Dungeon Fantasy: Good or Bad for GURPS?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by RyanW

There is also the similar Action series, which does the same thing for modern action movies that DF does for dungeon crawling. It hasn't had the output as DF, I assume because DF has proven more popular.

It isn't that so much as "Kromm hasn't had the free time to write more Action stuff." The arrival of the GURPS Low-Tech and GURPS Horror first drafts has all but put the kibosh on my writing for 2009, because I have to be an editor instead. Sorry!

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It isn't that so much as "Kromm hasn't had the free time to write more Action stuff." The arrival of the GURPS Low-Tech and GURPS Horror first drafts has all but put the kibosh on my writing for 2009, because I have to be an editor instead. Sorry!

While we love your writing, we love it more when nothing slips by because you're too busy to edit.

[Exeter]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It isn't that so much as "Kromm hasn't had the free time to write more Action stuff." The arrival of the GURPS Low-Tech and GURPS Horror first drafts has all but put the kibosh on my writing for 2009, because I have to be an editor instead. Sorry!

Quick, someone award Kromm 35 CP so he can buy a level of Duplication!

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by b-dog

I'm curious what the average GURPS player thinks about the Dungeon Fantasy series. For me of course I really love it but I am wondering what other people think. Thanks.

It has obviously drawn a lot of attention and probably generated good sales. In that sense, by contributing to the viability of SJG and the GURPS line, it is a good thing.

However the appeal of DF never really made any sense to me. I left D&D behind because I found GURPS, so the whole thing is counter-intuitive to me.

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

If it sells well, then it's good for GURPS, and for the people buying it. Personally I don't like the genre, and like Figleaf I don't really understand how it draws in D&D players by being more like D&D, but I imagine it's something to do with the system as opposed to the genre.

Either way, I agree that it should be published in softcover. I doubt that many people wander onto an obscure gaming company's online catalog looking for the game they've always wanted. They're more likely to wander through their FLGS and notice a dead tree on a shelf.

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

Either way, I agree that it should be published in softcover.

What, like the ones here?

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Don't the 5 volumes of Creatures of the Night do anything for you?

Basically I really like the series but it's not what I'd call "typical" creatures / monsters ;-) But right, you got me with the "innovative" part, there is a lot of interesting stuff included.
The main problem I have with the series is that everything seems to be a chaotic mixture, e.g. "Demon" and "Guarding Owl" or "Space Cows" and "Chronochaotic Spiders" in one volume.
This is nice as a generic source of inspiration and innovative species but if I need a quick reference of typical creatures fitting in the DF-theme it's not so useful.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Like Dungeon Fantasy 2?

Ok, true, DF2 has monsters, but only a few sample-stats on six pages.
I thought of a more structured and more rounded compilation in the way of a typical monster manual like most fantasy games have, e.g. with 1-2 pages about a few sub-types of every species and their behaviour etc.
Of course I could work out everything on my own and/or search through all sourcebooks but a more complete reference would be really helpful.

Originally Posted by Bruno

That is so dang hard you have no idea. It makes a huge difference if the party is "A scout, a druid, and a barbarian" vs "A knight, a swashbuckler, and a holy warrior" vs "A thief, a scout, and an illusionist wizard".

I know that it's a very hard task and it probably was wishful thinking ;)
Also I definitely agree that a simple challenge rating number wouldn't make much sense here.
But I think some indications for the power of the beast would be helpful.
An information like how many normal armsmen it would normally take to defeat it - as sjmdw45 suggested - could help a lot with own calculations. If you also add a short comment about special strengths or vulnerabilities this would be really sufficient in my opinion.

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

What, like the ones here?

I think the ideal situation (for fans) would be to have a Dungeon Fantasy compliation sort of thing. 32 pages each is awfully short to be ordering and keeping up with four separate books, whereas a cumulative 128-page softcover book (a la GURPS Mysteries) would be a great single-book resource for players who were interested.

And yeah, yeah, you can just buy the PDFs and have them printed and bound as a single copy, but it's much easier for lazy people like me to just have it there to begin with. =P

Cheers.

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

What, like the ones here?

Huh. So why do people say that DF is a PDF-only series? *is confused*

[Athanbeli]

To me, DF is a real winner, mainly thanks to its palpable crunchy-ness.
I don't use it as a whole (I skip the whole wealth gathering aspect, for instance), but this is true just for every single gurps book.
It gave me reliable and play-tested modifiers for ambushing and unrealistic speedy healing, it pointed out uses for all those obscure skills, etc. etc. And while Creatures of the night is always an interesting and inspirational read, DF gave me examples of combat-effective monsters and their stats (even if I never used any of them).
In short, it gave me reliable standards I could cling to. And yes, I found DF 2 to be the most useful volume by far. I grew a bit tired of all these gurps templates, a bit redundant every now and then (like those in MA: it should be obvious that enhanced defense and weapon master/trained by a master are good and viable choices for martial artists!).

A big flaw of the Basic Set books is that the rules are presented in such a way that you have to read them thoughly to grasp them. You must read the whole paragraph about 'Nets' to be reminded of all the modifiers, you cannot readily infer them quickly glancing at it.
In part, DF 2 amends this.