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.

 

[Swanosaurus]

It is more than that, it applies to adjudication of actions as well. Whether it is some something grounded in life or in fiction, GURPS mechanics usually works the way you expect based on how it was described in the source material.

It's a feature, but it also entails something really intimidating about GURPS. I mean, if I want to create an intelligent spider that communicates by tapping its feet, I will probably able to create that in GURPS, but it might be a logistical nightmare not only to build that character, but to also keep an eye on what all of its advantages and disadvantages actually do in play, right? (Not sure, though - It's been been decades since I've actually played GURPS for the last time, and that was 3rd edition). While there are rules light system like Fate (I keep mentioning it, even though it's far from my favourite system) that allow me to do that without having to define what all of that stuff does - when it comes up, it will simply be advantageous or disadvantegous to me, and that's it.

Not that either was the wrong way, it's just that, for example, on the one hand GURPS seems to be made for weird scifi with transhumanist themes, while on the other hand, I imagine that it would be prohibitively complex to juggle all the rules you'd be using.

EDIT: At this point, I totally want to play GURPS again. I just remembered how great a concept Banestorm is. Also, I read around on the sjgames website and realized that they seem to be a pretty cool company ... just read their freelancer FAQ (accessible here), and it is both funny, crystal clear and has just the right things to say about content.

 

[Senior_WotC_Janitor]

it might be a logistical nightmare not only to build that character, but to also keep an eye on what all of its advantages and disadvantages actually do in play, right?

No. That is not correct.

 

[robertsconley]

It's a feature, but it also entails something really intimidating about GURPS. I mean, if I want to create an intelligent spider that communicates by tapping its feet, I will probably able to create that in GURPS, but it might be a logistical nightmare not only to build that character, but to also keep an eye on what all of its advantages and disadvantages actually do in play, right?

Well technically you could build that character. But the thing with GURPS is that if you write a plain English description, you can just look up the relevant abilities (advantages, disadvantages, enhancements, limitations), and just copy and paste their description and be done with it. If you even need to go that far. For example, describing it as an arachnid implies there are some abilities that you probably want an easy reference for, so you copy and paste those. But for the foot tapping, the most you will need is just to note how far it will work between two spiders communicating. There may be some relevant advice in one of the sourcebooks, but that is only needed if you are interested in what the GURPS authors think or uncovered in their research.

The point is to do something like this. And to do this, you just need to know how the relevant attribute scores work and where to find things.

Now where it does turn into a bit of an accounting exercise at first, is with characters. Because there, they have point-based race /species write-ups combined with some kind of job/occupation template. But once you get a sense of what characters (NPCs) are like in your campaign setting you can dispense with that. In the 20 years when GURPS was my main system, I have files full of reworked NPCs that I only have to tweak to make into a specific character.

(Not sure, though - It's been been decades since I've actually played GURPS for the last time, and that was 3rd edition). While there are rules light system like Fate (I keep mentioning it, even though it's far from my favourite system) that allow me to do that without having to define what all of that stuff does - when it comes up, it will simply be advantageous or disadvantegous to me, and that's it.

I found that because of the research the authors have done, things make sense, so the times where I winged it based on my knowledge of how things worked in life or in fiction, looking up the rules later backed up what I initially ruled. And sometimes highlighted some things I forgot or didn't think of as well, that I filed away for later use.

EDIT: At this point, I totally want to play GURPS again. I just remembered how great a concept Banestorm is. Also, I read around on the sjgames website and realized that they seem to be a pretty cool company ... just read their freelancer FAQ (accessible here), and it is both funny, crystal clear and has just the right things to say about content.

Despite being a fan of GURPS I have two main criticisms, that while they don't need to muck around with the rules, they need to work on their presentation. And they are hostile to 3rd party publishers getting involved because they want tight control of their IP. Which, to be clear, has nothing to do with how they treat freelancers, which has been consistently positive over the decades.

Their choices in presentation and 3PP content have led to GURPS' decline compared to other RPGs, even though they were once #4 in the market. Even their attempts, like Dungeon Fantasy, have been marred by glaring blind spots that a robust 3PP ecosystem could have headed them off from pursuing. Namely, that the presentation revolved around detailed and complex 250 pt templates with dozens of items to track.

But my opinion is that complexity is not an issue of GURPS. GURPS 4e is still works fine with a level of detail and a style of play like the character below from the Orcslayer (Man to Man) adventure.

The real problem is that the GURPS 4e Core books are not an RPG but a toolkit to build your own RPG. Not something everybody has the time or interest in. I have no doubt that the GURPS 4e revised edition is going to be a better toolkit, but it still does not overcome the fundamental problem that GURPS has of requiring that extra step of designing your own RPG before getting your campaign started.

As for me, I moved on because I wanted to share more of my stuff than SJ Games was willing to let me share, so I figured out how to do the things I did in GURPS with my own take on classic D&D.

But to end this on a more positive note. If you do have the time and interest to use that GURPS toolkit, the result will be worth the effort.

 

[stonehead]

It's a feature, but it also entails something really intimidating about GURPS. I mean, if I want to create an intelligent spider that communicates by tapping its feet, I will probably able to create that in GURPS, but it might be a logistical nightmare not only to build that character, but to also keep an eye on what all of its advantages and disadvantages actually do in play, right? (Not sure, though - It's been been decades since I've actually played GURPS for the last time, and that was 3rd edition). While there are rules light system like Fate (I keep mentioning it, even though it's far from my favourite system) that allow me to do that without having to define what all of that stuff does - when it comes up, it will simply be advantageous or disadvantegous to me, and that's it.

To get the tapping thing, just take Cannot Speak (Mute) and full proficiency in a tapping language like morse code.

If it's a logistical nightmare, it isn't more of a nightmare than your average GURPS character. Which, to be fair, takes a lot more logistics than your average 5e character