How balanced is GURPS?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by nanoboy

Let us say that you have a high DX character who specializes in light weapons for speed. That character will wear down a lot of well-rounded combat characters, or at least, that has been my experience. However, pit him against a strong and heavily armored opponent, even one with relatively low DX, and you'll see the high DX character get himself into serious trouble. Penetrating armor will be problematic for him, and the high ST character may only need one hit to win.

The above was intended as an example, but it raises an important quirk of GURPS combat. What I said in my last post about speed, defenses, and missile capability being great equalizers is true in a broad sense -- and movies and novels make a great, huge deal out of this. As a result, there's a strong tendency for players to create poorly rounded, high-DX warriors.

These guys can prevail when there's room to retreat and run away, they're facing attacks they can evade, and their foes either go down or run away if bloodied. However, when facing hordes of tough, strong foes in close quarters, they're in hot water. They're generally left hoping they get lucky before they get cornered and either take a hit or break a weapon.

In close with tough guys, you need to fight fire with fire. You want the high-ST knight clomping around at Move 2 in DR 6 plate armor, hiding behind a large shield, with High Pain Threshold and lots of HP. Even if he takes a hit from behind, he can tough it out. And when he hits, it takes someone out. He's a shark, not a piranha.

The moral? Match the foes to the kinds of PCs you have. However, most PC groups are mixed bags, and that complicates things . . . fights that are fair for the 150-point ST-and-DR guy won't be fair for the 150-point DX-and-Move guy, and vice versa. All you can do then is politely but firmly remind your players of tactics. Unfortunately, RPGs are a tactical nightmare, as they require combined-arms tactics that no one in the real world ever had to think about (where else do you see a karateka, a rapierist, a knight in plate, and a longbowman facing ninja archers covered by pikemen?). There will be errors that hurt or kill PCs. My personal solution is to make Luck a campaign advantage so that the PCs have an insurance policy.

[Wundt]

Originally Posted by KlausPrinceOfTheUndeads

I'm curious...Can you post your monster's sheet?

Nope. Some of the other players in my group read the boards. I would rather not give anything away.

I will say this, consider a ghost. Given Insubstantial and Invisible, with some optional enhancements, you have 140pts before you even start making the rest of the creature. You have to get VERY creative with disadvantages.

By GURPS standards, the little girl from "The Ring" is about a 300pt or more.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Wundt

I will say this, consider a ghost. Given Insubstantial and Invisible, with some optional enhancements, you have 140pts before you even start making the rest of the creature. You have to get VERY creative with disadvantages.

Actually, this illustrates nicely why points aren't a good judge of combat ability: That ghost is still worth as many points vs. a 400-point legendary knight, but unless the knight has a magic sword that can affect spirits, which is equipment and doesn't cost points . . . well, the ghost is invulnerable. If the ghost has an attack that can affect mortals, he can defeat the knight as easily as a 100-point hero. A 100-point necromancer, on the other hand, might have a chance.

[flyingwombat]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Actually, this illustrates nicely why points aren't a good judge of combat ability: That ghost is still worth as many points vs. a 400-point legendary knight, but unless the knight has a magic sword that can affect spirits, which is equipment and doesn't cost points . . .

A 100-point necromancer, on the other hand, might have a chance.

Weapon availability is a consideration. A PC armed with an Uzi vs 20 men armed with swords will easily take out all the swordmen assuming he's a good shot, the swordsmen don't get close enough to use their blades, and he doesn't run out of ammo.

At any rate, matchups are pretty much hit-or-miss in my experience.

[nanoboy]

As an aside regarding "balance," I have always considered the importance of the idea for RPG's to be different from other games. This difference comes from the fact that RPG's (in general) are cooperative, while other games are almost exclusively competitive. In RPG's balance applies more to a player character's usefulness in a campaign relative to the other player characters' usefulness. Monsters, evil ninjas, political rivals, and necromancers are all just story elements. That you beat to a pulp. When appropriate... Or not.

[jSarek]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The key to successful threat-matching in GURPS is to know the particular group -- its numbers, strengths, weaknesses, and tactics -- and create foes to match.

I just want to reiterate this point. The capabilitiers of the players are as much or more a part of this as the way the characters are created. An inexperienced, tactically inept player can get a 500 point combat monster killed in a circumstance where an experienced, clever player would earn victory with a 25 point diversified character.

Thus, you have to play to the strengths and weaknesses of the players and their characters taken together. If you have a bunch of combat-oriented but inexperience players, you may have to play to their strengths to help them *discover* their strengths, before they're experienced enough to know how to deal with their weaknesses. On the other hand, if you have a bunch of Special Ops vets playing accountants, you may have to have quite a few more orcs than you planned to account for players who know exactly how to use their circumstances to their advantage.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by jSarek

The capabilitiers of the players are as much or more a part of this as the way the characters are created. An inexperienced, tactically inept player can get a 500 point combat monster killed in a circumstance where an experienced, clever player would earn victory with a 25 point diversified character.

Yep. It's tempting to say "The game should abstract combat enough to make all N-point warriors equal!" . . . but in reality, this is impossible because of the "RP" in "RPG." Even in a game without all of GURPS' combat options, a warrior of great skill on paper can be hamstrung by a tactically clueless player, while a non-warrior can be uncommonly effective in the hands of a bloodthirsty one. As the GM, you have to have an almost supernatural sense of which players just don't "get" even basic tactical concepts (like force multipliers and local numerical superiority) . . . and which ones instinctively understand such things, even if they're couch potatoes who don't know the right terminology. After 26 years of GMing and 20 years of GURPS, I still sometimes fail to realize that some players don't "get" why they should always have a backup weapon, never turn their back on a foe, stay at most a second's run from their allies, etc.

[Gamer23]

The total ammount of points allocated is not a indication how powerfull a PC is in combat, just how experienced he is.

The number of points spent on the primary combat skills and related equipment instead tells you how well a NPC/PC can fight.
Primary combat skills mean in this case: The skills that will be used in combat should be considered, not all combat skills of course.

If your intention is to create foes that challange the PCs but does not kill them, use the PCs as guideline - but make the foes a little weaker.

greets
g23

[nanoboy]

Originally Posted by Gamer23

The total ammount of points allocated is not a indication how powerfull a PC is in combat, just how experienced he is.

The number of points spent on the primary combat skills and related equipment instead tells you how well a NPC/PC can fight.
Primary combat skills mean in this case: The skills that will be used in combat should be considered, not all combat skills of course.

If your intention is to create foes that challange the PCs but does not kill them, use the PCs as guideline - but make the foes a little weaker.

greets
g23

It has been my experience that my players will outsmart me. What I mean is that they know their PC's abilities pretty intimately and like to try to vary their tactics enough to make my job difficult. I often will make characters that are superior to theirs and see them pretty seriously mess them up.

[Hyrneson]

One thing that I have to point out regularly is that what GURPS is.
It is not solely a combat simulator. It is a role playing system.
Sure, it does pretty good with general combat but don't try to use a tool for something its not intended for. 'Points' are a measure of combat ability or ability to magically toast something, or a guage of how bad your character will freak, or even how fast they will run screaming. To use 'points' for only a measure of combat ability only is not an accurate measuring guide.

RH