In another thread, we briefly touched the topic of fixing Gurps. In that thread I stated I don't have clue one how to do it. Now...I think I'm figuring it out.

The main issue with Gurps, in my opinion, is that it has lost it's status as a truly "Universal" system. Gurps is good for a very specific kinds of games and terrible for others.

What Gurps is Good At:

Gurps is best at anything where realism or a realistic treatment is warranted or expected. Real life is Gurps meter stick. It's not to say you cannot do things outside the realm of real life, but the game and it's authors treat and balance those situations realistically. This is different from most games which balance based on their in-game effect.

What Gurps is Bad At:

Gurps is bad at a myriad of things. Pick up and play. Cinematic or over the top combat. Story based play (i.e. storyteller, not story-games). Those are really symptoms of what Gurps is actually bad at.

Gurps is bad at emulating other game's play style. You cannot play a Gurps game that feels like Savage Worlds. You can't play a Gurps game that feels like D&D 4e. You can't have a Gurps game that feels like OD&D.


How to Fix Gurps:

So, the tin promised my plan for how to fix Gurps. Considering WotC stole my idea for D&D 4e... I might be pretty good at this

By fixing Gurps, I don't mean some personal fantasy release of the rules. I mean taking the existing line as it stands and trying to make a new edition that pleases as many old fans as possible, while trying to make it relevant to a broader audience.

Gurps hasn't changed, fundamentally, since first edition. Attributes, Skills, Advantages, Disadvantages. 3D6. Gurps is a game that was designed to play any Genre easily. It came out at a time when it seemed every genre and license publishers could get a hold of was getting it's own RPG. That's the main roadblock for Gurps. Genre is no longer a modern RPG's defining feature. Playstyle is.

Beginning from the core (ST, DX, IQ, HT), I would make everything else explicitly modular. The core set would simply have multiple playstyle sets (with genres suggestions therein) played off the same 3D6 mechanic. Splat books would expand on the core playstyles and genres as well as add entirely new ones.

The "Classic" set would use the same Realistic Skills, Advantages/Perks and Disadvantages we all know and love. Point balanced with an edge toward real-world difficulty. It would be suggested toward Hard Sci-Fi, Midieval Fantasy and Modern. Combat would be a detailed, tactical affair with a large common set of maneuvers for all characters.  This is directed right toward Gurps current fanbase and would be near or completely compatible with previous Gurps releases.

The Powers play style set would use simple skills, and game mechanic powers. Powers would relate almost completely to combat and the combat game's mechanical element. This would assume the use of a Hex grid. This would be designed to appeal to 'Game' focused players. The application of a character's unique mechanics is assumed to be exploited by players and combat is supposed to be the focus and main interest of the game. Suggested genre's would be Super Heroes, Dungeon Fantasy and Pulp. It would be meant to resemble D&D 4e and Savage Worlds type play.

The Genre set would use Templates, genre based Skills,  Cinamatic/Supernatural Advantages/Disadvantages. The skill lists would include things like Magic Spells and SCIENCE! and the point values would be based on usefulness in a particular genre. Supernatural Advantages and Disadvantages would allow for play of supernatural creatures. All Templates would be common literary tropes for their respective genres. Combat would be very simple with a lot of room for the interpretation of effects. Genre's supported would be Modern/Occult Horror and High Fantasy. This would be aimed at WoD, Call of Cthulhu players and Tolkien style fantasy.

Obviously, the playstyle sets are all just a collection of rules modules. Many of the modules are based on things that currently exist in Gurps. As such, players could easily mix and match modules between sets. The main point is that each playstyle set is complete within a genre(s), can stand alone and that each playstyle plays differently from another at the table.



So, that's my long winded idea. Any thoughts?

Quote from: KrakajakThe main issue with Gurps, in my opinion, is that it has lost it's status as a truly "Universal" system. Gurps is good for a very specific kinds of games and terrible for others.

Well, yeah. This isn't the 1980s, and we've kind of moved on from the naive assumptions of early roleplayers that you could make a single perfect system that would do everything. Just like you don't pull out Arkham Horror when you have 20 minutes to kill and you don't attempt to slake your epic strategizing thirst with Apples to Apples, different roleplaying games are going to be the thing you reach for when you want different things. HERO and GURPS survived the 80s at all because they are good at some things. But they never achieved their goals of being universally applicable, because the very concept is stupid.

QuoteGurps hasn't changed, fundamentally, since first edition. Attributes, Skills, Advantages, Disadvantages. 3D6.

Yeah, that's a problem too. We use "roll high" these days because it is fundamentally superior to rolling low. Yes, the absolute values of all the modifiers are the same, but people made that argument for THAC0 too. Addng bonuses to your roll is faster and easier to do after the fact than adding to the target number and re-subtracting. If you are putting out a "roll under" system in the 21st century, I feel sorry for you. If it really doesn't make any difference, get with the fucking program and go to roll-high like everyone else.

There is a reason why no dicepool system still uses variable target numbers. And that is because it sucks. And there is a reason why we don't have Armor Class count down anymore, and that is also because it sucks. So the fact that GURPS and HERO are still doing legacy crap like roll-under is sad. And it's a major part of why they are marginal these days.

-Frank

Quote from: KrakaJak;467503The main issue with Gurps, in my opinion, is that it has lost it's status as a truly "Universal" system. Gurps is good for a very specific kinds of games and terrible for others.

I have to disagree, GURPS 4th edition fixes this issue by adopting a variant of HERO system's base effect, advantages, and limitations.

This is a good example of how GURPS 4e handles this.

http://gurpsland.no-ip.org/pdf/GURPS4eAdvantages.pdf

QuoteCreate Air (+0%): Create 1 (Air) [5].
Notes: A plain-vanilla Create ability (Powers, p.92).
5 points.
Submitted by Gurps Fan

The Dungeon Fantasy line show how GURPS can be adapted to play D&D style fantasy, high hit points and all. (DF uses 250 point starting characters).

Quote from: KrakaJak;467503Gurps is bad at a myriad of things. Pick up and play. Cinematic or over the top combat. Story based play (i.e. storyteller, not story-games). Those are really symptoms of what Gurps is actually bad at.

I disagree about the Cinematic, they address the Cinematic at every turn in the genre books including books like Martial Arts and Low Tech. They have specific PDF lines like Action and Dungeon Fantasy that implement GURPS for cinematic play.

As for storyteller games I don't see the origin of that complaint. GURPS combat can be downgraded to simple contest of skills. Although it isn't as clear in 4e as it was in 3e.

The BIG issues of GURPS 4e is that it artificially limits it audience by not having a starting point for novices to pick up and run the game. For the same investment ($100) as D&D 4e you are faced with a ton of work to go through the options to make up your campaign and adventures.

If GURPS had a single book RPG implementing GURPS for Fantasy, another for Horror, and a third for Space. It would go a long way towards making it easy for gamers to switch over from D&D 4e and other RPGs.

Quote from: KrakaJak;467503Gurps is bad at emulating other game's play style. You cannot play a Gurps game that feels like Savage Worlds. You can't play a Gurps game that feels like D&D 4e. You can't have a Gurps game that feels like OD&D.

This complaint fails on two levels. First Savage Worlds is another universal system, like the HERO system, BRP, etc. Each of these has their own feel in handing  universal issues. Judging a universal system on how it handles the "feel" of another universal system is silly.

With that being said, if you what you are after is a more simplistic resolution then GURPS has in the form of contest of skills. Although it isn't spelled out clearly.

As for D&D 4e, or OD&D both of those can be implemented with GURPS. Nobody as really done it for D&D 4e because it is a ton of work but as the GURPS Advantages PDF show you can create a variety of powers and effects. As for OD&D, there is the Dungeon Fantasy line where the characters are designed to be highly resilient

How to Fix Gurps:

Quote from: KrakaJak;467503So, that's my long winded idea. Any thoughts?

Back in the day, there was GURPS 2nd edition, a boxed set of two stapled softbound books. For a AD&D player of the late 80s it was obvious what GURPS was bringing to the table by reading through the books.

A fantasy game where you can customize your character to your hearts content, a well designed combat system that mimic realistic decision and to add to it all you could throw some interesting thing from other genres easily.

While the core books gotten better with 3rd edition for 4th edition for a referee experienced with GURPS for a novice they pretty much sucked. GURPS Lite 3rd edition was barely adequate for allowing somebody to try refereeing GURPS. The 4th edition version did away with magic making it only useful as a novice player guide.

The GURPS Line as it stands now works fine for an experienced group and referee. Way better than 3rd edition in terms of utility and system.

But what I need to recruit my friend Josh in Pittsburgh is not GURPS lite but rather a single book for fantasy, (or horror, or space). A book that cover the same range of material as the other competitors in that genre. For fantasy that means; character creations, magic, combat, treasure, monster, and an adventure.

The book doesn't supplant the core books but rather implements them for that Genre. The person put down $20 to $40 for the single book, runs his game, like GURPS and starts buying the rest of the line. If not then SJ Games still has a sell where none would existed before.

Yeah, that's a problem too. We use "roll high" these days because it is fundamentally superior to rolling low.

Nonsense.  Roll under is far easier in play.  Most roll over players subtract their skill from the target number to find out what they need on the die anyhow.

GURPS is floundering because it's stuck in a comprehensive ultimate edition which makes it extremely intimidating as an entry point.  More over it's floundering becaus SJG doesn't want it to do better.  If they did they'd do some marketing and some good intro sets.  The upcoming Disc World might count, we'll see what they do with it.  Even so, silly goof ball fantasy isn't exactly what I'd call a compelling setting.

Let's see Reign of Steel as an intro.  Or Cyberpunk or at least Bane Storm which isn't compelling but is at least a generic fantasy entry point.  Take the current book, tack on GURPS Lite and the Magic rules from the basic set and away you go.

Now I've done a fair bit of work on a GURPS fix but it got pretty far from GURPS as I went.  For one thing all the stats are built from Advantages after the fact.  And it's roll over but not because that's inherently superior but because I wanted to do skill + 3d6 over target's resisting attribute as the core mechanic.

I'm not even sure what "floundering" means with respect to HERO.  It hasn't had the consistant publishing history of GURPS.  I'd guess it's doing as well now as it ever did in terms of support.

Quote from: KrakaJak;467503So, that's my long winded idea. Any thoughts?

My thoughts are that if you had written this during GURPS 3e, it would be very timely and useful. However, as of 4e, I do not agree with, well, any of your points.

QuoteGurps is bad at a myriad of things. Pick up and play. Cinematic or over the top combat. Story based play (i.e. storyteller, not story-games). Those are really symptoms of what Gurps is actually bad at.

GURPS is good at all of those things. I've literally run a pick up and play Transhuman Space game, even under 3e, and it went swimmingly. 4e, Powers, and Supers give you all the rules you need to be as over-the-top as you could possibly hope for.

QuoteGurps is bad at emulating other game's play style. You cannot play a Gurps game that feels like Savage Worlds. You can't play a Gurps game that feels like D&D 4e. You can't have a Gurps game that feels like OD&D.

GURPS can do all of those things, I'm just not sure why you would. Specifically, you could use GURPS Lite, invent a level progression chart, and you could be running OD&D inside of an hour, I think. Savage Worlds... is basically GURPS Lite. Seriously, it is. The GURPS quick start booklet that came with 2e was easily as Fast! Furious! and Fun! as Savage Worlds. 4e will not abandon you. Start with GURPS 4e Lite, add some customized Advantage packages, and pow! Savage Worlds. Complete with swingy combat and wonky initiative rules, if you want. -- It is true that GURPS would have trouble emulating SW's core mechanic that makes charactes with low (d4) stats more likely to succeed at slightly difficult (difficulty 6) tasks than an average one.

GURPS 4e could totally do D&D 4e. Of course, the result would be just as tedious. GURPS Powers doesn't come out and give you worked examples, but the structure is all there for your at-wills, dailies, and encounters. Most of your templates would start with 20 to 30 hit points, of course.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;467504Yeah, that's a problem too. We use "roll high" these days because it is fundamentally superior to rolling low. Yes, the absolute values of all the modifiers are the same, but people made that argument for THAC0 too. Addng bonuses to your roll is faster and easier to do after the fact than adding to the target number and re-subtracting. If you are putting out a "roll under" system in the 21st century, I feel sorry for you. If it really doesn't make any difference, get with the fucking program and go to roll-high like everyone else.

Brilliant theory! This probably also explains why BRP/CoC is such an abysmal failure, and why every edition of CoC features such a wildly different system. :rolleyes:

Really, Trollman, I enjoy your posts on game mechanics, man, but this is uninsightful and disappointing.

Quote from: The Butcher;467540Brilliant theory! This probably also explains why BRP/CoC is such an abysmal failure, and why every edition of CoC features such a wildly different system. :rolleyes:

Really, Trollman, I enjoy your posts on game mechanics, man, but this is uninsightful and disappointing.

The fact that BRP continues to use "roll under skill" instead of "add skill to roll, your TN is always 100" shows a simple lack of vision and a grognardian refusal to adapt to the modern era.

Yes, it's mathematically identical. But in the latter version, your degree of success is simply the end result. There's no end stage math. Even more important, if you forgot a modifier and have to add it in after the fact, you only have to remember the reported total, rather than having to remember the original die roll and the modified roll-under target number separately.

Percentile roll-under is intuitive to design. But so was THAC0, and for the same reason. It made "sense" that 1st Class Armor was the best and 3rd Class Armor was worse than that, just like it makes "sense" that if you have to roll under your skill of 30 that you have a 30% chance of success. But let's be real here: d20's handling of AC is superior. Similarly, if you have to beat 100 and you add that 30 to your roll, you still have that same 30% chance of success. It's just that you can then report all relevant information to the GM with a single number so that when he says "Oh, did you count the curse from the spider mummies?" and you admit that you did not, you can still glean everything you need from the number you reported to the table. It's just better. In the same way and for the same reason that getting rid of THAC0 is better than leaving it in.

I understand the nostalgia factor and how it was "good enough" for us when we were playing it in 1984, but for fuck's sake. It's 2011, and if you're still on the roll-under wagon that is fucking pathetic.

-Frank

I agree that adding comes easier to most people, than subtracting. I just think you're overblowing the relevance of this, in typical theRPGsite style.

Straight-up roll-under is just as easy as roll-over. The trick is applying modifiers to the target number, before rolling, rather than to the roll's results.

Quote from: Frank TrollmanBut they never achieved their goals of being universally applicable, because the very concept is stupid.

And you proved this by comparing a board game and a card game? I obviously don't agree, as has already been said by a couple posters who missed the point above...Gurps 4e can already do most of what I wrote as it is. It's just not explicit or user friendly about it.

I think think a generic game would could be even more dynamic with a roll-over resolution(like BESM 3e), but after 4 editions of roll under, the die hard fans would rightly cry foul. Gurps would lose a some of the unique advantages it has so I don't think over/under is much of a factor in its appeal.

The main problem with Gurps as it stands is presentation and the workload it places on it's players and GMs. It presents itself as a big long nigh unplayable list of shit that's able to tackle any genre. If they could bother doing most of the work for players in offering what to use and what no to use, they'd have a much more appealing game.

Quote from: estar;467525This is a good example of how GURPS 4e handles this.

Except that's a bad example from that (fan made) booklet. Here's a more common example from the same source:

QuoteAlmost Magic Missiles (+650%): Crushing Attack
1D+1 (Cosmic, Ignores DR, +300%; Surprise
Attack, +150%; Very Rapid Fire 5, +80%;
Increased ½ Range x10, +15%; Accurate 23,
+115%; No Knockback, -10%) [50]
Notes: Generates a ball of mystic force in your hand
that is thrust at your opponent, nearly always
hitting. The ball ignores your opponent's armor, and
it gives almost a 100% chance of hitting if you take
time to aim. Based on the D&D spell Magic
Missile. 50 points

Who the Fuck knows what any of that shit at the top means? I have the Powers book and it is totally useless to any player or GM who does not have 40 hours a week to dedicate to RPGs. You and Pawsplay seem to miss my main point in the OP: I already admit that a lot of what I propose is actually possible with the rules set. However, possible does not mean feasable, especially to a newcomer to the game.

Gurps: Dungeon Fantasy is almost there. If it was self contained and edited down for simplicities sake it would be amazing. As it is, it requires wading through the Basic Set as well as Powers to use. It's templates do retarded things like list skills as (Public Speaking (A) IQ+2 [1]-16†) even though the template has a listed IQ score and a stated total points cost. Don't show your math, just let me play. Reading a skill as (Public Speaking-16) goes a long way toward making a game more inviting.


Also, I don't know where people get this idea that Gurps Lite is somehow some great (or even decent) recruiting tool. Gurps Lite is a really shitty demo game, not a simplified version of the rules. The only thing it does is explain the core mechanic to people who don't own a corebook.

Frank's "roll under is OBJECTIVELY INFERIOR" line is of course, pure bullshit, but roll-under IS one of the fundamental reasons behind KrakaJak's mostly fair shortlist in the OP.

Roll-under is great for doing the kinds of low range, low power games that GURPS has always been so good at, the hard-boileds, the low fantasy, the Die Hard style cinematics, because it defines a fairly small, confined range of numbers.  Roll-over games suck at this kind of thing because inevitably, low power ranges feel meaningless because you're getting too close to the average.

Conversely though, the reason GURPS sucks so bad at high end is because you have this very same constraint. You are always confined to 3-18 as far as meaningful stat ranges go, and I think having an upper ceiling like that constrains the power level of the system unless you find ways of redefining the range for the genre in play, which is just unintuitive and awkward.  It sort of falls apart without a fairly distant upper ceiling.

I don't think though, that there's much to be done about it.  Changing gears from roll-under would be a pretty fundamental, "first principles" sort of change, enough that it wouldn't really be the same system any more and I think you'd wind up costing it's strengths to cure it's weaknesses.

Quote from: KrakaJak;467563Except that's a bad example from that (fan made) booklet. Here's a more common example from the same source:


Who the Fuck knows what any of that shit at the top means? I have the Powers book and it is totally useless to any player or GM who does not have 40 hours a week to dedicate to RPGs.

It says: "Notes: Generates a ball of mystic force in your hand
that is thrust at your opponent, nearly always
hitting. The ball ignores your opponent's armor, and
it gives almost a 100% chance of hitting if you take
time to aim. Based on the D&D spell Magic
Missile. 50 points"

What's so complicated about that? Once you know the damage, RoF, and Accuracy, which are always listed in attack stat blocks, that's really all there is to it. The rest is "system documentation" in case someone else wants to recreate the result. Which, by the way, most games simply can't do at all, so that's a feature. GURPS does a much better job at simulating D&D 4e than D&D 3e ever will.

Nope. I used to play GURPS and I currently play Champions weekly and if either game switched to roll-high, they would be better off. Arbitrarily high target numbers for task difficulty beats arbitarily penalty assessments to success rolls anyday.

Quote from: J Arcane;467566Conversely though, the reason GURPS sucks so bad at high end is because you have this very same constraint. You are always confined to 3-18 as far as meaningful stat ranges go, and I think having an upper ceiling like that constrains the power level of the system unless you find ways of redefining the range for the genre in play, which is just unintuitive and awkward.  It sort of falls apart without a fairly distant upper ceiling.

I don't think though, that there's much to be done about it.  Changing gears from roll-under would be a pretty fundamental, "first principles" sort of change, enough that it wouldn't really be the same system any more and I think you'd wind up costing it's strengths to cure it's weaknesses.

Additive systems do have a number of clear advantages - but it would be a pretty big departure from standard GURPs.

Potentially to address how the system works best for low-level cinematic realism, you could add different difficulties of roll-under e.g. typical task on 3d6, difficult 4d6, really difficult 5d6, and then allow the attribute/skill scale to expand beyond 18...

My only fix for GURPS would be to cut the skill list WAY down. Have a total skills list of maybe 30 skills, and a chart that shows different genres, with the skills available per genre. Kind of like how BESM 2e did.

Quote from: KrakaJak;467563Who the Fuck knows what any of that shit at the top means? I have the Powers book and it is totally useless to any player or GM who does not have 40 hours a week to dedicate to RPGs. You and Pawsplay seem to miss my main point in the OP: I already admit that a lot of what I propose is actually possible with the rules set. However, possible does not mean feasable, especially to a newcomer to the game.

GURPS Advantage is made by fans to show other fans how to build powers from scratch. If I wrote this up as part of handout I would basically include the ending paragraph which explains the power, that is 50 points to buy, and not show the math.

They do this with the GURPS Spaceship series which uses a modular system to easily construct ships. Pulver used GURPS Vehicles to build each module in such a way so that they just snap together.

Quote from: KrakaJak;467563Gurps: Dungeon Fantasy is almost there. If it was self contained and edited down for simplicities sake it would be amazing. As it is, it requires wading through the Basic Set as well as Powers to use. It's templates do retarded things like list skills as (Public Speaking (A) IQ+2 [1]-16†) even though the template has a listed IQ score and a stated total points cost. Don't show your math, just let me play. Reading a skill as (Public Speaking-16) goes a long way toward making a game more inviting.

You miss the point of templates which is a starting point for a character not a pre-generated character. The problem with Dungeon Fantasy is that they took the request for fantasy support too literally and tried to make it emulate D&D. Which meant character built on 250 points and stupidly long templates. If they stuck to 150 points then it could been a lot simpler.

Public Speaking-16 what good to know that? What happens if the person bumped their IQ by 1? Or down by 1? Explaining that 1 point get you whatever your IQ + 2 seem pretty straightforward. A well written template is a good compromise between free form building your own character and a pre-gen.

Quote from: KrakaJak;467563Also, I don't know where people get this idea that Gurps Lite is somehow some great (or even decent) recruiting tool. Gurps Lite is a really shitty demo game, not a simplified version of the rules. The only thing it does is explain the core mechanic to people who don't own a corebook.

with 3rd Edition Lite you can run a very basic fantasy game. All 4th edition lite is good for is to explainin the core mechanics.