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.

 

[Koloth]

This is explicitly disallowed:

Seems like a perfectly allowable combo. Deafness relates to communication via sound waves. Telepathy is communications via mental waves. Two different things. Much like blindness could be offset by acute hearing.

Also, deafness with telepathy seems to be a close description of the aliens from Independence Day. A perfectly valid GURPS critter.

 

[Swanosaurus]

Seems like a perfectly allowable combo. Deafness relates to communication via sound waves. Telepathy is communications via mental waves. Two different things. Much like blindness could be offset by acute hearing.

Also, deafness with telepathy seems to be a close description of the aliens from Independence Day. A perfectly valid GURPS critter.

I also can totally see deafness still being a relevant disadvantage in certain situations, even if you can communicate telepathically: Not hearing a shot fired, or a rock tumbling down ...

 

[Thomas Shey]

I like the idea of getting compensated based on their frequency and severity - but I have never encountered a metacurrency I liked, and I am not sure it's possible. I don't know if there's any way to comp for disadvantages when they come up that's not an OOC spendable metacurrency, but I suspect I would like that approach much more if I encountered one.

Well if you don't like metacurrency, you don't, but I do have to point out its nothing much but a roundabout way to reward the player in in-play benefit for having the disadvantage, and that's all the point yield is. If you dislike people thinking out-of-character during the game, that's as it is, but most players are going to do some of that no matter what.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I also can totally see deafness still being a relevant disadvantage in certain situations, even if you can communicate telepathically: Not hearing a shot fired, or a rock tumbling down ...

The value of the disadvantage should at least be reduced, however.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Well if you don't like metacurrency, you don't, but I do have to point out its nothing much but a roundabout way to reward the player in in-play benefit for having the disadvantage, and that's all the point yield is. If you dislike people thinking out-of-character during the game, that's as it is, but most players are going to do some of that no matter what.

I dislike being pushed by the game to think out of character as a player, and want games that minimise that to make my in-game plans in-character. The thinking out of character should ideally be minimised and discretionary, not mandatory. I do in fact feel like dealing with meta currencies feels comparable to a punishment. Its like: "ho ho ho you were getting into character?" slap "not anymore!!!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

I dislike being pushed by the game to think out of character as a player, and want games that minimise that to make my in-game plans in-character. The thinking out of character should ideally be minimised and discretionary, not mandatory. I do in fact feel like dealing with meta currencies feels comparable to a punishment. Its like: "ho ho ho you were getting into character?" slap "not anymore!!!"

I have to agree. I dislike metacurrency on general principle on most games, because it feels like I'm being asked to leave my PCs point of view for the sake of the "story", and I generally don't want mechanics that operate on that level anywhere near the players.

I will note that there are a few games I like that do this as a core part of gameplay for everyone and have from the beginning, like Star Trek Adventures, which is totally cool. I just don't want that stuff retro-fitted to traditional games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I dislike being pushed by the game to think out of character as a player, and want games that minimise that to make my in-game plans in-character. The thinking out of character should ideally be minimised and discretionary, not mandatory. I do in fact feel like dealing with meta currencies feels comparable to a punishment. Its like: "ho ho ho you were getting into character?" slap "not anymore!!!"

Like I said, you're not alone, but I have to point out dealing with most mechanics involves "getting out of character" to one degree or another for most people, so unless you normally stick to very simple systems, it can be seen as kind of special pleading more than a principal. It usually with most people just means they're used to one and not the other.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have to agree. I dislike metacurrency on general principle on most games, because it feels like I'm being asked to leave my PCs point of view for the sake of the "story", and I generally don't want mechanics that operate on that level anywhere near the players.

I will note that there are a few games I like that do this as a core part of gameplay for everyone and have from the beginning, like Star Trek Adventures, which is totally cool. I just don't want that stuff retro-fitted to traditional games.

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

 

[VHawkwinter]

I have to agree. I dislike metacurrency on general principle on most games, because it feels like I'm being asked to leave my PCs point of view for the sake of the "story", and I generally don't want mechanics that operate on that level anywhere near the players.

Yeah, I distinctly do not enjoy games that revolve around that, as a player.

I will note that there are a few games I like that do this as a core part of gameplay for everyone and have from the beginning, like Star Trek Adventures, which is totally cool. I just don't want that stuff retro-fitted to traditional games.

Fair - for me it's not about retrofitting, when I encounter a game that has had those from the beginning (Savage Worlds for example, at least as far as I am aware), those are just not games that I enjoy, or I enjoy them /once those elements are turned off/.

I don't care for the GURPS 4e luck metacurrency either. Last time I did GURPS for a brief game (it was a few years back) I repriced it as activating automatically only in predefined, based on in-game time rather than real-life time. I liked it better on paper, none of my players took it (which is fine it was an oddball houserule replacement option for a single advantage they also might not have taken). But that was as the GM. If you're a player, the recourse to unwanted metacurrencies is ask the GM to disable / houserule them out as a campaign rule in advance, put up with it, or join a different group. I have tried all three, depending on how invasive they are and the group's flexibility. (I don't see how I would manage to make SW a game I would like, for instance Bennies are arguably the main mechanic).

 

[VHawkwinter]

Like I said, you're not alone, but I have to point out dealing with most mechanics involves "getting out of character" to one degree or another for most people, so unless you normally stick to very simple systems, it can be seen as kind of special pleading more than a principal. It usually with most people just means they're used to one and not the other.

The mechanics don't need to be dead simple to nonexistent, but I do find them much more immersive when what I know as a player closely matches what my character knows in the game. Stuff like D&D "Rages Per Day" and 4e's AEDU are other mechanics I dislike, but to a lesser degree, while Shadowrun's Strain resource, and Ki Pools and Spell Slots feel like they make more sense in-character and thus I like them a lot better. But there are degrees of severity and frequency of "forcibly pulled out of character" mechanics.

Anyway. Sometimes it may not be avoidable. But if it is avoidable and they do it regardless, IMO that is a con in the "is this a system I want to play" pros and cons list.

I am, of course explaining my own preferences. Other people may not share them, and that's fine.