GURPS vs. Harp

[Jürgen Hubert]

The way GURPS is recommened to be run character advancement seems painfully slow compared to D&D. My thought was to start with a relatively low point buy, maybe 100 pts or lower, and then give out more XP than suggested to counter this. Any thoughts?

Sure - if the "standard" character progression seems too slow to you, just hand out more character points. 5/session seems about right for "rapid advancement".

Just be aware that GURPS characters can advance in ability every time they gain new character points, as opposed to the "level progression" of D&D. So handing out lots of CPs isn't needed for the usual "reward" mechanism - even 4 CPs will (in 4e) raise any single skill by at least one point, which is a lot in GURPS.

 

[yennico]

I played only a modified Gurps 3E. There you could increase your skills easily from low level with decent character points to mid-level. To increase a skill with character points from mid-level to high level is very expensive.

It is a big difference between Gurps and D&D
In Gurps you can increase nearly all your skills after every gaming session and your PC can learn nearly every skill.
In D&D you get some skill points only after levelling and you have to pay more skill points for cross-class skills.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

not really a complaint but a note of caution to inexperienced GURPS GMS.

combat heavy games with players with combat skills over 14 = a whole lotta dead npcs.

I once got a t pc up to a skill of 18 in fencing and bwaa haaa haaa, dead heavies left and right. combat penalties of -6 to -10 aren't that big a deal when your skill is high and stabbing people in the eye prooved to be a really useful tactic because of the nature of damage using the advanced combat rules in GURPS.

 

[MaxKaladin]

While I don't have the 3e books with me, this is a rather unlikely (though theorethically possible) result in GURPS 4e.

I don't have mine either, but didn't 3e also have a rule where piercing attacks against chainmail ignored most of the DR?

 

[Narfellus]

I checked out HARP Lite and really liked it, even ordered the core book from Amazon. My question is about Magic: I like the skill-based system, but the actual spells seems limited. Are the spells kept low in number to encourage more scaling, or are there supplements to expand on the base set? I suppose i'm used to years and years of DnD spells where we have literally thousands to pick from since 1st edition (even if a lot are rehashed)

 

[der_kluge]

Narfellus, check out the spells more carefully. They cover a lot of the traditional bases, but instead of having more powerful versions of the same spell, it's one spell with scaling options. Also, College of Magics has a lot of new spells, including some that you might expect to find in a rules supplement (speak with the dead, and some versions of dominate person, for example).

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I don't have mine either, but didn't 3e also have a rule where piercing attacks against chainmail ignored most of the DR?

"Impaling" weapons actually, such as spears and arrows. Bullets did "crushing" damage in 3e (now they get a damage type of their own - "piercing" damage, appropriately enough...).

 

[Zephyrus]

And yes, when I played RMSS, I made *sure* I had all the tables available - it still took too long. A simple 8-on-3 combat should not take over a half-hour per round.

From what I've been able to determine, its not nearly that bad. In all liklyhood far from it.

OB + % - DB = #

If # is a 1 or better you hit and you look at ONE chart (based on weapon type) and modify your # based on weapon size and it tells you how much damage you do. Stunning and Bleeding effects are handled swiftly as well.

If a person took more than a minute to handle his action! it is cause he's thinking too long about it or their laughing and kibitzing at some made up cinimatic effect.

I checked out HARP Lite and really liked it, even ordered the core book from Amazon. My question is about Magic: I like the skill-based system, but the actual spells seems limited. Are the spells kept low in number to encourage more scaling, or are there supplements to expand on the base set? I suppose i'm used to years and years of DnD spells where we have literally thousands to pick from since 1st edition (even if a lot are rehashed)

If your distilled alot of the spells in D&D down you'd realize that many of them are 'weaker spell only better' or 'different energy type' or 'same as this only different' ... you get the idea. a large number of the spells are just variations or more powerful versions of assorted themes to fit into the 'spell level' mold D&D uses.

The spell selection appears to have been simplified and to that I am actually kind of pleased to see. Scaling takes advantage of alot of things but thier are more spells in the college of magic book too. But you dont nessisarly need a specialized spell for every task when a more general but shapable spell can do the same thing.

 

[der_kluge]

Narfellus, I'm running a HARP game at the NC game day, which is designed to be an introductory game. Be sure to sign up, if you're planning on going.

 

[Rasyr]

Narfellus, I'm running a HARP game at the NC game day, which is designed to be an introductory game. Be sure to sign up, if you're planning on going.

Also, please note that I will be there and running a game as well.

At the last DC Game day, the HARP table was the loudest in the room (the players were having that much fun). And I promise, no Giant Ants this time.....