Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Help Me Understand the GURPS Design Perspective
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7837904" data-attributes="member: 85870"><p>On the eve of our gaming group getting together tomorrow, I've found myself mustering very little enthusiasm for the current campaign. </p><p></p><p>And I don't know if it's the system (GURPS 3e), the campaign (a supers setting riffed directly from Brandon Sanderson's Reckoners novels), the GM's handling of the "plot" (is there a plot? None of the characters know a damn thing about anything, so we're mostly wandering aimlessly) . . . but the whole thing is falling way beyond flat for me, and is coming nigh unto full-on cratering. </p><p></p><p>Truthfully it's probably a combination of all of the above (in addition to disliking GURPS and the plot being non-existent, supers is my least favorite speculative fiction genre by a country mile). But we're now 9 or 10 sessions in to the campaign. And I've played two other GURPS 3e campaigns that lasted about as long as this one.</p><p></p><p>So while my experience with GURPS probably barely crosses the "total newbie" threshold, I can say without any hesitation, after 30+ sessions of GURPS, I just don't get it. </p><p></p><p>Or more appropriately, I just don't get <em>who</em> this system is <em>for</em>. </p><p></p><p>And the inner gnome tinker inside my head wants to know why. It's about exploring the design space of GURPS as an academic exercise.</p><p></p><p>I'd describe GURPS as being "high input dependent exception based design." </p><p></p><p>The "exception based design" qualifier is easy to spot, as every modifier to the base mechanic in GURPS is a circumstantial exception. It's a modifier based on range/distance/speed, some mitigating character advantage/disadvantage, equipment modifiers, modifiers based on previously completed (or aborted) actions (things like readying a weapon, facing, available active defenses, etc.). </p><p></p><p>Obviously this is hardly new design space. It's pretty much <em>de rigueur </em>for what we'd consider "modern" game design, and considering GURPS first arrived on the scene in 1986, this isn't "new tech" on the design scene.</p><p></p><p>To me the difference with GURPS lies in that every exception is "high input dependent"---the frequency and breadth of inputs needed to adjudicate a single rules application is high. At least, if you're playing rules-as-written.</p><p></p><p>At it's core, GURPS' base resolution mechanic is simple. Roll 3d6, try to roll less than a target number. Yet this simplicity could be used to much greater effect <em>if the players are willing to remove the high input dependencies</em> and simply accept that the relative scale of results are to be applied as broad strokes rather than singular, narrow ranges. But the very essence of GURPS plays against the "broad strokes" approach. </p><p></p><p>For me, rules adjudication is about finding out <em>what happened</em> in the fictional state. Yet GURPS very much seems to believe that the rules should explain---in as concrete, representative terms as possible---<em>how </em>things happened in the fiction. And that the <em>how </em>should be transparent to every player.</p><p></p><p>The ethos seems to be, if you account for as many "pre-input" factors as possible, it leads to more satisfying outcomes and adjudication on the back end, because there's less volatility between GM and players about "what actually just happened inside the game world." </p><p></p><p>The very ethos of GURPS expects that you will embrace as much of the system as you're willing to handle---and not only does the system generally give off that vibe in its writing, you're exposed to that same line of thinking from long-time, experienced GURPS fans. <em>Playing GURPS is a complete waste of time if you're not using Compendium I and II, Martial Arts, Magic, and Psionics. Oh, and you should really use UltraTech I and II, and Sci-Fi as well. </em></p><p></p><p>To really "get" the point of GURPS, it seems, you're supposed to embrace the crunch. Wrap it lovingly around you. Because if you actually <em>don't want</em> that level of crunch, why did you choose GURPS in the first place? If you're going to just kind-of, sort-of eyeball stuff and make off-the-cuff adjudications, wouldn't it be better to go with a system that's designed to do that?</p><p></p><p>So what kind of players does a "high input dependency" game appeal to? What kind of "fun" should I be getting from this kind of system that I'm not achieving?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 7837904, member: 85870"] On the eve of our gaming group getting together tomorrow, I've found myself mustering very little enthusiasm for the current campaign. And I don't know if it's the system (GURPS 3e), the campaign (a supers setting riffed directly from Brandon Sanderson's Reckoners novels), the GM's handling of the "plot" (is there a plot? None of the characters know a damn thing about anything, so we're mostly wandering aimlessly) . . . but the whole thing is falling way beyond flat for me, and is coming nigh unto full-on cratering. Truthfully it's probably a combination of all of the above (in addition to disliking GURPS and the plot being non-existent, supers is my least favorite speculative fiction genre by a country mile). But we're now 9 or 10 sessions in to the campaign. And I've played two other GURPS 3e campaigns that lasted about as long as this one. So while my experience with GURPS probably barely crosses the "total newbie" threshold, I can say without any hesitation, after 30+ sessions of GURPS, I just don't get it. Or more appropriately, I just don't get [I]who[/I] this system is [I]for[/I]. And the inner gnome tinker inside my head wants to know why. It's about exploring the design space of GURPS as an academic exercise. I'd describe GURPS as being "high input dependent exception based design." The "exception based design" qualifier is easy to spot, as every modifier to the base mechanic in GURPS is a circumstantial exception. It's a modifier based on range/distance/speed, some mitigating character advantage/disadvantage, equipment modifiers, modifiers based on previously completed (or aborted) actions (things like readying a weapon, facing, available active defenses, etc.). Obviously this is hardly new design space. It's pretty much [I]de rigueur [/I]for what we'd consider "modern" game design, and considering GURPS first arrived on the scene in 1986, this isn't "new tech" on the design scene. To me the difference with GURPS lies in that every exception is "high input dependent"---the frequency and breadth of inputs needed to adjudicate a single rules application is high. At least, if you're playing rules-as-written. At it's core, GURPS' base resolution mechanic is simple. Roll 3d6, try to roll less than a target number. Yet this simplicity could be used to much greater effect [I]if the players are willing to remove the high input dependencies[/I] and simply accept that the relative scale of results are to be applied as broad strokes rather than singular, narrow ranges. But the very essence of GURPS plays against the "broad strokes" approach. For me, rules adjudication is about finding out [I]what happened[/I] in the fictional state. Yet GURPS very much seems to believe that the rules should explain---in as concrete, representative terms as possible---[I]how [/I]things happened in the fiction. And that the [I]how [/I]should be transparent to every player. The ethos seems to be, if you account for as many "pre-input" factors as possible, it leads to more satisfying outcomes and adjudication on the back end, because there's less volatility between GM and players about "what actually just happened inside the game world." The very ethos of GURPS expects that you will embrace as much of the system as you're willing to handle---and not only does the system generally give off that vibe in its writing, you're exposed to that same line of thinking from long-time, experienced GURPS fans. [I]Playing GURPS is a complete waste of time if you're not using Compendium I and II, Martial Arts, Magic, and Psionics. Oh, and you should really use UltraTech I and II, and Sci-Fi as well. [/I] To really "get" the point of GURPS, it seems, you're supposed to embrace the crunch. Wrap it lovingly around you. Because if you actually [I]don't want[/I] that level of crunch, why did you choose GURPS in the first place? If you're going to just kind-of, sort-of eyeball stuff and make off-the-cuff adjudications, wouldn't it be better to go with a system that's designed to do that? So what kind of players does a "high input dependency" game appeal to? What kind of "fun" should I be getting from this kind of system that I'm not achieving? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Help Me Understand the GURPS Design Perspective
Top