Why isn't GURPS as popular as the D20 system and games

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

At first level? While I suppose this is true after a bit of play, most 1st level 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, OSR, and 5e characters are "roll a few dice, pick a class, write a few things down, and start play."

D&D 3.5e was prone to "if you want a specific prestige class you have to build for it at first level", and if you aren't a cleric, druid, or wizard, you better exploit multiclassing and prestige classes.

None of which really matters unless the game gets to high levels, and high level 3.5e is.. a problematic game anyway.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

At first level? While I suppose this is true after a bit of play, most 1st level 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, OSR, and 5e characters are "roll a few dice, pick a class, write a few things down, and start play."

A 1st level character designed without deep knowledge of the system risks failing to meet prerequisites for necessary feats or prestige classes for the character concept at level 3rd to 5th.

Basically, character creation was a complex mini-game where the rules were never explained, but emerged from the interplay of dozens of supplements and there were definite failure modes for not knowing how everything worked together. Usually, there was a One True Way of constructing certain concepts and if you failed to follow the path to properly optimizing mechanics, the rules would not even remotely support the mental vision of the concept that the player had in mind.

In many ways, the character design mini-game was fun for those with a certain type of mind, but it was harshly punitive for casual gamers. D&D 5e is much better tuned for casual gaming and that seems to be a very large segment of the market. I enjoyed the campaign I played in it (as a player, not GM) and while the other players admitted that the rules were light and not aimed to produce realistic results in any way, they didn't mind. Everyone was happy to play a simple game with miniatures and not have to commit to a more serious game, as everyone had jobs and families and other hobbies.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by “Icelander”

In many ways, the character design mini-game was fun for those with a certain type of mind, but it was harshly punitive for casual gamers.

That reminds me of another games reputation as well...

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Icelander

A 1st level character designed without deep knowledge of the system risks failing to meet prerequisites for necessary feats or prestige classes for the character concept at level 3rd to 5th.

In a game not expected to get past level 6 or so, you can pretty much ignore everything about prestige classes, as well as most advanced feats, and the reality is that D&D 3e had a reputation for breaking down once you hit double digit levels (hence things like Epic-6).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

That reminds me of another games reputation as well...

I know people who played character design in Champions that way, whereas I disliked it enough to avoid Champions after some experience with it. But on the other hand, the semi-random rolling creation process for Traveller characters can be fun in a different way; sometimes more fun than playing the characters you get.

[Irish Wolf]

Originally Posted by whswhs

But on the other hand, the semi-random rolling creation process for Traveller characters can be fun in a different way; sometimes more fun than playing the characters you get.

I think I played like two actual games of Traveller in college. On the other hand, when I was bored I could amuse myself for an hour or two just rolling up characters and thinking about what kind of person would have this background.

[robertsconley]

Originally Posted by Icelander

A 1st level character designed without deep knowledge of the system risks failing to meet prerequisites for necessary feats or prestige classes for the character concept at level 3rd to 5th.

It not that complicated for most players. D&D in a variety of editions had a broad "good enough" factor that it worked for most. This speaking from several decades with GURPS and various editions of D&D.

Yes you can sweat the sweet loadout (for older editions), or the optimal build (for newer) but it never was necessary.

[robertsconley]

Originally Posted by Irish Wolf

I think I played like two actual games of Traveller in college. On the other hand, when I was bored I could amuse myself for an hour or two just rolling up characters and thinking about what kind of person would have this background.

Enjoy
http://www.batintheattic.com/traveller/

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Icelander

A 1st level character designed without deep knowledge of the system risks failing to meet prerequisites for necessary feats or prestige classes for the character concept at level 3rd to 5th.

Character optimization in 3.x doesn't effectively occur at 1st level, and the required stats are explicit in the book. A typical 7th grader can follow the book and generate a fully useable character.

I've seen them do it.

5E is easier still.

GURPS front-loads all the complexity.

D&D kicks it down the curb.

[Gumby Bush]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

GURPS front-loads all the complexity.

D&D kicks it down the curb.

This is a good point. When I was introduced to D&D I had trouble wrapping my mind around this: I plotted out my character's advances in a manner I wouldn't have in GURPS, partly because of the "no backsies" nature of D&D advancement, partly because my mind is just accustomed to that degree of complexity. I think this wound up with the system actually feeling more complex to me, since I had to operate with a bunch of branching decisions, rather than being able to swap particular abilities in and out (even with things like spells, there are order of selection effects, since you can only swap one out per level--not to mention that you spend time in each stage).

I could blame this on being introduced to GURPS first, but I expect I use GURPS because I like to work this way rather than vice-versa. So, for a certain temperament which likes to digest systems whole, GURPS intentionally front-loading the complexity actually reduces total complexity because it is presented to be learned that way--but that is not most people, I take it.

My guess is that, with a good GM, GURPS is better at flipping between front-load and down-the-curb than is D&D (although still not great), but since D&D defaults to down-the-curb it has a gentler learning curve for the average group wholly new to role-playing.