What's your opinion of GURPS?

[Mystic_23]

We used to play GURPS a lot when I was younger. I think we got out of it for much the same reason as everyone else. But I must say that I've had a lot of good times playing GURPS. After all, probably the most successful game I've been in was a GURPS Vampire: The Masquarade game that a friend of mine ran.

We've pretty much played nothing but D&D since 3ed came out. However, I'm going to be running a short term Pulpy Horrory game using D20 Modern with some COC very soon. Basically, when 3.5ed comes out, we're going to pause our D&D game so the DM can convert stuff to 3.5.

 

[WayneLigon]

I have a like-dislike relationship with GURPS

I like the character creation (especially when using the wonderful GURPS Character Assistant ). I dislike how sometimes it feels I can't create a truly competant character until I remember that (sourcebooks like GURPS Special Ops aside) you don't need every freaking skill related to your specialty.

I've only run one GURPS campaign (using the G/Psionics rules) and that went pretty well. I used the basic combat system and pretty much disregarded everything past the first couple pages in Combat, and everything in G/Compendium 2 (which I don't even own, unlike Compedium 1 which is so wonderful I sometimes have to keep myself from buying a second copy).

I think you could have a perfectly successful campaign based just on the Lite ruleset; I don't think I'd make combat any more complex than presented there. But I like having that option open just in case. GURPS is modular enough that you can pick and choose without breaking the entire game.

If you decide to get the game then get the Basic Set, Compendium 1, and maybe one or two sourcebooks that appeal to you. After that, you might not need anything else. Then go through Compendium 1 and redline what you don't want. That's one reason I love GCA so much; I can create a data file based on my campaign, that has just the Advantages and Disads and skills
I want.

 

[mmu1]

I find that combat in GURPS (especially high-tech GURPS and ranged combat) doesn't scale well in terms of threat level at all. Because it is fairly realistic, once you hit a certain level of weapon proficiency (very easy, even for beginner characters), anyone with a handgun , bow or crossbow, is an extremely lethal threat you can't really do anything about besides a) Getting really good cover and b) Getting off the first shot and killing him first - because the guy firing at you doesn't need to be good enough to shoot you in the left eye, just good enough to reliably put a shotgun round or crossbow bolt in your torso.

 

[Voadam]

GURPS leads you away from heavy combat because you are essentially 1st level D&D adventurers hit point wise your whole career.

Gurps allows you to create lots of different genres but breaks down at high power high cinematic a bit.

I'd suggest using the basic combat. The advanced bogs down quickly.

The xp system and advancement are great, just like Shadowrun and Vampire.

The supplements are very good.

 

[reapersaurus]

What I'd love to hear is someone's opinions on Champions vs. GURPS.

Compare/contrast, strengths and weaknesses.

 

[bolen]

I have played GURPS alot. It is very realistic. But combat is deadly (as it really is)

I have heard that Champions (or Hero) is the opposite of GURPS in many ways. It works well for high level super heros but fails at low level things.

The person told me this, "GURPS characters are linear while Hero has more a logarithmic progression. So there is not much difference between low level characters in Hero but it has a much broader range of skills."

 

[JoeGKushner]

I like GURPS for a lot of settings. The historical books and licensed books are usually a good read and very useful even for non-GURPS campaigns. Don't like it for high-fantasy, high-powered super hero action. Tends to be a little uncomrpomising in its realism.

"But I'm Spider Man! I can't die this way!"

"Shut up ya freak!" Followed by the sounds of gunshots.

 

[WizarDru]

Tends to be a little uncomrpomising in its realism.

"But I'm Spider Man! I can't die this way!"

"Shut up ya freak!" Followed by the sounds of gunshots.

For real. The most dangerous opponent I ever threw against my players in GURPS Supers were a bunch of insane asylum escapees, all armed with machine pistols and uzis. The most dangerous of those was the sniper in a bell tower with a sniper rifle and laser scope, who could do 12d6 damage to the head, piercing at a range of 2000 yards.

One of the characters was immortal with regeneration. It upset the other characters when his head exploded like an over-ripe melon hitting the pavement, signalling the beginning of combat.

 

[Nine Hands]

I like GURPS but finding players is kind of hard. Many people in my gaming circles have had bad experiences with it.

For quite a while I ran a Forgotten Realms "D&D" game using GURPS. There were a handful of house rules, but it went pretty well.

I like the system for its role play ability and have never had a problem with munchkins or min-maxers. I just make them pay for and get hosed by thier disadvantages.

Another system that is similar to GURPS yet is a bit earlier IMHO is FUZION. The character creation is similar to GURPS and the game is scalable from low power level all the way up to Dragon Ball Z level. Its been usd in a bunch of different games and it available free on the net. I don't have the web address now but I may be able to dig it up once I get to work.

 

[drnuncheon]

What I'd love to hear is someone's opinions on Champions vs. GURPS.

Compare/contrast, strengths and weaknesses.

So, comparing GURPS (3rd edition) and HERO (Champions is the superhero genre book) 4th & 5th editions.

Like GURPS, combat can be slow and clunky unless everyone knows it very well. Big slowdowns include the unusual dice mechanics - unlike d20, where you can tell at a glance if you hit or how much damage you did, you have to either refer to a chart or do some mental adding and subtracting (in the case of attacks), or do some unusual dice-counting tricks (for damage - most attacks do both 'stun' (like subdual) and 'body' (like hitpoints) damage, and you count the dice in different ways depending on what kind of attack it is.)

GURPS has individual systems for different things: magic is different than psi which is different from high technology or super powers. HERO, on the other hand, is a metasystem: everything is built off of the same framework. This has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, it is very easy for different types of 'power' to become bland and undifferentiated, because a magic mind-reading spell and psionic telepathy work in exactly the same way. However, it's also very easy to define how things work and interact - if you have an 'extinguish fire' spell you know how well it will work against a flamethrower, a fireball spell, a pyrokinetic, or the Human Torch.

This metasystem also requires you to be able to think in HERO-ese - basically, HERO is an effects-based system. If you want a power to have a particular effect, you need to buy it, unless it's incredibly minor. You can't just define your Energy Blast power as a 'flame bolt' and expect it to set people on fire, for example - if you want them to keep burning, you have to pay extra. This is really difficult for some people to do.


GURPS has far more support than HERO. Steve Long's new company is doing better on that count than HERO games has for the past ten years or so, but SJG has been putting excellent books out steadily for all of that time. That means that the HERO GM usually faces more work than the GURPS GM in setting things up.

People will tell you that HERO can't handle realistic - but it does with the right rules options. People will tell you GURPS can't handle cinematic - but it does with the right rules options.

Ironically, neither one are (IMO) all that great for playing superheros. Hero is wonderful for creating superheros, but the complexity of the system slows it down. I think superhero fights should be 'roll and shout' not tactical wargaming. (So I like V&V, and to a lesser extent MSH - simple, stripped-own systems.)