Hey,Goblin,I would love to see your Gurps to d20 stuff. zephyrmev@aol.com[/email]. 
Last edited:
GURPS 4th Edition to be Released at GenCon
- Thread starter Cthulhu's Librarian
- Start date
buzz
Adventurer
Covers may be for real!!!
CORRECTION!
Phil Masters just corrected DLP over on RPG.net and said that no SJG employee has officially stated that these are placehodlers. Looks like these may be final. :\
Well, maybe SJG is simply continuing the tradition of GURPS books that look terrible but have great content.
(In all fairness, if you look at the full-size version of the covers on the SKG Web site, they're not too bad... with the exception of the woman with the p**** gun on the cover of Vol. 2. SJG is never going to live that down.)
CORRECTION!
Phil Masters just corrected DLP over on RPG.net and said that no SJG employee has officially stated that these are placehodlers. Looks like these may be final. :\
Well, maybe SJG is simply continuing the tradition of GURPS books that look terrible but have great content.
(In all fairness, if you look at the full-size version of the covers on the SKG Web site, they're not too bad... with the exception of the woman with the p**** gun on the cover of Vol. 2. SJG is never going to live that down.)
tauton_ikhnos
First Post
Nooooooo! 
Ah well. Time to get out soft paste and color printer, make OWN cover.
Ah well. Time to get out soft paste and color printer, make OWN cover.
tauton_ikhnos
First Post
http://www.jakubkuzma.art.pl/images/okladki/fantasy3.jpg
Probably start with that as base. Why can't SJ Games find stuff like this?
Ah well.
Probably start with that as base. Why can't SJ Games find stuff like this?
Ah well.
AFGNCAAP
First Post
Have a fair # of 3rd ed. sourcebooks, as well as the core books, just sitting around on a shelf. My g/f likes the basic info contained in the sourcebooks (she's a history buff).
But, as nice & generic as it is, it really feels uber-detailed to me--a lot of detail that needs to be kept track of.
I'm not sure if there'll be as significant of a shift from 3rd to 4th (vs. D&D's shift from 2nd to 3rd)--rather, it may more or less be more comparable to D&D's shift from 3.0 to 3.5--esp. with issue regarding 3rd ed. sourcebook capatability with the core 4th ed. stuff. Honestly, if that's the case, I'm not too sure I'm give this newer version a try at all.
Then again, I do feel that "less = more," and don't care for a strong push toward capturing reality in games, since there's often a strong urge by some players to use that reality in order to help them break it (if you catch my drift).
Though I do love the polyhedral dice, just using d6's makes it a bit more accessible (to a degree)--heck, you'd just need to buy a brick of d6's, or at least raid a bunch of boardgame boxes &/or buy some pairs of dice in order to be equipped for the game. Keeps things somewhat simple, in that regard.
I also like the idea of point-buy for PCs, since it (generally) allows each character to start on even footing.
But, I think 1 of the big things about GURPS that gets to me is, from my experience, there seems to be a lot of hard-wired mechanical aspects/bonuses tied to things that could merely be covered via roleplaying, such as personality quirks & the like. Also it seems that some very liquid elements about characters--things like wealth, contacts, possessions, reputation, etc.--seem a bit more hard-wired into character creation as well. These things seem too easy to lose & gain for a PC, esp. through roleplay (if not, then things seem a bit too static for a PC, IMHO).
Also, I'm not a fan of uber-detailed combats. The more a combat is stretched out by additional levels/processes/details, the slower combat feels (& doesn't help to add to the feeling of a fast-based, urgent situation at all).
I understand that some may like to include things like this, &, of course, it's up to the GM to include/exclude things as he/she wishes. However, IMHO, I prefer that things merely be added into a game to include them for those who want them, rather than having to take things out to achieve the same thing.
Of course, that's just MHO on the matter. I think that, despite the revisions, GURPS (like D&D, WW WoD, and many other RPGs) will fit into a particular niche, and maybe expand a little, but I doubt that it'll bust out and take over other niches held by other games.
But, as nice & generic as it is, it really feels uber-detailed to me--a lot of detail that needs to be kept track of.
I'm not sure if there'll be as significant of a shift from 3rd to 4th (vs. D&D's shift from 2nd to 3rd)--rather, it may more or less be more comparable to D&D's shift from 3.0 to 3.5--esp. with issue regarding 3rd ed. sourcebook capatability with the core 4th ed. stuff. Honestly, if that's the case, I'm not too sure I'm give this newer version a try at all.
Then again, I do feel that "less = more," and don't care for a strong push toward capturing reality in games, since there's often a strong urge by some players to use that reality in order to help them break it (if you catch my drift).
Though I do love the polyhedral dice, just using d6's makes it a bit more accessible (to a degree)--heck, you'd just need to buy a brick of d6's, or at least raid a bunch of boardgame boxes &/or buy some pairs of dice in order to be equipped for the game. Keeps things somewhat simple, in that regard.
I also like the idea of point-buy for PCs, since it (generally) allows each character to start on even footing.
But, I think 1 of the big things about GURPS that gets to me is, from my experience, there seems to be a lot of hard-wired mechanical aspects/bonuses tied to things that could merely be covered via roleplaying, such as personality quirks & the like. Also it seems that some very liquid elements about characters--things like wealth, contacts, possessions, reputation, etc.--seem a bit more hard-wired into character creation as well. These things seem too easy to lose & gain for a PC, esp. through roleplay (if not, then things seem a bit too static for a PC, IMHO).
Also, I'm not a fan of uber-detailed combats. The more a combat is stretched out by additional levels/processes/details, the slower combat feels (& doesn't help to add to the feeling of a fast-based, urgent situation at all).
I understand that some may like to include things like this, &, of course, it's up to the GM to include/exclude things as he/she wishes. However, IMHO, I prefer that things merely be added into a game to include them for those who want them, rather than having to take things out to achieve the same thing.
Of course, that's just MHO on the matter. I think that, despite the revisions, GURPS (like D&D, WW WoD, and many other RPGs) will fit into a particular niche, and maybe expand a little, but I doubt that it'll bust out and take over other niches held by other games.
tauton_ikhnos said:
Not to be argumentative, BUT 65 AC is hardly a 14 dodge, (12 Dex, 12 HT, a breastplate, combat reflexes and moving back gets you to a 14 dodge, any combat type 50pt character can do that). Yes it is possible to break any system, that doesn't make the system broken. The problem is that once you get above a certain point in GURPS the system breaks down, not because of equipment or abilities in the game which can easily be ignored or removed, but because the system uses the bell curve and active defense. Once you move to the end of the bell curve and allow for active defense it just becomes an exercise of dice rolling.
Last edited:
tauton_ikhnos
First Post
Wrahn said:
No problem
. This is not an advocacy forum, after all. With that said, I will ignore your following argumentation....
However much it may pain me to let it go
GAH!
URG!
Ahhhh... better.
I enjoy GURPS. I have not found it broken. I'll leave it at that.
Similar Threads
