Grade the GURPS System

[Eyes of Nine]

You know why I would never play GURPS today? because while there are tons of setting books, there are precious few adventures. I just don't have time to do all the work to run a game

 

[Celebrim]

You know why I would never play GURPS today? because while there are tons of setting books, there are precious few adventures.

After 40 years of playing lots of systems, the defining attribute of a good RPG in my opinion is that it provides great examples of play. That's even more important than having great rules.

GURPS setting books are brilliant.

But for all the pages of GURPS ever printed, there are almost no usable examples of play. Almost no text describing what a session of play looks like except for the short solo adventure example in the basic rule book. Almost no adventures. GURPS is the premiere example of lonely fun in the tabletop RPG universe.

Meanwhile, the games that make a lasting impact on the community are the ones that focus on providing examples of play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I want to make this clear that I did run two campaigns with GURPS, and own a fair bit of stuff for it (including some very recent) but haven't run it in many years.

There are thing I like a lot about it even now, and some that have improved with time (the expanded support for alternate magic systems is a virtue for example). But after two campaigns, there was something I came to utterly hate. I understand why it exists and don't care.

The one second melee rounds are a plague. They might be okay in a fantasy game, or another early historical, but with modern firearms it becomes a race to see who can accurately enough get off a shot ever second to make it worthwhile, and then do so until combats are over. (Both my campaigns were modern period). It produces bizarrely quick combats, and when it doesn't, bizarrely tedious ones because you still need to track every second.

There are other issues I have with some things, but that single one is annoying enough I went with "It's all right" (though I think the "I guess" seems a little passive-aggressive there).

 

[aramis erak]

I am not sure we should judge a game based on its player community.

the type of players who flock to a game system are one of the most important factors in being able to actually play the game with people.

If you find them, as a clade, usually tending towards your own understandings of toxic and/or undesirable, and it's for behaviors the rules reward... that's a reflection on the game.

GURPS rewards several things I dislike as both GM and player.

 

[Faolyn]

You know why I would never play GURPS today? because while there are tons of setting books, there are precious few adventures. I just don't have time to do all the work to run a game

Plus there's little depth to their setting books. Maybe I'm spoiled with D&D's constant splatbooks and setting guides, but I always felt it would be really nice to have an expanded--or even just updated--Fantasy II or Technomancer.

 

[Retreater]

I'm a weak-kneed GM. I don't like telling my players "no." This is why I like systems with very defined rules, and I get nervous about more narrative systems.
GURPS is crunchy, but it also depends heavily on the GM setting the expectations of play. If you can't tell a GURPS player "no" - and do it often - it's going to be a disaster, as I discovered.
Here's an example...
Through a combination of Edges and Hindrances (or whatever they're called in the system), I had a player who made a Blind Sharpshooter Pacifist - who used his accuracy to take excellent photographs, somehow.
Every adventure had to be completely written, every campaign had to have custom dials turned and described to the players with a lengthy campaign booklet.
My bad experience with GURPS kept me from playing any other universal RPG system (Savage Worlds, Basic RPG) for over a decade.

 

[innerdude]

But after two campaigns, there was something I came to utterly hate . . . * snip * . . . The one second melee rounds are a plague.

QFT.

It wouldn't be such a problem if the rest of a player "action turn" could resolve faster such that 1-second rounds weren't so punitive for, you know, actually having fun. It's a design decision that has MASSIVE downstream effects on basically everything combat related (so, you know, like 90% of the game), and none of them are particularly good in terms of making the game more fun and usable.

I learned quickly from the GURPS "power users" that literally anything that forces you to lose a combat round FOR ANY REASON needed to be built against.

In melee combat it was weapons that required a round to "ready" after using, like axes and two-handed pole arms. It was essentially useless to build a ranged character if you weren't planning to take every advantage in the book to eliminate the extra round requirements to draw and nock an arrow. Anything that forced you to waste a round moving or re-facing on your "hex" in combat had to be eliminated, stat. Not from the rules, of course; the rule itself had to remain. It was just up to the players to instinctively know how to do character builds to eliminate all the hassles the rules created.

The whole process was a damning exercise in "trap avoidance," but of course, the solution wasn't to just make the game more fun. The solution was for me as a player to just "git gud" and know the traps.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm a weak-kneed GM. I don't like telling my players "no." This is why I like systems with very defined rules, and I get nervous about more narrative systems.
GURPS is crunchy, but it also depends heavily on the GM setting the expectations of play. If you can't tell a GURPS player "no" - and do it often - it's going to be a disaster, as I discovered.
Here's an example...
Through a combination of Edges and Hindrances (or whatever they're called in the system), I had a player who made a Blind Sharpshooter Pacifist - who used his accuracy to take excellent photographs, somehow.
Every adventure had to be completely written, every campaign had to have custom dials turned and described to the players with a lengthy campaign booklet.
My bad experience with GURPS kept me from playing any other universal RPG system (Savage Worlds, Basic RPG) for over a decade.

That's pretty much an issue you have to engage with with any generic system; it just requires more overhead with a really crunchy one like GURPS.

 

[Thomas Shey]

QFT.

It wouldn't be such a problem if the rest of a player "action turn" could resolve faster such that 1-second rounds weren't so punitive for, you know, actually having fun. It's a design decision that has MASSIVE downstream effects on basically everything combat related (so, you know, like 90% of the game), and none of them are particularly good in terms of making the game more fun and usable.

I learned quickly from the GURPS "power users" that literally anything that forces you to lose a combat round FOR ANY REASON needed to be built against.

Yeah, that was the tack most of my players took. Besides making you weaker in combat, it intrinsically meant you spent more time twiddling your thumbs.

In melee combat it was weapons that required a round to "ready" after using, like axes and two-handed pole arms. It was essentially useless to build a ranged character if you weren't planning to take every advantage in the book to eliminate the extra round requirements to draw and nock an arrow. Anything that forced you to waste a round moving or re-facing on your "hex" in combat had to be eliminated, stat. Not from the rules, of course; the rule itself had to remain. It was just up to the players to instinctively know how to do character builds to eliminate all the hassles the rules created.

The whole process was a damning exercise in "trap avoidance," but of course, the solution wasn't to just make the game more fun. The solution was for me as a player to just "git gud" and know the traps.

There are probably groups that weren't so tight about it where it wouldn't be quite as bad--but even with those, you still had to monitor every damn second because someone might need to move or reload or whatever.

Like I said, I get why it was done: its hard to represent certain things properly with bigger, chunky rounds, as Hero shows, and its phases are usually only 2-3 times as long. But at a certain point representing things properly has too high a price.

 

[WolpertingerFL]

The good:
The sourcebooks are amazing. They make great reading and are useful for use in other systems. For example, GURPS space had charts and tables that I used for a savage world campaign. I used GURPS tech levels for a low fantasy game I ran, where some nations had gunpowder and others didn't

The rules simulate real world physics with a fair degree of accuracy. This is great for GM's who favor simulation over other play styles.

Very flexible rule set for GMs who want to develop their own campaign worlds and styles.

The bad:
Character creation isn't balanced at all, just throw your point into Dex or Int and be the best at whatever you choose. A Pathfinder type diminishing returns stat build system would have helped a lot.

No real support. Other than the sourcebooks, there was never very much support for individual game worlds, a book or two at most. Compare that to Pathfinder, where you can buy an adventure path with everything you need for months of play.

System is limited to simulation type gaming, since alternative rules for different genres (like superheros) seem tacked on and forced.

Overall, it's a good system for GMs who enjoy hyper-realistic settings and are willing to spend a lot of time on their game worlds. I enjoyed running GURPS much more than I enjoyed playing it, and that doesn't make for a successful campaign.