Grade the GURPS System

[Celebrim]

So I'm one of the few in the "hate" category.

GURPS to me is a weird amalgamation of 97 individual design choices that, when looked at discretely seem to make sense, and even appear to be superior to alternatives in the same RPG design space (trad / discrete action resolution / emphasis on realism).

The fundamental problem with GURPS is something that I feel it shares with most modern RPG design in that the rules were built before the game was played. I think the early game of GURPS with just tri-stat and a simple 3D6 resolution mechanic and roll under might have been OK. I have problems with those design choices already, but I can imagine that game being playable. And the example of play from the core rulebook is not actually for GURPS, but for that core simpler game that plays very loosely with the rules (something I now recognize as a huge warning sign).

One of the biggest problems in GURPS is the skill system is the core of the game and is absolutely horribly designed. It gets one of the fundamental rules of good skill system design completely wrong. The fundamental rule of good skill system design is that the broader your gameplay the broader of a range of activities each of your skills has to cover. If you don't adhere to that rule, all sorts of bad things happen. GURPS though tried to create a universal game system where every single skill was very narrowly defined despite hitting on a solution (Tech Level) that could have prevented that because "realism". Not every athletic male in TL7 knows how to jump out of an airplane with a parachute, so we need a separate skill for that if we are going to be "realistic". But assuming that everyone in TL7 who was athletic could use a parachute would have been much better for the game and most genre emulation. It's something that would have been better handled with rulings do not rule and a side panel about optional modifiers for lack of experience in a particular endeavor. And on top of breaking that rule, it also broke the rule that the defined set of skills needs to be both space spanning (anything a player could propose fits in a skill) and discrete (its obvious what skill relates to what proposition), again opting for "realistic" solutions like multiple similar skills default to each other with small penalties. And for a game that's core mechanic is "roll against a skill" this is lethal.

I look back at a lot of my gaming in the 1980's and early 1990's and what I see now is attempting to run the software for a videogame on a meat processor. What I see now is a lot of frustrated video game developers making video games like "Starfleet Battles" and "Car Wars" who were frustrated by the lack of capabilities of the common video games of the time and trying to solve those problems by running the game as pen and paper. There are so many games I played back then that I'd never touch now because they are video games written on paper. The better examples of design in that era, say Battletech 3025 recognized the problem and created simplified versions of the game they wanted to make knowing the full game would need to wait for a computer, but so many designers in that era were lost in the simulation that they were excited about and wrote things that should have been video games in the first place. GURPS, Rolemaster, and others are the RPG versions of that trend, and while there are aspects the video games don't capture the experience they were going for is much better on a video game.

Believe me, I've been there. I at one time set out to create a system that had each weapon inflict multiple types of damage (lethal, stun, knockback just that I remember) simultaneously that was each individually resisted. I was making a cool video game and trying to run it on meat, and it took me a while to realize that.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

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.

May be the best post ever on ENWorld (at least today ). At least the truest

 

[dbm]

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.

Just to add some information for potential readers, I have about 20 first- and third-party official GURPS 4e modules, and there are multiple adventures in Pyramid magazine, too. There is also a four book series on How To Be a GURPS GM which gives lots of practical advice.

It’s not D&D levels of support, but it does exist.

 

[MGibster]

One of the biggest problems in GURPS is the skill system is the core of the game and is absolutely horribly designed. It gets one of the fundamental rules of good skill system design completely wrong. The fundamental rule of good skill system design is that the broader your gameplay the broader of a range of activities each of your skills has to cover.

The skill Dropping is the final straw that broke my group. We were playing our Delta Green campaign when one of the PCs wanted to drop a heavy object on an NPC from the 2nd story of a house. I think it defaulted to Dexterity -4 and the player just looked at me and said, "This is %#%ing stupid."

I look back at a lot of my gaming in the 1980's and early 1990's and what I see now is attempting to run the software for a videogame on a meat processor. What I see now is a lot of frustrated video game developers making video games like "Starfleet Battles" and "Car Wars" who were frustrated by the lack of capabilities of the common video games of the time and trying to solve those problems by running the game as pen and paper.

Car Wars, Starfleet Battles, and Battletech came from an era where war games were fairly complicated. I don't think they were frustrated video game developer who turned to pen & paper, I just think the expectations were different back then. I enjoyed all three of those games back in the day, but I sure don't want to mess with them now. I gave up even trying to find SFB players in the early 2000s and it had been almost a decade since I had last played it.

There was a shareware game called Intra-Galactic Battles that was pretty much just Starfleet Battles that made the rounds in the early 1990s. You could play as the Federation, Orions, Klingons, and Orions (though I think they Klingons were called something else). And holy cow! I just tried to play it through an emulator and I don't have the patience even for that.

But those kinds of games have waned in popuarity over the years along with GURPS. It used to be that I could go to the game store and see dozens of GURPS books on the shelves, but that stopped in the 1990s. While I think GURPS is an excellent game, I would have to agree with many of the criticisms that have been written in this thread.

 

[aramis erak]

*Edit 2: Removed one paragraph, as it was needlessly critical of the GURPS player base. I'm sure most of the GURPS player base is fine. My experiences with the GURPS playerbase in my area was abysmal and in no small measure indicative of psychopathology in the literal sense -- low empathy, grandiosity, impulsivity, aggression, and lack of remorse for behaviors.

Yeah, that's the kind of stuff I was referring to. GURPS seems to draw those with those psychopathologies...
Much like how Rifts draws a certain type of munchkinish fanbase.

.

The fundamental problem with GURPS is something that I feel it shares with most modern RPG design in that the rules were built before the game was played. I think the early game of GURPS with just tri-stat and a simple 3D6 resolution mechanic and roll under might have been OK. I have problems with those design choices already, but I can imagine that game being playable. And the example of play from the core rulebook is not actually for GURPS, but for that core simpler game that plays very loosely with the rules (something I now recognize as a huge warning sign).

GURPS was never a three stat game. Specifically because TFT was, and the lack of separation between fatigue and injury was a common fan complaint about TFT, as was the lack of an Constitution/Endurance/Stamina type stat.
Plus, despite it being the most combat used number in the game, MA (movement allowance) isn't counted as a stat; nor was it in TFT.

System	TFT	GURPS
Core Stats	ST DX IQ	ST DX IQ HT
Secondary	MA AV	MA PD DR
difficulty model	xd6 <= Att, x in range 0-5.	3d6<= skill or attribute
Skill Model	skill type talents reduce difficulty by a die	skills set TNs for rolls. Many skills have a default level from an attribute or another skill
Advantages model	Non-skill talents: Create additional figured atts provide direct feat-like benefits	Advantages in three broad groups: create additional figured attributes provide direct benefits like D&D feats adjust costs or levels of other purchased items
Disadvantages model	none	create additional figured attributes provide direct penalties adjust costs or levels of other purchased items

IIRC, in the designers notes, SJ mentioned that GURPS was his own reaction to how he and fans had been using TFT. Once he sat down to it, HT was his first add-on

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm to step back in and say that, while I don't see some of the complaints about GURPS being particularly legitimate outside of a kind of specific perspective (but then, I'm not a low-crunch person by default), the degree of skill-splitting really did get excessive (I tend to find the skill-splitting in Hero right at the upper end of what I think serves a purpose, and GURPS is well beyond that). On the other hand, I often thought it didn't split attributes quite enough.

But I don't think it was designed in a vacuum; as Aramis says up above, its too clearly an offshoot of TFT for that to be convincing. Its just designed in places for a set of priorities that have mostly had their day.

 

[giant.robot]

While I don't disagree about the problems outlined here with GURPS it is useful to remember it's a toolbox system. You don't need to use all the rules. Many GURPS games I've played in or run over the years haven't used much more than the GURPS Lite rules. That flexibility is at least a plus for the system.

 

[aramis erak]

But I don't think it was designed in a vacuum; as Aramis says up above, its too clearly an offshoot of TFT for that to be convincing. Its just designed in places for a set of priorities that have mostly had their day.

SJ wrote them both, TFT in 77-81, and GURPS in 83-86. It's not just influence; It's a parent and child situation.

 

[Jahydin]

Really enjoyed playing and collecting for 3rd edition. Games I ran were more "down to Earth" fantasy (was really into Willow at the time) that played nothing like D&D so kept my interest. World books were great reads. I still have my In Nomine. Does that count as GURPS...?

4th Edition didn't change enough for me to ever buy into it. Didn't really like the color artwork either.

Then Savage Worlds came along and became my new "generic" system of choice.

 

[aramis erak]

Really enjoyed playing and collecting for 3rd edition. Games I ran were more "down to Earth" fantasy (was really into Willow at the time) that played nothing like D&D so kept my interest. World books were great reads. I still have my In Nomine. Does that count as GURPS...?

SJG did both an original "d666" mechanic and a GURPS version... which

4th Edition didn't change enough for me to ever buy into it. Didn't really like the color artwork either.

Then Savage Worlds came along and became my new "generic" system of choice.

Savage Worlds is working quite well for deadlands...