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

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Mylon

No, I'm just saying that Pathfinder is a curious case of 3.5 outliving it's official support. In theory, the generic d20 system for use in modern campaigns or whatever could be picked up similarly. I am curious about how Pathfinder is licensed... Given how the XP table and point buy system is different (And I think point buy is the standard now), they could claim original work on that. I'd have to check if there's a d20 stamp on it.

The 4th edition SRD is useless in comparison. Possibly useful as a reference guide or some kind of universal index, but it's not a standalone document.

Well, then which "d20 System" is more popular than GURPS? I don't see that there is one, except D&D 4e which is no more popular than D&D was without being part of a notional "d20 System".

[Mylon]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Well, then which "d20 System" is more popular than GURPS? I don't see that there is one, except D&D 4e which is no more popular than D&D was without being part of a notional "d20 System".

I made no claim that D20 is more popular than GURPS. I was just saying that D20 (as most remember it, not including 4e D&D) can be picked up and republished if anyone wanted to.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Mylon

I made no claim that D20 is more popular than GURPS. I was just saying that D20 (as most remember it, not including 4e D&D) can be picked up and republished if anyone wanted to.

People keep necro'ing this thread. Someone must think d20 is more popular than GURPS.

[rust]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Someone must think d20 is more popular than GURPS.

Well, not me, also I would not care either way. :)

In my view GURPS and d20 are best suited for different styles of roleplaying,
and I very much prefer the "GURPS style" to the "d20 style", so I watched
d20 only from afar.
For me, any competition for GURPS could come from systems like BRP, Mon-
goose Traveller, or perhaps CORPS as a rules light example, but this is a mat-
ter of personal taste anyway.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by rust

For me, any competition for GURPS could come from systems like BRP, Mon-
goose Traveller, or perhaps CORPS as a rules light example, but this is a mat-
ter of personal taste anyway.

Within the category to which I assign GURPS—universal rules sets—there are two other systems that I regard as alternatives to it when I develop a new campaign: Big Eyes Small Mouth and FUDGE.

Bill Stoddard

[MKMcArtor]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yes it uses a twenty sided die, and thus is a d20 system (but so are many others) but it isn't the "d20 System". D&D 4e has a "d20" logo, but it is a different trademark, and doesn't represent a licensed system as the old d20 did. AFAICT 3rd party products now are more traditional licenses on a case by case basis.

Well there was enough carried over from D&D3e to D&D4e that if either of us really cared to, I could make a case that it is still based on the d20 system. I don't want to give the impression, though, that I'm actually here in support of D&D4e. ;)

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I submit that there is nothing inherently popular about the d20 System by itself if you don't include D&D. Nowadays there is no d20 System if you don't include D&D. The OP's basic premise was not only flamebait it is now proven historically wrong.

Even taking into account Pathfinder, I don't disagree with this at all.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

"d20" and "OGL" were actually separate licenses. A "d20" license did allow you to include character generation rules. The "OGL" was the free one that allowed you to use the SRD. However, neither license is currently supported, AFAICT.

Oh, I know very, very well that they are two separate licenses, which is why I am talking about the d20 system, and not the d20 License. The d20 License was officially killed, as you noted later, when WotC changed editions (actually, the official death happened like 6 months later, but by that point nobody cared). It was, in all practical aspects, dead long before that.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

AFAICT their licenses expired with the new edition.

Yeah, pretty much. Nobody was using it at that time anyway, because after the glut ended with the release of 3.5, retailers couldn't get rid of anything with the d20 logo on it. So what had for 4ish years been the mark of awesome became with the release of 3.5 the mark of shame.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Paizo had to get a special license to have character generation and advancement rules, IIRC.

That is not true.

The OGL does not contain chargen or advancement but it does not disallow companies from making their own. Thus the fracturing that occurred when Green Ronin released M&M, Mongoose released whatever they did, and so on. Every company that put out an OGL game (that is compatible with the d20 system but not license) had its own chargen and its own advancement rules.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

At any rate, are you saying that Pathfinder is more popular than GURPS?

Knowing the numbers I know, yes. For now.

That said, I think GURPS has sold many more units overall. GURPS has proven staying power, but the staying power of PF is obviously an unknown quantity. I see an analogy here between those two games and between Magic: The Gathering and the Pokemon TCG at the height of the latter's popularity. One is the venerable game that has proven itself over time. The other is the new hotness that burns very brightly. Will PF's popularity last longer than did Pokemon's? I guess we'll know in a few years... ;)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by MKMcArtor

Well there was enough carried over from D&D3e to D&D4e that if either of us really cared to, I could make a case that it is still based on the d20 system. I don't want to give the impression, though, that I'm actually here in support of D&D4e. ;)

As I pointed out upthread, with the use of the upgrade guidelines one can make a Man to Man character and convert it to GURPS 4th Edition. One cannot do the same with a 1977 Chainmail character to D&D 4E. There isn't even much of a meaningful conversion for 3.5 to 4E; basically you make a new character with the same class and race.

[MKMcArtor]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

As I pointed out upthread, with the use of the upgrade guidelines one can make a Man to Man character and convert it to GURPS 4th Edition. One cannot do the same with a 1977 Chainmail character to D&D 4E. There isn't even much of a meaningful conversion for 3.5 to 4E; basically you make a new character with the same class and race.

Mm. I'll definitely concede that. :)

[Chromemagnus]

Honestly, I think it's just because D&D started out the RolePlaying generation. If GURPS would have came out first, no doubt about it. GURPS would have been the best

Edit: And as popular

[Anders]

Because only the cognitive elite (as represented on these boards) have the chops to recognize a truly superior form of roleplaying.