Are RPGs fucked for me?

This.
4e was an attempt to make it feel like a mmorpg, it came along with WoW aesthetic as well.
It's not a bad but it certainly plays more as a tactical game than a roleplaying one.

>If you want games that are mechanically complex and "balanced" then stick to video games. The rules themselves aren't supposed to be the ultimate arbiter and determiner of your play experience, they're just a toolset.
4e had the least flawed tools.

I do not enjoy building campaigns out of poor tools.

Having good tools is not a property of video games.

The notion that tools don't matter and that the only thing that matters is the GM and group is basically the Monte Cook/Kevin Siembieda fallacy.

OP, you sound very much like you just want a video game.

>In the end, thats one of the major problems with later DnD, be it 3,4 or 5th edition. They try so hard to be skirmish-/board-games that they cripple the roleplaying- aspect, and the concessions made to roleplaying usually torpedoes the former aspects.

I somewhat agree with this, but with a caveat. The roleplaying support in all editions of D&D is basically equal. No edition really has a huge advantage in how the roleplaying plays out because they all basically have the same roleplaying mechanics with slightly different rewards. This is what I find so retarded a bout bashing 4e. If you think 4e has bad roleplaying, you also think that YOUR preferred flavor of D&D also has bad roleplaying.

The roleplaying in D&D is fine to me. It's not perfect, but its functional. Now, given that D&Ds roleplaying advantages are a constant quantity, why in the FUCK would you not choose the system that also had better designed mechanics?

>mmorpg
>in b4 delusional 4e fags say this is just a meme

taught me that RPG designers don't give a fuck about readability, balance, gameplay design, or even basic math. Every time I talked to somebody about this they said it depends on the group you play with, which I always saw as a cop-out.

What is a house rule?
What is a competent GM?

Depth, clarity, and design. Which of these three qualities is a property of video games and not tabletop games? It's not like if a number in an RPG is clearly wrong, that changing it to a number that makes more sense will make a controller pop into existence.

I think you mean in after.

You seem to not understand the role of the GM in making on the fly rulings. You strike me as a Rules lawyer that wants crystalline rules for every damn thing. I don’t think rpgs are for you. Wargaming might be more your fancy.

>massively multiplayer
Nope.
>Online
Nope.
>Role Playing Game
Well, I guess you're half right.

>It's not a bad but it certainly plays more as a tactical game than a roleplaying one.

...how?

If I sold you a car that had bad steering and no cruise control, I would tell you that you need to understand the role of a driver in making on-the-fly decisions.

I understand the role of a DM very well. I want a system that doesn't sabotage me.

it was an attempt to make D&D more fun for everyone when it comes to getting in fights, which is what the meat of the game has always been. You could easily apply the precepts of 4e design to a game that was NOT about killing scores of monsters and looting their bodies, and whatever that game was would probably be improved by it.

>4e was an attempt to make it feel like a mmorpg, it came along with WoW aesthetic as well.
It's been nearly a fucking decade, GET THE FUCK OVER YOUR SHITTY MEME

>What is a house rule?
>What is a competent GM?

Not an excuse for poor design, in either case. You're basically saying "oh, the game is bad? have you even considered that you can write your own game? Looks like it must be good"

>You could easily apply the precepts of 4e design to a game that was NOT about killing scores of monsters and looting their bodies, and whatever that game was would probably be improved by it.

Honestly, there are games already with similar things. Gumshoe is an investigative-based game and it runs entirely off limited-use abilities (As you only get X uses out of a given skill to find more clues) despite them being mundane.

what are your thoughts on this?

youtube.com/watch?v=8EQ0DayTJek

What possible advantage is there to designing a system that's full of traps to make players useless compared to their friends?

The way luddites talk about games, you think that if they could press a magic button to make their game of choice have some or any of their gameplay problems solved that they would rather not press it, because broken is better. Or worse yet, that if the game needs a certain amount of poor design decisions to prevent it from being a video game.

Because its an actual Tactical Role Playing Game.
It's not a bad thing by any means, but it is very dependent on a grid and playing to your role, as opposed to just winging it because there isn't a set of rules specifically stating you shouldn't.
You can roleplay equally across all editions of D&D, despite retards linking the ability to pretend your character is hitting on a barmaid to some non-existent magical roleplaying chapter hidden in the 3rd and 5th edition rules.

>The truth is now a meme

God I can't wait for 2017 to be over.

Go fuck yourself. It's nowhere near wow and you know it you piece of shit, or you are seriously deluded.

>pending a lot of time with these games basically taught me that RPG designers don't give a fuck about readability, balance, gameplay design, or even basic math.
I have the answer to your woes.

OP, I also enjoyed 4e, but my time GMing has taught me that sometimes the best approach is to not worry about balance. Shit gets wonky in games and sometimes the rules don't make complete sense, but that's why you have to be reasonable and talk things out with your players.

Also, 75% of the time in an RPG, you're just socially interacting. Asking questions, talking to players or NPCs, doing things that are determined by a single die roll. There's no "balancing" that.

What exactly do you like about 4e? Is it just the combat system? Is it something else?

YOU SHOULD PLAY GURPS

it was an attempt to make D&D more fun for everyone when it comes to getting in fights, which is what the meat of the game has always been
since 3e

>since 3e

Even before that, the majority of the rules were about combat.

cute birds
The girl she seems like she'd be fun to play with, reminds me of a former coworker.

>GURPS
>readable
>balanced

That game is dense as hell and you can destroy the universe in less than 100 points.

on* less than 100 points.

That's not a valid comparison. You'd have to compare sandwiches within McDonalds for it to be valid, because we're talking about a product of the biggest name in tabletop gaming.

You might like doing something like Shadowrun Anarchy. Ruleslite systems are generally pretty balanced since a lot of what's going on is approved by the social contract everyone has at the table.

But 4e wasn't particularly well balanced (it took reams of errata to accomplish that), the gameplay design was complete ass (padded sumo monsters at core release), and the math was fundamentally broken.

The only thing it was out of that list was "readable" and it was readable in the same sense the work of an analytic philosopher is readable, which is to say clear and utterly tedious. I'll take the long-winded prose of Gygax in explaining a game when it comes to something I actually want to read.

I think in would be the correct term. 100 points is a boundary, and MUNCHKIN (I think that's what it's called) falls within it.

You don't built characters or powers in a point budget, you build them on a point budget.

Regardless, the point stands.

Not really, since in a game where M.U.N.C.H.K.I.N. is allowed, there will be abuses of the system equal to or greater than it.

I've been trying to design a game like what OP wants, because I wanted it too, but it's not easy. Taught me a lot about game design and balance, though.

Oh fuck off you mindless GURPS drone. Any game that relies on the GM to balance is not balanced, because GMs are of varying capability and quality; they're an inconstant element, so the only thing that can be objectively evaluated is the game itself, and the game itself allows abuses like that by core.

GURPS is not balanced by any reasonable standard of the term; it's a point-buy generic system and they're always prone to abuse; this is just an inherent flaw of the concept.

Good thing GURPS isn't a game, then.

Yes, it's a toybox for pedants.

No need for the name-calling, user. Just calling it an RPG toybox is good enough.

Go look up the dictionary definition of pedant. GURPS is designed to appeal to that sort of taste.

Definition of pedant
1 obsolete : a male schoolteacher
2 a : one who makes a show of knowledge
b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge
c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching
Well, there are plenty of non-schoolteachers who play GURPS, so it can't be the first. I can see the second one being true for some, but just as many like GURPS because it shares knowledge as it does allow them to bring their knowledge to the table, so that's not it either. The third one is also wrong, since GURPS has plenty of great settings and the most popular books for it are fast-paced action products that don't focus on minutae, so we're left with the fourth one. GURPS has good technical writing and precise wording, so I guess we'll go with GURPS being for people who like clearly written and unambiguous rules?

Why should good game design be limited to just video games?

The math in 4e was (not is) off, not broken. A couple numbers for defenses and damage were off by 1 or 2. This was intentional because the designers overestimated how well the average party would stack buffs.

The monsters before mm3 were garbage and easily the worst part of the system. The monsters since then are amazing in comparison. Part of the appeal of 4e to me is that the design of later 4e monsters didn't carry over to later systems.

4e is in want of a 4.5. These math adjustments and redesigns are basically a new version. It's part of the reason why some players have drastically different experiences.

Which fucking dictionary did you dig that out of?

>GURPS has plenty of great settings and the most popular books for it are fast-paced action products that don't focus on minutae,

You talking about the Dungeon Fantasy books? Because the material they offer within it is still considerably more detailed than in the vast majority of games, particularly ones that aren't updated dinosaurs from the 80s.

o I guess we'll go with GURPS being for people who like clearly written and unambiguous rules?

> so I guess we'll go with GURPS being for people who like clearly written and unambiguous rules?

No. It's for people who absolutely insist that every single detail of their character and setting have mechanical support in an RPG.

>The math in 4e was (not is) off, not broken.

SKILL CHALLENGES

>The monsters since then are amazing in comparison.

They were still padded sumos compared to monsters pre-third (hell, even monsters within third, considering how easy it was to stack up damage in that mess of a system).

>Which fucking dictionary did you dig that out of?
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant

>You talking about the Dungeon Fantasy books?
I'm talking about Dungeon Fantasy, After the End, Action, and Monster Hunters, at the least.

>Because the material they offer within it is still considerably more detailed than in the vast majority of games, particularly ones that aren't updated dinosaurs from the 80s.
Compared to your average OSR or *World hack, I guess? If you compare it to industry titans like Shadowrun, D+D, or 40k RPGs, it's not more detailed, it just prioritizes different detail.

>No. It's for people who absolutely insist that every single detail of their character and setting have mechanical support in an RPG.
It is generic and universal, so... it needs to have a lot of detail to be able to call itself that. I'm glad you cracked the code.

>It's for people who absolutely insist that every single detail of their character and setting have mechanical support in an RPG.

Obviously. Why else would I have run a high-action fast-paced rules-light post-apoc game in GURPS? Oh wait...

Why do you believe a system that prides itself on modularity HAS to be stuck in one style of play and that it DEFINITELY doesn't include a fleet of tools for tweaking the system to what your group wants?

Skill challenges were fixed in the dmg2.

Monsters since mm3 are absolutely not padded sumos. The dark sun creatures and monster vaults are deadly monsters.

>I'm talking about Dungeon Fantasy, After the End, Action, and Monster Hunters, at the least.

All excessively detailed compared to modern game design.

>Shadowrun, D+D, or 40k RPGs,

Every one of which is an updated dinosaur (yes, even the 40k RPGs which are heavily based on WFRP).

>It is generic and universal, so... it needs to have a lot of detail to be able to call itself that. I'm glad you cracked the code.

Fate manages without it. Most of that detail has no meaningful mechanical effect, or has an effect so simple it could be adjudicated with common sense. It's pedantry.
Because if you start cutting down the rules in GURPS, you get a clunky 80s RPG that is entirely unspectacular. It offers nothing but excessive detail.

>All excessively detailed compared to modern game design.
Modern game design like what? How is the detail excessive without it just being your preference?

>Every one of which is an updated dinosaur (yes, even the 40k RPGs which are heavily based on WFRP).
And? It's what people play. That was the point I was making.

>Fate manages without it.
If you think Fate doesn't have have a lot of detail, I don't know what to tell you. Fate is also antithetical to the way GURPS plays, since GURPS is a traditional RPG, not a writer's group exercise like Fate. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the two are so fundamentally different that making comparisons between them just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

>Modern game design like what?

Any RPG produced in the last decade that isn't an update of legacy mechanics.

>How is the detail excessive without it just being your preference?

Because the detail adds nothing to the game.

>And? It's what people play. That was the point I was making.

People play those games because they're large names that have been large for a long time. Black Industries could have shat in the books and still found a stable player base and the others have inertia behind them.

>If you think Fate doesn't have have a lot of detail,

Compared to GURPS it doesn't.

>not a writer's group exercise like Fate.

You've never played Fate. Its function is pretty standard as far as RPGs go; it just cuts down the detail to the essentials (for instance, most of the shit in GURPS could be boiled down to +2/-2 for favourable/unfavourable circumstances, so that's what Fate does and then ties it to a meta-currency economy while expecting the GM and players to exercise common sense).

>the two are so fundamentally different

But they're not.

>Any RPG produced in the last decade that isn't an update of legacy mechanics.
Like?

>Because the detail adds nothing to the game.
Your opinion.

>People play those games because they're large names that have been large for a long time.
Or people play them because they have fun with them, as bad as they are.

> Its function is pretty standard as far as RPGs go
It's a game for a group of GMs, not a GM and players. It's not standard in the slightest.

>But they're not.
But they are.

Gamma World 7th Edition took a lot from 4e, maybe check that out. 13th Age did as well. PbtA games have similar sort of "focused design" except built from the ground up. If Strike! gets a second edition with a cleaned up rulebook, I'd recommend that as well.

>Fate Core, Labyrinth Lord, Apocalypse World
All three appeal to completely different playstyles from each other and GURPS. Your preferences, not mine.

>Fact, actually, since most of the detail in GURPS does nothing and isn't likely to actually come up in play; it's basically just there to appease sensibilities (e.g. giving zombies the "bad smell" quality).
Zombies not smelling bad doesn't come up in play? What zombie games are you playing?

>Their presence in the market surely has nothing to do with being attached to big, old names.
That plays a part, yes, and some moreso than others, but the fact of the matter is that those RPGs are popular because that playstyle is common.

>Nope. The GM is still a neutral and final arbitrator. The PCs are just given some options for input.
Some options is an understatement, and doesn't get even close to the Fate mindset for play. You aren't a player in Fate, you're a GM. All of the GMs control NPCs, some more than others, but nobody plays a character in Fate.

>Not in essence. Only in minutiae.
No, they're entirely different things made for entirely different tasks. Or are you honestly saying that Fate offers a mechanically deep and tactically rich combat system like GURPS does? And that's just the tippy-top of the iceberg.

So keep playing 4e.
What the fuck is it to you what everyone else thinks? Do you know them personally? Do they matter to you in any reasonable way? Have you even MET all of them? Do what you want and tell everyone else to fuck right off.
You’re an adult and you don’t need approval from Veeky Forums or anyone else to do shit you like.
If you’re complaining that it’s hard to find a game of 4e players then yeah, I suppose that’s true. Thing is, you were ALWAYS going to one day have a really hard time finding players for a game given a long enough timeframe, it was an inevitability. I guess the question there you have to ask is what part of the equation matters to you the most; the social interaction of D&D or playing a specific set of rules in a specific game? Once you have the answer you’ll probably be a lot happier with your choices in this area in a general sense.

>the social interaction of D&D or playing a specific set of rules in a specific game?
Not OP, but what if the answer to that is the specific set of rules?

Not the guy you are replying to

>Or are you honestly saying that Fate offers a mechanically deep and tactically rich combat system

Well, no not really but...

>... like GURPS does?

GURPS is not inherently tactically deep without spending an inordinate amount of time as a GM ensuring that it is.

I think this is worth mentioning in a thread about people with an OP who likes 4e.

Then that’s okay.
It’s a bit like wanting to play Monopoly specifically so you can play Monopoly, but then forcing yourself to play other things you will have less fun at just because other people are playing it.
Now, if you’re just playing for the game rules specifically then in the end who you actually play with is going to inherently be a secondary priority, so just spend a lot of time going out and doing it and searching for folks who like that specific game.
If you actually like the social interaction and playing with folks more, then you basically need to admit to yourself that the rules are really just a way for you to feel comfortable and enjoy hanging out with folks because that’s the real reason why you’re there anyway.

Well then what camp do you fall into?

>house rules
>competent gm
Dude grew up playing 3e and thinks 4e is a good TTRPG. Implementing Rule 0 is going to be way fucking out of scope for him.

>IIT what is Myhtras.

>GURPS is not inherently tactically deep without spending an inordinate amount of time as a GM ensuring that it is.
The basic combat chapter is more than enough to satisfy the needs of mechanically deep, tactically rich combat in an easy to use theater of mind format. You don't need to touch the Tactical Combat chapter at all. I do think not using Hit Locations misses the point of GURPS, but you can just assume all attacks default to the torso or something (not that hit locations are anything but simple modifiers that tell you obvious things, like blinding someone or making it so they can't hold/walk).

>I think this is worth mentioning in a thread about people with an OP who likes 4e.
Yes, which is why I recommended GURPS. 4e is crunchy and tactical like 4e, easily readable, and is balanced in that it tends towards outcomes that make intuitive sense, like outnumbering being a very bad thing and range advantage being a very good thing. It is a point-buy toolkit, so the GM sets the balance for the world, but those things won't change unless the GM changes them.

Try out some games that are praised for their gamist qualities like 4e or very specific mechanical things. Like Strike! and Iron Kingdoms for the first, or Legends of the Wulin's dice mechanic for the second.
Going broader is always cool IMO, you do seem to have played PbtA and similar narrative games, but have you played Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard, Microscope, Spellbound Kingdoms, Gumshoe, or Jap games like Ryuutama and MAID? It's not just a choice between good crunchy games, broken crunchy games, or freeform narrativist games.

That's like saying "you can't compare D&D 3.5 with 4e you have to compare individual classes"

More like a HeroQuest like game and I really enjoyed playing a short campaign in it. Was it D&D? I don’t personally care that much. I had fun with it, it didn’t have that much staying power for me.

I must have been reading a different GURPS or I have a different definition of "tactical" then.

As far as I can tell, it boils down to "guesstimate how much you are allowed to not feint to get a hit in, and then balance the expected damage value of the hit with what you are targeting and the probability of hitting", which is just about as fun as playing a 3.5 martial with 2 sorts of power attack.

This is compounded by the game not actually enforcing things like keeping the party's combat effectiveness in the same ballpark at all, or ensuring that the players have unique combat tools/approaches/roles/other things that make tactics fun for me, same true for the NPCs.

You CAN make a tactically deep game with GURPS, because you can do anything in it, but why go through all that effort when you are at best imitating something else that works like that out of the box?

>It had the worst sales
It sold better than 3.5, per the guy who killed it, and was in turn outsold by 5th ed

Mythras as mentions is also good, Savage Worlds is worth a look for its universal options (I often contrast it to 4e, as 4e is interesting because of every player's cool unique powers and is very structured and balanced, while SW has very few player-exclusive options and doesn't try to balance or structure anything with random chance playing a large part in anything). Tenra Bansho is another jrpg, and there are many non-freeform narrative indie games, like the mentioned Spellbound Kingdoms.

>Zombies not smelling bad doesn't come up in play? What zombie games are you playing?
>zombies can't smell bad if it isn't detailed on the sheet that they smell bad

Oh man oh man.

>Some options is an understatement

You collaborate at the start of the game, detail some shit that's important to your characters, and then you have the option to occasionally change details via spending fate points. Players do not have final say or total descriptive powers, you shmuck.

First of all, I know very well about rule 0. I use house rules in all of my games in any system to customize the experience. Second, is 3e too new to start playing RPGs? So fuck anybody under the age of 40?

My current 4e campaign operates under a few house rules to customize the experience.

#1 Some feats are only obtainable as story rewards. Expertise, focus, and improved defenses are considered grandmaster training as detailed in the DMG2.

#2 flanking is more lenient. If you are 1 square off from directly flanking, you're considered flanking. I came up with this because frankly the players kept on asking if they have combat advantage, and this rule has encouraged more movement from the players.

#3 monsters take 10 on initiative. If this results in monsters stacking up on the same turn, monsters will take 10, 8, and 6. This rule prevents stupid things like slow monsters rolling 20s and fast monsters rolling 1s. It also saves time in combat.

The rest of the game is less about house rules and how it is ran.

don't bother trying to argue with a GURPS True Believer, it's the perfect system for literally any play style/setting and if you say otherwise then I'm going to plug my fingers in my ears and shout "LA LA LA LA IT'S MODULAR SO YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE IT LA LA LA"

What you really want is a board game. It's okay. You don't always have to play RPGs. Board games have really evolved. I had a lot of fun playing Pandemic Legacy Season One (havn't played Season Two) and it was the most tightly balanced game I've ever seen in my life. After a while we even got into character. When faced with a choice we decided that our characters were doctors and would try not to harm more people than we had to.

>As far as I can tell, it boils down to "guesstimate how much you are allowed to not feint to get a hit in, and then balance the expected damage value of the hit with what you are targeting and the probability of hitting", which is just about as fun as playing a 3.5 martial with 2 sorts of power attack.
If you want to oversimplify it that much, sure. You're ignoring all of the options that shape the way you would achieve victory.

>This is compounded by the game
Not a game, toolkit.

>not actually enforcing things like keeping the party's combat effectiveness in the same ballpark at all, or ensuring that the players have unique combat tools/approaches/roles/other things that make tactics fun for me, same true for the NPCs.
Generic, Universal. If it forced things like that, it wouldn't be the GU in GURPS. I suggest you look at the worked example product lines like Dungeon Fantasy if you want enforced niche protections and ballpark effectiveness, since the GM can require everyone to use templates there. You could also tell your players that they should make characters that are different from each other, but that's pretty difficult to do when the system allows so much freedom for character creation.

>You CAN make a tactically deep game with GURPS, because you can do anything in it, but why go through all that effort when you are at best imitating something else that works like that out of the box?
See the first point for why you're wrong about this.

>zombies can't smell bad if it isn't detailed on the sheet that they smell bad
Of course they can. It just means that that the reaction penalty for smelling bad aren't relevant to your game, because the PCs aren't zombies. Or you aren't using reaction penalties. Or the sense of smell doesn't exist in that world.

>Last bit
Sure thing, buddy. I'll grant you that it's not as intrusive as tripe like PbtA, but "players" have much more control over the game than in traditional RPGs.

>Of course they can. It just means that that the reaction penalty for smelling bad aren't relevant to your game, because the PCs aren't zombies. Or you aren't using reaction penalties. Or the sense of smell doesn't exist in that world.
jesus christ. i don't want to play GURPS if this is what it does to your brain

Rule 0 is that the GM makes up a ruling, instead of looking up a rule, something akin to that anyway. 3rd and 4th don't accommodate for it terribly well, though 4e does have in the DMG instructions on how to make rulings and make up stuff on the spot without just asspulling. OSR games, the older editions of D&D for example, have this in a much larger degree, so if you haven't played those, it's hard to understand how rule 0 works exactly, is the thinking I think. Read this and you should get the basics though.

What is wrong with anything that I said? You made it clear that it wasn't mechanically relevant to your game, so you can ignore the rules for it.

>Of course they can.

You just implied that if you don't include a quality that says they smell bad, that they don't smell bad you putz.

>Sure thing, buddy.

It's true. The level of control is no more exteme than being able to say "hey, in this shed is there the tool I need?"

What are the players in your games just a captive audience that give no input?

>so you can ignore the rules for it.

If we're going to ignore rules anyway, why wouldn't we just play a lighter game?

You implied that if it isn't written on their character sheet that they smell bad, then it's something that "doesn't come up in play", and now you are backpedaling because you were wrong

>You just implied that if you don't include a quality that says they smell bad, that they don't smell bad you putz.
Nope. Re-read what I said. If it isn't mechanically important, you can ignore the mechanics. That doesn't mean they stop smelling bad. The mechanics of Bad Smell is a reaction penalty; the bad smell is the justification for it.

GURPS is a toolkit, not a game. You're supposed to pick and choose the rules you want. If you're playing a game where you are zombies or interact with non-hostile, sapient zombie NPCs, and there is reason to believe that there would be reaction penalties because you/they smell bad, then yes, you would put that on the Zombie racial template. If those situations won't come up, why would you bother with the rules for them?

Nope. See above.

>don't bother trying to argue with a GURPS True Believer, it's the perfect system for literally any play style/setting and if you say otherwise then I'm going to plug my fingers in my ears and shout "LA LA LA LA IT'S MODULAR SO YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE IT LA LA LA"
the prophecy is fulfilled

I didn't know it was so controversial to say don't use what you don't need.

Let me quote you

>Zombies not smelling bad doesn't come up in play? What zombie games are you playing?

Here, when I gave an example of zombies having a specific quality of "smelling bad" in GURPS, you said this. You suggested that if they don't have this specific quality it must mean it doesn't come up in play (i.e. it doesn't exist within the game).

>GURPS is a toolkit, not a game.

Basic Set: Characters, 19th word of the introduction.

>you're supposed to pick and choose the rules you want

And this means GURPS can never be criticized? Again, why wouldn't I just play a game that's light out of the box?

>GURPS is a toolkit, not a game.
>Basic Set: Characters, 19th word of the introduction.
So just ignore the part of the rules that say it's a game, duh. GURPS is modular, dummy!

>why wouldn't I just play a game that's light out of the box?
That rather goes against what OP has said they wanted. If that's what YOU want, then go play Risus and stop fagging up the thread with your cancerous attitude problems.

Actually, you're right. I'm very sorry for shitting up this thread.

>Here, when I gave an example of zombies having a specific quality of "smelling bad" in GURPS, you said this. You suggested that if they don't have this specific quality it must mean it doesn't come up in play (i.e. it doesn't exist within the game).
I was mocking you because I didn't understand the depths of your autism, and now I regret it because you're using it seriously. Even still, it doesn't contradict what I said, because it does depend on what zombie games you are playing. It's just a bit of fluff text in your standard zombie game, where the PCs are not zombies and zombies are just mindless enemies.

>Basic Set: Characters, 19th word of the introduction.
Right, a game that has both bulletproof nudity and realistic crippling of limbs rules in effect. A game that allows characters to be psychic blueberry muffins alongside grouchy old academics investigating the Cthulhu Mythos. Brilliant. You sure showed me!

>And this means GURPS can never be criticized? Again, why wouldn't I just play a game that's light out of the box?
It can be criticzed, but all of your criticisms are "This game does not fit my playstyle." That's great! Go have your fun elsewhere, outside of OP's thread, the guy who likes crunchy, tactical systems where the designers understand how math, statistics, and probability works.

...