Quote from: RPGPundit;536117GURPS and Hero, along with Shadowrun, embody everything I think is terrible about point-buy.

And I think this kind of point-buy isn't very popular right now.

RPGPundit

Not really sure about that given I think Shadowrun is doing fine. I think their problems aren't with the game but the company that produces it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;536123and you would be wrong.

WRONG, I tell you!

JG

Quote from: Sommerjon;536123and you would be wrong.

Because everybody wants to be a special snowflake, but not let be more of a special snowflake than themselves...

Which breaks down in play, every time.

Quote from: James Gillen;536241WRONG, I tell you!

JG

Madness, I tell you! Madness!

Quote from: Rincewind1;536380Madness, I tell you! Madness!

Seriously though, I think GURPS and HERO could increase their sales by a factor of 50 with some late 20th century layout skills.  

Quote from: CRKrueger;536381Seriously though, I think GURPS and HERO could increase their sales by a factor of 50 with some late 20th century layout skills.  

Well, there's that.  Of course HERO 6 was a quantum leap in that regard, but the high production values went along with higher production costs, which led to thicker paper which led to TWO corebooks that could stop 9mm rounds.

JG

Quote from: RPGPundit;536117GURPS and Hero, along with Shadowrun, embody everything I think is terrible about point-buy.

And I think this kind of point-buy isn't very popular right now.

RPGPundit

I sure wouldn't lump Shadowrun in with GURPS and Hero. GURPS and Hero are meta-games - they're game design toolkits, not games in and of themselves. Shadowrun's pretty much a set game at this point.

Though I'm curious - what is it about them that you despise? I'm new here, so if you've ranted about this before, a link would be fine.

I am definitely a fan of both systems, GURPS and Hero, but I rarely if ever play them. The reason for that is that they aren't just front-loaded for the players, they can be incredibly time-intensive for the GM. There's an element of Choice Paralysis that you can't avoid with a generic system - any system that says "The GM will have to come up with X, Y and Z" and those are broad, open categories like "Magic System" you're going to have trouble getting buy-in.

That said, if you keep the game simple - fantasy in GURPS, for example, using the rules from Magic and Fantasy, and maybe even Banestorm, or superheroes in Hero, using the established Champions universe, you can shave off a significant amount of overhead for the GM.

Quote from: BlazFeem;546147I sure wouldn't lump Shadowrun in with GURPS and Hero. GURPS and Hero are meta-games - they're game design toolkits, not games in and of themselves. Shadowrun's pretty much a set game at this point.

You may have a point but it doesn't change the fact that Shadowrun's character generation system blows ass.

Quote from: John Morrow;533447Out of curiosity, why isn't GURPS Lite an adequate introduction for new players, since that seems to be its purpose?

In the hopes this thread hasn't been completely killed by gliechman's pseudo autistic antics I'll talk about GURPS

GURPS lite fails as an introductory product because it's not a complete game.

You can't play "GURPS Lite" , you can only use it to play whatever.

As a system introduction it's great, as an "introductory game" it sucks.

Quote from: Piestrio;546352In the hopes this thread hasn't been completely killed by gliechman's pseudo autistic antics I'll talk about GURPS

GURPS lite fails as an introductory product because it's not a complete game.

You can't play "GURPS Lite" , you can only use it to play whatever.

As a system introduction it's great, as an "introductory game" it sucks.

I felt the 3rd Edition GURPS Lite functioned adequately as a intro fantasy game. I agree with that 4th edition GURPS Lite is only a system introduction.

3rd Edition
http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG30-6094

4th Edition
http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG31-0004

Quote from: estar;546412I felt the 3rd Edition GURPS Lite functioned adequately as a intro fantasy game. I agree with that 4th edition GURPS Lite is only a system introduction.

3rd Edition
http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG30-6094

4th Edition
http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG31-0004

I defiantly think 3rd was better but I still don't think it offered the "out of the box" experience that you need with new players.

I've only used GURPS Lite for players to do character creation and get an idea of how skill and attack rolls work.  GURPS Ultra Lite is a joke though.

Quote from: BlazFeem;546147I sure wouldn't lump Shadowrun in with GURPS and Hero. GURPS and Hero are meta-games - they're game design toolkits, not games in and of themselves. Shadowrun's pretty much a set game at this point.

Though I'm curious - what is it about them that you despise? I'm new here, so if you've ranted about this before, a link would be fine.

In terms of point-buy, Shadowrun is probably worse than the other two.

The whole notion of "here's 400 points, now spend the next two hours fiddling with how many points you're going to put into each of our 200 skills, and buying advantages and disadvantages to try to min-max the most ridiculous fucking character that isn't really anything recognizable as an archetype" is pretty much the antithesis of what I want in both character creation and roleplaying games in general.

In fact, let's reverse that: "here's 3d6, spend the next five minutes rolling up ability scores then choosing a class and gaining fixed abilities, with no more than 3 or 4 actual choices having to be made in the whole process; if there are skills and choice it should be between two packages, or randomly determined; if there are advantages and disadvantages they should be rolled so you can't just pick the stuff you think will give you the most benefit for the least possible cost, you will be playing a recognizable archetype with maybe a few special tweaks to make him your own, and everything else to make him distinguishable will come not from stats but from how you roleplay him. Your five minutes are now up, go into the dungeon and rock on".
That's what I want.

Welcome to theRPGsite

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;546639In terms of point-buy, Shadowrun is probably worse than the other two.

The whole notion of "here's 400 points, now spend the next two hours fiddling with how many points you're going to put into each of our 200 skills, and buying advantages and disadvantages to try to min-max the most ridiculous fucking character that isn't really anything recognizable as an archetype" is pretty much the antithesis of what I want in both character creation and roleplaying games in general.

I'd agree that there are definitely issues with the Shadowrun system, but the issue that you point out above is really, to my mind, a player problem - not a system problem. If you're playing with minmaxing munchkins, you're going to get that effect out of Shadowrun - "I've got eighty-five dice when I use my sniper rifle!" just as often as you get it out of Pathfinder - "I've used every feat, trait and class feature possible that gives me a bonus to hit with my bow!" and likely just as often in free-form games "My vision for my character is the best marksman in the world - literally none better - I can hit a fly in the eye at a range of twelve light years..." Every one of them points to a character (ha) flaw in the player, and a lack of will on the part of the GM to bring things back into some sense of order.

In the case of the GM trying to make things better, I can see the benefits of a rules-light system that doesn't try to be balanced - because then everything is done by GM fiat anyway, and different power levels can coexist in the same game.

QuoteIn fact, let's reverse that: "here's 3d6, spend the next five minutes rolling up ability scores then choosing a class and gaining fixed abilities, with no more than 3 or 4 actual choices having to be made in the whole process; if there are skills and choice it should be between two packages, or randomly determined; if there are advantages and disadvantages they should be rolled so you can't just pick the stuff you think will give you the most benefit for the least possible cost, you will be playing a recognizable archetype with maybe a few special tweaks to make him your own, and everything else to make him distinguishable will come not from stats but from how you roleplay him. Your five minutes are now up, go into the dungeon and rock on".
That's what I want.

I get off on this sort of character design as well, to some degree, but the notion of archetypes, just like the idea of classes, is irksome to me. I don't always have to play the mage that wields a sword, but I find myself doing so more often in systems that try to force me not to by classifying me out of being able to do so well. I did it in Pathfinder - "Okay, how many feats do I need before my wizard can wear heavy armor?" and I did it in D&D 4E - "Yes, I am a fighter. I used my bonus feat for being human on Ritual Spellcasting." Some call it creativity, some perversity, but in my case, I think it's a little of both.

That said, I love a life path system. Give me a way to randomize my background, my skills and abilities and I can use that to really rev up my creative powers on figuring out just what sort of character I can play within those parameters - human nature, I think, to benefit from some limitations or guidelines that help focus your attention, instead of leaving you with paralysis from too much choice.

QuoteWelcome to theRPGsite

RPGPundit

Thanks!