GURPS Essential core books

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Ill definitely have to give Action 2 a look again

As someone who can't stand 'anything I could sorta, kinda, if I'm half drunk and squinting hard enough vaguely see existing' I will admit I haven't used action much

But if its good for Sci Fi? Well, I do like that

Sci-fi, especially space opera, often feels like "X genre, in spaaaaace." For example, how easily could you translate Mass Effect into a generic action movie? A renegade soldier uncovers an insidious conspiracy where a powerful agent has turned against his country. At first, the government doesn't believe him, but when he proves his case, he is recruited by the government to hunt the rogue agent down. Cue lots of gunplay, running and jumping, chase scenes, infiltrations and hacking.

And guess which book has the best rules for all that? Action.

Sci-fi is also often about "20 minutes into tomorrow," where we explore the cutting edge of technology and its impact on the world. And if you read through Action, it's perfect for heists. And what is the classic sci-fi heist genre? Cyberpunk.

What would you use to run Minority Report? Action. The Matrix? Action (with a heavy dose of Action 3)... and probably some supers. Equilibrium? Action with LOTS of Gun Fu. Aliens? Action with lots of Tactical Shooting. Predator? Action with a single alien.

It won't cover everything. Star Trek is more about exploration and diplomacy and technology, so it's sort of a classic "GURPS Space" kinda game. The same is true of Doctor Who. And Star Wars is more GURPS Fantasy + GURPS Martial arts IN SPAAAAACE than GURPS Action.

But still, Action can do quite some sci-fi, especially with some modifications. And I think that's one reason Action doesn't get more support: It's more generic, more flexible than GURPS DF or GURPS Monster Hunters. It's already well supported with GURPS High-Tech, GURPS Gun Fu, Tactical Shooting and various generic pyramid articles (including one on turning Action templates into Cliffhanger characters). So I don't think the lack of support for action really has anything to do with its lack of popularity so much as it has to do with Action's flexibility. It's also why it tends to get a lot of generic recommendations while, say, Monster Hunters or DF gets less.

[Keiko]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

GURPS Power Ups 2: Perks is probably the best of the series. I know quite a few people on the forums dislike perks, but I think they go a long way to helping define a character. One of my players call them "Character candy"

Why are Perks so strongly disliked?

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Keiko

Why are Perks so strongly disliked?

They aren't.

Or, rather, they are strongly disliked by a small-but-vocal subset of forum posters who prefer techniques or otherwise think the perks are undercosted for the results they give.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Keiko

Why are Perks so strongly disliked?

Not so much disliked, but rather they polarize society. E.g. I'm highly pro-perks, to the point of wondering if Techniques are redundant now that Levelled Perks exist. OTOH, many people don't like the perk bloat, or perks usurping other traits' roles, or the fact that they're cheap (compare the old times, when Sanitised Metabolism used to cost 5 points).

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Not so much disliked, but rather they polarize society. E.g. I'm highly pro-perks, to the point of wondering if Techniques are redundant now that Levelled Perks exist. OTOH, many people don't like the perk bloat, or perks usurping other traits' roles, or the fact that they're cheap (compare the old times, when Sanitised Metabolism used to cost 5 points).

I'm in that camp too.

And Perks tend to emphasize the nitty-gritty nature of GURPS. It's lots of little abilities that may or may not be balanced (quite a few people think Perks should be essentially useless, much in the same way that quirks don't really harm you, and perks definitely aren't useless). You have perks like Weapon Bond or Strong Bow which are so good that if you play a particular type of character, it makes no sense not to take them... but I think their drawbacks more than make up for their benefits, and GURPS is inherently a nitty-gritty, "count every point" game. I think they're fantastic, and a great way to individualize characters on the cheap. My group loves them too.

[trooper6]

I own Action 2...also the DF and Monster Hunters lines...because I habitually get all the pfs of new GURPS stuff that comes out, not because they are fundamentally all that useful to me.

And I don't think much about Action, never think about Monster Hunters, and only selectively use bits of DF. Why?

I'm gritty, "realistish" GURPSer...or I suppose a "method actor GURPSer" and all of those three lines are cinematic 250cp sorts that discourage the creation of well-rounded humans in favor of heroic archetypes. All three of those lines feature recreating the niche based class model that you get in D&D through templates. And I don't like that. I prefer PCs that are not classes. Not Fighter, Driver, Slayer...but this gal was a blacksmith and after her village burned down from the Orc invasion of '02 she became a rambler and sellsword, he passion is mythological stories of the time of the Gomar and can tall you almost anything you need to know about that culture. These genres reduce/delete social status and all the social elements that brought me to GURPS in the first place. All those skills left off the skill lists...too fluffy, to far away from the Action! are the skills I value very highly. I'm always encouraging my players to take more of then...so a line that removes them altogether is not going to be for me.

I get the feelings those books aren't for me--which is cool. The DF line has a bunch of things that can be adapted to less cinematic games--Treasure Tables for the win!--but when I think about the gritty spy game I want to run, with full well-rounded characters who don't mimic character classes. I don't think Action.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I'm in that camp too.

And Perks tend to emphasize the nitty-gritty nature of GURPS. It's lots of little abilities that may or may not be balanced (quite a few people think Perks should be essentially useless, much in the same way that quirks don't really harm you, and perks definitely aren't useless).

I must say, if the GM never makes quirks count, he's not paying attention to the rules for quirks. Admitedly, the major point for quirks is that the player is being given a tiny reward for thinking up some extra little details about his character, but you're supposed to get a small penalty or problem in some situations in exchange for that -1.

That's why "likes pink" isn't a valid quirk in 4e. "Wears all pink all the time, even in completely inappropriate situations" would be a valid quirk: when you're dressed all in pink at a completely inappropriate situation, you'll get a reaction penalty. It just doesn't happen often enough to really be called an Odious Personal Habit.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

You have perks like Weapon Bond or Strong Bow which are so good that if you play a particular type of character, it makes no sense not to take them... but I think their drawbacks more than make up for their benefits, and GURPS is inherently a nitty-gritty, "count every point" game. I think they're fantastic, and a great way to individualize characters on the cheap. My group loves them too.

I am personally profoundly confused by people who think traits shouldn't cost one point. If you're tracking points down to the one-point resolution in one area (skills as a glaring example) it seems quite sensible to have one-point traits elsewhere.

You can always argue about exactly which traits should be worth only one point, vs 2 points or 3 points, but that's quibbling over little details (a popular passtime, I do it myself) rather than saying the entire category is flawed.

As an example of said quibbling: I find Weapon Bond to be a dubious investment without Signature Gear, but I'm risk-adverse; for 1 point, I can see less risk-adverse players being fine with it, and as a GM it doesn't alarm me. WITH Signature Gear I feel it's worth more than a perk as you're removing (or at least mitigating) the risk of loosing the point investment in Weapon Bond.

Strongbow is essentially a limited amount of Striking ST.

Both these traits might be worth 2 points instead of 1 point, but in the grand scheme of 150 or 250 point characters there's only so much energy I'm willing to invest in pondering a 1 point difference in trait values. Other people have more invested in the mechanics of specific perks, and some people (as noted) object to 1 point traits for reasons that will remain mysterious to me. Since we're largely arguing about 1 character point traits here, I really can't be bothered to get excited about the issue. If players aren't padding out with 1 point perks, they'll collect a hojillion 1 point skills instead.

[Ulzgoroth]

I do sometimes think Perks do a scary amount of gate-keeping for character abilities. Perks like Shield Wall Training, Sacrificial Parry, Form Mastery, Grip Mastery...seem like things which are typically either worth much less than one point, or are absolutely mandatory for your character role.

I can think of characters who don't really want those perks, but not of characters who do want them but wouldn't be willing to pay more than one point...

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I can think of characters who don't really want those perks, but not of characters who do want them but wouldn't be willing to pay more than one point...

Sure, but the game isn't Amber, where you price everything as high as someone will bid . . . It's GURPS, where all abilities have generic prices for all characters in all settings, including characters who don't want them in setting where they're worthless. And the prices of learned traits, be they skills or combat perks, reflect time investment, not power. Just as one point in a no-default skill like Fast-Draw (Sword) is a near life-saver to any swordsman in a low-tech setting with regular swordfights, one point in a sword-related perk can be better than 20 points in DX in some situations. However, both are simple, easily learned tricks that cost 1 point, and they cost that much even if there's a player who would bid 20 points for them.

I think that a lot of confusion comes from viewing combat perks as "one-point advantages" rather than as "one-point learned tricks, like Easy skills and Average techniques." They are definitely the latter for all practical purposes. If the reality check on that makes them unusually powerful for the points, then so be it. A 7.62mm battle rifle costs 0 points, and not even that many dollars, but is probably more powerful in a fight than anything a normal human without a firearm could buy for points . . . which doesn't mean that we'll start charging points for ordinary gear. Points really, truly only approximate power.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Sure, but the game isn't Amber, where you price everything as high as someone will bid . . . It's GURPS, where all abilities have generic prices for all characters in all settings, including characters who don't want them in setting where they're worthless. And the prices of learned traits, be they skills or combat perks, reflect time investment, not power. Just as one point in a no-default skill like Fast-Draw (Sword) is a near life-saver to any swordsman in a low-tech setting with regular swordfights, one point in a sword-related perk can be better than 20 points in DX in some situations. However, both are simple, easily learned tricks that cost 1 point, and they cost that much even if there's a player who would bid 20 points for them.

I think that a lot of confusion comes from viewing combat perks as "one-point advantages" rather than as "one-point learned tricks, like Easy skills and Average techniques." They are definitely the latter for all practical purposes. If the reality check on that makes them unusually powerful for the points, then so be it. A 7.62mm battle rifle costs 0 points, and not even that many dollars, but is probably more powerful in a fight than anything a normal human without a firearm could buy for points . . . which doesn't mean that we'll start charging points for ordinary gear. Points really, truly only approximate power.

Pricing them on the skill/technique scale rather than the Advantage scale makes the 1 point cost look par for the course...but draws attention the fact that that sort of perks have no default, and there are a lot of them, whereas no default skills are quite rare.