Or, "sell me on your version of GURPS." I'm not what I would call familiar with GURPS, though I have skimmed here and there. One thing that really kills it for me is the aesthetics. I'm an aesthetics whore, I admit it. I prefer good-looking RPGs with high production values. And GURPS is ugly.
I could look past that, but when I do, I see stuff like "each turn is 1 second." Yeah, no. I'm not playing a game where the turns are 1 second. "I start aiming." *everyone and his dog's 1-second turn later* "I finish aiming" *everyone and his dog's 1-second turn later* "I pull the trigger." Yeah, no.
So, what house rules do you use to fix that?
I want to like GURPS, so don't fly in all defensive to save the old girl. Just help me get past a couple mental blocks. The system has a metric shit-ton of support, and I like the overall grittier, more realistic feel that it has over HERO or Savage Worlds. I just don't wanna spend forever running combats.
Maybe some actual play videos or podcasts you'd recommend, if you think I've got the wrong impression?
At most tables, AD&D's 1 minute round and GURPS 1 second round were played the same.
If you are looking for coffee table art books masquerading as games, Steve Jackson isn't your friend.
I've not found GURPS combat last overly long. It's a more detailed system than TSR D&D (especially if you break out GURPS's various bells and whistles), but if you can handle HERO or RuneQuest combat, you'll not be concerned with GURPS combat length after a couple games.
The one second turns are fine. Give them a chance and don't worry about it too much. It works really well and keeps the movement rates in check with weapon ranges. Just tell the players that if they have to say "and" it won't fit in one turn. Keep it fast, you don't have time to deliberate in one second. The reason defense rolls are set up the way they are is that you just roll under the number. (-4 if they're stunned).
Don't get obsessed over advantage enhancements and limitations at first. Keep the character's simple at first
Bob
Attributes:
ST 14 [40];
DX 12 [40];
IQ 10
HT 12 [20].
Base Lift: 31
Hit Points: 14 (equal to Strength)
Basic Speed: 6
Move: 6 (4 with Medium Encumbrance)
Parry: 11
Block: 13 (with Medium Shield)
Dodge: 10 ( 8 with Medium Encumbrance)
Advantages:
Comfortable Wealth [10];
Combat Reflexes [15];
Disadvantages:
Code of Honor (Soldier's) [-5];
Duty (Baron Vondroom) [-10];
Sense of Duty (Innocents) [-5];
Skills:
Area Knowledge (Barony of VonDroom) 12 [4];
Broadsword 14 [8];
Climbing 12 [2];
Fast Talk 10 [2];
Marching 12 [2];
Shield 14 [4];
Spear 12 [2];
Spear Throwing 12 [1].
Is a perfectly viable character.
GURPS lite is a great starting point.
The core rules are pretty simple, and you can pick them up in just 32 pages.
http://www.warehouse23.com/products/SJG31-0004
GURPS Lite is the real core, you can treat everything else as optional additions. SJG 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. But don't let that fool you, the game isn't that hard.
But if you've looked that over and still don't like the 1 second turn, it's probably not the game for you. There were some ideas to abstract combat out a bit in Pyramid, but they were clearly struggling against the current. Actions in GURPS are very granular. It works much better if you wrap your head around that and work with it, than if you fight the strong tendency of the rules.
The books are kind of ugly, though there is one consolation: It was going to be a lot worse. SJG was bragging about the amazing art when they released the cover mockups for 4E, but the community took one look, basically threw up in their mouths, and responded by creating their own versions. SJG grudgingly adopted the fan-favorite's work as their new trade dress. While the interiors are kind of blocky and clunky, the covers are at least presentable.
Quote from: Morlock;1120221Or, "sell me on your version of GURPS." I'm not what I would call familiar with GURPS, though I have skimmed here and there. One thing that really kills it for me is the aesthetics. I'm an aesthetics whore, I admit it. I prefer good-looking RPGs with high production values. And GURPS is ugly.
Well using it across three editions (2nd, 3rd, 4th) for 20 years I never had an issue finding the rules I needed when I needed it. The rules are a tool to run a campaign. GURPS doesn't pretend to be anything else other than a toolkit for referees to build their campaign with the genre of their choice. And for players to build the character they want to play within that campaign.
The problem with GURPS is that novices in later editions especially 4e that it is a steep learning curve. That to run a campaign starting out in GURPS, you have to pick and choose the rules you want to use in that campaign. So that extra works beyond what other RPGs require.
It not going to sell you a pretty story. But GURPS does present interesting settings at times and thoroughly explain how to run campaigns in various time periods and setting, some mundane other more fantastic.
Quote from: Morlock;1120221I could look past that, but when I do, I see stuff like "each turn is 1 second." Yeah, no. I'm not playing a game where the turns are 1 second. "I start aiming." *everyone and his dog's 1-second turn later* "I finish aiming" *everyone and his dog's 1-second turn later* "I pull the trigger." Yeah, no.
GURPS combat is a system where each players does one thing and one thing only as their character each round. There is no reactions, bonus actions, etc. Your turn comes, you get to do one thing. Move, step and attack, aim, reload, whatever.
How many other RPGs where you can only do one thing per combat round? How long it takes each player to resolve things in RPGs that allow characters to do multiple things in a combat round? It a mixed bag, but GURPS happened to be very well designed.
GURPS combat is considered slow because it uses one second. Resolving turns is straight forward and quickly done. The issue is that characters get defenses. Which means attack don't hit as often. If you try to use the kitchen sink the first time out then it going to be bog down as you constantly referencing the rulebook. However that not a trait unique to GURPS but to any system with detailed combat mechanics.
Quote from: Morlock;1120221Maybe some actual play videos or podcasts you'd recommend, if you think I've got the wrong impression?
I would start with the Dungeon Fantasy RPG, it not what I would made but it better to learn from than the core rulebook. The problem with DF RPG is that they set the baseline at 250 points. Which will get you characters that will be able to do a D&D style dungeon crawl without having to hole up after the first serious combat encounter. But that 250 points give characters a lot more things to keep track of. Comparable to a 3e or 5e character beyond mid levels.
I wrote a fair amount of posts on GURPS (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search/label/GURPS)
Including this on the basics of GURPS combat. (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/06/basic-gurps-combat.html)
I always wanted to like GURPS, but it never grokked for me, regardless of how much I played. Kinda like FATE for me. However, I did find a FREE fantasy RPG that made my GURPS players happy and worked well for me in actual play. It has a surprising amount of free supplements too. I personally LOVE the art, but I'm a b/w line art fan.
It's called WARRIOR, ROGUE & MAGE ("Wyrm")
http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/
One thing which saved me a lot of headaches wasn't a house rule, but a GMing approach. Whatever the system, looking up rules and charts slows the pace of the game.
But sometimes the rules and charts don't matter. Rather than looking up all the modifiers and possibilities and then asking them to roll, just get them to roll first. Because if they roll 3,4 or 5, or 16, 17 or 18, then the modifiers don't matter, you know the result. If they get 10 or 11 or something, well okay now the numbers matter.
Further, after GMing it for a while you can just eyeball a bonus or malus. You just say, "um, +3 I guess," and the fact that next time the situation comes up you say it's +2 doesn't really matter - the randomness of the dice is far, far larger than the randomness of a GM's decisions.
Wrote this before I saw all the replies, which I will read after posting:
Okay, so, I'm looking at the GURPS Lite 3e rules:
Contests of Skill:
Each contestant makes a success roll (3d6, roll under relevant skill or attribute): if one succeeds and one fails, the winner is obvious. If both succeed or both fail, the winner is the one who succeeded by the most or failed by the least.
Okay, I am frankly not dedicated enough, not smart enough, or both to try and figure out the ins and outs of that math. But I suspect something stupid is lurking in there, somewhere.
What I don't have to wonder about is a nice, straightforward, "3d6 + skill + modifer for each contestant, and whoever scores higher wins, ties are pushed" rule. It's really friggin simple, and I know nothing's lurking in there.
So, what advantage does the GURPS method offer?
QuoteThe books are kind of ugly, though there is one consolation: It was going to be a lot worse. SJG was bragging about the amazing art when they released the cover mockups for 4E, but the community took one look, basically threw up in their mouths, and responded by creating their own versions. SJG grudgingly adopted the fan-favorite's work as their new trade dress. While the interiors are kind of blocky and clunky, the covers are at least presentable.
Really, I'm not all that picky about design. I cut my teeth on AD&D, FFS, and when I crack those books open I still find them perfectly respectable in terms of design. Extremely outdated, but serviceable. What gets me is art. I guess good art is just too expensive for all but the best-funded RPGs. And even then there's no accounting for taste; I think the Dungeonpunk stuff that WotC went to from 3e onward is complete scheisse (though they've done a lot to fix that in 5e). Professionally-executed scheisse, but scheisse.
But it seems like as soon as you step out of the high-end fantasy RPG space, hoo-boy, does the art take a nosedive. GURPS isn't actually bad, graded on this curve, so I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. I mean, it's not like there are a lot of sci-fi games out there with good art that also happens to be somewhere near the hard SF genre I'm looking for. That said, GURPS could benefit from at least adequate design, which would be a step up from what it has now. This is probably especially important for publishers that can't afford nice art.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1120231I always wanted to like GURPS, but it never grokked for me, regardless of how much I played. Kinda like FATE for me. However, I did find a FREE fantasy RPG that made my GURPS players happy and worked well for me in actual play. It has a surprising amount of free supplements too. I personally LOVE the art, but I'm a b/w line art fan.
It's called WARRIOR, ROGUE & MAGE ("Wyrm")
http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/
I really miss B&W art. AD&D had a lot of crappy B&W art, but all of it was evocative. And Trampier and Roslof were masterful. I'd love to see special edition of D&D 5e with old Trampier/Roslof/best of art next to new stuff, maybe from guys like MacDougall or Mike Mignola, etc.
I prefer GURPS Ultra-Lite.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1120223At most tables, AD&D's 1 minute round and GURPS 1 second round were played the same.
Yes.
What's rarely appreciated is that except in cases of a ticking bomb or similar effects,
combat round lengths are irrelevant. All that matters is
how much you can move compared to how many
other actions you can take.
If the one-round move is "1 yard" then everyone gets shredded by ranged weapons before they can close to melee, or before they can flee. If the one-round move is "100 yards", then people can literally run rings around one another during combats. Obviously either is absurd. And so most games settle for something between a few yards and a dozen, or make it vary by attributes and skills (like GURPS) or character size and encumbrance (like RuneQuest and AD&D1e), but still staying within that 3-12 yard range.
Again: whether it's 1 second or 1 minute doesn't matter except in cases of a ticking bomb or similar effects.
Now, if you want to rationalise X actions in a Y length combat round, then it may matter; but that's a "does this seem reasonable" thing which affects immersion and may if handled badly lead to lots of dumb jokes, but it doesn't actually affect in-game tactics.We are privileged these days to have a lot of videos on YouTube etc of real combats, from running firefights of 6 hours in Afghanistan during which no enemy is visible on camera, to three-punch or one pummel and wrestle fights lasting seconds.
For these reasons, when I run games, hardly anyone asks, but if asked I say that it's an
indeterminate amount of time of 1 to 60 seconds, the exact length varies not only from one combat to another, but one round to another. If there is a "ticking bomb" scenario, then I'll name or write down a number of combat rounds in which the thing is going to go off, so to speak. For example in one scifi a ship was coming to the world to start bombing it, our game started at 1900 in real time and the bombing was going to start at 2030 - whether the players were still on the planet, miles from the target or right under it depended on their actions and how much they faffed around. One minute or one month of in-game might have passed either way, it didn't matter.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120224The one second turns are fine. Give them a chance and don't worry about it too much. It works really well and keeps the movement rates in check with weapon ranges. Just tell the players that if they have to say "and" it won't fit in one turn. Keep it fast, you don't have time to deliberate in one second. The reason defense rolls are set up the way they are is that you just roll under the number. (-4 if they're stunned).
Don't get obsessed over advantage enhancements and limitations at first. Keep the character's simple at first
Bob
Attributes:
ST 14 [40];
DX 12 [40];
IQ 10 HT 12 [20].
Advantages:
Comfortable Wealth [10];
Combat Reflexes [15];
Disadvantages:
Code of Honor (Soldier's) [-5];
Duty (Baron Vondroom) [-10];
Sense of Duty (Innocents) [-5];
Skills:
Area Knowledge (Barony of VonDroom) 12 [4];
Broadsword 14 [8];
Climbing 12 [2];
Fast Talk 10 [2];
Marching 12 [2];
Shield 14 [4];
Spear 12 [2];
Spear Throwing 12 [1].
Is a perfectly viable character.
GURPS lite is a great starting point.
I spent a long time wanting to love GURPS because of the brilliant supporting materials, but one day I thought "Picks His Nose, -1 point" and realised it would never work for me. Even this Bob character showcases the features I find annoying - I'm not having a go by the way, I think you've created a really great, helpful example.
But my issue is the GM has to remember this guy has "sense of duty" and also "duty" (which constrains what the party can do), and presumably dish out punishments if the players fail to abide by these disadvantages (lost XP or something?); and why is duty -10 but sense of duty -5? Doesn't that mean the GM has to make sure the PC gets awkward orders from the Baron roughly twice as often as the PC comes across abandoned infants needing succoured? Or even worse, would it have to be generally agreed at the table that the hassle imposed by the Baron is roughly twice as bad as the hassle of having to help innocents? And doesn't that all just massively get in the way of the game?
Then there's Area Knowledge; this came up because I was looking at GURPS Traveller and each world was recommended to be a separate Area Knowledge, and your merchant got hugely penalised for not having it. OK, so unless you blow all your points on Area Knowledges, you will be trading among 2 or 3 worlds. Which might be "realistic" but again seems unnecessarily restrictive and annoying.
To which I imagine the response will be (because I've had it on other forums), "just don't sweat it". But the stuff is written there on the character sheet. "Don't sweat it" essentially means ignore the rules. Maybe just play another game altogether then..?
GURPS is very much a game where you need to write it down if you want to have it. Some people prefer to just assume basic knowlege but then you just run into arguments with th DM on what basic knowledge includes. Personally I like it set in stone. The sense of duty to innocents is cheaper because it's a small group. The duty to the lord would be "often or 12-" probably I'd have to check a book. And yes, failure to play your disadvantages costs you a point or two of experience for that session. Really, it's the only version of points for roleplaying I like because as a GM it gives me something concrete I can cite when applying it.
One thing I think people miss is that many advantages and disadvantages are actually narrative currency which the player uses to include things they want in the game. Want a lover? Take a Dependant. Want a kindly mentor to learn spells from take a Contact or a Patron. GURPS is actually a narrativist game not a simulationist one.
Really I did leave out some minutiea like equipment, weapon damages and defense rolls, I'll go back and add them in just to be fair.
Quote from: Morlock;1120221Or, "sell me on your version of GURPS." I'm not what I would call familiar with GURPS, though I have skimmed here and there. One thing that really kills it for me is the aesthetics. I'm an aesthetics whore, I admit it. I prefer good-looking RPGs with high production values. And GURPS is ugly.
Hate to say it but you are part of the reason why RPGs are so expensive now.
Hmmm, refreshing my GURPS interest with this thread. I got that Dungeon Fantasy boxed set last year along with the GM screen and they're both still in shrink-wrap...
Anyway, I loved GURPS 3rd edition; played in a Chill-style horror game, Twilight 2000 campaign, Traveller game, dark fantasy, and a bunch of others. Only used the main book for all these with the basic combat system, because it was enough. Where I had the issue with GURPS was using the advanced combat system and stuff from other books. When 4th came out, sure it reorganized everything to be more cohesive, but I think it lost a lot of flavor, and it's really not "universal". The 3rd edition Basic Set is probably the best gritty fantasy game out there, but falls flat for stuff like Supers. I never liked it for spy/espionage games, either. 4th tried to fix a lot of issues, (especially to the Supers genre), but lost any actual appeal to me because it tried to be everything to everyone, which is impossible. You can see the Fantasy Trip DNA in GURPS plain as day, and I think it's hard to get rid of it. SJGames SHOULDN'T have gotten rid of it, honestly. I'd play a fantasy game using the 3rd Basic Set forever, but I have yet to even touch 4th because I just don't like the approach (and yes, I own every single book, which means I have a lot of heavy paperweights). As an aside, I will say that the old HERO rules that formed the basis for Fantasy HERO, Espionage, Danger International, etc., are arguably better than GURPS when it comes to a skills-based system.
Just my rambling opinion, so discard if needed.
The problem with fourth edition is that it caters to the experienced GURPS gear-head. Everything is in there. They really dropped the ball on Supers and you have to house rule the hell out of it. To some extent that's the nature of GURPS. Everything is optional. The basic combat system is in the player's book, it never went away. But everything in fourth edition is massively over built. If you want a lighter, more playable GURPS Fantasy, there's the Disc World Roleplaying Game which uses a simpler version of pretty much everything.
Some years ago here there was a good discussion on the various editions of Gurps and why they work for X style play but not for Y style as one might be more a tool kit than the other which might be more focused in various ways.
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?31398-If-a-guy-was-going-to-get-into-GURPS (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?31398-If-a-guy-was-going-to-get-into-GURPS)
And Krug sums it up well.
Quote from: CRKrueger;808428GURPS 3rd lite.
Let's do a boardgame analogy because I think the GURPS partisans are doing you a bit of a disservice.
GURPS 3rd is a successful boardgame that works. Then there are a hundred expansions that let you expand the core game. Use the one you want.
GURPS 4th is take the core boardgame and all the expansions, cut them up into jigsaw pieces, pour them into a huge bag, and then say "You can make whatever boardgame you want!" It's useful only to the people that are already GURPS experts. I haven't seen anyone come in to GURPS 4th cold and actually be able to run the game. Everything in two books is a feature to the decades-old veteran, it's a morass to the newbie.
Quote from: Omega;1120286Some years ago here there was a good discussion on the various editions of Gurps and why they work for X style play but not for Y style as one might be more a tool kit than the other which might be more focused in various ways.
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?31398-If-a-guy-was-going-to-get-into-GURPS (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?31398-If-a-guy-was-going-to-get-into-GURPS)
And Krug sums it up well.
Looks like I posted pretty much the same thing in that thread as this one...and estar still can't fathom the fact that 4th isn't an easy game to understand for a newbie.
I'd argue that the really big problem is that Steve Jackson Games doesn't see accessibility to newbies as an issue. In essence, they see GURPS as a game with a shrinking die-hard fanbase that doesn't really bring in new people. They recognize that the name and reputation are obstacles, hence The Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game rather than GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. But then they do a pretty complex implementation of GURPS in DF because they feel the primary customer base is existing GURPS fans.
I will always maintain that what GURPS really needs is a handful of GURPS Lite supplements to let people try fantasy, science fiction, and spies or superheroes or something without the full load.
GURPS Vorkosigian and the Discworld rpg are distinct attempts at a complete integrated introductory game. They're both nice but I think the settings are actually a drawback for many people. This is based on trying to sell said books in my store. Sadly, the overlap between gamers and readers ain't what it used to be.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120288I will always maintain that what GURPS really needs is a handful of GURPS Lite supplements to let people try fantasy, science fiction, and spies or superheroes or something without the full load.
Transhuman Space is really good, so is WWII, but both of those probably have limited appeal like you said. Why can't SJG re-release GURPS Conan and integrate Lite into it like Discworld? That might do the trick.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120224Parry: 11
Block: 13 (with Medium Shield)
Dodge: 10 ( 8 with Medium Encumbrance)
Can I ask how the Active Defenses were calculated? Those look considerably higher than they would have been in GURPS 3E, the last one with which I'm familiar. (When I ran a GURPS Supers game in 3E, I also had to bump the Active Defenses myself a fair bit to keep combats from being finished too quickly.)
Quote from: Omega;1120286And Krug sums it up well.
The problems started with 3rd Edition it just wasn't as overwhelming of a toolkit as 4e was but still had the same basic issue. The sweet spot for GURPS core rules was the 2nd edition Boxed Set. For most hobbyists who started with D&D you could see how to make various character types but still laid down a foundation for the other genres.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120295Can I ask how the Active Defenses were calculated? Those look considerably higher than they would have been in GURPS 3E, the last one with which I'm familiar. (When I ran a GURPS Supers game in 3E, I also had to bump the Active Defenses myself a fair bit to keep combats from being finished too quickly.)
3E had passive defense which added in if you wore armor. 4e ditched passive defense in favor of a higher base value.
For example
Dodge3rd: Move
4th: Move +3
Parry3rd: 1/2 Shield Skill
4th: 1/2 Shield Skill + 3
Block3rd: 1/2 Weapon Skill
4th: 1/2 Weapon Skill +3
Shields still give a Defense Bonus.
For the fantasy campaigns I ran, 3e defense vs 4e defense was a wash. In some situation it made a difference but overall both wound up in the same place just calculated differently.
Quote from: Marchand;1120273I spent a long time wanting to love GURPS because of the brilliant supporting materials, but one day I thought "Picks His Nose, -1 point" and realised it would never work for me. Even this Bob character showcases the features I find annoying - I'm not having a go by the way, I think you've created a really great, helpful example.
But my issue is the GM has to remember this guy has "sense of duty" and also "duty" (which constrains what the party can do), and presumably dish out punishments if the players fail to abide by these disadvantages (lost XP or something?); and why is duty -10 but sense of duty -5? Doesn't that mean the GM has to make sure the PC gets awkward orders from the Baron roughly twice as often as the PC comes across abandoned infants needing succoured? Or even worse, would it have to be generally agreed at the table that the hassle imposed by the Baron is roughly twice as bad as the hassle of having to help innocents? And doesn't that all just massively get in the way of the game?
Sense of duty is internal (your code), while duty is external (your bosses take it very seriously). But advantages and disadvantages do overlap, and the books often have to explain that if you take X, you can't also take Y because that's double dipping (I'm going through GURPS Zombies, and they do it it a lot).
If you want an alternative, a good start is a set of advantages and disadvantages written by S. John Ross, based on his experiences writing GURPS Black Ops, which is about highly trained special ops dealing with fantastic threats. The word they got from above was to stat the characters out in every last detail, which led to crazy-long skill lists in the published book. Ross didn't think that was the best approach, so he wrote up some alternatives, including Truly Badass and Up to the Challenge, which abstract away some of the detail.
Unfortunately, Ross's Blue Room with the full discussion and reasoning has vanished from the web, but the basic ads/disads are saved as a crude text file on GURPSnet:
http://www.gurpsnet.org/Archive/AdsDisSkills/AdsDis/Action.hero
But as I mentioned before, that's fighting against the basic nature of GURPS.
Quote from: Pat;1120311GURPS Black Ops, which is about highly trained special ops dealing with fantastic threats. The word they got from above was to stat the characters out in every last detail, which led to crazy-long skill lists in the published book.
You mean you don't like character sheets that resemble the following..?
Nolan Mathers
850 points
Age 42; 6'2", 235 lbs.; brown hair cropped short
and hazel eyes.
Nolan Mathers has built himself into a
Company legend, but as he likes to point out, he's
"done it the hard way." With 48 missions under his
belt, he ranks among the most experienced active
ops, and always leads his squads. His charm and
diplomacy make him the favorite for this; his experience
and tactical skills make him the best candidate.
Despite his popularity and normally easygoing
way, many ops have seen him completely blister
someone when the situation called for it. He can
transform a veteran op into putty with a few choice
words. This ability to switch from silver to acid
tongue just adds to his reputation.
Some old hands have even seen Nolan lose his
considerable temper. A few have survived to tell
about it.
Assume that Mathers knows any of his TL-based
skills at the TL appropriate for the campaign. That
means that if he retains his TL8 firearms, he would
take a -1 penalty with everyday TL7 gear.
ST 21 [120]; IQ 16 [80]; DX 20 [175]; HT 16
[80].
Speed: 9; Move: 11*.
Damage: Thrust 2d; Swing 4d-1
Dodge: 10*; Parry: 15*.
* Includes bonuses for Running and Combat
Reflexes; Acrobatics and Body Language skills may
further increase Dodge and/or Parry.
Advantages: Alertness +3 [15]; Charisma +2 [10];
Combat Reflexes [15]; High Pain Threshold [10];
Luck [15]; Patron (The Company; 15 or less)
[105]; Reputation (+3 among black ops; always)
[5]; Strong Will +5 [20]; Toughness DR 2 [25];
Very Fit [15]; Zeroed [10].
Disadvantages: Bad Temper [-10]; Extremely
Hazardous Duty [-20]; Insomniac [-10]; Secret
(Black op) [-30]; Sense of Duty (Black ops) [-10];
Sense of Duty ("Family") [-5].
Quirks: Smokes little cigars [-1]; Calls women
"honey" when intent is to irritate [-1]; Never
stands in front of door when opening it [-1];
Cracks knuckles just before a fight [-1]; Prone to
use explosives [-1].
Skills: Acting-16 [2]; Animal Handling-15 [2];
Anthropology-15 [2]; Area Knowledge (Earth)-
18 [4]; Armoury (Beam Handguns)-14 [1/2];
Armoury (Hand Weapons)-14 [1/2]; Armoury
(Rifles & Handguns)-16 [2]; Armoury
(Vehicular Weaponry)-14 [1/2]; Artificial
Intelligence-14 [1]; Astronomy-14 [1]; Bard-
18 [2]; Beam Weapons (Lasers)-23 [2]*;
Bicycling-19 [1/2]; Boating-18 [1/2]; Body
Language-16 [4]; Botany-14 [1]; Bow-18 [1];
Boxing-21 [4]; Camouflage-15 [1/2]; Chemistry-
14 [1]; Chess-15 [1/2]; Climbing-20 [2];
Computer Operation-16 [1]; Computer
Programming-14 [1]; Crossbow-19 [1/2];
Dancing-18 [1/2]; Demolition-17 [4];
Diplomacy-20 [12]; Driving (Automobile)-21 [4];
Driving (Tracked)-21 [4]; Ecology-14 [1];
Electronics (Computers)-15 [2]; Electronics
Operation (Communications)-14 [1/2]; Engineer
(Bombs and Traps)-15 [2]; Engineer (Combat
Engineering)-14 [1]; Engineer (Electrical)-14 [1];
Engineer (Mechanical)-14 [1]; Engineer (Nuclear
Weapons)-14 [1]; Explosive Ordnance Disposal-
14 [1]; Fast Draw (Pistol)-20 [1/2]† (Sword)-20
[1/2]†; Fencing-18 [1/2]; First Aid-17 [2];
Forward Observer-14 [1/2]; Gambling-16 [2];
Garrote-20 [1]; Geology-14 [1]; Gunner
(Machine Gun)-24 [8]*; Guns (Flamethrower)-21
[1/2]*; Guns (Pistol)-25 [8]*; Guns (Rifle)-24 [4]*;
Hiking-14 [1/2]; History (specialized: Military
and Martial Arts)-14 [1]; Judo-21 [8]; Karate-21
[8]; Knife-20 [1]; Leadership-18 [2]; Literature-14 [1]; Mathematics-17 [6]; Mechanic
(Automobile)-14 [1/2]; Mechanic (Helicopter)-
14 [1/2]; Meditation-14 [2]; Mind Block-20 [10];
Motorcycle (Medium and Heavy)-19 [1/2];
Naturalist-15 [2]; NBC Warfare-14 [1/2]; No-
Landing Extraction-14 [1/2]; Nuclear Physics-
14 [2]; Orienteering-15 [1]; Parachuting-19
[1/2]; Philosophy-14 [1]; Physician-14 [1];
Physics (specialized: Ballistics)-16 [4];
Physiology-14 [2]; Physiology (Grey)-14 [2];
Piloting (Helicopter)-20 [2]; Piloting (Light
Airplane)-20 [2]; Poetry-14 [1/2]; Powerboat-18
[1/2]; Professional Skill (Machinist)-14 [1/2];
Psychology (specialized: Combat Psychology)-
15 [2]; Psychology (Grey)-14 [1]; Running-16
[4]; Savoir-Faire-15 [1/2]; Scuba-14 [1/2];
Shortsword-22 [8]; Sign Language (AMESLAN)-
14 [1/2]; Skating-18 [1]; Skiing-18 [1];
Spear-18 [1/2]; Speed Load (Clip-loading)-19
[1/2]; Stealth-21 [4]; Strategy-14 [1]; Streetwise-
16 [2]; Swimming-19 [1/2]; Tactics-17 [6];
Telegraphy-15 [1/2]; Throwing-18 [1]; Traps-15
[1]; Wrestling-20 [2]; Writing-14 [1/2];
Xenology-14 [1]; Zoology-13 [1/2]
* Includes +2 for IQ.
† Includes +1 for Combat Reflexes.
Martial Arts Maneuvers: Arm Lock-23 [1];
Axe Kick-20 [1]; Back Kick-21 [2]; Choke
Hold-20 [1]; Close Combat (Short-sword)-
19 [2]; Elbow Strike-20 [1/2]; Eye
Gouging-15 [4]; Ground Fighting
(Karate)-20 [4]; Head Butt-16 [1/2]; Head
Lock-20 [4]; Hit Location (Shortsword)-22 [4];
Jab-21 [2]; Kicking-21 [2]; Roundhouse Punch-
20 [1]; Slip-10 [4]; Spinning Punch-21 [2].
Languages: English-16 (native); German-15 [1];
Spanish-15 [1]
Weapons: See Guns, p. 8.
Quote from: estar;11202973E had passive defense which added in if you wore armor. 4e ditched passive defense in favor of a higher base value.
In my example, also the Combat Reflexes advantage gives +1 to Active Defenses.
Quote from: Brad;1120291Transhuman Space is really good, so is WWII, but both of those probably have limited appeal like you said. Why can't SJG re-release GURPS Conan and integrate Lite into it like Discworld? That might do the trick.
Discworld, Prime Directive, and Vorkosigian are all complete games with the lite rules built in. Vorkosigian is particularly impressive in that it includes a decent chunk of GURPS Spaceships.
My understanding is they've been less successful than was hoped and there are still cases of the books in the warehouse but they aren't available through the online store. To my mind a generic fantasy starter or sf starter would be more successful than those, especially Discworld where there are already beautifully illustrated setting guides in the book store. Really, in this age of big budget superhero movies, a tight supers book would probably do pretty good. I might even look at putting some of my supers and notes together as a fanbook as I really hate how they handled supers in 4e.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120317In my example, also the Combat Reflexes advantage gives +1 to Active Defenses.
Yes but that not a change between various editions.
I like the 3rd Ed. Basic Set, particularly the later versions with the smith art. This is far superior (and easier to read) than the glossy low-contrast 4e. In addition, you can keep all the supers advantages far away from the table because they are in an entirely separate volume that you don't have to buy. This makes it playable.
Regarding 1 second turns, it doesn't matter how much game time advances during a combat so stressing about the the length of the turn is pointless. The nice thing about gurps combat is you have to choose against very different options each turn. A lot of other games dont force the hard choice and consequently there is not a lot of interesting choice to be made. Even better 3e only gives passive defense (PD) to beefy guys wearing armor, which vastly improves and shortens gun combat because mooks don't have an 8+ dodge.
Quote from: Brad;1120312You mean you don't like character sheets that resemble the following..?
That shit was so fucking stupid. That and the 250 point characters in Dungeon Fantasy.
Games can be simple or complicated to start, and simple or complicated in play. Draughts is simple to start, and simple to play. Chess is simple to start, and is optionally more complicated in play. AD&D1e is simple to start, and optionally more complicated in play, as was D&D3.5. But GURPS4e is complicated to start, and complicated in play, like Advanced Squad Leader.
The popular games tend to be the ones which start simple and remain simple, or which start simple and have optional complexity in play. Part of the genius of older editions of D&D is that any idiot could start, and as the character became experienced, so did the player - and they could handle any increased complexity. "But all I can do is swing a sword!" "Yeah, and all I can do is cast one spell today, and I only have three!" Yes, that's the idea.
Quote from: Omega;1120280Hate to say it but you are part of the reason why RPGs are so expensive now.
Fair enough. :|
Quote from: Morlock;1120244Really, I'm not all that picky about design. I cut my teeth on AD&D,
...and that right there IS the problem.
Every version pf "
D&D" is kind of condescending and forces you into 'classes -
GURPS does not.
The GURPS style credits the reader or gamer with intelligence and the ability to make choices.
You might say that GURPS is very 'pro-choice' - but you have to
make a choice
-Ed C.
Quote from: estar;1120322Yes but that not a change between various editions.
Yes but still necessary to note as your answer to the question wouldn't give the results in my example.
On Dungeon Fantasy, they might be 250 point characters but the monsters are tough. Even the orcs are 100 points and those angry undead vikings are nuts.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120360Yes but still necessary to note as your answer to the question wouldn't give the results in my example.
I wasn't commenting on your example but answering Stephen's question with minimum of detail on the differences.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120360On Dungeon Fantasy, they might be 250 point characters but the monsters are tough. Even the orcs are 100 points and those angry undead vikings are nuts.
Try fighting Draugr with 150ish Heroic fantasy characters. Then it is really nuts.
Quote from: Morlock;1120240Contests of Skill:
Each contestant makes a success roll (3d6, roll under relevant skill or attribute): if one succeeds and one fails, the winner is obvious. If both succeed or both fail, the winner is the one who succeeded by the most or failed by the least....
What I don't have to wonder about is a nice, straightforward, "3d6 + skill + modifer for each contestant, and whoever scores higher wins, ties are pushed" rule. It's really friggin simple, and I know nothing's lurking in there.
So, what advantage does the GURPS method offer?
None to me. I'm with your method. I'm cool with Pee Wee Herman occasionally tossing the Hulk.
BUT...the GURPS option allows you to take relative skill or stats into question. For some GMs and some players, that's important.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120288Sadly, the overlap between gamers and readers ain't what it used to be.
Please start a thread about this. I'd be interested in your thoughts in-depth.
Quote from: Koltar;1120351Every version pf "D&D" is kind of condescending and forces you into 'classes - GURPS does not. The GURPS style credits the reader or gamer with intelligence and the ability to make choices.
And that choice mostly results in a Fighter Mage with some Thief skills! :)
That's not a GURPS dig. It's an issue with all point-buy games. So often, the "player choices" winds up with "hey, which two X-men did you combine?"
Classes DO constrict choices, but that's the trade of Speed vs. Customization.
Quote from: Koltar;1120351You might say that GURPS is very 'pro-choice' - but you have to make a choice
That's true. I've never played a session of GURPS without a fetus exploding.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1120363I've never played a session of GURPS without a fetus exploding.
And that's a sentence I genuinely never thought I'd ever read.
Quote from: Koltar;1120351...and that right there IS the problem.
Every version pf "D&D" is kind of condescending and forces you into 'classes - GURPS does not.
The GURPS style credits the reader or gamer with intelligence and the ability to make choices.
If you want to tell people they're stupid, just tell them they're stupid. It's far less condescending than claiming the the players of one RPG are smarter than the players of another.
Quote from: Morlock;1120221when I do, I see stuff like "each turn is 1 second." Yeah, no. I'm not playing a game where the turns are 1 second. "I start aiming." *everyone and his dog's 1-second turn later* "I finish aiming" *everyone and his dog's 1-second turn later* "I pull the trigger." Yeah, no.
So, what house rules do you use to fix that?
The 1-second turns are probably one of the hardest things to get your head around when starting GURPS. I recently ran a Dungeon Fantasy mini-campaign for my group (around 100 hours table time) and that was an initial stumbling block. You need to re-calibrate your expectations. If a person drops their weapon it takes two seconds to recover it and only in the third second can they strike again. That sounds crazy but when you think about it in the context of having to keep your eyes on an enemy who is trying to kill you then it starts to become more credible. As others have suggested, if you need to use the word 'and' in your description of an action then it's probably too long for a GURPS round. But once people have started to get their heads around that, combat speeds up to a similar rate as other games. No one should be spending a lot of time executing their action as every character is under the same time constraints.
The Dungeon Fantasy box set is a great option for starting with GURPS if you enjoy that kind of game. It pre-configures the game to fit the genre and provides a whole bunch of templates to get players up and running more quickly with useful characters. I think the only 'house rule' we played was that we called fights once they were clearly resolved, rather than gaming out every last second of action.
GURPS has a few key strengths in my mind. First, you can configure it to do a lot of different things, but that does come with a cost in terms of GM prep time. Fortunately there are now multiple pre-configured options for some of the common genres (dungeon fantasy, modern action, monster hunters, post-apocalyptic, steam punk) and these recommend optional rules, provide character templates and stats for adversaries. You can do a lot with them.
The book
How to be a GURPS GM is a great collection of advice for when starting out. The main advice for GURPS is 'only use the bits you need' and that includes NPC stats, too. Most NPCs just need the four core stats, one or two skills and maybe weapons and armour. No points necessary, points are for characters and key NPCs like dependents, allies, re-occurring enemies and so on.
The second key strength is that combat is very detailed and makes sense from a real-world perspective. If there is a real-world strategy that works you can bet it will be supported by GURPS. One of the advantages of this is that players don't need to understand the rules in detail if they already understand tactics.
Someone at the table needs to understand how to interpret stuff in GURPS terms, but everyone else can pick this up through osmosis. I appreciate this isn't super helpful when you are the GM but at least you won't be relying on everyone in your group learning a complex set of rules to be combat-effective.
Similarly, 'fighters' in GURPS are hugely interesting to play as they have so many options round-to-round. Now, this of course includes a potential time-overhead for those 1-second rounds. But, you really can start simple and build up. As we played my group started out with only the vaguest understanding of the options available to them, but as they started to get comfortable with the basics and started needing options I pointed them out ('gee, this guy is hard to pin down as he keeps dodging me' - 'you could try a deceptive attack or a feint'). They built up their arsenal of options gradually over a few fights. If you have a group that likes playing combat-types GURPS is massively rewarding in my experience.
The third strength of GURPS is that the detail available means you can put emphasis in a lot of different places as the GM. If you want a game which focuses around how each PC is a different type of magic practitioner, spirit shaman, martial artist, amateur detective etc. then GURPS gives you lots of tools to do that. If you like SF games (and it sounds like you do) then you can have a party who cover all the needs for running a small ship plus whatever adventure context you are looking for (firefly, first contact, imperial scouts - whatever) without having to completely bend another less flexible game or hoping to luck-onto a niche game which happens to fit your specific needs.
So, I guess my advice would be to start with something more focussed and well supported, start with a core set of options in combat and build up, and not to sweat the detail unless you want that detail to be important to your game.
In many ways, 3e was an easier game to get into as each world book worked with the core book in a more isolated way. With 4e everything is much more standardised and that can both make it more impenetrable and bland-feeling. But 4e is more robust and if you want to mix-and-match your own stuff is better at this.
Quote from: Koltar;1120351...and that right there IS the problem.
Every version pf "D&D" is kind of condescending and forces you into 'classes - GURPS does not.
The GURPS style credits the reader or gamer with intelligence and the ability to make choices.
You might say that GURPS is very 'pro-choice' - but you have to make a choice
-Ed C.
Except D&D isnt condescending and does not force you into classes. D&D credited the players with enough intelligence to make decisions.
So you fail on every count there.
Quote from: dbm;1120382The 1-second turns are probably one of the hardest things to get your head around when starting GURPS. I recently ran a Dungeon Fantasy mini-campaign for my group (around 100 hours table time) and that was an initial stumbling block. You need to re-calibrate your expectations. If a person drops their weapon it takes two seconds to recover it and only in the third second can they strike again. That sounds crazy but when you think about it in the context of having to keep your eyes on an enemy who is trying to kill you then it starts to become more credible. As others have suggested, if you need to use the word 'and' in your description of an action then it's probably too long for a GURPS round. But once people have started to get their heads around that, combat speeds up to a similar rate as other games. No one should be spending a lot of time executing their action as every character is under the same time constraints.
Similar to how AD&D divided a round into segments. A round was fairly long. But your actions were split up amongst the 10 segments as modified by initiative. 2e kept the minute long round but now it was divided into 10 initiative counts. D&D as usual abstracts combat and takes into account all the little things going on in a round or segment.
Gurps is all about micromanaging everything. For some thats a boon. For others thats a bane.
It not micromanagement that the issue, it is doing one thing and one thing only per round that players has to get used to. Most players experience in the last two decades are with combat system that allow at least a move and a attack. In GURPS you can either move or attack.
For example D&D 5e, I could run some of my movement then leap the rest and then perform an attack as my action. With GURPS I will have to do the leap the first round, and then I will be able to attack in the attack in the second round.
Take picking up a weapon. The reason it takes several rounds because it takes a second to crouch, then a second to grab it and stand, the finally a second to ready it. If you are heavily encumbered crouching and standing can take several seconds each as you have to balance the load on your body.
Part of the reason it works like this because in life, somebody losing their weapon and scrambling for it is going to get whacked at a few time by their opponent. GURPS default realism handles this situation naturally.
Positioning not hard to keep track of, you go from prone, to crouching, to being able to do a normal action.
If you want to be more cinematic about i.e. unrealistic there are options to avoid or short circuit the above. Usually at higher point totals. But it not the default assumption the way it is in most editions of D&D. For example if you have a high level of acrobatic skill you have a good chance of doing a acrobatic kip if unencumbered and to from a prone to a standing position in one round.
Quote from: Omega;1120391Except D&D isnt condescending and does not force you into classes.
Except for the part where that's literally the only option you have.
Quote from: Omega;1120391D&D credited the players with enough intelligence to make decisions.
...That don't involve their character's abilities, cuz that's literally determined by your class and whatever scores you were lucky enough (or not) to roll during creation. Only decisions D&D players have are during play, and even then their actual options, and for practical purposes, are fundamentally limited by their class. Especially in old D&D (the older the more limited).
For comparison look at the maneuvers within the Hero System. Note all the 1/2 phase actions. This means you can combine it with another 1/2 phase action including moving up to 1/2 of your movement, and do two thing in a round.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4102[/ATTACH]
Having run extensive campaigns with both system, I have observed that a significant majority of players prefer to being able to do at least two things when their turn comes. This can be summarized as a move and attack.
In contrast GURPS considers has all those actions as a full phase. So you can only do one of those per turn. Some may allow you take a single 1 yard step. Players in general don't like this as much even if you don't mention the 1 second round as justification.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1120397Especially in old D&D (the older the more limited).
Only if you go by the idea that everything a character can do is defined in the rules and ignore the implications of the setting of the campaign.
How did you think fighters, magic users, and clerics climbed walls, disarm traps, sneak past guards, haggle with merchants, with just the 3 LBB of OD&D original release. It wasn't explained because Gygax thought it was an obvious point that didn't need to be explained. He was incorrect about that assumption and opted to fix it in the form of AD&D and the rest of the industry thought the same.
Thus leading to the incorrect assumption that in RPGs it is the rules that define what character can or can not do not the setting of the campaign.
Quick 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?
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 (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Gods%20-%20Set,%20Myrmidon%20Template.pdf), a books of race templates (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Majestic%20Wilderlands%20Races%20for%20GURPS%20Rev%2001.pdf), 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.
Quote from: estar;1120474What 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.
Have you ever read Fudge? It prescribes a philosophy that every table needs it's own set of rules and that rules should organically grow to meet the tables' needs.
Your "problem" here can be argued as a feature. Do I need a rule saying that every time I take damage underwater, I have to make an endurance check against the damage or spend a healing surge? I don't. The whole holding breathe mechanic doesn't interest me regardless of how well designed it might be, but it exists in D&D4e so the DM is hard pressed to remove the rule.
Now, I'm not against the idea of rules heavy systems and GURPS is one of the better ones, my problem is that they are shit. Which is understandable since no one makes them anymore and the ones that do are very established and feel like they can sell you 20+ books to justify why the "basic rules"run so slowly.
I have yet to read a well constructed rules heavy system that provides more detail (that I care about) than something like Savage Worlds. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder have been the most detailed games I've played/read because the skill mechanics are whole tables rather than a bunch of mechanics that amount to "ask your GM what this can do" (aka GURPS, The Dark Eye, etc). I don't care if some splat book explains the skill better, you got to sell me the system in the merits of the core system (3e was still shit on skills because they were detailed but pointless)
GURPS has so many skills that might as well just be a name with some listed defaults for all the details they provide. The skill system doesn't justify it's complexity by allowing players to visualize what they can do nor let the GM off load those rulings to clear rules and the player reading them.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120493Have you ever read Fudge? It prescribes a philosophy that every table needs it's own set of rules and that rules should organically grow to meet the tables' needs.
Perhaps (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MajesticRealmsRPG_Fudge_Rev%2017.zip) I read some of Fudge (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search?q=Fudge).
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120493Your "problem" here can be argued as a feature. Do I need a rule saying that every time I take damage underwater, I have to make an endurance check against the damage or spend a healing surge? I don't.
Don't need it until you have an adventure that takes place underwater.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120493The whole holding breathe mechanic doesn't interest me regardless of how well designed it might be, but it exists in D&D4e so the DM is hard pressed to remove the rule.
It trival to ignore rules like a holding breath mechanic. It a mechanic to resolve a specific situation and if the situation never comes up you don't need to refer to it. As for why it in the rulebook in the first place it is because it is the judgment of the author that enough referees run underwater adventure that it would be useful for them to include it.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120493Now, I'm not against the idea of rules heavy systems and GURPS is one of the better ones, my problem is that they are shit. Which is understandable since no one makes them anymore and the ones that do are very established and feel like they can sell you 20+ books to justify why the "basic rules"run so slowly.
People make them is just with the technology of publishing today you are more apt to encounter system with less mechanics because that in the wheelhouse of a small group or individual publisher.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120493I have yet to read a well constructed rules heavy system that provides more detail (that I care about) than something like Savage Worlds. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder have been the most detailed games I've played/read because the skill mechanics are whole tables rather than a bunch of mechanics that amount to "ask your GM what this can do" (aka GURPS, The Dark Eye, etc). I don't care if some splat book explains the skill better, you got to sell me the system in the merits of the core system (3e was still shit on skills because they were detailed but pointless)
So explain the difference between this
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4104[/ATTACH]
versus
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4105[/ATTACH]
I have a copy of the Adventurers Edition and the skill section of it an GURPS track as far as tables and formulas go. Some skills are descriptive as the above some have more formal mechanics associated with them like a table. Of course both have vastly different naunces when it comes to figuring out the final set of rolls. However your criticism of GURPS lacking tables fall flat. I am familiar with most of the generics as well as genre specific but details systems. There are variation but for the most part they parallel either when using tables, formulas and description. Social skills tend to tie into a some type of reaction table, knowledge skills tend to be descriptive and so on.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120493GURPS has so many skills
That is a criticism of GURPS, and the list problem is more than just skills. But when you boil it down to a specific genre and setting, the lists narrow considerably. It is rare for people to use everything that GURPS has in its core within a campaign. You could but the setting would have to be something that would warrant that like Infinity World or Illuminati U.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120493The skill system doesn't justify it's complexity by allowing players to visualize what they can do nor let the GM off load those rulings to clear rules and the player reading them.
As my boat ing example illustrates it not any more complex there is just a lot of it as the GURPS Corebooks are meant to be a toolkit cover all genres and all settings. In addition the number of skills in GURPS is adjustable. It has a mechanic called Talents which allow GURPS referee to do something like this to the skill lists
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4106[/ATTACH]
If a GURPS referee think there are too many thief related skills they can make a thievery talent and use that in their place. The mechanics are on page 89.
Wrapping it upThe problem with GURPS has been one of presentation not design. Using the RAW I can present a streamlined Fantasy RPG that is 100% compatible with the core rule book that would look a lot like the Fudge material I linked too. I done some of that work for my own campaign and the most of the players I have prefer to use that over referencing the core rulebook. And they co-exist fine alongside the players who comfortable with the core rule book. I did this for GURPS 3rd edition and later for GURPS 4e which was easier due because of the revamped lists which now had things like Talents.
Quote from: estar;1120497"GURPS V Savage worlds stuff"
Exactly my problem. It's not more complex. GURPS has all these rules, but as a player I am equally clueless on how skills work as I am in Savage Worlds. As the GM, I am making the same call in both systems.
So why bother with the bulky rules heavy system? Savage Worlds is not comprehensive, but so far every example we have talked about, Savage Worlds has rules for in the core book. So what does something like GURPS get me? More detailed combat? More detailed character (that are detailed mainly by skill choice, the skill system being something I see as no better and only bulkier)?
For me a rules heavy system needs to provide clarity. As a GM, I need the system to make rulings for me and be designed such that players can just do something and confidently tell me the rules say they can (real nit-pick about The Dark Eye skill system is that it is very detailed but loaded with GM decisions, so it's effectively less useful to me than a rules light system like The Black Hack 2e). Where I need these rules the most is non-combat. Combat can only get so deep, I personally need systems where turns take less than 3 minutes. Once the round hits that critical time of "30 minutes between the player doing anything", it rapidly jumps to 45 minutes as people zone out and get on their phones. GURPS actually does a decent job of this by slicing turns up to 1 second increments. Unfortunately for GURPS, it doesn't give me anything I want (in the basic set). Crafting is vague, magic is OK but very limited, skill are vague, and the combat is at best OK. The advantages/disadvantages section is bloated (as in I would rather see more detail elsewhere).
Does Savage Worlds have crafting? Nope it's an action focused RPG. So when I am looking at something heavier like GURPS, I want to see non-action rules that are deep and they just are not there (in the basic set).
So obviously Gurps is beyond salvation. Long live 5e D&D! :D
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120501So what does something like GURPS get me?
There is little to no abstraction. The design of the system that if you can describe how something is done in life you can replicate it with GURPS. The core books cover a lot but not everything. It not a flaw it is an acknowledgement that life and fiction are are more vast then one or two books can cover. So the core books provide some details particularly for action like combat but a foundation for everything else. Leaving it to supplement to cover the details of those items.
For example GURPS Social Engineering (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/socialengineering/). Social Engineering doesn't provide much in the way of new rules but expands on the more generalized social interaction rules in the core book. Mainly by discussing different situation and providing customized reaction tables to be used with each.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120501For me a rules heavy system needs to provide clarity.
Again GURPS strength is that if you describe the details from life or fiction you can find or build (like powers) the mechanics to match those details on a one for one basis.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1120501As a GM, I need the system to make rulings for me and be designed such that players can just o something and confidently tell me the rules say they can
Well GURPS is not going to do that. It is designed and presented as a toolkit of mechanics and build options to translate what you know about a setting or genre into a set of mechanics. After you got through assembling that then it works the way you described above. It is a design choice that has relagated GURPS to a niche today.
If you are not interested in doing first hand research then there are additional sourcebooks where various GURPS author have done the work. Like William Stoddard did in Social Engineering. These books are not just focused on mechanics but also discuss the topic its focuses.
There are two broad types of these sourcebooks, the first type are also toolikits like the core books but more narrowly focused, like GURPS Fantasy or GURPS Martial Arts. The second type are more ready to play like Dungeon Fantasty, Monster Hunter, or Action!
They are continuing to expand it, one of the upcoming release is about Realm Management. Knowing how similar works were presented like Mass Combat it will be applicable across various tech levels and genres.
How to save GURPS? Sell it to someone who gives a shit about roleplaying games. Other things:
1. Publish a few actual RPGs "Powered by GURPS" rather than an encyclopaedia of "Build Your Own RPG" options.
2. Make one of those a Lite RPG, barebones GURPS. Get an IP for it or something, and put out a Starter Set box to rival the D&D and Warhammer ones.
3. For this setting specific starter set, create archetypes like old Shadowrun with a couple of options to pick. Don't force people to wade through 178 pages of special abilities, color-coded with unique symbols.
4. Bring in some new blood. Let Rob and Dave write it.
Quote from: Omega;1120502So obviously Gurps is beyond salvation. Long live 5e D&D! :D
Bullshit, thats bullshit.
-Ed C.
GURPS is not a game. GURPS is a toolkit for building your own games.
Until you grasp that, GURPS will remain impenetrable and incomprehensible.
When you do grasp that, you have a choice: is GURPS worth the GM prep necessary to build a game out of the tools?
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.
And if there are rules for
everything, including exactly how many inches your character can jump, then a lot of time is spent deciding how big the jump is (how many inches high is a mead hall bench? the gap across a chasm?) and looking up the rules. And then of course arguing over them.
So you either have no rules for things and just judge them and argue about them, or you have rules for things and have to look them up and then argue about them. That's just gamers.
In either case, what's needed is a GM who takes control of the game session and keeps things moving. Left to themselves, players will slow things down and argue over trivialities - like the players who in my Classic Traveller game argued about the possibility of the orbital mechanics of a system
I'd taken from reality. It's the GM's job to make sure the session is fun, even against the wishes of the players.
Less defensiveness, more methods on how to save GURPS! :mad: People are trying to ask how can the system meet their disinterest in crunch halfway. Help them. :) (GURPS Lite was going to be my answer, by the way.)
Quote from: Koltar;1120514Bullshit, thats bullshit.
-Ed C.
Well yes we know thats what Gurps is allready.
Quote from: Opaopajr;1120599Less defensiveness, more methods on how to save GURPS! :mad: People are trying to ask how can the system meet their disinterest in crunch halfway. Help them. :) (GURPS Lite was going to be my answer, by the way.)
Several of us suggested Gurps Lite. I thought they used to have it as a free PDF. But seems not.
And I am proven wrong. Here it is on the SJG site.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/3e/gurpslite.pdf (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/3e/gurpslite.pdf)
Quote from: Omega;1120623Several of us suggested Gurps Lite. I thought they used to have it as a free PDF. But seems not.
And I am proven wrong. Here it is on the SJG site.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/3e/gurpslite.pdf (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/3e/gurpslite.pdf)
fantasy:
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/3e/gurpslite.pdf
sci-fi:
http://www.sjgames.com/transhumanspace/img/lite.pdf
modern:
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ww2/img/ww2lite.pdf
Quote from: Omega;1120502So obviously Gurps is beyond salvation. Long live 5e D&D! :D
I don't even play or own core GURPS (I've got a few sourcebooks, though), but I have to side with the partisans on this one. Resist the empty promises of the All-Devouring Rainbow Worm! :)
IMO GURPS Lite for 3e was better than Lite for 4e which comes across as incomplete. But overall I prefer 4th edition.
Anyway, GURPS isn't bullshit. It's Da Shit!:p
Edit: SJG is making baby steps towards the modern RPG market. They just haven't quite found their stride again yet, despite all their recent successful kickstarters. Hopefully the future projects they've laid out (most still unannounced, but quite a few 3rd party contracts) will help salve that.
Quote from: estar;1120461I understand where you are coming from.
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.
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.
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.
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.
and ending with this in Book 3.
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.
There's too much to unpack here, but one of the fundamental issue I have is that you're laying down 100% of ALL the responsibility on the GM for coming up with this information when GMs themselves will inevitably be unequipped to handle such issues when they're initially introduced into the hobby and are tackling this type of problem for the first time. And while you rightly point out that the original rules material was (and perhaps still is) lacking in teaching GMs how to make this types of rulings, it is unrealistic to expect new or even experienced GM to make things up on the spot every time. Sometimes they have no realistic way to know, and at the end of the day, the GM is a client purchasing a product that's ostensibly supposed to tell them these things (i.e. the rules) so they don't have to make them up themselves.
If I, as the GM, I'm the one 100% responsible for coming up with the rules for how everything works in the game, then WTF am I giving game companies my money for?
Additionally, a lot of these rules components are pretty much applicable to most settings anyways. I don't need some specialized rules for jumping for every single, separate setting I play. Most game worlds are assumed to be roughly Earth gravity and have human or humanoid characters with near identical basic anatomy to Earth humans. It's only when playing in worlds that are specifically not based on Earth-like gravity that I need specialized rules, and published settings will typically include them rather than laying the whole responsibility of coming up with them on the GM. And typically they are just be a modifier for the baseline rules for jumping used in the system rather than a completely new sub system just for handling jumping in that specific world.
The vast majority of actions are the same regardless of what setting you play. Its only the specific knowledge that characters have available that typically changes, but knowledge rolls (or task resolution in general) typically work the same regardless of setting because all of these things are determined by the rules set. Its only the minutia that tends to vary by setting.
The "source material" is also not always a good place to look for these details because sometimes the source material isn't even a game manual, but some a story, movie or TV show that may have no game materials. Even when the source material is real life that's still not always an effective source for how to handle things in terms of the game rules because real life figures don't always apply universality. On the example of jumping (again) I might be able to find real life sources for jumping distance, but not everyone jumps the same distance in real life. Best I will be able to find are averages (which don't tell me how far an athletic character jumps vs a non-athletic one) or records of competitions between athletes that are above average compared to the general public in terms of leaping ability. So none of that stuff gives me exact figures that directly transcribe to the game rules. I would have to look up various jump distances and extrapolate how far a base jump distance would be and how much impact an ability roll may have on it for rules purposes, based on the system I'm using--so again, system matters.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703There's too much to unpack here, but one of the fundamental issue I have is that you're laying down 100% of ALL the responsibility on the GM for coming up with this information when GMs themselves will inevitably be unequipped to handle such issues when they're initially introduced into the hobby and are tackling this type of problem for the first time.
A good GM will have been a player for a while first, learning from both good GMs and bad. There is a natural course to things.
QuoteIf I, as the GM, I'm the one 100% responsible for coming up with the rules for how everything works in the game, then WTF am I giving game companies my money for?
Exactly. You don't have to.
But here you've not distinguished between
rules and
rulings. No rules can ever be 100% comprehensive. That's because we have a social creative hobby. If you go through a game session and they players didn't think of something which the rules don't cover, then you have a rather dull and unimaginative game group. Absent a rule, the GM must make a ruling.
Every rule set is finite, and thus incomplete. The only question is how comprehensive it is. Again: if it's light then the GM must spend time coming up with a ruling, if it's dense then the GM must spend time looking up charts. Either way things are slowed down. That's why a skilled GM either knows their game rules very well, or becomes good at making rulings quickly. The latter skill is always important since as I said no rule set is complete.
No rule set can be complete, which is why game companies keep publishing more rule books. Relevant here, since we're talking about GURPS, is its 3rd edition - which was famed for its worldbooks. This allowed GMs to have interesting game worlds without having to invent an entire world from whole cloth, like Tolkien, or needing a history degree. That is, they published base rules and setting books. Now they mostly just publish base rules and then more rules.
With GURPS 3e you had to make up some rules, but didn't have to make up a setting. Now with 4e you don't have to make up as many rules, but you do have to make up a setting.
Either way as GM you have to make something up. That's the job. But again, we have a social creative hobby, you'll do better if you're social and creative. If you're a socially inept dork you can just play computer games, and if you're not creative you can play board games. But if you're social and creative, or would like to try to be, then you play tabletop rpgs. Which means making something up, however much you pay game companies.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1120707A good GM will have been a player for a while first, learning from both good GMs and bad. There is a natural course to things.
Exactly. You don't have to.
But here you've not distinguished between rules and rulings. No rules can ever be 100% comprehensive. That's because we have a social creative hobby. If you go through a game session and they players didn't think of something which the rules don't cover, then you have a rather dull and unimaginative game group. Absent a rule, the GM must make a ruling.
Every rule set is finite, and thus incomplete. The only question is how comprehensive it is. Again: if it's light then the GM must spend time coming up with a ruling, if it's dense then the GM must spend time looking up charts. Either way things are slowed down. That's why a skilled GM either knows their game rules very well, or becomes good at making rulings quickly. The latter skill is always important since as I said no rule set is complete.
No rule set can be complete, which is why game companies keep publishing more rule books. Relevant here, since we're talking about GURPS, is its 3rd edition - which was famed for its worldbooks. This allowed GMs to have interesting game worlds without having to invent an entire world from whole cloth, like Tolkien, or needing a history degree. That is, they published base rules and setting books. Now they mostly just publish base rules and then more rules.
With GURPS 3e you had to make up some rules, but didn't have to make up a setting. Now with 4e you don't have to make up as many rules, but you do have to make up a setting.
Either way as GM you have to make something up. That's the job. But again, we have a social creative hobby, you'll do better if you're social and creative. If you're a socially inept dork you can just play computer games, and if you're not creative you can play board games. But if you're social and creative, or would like to try to be, then you play tabletop rpgs. Which means making something up, however much you pay game companies.
I didn't really argue against that. My original point was just a nitpick at someone claiming that D&D didn't force you into classes and some other stuff, where I mentioned that D&D limited choices based around class, "Especially in old D&D (the older the more limited).", then estar nitpicked my nitpicking and the discussion morphed into game rules vs GM rulings.
Obviously no system can be fully comprehensive, but they can still lack rule elements that may seem obviously necessary in retrospect, like how long can a character jump if they were leaping across a chasm, which is a likely scenario in an adventure game, but not something that would necessarily come to mind when initially designing a RPG back when they were still on their infancy.
Rules don't always need to be comprehensive, however. Some rules can also have a wide range of applicability without having to be comprehensive, such as task resolution mechanics, which can give you a base guideline of how to handle actions where failure might be a possibility, even if not all actions are defined in the game. Such rules can serve as the middle ground between the GM having to make something up from scratch cuz things aren't handled in the rules, and having extremely detailed rules, cuz they provide the GM with something to fall back on even when things aren't 100% covered in the rules.
I don't have a problem with the absence of jumping rules, because it's something everyone's done so it's trivial to come up with something reasonable - not necessarily realistic, since who's ever been a warrior in mail jumping a chasm? - but reasonable. And that's good enough.
The rules need to be there for things which are not intuitively obvious from most people's everyday experience, like lockpicking or making traps or the like. But again, the GM will never be relieved of the burden of just making things up because making things up is what roleplaying games are.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703If I, as the GM, I'm the one 100% responsible for coming up with the rules for how everything works in the game,
Yes the referee is 100% responsible.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703then WTF am I giving game companies my money for?
1) Because often it is leisure activity done in the time one has for a hobby and the game company's product save you time.
2) ANd/or because you like the material the game company writes for your campaign.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703There's too much to unpack here, but one of the fundamental issue I have is that you're laying down 100% of ALL the responsibility on the GM for coming up with this information when GMs themselves will inevitably be unequipped to handle such issues when they're initially introduced into the hobby and are tackling this type of problem for the first time.
That is something to consider but not what this part of thread is about. If you want to start a thread about teaching novices about RPGs I have plenty to say on the topic.
In regards the GURPS, product line is poorly designed to teach a novice to RPGs. They do have two decent books, How to be a GURPS GM "http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/howtobeagurpsgm/" and GURPS for dummies https://www.amazon.com/GURPS-Dummies-Adam-Griffith/dp/0471783293, however I think they are better for somebody who already played RPGs.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703And while you rightly point out that the original rules material was (and perhaps still is) lacking in teaching GMs how to make this types of rulings, it is unrealistic to expect new or even experienced GM to make things up on the spot every time.
How far can somebody throw a broadsword in a setting based on a fantasy medieval Europe? I doubt you will say 1 feet, and I doubt you will say 100 feet. If I had to guess, I would say most people would put it at somewhere between 5 to 15 feet.
The point is I know a figure flashed through your head when you read that. If that came up in a system that didn't account for throwing a sword. I would say go with the number you thought of. If need right it down in a notebook so you can reference it again if it comes up.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703The "source material" is also not always a good place to look for these details because sometimes the source material isn't even a game manual, but some a story, movie or TV show that may have no game materials. Even when the source material is real life that's still not always an effective source for how to handle things in terms of the game rules because real life figures don't always apply universality. On the example of jumping (again) I might be able to find real life sources for jumping distance, but not everyone jumps the same distance in real life. Best I will be able to find are averages (which don't tell me how far an athletic character jumps vs a non-athletic one) or records of competitions between athletes that are above average compared to the general public in terms of leaping ability. So none of that stuff gives me exact figures that directly transcribe to the game rules. I would have to look up various jump distances and extrapolate how far a base jump distance would be and how much impact an ability roll may have on it for rules purposes, based on the system I'm using--so again, system matters.
Irregardless of system what I do is think of the following
What is the everyman level?
What is the trained level?
What is the experienced professional level?
What is the Olympic/Noble caliber level?
By structuring my research to answer those four questions, I wind up with numbers I need within the time I have for a hobby. The rest can be extrapolated between these four points of information. Given time the initial result can be refined if need be. I did this with the Merchant system I use in my Majestic Wilderlands. Started with something basic and added details over time. To often people try to build everything at once. Just start with what you need and build it over time. But if need be, buy a product that has to work done. But nobody has a rules system that cover everything one can do a in a setting.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120275One thing I think people miss is that many advantages and disadvantages are actually narrative currency which the player uses to include things they want in the game. Want a lover? Take a Dependant. Want a kindly mentor to learn spells from take a Contact or a Patron. GURPS is actually a narrativist game not a simulationist one.
That is an excellent insight, although sadly it means GURPS will never be the game for me.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120275One thing I think people miss is that many advantages and disadvantages are actually narrative currency which the player uses to include things they want in the game. Want a lover? Take a Dependant. Want a kindly mentor to learn spells from take a Contact or a Patron. GURPS is actually a narrativist game not a simulationist one.
Maybe some GMs run some aspects of GURPS in a narrativist way, but I would say most of the game is simulationist.
The character points system and traits you mentioned are about agreement on what kind of character you can start with, mainly, and subject to GM approval. I have NEVER seen a GURPS GM or players have an action during play be to buy a relationship with character points.
It happens more if you allow some undefined points to be set aside. It can be a good option since it lets the players tailor to the setting and scenario on the fly but it can also be abused, of course.
Personally, I pretty much never use disadvantages for pre-generated characters because people always hate the ones I pick. If you don't like disadvantages in GURPS, hand out more points and either limit them or ban them. I'll often put the limit at ten points of disadvantages. Though I've said many times before that character creation is actually the weakest part of GURPS.
Quote from: Skarg;1120792Maybe some GMs run some aspects of GURPS in a narrativist way, but I would say most of the game is simulationist.
The character points system and traits you mentioned are about agreement on what kind of character you can start with, mainly, and subject to GM approval. I have NEVER seen a GURPS GM or players have an action during play be to buy a relationship with character points.
Sadly my experience is similar, except for "in potential, between sessions." :( Often the xp points during tend to fuel INT or DEX or some other skill, and GMs want starting adv/disadv points more fixed and prepared for their campaign before they embark. The temptation for most GMs is "Everything On!" -- across just about every RPG I've played -- not just GURPS. But it is a stumbling block that feels most detrimental to campaigns using skill-based games, in my experience, as the system mastery swing can be horrific.
I am more of the view: no points for adv/disadvs, all subject to GM approval (often to be given as roleplay rewards during campaign on case-by-case basis for being a consistently pro-active, cooperative player at the table). :)
It helps kill the impetus for chargen system mastery dead. It is not something I want -- at all -- in my campaigns. :( I just want people to enjoy my fictive world and see their emergent stories grow from their own adventures. :) Less fussy, more play.
Mhmm. "Everything On!", or anything close to it, seems crazy to me for GURPS...
Quote from: Skarg;1120822Mhmm. "Everything On!", or anything close to it, seems crazy to me for GURPS...
Further proof Gurps is beyond redemption! :rolleyes:
The problem I have with many disadvantages in GURPS is that the player gets the points from them, but the negatives tend to fall on the whole party. Either from the shared stigma of the one character's social and hygienic disads, or by having to spend valuable game time dealing with the one character's physical or psychological limitations.
Although, that said, I've still managed to have a lot of fun playing in GURPS games over the years.
Quote from: Omega;1120851Further proof Gurps is beyond redemption! :rolleyes:
No, not at all.
It's just that GURPS contains lots of content for pretty much every era, every genre, every supernatural and technological whatever, every level of magic and psionic and super hero power, every level of detail, realistic to four-color-comic book, hyper-detailed to broad strokes, etc etc etc, and has countless settings books, support for time travel, religions, etc and on and on and on.
So naturally, saying "Everything On!" is asking for a cacophony of unmanageable unbalanced incompatible nonsense.
But it also means GURPS can handle countless different settings and styles of play, and so can be tailored to taste.
And, just because I said it seems crazy to me, doesn't mean there aren't GURPS GMs who do try allowing most/all things, and enjoy it... though the reason I don't do that any more, is because I've learned so many times by including even just certain spells, that that often leads to things I don't want in my game worlds.
Exactly. It is a bit crazy. :) And flaws do tend to cost overhead playtime with busywork maintenance.
I myself like to "curate" the options in class-based games already, like D&D. And from skill-based games, like In Nomine, CoC, d6 and GURPS, it became rapidly apparent that such "curation" of options became even more mission critical. But too often I see GMs, especially new GMs, just flip the switch on and assume a) they can handle it all, b) it can be handled by all the players, and c) it enhances gametime's signal to noise ratio.
For me that "Everything On!" is a recipe for disaster. GURPS is very much not instant cake mix. It's a kitchen; it's a toolkit.
I think GURPS needs to reprint its 3e Cookbooks filled with Recipes. ;)
Yeah, that makes sense to me.
I've just not had much problem with having a working set I like with since I started with TFT and then GURPS 1e, and don't often try to play in other GMs' games.
And yes, my working set is basically 3e with some pieces from 4e and house rules, and 90% of the things you could do in GURPS, never to be used (e.g. no supers, psis, or cinematics).
And I'd admit that especially since 4e, the GMs, settings and house rules of others that I have looked at, have much more likely looked like nothing I'd want to play, than they used to back before 4e came out. They seem to be enjoying themselves, but I have a hard time relating. I'm not sure how much of that is good or bad - no doubt it depends on your perspective.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120796I've said many times before that character creation is actually the weakest part of GURPS.
Out of curiosity, could you elaborate on this? One of the things I've always most loved GURPS for is precisely the flexibility, freedom, and general balance of its character creation, and I'd be interested to hear criticisms.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120964Out of curiosity, could you elaborate on this? One of the things I've always most loved GURPS for is precisely the flexibility, freedom, and general balance of its character creation, and I'd be interested to hear criticisms.
I suspect it is the same problem that is in Hero System: Huge learning curve to make a character because of all that flexibility. Playing the game (at least with the options toned down), isn't that difficult. Heck, with Hero, if the GM makes characters for everyone and puts a little care into keeping it simple, it's easier for a new player to pick up at moderate power levels than most D&D games. ("Competent Heroes" in hero, maybe 5th to 7th level in D&D, if done well, are simpler than the equivalent D&D characters. Low-level D&D characters are easier, while high-level D&D characters are more difficult. Hero doesn't scale that much from that central difficulty, once play starts.)
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120964Out of curiosity, could you elaborate on this? One of the things I've always most loved GURPS for is precisely the flexibility, freedom, and general balance of its character creation, and I'd be interested to hear criticisms.
My fundamental issue is that the relative value of things doesn't scale up with points totals. At 600 points you can buy straight 20 attributes, so that's where the cracks tend to really start showing up. Because the cost of everything is linear. One easy to show example is the cost of enemies. How many points of enemies would you say Superman has? The amounts are irrelevant in his points range.
I tend to run low to no disadvantages games because players will always take blood lust, sadism, and bully rather than more sociable Sense of Duties and Codes of Honor. It's essentially the thing where people all want to be chaotic evil because they think good is limiting yet if you don't have them put anything down they'll generally play more decent people. It's a human nature thing I guess but I'm pretty disillusioned with the disadvantages.
Aesthetically, people compare their GURPS attributes to D&D scale attributes and think their character is weak, even though GURPS attributes have a far greater mechanical impact. The way skill costs are written confuse people. I think if they just worded it DX for easy and DX -2 for average and had +1:1 pt, +2:2pts, +3:4pts, +4:8 pts, +5:12 pts. people wouldn't find it so impossibly confusing.
I'm not saying that the character creation is horrible but it's basically just a big list of things to write on your character sheet that may or may not be appropriate to any given game. I do think it's a great character modelling system. It's a great tool for describing characters but as a game tool for creating functional playing pieces, not so much.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120972My fundamental issue is that the relative value of things doesn't scale up with points totals. At 600 points you can buy straight 20 attributes, so that's where the cracks tend to really start showing up.
Personally I think that's one of the side effects of the 3d6 roll-under mechanic that Jackson chose to be at the heart of his system; the GM's meant to compensate by regularly applying steeper and steeper negative modifiers, but such things can be really hard to think of on the fly for four players with 12+ skills apiece, each specializing in a different field of action. Also, I think it's just a peculiar quirk of perception that when you give someone a fixed difficulty or target number, they tend to accept it more straightforwardly than they do a negative modifier, because a
modifier by definition says
something about this action is different, and we instinctively want to know why.
One thing I think GURPS would have benefited from is a fixed chart of "Typical Difficulties", describing how to interpret a task at modifiers ranging from +5 to -10 or worse. (EDIT: Although, as most will note, in a bell-curve roll-under system even this has its limits: a -1 modifier makes much more difference at Skill 11 than it does at Skill 17.)
QuoteI tend to run low to no disadvantages games because players will always take blood lust, sadism, and bully rather than more sociable Sense of Duties and Codes of Honor.
I played GURPS for quite a while in university and have to admit I never ran into that problem; I wonder if perhaps that has more to do with the people we happened to be gaming with.
Certainly one thing GURPS does is it relies on the GM to enforce the consequences for players indulging antisocial disadvantages in a way that, in real life, can be hard to do to friends who just want to have fun. But the GM enforcing the negative consequences of the players' choices is the hard part of the job in any game, so I'm not sure what can be realistically done about that.
QuoteI'm not saying that the character creation is horrible but it's basically just a big list of things to write on your character sheet that may or may not be appropriate to any given game. I do think it's a great character modelling system. It's a great tool for describing characters but as a game tool for creating functional playing pieces, not so much.
This is another paradox I've noticed for RPGs in general: Almost always, players find anything that increases the complexity and options of building PCs to be a bonus, because it gives them more choices to play with and rewards time investment; whereas anything that
simplifies and
accelerates the process of building
NPCs is a bonus to GMs, because it makes prep time easier and quicker. At the same time, any perception that PCs and NPCs are
not actually built on the same rules, even if the probabilities are set up to be as close as possible in practice, destroys people's immersion in the simulation because they "know" the NPCs aren't as "real" as their own PCs. So the ideal in character design is to hit a sweet spot where there are enough options for players to feel satisfied, but enough streamline-design shortcuts for GMs not to be overloaded, while still looking relatively similar in result.
Quote from: David Johansen;1120972My fundamental issue is that the relative value of things doesn't scale up with points totals. At 600 points you can buy straight 20 attributes, so that's where the cracks tend to really start showing up. Because the cost of everything is linear. One easy to show example is the cost of enemies. How many points of enemies would you say Superman has? The amounts are irrelevant in his points range.
I tend to run low to no disadvantages games because players will always take blood lust, sadism, and bully rather than more sociable Sense of Duties and Codes of Honor. It's essentially the thing where people all want to be chaotic evil because they think good is limiting yet if you don't have them put anything down they'll generally play more decent people. It's a human nature thing I guess but I'm pretty disillusioned with the disadvantages.
Aesthetically, people compare their GURPS attributes to D&D scale attributes and think their character is weak, even though GURPS attributes have a far greater mechanical impact. The way skill costs are written confuse people. I think if they just worded it DX for easy and DX -2 for average and had +1:1 pt, +2:2pts, +3:4pts, +4:8 pts, +5:12 pts. people wouldn't find it so impossibly confusing.
I'm not saying that the character creation is horrible but it's basically just a big list of things to write on your character sheet that may or may not be appropriate to any given game. I do think it's a great character modelling system. It's a great tool for describing characters but as a game tool for creating functional playing pieces, not so much.
I haven't played GURPS per se, but I've dealt with "RP Disadvantages" in other games and I'm dead set against them for a variety of reasons. First of all, RP "Disadvantages" are completely reliant on 1) a situation where that disadvantage applies actually coming up during play, and 2) the player actually RPing their character convincingly. Till both of those things happen, those "disadvantages" are just words on a character sheet.
Secondly, I normally award extra XP for good RP, including difficult RP, like RPing your character in a manner that's disadvantageous to you. And in the case of "disadvantages" like having Enemies hunting you down I'd also award XP for any combat or confrontations that ensue. So awarding extra Ability Points (or however they're called in any given system) would be double dipping--I'm already giving you extra XP when those things come up regardless. I'm not gonna give you extra points during creation for disadvantages you haven't even experienced yet that are totally reliant on you actually playing along when I would normally award you extra XP for good RP anyways. And having things like "Enemies" I have to create and remember to add to the game cuz you picked a "disadvantage" during creation is just adding extra workload to me (or whoever is GMing). So again, why should I allow that in my game when you're adding extra workload to me and I'll be awarding you XP once the battle is done?
I have no problem if players want to play an asshole or a rogue ninja or something, whose clan is hunting them down. But those are just backstory details as far as I'm concerned. They're there to help round out your character and perhaps give me some idea of what sort of challenges I might throw your character's way. The situations that arise as a result of that are they're own reward. I'm not going to award extra points during creation for things that aren't real limitations and are supposed to incentivize RP, not serve as extra points to buff up your starting character.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120987(EDIT: Although, as most will note, in a bell-curve roll-under system even this has its limits: a -1 modifier makes much more difference at Skill 11 than it does at Skill 17.)
That's looking it at the wrong way. Going from 17- to 16- (on 3d6) means your chance of failure increases from 1/216 to 4/216 (0.46% to 1.85%). That's a difference of only 3 (out of 216), or about 1.39%. Whereas going from 11- to 10- means your chance of failure increases from 81/216 to 108/216 (37.5% to 50%), which is a difference of 27 (108-81 out of 216), or 12.5%. The latter is a much bigger absolute difference, but that's not how people think about changes in probabilities.
We don't think in terms of how much the odds changed in comparison to the whole range of possibilities, but by how much the chance of failure (or succeed) has changed, relative to the previous chance. And from that perspective, the drop of a skill from 17 to 16 (1/216 to 4/216) is huge, because it's literally a 4-fold or 300% increase (4/1) in the chance of failure. The drop from 11- to 10- (81/216 to 108/216) in contrast is much smaller, a 33% increase (108/81).
Quote from: Pat;1121014And from that perspective, the drop of a skill from 17 to 16 (1/216 to 4/216) is huge, because it's literally a 4-fold or 300% increase (4/1) in the chance of failure. The drop from 11- to 10- (81/216 to 108/216) in contrast is much smaller, a 33% increase (108/81).
Ehhh, (tilts hand back and forth) twice small potatoes is still small potatoes, as the old saying goes.
Still, some second thoughts have made me think I'm overstating the issue. Plotted against any bell-curve randomizer, a flat difficulty progression is going to have the same basic problem, which is that a given numerical modifier is going to change the odds by a variable amount depending on the original values. GURPS, I think, just makes this more visible by being a roll-under system rather than roll-over, and by making it easier to hit the top limits of the mechanical result range than some other systems do.
Well, you can buy +25 to a skill for 100 points. Totally game legal. You can even buy +10 to a skill for 40 points which is a little more reasonable. That makes Joe DX10 have a 20 in rifles. Give him a 30 aught 6 and he can solve most of the problems you'll ever encounter.
This gets to be a bigger problem in supers games where you've got a thousand points or more to play with. I really wish they'd gone with the 500 point super bench mark they used to use. The biggest problem is super strength but you also get into things like the insane stacking of enhanced move x 2 for 20 points. So x 8 at 100 points, x256 at 200 points.
I'm convinced that the right solution for super strength is x2 for 100 points (lifting Strength would be 30 points / x 2) coupled with limitations and extra effort based on ST not Will. One cheap way to boost your lifting as it stands is to buy up your Will +20 for 100 points will increase your lifting capacity by 100%.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121056Ehhh, (tilts hand back and forth) twice small potatoes is still small potatoes, as the old saying goes.
It's not potatoes, though. It's frequency. How many checks do you make per game session, and what's the severity of failure? A bunch, and if it's life or death matters, or otherwise important, then failing twice as often even if the individual chance itself is low, means you're suffering twice as many troubles.
Quote from: Pat;1121084It's not potatoes, though. It's frequency. How many checks do you make per game session, and what's the severity of failure? A bunch, and if it's life or death matters, or otherwise important, then failing twice as often even if the individual chance itself is low, means you're suffering twice as many troubles.
Twice a low frequency is still a low frequency. If you assume an average of one check every three minutes, then twenty checks an hour for a five-hour session is 100 checks; if all of them take a -1 to an effective skill 17, then moving from a 1% to a 4% chance of failure per check shifts you from an average of 1 failure per session to 4 failures. And the vast majority of checks in any game session
aren't instant-career-ender matters, so the likelihood that one of those is that critical is even smaller.
On the other hand, doing the exact same math, but starting from a base skill of 11 -- where a -1 takes you from a 37.5% chance of failure to 50% -- increases average failure rate from 38 out of 100 rolls to
50 out of 100. That is a
lot worse, both absolutely and relatively; in fact a PC who fails that often isn't likely to make it through that session at that rate.
When it's ultimately settled by one roll of the dice, the
ratio of the change in probabilities isn't nearly as relevant as its overall flat
scope.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121098Twice a low frequency is still a low frequency. If you assume an average of one check every three minutes, then twenty checks an hour for a five-hour session is 100 checks; if all of them take a -1 to an effective skill 17, then moving from a 1% to a 4% chance of failure per check shifts you from an average of 1 failure per session to 4 failures. And the vast majority of checks in any game session aren't instant-career-ender matters, so the likelihood that one of those is that critical is even smaller.
On the other hand, doing the exact same math, but starting from a base skill of 11 -- where a -1 takes you from a 37.5% chance of failure to 50% -- increases average failure rate from 38 out of 100 rolls to 50 out of 100. That is a lot worse, both absolutely and relatively; in fact a PC who fails that often isn't likely to make it through that session at that rate.
When it's ultimately settled by one roll of the dice, the ratio of the change in probabilities isn't nearly as relevant as its overall flat scope.
Except that's not what happens. And as you illustrated in your first paragraph, apparently low frequencies based on the odds for a single check are deceptive, when you make 100 checks. 4% sounds low, until you make 100 checks. Then it jumps from a 1 in 25 chance of failing once, to failing 4 times in a row. That's a huge jump.
Games also tend to be biased toward success, with most checks having a better than equal chance, and this is augmented by player action because of the "when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail" maxim -- given a problem, it's the character with the highest skill who will tend to solve it, not the character with a low skill; and when there are multiple ways of approaching a problem (and there always are), a player will try to use the one where their character has the highest skill. Players will also try to optimize their characters for particularly high skills in the areas where failure is particularly dangerous, such as combat.
Think of it this way, even if crits are rare, and rarely result in a loss of a limb, having a 4% chance of critting vs. a 1% chance means over the course a campaign, your character will lose 4 times as many limbs. You're arguing that doesn't matter.
Quote from: Pat;11211164% sounds low, until you make 100 checks. Then it jumps from a 1 in 25 chance of failing once, to failing 4 times in a row.
That's not how probability works. The average chance of getting 4 failures out of 100 rolls is not the same as the accumulative chance of those four individual failures happening to occur in sequence; the latter chance is 4/100 to the power of 4, or less than a
thousandth of 1%.
Quote from: Pat;1121116Think of it this way, even if crits are rare, and rarely result in a loss of a limb, having a 4% chance of critting vs. a 1% chance means over the course a campaign, your character will lose 4 times as many limbs. You're arguing that doesn't matter.
Given that losing even a single limb in any game where it can't be quickly magically or cybernetically replaced tends to end most characters' careers as effectively as death does, no, saying you'll lose "4 times as many limbs"
doesn't really matter, because it's not how the game plays out in practice.
It'd probably be more accurate to say, "If all crits result in the loss of a limb, and all limb loss causes PCs to be retired, increasing the chance of a crit by 4x cuts the average career length of a PC to 1/4th of what it would otherwise be."
Which is true so long as one assumes (a) all crits cause limb loss and (b) no other career-ending risks occur more often, or have much higher probabilities. Neither is true in GURPS or in the average GURPS game session.
Moving away from obsessing on the details of the examples, though, I still think your basic point is wrong: in my experience, people
don't evaluate a change in probability based on its proportional change rather than its absolute scope -- unless, that is, this data is deceptively presented. Which is more likely to scare off a
player in practice: telling him, "This modifier reduced your chance of success from 99% to 96%," or, "This modifier just quadrupled your chances of failure"? Yet both describe exactly the same change in actual probability.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121128That's not how probability works. The average chance of getting 4 failures out of 100 rolls is not the same as the accumulative chance of those four individual failures happening to occur in sequence; the latter chance is 4/100 to the power of 4, or less than a thousandth of 1%.
I meant failing 4 times in a 100-check session. It should have been obvious in context, especially since it's a complete non sequitur based on everything else I said.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121128Given that losing even a single limb in any game where it can't be quickly magically or cybernetically replaced tends to end most characters' careers as effectively as death does, no, saying you'll lose "4 times as many limbs" doesn't really matter, because it's not how the game plays out in practice.
That is not anywhere near close to my experience. Because we're talking about critical hits, one of the most popular house rules in games like D&D -- and one of the most hated. For the people who love critical hits, what I said is exactly what happens. They cause hideous, gory, effects, and this quadruples the number. That can shorten how long a character is played, but not by a 4:1 ratio.
The people who don't like it just don't use the rules, which is comparable to what you said. But misses the more general point that this applies to any bad outcomes, as you note...
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121128Moving away from obsessing on the details of the examples, though, I still think your basic point is wrong: in my experience, people don't evaluate a change in probability based on its proportional change rather than its absolute scope -- unless, that is, this data is deceptively presented. Which is more likely to scare off a player in practice: telling him, "This modifier reduced your chance of success from 99% to 96%," or, "This modifier just quadrupled your chances of failure"? Yet both describe exactly the same change in actual probability.
I'll see if I can dig out some studies, this has been pretty well documented. It's related to the 40% threshold in usability studies.
And I think your question is illuminating, but for more reasons than you're suggesting. While we do have an instinctive feel for probability, that instinct isn't what gets activated when we talk about percentages. Instincts are gut feelings, affective responses, and happen almost instantly. Numbers like 99 or 96 are language-like symbols we manipulate at the intellectual level, and are much slower and require more conscious engagement. That's the first level at which it's deceptive. The obfuscation of 1:4 as 99:96 is a secondary level, which involves very different processes.
Note I'm not talking about a player's reaction to probabilities, that are explained through numbers and math. I'm talking about their perception of statistical events over time. How it feels in play, not what's on the character sheet. Actual stats usually add a third level of indirection that makes it even more obscure, because 17- has to be converted to a probability.
Bear in mind that GURPS has very boring critical hits with 9 - 11 on the chart being no effect beyond the target being unable to parry. But yes, I did have a PC die from a punch to the eye by a drunken, middle aged, guardsman. It was a spectacular series of rolls.
Well, I wasn't really thinking of GURPS with those examples. More the perennial D&D houserules codified in Dragon articles or Torn Asunder, or those very Tolkienesque invisible turtles of MERPS. But GURPS does have crit and malf rolls, and there are always fright checks and UMana.
Quote from: Pat;1121153I wasn't really thinking of GURPS with those examples. More the perennial D&D houserules codified in Dragon articles or Torn Asunder, or those very Tolkienesque invisible turtles of MERPS.
This may explain why I'm possibly not grokking your point. My D&D days date back to the veteran AD&D1E ruleset, and we never used any of those houserules, so it doesn't resonate for me the same way. And even when I was playing with GURPS, my game was a Supers game, so I never bothered with maiming criticals because it wasn't part of the atmosphere our group wanted.
If your basic point is that a tiny shift in outcome distribution probability per roll can produce a more significant than expected outcome distribution if applied consistently over a sufficiently long period, I certainly grant that. (This is actually one reason I think a Take 10/Take 20 rule equivalent in GURPS would be a good idea.) I just don't think it's relevant to the point I was making, which is that in practice, players tend to think mostly in terms of the roll right in front of them, so a -1 modifier is going to
feel much less significant to a Skill 17 PC than to a Skill 11 PC on a per-roll basis, even if the effects are more accumulatively significant than realized.
(Given that in GURPS, rolls of 17 and 18 are automatic failures regardless of Skill level, in practice no Skill 17+ character will notice
any negative modifier until it reduces his
effective skill to 15 or below anyway, in terms of basic success odds -- it may be relevant if the roll takes the difference between roll and skill threshold into account, as in Quick Contests, but otherwise you might as well not bother.)
Ultimately I think the basic "problem" with all bell curve randomizer systems is not the small modifiers but the large ones, because they make much less difference at the ends of the range than their flat size implies; a Skill 17 character rolling at -4 reduces his chances by less than 15%, but a Skill 12 character vs. the same penalty reduces his chances by nearly
50%. I think this is the thing that makes consistent-feeling "Difficulty Tables" harder to build in GURPS than in some other systems, especially for extremely high-powered (Skill 21+) characters, because once the modifiers get much above -4 it's very difficult to estimate the effective results predictably across a party or between opponents of different power levels.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121205Ultimately I think the basic "problem" with all bell curve randomizer systems is not the small modifiers but the large ones, because they make much less difference at the ends of the range than their flat size implies; a Skill 17 character rolling at -4 reduces his chances by less than 15%, but a Skill 12 character vs. the same penalty reduces his chances by nearly 50%. I think this is the thing that makes consistent-feeling "Difficulty Tables" harder to build in GURPS than in some other systems, especially for extremely high-powered (Skill 21+) characters, because once the modifiers get much above -4 it's very difficult to estimate the effective results predictably across a party or between opponents of different power levels.
Personally I find this a positive effect of the mechanic, not a negative. It means that high-skill characters can eat a lot of penalties for no real effect, without needing to buy specific exemptions. In contrast there are systems where you need to buy buy specific traits to minimise the effect of poor conditions.
As an example, a competent knife thrower might hit a simple target quite reliably, whilst a master can throw between the legs of a spinning assistant in the circus.
You can do both if you use Techniques.
I've occasionally talked about doing a not-GURPS clone. Of course it usually deviates from GURPS pretty quickly but here's the things I lean towards.
The Attributes are Strength, Dexterity, Agility, Health, Intelligence, Perception, Willpower, and Charisma. Agility is Dexterity + Health. The costs are divided by five. Skills are bought in blocks of 5 skills which are listed out in the description as adjectives. I broke out Agility, Perception, and Willpower to allow me to keep the points costs uniform. Damage would be 2d at Strength 10 and Hit Points would equal Strength + Health to help the system scale down better. Damage Resistances would be doubled. Swing and thrust would be reflected in weapon stats and the Damage would be consistently 1d / 5 points. The idea would be to be very close to fully compatible without being a direct copy. I'd probably go off the rails on the combat system just because there's no real need to recreate it as long as the stats match up. I'd have to fight the urge to rethink the entire advantage and disadvantage system.
The Constant so-called 'problem' - people think GURPS needs changes or modifications.
It doesn't, it REALLY doesn't - okay?
If someone is stuck or mired in a D&D mindset - then they think GURPS needs to be changed.
Maybe your D&D cliches aren't as great as you think they are.
GURPS is Freedom of Choice, D&D is not. Its as simple as that.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;1121225The Constant so-called 'problem' - people think GURPS needs changes or modifications.
It doesn't, it REALLY doesn't - okay?
If someone is stuck or mired in a D&D mindset - then they think GURPS needs to be changed.
Maybe your D&D cliches aren't as great as you think they are.
GURPS is Freedom of Choice, D&D is not. Its as simple as that.
- Ed C.
That is a nice little falsehood you are spouting there. But its still a falsehood.
Quote from: David Johansen;1121082Well, you can buy +25 to a skill for 100 points. Totally game legal. You can even buy +10 to a skill for 40 points which is a little more reasonable. That makes Joe DX10 have a 20 in rifles. Give him a 30 aught 6 and he can solve most of the problems you'll ever encounter.
This gets to be a bigger problem in supers games where you've got a thousand points or more to play with. I really wish they'd gone with the 500 point super bench mark they used to use. The biggest problem is super strength but you also get into things like the insane stacking of enhanced move x 2 for 20 points. So x 8 at 100 points, x256 at 200 points.
I'm convinced that the right solution for super strength is x2 for 100 points (lifting Strength would be 30 points / x 2) coupled with limitations and extra effort based on ST not Will. One cheap way to boost your lifting as it stands is to buy up your Will +20 for 100 points will increase your lifting capacity by 100%.
I don't much like the 4e change to physical skills flattening at 4 points per point. In earlier editions, 40 points in one Average skill would get +6. Combine this with having the GM approve characters generation and improvement so that putting 40 points in a skill represents a very rare accomplishment, and there's no problem.
Your fundamental complaint about the effects of handing out 300+ points and letting players do whatever with them will cause weirdness and balance issues and munchkin possibilities, I would say is entirely valid and part of why I don't do those things. Some 4e GM's do do those things and claim they can handle them, but I don't play their games or know their play styles well enough to know how they make that work for them exactly. Personally, I think there's a fundamental apples-vs-oranges situation which means that even with as good an attempt as GURPS 4e makes, there just is no way to "balance" apples versus oranges, except in the sense that players get to choose what they do with their points, and are responsible for how effective their choices end up being, and the GM can and should review/approve/deny characters, and is responsible for communicating and not allowing things that won't work well for the GM's desired play style.
Quote from: Skarg;1121263Your fundamental complaint about the effects of handing out 300+ points and letting players do whatever with them will cause weirdness and balance issues and munchkin possibilities, I would say is entirely valid and part of why I don't do those things.
I don't know if 4E actually contains rules to this effect, but what if GURPS did what some other point-build systems do and put more internal limits on the distribution within areas? There used to be a rule in 3E, for example, that you couldn't put more than 2x your character's age into skills; it seems like it should be very easy to put in a rule saying something like, "No more than 50% of your starting character point total can go into any one area of your character -- Attributes, Advantages, Skills, or Powers."
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121271I don't know if 4E actually contains rules to this effect, but what if GURPS did what some other point-build systems do and put more internal limits on the distribution within areas? There used to be a rule in 3E, for example, that you couldn't put more than 2x your character's age into skills; it seems like it should be very easy to put in a rule saying something like, "No more than 50% of your starting character point total can go into any one area of your character -- Attributes, Advantages, Skills, or Powers."
Yes, there are several different 4e methods that address this in one way or another; things like attribute caps, high skill level maintenance and training times, point buckets, unusual backgrounds as permissions, etc.
Quote from: Omega;1121258That is a nice little falsehood you are spouting there. But its still a falsehood.
I'd say it's a bit more like Pascal's Wager. It works for pink dinosaurs too. Or in this case, Palladium, Synibar, AD&D, Traveller or whatever.
Has anyone else looked at V&V Mighty Protectors? I'm not a fan of everything they did there but they've got a lovely benchmark chart that sets maximums in proportion to total points.
Quote from: Koltar;1121225The Constant so-called 'problem' - people think GURPS needs changes or modifications.
It doesn't, it REALLY doesn't - okay?
If someone is stuck or mired in a D&D mindset - then they think GURPS needs to be changed.
Maybe your D&D cliches aren't as great as you think they are.
GURPS is Freedom of Choice, D&D is not. Its as simple as that.
- Ed C.
GURPS was made to be changed. It's extremely modular with a ton of moving parts.
I started not to comment here but ----
GURPS doesn't need a lot of house rules. It has a literal fk ton of optional rules based on your group's level of simulation.
You're playing the wrong system.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121271I don't know if 4E actually contains rules to this effect, but what if GURPS did what some other point-build systems do and put more internal limits on the distribution within areas? There used to be a rule in 3E, for example, that you couldn't put more than 2x your character's age into skills; it seems like it should be very easy to put in a rule saying something like, "No more than 50% of your starting character point total can go into any one area of your character -- Attributes, Advantages, Skills, or Powers."
Yes, quite.
What GURPS 4e mainly does is have many examples of using templates to describe different types of characters and/or professions or whatever, and those often mention ranges of points that would make sense to go into various skills. Max limits are mentioned as something a GM probably wants to do in general though specifics are up to the GM to proscribe, since opinions vary from wanting conservative limits to handing out lots of points and not minding what players do with it. The Basic Set does suggest skills generally probably start getting excessive/unrealistic at about level 25.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121205This may explain why I'm possibly not grokking your point. My D&D days date back to the veteran AD&D1E ruleset, and we never used any of those houserules, so it doesn't resonate for me the same way. And even when I was playing with GURPS, my game was a Supers game, so I never bothered with maiming criticals because it wasn't part of the atmosphere our group wanted.
It wasn't part of the game I wanted, either. The reason I remember it so vividly is because I hated it. There's a gaming sub-culture out there that loves crits, and it's not insignificant because the the critical hit article that made it into one of the
Best of Dragons had a specific note it was one of their most requested articles, and
Torn Asunder was one of the most popular third party d20 supplements. I suspect it's most popular among adolescent boys.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121205I just don't think it's relevant to the point I was making, which is that in practice, players tend to think mostly in terms of the roll right in front of them, so a -1 modifier is going to feel much less significant to a Skill 17 PC than to a Skill 11 PC on a per-roll basis, even if the effects are more accumulatively significant than realized.
If they think of the roll right in front of them, then they'll be looking at the -1 modifier, which is still a -1 modifier whatever it's applied to. Though I do know what you're saying, regardless of the wording. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have looked around at studies, and so far there's been universal consensus that humans see things in term of relative values, not absolutes, but I've been having a hard time finding the ones I remember that were focused on probability. A few of the ones I have found list probability as an example of something humans perceive in relative terms, but so far they haven't gone into detail about what they mean.
Quote from: Skarg;1121263I don't much like the 4e change to physical skills flattening at 4 points per point. In earlier editions, 40 points in one Average skill would get +6. Combine this with having the GM approve characters generation and improvement so that putting 40 points in a skill represents a very rare accomplishment, and there's no problem.
That's one of the things that makes point-build character creation difficult to balance across different scales. You end up with certain optimal mixes of skills and stats, meaning that for any particular point build IQ and DX will cluster around a certain level, and so will the levels of your skills. Which means characters like the Hulk will never appear, because after a certain point bumping up DX and spending the points on skills needed to turn him into a combat monster will provide more benefit than another minor incremental increase in strength. I've seen people argue that this is realistic, but it's really not. It's gamist.
I never played HERO, but as I understand they have an interesting approach: There's a cap on the total power plus the total skill of an attack, so you can choose to be really powerful, or really accurate, but not both.
Quote from: Koltar;1120351...and that right there IS the problem.
Every version pf "D&D" is kind of condescending and forces you into 'classes - GURPS does not.
The GURPS style credits the reader or gamer with intelligence and the ability to make choices.
You might say that GURPS is very 'pro-choice' - but you have to make a choice
-Ed C.
Sorry, I was using design the way printers/artists do. I should have said "layout."
As far as classes vs. point-based go, I prefer point-based, but classes make a lot of sense; probably more sense than point-based. People (i.e., characters) generally make choices in bundles. They may like to think they're special snowflakes, max agency in all things, but in reality they take their beliefs, for example, in bundles. If a person believes x, he also has a strong tendency to believe y and z, while the next guy believes a, and has a strong tendency to believe b and c.
Classes kinda reflect reality better. That said, they're kind of a straitjacket, too. Best of both worlds is a point-based system with a healthy selection of classes, kits, backgrounds, etc., for sale.
Quote from: Pat;1121350That's one of the things that makes point-build character creation difficult to balance across different scales. You end up with certain optimal mixes of skills and stats, meaning that for any particular point build IQ and DX will cluster around a certain level, and so will the levels of your skills. Which means characters like the Hulk will never appear, because after a certain point bumping up DX and spending the points on skills needed to turn him into a combat monster will provide more benefit than another minor incremental increase in strength. I've seen people argue that this is realistic, but it's really not. It's gamist.
Sure.
I think the more points are allowed and the more free they are to spend them on various things, the more possibilities there are for weird and/or munchkiny character designs, and the more the large availability of points can drown out interesting limits built into a point-buy system when there are fewer points to spend and more limits on how they can be spent.
However, many problems including that one can be avoided by having the people who pick and/or approve character traits be more interested in making interesting appropriate characters than in picking things for gamey efficiency.
In some cases, though, I think there are some clusters of stats that can also be realistic. For example, the stats of pro athletes in a sport probably tend to cluster into certain ranges, which is a natural effect of the limits of intentional training for the role, and people selecting and being selected for roles that suit their natural gifts.
Quote from: Pat;1121350I never played HERO, but as I understand they have an interesting approach: There's a cap on the total power plus the total skill of an attack, so you can choose to be really powerful, or really accurate, but not both.
What I've done since some time in the 90's is offer not just a pile of points, but a variety of choices for packages which have different point totals and different things people can spend them on up to different limits. Like GURPS Templates, but I may offer different options which may allow different point totals too, because I don't think GURPS character point total equality means much at all for characters with different sorts of traits.
I don't tend to usually offer large amounts of points, especially not to pick freely, nor do I play superheroes games, but if I wanted to support something The Hulk (or more likely for me, something like The Mountain from GoT), I'd offer a package that includes the huge size and strength and perhaps prices it on a different scale if there are points that could be traded to other traits. I mean, if you're trying to model Bruce Banner, it'd make sense to have them make an ordinary scientist using a template that has to include Bruce Banner's skills, and then apply the effects that made him the Hulk on top of that, so there would be no question of trading some of the Hulk effect to amp up other aspects of the pre-Hulk character to try to min/max a more efficient character - that'd be gamist, as you wrote.
Quote from: Morlock;1121431As far as classes vs. point-based go, I prefer point-based, but classes make a lot of sense; probably more sense than point-based. People (i.e., characters) generally make choices in bundles. They may like to think they're special snowflakes, max agency in all things, but in reality they take their beliefs, for example, in bundles. If a person believes x, he also has a strong tendency to believe y and z, while the next guy believes a, and has a strong tendency to believe b and c.
Classes kinda reflect reality better. That said, they're kind of a straitjacket, too. Best of both worlds is a point-based system with a healthy selection of classes, kits, backgrounds, etc., for sale.
Yep. So cultural and professional and educational templates, designed to represent real experiences from the game setting, and a limited number of discretionary points. i.e. GURPS Templates, when done well.
My reaction to this thread in general is the way to "save" GURPS is to practice and develop a style you like, and the skills to play/GM that way well.
The way to "save" it for non-expert GMs would be to find or have someone write good settings that match the style you like. There certainly could use to be more of those, especially more simple ones for new players. IMO, more like Orcslayer and less like Dungeon Fantasy.
Quote from: Skarg;1121478However, many problems including that one can be avoided by having the people who pick and/or approve character traits be more interested in making interesting appropriate characters than in picking things for gamey efficiency.
And then they get frustrated because their character is completely incompetent, when compared to a character designed by someone who recognized how the game is put together, and made a few trade offs with that in mind.
GURPS superficially looks like a system that encourages characters who are diverse and highly detailed, and that's true in the scope of skills and abilities available. But costs for skills are based more on real world factors, like how long it takes to learn a particular skill, than on in-game factors, like whether that skill is useful in every game session, or almost never. And skills cost the same, no matter if it's your first skill or your 100th, even though they become diminishingly likely to be useful in the game. Plus after a certain number of skills based on a stat, it becomes cheaper just to buy up the stat than a new skill, and at the same time a high stat makes putting the minimum (1) points in a skill ever more effective. So the point buy system encourages buying up IQ and DX, focusing a lot of points in a few skills and then throwing 1 point in everything else. And since points are added together linearly, it means every point you put into a secondary or lesser ability is a point you could have put into something more immediately useful. which encourages putting points in stuff that's immediately useful in the game instead of supporting a colorful background. This all means the range of semi-optimal characters is far more constrained than the huge number of options in character creation suggests, and small differences in optimization can result in big differences in effectiveness. I'm not saying that GURPS is broken or impossible to run, just that the point system does not represent utility in the game, and characters built on the same point totals may vary widely in effectiveness.
The detail makes the GURPS system great for modeled characters, where you have a clear concept in mind (or are trying to represent a historical or fictional character), give them the skills and abilities that make the most sense, and only calculate the point total at the end. It also works fine if all the players are on roughly the same page when it comes to their skill and commitment to system mastery; or when the referee is experienced and confident enough to look over the character sheets, suggest adjustments, or tell other players to tone things down a bit. But at least the referee needs to keep these things in mind.
Incidentally, I agree with packages. Templates/lenses/etc. are a good way to build characters, by reducing the choices to a reasonable number, and making sure the characters are both well-rounded and effective without being ridiculously so within their specialty. It's basically modeling, except for professions or archetypes, and with an eye to balance.
Quote from: Skarg;1121478In some cases, though, I think there are some clusters of stats that can also be realistic. For example, the stats of pro athletes in a sport probably tend to cluster into certain ranges, which is a natural effect of the limits of intentional training for the role, and people selecting and being selected for roles that suit their natural gifts.
Except if you want to be a great pitcher, then spend 140 points on throwing or sport (baseball) and dump literally everything else that isn't related, and make sure to max out your disadvantages. (I'm simplifying a bit -- you'll need other traits, and depending on how it's resolved, you may have to buy up things like feint that allow you to exploit skill levels that exceed the 3d6 range.) The old joke that the typical GURPS character is a berserk hunchback with odious personal habits is more than a little true.
Note this reduced a bit for combat monsters, because outcomes in combat are dependent on many skills and abilities, so hyperspecialization is more limited. But it still exists.
Quote from: Pat;1121486And then they get frustrated because their character is completely incompetent, when compared to a character designed by someone who recognized how the game is put together, and made a few trade offs with that in mind.
I can see that possibly happening for people new to GURPS with GMs who didn't help.
I've been very fortunate, it seems, and/or picky at the right times, and so have mostly played with like-minded and/or skilled players, or at least with strong GMs.
For me/us, the frustrated player with an incompetent character has in practice been unusual, and compared to what I meant, would be a player who didn't know enough about GURPS to avoid making an "incompetent" character, yet was also going to be frustrated rather than entertained by playing that character, and a GM who also didn't know GURPS well and/or didn't help the player with their character.
In contrast, my/our experiences have seen players who made or were handed low-powered and inefficient characters tended to quite enjoy them (I think often more than they enjoy "efficient" characters), and if/when they stuck with them and roleplayed those characters developing more adventure competence (or even when they didn't, replacing them or retiring them or getting them killed or whatever), they tended up being some of the most memorable and interesting characters.
Quote from: Pat;1121486GURPS superficially looks like a system that encourages characters who are diverse and highly detailed, and that's true in the scope of skills and abilities available. But costs for skills are based more on real world factors, like how long it takes to learn a particular skill, than on in-game factors, like whether that skill is useful in every game session, or almost never. And skills cost the same, no matter if it's your first skill or your 100th, even though they become diminishingly likely to be useful in the game. Plus after a certain number of skills based on a stat, it becomes cheaper just to buy up the stat than a new skill, and at the same time a high stat makes putting the minimum (1) points in a skill ever more effective. So the point buy system encourages buying up IQ and DX, focusing a lot of points in a few skills and then throwing 1 point in everything else. And since points are added together linearly, it means every point you put into a secondary or lesser ability is a point you could have put into something more immediately useful. which encourages putting points in stuff that's immediately useful in the game instead of supporting a colorful background. This all means the range of semi-optimal characters is far more constrained than the huge number of options in character creation suggests, and small differences in optimization can result in big differences in effectiveness. I'm not saying that GURPS is broken or impossible to run, just that the point system does not represent utility in the game, and characters built on the same point totals may vary widely in effectiveness.
I get what you mean, and agree those are things to watch out for, and adjust things to avoid.
I prefer the point system to reflect the difficulty or rarity of abilities. I don't want them to try to (over)represent utility, because that would undermine their use to figure out how long it should (from a realist perspective, not a gamist one) take to learn and develop. In fact I notice and dislike the shift in that direction that seems to have been applied in 4e. I think if a GM wants that, then they should offer discounts or bonuses or templates or something that gives them the adjustments they want, but I want the points to be more about how rare or difficult it would be for a normal human to develop such abilities. (I get why 4e did that (more genericness so you can stat non-humans, "balance") but I dislike that approach).
It's also why I dislike other changes in 4e, such as flat costs to increase attributes rather than an increasing curve, and removing the double-cost to increase attributes after creation. I think the issues you mention are greatly increased when there are large numbers of points available, and when points are allowed to be spent on anything just by arbitrary player choice. (e.g. in 4e it's always 20 points to increase DX or IQ, and it's not strongly suggested to vet what points can be spent on, which I agree leads to the issue you described. So does the mere 4 points to keep increasing your best combat skill.)
If you have any ideas about ways you'd improve on the approach, I'd love to hear them.
Quote from: Pat;1121486The detail makes the GURPS system great for modeled characters, where you have a clear concept in mind (or are trying to represent a historical or fictional character), give them the skills and abilities that make the most sense, and only calculate the point total at the end. It also works fine if all the players are on roughly the same page when it comes to their skill and commitment to system mastery; or when the referee is experienced and confident enough to look over the character sheets, suggest adjustments, or tell other players to tone things down a bit. But at least the referee needs to keep these things in mind.
Yes, exactly.
Quote from: Pat;1121486Incidentally, I agree with packages. Templates/lenses/etc. are a good way to build characters, by reducing the choices to a reasonable number, and making sure the characters are both well-rounded and effective without being ridiculously so within their specialty. It's basically modeling, except for professions or archetypes, and with an eye to balance.
Yes.
Quote from: Pat;1121486Except if you want to be a great pitcher, then spend 140 points on throwing or sport (baseball) and dump literally everything else that isn't related, and make sure to max out your disadvantages. (I'm simplifying a bit -- you'll need other traits, and depending on how it's resolved, you may have to buy up things like feint that allow you to exploit skill levels that exceed the 3d6 range.)
I think the Basic Set should do more to explain and address that issue, because yes, it's technically possible to make ridiculous characters with silly ability levels in one thing, and all the skilled/sane GURPS GMs and players that I've known would reject a character with anywhere like that type of nonsense. That is, (what I would call) good GMs tend to require characters to make sense in detail, and that tends to involve points put into skills overall and specific skills to fall within certain ranges, such as the 2 points per year guideline you mentioned before.
(Also, realistically pro baseball is not just about throwing or Sport(Baseball) skill - it involves strength, health, running, perceptiveness, making good choices, etc.)
We've tried a variety of additional house-rule guidelines and systems over the years (er, decades), though it seems to be a difficult problem to satisfy in general for everyone because of different ideas, tastes, genres, and complexities.
So again it boils down to having a skilled GM and using whatever style of guidance they offer.
Quote from: Pat;1121486The old joke that the typical GURPS character is a berserk hunchback with odious personal habits is more than a little true.
Again, "good" GMs will tend to either not allow nonsensical and/or inappropriate characters, or play out their natural consequences. That character is liable to be treated as a monster, not allowed anywhere near the society of the PC group, treated as a monster, imprisoned or killed during adolescence, and if they do make it somehow into "the party", they probably won't last long, etc.
Even just RAW, there are strong suggestions to use a disadvantage limit and for the GM to vet disadvantages. There are generally non-silly disads available that give just as many points up to the limit, and that will also be less difficult to play, so such examples tend to be silly or from people who don't understand that. And if 40 does end up seeming too much, just reduce the disad limit to taste. If a GM hates characters who start with disads, all they have to do is say the disad limit is zero. They don't have to reject GURPS because it describes disads and suggests a 40 point disad limit to starting characters.
Quote from: Skarg;1121562I've been very fortunate, it seems, and/or picky at the right times, and so have mostly played with like-minded and/or skilled players, or at least with strong GMs.
I think the problem is more at the game level than at the player level. The reason you've played with experienced GMs and players who know how to the use the system isn't an accident, it's self-selection: Those are the type of players the increasingly crunchy game attracts. Which is fine, if you share that mentality. But it makes GURPS difficult or unappealing, if you do not. I think that's a big reason why GURPS has been diminishing in popularity.
Quote from: Skarg;1121562It's also why I dislike other changes in 4e, such as flat costs to increase attributes rather than an increasing curve, and removing the double-cost to increase attributes after creation. I think the issues you mention are greatly increased when there are large numbers of points available, and when points are allowed to be spent on anything just by arbitrary player choice. (e.g. in 4e it's always 20 points to increase DX or IQ, and it's not strongly suggested to vet what points can be spent on, which I agree leads to the issue you described. So does the mere 4 points to keep increasing your best combat skill.)
If you have any ideas about ways you'd improve on the approach, I'd love to hear them.
The flat cost makes it infinitely scalable, but it does hurt the sense of realism.
One way they could have handled it is to expand the concept of the unusual background, and tie UB to different degrees of rarity in a setting (or origin), instead of the haphazard way it's used now. For instance, start with a Strength cost of +10/level (as in 4E), but then apply a surcharge for scores of 14+ (an extra +5/level), another for scores of 16+ (+10/level), and another for scores over 18 (+15/level). Except make this part of UB relative, converting the 14+ to +50% the base cost, 16+ to +100%, 18+ to +150%, and 21+ to +infinity% (not possible for humans). That should exactly map to the progressive costs in 3E.
Then apply those modifiers to other abilities based on how rare they are in the setting, for instance +100% for psi powers in a hidden psi campaign, or the ability to forge iron is in a bronze age campaign (in other words, mucking with TLs). You can also do this for races or origins, with an ogre's Strength cap rising so the unusual background modifiers don't start being applied until 20+, or allowing a superhuman to increase strength with a campaign-defined limit, or even no limit at all. Backgrounds that break those limits in beneficial ways would have a flat cost, as well.
The disadvantage is this gets tricky to balance, and means the power of characters will vary based on setting and origin -- you can end up with two characters with the same stats, but different point costs.
DX and IQ are different, because they're strongly linked to the 3d6 roll. With higher strength, you just do/take more damage, but when you'll rolling against each other on a limited dice range, anything beyond that range becomes pointless, unless there are secondary ways to make that matter (e.g. feint).
Quote from: Skarg;1121562We've tried a variety of additional house-rule guidelines and systems over the years (er, decades), though it seems to be a difficult problem to satisfy in general for everyone because of different ideas, tastes, genres, and complexities.
So again it boils down to having a skilled GM and using whatever style of guidance they offer.
I've played a lot of super-hero games, and one thing I've learned from them is points really don't matter. What matters is whether each PC can contribute in common group efforts, and that they all have areas where they shine.
The ability to contribute is usually the ability to contribute in combat. That doesn't mean everyone has to be precisely balanced, but everyone needs to able to survive in a mass melee, and have something effective they can do. On defense, that requires a certain minimum level of toughness compared to the opposition they usually face, whether that's armor, hp, phasing, the skill to avoid attacks, or whatever combination. They also need the ability to defend against alternate attack methods, like like magic or psionics. On the offense side, that doesn't mean everyone needs a blast or a punch at the same level. Area control attacks, or a bag of tricks like a utility belt that can be applied in creative ways by creative players also work. And even the powerhouses can have different ranges, stunts, side-effects, limitations, and balance power vs. accuracy differently.
When it comes to the areas where they shine, also called niche protection, the interesting thing is that it's
relative. It doesn't matter that much if you have a score of 30, or a score of 300. What matters is that you're better than the others PCs by at least a certain amount. The higher absolute ability changes the type challenges they'll face, and thus the nature of the game, more than it changes the player's ability to grab some spotlight time and look good.
That's why I emphasized that GURPS is good at modeling. It's contrary to a lot of GURPSheads, who often get very focused on points, but GURPS also works very well if you start with character concept, throw points out the window, and design a character to fit that concept. Then you keep on ignoring the points, but tweak the PCs to ensure everyone has a good chance to survive in a fight, everyone has something they can do in a fight, and that they all have things they're good at and nobody else is. This does require a certain degree of experience and judgment.
Quote from: Skarg;1121562Again, "good" GMs will tend to either not allow nonsensical and/or inappropriate characters, or play out their natural consequences. That character is liable to be treated as a monster, not allowed anywhere near the society of the PC group, treated as a monster, imprisoned or killed during adolescence, and if they do make it somehow into "the party", they probably won't last long, etc.
Even just RAW, there are strong suggestions to use a disadvantage limit and for the GM to vet disadvantages.
Social restrictions can be the easiest to get around, because how they're played out varies from table to table.
The reason the berserk -15 hunchback -10 with severe odious personal habits -15 became a running joke is because that exactly matches the standard -40 point disadvantage limit. If you keep the limit, there's a strong incentive to max it out, and 40 points usually means some pretty extreme physical or behavioral problems. So I agree with the poster who suggested reducing the limit to 0, or maybe -10 (there are a
lot of -15 mental disads that really aren't suitable for heroic characters).
Quote from: Pat;1121597The reason the berserk -15 hunchback -10 with severe odious personal habits -15 became a running joke is because that exactly matches the standard -40 point disadvantage limit. If you keep the limit, there's a strong incentive to max it out, and 40 points usually means some pretty extreme physical or behavioral problems. So I agree with the poster who suggested reducing the limit to 0, or maybe -10 (there are a lot of -15 mental disads that really aren't suitable for heroic characters).
What is the the standard -40 point disadvantage limit?
Quote from: Gurps Characters, p.11A good rule of thumb is to hold disadvantages to 50% of starting points – for instance, -75 points in a 150-point game – although this is entirely up to the GM.
Quote from: Aglondir;1121600What is the the standard -40 point disadvantage limit?
The blind berserk hunchback was from 3e, where the default was 40 points in disadvantages. IIRC, the trope first appeared in the newsgroups.
Quote from: Pat;1121604The blind berserk hunchback was from 3e, where the default was 40 points in disadvantages. IIRC, the trope first appeared in the newsgroups.
Correct, just found it:
Quote from: Gurps Basic Set, p.26Game Masters should be careful how many disadvantages they allow players to take. This problem is often self-correcting; someone who spends a couple of hours playing a one-eyed, berserk, deaf hunchback who is afraid of the dark will either (a) kill the poor fellow off to be rid of him, or (b) have so much fun that nobody else will mind. But too many disadvantages can turn your game into a circus. A suggested limit: Disadvantages should not total more than -40 points. However, if only a single severe disadvantage (e.g., blindness) is taken, it may have any cost. Poverty, ugliness, bad reputation and attributes of 7 or less count as disadvantages.
Quote from: Pat;1121597One way they could have handled it is to expand the concept of the unusual background, and tie UB to different degrees of rarity in a setting (or origin), instead of the haphazard way it's used now. For instance, start with a Strength cost of +10/level (as in 4E), but then apply a surcharge for scores of 14+ (an extra +5/level), another for scores of 16+ (+10/level), and another for scores over 18 (+15/level). Except make this part of UB relative, converting the 14+ to +50% the base cost, 16+ to +100%, 18+ to +150%, and 21+ to +infinity% (not possible for humans). That should exactly map to the progressive costs in 3E.
Then apply those modifiers to other abilities based on how rare they are in the setting, for instance +100% for psi powers in a hidden psi campaign, or the ability to forge iron is in a bronze age campaign (in other words, mucking with TLs). You can also do this for races or origins, with an ogre's Strength cap rising so the unusual background modifiers don't start being applied until 20+, or allowing a superhuman to increase strength with a campaign-defined limit, or even no limit at all. Backgrounds that break those limits in beneficial ways would have a flat cost, as well.
The disadvantage is this gets tricky to balance, and means the power of characters will vary based on setting and origin -- you can end up with two characters with the same stats, but different point costs.
Yeah, even back in GURPS 1e, I started making attribute cost tables (with increasing cost curves) for each non-human race's attributes, to reflect that different races had different normal ranges and maximums, and how difficult I thought it should be to reach different levels of ability.
I doesn't bother me one bit if characters of two races with different typical ability levels have who have the same stats would come out to different points. I'd expect it, because the same stat may be unusual for one race but normal for another, etc, and the main thing I want points to do is to measure how unusual or difficult it is for someone to have a certain level of ability. If someone's PC is a halfling who's as strong as an athletic adult male human, that's a very impressive and rare halfling - I want it to cost a lot of points or even be nearly impossible to achieve, because the main thing I want the point system to support is having the world behave like what it's supposed to represent. I have no desire for notions of "balance" to mean halflings can gain strength as easily as humans. "Balance" as (and if) desired can be handled in what types of characters PCs can choose between and how many points different races and backgrounds end up letting them have.
Quote from: Pat;1121597DX and IQ are different, because they're strongly linked to the 3d6 roll. With higher strength, you just do/take more damage, but when you'll rolling against each other on a limited dice range, anything beyond that range becomes pointless, unless there are secondary ways to make that matter (e.g. feint).
Maybe you're talking about superheroes, but even if someone has very high DX or IQ (which at the power levels I tend to play at, is rare) or even skills, there are (or should be) uses for higher skill levels (which are also usually rare), because the GM should be at least applying modifiers based on what's being attempted, and also taking the margin of success into account. Sure, you probably only need Driving at 9 to get across town without mishap, because that's either just a check you have the skill, or a "don't miss by 10 or else we may have to roll again to see if something bad happened", but if you have Driving at 20, you can do some impressive things with that, and if your GM makes all driving feats just an unmodified 3d6 roll, he's doing it wrong.
Quote from: Pat;1121597I've played a lot of super-hero games, and one thing I've learned from them is points really don't matter. What matters is whether each PC can contribute in common group efforts, and that they all have areas where they shine.
The ability to contribute is usually the ability to contribute in combat. That doesn't mean everyone has to be precisely balanced, but everyone needs to able to survive in a mass melee, and have something effective they can do. On defense, that requires a certain minimum level of toughness compared to the opposition they usually face, whether that's armor, hp, phasing, the skill to avoid attacks, or whatever combination. They also need the ability to defend against alternate attack methods, like like magic or psionics. On the offense side, that doesn't mean everyone needs a blast or a punch at the same level. Area control attacks, or a bag of tricks like a utility belt that can be applied in creative ways by creative players also work. And even the powerhouses can have different ranges, stunts, side-effects, limitations, and balance power vs. accuracy differently.
When it comes to the areas where they shine, also called niche protection, the interesting thing is that it's relative. It doesn't matter that much if you have a score of 30, or a score of 300. What matters is that you're better than the others PCs by at least a certain amount. The higher absolute ability changes the type challenges they'll face, and thus the nature of the game, more than it changes the player's ability to grab some spotlight time and look good.
We're definitely coming from different perspectives and experiences. Just to point out the contrast, I play almost no superhero games and have little interest in designing to enable niche protection - if players want to look good and be better than other PCs at some things, it seems to me GURPS has so much detail that even in a plain medieval combat game there are plenty of ways for them to do that, and I think that's their business, not mine or the designers' to try to provide or protect it for them.
Quote from: Pat;1121597That's why I emphasized that GURPS is good at modeling. It's contrary to how a lot of GURPSheadsget very focused on points, but GURPS also works very well if you start with character concept, throw points out the window, and design a character to fit that concept. Then you keep on ignoring the points, ...
Yeah, I agree, and modeling is what I want and apart from the tactical combat, one of the main reasons why I like GURPS so much. Stuff makes sense and relates to reality, so I can figure out how to model things and characters pretty directly and easily. And yeah, I am more interested in just doing that modeling of characters, and not particularly interested in the character point assessment except for functions that are also about modeling and staying consistent and to notice power creep etc.
Quote from: Pat;1121597... but tweak the PCs to ensure everyone has a good chance to survive in a fight, everyone has something they can do in a fight, and that they all have things they're good at and nobody else is. This does require a certain degree of experience and judgment.
Except I wouldn't tend to do that part. Well, maybe a little bit, by way of advice and helping players set appropriate abilities for their characters and try to help them get the kinds of characters they want.
Quote from: Pat;1121597Social restrictions can be the easiest to get around, because how they're played out varies from table to table.
Well, they're the easiest at tables where they're made easy. ;-)
But also, they can be the easiest and least of a distraction when they're actually just part of the character concept and make sense. They can also help define and reinforce the intended game being played. Such as belonging to some group or organization or sharing goals or enemies or whatever that will keep the PCs together, supporting each other, and doing what the campaign is supposed to be about. Or just behaving the way the character concept is supposed to behave, or having social issues or limitations or other issues that make sense for the character concept.
Quote from: Pat;1121597The reason the berserk -15 hunchback -10 with severe odious personal habits -15 became a running joke is because that exactly matches the standard -40 point disadvantage limit. If you keep the limit, there's a strong incentive to max it out, and 40 points usually means some pretty extreme physical or behavioral problems.
I get the joke, and I can see being overwhelmed especially by the length of the 4e lists and going for some high-value ones or laughing about the funny weirdos you could make. But you can also get to -40 without being a freak or having severe issues. Most people have at least some negative traits or weaknesses, or some of who they are or their situation could be described as GURPS disadvantages.
Quote from: Pat;1121597So I agree with the poster who suggested reducing the limit to 0, or maybe -10 (there are a lot of -15 mental disads that really aren't suitable for heroic characters).
I agree that if the GM or players are having or taking issues with the disad limit it may just make sense to lower it or even set it to zero. And it's
always a good idea for the GM to review and rule out problem disads.
Quote from: Aglondir;1121609Correct, just found it:
I definitely misremembered it a bit.
Quote from: Skarg;1121613Maybe you're talking about superheroes, but even if someone has very high DX or IQ (which at the power levels I tend to play at, is rare) or even skills, there are (or should be) uses for higher skill levels (which are also usually rare), because the GM should be at least applying modifiers based on what's being attempted, and also taking the margin of success into account. Sure, you probably only need Driving at 9 to get across town without mishap, because that's either just a check you have the skill, or a "don't miss by 10 or else we may have to roll again to see if something bad happened", but if you have Driving at 20, you can do some impressive things with that, and if your GM makes all driving feats just an unmodified 3d6 roll, he's doing it wrong.
That's why I mentioned feint, it's the classic way to leverage a high skill, and prevent the infinite waiting for a crit of two skilled combatants.
Quote from: Skarg;1121613We're definitely coming from different perspectives and experiences. Just to point out the contrast, I play almost no superhero games and have little interest in designing to enable niche protection
I never suggested designing to enable niche protection.
Quote from: Skarg;1121613Except I wouldn't tend to do that part. Well, maybe a little bit, by way of advice and helping players set appropriate abilities for their characters and try to help them get the kinds of characters they want.
So you would do it.
Like niche protection, this is primarily the player's responsibility. They have to make characters who are survivable, given the premise and expectations of the game, and who can each do something unique. If you have an experienced group, who are all on the same page, this largely takes care of itself. The GM definitely has a role, but it's primarily a quick assessment to see if there are any major problems.
But it becomes much more important when there are new or inexperienced players, who will need some help not just figuring out how to make a character, but to make a character that plays well with the group and can hold their own. It's also important with new groups, or when trying different things, because baseline expectations of the game may not have been fully communicated yet, and it's a good place to spot and smooth over areas of miscommunication. For instance, two players both make characters who are almost identical — are they okay with that? Or if you really plan on running a classic mystery campaign, but it hasn't sunk in for your players, and somebody creates a sniper almost exclusively focused on combat.
Quote from: Skarg;1121613But also, they can be the easiest and least of a distraction when they're actually just part of the character concept and make sense. They can also help define and reinforce the intended game being played. Such as belonging to some group or organization or sharing goals or enemies or whatever that will keep the PCs together, supporting each other, and doing what the campaign is supposed to be about. Or just behaving the way the character concept is supposed to behave, or having social issues or limitations or other issues that make sense for the character concept.
One thing I don't like about GURPS is the severity of the mental disads -- a lot of the -15 point ones are enough to classify someone as clinically insane, and have them locked up for the rest of their life. And you're supposed to take 40 or 75 points of them? The disads
encourage freaks. I'm almost inclined to run a campaign limited to quirks.
Quote from: Pat;1121350That's one of the things that makes point-build character creation difficult to balance across different scales. You end up with certain optimal mixes of skills and stats, meaning that for any particular point build IQ and DX will cluster around a certain level, and so will the levels of your skills. Which means characters like the Hulk will never appear, because after a certain point bumping up DX and spending the points on skills needed to turn him into a combat monster will provide more benefit than another minor incremental increase in strength. I've seen people argue that this is realistic, but it's really not. It's gamist.
It not that difficult with GURPS. Why? Because every element of GURPS connect to a single thing. There is very little in the way of abstraction. If that element (attribute, advantage, disadvantage) involves something in life then it is tied to a quantifiable measurement. Or a narrow concept like combat reflexes representing somebody who has trained in combat.
What this mean that you define the setting first and pick those elements of GURPS that fit the setting. GURPS system has been very good at that except at the two extreme end of the scale. The very small or the bunnies & burrows issues. Or the very large the superman issue. There is GURPS is just so-so.
Why does GURPS has this problem and not Hero System, Fudge, or Mayfair's DC Heroes. Because each of those system designed their core mechanics around a scale so that Superman or Bunnies can be represented without resorting to odd (negative points) or extreme (high point totals) values like GURPS. However the consequence of this is that those system lose the fidelity and nuances of the human scale that GURPS have.
Quote from: Skarg;1121562I prefer the point system to reflect the difficulty or rarity of abilities. I don't want them to try to (over)represent utility, because that would undermine their use to figure out how long it should (from a realist perspective, not a gamist one) take to learn and develop. In fact I notice and dislike the shift in that direction that seems to have been applied in 4e.
Purely for speculation purposes, what if skills in GURPS were treated like Spiritual Attributes are explicitly instructed to be treated in
The Riddle of Steel?
In TROS, gaining points in SAs is how characters improve and how they are most effective, so the game explicitly tells the GM that when a player picks a particular SA -- Conscience, Faith, Drive, Passion, whatever -- for his PC, he is directly telling the GM, "This is what I want my hero's adventures to be based around." If he has a Drive "Become the best swordsman in the realm", for example, a GM who concentrates on personal intrigue and is extremely sparing with swordfights is directly thwarting his chosen areas of interest, progress, and exceptionality.
But in practice this really applies to
any game ability: if a player spends points on a skill, he's basically telling the GM and the group, "
I want my character's ability to do this to be part of the game." So unless the skill/campaign mismatch is
so acute that it simply won't work at all, a better approach might be to emphasize strongly to the GM that adventures should be designed around characters as much as characters should be designed around adventures.
Quote from: estar;1121640It not that difficult with GURPS. Why? Because every element of GURPS connect to a single thing. There is very little in the way of abstraction. If that element (attribute, advantage, disadvantage) involves something in life then it is tied to a quantifiable measurement. Or a narrow concept like combat reflexes representing somebody who has trained in combat.
What this mean that you define the setting first and pick those elements of GURPS that fit the setting. GURPS system has been very good at that except at the two extreme end of the scale. The very small or the bunnies & burrows issues. Or the very large the superman issue. There is GURPS is just so-so.
Why does GURPS has this problem and not Hero System, Fudge, or Mayfair's DC Heroes. Because each of those system designed their core mechanics around a scale so that Superman or Bunnies can be represented without resorting to odd (negative points) or extreme (high point totals) values like GURPS. However the consequence of this is that those system lose the fidelity and nuances of the human scale that GURPS have.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing. GURPS does tend to be best at the human scale, traits tend to map to more concrete things, and there's a greater degree of detail within the human range than in the systems you're comparing it to. But I was pointing out that the point buy system tends to encourage clusters of stat/skill scores, for instance all those IQ 13 mages in 3E, though the exact scores tend to shift up and down with a character's overall point total. That seems unrelated to anything you said.
Incidentally, it's not something I'd recommend in a super game, but bunnies & burrows should work fine if you just renormalize the game around the bunny scale. It's one of the 3E supplements I don't have, so I don't know how O'Sullivan handled it.
Quote from: Pat;1121634That's why I mentioned feint, it's the classic way to leverage a high skill, and prevent the infinite waiting for a crit of two skilled combatants.
Sure, and there are many more uses for skill over 16 as well, such as defenses which are a fraction of skill and have increasing penalties for multiple uses per turn, coping with various penalties for circumstances, difficulty modifiers, and attack types, hit locations and maneuvers that come with skill penalties, as well as Deceptive Attack which lets you sacrifice attack skill to penalize the target's defenses by half as much.
Quote from: Pat;1121634So you would do it.
Well no, not the way you put it that I was responding to. As you quoted me writing, "I wouldn't tend to do that part. Well, maybe a little bit, by way of advice and helping players set appropriate abilities for their characters and try to help them get the kinds of characters they want."
More specifically, I would help an inexperienced GURPS player designing a character choose values that I think will give them something like what they're hoping for in terms of abilities, for example by telling them that they might want to put some more points in skills X, Y and Z if they want to be the competent fighter they're describing. But if their character is not someone good in a fight, I'll just make sure they understand that, not tell them they need to have a character that's good in a fight. And I would not ensure "that they all have things they're good at and nobody else is". If they express that that is a desire of theirs, then I'd help them make a character that's good at some unusual things, and I'll usually let them coordinate choices with other players, but I'm not going to require non-overlap or non-competition or that they won't ever meet anyone as good or better than they are at something.
Quote from: Pat;1121634Like niche protection, this is primarily the player's responsibility. They have to make characters who are survivable, given the premise and expectations of the game, and who can each do something unique. If you have an experienced group, who are all on the same page, this largely takes care of itself. The GM definitely has a role, but it's primarily a quick assessment to see if there are any major problems.
Yes. But I'll just let them know they have some of the same skills or specialties, and they can decide if it's a problem or not. Very often we have multiple fighters, for example, and they may often choose similar equipment and fighting styles and whatever. Players I know, if they select for variety, it's because it seems overkill to have three surgeons in a party, or they don't want to compete to be the leader because that sounds like an annoying interaction to them, or they're interested in trying something they haven't done before, or they're interested in a character idea, or they don't want their group not to have enough fighters. But I'm having a hard time thinking of cases where anyone was upset because they weren't the best at something, not getting the spotlight they craved, etc.
Quote from: Pat;1121634But it becomes much more important when there are new or inexperienced players, who will need some help not just figuring out how to make a character, but to make a character that plays well with the group and can hold their own. It's also important with new groups, or when trying different things, because baseline expectations of the game may not have been fully communicated yet, and it's a good place to spot and smooth over areas of miscommunication. For instance, two players both make characters who are almost identical -- are they okay with that? Or if you really plan on running a classic mystery campaign, but it hasn't sunk in for your players, and somebody creates a sniper almost exclusively focused on combat.
Yeah, I agree. We just have slightly different ideas, styles and/or experiences with player upsets. We often play games where most/all of the players are mainly ancient/medieval melee fighters, and often have very similar equipment and skills (especially if we're playing a historical game), and I don't remember that ever being an issue for them, or if it was, they did something about it themselves. When people's characters have had similar expertise, they've tended to enjoy the competition and/or cooperation becoming even more "cool" by working together.
Quote from: Pat;1121634One thing I don't like about GURPS is the severity of the mental disads -- a lot of the -15 point ones are enough to classify someone as clinically insane, and have them locked up for the rest of their life. And you're supposed to take 40 or 75 points of them? The disads encourage freaks. I'm almost inclined to run a campaign limited to quirks.
Yeah, I get what you mean... I think it is worth looking at and avoiding setting up a situation where it feels expected or too tempting to mess up your character to get more points. Or even where there's just too much official detail that I'd rather not fuss with.
I think the "50%" notion in 4e seems weird/wrong to me, especially if it leads to people taking severe disads that mess up their character in unintended ways to get the points.
I prefer the earlier editions' guidelines on disads, which acknowledge what you're saying.
There are some pretty soft and/or appropriate disads though which I don't mind and I think can be fun and interesting in appropriate moderation.
And some disads can be useful to define / constrain PC behavior to an agreed frame, such as Duty, Sense of Duty, Dependents, Code of Honor, etc.
And I do like the idea of being able to do an interesting concept that includes disads when it makes sense and is wanted. For example, playing a more experienced character with some consequences as well as advantages from his experiences.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121646Purely for speculation purposes, what if skills in GURPS were treated like Spiritual Attributes are explicitly instructed to be treated in The Riddle of Steel?
In TROS, gaining points in SAs is how characters improve and how they are most effective, so the game explicitly tells the GM that when a player picks a particular SA -- Conscience, Faith, Drive, Passion, whatever -- for his PC, he is directly telling the GM, "This is what I want my hero's adventures to be based around." If he has a Drive "Become the best swordsman in the realm", for example, a GM who concentrates on personal intrigue and is extremely sparing with swordfights is directly thwarting his chosen areas of interest, progress, and exceptionality.
But in practice this really applies to any game ability: if a player spends points on a skill, he's basically telling the GM and the group, "I want my character's ability to do this to be part of the game." So unless the skill/campaign mismatch is so acute that it simply won't work at all, a better approach might be to emphasize strongly to the GM that adventures should be designed around characters as much as characters should be designed around adventures.
I don't think it is the GM's job to bend the reality of the game world to accommodate character designs (in fact, in the reality-oriented games, I want them
not to), but I do think of it as the GM's job to present the world and its possibilities to the players through the lens of their characters. Which means that a PC having skills/traits/training/powers/experience/orientation/etc means they will tend to notice and frame their experiences around the things they know and automatically look for and think about. A warrior will tend to notice tactical situations and other fighters. A thief will tend to notice theft opportunities and other thieves. A priestess will tend to notice things relevant to her spirituality and training. A climber will notice things that could be climbed. So the GM should consider, develop and mention relevant things as the GM determines such things do exist to be noticed.
That is, yes I'll include and point out adventure opportunities relevant to the players, but I won't artificially conjure them, or design them so that there are obstacles that are placed there just because I was thinking about the skills the PCs have.
I also support players seeking and taking action to find or cause situations relevant to their characters, again, in ways that make sense.
Quote from: Skarg;1121693Well no, not the way you put it that I was responding to.
Yes, exactly the way I put it that you were responding to (glarf glarf garble goobleygook).
I was pointing out how you've been mischaracterizing what I said, just like the claim you made in the immediately preceding section, that I supported designing the game to support niche protection (I don't). You're extremifying my position in both cases, and then setting yourself up in opposition to what I never said. Based on your responses, we don't seem to actually disagree that much.
Quote from: Skarg;1121693But if their character is not someone good in a fight, I'll just make sure they understand that, not tell them they need to have a character that's good in a fight. And I would not ensure "that they all have things they're good at and nobody else is".
Here's another example. You're reading that as something I would enforce with all the coercive powers of GM. I find that ridiculous, it's best practices, not a law. I'm not going to tear up a character sheet or throw someone out because they really want to play a useless character. This isn't a matter of force, and that's so far from my way I thinking that I find it absurd.
But players generally don't want to play useless characters, and they do want to be able to shine at a few things. What I'm highlighting is the skill and communications gap, where they don't know how to make an effective character, inadvertently create characters that overlap too much, or create a character based on false expectations about the campaign.
Quote from: Skarg;1121693Yeah, I agree. We just have slightly different ideas, styles and/or experiences with player upsets.
It's almost never about player upsets, those are the extreme examples to illustrate the point, not the norm.
But it sounds like you play with a consistent group, with similar experience levels, and a shared set of expectations. Which means very little of what I've said applies to you, because I've been explicitly pointing out this is primarily an issue with new players, or where expectations change, for instance when switching to a new group, or trying something very different. If you have a stable group who all know each other and work well together, these things will generally get handled as part of the social interplay, without any need for specific attention.
Quote from: Pat;1121711But it sounds like you play with a consistent group, with similar experience levels, and a shared set of expectations. Which means very little of what I've said applies to you, because I've been explicitly pointing out this is primarily an issue with new players, or where expectations change, for instance when switching to a new group, or trying something very different. If you have a stable group who all know each other and work well together, these things will generally get handled as part of the social interplay, without any need for specific attention.
AD&D actually pointed that out as well. But the idiot brigade out there keep claiming it is some sort of lockdown declaration to "NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING!" When whats being said is. Change what you will. But keep in mind that A: understand the system first. B: Keep in mind that changes might break something. C: That your changes and style may be different from anothers. Keeping things on a more or less common ground makes transitioning groups less potentially onerous.
Same problem with Gurps. There are people who near fanatically cling to this belief that you MUST have EVERYTHING in the game every time everywhere. When the damn book tells you not to. Its up to the DM to prune the tree as it were and set some limits based on what their campaign and setting call for.
I don't have to much to add other than I'm enjoying the conversation and you guys are making me want to give GURPS another look.
Quote from: Brendan;1121729I don't have to much to add other than I'm enjoying the conversation and you guys are making me want to give GURPS another look.
Greetings!
I play DandD 5E. Long ago, I played in a Gurps campaign briefly. I never got into doing a Gurps campaign. However, I have been a loyal Gurps customer. I own Gurps Greece, Rome, Celts, Aztecs, Russia, Japan, China, Robin Hood, Egypt, Fantasy I, Fantasy II, and perhaps a good dozen others on historical civilizations, dinosaurs, monsters, and magic.:D All of these books are softcover, black and white art work within, about 200 pages or 300 pages, and are from 20 years ago and more.:D All are excellent resources, bursting with campaign ideas, NPC's, and wonderful chewy things for DM's of any campaign or game system.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
This is HERESY but... make it more like D&D.
Attributes: IQ is almost universally recognized as "too powerful/cheap", and Charisma is too cheap - according to Sean Punch /Kromm himself (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=592508&highlight=charisma)! Six abilities would function better. Dexterity might become too powerful (eh, probably not as much as D&D) if you don't keep the cost at 20/level, so split it between Dex and Agi if you want it to cost 10/level like everything else (and this STILL assumes picking locks requires the same talent than shooting arrows, but eh, at least if fits the archetypes).
So you got 7 attributes: Charisma Wisdom Intelligence Strength Dexterity Constitution (HT)... and Agility.
"Wisdom" is an odd thing, but GURPS already has means of further dividing it between perception and will if you really want to.
Skills: use "bang" skills to keep thing manageable. Maybe even call them "classes": barbarian, druid, bard, etc. In my own game I used about 8 skills... combat, survival, lore, etc.
Combat: use a d20. No, really. Makes combat faster and more exciting. Keep 3d6 for skills, works better than a d20. Also, get a decent critical hit table (RAW, "nothing happens" is the most likely result).
I wrote four extensive posts about the subject: https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/search?q=gurps.
... Also:
Quirks: probably you don't need 5 to start with.
Disads: well, I am not sure you need them in most cases. Just limit them severely.
Quote from: Brendan;1121729I don't have to much to add other than I'm enjoying the conversation and you guys are making me want to give GURPS another look.
Its a good system if you like freeform point buy systems like this. And like D&D its abserdly adaptable to about any setting you can imagine. Runner up being TSR's Marvel Superheroes, BESM and in a way Mekton Zeta as these too are pretty freeform systems at their hearts. Amazing Engine wanted to be this. But just never really attained that goal.
Quote from: Omega;1121717Same problem with Gurps. There are people who near fanatically cling to this belief that you MUST have EVERYTHING in the game every time everywhere. When the damn book tells you not to. Its up to the DM to prune the tree as it were and set some limits based on what their campaign and setting call for.
That's one of the reasons why I think it's a shame they abandoned the Powered by GURPS route. Paring down huge comprehensive set of options, like in the Basic Set, can be a lot of work, and it can end up in conflict with player expectations, if they come from games where anything official is permissible. More contained rulesets are less work for the GM, easier for newbies to grasp, and it can be easier to expand than to cut back.
Quote from: SHARK;1121736I play DandD 5E. Long ago, I played in a Gurps campaign briefly. I never got into doing a Gurps campaign. However, I have been a loyal Gurps customer. I own Gurps Greece, Rome, Celts, Aztecs, Russia, Japan, China, Robin Hood, Egypt, Fantasy I, Fantasy II, and perhaps a good dozen others on historical civilizations, dinosaurs, monsters, and magic.:D All of these books are softcover, black and white art work within, about 200 pages or 300 pages, and are from 20 years ago and more.:D All are excellent resources, bursting with campaign ideas, NPC's, and wonderful chewy things for DM's of any campaign or game system.:D
Yes, the 3E sourcebooks were great. Most of them are 128 pages, with a few larger, and some of the older saddle stitched books are smaller. For people who don't actively play GURPS, I think the 3E versions are usually better than their bigger 4E counterparts; the new books are much heavier on crunch and fiddly details.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;1121751Attributes: IQ is almost universally recognized as "too powerful/cheap", and Charisma is too cheap - according to Sean Punch /Kromm himself (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=592508&highlight=charisma)! Six abilities would function better. Dexterity might become too powerful (eh, probably not as much as D&D) if you don't keep the cost at 20/level, so split it between Dex and Agi if you want it to cost 10/level like everything else (and this STILL assumes picking locks requires the same talent than shooting arrows, but eh, at least if fits the archetypes).
So you got 7 attributes: Charisma Wisdom Intelligence Strength Dexterity Constitution (HT)... and Agility.
"Wisdom" is an odd thing, but GURPS already has means of further dividing it between perception and will if you really want to.
Skills: use "bang" skills to keep thing manageable. Maybe even call them "classes": barbarian, druid, bard, etc. In my own game I used about 8 skills... combat, survival, lore, etc.
This is brainstorming not a serious suggestion, but why not do away with the attributes? You touched on it with your offhand reference about how shooting a bow doesn't necessarily correlate with picking a lock, but that's a broader problem. What people are good at in real life doesn't come in small number of equally matched and discrete sets. Instead of having a stock set of X attributes each worth Y points a level, expand talents and have them take the role of attributes, and break up the remaining characteristics that fall under attributes and combine and reconfigure them in different ways. Allow them to be narrow or broad, and to overlap. This is another step away from the D&D model, and fits with GURPS' focus on realism. You can look at what we've discovered about human learning and potential in real life, what traits correlate with what based on studies of human learning, emotional and moral behavior, social skills, and athleticism, and try to map that to the game instead of forcing everything into neat packages.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;1121751get a decent critical hit table (RAW, "nothing happens" is the most likely result).
Remember that the defender gets no defence against a critical hit, so the result on the crit chart is only part of the effect of a critical.
Quote from: Pat;1121759This is brainstorming not a serious suggestion, but why not do away with the attributes? You touched on it with your offhand reference about how shooting a bow doesn't necessarily correlate with picking a lock, but that's a broader problem. What people are good at in real life doesn't come in small number of equally matched and discrete sets. Instead of having a stock set of X attributes each worth Y points a level, expand talents and have them take the role of attributes, and break up the remaining characteristics that fall under attributes and combine and reconfigure them in different ways. Allow them to be narrow or broad, and to overlap. This is another step away from the D&D model, and fits with GURPS' focus on realism. You can look at what we've discovered about human learning and potential in real life, what traits correlate with what based on studies of human learning, emotional and moral behavior, social skills, and athleticism, and try to map that to the game instead of forcing everything into neat packages.
Well, I kinda agree. It might make GURPS a completely different game instead of simply "house ruled", but it is a good ideas. For my own group, I think I'd put simplicity over detail and realism, but could work for other groups.
Quote from: dbm;1121766Remember that the defender gets no defence against a critical hit, so the result on the crit chart is only part of the effect of a critical.
Ah, yes, good catch! And since active defenses are quite powerful in GURPS, this is a very relevant effect.
However, I find that if you have a critical hit table (especially in GURPS where crits are hard to come by), having "nothing happens" as a common result ruins part of the fun.
GURPS has enough "roll the dice, nothing happens" in combat as it, I think, mostly because of active defenses.
Quote from: Pat;1121711You're extremifying my position in both cases, and then setting yourself up in opposition to what I never said. Based on your responses, we don't seem to actually disagree that much.
Oh, sorry then.
Yeah, we don't disagree on much.
Quote from: Pat;1121711Here's another example. You're reading that as something I would enforce with all the coercive powers of GM. I find that ridiculous, it's best practices, not a law. I'm not going to tear up a character sheet or throw someone out because they really want to play a useless character. This isn't a matter of force, and that's so far from my way I thinking that I find it absurd.
I didn't mean to suggest that.
Quote from: Pat;1121711... What I'm highlighting is the skill and communications gap, where they don't know how to make an effective character, inadvertently create characters that overlap too much, or create a character based on false expectations about the campaign.
Agreed.
Quote from: Pat;1121711But it sounds like you play with a consistent group, with similar experience levels, and a shared set of expectations. Which means very little of what I've said applies to you, because I've been explicitly pointing out this is primarily an issue with new players, or where expectations change, for instance when switching to a new group, or trying something very different. If you have a stable group who all know each other and work well together, these things will generally get handled as part of the social interplay, without any need for specific attention.
Yes, they do.
Although I have sometimes played with new and inexperienced people, and seem to be able to do those things with most of them, too. Unless they've got fixed expectations that don't work with my style. (e.g. "My starting character has two Very Fine rapiers enchanted with +3 to hit, +3 damage, which are not very expensive in GURPS. He keeps them poisoned at all times and has a gallon of weapon poison in his pack." He vanished (thankfully) when I mentioned the actual price/availability of enchantments.)
Quote from: Pat;1121759That's one of the reasons why I think it's a shame they abandoned the Powered by GURPS route. Paring down huge comprehensive set of options, like in the Basic Set, can be a lot of work, and it can end up in conflict with player expectations, if they come from games where anything official is permissible. More contained rulesets are less work for the GM, easier for newbies to grasp, and it can be easier to expand than to cut back.
Yes. Though they didn't abandon it entirely. They're just s l o w. And they could (/should) have done far more. DFRPG is Powered by GURPS, and Kromm is writing another Powered by GURPS title currently.
Quote from: Pat;1121759This is brainstorming not a serious suggestion, but why not do away with the attributes? You touched on it with your offhand reference about how shooting a bow doesn't necessarily correlate with picking a lock, but that's a broader problem. What people are good at in real life doesn't come in small number of equally matched and discrete sets. Instead of having a stock set of X attributes each worth Y points a level, expand talents and have them take the role of attributes, and break up the remaining characteristics that fall under attributes and combine and reconfigure them in different ways. Allow them to be narrow or broad, and to overlap. This is another step away from the D&D model, and fits with GURPS' focus on realism. You can look at what we've discovered about human learning and potential in real life, what traits correlate with what based on studies of human learning, emotional and moral behavior, social skills, and athleticism, and try to map that to the game instead of forcing everything into neat packages.
Assuming you mean for DX and IQ but not for ST and HT, that sounds interesting. Another approach is to make increasing DX and IQ expensive enough that it gets quickly prohibitive, which is functionally similar but still allows for people to have different general levels of physical or mental ability.
Quote from: Skarg;1121818Although I have sometimes played with new and inexperienced people, and seem to be able to do those things with most of them, too. Unless they've got fixed expectations that don't work with my style. (e.g. "My starting character has two Very Fine rapiers enchanted with +3 to hit, +3 damage, which are not very expensive in GURPS. He keeps them poisoned at all times and has a gallon of weapon poison in his pack." He vanished (thankfully) when I mentioned the actual price/availability of enchantments.)
Brand new people are sometimes the easiest, because they have few preconceptions. Though that's not always true, because books, film, TV, and other forms of fiction give us certain expectations about how narrative situations will play out, and RPGs have their own conventions which often violate that (the hero doesn't always win is a big one). But the clash between the unspoken assumptions of players from different tables is typically a bigger challenge. Which can be very hard to talk about, because we don't pick up that kind of thing from a book. We learned things like who brings the snacks, how deadly the game is, how much competition is appropriate, all the other social conventions, plus all the minor house rules or precedents, through social osmosis. That means it operates below the level of conscious thought, which not only can be difficult to express, but it often operates at a moral level where what we're used to just feels right, and anything different feels wrong. That reflexive rejection can be intractable at a rational, didactic level; and something that needs to be handled by socialization and group dynamics, which requires a very different approach.
Quote from: Skarg;1121818Yes. Though they didn't abandon it entirely. They're just s l o w. And they could (/should) have done far more. DFRPG is Powered by GURPS, and Kromm is writing another Powered by GURPS title currently.
Is Dungeon Fantasy officially Powered by GURPS? I thought it was just a standalone game, and checking the Powered by GURPS and the Dungeon Fantasy pages doesn't show a link.
I think there's a subtle but significant difference. If you have two games based on the same rules but with minor differences throughout, you have to read the whole thing each time to find the differences, and it can be hard to keep them straight. PbGs had the advantage of a relative stable core -- the 32 pages of 3E's GURPS Lite -- which you didn't have to re-read each time, because it stayed the same (more or less). The only thing you had to look for was new modular parts.
Quote from: Skarg;1121818Assuming you mean for DX and IQ but not for ST and HT, that sounds interesting.
I was initially thinking that, but I changed my mind as I was writing it. You could do it for all them. Break the attributes into their component parts, like HP or FP, and do the same with derived stats like Speed, and then reassemble them in different ways. The key isn't whether they're tied to some game mechanic like skills, but whether they're associated in the real world, and how. One non-insignificant issue would be overlap -- GURPS 4E books already spend a lot of time highlighting which metatraits may overlap, and this would make it worse.
Quote from: Morlock;1120245I really miss B&W art. AD&D had a lot of crappy B&W art, but all of it was evocative. And Trampier and Roslof were masterful. I'd love to see special edition of D&D 5e with old Trampier/Roslof/best of art next to new stuff, maybe from guys like MacDougall or Mike Mignola, etc.
I'm not an expert, but I've used GURPS a few times. If you like B&W and a slightly more straightforward system I'd go with 3rd edition. When 4th came out I couldn't stand it.
Quote from: Pat;1121861Is Dungeon Fantasy officially Powered by GURPS? I thought it was just a standalone game, and checking the Powered by GURPS and the Dungeon Fantasy pages doesn't show a link.
Well it says so on the box, the Kickstarter page, and the DriveThruRPG page. The SJGames description, while it doesn't mention that brand, does describe it:
"It harnesses the customizing power of the award-winning Generic Universal RolePlaying System (GURPS), and streamlines it so you have exactly what you need to take fully-realized characters on fantastic adventures."Quote from: Pat;1121861I think there's a subtle but significant difference. If you have two games based on the same rules but with minor differences throughout, you have to read the whole thing each time to find the differences, and it can be hard to keep them straight. PbGs had the advantage of a relative stable core -- the 32 pages of 3E's GURPS Lite -- which you didn't have to re-read each time, because it stayed the same (more or less). The only thing you had to look for was new modular parts.
I'm not familiar with all Powered By GURPS books' rules, but the description of the line says that they include "a specially adapted version of the GURPS Lite rules in each one". The huge GURPS World War II line is Powered by GURPS, and is certainly much more involved than GURPS Lite (it even recommends and involves GURPS Vehicles). It's core book includes a GURPS Lite For World War Two section which is like GURPS Lite 3e but with all the appropriate skills and weapons plus quite a few additional (i.e. not in GURPS Lite 3e) rules appropriate for World War 2 weapons and combat, travel, injuries, etc.
GURPS Lite 3e is better than GURPS Lite 4e, but it still lacks the tactical combat system, which is my favorite part of GURPS, so if that were the standard, I'd think that were an atrocious omission unless the genre doesn't include melee combat.
But yeah the Dungeon Fantasy RPG also changes quite a few little details to mechanics compared to GURPS 4e, which I don't think GURPS Lite for World War Two does at all. It's also far more complete and crucially does include the tactical combat rules.
Quote from: Pat;1121861I was initially thinking that, but I changed my mind as I was writing it. You could do it for all them. Break the attributes into their component parts, like HP or FP, and do the same with derived stats like Speed, and then reassemble them in different ways. The key isn't whether they're tied to some game mechanic like skills, but whether they're associated in the real world, and how. One non-insignificant issue would be overlap -- GURPS 4E books already spend a lot of time highlighting which metatraits may overlap, and this would make it worse.
So you mean break out each of the derived stats into their own stats, rather than just not have a non-average measure for striking ST or health, right?
Just play the Fantasy Trip.
And take -3 DX for 3 points of armour in a game where a sword does 2d damage?
NEVER!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1122267Just play the Fantasy Trip.
Isnt that what Gurps is? A dolled up TFT? :rolleyes:
I have always related to GURPS as Advanced TFT.
Quote from: Omega;1122323Isnt that what Gurps is? A dolled up TFT? :rolleyes:
It not a AD&D/BECMI D&D situation. TFT and GURPS have a several characteristics in common but they are both their own thing.
For example TFT uses xd6 to represent difficulty. Instead of rolling 3d6 under attribute you roll 4d6 or 5dt. TFT characters abilities are represented by talents which can be a skill, skill package, or what GURPS call an advantage. TFT combat is more abstract than GURPS and has more of a wargame element than GURPS.
Both are fun to play but TFT Melee was designed as a wargame first and then used as the engine to resolve combat for In The Labyrinth. The same with the magic system. While GURPS has the reverse focus, it is designed as a RPG combat system first, but could be used as wargame i.e. Man To Man.
My view both work equally well and it amazing that Steve Jackson was able to design two classics. But GURPS is not Advanced TFT but rather SJ's second bite at making an RPG. The commonalities represent his preferences rather than continuation of what he started with TFT. Likely because he was trying to stay clear of copyright issues.
I know I typed up a reply last week, but I don't see it. Try 2:
Quote from: Skarg;1121971I'm not familiar with all Powered By GURPS books' rules, but the description of the line says that they include "a specially adapted version of the GURPS Lite rules in each one". The huge GURPS World War II line is Powered by GURPS, and is certainly much more involved than GURPS Lite (it even recommends and involves GURPS Vehicles). It's core book includes a GURPS Lite For World War Two section which is like GURPS Lite 3e but with all the appropriate skills and weapons plus quite a few additional (i.e. not in GURPS Lite 3e) rules appropriate for World War 2 weapons and combat, travel, injuries, etc.
You can compare 3 version of GURPS Lite for free:
Vanilla http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/3e/gurpslite.pdf
Transhuman Space http://www.sjgames.com/transhumanspace/img/lite.pdf
WWII http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/ww2/img/ww2lite.pdf
Most of the changes are in the character creation system, for instance capsule summaries of all the ads/disads used in the infomorph or biomorph templates in the THS version. But there are more changes to the system system than I remember -- WW2 has a lot of additional combat options, for instance.
Quote from: Skarg;1121971But yeah the Dungeon Fantasy RPG also changes quite a few little details to mechanics compared to GURPS 4e, which I don't think GURPS Lite for World War Two does at all. It's also far more complete and crucially does include the tactical combat rules.
Sounds like the worst of both worlds. I find it a lot harder to learn a ruleset that's subtly different, than to learn a new set of rules from scratch. Digging through all the rules to try to spot all the subtle changes is a nightmare, and retraining is harder than learning in the first place.
Quote from: Skarg;1121971So you mean break out each of the derived stats into their own stats, rather than just not have a non-average measure for striking ST or health, right?
No, just group them in whatever way matches the real world data on which traits are correlated.
Dungeon Fantasy was more aimed at the GURPS fans than new players. An understandable if regrettable decision. They already cut the print run 30% and then had to run a kick starter to reprint it when there was still demand.
Dungeon Fantasy is very good if you want a selfcontained dungeon fantasy rpg with detailed character building and combat. It's not so much small changes to GURPS as integrated options (some new) to tailor it to doing one thing well.
Admittedly, I'd far prefer gritty mythical fantasy in consistent worlds but what Dungeon Fantasy does it does well.
Quote from: estar;1122399It not a AD&D/BECMI D&D situation. TFT and GURPS have a several characteristics in common but they are both their own thing.
For example TFT uses xd6 to represent difficulty. Instead of rolling 3d6 under attribute you roll 4d6 or 5dt. TFT characters abilities are represented by talents which can be a skill, skill package, or what GURPS call an advantage. TFT combat is more abstract than GURPS and has more of a wargame element than GURPS.
Both are fun to play but TFT Melee was designed as a wargame first and then used as the engine to resolve combat for In The Labyrinth. The same with the magic system. While GURPS has the reverse focus, it is designed as a RPG combat system first, but could be used as wargame i.e. Man To Man.
My view both work equally well and it amazing that Steve Jackson was able to design two classics. But GURPS is not Advanced TFT but rather SJ's second bite at making an RPG. The commonalities represent his preferences rather than continuation of what he started with TFT. Likely because he was trying to stay clear of copyright issues.
Well, my perspective is coming from playing combat-heavy TFT for years, to the point that we wanted more advanced combat rules.
That is what Man To Man gave us, and what all GURPS since then (except GURPS Lite, or world books with little/no combat-relevant details added) has continued to include.
I'm curious how you would see TFT "has more of a wagame element than GURPS", since it seems to me that the Advanced combat system (in all editions of GURPS since Man To Man) does everything TFT's combat system does, and more, in much more detail, etc. The combat system is a more advanced and more detailed combat system of essentially the same type, it seems to me. Plugging it into our TFT campaigns was direct and just made those games more advanced and detailed, without changing their nature except they were far less predictable and involved more complex tactics and situations.
The non-combat parts of GURPS also seem to me like more advanced/detailed treatments of the non-combat elements of RPG play. The main shift in type I notice is in adding traits other than skills/talents, such as mechanics for non-physical personality issues and social stuff. Though there was a Fantasy Gamer article (reprinted for Legacy TFT in the TFT Companion) about adding disadvantages to TFT. The other main shift I notice is just in support for all sorts of other genres and playstyles and stuff, many of which do of course take GURPS many places TFT doesn't go. But even if you're playing GURPS Boardroom & Curia, and people get into a brawl, it's going to be played out on a hexmap with counters much like TFT, at least at my table.
Quote from: David Johansen;1122411Dungeon Fantasy is very good if you want a selfcontained dungeon fantasy rpg with detailed character building and combat. It's not so much small changes to GURPS as integrated options (some new) to tailor it to doing one thing well.
That sounds better, and more along the lines of what I'd expect. Doesn't really leverage the modularity that much, that's not really the point of a stand alone game.
Quote from: Skarg;1122431I'm curious how you would see TFT "has more of a wagame element than GURPS", since it seems to me that the Advanced combat system (in all editions of GURPS since Man To Man) does everything TFT's combat system does, and more, in much more detail, etc. The combat system is a more advanced and more detailed combat system of essentially the same type, it seems to me. Plugging it into our TFT campaigns was direct and just made those games more advanced and detailed, without changing their nature except they were far less predictable and involved more complex tactics and situations.
Because I view the primary difference between a wargame and a RPG is one of focus. The combat portion of TFT started out as the wargame Melee. It focused on what it had to in order present a wargame about individual combat in a fun and interesting way. Which it succeeded brilliantly. Wizards did the same with spellcasters. The one element that went beyond melee combat and dueling spellcasters was experience. This was because the focus of both was wargaming.
The Fantasy Trip took those two wargames and binded them together into a RPG. First by expanding them into advanced versions and adding in "In the Labyrinth". Advanced Melee is a straight forward expansion of Melee giving more options and covering more combat situation like mounted combat, etc. Advanced Wizard also add more options and importantly adds in magic item and magic item creation. Important elements for RPG creation. But it is in "In the Labyrinth" where all of this is combined into an RPG. For characters Steve Jackson came up with a very good way to add non-combat capabilities in the form of Talents. There is more in ITL but that general gist.
GURPS combat in contrast was design to go hand in hand with the non-combat elements as part of an RPG. Yes there was Man to Man but it was lifted out of the larger system that Steve Jackson, went through the production process, and released as a product. Man to Man had the elements of the larger GURPS system like advantages and skill but it was focused on combat.
Wrapping it up
The truth is that any set of mechanics or game focused on players playing individual characters can be use as part of a tabletop roleplaying campaign. Or the combat system of most RPGs can be used as a wargame. What matters is what the author focuses on writing the product.
But unlike the original release of TFT, the new release has a single book, In The Labyrinth, that covers the system as an RPG. I think it does a better job of it than the original three book release.
Interesting, thanks, though it doesn't shift my perspective at all.
Yes Steve had a full RPG in mind and in the works when he published Man To Man, and the skill system supports non-combat skills, but Man To Man didn't include much that wasn't about combat, and practically no other part of GURPS ever got as detailed or as well developed as the combat system that remains essentially what's in Man To Man.
As for TFT, Steve Jackson wrote the original In The Labyrinth as one draft including the parts split up by Metagaming into Advanced Melee and Advanced Wizard. He put them into one book in the new Legacy release, but except for a few changes, the text is mostly the same with no additions to the scope except a small number of new spells and talents, and some new options for using experience. But you could break it up again as Metagaming did and there'd be no real difference in scope except the text would be in three physical books.
So what is The Fantasy Trip vs In the Labyrinth? Some seem to refer to Melee and Wizardry as TFT. Others seem to refer to ITL as TFT?
Whats what?
The Fantasy Trip is the broader product line heading under which Melee, Wizard, and In The Labyrinth fall.
Yep.
The Fantasy Trip is the RPG system.
Melee is its most basic form: A pocket box boardgame about arena combat, a good intro with most of the rules of the combat system.
Wizard is basically the same arena combat pocket box boardgame, but it has magic/wizards and the core of the magic system, and doesn't list the weapons & armor & a few combat details.
In The Labyrinth is the campaign book, which has all the rules, spells, setting, RPG campaign info, talents, more spells, all the rules in the Melee/Wizard and more, etc etc.
Watching The 100, I am getting some GURPS lessons.
One is that a character can have the trait Cowardice, and yet still see the world and have many interesting adventures.
Another is that it's okay to buy down Will, apparently nobody except great villains have any resolve whatsoever.
Lastly, Bad Temper and Callous are quite common.
QuoteLastly, Bad Temper and Callous are quite common.
I've noticed that a lot, actually; people in TV shows seem to get angry a lot more often than I ever see people doing in real life, and if it has any effect at all in the story it's almost always a positive one for the character. The few times I've lost my temper as an adult it's never gotten me anything worth the tsuris.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122899I've noticed that a lot, actually; people in TV shows seem to get angry a lot more often than I ever see people doing in real life, and if it has any effect at all in the story it's almost always a positive one for the character. The few times I've lost my temper as an adult it's never gotten me anything worth the tsuris.
Oh I can tell you Im sure I'd have felt a hell of alot better if Id blown up and beat the hell out of the saw-boss we had to suffer and die under.
Here's answers for people asking about The Fantasy Trip and what it's about:
[video=youtube_share;Wbipp9-k5Bc]https://youtu.be/Wbipp9-k5Bc[/youtube]