking questions. Or players should take some responsibility and read some source materials on the setting before playing the campaign.

No it is not obvious how far a average person can go with a standing broad jump (7.5 feet) but it is answer that can be easily found even in the 70s.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120445And that's the reason why such rules eventually made it into D&D and every other game.

I don't agree, such rules made it into various RPGs and later editions of D&D for two reasons.

1) Gygax didn't do well in teaching a critical aspect of running tabletop roleplaying campaigns when writing D&D. That the ultimate source of your ruling is the setting of your campaign. Later when Gygax and co were caught in TSR expansion, they "gave" in and basically said "fine, you want rules, we will give you rules" and thus AD&D and later editions.

2) Because this critical point wasn't taught the rest of the hobby treated tabletop roleplaying as another game rather it is own thing. People were taught and still taught that you play games by their rules or you are cheating. And like you said if a games doesn't have a rule is not covered and thus not part of the game.

However to be fair to Gygax he did touch on this in the 3 LBB talking about it in the introduction however it wasn't followed up on.

QuoteAs with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity -- your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination -- the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time.

and ending with this in Book 3.

QuoteThere are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming will often have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120445And when players need specific details the rules either have to provide them, or they'll have to make them up for their own campaign group.

When I debate this or talk about, often people think that I am criticizing the behavior of players. Saying that they are too lazy to read, or that you are wrong about what is obvious or not. That not the case.

The burden is on the referee as the person who choose the setting, responsible for making rulings, and managing the campaign. The referee having pick the setting shouldn't assume that the players knows anything about the time or place that was choose. So it on the referee to be a coach and teacher when they see the players making incorrect assumptions.

Especially if they choose something not commonly known like an original setting based on the mythology inspired by the religions of southeast asia. I am aware of this when running the Majestic Wilderlands irregardless whether I am using GURPS or OD&D. Sure I try to make things easier by using commonly known tropes so players are more comfortable in making assumptions. But there always somebody who hasn't  read Lord of the Rings and knows little of Middle Ages and thus it falls on me to coach them until they are comfortable with the campaign.

The way to make tabletop roleplaying better is not better rules but better referees. The rules are just one of the tool to make the campaign happen. In addition, your viewpoint makes recruiting people into tabletop roleplaying more difficult. Because it sets up the requirement that one has to learn a intricate set of rules along with the setting as well.

The approach I advocate, the one used by many who originated the hobby, is one where players describe what they do as if they are there as the character then if a dice roll is needed the referee will tell the player what they need to know. Over time the player will learn the mechanics but in the meantime they are having as much fun as the players who mastered the rulebook.

Wrapping it or what does this has to do with fucking GURPS?

Steve Jackson is an old school wargamer and he known for games with simple but elegant mechanics and for games that cover a lot of details in its mechanics. From what I read and experienced he comes from the same place as the wargamers did in the 70s. Except what we mostly have seen from them are the first steps. With Steve Jackson we see the result of a experienced referee with years if not decades of consistent ruling under their belt. Put down in written form.

What many in the OSR don't get is that if you run a setting long enough, if you write down the things you rule on. The accumulated mechanics will put you in a similar place. Maybe not as detailed as GURPS or D&D 3rd edition but it not the 3 LBB of OD&D anymore either. If your setting is consistent then the resulting set of mechanics will have an internal consistency of their own.

For GURPS, Steve Jackson and his team are very good at designing consistent ruling across a wide variety of topics. Which is one reason why I gravitated to them back in 88 and why I still use them from time to time when I run a Majestic Wilderlands campaign using the GURPS rules.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1120457The Black Hack has no rules for jump distance, so whether or not you can jump a gap depends on if the GM wants it to be a challenge, part of the scenery, or a wall.

Sorry but that a stupid reason for the Black Hack including guidelines for jumping. Why? Because there no way that leads to consistency. I have to roll to make a 5 foot jump on dry stone because the referee felt it to be a challenge one time but next it part of the scenery so it automatic?

I can understand it better if Black Hack design is to abstract all physical activity in a single set of guidelines or mechanics. However if the referee ruled a 5 foot jump is automatically success then it should remain automatically successful if the jump is undertaken under the same circumstances.

I don't if this is actually what the Black Hack rules say, but if they do this is the kind of referee whim that drive many hobbyist crazy. One thing I found that players hate feeling like their choices are blind shots in the dark with darts. What does Black Hack say about deciding whether something ought to be challenging, part of the scenery, or a wall?

Quote from: estar;1120462Sorry but that a stupid reason for the Black Hack including guidelines for jumping. Why? Because there no way that leads to consistency. I have to roll to make a 5 foot jump on dry stone because the referee felt it to be a challenge one time but next it part of the scenery so it automatic?

I can understand it better if Black Hack design is to abstract all physical activity in a single set of guidelines or mechanics. However if the referee ruled a 5 foot jump is automatically success then it should remain automatically successful if the jump is undertaken under the same circumstances.

I don't if this is actually what the Black Hack rules say, but if they do this is the kind of referee whim that drive many hobbyist crazy. One thing I found that players hate feeling like their choices are blind shots in the dark with darts. What does Black Hack say about deciding whether something ought to be challenging, part of the scenery, or a wall?

The Black Hack is very flexible so I didn't want to limit it by giving specific examples. In most OSR games, the GM is going to limit your jump to what a fit human can do, but in The Black Hack you would rarely describe a gap as "5ft" anyways. The size of the gap only becomes relevant when someone wants to jump it and then the GM needs to let them know "how big" it is, which is effectively deciding if it is a challenge, automatic, or impossible. (Aside: You could use The Black Hack to run superheroes so jump distance is not always "fit human" and thus that is not the rule)

Like you said, most rulings depend on the setting. OSR games tend to lean on the "Fit human" idea which implies a bunch of rulings and the argument is that they do not need to be written down and may in-fact harm a game by even being there. This method of reasoning is an application of "Fuzzy Logic", which is something humans do naturally but is a complicated topic for getting a computer to simulate it.

I just read through much of The Dark Eye (5e) core rulebook, and while it is a tad more detailed than GURPS (4e basic set) on out of combat mechanics, I had to ask myself "what amount of fun would any of this have on the table?". Maybe I could make low fantasy more interesting to a group and give them more mechanical hooks to get immersed in roleplaying? Or I could run a plenty deep Red-Tide campaign with a hacked together version of Stars Without Number and Codex of the Black Sun and it would still be far easier to teach than something like The Dark Eye or GURPS and we would get way more done each session.

Quote from: estar;1120462I don't if this is actually what the Black Hack rules say, but if they do this is the kind of referee whim that drive many hobbyist crazy. One thing I found that players hate feeling like their choices are blind shots in the dark with darts. What does Black Hack say about deciding whether something ought to be challenging, part of the scenery, or a wall?

It's OSR, you are suppose to let your players know what their characters perceive about that action.

Situation 1:
Player: "I go to jump the pit"
GM: "You might make it, roll a check if you jump" (Notice the GM interjecting a decision to let the player take back a potential misunderstanding. If they don't roll anything then the player took it back)

Situation 2:
Player: "I go to jump the pit"
GM: "You make it over."

Situation 3:
Player: "I go to jump the pit"
GM: "You notice that would be impossible"

The Black Hack 2e is has 29 pages of player rule with the rest being GM tools. Jump distance is not mentioned, nor is falling damage.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1120468It's OSR, you are suppose to let your players know what their characters perceive about that action.

Situation 1:
Player: "I go to jump the pit"

Situation 2:
Player: "I go to jump the pit"

Situation 3:
Player: "I go to jump the pit"

None of these are perception actions. They are statements by the player of what he intends to do as their characters. A perception action is

GM: You see a pit in front of you
Player: How big is it?

The decision I make is different if the answer is
GM: 5 feet wide stretching across the corridor.
versus
GM: 15 feet wide stretching across the corridor.

The reason it makes a difference as opposed it just describing it as a pit blocking my way is that I can make a reasoned decision on my chances of success based on past experience of trying to jump pits of various widths.

It nice with situation one that the referee allows me a take back but that in my experience always felt like a cheesy way of dealing with dangers. As a referee I will allow takebacks for various reason especially when coaching novices about the campaign or game. But there comes a point where the player has dealt with it often enough to make their own decision. But in order to make that happen the players needs something to go on and that in this case is the width of the pit.

In addition most players when presented with

Quote from: Rhedyn;1120468Situation 1:
Player: "I go to jump the pit"
GM: "You might make it, roll a check if you jump" (Notice the GM interjecting a decision to let the player take back a potential misunderstanding. If they don't roll anything then the player took it back)

or this

Quote from: Rhedyn;1120468Situation 3:
Player: "I go to jump the pit"
GM: "You notice that would be impossible"

Will in most ask why? So that they can come up with a different solution. Because I only described as a pit we now have to play a game of 20 questions to find that solution. If instead I gave a full but terse description, it is a 15 foot wide pit stretching across the corridor with spikes on the bottom, the session just moves on.

If GURPS seems complex, you might do what I did and start with The Fantasy Trip, it's precursor which was just re-published last year. It's much like GURPS in many ways (classless pointbuy, ST, DX, IQ, great hexmap-based deadly interesting tactical combat, logical rules, etc), but is easy to learn and much less complicated (and also limited to ancient/medieval settings, but it does have a setting, so no choices about which books to use unless you want to homebrew).

I found that after about 5-6 years heavily playing TFT, GURPS was easily to learn, and exactly what I wanted at that point.

After decades with GURPS, mostly playing fantasy/medieval games, I still also find the GURPS 4e Basic Set to be overwhelming, mainly because it includes supers and all sorts of other stuff I don't use, mixed in alphabetically, and I also preferred many of the 3e details. (576 pages versus 256 pages in the Basic Set.) So starting with an old 3e Basic Set might also be a strategy.

Or use the Dungeon Fantasy RPG version, yeah. Though I agree the 250-point characters and the D&D-like fantasy templates and high-powered monsters are NOT where I would start (or end up, for the most part).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1120467The Black Hack is very flexible so I didn't want to limit it by giving specific examples.

So you are the author of Black Hack?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1120467Like you said, most rulings depend on the setting. OSR games tend to lean on the "Fit human" idea which implies a bunch of rulings and the argument is that they do not need to be written down and may in-fact harm a game by even being there. This method of reasoning is an application of "Fuzzy Logic", which is something humans do naturally but is a complicated topic for getting a computer to simulate it.

I don't have an issue with this, I can see how it allows the game engine to scale for different settings. What I have an issue with referee using fuzzy descriptions, the only source of information the players have about a setting is what the referee tells them. They need just enough to feel that their decisions are not random shots in the darks.

The other issue is that the campaign become less interesting if the referee telling them all the time what they are about to do is either dangerous or just impossible.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1120467I just read through much of The Dark Eye (5e) core rulebook, and while it is a tad more detailed than GURPS (4e basic set) on out of combat mechanics, I had to ask myself "what amount of fun would any of this have on the table?".

Because one aspect that makes any system fun for a player or referee to play is that it covers things in the right level of detail in the way the player or referee thinks about those details.

For example I started a Classic Traveller campaign. One of the players is a retired Marine Master Sergeant who know his weapons. Traveller famously relies on gunpowder weapons. So for the first handful of sessions, he give the system a decent try but way it worked felt enough off base that he wasn't having fun with the combat encounters. Luckily he is also a whiz at writing games rules. So he goes and reworks the tables, add a few things related to sights and other gear related to guns including science fiction versions. Afterwards he had a lot more fun. For the rest of us it wasn't any more deadly than the original, gave a few more options, and still worked as part of the Classic Traveller combat system.

It was a lot of fuss for him to do that, spending the better of his evening working the new charts and gear up.

Another example is my Majestic Wilderlands, I have run the same fantasy setting for 30 years but with different groups using different system. In all of them players had adventures like wilderness exploration, dungeon crawls, city adventures, etc. When I used GURPS I had some players like it a lot, and had other that did not. The same with AD&D, Fantasy Hero, D&D 3.X, D&D 5e, and now Swords & Wizardry. Most players don't give a shit as long it coherent not overly fussy and the adventure is fun. A significant numbers very much had more fun with specific system versus other systems. For these players I found it is because the system fit better with how they viewed what their character could and could not do. Just like the previous player had more fun when he reworked the traveller combat tables to reflect his experience as a marine as opposed to Marc Miller's military experience with weapon.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1120467Maybe I could make low fantasy more interesting to a group and give them more mechanical hooks to get immersed in roleplaying? Or I could run a plenty deep Red-Tide campaign with a hacked together version of Stars Without Number and Codex of the Black Sun and it would still be far easier to teach than something like The Dark Eye or GURPS and we would get way more done each session.

People overestimate the time it takes to adjudicate actions with detailed system like GURPS. GURPS combat does take longer but it not because of the details, it because of how combat skills interplay with defense and hit points. GURPS character can defend themselves which results in successful strikes in becoming misses.

A similar thing happened with D&D 4e. On the surface D&D 4e is like any other edition of D&D. You have AC, roll a 1d20 plus bonus, and if it is equal or higher you hit. However D&D 4e has numerous ways for character to heal hit points. So combat drags out to the same length as it does in GURPS. Not because players are fishing around during their rounds. Because hit point are moving up and down like a yo yo until it craters and the character or monster goes down.

Also more details means a steeper learning curve. I found that making a cheat book also me to overcome this and make session go smoother.  However if the system is well designed it less work in the long run as more cases are covered.

What many in the OSR don't release even if you start off barebones if you run a campaign long enough you will wind up with a detailed system. One that result from how you rule on various situations. Most referee are fair about their rulings and a hallmark of fairness is being consistent. That given the same situation you will rule in the same way again. Given time this will probably not be as elaborate as GURPS or The Dark Eye but it will far more than what you started out with.

Quote from: Skarg;1120473After decades with GURPS, mostly playing fantasy/medieval games, I still also find the GURPS 4e Basic Set to be overwhelming, mainly because it includes supers and all sorts of other stuff I don't use, mixed in alphabetically, and I also preferred many of the 3e details. (576 pages versus 256 pages in the Basic Set.) So starting with an old 3e Basic Set might also be a strategy.

I ran my Majestic Wilderlands long enough to build up a cheat book with stuff like the Myrmidon of Set, a books of race templates,  as well as copying a selection of text out of the core books and supplements.

If I had to do from scratch again, GURPS wouldn't be as appealing. On a smaller scale I have this issue with D&D 5e because the need to come up with 20 levels worth of stuff compared to what I have to do for Swords & Wizardry.