Why do most people completely miss the point about GURPS and what it is for?

Why do most people completely miss the point about GURPS and what it is for?

People seem to have this idea that GURPS is used as a replacement for other systems: if I wanted to play planescape, for instance, I could go with D&D or I could go with GURPS. While this can be done, the real strength of the system is that there is really no system to speak of; you create the system.

So, say you've created a setting from scratch, and you want to set up a game in it. Chances are, you're going to want to create your own ruleset, no matter how light it may be, to fit your world and what sorts of situations you'll be encountering (that is, if you want something more mechanically involved than, say, fate). From here, you either build every rule from scratch, or you use this thing called GURPS to compile a list of rules that fit your game, and essentially use it to build your own system in an easy way.

That's it. GURPS is not a system for players, I'd say; players don't play GURPS, they play whatever system their GMs create with GURPS, and so that's why I get extremely confused when people say GURPS sucks. How does it suck? To my knowledge, there is nothing like GURPS around, so what are you comparing it to?

The flaw there is that, for some settings I'd create, GURPS would still be a bad fit due to its basic assumptions. GURPS tries to be generic and universal, but it works best in settings with a gritty, realistic feel due to its emphasis on simulationism. I know it has cinematic rules, but they're rather half-baked and in general miss out on the systems strengths.

Within that niche of realism, GURPS can do a lot of things. Sci-fi, fantasy, contemporary, weird mash ups and all that work very well. But the system does suffer if you try to move outside of that thematic space. I think it's fair to say that GURPS is generic in terms of setting, but it's quite specialised in terms of tone.

> its basic assumptions
EVERY system has to make assumptions, or else there'd be nothing. I still don't see the point.

Are you the user from /gurpsgen/ that always posts cute women for some reason?

I don't have anything to add to this thread, I just wanna know

There are specifically rules for taking away the realism though (wildcard and cinematic skills, cinematic rules such as armor with no clothes etc.)

And don't say "But you need supplements for that!" It's all in the basic set. If you DO want to go through supplements, you can also find rules to make guns less lethal, silly powers, ways to make a more two fisted actions game and more

GURPS is meant to have rules slotted in and out, it says so multiple times throughout the book

Because it's shit

Look up the GURPS is shit thread that was archived very recently

In fact, that's why you made this thread didn't you?

Nope, sorry.

I don't frequent generals; I think they're harmful to the board, and I choose not to participate in general culture.

>I don't frequent generals; I think they're harmful to the board

Why?

Said it before, and I'm saying it again: generals are NOT healthy for an image board.

I've counted about 38 generals (and those are the ones which have 'general' in the title), in Veeky Forums's tg out of the 150 or so total threads. Now, you might say that's a low number, but the main problem is the posts in those generals are a massive volume of the total posts in the whole board.

Generals are bad. They segregate people, and hide them from others with oposing views, meaning there's no actual discussion. All that happens in a general most of the times is people asking questions about a specific system or topic or whatever, and while that's good, I believe these kinds of image boards should be about discussing the hobby or interest at large. I could still make a thread about how cool GURPS was, for instance, but I'd have people actually saying they think it's shit, and why they think it's shit. That's what's wanted. As it stands, every thread that is not a general in disguise or a "what do" thread, is labeled as a troll or bait thread. I'm just waiting for that guy to pop up and tell everyone my thread is bait, and it's a shit thread that shouldn't exist, so remember to sage and report and hide.

What's worst, is that people who only frequent a single general, might miss on other cool threads they not only like, but that have topics they could give some insight into. It seems ludicrous to me that someone might spend 70% of the time in an image board looking for, and at, one specific thread.

Veeky Forums was actually better back in the day of 50% of the threads being about 40k; even though I don't like 40k, there was actually more interesting discussion going on.

If you want to ask questions about your game to other people that play it, there are platforms to do that in: the game's forums, for instance, or even reddit…
>B-but m-muh reddit is shit
… or even reddit, reddit has plenty of subreddits about specific games, and you can even make your own.

Your thread is bait, and it's a shit thread that shouldn't exist, so remember to sage and report and hide.

That's kinda the point. No system can be completely generic because it has to make those assumptions to function.

>I know it has cinematic rules, but they're rather half-baked and in general miss out on the systems strengths.

Some topics need them for regular discussion, like Battletech.

However, it's funny that generals now make up a greater percentage of threads on the board than quests did at their height

Generals are Veeky Forums content. Quests were not Veeky Forums content. The two are not comparable.

But again, for me, at least, the toolset works. If I don't like the way a rule interacts with my game world I can a) scrap it entirely, or b) change it so it feels better. Again, it seems to be the de facto tool for quick "homebrew" system creation, as I don't see any others around.

She's cute

Also, to add to your post, if that isn't presumptious of me: inspiration can be taken completely unexpectedly from random sources. A thread can have a slight derail or interesting development of a topic which you, reading just the OP description in the catalog, may have no interest in, even if you'd be interested in the turn the thread's taken had you only known about it. Generals in particular are bad for this, since they only have copy-pasted infodumps and such in their OP. Perhaps abit more controversely, this is one of the reaons why I think even the catalog can be rather harmful for a board like Veeky Forums (and maybe for Veeky Forums only, given the uniquely creative side of the hobbies that homebrewing affords us), because you don't get those glimpses of interesting things that goes on in other threads beyond the OP.
Imagine if we had both Quests and generals, though. Virtually no kind of creative discourse would take place: threads other than generals and quests would never last long enough for people to come up with ideas, which isn't usually an instantaneous thing, and if it is, still needs time to mature through further consideration.

How do they do either of those? Please explain

Yes.

You're cute user

But the games core mechanics and basic assumptions influence the experience of playing it. And GURPS's restrict it to a certain kind of setting.

If that's the only kind of thing you want to do, of course, then doubtless it works fine.

>But the games core mechanics and basic assumptions
You can literally change the basic attributes in that shit.

Is that a man or a woman?

because i'd prefer male

That isn't the same as changing the core mechanics

Clearly a woman.

What core mechanics are we talking about here, out of curiosity?

There's very little I'd consider "core mechanics" in GURPS.

...

>Some topics need them for regular discussion, like Battletech.
They don't. That's a common belief that leads to the slippery slope we're on right now.

There are a lot of underlying structural things that don't change regardless of how much you stack on top of them, right down to 3d6+modifiers.

Generals are nothing new. The only thing that changed is that the consistent threads discussing major games were given a name, and then people started comparing them to quests because they're salty. In the era before quests it was no fucking different.

Even big threads about specific systems and such were usually started to ask one or more questions about that system, not as catch-all "have all discussion about the system here" threads. Sometimes there'd be "thread for simple questions that don't deserve own threads" threads, but those were hardly generals either,

>to ask one or more questions about that system
(Or help with homebrewing specific rules, coming up with a good plot for a setting etc..)

>Generals are Veeky Forums content. Quests were not Veeky Forums content.
What about when the mods said quests were Veeky Forums content

And most generals have a thread starter that leads to more varied discussion.

They're identical. They just have a name and useful information in the OP. If you banned generals, the only thing you'd do would be take the word 'general' out of the topic so it was harder to filter the board. You would require a ridiculous amount of active moderation, that consisted entirely of deleting Veeky Forums appropriate content because it's posted in a format you don't like, to actually remove them.

They came to their senses eventually

It was, and I remember it well.

The 3d6+modifiers is one of the few things I consider as core, and I don't see how that promotes any kind of playstyle or setting. And I disagree that GURPS strives for realism; I'd say it strives for detail.

I'll say this: GURPS is terrible for me as a source of inspiration, but again, that's not what I use it for. I use GURPS to realize an idea, not to come up with it.

Never said you should ban generals, I just said they were harmful.

Again, if you just want to ask something about a system rules wise, for instance, you're not looking for a discussion, so you might as well find another platform.

Even then, detail and granularity isn't something all settings want.

And even something as simple as a dice mechanic influences the tone of the setting. The much talked about bell curve isn't 'superior', it's just different. Sure, rolls feel reliable, but that also means they lack much in the way of drama. A diceroll is something you can treat as mostly predictable, with wild swings being rare. And for some kinds of games, where you want things to be reliable, that's fine.

But what if I want to play a game with more of an edge of danger? Where every diceroll is tense and things aren't so reliable, where impossible success and failures are more frequent? That's something you can't do with GURPS at the same base level, whereas you can with a system built around it. This isn't even getting into weird dice mechanics, like Legends of the Wulin allowing multiple distinct actions on every roll of its dicepool.

None of this is saying that GURPS is bad, or that it's particularly limited. As RPG's go, it's pretty broad. But the way the system is built still influences the experience of playing the game in a way that skews it towards certain styles, themes and settings, despite the 'generic' and 'universal' claimed in its title.

But if they're harmful but nothing can be done, then what's the point of bitching?

I agree the board was different. But the consistent, long discussions of popular games that were always reposted as soon as one died were just generals by another name. The only thing you could argue that has changed is that now some smaller games are getting in on the action, rather than just flavours of warhammer, magic the gathering and D&D.

>If you banned generals, the only thing you'd do would be take the word 'general' out of the topic so it was harder to filter the board
That's completely and utterly untrue. That's like saying /v/ and Veeky Forums are the exact same thing.

>then what's the point of bitching?
I wasn't bitching, I simply answered the question. Also, I do think something can be done.

This is also a valid point.

You can't be sure anymore dude

Bet you five anonymous nternet credits that I'm right.

I mean, maybe in this case, I just mean in general you can't be 100% right

but hell yeah im taking you on fucker

GURPS has a purpose other than being the worst possible toolkit option for whatever game you're looking to run?

The books were fun to read when you're like 12 but you're an adult now. If you want to learn about firearms try an actual book written by an actual expert instead of an RPG dilettante.

You can read and participate in more than one general.

Your argument is irrelevant.

What's wrong with it?

What's a "Good" toolkit option?

There are a lot of good toolkit options.

Fate, Genesys, Savage Worlds, D6 (Adventure, specifically, but Fantasy is alright), Free Universal, and even Cortex+.

What makes GURPS bad?

Well, there's two things: first, GURPS boosters tend to make hyperbolic statements about what GURPS is actually good for which means most of us have, at some point, actually played GURPS and realized it wasn't good for that.

The second problem it has is that it is near maximum simulationism. It's nowhere on the narrative/determinist spectrum. This makes it brutally unwieldy to actually play with. It's the game equivalent of a 1d3.

For a generic system to be interesting to play it has to register somewhere above "it can do this lol" on the narrative or determinist spectrum.

Because some autist will not be able to look up the meanings: narrative means a game where only things with dramatic importance have characteristics, where a determinative game will have characteristics that aren't strictly of dramatic importance.

For example a game about space combat with a characteristic for hiding personal weapons on your character is probably deterministic.

Fuck because some autist will inevitably ask:
Narrative and determinist is a spectrum relating to what sort of characteristics are typically called into play.

Simulationism isn't part of the spectrum, it's a way of addressing the complexity of the mechanics of the game, whether narrative or deterministic.

For example, Fate out of the box is fairly simulationist. Fate Accelerated Edition, on the other hand, is deliberately far less simulationist.

Sorry for the wait, I had to visit the Little Gentlemen's Room. Anyway, a quick search suggests that the girl in question is Ella Freya, and I can't find anything to suggest that she was ever a boy. Now give me my credits and take your source, which I know is the real reason you wanted to know.

Truth is, I'm completely broke

I can still send you my love

Well, alright. But I'd prefer if you reserved your love for the lovely woman in question.

>D6
>Genesys
>Good systems

Savage worlds and FATE are good tho

Never heard of Free Universal and never read cortex. What's good about them, and how are they better than JAGS

Free Universal is actually good. I love GURPS, but if I wanted to run a game that needed a lite approach, I'd go with FU.

It sounds like you had a shit GM.

GURPS apologists use this rhetorical device all the time. It's a spurious argument because it redirects any possible criticism of the product to the end-users. It makes the quality of GURPS completely unassailable but also completely unfalsifiable.

It's a very old trick: if the magic doesn't work; it's not the magician's fault; it's your fault for not believing in it enough.

I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying user, because your post doesn't make sense.

He's constructing a set of constraints under which GURPS cannot possibly be bad. The GM's implementation of GURPS can be bad, but never the product itself. The GURPS books could have any contents at all (empty pages, gibberish, FATAL) and OP's argument would be unaffected.

I know some people do that, I don't think OP is doing that.

Are you sure?

>I'd say; players don't play GURPS, they play whatever system their GMs create with GURPS, and so that's why I get extremely confused when people say GURPS sucks. How does it suck? To my knowledge, there is nothing like GURPS around, so what are you comparing it to?

OP is claiming that GURPS is not just one generic RPG system among many (as even the very name of GURPS would suggest) but some kind of completely unique, numinous, ineffable entity that nobody experiences directly. If you thought you had a bad experience playing GURPS, you're wrong; you only had a bad experience with your GM as he failed to mediate the beautiful, completely-immune-to-criticism majesty of GURPS.

GURPS is like any system, if you have a good enough GM it's fun. I'm sure that if you had an amazing GM and were surrounded by good friend you could make playing FATAL fun. The difference between this and say, savage worlds is that it requires less on every single party in the game to have fun. Listen, if your idea of fun is crunching numbers to make characters, and having the GM spend hours pouring over the book, blacklisting and whitelisting certain skills advantages and more, more power to you, That simply isn't the reality for most people.

>but also completely unfalsifiable
How do you falsify the quality of a tabletop system?

As long as the system is capable of changing from the base assumptions, it should still fall into the category of generic and universal.

Saying GURPS isn't generic because it assumes a realistic setting by default even while it has a host of easy-to-use tools to change the realism levels is like saying a car is not a mode of transportation because it's default state is off and in park. You can change it up as necessary, and it's easy to do so.

But GURPS isn't capable of changing its base assumptions. It just pastes other rules on top of them, half-arsing it and achieving a lesser result, less elegantly than a system built to support it. GURPS isn't a bad game, but it should be used for what it's suited for, just like every other RPG.

Usually bad experiences with a game system count against any claims to the quality of that system. Enough of them together let you conclude through induction that it's a bad system. Unless, of course, someone like OP comes up with some kind of bullshit rhetorical excuse for how the quality of a system has nothing to do with how well it plays.

>Genesys
>bad
Look at this faggot, let me guess your next post is gonna be sperging about those "dirty jews" at FFG for daring to use special dice when the only good non-ghetto way to play Fate is with Fudge dice

Except this is explicitly how GURPS was designed to be played, it's intentionally modular, complaining about he game because of problems that stem from running the game incorrectly is dumb stuff like However is a valid criticism

Who is this semen demon?

I've got nothing against the dice, you can just use regular dice or a program or something, I just don't like the system itself

Please don't make assumptions, I love you and don't want you to make a fool of yourself

You

What's so bad about the system then? Also I'm glad you're not one of those whining poorfags who can't even spend $15 or so on an investment

I literally just used gurps for a basic rules-light anime slice of life (well, in the way, Higurashi is a slice of life)

It was fun, and rules light (mainly wildcard skills, like detective! or doctor!)

Heck, you could even use the wildcard skills as superpowers, like I did with another game.

It isn’t a black-ops swat game, and it runs just as well as M&M or Maid.

I don’t see the issue.

People's experiences of an system isn't a good metric for the quality of the system as how enjoyable a system is varies depending on how well the gm runs it, what type of game the system is running, and the tastes of the players.

>and it runs just as well as M&M or Maid.

Does GURPS have funny random event tables that're thematic to cute anime girls getting into wacky hijinks?

... no really does it? Cause if it does then damn it HAS covered all of its bases.

I'm too lazy to look it up now, but with the ridiculous amount of GURPS supplements out there, I'm 95% sure that exists, if not anime girls then just regular cute girls getting into wacky hijinks.

There were some japan-only GURPS books, so hey they may be there waiting to be translated

Probably in a pyramid.

Heck, I’d just make one.

I won't whine, I personally don't like it doesn't mean others cant

Keep in mind, this is from a cursory read, I've never played this system or the other FFG star wars system, so my assumption could be wildly wrong

I personally just feel that the dice mechanics impose too much on the players, sort of telling them how to play out a scene instead of allowing the players to do it themselves.

Damn she's got a good looking face. Her body is meh, but that face. Could make seriously good looking portraits using that.

Any system can be used to run anything dudes. As long as you understand the basic conflict resolution mechanic (IE: "I do the thing what do I roll?") then you can easily ad-lib from there.

"I climb a wall what do I do?"
"Roll d20 and add your climbing wall skill"

"I seduce the maid what do I do?"
"Roll your charm stat and your persuasion skill"

"I punch the god in the face what do I do?"
"Roll your strength and add your punching skill!"

Once you know the basics of a system ad-libbing with that system is easy enough for an experienced GM. The point is that a game should also have unique side-mechanics and interesting bits that, when used in conjunction with the core mechanic, provides better themeing.

For example: D&D's core mechanics ultimately revolve around resource management. Spells use slots that recover after rest. HP is an all or nothing affair. The game assumes you keep track of every bow and arrow and every GP you pick up. Older editions incentivized you from avoiding combat entirely, etc.

Trying to run a gonzo high-action silly game where nobody has to worry about keeping track of how much ______ they have in D&D can maybe only work in the sense of the game just having enough exploits that you can do that, even if it goes against all established design principles. And even then, M&M would probably work better for that kind of game.

You've never played it. I've been doing FFG Star Wars since EotE hit.
The dice mechanics encourage improv, there's nothing saying you can't get creative with what that boatload of advantage or despair actually means for the story.
Just remember that for a player's roll they get to determine what their advantage and triumphs mean, while you get to have fun with threat and despair, and vice-versa.

Yes, but certain systems run certain games better.

D&D is for fantasy

Traveller is for sci fi

I can run a modern game in D&D and a historical game in traveller, but certain mechanics help to improve certain genres

GURPS try to has all of those, won't say whether it succeeds at that or not

>D&D is for fantasy

Yes and that's mostly cause it has a lot of its lore is baked into its mechanics and (surprise) a lot of its lore is fantasy.

I mean no two ways about it, even if you rename EVERYTHING it's still gonna feel a bit awkward why your "soldier" has heavy armor that apparently really physically inhibits him. It's not like it's power armor or anything it's just supposedly super materials that provide protection.

And why do so many of his combat options revolve around melee attacks when 90% of the combat should be focused around gunplay?

It's much less modular than its fans give it credit for. It's always point-buy, it always handles attributes and dice rolls and damage in the same way, etc. Modules are typically just lists of more traits you can spend points on and stats for creatures and vehicles.

I disagree. The core mechanics are independent of the setting or genre. d20M failed not because it was using a fantasy game's mechanics for a present-day setting but because the d20 system was inescapably flawed at its core--putting it in a non-fantasy setting simply highlighted those flaws.

None of that actually crosses the limitations I stated the system had.

That makes absolutely no sense. You named some other variables, things that have nothing to do with the quality of the system, that also affect the play experience. Ideally you'd want to isolate these variables when testing for whether a system is shit, but you can't deny that it will be noticeable if the system is shit when you play it.

And those are?

>You can read and participate in more than one general.
Yeah, and people can choose to filter threads they don't like and use the catalog.

Common sense ain't exactly all that common on Veeky Forums kiddo, the existence of /qst/ and the mass exodus of OC creators is proof of that.

I play a shitload of GURPS and I can say that it is simply the perfect system for me. It does everything I want it to do, and more. Hell, I'm playing GURPS as I type this, waiting for my chance to hack down some savage fucks on while on horseback.

> it always handles attributes and dice rolls and damage in the same way, etc
Partially correct. Attributes and die rolls are always the same, and I'd say that if they were different then GURPS would be a total mess with no interoperability. Attributes and the 3d6 are the core of GURPS. Now, damage certainly isn't the same. There's different optional rules for realistic bleeding, realistic and lasting injury, crippling, and of course the lack thereof for cinematic games.

While some modules, especially in the Game books like Monster Hunters and Dungeon fantasy are just premade templates of traits, and stats for creatures, many are not. Martial Arts and Low Tech (and companions) add a lot of cool new rules, like aforementioned lasting injury.

GURPS has limitations. It isn't truly universal, and I'm fine with that. It does a lot of things really well across lots of different genres, but not every subgenre or theme. People who meme GURPS as the answer to whatever you want to do are retards, and I wish they'd go away. I don't want people to use GURPS for something they shouldn't be and end up disliking it.

.

>Any system can be used to run anything dudes. As long as you understand the basic conflict resolution mechanic (IE: "I do the thing what do I roll?") then you can easily ad-lib from there.
You're not wrong, but the thing is that some systems make it harder to do things outside of the intended setting/tone/whatever that the system has. Take D&D since you brought it up, since it's a class based system where XP contributes to progression, trying to run a sci-fi setting immediately creates the problem where you are either trying to build a new class from the ground up, or trying to make the current classes fit into a different lense. Which isn't as hard for some classes but others may outright disappear.

Simply put, a system that doesn't marry it's core mechanics to a setting is going to have an easier time being adapted to multiple settings. At the end of the day you can simplify a generic system like GURPS to "Roll 3d6 under a value" but something like D&D isn't so easily simplified to just being a dice resolution because it's not just the d20 that matters, it's the XP, resource management, classes and their abilities.

This is fucking retarded.

YES every system makes basic assumptions.

But YES those basic assumptions matter to the theme of the campaign, you dolt. If GURPS makes basic assumptions that make it a bad fit for certain stories, then it's the wrong fucking system for those stories. Saying "Durr, but other systems make basic assumptions too!" is ridiculous because the fucking point is that the basic assumptions of those other systems may work better. The fact that all systems make basic assumptions does not make them all equal, in fact, it puts them on a spectrum of what system is going to be better for what campaign, therefore, GURPS is not always useful.

I'm legit confused by how stupid what you just said is.

The great thing about GURPS is you can pick and choose the type of game you want to run and never actually pick up a GURPS book at all because why the fuck would you?

You can do just short of everything in GURPS.
Being able to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that it's the only right way to do things.
It does mean, however, that no matter what you're playing, you can play it in GURPS, trading off the specificity of the original rules for a more flexible toolkit.
Great games in all sorts of genres have been made with GURPS, and some of them could only have been made using the system. Some of them would have benefited from a more solid set of rules, but I think that the wealth of games and supplements that have been produced for the system over the years, as well as the fanbase, prove that the basic structure is sound.
You can run silly, simple games in GURPS, because the options are there - but it's not what it's usually used for and not what the fans like it for, so it doesn't usually come up.
I think that a lot of this opposition to GURPS is a defensive snap-back. The players who complain about GURPS, in my experience, complain about everything else - X is broken, Z is imbalanced, Y is boring, let's play Pathfinder. The idea of a system that everyone can fix, where it's the GM's ability, patience, vision, balancing ability and actual skill that comes into play rather than the machinations of some company's marketing department scares them, and I say that as someone who has a lot of experience introducing D&Drones to more narrative games.
The idea that the tools to do something are out there, are easy to use and aren't fundamentally flawed sends burbling tears of despair brimming from the eyes of many of these people. They slowly, seepingly realize that the reason for them not getting any games, for them not enjoying the ones they do have, for their character being hated by the group, for their fights with the GM is all their own laziness and spoiled insistence on getting it their way all the time without even mouthing a word in-character.
GURPS peels away excuses. That's why it's controversial.

Why would I build a new gane out of a toolkit when I could literally just do the same thing by myself, making my own game?

most of the people who try to force the 'answer for everything' and 'truly universal' memes are the people bashing it for those memes anyway
>why can't gurps do this one very specific thing i thought up on the spot just now

>Any system can be used to run anything dudes.
the main difference is the amount of homebrew that's necessary to make a particular thing work
if any system could run anything perfectly we'd be living in a dystopia/utopia where truly, only PF is required to play anything

Try making a game for yourself and you'll see why.
GURPS is consistent and comprehensive while still not bloated - I dare you to "just" create a game like that every time you want something new.
GURPS packs everything together that you'd ever need, and while sure, you might have some kind of delusion that your system needs to be unique and gimmicky, that usually doesn't work and there are a lot of people who don't want to do what's basically a math-psychology joint assignment just to set up what will likely end as a one-shot.

Have you actually tried making your own game? I have, that shit is not a walk in the park, no matter how hard you think GURPS is, I guarantee that it is, at the very least, easier than making your own game.

Why are there so many GURPS threads these days.

>why should i use these tools when i can forge them myself?
that said, you should definitely give game design a try. it's not as easy as you'd think, and gives you some insight on the hows and whys of various details of the games you're playing.

>2 non-general gurps threads over the last week
???
i imagine there's a few more of the protip: you can't threads to come though.

More like 5 or 6, mate.
Which is definitely a lot compared to the usual 0.