GURPS After the End 2: The New World

[Edges]

OK. Give it to me straight:

• PK is my favorite GURPS author. He provides just the crunch I need. I have used almost everything I have read of his including material from his website. (I have often said that if I were wealthy enough, I would hire him to write rulebooks for my personal settings.)
• I don't intend on running a post-apocalyptic campaign in the foreseeable future. I enjoy the setting myself. But it's not among the preferred genres of the groups I tend to play with.
• The campaigns we do play span the gritty-cinematic range. Almost invariably, each incorporates a supernatural element (e.g. magic, psionics, superscience, or something weirder) and stays within the TL 2-8 range.

Should I buy this product? By that I mean, are there enough generalizable rules that can be applied to campaigns we are likely to play?

[chandley]

Originally Posted by Edges

OK. Give it to me straight:

• PK is my favorite GURPS author. He provides just the crunch I need. I have used almost everything I have read of his including material from his website. (I have often said that if I were wealthy enough, I would hire him to write rulebooks for my personal settings.)
• I don't intend on running a post-apocalyptic campaign in the foreseeable future. I enjoy the setting myself. But it's not among the preferred genres of the groups I tend to play with.
• The campaigns we do play span the gritty-cinematic range. Almost invariably, each incorporates a supernatural element (e.g. magic, psionics, superscience, or something weirder) and stays within the TL 2-8 range.

Should I buy this product? By that I mean, are there enough generalizable rules that can be applied to campaigns we are likely to play?

My favorite distillations in AtE2 are the Ruins and Bunkers, Scavenging, and Invention rules. We havent had a coherent set of guidelines for those things before now, to my knowledge.

The rest you may already be using rules for. The preview on W23 has the table of contents, see if anything grabs you. I think the invention rules are the most generalizable (new word!). The quick rules on Climate, Disease, and Nanotech are good if you dont already have something for that (Climate from DF 16 for example).

If money is tight, and those things are not applicable, hold off. But I agre with your broad points: PK writes good stuff, and this is some of that good stuff. So I recommend it.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Edges

OK. Give it to me straight:

• PK is my favorite GURPS author. He provides just the crunch I need. I have used almost everything I have read of his including material from his website. (I have often said that if I were wealthy enough, I would hire him to write rulebooks for my personal settings.)
• I don't intend on running a post-apocalyptic campaign in the foreseeable future. I enjoy the setting myself. But it's not among the preferred genres of the groups I tend to play with.
• The campaigns we do play span the gritty-cinematic range. Almost invariably, each incorporates a supernatural element (e.g. magic, psionics, superscience, or something weirder) and stays within the TL 2-8 range.

Should I buy this product? By that I mean, are there enough generalizable rules that can be applied to campaigns we are likely to play?

Useful bits are a system for exploring falling apart buildings and looting them of random bits, and then using those bits for mostly cinematic invention/upgrades/repair. So if you have exploration of ruins or gadgeteers from scrounged items, maybe.

Some light rules for streamlined combat, travel, social-fu, hacking, infiltration.. Mostly duplicated by Action 2, which I think is a more useful "rules light-ish caper supplement". 20 pages of various hazards (toxic waste, chemical weapons, old bombs, minefields, climate, disease, radiation) and enemies (ganger, mutants, nanotech, paramilitaries, bots, and zombies, 2-3 entries per).

I think that if you have DF16 and Action2, the useful bits here are the invention/upgrade/repair section, the " crumbling ruin exploration" section, and some of the environmental hazards. If you don't have DF16, add the general trekking and foraging rules. If you really hate coming up with enemy stat blocks the enemies are a bit useful, though if you're mostly facing human opposition in your games Action4 is probably better for throwing together different NPCs as threats.

[PK]

Originally Posted by zoncxs

Side note, I also think the time spent for inventions for inventors (non-gadgeteers) is pretty harsh. I don't think it should take an average of 9 hours to make 1-5 arrows. Maybe we could house rule something based on weight? Or complexity?

I've been thinking about this, and I think the main hiccup is that these rules were written to cover a wide variety of situations, including coming up with something completely new -- so everything from "I make an arrow" to "I make a special custom arrow that we attach that control chip to so it'll shut down this new robot if we hit it in the face." I think they're balanced for the latter, but perhaps a bit harsh for the former where regular inventors are concerned.

So I'm considering declaring this -- let me know what you think:

1. In "Simple Modifications," noting that one should also use these rules for inventions that are so simple that conceptually, using "junk" as the "one part" makes sense. Normal arrows would be an obvious example.

2. Quick Gadgeteers still halve the time, but others move up "one step" in speed -- inventors use the Gadgeteer speed, Gadgeteers use the Quick Gadgeteer speed.

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by PK

I've been thinking about this, and I think the main hiccup is that these rules were written to cover a wide variety of situations, including coming up with something completely new -- so everything from "I make an arrow" to "I make a special custom arrow that we attach that control chip to so it'll shut down this new robot if we hit it in the face." I think they're balanced for the latter, but perhaps a bit harsh for the former where regular inventors are concerned.

So I'm considering declaring this -- let me know what you think:

1. In "Simple Modifications," noting that one should also use these rules for inventions that are so simple that conceptually, using "junk" as the "one part" makes sense. Normal arrows would be an obvious example.

2. Quick Gadgeteers still halve the time, but others move up "one step" in speed -- inventors use the Gadgeteer speed, Gadgeteers use the Quick Gadgeteer speed.

This is what I was thinking too! :D

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by PK

No. I assumed gadgeteer because you were (as far as I could see) using a gadgeteer as your example. That's why I said "using your basic gadgeteer as an example."

Sorry. Should have had a smilie behind that. :)

Originally Posted by PK

An Inv. mod of -2 for a $0-10 invention = Gadgeteer. If you had said "-7 for the cost," I'd have assumed that you were talking about a normal inventor.

Ah, crap, yeah, I was using the Mod column instead of the Inv column. Grrr... I think that's where my workshop confusion stems.

Originally Posted by chandley

In point of fact, they assume the opposite. P. 40, Workspace, the parenthetical.

Originally Posted by Langy

There's a +5 bonus that you're missing - presumably because the rules put a -5 modifier in somewhere else and remove it if you have the correct tools (because it assumes you're using improvised tools).

Originally Posted by PK

An Inv. mod of -2 for a $0-10 invention = Gadgeteer. If you had said "-7 for the cost," I'd have assumed that you were talking about a normal inventor.

Man, I'm really not tracking. Are you going to put out designer's notes at some point? It's clear that you didn't just make this stuff up- you developed it at great effort from rules that already existed, and I thought that I had puzzled it out. But clearly I haven't. It'd be helpful to see how they are derived.

Originally Posted by PK

Yeah, it's almost as though these rules were written specifically for this series! :)

If the series is Fallout, yes and it's awesome. It's a hell of a work- I have praised it greatly (see a few pages back). I often come across as critical of you PK, but I'm really not. I'm just often trying to shoehorn something great that you have done to better fit what I want to do, since I'm clearly in the middle of that Venn diagram you mentioned a while ago, and I know that's not a profitable demographic and no one is every going to publish with me as the target audience. (Or was that someone else?) The last time that happened was AFTERMATH!.

Originally Posted by PK

This thread is for discussion of ATE2 and its rules, hence the confusion. Please start a new thread if you want to create and discuss this hybrid/house variant.

Well, as I just mentioned I'm trying to figure out how these rules were derived, to better understand them. If that isn't close enough to the subject for you, fine, I'll go elsewhere. But for the record, this all started as an exercise in trying to use your AtE rules for non-cinematic/non-gadgeteer inventors (for which you are obviously providing support) to make some arrows and it got off into the weeds a bit, which I think is pretty legitimate. Granted, I have obviously screwed it up but that was my intent.

Originally Posted by Edges

Should I buy this product? By that I mean, are there enough generalizable rules that can be applied to campaigns we are likely to play?

Absolutely- no doubt at all. See above. The hunting/gathering/scrounging/camping rules alone are worth more than $10. Buy it.

Originally Posted by PK

So I'm considering declaring this -- let me know what you think:

1. In "Simple Modifications," noting that one should also use these rules for inventions that are so simple that conceptually, using "junk" as the "one part" makes sense. Normal arrows would be an obvious example.

2. Quick Gadgeteers still halve the time, but others move up "one step" in speed -- inventors use the Gadgeteer speed, Gadgeteers use the Quick Gadgeteer speed.

So... this actually was worth discussing here? ;P

Smilie! Smilie! I will, as I said, happily take the discussion elsewhere after this.

More seriously- *crunches some numbers*... If I'm understanding you correctly, yes, assuming that you have the semiprepared parts (as I think we are) an average of 35 minutes to bash an arrow together sounds reasonable. At least for someone with some idea of what he's doing, and a little muscle memory. When making primitive arrows there can be a lot of time spent waiting for the adhesive or sinew to dry, though.

Well, all of that with the caveat that I'm still not groking the tool quality/workshop thing. It just hurts my head.

And great minds do indeed think alike- I had considered something similar.

[Minuteman37]

Originally Posted by Langy

That's an awful lot of effects and hazards there, Minuteman. The book suggests you have a single primary cause and one to three secondary effects, and to focus on only a few hazards at the start - leaving extra hazards to come in later.

This is a list of the total setting effects and hazards, Reign of Steel's presence is more regional then global, centering in the mojave desert and one of those things I can draw the party towards whenever I feel like spicing things up. Walkers and Shufflers will also be used sparingly becouse the whole point of Bombs Away was to neutralize that problem.

Originally Posted by Randyman

Robotech: Southern Cross? Or post Invid Invasion? No, the order of secondary effects isn't quite right, I think...

Not sure what you mean, Reign of steel is an effect becouse the old world did possess robots and AI, but after the other effects took root things broke down and went into a state of disrepair. Now the robots have their own agenda.

[Randyman]

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

Not sure what you mean, Reign of steel is an effect becouse the old world did possess robots and AI, but after the other effects took root things broke down and went into a state of disrepair. Now the robots have their own agenda.

If you've ever read the Robotech RPGs from Palladium, there's a strong post-apoc vibe to the second (Southern Cross) and third (Invid Invasion) series. Earth got devastated by each of the three Robotech Wars, more severely each time. And after the third one...

Spoiler:  

...a bioform called Flower of Life started doing a number on Earth's biosphere.

So your list gave me that vibe.

[PK]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Ah, crap, yeah, I was using the Mod column instead of the Inv column. Grrr... I think that's where my workshop confusion stems.

Man, I'm really not tracking. Are you going to put out designer's notes at some point? It's clear that you didn't just make this stuff up- you developed it at great effort from rules that already existed, and I thought that I had puzzled it out. But clearly I haven't. It'd be helpful to see how they are derived.

I might. In the meantime, if you can explain what you don't understand about the rules, I'll do my best to answer. (I realize you've tried to do this, but perhaps break it down to a concise list of questions, because I'm a bit confused about what's confusing you.)

But first I want to make it clear that I tore down the Basic Set rules and rebuilt them for this series; I do not and will not promise full compatibility between them. So please don't bring assumptions from the former into the latter; if something (a modifier or specific rule from the Basic Set) feels like it should fit into the ATE rules but you don't know how, just ask and I'll be happy to help.

If the series is Fallout, yes and it's awesome.

No, I mean they were written specifically for After the End, and by that I do specifically and explicitly mean they were not written for GURPS in general. I incorporated several assumptions that only make sense in a variable-TL post-apocalyptic setting. That doesn't mean they won't work in other settings or even in general (especially if your own setting has a variable TL), but it does mean that you do so at your own risk.

I know that's not a profitable demographic and no one is every going to publish with me as the target audience. (Or was that someone else?) The last time that happened was AFTERMATH!.

Which was definitely not one of the influences behind After the End, though I do think that someone running a "GURPS AFTERMATH!" game could steal a fair amount from ATE.

Well, as I just mentioned I'm trying to figure out how these rules were derived, to better understand them. If that isn't close enough to the subject for you, fine, I'll go elsewhere. But for the record, this all started as an exercise in trying to use your AtE rules for non-cinematic/non-gadgeteer inventors (for which you are obviously providing support) to make some arrows and it got off into the weeds a bit, which I think is pretty legitimate. Granted, I have obviously screwed it up but that was my intent.

I may have misunderstood you, but you seemed to be saying that you were trying to hybridize the ATE invention rules with the Basic Set rules -- and that is 100% fine in its own thread, but not on-topic for this one.

If you have questions about the ATE invention rules on their own, that is totally on-topic for this thread.

More seriously- *crunches some numbers*... If I'm understanding you correctly, yes, assuming that you have the semiprepared parts (as I think we are) an average of 35 minutes to bash an arrow together sounds reasonable. At least for someone with some idea of what he's doing, and a little muscle memory.

I'd love to hear how this works for you. (And that goes for anyone using it!) To be clear, I consider #1 pretty much just a question of interpretation; the existing rules arguably already work this way. I'm more interested in whether #2 works better in all circumstances than the existing "half the time" rule.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Langy

The book suggests you have a single primary cause and one to three secondary effects, and to focus on only a few hazards at the start - leaving extra hazards to come in later.

Where is this "1-3" and a "few hazards" coming from? For instance the example has 2 Secondary Effects and 6 Hazards, but no where does it actually suggest a number.


The closest I think you're going to find is this line: "It’s important to choose a robust-but-modest selection of elements that make sense together." Which is pretty ambiguous (but I agree, More Than Half Of The Secondary Effects and All But One Of The Hazards is over-the-top*).



* Though the ATE campaign I was doodling up is striking similar in numbers if not with different Effects and Hazards (I too have 5 Effects and 8 Hazards, though some are meant for later in the campaign and the PCs are warned of them at Chargen).