GURPS Releases seem to be slow?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by kenclary

Even the Italian Job, in game form, is going to be handled with lots of handwaving, movie-physics, and cinematics. It's not a gritty manual on the importance of proper gearshifting or tire maintenance. (And more so for any of the F&F movies.) Those movies may have a "car fetish," much like how John Woo films have a "gun fetish." And John Woo films don't need a Weapon Design System.

True, however, a game isn't a movie. Mechanical aesthetics in a game often take the place of visual aesthetics in a movie. So where a movie shows a gun in loving detail and discusses it at some length (like Toll Road's monologue in the Expendables), a player would want a highly detailed stat-line. Where movie characters get finnicky about cars, players get finnicky about stats.

Let's step away from movies for a second. Games and genres have a "center" to their mechanical feel that vary from game to game. For example, in a sci-fi action game, the GM might handwave ammunition, but in a post-apoc survival game, every bullet is dear and precious, so we count all of them. By focusing on an element in one game but not another, we change the focus of the game.

In a game that might simulate, say, the Vampire Diaries, there are cars, but they don't matter. We just use them to get from A to B. They're unimportant and not the focus of the game. Vampires and teen angst and sweet action are. But in a game that might simulate the Fast and the Furious, there are cars and they're central to the action. Your characters should really give a crap about their vehicles, and they're often trying to win races or beat the cops in chase scenes. They'll often have Mechanic skill at some level, and want more out of it than a scene of them tinkering on their car. So in such a game, you'd offer an intense spread of vehicular options to simulate the car-fetish of the genre, letting players pick and choose and try to maximize their vehicles and make them central to their strategy.

Such a game would get great use out of GURPS vehicles. That's my point.

[Flyndaran]

It's also a good way to take work off the GM. "Your character can R&D any vehicle that can be made at TL X and with these setting parameters."

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by SCAR

I'm not really being argumentative, I was responding to your comment

I'm not arguing back really just replying.

Originally Posted by SCAR

It bugs me when this sort of 'criticism' comment is made without any reasonable justification.

Well that depends on the connotation we give criticism and justification. Given the level of detail given to some subjects, vehicles seem to be missing. However IMO its more that vehicles have yet to be be given the full glorious GURPs treatment, rather than some black mark against the game.

Originally Posted by SCAR

It's kind of amusing that an often quoted criticism of GURPS 3e was that it was too complex, requiring 'advanced maths' (or something similar), which is often attributed to the 'maths' in the 3e GURPS Vehicles. (Damned if they do, and damned if they don't!)

Absolutely you choose your own poison I guess. I guess I would always want to be in a position to have something and not need it than the other way round. What is annoying is criticism that if its there then it has to be used.

Originally Posted by SCAR

From a gaming perspective, I don't really need or particularly want complex vehicle design rules; as a maths junkie, I'll probably buy it, play with it, build spreadsheets and programs, just for fun!

That's fair enough

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Hero System has a simulatative vehicle design system? And BRP does too?

Well since I'm not a fan of Hero and I am a fan of 'simulative' systems I'd say no but that's not what I said (or rather asked to give a examples of), do vehicles get coverage, yes. BRP I'm not sure I've not read much of the core. But like I said earlier what others systems do or don't have is not that relevant, I want GURPS vehicles because I like GURPS and how it does things not because the generic system next door just got one.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

True, though by and large there are things people care more about than others. Spells and powers are a fixture to many genres and unlikely to get a handwaved response from the GM. The same is true of guns, blades and armor. Martial Arts is a little more niche, as is biotech (which, I'd bet, didn't sell like crazy).

True.

[Kromm]

Though this is a long thread that has resurrected an even longer discussion, that's the essence of it. GURPS is a generic system, but that doesn't mean that all genres are equal . . . we do track sales and have marketing staff, and if (for instance) GURPS Dungeon Fantasy is what moves fastest and has the best ROI, then the hack-and-slash fantasy subgenre gets easier author approval and greater in-house resources. As it happens, the most popular genre is fantasy – a reflection of the RPG business in general – and that's a genre where vehicles aren't a big deal. Add in a few more genres like that and you must confront the other truth about generic games, which is that most of the people who buy them are single-genre gamers. Reality is that a relatively small subset of our customer base want a book specifically on vehicles. If GURPS were instead a dedicated modern-day or futuristic sci-fi RPG, things would be very different.

That's probably the feature that would make the book most widely useful, if we're being honest. Though "GURPS City Stats for vehicles" wouldn't be any more useful to gamers who don't play in genres with vehicles, or to those who simply prefer the work to be done for them, it would at least bring in the math-phobes and hand-wavers, and probably double the size of the potential market.

Originally Posted by ciaran_skye

I'm patient, especially with Spaceships existing, and my only big question is whether the hinted-at Armory will be included in Vehicle Design or at least released within a reasonable time frame afterward.

GURPS Armourer's Handbook is planned as a separate release. People agitating for GURPS Vehicle Design so that they can design weapons are campaigning for the wrong supplement. I'd hope to be able to get the two out the door reasonably close together, but I can make no promises.

Taken together, those two statements are exactly right. Vehicle Design is for the system-hacker GM who is running a vehicle-heavy genre, has a personal interest in vehicles, prefers design to adaptation, and doesn't mind math. Players in campaigns run by people like that sometimes find it useful, too, but there's no denying that this is a GM-centric product, which of course further limits potential sales.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

It's the GURPS Vehicles Design System. It would surprise me if it also contained expanded rules for actually using vehicles.

From Day One, the title has been Vehicle Design. It's intended to be about designing vehicles. David Pulver has also spoken with us about something like GURPS Vehicle Action or GURPS Vehicles in Action, which would be about everything else to do with vehicles.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

But what about GURPS Action? In some examples of GURPS Action, vehicles will play a central role.

The GURPS Action aesthetic is "grab and go," however. Even in a vehicle-heavy campaign, a catalog would be more valuable than a set of design rules. Just about all the positive fan mail we've had about Action has been of the "Thank goodness I no longer have to drag around a stack of rulebooks!" variety. I suspect that even gearhead Action gamers would get more use out of a slim PDF filled with ready-to-go Hollywood favorites. I'm not saying that would be a hot seller, since once you get out of fantasy, the leading subgenres tend to be futuristic ones . . . explaning why we haven't released a lot more Action supplements to date.

[Whitestreak]

If nothing else, a viable design system would be helpful for people creating those vehicle catalogs, which do seem to get more requests than the actual design system.

How such a system would be helpful could go like this:

Let's say Larry and I are both working on books that could complement each other - but we are unaware of the fact. My book is on NATO aircraft of the Cold War, while Larry is working on Warsaw Pact aircraft of the same era. If I give the F-4 Phantom a handling of X, and Larry gives the Mig-17 a handling of 4xX, that'll lead to errata down the line, since, historically, the Mig-17 has a smaller turn radius and is more maneuverable overall. Or, Larry could be doing a book on aircraft in Vietnam and give his F-4 a handling of Y - whose version would be correct?

This is a concern because, generally, we've heard in the past to simply use a similar vehicle already published as a guide, which, to me, means hand-wave it, it'll be OK.

Now, from what I understand, WotC's Star Wars RPG had a vehicle design system that they used in house for quite a long period before they published it, the in-house version being so that vehicles in one supplement matched those on other supplements.

[Kalzazz]

At least for my part, I tend to find

'What we have convenient books for' strongly influences what sort of games I will run

I used to run a lot of DnD 3.0, oh look, Star Wars d20 exists? Okay, I will run DnD 3.0 Dungeons and Dragons and Jedis

I also ran quite a bit of WEG d6 Star Wars . . . . when d6 Adventure with the Very Cool Magic System, and d6 Fantasy and d6 Fantasy critters came out, I started to run Space Fantasy with X-Wings, Magic, and Dragons

So if GURPS Vehicles (or GURPS Toaster Pastries or whatever) came out, I might be inclined to buy it and run games using it

I find Spaceships terribly confusing and problematic to use, so now when I run GURPS Space Fantasy it tends to be 'ships? What ships? Ships don't exist', back when I ran d6 Space Fantasy there were ships everywhere because I liked and understood d6 Star Wars ship stuff

By the same token, GURPS has lots of Really Awesome Fantasy Stuff, such as the DF line, Low Tech, Martial Arts, Magic, Thaumatology and stuff. I love running straight up Fantasy games in GURPS. I hardly ever ran straight up Fantasy games in d6 because well, there really wasn't much in the way of d6 Fantasy material out there, I always ran Space Fantasy because there were a zillion variants of blasters and X-Wings and droids oh my ready to go

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Whitestreak

Let's say Larry and I are both working on books that could complement each other - but we are unaware of the fact. My book is on NATO aircraft of the Cold War, while Larry is working on Warsaw Pact aircraft of the same era. If I give the F-4 Phantom a handling of X, and Larry gives the Mig-17 a handling of 4xX, that'll lead to errata down the line, since, historically, the Mig-17 has a smaller turn radius and is more maneuverable overall. Or, Larry could be doing a book on aircraft in Vietnam and give his F-4 a handling of Y - whose version would be correct?

This is a concern because, generally, we've heard in the past to simply use a similar vehicle already published as a guide, which, to me, means hand-wave it, it'll be OK.

Most vehicle stats in GURPS are pretty easy to translate. Move has to do with top speed, handling and stability tend to come from what sort of vehicle they are (and there's a Pyramid article with some guidelines somewhere). DR has to do with inches of Rolled Homogeneous Armor (or the equivalent), weight has to do with weight, ST/HP is derived from weight, and so on. There's still a chance that the two of you will disagree on the stats for X, but that's because sources disagree on the stats for X, but generally they'll look similar enough. The only real problem I see regarding existing vehicles is arming them.

(Note that this is how the vehicles in HT were created, or so I understand)

So you don't even need VDS for your cold-war aircraft, really. And there's someone who regularly publishes vehicles here on the forum.

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

'What we have convenient books for' strongly influences what sort of games I will run"

*snip*
I find Spaceships terribly confusing and problematic to use, so now when I run GURPS Space Fantasy it tends to be 'ships? What ships? Ships don't exist', back when I ran d6 Space Fantasy there were ships everywhere because I liked and understood d6 Star Wars ship stuff

If you feel that way, I doubt you'd find VDS a "convenient book," which is a good example of its narrow appeal. Like Kromm said, it's for gear heads who don't mind busting out a calculator. GURPS already tends to appeal to those who don't mind getting their hands dirty by diving hip deep into mechanics. Vehicles tends to be more of that kind of thing. So it's not for everyone. There's another major segment of the GURPS populace that like games like DF or Action who just want to grab and go. I suspect we need more vehicle catalogs for them.

[Dammann]

I'm gonna just try to keep running DF until VDS drops. Then I'll start working up stats for my mecha 'n' star fighters campaign, with maybe a spaghetti western game in between. But then, I don't do a prospectus style pitch, with multiple options, so far. I develop a campaign concept until I'm comfortable with it, then I ask people if they want to play it.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Dammann

I'm gonna just try to keep running DF until VDS drops. Then I'll start working up stats for my mecha 'n' star fighters campaign, with maybe a spaghetti western game in between. But then, I don't do a prospectus style pitch, with multiple options, so far. I develop a campaign concept until I'm comfortable with it, then I ask people if they want to play it.

I have a few sci-fi games that I'd like to work out the vehicles to, and Spaceships is just too chunky for my tastes.

[Kalzazz]

I'll admit I found vehicles 3e fairly intuitive. Just not spaceships 4e