To all the other "simulationists" out there...

Ashrem Bayle said:

I'm curious. Why the hate for the system? I love it.

Click to expand...

It's too heavy. Character creation is a chore, campaign design is an even larger chore, and combat- even Lite combat- is not only too complicated but needlessly detailed. I like my games light and fast.

Which isn't to say I don't like GURPS. I actually don't mind the system. But the problem is, it isn't my first choice for anything, so it inevitable gets trumped by another system when I'm planning a game.

Professor Phobos said:

It's too heavy. Character creation is a chore, campaign design is an even larger chore, and combat- even Lite combat- is not only too complicated but needlessly detailed. I like my games light and fast.

Which isn't to say I don't like GURPS. I actually don't mind the system. But the problem is, it isn't my first choice for anything, so it inevitable gets trumped by another system when I'm planning a game.

Click to expand...

I agree to a point. Complex characters can take a long time to build in GURPS. But once its done, its done.

I've found that a well laid out character sheet, a good DM screen, and a cheat sheet really helps with combat. And I use nearly all the options, which obviously aren't necessary or required.

I enjoy GURPS, but I found that the additional burden in preparation time wasn't really worth it. But I'd still play. The system has alot of merit.

If you consider yourself a simulationist, check out GULLIVER. It fixes alot of the holes in GURPS.

I agree with the general gist of your complaint. It reminds me of the sort of feelings that drove me from 1st edition AD&D to GURPS. However, your specific example leaves alot to be desired. If you can't drop a character in one shot, it's not a mook. If the gaurd was supposed to be a mook, then it was really poor mook design at fault and not the system. The inability to drop equivalent level characters in a single hit is a feature - not a bug. It helps avoid, 'Whoops, there goes the villain. Well, wasn't that anticlimatic.' If anything, D&D tends to allow characters to be dropped too easily. (GURPS actually makes it harder, but then you start to realize that you might as well flip a coin to determine the outcome as go through all the motions.) What you learn by playing multiple systems is that there is no perfect system.

But assuming you want as a goal 'dropping non-mook characters in a single blow'

a) Allow power attack with a light weapon.
b) The assassin class has a 'death attack' design to provide for exactly this sort of thing. Under the default rules, simply level in assassin if you want to play 'a silent blade in the night, killing his foes swiftly and silently if he could get the drop on them'.
c) However, probably an even better choice if you want to feature this sort of game play is to make 'death attack' (with some changes to accomodate being removed from the PrC framework) available as a feat with prerequisites similar to those you need to take the PrC (something like, Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks, sneak attack +2d6).
d) If the intention of the character is to be a mook, then he should have stats commiserate with being a mook. He should be something like a 2nd level warrior with 11 hit points - dispatchable by even a 3rd level rogue in a pinch. If the guy is a 4th level fighter with 26 hit points, then he's not a mook. He's a highly competent hero in his own right who normally kicks ass and the fact that all he can do against you is with every ounce of his reserves manage to ring the bell before dying then that makes you ungodly deadly and quick.

And don't complain about how the rules as written in any system constrain your game from being the one you want to play. GURPS acquires at least as many house rules as any edition of D&D I've ever played. See the above GULLIVER for a somewhat (not that atypically) extreme example. GURPS acquires bloat as well as any game system out there once you start adding source books. If you've played GURPS for any length of time you know that it also has clunky bits, is prone to power gaming, and doesn't create versimilitude nearly as well as one would like on occassion.

PS: I just really caught the implications of 'I dropped my campaign a year ago'. Nevermind. You are still on your honeymoon with the system. Every decent system seems really great in the first year or so. At least for me, it takes at least a year before the nagging flaws really start to bother you so much that it detracts from the joy of gaming and you start trying to remodel the house.

Ashrem Bayle said:

I agree to a point. Complex characters can take a long time to build in GURPS. But once its done, its done.

Click to expand...

Until someone explodes and has to sit out two hours of game time...which is something I'm normally not prepared to accept. Half hour, tops, for character creation, and that's for someone who has to flip through the book. I can make a Cthulhu character in a matter of minutes, which is my preference.

I've found that a well laid out character sheet, a good DM screen, and a cheat sheet really helps with combat. And I use nearly all the options, which obviously aren't necessary or required.

Click to expand...

All the options? My most terrible nightmares are before me!

But, seriously, it's a good game with solid support. It's play tested extensively, the books are edited like unto any serious publication, if not better, and while a designer once yelled at me for deriding the value of the "Freight Management" skill, SJGames is a very responsive company to problems and questions. I recommend it to everyone.

Sad thing is, it was a WOTC module that gave the guard the stats. (Red Hand of Doom)

That said, had I been DMing, I would have changed it anyway. But in this case the DM that was running it has always been a "slave to the module" type of DM.

Click to expand...

Definately not the first, or the last time WotC ignored their own advice to their own detriment.

If the dude wasn't supposed to be a mook, the presentation obviously was wonky (you guys thought he was! I probably would have thought he was!). If he WAS supposed to be a mook, the rules used were wonky (didn't have mook hp!).

Again, that's partially because 3e was pretty obtuse when scaling encounters and CR's, and even if you understood it, the CR thing was a notoriously finnicky beast.

I do think 4e will vastly improve on this. 3e required some exegisis to see that "Oh, guards on watch towers probably max out around 3rd level and will probably have 10 con and 4.5 hp per level, so maybe the captain can take an untrained rogue's dagger, but still, fragile!" Obviously, WotC didn't always do that themselves, even.

Put this in the box of "Things that didn't really work well, and that most needed fixing" for me.

A while back, for kicks, I statted some D&D iconics in GURPS. For those interested, here's Regdar:

Voss said:

He could have been a weak little nobody in 3rd edition too, but the DM made him level appropriate. A level appropriate guard in 4e isn't going to be one-shotted either... in fact, based on the hit points we've seen, a 4e guard of an appropriate level is actually less likely to drop in a single shot, no matter how you try to take him out.

So for the specific situation that triggered the 'break' (not in general), 4e is even less appropriate.

Click to expand...

The Minion rules can change that - if you use them for your sentry guards, that is. (Which might sometimes be forgotten). The difference between a 3E "mook" (e.g. a low level NPC) and a 4E Minion is that a group of Minions can still be an actual threat to the PCs.

The individual Minion has no chance to survive a surprise attack. But if he alerts the other Minions, they together can still contribute considerably to the ensuing combat.

That said, there is no guarantee that your DM will use minions where, to have your tactics work in the game, you need them. Maybe at this point, the DM has to make some "on-the-fly" adjustments - make the NPC a Minion instead of the regular type creature he originally was planned to do. You might want to adjust XP a little bit, but you could rule the "sneaking" around as part of a skill challenge that grants its own XP (and wouldn't be succesful if the PCs go for a frontal assault). Off course, the latter was (- concrete guidelines for Minions and running and rewarding skill challenges) possible in 3E...

ardoughter said:

The trouble with 'realistic' combat systems is that the players die too easily. The attraction of D&D and (games like it) is that PC are hard to take out. The problem is that the one shot kills on sentries (by sneaking up) and or sniper fire is also impossible as per the rules.

In the op's presented scenario I would allow an instant kill, simply because it makes for a good story line but it would be pure DM fiat.

Thing is with the minion rules, one shot kills on sentries now becomes a possiblility, of course not all sentries will be minions. The way I look at it, given the move to more cinematic storytelling in 4e, many more 'realistic' things will be possible, though they may require the expenditure of additional resources.

Again in the op scenario, spending an action point to get a second surprise action and sneak attack could have taken care of the guard and as another pointed out, being between the guard and the bell could have given the rogue another action.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if a PC goes into that much trouble to do something, and it's realistic (it definitely seems so in this case), then the DM should reward the player to make his goal more obatainable even if it normally isn't by RAW. In this scenario, it probably would be possible using RAW. The rogue's first attack happens during the surprise round. Then if he beats the guard's initiative, he can sneak attack him again the next round while the guard is flat-footed.

Celebrim said:

a) Allow power attack with a light weapon.

Click to expand...

The goal is to not have to use house rules.

b) The assassin class has a 'death attack' design to provide for exactly this sort of thing. Under the default rules, simply level in assassin if you want to play 'a silent blade in the night, killing his foes swiftly and silently if he could get the drop on them'.

Click to expand...

Character had to be evil to be an assassin. He wasn't. Again, the DM was avoiding house rules.

c) However, probably an even better choice if you want to feature this sort of game play is to make 'death attack' (with some changes to accomodate being removed from the PrC framework) available as a feat with prerequisites similar to those you need to take the PrC (something like, Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks, sneak attack +2d6).

Click to expand...

Again, I could have house ruled it a hundred different ways. I'm talking about the RAW.

d) If the intention of the character is to be a mook, then he should have stats commiserate with being a mook. He should be something like a 2nd level warrior with 11 hit points - dispatchable by even a 3rd level rogue in a pinch. If the guy is a 4th level fighter with 26 hit points, then he's not a mook. He's a highly competent hero in his own right who normally kicks ass and the fact that all he can do against you is with every ounce of his reserves manage to ring the bell before dying then that makes you ungodly deadly and quick.

Click to expand...

As I said, this was a WOTC written module, and the DM was sticking to it.

And don't complain about how the rules as written in any system constrain your game from being the one you want to play.

Click to expand...

Why not. It's a legitimate complaint.

GURPS acquires at least as many house rules as any edition of D&D I've ever played.

Click to expand...

Really? I'm not using any and it's running just fine.

GURPS acquires bloat as well as any game system out there once you start adding source books.

Click to expand...

That's the point of additional source books. And whose complaining about bloat?

If you've played GURPS for any length of time you know that it also has clunky bits, is prone to power gaming, and doesn't create versimilitude nearly as well as one would like on occassion.

Click to expand...

It ain't perfect, but it suits my taste without a single house rule.

PS: I just really caught the implications of 'I dropped my campaign a year ago'. Nevermind. You are still on your honeymoon with the system. Every decent system seems really great in the first year or so. At least for me, it takes at least a year before the nagging flaws really start to bother you so much that it detracts from the joy of gaming and you start trying to remodel the house.

Click to expand...

In my experience if you can't see the problems in the first few games, there aren't many major problems. In fact, you should be able to spot most of them during character creation and your first session.

Charwoman Gene said:

Wow, I saw that OP and thought, so now I make the guy on the rooftops a minion, cool.

Click to expand...

Sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but don't minions usually accompany a more powerful creature? It sounds like this was just a lone guard....

In 3.5 terms, I would have just made him a low-level warrior. In any case, I don't understand why a simple guard would have been so hard to take down, with surprise and sneak attack and everything else. An earlier poster explained how the rogue would have likely won initiative and at least gotten in a couple attacks on the guard, with maybe an attack of opportunity when he went for the bell.

Just sounds like bad DMing to me, rather than a weakness in the rules. What DM would ruin a perfect opportunity for some drama and some PC badassery by making a simple guard a high-level fighter?