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.

 

[Argyle King]

I think my preferred approach for a crunchy RPG is to give yourself plenty of design space with lots of statistics for things (characters, gear, etc.). Then try to keep the procedures clean.

GURPS seems to go the opposite way. Things have surprisingly few statistics. Characters only have 4 core attributes, weapons and armor are coarsely statted (e.g., only a single DR value for armors). Then they give no fluffs about coming up with these fiddly exceptions and bespoke procedures.

E.g., for the Feint rule, instead of capping the bonus with an exception to a core mechanic, maybe give weapons a maximum Feint bonus?

I guess the minimal stats approach is better for games that want to telescope from simple to complex, which people seem to consider a strength of GURPS.

I suppose you could do that. Though, I'm not sure that I fully understand the ability to Feint being a property of the weapon rather than the skill of the person attempting the Feint.

Even so, it is certainly possible to houserule. I use some houserules myself. In particular, I treat Will and Per as their own attributes separate from Int. Depending on the particular campaign, there have even been times when I used some of the rules for influencing the scene/narrative from Edge of the Empire by using the Force Die from that game combined with the "buying success" chapter of GURPS Basic Set. The underlying game still works.



Side note: If you want extra armor DR rules, Low-Tech has some optional fiddly bits for extra detail that covers some armor types being less effective against certain types of weapons. I don't typically use those extra options (but there are other things from Low-Tech that I do use).

 

[Willie the Duck]

Pre-emptive note: I'm going to be leaning on 3e references, as that is what I have the most experience with.

TBH, I still consider Dungeon Fantasy a weird choice to draw in new people ... While I can see why anyone who already plays GURPS might like a ready-made powercrunch fantasy implementation, but I do not know why someone should choose it over D&D, or DCC, or any other more classic Dungeon RPG.

I think the primary logic is that one major reason why a person/group would pick up GURPS is that they were thinking of playing D&D or an OSR D&D, but one person in the group suggested they play GURPS instead. Yes, part of the value of GURPS is that it can play many genres well, but highlighting where it can do an existing and well-loved genre is perhaps a good sales pitch scenario for the system.

Beyond that, I think a Fantasy game (particularly a dungeon-crawler) does a good job of showcasing a lot of the system's strength and breadth, without going to far into the places where it... let's just say has the potential to get bogged down.

• A discrete and limited selection of skills are important in fantasy milieus.
• The system allows you to do things like create playable races and classes (templates) that the game does well.
• Various genre archetypes (the pure combatant, the skill-dominant character, the magic-user) are both possible, and highlight the 'can put your points anywhere, but can't have everything' system of GURPS quite well (examples: a pure-combatant build will fight better than someone with 2-dozen skills, but have real trouble against various situations; a magic user, unlike D&D, can wear armor, but is unlikely to have the starting gold/high Str to have good armor).
• The combat system has nuances like feints and cover and the weighing options between thrusting/piercing or swinging/cutting depending on your strength and opponent DR. However, there isn't the intimidating mass of text involved in modern+ firearm combat (nor number of 1-second rounds sitting and aiming and hoping your opponent is the one dumb enough to pop up from behind cover).
• Various equipment exists, tends to have pros and cons beyond a 'most expensive is always best' framing, and is acquired and lost at semi-regular frequency (Giving a reason to go treasure hunting; and making the GURPS default 'spend cash on this' model instead of the Hero System 'fancy equipment is just another character trait' model)
• Off-the-shelf GURPS assumes you care about encumbrance and money, and lo and behold they show up a lot in such games.
• Fewer things go 'off the scale' -- Although magic and dragonsfire can be any level you want it, the whole thing can stay within skills of 6-16, damages of 1-4d6, and no one having ability scores outside the normal human range. No fusion cannons (or modern mortars) where a direct hit should obliterate a person in most cases. No fighter jet dogfights where every modifier chart from size to weather to light level to relative velocity get used.

 

[Staffan]

The points costs will be set to keep a degree of parity between systems. At the end of the day, the GM sets the point total, and if you want broadly capable characters that costs.

The problem is that it front-loads the cost something fierce. Even looking at a single skill/branch. In regular GURPS, getting a skill to stat+0 costs 2 points. In Skill Trees, it costs 15. That is not a small difference. And supposedly, it's balanced out because stat+10 normally costs 40 points and here it costs 45 (but 40/15 rounds up to 3 so it's fine anyway).

Getting a whole trunk to +0 costs 35 points. If we assume that skills are evenly distributed between easy, average, and hard, getting 3 skills to +0 costs 1+2+4 = 7 points. So you could increase 15 skills to +0 for the same cost as getting one trunk there.

I like the idea in theory, but I really wonder what Kromm was smoking when he decided that trees shouldn't have the same skip from default to half-way reasonable values normal skills have.

 

[pawsplay]

GURPS seems to go the opposite way. Things have surprisingly few statistics. Characters only have 4 core attributes, weapons and armor are coarsely statted (e.g., only a single DR value for armors). Then they give no fluffs about coming up with these fiddly exceptions and bespoke procedures.

That's not at all how GURPS works. You have four core attributes, which bounce around a very limited range for normal people in non-superheroic campaign. Characters are defined more individually by their Advantages and Skills.

Armors often have different DR against different attack types, and can be flexible or non-flexible. Low-Tech has extensive rules for taking concussive damage from weapons that hit tough metal armor but don't penetrate. There are Armor Divisor Weapons, and hardened defenses to counter them.

Weapons have minimum ST, multiple damage types with specified effects, handedness, whether a weapon is unbalanced or slow. Ranged weapons have Accuracy and Bulk. There are books called Low-Tech, High-Tech, and Ultra-Tech that give more fluff than you will probably ever actually use... any of those books could be used extensively as "fluffbooks" for more narrative, simpler systems.

I have literally no idea what you are talking about, GURPS armor and weapons are pretty much the opposite of coarsely statted.

At least in my, admittedly limited, experience, the main issue with character creation is that a modern-day character ought to have like a dozen or two skills in the 12-15 range, and that the cost of that is prohibitive because you need either unrealistically high stats or pay through the nose for all those skills.

No. Most modern characters that are "normal" people have maybe three skills in that range. Heroic characters in the 200-250 point range, on the other hand, can easily afford that, paying about 1 or 2 points per skill.

Skills feel expensive when you are a 100 point character trying to act in a "heroic" role but such a character would be a rank beginner, the equivalent of a 1st or 2nd level D&D character, fresh off the farm or recently graduated from their apprenticeship. That's not even a lot of points for a squire of mature age in a medieval campaign, or an experienced beat cop in a modern setting.

GURPS being what it is, realistic characters have realistic capabilities. Heroic characters have heroic capabilities.

A skill level of 12 is sufficient to succeed 53 out of 54 times on an "easy" tasks (+4), making it equivalent to a BRP skill level of about 75%. A GURPS skill of 15 is basically equivalent to a 98% in BRP, and no, characters do not routinely need skill levels like in as starting characters in a heroic game.

 

[doomfarer1]

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.

Look at Jim Murphy's "Enlightened RPG" for a nice combo of "level" and meta currency. It's a pdf on itch. He and his co-author Steve Key made a strong game. A single, smooth intuitive mechanic drives it, and points are used in a way that they fade into the background. Totally customizable and fast monster creation from scratch, on the fly. Only 10 bucks. Yet, I will still likely get this 4ER for GURPS, because I really like GURPS and all the details/supplements. Love having it on the shelf.

 

[dbm]

Kromm has shared some more details. The work is quite far developed but a formal announcement won’t come for a few weeks yet. It might get into the New Year before the formal announcement with full details.

 

[Staffan]

A skill level of 12 is sufficient to succeed 53 out of 54 times on an "easy" tasks (+4), making it equivalent to a BRP skill level of about 75%. A GURPS skill of 15 is basically equivalent to a 98% in BRP, and no, characters do not routinely need skill levels like in as starting characters in a heroic game.

A "+4 when it doesn't matter" modifier might as well not exist. In my admittedly limited experience, it's far more common to be eating penalties for non-familiarity, range, tech difference, and the game just being plain ornery (like forcing Tracking rolls at -2 every 15 minutes if tracking someone in a desert).