What is your Opinion of GURPS?

[woodelf]

I can only speak to my experience, but my experience is this: It has happened in nearly every GURPS game I have played in which the disads weren't filtered or nerfed by the GM or the "no points" optional rule was used. When it did happen, it happened with fairly normal players who I never had any problem with minmaxing in other games*.

I don't buy the retort (which I have heard before) that it must be my players that are the problem. I find that reletively normal players are prone to this, and I feel that it is the job of the system to cater to the players, not vice versa. (Sort of a corrolary of my sig.)

I'm very much of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, i think that system does matter. On the other hand, i agree with the maxim that munchkinism is thefault of the player (or maybe group), not the rules. I'm not sure how these two elements interact. My own observations are that players are equally munchkiny in any system, or at least as munchkiny as the mechanics allow. But, on a bit of a tangent, while i don't see significant variablitiy in munchkin-ness due to ruleset, i *do* see noticable (if not quite significant) variance in how people play in other ways due to ruleset. So i have seen players play a more hack-n-slash style in games that are more mechanically combat-oriented, while those same players don't do so in games that are, say, society-oriented. I'm not sure why, IME, this general tendency of game systems to affect player behavior doesn't seem to extend to munchkin-ness.

And, i gotta say, i suspect you're having a similar cognitive dissonance-- IIRC, when it comes to bashing D&D3E, isn't your usual position that it's not the system, it's the players?

 

[woodelf]

If the GM has properly explained the nature of the campaign before character creation, and is running the game well from then on, everyone will get a chance to contribute equally whether or not characters get points from Disadvantages. Generally, the combat-oriented players will be happy with the chance to contribute by killing a few relatively worthy opponents (and perhaps a horde or two of mooks) each game session, while the other players will be having fun contributing with their puzzle-solving, social interaction, or what-have-you. But if you give munchkins a real opportunity to make their characters bigger combat monsters by horning in on the social-interaction side of the game, it will happen, all too often - especially if they've had to invest character points for it. This can easily leave the munchkins less satisfied (they're only doing the "role-playing" stuff for the XPs, it's taking valuable gaming time away from their sword-swinging) AND the other players less satisfied (as they are now sharing the limelight in their favored portion of the game with the munchkins who are already dominating the combat portion). This is the sort of thing I meant by cans of worms that are better left alone.

Why would a "munchkin" *spend* points for, say, an elderly aunt? While making the sorts of disads that are basically story hooks cost points certainly can introduce some problems, i'd think it'd pretty much eliminate the problem of munchkins taking disads for the points, and then not RPing them, or weaseling out of them as quickly as possible. IOW, social disads that return points are exactly what would cause munchkins to horn in on the social-interaction side of the game, and is exactly what making them cost points is intended to address [in part]. Contrariwise, if disads cost points, the munchkin who takes them will *lessen* their combat ability, and thus, if true munchkins, not do it.

 

[Psion]

IIRC, when it comes to bashing D&D3E, isn't your usual position that it's not the system, it's the players?

Perhaps you are thinking of someone else? I rather think I call 'em like I see them. I think point for attitude problems (or similar arrangements) breed this problem in normal gamers no matter where they appear. You will see that, if you hunt, I am down on point-farm style disads whether they appear in GURPS, UA, embedded in a feat (Nymphs Kiss, anyone?) or in the "Quintessential <insert race/class here>". I do not like them Sam-I-Am.

It's just with GURPS they are a central edifice/standard. In D&D, they are an option, and often a third party one at that. Use at your own risk.

Still, I think "have it your way" is the whole reason for GURPS existence, and I wouldn't expect SJG to change that. All I am saying about GURPS is that hopefully in 4e, they will take steps to make the disad system not quite so appealing as a point farm, as other games have done since the time that GURPS was first conceived.

 

[WizarDru]

Got it in one, boyo! In Gurps, it is possible to make characters that are fantastically better than others of equal points. Not slightly better. Fantastically better. And there is a temptation with gurps to go "get the points first, go for the concept later".

All very true.

If it is a point-based thing, maybe it is the simple fact that I expect a 1st level character to be fairly wimpy, but with Gurps, there is no "level" to tell me that I am a beginner, so I try for all the marbles right away, rather than patiently waiting.

Well, here's the thing: in GURPS, there is very little difference between a starting character and a character who's been played for years. I ran a GURPS Fantasy campaign for over 12 years, and the characters started at 100+45 and finished at about 300+45 points. At the end of the day, they had become incredible experts at their abilities....but a group of 10 orcs might still be something of a threat (albeit significantly less of one). GURPS clusters its characters ability range to a much tighter mid-range, which is mechanically enforced by the scaling point costs of skills. Going from 15-16 might be 4 points...but going from 16 to 20 might be 64 points. The power scale is on a completely different map than say, D&D 3e. A 500 point GURPS Super still fears the 50 point mook with an automatic weapon (which is one reason why GURPS Supers has always been a patch job).

One of GURPS greatest advantages is that it supports odd and unique character concepts. That also happens to be one of its greatest weaknesses, too. As Psion mentioned, without good GM control, you can have a group of mental malcontents who will never work together as a team...character that might work in a fictional story, but not in a functioning game. However, this also allows for the creation of non-iconic characters that can be equally satisfying.

As has been noted, GURPS requires more direct GM intervention and awareness to create a game that works well. Often, this is dependent on the players as well as the DM, and is mostly just a measure of shared trust. The same still applies in D&D, but there's less need for it now than there was in the past.

I truly like GURPS, and am interested in what 4th edition will be like. SJ finally got off his high horse and admitted that maybe a new revision was necessary, and hopefully will have improved the system to be more competitive with other current systems out there. However, I think that GURPS has lost me as a regular player. D&D 3e won me back to the fold, and I don't think anything short of dynamite will get me out again. All I wanted was a tall ship and a star to sail her by, and WotC gave me those.

 

[Sketchpad]

I like GURPS ... but I'd wait till 4e comes out before making any judgement. I've ran a multitude of games in it and yes it can be complicated at times ... but I think that's true of any system that you play. I think my only gripes with the system are:
1) Mages with Photographic Memory are scary! They get some major breaks on their spells.
2) Will rolls have always been the one thing that confused the heck outta me.

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

First, my definition of powergamer: Characters built on number crunching concept rather than narrative concept. This would be me. I have narrative concept, but it is second thing I come up with, rather than first.

Second, can a system encourage or discourage this? Yes.

Does the system make me this? No.

Can I do this in any system, with some variance for degree of encouragement? Yes.

Have I ever built a troubleshooter in Paranoia that maxed out his ability to lie? No, Friend Computer

Does GURPS encourage this? Yes. Specifically:

- You can build a very beefy character.
- Said character will issue all kinds of smackdown on less beefy builds.
- This is a reward.

Does D&D encourage this? Yes. Specifically:

- You can build a very beefy character.
- Said character will issue all kinds of smackdown on less beefy builds.
- This is a reward.

Which system allows beefier (in comparison to default) builds? Depends on your point total/level. At low end (50 pts/under 5th level), GURPS fighters can be very beefy compared to any other concept. At mid range (100-200 pts/6th-15th level), D&D definitely allows 'teh uber', with builds that can do 160+ damage in a single round, over and over and over again. At high range (250+ pts/16th+ level), both systems kind of break in terms of character vs character balance.

Also depends on what optional books you use. Complete Warrior gives some really powerful builds at any level. GURPS Ultratech 1 & 2 makes the Wealth option insanely powerful.

But aren't points more abusable? No more so than stacking modifiers. What matters is not the method, but whether or not the method breaks at some point, allowing numerical superiority that matters in the game. Points and stacking modifiers both break pretty easily, IMHO.

Are points asking for it? Definitely. Points do one thing that D&D doesn't do: it tells the player that powergaming is possible. Many players do not know this, or don't know how. A point system, essentially, offers advice on character building. D&D, on the other hand, makes it something esoteric, thus ensuring that powergamers will always have superior characters. While this cuts down on number of power gamers, it also increases the ability of the remaining power gamers to smack you around. Which is superior? Hard to say. I like both.

 

[ichabod]

perhaps i should have said "attribute" rather than "fault."

and anyways, different people have different opinions. for some people, min-maxing is a "fault."

Those people are prejudiced against certain people enjoying rpgs in a certain way, and I don't tend to put much weight on the opinions of prejudiced people.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Thankfully, that will also be fixed in 4E - Fatigue will be based on the Health attribute (while hit points will be based on Strength - since Strength also usually represents bulk). You can also buy up your Fatigue pool with character points...

I want to say this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but I can't... mental powers based on Strength is. But this... this is damned close!

Oh well, I'm putting this in my sig.

Not that I'm bashing GURPS ... at least not the pre-4e version. I'm currently involved in GURPS Call of Cthulhu. It was fun, even though I was the only person who died.

The main problem with GURPS is that combats often tend to be deadly. A 500 point character can be taken out by a 50 point goon with a rifle. There are cinematic rules (such as the stun rule) that decrease player deaths, but it's still not like D&D where a high level character can fight through hordes and hordes of goblins.

Why are the players wading through goblins? Make many of them rogues and toss in a few spellcasters... when players let themselves be surrounded by rogues, they will not underestimate goblins again!

This sounds more munchkiny than the GURPS standard rules, not less. Munchkins will simply refuse to take Disadvantages, and still have the same number of points as the role-players who took them.

So? It's munchkin to not take disadvantages? If no one takes disads (or everyone takes the same amount of disads) it shouldn't be a problem.

I wouldn't consider it munchkin to not deliberately weaken your character. Rather, taking disads for no good reason could very well be foolish.

 

[milotha]

in GURPS, there is very little difference between a starting character and a character who's been played for years.

This was true of my GURPS experiences as well. The characters never really changed or evolved as the game went on. As a result, the campaing seemed to stagnate, and often people lost interest in it. This was true in many setting with many different GMs. This is especially true of GURPS games without magic. I think that part of what draws me to D&D and to spell casters is that the characters do evolve and gain new powers and abilites.

 

[WizarDru]

This was true of my GURPS experiences as well. The characters never really changed or evolved as the game went on. As a result, the campaing seemed to stagnate, and often people lost interest in it. This was true in many setting with many different GMs. This is especially true of GURPS games without magic.

I wouldn't go that far...in fact that wasn't really what I was saying. I was primarily referring to the power curve. GURPS characters are assumed to be, essentially, fully-fledged characters. They enter the world ready for action, and while they gain more abilities and become more skilled, they don't become gods among men, the way that D&D characters can. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach.

My experience as far as individual characters is actually far different. Almost every GURPS character I knew grew gradually over time, and were considerably closer in their growth to fictional characters, with small changes occuring constantly, so that the simple human fighter at 100+45 was a Knight-Mage of Northwatch and heir to an ancient legacy of the world's greatest hero at 300+45, and more than willing to face down otherworldly horrors. But in the grand scheme of things, she still needed to watch her step around a whole bunch of orcs. A few lucky shots, and she might be on the floor.

However, I definitely agree that D&D does the 'carrot and stick' much better than GURPS. A level increase is a signifcant, tangible and exciting change for a character...which Monte Cook has stated was an intended design goal. I think it was a wise choice. Not everyone enjoys that style or approach, however, and GURPS comes at it from a different direction.

In some ways, GURPS is much better at emulating ficiton than D&D...while at other ways it's just plain abysmal at it. But that's really true of every gaming system I've ever used, bar none.