PDA

View Full Version : I want to like GURPS



Valameer
2010-12-10, 03:38 AM
I really do. But every time I try to use it I get stumped.

I love the core mechanics. I love the level of realism vs. ease of play. I love the modular advanced rules. I love how finished characters feel 'alive'.

However, I want to run a psuedo-medieval setting. Low magic, similar to AD&D second edition or GRRM's Westeros setting.

I hate how advantages from every possible setting are squished into the main book instead of separated by genre. I hate how there are no good settings for the system, only DIY stuff. I hate how long it takes to make characters - especially NPCs. I hate how unintuitive it feels to design new monster templates. Above all, I hate the bloated skill system.

So - what do I do? I could try to go through the books and pull out all the stuff I like, and trim the rest. Make a document, and e-mail it to my group to use? But that seems like it would take a very long time. Time I could use putting together a wonderful D&D campaign, since D&D always runs straight out of the box. GURPS always makes me blanch and turn back to D&D 'cause at least D&D has a focus.

But I'd like to get away from class-based, level-based systems, and explore something "closer to reality." What I mean by that is... imagine D&D is a Wuxia film. Now think about A Game of Thrones. I want the system that is to D&D what A Game of Thrones is to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

GURPS feels like a close fit - but it's unwieldiness always puts me off.

Is there a more focused set of rules that does what GURPS does? Or has anyone trimmed down GURPS before so that it handles low fantasy? Please help me like this system - or one similar to it!

kyoryu
2010-12-10, 03:50 AM
I really do. But every time I try to use it I get stumped.

I love the core mechanics. I love the level of realism vs. ease of play. I love the modular advanced rules. I love how finished characters feel 'alive'.

However, I want to run a psuedo-medieval setting. Low magic, similar to AD&D second edition or GRRM's Westeros setting.

I hate how advantages from every possible setting are squished into the main book instead of separated by genre. I hate how there are no good settings for the system, only DIY stuff. I hate how long it takes to make characters - especially NPCs. I hate how unintuitive it feels to design new monster templates. Above all, I hate the bloated skill system.

So - what do I do? I could try to go through the books and pull out all the stuff I like, and trim the rest. Make a document, and e-mail it to my group to use? But that seems like it would take a very long time. Time I could use putting together a wonderful D&D campaign, since D&D always runs straight out of the box. GURPS always makes me blanch and turn back to D&D 'cause at least D&D has a focus.

But I'd like to get away from class-based, level-based systems, and explore something "closer to reality." What I mean by that is... imagine D&D is a Wuxia film. Now think about A Game of Thrones. I want the system that is to D&D what A Game of Thrones is to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

GURPS feels like a close fit - but it's unwieldiness always puts me off.

Is there a more focused set of rules that does what GURPS does? Or has anyone trimmed down GURPS before so that it handles low fantasy? Please help me like this system - or one similar to it!

Start with the Basic Set, + Magic. Don't start with all the books, they're mostly unnecessary. Work from a minimal standpoint, and then add more if you need it, rather than starting with all of the books and then trimming down.

GURPS does low fantasy pretty well, in fact - it was pretty well designed to do that, and that's probably the genre it's best at.

warmachine
2010-12-10, 05:09 AM
The Dungeon Fantasy series?

TalonDemonKing
2010-12-10, 05:26 AM
The dungeon fantasy series is totally what you're looking for. Rulebook 1 and 3 have classes and races respectively, so they're totally worth picking up. They carry templates (25-75 for races, 250 for classes).

The templates are focused around the classes that they are (Melee skills for Knight, Spells for casters) but allow alot of free room to pick and choose.

Personally, I run my games at 325 points. This allows people to buy the most expensive race template, but for those who choose cheaper races (Humans, for example cost 0 points) to sort of get some better skills or advantages for themselves.

Cybren
2010-12-10, 05:32 AM
I hate how advantages from every possible setting are squished into the main book instead of separated by genre.
It's literally impossible to know every trait that is needed for each genre. And there will be so much overlap.


I hate how there are no good settings for the system, only DIY stuff.

What (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/IOU/) are (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/banestorm/) talking (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/primedirective/) about (http://www.sjgames.com/transhuman/)?There's (http://www.sjgames.com/traveller/) TONS! (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/conan/)


I hate how long it takes to make characters - especially NPCs. I hate how unintuitive it feels to design new monster templates. Above all, I hate the bloated skill system.

This is in general a lot more subjective but remember that hwen you make an NPC you don't have to make them with a fully loaded out character sheet.

a_humble_lich
2010-12-10, 05:36 AM
I agree that I wish GURPS had divided the advantages and skill better (like they did in 3rd Edition). With that said it's not as hard as you think. First I'd have a look at GURPS Banestorm, which is a very good Low Fantasy setting.

As far as advantages goes, I would make a list of what is allowed, but that isn't as hard as you think. First, supernatural and racial advantages are already marked. By just forbidding all supernatural/exotic advantages you have a fairly realistic game. Then do a quick flip through the advantages section and choose which supernatural advantages you want (or which other ones you don't). And make it clear to your players that this is a fantasy game so they shouldn't take things like G-Tolerance. Same goes for skills and disadvantages.

For Example: a_humble_lich's fantasy game
Character Creation rules
--Tech level 3
--All races in Banestorm are allowed
--No Supernatural/Exotic advantages/disadvantages are allowed with the following exceptions:

Magery (up to level 3)
Blessed
Magic Resistance
Oracle (Elves only)
Magic Susceptibility

--Weapon Master and Trained by a Master are not allowed.
--The spells from the basic set are all commonly known. Spells from GURPS Magic require a 5 pt Unusual background per spell.

That is a basic low fantasy game.

Ragitsu
2010-12-10, 05:41 AM
Above all, I hate the bloated skill system.

More options = bad, or...?

I mean, I know there's quite a bit to choose from, but I say variety is a strength of GURPS, rather than a weakness.

FelixG
2010-12-10, 06:28 AM
Best part of GURPS: When your players really piss you off you caan yell: "THATS IT! NOW WE ARE PLAYING GURPS BUNNIES AND BURROWS!!!"

Ragitsu
2010-12-10, 06:32 AM
Best part of GURPS: When your players really piss you off you caan yell: "THATS IT! NOW WE ARE PLAYING GURPS BUNNIES AND BURROWS!!!"

I really wish that was updated to 4th Edition.

Zen Master
2010-12-10, 06:37 AM
It's been quite a while since I looked at GURPS, but my real problem with it was that there was a sort of formula to win. Basically it could be expressed as 'mounted knight kills all.' The multiplier to damage after penetrating armor meant that there was basically no way to survive a mounted charge.

Now, for realism that's not much off. But for gameplay, it's ... well, I want my fantasy hero to be able to survive that.

The Rose Dragon
2010-12-10, 06:39 AM
The multiplier to damage after penetrating armor meant that there was basically no way to survive a mounted charge.

There is a very simple way to survive it, actually: don't get hit.

GURPS is, as far as I can tell, quite lethal once you get hit. So, the solution is to avoid getting hit.

Ragitsu
2010-12-10, 06:40 AM
It's been quite a while since I looked at GURPS, but my real problem with it was that there was a sort of formula to win. Basically it could be expressed as 'mounted knight kills all.' The multiplier to damage after penetrating armor meant that there was basically no way to survive a mounted charge.

Now, for realism that's not much off. But for gameplay, it's ... well, I want my fantasy hero to be able to survive that.

There are probably strategies to shut down a mounted warrior, but none are coming to mind right now.

Zen Master
2010-12-10, 07:16 AM
There is a very simple way to survive it, actually: don't get hit.

GURPS is, as far as I can tell, quite lethal once you get hit. So, the solution is to avoid getting hit.

I think there's a dodge mechanic? But that's relying on chance and luck - and should that fail, once more, you're dead.


There are probably strategies to shut down a mounted warrior, but none are coming to mind right now.

Yes, there are. But not everyone can be mages or archers. Also, those are far from sure-fire methods.

No - the very best way is to be a mounted knight and win initiative. Well, or walled fortifications.

Another way is control: Scrawnier horses, bigger shields and heavier armor. But one the one hand that doesn't really work all that well (because players want big horses and hefty lances and stuff, so it still spirals out of control), and on the other, I honestly feel the author should publish a system that basically works.

Um ... still. Gurps is fine in many other ways. This, however, is why I don't play it. Character generation was awesome, actually.

Ragitsu
2010-12-10, 07:18 AM
Yes, there are. But not everyone can be mages or archers. Also, those are far from sure-fire methods.

No - the very best way is to be a mounted knight and win initiative. Well, or walled fortifications.

Another way is control: Scrawnier horses, bigger shields and heavier armor. But one the one hand that doesn't really work all that well (because players want big horses and hefty lances and stuff, so it still spirals out of control), and on the other, I honestly feel the author should publish a system that basically works.

Um ... still. Gurps is fine in many other ways. This, however, is why I don't play it. Character generation was awesome, actually.


Considering prospective players haven't left the system in droves solely over an imbalance of mounted warriors, I am sure there is a factor/are factors we are overlooking.

Yuki Akuma
2010-12-10, 07:29 AM
There's a reason it's hard to take out a mounted warrior if you're on foot.

It's hard in real life, too.

Yora
2010-12-10, 07:45 AM
There are probably strategies to shut down a mounted warrior, but none are coming to mind right now.

Don't fight him in an open field. :smallwink:

warmachine
2010-12-10, 07:53 AM
If you want medieval PCs to be able to survive mounted charges but still want them to be attacked by mounted warriors, this sounds like a more cinematic style and there are plenty of cinematic rules to choose from. Perhaps the one of negating damage by spending 1FP and losing the next action.

TalonDemonKing
2010-12-10, 08:12 AM
Mage, archers, anyone with a machine-gun type weapon.

I think spears get some kind of bonus to being charged against. Caltrops can probably cause some damage too, as it sues the horses strength against it.

valadil
2010-12-10, 10:07 AM
The thing about GURPS is that it's not a game like D&D. It's a framework for making a game like D&D. The burden of the GM is to choose which subset of GURPS you'll be using. That's what defines your game.

Dungeon Fantasy is a very good start. It gives you classes and races in the form of templates which have a fixed cost. I think you'll like these because they end up limited what skills are available to everyone. So you could slap a race and class together and then spend points raising the skills your class bought you.

Psyx
2010-12-10, 10:18 AM
However, I want to run a psuedo-medieval setting. Low magic, similar to AD&D second edition or GRRM's Westeros setting.


Then I'd recommend WFRP 2nd edition. It sounds exactly what you want.
Or Riddle of Steel, of course...


I've never got on with GURPS either.

jpreem
2010-12-10, 11:07 AM
Don't know much about GURPS, but I guess for most of the campaigns in most of RPG-s when when you are standing in the middle of the open field waiting for a lancer to hit you in your chest then you are not doing it right.
For a lot of levels a lance charge to the chest is an instakill in DD too. When you are a low-level guy then probably a hit from a 1-2 level warr with horse and a lance will kill you. When you are on a higher level then the lancer has to have some levels on him also but still it is a Very deadly melee option. (Power attack + lance in two hands + spirited charge).
When you have a character in DD who can take such a hit in the chest then s/he is a much much larger than life character. So it wouldn't be relevant in any kind of realistic campaign - tho to create such a character in GURPS - you can just give him/her a lot of points and access to super(natural) powers.
(Being able to function after a square hit from a lance charge definetly is supernatural)

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-12-10, 11:21 AM
This advice is based on personal preference, but I would recommended you just played a house-ruled game of D&D instead of GURPS.
Do it like in Call of Cthulhu d20, where the players can choose from a range of class features and make their own class. It works well in CoC d20, so I don't see why it wouldn't in D&D.

Zen Master
2010-12-10, 11:32 AM
... anyone with a machine-gun type weapon ...

Well, clearly, but that's hardly fair on the knight, is it?

DM: The knight charges.
Player: Alright - I mow him down with my M41a 10 mm pulse rifle. That'll teach the bloody bastard to show up in the wrong time and age!

obliged_salmon
2010-12-10, 12:19 PM
For Westeros-type setting, I cannot recommend the Burning Wheel system highly enough. It's gritty, it uses a "duel of wits" social combat mechanism that looks and feels the same as their regular combat system (neither of which you actually need in order to play). I ran a Westeros game with this and we all felt right at home there with BW, right out of the box.

You could also try, like, the Game of Throne RPG. I've heard that's pretty good.

Valameer
2010-12-10, 12:35 PM
I'll elaborate more. I've looked at Dungeon Fantasy, and it seems great. But it's a step back towards a class-based, mindless-monsters-in-dungeons setting. It's GURPS playing at D&D, but I would rather the lower point characters in a lower fantasy setting. I'll agree it's a far better starting point than the Basic Set, though.


*settings*

IOU is a kitchen sink. Banestorm is a kitchen sink. Prime Directive, Transhuman and Traveller are all sci-fi with varying degrees of weirdness factor. Conan is the one setting that is both fantasy and doesn't try to accomodate for time-travelers and space aliens.

To me, GURPS settings like Banestorm (the setting I'm most familiar with) really highlight the weakness of the game - no, not tons of options. Lack of focus. Trying too hard to leave everything available. It weakens the versimiltude in the setting. Rarely do people want their chocolate ice cream, hamburger, apples, and potato chips all in the same casserole. By comparison, Eberron manages to have lots available while maintaining focus on a theme.


More options = bad, or...?

I mean, I know there's quite a bit to choose from, but I say variety is a strength of GURPS, rather than a weakness.

Less focus = bad. More overlapping skills = bad. More useless skills = bad. Skills like carousing, panhandling, hobby skills, area knowledge: hometown vs area knowledge: home country. It doesn't seem like I should need rules for any of this stuff. Since these skills won't ever really come in handy, I can expect my players to skip spending their precious points on them.

I can think of two options: 1) I give skills like carousing or hobby skills away for free if it's appropriate to the character. 2) I cut through the skill lists to make a "pertinent skills" list that throws many of these useless skills into the background where they belong. Even spells are guilty of having too little distinction between them. Restore sight, restore smell, restore hearing, restore speech, etc. vs. restoration, which covers them all and more.

Sure, restoration is VH instead of H, but who's honestly not going to spend one more point for a spell that isn't so specialized? In 3rd edition the "restore X" spells didn't exist, you only had restoration. Why did they think they had to add in all these other spells? The only reason I can think of is to pad the book out - so they can say "150 new spells!" If you like the addition of restore speech for more options, then why not restore hand or restore arm? This is my problem with GURPS in a nutshell. These spells aren't useful options; they're needless options.

They should say "150 new spells that do a fraction of what the old spells did. But the old spells are still there, because it wasn't a balance thing."


Then I'd recommend WFRP 2nd edition. It sounds exactly what you want.
Or Riddle of Steel, of course...

I will look at both of those, thank you. I've heard good things about Riddle of Steel in particular.

I do enjoy the main concepts of GURPS, but I just hate how much work it takes to get it to what you want it to do. Dungeon Fantasy goes some way to streamlining this, but it's not nearly far enough. I think if GURPS published a (generic-ish) fantasy setting book that included all the skills, advantages, disadvantages and equipment you would need printed right in the book it would help give the system the focus it needs to shine.


For Westeros-type setting, I cannot recommend the Burning Wheel system highly enough.

I'll give that a look too, thanks.


You could also try, like, the Game of Throne RPG. I've heard that's pretty good.

Well, I guess Westeros-inspired is more important than Westeros proper. Otherwise it might feel like a lesson in acting. "Did I do Daenerys right? Did you guys think I sold that battle cry?"

Psyx
2010-12-10, 12:47 PM
WFRP2 is probably more accessible than RoS (which is out of print), and it does have a good number of optional books available too for both players and GM (but mostly GM, to be honest!).

There is a new version of WFRP out, but it's quite pricey and I have no experience with it.

I used to also like Runequest 2nd Edition, but that's a very old game.

L5r is plenty-gritty, but obviously Oriental-focused. There is a European-Renaissancey version though called Seven Seas.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-10, 01:13 PM
I hate how advantages from every possible setting are squished into the main book instead of separated by genre. I hate how there are no good settings for the system, only DIY stuff. I hate how long it takes to make characters - especially NPCs. I hate how unintuitive it feels to design new monster templates. Above all, I hate the bloated skill system.

This is about my experiences as well. Sure, you really can do anything in GURPS. If another game exists that specializes in what you want to do, though, it'll likely be much easier to use that system than GURPS.

Low magic, psuedo-medieval fantasy? You want 7th Sea. It is exactly that, and it's a very easy system to pick up and run.

warmachine
2010-12-10, 01:19 PM
I love the modular advanced rules.
I hate how there are no good settings for the system, only DIY stuff.

I love how finished characters feel 'alive'.
I hate how long it takes to make characters - especially NPCs.
You do realise that the sentiments in each pair oppose each other? You love a toolkit approach but you hate the lack of its opposite, integrated, tightly focused approach. You love the ability to richly describe characters but hate the effort needed to richly describe characters. Desiring perfection is good but, practically, no system can achieve it. You're gonna have to compromise and decide which design approach you prefer the most: toolkit or off-the-shelf, rich or simple characters stats.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-12-10, 01:23 PM
I also highly recommend the Basic Roleplaying System (http://catalog.chaosium.com/index.php?cPath=37&osCsid=0437b9ec0ac0b2852a24f39a626f03c1).
It's a lot better than GURPS and it's very versatile.

Valameer
2010-12-10, 03:00 PM
You do realise that the sentiments in each pair oppose each other? You love a toolkit approach but you hate the lack of its opposite, integrated, tightly focused approach. You love the ability to richly describe characters but hate the effort needed to richly describe characters. Desiring perfection is good but, practically, no system can achieve it. You're gonna have to compromise and decide which design approach you prefer the most: toolkit or off-the-shelf, rich or simple characters stats.

You misunderstand.

Want: Optional rules to increase detail where I want it.
Do Not Want: Lack of focus in rules set - I can't hand the book to my players and say "make characters." I'd have to hover over their shoulder to make sure they didn't come up with a six legged baboon from Mars who's a leading member of the calligraphy community. Ok - more realistic - to make sure they didn't accidently grab some TL4 stuff or nerf themselves with too much TL2 stuff when we are playing a TL3 game.

Want: Character building options that can cover wealth, attractiveness, phobias, and quirks. Quirks are a very good touch.
Do Not Want: Too many needless or useless skills and advantages. Too many slow mechanics such as determining final skill values.
Want: A Monster Manual. To be fair, they probably have this out there somewhere, though. One that didn't try to nail every TL and setting would be best.

GURPS does some things really well - and over does others. I really like how simple and effective the basic character abilities are (ST, DX, IQ, HT). I like the basic mechanic of roll 3d6, compare it to skill. But I don't like how they tried to include every single skill they could possibly come up with in the skills section. I'm surprised walking, brushing teeth, and tying shoelaces aren't in there. They would fit in seamlessly alongside some of the other skills. I don't like how the basic book has no setting or focus, and has rules for spaceships beside rules for jousting.

I think it's unfortunate that SJG didn't decide to make a "GURPS Fantasy" book with all the relevant rules within, then a separate "GURPS Space" book. Like D20 Modern, Past, and Future - you can use the same rules across all three, but it makes it so much easier to read when it's split up.

I want to make it work. But every time I get halfway through I stop myself and grab something that doesn't take all the effort to work. Dungeon Fantasy does a lot of the work for me, and I like that. It's exactly what GURPS needs more of.

The Big Dice
2010-12-10, 03:14 PM
To me, GURPS settings like Banestorm (the setting I'm most familiar with) really highlight the weakness of the game - no, not tons of options. Lack of focus. Trying too hard to leave everything available. It weakens the versimiltude in the setting. Rarely do people want their chocolate ice cream, hamburger, apples, and potato chips all in the same casserole. By comparison, Eberron manages to have lots available while maintaining focus on a theme.
The theme with GURPS Banestorm is, "What would it be like in a world where people and cultures from real world history were dropped into a fantasy setting where the Crusades never ended? And what if the wizards decided it was in everyone's interest to suppress technology, so that they could protect their monopoly?"

Where I think GURPS scores is, it can do just about anything better than the system you're already using to do it. It's much less restrictive than D&D when it comes to character design, much more lethal and interactive than most games when it comes to combat and way more versatile than most games when it comes to magic.

But it's hard work. It rewards the GM directly in proportion to the amount of effort he's prepared to put in. Both in terms of world building and session planning.

kyoryu
2010-12-10, 03:40 PM
You misunderstand.

Want: Optional rules to increase detail where I want it.
Do Not Want: Lack of focus in rules set - I can't hand the book to my players and say "make characters." I'd have to hover over their shoulder to make sure they didn't come up with a six legged baboon from Mars who's a leading member of the calligraphy community. Ok - more realistic - to make sure they didn't accidently grab some TL4 stuff or nerf themselves with too much TL2 stuff when we are playing a TL3 game.


Yeah, that's pretty much GURPS. It's Generic and Universal, after all. GM approval of characters has been a given in GURPS for, well, over 20 years now.

Valameer
2010-12-10, 04:03 PM
Yeah, that's pretty much GURPS. It's Generic and Universal, after all. GM approval of characters has been a given in GURPS for, well, over 20 years now.

Thanks for that.


But it's hard work. It rewards the GM directly in proportion to the amount of effort he's prepared to put in. Both in terms of world building and session planning.

That's encouraging - and pretty much everything I need to know. I haven't been able to put the effort in - each time opting for something easier to play. But it's good to know that the rewards are there if I decide to stick it out in the future. I'm going to look at a few of these other systems if I can find them. If they don't work, I'll give GURPS another go - this time more focused on how I want to use the system.

Thanks all.

kyoryu
2010-12-10, 04:10 PM
Thanks for that.


Hope that didn't come off snarky, it wasn't intended as such. But GURPS is exactly that - Generic and Universal, and I've played it for over 20 years. The things you describe are the DNA of the system, in much the same way that classes are the DNA of D&D.

The idea of letting a GURPS character come into a game without approval is pretty horrendous and foreign to me, even if I did limit the scope of options available to the players.

I do agree that the system will reward a GM that's willing to put the time in. But it's not like D&D where (to some extent, anyway), you can just say "build a character with whatever sources you like" or even "build a character from these sources."

a_humble_lich
2010-12-10, 04:45 PM
Also as far as skills like Carouse go, it is true that they won't end up in a game much, but they are there for character flavour. I think of them more like quirks. It only costs 1pt to get a skill at low levels, and a few points in carouse, area knowledge, and poetry can really help round out a character for not much cost. Skills in GURPS really should be more "what would this person know" instead of "what will give my character the most power."

And sometimes they can be useful in a game. The heroine in Raiders of the Lost Ark used carouse to good effect.:smallsmile:

Valameer
2010-12-10, 05:04 PM
Hope that didn't come off snarky, it wasn't intended as such. But GURPS is exactly that - Generic and Universal, and I've played it for over 20 years. The things you describe are the DNA of the system, in much the same way that classes are the DNA of D&D.

I'm sorry, I did read that as snarky, and I didn't reply very curtiously. No offense intended or taken.

It's not that I wouldn't screen the characters either way - but most of my players were overwhelmed when they tried to build a character and it led to a lot of hand-holding. Of course, I was new to the system too, so we were all feeling overwhelmed - trying to make characters without missing anything important.

If we had an experienced GM I'm sure it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

D20 is also a generic, universal, role playing system. But each D20 book uses the general system to fit a theme. I guess that's what I'm pining for.


Also as far as skills like Carouse go, it is true that they won't end up in a game much, but they are there for character flavour.

I don't mind this until it starts cluttering up the character sheet. Maybe a solution for me would be making a meta-skill for each character. Jim's a party-going guy who's a pro at darts. He's always got a sarcastic jab to throw in to any conversation, but sometimes it lands him in trouble. Jim goes to a club to pick up some info from a friend-of-a-friend, and win a few games of darts. Instead of making sure he has hobby: darts, carousing, and fast-talking, he could just roll against his Jim! skill - which would allow him to generally do things that would fit the character's lifestyle.

kyoryu
2010-12-10, 05:22 PM
I'm sorry, I did read that as snarky, and I didn't reply very curtiously. No offense intended or taken.

Cool. The intent was more like hearing some story that your crazy buddy Jim has done, and replying with "Yup, that's Jim."


It's not that I wouldn't screen the characters either way - but most of my players were overwhelmed when they tried to build a character and it led to a lot of hand-holding. Of course, I was new to the system too, so we were all feeling overwhelmed - trying to make characters without missing anything important.

That's one of the reasons I've moved away from GURPS in recent years. For most players, it ended up being a lot of hand-holding. The ones that didn't need hand-holding ended up creating absolute monsters of characters. And, strangely enough, most characters still ended up fitting pretty typical archetypes.

I like the grittiness level of GURPS more than D&D still, but since I'm a bit older and don't have the time to sink into it, I find that D&D suits my purposes better these days.

That's probably a bit of why I prefer 4e to 3.x now that I think about it - the power curve is more similar to GURPS (start off relatively powerful, don't seem to gain power quite as exponentially), and the Tier 1 class-types feel much closer in power and flavor to their GURPS equivalents. Huh.


If we had an experienced GM I'm sure it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Yup. GURPS is a system that really, really wants a GM that's experienced with the system, or at least willing to take the time to learn it pretty well.


I don't mind this until it starts cluttering up the character sheet. Maybe a solution for me would be making a meta-skill for each character. Jim's a party-going guy who's a pro at darts. He's always got a sarcastic jab to throw in to any conversation, but sometimes it lands him in trouble. Jim goes to a club to pick up some info from a friend-of-a-friend, and win a few games of darts. Instead of making sure he has hobby: darts, carousing, and fast-talking, he could just roll against his Jim! skill - which would allow him to generally do things that would fit the character's lifestyle.

Personally, I'd probably just use Carousing for all of those. Darts could be Throwing, giving it wider applicability if you wanted. Fast-talk is more of a bluff-type skill than just witty banter - generally it's used to talk your way out of (or into!) a sticky situation.

Cybren
2010-12-10, 07:52 PM
D20 is also a generic, universal, role playing system. But each D20 book uses the general system to fit a theme. I guess that's what I'm pining for.

d20 is also in no way as accommodating, universal, or general as GURPS. It's just not really that "good" at being a generic system, which is why d20 Modern was never really that popular

kyoryu
2010-12-10, 08:08 PM
d20 is also in no way as accommodating, universal, or general as GURPS. It's just not really that "good" at being a generic system, which is why d20 Modern was never really that popular

Honestly, GURPS isn't all that generic or universal, either. It can be adapted to a number of settings, but it really shines in "low powered heroic" type games. There's some pretty big issues even in higher tech levels with the interactions between weapon damage and armor, and it just doesn't do epic nearly as well as, say, D&D.

Even with superhero games, it does relatively low-powered Supers pretty well. It doesn't do four-color type games nearly as well as, say HERO.

However, apart from the damage/armor issues I mentioned, it does tend to do "heroic normals" pretty well in most genres.

Ragitsu
2010-12-10, 08:12 PM
Putting "Honestly" before something doesn't necessarily make it true.

Cybren
2010-12-10, 08:23 PM
Honestly, GURPS isn't all that generic or universal, either. It can be adapted to a number of settings, but it really shines in "low powered heroic" type games. There's some pretty big issues even in higher tech levels with the interactions between weapon damage and armor, and it just doesn't do epic nearly as well as, say, D&D.

Even with superhero games, it does relatively low-powered Supers pretty well. It doesn't do four-color type games nearly as well as, say HERO.

However, apart from the damage/armor issues I mentioned, it does tend to do "heroic normals" pretty well in most genres.



Yeah uhh, HERO does superheroes better because it came out of champions.
GURPS does low fantasy better because it came out of Man-to-Man. But both games do every genre other than D&D, itself an overly specific subgenre of a type of fantasy game, (maybe) better than d20

kyoryu
2010-12-10, 08:35 PM
Putting "Honestly" before something doesn't necessarily make it true.

No, but in this case, it is true. GURPS does "heroic normals" reasonably well in most genres. It has some issues at higher tech levels. It also doesn't handle characters that are significantly better than "normals" very well.

Even its Supers stuff tends to follow this, doing Wild Cards levels of power (normal humans with a few superpowers) better than four-color (Supes, Batman, etc.).

If you'd like to disagree with this, which part do you want to disagree with?


Yeah uhh, HERO does superheroes better because it came out of champions.
GURPS does low fantasy better because it came out of Man-to-Man. But both games do every genre other than D&D, itself an overly specific subgenre of a type of fantasy game, (maybe) better than d20

Yup, I know. My point is just that it's relatively universal within a particular power level - which makes it not really "universal."

And actually, GURPS' immediate predecessor was The Fantasy Trip... What can I say, I'm old.

By the way, I'm not saying that GURPS is *bad* in any way. My opinions are based on years of playing it, and I still have a soft spot in my heart for it. But, I do recognize its limitations as well as its strengths. For a lot of game types, I'd probably still use GURPS.

Cybren
2010-12-12, 12:55 PM
No, but in this case, it is true. GURPS does "heroic normals" reasonably well in most genres. It has some issues at higher tech levels. It also doesn't handle characters that are significantly better than "normals" very well.

Even its Supers stuff tends to follow this, doing Wild Cards levels of power (normal humans with a few superpowers) better than four-color (Supes, Batman, etc.).

If you'd like to disagree with this, which part do you want to disagree with?



Yup, I know. My point is just that it's relatively universal within a particular power level - which makes it not really "universal."

And actually, GURPS' immediate predecessor was The Fantasy Trip... What can I say, I'm old.

By the way, I'm not saying that GURPS is *bad* in any way. My opinions are based on years of playing it, and I still have a soft spot in my heart for it. But, I do recognize its limitations as well as its strengths. For a lot of game types, I'd probably still use GURPS.
Yes, TFT was the immediate predecessor.

M2M was where most of the GURPS mechanics originated

Eric Tolle
2010-12-12, 05:02 PM
Yeah uhh, HERO does superheroes better because it came out of champions.

I always found that Hero did low-powered characters better than GURPS as well, but that's just me.

Mutants and Masterminds does superheroes better as well, and it came out of the D20 product line. I find it much easier to create characters of different power levels with M&M than GURPS. Even M&MM has it's flaws though; I still think it has too many skills and feats. I hear that those lists have been streamlined in the latest edition, so I'm looking forward to seeing what they've done.

There's also Wild Talents, which has a fairly simple stat and skill system, and a wild power creation system that is far more broad than any other game I've seen. Designate whether a power is Attack, Defense or Utility, set it's parameters and limitations, and you can have anything from a scientist who turns into a giant dinosaur, to a schoolgirl who summons cute shikigamis. The problem being that you really have to be able to think in terms of building from very, very basic building blocks. The system gives me a headache, frankly.



GURPS does low fantasy better because it came out of Man-to-Man. But both games do every genre other than D&D, itself an overly specific subgenre of a type of fantasy game, (maybe) better than d20

I found that the late, great True20 system did low fantasy very well, as magic was very nicely balanced. The Damage Save mechanism was realistic enough (far moreso than GURPS with it's hit points), and the simplified skill system was appreciated too.

These days though, I've had enough of systems that try to claim realism involves masses of little fiddly bits like GURPS. If I want low fantasy, I'll turn too Jaws of the Six Serpents; if I want swashbuckling fantasy, I use Pirates of the Seven Skies. The nice thing about these games is that the traits are very broad, and there is no such thing as a useless skill; clever thinking can turn a conflict using one group of traits into a combat utilizing another, such as the con artist who bluffs a swordsman into giving an opening.

Bottom Line? I'm getting old, life is short, and there just isn't enough time in the day to waste on trying to make a GURPS character, much less a GURPS game.

Ragitsu
2010-12-12, 05:47 PM
I always found that Hero did low-powered characters better than GURPS as well, but that's just me.

I find it much easier to create characters of different power levels with M&M than GURPS.

GURPS definitely has greater variety at the lower "power levels". This becomes clear to anyone that spends time with both systems.

By the way, I disputed your point about GURPS not modeling reality very well in the other thread. I'd be interested in your reply there.

Psyx
2010-12-13, 07:19 AM
Where I think GURPS scores is, it can do just about anything better than the system you're already using to do it.

I have to disagree, I'm afraid.

For me, GURPS is an adjustable spanner.

If you have a bolt you need to tighten and nothing else for the job, you can use it. It's fiddly, requires constant adjustment, takes longer and isn't really the tool for the job.

Whereas a system built around a specific ideal, setting and play style is a ring-spanner. It only fits that niche, but it's just better at filling it, in every way.


Someone also touched the 'players making monsters' thing. GURPS has so many options (and so many useless ones...) and is points-based. And has tons of flaws to take. As a result, too many characters are honed killing machines. I find it to be a problem in any system where players have a bunch of points, and a load of flaws that are basically read as 'extra character points'.

Knaight
2010-12-13, 09:06 AM
Is there a more focused set of rules that does what GURPS does? Or has anyone trimmed down GURPS before so that it handles low fantasy? Please help me like this system - or one similar to it!

Burning. Wheel.

The Big Dice
2010-12-13, 01:40 PM
Someone also touched the 'players making monsters' thing. GURPS has so many options (and so many useless ones...) and is points-based. And has tons of flaws to take. As a result, too many characters are honed killing machines. I find it to be a problem in any system where players have a bunch of points, and a load of flaws that are basically read as 'extra character points'.
I find that's more of a problem in D&D than in any other game.

People talk about versatility in D&D, about having options. But what they often mean is, having a variety of ways to kill things. Not having options for how to deal with situations in different ways, just for killing them. But that's the way D&D is set up.

If you only get experience for overcoming hazards and defeating monsters, that's going to be what you design your character to do.

If you're playing a game with less specific methods for getting experience, you are free to make characters that might not be the best fighters that they can be.