What is your Opinion of GURPS?

[woodelf]

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.

I wasn't trying to accuse you of ideological pigheadedness. Rather, specifically, when people make comments to the effect of "D&D causes munchkinism" or "D&D is a combat-focused game" or "D&D encourages hack-n-slash play", isn't your opinion that it's not the game, it's the players/group? That's all i was trying to say. And if i've misremembered, my apologies.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I posted most of this in the 4th ed. GURPS thread, but I think it's applicable here.

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. However, as mentioned before, w/ GURPS characters w/ the same # of starting points not not necessarily mean or = evenly-balanced characters.

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.

With many of the things mentioned in this thread, there seems to be some decent ideas/concepts in the newer version, as well as some redeeming decisions (like the uber-stats being more expensive to develop). However, there are some things that I'm still not to crazy about w/ GURPS, & will ultimately prefer using other RPGs for. Ironically enough, GURPS may be generic enough to use for various genres, but for me, it'll be used only for certain kinds of games/types of campaigns, & not as a truly universal, generic system (basically for me, it winds up being a niche-oriented game as much as D&D and Marvel Super Heroes are).

However, I am a big fan of Denis Loubet's artwork. That's always a + for me.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

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.

So, what is so stupid about this? I mean, hit points in GURPS (unlike in D&D), usually do represent something like bulk, and IMO it makes a lot of sense to use ST as a base value for this - after all, the bigger a creature is, the stronger it will tend to be...

Let's take a look at the common rat, for example - low ST, thus low hit points. It has a very high HT, however, which means that it might still keep going after some pretty serious injuries - and "serious injuries" are relative to its bulk here. What would be a small nick to a human is going to be life-threatening to a rat.

Or let's take a look at your average Tyrannosaurus Rex. Big, high ST, and lots of hit points. But his HT won't be too much higher than that of a fit human - because he can still succumb to diseases, heart attacks, and so on. Again, basing hit points on ST instead of HT makes a lot of sense.

Now regarding the fatigue issue: Healthy people will have a lot more endurance than unhealthy ones, and that is represented in HT. And this has nothing to do with their hit points - lean, small, fit people might do better in running all day than large, strong, and overweight ones...

So, what's so stupid about this? I mean, if I'm sigged, I'd like to know the reason for it...

 

[Psion]

I wasn't trying to accuse you of ideological pigheadedness. Rather, specifically, when people make comments to the effect of "D&D causes munchkinism" or "D&D is a combat-focused game" or "D&D encourages hack-n-slash play", isn't your opinion that it's not the game, it's the players/group? That's all i was trying to say. And if i've misremembered, my apologies.

S'ok.

I tend to duck those kinds of arguments as I have tired of them, but I think it would be fair to say I have and would continue to take that cant, yes. And then, moreso on RPGnet than here. I certainly have admitted that D&D certainly facilitates that mode of play, and my players are the sort who get a little itchy if they don't get at least one combat per session -- and that's okay. If it's the sort of play they enjoy, then who is anyone else to judge. This is a leisure activity.

I don't think D&D creates exclusively munchkin or hack-n-slay play, and I think most people who say so are overstating it just a bit and are trying to make themselves feel validated about their gaming choices. That still is not to say that it doesn't have a certain combat-related "default balancing point". I think it does. It's just that you can build a complex and engaging game around such a balancing point... or you can create a munkin hack-n-slay game around it. I've primarily seen the former, but would admit the latter sort of players are out there.

To be fair, I am sure that GURPS players have had plenty of good gaming experiences as well, or it wouldn't have fans. That said, I think that many GURPS fan realize that their take on disads takes a little extra management. Just yesterday on RPGnet I posted how a good book for GURPS would be a refined disad system. The retort of one GURPS fan was a qualified "you don't need that as long as the GM is willing to monitor all the character sheets." (or somesuch.) So I think current GURPS players are seeing what I see, they just don't see it as much as a burden as I do.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So, what is so stupid about this? I mean, hit points in GURPS (unlike in D&D), usually do represent something like bulk, and IMO it makes a lot of sense to use ST as a base value for this - after all, the bigger a creature is, the stronger it will tend to be...

Well, I wouldn't want to turn it into DnD, but that's what size is for. (Sorry, maybe it's my D20-biased mind here.)

Let's take a look at the common rat, for example - low ST, thus low hit points. It has a very high HT, however, which means that it might still keep going after some pretty serious injuries - and "serious injuries" are relative to its bulk here. What would be a small nick to a human is going to be life-threatening to a rat.

Certainly a rat isn't so tough, but what are its other stats like? Does it low low HT?

There are lots of large but fragile animals in existence, which is why I don't see a connection.

Or let's take a look at your average Tyrannosaurus Rex. Big, high ST, and lots of hit points. But his HT won't be too much higher than that of a fit human - because he can still succumb to diseases, heart attacks, and so on. Again, basing hit points on ST instead of HT makes a lot of sense.

Sure, but it takes a bigger exposure to pathogens or poisons to debilitate the T-Rex. I wonder if they have to add a cold-blooded modifier, since he probably fatigues more easily... if dinos were really cold-blooded. (There's a hot scientific debate on that one.)

Now regarding the fatigue issue: Healthy people will have a lot more endurance than unhealthy ones, and that is represented in HT. And this has nothing to do with their hit points - lean, small, fit people might do better in running all day than large, strong, and overweight ones...

Personally I think they should split HT into stamina and durability (or something that sounds more scientific than durability). A rat would resist poisons and disease better than a human would, but then again a stomp is still a stomp to a rat.

I haven't seen evidence that a person who can run for long periods of time is more resistant to pain or death than other people.

Anyway, I see your point. It's not so stupid, just ... something feels wrong about it. Very wrong. I'll edit my sig again.

 

[buzz]

There are lots of large but fragile animals in existence, which is why I don't see a connection.
...
Sure, but it takes a bigger exposure to pathogens or poisons to debilitate the T-Rex. I wonder if they have to add a cold-blooded modifier, since he probably fatigues more easily... if dinos were really cold-blooded. (There's a hot scientific debate on that one.)
...
Personally I think they should split HT into stamina and durability (or something that sounds more scientific than durability). A rat would resist poisons and disease better than a human would, but then again a stomp is still a stomp to a rat.

This is what Advantages/Disadvantages are for. At least that's how it works in HERO and TriStat...

(Though some of what you're saying, IMO, is covered by the revised take on stats, as well as size not necessarily being tied to them. I gather that it's possible to have a large animal with low ST. But don't quote me.)

 

[buzz]

(Aside)

I haven't seen evidence that a person who can run for long periods of time is more resistant to pain or death than other people.

This brings to mind the slippery slope of any RPG that makes claims to "realism." They need to justify that their mechanics accurately reflect the real world, so one can always find an exeption (the world being an excepitonal place). Vocally cinematic RPGs, OTOH, can just say "well, it may not be realism, but it reflects the genre," and, voila, you can drop the argument and get back to playing.

 

[Conaill]

That said, I think that many GURPS fan realize that their take on disads takes a little extra management. Just yesterday on RPGnet I posted how a good book for GURPS would be a refined disad system. The retort of one GURPS fan was a qualified "you don't need that as long as the GM is willing to monitor all the character sheets." (or somesuch.) So I think current GURPS players are seeing what I see, they just don't see it as much as a burden as I do.

I think that's mainly because such monitoring is less of a burden in GURPS than it would be in D&D, because it typically only needs to be done *once*, when the character is created. Rather than every bloody single time the character levels up and wants to add some new 3-rd party feat which may or may not throw off the balance of the entire game

The same argument can be made regarding the earlier mentioned difference between a well-designed or poorly-designed character with the same point total in GURPS: If the GM is willing to put in a fairly minimal amount of effort *once* at character creation, it's pretty easy to make sure all the character start out reasonably balanced. After that initial investment (probably something like 1/2 hour per player for a 100-pt character - not much more time than it takes to double check the numbers on a D&D character sheet), the burden on the GM should be much less than in D&D, because characters change much more organically over time.

 

[Psion]

I think that's mainly because such monitoring is less of a burden in GURPS than it would be in D&D, because it typically only needs to be done *once*, when the character is created. Rather than every bloody single time the character levels up and wants to add some new 3-rd party feat which may or may not throw off the balance of the entire game

The way I see it, I'm only doing it when I conceive the campaign (when I consider what sources will be allowed) or when I first read and form an opinion of the book.

 

[Voadam]

Isn't it possible, though, for a system to intrinsically reward certain choices over others? I mean, in AD&D1e, elves were just plain better, and if you were more of a numbers person, you played the elf. Maybe GURPS simply rewards the min/maxer more than some other systems.

Just playin' Devil's Advocate.

Nah, high level switch class humans overtake the max levels of the overcompensated lowlevel elves.