What does GURPS 4e do well?

[Poppyseed45]

Let me explain a little:

As I've said on other forums, I've got a case where I'm looking to change how my group plays - to become more sandboxy and the like, and one of the systems I'm considering is GURPS. I've run GURPS 4e in the past, so I've experience with it, but it was also in the past that I've sometimes used systems for things that they weren't made for.

With that said, I'd like to know, what genres, game styles, or modes of play does GURPS lend itself to? Like, what sorts of campaigns and one-shots usually jump into your mind when you're thinking of using GURPS? Or put another way, when you think about X genre, why would you choose GURPS for it?

[Dammann]

The whole point of GURPS is that it is able to accommodate most any genre (as I'm sure you already know). GURPS is by default well oriented to realistic action adventures in any setting. Cinematic adventures are also well supported, if the playing group adopts different rules assumptions. I hear that GURPS struggles with portraying the enterprises of godlike entities as characters. I can't comment on that from personal experience, but aside from that*, any milieu can be represented

The main reasons I prefer GURPS are that, in addition to its genre flexibility in general, it handles combat at a finer grain of detail than some other systems, it has rules for handling a variety of non-combat related activities (haggling, preaching, repairing machinery, operating vehicles, interrogation, solving mysteries, photography, and on and on and on), and it allows characters to be designed as complex individuals. The modularity of the system means that I don't ever use all those rules at once, but it is reassuring to know that GURPS contains guidance for adjudicating almost any risk the PCs might take.

On the other hand, running a campaign in GURPS can require more preparation than campaigns with some other games, particularly those that have ready-made settings included. I think it is common for beginning GMs to feel like they need to observe a lot of the GURPS rules right away, which can leave that GM feeling overwhelmed.

Also, the level of detail possible is an invitation to having EVERYTHING statted out. It is not hard, once you have a little comfort with the system, to assign stats on the fly, and improvise solid adventures.

In short, GURPS does authorial freedom well. The worst hazard (in my own experience) is creative paralysis from a surfeit of options.




*and probably including that, to a some degree

[gilbertocarlos]

Gurps focus on realism, so, the game is very good for someone tired of level 10 barbarians having more HP than a wall.

Most people I talk to tell that GURPS is very good for sci-fi games, even thought most of my games are medieval fantasy.

My players played mostly D&D, but after they saw GURPS, they loved it, no class restrictions, targeted attacks, armor making you easier to hit, but harder to knockdown, even the alchemist with ST9 can kill a knight, and the other way around as well...

[vicky_molokh]

Realistic or heroic fantasy. High fantasy if you know what kind of magic you want in your game.
Kung fu films.
Realistic or heroic modern action, thriller or intrigue.
Realistic, and I guess heroic (not tested personally) future fiction, if you know what kind of world/setting you want in your game.

Things that would be doable well in GURPS:
Conan (with a group of adventurers instead of one 'perfect' adventurer), Scorpion King, any of the Herculesque/Xenaesque series. Gothic. Planescape Torment (no, really!) or anything Planescape-like.
CSI, Ocean's Eleven (never seen it personally, but this is the official go-to film for stuff like GURPS Action), X-Files, Fringe, Hitman (with a group instead of one agent), the Millennium book trilogy (if the GM and player can handle it). Ghostbusters, Dusk til Dawn, Buffy/Angel.
Aliens, Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Dune (depending on specifics), Babylon 5, (new) Battlestar Galactica.

[ericthered]

cross-overs. there is a reason gurps decided to make infinite worlds its signature setting.

also, emulating a previous setting. Gurps can emulate settings with a high degree of accuracy, while other systems tend to make their own setting based on their rules.

[wellspring]

Originally Posted by ericthered

cross-overs. there is a reason gurps decided to make infinite worlds its signature setting.

also, emulating a previous setting. Gurps can emulate settings with a high degree of accuracy, while other systems tend to make their own setting based on their rules.

Quoted because there isn't a "like" button.

Also, it's good for long-term or very active gaming groups that will be running a variety of different settings and game styles. You learn one system (GURPS), once.

Fiddly GMs who like tweaking everything and writing their own house rules and creating elaborate custom settings get tools in the form of GURPS rules, supplements and this forum, that they won't really find in any other RPG system.

[GoblynByte]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

Gurps focus on realism, so, the game is very good for someone tired of level 10 barbarians having more HP than a wall.

I would disagree with a focus on "realism." While it is far more realistic than most systems, it's representation of reality can be arguable. I would call it a focus on "literalism."

GURPS takes a far more literal approach than most other games. So, in my experience, players can translate what they want to do into how the system works without having to reconcile it with countless abstracted meta-rules that serve no greater purpose than to create a balanced playing field. There are few exceptions to what a character can do beyond what the normal human brain would assume is possible anyway. Loss of hit points is an actual injury, a skill is actually the ability to do something, etc.

For example:

Player: Can I pick up that gun?
GM: Sure.
Player: Can I fire it?
GM: Sure.
Player: I only have one shot at this before he attacks my friend. Can I aim for the head?
GM: No.
Player: How can I take him down quickly?
GM: Do enough damage to kill him in one shot.
Player: Is that possible?
GM: No.
Player: What if I shoot him in the leg? Would that at least slow him down?
GM: No.
Player: So all I can do is attack him?
GM: Yes. Do it!

Compared to:

Player: Can I pick up that gun?
GM: Sure.
Player: Can I fire it?
GM: Sure.
Player: I only have one shot at this before he attacks my friend. Can I aim for the head?
GM: It'll be tough, but sure.
Player: Will that do enough damage to kill him in one shot?
GM: Probably, but consider the difficulty of the shot. You'll probably miss. You might want to aim for a location that will be easier to hit, but will cause enough pain to stop him in his tracks.
Player: The leg? It won't kill him, but he won't be advancing anymore.
GM: Yes. Do it!

This same literal approach has advantages in character creation too. No need to find the class that sort-of, kind-of fits you character concept if you multi-class 4 times and wait until your 8th level. If you want to be "that" you just build "that."

Sure, these points could be argued as "more realistic," but I think that perspective on realism can be somewhat subjective and can get us mired in debates that, frankly, miss the point. I think any realism we see tends to be coincidental to the literal approach.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by GoblynByte

Sure, these points could be argued as "more realistic," but I think that perspective on realism can be somewhat subjective and can get us mired in debates that, frankly, miss the point. I think any realism we see tends to be coincidental to the literal approach.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "literalism". If you mean something along the lines of "simulationist" I wouldn't disagree. In the example you gave, the first exchange is from a more abstract system, where HP loss represents a gradual sapping of the resources (health, fatigue, luck, etc) which protect a character from harm - ie, declaring an attack and rolling damage doesn't tell you much about what kind of attack it is. In GURPS, the player starts with exactly what sort of action they're attempting; the dice tell them whether they are successful, and what the actual effect is - not a gradual depletion of an abstract resource, but a flesh-and-blood injury with precise consequences. There's still a lot of abstraction involved (otherwise you'd need a computer to run it) but the picture it paints at the end is a lot more complete.

[GoblynByte]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "literalism". If you mean something along the lines of "simulationist" I wouldn't disagree.

Sure. I just prefer the term literalism because "simulation" still implies an inherent realism. I've seen entire sessions grind to a halt where players nit-pick over the realism of this rule or that (in ALL systems). While GURPS sacrifices realism quite often for the sake or playability and a more dramatic reality, folks will go to the mat to argue what is real and what is not.

A literal approach does not have to be realistic. It simply needs to follow a somewhat transparent line of cause and effect. That's the most important thing, I think, and what GURPS does best over all other things. The player doesn't need to learn how to "game the system" in order to figure out how to do something they feel is "in character" or simply a logical course of action. They just say what you want to do in plain terms and the GM tells them how they can do it. And they can almost always attempt it, even if they'll be bad at it. The outcomes are predictable even if they're not always successful. There's an insular quality in that respect and therefore the player becomes more comfortable to extend themselves and become more heroic.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Dammann

In short, GURPS does authorial freedom well. The worst hazard (in my own experience) is creative paralysis from a surfeit of options.

This is the biggest problem I have had with getting players involved and I typically solve it by building their first character for them. It handles most combat really well. Realistic, cinematic and unarmed or armed all are supported though never been happy with wrestling stuff (though that will probably change when Technical Grappling comes out) and really silly combat like Toons are not easily supported.
Social interaction is typically better then any other system, though its cheap to get really scary good so this requires GM moderation if it will be that kind of game.
SciFi, modern, Horror, and detective stories all work really well.
Magic requires more thought then most but I call it a win as you can come up with just about anything.
Supers I have not played in 4e but I think they will work really well.
I disagree with some people here (including a line editor) and think it can handle god like beings well also. The trick there is not just lots of points but some things can be hand waived using Realm Magic, Godlike Control and Wild Card powers. Build the critical stuff and eyeball the knockoffs with an estimate of cost or use Ultra power or something.