Discussion on GURPS 4E Revised or Database

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Kromm

This gets at what I said in my previous post; namely, that we're selling the tools. SJ created a generic, universal system because he was tired of single-genre, single-setting games tied to particular sets of assumptions; which is to say, SJ created a tool kit, and that's what SJ Games wants to sell. In the past, we've adapted IPs in order to showcase how flexible GURPS is, but those adaptations have never enjoyed the success of the core system. And with good reason: The adaptations are "close enough," not optimal; showcasing the rules has a fidelity cost for the setting, and setting fans won't stay with a game that doesn't get their favorite IP right to within almost absurdly tight tolerances.

I agree.

I think the problem will always be for a generic version of pre-existing setting/system you are relying on the existence of two customer groups.

Group one: Those who are already predisposed to like the generic system over the specific and who's first choice will be the generic.

Group two: Those who didn't like the specific setting's system enough to try an alternative system for the setting they did like.

They probably exists but they are by their nature again sub divisions of the hobby (i.e automatically limiting potential sales).

Additionally Group one can already use the generic system without a setting specific generic book using the specific's fluff (it's a generic system) how much of factor this will be will of course depend on how quickly the generic version is available after the original. That said even my limited knowledge of IP control and licensing tells me not many are keen to allow rivals soon after release of their own new product, they like to enjoy a significant period of being the only published option in the market.

And group two will have to not only want the generic version, they'll have to want it enough to re purchase material (you'll need both to compare). More over if they are new to the generic, they'll need to buy the generic system as well (if it's not included the 2nd parties setting book).

Originally Posted by Kromm

As far as game engines go, I don't see another generic engine being better or worse than GURPS for Pratchett's work. In many ways, GURPS is a good match, as it's capable of the mad, kitchen-sink, gonzo stuff that shows up on the Disc. It doesn't force you to choose a genre first, which many other generic engines do; this is crucial, as Discworld isn't pure fantasy, but a weird mix of genres up to and including steampunk of late. The two also have a similar sense of humor (indeed, this helps to explain why SJ and Pterry get along!).

Can GURPS ideally showcase Discworld without the tools showing? That is a challenge! It's why we're publishing the Discworld Roleplaying Game and not GURPS Discworld, and why the upcoming edition is truly integrated and self-contained, not just a worldbook with a copy of GURPS Lite in the back. That approach was a lot of work for us, though, and it remains to be seen whether the expense and trouble, plus the licensing costs, will pay off. If the new edition is a success and brings new players to GURPS, we'll have a direction in which to move.

Ah, sorry I didn't realise it's a stand alone game, I thought it was "gurps: disc world".

To answer the now redundant question, it's not that I think GURPS can't do discworld, it's that I think as a system it would be overkill. We know that GURPS can be light and fluffy, but I think the reality is in general the pre-existing GURPS fanbase, and therefore GURPS played "in the wild' so to speak is in relative terms pretty heavy and crunchy! More over GURPS has established a reputation as such in the wider hobby for a couple of decades.

Now maybe there's an opportunity in re branding to be had here led by a lighter Disc world system as a potential introduction to the fact that GURPS doesn't have to be full on tactical crunch despite the reputation it enjoys/suffers.

Maybe some kind of Discworld system - GURPS conversion.

And if nothing else a successful game is a successful game!

I have my own questions about the choice of discworld anyway (don't get me wrong I'm a fan from CoM) but this probably isn't the place for that.

Cheers TD

[Dammann]

My experience has been that if I invite non-rpg people to play, 75% stick with it, at least until the end of a campaign. If I had more time, I could run another campaign, for sure. We can be insular, as a community, but people will try this out. I could have just gotten my old group of friends from college to play online via roll20 or MapTool, I guess, but the key part of the experience, for me, is the face-to-face interaction with friends.

I will feel like I have succeeded in growing the hobby when one of my players runs a game. I look at this as something of a missionary minigame, and I hope to get to just play one day.

Of course, I make my preference for GURPS plain, and encourage people to buy the stuff they want to use. I know that a few members of my group have picked up GCA, and I know that a few have bought Characters and Campaigns. One guy bought DF 12. It has always been my experience that one dude owns most of the books, but others will buy stuff, too, if it interests them specifically, and then it can snowball.

A nice thing about some sort of central app is that if there is a benefit to having it for each person, and we can get new players in, the market will grow. The ideal, from my perspective, would be an app that is nice to have, but not completely necessary for each player.

[Philomath]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Tools are fine, but these tools are hand tools, and not amenable to industrial automation.

I keep seeing this mentioned as an issue but I have evidence that it's not an insurmountable one.

GURPS already has switches and dials that must be set in advance and which guide or even predetermine the outcomes of many (most?) of the judgement calls or "fuzzy" concepts. It's just that a program may require many more of them, may need them to be set or reset on the fly and may require oversight by a real, live person.

Armin has already automated character creation. I (and others) have automated combat and physical feats (in my case to the point where combats that previously took upwards of three hours now take 20 to 30 minutes). Granted, both of those examples are the easy ones.

Apply the Unix philosophy to handling rules and things become much, much easier.

[ClayDowling]

Philomath, could you provide pointers to your combat automation? Looking at some heavy combat in my next session, and I'd love to streamline it. The faster I can move combat, the faster it flows into the story and stops breaking suspension of disbelief.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

We know that GURPS can be light and fluffy, but I think the reality is in general the pre-existing GURPS fanbase, and therefore GURPS played "in the wild' so to speak is in relative terms pretty heavy and crunchy! More over GURPS has established a reputation as such in the wider hobby for a couple of decades.

This is true. As fans, we regularly encounter non-fans pointing at the likes of GURPS Vehicles and exclaiming, "See? See? Too much math! Cube roots! Ugh!" Our knee-jerk response is often something akin to, "The system is modular, so simply ignore the parts you dislike," or, "The math isn't as bad as you think." However, those replies miss an important point, which is that many – probably most – gamers see the very existence of such products as a warning sign, and don't want to associate with gamers who (1) don't mind or actually desire that much math and/or complexity, and (2) attempt to justify or defend it. The first implies a gaming culture alien to their own; the second comes across as stridency or brainwashing.

Many people here will be unhappy to read this next bit coming from the person who has been the system's custodian for the past 19 years, but I can word things very simply: Reaching a larger market depends on reducing the perceived complexity. That doesn't just mean automating the complicated parts or making them optional; that means not having them in the first place, for anyone, so there's no danger of running into a group or a situation where they ambush someone who dislikes them. However, existing fans drawn to the game's current structure have their interests at heart (namely, having access to optional complexity) rather than the publisher's bottom line (which would be better served by setting the intricacy dial about three or four notches lower).

As both a GURPS fan and an employee of said publisher, you can imagine how conflicted that leaves me.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I have my own questions about the choice of discworld anyway (don't get me wrong I'm a fan from CoM)

The answer is simple: Steve Jackson is (1) a fan of Discworld and an admirer of Pratchett, (2) the designer and publisher of GURPS, and (3) the owner of SJ Games. As the one who owns the game and the company that publishes it, he has every right to choose a setting that he, personally, enjoys. End of discussion, really.

Originally Posted by Philomath

GURPS already has switches and dials that must be set in advance and which guide or even predetermine the outcomes of many (most?) of the judgement calls or "fuzzy" concepts. It's just that a program may require many more of them, may need them to be set or reset on the fly and may require oversight by a real, live person.

Armin has already automated character creation. I (and others) have automated combat and physical feats (in my case to the point where combats that previously took upwards of three hours now take 20 to 30 minutes). Granted, both of those examples are the easy ones.

Doubtless I wasn't completely clear in my assertions: In 2014, people don't want "oversight by a real, live person." GURPS' native level of complexity would be tolerable to the majority only if game play could be reduced to World of Warcraft-level automation. They want to get a campaign up and running in an evening, run dozens of combats in a night, have a de facto PvP level of objectivity, and make quick choices throughout. I have serious doubts that GURPS is cut out for this. If it could be hammered into such a form, though, I am certain that it would sell better. As hinted at above, I'm also fairly sure that its existing fandom would be unhappy with the transformation.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

To answer the now redundant question, it's not that I think GURPS can't do discworld, it's that I think as a system it would be overkill. We know that GURPS can be light and fluffy, but I think the reality is in general the pre-existing GURPS fanbase, and therefore GURPS played "in the wild' so to speak is in relative terms pretty heavy and crunchy! More over GURPS has established a reputation as such in the wider hobby for a couple of decades.

I must object strongly to the characterisation of the Discword as light and fluffy. To take some of my favourites, Night Watch and Thud!, especially, they are heavier, richer and more textured than any roleplaying campaign I've played or hope to play. In general, most Discworld books are more 'adult' in tone, subject and treatment than roleplaying sessions can ever be, unless the players are genius paragons who never break character, prepare meticulously for weeks for every session and have crafted characters worthy of immortalisation in literature. It's just that Discworld books are also riotiously funny.

The Discworld books are not light and fluffy, even if the first few may have been. By now, they are stealth literature, featuring grit, complex morality, deep and textured motivations, violence with real consequences and villains with unsettling yet plausible characterisation.

I doubt I could run a good Discworld game, though I've run a session during the playtest that was fairly well received. But if I tried, I can't imagine doing it with anything other than GURPS.* Light-and-fluffy systems like Toon or BESM would be right out.

*Though I might end up using some books with GURPS Discworld that weren't incorporated into the stand-alone supplement because they weren't available at the time, like Ritual Path Magic.

[Philomath]

Originally Posted by ClayDowling

Philomath, could you provide pointers to your combat automation? Looking at some heavy combat in my next session, and I'd love to streamline it. The faster I can move combat, the faster it flows into the story and stops breaking suspension of disbelief.

Pointers, sure. Release? Not so much. Especially in time for your next session (depending on when that is). I'm also not sure it passes the SJGames Policy which is why I haven't posted it anywhere else. I'm more than happy to discuss architecture and implementation details however.

[Philomath]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Doubtless I wasn't completely clear in my assertions: In 2014, people don't want "oversight by a real, live person." GURPS' native level of complexity would be tolerable to the majority only if game play could be reduced to World of Warcraft-level automation. They want to get a campaign up and running in an evening, run dozens of combats in a night, have a de facto PvP level of objectivity, and make quick choices throughout. I have serious doubts that GURPS is cut out for this. If it could be hammered into such a form, though, I am certain that it would sell better. As hinted at above, I'm also fairly sure that its existing fandom would be unhappy with the transformation.

I likely read what I wanted into what you said. I do think we can get close enough to appease the current fandom and expand the fan base by managing quite a bit of the perceived individual complexity. Not everyone can keep track of all the numbers for ten-dozen different modifiers on each of several possible options. But I may be taking my own very limited experience and assuming others will be happy with what amounts to a very automated virtual table top rather than an RTS/CRPG.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I must object strongly to the characterisation of the Discword as light and fluffy. To take some of my favourites, Night Watch and Thud!, especially, they are heavier, richer and more textured than any roleplaying campaign I've played or hope to play. In general, most Discworld books are more 'adult' in tone, subject and treatment than roleplaying sessions can ever be, unless the players are genius paragons who never break character, prepare meticulously for weeks for every session and have crafted characters worthy of immortalisation in literature. It's just that Discworld books are also riotiously funny.

The Discworld books are not light and fluffy, even if the first few may have been. By now, they are stealth literature, featuring grit, complex morality, deep and textured motivations, violence with real consequences and villains with unsettling yet plausible characterisation.

I doubt I could run a good Discworld game, though I've run a session during the playtest that was fairly well received. But if I tried, I can't imagine doing it with anything other than GURPS.* Light-and-fluffy systems like Toon or BESM would be right out.

*Though I might end up using some books with GURPS Discworld that weren't incorporated into the stand-alone supplement because they weren't available at the time, like Ritual Path Magic.

Not really want I meant by light and fluffy, I was referring to system not tone. However, that said as much I like the layered nature of TP's work, emulating them is not going to involve the level of detail GURPS goes to in modelling outcome. The complexity you describe is a narrative one, not a resolution one.

Originally Posted by Kromm

This is true. As fans, we regularly encounter non-fans pointing at the likes of GURPS Vehicles and exclaiming, "See? See? Too much math! Cube roots! Ugh!" Our knee-jerk response is often something akin to, "The system is modular, so simply ignore the parts you dislike," or, "The math isn't as bad as you think." However, those replies miss an important point, which is that many – probably most – gamers see the very existence of such products as a warning sign, and don't want to associate with gamers who (1) don't mind or actually desire that much math and/or complexity, and (2) attempt to justify or defend it. The first implies a gaming culture alien to their own; the second comes across as stridency or brainwashing.

Many people here will be unhappy to read this next bit coming from the person who has been the system's custodian for the past 19 years, but I can word things very simply: Reaching a larger market depends on reducing the perceived complexity. That doesn't just mean automating the complicated parts or making them optional; that means not having them in the first place, for anyone, so there's no danger of running into a group or a situation where they ambush someone who dislikes them. However, existing fans drawn to the game's current structure have their interests at heart (namely, having access to optional complexity) rather than the publisher's bottom line (which would be better served by setting the intricacy dial about three or four notches lower).

As both a GURPS fan and an employee of said publisher, you can imagine how conflicted that leaves me.

More over if you change you niche, how do you avoid stepping into someone else's. This doesn't strike me as an industry with enough of a market to support too much direct competition.

The ideal is of course to persuade a larger section of the market that your niche is not as dark and scary as they may think, but actually lovely and warm and just what they are looking for. Expensive!

Originally Posted by Kromm

The answer is simple: Steve Jackson is (1) a fan of Discworld and an admirer of Pratchett, (2) the designer and publisher of GURPS, and (3) the owner of SJ Games. As the one who owns the game and the company that publishes it, he has every right to choose a setting that he, personally, enjoys. End of discussion, really.

Pretty much

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Not really want I meant my light and fluffy, I was referring to system not tone. However, that said as much I like the layered nature of TP's work, emulating them is not going to involve the level of detail GURPS goes to in modelling outcome. The complexity you describe is a narrative one, not a resolution one.

*shrug*

Given how gritty the various stories are, elements in them are such points as 'non-lethal' subdual methods being either less than effective or very dangerous; medical skills having inter-species defaults; a clear distinction between Combat Sport and Combat skills, not to mention Brawling vs. Boxing or Karate; a wealth of different academic skills existing, interdefaulting or not; and other nods to realism which are easily modelled in GURPS, less easily in a more abstract system.

One of the conceits of the Discworld is that the stories are often founded on taking fantastic tropes or situations and then not abstracting away little details of realism as is done in simplistic fantasy stories, and by extension RPGs designed to emulate such stories.

This means that my first thought for emulating Discoworld stories is having a fairly robust system for simulating something much closer to reality than BESM, Toon or pretty much any simple RPG I've seen. Of course, it needn't be GURPS, but a purpose designed system for Discworld wouldn't necessarily be any simpler than GURPS, at least not if the stand-alone product reproduces only the parts of GURPS that are necessary for the setting.