What is your Opinion of GURPS?

[Conaill]

Just my opinions as longtime GURPSite and DNDite:

1. Character creation is roughly as time consuming as 3rd edition D&D.

2. Characters who are not well designed will get shafted, same as D&D. Pick a specialty and focus on it, but don't entirely neglect other areas, and you should be fine.

3. Combat involves 2-3 rolls per attack: attack roll, defense roll, damage roll. Much of the rest will seem familiar to you, because D&D 3e cribbed the Move + Attack, 5 ft step (in GURPS it is 1 yard step), free actions, from GURPS . That will get me thwapped, I'm sure, but it is true.

Although some have posted that GURPS combat can be tedious, I disagree. It is exactly as tedious/exciting as D&D, except that D&D combats tend to last longer and have more last second upsets. GURPS combats tend to end fast and bloodily. Much depends on GM.

What he said!

I'd like to add that GURPS really encourages roleplaying much more than D&D. From the presence of quirks (1-point disads), strong focus on actually *playing* disads, to the recommendations for handing out XP.

Also, in my own experience I have found D&D combat actually to be much more lethal than GURPS. (1) In Gurps, there is relatively speaking a much larger buffer zone between unconsciousness and death, since you need to be reduced to minus your original hitpoints. (2) D&D actually *assumes* the availability of Raise Dead and Resurrection, so at higher levels it's not unusual for PCs to die several times during a campaign. In GURPS, character deaths tend to be rarer, but almost always permanent. (I once played in a one-year campaign where the goal was to resurrect one of our favorite PCs - and at the end, she only came back with some serious strings attached!)

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'd like to add that GURPS really encourages roleplaying much more than D&D. From the presence of quirks (1-point disads), strong focus on actually *playing* disads, to the recommendations for handing out XP.

just to comment on that last one, one thing I liked about gurps CP (character points) is that you could use them right away. Character growth was constant and smooth, instead of giant jumps every once in a while. Even better, GMs had the option of giving character points to add to specific skills, reflecting 'learning expereinces' on the part of the characters. If my D&D character spends a lot of time trying to communicate with a possible ally in spite of not knowing the language, I might get some XP for it, but when I level, its still likely to be a cross class skill with possibly scarce points expended to have that expereince reflected in my character. If I do it in Gurps, the GM can give me standard character points for the session, plus award the roleplaying with one or two extra points in the language to reflect what I've learned. I find it encourages players to try things and lets your character actually look like their expereinces instead of fighting zombies for a week and getting better at sneak attack and diplomacy as a result...

Kahuna Burger

 

[coyote6]

A slight aside: Henry, if you're reading this, I just quoted you on Pyramid, regarding GURPS 4e.

(How? "C'mon August", of course! )

 

[Tratyn Runewind]

Hi again,

Posted by Ondo:
They apparently won't have Ritual Magic, but they will have an option that has spells as Techniques (the new name for Manuevers).

Posted by Ondo:
The Magery limit is gone. Unlimited Mana is not in - the comment was something along the lines of "as good as the rules are, it's not worth dealing with their author".

Many thanks for the info. Happy to hear the spells-as-Techniques option will get some space. Seems quite odd that UMana won't be in, as they just reprinted it pretty recently in GURPS Best of Pyramid Volume 2. Ah well, perhaps if we're lucky Mr. Ross will tweak up a version for the new ruleset on his web site...

I would guess that the comment about UMana and its author is from the Pyramid 4e chat. If you have any more cool data from there (or, indeed, from whatever your source is) that you'd care to post, I for one would be very happy to see it here!

Posted by Staffan:
I was thinking along the lines of just using GURPS Basic (3rd ed, or rather 2nd ed plus GURPS Update which has all the stuff that changed in 3rd ed) and GURPS Magic. I'm pretty sure Extra Fatigue isn't in Basic (at least not pre-revised).

It's in Compendium I, and is used in many supplements (including a number of the "templates" in GURPS Wizards, but it's not in my (unrevised) 3e GURPS Basic Set.

Posted by woodelf:
This is precisely what i'm talking about_: story importance relative to one another. Isn't that what every RPG is really doing with "game balance" already? Why does it matter if the various classes in D&D are balanced, for example? Precisely so that everybody gets to contribute equally to the game.

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.

Though, in fairness, I could darn near see charging munchkins for Enemies/Hunteds, as it gives them something they surely want in a game session - more targets to kill. That's a solid investment for such a player, especially in systems that hand out XP for foes killed...

 

[Psion]

Woodelf brings up a good point about running Disads like Hero. In many ways, GURPS still has a very primitive disadvantage system; the "points for disad" thing tends to turn disads into a point farm, and players typically take them because they want the points more than because they really want to play the disad. Further, they then tend to try to avoid situations in which it will be a disadvantage for them. The result, when I played GURPS, was that often the party a bizarre group of dyfunctional misfits.

The Unearthed Arcana system isn't really any better (and in some ways, is worse.)

I used to think 2e Skills & Powers had a good solution; they compartmentalized the points (i.e., to get advanages in your class, you needed to take disads in your class.) But eventually, it was proven to me that the point farm mentality even takes hold there. The compartmentalization made it less abusive, but you still ended up with dysfunctional misfits.

So it is my long considered opinion that the basic "points for disads" model is inherently problematic. I have only encountered two models that I think does a good job:

• I actually suggested an idea like this on the RPG-Create mailing list years ago, but eventually saw versions of it in AEG's books like 7th Sea, Spycraft, and the d20 supers title Vigilance. It's basically what I call "per incident compensation." Instead of giving the character compensation based on the expected impact of a disad, the character earns bonus points whenever they actually face challenges from the disad.
• Kult has an interesting mechanism. Disads tend to be seen as point farms because players conceive them as being worth more mechanically than their actual negative impact. I feel GURPS makes this particularly problematic in part because it seems to give you SO MANY points for relatively minor problems. So reducing the point compensation is one way to address this. Kult has an elegant second way -- it makes the disadvantage an actual disadvantage in the mechanics of the game. Basically, Kult (a horror game) makes it part of the sanity mechanic, which is pretty important to the central focus of the game.

Hopefully, GURPS 4e comes up with a more robust disadvantage system that makes its use worthwhile.

 

[d4]

The result, when I played GURPS, was that often the party a bizarre group of dyfunctional misfits.

i never saw this in 10 years of playing GURPS. i think using the suggested limit of 40 points in disads keeps most characters from falling to the "bizarre, dysfunctional misfit" level. all the PCs i played or saw played in GURPS were good, well-rounded characters whose disads fit their background and personality. i think you may have been experiencing, in part, a player problem and not a system problem.

I actually suggested an idea like this on the RPG-Create mailing list years ago, but eventually saw versions of it in AEG's books like 7th Sea, Spycraft, and the d20 supers title Vigilance. It's basically what I call "per incident compensation." Instead of giving the character compensation based on the expected impact of a disad, the character earns bonus points whenever they actually face challenges from the disad.

on the other hand, i do agree with you that this is the best way to implement disads in an RPG. giving points for disads before they've had a negative impact on the character seems a little backward. (it's like getting your allowance before you've done any of your chores...)

 

[buzz]

I second (third? fourth?) the nomination for CORPS. It's a fantastic, "gritty", streamlined system. Unfortunately, BTRC doesn't seem all that interested in supporting it anymore, being more focused on Porter's new EABA rpg.

As for GURPS, I wasn't all that impressed with the current edition, but what I've heard about the upcoming fourth edition has me very interested. I'm also hoping that my cover submission wins the cover contest. (Pimp! Pimp!)

(GURPS is copyright Steve Jackson Games; artwork used is copyright Steve Jackson Games and John Zeleznik. This is not a real SJG product, and is intended for entertainment purposes only.)

 

[d4]

that's real nice, buzz. very clean and slick. and i like black covers.

 

[Psion]

i never saw this in 10 years of playing GURPS. i think using the suggested limit of 40 points in disads keeps most characters from falling to the "bizarre, dysfunctional misfit" level. all the PCs i played or saw played in GURPS were good, well-rounded characters whose disads fit their background and personality. i think you may have been experiencing, in part, a player problem and not a system problem.

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.)

* - Earlier, I referred to the example of Skills and Powers disadvantages being slightly better in this regard due to compartmentalization, but was still abusable. The example I was thinking of that convinced me of that was what you would actually call a problematic or "exceptionally willing to point farm" player in which you can see the player as the problem, not the system. But in the case of my experiences with GURPS, I really don't think it's a fair assertion.

 

[Voadam]

Things I like about GURPS

The xp system and the ease of applying xp to improve abilities used in the game.

It is overall a good point buy system for more realistic gritty games.

Things I did not like:

Even at high point buys the characters seem very frail and vulnerable to crumping compared to D&D, do not expect to face a group of ogres the way you would in D&D.

Advanced combat was a bit overwhelming to learn.

I don't like one second combat rounds. I generally like to always be able to do something on my action rather than set up or recover from actions.

How expensive it is to learn a lot of magic for a high fantasy mage concept.

A few too many social things cost points, knights militarily lose out to soldiers because they must spend points on status, etc.

In game earned benefits still cost you xp points as the default. (for example, if you make a new contact through interaction you must spend your xp for the advantage)