GURPS Fantasy / Dungeon Fantasy (and beyond)

[Paragon Lost]

GURPS went all in on the toolkit approach. That's fine and all, but it meant that they had to account for the possibility that one side might have a guy with a heavy crossbow whereas the guy on the other side had a Kalashnikov RPL-20.

One of the reasons many people didn't like introducing firearms into fantasy games is that systems rarely had a method to model what made a modern firearm superior to the ancient stuff. Firearms usually end up feeling like reskinned wands. The 1-second round fixes that, but in a fairly unsatisfying way (gaming wise) as it makes anything "slow" generally not fun to use. And if you aren't using firearms, you don't need that 1-second round at all (it's no longer solving anything but the slow stuff is still not fun).

Here's how I accounted for it back in the late 1980s and into the 1990s when it cropped up occasionally. "No". No fuss, no muss and very little thought required. If I felt expansive, I'd say, "no, modern day weapons are not in my current campaign. I've given you the races, advantages, disadvantages and skills list along with equipment that you can start off with". Feels like your making it harder than it has to be.


edit: The whole hex or square map debate is interesting but I don't get the issues. I preferred to use hex maps versus square even before GURPS. (shrug). Again, feels like there some here who are over thinking it and making the use of hex or square harder than it has to be.

 

[dbm]

I can sympathise over the squared maps, as I have about a dozen Loke map books which all use squares. The majority of maps for VTTs also seem to use squares.

But I agree it is something you can work around fairly easily.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can sympathise over the squared maps, as I have about a dozen Loke map books which all use squares. The majority of maps for VTTs also seem to use squares.

But I agree it is something you can work around fairly easily.

Actually, its becoming more common for dedicated VTT maps to be gridless, but that wasn't always true. Loke, for example, produces gridless ones, but not the books, which are assumed to be for FTF use.

 

[BigJackBrass]

The squares / hexes debate reminded me of Steve Jackson's development of GURPS. In Space Gamer issue 75 he wrote an update on how it had been going, including this:

Several things got thrown out entirely. For instance, I had really wanted to use a square-based movement system... but after a year of trying, it was clear that hexagons were simply better. So it's hexagons. Enough said.

Sadly, he didn't elaborate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are distinctly advantages to hexes, not the least of which making some movement issues massively easier. I probably played a good half dozen hex based RPGs in the 80's, and on the whole found I was okay with them all. Its just that its not an unmixed virtue.

 

[Staffan]

There are distinctly advantages to hexes, not the least of which making some movement issues massively easier. I probably played a good half dozen hex based RPGs in the 80's, and on the whole found I was okay with them all. Its just that its not an unmixed virtue.

The main advantage of hexagons is that they minimize the difference between step-by-step measurement and straight-line measurement.

If the distance from one hex center to a neighboring hex center is 1, then the blue line has a length of 2. But the red only has a length of SQRT(3), so the step-by-step measurement is ~15% too large. This is the worst-case scenario for hexes.

With a square grid, it instead looks something like this:

The length of the blue line is 4. The actual length of the red line is 2*SQRT(2) = 2.83. If you need to move orthogonally (only in cardinal directions), the distance is about 40% too long. If you allow diagonal movement, it is about 30% too short. Those are both significantly larger than the worst-case error of 15% for hexes. Of course, you could use 3e rules and have diagonal movement count as 1.5 (alternating between 1 and 2), which would have the red line with a length of 3 which is only 6% too long, but then you need to keep track of the alternating distance.

Of course, the main disadvantage of hexes is mainly that on indoors maps, most things are actually rectangular. Rooms tend to be, as is most furniture. So instead of fudging movement distances, you fudge the stuff on the map. Which one you prefer is a matter of taste. On large-scale outdoor maps, you usually don't have the artificiality of rectangular rooms to bother with, which makes hexes the better choice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The main advantage of hexagons is that they minimize the difference between step-by-step measurement and straight-line measurement.
View attachment 416539
If the distance from one hex center to a neighboring hex center is 1, then the blue line has a length of 2. But the red only has a length of SQRT(3), so the step-by-step measurement is ~15% too large. This is the worst-case scenario for hexes.

With a square grid, it instead looks something like this:
View attachment 416540
The length of the blue line is 4. The actual length of the red line is 2*SQRT(2) = 2.83. If you need to move orthogonally (only in cardinal directions), the distance is about 40% too long. If you allow diagonal movement, it is about 30% too short. Those are both significantly larger than the worst-case error of 15% for hexes. Of course, you could use 3e rules and have diagonal movement count as 1.5 (alternating between 1 and 2), which would have the red line with a length of 3 which is only 6% too long, but then you need to keep track of the alternating distance.

Of course, the main disadvantage of hexes is mainly that on indoors maps, most things are actually rectangular. Rooms tend to be, as is most furniture. So instead of fudging movement distances, you fudge the stuff on the map. Which one you prefer is a matter of taste. On large-scale outdoor maps, you usually don't have the artificiality of rectangular rooms to bother with, which makes hexes the better choice.

Though you can run into the straight-line problem with hexes even when not indoors, but some of those can come up with either; both fractional hexes and squares are kind of a pain in the behind.

 

[jolt]

The "problem" I have with the 1-second round is that once you remove modern firearms and the like, there's really no merit to the 1-second round as nothing is ever fast enough to need it. The crossbow, particularly the heavy, becomes so slow that no one bothers with it. It takes multiple rounds to even get off your first shot; it's just dull. No one wants to spends 80% of a combat reloading.

 

[thullgrim]

There’s a ln advantage in one of the DF supplements for archers that reduces reloading time a lot.

Wizards, using the core system also spend multiple rounds in many instance to accomplish anything.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The "problem" I have with the 1-second round is that once you remove modern firearms and the like, there's really no merit to the 1-second round as nothing is ever fast enough to need it. The crossbow, particularly the heavy, becomes so slow that no one bothers with it. It takes multiple rounds to even get off your first shot; it's just dull. No one wants to spends 80% of a combat reloading.

It can regulate movement that, say, archers or crossbowmen get what feels like an appropriate number of shots against those closing up. That's always been its big virtue; it allows avoidance of special interrupt mechanics while not making people feel like they're standing around while someone does a process that feels like it should take several seconds.

I just feel that the price for that is too high.