Rules-lite RPGs with non-ambiguous rules

GURPS Lite.

Since he didn't post it, here's the freely available PDF if anyone wants a look.

Oh, and GURPS Ultra-Lite too just for fun.

...

The thing is... You think it as a joke when these people actually mean it as a valid answer.

Also because you take it as a joke implies that you haven't really tried GURPS and think it as a meme.

I'm not bothered by people not liking GURPS. What puzzles me is this unanimous assumption that it's always suggested as a joke, and isn't actually a good game, when it is.
Was it just used as a joke for so long that people now assume that's all it is w/out reading it?

The memes got to Veeky Forums's brains.

Funnily enough, a fair few older games from the 80s and 90s are pretty rules lite. A few of the WEG games come to mind, like Paranoia and WEG's Star Wars.

Actually, Paranoia is an extremely rules-lite game, with very specific rules. There simply aren't a lot of rules there, because there's not much for players to know.

>just refluff Pathfinder

triggered.jpeg

It's another cashgrabber from people who think the TBBT fans would really like to try "D&D" without reading the books.

>FREE PULVER
I had never seen that bit.

I don't know I skimmed about 300 pages of the core book, saw that the pdf had 280 more pages to go, and stopped giving a shit.

Stage Combat
DX/Average
Defaults: Combat Art or Sport-2, an
actual combat skill-3, or Performance-
3.
This skill allows you to perform a
choreographed fight safely, yet in an
entertaining manner. A critical failure
indicates an injury: 1d-2 damage to a
random location.

This is all the proof I need that gurps is a joke. Super specific skill. Clearly noted as being handled through different existing skills, except at specific penalties nobody in their right mind would memorize, with the addition of a specific failure state, that again nobody in their right minds would remember if it ever came up.

That's all the skill list is. A huge excuse to bog down any flow the game was offering to check out way too specific fiddly shit.

My other favorites are:
Speed reading
Smuggling which is entirely different than any other branch of stealth related skills and cannot even be defaulted by any of them
Running
Tending mother fucking bar
Pan handling because just like smuggling why the fuck is this specified as being unique from the other 80 social skills
And all of the skills which exist specificly to refer you to a different skill, like NBC suit. Because someone demanded that have a specific skill entry, just so it could refer you back to environmental suit, wait what why the fuck is that a skill? A fucking half a page skill?

It's because when people are looking for a good system to run X in, they're looking for something that captures the style of X with a unique design. They're not just looking for a system that will technically run X. And that's just what GURPS is. It will technically run X for any given value of X - it'll just do it in a way that's clunky, ugly, unpleasant to play, so much work to GM that you might as well make a new game from scratch instead, and completely devoid of style.

This. Gurps is literally a vegan restaurant. Hey I'd like to order an X. Ok here is a mushroom/tofu x that vaguely tastes like X.

And you know what. That's fine. Some people are vegans and won't be bothered, but nobody likes vegans.

GURPS actually does that though. Its modular mechanics give every game a different feel with interesting differences in how it's played.

Compare this with people that instead try to shoehorn every game and idea under the sun into their fucking bland D&D homebrew/spinoff with no interesting mechanics for /anything/.

Like what Dungeon World did?

Once upon a time, I found We're All Going to Die.
>cavalorn.livejournal.com/241167.html

It seems to fit the bill pretty well, although it's also strictly a one-shot single-session game.

Yeah tofu looks awfully appetizing when you compare it to someone making a taco out of Vienna sausages and microwavable mac and cheese. But why not make a taco out of some beef or your preferred meat in a traditional or tex-mex style to your liking?

I tend to agree with this. GURPS is a super simulationist system, to the point it can simulate other games and genres, but it's always just that- A simulation.

And in my experience it always ends up being more complicated and less textured than a system designed from the ground up to do a particular thing well.

Good thing GURPS gives you a fully stocked kitchen to cook whatever the fuck you want. There's even a couple recipes coming with it so you don't get lost.

Yeah and it's in a vegan restaurant. Golly I sure do love unlimited options so long as they're inherently restricted.

And this is specifically the meme people are posting everywhere when they have not even tried it. It works with fucking everything. It is tons easier to take GURPS and use it for the idea that you have rather than take any other system and knife it into a form that barely is able to survive the first push into action.

So you mean that full skill list should be used in every game? You think that my WWI german PC's in the trench should be thinking about how they are planning to act their live enactment of Christmas Carol with live ammunition and to do it safely when the French are just around the corner? I wouldn't bother unless that damn show would be in the focus of the game.

I don't use stage combat in any of my games. None of them has even had such a situation to warrant it therefore it isn't in the skill list in my games. But this leads to question why do you start skimming through the skill list during the game? Are you so daft that you haven't created your character with some thought behind it beforehand and need to be skimming the book during the game? I know sometimes you need to check some references and remind how something works but still you should know what skills you picked up during chargen. If you think GURPS has useless skills in excess then check Pathfinder feats which are much more plenty, are much greater clusterfuck and are scattered throughout every damn book there is AND you NEED to exclude some of them in your games to make it in any way sane. Limiting the skills and advantages to your game is the point. I don't use Drive(Mecha) in my campaign focused in politics of ancient Rome unless I want to throw in some Evangelion shit. Are you one of the people who don't want to bother even this much or do you automatically take every skill in the books in every game so you don't miss anything?

So you mean GURPS is just vegan restaurant and not every possible restaurant available?

Its modular mechanics can suck a big fat one. GURPSfags are proud that they exist at all, but if you actually look at them and compare them to other games that are actually designed from the ground up to do something specific, you'd never actually choose GURPS unless you were trying to be contrary.

All told, GURPS was an ambitious and well-meaning game from the 80's that hasn't aged well and wasn't that great to begin with.

Do you want me to get my vegan friendly cauliflower "hot wings" recipe? I haven't had to opportunity to try it yet, but I really want to.

Regardless I can tell you right now it isn't going to feel like eating wings in the slightest assuming it even ends up tasting similar.

Yeah, I've never planned out a new campaign and thought to myself, "Wow, I'd really love to run/play in an ancient roll-under game where everything is point-buy, and also all the rules we'll use are spread out across five books even though we're only using one book's worth of stuff. Also, I'd better make sure the books have the worst formatting of any company outside of Palladium."

If you are looking something unique for yourself. Build it up yourself, it isn't unique in any other case. Also isn't it quite clear from Dresden Files, Pathfinder, Dungeon World, Dread the First Book of Pandemonium, Dread, Gamma World that systems done for a specific things arn't always even usable in the thing they were specifically built for? Gamma World can stand on it's own legs and do few jumping tricks but not a single system work perfectly. If you want something that can be easily adapted to anything. Then use GURPS.

Simulationist? You can do that if your game needs it. I don't use it that way but hey. You arn't planning in using it in any way other than just trash talking about it so feel free. I know GURPS works well for everything I've needed sofar and will in the future. Don't understand me wrong, I do play other systems too and I have experience in them so that I know what I'm talking about.

Try to use the system and not pick up some readily baked copy pasta from other people and serve it here as your own.

So you're saying a generic system is better off for just throwing in every oddly specific optional rule that may never come up in literally any game, rather than including more broad and generic rules that could cover every single one of those fiddly specific options in a condensed manner?

Also are you suggesting that the player needs to understand and memorize every one of those fiddly rules? Now i could understand that if say the rules were uniform in any reasonable way. But gurps is built off of specifics. Best case senerio you get a player writing down what the admittedly useless stage combat skill does so they can check page 23 of their character sheet rather than page fuck if I remember of the book.

I'm not going to defend pathfinder or d&d here. But I will say this. In none of those systems is character creation fucking over 200 pages (that need to be vetted by the gm personally, which in turn needs to be clearly communicated to the players) fucking long. Like maybe if you threw in every fucking book right? But gurps does that in a single book. The fucking core book. Meaning rather than picking which books are available, you have to individually riffle through the fucking core system.

So you mean that system that was made in the 80's and revised in early 90's had a small face lift in 2004 and hasn't gone bankrupt in any phase of it's existence compared to DnD which has been under many different owner and needs a new edition every few years just to keep up selling new copies and books for the new owners. Planned obsolence with the DnD. Well laid out work with GURPS.

If you feel threatened by a system that has existed longer than you've been alive and it still works after all this time and people STILL use it and STILL start using it after trying out different things it STILL continues to thrive.

If you want to go with the newest, the brightest and most aggressively marketed all the time you'll be handing out money out there every year for something new. Feel free to do so. GURPS works and has been working well and will still work.

Ok since this is a gurps thread now. Please can someone explain to me why gurps is actually the best option in any circumstance? I know it is always an option though.

Like say I want to run a game. My options are pretty much
1)Read a book that almost matches my idea and make a few changes (or change the idea a tad in kind).
2)Read a book that presents the framework necessary to create something which almost matches my idea which in tern and make a few changes to make it better fit.
3)Just do it all myself.

Like 2 (gurps) is clearly the middle ground between 1 and 3 here. I just don't get why I'd create the extra work of 2 when 1 is an option. Why build a house from scratch (from pre-made blueprints), when I can find a house I want to live in and renovate it a bit? I'll also admit that 3 only really works if you're an actual or amateur game writer, but if you're one of those I again don't see the point in 2 (or 1), other than sub par time savers. Even then I see 1 as the best option unless you run a completely different game every other month and never stick with a single idea for any lengthy period of time.

What if we aren't talking about just the 2 systems that are the butt of all the jokes here? Have you considered other options?

Stop projecting, user.

GURPS is a toolbox. Whenever you go off to fix or build something you take your whole toolbox, but just take out a few tools, the ones you know are needed and best suitable for he job.

The other ones never came out of the box, but they are there, when you go for other jobs and need them.

> I do play other systems too
You've just proven yourself to be full of shit. GURPS is played up to be the be-all and end-all of tabletop roleplaying, the first and last game you'll ever want. If even its most stick-in-the-mud apologists can't bear using it over and over again for absolutely everything, then maybe nobody else wants to do 3d6 roll-under until the day they die, either. You could even take that as evidence that GURPS isn't well suite dot everything, or even to anything.

>Like 2 (gurps) is clearly the middle ground between 1 and 3 here. I just don't get why I'd create the extra work of 2 when 1 is an option.
Because 1 isn't always an option, and sometimes when it is an option it's a surprisingly bad one.

How many RPGs out there have neat settings but have mechanics that just suck ass?

Also, sometimes GURPS is 1 - there's a helluva lot of licensed settings that have been published for it over the years. Why try hacking Pathfinder into Discworld (option 2-ish) when you can just grab GURPS Discworld and be done with it?

So you are now hunting for ideal system? No. Gurps isn't ideal but it gets the work done better than most other systems. It has a lot of rules but you don't inherently need to use all of them for the system or your game to work. With other systems it goes all-or-nothing or it will break from seams. I don't think players need to know every "fiddly" rule there is. Only those that will be used in the given game and most of the time not even those. Basics is enough (meaning GURPS lite works) but some games where you want to do something specific and have rules for it you'll actually have them there use them or not. Your choice there.

I think it is better to have a lot of skills than few general ones but I agree that people have differing opinions on this.

You don't need to memorise every skill in the game. Only the ones you are using. Doing more than that is bit pointless in my mind like learning every table into your memory from Rolemaster (a friend of mine did this but he has photographic memory).

Regardless of what system you are using be it DD, GURPS, WoD etc. you need to go through the books. That is inevitable. I just don't see why going through GURPS specifically is much more painful than like going through Dark Heresy for example.

...

Nah, just ideal enough for the task at hand. My entire argument is that there is no singular ideal system. Hence why I will gladly admit that gurps can be used for anything, but am not convinced that it does all of that the best.

Also what about defaulting? Shouldn't a player keep skills they don't have in mind in the event that they don't want to be limited to just what's written on their sheet?

> Please can someone explain to me why gurps is actually the best option in any circumstance?
It is not, but it is one of the best options in any given situation and in some specific cases it IS the best option, namely when trying to hack something that doesn't quite have a custom solution.

>1)Read a book that almost matches my idea and make a few changes (or change the idea a tad in kind).
2)Read a book that presents the framework necessary to create something which almost matches my idea which in tern and make a few changes to make it better fit.
3)Just do it all myself

I personally think you have a misconception here. Option 1 will give you lots more trouble than option 2, because you will actually need to hack a solution made by a game designer to suit your needs, keeping in mind you don't have the same skill set, because if you did, you would take option 3 from the start. Also, GURPS is designed to be hacked in such a way, it is the way to play it actually, so it doesn't fall apart when you do it. Just look at how many games the OGL spawned and how many of them are playable and good.

But I don't think you should use GURPS for the objective OP stated. It works better as a rules heavy game, and there is a LOT of rules lite games. Nonetheless, people should end this idea about GURPS. But It does have problems, namely: demanding a lot of prepwork from the GM, taking a lot of time in chargen, the players also NEED to have a passing understanding of how it works, you probably will use a lot of splatbooks.

Deadly Spring?

Oh nevermind, it's even in his sig.

Because in D&D or Dark Heresy a lot of the looking-shit-up duty can be shared with the players. It's generally accepted in those games that everything in at least the core books is allowed unless the GM specifically says otherwise. With GURPS, all that work needs to be done by the GM alone. It's not a given that everything in the core books is going to be used, and in fact most of the core books will not be used, and so the GM has to go over absolutely everything, decide whether to use it, and then convey that information to the players.

>Defaulting

It's usually functionally the same to just give them a penalty of minus 4 to minus 6 because the task is a bit weird considering the skill they are using.

Your GM is probably used to making up rulings on the fly in other systems. GURPS can be the same if you want to.

I agree with you. There is no single ideal. GURPS so far in my experience has done surprisingly well for what ever I've used it for.

Defaults are in my opinion a nice thing. At least in my group some players like to take some specific skill because of the defaults they go for and they tend to write those defaults on their charsheet. But it isn't usually needed. When there happens to be situation that some skill might apply then we use defaults or wing it and use other skill. Depends on situation.

Yes. I've tried them and I use other systems too. GURPS just is the one I end up using in the end regardless. The thing is that I tend to run my own games not in predefined setting. In those cases I use GURPS as the system because it gives the tools I need to run any specific game I'm planning on.

I didn't know for some people the world is so black and white. You mean you havn't tried GURPS because you might like it and all your opinions, shitposting become pointless? I know GURPS, I like GMing and playing with GURPS but I do also play with other systems. Be surprised or not but not everyone likes to use GURPS and with those people I play something else but if I'm GMing we'll most likely use GURPS. Those people don't mind as long as the game is fun. I'm in for the roleplaying but when I'm alone and planning for the game I prefer to use GURPS for it.

SLA Industries

I use option 2) because the amount of reading I have to do to find the perfect suitable system for the game with option 1) is a lot more work than having to go with the option 2). I don't care for option 3) because I have a friend who has been building up his own system for 15 years now and it still doesn't work even when he has a specific use for it.

I've never seen any reason to use GURPS when I can almost always find a specific system that does the job better. One system that tries to do everything will always fall flat compared to systems which narrow their focus and do one thing particularly well.

Why is GURPS the most shill-based system of all time?

I don't mean it's the most shilled, but it's practically build to be shilled.

>here's a game that can do literally ANYTHING
>if your GM is willing to go through cutting options
>oh, you don't like the complexity?
>here's a light system that's 100% the same, we promise
>if you like it, try the rest of the GURPS system
>you don't even like that?
>well, we have a lot of system-agnostic advice in all these books
>please buy them

Ah, but you see user, this isn't the case for literally everything, so if you come across an idea like that, be sure to buy the 4-5 GURPS books you need to run it in the most flexible system ever(tm) like a good goy, rather than simply deciding "maybe I'll try something else".

>I personally think you have a misconception here. Option 1 will give you lots more trouble than option 2, because you will actually need to hack a solution made by a game designer to suit your needs, keeping in mind you don't have the same skill set, because if you did, you would take option 3 from the start. Also, GURPS is designed to be hacked in such a way, it is the way to play it actually, so it doesn't fall apart when you do it. Just look at how many games the OGL spawned and how many of them are playable and good.
Oof, yeah. That's a good point.

There's way too many game hacks out there that miss the point of the original game really badly and just end up with a subpar product. People like to point at Dungeon World for this, but personally I prefer pointing to one little fundamental change AD&D 2E made:
by removing the ability to get experience from treasure (what OSR likes to call GP=XP), and not plugging up that hole with anything substantial, players need to spend four times as much time to level up.
Because GP was something like 75% of the XP you got.

Now, it's a lot easier to make small changes that wreck everything than you might think. A low-magic campaign in D&D3E/Pathfinder takes more than just removing magic items, for instance, since they're so baked into the fundamental math of the system that removing them means that the players are significantly weaker. Removing wandering monster rolls from Basic D&D means that the players are now under no time pressure as they explore the dungeon, and you'll get similar issues if you remove The Grind from Torchbearer.

Or, since this turned into a GUPRS thread, just straight-up changing the d20 roll in D&D to a 3d6 roll without changing any of the surrounding maths. I have no idea why this is such a popular bad idea, but it's up there with shit like critical failures.

>Buying RPGs

GURPS isn't an RPG, it's an RPToolkit, duh.

I don't know. Modern d&d removing the class specific level curve is more detrimental in my opinion than the gp=xp thing.

Early d&d literally admitted that an 8th level fighter was the cap for female dwarves...I mean not the same as an 8th level wizard. Modern incarnations like to only have 1 xp table, and that in my opinion fucked things up way harder.

I think that going through the need to learn tens of game systems isn't what I consider fun. I've done that previously but now that I do have to go to work daily and read research papers and write them myself. I don't find much fun in learning different game systems anymore. I need to learn what other researchers have found so that I can do my own. I like GURPS because it does things a lot better than people think it does.

It is an old system. Been around for a long time and a lot of different kind of people use it for reference even if they don't use the rules. It has tons of good "food-for-thought" source books. Also the people who work for the company making the game do listen to people and try to make it more approachable. Other companies do it too. With GURPS the difference with Basic set and Lite is that with lite you can't do everything unless you invent things you need. Lite has the basic mechanics and those mechanics are used everywhere. Basic set then opens up the rest of the options there are.

I guess that's just a fundamental difference. I love learning new RPG systems, experiencing how they play and such. But I'm a big fan of RPG design in general, so experiencing a variety of mechanics is always a plus for me.

I've had the exact opposite experience. Every dedicated system I've come across sans one fails my needs in one way or another, and the GURPS toolkit lets me run exactly the game I want to run. Just because a system is dedicated doesn't mean it's well designed (see 3.PF, Dark Heresy, etc.). GURPS is flat out a competent and solidly-built system, and if using it requires slightly more effort on my part as the GM because I need to spend a whole hour considering what rules I want to use, so be it; at least I'm not struggling with a poorly written mess.

Agreed fully. I gladly take inspiration from systems I've read in the past. Rather have a couple novels laying around than a single dictionary.

I unironically use GURPS near exclusively while downloading every system I run across to steal the good parts from.

I agree with your point. That is what was fun for me back in the day but now I don't have time for it (or if I have the time I don't have the energy). If someone is planning a campaign with system I don't know I still do check it up but not go through it with same vigor I used to.

Cheers for game diversity :P I still like GURPS

The samey mechanics just kill it for me.

Mechanical tone is apparently a controversial subject, but I've always found it really key to my experience. Even the most basic mechanic of a system influences how it feels to play, which is why GURPS always feels like a simulation of other systems. It's all operating from the same basic framework no matter how much you alter it.

Some games work better without a nice reliable bell curve. Some systems are better off being wildly swingy or having more variable dice sizes or pools, or using stranger core mechanics that allow them to do things just not possible on 3d6.

This just reminds me of the time I asked Veeky Forums how to make giant monsters feel giant mechanically, and I was told to go fuck myself.

While that's a fuckup, it was also an entirely intentional one where they were probably aware of what they were doing - and in any case, the tables usually just meant a level or two of difference either way.

But making GP=XP an optional (and discouraged!) rule? Yeah, that just helped contribute to the whole idea of TSR D&D having abysmally slow levelling, mostly because it was literally four times slower than it was in 1E.
Changing back to 3d6-down-the-line from 1E's more generous 4d6-arrange and so on was also a bad idea, IMHO. Especially since 2E was going for a more heroic thing than 1E was, which its rules most certainly did not support.

A good example of that would probably be, what, Dread's Jenga tower?

That's sad, because it's a really good question, although there's a lot of different answers depending on the system you're using.

Dread's Jenga tower is on the extreme end, but even something like Legend of the Wulin's dice pools that let you make multiple simultaneous actions with different values on the same roll just can't be replicated or simulated, no matter how much you tweak a basic 3d6 mechanic.

I think I remember that thread, but I don't remember the discussion. Did it have a guy shitting it up with how the D&D T-Rex feels big because it has a lot of hit dice?

It's a really difficult question, though.

I was told one of 2 things. Shadow of the colossus monsters are also the arena. Or the main response of more hp, more damage what are you retarded?

Hey neat you were totally there, and I will admit it is. Absolutely.

A game system I run uses abstract 'Zones' for the purposes of movement, and I've represented huge creatures as multiple Zones, each one statted as an individual combatant with their own actions and abilities while sharing HP. Having to actually use movement powers to attack or avoid different parts of the same creature has been pretty effective in conveying scale.

Any chance I could get a system name (even if it is homebrew, I promise I've only been overly critical of one homebrew before because despite hearing about it for years nobody told me it was a wankfest erp fetish ruleset)?

I like shadowrun's d6s myself. Degrees of success are a lot easier to understand.

A lot of different systems use Zones for movement, and the principle can apply in any of them. I've done it in FATE and Legends of the Wulin. It's not intrinsic to either, just a principle you can apply with anything that uses a similar abstract movement system.

FFG's Star Wars games and Modiphius' 2d20 games use zones for movement.

Literaly just tavern tales.

Also its now a 184 page free artless pdf and a paid illustrated pdf.

The best solution for giant monsters that are not SotC in design, at least that I found out, is using "mecha" rules for them. Different areas have different difficult to hit, armor, hp, damage absorption, movement, attack and more.

Problem is, most systems don't support it.

>I didn't know for some people the world is so black and white
I didn't make the claim that GURPS was for everything; GURPS did. I'm just holding them to their own ridiculous claim.

>each one statted as an individual combatant with their own actions and abilities
One cool idea from 4E's Dark Sun Creature Catalog: a sand-kraken with a central body that spawns "minion" tentacles, each of which has its own attack options and try to grab PCs to shove into the main body's mouth. It stays underground most of the time, only emerging to take a bite - at which point the PCs can hit it for all they've got.

Page 86-87, for those curious. It's a neat book - probably some of the best 4E monster design.

Last time i checked dns has had two owners and is as old as gurps, plus its far better to run forgotteb realms or eberron ind dnd than gurps, or star wars in star wars.

I hope you don't take advertisement so rigorously too.

WotC D&D is almost a completely different game from 1E, and if you think it's the best option for running the Forgotten Realms then I'm going to laugh in your face.

GURPS isn't necessarily a better option, note, but that particular setting has some serious discrepancy between the fluff and the mechanics. Eberron's a bit better at it, though.

To be honest, I reckon the best D&D editions for those settings would probably be OD&D for FR and 4E for Eberron? You could probably do better with some of the D&D-alikes out there, though. Torchbearer might work alright for early Forgotten Realms, for instance.

>which has been under many different owner
First was a hostile takeover.
Second was a hostile takeover.
Third was the dumb bint (from #2) running the company into the ground because she hated the products and audience.
>and needs a new edition every few years
First was for screwing a guy out of his royalties.
Second was for screwing a guy out of his royalties.
Third was a (previously unrelated) company flexing the IP.
Fourth was what you described.
Fifth was backpedaling #4

Check out Project Rebirth. It's a rule-lite RPG made by a guy with a hard-on for preciseness and balance.

Ambiguity in the rules is what allows for rules light. If you start being disambiguos you then have to explain exceptions.
You go on like this and eventually you realize you wrote GURPS (or FATAL).
Also ambiguity is what allows for GM rulings.

>Rules-light games are usually made to be very flexible
Nope they arent, they are made to be easy to play and learn

I think the real problem is that no one has a solid definition of "rules-light".

Apocalypse World and similar games are considered rules-light, and yet AW has a 300-page core book with no setting material. On the converse, GURPS is almost always considered rules-heavy, yet the above-posted GURPS Lite is only 32 pages long.

How do we define "rules-light"?

>How do we define "rules-light"?
To quote the judge talking about the definition of, IIRC, porn: "I'll know it when I see it."

Then the discussion is largely arbitrary. Until we define it, we will likely not even get past bickering over what constitutes "rules-light", let alone discussing what the best rules-light games are.

So that hours-long retarded GURPS argument above is likely how all discussion on the topic will look until we quantify the term.

>is likely how all discussion on the topic will look until we quantify the term.
One person suggested GURPS was rules-lite and *everyone* else told them off for it.
>So that hours-long retarded GURPS argument above is
a discussion of whether GURPS is a good system. Not whether it's rules-lite.