Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7559604" data-attributes="member: 85870">I've bagged on GURPS a bit in this thread already, but to me GURPS is an exception. It very much feels designed with &quot;realism first&quot; as a primary goal, with the assumption that &quot;realism&quot; and &quot;fun&quot; will be naturally and harmoniously synonymous.And I think this is a common, and largely appealing impulse for certain types of players. If we're going to change something, it should be with the goal of being more realistic. Whereas there are lots of other options, as you've outlined. It can be rules design with the goal of creating a very specific tone and vibe. It can be rules design with the goal to highlight specific aspects of play, or to reinforce certain thematic material. GURPS is devoid of nearly all of this, unless you're willing to spend vast amounts of time carefully poring over the thousands of pages of supplements to build your own &quot;perfectly tuned&quot; version of GURPS . . . and even then, it's still going to basically just feel like GURPS always does anyway, most of the time.For certain types of players, this experience is rapturous, because they can play with absolute certitude that they're using the most &quot;realistic&quot; set of gameplay options for RPG play on earth. If the resulting game is less fun in practice than say, D&amp;D 5, well, then it should still be applauded for its high-brow, vigilant adherence to its principles.(I honestly know several of my old GURPS' group players that have this attitude. It didn't matter if playing another system was actually more fun. Since GURPS was clearly the &quot;mechanically superior choice,&quot; they blindly stuck with it. Because otherwise they were somehow cheating themselves by using something &quot;objectively inferior.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 7559604, member: 85870"] I've bagged on GURPS a bit in this thread already, but to me GURPS is an exception. It very much feels designed with "realism first" as a primary goal, with the assumption that "realism" and "fun" will be naturally and harmoniously synonymous. And I think this is a common, and largely appealing impulse for certain types of players. [I]If we're going to change something, it should be with the goal of being more realistic.[/I] Whereas there are lots of other options, as you've outlined. It can be rules design with the goal of creating a very specific tone and vibe. It can be rules design with the goal to highlight specific aspects of play, or to reinforce certain thematic material. GURPS is devoid of nearly all of this, unless you're willing to spend vast amounts of time carefully poring over the thousands of pages of supplements to build your own "perfectly tuned" version of GURPS . . . and even then, it's still going to basically just feel like GURPS always does anyway, most of the time. For certain types of players, this experience is rapturous, because they can play with absolute certitude that they're using the most "realistic" set of gameplay options for RPG play on earth. If the resulting game is less fun in practice than say, D&D 5, well, then it should still be applauded for its high-brow, vigilant adherence to its principles. (I honestly know several of my old GURPS' group players that have this attitude. It didn't matter if playing another system was actually more fun. Since GURPS was clearly the "mechanically superior choice," they blindly stuck with it. Because otherwise they were somehow cheating themselves by using something "objectively inferior." [/QUOTE]

Verification