Quote:
Originally Posted by scc
1) Anything that requires lots of GM adjudication would have to go, so no Gadgeters and no Ritual Path Magic.
|
I wouldn't say that those would have to go entirely. I'd say they'd need additional work to make viable. You'd need to set limits around what could be done, and with gadgeteer you'd need additional rules. but the basics could be kept for both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maz
... but would have the very important difference from for instance Fallout, that the target has an active defense... which I think would frustrate many players.
|
XCOM: enemy unknown has something close to active defense. Its additive rather than multiplicative, but they combine it with your attack for a final to hit chance. It makes you think about how to best approach the foes that have it, and makes you feel like they're actual combatants instead of plain targets. Or drives how how insanely powerful the psionic beings with +40% defense are.
That style of game could be done with gurps reasonably well, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl
With only four Attributes, it captures reality in a relatively small box. The only problem is that a game that used GURPS can only capture a few dozen styles of play (the combination of difficulty levels and options).
|
There are ways to tweak that, but once you start tweaking, many games will have the budget to recalibrate the whole system to fit their genre better.
It should also be remembered that Table top can cheaply add options but adding complex results is expensive (in terms of players running the game), while digital games can add complex results cheaply but have to manage the number of options they give the player.