PDA

View Full Version : What does GURPS do well compared to DND 3.5?



Pages : [1] 2

rezplz
2010-03-03, 02:38 AM
So I've been thinking of looking into GURPS, mainly because I like the idea of a game where you can make whatever you want without a class system, and I think it does more "realistic" fantasy better than DnD. So I was wondering how the playground would compare and contrast the two gaming systems, and if they had any advice for someone who primarily plays 3.5, who wanted to give GURPS a try.

Starscream
2010-03-03, 02:46 AM
I think GURPS is a great system, personally. Fun, simple to learn, and very very versatile.

I've never really used it for fantasy games, though. That is what D&D excels at, and it would be too hard not to compare the two.

I tend to treat GURPS as sort of a drawer marked miscellaneous when it comes to settings. If I want to play fantasy I play D&D. If I want to play a superhero story I used Mutants and Masterminds. If I want horror I play Call of Cthulu or World of Darkness.

But whenever there's something you want to play that doesn't fit into a category like that, GURPS is your friend. I've used it for Ghostbusters games, Doctor Who games, Lupin III games.... if you can imagine it you can stat it out in GURPS. It's probably the best "generic" system out there.

Oh, and let's not forget that the best book series ever, Discworld, got its own GURPS supplement. That alone makes it worthwhile.

Brainstomper
2010-03-03, 03:00 AM
Gurps is a good system but if you run it you must clearly define what is and isn't avaible for pc generation. Buying paranoia in anything I run is a free set of points.. I let them "buy" it later after they realize that there are really bad things trying to eat thier souls. Character generation itself can be very time consuming as well. It is rather funny when you get hard core D&D powergamers running scared from a single crossbow, because it does stand a good chance of killing a more experinced character.

sonofzeal
2010-03-03, 03:06 AM
GURPS... hmmm.... Well, I haven't played much, but here's what I've noticed...

- Far more attempt at verisimilitude, especially with regards to combat. Almost every weapon has significant distinct features, and hit points don't go up automatically (though you can bring them to absurd levels if you really focus on that). As a result though, it's substantially grittier and its basic level than the relatively heroic D&D, with death being much more immediate from even basic threats.

- Balance is left up to the player, rather than (supposedly) inherent in the system. It's almost trivially easy to god-mode your guy, especially for combat, but the system is designed such that it isn't as big a temptation, if that makes sense.

- Er.... I should have a third here. Oh well.

Corey
2010-03-03, 03:18 AM
It's almost trivially easy to god-mode your guy,

Or as batman/skill monkey, although I think they cut back on that a bit in 4th Edition by nerfing Eidetic Memory.

Also: Disadvantages/Quirks are on the whole a great idea, but they do lead to players taking the template "Disagreeable Idiot". Of course, that can be a problem in D&D too in the paladin class, or indeed w/o any game-mechanics benefits at all. ;)

Satyr
2010-03-03, 03:46 AM
The comparison is actually quite simple: As a rule of thumb, everything D&D does, Gurps does better. This is made extra obvious with the Gurps: Dungeon Fantasy line of games, which is mostly fantasy in the same niche as D&D, with very similar strengths but without the usual weaknesses.

Yes, by default, Gurps is grittier than D&D. But that's no achievement. There are few systems out there which are not grittier than D&D, so this sounds a lot like "by default, elephants are larger than dogs". And beisdes, the important utterance here is "by default". You can easily ignore this aspect, go for highly cinematic rules and make the game about as gritty as a cartoon about kittens.

Yes, the game has a strong focus on verisimilitude and how the things do work, this another major bonus, especially when it comes to fantasy games. Verisimilitude is an essential component of any fantastic setting.

Now what many people interpret as a problem with Gurps is that it has little boundaries and pretty much requires players and gamemasters to create a framework for their campaign on their own. So people hav e to come up with their own idea of how cinematic or gritty the campaign is supposed to be, how powerful characters should be and which kind of abilities are open to them, and so on. This can be a bit overwhelming, especially at first, but I think this is a very respectful treatment for the players. Compared to D&D, especially in 4th edition, where there is a very narrow definiton of what fits in the game and what not, and a tendency towards "we know better how to have fun than thou", which could be interpreted as condescending, but is almost always limiting. Now, limits aren't bad, a framework is a pretty good thing for most campaigns, but this framework in Gurps is pretty much a product of your preferences and ideas while the framework in D&D is mostly forced upon the players.
I like this a lot, because I'd rather be seen as a mature, thinking individual who can make his own decisions than a small child that should be taken by the hand and treated as if it doesn't know what it wants.

When it comes to the rules, Gurps is deep in the "standardized rules, lots of options" territory, and I mean lots of options. The beautiful thing is, they work all after a very similar pattern, and once you understand how the rules work in generally (and that you are supposed to use the combat options and don't just stand there and hit), you can use them in the specific cases as well. In Gurps, every action bases on the exact same mechanism, and because the game is very focused on how things work in reality, they are also often intuituve to use.
Again, the loads of options can look overwhelming and pretty much requires that the gamemaster or the group decides which rules they want to use and which ones they don't like for this campaign.

Character creation can take for a really time in Gurps, again because of the number of options. But, and that's the good aspect, it's fun, and you build indeed a unique individual character and not an archetype with a unique name.

When I introduce new players to gaming, I almost always use Gurps, because it is one of the most simple systems to explain, and has almost no logical fallacies within is rules and helps to get a grip on how to create interesting, multidimensioal characters.

Now, Gurps is not free of problems. My major issue (the fact that an otherwise very logical and rational games uses imperial instead of metric scales) is probably no problem for you.

sonofzeal
2010-03-03, 03:55 AM
Now, Gurps is not free of problems. My major issue (the fact that an otherwise very logical and rational games uses imperial instead of metric scales) is probably no problem for you.
Mine is that you need to fully establish personality at character creation, and can get penalized in-game for not following that, rather than letting your character evolve naturally through the first few games like I usually do for D&D. Most of my characters are far more nuanced, and often different than I expected, by game three. I find that's much harder in GURPS, and having rules that mandate my RP kinda grates.

Satyr
2010-03-03, 04:41 AM
Interestingly, this was never an issue for me. First of all, I have little reluctance to apat a character with the GM's consent if it doesn't work out as intended (mostly minor adjustments, but sometimes things need a tad more pull). That is not so much an issue of the game, but of the group, if you ask me.

Secondly, I find helpful to create a RP frame for a caracter and act accordingly. I find it much easier to create a well-rounded, deep character with this approach.
This guideline for characters is actually the reason why I think Gurps is perfect for new gamers, because it is very helpful for the creation of interesting characters, which is the most important thing a character could be in any campaign.
I never found the character traits in Gurps restrictive; I usually pick them myself, as well as their intesity, so if I don't like one trait, I'll just ignore it. It's definitely better than anything D&D has to offer in this regard, meaning lots of nothing and the *shudder* alignment system, or lots of neglection with a tad of undifferentiated buzz words.

Roderick_BR
2010-03-03, 04:43 AM
I think GURPS is a great system, personally. Fun, simple to learn, and very very versatile.
Great, yes. Fun, yes. Very very versatile, heck, yes. Simple to learn? Nopes.

That said, yes, GURPS is great if you want to fully custom stuff. You can create pretty much anything given the right books, and set how much points everything cost, so you can make up your own balance tiers.
The only real problem is that you can't make something like power levels. For example, you can make a newly created character with the equivalent of a 20th level fighter D&D's sword fighting ability, with the health of a 1st level wizard.

That, and you sometimes get lost on what you should do, since you can make anything.

sonofzeal
2010-03-03, 04:55 AM
Interestingly, this was never an issue for me. First of all, I have little reluctance to apat a character with the GM's consent if it doesn't work out as intended (mostly minor adjustments, but sometimes things need a tad more pull). That is not so much an issue of the game, but of the group, if you ask me.

Secondly, I find helpful to create a RP frame for a caracter and act accordingly. I find it much easier to create a well-rounded, deep character with this approach.
This guideline for characters is actually the reason why I think Gurps is perfect for new gamers, because it is very helpful for the creation of interesting characters, which is the most important thing a character could be in any campaign.
I never found the character traits in Gurps restrictive; I usually pick them myself, as well as their intesity, so if I don't like one trait, I'll just ignore it. It's definitely better than anything D&D has to offer in this regard, meaning lots of nothing and the *shudder* alignment system, or lots of neglection with a tad of undifferentiated buzz words.
I can certainly see that side of things. When coming up with personalities, often it helps to have a prompt. For me in D&D, the process is usually "what role to I want to fill", followed by "what classes/PrCs would be a fun way to fill that role", followed by "what personality is suggested by that class/race/PrC combo, and how can I shake that up a little in a fun way". I'll then get a general idea that can be summed up in a few words (benevolent retired master thief, straight-laced pacifist healer, gregarious orc warrior, etc), and enter play with that. The concept usually gets refined as I go, adding detail and nuance and facets and often diverging from the initial concept.

Unfortunately, this doesn't translate very well to GURPS in my experience. In GURPS I find that I really need to have a firm grasp of the character before I can even begin choosing advantages/disadvantages, as otherwise there's not much of a launching pad given like there is in D&D with your race/class combination. I can see why it works for people who approach things differently, and I can make do, but it's not what comes naturally to me. I suppose if I did it enough, it'd become as easy, but that'll only come in time.

Satyr
2010-03-03, 04:56 AM
Great, yes. Fun, yes. Very very versatile, heck, yes. Simple to learn? Nopes.
I disagree. Why di you think that the Gurps rules are difficult to learn? My experiences are completely the oppposite of that.

The system is very simple to learn the basics and use them. It becomes more difficult if you increase the overall complexity and options, but that's a given and even then, the learning curve can be as flat or as steep as you want it to be. Gurps has the major advantage that the rules are very streamlined and very plausible, which makes it simple to use them intuitively.


I can certainly see that side of things. When coming up with personalities, often it helps to have a prompt. For me in D&D, the process is usually "what role to I want to fill", followed by "what classes/PrCs would be a fun way to fill that role", followed by "what personality is suggested by that class/race/PrC combo, and how can I shake that up a little in a fun way". [...]
Unfortunately, this doesn't translate very well to GURPS in my experience. In GURPS I find that I really need to have a firm grasp of the character before I can even begin choosing advantages/disadvantages, as otherwise there's not much of a launching pad given like there is in D&D with your race/class combination.

Yes, I think that with D&D, you start with the mechanical aspect and the suppposed power of the character, with Gurps you start with the personality and then develops the role out of it. D&D is more of a top-down method, starting at the macrolevel and adding details, Gurps is a bottom-up approach, starting with very little and develop the character furthe on until you have the final concept.

It slightlyy changes if you use a template heavy approach to the game, like Dungeon Fantasy, where you basically start by selecting a character class and then individualise it which comes out quite similar to D&D.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 08:36 AM
I disagree. Why di you think that the Gurps rules are difficult to learn? My experiences are completely the oppposite of that.

The system is very simple to learn the basics and use them. It becomes more difficult if you increase the overall complexity and options, but that's a given and even then, the learning curve can be as flat or as steep as you want it to be. Gurps has the major advantage that the rules are very streamlined and very plausible, which makes it simple to use them intuitively.



Yes, I think that with D&D, you start with the mechanical aspect and the suppposed power of the character, with Gurps you start with the personality and then develops the role out of it. D&D is more of a top-down method, starting at the macrolevel and adding details, Gurps is a bottom-up approach, starting with very little and develop the character furthe on until you have the final concept.

It slightlyy changes if you use a template heavy approach to the game, like Dungeon Fantasy, where you basically start by selecting a character class and then individualise it which comes out quite similar to D&D.

+1 to dungeon fantasy. It is a great set of books that give people class like templates for some structure, but is still more customizable like d&d. Also, most cheese in GURPS comes from players investing all their points in on exotic advantage (like a ridiculously big innate attack) that makes them very one dimensional and fairly easy to spot. This is also not a problem in most games, especially fantasy where you cannot just buy any exotic advantage. Beware of supers games though.

Also, GURPS is very realistic, so if you just ask a beginner what they want to do in an attack, GURPS can do it. You don't need to have feats to actually do fun stuff in combat. Grab his weapon? ok. Sneaky attack to out maneuver his defenses? ok. Aim for the head/arm/groin? ok.

Gnaeus
2010-03-03, 08:46 AM
Personally, I really like the gurps magic system. It still isn't exactly balanced, with proper min-maxing it is very strong compared to a melee, but it channels mages in a very believable way. A given type of magic will have basic level spells, which you have to know in order to learn the harder spells. So a wizard whose knowledge runs to divination can't just learn fireball, he has to learn basic fire spells first.

Killer Angel
2010-03-03, 08:47 AM
I like GURPS a lot (even if, after all, I like D&D more). It's simpler than D&D and magic is very hard to master (unless you'd have lots of points); outside fantasy (and even inside it) there are a lot of settings, which gives all the flavor you need. And it's more realistic.

One of the "bad" point in GURPS, is that it encourages min-max (with skills and the system of advantages/disadvantages), and the process of character creation is fundamental, a lot more than D&D.
Once the character is ready, there's no much more you can do to improve it: unless the DM gives A LOT of points, increasing the characteristic is almost impossible, and also increasing skills... after some point, to give +1 to a skill is painfully hard.
In D&D (while still difficult), you have more flexibility to correct initial errors.

Drascin
2010-03-03, 09:02 AM
Mostly, realistic or halfway gritty combat. D&D is designed so it takes a lot of HP damage to kill you. GURPS isn't. This is your friend when you're trying to go for more gritty fantasy.

Also, much more customizable character creation. On the other hand, actually evolving your character is the next best thing to impossible, even for a point based game, so I hope you liked your initial concept and don't feel like branching out later, or you have an understanding enough GM to let you half-remake your full sheet if you do.

So really, they're entirely different game paradigms.

Autolykos
2010-03-03, 09:12 AM
One of the "bad" point in GURPS, is that it encourages min-max (with skills and the system of advantages/disadvantages)I'd disagree here. It certainly allows Min/Max (which can't really be prevented in any heavily customizable system). But it's always the DM who encouages/disencourages Min/Max. If he allows One-Trick-Ponys to always use their favorite toy, Min/Max becomes attractive. If he lets the opposition learn from their defeats and change their tactics accordingly, Min/Max is a lot less powerful.
However, I find the magic system kind of clunky (compared to the rest of GURPS - it is still quite elegant compared to D&D). But this problem can be solved with some house-ruling (and easy house-ruling is one of GURPS' chief advantages).

Killer Angel
2010-03-03, 09:37 AM
I'd disagree here. It certainly allows Min/Max (which can't really be prevented in any heavily customizable system). But it's always the DM who encouages/disencourages Min/Max.

Well, this is certainly true.
I was merely stating my experience: I began to play GURPS while I was playing also AD&D (2nd ed.).
AD&D was less min-max then 3.x D&D, and my group (as players) began to "optimize" with GURPS, thanks to reasonings such "if I increase by 1 point INT, I can save 23.5 points on these 13 int-based skills, to have 10 skills at the same value and 3 skills 1 higher...", and "I need 2 points! let's see if I can take a couple of quirks..."

Satyr
2010-03-03, 09:39 AM
Personally, I really like the gurps magic system. It still isn't exactly balanced, with proper min-maxing it is very strong compared to a melee, but it channels mages in a very believable way. A given type of magic will have basic level spells, which you have to know in order to learn the harder spells. So a wizard whose knowledge runs to divination can't just learn fireball, he has to learn basic fire spells first.

That really depends on how you work it. Making something like Ceremonial Magic only (plus solitary ceremonies) mandatory for magery and you have a very slow, very accurate form of magic using two standard modifiers. Very simple changes, very different feeling to it. It is very hard to make absolute statements about anything in Gurps, oncluding magic, because it pretty much ends up as the one way you like it.


Once the character is ready, there's no much more you can do to improve it: unless the DM gives A LOT of points, increasing the characteristic is almost impossible, and also increasing skills... after some point, to give +1 to a skill is painfully hard.

No, not really. If you use the standard guidelines in Campaigns, characters gain something between 0 and 5 CP per game session, and a similar bonus when a story arc is concluded. Meaning that in a typical three act adventure, with three to four sessions per act, a character gains roughly 30 CP on average for a neat longer adventure or a short campaign.
Since CP in skills depend on training, you usually spent them in the offtime between campaigns, so you usually stockpile bonus CP until you find a teacher, have time for studies, etc. increasing a skill costs 4 CP per level on the higher levels. increasing an ability costs between 10 and 20 CP - so it is perfectly fine to assume, that a character can increase one ability and between 3 to 6 skills per campaign.

In addition, characters can - and should - gain additional advantages and disadvantages from the plot. Remember, character development is not the same thing as character improvement. If your character slays a big, dangerous monster, he might get a reputation, for free (or, to put it otherwise: You get extra CP which is bound to be used to gain a fitting reputation). If your reputation as a monster slayer opens you the door to the monster hunter guild, you could suddenly gain the guild as a contact group and a claim to hospitality in guild facilities.
Even better, the local noble has offered the hand of one of his sons in marriage to the hero or heroine who slays the monster, and you are now married - you gained a nice dowry (wealth, independant income), and increase in status, but you also got the princeling as a tedious and bratty dependent (that's a disadvantage) who will get you in constant trouble and is pretty much a hostage wonder.

It's not unlikely that your CP total doesn't change at all through these changes, or perhaps even is reduced (that depends on how incompetent the prince is in fact), so it is not very accurate to speak about character improvement in this case, but it is one hell of character development.

Killer Angel
2010-03-03, 09:43 AM
No, not really. If you use the standard guidelines in Campaigns, characters gain something between 0 and 5 CP per game session, and a similar bonus when a story arc is concluded.

wow, I totally didn't remember about that...
Our DM was used to give us 0-1 point per game session. :smallfrown:
I suppose that explains a lot...

Satyr
2010-03-03, 09:49 AM
That depends on how you play. If you have a very fast-paced, plot oriented style (or just don't play that often) it makes sense to handle out points with great generosity. If you have detailed character studies with long monologues and most focus on character talks and weekly or even bi-weekly sessions, I would also reduce the number of CP.

valadil
2010-03-03, 10:52 AM
My favorite thing about GURPS is that it makes melee combat much more interesting. Between the different maneuvers and hit locations there's a lot more to think about. Even if you're going one on one against an enemy you're never just slogging away taking turns trying to hit.

Oslecamo
2010-03-03, 10:54 AM
Also, GURPS is very realistic, so if you just ask a beginner what they want to do in an attack, GURPS can do it. You don't need to have feats to actually do fun stuff in combat. Grab his weapon? ok. Sneaky attack to out maneuver his defenses? ok. Aim for the head/arm/groin? ok.

You can do the first ones whitout feats. The feats just make you better at it. Hiding to make your oponent flatfooted is a skill. And why aim for the head/arm/groin when a full attack or well aimed spell should be enough to take your oponent down?

Cyrion
2010-03-03, 10:56 AM
It also sounds like they changed the character point system in the update to 4E. It used to be an arithmetic scale for both skills and abilities- physical skills ended up needing 16 points to advance.

I've always liked GURPS for its flexibility, single mechanic, and encouragement to improvise. I've always felt that the tenor of the game is different in that if you don't know, roll 3d6 and the GM adjudicates from there. D&D has always felt more restricted than that (especially prior to 3.x). That may be an artifact of the GMs I've had, though. The flexibility thought- that's a biggie. Sure, what you want is probably buried in the rules somewhere if you have enough books, but if you can't/don't bother to find it, roll 3d6...

I haven't upgraded to 4E yet, so my comments here are from a 3E perspective- GURPS is really easy to optimize. Dump your points into abilities, and your skills start high with minimal point investment. Also the magic system results in quite different mages. Just for comparison, look at the fireball- in order to duplicate the "standard" fireball- you're going to start out spending 3 fatigue to get to 3d6 on a single target (a respectable amount of damage in this system). Now, if you want to hit more than one target, you're going to have to multiply that by the radius in hexes; a 20 ft. radius fireball is 7 hexes, so you need 21 fatigue... Increase your range and things keep adding up. This isn't necessarily bad, but you have to recognize the changes this dictates.

Personally, I really like the GURPS system. I like the way it allows you to customize characters from the get go and it's my system of choice for pretty much anything other than fantasy. I'm not keen on it for fantasy because of the high PD and DR values- very quickly you've got characters (or their opponents) who simply can't be damaged- either because they can't be hit or because you can't get any damage through. This forces an arms race in ability scores that has cascading imbalances.

Gametime
2010-03-03, 11:13 AM
You can do the first ones whitout feats. The feats just make you better at it. Hiding to make your oponent flatfooted is a skill. And why aim for the head/arm/groin when a full attack or well aimed spell should be enough to take your oponent down?

Wasn't his whole point that a strength of GURPS is that it rewards those sorts of "fun" maneuvers?

Logically, it follows that a weakness of D&D is that it does not, in favor of attack attack attack attack attack attack attack.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 11:20 AM
You can do the first ones whitout feats. The feats just make you better at it. Hiding to make your oponent flatfooted is a skill. And why aim for the head/arm/groin when a full attack or well aimed spell should be enough to take your oponent down?

You have to spend a feat or else be an incredibly stupid thing to do. That is not fun. I don't want to have to invest one of my few feats to be able to use a sub-par tactic. You can't hide in the middle of combat, I am talking about deceptive attack, or a feint, or a beat. You can also hide in gurps, and use interesting tactics to take a stronger opponent down, you just don't have to spend a feat for it to be at all useful. And even if you spend a feat, who uses any maneuver except trip grapple and (very) occasionally disarm.

The reason why you want to aim for the head is that I don't allways want a RAWR POWER ATTACK fighter, I might want a quick nimble dagger wielder who target chinks in his opponent's armor. Full attacking is boring.

Greenish
2010-03-03, 11:41 AM
You can do the first ones whitout feats. The feats just make you better at it. Hiding to make your oponent flatfooted is a skill.You can't hide in the middle of combat, I am talking about deceptive attack, or a feint, or a beat.You can hide or feint in 3.5.

Of course, just because something is possible in one system doesn't mean it can't be done better in another.

Oslecamo
2010-03-03, 11:49 AM
You have to spend a feat or else be an incredibly stupid thing to do. That is not fun. I don't want to have to invest one of my few feats to be able to use a sub-par tactic. You can't hide in the middle of combat, I am talking about deceptive attack, or a feint, or a beat.

You can feint in D&D, and actualy use it for hiding in combat. It's in the rules.

And if you invest well in your BAB and str, you can perfectly disarm that goblin shaman of his wand/staff whitout the feat. You just cannot disarm Grarcan the barbarian that has as much combat prowess as you.



You can also hide in gurps, and use interesting tactics to take a stronger opponent down, you just don't have to spend a feat for it to be at all useful. And even if you spend a feat, who uses any maneuver except trip grapple and (very) occasionally disarm.

Because you cannot hide in D&D to get a suprise round on that ogre and take it down before he can move?



The reason why you want to aim for the head is that I don't allways want a RAWR POWER ATTACK fighter, I might want a quick nimble dagger wielder who target chinks in his opponent's armor. Full attacking is boring.
Play a rogue. Or pick up ToB. Or check out the combat options section of the PHB.

Greenish
2010-03-03, 11:53 AM
Play a rogue. Or pick up ToB. Or check out the combat options section of the PHB. Or play GURPS if you like it.Fixed that one for you. :smallwink:

Oslecamo
2010-03-03, 11:56 AM
Play a rogue. Or pick up ToB. Or check out the combat options section of the PHB. Or play your favorite system if you like it.

Now is properly fixed.

Greenish
2010-03-03, 12:01 PM
"Play your favorite system if you like it."

I detect some redundancy there.

Oslecamo
2010-03-03, 12:04 PM
"Play your favorite system if you like it."

I detect some redundancy there.

It's just as redudant as saying that you shouldn't play something you don't like, yet a lot of people here tell of their problems playing stuff they don't like.

Greenish
2010-03-03, 12:07 PM
It's just as redudant as saying that you shouldn't play something you don't like, yet a lot of people here tell of their problems playing stuff they don't like.Not what I was referring to. :smallwink:

It's the "favourite system you like" I refer to.

The Big Dice
2010-03-03, 12:27 PM
The biggest difference, mechanics aside, between GURPS and D&D is very simple, but very profound.

It's the difference between thinking "What do I want to play?" and "Who do I want to play?" D&D characters often feel like they sprung fully formed from the ground, with no real history, but GURPS encourages you to make a rounded character with a personality and a story behind who they are and how they got to be where they are now.

D&D forces you into a fairly limited set of options, sometimes making you wait for weeks and months of play before you actually get the character you wanted to play from the start. GURPS doesn't. You can choose every aspect of your character from the get go, without feeling that you're having to take options you don't really want to get to the place you wanted to be. And without taking a penalty to your experience because you've combined three or four classes into one chracter.

You want to be an assassin but not a thief or rogue? No problem. You want to be a knight who has storng social abilities and can hunt for port? Easy. And things that are surprisingly difficult to make in D&D, like Vikings or martial artists that can fight effectively without weapons are easy to make with GURPS. And you can be that character from the first session of the campaign.

GURPS also doesn't rely on equipment and arbitrary character levels in the same way the D&D system does. It allows for a much more organic form of character development. It's no more complicated than D&D, but it is far more sophisticated. That's another subtle but crucial difference between the two games.

But the biggest problem I see is simply people being unwilling to accept that there's a different game you can play out there. D&D isn't a bad system, but it's fairly narrow and limited in a lot of ways. There are other games out there that are just as good, if not better because you can play them in the way you want to. Customisation of everything is the name of the game in GURPS.

Oslecamo
2010-03-03, 12:31 PM
But the biggest problem I see is simply people being unwilling to accept that there's a different game you can play out there. D&D isn't a bad system, but it's fairly narrow and limited in a lot of ways. There are other games out there that are just as good, if not better because you can play them in the way you want to. Customisation of everything is the name of the game in GURPS.

But that customization demands heavy GM supervision, and if you've got a good flexible DM, you can easily bend D&D rules. The forum is bursting with homebrews and stories of people wich twist rules here and there for fun and cool.

If you follow RAW by the last letter in D&D, sure it has lots of problems, but if you do so in GURPS, it's even worst.

Satyr
2010-03-03, 02:18 PM
If anything, D&D is actually worse when it comes to supervision, because of the pest of putting little shard of crunch anywhere.
Gurps is much, much better constructed when it comes to books and the like and you can usually use the standard filters well enough.

And what's so problematic about "Take all the physical, mental and social advantages you want, exotic and supernatural traits are only in the game on a case by case question; ask me. Magic uses the Path/Book system; Thaumatology and Martial Arts are in use, designated fighters could (and should) take Weapon Master"?


You make it sound as if this was some kind of herculean task, but in fact, there is not much work to it if you know what you want and have read and understood the rules.

Egiam
2010-03-03, 02:44 PM
Here is my question:

Sir PC gallops towards the lair of the troll, followed by his Sorceror companion. Inside the cave, they find the troll, and attempt to slay the beast.


How difficult would it be to write statistics for the Troll? Which system would resolve the situation faster?

Jayabalard
2010-03-03, 03:11 PM
Here is my question:

Sir PC gallops towards the lair of the troll, followed by his Sorceror companion. Inside the cave, they find the troll, and attempt to slay the beast.


How difficult would it be to write statistics for the Troll? Which system would resolve the situation faster?It depends on what you mean by a "troll" ... I mean, if you mean a "standard D&D MM troll" well, you've obviously biased your scenario in favor of D&D. If you're talking about some abstract troll, well, GURPS obviously has a bit of an advantage... it's the only one with a discworld supplement, which has rules for both the sourceror and the Troll, or you could use the ones from GURPS Shadowrun, or the ones from Banestorm, etc. Even up to and including creating a completely custom troll monster from scratch using the monster generation guidelines.

Greenish
2010-03-03, 03:18 PM
…the sourceror…There are actual stats for a discworld sourceror?

Or well, if D&D can stat gods…

Gametime
2010-03-03, 03:30 PM
There are actual stats for a discworld sourceror?

Or well, if D&D can stat gods…

Having never played GURPS, I may be talking out of my rear, but I was always amused that a system renowned for precise rules was capable of modeling the Discworld - a realm that is not only literally influenced by Narrative Causality, but also capable of subverting that very Narrative Causality when it would make for a better story. Discworld is the only setting I've ever seen where the laws of physics are replaced by a self-demonstrating paradox.

WhiteHarness
2010-03-03, 03:46 PM
Having never played GURPS, I may be talking out of my rear, but I was always amused that a system renowned for precise rules was capable of modeling the Discworld - a realm that is not only literally influenced by Narrative Causality, but also capable of subverting that very Narrative Causality when it would make for a better story. Discworld is the only setting I've ever seen where the laws of physics are replaced by a self-demonstrating paradox.
The best part is that Terry Prachett himself co-authored the GURPS Discworld supplement.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51K52V0HAPL._SS500_.jpg

The Big Dice
2010-03-03, 03:48 PM
But that customization demands heavy GM supervision, and if you've got a good flexible DM, you can easily bend D&D rules. The forum is bursting with homebrews and stories of people wich twist rules here and there for fun and cool.

If you follow RAW by the last letter in D&D, sure it has lots of problems, but if you do so in GURPS, it's even worst.

The thing with GURPS is, there's filters built in to the system. I don't know about 4th ed, but in 3rd ed all I need to do to let players know what's allowed is say "TL 3, magic as per GURPS Magic. Races from Fantasy Folk. It's going to be a homebrew world with these kind of themes for the nations."

That's it.

You don't need to homebrew, as the rule are internally consistent. It's almost impossible to make a totally broken character, as to gain in one area you have to lose in another. There's a host of optional rules that you can use to tweak the game in any direction you can think of without the need to make up your own.

Satyr
2010-03-03, 03:49 PM
If we treat the Troll as "generic big brutish monster with bad temper, worse breath and a big club", my guess is, it wouldn't be quicker in any system, but with D&D, it would be more repetetive (basically: after the initial charge Mr. Troll and Sir PC exchange full attacks until one of them drops; Sorcerer companion throws debuffs at Mr. Troll; at one point, Mr. Troll hopefully keels over; in the worst cases, Mr. Troll starts to grapple), the Gurps combat takes either a bit longer or much much shorter (knight + lance+ charge = troll shashlik) or in the longer version - Sir Knight dodges a lot with retreated defenses because that one good hit of Mr. Troll could incapacitate him, Mr. Troll uses all-out attacks, and trusts in his sheer size and power to keep the hurt away, while the Sorcerer Companion prepares a spell, and ends the fight with it, when Sir PC can keep Mr. Troll occupied, attacking it with small injuries which wont kill Mr. Troll but make him angry (and oblivious for the true threat), while one hit of Mr. Troll that conects most likely ends the fight.
In Gurps, it is often not the worst idea to concentrate mostly on your defense, and neglect your attacks over it, because injuries really, really suck. This sometimes can lead to duels where both combatants circle each other, exchange witty remarks and try to provoke the other to make the first mistake. Or you just lounge in, hope that the dice gods are on your side and make a lunge at the enemy's weapon arm or front leg. If you hit, you have won.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 04:05 PM
There are actual stats for a discworld sourceror?

Or well, if D&D can stat gods…

We're not joking when we say gurps can stat anything. A week or two ago Satyr did a pretty good job of The Unconquered Sun, an Exalted deity.

Gametime
2010-03-03, 04:06 PM
If we treat the Troll as "generic big brutish monster with bad temper, worse breath and a big club", my guess is, it wouldn't be quicker in any system, but with D&D, it would be more repetetive (basically: after the initial charge Mr. Troll and Sir PC exchange full attacks until one of them drops; Sorcerer companion throws debuffs at Mr. Troll; at one point, Mr. Troll hopefully keels over; in the worst cases, Mr. Troll starts to grapple), the Gurps combat takes either a bit longer or much much shorter (knight + lance+ charge = troll shashlik) or in the longer version - Sir Knight dodges a lot with retreated defenses because that one good hit of Mr. Troll could incapacitate him, Mr. Troll uses all-out attacks, and trusts in his sheer size and power to keep the hurt away, while the Sorcerer Companion prepares a spell, and ends the fight with it, when Sir PC can keep Mr. Troll occupied, attacking it with small injuries which wont kill Mr. Troll but make him angry (and oblivious for the true threat), while one hit of Mr. Troll that conects most likely ends the fight.
In Gurps, it is often not the worst idea to concentrate mostly on your defense, and neglect your attacks over it, because injuries really, really suck. This sometimes can lead to duels where both combatants circle each other, exchange witty remarks and try to provoke the other to make the first mistake. Or you just lounge in, hope that the dice gods are on your side and make a lunge at the enemy's weapon arm or front leg. If you hit, you have won.

For what it's worth, this description really makes me want to try GURPS.

Jerthanis
2010-03-03, 04:07 PM
I dislike Gurps for the simple reason that it gives you points for giving your character disadvantages. This results in one of two situations: Players taking defects up to the maximum allowable point totals, and having a game about essentially circus folk, or some players take only a few defects here and there where it fits their character and one or two players decide to play circus folk.

The result of the second is a massive power gap between the autistic alcoholic quadruple amputee who can control the strong and weak nuclear forces holding atoms together with his mind and the normal guy who owns a sword he's kinda good with.

I've noticed through all my interactions with systems that reward you for 'complicating' your character with quirks and flaws that people will inevitably take more of them than they really want because the options are written right there for them to take.

I sat down once to play the Serenity RPG with a bunch of fellow fans, all of whom were in tune with the show. What came out of character creation after they hit the Assets/Complications chapter just completely occluded the ability to play them as individuals, much less as a group. We got a Sadistic, morbidly obese dwarf who was ugly and always told the truth, A mute paranoid druggie with hemophilia, and other such combinations of insanity. Everyone was phobic to something.

Another time we played BESM and one player seriously wanted to play a diseased, one armed homonculus who was created illegally so was wanted by the government, but was also extremely honorbound to the organization which made him... an organization he had to fill out paperwork to do anything for. It was an impossible character and he arrived at that character from letting himself choose whatever defects sounded cool to him.

It's systems like this that coined the term "munchkin", but it's not even just about the power imbalance. It's about people playing characters they don't really want to play just because they are suggestible.

Jayabalard
2010-03-03, 04:22 PM
I dislike Gurps for the simple reason that it gives you points for giving your character disadvantages. This results in one of two situations: Players taking defects up to the maximum allowable point totals, and having a game about essentially circus folk, or some players take only a few defects here and there where it fits their character and one or two players decide to play circus folk. That's a bit of a false dichotomy.

You can take disadvantages up to the maximum allowed without winding up with "circus folk"
You can have people with max disadvantages and people without max disadvantages without having a large disparity in power.
You can have groups where noone takes more defects than fits their character.
You can have a character where have taken the maximum allowable disadvantages without taking more than what fits that character.


and so on.


The result of the second is a massive power gap between the autistic alcoholic quadruple amputee who can control the strong and weak nuclear forces holding atoms together with his mind and the normal guy who owns a sword he's kinda good with.This specific example can only happen in superheroes sort of game, one with high point totals for both advantages and disadvantages. You generally can't take that many disadvantages and get points for all of them in any other sort of game (in 3e, you couldn't even get all the points for quadruple amputee by default), nor can you take those sort of super/psi/magic powers.

So, if you choose play a normal in a superhero game then you should be a normal; that seems like a perfectly reasonable situation to me.


It's systems like this that coined the term "munchkin", but it's not even just about the power imbalance. Actually, I seem to recall that that term was coined in reference to D&D rather than any point based system; it's why on the "real men, real roleplayres, loonies and munchkins" list, all of the munchkin's favorite RPG systems are "anything made by TSR"

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 04:22 PM
You can feint in D&D, and actualy use it for hiding in combat. It's in the rules.

And if you invest well in your BAB and str, you can perfectly disarm that goblin shaman of his wand/staff whitout the feat. You just cannot disarm Grarcan the barbarian that has as much combat prowess as you.


Because you cannot hide in D&D to get a suprise round on that ogre and take it down before he can move?


Play a rogue. Or pick up ToB. Or check out the combat options section of the PHB.

I know you can do them, but my problem is that you are almost always better off full attacking. Since when does feinting allow you to hide in combat? I'm pretty sure you need something like hide in plain sight and a ridiculous modifier to do that.

When did I say you could not hide in D&D?

Playing a rogue however, just means that players do X more damage when flanking and when that win initiative. They are just slightly less boring than a standard fighter. I also love and almost always play ToB, it is the single best book in D&D (yes, more so than the PHB and DMG). It does not however, fix the incredible annoyance of not being able to do even the most basic of combat tactics, and the whole "I charge in and attack" mentality that every d&d fight has.

I dislike Gurps for the simple reason that it gives you points for giving your character disadvantages. This results in one of two situations: Players taking defects up to the maximum allowable point totals, and having a game about essentially circus folk, or some players take only a few defects here and there where it fits their character and one or two players decide to play circus folk.

The result of the second is a massive power gap between the autistic alcoholic quadruple amputee who can control the strong and weak nuclear forces holding atoms together with his mind and the normal guy who owns a sword he's kinda good with.

I've noticed through all my interactions with systems that reward you for 'complicating' your character with quirks and flaws that people will inevitably take more of them than they really want because the options are written right there for them to take.

I sat down once to play the Serenity RPG with a bunch of fellow fans, all of whom were in tune with the show. What came out of character creation after they hit the Assets/Complications chapter just completely occluded the ability to play them as individuals, much less as a group. We got a Sadistic, morbidly obese dwarf who was ugly and always told the truth, A mute paranoid druggie with hemophilia, and other such combinations of insanity. Everyone was phobic to something.

Another time we played BESM and one player seriously wanted to play a diseased, one armed homonculus who was created illegally so was wanted by the government, but was also extremely honorbound to the organization which made him... an organization he had to fill out paperwork to do anything for. It was an impossible character and he arrived at that character from letting himself choose whatever defects sounded cool to him.

It's systems like this that coined the term "munchkin", but it's not even just about the power imbalance. It's about people playing characters they don't really want to play just because they are suggestible.

...I think you need to play with some more serious/mature players if you want to play a serious game

Satyr
2010-03-03, 04:27 PM
I dislike Gurps for the simple reason that it gives you points for giving your character disadvantages. This results in one of two situations: Players taking defects up to the maximum allowable point totals, and having a game about essentially circus folk, or some players take only a few defects here and there where it fits their character and one or two players decide to play circus folk.

Sigh... so you don't like the system because people could abuse it? Say hello to my little friend Pun-Pun over there, will you?

Okay, I can get that min-maxing is somewhat annyoing. But you know, you could just as well build characters with the system who are not quasimodo on adventure... and when the Gamemaster doesn't weigh the disadvantages enough, yes, they tend to be a bit on the lightweight scale.

But, there is no automatism in the system that forces you to build characters with as many defects as possible. You can make characters with disadvantages who make sense in combination, and which aren't bound down by them. If you'd like, I could post a few well rounded PC's from my campaigns which are anything but weighed down by their disadvantages - but pay dearly for them anyway.

Fhaolan
2010-03-03, 04:36 PM
It's systems like this that coined the term "munchkin", but it's not even just about the power imbalance. It's about people playing characters they don't really want to play just because they are suggestible.

That sounds like more a problem with the players than the system.

I like GURPS a great deal, but Jerthanis has a very valid point. It's not a system for beginner RPGers or those with the 'lack of self-restraint' disadvantage in RL. With a reasonable GM, the munchkins won't get far usually because there is a limit to the amount of disadvantages you can take by the base rules, and good number of the high-value disadvantages are really *disadvantages* and are crippling to the character. Unless the GM completely ignores those disadvantages, players will discover their circus folk PCs will rapidly become unplayable.

Also, the GM is encouraged to disallow or modify the point value of disadvantages if he determines that they are not disadvantages at all in his specific campaign. The classic example in the original GURPS Aliens book is trying to take a Liook Sujan as an Enemy. The Liook Sujan are sessile, effectively immortal, extremely slow-living, telepathic boulders. "Somewhere in the Universe there is a large rock thinking bad thoughts about me very slowly", does not qualify for the Enemy disadvantage.

The Rose Dragon
2010-03-03, 04:39 PM
"Somewhere in the Universe there is a large rock thinking bad thoughts about me very slowly", does not qualify for the Enemy disadvantage.

Fhaolan wins the thread by this comment. :smallwink:

fusilier
2010-03-03, 04:47 PM
The biggest difference, mechanics aside, between GURPS and D&D is very simple, but very profound.

It's the difference between thinking "What do I want to play?" and "Who do I want to play?" D&D characters often feel like they sprung fully formed from the ground, with no real history, but GURPS encourages you to make a rounded character with a personality and a story behind who they are and how they got to be where they are now.

This is how I feel, and why I generally prefer GURPS over D&D. The way I approach character creation fits with GURPS, but not well with D&D. Another thing I like is that character creation ends in GURPS, whereas in D&D every time you level it feels like you're going through another round of character creation (at least to me). In GURPS, you're typically just doing a minor amount of updating from time-to-time. Adding a few more points to a skill, maybe learning a new skill, occasionally increasing a base attribute -- all of which should reflect what your character actually did during the game.

There are problems with munchkin style players in GURPS, mainly because they will try to do horribly implausible things in character creation. I think it's mainly a matter of trying to apply a min-max mindset to GURPS, and it just doesn't work. In my experience it's rare that this happens, but if you have a player that seems intent upon "breaking" the system then it can be very frustrating. Players really need to approach it as though they are designing a true character (like one in a novel or movie), full of eccentricities, a history, etc -- which is generally expressed on the character sheet (i.e. not simply in the blank space left for "background").

The GM has to be involved in character creation because certain skills/ads/disads won't make sense for the campaign world. Also, you have to consider disadvantages carefully. Sometimes players will take weird disadvantages that I can't think of how to actually apply them in the game. If that's the case, they're not actually disadvantages. After some experience running games, though, I've been able to predict that fairly easily.

While I have very little experience with GURPS magic, what I've seen of it interests me. Magic is very detailed, and you have to take a bunch of minor (even mundane sounding) spells to build up to something like fireball. But it makes sense.

If in doubt, get the light version of the rules (they're free), and play around with those for a little bit.

Jerthanis
2010-03-03, 04:53 PM
That's a bit of a false dichotomy.

...

This specific example can only happen in superheroes sort of game, one with high point totals for both advantages and disadvantages.

Perhaps it's a slight one.

However, the version of GURPS I read mentions that in general, as a suggested guideline you can restrict total advantage/disadvantage points to half the character's total creation points. This means a character who abuses point totals is one and a half times as potent as one who doesn't.


Sigh... so you don't like the system because people could abuse it? Say hello to my little friend Pun-Pun over there, will you?

Okay, I can get that min-maxing is somewhat annyoing. But you know, you could just as well build characters with the system who are not quasimodo on adventure... and when the Gamemaster doesn't weigh the disadvantages enough, yes, they tend to be a bit on the lightweight scale.

But, there is no automatism in the system that forces you to build characters with as many defects as possible. You can make characters with disadvantages who make sense in combination, and which aren't bound down by them. If you'd like, I could post a few well rounded PC's from my campaigns which are anything but weighed down by their disadvantages - but pay dearly for them anyway.

Like I said, it isn't even entirely about the powergaming. It's about the attraction to using defects that you otherwise would never choose because they're printed in the book in a manner that expects you to take a lot of them. The mechanical benefit you reap is just positive reinforcement for a player to take more.

It's not that you can abuse the system, because there will never be a system that prevents abuse. It's that abuse of the system produces ridiculous, practically unplayable characters and social psychology actively seduces you towards producing that type of character.



...I think you need to play with some more serious/mature players if you want to play a serious game

They are serious and mature. It's just that in most systems they come up with a character that may or may not feel complete to them. Within a few sessions of play they usually settle in. In systems which provide detailed lists of defects, they'll say, "Hmm, this character doesn't feel quite complete yet... maybe if he's afraid of spiders?" and bam, they've got 1 or 5 or 10 more points to put in their stats, they're rewarded for adding something. Still, being afraid of spiders doesn't make the character any more complete, so they add alcoholism and are further rewarded.

Shortly thereafter their original concept is buried beneath antisocial personality disorders and limps and eyepatches and so on.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 04:54 PM
This is how I feel, and why I generally prefer GURPS over D&D. The way I approach character creation fits with GURPS, but not well with D&D. Another thing I like is that character creation ends in GURPS, whereas in D&D every time you level it feels like you're going through another round of character creation (at least to me). In GURPS, you're typically just doing a minor amount of updating from time-to-time. Adding a few more points to a skill, maybe learning a new skill, occasionally increasing a base attribute -- all of which should reflect what your character actually did during the game.

There are problems with munchkin style players in GURPS, mainly because they will try to do horribly implausible things in character creation. I think it's mainly a matter of trying to apply a min-max mindset to GURPS, and it just doesn't work. In my experience it's rare that this happens, but if you have a player that seems intent upon "breaking" the system then it can be very frustrating. Players really need to approach it as though they are designing a true character (like one in a novel or movie), full of eccentricities, a history, etc -- which is generally expressed on the character sheet (i.e. not simply in the blank space left for "background").

The GM has to be involved in character creation because certain skills/ads/disads won't make sense for the campaign world. Also, you have to consider disadvantages carefully. Sometimes players will take weird disadvantages that I can't think of how to actually apply them in the game. If that's the case, they're not actually disadvantages. After some experience running games, though, I've been able to predict that fairly easily.

While I have very little experience with GURPS magic, what I've seen of it interests me. Magic is very detailed, and you have to take a bunch of minor (even mundane sounding) spells to build up to something like fireball. But it makes sense.

If in doubt, get the light version of the rules (they're free), and play around with those for a little bit.

+1 to everything you have said.
Also, the only thing better than the standard gurps magic system is the syntactic system. I like my mages to make up spells on the fly and shape reality at their whim without being overpowered.

Satyr
2010-03-03, 05:16 PM
Like I said, it isn't even entirely about the powergaming. It's about the attraction to using defects that you otherwise would never choose because they're printed in the book in a manner that expects you to take a lot of them. The mechanical benefit you reap is just positive reinforcement for a player to take more.

It's not that you can abuse the system, because there will never be a system that prevents abuse. It's that abuse of the system produces ridiculous, practically unplayable characters and social psychology actively seduces you towards producing that type of character.

I actually think that this specific problem is a result of a "D&D-ish" approach to a "Gurps-ish" game (I can't think of better terms right now).

In a "D&D-ish" game, characters are about what they do, usually in rgards of how effective they are in a fight or a similar conflict. Thus, in this environment, a character's quality depneds on its effectivity. The more effective, the better.

Now, in a "Gurps-ish" game, it's about what the characters are; the focus is less on the powers of the characters, but on its personality and everyday life. In this philosophy, it is not as important how powerful any given character is in comparison to his adventuring companions, but how well rounded it is, how much fun to play and how much fun to play with it is.

Now, these are no mutually exclusive approaches, and these are more like tendencies than clear-cut absolutes, but that doesn't mean that this doesn't lead to certain problems when this is neglected.
A completely minmaxed character in Gurps just doesn't feel organic, at least for me. But a character build to be as interesting as it could be wouldn't feel to right as a D&D character either, especially when its effectivity suffers from this.

Cyrion
2010-03-03, 05:33 PM
Yes, GURPS character creation can be abused, but that just means that you have to apply the M in GM. First, the GM has to be willing to look at a character and say that it needs modification because it's unplayable or doesn't fit in the game world. Second, the GM has to take his characters into account and make them play those disadvantages. A friend of mine ran a swashbuckler with more disadvantages than the average bear in my campaign, but he made them all work to make a well-rounded character. In many ways he was "more powerful" than the other players who didn't take the disadvantages. He also suffered for it, because he didn't get as many experience points if he didn't play them, and I was merciless in using things like his enemies against him.

Jerthanis
2010-03-03, 05:56 PM
Now, in a "Gurps-ish" game, it's about what the characters are; the focus is less on the powers of the characters, but on its personality and everyday life. In this philosophy, it is not as important how powerful any given character is in comparison to his adventuring companions, but how well rounded it is, how much fun to play and how much fun to play with it is.


And for "everyday lives" games, GURPS is great at it, perhaps unsurpassed. In general though, many people enjoy games about exciting and pivotal events occurring, and in those situations, it will also matter what a character can do as well as who they are.

I guess I should be clear, I'd run GURPS, but I'd read the rule that states that they can render any defect to be worth any number of points, and assign a value of 0 to all of them. You can suffer from a defect if that's who you want to play.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 10:30 PM
And for "everyday lives" games, GURPS is great at it, perhaps unsurpassed. In general though, many people enjoy games about exciting and pivotal events occurring, and in those situations, it will also matter what a character can do as well as who they are.

I guess I should be clear, I'd run GURPS, but I'd read the rule that states that they can render any defect to be worth any number of points, and assign a value of 0 to all of them. You can suffer from a defect if that's who you want to play.

Pff, come off it, when was was it ever suggested that GURPS characters couldn't do interesting things?

Also, I find that the disadvantage system actually encourages good roleplaying with a group that takes things fairly seriously. It gives people a mechanical reason to have an interesting back-story and character traits. I have one player who would normally just be "mr. monk". He has no emotions, and does what he thinks would be best for the team. In GURPS, however, he escaped from a military facility designed to train people to kill stuff with their mind, and has been cowardly are paranoid ever since.

Demented
2010-03-03, 10:56 PM
This could probably be settled if one were to propose that GURPS is a role-playing system and DND is a beat-things-until-they-die system.

Kylarra
2010-03-03, 11:06 PM
This could probably be settled if one were to propose that GURPS is a role-playing system and DND is a beat-things-until-they-die system.Yeah, I think that would solve exactly nothing except to provoke flamewars.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 11:21 PM
I don't think gurps is a roleplaying focused game actually. It's a generic system. I just think that the disadvantage system provides a nice structure for those who aren't really experienced with roleplaying.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-03-03, 11:33 PM
GURPS is a Min/Maxer's wet dream. Two characters of the same point value can have wildly diverging power levels. Consider straight Fighter vs Incantatrix... only doable with straight Core. And even worse than that implies...

First off, DR is pretty easy to stack up, and unlike D&D where dozens of d6's and damage bonuses in the four-digit range are common, you're generally not throwing more than three or four dice around. So once you get up to around DR 20... you're pretty much invincible.

Then the spell system... it just begs you to cherry-pick. And there are some stupidly broken combos. Deathtouch, for example. Combine this with the Staff spell, which lets you cast a touch spell with your Staff, then the Staff skill, which gives 2/3 skill as your Parry rating, in addition to being a skill you can use to swing your Staff with... you end up with a wizard better able to defend himself than most fighters, and able to deal damage straight to hit points. With a high enough skill, you can do it for free.

sonofzeal
2010-03-03, 11:37 PM
Yeah, I think that would solve exactly nothing except to provoke flamewars.
Agreed.

GURPS does kinda force you to RP in a way that D&D doesn't. Since RP traits are a big part of the Advantage/Disadvantage system, you've got a much stronger push to have something defined in that area, as it'll have a measurable impact on your "cruch".

The downside of this is something I've already stated in this thread, namely that it becomes much harder to have your character shift significantly in personality over time. Because it's part of your crunch, there's at least some sense that you're obligated to try and match those traits as much as possible, while in D&D you can improv a bit more. YMMV.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 11:47 PM
GURPS is a Min/Maxer's wet dream. Two characters of the same point value can have wildly diverging power levels. Consider straight Fighter vs Incantatrix... only doable with straight Core. And even worse than that implies...

First off, DR is pretty easy to stack up, and unlike D&D where dozens of d6's and damage bonuses in the four-digit range are common, you're generally not throwing more than three or four dice around. So once you get up to around DR 20... you're pretty much invincible.

Then the spell system... it just begs you to cherry-pick. And there are some stupidly broken combos. Deathtouch, for example. Combine this with the Staff spell, which lets you cast a touch spell with your Staff, then the Staff skill, which gives 2/3 skill as your Parry rating, in addition to being a skill you can use to swing your Staff with... you end up with a wizard better able to defend himself than most fighters, and able to deal damage straight to hit points. With a high enough skill, you can do it for free.

1: people who play d&d have this strange misconception about core for other games. 95% of the stuff in GURPS is in the basic set.

2: How are you getting DR without playing in a superhero game or the equivalent? In those games the enemies are expected to have crazy innate attacks.

3: For a mage to have the CP to invest in that kind of combat expertise he has to be quite high powerlevel before he will be useful in combat. Also a quarterstaff and other long weapons give a +2 to parry, not 2/3. That might be 3rd edition rule, I've only played 4th. And a focused fighter will still be out damaging you. Not a great combo.

This may just be me, but I have always found it much easier to min/max in D&D. Certain options are just far superior. I can do it in GURPS too, (I once built a crazy telekinetic that could use all skills as int based ones with TK, and get a +4 to most of them) it just isn't as easy, and feels less natural.

Otogi
2010-03-04, 12:14 AM
Well, from what I hear, GURPS does have an edge in versatility, but is very hard to work with unless have the most recent edition and you fully understand the rules. Plus, while D&D has gotten easier and easier for new players, GURPS has always been kinda intimidating to work with, especially with casual people. I don't know, I always went with Mutants and Masterminds.

Jerthanis
2010-03-04, 12:22 AM
Pff, come off it, when was was it ever suggested that GURPS characters couldn't do interesting things?


I didn't mean that, I was just contesting Saytr's assertion that the "Gurps" mindset was less tied up in what the character could "do". I was agreeing that it's unsurpassed in portraying characters who "are", but that when the poop hits the fan, it still matters more what they "do". and that a character who suffers more disadvantages become significantly better at "doing" to a much greater extent than any game I personally know about.



Also, I find that the disadvantage system actually encourages good roleplaying with a group that takes things fairly seriously. It gives people a mechanical reason to have an interesting back-story and character traits. I have one player who would normally just be "mr. monk". He has no emotions, and does what he thinks would be best for the team. In GURPS, however, he escaped from a military facility designed to train people to kill stuff with their mind, and has been cowardly are paranoid ever since.

I just want to remove the mechanical incentive to make Mr. Monk cowardly, paranoid, alcoholic, phobic of needles, manic depressive, possess poor anger management, be ugly, bad at math, and have five other disadvantages. If he wants to be paranoid, he can play a paranoid guy.

Creating a character is an economy measuring your vision of the character concept versus the scarcity of points. Defects which grant points represent a way to directly alter the character concept while also adjusting the scarcity of points. More defects is always a win/win on this economic scale unless the player already has a rock-solid character concept already that doesn't require any extra points to round out.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-04, 12:45 AM
I didn't mean that, I was just contesting Saytr's assertion that the "Gurps" mindset was less tied up in what the character could "do". I was agreeing that it's unsurpassed in portraying characters who "are", but that when the poop hits the fan, it still matters more what they "do". and that a character who suffers more disadvantages become significantly better at "doing" to a much greater extent than any game I personally know about.



I just want to remove the mechanical incentive to make Mr. Monk cowardly, paranoid, alcoholic, phobic of needles, manic depressive, possess poor anger management, be ugly, bad at math, and have five other disadvantages. If he wants to be paranoid, he can play a paranoid guy.

Creating a character is an economy measuring your vision of the character concept versus the scarcity of points. Defects which grant points represent a way to directly alter the character concept while also adjusting the scarcity of points. More defects is always a win/win on this economic scale unless the player already has a rock-solid character concept already that doesn't require any extra points to round out.

If you think your players are always going to max out disads to get more power, put a low limit (say 50 or less) on how much they can get. I also think you are underestimating the penalty a disad gives you. Being alcoholic seriously sucks, and should be enforced. It might look like a free boost on paper, but it's really annoying in game. Same w/ poor anger managment and ugliness. You don't even want to know about somthing like manic depressive. All the other things you list are just quirk level. The rules also suggest a 65 point limit on disads, so unless you are not using that, he also won't be so ridiculous.

And again, BE MATURE ABOUT IT, disadvantages can be min/maxed just like everything else, but you shouldn't just cherry pick for the things that you thing will effect you the least.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-03-04, 12:55 AM
1: people who play d&d have this strange misconception about core for other games. 95% of the stuff in GURPS is in the basic set.

2: How are you getting DR without playing in a superhero game or the equivalent? In those games the enemies are expected to have crazy innate attacks.

3: For a mage to have the CP to invest in that kind of combat expertise he has to be quite high powerlevel before he will be useful in combat. Also a quarterstaff and other long weapons give a +2 to parry, not 2/3. That might be 3rd edition rule, I've only played 4th. And a focused fighter will still be out damaging you. Not a great combo.

This may just be me, but I have always found it much easier to min/max in D&D. Certain options are just far superior. I can do it in GURPS too, (I once built a crazy telekinetic that could use all skills as int based ones with TK, and get a +4 to most of them) it just isn't as easy, and feels less natural.

Actually, I managed it once as a 100 point character, 45 disads, although this was 3rd ed. I ended up being able to dish out something like 3d6 with Deathtouch (at a cost of 2 fatigue) and a Staff skill of 15. So with 2/3 skill, that gives a base parry of 10 + PD. Now granted, almost all his spells were in the Body Control college, I think he only had one or two that weren't, but that was pretty broke.

Also in 3e, psionics were completely worthless at low levels, and completely broke at high levels. At TK power 20, you could crush a man's head like an egg, make the flesh boil from his bones in one second, or shoot a fist-sized stone super-mach speeds to dish out damage that made a gun look weak. Of course, at power 5, you were doing good to lift a nickle.

Jerthanis
2010-03-04, 01:03 AM
If you think your players are always going to max out disads to get more power, put a low limit (say 50 or less) on how much they can get. I also think you are underestimating the penalty a disad gives you. Being alcoholic seriously sucks, and should be enforced. It might look like a free boost on paper, but it's really annoying in game. Same w/ poor anger managment and ugliness. You don't even want to know about somthing like manic depressive. All the other things you list are just quirk level. The rules also suggest a 65 point limit on disads, so unless you are not using that, he also won't be so ridiculous.

And again, BE MATURE ABOUT IT, disadvantages can be min/maxed just like everything else, but you shouldn't just cherry pick for the things that you thing will effect you the least.

But a limit of 50 points will generate a bunch of characters with 45 or 50 points in defects.

And the limit I remember reading about said that optionally the GM could restrict defect points to half the total creation points, but that it wasn't the default assumption that this restriction was in place.

From a player perspective, on the surface, adding more defects is always good. You get more points to build your character, more screentime spent dealing with your defects and an easy crutch on which to generate roleplaying. From a GM perspective, it always means more work.

And once again, this isn't even about powergaming. It's about players taking on disadvantages they don't actually want because of the psychological seduction inherent in the rules listing them at specific point values and encouraging you to take them.

PinkysBrain
2010-03-04, 01:47 AM
The real cheesy stuff isn't disadvantages ... it's (pact) limitations.

Fhaolan
2010-03-04, 02:36 AM
And once again, this isn't even about powergaming. It's about players taking on disadvantages they don't actually want because of the psychological seduction inherent in the rules listing them at specific point values and encouraging you to take them.

I quote from the sidebar on page 76 of the 3rd edition book 'Compendium I':

Doing Away With Disadvantages by Bill Seurer:
"I'll be done with my character as soon as I find just one more disadvantage."
No doubt every GURPS Game Master has heard that line countles times as players struggle to get exactly the "right" number of disadvantages and quirks when creating a character. usually, that last disadvantage or quirk doesn't fit the character very well or won't come into play very often (if ever). Here's an alternative method of creating character that avoids these and other problems.

The sidebar then goes on about alternative ways of dealing with chargen; different point levels, disadvantages not having negative point values, limiting the character to one disadvantage, etc.

So this is something anticipated by the game's authors. These books are full of sidebars, advice, options, relevant examples, etc. GURPS isn't really a game as such. GURPS is a series of books detailing a toolkit for building a game. Other systems mention that all rules are optional, where GURPS really *means* it.

Eric Tolle
2010-03-04, 03:06 AM
I won't get into the silliness of a "which game is better" debate, but as a long-time player, I will say one of the worst design decisions ever made in the history of RPGs was to give points for disadvantages. I've never seen it have a good effect on roleplaying, and have seen a huge range of deleterious effects, ranging from: inappropriate disads, to min-maxing disads, to player-GM bargaining and conflict.

The only disadvantage systems that have worked well IMO, are the ones where disadvantages don't give points up front give experience when triggered (7th Sea, Mutants and Masterminds), or are combined advantages in a "Hero point" economy (FATE, Shadow Of Yesterday). But in the final analysis, the best roleplaying I've seen has come from players in games with no disad systems at all.

Satyr
2010-03-04, 03:36 AM
I don't think gurps is a roleplaying focused game actually. It's a generic system. I just think that the disadvantage system provides a nice structure for those who aren't really experienced with roleplaying.

It's not a forge-based, "oh what are some precious unique snowflakes" roleplaying-focused game, but Gurps shows a lot of focus on the details of a character and his individual strengths and flaws. The system encourages to build well-rounded characters with a strong individual note to them. In D&D, you play a fighter with this or that tactic; in Gurps you play Borislav, who is defined by his bragging, generosity, thick slavonic accent and his knack with horses who also happens to be a competent warrior.



And for "everyday lives" games, GURPS is great at it, perhaps unsurpassed. In general though, many people enjoy games about exciting and pivotal events occurring, and in those situations, it will also matter what a character can do as well as who they are.

As I said, it's a tendency, and obviously not mutually exclusive. For example, I find combats in Gurps also more interesting than in D&D, because they are a lot less predictable and have that great extra granularity that makes me happy (games without hit locations are somewhat dull), but that's more of a subjective estimation.
The thing is, the power curve in Gurps is usually a lot flatter than in D&D. Even a powerful Conan-style dungeon delver can, when he acts stupid, and underestimates his enemies be subjugated and killed by aggressive little kobolds, or a panicking village levy. Being powerful is cool and all that, but it doesn't help you much when you are shot in the head by a grinning little shepard boy with a sling.
So, it often is less mandatory to create characters to be extra powerful, but to create ones who doesn't make many mistakes, because in the end those are the ones who kill you. Mistakes translate well into disadvantages, and with a few exceptions, all characters I have seen dying in Gurps game (which is by the way comparatively difficult, even though it is quite simple to become incapacitated due to injuries) was because of their own disadvantages bringing them down.


GURPS is a Min/Maxer's wet dream. Two characters of the same point value can have wildly diverging power levels. Consider straight Fighter vs Incantatrix... only doable with straight Core. And even worse than that implies...

Sigh... again, the system is bad because people can abuse it? Please ask hello (again) to my little friend Pun-Pun over there.
Yes, you could argue that Pun-Pun was always a game of thoughts and never intended for actual gameplay. Fair enough. But this indicates that you use your common sense when it comes to the selection of characters, and please yould anyone explain why this is no problem in D&D but people starting to play Gurps should suddenly stopping to think rationally?


Well, from what I hear, GURPS does have an edge in versatility, but is very hard to work with unless have the most recent edition and you fully understand the rules. Plus, while D&D has gotten easier and easier for new players, GURPS has always been kinda intimidating to work with, especially with casual people. I don't know, I always went with Mutants and Masterminds.

Well, the rules in Gurps are actually simpler than in D&D, because they are much more streamlined. The recent edition is seven years old by now, which isn't exactly completely new, and the downwards compability between different Gurps editions, even first and fourth edition is not that bad.
And casual players are a pest anyway and pandering to them is the downfall of the whole gaming industry Western civilisation the whole damn Multiverse! Please don't take this too seriously. That was irony. Casual gamers can only be considered as a pest on a case by case basis.


Actually, I managed it once as a 100 point character, 45 disads, although this was 3rd ed. I ended up being able to dish out something like 3d6 with Deathtouch (at a cost of 2 fatigue) and a Staff skill of 15. So with 2/3 skill, that gives a base parry of 10 + PD. Now granted, almost all his spells were in the Body Control college, I think he only had one or two that weren't, but that was pretty broke.

Yes, and you know what? When it comes to sheer damage dealing, do you know what's meaner than any spell? A 9mm handgun. Seriously. It outperforms every spellcaster when it comes to damage, aaccuracy and damage over a long time, for much, much lower CP costs. You know what also outperforms spellcasting when it comes to damage per CP? Longswords. And bows. And being a Wolf and biting in your enemies' necks and crotches.

I mean, "I can build a powerful one trick pony in the game" does not mean that the game is bad; it only means that you can create one trick ponies with it.


From a player perspective, on the surface, adding more defects is always good. You get more points to build your character, more screentime spent dealing with your defects and an easy crutch on which to generate roleplaying. From a GM perspective, it always means more work.

And once again, this isn't even about powergaming. It's about players taking on disadvantages they don't actually want because of the psychological seduction inherent in the rules listing them at specific point values and encouraging you to take them.

First off all, assistance on how to play a character are not a bad thing. They are good things. They might appear as crutches, but in fact, it's nice to have them.
Second, disadvantages suck. Most of them, if they are not handwaved and ignored, are truly painful in the game. One doesn't need to be a genius to see that it's a bad thing to be, let's say impulsive and overconfident. Disadvantages are in the game to make the character suffer. That's their purpose, and if the players understand this, they are bit more reluctant to take them.
Third, Including the disadvantages directly in the mechanics of the game and make them matter increases their clout and meakes them more meaningful. They are hard facts, not just an informed trait. That's also a good thing.
Fourth, the way the disadvantages are structured, they include a motivation to overcome them. This is the one advantage of gurps-style disadvantages over something like the disadvantages in nWoD - you are not punished on the metalevel when you try to become a better person and work on your weaknesses.
And finally, when it is legitimated by the plot, there is nothing wrong with readjusting disadvantages and restructure them. I played in a campaign once where two PCs fell in love and eventually got a daughter. One of the two was more of an anti-hero who was not a very nice person to have around - he was bloodthirsty, sometimes outright cruel and selfish. When his daughter was born, and he spent most of his time with her, he mellowed out - his "bad" disadvantages became significantly weaker (control numbers increased), he got the little girl as a dependant, developed a strong urge to protect her and genuinely tried to make the world a better place for her. It was a fascinating piece of roleplay and character development (okay, it was a bit stereotypic, but still fascinating), and justified a few changes to the character's disadvantage structure.


The only disadvantage systems that have worked well IMO, are the ones where disadvantages don't give points up front give experience when triggered (7th Sea, Mutants and Masterminds), or are combined advantages in a "Hero point" economy (FATE, Shadow Of Yesterday). But in the final analysis, the best roleplaying I've seen has come from players in games with no disad systems at all.

No, not at all. The gursp way of disadvantages include the kotivation to get rid of him. The later triggered disadvantages don't and thus are actually blocking character development when it comes to facing your inner demons and weaknesses.

The Big Dice
2010-03-04, 12:33 PM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstand about Disadvatages in GURPS floating around this thread. The point of Disadvantages is twofold: first is the mechanical one. They give you more points to make your character with. In some respects the Flaws system from Unearthed Arcana is an attempt to emulate this.

The second is, they provide depth to your character. Han Solo is a case in point for a guy with Overconfidence. He charges at large groups of Stormtroopers and says "Hey, it's me!" when asked if he can handle Scout Troopers on Endor.

Disadvantages aren't a bad thing, they're a way of getting extra points for playing your character the way you were going to play him anyway.

My advice to people who aren't sure but would like to give GURPS a try is to download GURPS Lite (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/) and Caravan to Ein Arris (http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-0031). Both are available for free and give a good introduction to how GURPS works.

Try it. You might find that getting away from D&D for a bit will open your eyes to other possibilities. Even if you don't take the plunge and invest drinking tokens in new game, it never hurts to try something different in roleplaying.

Saph
2010-03-04, 12:53 PM
Having run games of both GURPS and D&D, I'd have to say they've both got their pluses. GURPS is better for a generic system, D&D is better for high fantasy.

The nice thing about GURPS is its versatility. You can literally do anything with it. It isn't amazing at anything, but it really can handle anything, and that's very handy when you're looking for a fallback or trying to mix two genres.

The major drawback of GURPS for a combat-heavy fantasy game is the lack of any kind of CR system or power level. The last time I ran a GURPS game I found that I had to do a crapton of work statting out and balancing enemies and NPCs for the party to interact with. By contrast, when I run D&D 3.5 these days I can literally set up an encounter in about 10 seconds.

Oslecamo
2010-03-04, 12:58 PM
It's not a forge-based, "oh what are some precious unique snowflakes" roleplaying-focused game, but Gurps shows a lot of focus on the details of a character and his individual strengths and flaws. The system encourages to build well-rounded characters with a strong individual note to them. In D&D, you play a fighter with this or that tactic; in Gurps you play Borislav, who is defined by his bragging, generosity, thick slavonic accent and his knack with horses who also happens to be a competent warrior.

You know, you can give fancy names to your D&D fighter abilities as well. And roleplay him as you wish. Stuff like generosity, bragging and accent don't even need mechanics to be performed.



As I said, it's a tendency, and obviously not mutually exclusive. For example, I find combats in Gurps also more interesting than in D&D, because they are a lot less predictable and have that great extra granularity that makes me happy (games without hit locations are somewhat dull), but that's more of a subjective estimation.
The thing is, the power curve in Gurps is usually a lot flatter than in D&D. Even a powerful Conan-style dungeon delver can, when he acts stupid, and underestimates his enemies be subjugated and killed by aggressive little kobolds, or a panicking village levy. Being powerful is cool and all that, but it doesn't help you much when you are shot in the head by a grinning little shepard boy with a sling.

So you want to play Goliath the elite warrior who gets one shoted by a random sheperd.

Excuse us for me wanting to play Li Kong, Cao Cao's general, who got shot in the eye by an arrow and kept charging neverthless. Or his comrade who, finding himself with his spear broken, let the enemy soldiers impale him, just to remove their spears from his own body and throw them at the enemy sergeants. Or the enemy generals who deflected an army's worth of arrows with their hands. It's all on the Legend of the 3 Kingdoms, a quite ancient chinese tale that may actualy have happened.

There's gritty low power fantasy, and then there's "Gods on Earth" high power fantasy where the heros are literaly as tough as steel. D&D is aimed at the later once you enter mid-high levels.




Sigh... again, the system is bad because people can abuse it? Please ask hello (again) to my little friend Pun-Pun over there.
Yes, you could argue that Pun-Pun was always a game of thoughts and never intended for actual gameplay. Fair enough. But this indicates that you use your common sense when it comes to the selection of characters, and please yould anyone explain why this is no problem in D&D but people starting to play Gurps should suddenly stopping to think rationally?

And should D&D players stop being creative and roleplaying? Why can't my fighter be generous and have an accent and bragging about how good is he with his halberd?



Well, the rules in Gurps are actually simpler than in D&D, because they are much more streamlined. The recent edition is seven years old by now, which isn't exactly completely new, and the downwards compability between different Gurps editions, even first and fourth edition is not that bad.

It doesn't matter that they're streamlined. There's still a hell lot of rules. I started playing my first D&D character with just half an hour of preparation. Just needed to roll stats, check out what they did, pick a class and feat, and go to adventure.

If I wanted to play GURPS I would need several days to read trough the hundreds of abilities, streamlining be damned.



Yes, and you know what? When it comes to sheer damage dealing, do you know what's meaner than any spell? A 9mm handgun. Seriously. It outperforms every spellcaster when it comes to damage, aaccuracy and damage over a long time, for much, much lower CP costs. You know what also outperforms spellcasting when it comes to damage per CP? Longswords. And bows. And being a Wolf and biting in your enemies' necks and crotches.

I'm sorry, it seems like your wolf broke it's teeths in my balls of steels and I caught your bullet with my bare hands.:smalltongue:

(plus, what the hell is a 9mm gun doing in a fantasy campaign anyway?)



I mean, "I can build a powerful one trick pony in the game" does not mean that the game is bad; it only means that you can create one trick ponies with it.

Funny, because Pun-Pun is a 1-trick pony. It just happens that said trick can then be used to do anything, but it's still based on a single trick that consumes pretty much all the resources of the character if you want to do it at low level. Even a little DM handwaving (like you throwing 9mm guns in a fantasy game) will make Pun-Pun crash and burn.

EDIT:Saph raises another excellent point. GURPS is all fine and dandy to fighting mooks in low fantasy, but having to design mighty monsters like dragons and trolls and whatnot would be much more troublesome in GURPS, while D&D offers you plenty of ready to use monsters and then plenty of customization options for said monsters.

Hurlbut
2010-03-04, 01:16 PM
Excuse us for me wanting to play Li Kong, Cao Cao's general, who got shot in the eye by an arrow and kept charging neverthless. Or his comrade who, finding himself with his spear broken, let the enemy soldiers impale him, just to remove their spears from his own body and throw them at the enemy sergeants. Or the enemy generals who deflected an army's worth of arrows with their hands. It's all on the Legend of the 3 Kingdoms, a quite ancient chinese tale that may actualy have happened.A little nitpick: it's "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and it's a story, so there's some embellishments. After all it is one of the "Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature."

Cybren
2010-03-04, 01:17 PM
EDIT:Saph raises another excellent point. GURPS is all fine and dandy to fighting mooks in low fantasy, but having to design mighty monsters like dragons and trolls and whatnot would be much more troublesome in GURPS, while D&D offers you plenty of ready to use monsters and then plenty of customization options for said monsters.

I can say ridiculous, unsubstantiated things too!

One day, I went to the store and bought a model rocket, which I used to send my cat, Sweety, to the moon.

See?!


So you want to play Goliath the elite warrior who gets one shoted by a random sheperd.

Excuse us for me wanting to play Li Kong, Cao Cao's general, who got shot in the eye by an arrow and kept charging neverthless. Or his comrade who, finding himself with his spear broken, let the enemy soldiers impale him, just to remove their spears from his own body and throw them at the enemy sergeants. Or the enemy generals who deflected an army's worth of arrows with their hands. It's all on the Legend of the 3 Kingdoms, a quite ancient chinese tale that may actualy have happened.

There's gritty low power fantasy, and then there's "Gods on Earth" high power fantasy where the heros are literaly as tough as steel. D&D is aimed at the later once you enter mid-high levels.
1) sling bullets have the kinetic energy of...bullets. That's like complaining about getting one shotted by a glock.

2) there's no reason you can't do that in GURPS. that's the strength of GURPS. One person might like gritty realistic violence where injury is serious business. Other people might want larger than life characters that can avoid and shrug off serious attacks. Both are possible. And contrary to most peoples impressions, baseline characters in GURPS tend towards the "heroic" end of the scale, not the "u r teh suck".


I'm sorry, it seems like your wolf broke it's teeths in my balls of steels and I caught your bullet with my bare hands.

(plus, what the hell is a 9mm gun doing in a fantasy campaign anyway?)


But it's true. in a TL 3 fantasy game stuff like weapon master, a fine weapon (from sig gear or wealth, or just looting it in game), a good ST score (you're using melee weapons so that's a given. Maybe even some striking ST), you'll be doing over 2d +more cut damage with swings. That's enough to kill stuff real good. A spellcaster can fire off fireballs or deliver touch attacks but that takes two turns per instead of one (one to charge and one to use the effect), or they could, as they say in D&D, go for control instead. A spellcaster with no armor getting into melee would be a bad idea too. You might have +2 parry from a staff, but you're only going to be able to parry the first couple hits before penalties start piling up and the first shot you take is gonna sting real bad thanks to you not having armor. Or you do have armor, but now you need to spend CP on strength so you're not encumbered. And you need enough points for your staff skill to hit, against really impressive defenses that "warriors" will have.

Jayabalard
2010-03-04, 01:53 PM
But a limit of 50 points will generate a bunch of characters with 45 or 50 points in defects. So? I fail to see a problem with that.


And the limit I remember reading about said that optionally the GM could restrict defect points to half the total creation points, but that it wasn't the default assumption that this restriction was in place.No, the limit is by default 40 points in 3e, 200 points in 2e GURPS supers (which also included super disadvantages and lots of superhero flavored regular disadvantages). In 4e the suggestion is 50% of the character points


It's about players taking on disadvantages they don't actually want because of the psychological seduction inherent in the rules listing them at specific point values and encouraging you to take them.Yes, I agree, bad players are bad, but that has nothing to do with the system.




Actually, I managed it once as a 100 point character, 45 disads, although this was 3rd ed. I ended up being able to dish out something like 3d6 with Deathtouch (at a cost of 2 fatigue) and a Staff skill of 15. So with 2/3 skill, that gives a base parry of 10 + PD. Now granted, almost all his spells were in the Body Control college, I think he only had one or two that weren't, but that was pretty broke.I get the impression that you were much use except when death touching is the appropriate response... and if that, in fact, made up the majority of your gaming, that makes me sad.

Really, 3d6 costing 2 fatigue is no worse than the guy with a high strength using a pick and is doing 2d+ swinging impaling damage.


The downside of this is something I've already stated in this thread, namely that it becomes much harder to have your character shift significantly in personality over time. Not really... you can buy off mental disadvantages, and there are several suggestions in the books for how to deal with swapping disadvantages (for example, I think the section on dependents has some suggestions on what to do if the dependent dies.), and I've yet to run into a GM that wouldn't allow changes to show a character's personality changes like that.

fusilier
2010-03-04, 02:32 PM
I quick note about min/maxing in GURPS. It's really, really pointless. GURPS has enough breadth, that an overspecialized character can have such great flaws that a GM can exploit. I know someone who once built a character with the sole idea of being able to dodge any attack. This required him to make a really ridiculous character and take several levels of a cinematic advantage. Depending upon whether or not he used 3rd or 4th edition, and how many levels of enhanced dodge he was allowed to take, I think he got his character into a dodge range of 15-17. He now figured his character was effectively immortal, because he could dodge almost every attack (you cannot dodge a critical hit), and had fairly high HT (if it was the 3rd edition version). I told the GM to make sure his enemies were armed with grenades! You can't dodge an explosion! :-)

Anyway, I typically reject such silly characters. Another example of how approaches to D&D don't really work for GURPS. When I reject characters like that, the player becomes frustrated because he thinks that if the rules allow him to do it, so should the GM. But that's just not what GURPS is about.

It depends upon the particular campaign, but an overspecialized character will often have little to do, and usually won't be fun to play.

P.S. That player now seems to be a fairly big GURPS fan, having come to terms with how GURPS works.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-04, 02:41 PM
I'll try not to get involved in another GURPS vs D&D argument, and confine myself to the OP's comments.


So I've been thinking of looking into GURPS, mainly because I like the idea of a game where you can make whatever you want without a class system, and I think it does more "realistic" fantasy better than DnD.

This is true. GURPS doesn't have to be realistic/gritty/un-cinematic, it depends on how the GM tweaks it. But the rules use reality as a "baseline" and build from there. So, if "realistic" fantasy is what you are looking for as a player, then I can wholeheartedly recommend GURPS 4e (being the current edition, and the one I have actual exp playing).


So I was wondering how the playground would compare and contrast the two gaming systems, and if they had any advice for someone who primarily plays 3.5, who wanted to give GURPS a try.

I can't really advise on specific comparisons, as my D&D experiences are from 20 years ago. Others here who have played both D&D 3.5 and GURPS 4e will be able to do so more accurately. However, I will point out that some of the comments in this thread do not apply to the current edition of GURPS, and are a bit out of date. People should make it clear which version(s) they are talking about.

I can certainly answer more GURPS questions though, if you have them. Or I can give more specific advice perhaps if I know a little bit more about what it is you are looking to do with GURPS (it's a versatile tool-kit).

Tyndmyr
2010-03-04, 02:55 PM
Yeah, I think that would solve exactly nothing except to provoke flamewars.

While this is probably true, I don't have any negative connotations with regards to a "beat things until they die" system, and feel that while some people would undoubtably treat roleplaying as if it's superior...it's not. Both are merely means of entertaining ourselves.

Both GURPS and D&D likely span far too much ground and players to neatly fall into either category, though.

Gametime
2010-03-04, 04:23 PM
It might be more appropriate to say that a D&D game is intended to have some non-trivial portion dedicated to beating things until they die. It is entirely possible to play a campaign of D&D with getting involved as so much as a single scrap, but that's not really what the system is for. It's for heroes trying to save the world by killing the bad guys.

Most D&D games will involve a fair amount of roleplaying, a decent bit of talking and negotiating, and a good deal of butt-kicking. People who aren't interested at least a bit in that last part probably shouldn't bother with D&D.

absolmorph
2010-03-04, 04:24 PM
I sat down once to play the Serenity RPG with a bunch of fellow fans, all of whom were in tune with the show. What came out of character creation after they hit the Assets/Complications chapter just completely occluded the ability to play them as individuals, much less as a group. We got a Sadistic, morbidly obese dwarf who was ugly and always told the truth, A mute paranoid druggie with hemophilia, and other such combinations of insanity. Everyone was phobic to something.
These are actually viable characters.

Jerthanis
2010-03-04, 04:47 PM
Yes, I agree, bad players are bad, but that has nothing to do with the system.

I refuse to respond to any of your points on the grounds that I will not respond to ad hominem attacks on my players.


These are actually viable characters.

They were not characters, they were giant masses of bizarre defects rolled together.

Gametime
2010-03-04, 05:00 PM
I refuse to respond to any of your points on the grounds that I will not respond to ad hominem attacks on my players.


Perhaps we could come to consensus in agreeing that GURPS does not seem well-suited for your group, nor your group for GURPS.

That isn't intended as an insult; it would be a truly impressive game that catered to all gamers. I do think that the "seductive" temptation of flaws, and the supposedly inferior roleplaying they promote, is not as universal a quality as you seem inclined to believe. It is, obviously, a quality present in your group.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-04, 05:02 PM
These are actually viable characters.

...In a game like paranoia or a silly one-shot. If you play with those characters regularly, I am afraid.

fusilier
2010-03-04, 06:35 PM
I think that the main issue here is how one approaches a roleplaying game.

People who are used to D&D, can approach GURPS from the wrong way, and might be severely disappointed. There are some fundamental differences, not just in the game mechanics, but in how each system approaches roleplaying. These need to be kept in mind if it is your first time playing GURPS.

I believe that a lot of the acrimony that we see here is because people try to apply the mindset of one game to the other, and that is wholly inappropriate. Certainly, one can prefer one to the other, without any claims to superiority or inferiority on either side.

Like I said before. If you're in doubt, play around with it a little bit, and get under the hood, so to speak, and figure out what makes it tick. It's a matter of whether or not you and your players like it. This can depend upon how well you understand it, but even if you fully understand GURPS, that's no guarantee you will like it.

erikun
2010-03-04, 06:37 PM
From a player perspective, on the surface, adding more defects is always good. You get more points to build your character, more screentime spent dealing with your defects and an easy crutch on which to generate roleplaying. From a GM perspective, it always means more work.
I feel compelled to ask: How is this different from D&D? After all, D&D has Chain-Trippers, and Jumpolancers, and Wizard/Druid/Paladin Ubermounts. None of these are going to "make sense" compared to a normal character, all are going to take presidence in a normal campaign and require heavy DM supervision.

Is this really a problem with one specific system?

sonofzeal
2010-03-04, 08:19 PM
Not really... you can buy off mental disadvantages, and there are several suggestions in the books for how to deal with swapping disadvantages (for example, I think the section on dependents has some suggestions on what to do if the dependent dies.), and I've yet to run into a GM that wouldn't allow changes to show a character's personality changes like that.
It's a barrier though. It means I have to be thinking about how I'm playing the character, not just playing them. It means I can be wrong about my own character, and that this wrongness is something I'll actually have to hash out with the gm and the rules of the game rather that just playing slightly differently. It means that if my character gradually evolves and changes over time, then I'm going to have constantly go back to the character sheet and work out just how important each individual trait is to the character now. Is he honourable (Code of Honor -5), or just acts that way because of guilt over his dishonourable past (Guilt Complex -5), and if he can only have one then which should he choose and what if the balance and my view of the character shifts over time?

Or, I could have a character that's fundamentally cowardly, so I take Cowardice. In the course of the plot he forms a strong bond with one community, and when the community gets threatened I realize that, even though he's a Coward in general, I want him to make a heroic last stand (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LastStand). Rules say nope, can't do that, gotta make this roll or run off screaming like a pansy.

I'm sure there's ways to resolve this. In other systems, though, there's no need to resolve this, because it's all up to the player anyway. It's not that it's impossible for your character to change, just that it's harder. Points are tied up in personality traits, so there's an extra barrier you have to overcome.



...the upside, as I said earlier, is that it definitely encourages newbies or non-RPers to start RPing. By laying out personality like that, it gives a reason to do it beyond mere preference, and gives a place to start for those who otherwise end up bland. There's advantages both ways.

Cybren
2010-03-04, 09:06 PM
It's a barrier though. It means I have to be thinking about how I'm playing the character, not just playing them. It means I can be wrong about my own character, and that this wrongness is something I'll actually have to hash out with the gm and the rules of the game rather that just playing slightly differently. It means that if my character gradually evolves and changes over time, then I'm going to have constantly go back to the character sheet and work out just how important each individual trait is to the character now. Is he honourable (Code of Honor -5), or just acts that way because of guilt over his dishonourable past (Guilt Complex -5), and if he can only have one then which should he choose and what if the balance and my view of the character shifts over time?

Or, I could have a character that's fundamentally cowardly, so I take Cowardice. In the course of the plot he forms a strong bond with one community, and when the community gets threatened I realize that, even though he's a Coward in general, I want him to make a heroic last stand. Rules say nope, can't do that, gotta make this roll or run off screaming like a pansy.

I'm sure there's ways to resolve this. In other systems, though, there's no need to resolve this, because it's all up to the player anyway. It's not that it's impossible for your character to change, just that it's harder. Points are tied up in personality traits, so there's an extra barrier you have to overcome.



...the upside, as I said earlier, is that it definitely encourages newbies or non-RPers to start RPing. By laying out personality like that, it gives a reason to do it beyond mere preference, and gives a place to start for those who otherwise end up bland. There's advantages both ways.

Too put it simply:

you're doing it wrong.


Disadvantages in GURPS are disadvantages. They are disadvantageous. Social and mental disadvantages are also "roleplaying" disadvantages. That is you agree you will act like this. When a situation arises in which you would rather not, THEN you get a self-control roll to avoid the disadvantage.

"But why do they have point values!?!??!" people may respond.

easy, afflictions, my dear watson. It's occasionally necessary to create abilities that MAKE people cowards. For that we need to know how disadvantageous being a coward is.

if you REALLY don't want it, you can 1) spend one or two CPs to influence the roll outcome 2) spend the full value of the disadvantage to buy it out.

If all you want is to occasionally act a certain way but not if it really inconveniences you? That's a quirk. Like, by definition. Quirks are there so you can get a few (but not many) points for fleshing out how you're going to play your character ahead of time.

sonofzeal
2010-03-04, 09:28 PM
Too put it simply:

you're doing it wrong.
Oh, thank you so much for the condescension.



Disadvantages in GURPS are disadvantages. They are disadvantageous. Social and mental disadvantages are also "roleplaying" disadvantages. That is you agree you will act like this. When a situation arises in which you would rather not, THEN you get a self-control roll to avoid the disadvantage.

"But why do they have point values!?!??!" people may respond.

easy, afflictions, my dear watson. It's occasionally necessary to create abilities that MAKE people cowards. For that we need to know how disadvantageous being a coward is.

if you REALLY don't want it, you can 1) spend one or two CPs to influence the roll outcome 2) spend the full value of the disadvantage to buy it out.

If all you want is to occasionally act a certain way but not if it really inconveniences you? That's a quirk. Like, by definition. Quirks are there so you can get a few (but not many) points for fleshing out how you're going to play your character ahead of time.
I talked about two examples in my post. One of those you didn't address at all. The other one could easily be someone who's been cowardly, has been legitimately disadvantaged by his cowardice consistently through the campaign, but in that one specific situation would not act in a cowardly manner. Even if I can boost the roll, I'm still having personality development dictated to me by the dice, and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

If I'm planning way ahead and know that I want to work towards that eventually, that's one thing. But very often, the twists and turns of the story bring us to places we never anticipated. Now, maybe I have the CP on hand to buy it off (which isn't appropriate anyway, since the character might still be cowardly otherwise), but maybe I don't. Maybe the GM is nice and allows it anyway, maybe he doesn't. Whichever way, it puts me in an awkward position, and undermines my ability to play my character the way I might otherwise choose to.

Now, maybe it's just that my group hasn't spent much time with GURPS (we haven't, only a few short games), and maybe more professional groups work around this somehow, I don't know. It still seems to me like the trade-off you have to make. Either RP is interwoven with the rules (GURPS), or it isn't (D&D). One way strongly encourages everyone to RP, the other way gives more freedom for RP to develop organically. There's always a trade.

fusilier
2010-03-04, 09:28 PM
It's a barrier though. It means I have to be thinking about how I'm playing the character, not just playing them. It means I can be wrong about my own character, and that this wrongness is something I'll actually have to hash out with the gm and the rules of the game rather that just playing slightly differently. It means that if my character gradually evolves and changes over time, then I'm going to have constantly go back to the character sheet and work out just how important each individual trait is to the character now. Is he honourable (Code of Honor -5), or just acts that way because of guilt over his dishonourable past (Guilt Complex -5), and if he can only have one then which should he choose and what if the balance and my view of the character shifts over time?

Or, I could have a character that's fundamentally cowardly, so I take Cowardice. In the course of the plot he forms a strong bond with one community, and when the community gets threatened I realize that, even though he's a Coward in general, I want him to make a heroic last stand (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LastStand). Rules say nope, can't do that, gotta make this roll or run off screaming like a pansy.

I'm sure there's ways to resolve this. In other systems, though, there's no need to resolve this, because it's all up to the player anyway. It's not that it's impossible for your character to change, just that it's harder. Points are tied up in personality traits, so there's an extra barrier you have to overcome.



...the upside, as I said earlier, is that it definitely encourages newbies or non-RPers to start RPing. By laying out personality like that, it gives a reason to do it beyond mere preference, and gives a place to start for those who otherwise end up bland. There's advantages both ways.

Ok, I see what you are saying and I have run into this issue before. Basically, this is why the GM typically has to be involved in character creation. What the GM expects from the player (and what the player himself expects) in regards to particular disadvantages need to be understood by both parties. Recently some of my friends have taken to making themselves as GURPS characters (I know, it's silly). As I usually am GM for our GURPS games, I've been asking them particular questions about their choices, which reflect how *I* as GM would interpret them. I find this is necessary, as GM involvement is pretty heavy in details of the game. (Also, the titles of some advantages and disadvantages can be misleading)

Whether or not you care for that level of hands-on involvement (you could even say GM fiat), has to do with personal tastes.

As to what happens if you decide to play your character differently over time -- this is a potential issue, especially in a very long campaign. If the change is serious enough, you're essentially playing a new character, so it may be time to make a new one. On the other hand, certain ads/disads may be bought or bought off (in the case of disads), if you and the GM feel it is reasonable.

Cybren
2010-03-04, 09:39 PM
I talked about two examples in my post. One of those you didn't address at all. The other one could easily be someone who's been cowardly, has been legitimately disadvantaged by his cowardice consistently through the campaign, but in that one specific situation would not act in a cowardly manner. Even if I can boost the roll, I'm still having personality development dictated to me by the dice, and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

Basically, you want "cowardice, not when it's important".

which isn't a disadvantage. maybe it's a quirk. If that.

sonofzeal
2010-03-04, 09:55 PM
Basically, you want "cowardice, not when it's important".

which isn't a disadvantage. maybe it's a quirk. If that.
That's not what I'm saying at all. A real person is not A Coward(tm), they would just be cowardly. But even a coward can, occasionally, find things worth standing up for. It's not an attempt to abuse the rules or eek extra points out, it's an attempt to play the character in a believable and organic manner, rather than as a bundle of stereotypes chosen at character creation.

Again, I'm not saying that GURPS forces you into that sort of cliched RP. There's options out there, as fusilier pointed out. It just takes a bit of work, and that can be a deterrent. Easier to stay with the cliche you've chosen at chargen, and harder to deal with it when dramatically and narratively appropriate. That's all.

redlock
2010-03-04, 10:05 PM
Actually, I managed it once as a 100 point character, 45 disads, although this was 3rd ed. I ended up being able to dish out something like 3d6 with Deathtouch (at a cost of 2 fatigue) and a Staff skill of 15. So with 2/3 skill, that gives a base parry of 10 + PD. Now granted, almost all his spells were in the Body Control college, I think he only had one or two that weren't, but that was pretty broke.

Also in 3e, psionics were completely worthless at low levels, and completely broke at high levels. At TK power 20, you could crush a man's head like an egg, make the flesh boil from his bones in one second, or shoot a fist-sized stone super-mach speeds to dish out damage that made a gun look weak. Of course, at power 5, you were doing good to lift a nickle.

Thankfully, psionics have been nerfed.

A D&D Wizard is to a GURPS Mage as a Sorcerer is to a GURPS psi.

Cybren
2010-03-04, 10:06 PM
That's not what I'm saying at all. A real person is not A Coward(tm), they would just be cowardly. But even a coward can, occasionally, find things worth standing up for. It's not an attempt to abuse the rules or eek extra points out, it's an attempt to play the character in a believable and organic manner, rather than as a bundle of stereotypes chosen at character creation.


Then don't get the disadvantage.

GURPS disadvantages are serious things. They are not taken because you kinda think you wanna do that with your character.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-04, 11:00 PM
That's not what I'm saying at all. A real person is not A Coward(tm), they would just be cowardly. But even a coward can, occasionally, find things worth standing up for. It's not an attempt to abuse the rules or eek extra points out, it's an attempt to play the character in a believable and organic manner, rather than as a bundle of stereotypes chosen at character creation.

Again, I'm not saying that GURPS forces you into that sort of cliched RP. There's options out there, as fusilier pointed out. It just takes a bit of work, and that can be a deterrent. Easier to stay with the cliche you've chosen at chargen, and harder to deal with it when dramatically and narratively appropriate. That's all.

Personally I would only do this with a good roleplayer, and resolve this as an in combat disadvantage buy-off. The PC could buy off the trait immediately with an extra plus 5 CP if he roleplayed it well, or if it was sufficiently heroic.
If he justified it well, I would let him go dept with the CP, but it should definitely not be something a player can do every other session.

I think if you really want to change and evolve your character, you should be able to put 5 minutes into talking with your GM about it.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-04, 11:39 PM
Cybren, the problem he is expressing is really, quite simple. It is that the disadvantage stops being a just disadvantage to the character achieving his goals or even to the player achieving his goals. It becomes a disadvantage for the narrative, which would be enhanced if the coward was the one to stand up. That is the problem sonofzeal is bringing up. That by making such choices at character creation, you limit the narrative potential of the game, thereby risking making it less interesting for everyone involved.

Now i am not saying that it would be impossible to work narratively well that the guy could not overcome his cowardice at the moment it was dramatically appropriate. Just that it is a narrative problem if the cowardice strikes at random rather than at appropriate times.

Cybren
2010-03-04, 11:54 PM
Cybren, the problem he is expressing is really, quite simple. It is that the disadvantage stops being a just disadvantage to the character achieving his goals or even to the player achieving his goals. It becomes a disadvantage for the narrative, which would be enhanced if the coward was the one to stand up. That is the problem sonofzeal is bringing up. That by making such choices at character creation, you limit the narrative potential of the game, thereby risking making it less interesting for everyone involved.


If you want to do that then you...



pay the points to get rid of the disadvantage, at the proper moment to make it narratively satisfying

Terraoblivion
2010-03-05, 12:52 AM
Which requires planning or the active favor of the GM. Also it is possible that the character works best narratively as being cowardly in other situations afterwards as well. The problem is that you, the player and one of the authors of the plot, do not get to choose the narratively appropriate times a disadvantage kicks in. Nor does the GM or anybody else, it comes down to chance, that is the problem sonofzeal was refering to and the greatest problem i see with disadvantages no matter how they are handled.

fusilier
2010-03-05, 12:57 AM
Cybren:

Your scenario involving cowardice is a little specific in my opinion, but I would like to describe how I would handle that as a GM. Please read on though, because I don't feel that you would find it satisfactory, and I address that a little further down.

Basically, if you're in a situation where you (i.e. the player), thinks that failing the cowardice roll would be particularly bad, and something that your character would be unlikely to do, then I would first consider other aspects of your character. In an extreme situation, things like Sense of Duty, or Code of Honor, might have mitigating effects on cowardice. I would still require a roll (or I myself might make the roll for you), but there would be some sort of positive modifier based on an evaluation of these other aspects. Depending upon how good the roll is, I may still apply some negative. Even if it's not fleeing, it may be freezing up, until a particular will check is passed, etc.

On the other hand if you felt that your character had advanced sufficiently, that cowardice was something that he could buy off, I would allow it, but probably not in the middle of a session. Furthermore, a good time to buy it off might be after making a critical success or something, which would make sense in the course of play.

Nevertheless, I understand what you are saying -- both of these options removes a degree of control from a player. The player must still roll for the character to see if he runs away at a critical moment, or decide, a priori, when to get rid of a disadvantage. What some of the others are trying to point is out, is that's the entire point of a disadvantage; sometimes it's going to hit you at the worst possible moment, and that may cause the destruction of the whole party (if the GM allows that to happen, I'll typically pull my punches if I've underestimated the party, the players don't seem to notice).

While it's encouraged to act cowardly most of the time with this disadvantage, the roll is there to really enforce when it is for something crucial. I can totally understand some players not liking this aspect, but it is one of the differences between GURPS and D&D that comes down to personal preferences.

fusilier
2010-03-05, 01:13 AM
Which requires planning or the active favor of the GM. Also it is possible that the character works best narratively as being cowardly in other situations afterwards as well. The problem is that you, the player and one of the authors of the plot, do not get to choose the narratively appropriate times a disadvantage kicks in. Nor does the GM or anybody else, it comes down to chance, that is the problem sonofzeal was refering to and the greatest problem i see with disadvantages no matter how they are handled.

I generally agree with what you have to say. The only problem is the part about it coming down to chance as being "problem" with disadvantages.

It's merely a rule for another aspect of the game. If you don't think that that aspect should have randomness, then that's your opinion, but such randomness exists in all RPGs.

You don't *decide* to hit your opponent with your sword, you *roll* to attempt do so. So randomness to decide the outcomes of critical events is there in both GURPS and D&D. Gurps may have more randomness, or randomness at different levels, but chastising it for being random at crucial moments isn't entirely fair.

In D&D you may be able to decide when to run from the opponent in a manner befitting your cowardly character, but you still don't decide the outcome of the subsequent contest, if you decide to stick around. GURPS simply gives one more degree of randomness here. That's not to say it's totally random, and has tons more randomness (just ask most players). In my mind failing a crucial cowardice roll, isn't much different from failing a crucial saving roll, or any "crucial" roll in any system. Like I said, I can certainly see some players not wanting to have to deal with such rolls though.

They do have options in GURPS, to avoid such disadvantages, but that still may not be satisfactory to many.

Yahzi
2010-03-05, 01:19 AM
You want to be a knight who has storng social abilities and can hunt for port?
SO... he took the Alcoholic disadvantage?

:smallbiggrin:

What I llike about GURPS is what my players don't. Namely, that the PCs are people instead of unstoppable killing machines.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-05, 01:43 AM
It is a problem from a narrative viewpoint. Too much randomness, especially single rolls deciding something as big as the reaction a main character has to a specific event, makes telling a coherent story or building the proper dramatic tension harder. So while it might be hugely entertaining, it is a problem if what you focus on is the narrative. So for a narratively focused style of play it is a problem and that was what i was talking about. It just happens that i care more about the narrative than any other part of the game.

Oh and using D&D as the example to explain things to me is not very useful, i haven't played 3.5 in years and not a whole lot of 4e. I prefer systems that actually does have social stats, just without being as heavy handed about it as GURPS disadvantages. Or aren't in general, at least.

fusilier
2010-03-05, 03:08 AM
It is a problem from a narrative viewpoint. Too much randomness, especially single rolls deciding something as big as the reaction a main character has to a specific event, makes telling a coherent story or building the proper dramatic tension harder. So while it might be hugely entertaining, it is a problem if what you focus on is the narrative. So for a narratively focused style of play it is a problem and that was what i was talking about. It just happens that i care more about the narrative than any other part of the game.

Oh and using D&D as the example to explain things to me is not very useful, i haven't played 3.5 in years and not a whole lot of 4e. I prefer systems that actually does have social stats, just without being as heavy handed about it as GURPS disadvantages. Or aren't in general, at least.

Well, the thread is a comparison between D&D and GURPS . . . although my point isn't limited to just D&D.

OK, I see what you are saying, about controlling the narrative, but all that does is change slightly the focus of what I'm saying. Unless you have no randomness in any contest that takes place, then everything I said applies to the narrative.

It doesn't really matter whether or not the narrative is solely being developed by the GM or by some collusion between the GM and players: if a character has the cowardly disadvantage, both GM and player should be prepared for it to fail (or succeed) at a critical juncture, and be able to adjust the narrative accordingly. Likewise you will have to adjust your narrative if you fail to bluff the city guard into letting you through the gates after curfew, get defeated by the evil Prince Humperdinck's retainers, etc.

Unless, you are playing a game with no randomness whatsoever, the narrative is still going to be partly dictated by the dice, and usually at some critical point.

Oh, I just thought of another way to handle that particular situation in GURPS. If the player fails his cowardice roll, I may let him reroll later, before the combat has ended, to see if he rallies himself and returns to the aid of his compatriots. Randomness may provide some interesting opportunities from time to time.

Also, I think we might be over stating this whole issue. GURPS has got a lot different angles it can be worked, not just combat. In the last game I ran, most of the characters would rather avoid combat (had to improvise a bunch after they simply surrendered before the final showdown). So this cowardice situation isn't necessarily overriding, as long as the GM properly constructs the game (or is capable of quickly adapting). The GURPS games I run often have a different, and somewhat less violent, tenor. The breadth of GURPS means a major disadvantage in something like combat, isn't necessarily crippling to your character.

By the way, if you are concerned about GM control over the story, a lot of these rolls are supposed to be made by the GM in secret, giving him the ability to *tweak* results, if it is deemed necessary.

Satyr
2010-03-05, 03:24 AM
I don't want to be mean but a few critique here created the impression in me, that the critiqiues had the basic assumption that Gurps works like D&D, and it really doesn't which disappoints and expaction - and dissappointed expectations are the original source of frustration. Gurps doesnt work like D&D. It works like Gurps, and the criticism is a bit like complaining that your new pet chimp can't eat the leftover eucalyptos leaves of your former koala pet. Other arguments are basically the result of people not knowing the rules and complaining about them. Complaining about rules is okay, not knowing some rules is okay, but the combination of the two is not so okay.


The problem is that you, the player and one of the authors of the plot, do not get to choose the narratively appropriate times a disadvantage kicks in.

Not quite right. You don't have roll to see any of your urges in action; you can act on it whenever you feel like. Likewise, you can spent a CP to automatically succeed in any self-control roll for situations like the "Coward's last stand" in Sonofzeal's scenario.
The gamemaster has usually no way to force you to act out a disadvantage, but he can modify the controll roll like any other roll, if he thinks that the current situation makes this apropriate.
Furthermore, you can also spend CP to temporarily influence the plot in minor ways as a form of player empowerment, if the group likes this approach.



It is a problem from a narrative viewpoint. Too much randomness, especially single rolls deciding something as big as the reaction a main character has to a specific event, makes telling a coherent story or building the proper dramatic tension harder.

Interesting way to take this, but still some kind of a strawman arguement, because the reaction table is clearly described as something you use for random people you meet and whose reactions are not plot-infused. You roll for the random merchant or the guard on the city gate, not for your your key NPC.

Sorry, I didn't want to pick on you, but these are no solid arguements, and they are unfortunately representative for many of the criticisms in this thread.

Townopolis
2010-03-05, 03:29 AM
On the subject of cowardice, one thing I like about GURPS is the ability to boost my Will independently of my Intelligence and then take levels of Fearless on top of that so my brave warrior can be... ya know... brave.

Compare this to another game where said warrior, with his moderate wisdom and poor will progression is more likely than the nerd to run screaming from anything creating a fear effect, mundane or otherwise.

-----

Dealing more specifically with the actual Cowardice disadvantage. I've come across countless times in every single system I've ever played more than thrice where a dramatic moment was, I won't say ruined, but changed by the roll of the dice. This could be that critical attack roll when the barbarian puts everything into one massive swing and prays, it could be a save against fear, it could be almost anything. There are basically two ways you can deal with this when it happens.

1) Let the dice decide. If the barbarian misses, tough cookies. If he hits, go him.
2) Adjudicate it. Even if they don't say as much, all roleplaying systems require some use of the rule that, if something "needs" to happen, it happens. If the barbarian totally earned cleaving the evil incantatrix in half, let him have it - especially if he gave a stirring description, the situation was appropriately heroic, and he generally roleplayed it well. Don't require an attack roll, just cleave that caster in twain. Same with a self control check against Cowardice, if it's appropriate. The GM always has the final say on what happens.

Really, this issue is in no way tied to any system. They all have it.

And, actually, it's up to you to decide if you have an issue with it or not. Having the heroes always kick butt when the butts need kicking is par for the course in most media, but a lot of the most dramatic stories are defined by the heroes not always rising above.

In games, this is most often represented by the threat of death. Yeah, the heroes aren't supposed to die, but they might, and that adds tension and therefore excitement. Law and Order famously doesn't always end well. Sometimes the bad guy gets away, and that puts a genuine question of success in every episode.

Some players aren't ok with having to roll to see what their character does. Some are able to load that roll with the dramatic energy as they throw the dice and hold their breath, waiting to see if Craven Carl rises above or if the fear is too strong in him. I personally cannot have fun in any game where players roll contests of persuade VS will to see whether I or Timmy get to decide what my character does.

GURPS, assuming the GM doesn't adjudicate you roll for the narrative, requires players who find their game enriched by the uncertain outcome of these rolls. Those who don't should either convince their GM that adjudication is a good thing (which it is) or play something else. It doesn't have to be D&D, just something.

Although having a GM who's skilled at explaining failure (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/65/learn-to-explain-failure/) helps a lot.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-05, 03:53 AM
Ummm, the main character i referred to is the cowardly PC. They are the main characters in any and every game that is properly run the PCs are the main characters and if not, then the GM is doing it quite wrong. So if the player is forced to run away by a dice roll it narratively weakens the creative control of both the player and the GM. As for using CP to temporarily override your cowardice and the like, i did not know that was possible, however, it is a major strike in favor of how that system works. I am still not generally fond of mechanical representations of character traits that are enforced that way, but it does a lot to mitigate the problem.

Drascin
2010-03-05, 04:25 AM
Now, I haven't bothered with the dicussion up to now, because I simply do not enjoy GURPS that much, but I felt I should answer to this, since I have the books and I assume Terra doesn't.


Not quite right. You don't have roll to see any of your urges in action; you can act on it whenever you feel like.

Sorry, but that most definitely doesn't seem the basic assumption. Cowardice, to keep with the example, says "Make a self-control roll whenever you are threatened with physical danger. Roll at -5 if you are risking death. If you fail this roll, you refuse to put yourself in danger unless threatened by a greater danger". There are no qualifiers here - the game assumes that whenever you're getting into risk of injury, there exists the chance of you fleeing.

A good GM wouldn't force you to do it always, of course - but that's much the same a good DM would let you try for crazy stuff even without a feat. That is - a sensical, almost necessary houserule, but a houserule nonetheless. And the amount of "Good GMs" around is much, much less than we would like to think :smallfrown:.


Likewise, you can spent a CP to automatically succeed in any self-control roll for situations like the "Coward's last stand" in Sonofzeal's scenario.

Now this, is true. Of course, there are many players for which spending permanent things like CP for a momentary bout of control is a huge mental block. Stuff like action points and Hero Points in other games can be re-earned by doing awesome stuff, so you recoup your by being forced to roleplay even harder. CPs are received only at the end of session and generally in the same amount to everyone - of course, when I ran GURPS I waved that last part away and gave CPs based entirely on merit rather than per session, but that's me being weird :smallbiggrin:.


The gamemaster has usually no way to force you to act out a disadvantage, but he can modify the controll roll like any other roll, if he thinks that the current situation makes this apropriate.

No, but he still has to make you roll unless he's waving it away. And if you fail the roll you're still screwed. So you have to reason with him that it is indeed appropiate to wave the disadvantage away for this one scene, which obviously only works if the DM is someone who you have a lot of trust with, or who sees eye to eye with you - if you don't have that kind of mutual trust and self-understanding , I hope you and him don't have differing views on what that Code of Honor means, or we could be here a while while you two decide. I mean, DMs and players already argue on what something as broad a Chaotic Good means, what can you expect from actual mechanically enforced traits? :smallwink:

So yes, GURPS does force you to be screwed by your disadvantages, and it does give you some way to moderately circumvent them - but, in all honesty, it's still not much to my liking.

Cybren
2010-03-05, 04:32 AM
Sorry, but that most definitely doesn't seem the basic assumption. Cowardice, to keep with the example, says "Make a self-control roll whenever you are threatened with physical danger. Roll at -5 if you are risking death. If you fail this roll, you refuse to put yourself in danger unless threatened by a greater danger". There are no qualifiers here - the game assumes that whenever you're getting into risk of injury, there exists the chance of you fleeing.

The assumption in GURPS is that you generally forgo rolling because you have your character succumb to the disadvantage without it. Rolling is reserved for situations where you want to actually avoid the disadvantage.

ANYWAY: don't take the disadvantage if you don't want it. Not all of them are there for you to take. Unless you really think Cursed or Terminally Ill (one month) looks that good.


Now this, is true. Of course, there are many players for which spending permanent things like CP for a momentary bout of control is a huge mental block. Stuff like action points and Hero Points in other games can be re-earned by doing awesome stuff, so you recoup your by being forced to roleplay even harder. CPs are received only at the end of session and generally in the same amount to everyone - of course, when I ran GURPS I waved that last part away and gave CPs based entirely on merit rather than per session, but that's me being weird

I can understand that. It's very much a psychological thing. But at the same time it is exactly what someone that is looking for having "narrative significance" wants. And you aren't any less powerful. You get to spend your points when, and only when, you actually need them.

Satyr
2010-03-05, 04:50 AM
Disadvantages are disadvantages because they limit your freedom of choice. That's the one common factor. And, that requires that they are not under the control of the player and only active from time to time. That's... weaksauce. True men (and true women, and true furry creatues from Betageuze) stand to their drawbacks and face them like... true men (or true women, or true furry creatues from Betageuze).

A coward is someone who acts out of irrational fear.
And you want that the players have the rational control about their character's irrational fears and urges?

Do I need to point out why this approach has its problems?


From my personal perspective, players should be forced to play out their characters, one way or the other. If you do not play out your character appropriately, you are doing something wrong, and it is the gamemaster's task to polite readjust the character'ss direction again. The more helpful the rules are in this regard, the better, and the Gurps rules offer a very fair mechanism in form of the Self-Control Rolls, that mediate between the consequnce of the the game world and the control of the player (it's important to mention that a failed self-control roll does not change that the player is in control; it only means that the activated trait plays a significant influence in the situation, but how the character reacts under this influence is again up to the player).
The verisimilitude of the character and by extension aof the whole setting is always more important than the willfullness of any individual player.

If you just want to play a character who runs away when he thinks it's appropriate, you take the corresponding quirk "Puts a lot of emphasis on his personal safety" and play it for laughs.


Sorry, but that most definitely doesn't seem the basic assumption. [...]There are no qualifiers here - the game assumes that whenever you're getting into risk of injury, there exists the chance of you fleeing.

Sorry, if I did not made it clearenough: What I meant is, if you want your character to act on any disadvantage, you don't need to roll, you just go with it. The self-control roll comes only into play if ou try to surpress the urge. That's why it's called self-control.


Stuff like action points and Hero Points in other games can be re-earned by doing awesome stuff, so you recoup your by being forced to roleplay even harder. CPs are received only at the end of session and generally in the same amount to everyone - of course, when I ran GURPS I waved that last part away and gave CPs based entirely on merit rather than per session, but that's me being weird .

Yeah, there is little more unfair than treating everybody the same. The thing is, You use the CP to influence the situation only in desperate times as some kind of last chance, not on a regular base. And if you want to be a really, really benevolent Gamemaster (which I try to compensate my innate mean-spiritedness), you could treat CP's used like this as rates for the reduction of the disadvantage over time, or just give out a few more CP than usual and tell your players that you expect them to use them to pull their balls out of the fire from time to time. That's again an issue of the group in question and their prefered ways of running the game, not so much a question of the rules.


No, but he still has to make you roll unless he's waving it away. And if you fail the roll you're still screwed.

I still don't see why this is per se bad.


So yes, GURPS does force you to be screwed by your disadvantages, and it does give you some way to moderately circumvent them - but, in all honesty, it's still not much to my liking.

And there is nothing wrong with it. Don't liking something is a much better argument than trying to "proove" that something is bad, because you don't like it. I think the Gurps rules are very elegant, very accurate and a very, very good example of good game design. but in fact, I don't play it very often. Whn I just want to homebrew things, I take the Unisystem, which might not be as comfortable in this regard, but which is a lot easier to bend to my whims. When I usually play, I play the Dark Eye, because, well I grew up with it and despite all its oh so very obvious flaws, it still feels like home. Personal preference has not much to do with actual quality, and if more people could live with the fact that their own opinion is usually just that - an opinion - and not the last and most accurate assessment ever, the world would be a slightly better place.

Jayabalard
2010-03-05, 08:55 AM
Even if I can boost the roll, I'm still having personality development dictated to me by the dice, and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.Not at all; you're having personality development dictated to you by the choice you made during character creation, specifically: taking coward as a disadvantage rather than as a quirk (or as a mild phobia: specific sorts of dangerous situations that is worth less points than coward).


Either RP is interwoven with the rules (GURPS), or it isn't (D&D). That's not really accurate; the roleplay is overwoven in the rules of D&D (codes of conduct, alignment restricts, etc). And in GURPS, you as the character get to choose exactly how tightly roleplay is interwoven with the rules, based on your advantage/disadvantage choices.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-05, 10:46 AM
Not at all; you're having personality development dictated to you by the choice you made during character creation, specifically: taking coward as a disadvantage rather than as a quirk (or as a mild phobia: specific sorts of dangerous situations that is worth less points than coward).

That's not really accurate; the roleplay is overwoven in the rules of D&D (codes of conduct, alignment restricts, etc). And in GURPS, you as the character get to choose exactly how tightly roleplay is interwoven with the rules, based on your advantage/disadvantage choices.

Except it's done poorly in d&d. I haven't met a single person who has actually liked the alignment system. Not minded it sure, but never liked it.

Jayabalard
2010-03-05, 04:09 PM
Except it's done poorly in d&d. I haven't met a single person who has actually liked the alignment system. Not minded it sure, but never liked it.I like it ... I agree that there are problems with it but that's not enough to make me not like it.

Tyndmyr
2010-03-05, 04:14 PM
I like it ... I agree that there are problems with it but that's not enough to make me not like it.

I agree with this statement. It's a good general system. The only problem is when people try to make it extremely specific, in a way it was never really meant to do, or when DMs are trying to screw over paladins. In the vast majority of actual play, it works just fine.

PinkysBrain
2010-03-05, 04:22 PM
That's not really accurate; the roleplay is overwoven in the rules of D&D (codes of conduct, alignment restricts, etc).
A really small subset of characters ... also it doesn't directly force in character decisions on the PC, it just ties consequences to them. A subtle difference. Dunno about GURPS, but in storyteller I feel like my character is under a mind control spell, all the time.

Jayabalard
2010-03-05, 04:51 PM
A really small subset of charactersIt's not really that small;


also it doesn't directly force in character decisions on the PC, it just ties consequences to them.That depends a lot on people in particular playing... it's not uncommon to hear someone say that they were told something like "a lawful person wouldn't do that, so you can't do that particular action."

Nor do mental disadvantages in GURPS really have anything to do with in-character decisions... they're things that you as a player choose that are beyond your character's ability to make decisions about. You don't decide to have a panic attack because of the spider, your character's unreasoning fear (phobia: spiders) controls them and forces them to do so. There's no in-character decision involved, any more than there is when your enemy decides to show up, or to not be able to walk due to not having any legs, or being born a woman in a society that treats them as second class citizens, etc.

That's why you get points for them, because you as a player have chosen to add something to your character that is beyond the character's control. If that's not what you want, then then don't choose that disadvantage, choose it as a quirk, or hang onto enough character points so that you can buy it off at a dramatically appropriate moment.

fusilier
2010-03-05, 06:31 PM
That's why you get points for them, because you as a player have chosen to add something to your character that is beyond the character's control. If that's not what you want, then then don't choose that disadvantage, choose it as a quirk, or hang onto enough character points so that you can buy it off at a dramatically appropriate moment.

Not entirely. With mental disadvantages as pointed out above, a player may always choose to act in accordance with the disadvantage. This is typically considered "good roleplaying" and should be rewarded. A silly example of cowardice would be if somebody walks into the room and slams a large book down on a table. A player with a cowardly character, may decide on his own that the noise is startling and his character dives for cover behind the couch! No roll is needed, and it is unlikely that the GM would have even considered asking for one. It's usually when the player wants his character to overcome the mental disadvantage that a roll is required (or the GM determines that the situation requires a roll). This is going to vary from player to player and GM to GM.
---EDIT---
You are right though, it is not supposed to be under the "character's" control and it will not always be under the player's control either. If they don't want that, they can take a quirk (like "pretends to be a coward"), or something like that.
-----------

Again, the system works out pretty well for most people. I think there are a lot of people who have only ever played D&D, and attempt to understand all RPG's in that framework. I've seen people argue all these points and others before, and eventually, after playing the game for a while (it took several games) some of them performed a total 180 on their opinion of D&D vs. GURPS.

Saph
2010-03-05, 06:49 PM
I think there are a lot of people who have only ever played D&D, and attempt to understand all RPG's in that framework. I've seen people argue all these points and others before, and eventually, after playing the game for a while (it took several games) some of them performed a total 180 on their opinion of D&D vs. GURPS.

Hate to break it to you, but I played GURPS before I played D&D. :smalltongue: And DMed GURPS as well, as a matter of fact.

While I enjoyed playing GURPS, I've no desire to go back to it. Mechanically, D&D characters tend to be more interesting than GURPS ones - since D&D is so much more specialised than GURPS, it doesn't need to have a system that works for a modern or cyberpunk or sci-fi or historical game, and it uses that extra space to give you a vast amount of options for the specific type of game that it does (namely, combat-heavy fantasy with lots of races and monsters).

With hindsight, the most entertaining thing about GURPS was the Disadvantage system. It tends to encourage a party of absolute psychotics. Leads to hilariously dysfunctional groups, but can be quite amusing. :smallsmile:

PinkysBrain
2010-03-05, 07:01 PM
You don't decide to have a panic attack because of the spider, your character's unreasoning fear (phobia: spiders) controls them and forces them to do so. There's no in-character decision involved
It's just a matter of severity ... trepedation, fear, phobia ... there are other emotions with levels of severity say ... like, admiration, love which arise during the campaign and should really be able to oppose them if strong enough.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-05, 07:08 PM
@Saph

Can I ask which version(s) of GURPS and D&D you are talking about here? I'm also interested to know more about what you prefer in D&D.

Saph
2010-03-05, 07:10 PM
@Saph

Can I ask which version(s) of GURPS and D&D you are talking about here? I'm also interested to know more about what you prefer in D&D.

D&D 3.5, and GURPS . . . 3rd edition, I think? It was about 8 years ago, so whichever edition of GURPS was the standard back in the early 2000s.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-05, 07:31 PM
D&D 3.5, and GURPS . . . 3rd edition, I think? It was about 8 years ago, so whichever edition of GURPS was the standard back in the early 2000s.

Well GURPS 4e came out in 2004, so 3rd edition sounds right then. That could mean that (like my D&D knowledge) your GURPS experience is out of date :smallsmile:

Saph
2010-03-05, 07:35 PM
Could be, but from what I've heard the fundamental mechanics of GURPS haven't changed much from 3e to 4e. How would you summarise the differences?

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-05, 08:38 PM
Could be, but from what I've heard the fundamental mechanics of GURPS haven't changed much from 3e to 4e. How would you summarise the differences?

Although I have 3rd edition books, I've never played it, so my testimony may be a bit skewed. While much of the fundamentals don't seem to have changed, it's not just the core mechanics that might vary from edition to edition, but also the supplemental support. However, I will try and list some of the changes...

Attributes - the four core attributes are still there, but there have been some changes to how they work. Attribute point costs are now flat-rate, so racial templates will no longer give a point break. Some stats are now priced higher than others, due to what they control: ST and HT are 10 pts/level, IQ and DX are 20 pts/level. Secondary attributes based off these basic four have also been defined - these can also be tweaked up or down, of course (I believe that some of these were optional adv/disadvantages in the previous compendiums, but they are now "core"). HP is now based on ST, rather than HT. FP is based on HT.

Mental Disadvantages - these now have their own separate Control number, which is adjustable (and cost is scaled accordingly), and is no longer tied to IQ or Will. This avoids point crocks, and also allows the individual disadvantages to be stronger/weaker than each other, according to the design of the PC.

Techniques (formerly "manoeuvres" from the old martial arts edition) - these are now in the core rules, and apply to all skills, rather than just combat ones.

PD (Passive Defence) - no longer exists (yay!), and has been replaced by a flat bonus. This makes nimble swashbucklers and ninja-types much more feasible without armour. Shields still give a bonus to active defences though, just not armour worn.

Deceptive Attack - this is a core rule (though admittedly it could perhaps have been better emphasised). It is an important option to deal with an opponent who has high defences, which I have seen a few times as a complaint of something that was "broken" in the previous edition.

Parry - is always 1/2 of skill. However, some weapons give additional bonuses, or advantages depending on how they are used.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-05, 11:25 PM
Also, many mechanical oddities/exploits were fixed, and vehicles no longer make you want to tear your hair out!

Satyr
2010-03-06, 02:40 AM
Mechanically, D&D characters tend to be more interesting than GURPS ones - since D&D is so much more specialised than GURPS, it doesn't need to have a system that works for a modern or cyberpunk or sci-fi or historical game, and it uses that extra space to give you a vast amount of options for the specific type of game that it does (namely, combat-heavy fantasy with lots of races and monsters).

This actually left me dumbfounded. I don't think that I could agree less with any of this.
First of all, D&D shoehorns characters into neat little boxes of stereotypes and clichés, called classes. This is the opposite of interesting. Sure, you can make it work anyway, but when it comes to averages, I think the idea that D&D characters are even nearly as multidimensional, well-rounded or differentiated as Gurps characters, is just plain laughable and obviously not true. Period. This is not even a matter of different opinions. It's just like claiming that white is darker than black.

Secondly specialisation in a system is not a good thing. It's hideboundness. The rules should always follow the inner logic and verisimilitude of the setting, not vice versa. Every setting has his own specific traits and ideas and it is always better to adjust the rules to the setting at hand than forcing your setting into a corset of existing rules.

Thirdly, D&D tends to bore me to hell, especially when it comes to what it supposedly do best: combats. They are predictable, grinding and utterly repretitive, basically a tedious repetition of Move and Attack, or don't move and attack a bit more often, with a few charges and tripping attempts thwon in for good measures.
How could anyone in his right mind could think that this is in anyway equal to the dynamic, fast, tension- and surprise-heavy Gurps combats?

Saph
2010-03-06, 04:34 AM
How could anyone in his right mind could think that this is in anyway equal to the dynamic, fast, tension- and surprise-heavy Gurps combats?

Our GURPS combats weren't dynamic, weren't surprise-heavy, and weren't tense. They basically came down to "Move up to enemy. Roll to hit. Hit. Do lots of damage. Enemy dies. Surviving enemies hit back." By contrast, D&D combats tend to be much more varied and much more interesting - the character I'm playing at the moment has the better part of fifty viable combat options. It was a common complaint of the players in our GURPS group that there really wasn't much they could do with their PCs. RP-wise, the group was very entertaining, but mechanically the characters were dull.

Advancement was also painfully slow. Book rules stated that we got somewhere between 0 and 5 CPs per session. As a result it took forever to make any significant improvement on our primary skills.


Thirdly, D&D tends to bore me to hell

. . . What makes you think I would consider this relevant?

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-06, 05:03 AM
Our GURPS combats weren't dynamic, weren't surprise-heavy, and weren't tense. They basically came down to "Move up to enemy. Roll to hit. Hit. Do lots of damage. Enemy dies. Surviving enemies hit back."

This strongly suggests to me that your group wasn't making full use of the system. You don't seem to have been playing to the strength of GURPS at all. Now, I'm certainly not accusing of BadWrongFun if you were enjoying what you were doing at the time, but it does seem that you were missing out on a core benefit somehow.


Advancement was also painfully slow. Book rules stated that we got somewhere between 0 and 5 CPs per session. As a result it took forever to make any significant improvement on our primary skills.

Well firstly, as you're no doubt aware, the "standard" number of GURPS points results in characters more complete than what D&D might consider "1st level". This means that there is less emphasis on "advancement", as there is less need for it. That said, you do know that the CP awards in the rules are just guidelines, right? If your group want a game with faster advancement, then the GM can award more points.

Saph
2010-03-06, 05:24 AM
This strongly suggests to me that your group wasn't making full use of the system. You don't seem to have been playing to the strength of GURPS at all. Now, I'm certainly not accusing of BadWrongFun if you were enjoying what you were doing at the time, but it does seem that you were missing out on a core benefit somehow.

Thing is, with the basic GURPS 3e rules, one hit from a good-sized melee weapon is generally enough to kill/cripple someone. Why use complicated tactics when just walking up and hitting them has a good chance of taking them out of the fight in one shot? Fights were generally decided in one or two rounds, by whoever brought the most force to bear (although luck was also a big factor).

Also, it's all very well to say that we weren't playing to the strength of GURPS, but if all of us could read the rulebook (as we did, multiple times) and not grasp these extra concepts you're alluding to, I think that this is at least partly an issue with the game, or at least the book layout. It's asking a bit much to expect an expert GURPS GM to be around whenever you want to run a game.


Well firstly, as you're no doubt aware, the "standard" number of GURPS points results in characters more complete than what D&D might consider "1st level". This means that there is less emphasis on "advancement", as there is less need for it.

I'm not sure I can agree with you here. Having your character advance and grow is fun, regardless of how complete or incomplete the character is. When characters advance at a glacial pace (as ours did), it takes out one of the sources of fun.


That said, you do know that the CP awards in the rules are just guidelines, right? If your group want a game with faster advancement, then the GM can award more points.

Sure, but the GM can change anything. The point is that the default growth rate in GURPS is much slower than D&D.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-06, 07:58 AM
Why use complicated tactics when just walking up and hitting them has a good chance of taking them out of the fight in one shot?

Because GURPS allows much more than just "stand and hit". Because if you fail, then you're at risk of being put down in one blow yourself. Because fights aren't "fair" and sometimes the PCs might have the advantage of strength of numbers or firepower, but sometimes they won't. Because maximising your situational advantages is important, in order to weigh the result as heavily in your favour as possible. Because if the PCs are outnumbered, then getting themselves surrounded is a very bad idea. Because grabbing the big bad from behind, so that your colleague can smash him in the face without reprisal is fun! :smallsmile:


Also, it's all very well to say that we weren't playing to the strength of GURPS, but if all of us could read the rulebook (as we did, multiple times) and not grasp these extra concepts you're alluding to, I think that this is at least partly an issue with the game, or at least the book layout. It's asking a bit much to expect an expert GURPS GM to be around whenever you want to run a game.

Well, maybe it's a change in the editions. I don't know. I'm certainly no expert GM myself. I will say that the rules are all in there. Sometimes it took a while to find them if I was looking something up that the player wanted to try during actual play, sure, but that's what an index is for.


I'm not sure I can agree with you here. Having your character advance and grow is fun, regardless of how complete or incomplete the character is. When characters advance at a glacial pace (as ours did), it takes out one of the sources of fun.

I can appreciate how level advancement can be fun. I have found it fun myself in the past. However, I would say that in regards to "advance and grow", GURPS is more about character growth from a personal and story narrative, and less about pure advancement in power that is emphasised in level-based RPGs.

Actually, this is probably a good point we're discussing, as it relates to the title question. It wasn't one of the immediate considerations in my mind when I first read the OP, but it is an important distinction in the outlook of the two games. That makes it potentially useful info for those wanting comparison advice.


Sure, but the GM can change anything. The point is that the default growth rate in GURPS is much slower than D&D.

Certainly. I guess my point was "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". If this was someone's only objection to the system while other parts of it appeal to them, then it's a non-issue that is easily resolved, and the game tells you as much in the rulebook.

Saph
2010-03-06, 08:20 AM
I can appreciate how level advancement can be fun. I have found it fun myself in the past. However, I would say that in regards to "advance and grow", GURPS is more about character growth from a personal and story narrative, and less about pure advancement in power that is emphasised in level-based RPGs.

Actually, this is probably a good point we're discussing, as it relates to the title question. It wasn't one of the immediate considerations in my mind when I first read the OP, but it is an important distinction in the outlook of the two games. That makes it potentially useful info for those wanting comparison advice.

Certainly. I guess my point was "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". If this was someone's only objection to the system while other parts of it appeal to them, then it's a non-issue that is easily resolved, and the game tells you as much in the rulebook.

Not quite. Short story coming up:

When we started our GURPS campaign, we played 100 point characters, which in practice meant 145 point characters, since everyone maxed out on Disadvantages and Quirks. I think by the time we'd finished we had three with Bad Temper, two with Bloodlust, two Paranoids, one Pyromaniac, two Megalomaniacs, two with Berserker, three characters with Major Delusions, and one character who'd taken Odious Personal Habits . . . three times. (One of which was 'loud tuneless humming'. Which he acted out. It was kind of amusing, actually.) But I digress.

To begin with, the GM used a reasonably fast advancement system, giving out around 7-10 CPs to each character per session, meaning that the fighters could improve their primary skills relatively often and the mages could save up for the expensive stuff. So the characters would have doubled in power after about 15-20 sessions, which is reasonable. Until . . . the GM noticed the guidelines in the rulebook, and started following them. Which cut the advancement rate to about one-third of what it had been, making it so slow that it was almost unnoticeable.

Guidelines in books matter. In the absence of a good reason to do otherwise, GMs will generally follow the book rules. Hence, it's not a non-issue - as the fact that it was an issue in our game should prove. :smallsmile:

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-06, 08:39 AM
Not quite. Short story coming up:

When we started our GURPS campaign, we played 100 point characters, which in practice meant 145 point characters, since everyone maxed out on Disadvantages and Quirks. I think by the time we'd finished we had three with Bad Temper, two with Bloodlust, two Paranoids, one Pyromaniac, two Megalomaniacs, two with Berserker, three characters with Major Delusions, and one character who'd taken Odious Personal Habits . . . three times. (One of which was 'loud tuneless humming'. Which he acted out. It was kind of amusing, actually.) But I digress.

To begin with, the GM used a reasonably fast advancement system, giving out around 7-10 CPs to each character per session, meaning that the fighters could improve their primary skills relatively often and the mages could save up for the expensive stuff. So the characters would have doubled in power after about 15-20 sessions, which is reasonable. Until . . . the GM noticed the guidelines in the rulebook, and started following them. Which cut the advancement rate to about one-third of what it had been, making it so slow that it was almost unnoticeable.

Guidelines in books matter. In the absence of a good reason to do otherwise, GMs will generally follow the book rules. Hence, it's not a non-issue - as the fact that it was an issue in our game should prove. :smallsmile:

Thank you for the short story. This explains why your group is better suited to playing D&D. Part of me would like everyone to try GURPS in the hope that they will have an epiphany similar to how I felt. However, I have to accept that players or GMs similar to the group in your example, are probably better off sticking to a game (such as D&D) that has more rigidly enforced structures. :smallsmile:

That said, there is of course now the Dungeon Fantasy (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/dungeonfantasy/) line for GURPS 4e, which might be ideal for some.

a_humble_lich
2010-03-06, 02:29 PM
The correct choice of game really depends on the players involved and what they want from the game, and switching to different games really requires a switch of mindset. By default D&D is really good at being a game. It is designed with balance as a primary factor, and rules for simplicity and fun rather than realism.

GURPS on the other hand is designed with realism as a primary factor by default. The system encourages players to make rounded individuals. Even the magic and psi systems have very self consistent rules and a more "realistic" feeling than D&D (in my opinion).

A a third choice, White Wolf games tend to focus more on telling a story over either realism or being a game...

What is better? It really depends what you are looking for. D&D is very good at being a game. It is fun. For many people that is the most important thing. However, other people want more realism in games, or want to have games which focus on areas other than slaying monsters. I get the feeling there are many very knowledgeable people in the "Real World Weapons and Armor" thread who can't get over the complete unreality of D&D. And the balance in D&D depends a lot on the GM and campaign style--a fighter in a game of court intrigue where nobody every draws a weapon would be far less "powerful" than a rogue.

Now just because that is the primary focus of a system doesn't mean it can't be changed. GURPS has all sorts of rules for more cinematic games. There is more than one house rule which tries to make D&D more realistic. Ultimately, good games can be played with any system; some choices might require more work.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-06, 06:12 PM
@a_humble_lich

That all seems very sensible. I was hoping to more from the OP on what he was looking to GURPS to do, and thereby get a better feel whether it is suitable for his needs. I am biased in favour of GURPS, but I try to be objective :smallredface:

@rezplz

Not sure if anyone's suggested this to you, but I'll mention the free GURPS Lite (http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG31-0004) in case you weren't already aware :smallsmile:

Mike_G
2010-03-06, 07:48 PM
We tried GURPS, and I really didn't care for it.

My experience, much like Saph's, involved a group of Bloodthirsty, Colorblind, Alcoholic, Pyromaniac, Berserkers with body odor and poor impulse control to max out the points from Disadvantages, so kinda like the Dirty Dozen if Maggot were the stable one. Add to that, I feel the one second rounds actually slow down combat, since you can do less in each round.

I found the damage multipliers for piercing and slashing weapons, while they seemed like a good idea, actually rewarded using weapons wrong. In GURPS you are better off to stab the naked guy for the higher multiplier for the damage that armor doesn't stop, and slash the guy in light armor, for the higher base Swing damage, to overcome his DR. Whereas, in real life, a slash is worse against armor than a thrust, but more likely to disable an unarmored man. So the claims of "realism" don't work for me. "Complexity that sounds like realism but isn't" is how I found it.

I enjoyed the flexibility of character creation, and I wanted to like the game, I really did, but as a group we just didn't enjoy it at all.

Bucky
2010-03-06, 09:03 PM
If you play with powergamers, go with a "GM must approve all mental disadvantages beyond the first" rule. The GM then shoots down any combinations like a delusional berserker with acute pseudophobia (random disadvantages that don't work together) while allowing stuff like Bad Temper, Overconfidence and Impulsiveness (aka the Leeroy Jenkins package). Even if you don't do that, GM approval is required for certain disadvantages anyway.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-03-06, 09:22 PM
If you play with powergamers, go with a "GM must approve all mental disadvantages beyond the first" rule. The GM then shoots down any combinations like a delusional berserker with acute pseudophobia (random disadvantages that don't work together) while allowing stuff like Bad Temper, Overconfidence and Impulsiveness (aka the Leeroy Jenkins package). Even if you don't do that, GM approval is required for certain disadvantages anyway.

So all characters are subjected to DM approval to be deemed "sensible", possibly at the cost of very interesting characters which the DM could not immediately see the sense in? Quite seriously asking, I'm not sure how well this would work. The fact that there are disadvantages which do not require DM approval suggests that they shouldn't need to be checked over.

I've only looked over the GURPS lite rules (which led to me being much less irritated with one poster who was constantly recommending GURPS. Partially because I realised that it looked okay, but wasn't for me (no magic in the lite rules). Partially because I realised where they got their writing style from. An exclamation mark every paragraph is a lot more funny when you realise that it's copying a rulebook in that respect). Not for me but it seemed like it would handle non-magical settings well, particularly more gritty ones.

Bucky
2010-03-06, 09:59 PM
So all characters are subjected to DM approval to be deemed "sensible", possibly at the cost of very interesting characters which the DM could not immediately see the sense in?

No, the players just need to be able to convince the GM that they can RP all those disadvantages at the same time.



I've only looked over the GURPS lite rules (which led to me being much less irritated with one poster who was constantly recommending GURPS. Partially because I realised that it looked okay, but wasn't for me (no magic in the lite rules). Partially because I realised where they got their writing style from. An exclamation mark every paragraph is a lot more funny when you realise that it's copying a rulebook in that respect). Not for me but it seemed like it would handle non-magical settings well, particularly more gritty ones.

Where GURPS really shines is in crossover/time travel campaigns. Few other systems let your time-travelling wizard interact with your friends' superhero and detective characters in an almost-balanced manner.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-03-06, 10:04 PM
No, the players just need to be able to convince the GM that they can RP all those disadvantages at the same time.

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you.

a_humble_lich
2010-03-06, 10:10 PM
I think GURPS really more realistic games well. For low powered fantasy it is nice because character can start out able to do things but don't get to the world shattering levels. I personally really like it for modern games. I have a higher expectation of realize in modern setting because I'm more familiar with the setting, and class systems often seem contrived (why can't I play a scientist who know kung-fu--I have personal friends like that).

But again a lot of it depends on the GM, players, the dynamic in the group, and what people are looking for. I really like the White Wolf games too, but they also only work in certain groups. And D&D is a great game, but I think it does poorly outside of high fantasy. And I think D&D encourages powergaming. The character creation/advancement system seems to encourage the mentality of "how can I become more powerful powerful" whereas (hopefully) GURPS characters should be created with the mentality of "what would this person be good at." However, avoiding the powergamer mentality can be hard for some people/groups

As far as disadvantages goes, they can be abused by munchins/powergamers. How much of a problem that is depends a lot on the group. When I was younger my group saw no problem with a party of mute midget pyromaniacs. And GURPS is not alone wanting DM approval for characters. If I were running a 3.5 campaign I would demand approval before players used anything outside of the core rules.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-06, 10:39 PM
I think GURPS really more realistic games well. For low powered fantasy it is nice because character can start out able to do things but don't get to the world shattering levels. I personally really like it for modern games. I have a higher expectation of realize in modern setting because I'm more familiar with the setting, and class systems often seem contrived (why can't I play a scientist who know kung-fu--I have personal friends like that).

But again a lot of it depends on the GM, players, the dynamic in the group, and what people are looking for. I really like the White Wolf games too, but they also only work in certain groups. And D&D is a great game, but I think it does poorly outside of high fantasy. And I think D&D encourages powergaming. The character creation/advancement system seems to encourage the mentality of "how can I become more powerful powerful" whereas (hopefully) GURPS characters should be created with the mentality of "what would this person be good at." However, avoiding the powergamer mentality can be hard for some people/groups

As far as disadvantages goes, they can be abused by munchins/powergamers. How much of a problem that is depends a lot on the group. When I was younger my group saw no problem with a party of mute midget pyromaniacs. And GURPS is not alone wanting DM approval for characters. If I were running a 3.5 campaign I would demand approval before players used anything outside of the core rules.

More like d&d just doesn't do anything but high fantasy w/o lots of houserules, but yeah, I think GURPS is generally better for a realistic game. Even though it can also do high fantasy, people generally already have something they like from another high fantasy game (namely d&d about 90% of the time) and compare it too that. I also feel that D&D has more optimization because you work within the class to accomplish something, and many choices are so clearly better than others. In GURPS, you have very little to compare to for power level, and the game is much less combat focused, leaving characters who specialize too much being useless at other times. I am also not saying you can't optimize in GURPS, but a newbie who builds his character may have less synergy between his abilities, but will still be very viable (this does take into account that GURPS is generally harder to play because of the sheer number of options at your disposal).

I find that GURPS does tend to break down after about 500 points without heavy GM control (now what system does that sound like? hmm...)
On the other hand, I have seen people playing gods and it seemed to be going extremely well, and looked very fun. (although it was only a campaign log so I can't say what was actually happening at the table.)

I tell players that if your character seriously makes sense, and you really want to roleplay him you can, as long as you are taking disadvantages for a roleplaying reason. (Because a paranoid wizard with almost no social experience because of his extremely sheltered childhood and thinks his staff can talk to him is actually pretty cool)

fusilier
2010-03-07, 05:51 AM
We tried GURPS, and I really didn't care for it.

My experience, much like Saph's, involved a group of Bloodthirsty, Colorblind, Alcoholic, Pyromaniac, Berserkers with body odor and poor impulse control to max out the points from Disadvantages, so kinda like the Dirty Dozen if Maggot were the stable one. Add to that, I feel the one second rounds actually slow down combat, since you can do less in each round.

I found the damage multipliers for piercing and slashing weapons, while they seemed like a good idea, actually rewarded using weapons wrong. In GURPS you are better off to stab the naked guy for the higher multiplier for the damage that armor doesn't stop, and slash the guy in light armor, for the higher base Swing damage, to overcome his DR. Whereas, in real life, a slash is worse against armor than a thrust, but more likely to disable an unarmored man. So the claims of "realism" don't work for me. "Complexity that sounds like realism but isn't" is how I found it.

I enjoyed the flexibility of character creation, and I wanted to like the game, I really did, but as a group we just didn't enjoy it at all.

Hehe :-)

Admittedly, this does sound like some of my early experiences with GURPS -- a lot of players seem to just be fascinated by all the crazy disadvantages that they can take. However, over a fairly short time, I found this became less of an issue, once I started to ask serious questions about how they intended to play their characters. It probably helped me that my games tend to be more realistic so I could always point out to my players that their characters will shortly end up in jail or a mental institution and they'll be out of the game. ;-)

Yeah, there seems to be a certain mindset to playing GURPS effectively, that not everybody shares. In my experience my group has generally come around, and seem to be able to avoid making really crazy characters.

As for realism in combat. You have to admit that this is a matter of degrees? Compared to D&D where you simply roll against AC and if you hit, your opponent merely takes general damage. At least in GURPS you can cripple arms, etc. I see your specific complaint, and it's something I've wondered about. I think that the reason they gave impaling weapons a damage bonus has to do with the fact that such weapons can typically penetrate deeper into the target and damage more vital areas. What I've been told, however, is that these wounds, while deadly, usually take some time to kill their opponent.

Also, I think some "impaling" weapons actually have an armor divisor, which would make them a bit better at getting through armor. That might be more common in fourth edition. Does anybody else know? Typically you can put more force behind a swing, so it makes sense that they do more damage. Realistically piercing weapons are typically better at getting through armor though . . .

@Saph:
Yeah, sounds like your group's approach isn't really suited for GURPS. While I don't consider the differences between 4th and 3rd to be that great (I still run 3rd), they claim that 4th edition's rule book is better laid out.

As for combat, well that's actually one of the things I don't like about D&D. Combat has gotten way too detailed. And the detail isn't realistic, or really centered around tactics (although it could be argued that it is in an oblique fashion -- many people seem to use the word "tactics" around here to mean something that I wouldn't necessarily call tactics). Instead it seems to be a large number of different attacks with a bewildering array of different effects and varying amounts of damage. All seemingly done for game purposes alone, without any real link to how such weapons might be used in the real world.

GURPS combat has been helped, in my experience, by using the appropriate rules for the type of combat. I don't think I expressed that well. I used to find combat fairly boring too (although not much different than 2nd ed. AD&D), but then I started to pay attention to certain rules, and found it could be "spiced up" in certain ways that really helped. Most of those rules were in the base rule book (some are in Compendium II). Which rules I focus on depends upon the nature of the combat: tommy guns and pistols, or daggers and broadswords?

Trying to figure out which subset of the rules you need use is not for everybody, and I can understand people not caring for this system. But once I figured it out, I think it turned out pretty fun. Also, GURPS doesn't seem so combat heavy. More opportunities for puzzles and mysteries to be solved, and the *characters* having skills to help them out in those areas.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-07, 06:56 AM
So all characters are subjected to DM approval to be deemed "sensible", possibly at the cost of very interesting characters which the DM could not immediately see the sense in? Quite seriously asking, I'm not sure how well this would work. The fact that there are disadvantages which do not require DM approval suggests that they shouldn't need to be checked over.

I wanted to also try and answer this, if I may.

The issue is that GURPS, in attempt to be both "generic" and "universal" is designed differently than games such as D&D with more limited scope. Because it is intended for GURPS to be able to support a wide range of play-styles/settings/genres/etc, it includes traits in the core rules which won't be suitable for every campaign. That is unavoidable. However, there are 3 ways to deal with the "potential problem" of players creating unsuitable PCs.

- 1) The GM can create lists of all the "allowed" and "dis-allowed" traits for their campaign, and provide these to the players during chargen. Some GMs would use this opportunity to also create sub-lists of "recommended" and "allowed, but perhaps less-useful" traits as well, as an additional aid to PC creation.

- 2) The players can use templates to generate their PCs. For comparison, templates are functionally similar to character classes. This can definitely help players new to the system that might otherwise feel overwhelmed. Templates can be found in published settings, and some other GURPS supplements. Realistically though, for a homebrew setting, or one adapted from another ruleset, wanting to use templates means that the GM is going to have to create some of their own.

Either of those two options front-loads the prep work on the GM, which leads us to the third option...

- 3) The GM can use their power of veto or "rule zero" to disallow a PC design that they believe is unworkable. Obviously, this comes in varying flavours, from GMs just saying "NO!" to saying "No, because..." or "How about this trait instead?"

Ultimately, there is nothing "wrong" in the GM taking option 3. It just switches their work-load from "pre-chargen preparation" to "during-chargen editing". That might appeal to the lazy GMs amongst us, but of course is perhaps more likely to engender disgruntled players.

I suppose there are two more options, really. Either...

- 4) Some combination of the above, because even with option 1 or 2, the GM might occasionally still need to exercise that "rule zero".

Or finally...

- 5) None of the above. The results are likely to be unsatisfactory. This option is the "default rule" in the sense that, if the GM does neither prep-work on what PC traits/types are suitable, nor checks the PCs during or after chargen, then this is what will happen.

In conclusion, the risk of unsuitable PCs is perhaps a risk in any game system. Indeed, I understand that DMs will usually restrict what character classes, races, or sourcebooks outside the core three rulebooks of D&D are allowed. Really, this problem in GURPS is no different, fundamentally speaking. It's just that the GURPS Basic Set has so much more scope in possible traits, that the GM has extra work and responsibility that go along with that extra control and flexibility that the ruleset provides.

I hope that helps put it into context, and wasn't too rambling :smallsmile:

Oslecamo
2010-03-07, 08:22 AM
As for realism in combat. You have to admit that this is a matter of degrees? Compared to D&D where you simply roll against AC and if you hit, your opponent merely takes general damage. At least in GURPS you can cripple arms, etc. I see your specific complaint, and it's something I've wondered about. I think that the reason they gave impaling weapons a damage bonus has to do with the fact that such weapons can typically penetrate deeper into the target and damage more vital areas. What I've been told, however, is that these wounds, while deadly, usually take some time to kill their opponent.

Yes, but like the GURPS suporters themselves pointed out, it's more effecient to just shoot your enemy with a pistol than to try any fancy maneuver.



As for combat, well that's actually one of the things I don't like about D&D. Combat has gotten way too detailed. And the detail isn't realistic, or really centered around tactics (although it could be argued that it is in an oblique fashion -- many people seem to use the word "tactics" around here to mean something that I wouldn't necessarily call tactics). Instead it seems to be a large number of different attacks with a bewildering array of different effects and varying amounts of damage. All seemingly done for game purposes alone, without any real link to how such weapons might be used in the real world.

Perhaps because D&D isn't tryint to replicate the real world. It's trying to replicate high fantasy where you certainly are not using common weapons or even fighting common enemies.

For example, in the campaign I'm currently running, my party faced with a boss couple. First it demanded assaulting their fortress and carefully use line of sight and creating obstacles to keep the enemy mooks separated, and even intimidating one of them to change sides.

The party's dragon then smashed trough walls to create new paths and suprise the enemy rear, retreating quickly when they tried to swarm him, wich would in turn expose the mooks to the rest of the party area effects.

Eventualy, they faced the bosses. After some blows traded, the boss tried to escape flying, at wich point the party used tricks to slow them down.

Finally, the wizard teleported all the party to surround the bosses and managed to land a spell to drasticaly lower the strenght of one of them, making it fall since he couldn't keep himself flying anymore. This triggers attacks of oportunity from all the party to send the boss crashing down to his death. The other boss escaped with some tricks but everyone agreed it was a quite epic battle with plenty of tactics applied.

It just happens that when you're a wizard able to easily twist reality, a cleric of the sun, a barbarian with a thunder sword, a robot with psionic powers and a dragon, facing against corrupted flying angels with plenty of special powers of their own, "real world" tactics don't really mean that much to you. You create your own tactics.



Trying to figure out which subset of the rules you need use is not for everybody, and I can understand people not caring for this system. But once I figured it out, I think it turned out pretty fun. Also, GURPS doesn't seem so combat heavy. More opportunities for puzzles and mysteries to be solved, and the *characters* having skills to help them out in those areas.

I've also seen plenty of combat light D&D games, where players focus on solving puzzles and/or politic, investigation and intrigue. And plenty of classes offer out of combat utility. Just look at the wizard's spell list. Half of the stuff there has plenty of out of combat uses.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-07, 09:31 AM
Yes, but like the GURPS suporters themselves pointed out, it's more effecient to just shoot your enemy with a pistol than to try any fancy maneuver.

I'm not sure of the point that you're trying to make. :smallsmile: You might miss with the pistol. Your enemy might see you first. You might walk into a trap or an ambush. You might put your enemy down right enough, but get killed by a bullet from one of his bodyguards. One could just as easily say that it is more efficient to shoot your enemy from half a mile away with a sniper rifle. It all depends on the situation.


Perhaps because D&D isn't tryint to replicate the real world. It's trying to replicate high fantasy where you certainly are not using common weapons or even fighting common enemies.

D&D has lots of things taken from the "real world". Shouldn't those things normally have the properties that one might expect? Otherwise, why include them?

Take a broadsword and shield, for example. Are you saying that such weapons aren't "common" in D&D? Surely a fighter with such weapons should be able to use them in a way that makes sense in the "real world"?


For example, in the campaign I'm currently running,
[snip]

The other boss escaped with some tricks but everyone agreed it was a quite epic battle with plenty of tactics applied.

I'm not sure what this example proves. You could do the same in GURPS, or many other game systems.


It just happens that when you're a wizard able to easily twist reality, a cleric of the sun, a barbarian with a thunder sword, a robot with psionic powers and a dragon, facing against corrupted flying angels with plenty of special powers of their own, "real world" tactics don't really mean that much to you. You create your own tactics.

Are you playing D&D, or RIFTS? :smallwink: No matter. Of course, someone with super-human or super-natural powers/abilities/magic/etc is not going to be as constrained by mundane tactical considerations as a person without those powers. The same would be true if you were using GURPS as your system.


I've also seen plenty of combat light D&D games, where players focus on solving puzzles and/or politic, investigation and intrigue. And plenty of classes offer out of combat utility. Just look at the wizard's spell list. Half of the stuff there has plenty of out of combat uses.

Sure, sure. But I'm not clear what your point is. It seems that you were just saying that D&D was designed for gaming with a different sort of focus.

Mike_G
2010-03-07, 10:44 AM
Hehe :-)

It probably helped me that my games tend to be more realistic so I could always point out to my players that their characters will shortly end up in jail or a mental institution and they'll be out of the game. ;-)

Yeah, there seems to be a certain mindset to playing GURPS effectively, that not everybody shares. In my experience my group has generally come around, and seem to be able to avoid making really crazy characters.


I'm sure a group who wanted to exercise restraint could do so, but to me, it seemed to me that given more build points in exchange for being an Impulsive Bloodthirsty Pyromaniac meant that the bigger a DM nightmare the PC was, the more powerful he was.

I hate having to hand out in game punishment, like the city guard hauling the PC's off to jail when they mug their prospective employer instead of take the job, since I feel it detracts from the planned "resuce the princess from the evil necromancer's tower" mission.

I want to DM heroic fantasy, not Ted Bundy meets the Wild Bunch.




As for realism in combat. You have to admit that this is a matter of degrees? Compared to D&D where you simply roll against AC and if you hit, your opponent merely takes general damage. At least in GURPS you can cripple arms, etc. I see your specific complaint, and it's something I've wondered about. I think that the reason they gave impaling weapons a damage bonus has to do with the fact that such weapons can typically penetrate deeper into the target and damage more vital areas. What I've been told, however, is that these wounds, while deadly, usually take some time to kill their opponent.

Also, I think some "impaling" weapons actually have an armor divisor, which would make them a bit better at getting through armor. That might be more common in fourth edition. Does anybody else know? Typically you can put more force behind a swing, so it makes sense that they do more damage. Realistically piercing weapons are typically better at getting through armor though . . .

I understand why they thought higher base damage for a swing makes sense, and why they thought impaling weapons have a better chance to inflict a fatal wound. But in actual play, it works out backwards. You can slash the armored guy, and the Swing damage will probably overcome his armor where as the thrust damage might very well not. You should stab the unarmored guy, since all your damage will be doubled from the stab. This is bass-ackwards. In real life, mail would be harder to cut through, so you should stab him to defeat his armor. That said, a thrust takes a while to drop a guy, so if he isn't armored, you should slash him, since even a non fatal cut will sever muscles and blood vessels and expose a crapload of nerve endings and probably disable him far quicker that the eventually deadly stilleto in the spleen.

Just letting piercing weapons reduce armor value would have done a better job, and been simpler.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-07, 11:00 AM
I understand why they thought higher base damage for a swing makes sense, and why they thought impaling weapons have a better chance to inflict a fatal wound. But in actual play, it works out backwards. You can slash the armored guy, and the Swing damage will probably overcome his armor where as the thrust damage might very well not. You should stab the unarmored guy, since all your damage will be doubled from the stab. This is bass-ackwards. In real life, mail would be harder to cut through, so you should stab him to defeat his armor. That said, a thrust takes a while to drop a guy, so if he isn't armored, you should slash him, since even a non fatal cut will sever muscles and blood vessels and expose a crapload of nerve endings and probably disable him far quicker that the eventually deadly stilleto in the spleen.

Just letting piercing weapons reduce armor value would have done a better job, and been simpler.

But that is exactly what happens! For any armor where that would actually factor in (like chain mail in your example), armor has say a base DR of 8 vs stuff like cutting, and a lower DR of like 3 or 4 against other types of damage (namely, impaling).

So your thrust will actually work better against the guy with chain mail.

Mike_G
2010-03-07, 12:07 PM
But that is exactly what happens! For any armor where that would actually factor in (like chain mail in your example), armor has say a base DR of 8 vs stuff like cutting, and a lower DR of like 3 or 4 against other types of damage (namely, impaling).

So your thrust will actually work better against the guy with chain mail.

Perhaps we were using it wrong, but my recollection is that the damage was multiplied, not the armor value reduced. Which gave totally wrong results. I don't remember different armor values against different damage types.

Unless this is a newer edition change, or in the fantasy supplement.

Although, if it's only certain armors, that still doesn't work, since it's easier to stab through cloth or leather than cut through it, and even plate is more vulnerable to a thrust in a joint or gap than a slash. Pretty much any armor should be less effective against a thrust than a cut, and flexible armor should be weak against bludgeoning. Harnmaster gave every armor type different values for different damage types.

I just remember that it offended my sense of realism, when the system was touted as being more realistic.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-07, 12:42 PM
On the matter of weapons vs armour in GURPS, there are separate factors which may be being confused, as well as (IIRC) a difference in the editions regarding armour stats.

Weapons can have both different base damage (depending on whether the attack is a thrust or swing), and different damage multipliers (depending on the type of wound caused, such as crushing or impaling).

Armour can have a split DR rating, though many types don't (at least in 4e). For example, a mail shirt in fourth edition has DR 4/2, which is DR 2 against crushing attacks, DR 4 against everything else. This was a change over the previous edition, where mail was weaker against impaling attacks. I believe the change was actually made for realism reasons, because, actually, impaling attacks such as stabbing swords aren't all that good at getting through mail. There will be additional reform of armour stats for increased realism/accuracy in the upcoming Low Tech release (they have an historical armour expert among the authors for the new book).

Just to confirm how it works, armour DR is subtracted from weapon base damage. If any damage gets through the armour, it is multiplied according to the wound type (x1 for crushing, x1.5 for cutting, x2 for impaling, etc). Hit locations may well change the wounding multiplier (such as x3 for impaling attacks to vitals).

Some weapons in GURPS also have an armour divisor as well as their other properties (such as bodkin arrows). This will reduce the effectiveness of the armour worn (halving it, for example) and can add an additional layer of confusion to the discussion. That said, there is some debate as to the actual historical accuracy of "armour piercing" arrows, so that may indeed be updated in Low Tech as well.

Hope that helps :smallsmile:

Oslecamo
2010-03-07, 04:34 PM
I'm not sure of the point that you're trying to make. :smallsmile: You might miss with the pistol. Your enemy might see you first. You might walk into a trap or an ambush. You might put your enemy down right enough, but get killed by a bullet from one of his bodyguards. One could just as easily say that it is more efficient to shoot your enemy from half a mile away with a sniper rifle. It all depends on the situation.

My point is that if you run into an ambush/miss/trap/bodyguard, then fancy maneuvers still won't do you any good.

At least when the pistol works, it works. If you do a fancy shooting at the hand to disarm the oponent, a lot more stuff can go wrong, like the oponent running away to get reinforcments. Or round house kick you because since you just shooted his hand, he isn't crippled.



D&D has lots of things taken from the "real world". Shouldn't those things normally have the properties that one might expect? Otherwise, why include them?

It's very little stuff compared to the magic high fantasy stuff. You're using mundane equipment for 2-3 levels, then it's magic town all the way to epic and beyond.



Take a broadsword and shield, for example. Are you saying that such weapons aren't "common" in D&D? Surely a fighter with such weapons should be able to use them in a way that makes sense in the "real world"?

And they do. The shield makes him harder to hit by physical attacks. The sword slices and dices.

But then you're fighting enemies that are anything but common. A shield offers little protection against a dragon breath, an acid fog, an incorporeal shaddow. Thus a shield isn't that hot in D&D.

Similarly, such enemies have their own custom protections, from dragon scales to earth crusts and unholy souls, so D&D gets a lot streamlining for simplicity's sake. This is, have you ever tried to stab trough a dragon's scales? An earth elemental? Or a damned soul? Just call it natural armor and let the players slice and dice.

If you're using ToB, you even care less about the weapon you're using, and can impale enemies with teddy bears!



I'm not sure what this example proves. You could do the same in GURPS, or many other game systems.

D&D does it better than everybody else. You would need a butload of points, GM fiat and customization to replicate the above situation in GURPS.:smallwink:



Are you playing D&D, or RIFTS? :smallwink: No matter. Of course, someone with super-human or super-natural powers/abilities/magic/etc is not going to be as constrained by mundane tactical considerations as a person without those powers. The same would be true if you were using GURPS as your system.

Not really. GURPS is so constrained by realism that you would need to rework the system from the base to fit high fantasy. Sure there's some alternate rules and splatbooks, but then why don't just buy the D&D books wich were made specificaly for it?



Sure, sure. But I'm not clear what your point is. It seems that you were just saying that D&D was designed for gaming with a different sort of focus.

My points:
-D&D is focused on high fantasy, wich is basicaly "Screw realism!".
-D&D is just as combat-focused as you want it to be.
-D&D characters can be roleplayed as well as characters of any other system.
-Finally, While not being point-buy, D&D offers you a LOT of options on a silver plater and ready to use, while in something like GURPS you'll need a butload of work and time to try to replicate the same high fantasy things. Not just for the players, but the DM as well. I couldn't see myself trying to stat something like a true dragon with SLAs, feats sorceror casting and whatnot in GURPS.

Bucky
2010-03-07, 04:42 PM
Perhaps because D&D isn't tryint to replicate the real world. It's trying to replicate high fantasy where you certainly are not using common weapons or even fighting common enemies.

For example, in the campaign I'm currently running, my party faced with a boss couple. First it demanded assaulting their fortress and carefully use line of sight and creating obstacles to keep the enemy mooks separated, and even intimidating one of them to change sides.

The party's dragon then smashed trough walls to create new paths and suprise the enemy rear, retreating quickly when they tried to swarm him, wich would in turn expose the mooks to the rest of the party area effects.

Eventualy, they faced the bosses. After some blows traded, the boss tried to escape flying, at wich point the party used tricks to slow them down.

Finally, the wizard teleported all the party to surround the bosses and managed to land a spell to drasticaly lower the strenght of one of them, making it fall since he couldn't keep himself flying anymore. This triggers attacks of oportunity from all the party to send the boss crashing down to his death. The other boss escaped with some tricks but everyone agreed it was a quite epic battle with plenty of tactics applied.

It just happens that when you're a wizard able to easily twist reality, a cleric of the sun, a barbarian with a thunder sword, a robot with psionic powers and a dragon, facing against corrupted flying angels with plenty of special powers of their own, "real world" tactics don't really mean that much to you. You create your own tactics.


The only thing in that sequence that would be out of place in a high-point GURPS campaign is the mass teleport, which isn't a core spell.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-07, 05:04 PM
The only thing in that sequence that would be out of place in a high-point GURPS campaign is the mass teleport, which isn't a core spell.

Actually, for the kind of mad, include everything, "World of Synnibarr" style high-power game, I'd definitely not limit the wizard to the default spells-as-skills mechanic but build some or all of the abilities as advantages. GURPS Powers and/or GURPS Thaumatology would help with this, but even with only the core Basic Set, you could reproduce a magical mass teleport ability easily enough: off the top of my head, I'd say use the Warp advantage, probably with the Extra Carrying Capacity, Mana-Sensitive, and Reliable modifiers.

a_humble_lich
2010-03-07, 05:31 PM
Yes I think there are few people here who would say GURPS is better at D&D for high fantasy. You can do it, and there exist people who would rather use GURPS, but I sure wouldn't recommend it to new players. But if you want to run a campaign where the PCs aren't gods (or will become gods) D&D starts to have problems.

As for combat focus, D&D is definitely very combat focused. It is quite possible to have games without combat, but you'd have to reconsider a lot of balance. In a campaign that focused on court intrigue the rogue would be much more useful than a fighter. Also, you'd have to rework how you award experience if people aren't defeating monsters. Now this is not to say you can't do this, but it will require extra work, and you may run across unexpected wrinkles. Just like you can run GUPRS at high fantasy power levels, but it will require more work.

I personally think the D&D character generation system makes a lot of role-playing harder. Yes you have a lot of options, but as somebody else said often there is only a small range in levels where you can actually play the character you want. And GURPS does make a player spend time to think about who their character is, and what they should do, not just what they can do. A D&D player can do the same, but you're not rewarded in game for it.

And if you think it would require a buttload of work to stat a true dragon in GURPS, just imagine how much work you'd need to stat a balanced Space Marine in D&D. And yes you could do it, and if you are very familiar with D&D it wouldn't be too hard, but similarly someone who is familiar with GUPRS could give you your dragon.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-07, 06:37 PM
And if you think it would require a buttload of work to stat a true dragon in GURPS, just imagine how much work you'd need to stat a balanced Space Marine in D&D. And yes you could do it, and if you are very familiar with D&D it wouldn't be too hard, but similarly someone who is familiar with GUPRS could give you your dragon.

GURPS Dragons has more templates than you could ever need, almost (for both 3rd and 4th edition GURPS in the one book). GURPS Banestorm even has a few. :smalltongue:

Here, for a dragon PC at the "default" starting power-level of 150 CP, we could use the Young Dragon template from Banestorm and still have 17 CP to customise with, before taking any disadvantages:

Young Dragon [133 points]

Basic Attributes
ST 18 (No fine manipulators, -40%; Size, -10%) [40]
DX 11 (No fine manipulators, -40%) [12]
IQ 11 [20]
HT 13 [30]

Secondary Characteristics
SM +1 (4-hex creature, weighing between 500-800 lbs.)
FP 15 [6]
Per 13 [10]
Basic Speed 5 [-20]

Advantages
Burning Attack 1d (Breath; Costs 2 FP; Jet; Range 5) [4]
Crushing Striker (Tail; Long, +1 SM; Cannot Parry) [8]
Damage Resistance 2 (Can't Wear Armour; -40%) [6]
Extra Legs (Four legs total) [5]
Flight (Winged, -25%) [30]
Magery 3 [35]
Metabolism Control 2 [10]
Nictitating Membrane 2 [2]
Reputation ("noblest of the scaled ones"; +1 among reptile men) [1]
Sharp Claws [5]
Sharp Teeth [1]
Unaging [15]

Disadvantages
Dependency (Mana, Very Common, Constantly) [-25]
Horizontal [-10]
Loner (15) [-2]
No Fine Manipulators [-30]
Reputation ("cave horror, worst of gold thieves"; -2 among dwarves) [-5]
Social Stigma (Monster) [-15]

This 20 year old dragon can fly, breathe fire, use its tail as a weapon, as well as its claws and teeth. Its scales are already as tough as heavy leather armour, and it is as good at casting spells as almost any wizard.

Those remaining 17 points can be spent on skills and/or spells. I would probably start with Brawling, to make full use of the tail, claws and teeth (at DX+2 [4] to also get the damage bonus), and Innate Attack (Beam) for the flame breath. Additional skills/spells/advantages can be afforded by customising the dragon with a few quirks and a unique mental disadvantage to give it personality and make it different from other dragons of that age.

Of course, that dragon is at the default GURPS power level. I suppose we could consider it an LA +1 dragon in D&D terms :smallwink:
For an actual high-level game, from 250 points upwards, just start with a larger dragon template.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-07, 06:52 PM
My point is that if you run into an ambush/miss/trap/bodyguard, then fancy maneuvers still won't do you any good.

At least when the pistol works, it works. If you do a fancy shooting at the hand to disarm the oponent, a lot more stuff can go wrong, like the oponent running away to get reinforcments. Or round house kick you because since you just shooted his hand, he isn't crippled.

It is true that if you want to kill someone with a pistol, you generally won't be using crazy maneuvers, (unless it's a cinematic game, in which case the players could be shooting 4 different enemies as they backflip down a flight of stairs) but if you want to shoot someone in the kneecaps, or the head you can. Most maneuvers come into play when you are using swords or martial arts.

Also, in a modern society the players generally don't want to kill to people. Nobody likes going to jail.



D&D does it better than everybody else. You would need a butload of points, GM fiat and customization to replicate the above situation in GURPS.:smallwink:


Not really. GURPS is so constrained by realism that you would need to rework the system from the base to fit high fantasy. Sure there's some alternate rules and splatbooks, but then why don't just buy the D&D books wich were made specificaly for it?

It's called Dungeon Fantasy & Fantasy. Two splatbooks, and all your high fantasy needs are met. I'd say it's a good deal compared to the dozens of splatbooks most d&d players have.



My points:
-D&D is focused on high fantasy, wich is basicaly "Screw realism!".
-D&D is just as combat-focused as you want it to be.
-D&D characters can be roleplayed as well as characters of any other system.
-Finally, While not being point-buy, D&D offers you a LOT of options on a silver plater and ready to use, while in something like GURPS you'll need a butload of work and time to try to replicate the same high fantasy things. Not just for the players, but the DM as well. I couldn't see myself trying to stat something like a true dragon with SLAs, feats sorceror casting and whatnot in GURPS.

1. Sure, this is fact.
2. Now this is just ridiculous. Sure you can run D&D without combat, but it is clearly what the system was designed for in huge way.
3. Sure, roleplaying is non-system specific. I mean, people free-form without any rules.
4. Like I said before, Dungeon Fantasy, Fantasy, and Banestorm meets all your character's needs. Sure the abilities won't be exactly the same, but that's not the point. If you really want the dragon to have those exact SLA's you're right, play d&d. Generally though, it doesn't matter to people.

(although truth be told, that is the one thing i'd like to see more of in GURPS, Creatures of the Night style monster compendiums.)

a_humble_lich
2010-03-07, 07:06 PM
And if anyones interesting here are GURPS stats for a large, very powerful dragon. While not an exact translation of the D&D version I feel this keeps the spirit of the creature


Big mean dragon
1000 pts

ST 300/20, DX 14, IQ 17, HT 13/34

move: 7/ 30 flying
claws: 31d cutting
bite: 15d cutting

Advantages
Breath Fire 8d (takes 5s recharge), Armour: DR 10 PD 3, penetrating call, striker(tail), claws, sharp teeth, full coordination, immune to fire, winged flight, super flight, alertness +5, darkvision, faz sense (vibration sense), unaging, magery 3, filthy rich

Disadvantages
horizontal, monstrous appearance, bad temper, bully, sadism, OPH: eats people, bloodlust, overconfidence, inconvenient size, bad grip, increased life support (eats much more than a human)

skills
brawling 17, flying 14, survival(mountains) 17, tracking 17, area knowledge 19, occultism 17, thaumaturgy 19, tactics 15, poetry 16, sculpture 13, chess 17, history 15, literature 15, intimidate 17, orkish 16, elvish 16, common 16, dwarven 16

spells (all at 17)
lend HT, lend ST, recover ST, minor healing, major healing, light, continual light, darkness, shapeshift(human), sense foes, sence emotion, fear, terror, panic, apportation, missile shield, seek earth, shape earth, shape stone, earth to stone, flesh to stone, earth vision, earthquake, ignite fire, create fire, summon demon, banish

This is 3e, using only the Basic Set, Compendium I, and GURPS Magic. (If I were using it in a game I would use some house rules to reduce his Strength , because I don't like the point values for high ST in 3e, the compendium, or 4e.) And yes, a 1000pt being is very powerful and not for a PC, but it's a bleeping dragon!

And I think it took me more time to figure out the spoiler tags than to stat him :smallsmile:

fusilier
2010-03-07, 08:44 PM
When I made the comment about D&D having too much detail in combat that doesn't seem to be based upon the real world -- I was referring to 4e. I probably should have made that clear. The plethora of various powers/abilities, combined with feats is just frustrating to me. In GURPS all the skills/ad/disads/ describe my character, whereas powers and feats in D&D don't really describe the character, except in a narrow combat sense (typically) which is hard to tie back into something that might actually make sense to me. (Why does this one attack do 3 times normal damage, and why can only use it once per day?) As a result, I feel like I've done a bunch of work, to make a very complicated chess piece. :-(

D&D 3.5 has a bit more detail in non-combat skills, and not the depth of detail in combat abilities compared to D&D 4e. I think what I said is still basically true though, just that the differences are not as severe.

Mike_G:
What I've found is the mindset of how you approach character design is typically different in GURPS. You don't look at the various ads/disads/skills and pick which ones to add to your character, instead, you think of a character and find the ads/disads/skills that make sense for him. That's a simplified way of how I typically make my GURPS characters. I've actually made characters that were under the allowed points -- as crazy as that sounds.

That approach probably isn't for everybody though.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-07, 09:07 PM
I've actually made characters that were under the allowed points -- as crazy as that sounds.

That approach probably isn't for everybody though.

But not spending your full points allowance doesn't necessarily mean you lose out. Those unspent points can just be saved for later :smallsmile:

Mike_G
2010-03-07, 09:15 PM
What I've found is the mindset of how you approach character design is typically different in GURPS. You don't look at the various ads/disads/skills and pick which ones to add to your character, instead, you think of a character and find the ads/disads/skills that make sense for him. That's a simplified way of how I typically make my GURPS characters. I've actually made characters that were under the allowed points -- as crazy as that sounds.

That approach probably isn't for everybody though.

I honestly believe that if I played GURPs for a while, the novelty of playing an impulsive bloodthirsty pyromaniac drug addict with scabies would wear off and the party would start to look more normal, but for me as a DM, it was a nightmare, because people wanted to play their disadvantages, and the more awful they were, the more of a bull in a china shop threat they were to everything in the setting, the more points they had to spend on the ability to resist the city guard.

And I really didn't find the combat to be anything to write home about. Not more fun than D&D, less realistic than other systems. Ok, but not worth the headache.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-07, 09:19 PM
I honestly believe that if I played GURPs for a while, the novelty of playing an impulsive bloodthirsty pyromaniac drug addict with scabies would wear off and the party would start to look more normal, but for me as a DM, it was a nightmare, because people wanted to play their disadvantages, and the more awful they were, the more of a bull in a china shop threat they were to everything in the setting, the more points they had to spend on the ability to resist the city guard.

Mike, you do realise that just because all those disadvantages exist in the rulebooks, doesn't mean that you have to allow them, right?

Mike_G
2010-03-07, 10:14 PM
Mike, you do realise that just because all those disadvantages exist in the rulebooks, doesn't mean that you have to allow them, right?

Oh, I'm aware of it, it's just that for the brief, tiny time we played, that was what everyone found most fun, choosing disadvantages.

I dislike the whole concept, as it seems like rewarding people for being awful. I can wrap my head around physical disadvantages, if you want to play a blind character, or a one handed gunslinger, that's interesting, and worth a few points for the obvious mechanical penalties you will have, but "Bloodthirsty" isn't a disadvantage for a guy who kills people for a living. Nor is "Impulsive." Heck, those are traits I'd look for if I were recruiting for a band of Vikings.

If GURPS character generation was just pointbuy, with no psychological disadvantages, or at least, you could play a pedophile, but you wouldn't gte more points of it, I'd probably like the game better, and I don't think it would hurt it any.

Ogremindes
2010-03-07, 10:35 PM
Not really. GURPS is so constrained by realism that you would need to rework the system from the base to fit high fantasy. Sure there's some alternate rules and splatbooks, but then why don't just buy the D&D books wich were made specificaly for it?

So your next campaign can be, say, in a modern gangland setting and you don't need to learn a new system?

Cybren
2010-03-07, 11:39 PM
I dislike the whole concept, as it seems like rewarding people for being awful. I can wrap my head around physical disadvantages, if you want to play a blind character, or a one handed gunslinger, that's interesting, and worth a few points for the obvious mechanical penalties you will have, but "Bloodthirsty" isn't a disadvantage for a guy who kills people for a living. Nor is "Impulsive." Heck, those are traits I'd look for if I were recruiting for a band of Vikings.

One of the reasons disadvantages exist is specifically to encourage genre play. That is, getting lots of points to play a one eyed veteran swordmaster or a bloodthirsty beserker. That said, traits are only worth points (positive or negative) if they are relevant to the campaign. If a disadvantage is never disadvantageous, it's a 0-point feature. If you have Warp (Magical), but play in a no-mana campaign world, it's a 0-point feature (or probably a delusion).

GURPS is a great game, but one of the legitimate complaints against it does put extra work on the GM (as an aside, I find running GURPS as a whole easier than remembering to set up treasure parcels in D&D 4E. Man I hate those things)


Not really. GURPS is so constrained by realism that you would need to rework the system from the base to fit high fantasy. Sure there's some alternate rules and splatbooks, but then why don't just buy the D&D books wich were made specificaly for it?

This isn't true at all. At all. GURPS uses reality as a benchmark, not much else. The assumption is you're playing heroic adventurers. It's just that in GURPS you're playing heroic adventurers in one of many different time periods or places. You want to play "high fantasy" in GURPS? Use magic, advantages, and rules that support that. All of which are found in the basic set. You want more detail? Get books like GURPS Magic or Thaumatology (expands the spell list and adds alternate magical systems respectively), GURPS Martial Arts (for more detailed, brutal, or cinematic combat at your leisure), or Powers (Build an extremely wide variety of abilities using mostly the traits in the basic set, and add some more modifiers and advantages to cover the few gaps). If you want a set of class templates with defined niches, supporting genre play, get Dungeon Fantasy.

As an aside, I find calling D&D "high fantasy" disingenuous. D&D is D&D fantasy, and not much else. Most high fantasy in fiction would be hard pressed to be represented by D&D.

a_humble_lich
2010-03-08, 12:55 AM
As an aside, I find calling D&D "high fantasy" disingenuous. D&D is D&D fantasy, and not much else. Most high fantasy in fiction would be hard pressed to be represented by D&D.

I agree. If you wanted to have a Lord of the Rings style campaign or one based on Greek mythology or one based on Amber or Lloyd Alexander or Camelot you would have to put a lot of work in--making new races (I think Tolkien's elves should be at least LA +2), making a new magic system (I can think of at most two "fireballs" in all of those). If you want to play D&D outside of a D&D setting you will need some rule tweaking.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-08, 03:32 AM
Oh, I'm aware of it, it's just that for the brief, tiny time we played, that was what everyone found most fun, choosing disadvantages.

Well, in that case (you actually had fun doing so at the time), then I'm certainly not going to tell you that you shouldn't play the game that way. What I will say though, is that isn't how the game is designed to be played, so don't judge the whole system solely on that play-style alone.


I dislike the whole concept, as it seems like rewarding people for being awful.

The system rewards players for designing (and RPing) characters that will seem more like interesting, believable, real people - rather than just mobile collections of kewl powerz. Players are expected not to abuse this trust by being munchkin about it. The GM is expected to exert sensible control.

If you all had fun not playing the game with the same assumptions, then great. But again, don't judge the system unfairly if it seems sub-optimal because of it.


I can wrap my head around physical disadvantages, if you want to play a blind character, or a one handed gunslinger, that's interesting, and worth a few points for the obvious mechanical penalties you will have, but "Bloodthirsty" isn't a disadvantage for a guy who kills people for a living. Nor is "Impulsive." Heck, those are traits I'd look for if I were recruiting for a band of Vikings.

If GURPS character generation was just pointbuy, with no psychological disadvantages, or at least, you could play a pedophile, but you wouldn't gte more points of it, I'd probably like the game better, and I don't think it would hurt it any.

Like Cybren just said, GURPS character generation requires extra work from the GM. It's the trade-off for all that versatility. :smallsmile: If I may refer back to something I said earlier, I went into some detail here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8026906&postcount=144).

Oslecamo
2010-03-08, 11:07 AM
I agree. If you wanted to have a Lord of the Rings style campaign or one based on Greek mythology or one based on Amber or Lloyd Alexander or Camelot you would have to put a lot of work in--making new races (I think Tolkien's elves should be at least LA +2), making a new magic system (I can think of at most two "fireballs" in all of those). If you want to play D&D outside of a D&D setting you will need some rule tweaking.

Except that neither of your examples are high fantasy. They're low fantasy. Hardly any magic from the heroes part. And you're fighting what, orc warriors? One large giant? A bunch of humans with pointy sticks? A manticore or a medusa at worst as the BBEG? They're not higher than CR7. The party would just be level 3-4. A fireball would indeed be a rare thing from the players. Low level works perfectly fine for that stuff.

Plus, tolkien elves are simply elves with several class levels in D&D, since they've spent hundreds of years honing their skills and such. Tolkien elves don't just burst out of the ground singing ballads. They train centuries for that, and humans who managed to spend several decades training would be able to match their skills. So just give them levels of expert/rogue. Now they're super crafter/singers! Then you've got sturdy bad-mannered dwarves, versatile humans and brave sneaky halflings with an extra resistance to fear and bad effects right in the PHB:smallwink:

Fhaolan
2010-03-08, 11:19 AM
Except that neither of your examples are high fantasy. They're low fantasy. Hardly any magic from the heroes part. And you're fighting what, orc warriors? One large giant? A bunch of humans with pointy sticks? A manticore or a medusa at worst as the BBEG? They're not higher than CR7. The party would just be level 3-4. A fireball would indeed be a rare thing from the players. Low level works perfectly fine for that stuff.

Wow. LotR being labeled as low fantasy. Obviously the term 'High Fantasy' has changed recently.

I normally don't like linking to Wikipedia, but I think this is reasonably appropriate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-08, 11:28 AM
Wow. LotR being labeled as low fantasy. Obviously the term 'High Fantasy' has changed recently.

I normally don't like linking to Wikipedia, but I think this is reasonably appropriate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy

No no no! You've got it all wrong! High Fantasy isn't that! It's using my +5 full plate mithril demon armour and my +10 flamethrower bazooka wand to fight an evil undead warlord who does nothing except wait for me to arrive to take his stuff with the help of my teleporting dragon and our robot friend with psychic powers. That's High Fantasy! :smallwink:

Mike_G
2010-03-08, 11:50 AM
Well, in that case (you actually had fun doing so at the time), then I'm certainly not going to tell you that you shouldn't play the game that way. What I will say though, is that isn't how the game is designed to be played, so don't judge the whole system solely on that play-style alone.

The system rewards players for designing (and RPing) characters that will seem more like interesting, believable, real people - rather than just mobile collections of kewl powerz. Players are expected not to abuse this trust by being munchkin about it. The GM is expected to exert sensible control.

If you all had fun not playing the game with the same assumptions, then great. But again, don't judge the system unfairly if it seems sub-optimal because of it.


OK, kids, daddy's going to work. Don't eat any of the chocolate cake in the fridge. And stay out of the liquor cabinet and don't touch daddy's gun that he left on the coffee table.

If the book has a whole big damn chapter that says not only is there a rule for playing a sociopath, they get more points for doing so, it's hard to put all the blame on the DM.

Sure, I could say "You can't take any disadvantages that make you a ****head." But I could also say "We're playing D&D. But no magic, ok?"

Anything with a whole chapter in the book is kinda expected as part of the game. I don't like the feel that the mental disads bring to the game in the same way you can not like the feel that magic item dependency brings to D&D. Sure, you can DM around it, but then it's not really the same game.




Like Cybren just said, GURPS character generation requires extra work from the GM. It's the trade-off for all that versatility. :smallsmile: If I may refer back to something I said earlier, I went into some detail here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8026906&postcount=144).

I like the versatile point buy, and I get having a value for mechanical disadvantages that make you slower or give you penalties to attacks, or skills or whatever, but I think roleplaying should be just that. If you want to roleplay an unstable psycho, fine, but I don't think the rules should reward it. And I don't want to come off like a kindergarten teacher when I have to remind the players to share nice, and use their words not their fists when dealing with the barmaid.

warmachine
2010-03-08, 12:59 PM
Anything with a whole chapter in the book is kinda expected as part of the game. I don't like the feel that the mental disads bring to the game in the same way you can not like the feel that magic item dependency brings to D&D. Sure, you can DM around it, but then it's not really the same game.
In GURPS, the entire chapter on tactical combat, for example, is considered optional. The idea that anything in the core book is kinda expected is not a GURPS philosophy, as shown by the official Trait Sorter (http://www.sjgames.com/gameaids/gurps/sorter/). Steve Jackson Games expects the GM to forbid anything he doesn't like.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-08, 01:02 PM
OK, kids, daddy's going to work. Don't eat any of the chocolate cake in the fridge. And stay out of the liquor cabinet and don't touch daddy's gun that he left on the coffee table.

If the book has a whole big damn chapter that says not only is there a rule for playing a sociopath, they get more points for doing so, it's hard to put all the blame on the DM.

Sure, I could say "You can't take any disadvantages that make you a ****head." But I could also say "We're playing D&D. But no magic, ok?"

Anything with a whole chapter in the book is kinda expected as part of the game. I don't like the feel that the mental disads bring to the game in the same way you can not like the feel that magic item dependency brings to D&D. Sure, you can DM around it, but then it's not really the same game.

Of course disadvantages are a core part of PC design and play. That doesn't mean that they are all suitable for every PC/setting/genre/etc. The GURPS chargen process is far, far, far more flexible than D&D. But that flexibility comes at a price. As I said in the other post, the GM is expected to exercise control. Whether you do that before chargen by making trait lists or templates, or during chargen by exercising "rule zero" is up to the GM. But if you do neither, you don't really have much cause to blame the system, IMO.


I like the versatile point buy, and I get having a value for mechanical disadvantages that make you slower or give you penalties to attacks, or skills or whatever, but I think roleplaying should be just that. If you want to roleplay an unstable psycho, fine, but I don't think the rules should reward it. And I don't want to come off like a kindergarten teacher when I have to remind the players to share nice, and use their words not their fists when dealing with the barmaid.

Your complaints seem to centre on the mental disadvantages as if all of them make disruptive PCs. What about a mental disadvantage that means the PC is more likely to behave as a "good citizen", such as a Code of Honour, Honesty or Truthfulness? Those mental disadvantages don't in any way mean roleplaying an "unstable psycho". Where do those fit into your opinion?

To use your own kids & daddy metaphor: You let the kids have unfettered access to the candy. So they ate as much as candy as they wanted, and left the stuff they didn't like. And now you're blaming the candy.

Cybren
2010-03-08, 01:22 PM
No no no! You've got it all wrong! High Fantasy isn't that! It's using my +5 full plate mithril demon armour and my +10 flamethrower bazooka wand to fight an evil undead warlord who does nothing except wait for me to arrive to take his stuff with the help of my teleporting dragon and our robot friend with psychic powers. That's High Fantasy! :smallwink:

To be fair, that does sound awesome

Kylarra
2010-03-08, 01:24 PM
No no no! You've got it all wrong! High Fantasy isn't that! It's using my +5 full plate mithril demon armour and my +10 flamethrower bazooka wand to fight an evil undead warlord who does nothing except wait for me to arrive to take his stuff with the help of my teleporting dragon and our robot friend with psychic powers. That's High Fantasy! :smallwink:... that sounds a lot like my last Exalted campaign...:smalleek:

sonofzeal
2010-03-08, 01:41 PM
The definition I remember was that "Low Fantasy" basically resembles the real world with vaguely mythological overtones, and "High Fantasy" is a world where everything talks and powerful magic is ubiquitous. LotR, then, would be "Low", while Narnia would be "High", since the one is clearly more surrealist and fantastic than the other.

As for gaming systems, Exalted would be higher than D&D, and GURPS can be anything (as always) but is probably best suited to lower fantasy settings in general, though exceptions could be made.

Mike_G
2010-03-08, 01:43 PM
Your complaints seem to centre on the mental disadvantages as if all of them make disruptive PCs. What about a mental disadvantage that means the PC is more likely to behave as a "good citizen", such as a Code of Honour, Honesty or Truthfulness? Those mental disadvantages don't in any way mean roleplaying an "unstable psycho". Where do those fit into your opinion?


I think it's great if you want to roleplay a character with a Code of Honor. I'm not even totally opposed to playing a flawed character. Dirty Harry would be a fine PC. I just don't see why your personality should give you extra points.

And, to be honest, Code of Honor or Pacifist restricts the average PC in the average game where combat is a good part of the genre. Impulsive or Bad Temper is less restrictive, but they are worth the same points.

I would like the game better if you didn't get any points for what are basically personality traits. Or, if people like the points, I'd suggest double point values for things that actually matter, like Code Against Killing, but half points for Hates Authority.

To compare it to D&D, the Paldin's Code is restrictive, and is supposed to make up for his special abilities. The way GURPs works, the Paldin's Code would be the same, but if you were a Chaotic Evil nutjob, you would also get nifty class features.

To use the OOTS as an example, Belkar would have a lot more points from Disadvantages than Roy, but Roy's disadvantages actually make his life harder, while Belkar's just free him to be a jerk, and when they get him in trouble, the whole party suffers, even the ones who didn't get to spend the extra points.

While that may be comedy gold, it does seem to reward bad behavior.



To use your own kids & daddy metaphor: You let the kids have unfettered access to the candy. So they ate as much as candy as they wanted, and left the stuff they didn't like. And now you're blaming the candy.

Well, in my analogy, the rulebook has all the candy in it. Trying to get some players to not use the bright shiny disadvantages is like taking a kid to McDonalds and expecting him to order a salad.

I totally respect your opinion that GURPS is a good system for you. I really wanted to like it, I thought it would be great reading the book and seeing how you can design pretty much anything. But in actual play, I didn't enjoy it at all, and the worst part to me was the system that, as written, encourages bad PC behavior.

That and the damage multipliers, but I may be overreacting on that or I may have confused things a bit. I know I found them to be backwards, but maybe there is a rule somewhere that fixes that.

Cybren
2010-03-08, 01:53 PM
There's a whole chapter on magic. Would you let players use that if you were playing a WW2 campaign?

What about disadvantages like Cursed? Terminally Ill?

What about playing a gritty noir detective story... and one player takes "Destiny (Will Herald the Coming of the Antichrist)"?

Mike_G
2010-03-08, 02:00 PM
Wow.

To reiterate: I disliked the game because of an integral part of the basic rules.

Setting specific stuff like space aliens or machine guns or magic cannot be compared in the same context.

If I hated the 3d6 bell curve, would I be expected to disallow that, just like a Tommy gun in GURPS fantasy?

Please feel free to like GURPS. Please understand that I do not like it. I've tried to explain why.

Cybren
2010-03-08, 02:09 PM
Allowing players to take any disadvantage in the book is exactly the same as allowing players to take any advantage. The basic premise of GURPS is that the GM picks what is and isn't reasonable for the players to take.

(That said, code of honor's don't prevent you from doing most adventuring. Things like pacifism generally vary in how much they'll impact the campaign, though Total Nonviolence will probably almost never be suitable as a PC trait)

sonofzeal
2010-03-08, 02:16 PM
Allowing players to take any disadvantage in the book is exactly the same as allowing players to take any advantage. The basic premise of GURPS is that the GM picks what is and isn't reasonable for the players to take.

(That said, code of honor's don't prevent you from doing most adventuring. Things like pacifism generally vary in how much they'll impact the campaign, though Total Nonviolence will probably almost never be suitable as a PC trait)
I get what Mike_G is saying. Basically - "Destiny (Will Herald the Coming of the Antichrist)" is obviously unsuitable for a gritty noir detective story, but "On The Edge" or "Code of Honour" aren't. Both of those are things that players might look at and think would work well for their gritty noir detective.

That's entirely different than stuff that just doesn't fit whatsoever. If it doesn't fit at all, you just have to make sure your players know the genre and the rest takes care of itself. If it fits but you don't like it, you're much more likely to have to, as DM, go through every single advantage/disadvantage/skill listed and compile a list of allowed/disallowed ones. That's a substantially heavier intrusion on the system, imo.

Cybren
2010-03-08, 02:19 PM
That's entirely different than stuff that just doesn't fit whatsoever. If it doesn't fit at all, you just have to make sure your players know the genre and the rest takes care of itself. If it fits but you don't like it, you're much more likely to have to, as DM, go through every single advantage/disadvantage/skill listed and compile a list of allowed/disallowed ones. That's a substantially heavier intrusion on the system, imo.
That is one of the things the GM is assumed to be doing in GURPS. That the game requires a greater workload for the GM is a criticism. That the game has certain disadvantages is not.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-08, 02:23 PM
The definition I remember was that "Low Fantasy" basically resembles the real world with vaguely mythological overtones, and "High Fantasy" is a world where everything talks and powerful magic is ubiquitous. LotR, then, would be "Low", while Narnia would be "High", since the one is clearly more surrealist and fantastic than the other.

Clearly there are some differences of opinion in what those terms represent. I think there are always going to be such, as these terms are used to describe fiction across many media, rather than merely RPGs. For me, High Fantasy is not automatically the same as "High Magic" and Low Fantasy is not synonymous with "Low Magic", which seems to be the way that you (and Oslecamo) are making the comparison.

"High Fantasy" should mean mythic style storytelling. Gods and demigods. Legendary quests. Grand schemes. While magic is invariably a factor in this, it should be there to support the wonder of the story, setting and power-level. Magic that is too ubiquitous or too clearly quantified actually detracts from the sense of wonder; it becomes ordinary. Therefore, too much magic can actually be the antithesis of High Fantasy.

"Low Fantasy" can even have a fair bit of magic. If the magic is everyday and commonplace, then it will be well known and understood. This can fit the Low Fantasy scope, which feels more prosaic than wondrous.

In many cases, I would consider labelling D&D as closer to "Swords & Sorcery" category of fiction than either of the above two categories. Much of this fiction will have been an influence on D&D the early days. Now though, it could be argued that as D&D has evolved, it has created a whole new category all its own.

Anyway, those are my opinions on defining such terms. :smallsmile:


As for gaming systems, Exalted would be higher than D&D, and GURPS can be anything (as always) but is probably best suited to lower fantasy settings in general, though exceptions could be made.

I've never played Exalted. How would it compare in power-level to RIFTS say?

Jerthanis
2010-03-08, 02:40 PM
Hey, I've been thinking of this problem Mike_G, Saph, myself and others have been having with PCs taking defects which are disruptive to the game and being rewarded for it and I think I have a solution that I'd like to run by GURPS aficionados.

What if Defects granted 0 CP at character creation, but that in each session where anyone's defect penalized your character, you got +1 CP for that session? Also, this would account for situations where Character X's defect inconveniences Character Y, since Character Y would get CP for Character X's defect.

It would encourage people to take a couple defects, but wouldn't specifically encourage taking too many, since in order to think about the reward, one MUST think about the consequences.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-08, 02:47 PM
Hey, I've been thinking of this problem Mike_G, Saph, myself and others have been having with PCs taking defects which are disruptive to the game and being rewarded for it and I think I have a solution that I'd like to run by GURPS aficionados.

What if Defects granted 0 CP at character creation, but that in each session where anyone's defect penalized your character, you got +1 CP for that session? Also, this would account for situations where Character X's defect inconveniences Character Y, since Character Y would get CP for Character X's defect.

It would encourage people to take a couple defects, but wouldn't specifically encourage taking too many, since in order to think about the reward, one MUST think about the consequences.

Actually, CP rewards are already supposed to be tied to the roleplay of disadvantages as much as mission success. :smallsmile:

Cybren
2010-03-08, 02:51 PM
that is only to say if you ignore one of your disads the GM should penalize you in some way, typically done as not getting a CP award that session.

That said, i think one of the marvel supers games used that very system, Jerth

Fhaolan
2010-03-08, 03:22 PM
Hey, I've been thinking of this problem Mike_G, Saph, myself and others have been having with PCs taking defects which are disruptive to the game and being rewarded for it and I think I have a solution that I'd like to run by GURPS aficionados.

What if Defects granted 0 CP at character creation, but that in each session where anyone's defect penalized your character, you got +1 CP for that session? Also, this would account for situations where Character X's defect inconveniences Character Y, since Character Y would get CP for Character X's defect.

It would encourage people to take a couple defects, but wouldn't specifically encourage taking too many, since in order to think about the reward, one MUST think about the consequences.

That's interesting.... There's the problem of high-defect PCs gaining CP faster than low-defect PCs if those defects really only impact the one PC itself. But it's definately something to think about. I'm going to puzzle over it a bit.

a_humble_lich
2010-03-08, 03:22 PM
I think the problem Mike_G has with disadvantages (and I agree it can be a real one) is fundamentally the same as people playing evil characters. There are some players for whom evil characters mean they get to wear skulls and have skeletal minions, and then there are some who use an evil character as an excuse to act like a jerk to the other players. While it might be in character for Deathmaster the necromancer to sacrifice his teammates and steal their treasure that doesn't mean his player can do that without being a jerk. Ultimately it is the players responsibility to not be disruptive, but I do see that some disadvantages encourage that behavior.

Also, what counts as "disruptive" can vary a lot on the style of play a GM and group has. I have been in several games where the style was "Here are your characters. This is the world. Go do interesting stuff." I have also been in games where it is seen as the GM's responsibility to create adventure for the players. In the former case, many "disruptive" advantages will just help move play. In the later they grind play to a halt.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-08, 03:38 PM
Yes, it seems that Mike_G's issue was not so much that the players didn't roleplay the awful combination of disadvantages that they had picked, but rather that they did roleplay them. These are different issues.

As already said, GURPS expects that the GM act as a guiding influence as much over chargen as over the other aspects of campaign setup. The two aren't really inseparable.

I think the best thing for newbie players is to use templates. There are plenty of pre-existing ones available for GURPS 4e in various supplements, if the GM doesn't want to do the work of creating their own. In fact, GMs could even insist that players stay limited to the traits within the template, rather than be simply guided by them. This effectively mimics character classes, and could be done only for as long as necessary for the players to get a feel for building good PCs.

Mike_G
2010-03-08, 07:19 PM
I think the problem Mike_G has with disadvantages (and I agree it can be a real one) is fundamentally the same as people playing evil characters. There are some players for whom evil characters mean they get to wear skulls and have skeletal minions, and then there are some who use an evil character as an excuse to act like a jerk to the other players. While it might be in character for Deathmaster the necromancer to sacrifice his teammates and steal their treasure that doesn't mean his player can do that without being a jerk. Ultimately it is the players responsibility to not be disruptive, but I do see that some disadvantages encourage that behavior.


This.

Exactly this.

With the added problem that the rules reward this behavior with extra points. It would be like giving anybody in D&D with an extreme alignment, like a Miko paladin or Belkar an extra class level.

fusilier
2010-03-08, 08:53 PM
I honestly believe that if I played GURPs for a while, the novelty of playing an impulsive bloodthirsty pyromaniac drug addict with scabies would wear off and the party would start to look more normal, but for me as a DM, it was a nightmare, because people wanted to play their disadvantages, and the more awful they were, the more of a bull in a china shop threat they were to everything in the setting, the more points they had to spend on the ability to resist the city guard.

And I really didn't find the combat to be anything to write home about. Not more fun than D&D, less realistic than other systems. Ok, but not worth the headache.

Yeah, I can understand that. I still have the occasional player who wants to take disadvantages that the rules themselves say are intended for evil NPCs! Like I said, I think you've hit upon a potential disadvantage to GURPS, and that's the GM has a lot of involvement in determining to rule subsets to use, etc -- then convincing the players not to take the megalomaniac disadvantage. I don't mind it, but I can certainly see others being frustrated by not being able to simply grab the books and go. Unless you have a pre-designed module, it certainly isn't a game you just pick up and play.

Townopolis
2010-03-08, 11:01 PM
In my experience, people eventually learn that the points you gain from taking any given disadvantage are usually outweighed by the effects of the disadvantage itself. They also tend to learn pretty quickly that making a character who disrupts the party isn't fun when everyone else gangs up on you (and yes, the rest of the party can kick your butt, even if your 2-handed sword skill is 6 points above any other combat skill in the group) and leaves you tied up in the tavern's cellar for the rest of the adventure because posing a hazard to a bunch of people in an already hazardous profession is uncouth. Sooner or later, people start only taking the disadvantages they want to roleplay (and can roleplay without disrupting the group).

Naturally, this only works with groups that treat disadvantages as serious business, treat having a relatively cohesive (if varied and interesting) party as something worth working for, and are generally willing to work together to create an enjoyable game. Some gamers don't have the luxury of such groups, some groups are plagued with that one guy who makes a psychomidget and then throws your beautifully painted miniatures when you tie his character up in the cellar (and he's the GM's brother, so you can't just get rid of him), some group possess all of these traits and simply don't find the GURPS to their liking. GURPS won't work for everyone, but I would like to point out that the disadvantages chapter won't necessarily force you to turn your group into a police state.

The Big Dice
2010-03-09, 12:10 AM
I think it's great if you want to roleplay a character with a Code of Honor. I'm not even totally opposed to playing a flawed character. Dirty Harry would be a fine PC. I just don't see why your personality should give you extra points.
Why shouldn't it? If the personality of the character is going to impose restrictions or cause problems in play, why not get points back for it?

This does of course require a certain level of player maturity.


And, to be honest, Code of Honor or Pacifist restricts the average PC in the average game where combat is a good part of the genre. Impulsive or Bad Temper is less restrictive, but they are worth the same points.
A Code of Honour restricts your behaviour, It's a built in limitation on the character. Same for Pacifism. Impulsive or Bad Temper can have negative consequences in play, and are therefore also disadvantageous to have. Your arguments against these ideas are basically a house of cards.


To compare it to D&D, the Paldin's Code is restrictive, and is supposed to make up for his special abilities. The way GURPs works, the Paldin's Code would be the same, but if you were a Chaotic Evil nutjob, you would also get nifty class features.
There's no concept of Alignment in GURPS. There's also no nifty class features. I've seen rampaging psycos played in GURPS, and they invariably end up either dead or the player wants to make a new character because the nutcase is boring to play for more than a session or two.


To use the OOTS as an example, Belkar would have a lot more points from Disadvantages than Roy, but Roy's disadvantages actually make his life harder, while Belkar's just free him to be a jerk, and when they get him in trouble, the whole party suffers, even the ones who didn't get to spend the extra points.
Roy would have a Code of Honour as well as a Sense of Duty to his companions and a Vow. That's quite a hefty amount of Disadvantages, all of which serve to drive the character in directions which cause problems for everyone around him.

Sure, Belkar has Bloodlust and Impulsiveness, but who really gets the OotS into more trouble? Roy's quest or Belkar's behaviour?


Well, in my analogy, the rulebook has all the candy in it. Trying to get some players to not use the bright shiny disadvantages is like taking a kid to McDonalds and expecting him to order a salad.
I think that says more about the kind of players in your group than it does about GURPS.

GURPS is a far, far more sophisticated game than D&D. It has different expectations in so many areas that it's almost impossible to describe them. To use a video game analogy, it's the difference between Mario and Fable 2. Or, if you prefer a food analogy, it's the difference between McDonalds and a decent restraunt.

Sure, D&D seems to have more options, where it really just has a choice of seasonings. I frequently find I can't make the exact character I've got in mind using D&D, but I've never had that problem with GURPS.

And people who play idiots are going to do that no matter what system you play. The only thing is, some game systems are designed to encourage players to think that violence is the only solution to a problem. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, but when you bring preconceptions from one system into another, you're going to run into problems.

I totally respect your opinion that GURPS is a good system for you. I really wanted to like it, I thought it would be great reading the book and seeing how you can design pretty much anything. But in actual play, I didn't enjoy it at all, and the worst part to me was the system that, as written, encourages bad PC behavior.
The system doesn't encourage any kind of behaviour. It gives you a toolkit that lets you build the type of games you want to play in the setting you want to play in. It's up to individual gaming groups to decide how to behave.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 05:58 AM
The system doesn't encourage any kind of behaviour. It gives you a toolkit that lets you build the type of games you want to play in the setting you want to play in. It's up to individual gaming groups to decide how to behave.

This.

People would want to play like munchkins are going to try and game any system. People who want to play like jerks are going to use the facets of the system that appear to let them do that, while ignoring aspects of the game that don't.

But really, one can be a jerk or a munchkin in any RPG. The fact that many players aren't, suggests that the issue is not with the game rules themselves.

D&D requires more work than an MMO, because it offers the players far more scope for their creativity. The results however, can be far more emotionally satisfying than playing any rigid computer game. But D&D can be less fun than an MMO, if you don't make the effort. You get what you put in. GURPS is the same, only more-so.

Jayabalard
2010-03-09, 08:58 AM
The definition I remember was that "Low Fantasy" basically resembles the real world with vaguely mythological overtones, and "High Fantasy" is a world where everything talks and powerful magic is ubiquitous. LotR, then, would be "Low", while Narnia would be "High", since the one is clearly more surrealist and fantastic than the other.Not at all; The lord of the rings is a prototypical example of high fantasy.

The "high" and "low" in high fantasy and low fantasy has very little, if anything, to do with the amount of magic in the setting. It has much more to do with the epic-ness of the story (vs a more realistic, grittier feel), whether the story takes place in a wholly fictional setting (middle earth) or in the real world with fantasy elements; and how idealized morality is treated (strict good vs evil vs shades of gray).


You get what you put in. GURPS is the same, only more-so.Very much so; a loose system like GURPS works very well if you have time to invest; if you don't, you may get more bang for your buck from a more highly structured system.


I honestly believe that if I played GURPs for a while, the novelty of playing an impulsive bloodthirsty pyromaniac drug addict with scabies would wear off and the party would start to look more normal, but for me as a DM, it was a nightmare, because people wanted to play their disadvantages, and the more awful they were, the more of a bull in a china shop threat they were to everything in the setting, the more points they had to spend on the ability to resist the city guard.Personally, that sounds like you have a maturity problem in your gaming group, rather than a flaw in the system. It's certainly possible that I'm reading more into it than what you're saying, but it sounds like the players were going out of their way to be disruptive, and that the GM and players were unable to have any sort of dialogue to fix the situation.

Jerthanis
2010-03-09, 11:09 AM
Personally, that sounds like you have a maturity problem in your gaming group, rather than a flaw in the system. It's certainly possible that I'm reading more into it than what you're saying, but it sounds like the players were going out of their way to be disruptive, and that the GM and players were unable to have any sort of dialogue to fix the situation.

I think that a system which aggravates maturity problems which don't surface in other systems, a symptom shared by the groups of at least three posters in this thread, BECOMES a flaw in the system.

The only difference is that we're blaming the system for corrupting otherwise good players and you're blaming the players for abusing a perfect system.

Saph
2010-03-09, 11:52 AM
In conclusion, the risk of unsuitable PCs is perhaps a risk in any game system. Indeed, I understand that DMs will usually restrict what character classes, races, or sourcebooks outside the core three rulebooks of D&D are allowed. Really, this problem in GURPS is no different, fundamentally speaking. It's just that the GURPS Basic Set has so much more scope in possible traits, that the GM has extra work and responsibility that go along with that extra control and flexibility that the ruleset provides.

The thing is, though, looking back on my GURPS campaign, the nutjob-effect of the Mental Disadvantages was actually the most fun part of the system. Sure, everyone in the party was a certified lunatic (at least three would have qualified as clinically insane) but it resulted in some freaking hilarious roleplaying. OK, admittedly the misadventures are much funnier with hindsight than they were at the time, but it also means that I can top anyone when it comes to dysfunctional-party stories.

By contrast, the more mechanical parts of the GURPS system - combat, movement, magic, Advantages - were very bland and forgettable.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 11:59 AM
Personally, that sounds like you have a maturity problem in your gaming group, rather than a flaw in the system. It's certainly possible that I'm reading more into it than what you're saying, but it sounds like the players were going out of their way to be disruptive, and that the GM and players were unable to have any sort of dialogue to fix the situation.

I think that using terms like "maturity" when referring to other players/groups that we don't know outside of a forum discussion, can be a dangerous road to go down. I have tried to leave mention of "maturity" out of my previous replies in this thread, because of this. That said, it does seem that Jayabalard has point in so far that there wasn't much dialogue in Mike_G's group to resolve the matter, on the evidence of what we've been told so far.


I think that a system which aggravates maturity problems which don't surface in other systems, a symptom shared by the groups of at least three posters in this thread, BECOMES a flaw in the system.

Come now, are you really trying to tell us that other games don't ever suffer from immature players? Or that when they do, it becomes a flaw with the game? Pun-pun anyone?


The only difference is that we're blaming the system for corrupting otherwise good players and you're blaming the players for abusing a perfect system.

Personally, I think that GURPS isn't a perfect system. There's no such thing. And I think that I wouldn't blame the players for "abusing" GURPS, if they were all having fun. But, if they are not using the game in the spirit in which it was intended, but acting very close to munchkinism, then they shouldn't complain that the system is the root cause of the fault. I would instead suggest that they play a more rigid game that gives them less scope to run riot. They're obviously happier when the system constrains their urges, than when they or the GM have to do it themselves.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 12:12 PM
The thing is, though, looking back on my GURPS campaign, the nutjob-effect of the Mental Disadvantages was actually the most fun part of the system. Sure, everyone in the party was a certified lunatic (at least three would have qualified as clinically insane) but it resulted in some freaking hilarious roleplaying. OK, admittedly the misadventures are much funnier with hindsight than they were at the time, but it also means that I can top anyone when it comes to dysfunctional-party stories.

Have you ever played GURPS without the "nutjob-effect", though? I would guess from our conversation to-date, that the answer is "no". I can't help feeling that you would have enjoyed the experience more if people had only been a little more constrained. :smallsmile:


By contrast, the more mechanical parts of the GURPS system - combat, movement, magic, Advantages - were very bland and forgettable.

It is a pity that you feel this way. My opinion is almost the reverse. D&D combat doesn't engage me emotionally.

Saph
2010-03-09, 12:16 PM
Have you ever played GURPS without the "nutjob-effect", though? I would guess from our conversation to-date, that the answer is "no". I can't help feeling that you would have enjoyed the experience more if people had only been a little more constrained. :smallsmile:

But the nutjob-effect was the fun part! How would removing the only memorable aspect of the game make it more enjoyable?

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 12:32 PM
But the nutjob-effect was the fun part! How would removing the only memorable aspect of the game make it more enjoyable?

Well ultimately, people can play a game however they want, provided that everyone is having fun. I have already said that I don't consider such to be BadWrongFun. But while taking one aspect of a system and pushing it "up to 11" can be enjoyable in the short term, I don't think it has lasting appeal. This would seem to be born out by your assertions that you haven't played it since. You can only judge the rest of the system fairly if your group wasn't trying to abuse this one element of it, IMO. In direct answer to your question, I think that other aspects of the system may have been more enjoyable if the disadvantages weren't the thing being over-emphasised.


By contrast, the more mechanical parts of the GURPS system - combat, movement, magic, Advantages - were very bland and forgettable.

To touch on this again, it seems that you prefer D&D because you think it makes PCs that are more "mechanically interesting" (your words). This strongly suggests a kewl powerz effect to me, but I may be wrong. Could you give me an example?

RPGuru1331
2010-03-09, 01:23 PM
Been lurking this thread, popped in to say one thing.


What if Defects granted 0 CP at character creation, but that in each session where anyone's defect penalized your character, you got +1 CP for that session? Also, this would account for situations where Character X's defect inconveniences Character Y, since Character Y would get CP for Character X's defect.
That's a fine system. It's how Nobilis handles it as well, off the top of my head. I don't think folks will show up at your house to abduct you for changing the points reward scheme for defects in GURPS, either.

Mike_G
2010-03-09, 01:29 PM
I think that using terms like "maturity" when referring to other players/groups that we don't know outside of a forum discussion, can be a dangerous road to go down. I have tried to leave mention of "maturity" out of my previous replies in this thread, because of this. That said, it does seem that Jayabalard has point in so far that there wasn't much dialogue in Mike_G's group to resolve the matter, on the evidence of what we've been told so far.


There was dialogue. The dialogue was me requesting that they stop playing douchebags and them replying that that was the fun part of GURPS.

We did resolve the problem beautifully. By playing anything else




Come now, are you really trying to tell us that other games don't ever suffer from immature players?



But the same party had no issues with D&D. Or CoC, or RuneQuest or Harnmaster or Iron Heroes or Traveler. Nobody ever munckins out, or demands to play an Assassin who then backstabs his comrades, or a Rogue who robs the party or a Blackguard who sacrifies whole villages to his demon goddess, or a stick up the arse Paladin.

But, give them some free CPs for the dysfunctions, and they lap them up like mother's milk.

When the same group only plays sociopaths when the system gives you extra points for being a sociopath, I think we can argue a causal relationship.





Personally, I think that GURPS isn't a perfect system. There's no such thing. And I think that I wouldn't blame the players for "abusing" GURPS, if they were all having fun. But, if they are not using the game in the spirit in which it was intended, but acting very close to munchkinism, then they shouldn't complain that the system is the root cause of the fault. I would instead suggest that they play a more rigid game that gives them less scope to run riot. They're obviously happier when the system constrains their urges, than when they or the GM have to do it themselves.

If a system offers options that half the party thinks are fun but which ruins the fun for the other half, that's an issue. If a DM vetoes those options, he disappoints half the party. If he doesn't he disappoints the other half.

For my group, gaming is like inviting a handful of alcoholics to your house for a party. If the booze is there, the nights ends in a holding cell. So long as there isn't any, a fine time is had by all.

Hi, my name is Mike and my friends are Disadvantaholics.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-09, 01:36 PM
In for a penny.


If a system offers options that half the party thinks are fun but which ruins the fun for the other half, that's an issue. If a DM vetoes those options, he disappoints half the party. If he doesn't he disappoints the other half.
Ahem. Druid. Fighter. Players have to take responsibility for at least some of what they do in a system, generally. If you have a system that is a toolkit to build anything, and people build *******s that annoy others at the table, the onus is sort of on them, not on the toolkit that lets you build anything.

Mike_G
2010-03-09, 02:05 PM
In for a penny.


Ahem. Druid. Fighter. Players have to take responsibility for at least some of what they do in a system, generally. If you have a system that is a toolkit to build anything, and people build *******s that annoy others at the table, the onus is sort of on them, not on the toolkit that lets you build anything.

Way to respond to a fraction of the post.

We don't have issues with a Fighter and a Druid, even when we've had one of each in the party. The Wizard doesn't make the Monk cry himself to sleep. There is no Belkar, there is no Miko.

When we play D&D, the PC's act like team players.

When we played GURPS, the same players who have been gaming since the 1980's, and who have played every RPG known to man, acted like jerks. When confronted, they pointed out that they had taken Acts Like A Jerk as a 15 point disadvantage.

Sure, it works for some groups. It didn't work for mine, and the reason why is the Mental Disadvantages. Sure, blame the player, not the game, but that is why our GURPS games broke down.

Also, as Saph has said, we didn't find a sufficient payoff. Combat wasn't more interesting, game play wasn't any more fun. I like the fact that you can, in theory, build anything. In practice, we built a lot of disrupted sessions.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 02:18 PM
There was dialogue. The dialogue was me requesting that they stop playing douchebags and them replying that that was the fun part of GURPS.

We did resolve the problem beautifully. By playing anything else

Then playing "anything else" was probably your only option, sadly. But as not all who play GURPS suffer from this, I still don't attribute the blame to the system.


But the same party had no issues with D&D. Or CoC, or RuneQuest or Harnmaster or Iron Heroes or Traveler. Nobody ever munckins out, or demands to play an Assassin who then backstabs his comrades, or a Rogue who robs the party or a Blackguard who sacrifies whole villages to his demon goddess, or a stick up the arse Paladin.

But, give them some free CPs for the dysfunctions, and they lap them up like mother's milk.

When the same group only plays sociopaths when the system gives you extra points for being a sociopath, I think we can argue a causal relationship.

Again, I say that this is sad. Again, not all who play GURPS suffer this phenomenon. Not all disadvantages are "sociopathic". Therefore, I don't concur with your conclusion. The only thing your example indicates, is that when your group "lap up" disadvantages for free points they only take the ones that they perceive would be least disruptive to their own effectiveness, not caring that this would be most disruptive to the game.


If a system offers options that half the party thinks are fun but which ruins the fun for the other half, that's an issue. If a DM vetoes those options, he disappoints half the party. If he doesn't he disappoints the other half.

For my group, gaming is like inviting a handful of alcoholics to your house for a party. If the booze is there, the nights ends in a holding cell. So long as there isn't any, a fine time is had by all.

Hi, my name is Mike and my friends are Disadvantaholics.

Well, as long as you aren't advocating Prohibition for the rest of us! :smallwink:

Mike_G
2010-03-09, 02:27 PM
Well, as long as you aren't advocating Prohibition for the rest of us! :smallwink:


GURPS is a fine game for a lot of people. The OP asked pros and cons, and I would caution anyone about the potential for a party of deaf, bloodthirsty pyromaniac lepers. It seems to have happened to a few others here.

Some games encourage a certain style, or just offer things that appeal to some people beyond their ability to control themselves. A player who loved the power of a D&D wizard, and gleefully pushes the limit will be unlikely to want to play a nerfed D&D Wizard, but might be a team player in RuneQuest. My group, like Saph's, found the sweet siren song of playing an insane sociopath to be irresistible. Take out that chapter, and they rebel, but play a game that doesn;t include it, and they don't miss it.

I'm not all that anti-GURPS. I don't care for it, but I don't say it' a bad game. I have only said it brought out the worst in my group.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-09, 02:31 PM
We don't have issues with a Fighter and a Druid, even when we've had one of each in the party. The Wizard doesn't make the Monk cry himself to sleep. There is no Belkar, there is no Miko.

When we play D&D, the PC's act like team players.
So you are saying that even given the easy opportunity to ruin each other's fun because of the system, your players opted not to take that opportunity and played considerately. This is admirable on their part. Explain to me why it does not seem to qualify DnD as horridly flawed in the exact same manner that you say GURPS is.


When we played GURPS, the same players who have been gaming since the 1980's, and who have played every RPG known to man, acted like jerks. When confronted, they pointed out that they had taken Acts Like A Jerk as a 15 point disadvantage.
While I find this a curious reversal, it only tells me that they hated GURPS overall, going by their posts as well, and therefore wanted a cheap thrill.


Also, as Saph has said, we didn't find a sufficient payoff. Combat wasn't more interesting, game play wasn't any more fun. I like the fact that you can, in theory, build anything. In practice, we built a lot of disrupted sessions.

Which is fine by me. If you don't enjoy GURPS, I don't really care, don't play it. But the objection you're focusing on, players being jerks towards each other using Disdvantages, appears to me to be your players messing up, not the system being flawed fundamentally. That is why I analogized it to Dungeons and Dragons having characters on vastly different levels of power. Just because a Druid is there doesn't mean he has to use a broken familiar and otherwise invalidate the fighter's presence, but he certainly has the options to do so.

a_humble_lich
2010-03-09, 03:28 PM
But the nutjob-effect was the fun part! How would removing the only memorable aspect of the game make it more enjoyable?

Not to pick on Saph, I think this is quote is very illuminating. We were talking about how D&D is designed for combat but never really talked about what GURPS is designed for. And I think one of its strengths is that it help develops characters with "strong personalities" (read nutjobs).

For some groups, some games, and some GMs this is seen as a great advantage. The "strong personalities" create more memorable situations, make the players more involved in their characters, and make more of the action driven by the players instead of the GM.

For other groups it doesn't work as well. Teamwork suffers. Some players may not want to have to spend the game session busting their friend out of jail because he took "compulsive being a jerk." A game that was intended as an adventure that the GM gives the PCs where they have to work together will suffer. And this can mean less fun for the poor GM.

And it is perfectly possible to have GURPS games without nutjobs, and it is still a great game. But I would suggest if your group has problems with GURPS encouraging nutjobs, do not play Paranoia:smallsmile:

Ormur
2010-03-09, 08:03 PM
The premises of GURPS seems intriguing. D&D 3.5 is a terrific game but it has always bothered me a little in constructing a campaign how unintuitive it is, the rules having no basis in reality, the possibility of typpiverse and the mechanic of levelling up. The rules are so abstract they require a pretty big suspension of disbelief if you want to keep the game world familiar.

Would GURPS, just to name one example, allow the taking of a powerful player as a hostage? In D&D the PC would just laugh at an NPC with a dagger posed at his throat, shrug of the 1d4+x and grapple/cast a spell/engage in combat. That is to say if the NPC would ever have a chance getting a knife at his throat at all.

a_humble_lich
2010-03-09, 08:28 PM
So a lot means by what you mean by "powerful character." If playing a superhero game, I don't think the knife would worry superman.

For a high powered fantasy game than yes. It would still have to get the knife to his throat (one of the definitions of high powered characters is its hard to put a knife to their throats.) But once it is there, assuming there is no armor to get in the way you would do serious damage, probably not fatal but serious.

Also, The GURPS rules seem much more flexible and require the DM to make calls on what he sees to be more realistic/fit better in the story instead of the letter of the rule. For example, the neck hit rules that I have (3e GURPS Martial Arts) say that a large cutting attack to the neck has a chance for decapitation. I'd rule that a knife would instead destroy the throat using the rules they have for crushing weapons.

(How embarrassing, when trying to show how much more realistic GURPS is the example has people being decapitated by knives in a strict reading of the rules.)

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 08:30 PM
The premises of GURPS seems intriguing. D&D 3.5 is a terrific game but it has always bothered me a little in constructing a campaign how unintuitive it is, the rules having no basis in reality, the possibility of typpiverse and the mechanic of levelling up. The rules are so abstract they require either a pretty big suspension of disbelief if you want to keep the game world familiar.

GURPS at its default is fairly believable in its realism. This can be dialed up or down by the GM when they design the campaign, of course. It is just one of the flexibility options.


Would GURPS, just to name one example, allow the taking of a powerful player as a hostage? In D&D the PC would just laugh at an NPC with a dagger posed at his throat, shrug of the 1d4+x and grapple/cast a spell/engage in combat. That is to say if the NPC would ever have a chance getting a knife at his throat at all.

It can depend, of course. On the genre, the setting, the nature of the villain in question. But generally I would say yes.

If we are saying a human(oid) opponent (as opposed to supernatural), then a cut throat is a very real threat.

Volkov
2010-03-09, 08:35 PM
3.5e has enough realism to rarely force you out of your imagination and back to the game system. 4e lacks this, every time I hear square, my suspension of disbelief is lost and it's now just a board game again.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 08:36 PM
So a lot means by what you mean by "powerful character." If playing a superhero game, I don't think the knife would worry superman.

For a high powered fantasy game than yes. It would still have to get the knife to his throat (one of the definitions of high powered characters is its hard to put a knife to their throats.) But once it is there, assuming there is no armor to get in the way you would do serious damage, probably not fatal but serious.

Also, The GURPS rules seem much more flexible and require the DM to make calls on what he sees to be more realistic/fit better in the story instead of the letter of the rule. For example, the neck hit rules that I have (3e GURPS Martial Arts) say that a large cutting attack to the neck has a chance for decapitation. I'd rule that a knife would instead destroy the throat using the rules they have for crushing weapons.

(How embarrassing, when trying to show how much more realistic GURPS is the example has people being decapitated by knives in a strict reading of the rules.)

Lich, you have to be careful with using 3e to answer newbie questions, as it is no longer the most current (and therefore supported) edition :smallsmile:

In fact, decapitation is one of the things that has changed in 4e. Specifically, I believe it was considered too easy (and unrealistic) the 3e way. Now, the guideline is that the blow has to kill the target to decapitate, but it is actually up to the GM to decide whether or not this happens in each case, according to the logic of the situation. What this means in game terms would be a failed death check at -1xHP, or a total of -5xHP damage, with either having been reached be a cutting blow to the neck, obviously.

Ormur
2010-03-09, 08:39 PM
I was thinking about a high power character as someone that's very competent compared to the rest of the people in the setting but certainly no superhero. Sort of like the standard mid-level party is supposed to be in a typical D&D setting. In the real world or some approximation of that even a very skilled fighter would be in mortal danger if someone got a knife to his throat. In D&D, not so much. A few HD and getting one-shotted is a fairly small concern.

Bucky
2010-03-09, 08:40 PM
Would GURPS, just to name one example, allow the taking of a powerful player as a hostage? In D&D the PC would just laugh at an NPC with a dagger posed at his throat, shrug of the 1d4+x and grapple/cast a spell/engage in combat. That is to say if the NPC would ever have a chance getting a knife at his throat at all.

(Editted due to ninjas)

For a generic 100+50-point human fighter PC who doesn't have too much martial arts skill and a generic 25-point thug NPC with a knife, yes.
*Even a stronger PC would have some trouble breaking out of a one-handed pin (NPC gets an effective +5 strength).
*If the PC does break out he eats an all-out (extra accuracy) attack. A called shot to the unarmored vitals with a knife would do ~1d6x3 damage, where the PC probably has about 12HP. Even on a nonfatalnon-knockout hit, the PC may be stunned, in which case they will likely fall to the follow-up. So the PC had better roll well on their dodge. (Note: If the PC has heavy body armor on, this attack goes to the brain cage instead. The NPC has a much higher chance of missing, but a hit is similarly crippling)

If the NPC is a knife-fighting expert (skill 15+), he may forgo the extra accuracy and go for extra damage instead, in which case a hit is almost certain to drop the PC.

*If the PC tries to break out and fails, the NPC attacks him and he can't dodge, and the NPC gets a substantial bonus to hit. This is at least as bad as the above, but the PC is still pinned afterwards

If the PC has a lot of points in unarmed combat skills, an incapacitating spell at a high enough skill to cast still/silent or equivalent psionics, or superhuman skin DR that applies to the throat, the NPC is potentially in trouble.

Ormur
2010-03-09, 08:48 PM
For a generic 100+50-point human fighter PC who doesn't have too much martial arts skill and a generic 25-point thug NPC with a knife, yes. Even a stronger PC would have some trouble breaking out of a one-handed pin (NPC gets an effective +5 strength). And even if the PC does break out he eats an all-out attack before he can get away, which has a decent chance of stunning him long enough for the NPC to re-grapple and a small chance of a KO. If the PC tries to break out and fails, the NPC attacks him and he can't dodge. In this case, a crippling blow to the throat (reasonably likely) or would be lethal.

If the PC has a lot of points in unarmed combat skills, an incapacitating spell at a high enough skill to cast still/silent or equivalent psionics, or superhuman skin DR that applies to the throat, the NPC is in trouble.

That's the sort of realism I was picturing. If some special circumstances like the ones you named later would make a specific scenario less feasible for the NPC then of course it should be reflected in the game. But that would be bad luck for the NPC. In D&D I don't think any sensible NPC of an equal or lower level would ever even attempt something like that.


3.5e has enough realism to rarely force you out of your imagination and back to the game system. 4e lacks this, every time I hear square, my suspension of disbelief is lost and it's now just a board game again.

From a player perspective I agree but my concern was primarily as a DM designing a campaign. I tend to obsess over details like economics, hierarchies, political system and such and then D&D starts falling apart. Also in designing scenarios like the hypothetical hostage taking. As the game progresses the power level gets so high that you can only think of such scenarios in terms of the rules of the game, not how things might play out in a more mundane setting.

Edited.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 08:57 PM
From a player perspective I agree but my concern was primarily as a DM designing a campaign. I tend to obsess over details like economics, hierarchies, political system and such and then D&D starts falling apart. Also in designing scenarios like the hypothetical hostage taking. As the game progresses the power level gets so high that you can only think of such "mundane" scenarios in terms of the rules of the game.

Then in that case, GURPS sounds quite suitable to the level of realism and detail you appear to be after. For one thing, the system treats wealth, rank, social status, reputation, etc as Advantages which have a cost (GURPS is a point-buy system). These can be bought at character creation, or earned through play, assigned to important NPCs etc.

Gametime
2010-03-09, 09:07 PM
3.5e has enough realism to rarely force you out of your imagination and back to the game system. 4e lacks this, every time I hear square, my suspension of disbelief is lost and it's now just a board game again.

Your mileage may vary. I realized it was a board game every time I counted movement on the battle map in 3.5.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 09:33 PM
I was thinking about a high power character as someone that's very competent compared to the rest of the people in the setting but certainly no superhero. Sort of like the standard mid-level party is supposed to be in a typical D&D setting. In the real world or some approximation of that even a very skilled fighter would be in mortal danger if someone got a knife to his throat. In D&D, not so much. A few HD and getting one-shotted is a fairly small concern.

To go back to this, "one-shotted" is a very real concern in GURPS if you are playing a realistic game. I will try to give some numbers regarding an "average" human in GURPS, which may help you. Because although the PCs and big bad guy will no doubt be a little tougher than this, the foundation is realism means they will not be exponentially higher in a more-or-less realistic campaign.

An average person will have 10 HP.

This is a slight simplification, but basically...

At 3 HP (less than 1/3 total HP), they are badly wounded and their Move and Dodge are halved.
At 0 HP, they have to make a HT roll every round of combat to stay conscious.
At -10 HP (-1xHP), they have to make a HT roll or die immediately. If they succeed but keep getting wounded, they will have to save again at -20 HP, and so on.
At -50 HP (-5xHP), they die immediately. An average person has taken 60 HP damage to get this far, so it's not surprising really.
At -100 HP (-10xHP), this represents total bodily destruction. Depending on how this happened, it could make even magical resurrection impossible.

A large knife wielded by an average person will do 1d6-2 damage (min 1). Depending on where and how it hits, this can be increased further. But taking a cut to the neck would double the damage rolled, meaning 2-8 damage.

Now taking over 1/2 your max HP in one hit, counts as a Major Wound. This requires a HT roll to stay conscious. So, against an average person, 6 HP would be enough to force this roll. Which an average person would fail 50% of the time. So, one cut the neck from/to an average person would have (if my maths is right) a 1/4 chance of making them collapse. This will make it very easy to finish them off.

Now, if you are using the optional bleeding rules, wounded people who do not get first aid, are at risk of losing HP every minute. Which for an average person would likely mean losing 1 HP every 2 mins.

So in GURPS, it might not always be easy to hit a skilled and armoured person who's trying to stop you, but if you do, it's quite possible to put them down with one blow. It might not kill them instantly. In fact, it usually won't. But that doesn't matter, if their opponent can just leave them knowing that they'll bleed to death before they can get help :smallsmile:

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-09, 09:43 PM
Your mileage may vary. I realized it was a board game every time I counted movement on the battle map in 3.5.

Hey! I like using maps with GURPS. What does that mean? :smallwink:

Admittedly, they use hexes rather than squares, but still...

Gametime
2010-03-09, 10:19 PM
Hey! I like using maps with GURPS. What does that mean? :smallwink:

Admittedly, they use hexes rather than squares, but still...

Oh, I vastly prefer using maps in D&D. It made tactical positioning easier and more rewarding, in my experience.

I don't think it's a bad thing that my disbelief isn't suspended. I'm playing a role in a narrative, and I'm very aware of it. I enjoy that experience. Other people may play differently and expect different things from the games they play.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-09, 10:25 PM
Hey! I like using maps with GURPS. What does that mean? :smallwink:

Admittedly, they use hexes rather than squares, but still...

Actually in my group we tend to do movement warhammer style and measure out inches, as it's annoying to use/find hex paper. Another example of GURPS's insane flexibility.

Mike_G
2010-03-09, 11:13 PM
Actually in my group we tend to do movement warhammer style and measure out inches, as it's annoying to use/find hex paper. Another example of GURPS's insane flexibility.

That's not really "GURPS flexibility." That's you guys improvising. We use a tape measure rather than counting squares in all our games.

Back in the day, AD&D gave all ranges and move rates in inches, as a throwback to its wargaming roots. One inch on the table was equal to ten feet. Or ten yards outside But that's 1st ed for ya.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-09, 11:30 PM
That's not really "GURPS flexibility." That's you guys improvising. We use a tape measure rather than counting squares in all our games.

Back in the day, AD&D gave all ranges and move rates in inches, as a throwback to its wargaming roots. One inch on the table was equal to ten feet. Or ten yards outside But that's 1st ed for ya.

I was more talking about how modular the system is, but how do you use this method in D&D? Way too much a reliance on squares and threatening IMO.

a_humble_lich
2010-03-10, 03:34 AM
I was more talking about how modular the system is, but how do you use this method in D&D? Way too much a reliance on squares and threatening IMO.

I agree, I think the D&D rules have become way to entwined. You can change it easy, you threaten a 1 inch radius and get an attack of opportunity for every inch or so a person moves though your threatened space.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-10, 05:16 AM
That's not really "GURPS flexibility." That's you guys improvising.

Well actually, you are wrong. That is "GURPS flexibility", rather than just player/GM/group improvisation. Hex maps are optional, not mandated by the rules. You can keep it all in the GM's head, you can use floorplans, or you can use minis with a ruler if you'd prefer. Here (http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-0206) :smallbiggrin:

Mike_G
2010-03-10, 07:05 AM
Well actually, you are wrong. That is "GURPS flexibility", rather than just player/GM/group improvisation. Hex maps are optional, not mandated by the rules. You can keep it all in the GM's head, you can use floorplans, or you can use minis with a ruler if you'd prefer. Here (http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-0206) :smallbiggrin:

Unless you are playing Advanced Squad Leader, hex maps are always optional.

Sometimes we use a battle mat and draw on it, sometimes we don't, but we have a cloth tape for measuring ranges. It eliminates the whole diagonal square controversy, accounts for changes in elevation (we use terrain models sometimes) and it's easier to measure 34 inches on a tape than count squares heading along a slight angle.

I've also played D&D wioth no map at all, just DM description. I don't like thsi as much, since I like to see the tactical movement, but people seem to think you can't play without "squares." These people were not hugged enough as children.

Jerthanis
2010-03-10, 10:45 AM
Well actually, you are wrong. That is "GURPS flexibility", rather than just player/GM/group improvisation. Hex maps are optional, not mandated by the rules. You can keep it all in the GM's head, you can use floorplans, or you can use minis with a ruler if you'd prefer. Here (http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-0206) :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, where are you getting the idea of grid or hex based battlemaps being mandatory in any other game system?

4e D&D is the closest game I've seen to actually requiring one, but even that I've seen improvised without a map. Should I tout on D&D 4e's 'flexibility' for being easily run even without a map?

Set
2010-03-10, 11:04 AM
But not spending your full points allowance doesn't necessarily mean you lose out. Those unspent points can just be saved for later :smallsmile:

That's actually a fairly common 'house rule' around here, since we often start out a game and then think, 'Oh, I totally forgot X, which is kinda important to the concept or totally fits the concept.'

Leftover character creation points can then be thrown into that skill / advantage / whatever, during some break in the action (not mid-encounter!).

It's a nice way to tweak a character as you 'discover' something about them during play.


The balance between melee types and magic types can be better in GURPS fantasy, as a half-decent melee does every bit as much damage as a mage (in 3rd edition, anyway, 4th edition changed some things and I'm not as familiar with it), and doesn't have to pay fatigue to do so. The mage ends up with a lot more utility, on the other hand.

Much like trying to play 3.5 with all of the Completes, Tome of Battle, Libris this and Draco-that and Races of Foo and It's Cold/Wet/Dry/Dark Out, GURPS can quickly get bogged down with 'option paralysis,' once you start playing hopscotch through seven or eight different books to build a character, but it's no different than doing the same dance with the 3.5 catalog of options, and, since there are completely modular systems for psionics, racial abilities, several types of magic, etc., etc. the GM might find some particular genres, such as Supers, which traditionally has mages operating alongside aliens and robots and 'gods' and psychics and whatnot, overwhelming. (And some sub-systems balance differently at different levels, in 3rd edition, so that a 500 CP superhero using superpowers will have very different expectations of power level compared to a 500 CP Special Ops dude or a 500 CP Psionic or a 500 CP Fantasy Mage.)

IMO, the biggest flaw with GURPS fantasy is that it lacks a really inspiring setting treatment. Yrth comes across as very 'vanilla' compared to Eberron or the Realms or the Scarred Lands or Golarion, and so, the most memorable GURPS fantasy games I've played seem to have been in ported-over versions of Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms.

Jayabalard
2010-03-10, 12:35 PM
I think that a system which aggravates maturity problems which don't surface in other systems, a symptom shared by the groups of at least three posters in this thread, BECOMES a flaw in the system.It's not like those problems are unique to GURPS, those problems surface in other games. It's just that GURPS gives both the players and the GM a much more powerful toolset to use than many other game systems. It doesn't encourage, or discourage that sort of play. (insert obligatory spiderman quote). This isn't a flaw, and it's certainly does not just allow bad players to be bad; the flip side of the coin is that good players have that same great toolset.

Really, if you have to have rules to protect yourself from having a terrible gaming experience due to immature players... well, blaming the system in this sort of situation is silly.


There was dialogue. The dialogue was me requesting that they stop playing douchebags and them replying that that was the fun part of GURPS. Well, it sounds like you might have been the actual problem here, if they were enjoying the game. And saying "stop being douchbags" in response to players playing the game in a way that they're enjoying it... well, calling that a "mature dialogue" is more than little bit of a stretch.


When the same group only plays sociopaths when the system gives you extra points for being a sociopath, I think we can argue a causal relationship.But they clearly told you that they enjoyed actually playing the sociopaths ("that was the fun part of GURPS"). So it clearly seems that the causal relationship is that they played sociopaths because they enjoyed playing sociopaths and didn't care for the rest of the system, not because of getting character points for mental disadvantages.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-10, 01:15 PM
Yeah, where are you getting the idea of grid or hex based battlemaps being mandatory in any other game system?

Although I have only looked at 3.5 rulebooks briefly, they do seem to recommend that the game be played using a 1 inch square grid. Perhaps more importantly, many of the rules seem to be worded in terms of squares, which means that their use is apparently assumed by default. Nevertheless, I was in no way implying that this makes the use of square grid compulsory to play D&D.

What I was merely pointing out, is that although GURPS has rules for "tactical combat" (hex grids), those are specifically optional, rather than specifically recommended. The general rules outside of that chapter barely mention hexes or grids. Therefore, when a group plays GURPS without using the optional hex rules, I don't consider such to be improvisation. That was my point. :smallsmile:

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-10, 01:27 PM
IMO, the biggest flaw with GURPS fantasy is that it lacks a really inspiring setting treatment. Yrth comes across as very 'vanilla' compared to Eberron or the Realms or the Scarred Lands or Golarion, and so, the most memorable GURPS fantasy games I've played seem to have been in ported-over versions of Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms.

I don't think that Banestorm is too bad (I can't speak for earlier treatments of Yrth). But you are certainly not alone - many GURPS fans on the SJGames forum complain at the lack of good settings. It appears to be a fairly widely held criticism - I don't agree totally with it, but I can understand it.

The use of settings from D&D and elsewhere appears to be a fairly common practice. I have seen many threads on the SJ forum asking for advice on porting over from D&D. I believe that using adventures from other game systems was one of the stated design objectives for GURPS. In fact, there are some GMs that it appears can run a GURPS game using a D&D supplement without any prep-work - they do the conversion in real-time! Not something I would be capable of, I suspect :smalleek:

Jerthanis
2010-03-10, 02:29 PM
Really, if you have to have rules to protect yourself from having a terrible gaming experience due to immature players... well, blaming the system in this sort of situation is silly.

I would say protecting you from terrible gaming experiences is pretty much the entire purpose of the rules in the books. If you have a perfectly mature gaming group that also perfectly anticipates the needs of other gamers at the table, you can run literally any system regardless of its qualities and have a marvelous time.

Accepting that we live in a world without this being the case, finding a system that minimizes immaturity, jerkiness, and disruptive, spotlight stealing behavior in individuals is a must in your gaming system. For some people, not limited to my group, this system for this is NOT Gurps as a default.

It's not an issue that crops up solely with GURPS, it's an issue I attribute to any and all systems which grant you additional power in exchange for defects.

That said, watching Slayers Revolution and reading GURPS lite has made me consider GURPS with my "0 CP at creation, +1 CP for inconvenience" defect houserule for a Slayers-esque campaign.



What I was merely pointing out, is that although GURPS has rules for "tactical combat" (hex grids), those are specifically optional, rather than specifically recommended. The general rules outside of that chapter barely mention hexes or grids. Therefore, when a group plays GURPS without using the optional hex rules, I don't consider such to be improvisation. That was my point. :smallsmile:

Fair enough, but I'd just like to say that this is a very fine point you're making. Specifically optional vs specifically recommended is a relatively minor point to attribute it to the massive flexibility of a system.

Townopolis
2010-03-10, 02:35 PM
The problem is when roleplaying systems protect me from having a great gaming experience.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-10, 02:49 PM
I would say protecting you from terrible gaming experiences is pretty much the entire purpose of the rules in the books. If you have a perfectly mature gaming group that also perfectly anticipates the needs of other gamers at the table, you can run literally any system regardless of its qualities and have a marvelous time.
I think you're setting the bar a little high considering GURPS' is "Don't intentionally be a jackass". This is no higher then any other system's.

Jerthanis
2010-03-10, 03:18 PM
I think you're setting the bar a little high considering GURPS' is "Don't intentionally be a jackass". This is no higher then any other system's.

I've gone round and round enough times already trying to explain how rewards for defects inextricably cause unintentional jackassery and dissatisfaction. I'll just leave this be and say:

GURPS is not for everyone, but those who like it cannot conceive of it having problems. It's a love it or leave it system so it's worth a try.

Jayabalard
2010-03-10, 04:24 PM
I don't think that Banestorm is too bad (I can't speak for earlier treatments of Yrth). But you are certainly not alone - many GURPS fans on the SJGames forum complain at the lack of good settings. It appears to be a fairly widely held criticism - I don't agree totally with it, but I can understand it.Banestorm = Yrth. It initally appeared as part of GURPS Fantasy, as the default fantasy setting.

And in general I agree, Banestorm is a pretty well fleshed out world, but still left fairly generic so that you can shoehorn in a wide variety of fantasy campaigns. The history and current political/economic situation is believable. I wouldn't call it vanilla, even compared to some of the more far fetched fantasy worlds... it's more of a realistic/historical fantasy which is pretty far from "just plain vanilla fantasy". I'd personally label both Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms as far more "vanilla" than Yrth.

It's kind of a shame that we can't really discuss it much here (the whole "real world religions" bit)


I would say protecting you from terrible gaming experiences is pretty much the entire purpose of the rules in the books.You're not being very specific about what "the rules in the books" means (ie, what books, what game) so I'm assuming tat you're implying that this is the case for all RPGs. I don't agree that this is generally the case; it generally has a lot to do with the age of the intended audience, and only games that are intended for a fairly young audience focus much on protecting you from the other players.


If you have a perfectly mature gaming group that also perfectly anticipates the needs of other gamers at the table, you can run literally any system regardless of its qualities and have a marvelous time. Perfection is not necessary. If you have a reasonably mature gaming group that is willing to work with the needs and wants of other gamers at the table, you can run any decently designed system and have a marvelous time.

This is all that GURPS requires; if you don't have this, then you're going to have problems, regardless of the system.


I've gone round and round enough times already trying to explain how rewards for defects inextricably cause unintentional jackassery and dissatisfaction. Not really, you've just asserted it to be the case with very little (if any?) in the way of explanation.

a_humble_lich
2010-03-10, 06:07 PM
I'm assuming tat you're implying that this is the case for all RPGs. I don't agree that this is generally the case; it generally has a lot to do with the age of the intended audience, and only games that are intended for a fairly young audience focus much on protecting you from the other players.

Not only do I agree with you I'd like to add that some games are the exact opposite and actively work to pit players against each other. Paranoia is the classic example, and you see a lot in the White Wolf games.

I also like Yrth. For high powered D&D style gaming it may seem boring, but I think it has some of the most fleshed out politics. It seems more like the real world with some magic than a magical fantasy world, which admittedly is boring to some people. In many ways it reminds me of Ars Magica.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-10, 06:22 PM
I've gone round and round enough times already trying to explain how rewards for defects inextricably cause unintentional jackassery and dissatisfaction. I'll just leave this be and say

No, you've gone round and around explaining how folks load up on game ending disadvantages, and it has apparently happened to you often enough that the folks doing it are aware what they're doing. At what point does it stop being hapless?

Mike_G
2010-03-10, 07:24 PM
Well, I finally made my roll to overcome my Continue Fruitless Argument disadvantage, so I'm gonna take Jerthanis' advice and avoid this thread for here on out.

fusilier
2010-03-10, 09:15 PM
Well, I finally made my roll to overcome my Continue Fruitless Argument disadvantage, so I'm gonna take Jerthanis' advice and avoid this thread for here on out.

Hehe

Well played. :-)

People who don't like GURPS who have played it have had bad or annoying experiences. Those who do like GURPS, just assume that the others were "playing it wrong," because they have had different experiences. Sprinkle some personal tastes on top, and we are left with fruitless arguments.

I've tried to add my opinions about the main differences between GURPS and D&D, while recognizing that personal preferences and playing styles factor into our judgements of what's good and what's bad.

Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-11, 05:24 AM
Fair enough, but I'd just like to say that this is a very fine point you're making. Specifically optional vs specifically recommended is a relatively minor point to attribute it to the massive flexibility of a system.

Oh, definitely. :smallsmile: To be fair, if I was trying to describe the flexibility of GURPS to a D&D player (for example) who knew nothing about it, then the optional-ness of using maps & minis would not be the first thing that came to mind. Nonetheless, as it had entered the debate, I felt the need to clear the point up.


People who don't like GURPS who have played it have had bad or annoying experiences. Those who do like GURPS, just assume that the others were "playing it wrong," because they have had different experiences. Sprinkle some personal tastes on top, and we are left with fruitless arguments.

I've tried to add my opinions about the main differences between GURPS and D&D, while recognizing that personal preferences and playing styles factor into our judgements of what's good and what's bad.

Yes. It's unfortunate really, that someone starts a thread asking for comparison between two systems, and this short of argument invariably happens to some degree. I do sometimes wonder, when the OPs start such a thread off but never returns, whether s/he is doing this deliberately to watch the resultant conflagration :smalltongue:

I myself am certainly guilty of failing into this trap on occasion. :smallredface: In my own defence though, I do also try to give genuine questioners detailed answers/examples. I usually also try to get further info from the OP, in order that their expectations vis-a-vis an RPG can be assessed in greater detail - but my experience so far is that generally the OP does not return once the thread is started.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-11, 07:48 AM
Oh, definitely. :smallsmile: To be fair, if I was trying to describe the flexibility of GURPS to a D&D player (for example) who knew nothing about it, then the optional-ness of using maps & minis would not be the first thing that came to mind. Nonetheless, as it had entered the debate, I felt the need to clear the point up.



Yes. It's unfortunate really, that someone starts a thread asking for comparison between two systems, and this short of argument invariably happens to some degree. I do sometimes wonder, when the OPs start such a thread off but never returns, whether s/he is doing this deliberately to watch the resultant conflagration :smalltongue:

I myself am certainly guilty of failing into this trap on occasion. :smallredface: In my own defence though, I do also try to give genuine questioners detailed answers/examples. I usually also try to get further info from the OP, in order that their expectations vis-a-vis an RPG can be assessed in greater detail - but my experience so far is that generally the OP does not return once the thread is started.

Yeah, where are you OP? Have you actually gotten any good out of this mess? :smalltongue:

Townopolis
2010-03-11, 01:12 PM
My guess is the OP gleaned the information they needed and then left us to churn our quagmire.

fusilier
2010-03-11, 01:38 PM
I myself am certainly guilty of failing into this trap on occasion. :smallredface: In my own defence though, I do also try to give genuine questioners detailed answers/examples. I usually also try to get further info from the OP, in order that their expectations vis-a-vis an RPG can be assessed in greater detail - but my experience so far is that generally the OP does not return once the thread is started.

It's an easy trap to fall into. Once one person expresses some opinion you disagree with, in an objective fashion (rather than subjective), then the arguments start. I'm sure I'm not beyond reproach either.

Jayabalard
2010-03-11, 02:50 PM
People who don't like GURPS who have played it have had bad or annoying experiences. Those who do like GURPS, just assume that the others were "playing it wrong," because they have had different experiences. Sprinkle some personal tastes on top, and we are left with fruitless arguments. I don't really think that's what the pro-GURPS folks were arguing. In general, they saying that people who don't like GURPS who have played it have had bad or annoying experiences, and that just means that they've had bad or annoying experiences, not that those experiences were caused by a flaw in the system.

fusilier
2010-03-11, 04:00 PM
I don't really think that's what the pro-GURPS folks were arguing. In general, they saying that people who don't like GURPS who have played it have had bad or annoying experiences, and that just means that they've had bad or annoying experiences, not that those experiences were caused by a flaw in the system.

I think I see what you are saying, but it doesn't end there.

The people who had bad or annoying experiences, search for a reason within the game engine as a cause for those bad or annoying experiences. They present that cause as a flaw of the game (possibly unintentionally). Then the other side says, no it's not a flaw, you weren't playing it right. That's basically a subjective argument being framed as an objective one.

The subjectiveness is whether or not the mechanism in question (e.g. disadvantages) should be construed as a flaw. Depending upon what you expect from the game it may or may not be a flaw. What you expect from an RPG is subjective, but also, potentially, formed by previous experience with different RPGs. That's why I try to point out the fundamental differences, and how GURPS may have a different mindset behind it. That doesn't mean I expect everyone to like GURPS once they come to terms with its differences, but at the very least, I hope that the neophyte is able to shake off some of their preconceptions so they can approach GURPS without attempting to shoehorn it into the conceptual framework of a different RPG.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-11, 04:19 PM
The people who had bad or annoying experiences, search for a reason within the game engine as a cause for those bad or annoying experiences. They present that cause as a flaw of the game (possibly unintentionally). Then the other side says, no it's not a flaw, you weren't playing it right. That's basically a subjective argument being framed as an objective one.
Speaking for myself, I pointed out that if you play without an iota of caring towards each other's fun, you're going to futz up any system. Including Paranoia.

The redirect I saw from on this was to attribute it to the system. I find that curious, and like an attempt to dodge what can be called responsibility, however minimal it may be at a gaming table.

fusilier
2010-03-11, 05:34 PM
Speaking for myself, I pointed out that if you play without an iota of caring towards each other's fun, you're going to futz up any system. Including Paranoia.

The redirect I saw from on this was to attribute it to the system. I find that curious, and like an attempt to dodge what can be called responsibility, however minimal it may be at a gaming table.

This gets back, in my opinion, to the conceptual framework that the player has about what the game should be (or what gameplay should be like).

To you or I, it may seem like their just not playing the system the way it is meant to be played. However, the flip side would be, the rules don't say they can't play like that, and so the system is flawed if it allows such destructive game play.

I would argue that almost any RPG can be abused like this, but the manner in which it is achieved is different, and some systems may make it easier than others. Whether or not you feel that a system should try to restrain certain behaviors and encourage others, that's subjective. I think the real problem is (and I'm guilty of this), is that it is difficult for people to identify what preconditions they apply to a specific RPG. Within a particular set of preconditions, all these arguments will be objective. It is the preconditions that are ultimately subjective, and therefore color the entire argument. ****** I think I'm going way too deep here.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-11, 06:01 PM
To you or I, it may seem like their just not playing the system the way it is meant to be played. However, the flip side would be, the rules don't say they can't play like that, and so the system is flawed if it allows such destructive game play.

The difference being that my one assumption I'm arguing on isn't an RPG assumption. It's a basic group activity assumption. "Care about the enjoyment of those around you." I don't really care if they load up on psychopathic PCs or not. I don't even LIKE GURPS particularly much. I just recognize that if a number of folks are trying to be serious, the Psychopaths' players are going to be disruptive, and you'll have a dysfunctional group of players, which is rarely all that fun to participate in.