Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-06-2010, 08:21 PM   #1
tjmiller07
 
tjmiller07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Default What do YOU want changed?

As stated in this thread, some people maybe wondering when the 5th Edition of GURPS may be released.

The question I have is why do you want a 5th Edition of GURPS? What do you want changed, from a players, or GM's perspective? What rules don't you like about 4th Edition?

I'm posting this in hopes of the readers of this thread to come up with simple houserules for the so called 'critics' problems, questions, or suggestions.

-Andrew
__________________
"You have my face in your 'imagery perceiver'"

-Josep Brewer

......(\_/)
......( '_')
..../""""""""""""\====░ ▒▓▓█D
/"""""""""""""""""""\
\_@_@_@_@_@_/
tjmiller07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2010, 08:41 PM   #2
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: What do YOU want changed?

I don't want a 5th edition. However I'd like to see new edition of Magic (and I don't really care if it preserves page references in other books or not, there is a reason for indexing). There are a few other things that are IMO easily fixable with house rules, most notably the costs of a few traits (Regrowth, Unaging).

More pie-in-the-sky I'd like it if the damage from muscle-powered weapons was normalized with the DR70=1"RHA relationship, and if the ST-Based damage scale in general was less dramatic.

Even more pie-in-the-sky than that I'd like to see a version of the Wealth rules that differentiates more clearly between ready funds, assets, investments, and the ability to maintain wealth.

Really really pie-in-the-sky would be a system that completely separates penetration and injury.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2010, 08:46 PM   #3
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: What do YOU want changed?

Affliction rules need to be revisited and balancing Strength with Crushing Innate Attacks would be very nice.

But really, I'd like to see Templates up-front and center in GURPS. Most people who complain about GURPS' "complexity" really mean "I sat down with the book and I couldn't figure out how to make a character."

If they moved the Template chapter out from the back of the book and more up front, expanded it to include more common types, rather than just using it as an example for people to make their own, I think GURPS would have an easier time catching and keeping customers. Templates tend to pare down the system, and makes immersing yourself in it a lot easier. Just my opinion.
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars.
If you want to support me, check out my Patreon!
Mailanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2010, 09:01 PM   #4
Vardukson
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default Re: What do YOU want changed?

I guess I'd like to see a better pricing system for advantages? Maybe?

I dunno. Sometimes when you use the Enhancements and Limitations from the book you get weird results. Especially when you're trying to make your own abilities. If you use one advantage and twist it one way, it might cost 4 points. And if you take another advantage and twist it a different way, to get the same ability, it might cost you 25 points.

Maybe that's just bound to be a flaw in a system where you can design anything. But then maybe there could be more rules, and a greater emphasis on pricing things according to their usefulness.

Just my 2 cents. I...don't feel that comfortable criticizing GURPS. Ever since I picked up GURPS lite three years ago I knew I'd never GM anything else.
Vardukson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2010, 09:11 PM   #5
Orienda
 
Orienda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Default Re: What do YOU want changed?

I'd like to see more multiplicative modifiers rather than the +/-XX% Schema. As is, you get a lot of weird not-balanced results in that a force-field DR costs 20% more than normal, while a fore-field ablative DR costs twice as much/point. It gets to an optimization curve where you either want to race down to -80% or stack as many enhancements as possible on things. I think it's a fundamental flaw with the advantage systems.

That said, it's fairly easy to houserule, either through the multiplicative modifier rules from Powers (apply limitations to total cost after enhancements) or by turning every enhancement/limitation to a multiplier by adding one to the percent and multiplying (+%50 becomes *1.5, -20% becomes *.8 etc.) It doesn't work perfectly, which is why I'd like to see it changed, but it works well enough.

Also, there are more than a few broken spells that need cleaning up in magic. But that really wouldn't need a new edition, just at most a new Magic.
Orienda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2010, 10:18 PM   #6
malloyd
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: What do YOU want changed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjmiller07 View Post
The question I have is why do you want a 5th Edition of GURPS? What do you want changed, from a players, or GM's perspective? What rules don't you like about 4th Edition?

I'm posting this in hopes of the readers of this thread to come up with simple houserules for the so called 'critics' problems, questions, or suggestions.
Hundreds of little details really. GURPS 4e (or for that matter 3e, it didn't change that much) is already pretty solid. Any of the long surviving systems that have been through a couple evolutionary editions - BRP/RQ/CoC, D&D3.5/Pathfinder, GURPS, Hero - had any really critical problems fixed years ago.

A few that I recall off the top of my head just flipping through:

I'd like to see ST become a secondary attribute, any remaining rolls against it go away, damage be linearized against it, and swing become an even multiple of thrust.

Completely decouple Basic Move and Basic Speed, even if you use the identical formulas to calculate them both.

Appearance needs to be rethought so it works within a species and has cleaner rules for flavors other than sexual attraction .

Numerical TLs, particularly numerical modifiers for them, should go away

Wealth needs its components (starting cash, income, job requirements and expenses) separated.

Status and the various kinds of Rank need costs to depend on both number of subordinates and how much authority you have over them.

Reaction modifiers currently included in advantages and disadvantages should be bought separately. For example a lot of mental disadvantages with them severely overlap - once you are a known dangerous nutcase, having some minor delusions too isn't going to make people worry about you more.

A handful of combined advantages and disadvantages should be broken back apart. Absorption really doesn't mesh with DR, Minions and certainly non-sentient things are something different than Allies, the kinds of Jumper aren't strongly connected (*especially* with Warp separate), Mind Control and Conditioning are different powers...

DR (Can't Wear Armor) wants to be (Does not Stack), use that and don't try to make it realistic, it's not.

Enhanced Move. "Half levels" need to go.

Magery needs to separate the Talent from the modifiers on the conditions under which you can/rituals you require to cast spells.

The Perks section needs a major rework - these have become a lot more important in 4e, and this section is no longer at all representative.

Dependents shouldn't vary with point values. It's really a special kind of (Sense of) Duty. The problems high point dependents can't handle without your help will be *more difficult* anyway, if anything this is a worse problem than a low point dependent. Indeed all of the Social advantages and disadvantages - Allies, Claim to Hospitality, Contacts, Favor, Patrons, Depedents, Enemies - could use some rethinking.

Honesty needs a different name, and cost variation as a function of restrictiveness of rules you apply. Is it a Code of Honor or a Geas?

Indecisive needs to not try to count choices.

Terminally Ill (and things with a related problem concerning net present value like Destiny or Heir or pregnancy or current age) need a more uniform way of figuring time sensitivity.

Weirdness Magnet needs to be rewritten as an actual disadvantage or turned into a Perk.

Most skill defaults should be dropped - they call for all sorts of tricky point redistributions, double default rules.... Sure many tasks can be done with multiple skills, that doesn't mean the two skills that cover them should have a default.

Optional specializations as a shift in skill difficulty is a lousy mechanic - the 3e version as a penalty/bonus was much less strange, -1/+1 gives the same result as -2/shift down one skill difficulty without implying that very broad swaths of complex skills are somehow vastly simpler than the parent field, or generating a problem for Easy skills.

Animal Handling needs some work with specializations - I split it into a general skill (applies to all animals) and a care/use/training part that requires one.

Artist and Craft skills should be harmonized (they're close to the usually IQ and usually DX based forms of the same thing)

History and other pure knowledge skills that ought to have differences in range of coverage - Area Knowledge, Literature, Occultism, Theology - need a uniform mechanic for that.

I use a handful of house skills I think of as serious omissions - Chemical Process/TL, Culture Custom, Machine Operation, Parenting, Signaling, and Stage Magic.

The distinction between Average and Hard techniques has become fairly pointless. Use one progression for them.

Irritating Conditions is a good start, but not taken far enough. It should expand to covered under Afflictions, Stunning, blinding flashes and deafening noises, shock, binding etc., have the rules standardized there, and referenced where the pieces currently are.

The Physician table (and skill) need some harmonization - e.g. for the problem of the skill description claiming it doesn't exist at particular TLs, and putting the functions without equipment breakpoint in the middle of two TLs that do the same thing on the table rather than at a breakpoint....

Law Levels^x Legality Classes need to go.
__________________
--
MA Lloyd
malloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2010, 10:30 PM   #7
Rotwang
 
Rotwang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Default Re: What do YOU want changed?

Magery needs to be separated into an ability that lets you cast spells (with all the enhancements and limitations) and a separate Talent granting spell casting bonuses.

The Cost Factor system should be added to Basic.

# of subordinates should be an explicit part of Rank.

A more detailed and standardized system for Campaign Assumptions should be added based on GURPS Infinite Worlds pp. 201-205, the realistic vs. cinematic characters section in Martial Arts, the combat realism section in Martial Arts, and the scope and scale section in Space.
Rotwang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2010, 10:41 PM   #8
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: What do YOU want changed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
More pie-in-the-sky I'd like it if the damage from muscle-powered weapons was normalized with the DR70=1"RHA relationship, and if the ST-Based damage scale in general was less dramatic.
Right now we have to drop muscle powered weapons too much for there to be any variety between them. I'd rather go further and extend DRs so that they are more granular. Perhaps double all existing DRs and firearms damages (DR140=1" RHA) so they remain consistent and then fix muscle powered weapons within the new framework. There would be more room for detail at lower levels of DR. Human skin and regular clothing might have DR 1 for example.

Last edited by DanHoward; 10-06-2010 at 10:45 PM.
DanHoward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2010, 10:45 PM   #9
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: What do YOU want changed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotwang View Post
Magery needs to be separated into an ability that lets you cast spells (with all the enhancements and limitations) and a separate Talent granting spell casting bonuses.
Isn't that the way it works now? Magery 0 is essentially a separate trait from the Power Talent portion of Magery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward View Post
Right now we have to drop muscle powered weapons too much for there to be any variety between them. I'd rather go further and extend DRs so that they are more granular. Perhaps Double all existing DRs and firearms damages so they remain consistent and then fix muscle powered weapons within the new framework. There would be more room for detail at lower levels of DR. Human skin and regular clothing might have DR 1 for example.
Wouldn't the injury rules need to change then too? Otherwise firearms become twice as deadly.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2010, 10:47 PM   #10
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: What do YOU want changed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Wouldn't the injury rules need to change then too? Otherwise firearms become twice as deadly.
Yep. Probably a lot of other things too like the Hit Point system. You'd definitely need a whole new edition to consider it, not just a 4e revision.
DanHoward is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.