GURPS 4th Edition Revised Announced

GURPS is getting a revised 4th edition. Steve Jackson Games has quietly announced a revised version of GURPS current edition, with a focus on cleaning up wording and layout. Announced at Gamehole Con and further detailed in this thread on the Steve Jackson Games server, the revised edition will be fully compatible with all existing 4th edition GURPS material, right down to preserving page references in existing books. There will be rule changes in the form of additions that will be added via addenda, with players able to bring in those rules as they see fit to their existing 4th edition games.

GURPS stands for Generic Universal Role Playing System and is intended to be a rules system that can be used for any kind of story or genre. Steve Jackson has long-hinted that a new edition of GURPS was on the way, although it appears that they opted to keep the current edition rather than rebuild the game or make significant changes to its mechanics.

From DouglasCole on the GURPS forums:

Since the GURPS Fourth Edition Revised monkey is out of the sack:

Zero. It won't be years. Most of the work is already done.

1. By far the biggest differences are major changes to physical layout and design. I'm not sure what SJ leaked at Gamehole Con, so I'm not going to go into detail here beyond saying, "The thing will be easier to use and read." It will not look the same, despite #3 below.

2. It is definitively not GURPS Fifth Edition, or even a GURPS Third Edition to GURPS Fourth Edition-level change! It is a GURPS Third Edition to GURPS Third Edition Revised-level change. It will not make edition-level changes to point costs, modifiers, prices, weights, etc. All rules changes will be additions, in clearly marked addenda "chapters," so that people can easily decide what to retcon into Fourth Edition campaigns.

3. Top priority is to preserve page references so that whether you use the Basic Set, Fourth Edition or Basic Set Fourth Edition Revised, an internal "p. 00" or external "p. B00" points you to the same rule. This brooks little to no rewriting outside of the addenda mentioned in #2.

4. Inasmuch as there is some rewriting, as in #3, it will be to remedy some particularly offensive or unclear passages. Not to change rules!

5+. And other minor stuff while we're at it. The above will inevitably change the size, shape, and location of art and quote boxes, so expect art and quotes to change, too. We'll update the credits to reflect additional material in the addenda, and the creatives who created the revised book. I'm sure there are 100 things like that.

#3 is the single most important element in living up to the promise of compatibility. There are literally millions of page references in 21 years of supplements and articles, not to mention community discussions. Invalidating them would mean a huge slap in the face. But #1 is the main reason to do the thing. So, it isn't a conflict . . . it's a visual upgrade that doesn't insult customers, while still providing both enhanced readability AND some extra "best of" addenda.

I can say without shilling or exaggerating that it is far, far more than a new printing. It just isn't a full edition. There are things between the two. A revision is one of those things. If all a reader cares about is the rules . . . well, there will be lots of addenda, but no, not a full revision. However, lots of readers care about readability, sensitivity, design aesthetics, being aware that it's 21 years later, etc. even if not a single rule changes.

Well, that's it for my needless leaks to follow SJ's leaks, but the takeaways:

• Better, more readable layout with different art and quotes.
• Mostly less controversial words, excepting indefinite pronouns (for economic reasons).
• More than 25 pages of "best of" rules skimmed from 21 years of system growth.
• Incidental glitch cleanup (e.g., mistaken "damage" for "injury," or "than" for "that").
• Promise of NO rules or page-reference changes to maintain total compatibility.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Out of curiosity, can you explain why the difference (barring my last sentence in my post above)?

Not sure what you mean by the difference, but assuming you mean why I have a problem in traditional games but not otherwise, I guess it's a "no peanut butter in my chocolate" thing. I like traditional games. I like (to some degree and only a few examples) games with metacurrency. I don't particularly like traditional games that add metacurrency where it didn't previously exist.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not sure what you mean by the difference, but assuming you mean why I have a problem in traditional games but not otherwise, I guess it's a "no peanut butter in my chocolate" thing. I like traditional games. I like (to some degree and only a few examples) games with metacurrency. I don't particularly like traditional games that add metacurrency where it didn't previously exist.

I won't belabor it, but that seems to add up to "I just don't like it, but can't express why." Which is what it is (your example isn't bad because I'm not a fan of combining sweet and savory flavors and there's no special reason for that). It does make it hard to say why its a problem, if it is, though.

 

[dbm]

I’m not Micah, obviously, but I can speculate on that perspective. Some games have been developed fully without needing meta currencies, where as some ‘need’ meta currencies as part of their design from the beginning.

I can see how adding a meta currency to a game which ‘doesn’t need it’ would be annoying to a person who doesn’t like them - it made the game less fun for them. But a game with it baked in from the beginning, that is part of the overall assessment of whether a game is fun to play.

I guess adding meta currencies is a bit of ‘bait and switch’ from that perspective.

 

[MGibster]

I didn't know GURPS had a meta currency. Although if I dig deep into the recesses of my cloudy mind, I might recall being able to spend a point in some sort of cinematic setting to have some impact on the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I won't belabor it, but that seems to add up to "I just don't like it, but can't express why." Which is what it is (your example isn't bad because I'm not a fan of combining sweet and savory flavors and there's no special reason for that). It does make it hard to say why its a problem, if it is, though.

I see all traditional games as having a simulationist drive as part of their make-up, even if it isn't the most important thing. Most rules elements look to simulate something that exists in the setting of the game, not in the meta layer, and rules in the meta layer, above the setting, are either minimized in general or reserved primarily for the GM (with some exceptions). I like sim. Playing with a simulationist mindset makes me happy, particularly in games like the ones I grew up on and their descendents. Metacurrency actively moves away from that sim mindset. Thinking outside my character, or having players do so in game, generally makes me unhappy, particularly in those very same games, and I seek to avoid it whenever possible.

If I feel the game either benefits greatly or can't IMO be properly played without mechanics designed to encourage genre-appropriate play, and playing that genre appropriately in that game is important to me, I will happily make an exception. Star Trek Adventures and many super hero games fall into this category.

Hope that's specific enough of a "why" for you, 'cause that's all I've got.

 

[dbm]

I didn't know GURPS had a meta currency. Although if I dig deep into the recesses of my cloudy mind, I might recall being able to spend a point in some sort of cinematic setting to have some impact on the game.

Luck is once per hour of game play as the base level of usage, which is not a diegetic mechanic.

There are optional rules for ‘buying success’ which is more akin to fate points and so on, too, but Luck is a core rule.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Luck is once per hour of game play as the base level of usage, which is not a diegetic mechanic.

There are optional rules for ‘buying success’ which is more akin to fate points and so on, too, but Luck is a core rule.

It's GURPS, so all the advantages are arguably optional because not everything fits every campaign, but yeah, it's in the basic set, unlike 'impulse buys'.

 

[Swanosaurus]

I see all traditional games as having a simulationist drive as part of their make-up, even if it isn't the most important thing. Most rules elements look to simulate something that exists in the setting of the game, not in the meta layer, and rules in the meta layer, above the setting, are either minimized in general or reserved primarily for the GM (with some exceptions). I like sim. Playing with a simulationist mindset makes me happy, particularly in games like the ones I grew up on and their descendents. Metacurrency actively moves away from that sim mindset. Thinking outside my character, or having players do so in game, generally makes me unhappy, particularly in those very same games, and I seek to avoid it whenever possible.

If I feel the game either benefits greatly or can't IMO be properly played without mechanics designed to encourage genre-appropriate play, and playing that genre appropriately in that game is important to me, I will happily make an exception. Star Trek Adventures and many super hero games fall into this category.

Hope that's specific enough of a "why" for you, 'cause that's all I've got.

I do get the idea of not wanting to be forced into a meta mindset more then necessary (and in the context of GURPS, that's why I really dislike the "Luck" advantage, which feels out of place here). Though I must say that what constitutes "meta" is highly subjective in itself. I'm fine with metacurrencies (I even like them) if an RPG is built well around them, and they usually don't take me out of the fiction, can even serve to immerse me in it more (though I tend to be immersed in the fiction more then immersed in the character).
But, in pretty much every system, I hate battlemaps and consider them deeply meta. Sure, they represent something actual within the fiction, but they are also a birds eye view that usually, no character will ever have. They turn "that enemy over there" into a mini/marker 6 squares from me. They turn me from the one being in the thick of things into some kind of meta-general who looks at it all in some war room and directs his troops. Sure, they represent something within the fiction (while metacurrencies can only represent ineffable things), but interacting with them at the gaming table is among the most "meta" activities in gaming I can think of.

 

[VHawkwinter]

battlemaps

Funny enough, I also generally prefer no battle maps except during big boss fights and combats with a ton of enemies. People tend to end up engaging with the map instead of playing in character.