Is there anything that GURPS can't do?

This. Except
>Doesn't work well for dumb anime shit
>superhero settings
is arguable

I've used it for supers, it would work well for a gritty setting full of consequence and death like chronicle.

It's very hard to punch people through buildings without them just dying unless you start houseruling hardcore.

prevent OP from being a faggot.

gunfights and vehicles

Fucking savage. Veeky Forums is on point today

ITT: /pfg/ tries to retaliate in kind against all the shit it gets for shilling a shit game

GURPS does every game better than itself except for ones with truly distinctive mechanics or feel, such as MAID and Nechronica, and the ones better suited to Fate, such as Exalted.

GURPS is honestly pretty decent at being able to do shit but it's always second best to a system or game specifically designed for the genre or setting you're trying to emulate.

ayy lmao

Such as? You'll agree that the major games played by Veeky Forums, those being Shadowrun, 40k RPGs, D&D, FFG Star Wars, CoD/WoD, CoC, etc. are all done better in GURPS than their respective systems, so what's left to play? Dogs in the Vineyard? Don't Rest Your Head?

LOL!

The biggest problem of gurps is that it is not a game. It is an engine and needs a lot of preparation.

That's why I'm looking forward to Dungeon Fantasy.

I don't think I fully understand (either that or you're just plain wrong), could you elaborate?

Have an interesting core mechanic

He's half and half. GURPS is a toolkit you use to build your own game from the ground up around the core mechanics of 3d6 roll under, making it suit whatever it is that you want to play. Generally speaking, it isn't actually hard, difficult, or time-consuming to set up a GURPS game. If you want to play a high fantasy game with orcs and elves, you make those two racial templates, worldbuild as usual (system agnostic), and tell people you're allowing cinematic advantages and using Low-Tech for gear. It really doesn't require a lot of prepwork at all.

What do you mean by this? What is an "interesting" core mechanic? Do you get your fun from a game by having funky dice to play with?

Aaaahhh, just like communism.

Core dice mechanics affect the feel and tone of a system. They can influence the experience and augment the system in subtle but important ways. Proper choice of a core mechanic and tuning the system around it can do a lot to build the tone of a game into the fundamentals of its system.

This is something GURPS will always lack. No matter how much you can emulate that something, it will always lack that systemic tone. It isn't a problem for some people, which is fine and all, but for me it's always been something of a dealbreaker.

In more practical terms, there are also ways you can intuitively build complex functions into a system around an appropriate core mechanic. While you could emulate it in a system like GURPS, doing so takes a lot more complexity to do so. It's like PC emulation of old console games. Sure, you can do it, but it requires a lot more power to run the emulator than the console itself ever had.

I guess it comes down to what style of game you prefer, then. I personally prefer GURPS' core mechanic because of a few reasons. It doesn't get in the way during play (I don't have to pay attention to the dice themselves for special traits, I can just roll, add, and move on). This is important to me because it really takes me out of a game to have to pay attention to the dice, GURPS' rolling is very backseat in that regard.

The other major one is that a lot of real life can be mapped to a gaussian distribution, which makes it very easy to take studies and experiments and real-world data and put them into GURPS (also aided by how it uses real-world numbers for everything). The curve is also very helpful for system math and knowing just how competent your character is. All-around damn useful.

Back to the first point on style of game, I don't generally play games that would require a weird core mechanic to get the feel down. All of that comes from the atmosphere, setting, and descriptions I use. They're usually homegrown, too, so I don't feel the need to emulate a power from a show. GURPS isn't a one-size-fits-all, of course, and I know there exist mechanics that really can't be captured by GURPS, but those are radical departures from normal games (i.e. jRPGs like Ryuutama, GSS, or Nechronica). But, by and large, it runs 70-80% of my games, with Fate being pulled out the rest of the time for looser, story-driven games.

I'm reading the GURPS Basic Set Characters book right now and pretty much it's Generic and Universal...

...it really makes me wish there was anyone in the world who actually wanted to play it

theres a game here we are trying to start soon enough

>CoC done better in GURPS
Not really. I'd say at best for GURPS they are roughly the same.

Honestly I think that applies to most things. Unless the system is really bad, the best GURPS can get is roughly equivalent, the simplicity of a central core mechanic and its flexibility countered by the somewhat greater complexity when trying to emulate certain aspects and the loss of the implicit tone and feel of more unique and interesting mechanics.

I've seen this argument bandied about a lot, and it has never made much sense. How does rolling a d20 make a game about knights fighting orcs FEEL more like a game about knights fighting orcs? How does a d10 dice pool make you really step into the shoes of an undead abomination caught between the vestiges of their humanity and a monstrous hunger? How does d% set up a tone of dread of the uncaring and unknowable universe?

The impact of core dice mechanics on feel and tone only really come into play with niche systems like DRYH (which has a core mechanic to promotes the game's theme of desperation and "diving too deep"); for 90% of the games I see people discuss on Veeky Forums, the core mechanic is irrelevant to the feel of the game.

Again, it's something some people are more sensitive to than others. And keep in mind that a lot of systems don't have well chosen core mechanics that add to the theme.

But the d20 is an excellent example. It's often derided for being very swingy, but that's why it's appropriate to the premise. For those heroic victories and catastrophic defeats, for always having a chance but never being quite certain of success. It suits the heroic fantasy feel.

Swapping out the d20 for 3d6, despite having a statistically equivalent range, changes the tone of the system. Suddenly that chance to do the impossible is now much, much less likely, but the chance of failure is gone, too. Something as simple as that can completely change how a system feels in practice.

But that's all the good settings

...

Bruh, I'm sorry, I know you've been putting a lot of effort into keeping this argument from devolving into a shitfest, but there is no response more appropriate to your post than greentext and a reaction image.

>d20's swingyness is a core part of the tone!

10/10 user

I'm not sure what about that statement deserves such derision?

Bell curves are not 'superior' to flat probability. They create a different experience, and are best used with that knowledge in mind. This isn't the only example, mind, but it's one of the best, most straightforward and easiest to understand.

Even before I even learned systems other than D&D existed, the fact that you were just as likely to get a middle-of-the-road result as you were to get a super-awesome/shitty result struck me as really really dumb.

As for your previous statement, you're claiming that not only was d20's swingyness purposeful but that it is a *major and irreplaceable part of the system's tone* to the point that its removal makes the system no longer feel like D&D, which I find exceptionally ludicrous.

How is being a slapstick character from 1 to 20 who never actually gets better (read: changes the chance of critically failing or succeeding) at fighting emulating heroic fantasy at all?

GURPS, for example, changes the chances of critical failure and success by how skilled you are. If you aren't skilled, you're very likely to critically fail. If you're very skilled, you're close to critting one out of ten times, which is definitely better than D&D. That sounds much more heroic to me.

>>on an attack with 50% chance of success
% failure
% normal success
% critical success
>just as likely
I won't argue with you on the other point, because I'm not the guy who made, it, but JFC man, are you this bad at statistics on purpose?

GURPS has a difficult time presenting itself as approachable.

It's a death knell for popularity and therefore for pitching game concepts, especially to new players. Each rule in a vacuum is pretty simple, and they all work well enough, but there's no cohesion to them at all. The mental investment to get on board is large.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about how every number on a d20 is equally likely to occur (a flat curve), as opposed to 3d6 where the middle is more likely to occur than the extremes (a bell curve).

The basic set suggests DR (Ablative) for this.

You might have your preference on one or the other, but that doesn't stop the difference in tone existing or other people preferring the opposite.

The large amount of randomness creates a different atmosphere in the system.

In GURPS, if you know something is almost certainly beyond your capabilities, you're unlikely to try. To gamble on those high numbers is often not worth the risk, given how unlikely they are. Meanwhile, you can also treat a lot of checks as below your interest, as the low numbers are equally unlikely.

In d20 systems, this is not the case. Something can be nearly out of reach, but you have a much more significant chance of achieving it due to the flat probability. It's still a risk, and it could go badly, but the very fact you know it's reasonably possible to achieve it changes the way you approach things.

Likewise, the probability of a bad roll means that, outside of taking 10/20, you can never dismiss a risky action.

As a mechanic it promotes extreme results, the way that influences your choices and actions is an implicit part of the tone and experience of playing d20 games like D&D.

Soooo the game isn't actually about big damn heroes like you said (because those guys would actually be competent and the system would reflect that), but randumbs fishing for crits?

Sure, 13 is just as likely to occur as 20 on a 1d20, but that's a bit like complaining that 3-5-2 is just as likely to occur as 1-2-1 on 3d6. It's (almost) all in what you do with the numbers after you generate them. Having a critical result being someone getting immediately incapacitated means a much different thing if it happens 5% of the time compared to 1% compared to .25%.

There is a little bit that the core mechanic does in addition to this, which talks about a little bit, but I don't think it's as important as the way subsystems are set up.

>but that's a bit like complaining that 3-5-2 is just as likely to occur as 1-2-1 on 3d6.
But that's not how GURPS works. 3+5+2 = 10, which is a result that happens 12.5% of the time (roll at or under 50% of the time), compared to 1+2+1 = 4, which is a result that happens 1.39% of the time (rolled at or under 1.85% of the time). GURPS doesn't look at the specific sequence of numbers rolled, it looks at the results of those numbers. You can't compage 1+2+1 and 3+5+2 to 13 and 20 on a d20. That's disingenuous.

What you should be comparing is the actual number derived from 3d6 to the number derived from 1d20. A 4 on a d20 is 5% likely, while on 3d6 it's 1.39%. A 13 on a d20 is 5% likely, while on 3d6 it's 9.72%. The result 4 is equally likely as 13 on a d20, but 4 is not equally likely a result as 13 on 3d6.

No. d20 characters are plenty competent, and reliability comes from the take 10/20 rules.

Again, it is about how the probability in the dice system affects player decisions and how they respond to a situation.

Consider, for example, a situation where you know, or can make an educated guess, that would need a result of 16 on the dice to succeed.

With 3d6, that gives you a chance of success of less than 5%. An awful gamble even in the most extreme circumstances,

With d20, you have a chance of success of 20%. While not good odds, this is significantly better.

The latter system compels you to take a risk. To cast the dice and hope, because you know the high numbers have a reasonably good chance of coming up. It creates a sense of hope and of uncertainty.

GURPS, meanwhile, reinforces certainty, and favours calculated decision making over hope. The dice are unlikely to make a significant difference, so taking risks is strongly disincentivised.

In some systems, that reliability is appropriate. However, in a game of mythic heroism and impossible deeds, I believe that mechanical presence of hope tangibly adds to the experience of playing the system.

GURPS is best

Probably story game systems or things with very arbitrary stats.

Otherwise, no. It does D&D better than D&D, and the same with WoD. The front loading isn't even a problem because the series exist.

Yes, that's what I was saying. GURPS looks at the results added together, while other systems look at the dice individually for successes, and some look for groupings of numbers. That's the type of subsystem I'm talking about, alongside the definitions for what each of those results means. D&D uses a flat distribution, so getting exceptional values isn't given as much weight as it would be in a system with a bell curve. Likewise, having a system where you use 6d6 looking for pairs and have a critical success on 6x6, you'd expect that result to be absurdly phenomenal compared to basically any other critical success rule. One's not better than the other, it just needs to have the system built with the results it's trying to provide in mind.

Dungeon Fantasy already exists though. Same with Monster Hunters, After the End, ect. The only difference the new one will have is that it is stand alone and has some new content.

>No. d20 characters are plenty competent, and reliability comes from the take 10/20 rules.
Which you can't do in combat. And D&D is a miniatures wargame that revolves around combat, meaning that that competence is nonexistent in the unarguably most important part of the game. You aren't play big damn heroes then, you're gambling randumbs gone fishing.

At this point I feel like you're simply asserting a pre-established belief based on your personal preferences rather than actually considering the points being presented.

You dislike highly random dice systems. That is clear. However, it should also be clear that a significant number of people do like them. I believe the points I am raising explain why, at least in part.

That's a false comparison. Needing 16+ on a d20 means you have a 25% chance of success. In a 3d6 roll-over system, your target number should be 13 (~26% chance of success).

Odds are odds dude; an action with an X% chance of failure should have an X% chance of failure. I don't know why you're trying to use a 1:1 rate here like it matters. You might as well argue that GURPS doesn't have criticals because you can't roll a 1 or a 20 on 3d6.

Beat D&D's mindshare.

The series still reference and require the Basic Set, though, so a 100% standalone version would still be great for getting in new people as they wont have to flip though extra books full of disallowed character options and unused rules.

Checked.

I'm not saying that you can't like highly random games. People are welcome to like anything they want. I'm saying that it doesn't actually capture the heroic fantasy feel, like you said, because of the reasons given in this thread. D&D has been, and always will be, a skirmish wargame. It doesn't capture the feel of heroics at all.

Roland didn't split a mountain because he rolled a natural 20 on a d20, he did it because he was that fucking good, or to use the terminology thus far, competent. If anything, the hope and gambling is more in line with people that scrape by luck alone whenever the odds are against them, underdogs that are at the end of their rope with nothing left to lose. That's what D&D emulates.

Forgive me, it's very close to the time I should sleep. Adjust that to 17+ and it holds together.

I don't know, it can pull off some heroic fantasy cliches pretty damn well. You focus on the critical fail- but what about the critical success?

It was fairly magical to see a child NPC whose highest modifier was +0 manage to wrestle a trained assassin to the ground long enough for the party to capitalize on that. In a more consistent dice system, that couldn't happen.

True, but it isn't that hard. The advantages, disadvantages, and equipment are listed pretty explicitly. You can give them the page number reference, or better yet, just copy and paste said material into one document. Plenty of people have done that already.

It is strange that you seek to tell people who like something why they like it, as opposed to listening to them tell you themselves.

Highly random dice create tension. When hope and despair are on the line every time the dice fall, the results have greater impact.

Highly reliable dice create a sense of reassurance, that things will generally come out in the same way.

It's also notable that your complaints completely fall apart when you view the system as a whole. 3d6 and d20, over a large enough number of results, are very similar. It is simply in the individual dice rolls that they differ so extremely.

I should also clarify that, while I agree with your general point, in the initial example I was pointing out why replacing 1d20 with 3d6, while functional in the same framework, has a significant effect on the tone and experience of playing said system, hence the direct comparison between numbers rather than probabilities.

In GURPS, it is possible, but that's straying from the topic by going into narrative control with buying success and luck advantages.

What about the critical successes? While they may make for good stories, they aren't making up for the fact that characters are lady luck's fool for their actions, not because of their actual capabilities.

It's more comedy than drama when the dice have such a huge impact on what your character is and isn't able to do.

I'm not telling people why they like something. I'm disagreeing with you on what feeling D&D captures. That has nothing to do with whether or not you enjoy the feeling. I'm not disagreeing that random dice creates tension, or that reliable dice create assurance. I'm disagreeing that the way D&D goes about it makes it heroic. I say it's anything but.

Even with the swinginess of d20, your chance of success is still knowable and measurable. Your characters still have competence, simply in a more granular fashion. The tension added by the swingy dice simply establishes a tone.

Both d20 and 3d6 have their uses. I use GURPS to run pokemon, because all the systems for it are fucking shit and GURPS is the only thing that can actually run it

I guess we just see things differently, then. Let's chalk it up to taste, or preference, or whatever the meme is these days.

>Both d20 and 3d6 have their uses
Well, I can't argue with that. I'm a fan of d20 random tables, since it's a good number of options without going overboard.

>that spoiler
Holy shit. I would never use GURPS for that. I'd use Fate and some extras to represent pokemon. Seems like it'd fit the feel of the anime much better.

Kudos, though. It's rare to find someone willing to sit down for an actual discussion on RPGs on this site.

>I use GURPS to run pokemon,
That sounds cool, but I just don't have the dedication to stat everything you need. Can you tell me how you generally run that if you don't mind?

Entirely too many people forget about personal tastes these days.

That said, it's a bit funny that 5e's DMG suggests using non-d20 random encounter tables, because 5% increments are easy as hell to homebrew with.

I just figure out a small list of random encounter/trainer mons, plus whatever I want as setpieces for the next session. The statblocks pile up over time.

I generally keep the pace at which PCs catch new mons a bit slow so not to clog anything up further.

Plus, once you've made one goddamn rodent or bird pokemon, you've got a template for the next 50 of them. A lot of pokemon are fairly similar.

Not the guy you replied to, but couldn't you just copypaste the pokemon's stats from the game and put those in that way or do you have to design it from scratch?

So you either give it away free to every character, mandate everyone buys it or just advise them to take some.

And even then, 20DR isn't going to make a lick of difference against someone who's single superpower is Punching Really Hard. And unless they have the DR to negate it, they're going to die.

Injury tolerance is the answer, It divides all damage done by whatever number, meaning that people cant ake huge damage because they only take like 1/5 of it or whatever. Then they can have a 'bane' that damages them like normal. like kryptonite.