Unofficial guide/s to GURPS for new players

[Inky]

Multiple postings in the "GURPS News updated" thread seem to be saying that GURPS 4e is really hard for new players to get their heads around. When I recommend GURPS to new players I wince a little, because I know that even if I describe it in flattering terms myself and tell them "it's not that complicated, even if you heard it was", it's possible that when they start looking at Basic Set they may go "I don't know what Inky was talking about, this is really complicated".

An awkward thing about GURPS is that the amount of special rules and instructions available for lots of special scenarios and odd powers, which seems to be one of the big things that many players like about it once they've got the hang of it, is also something that makes it difficult for new players to get the hang of it.

I'm not sure GURPS is very complicated (or has to be). It looks like the mechanics covered by GURPS Lite, in 32 pages, take up 90% of the time in an average game - other than specific advantages/disadvantages/skills and some rules for magic, etc., which are also not a big jump from what's in GURPS Lite.

Basic Set just doesn't explain it very efficiently. It sounds like it's very useful as a reference book for people who already know the general ideas of how to play, but not so useful for learning those rules. The complicated add-ons for special cases keep on creeping in. (The "Quick Start" section tries, but it possibly spends so much time apologising and repeatedly insisting that things are simple that it actually makes the explanation harder to follow than it would otherwise be). GURPS Lite seems to do a much snappier job of that.

Also, GURPS has a reputation for difficult maths. It might be useful to draw more attention to the fact that you usually don't actually have to do the maths any more, now that GCA and GCS exist - not the character creation maths, at least, and that's where the lion's share of the maths is in GURPS.

I seem to remember people sometimes posting new player introductions to GURPS, sometimes ones that they've handed out to new players that they were GMing for, and saying that it had worked really well. Has anyone got any of those that they have links to? And/or what would you put in one if you were writing one?

[Inky]

I knew about The Seven-Minute GURPS Character on themook.net, and I was having difficulty remembering where I'd seen another one - it used a cowboy as an example. Turns out, from a quick search, that that's by the same author - the "New to GURPS" series. They're both under the "GURPS: Grab and Go" heading on the website.

I seem to remember someone saying that you didn't need to put everything a character could do in their skills list, only the things they were particularly good at, the other things were what defaults were for, and I thought that that might be in the cowboy one, but it's not. Does anybody recognise what that was from?

[whswhs]

My approach has been somewhat different. I don't give players a text handout on how to use GURPS; rather, I sit down with them, discuss character concepts (with all of them as a group, so they can take each other's choices into account and avoid conflicts), and then guide them through the character design options.

I think that what's needed for this approach is not so much a guide for new players, as a guide for new GMs: "This is how you use GURPS to start a campaign," with a key chapter being "This is how you help players design characters."

[KarlKost]

I think Gurps is the best sandbox RPG there is.

That being said, Gurps is NOT a RPG, but rather a tool kit to build anyone.

So, what I think that may be a great deal of help is a few "worked examples". DFRPG has been great in that aspect; I only wished there were more.

But even in DFRPG, I think Gurps veterans have a small "disconnect" with outsiders, and that's the same note Im always pointing towards Gurps veterans. I mean, WE like it this way, with all the small minutia.

Most people in this forum can just casually handwave any weird ability that twisted minds could possibly concoct. Anyone comes in this forums with a weird, new and innovative concept, and each user will come up with 5 different answers just from the top of their heads. But that's US. We are already used to it.

Im a teacher, and I teach from kids to adults, and one problem many people have when teaching is... Well, sometimes what we teach seems trivial. To us.

I have for many years educated small children, teens and adults in math, and the greatest challenge is to manage to make them understand the abstractions. So, for example, instead of saying "x + 1 = 2", so you just "pass" the 1 to the other side with a reverse sign - which by doing that you are not truly teaching anything, you're just making them memorize a "mechanical behavior", I instead EXPLAIN why that is so.

"X is something that I dont know. Forget X, X is just a name. I could call it "Square", I could call it "Circle", I could call it "John", I could call it Alpha or A. I just decided to call it X".
"X is a NUMBER. Not a letter. I just call it "X" because I dont know it's value, and I want to figure it out".
"So, Im saying that, some unknow number, which I call as "X", when added with 1, equals 2".
"Now, "X + 1 = 2". I dont know what X is, but I know that it plus 1 equals 2"
"How do I solve this? By isolating X. Why? Because the "=" symbol means "equal", therefore if "X" alone equals something, that's the value of it"
"So, how can I isolate X? Simple, I just remove the "+1" from that side. How do I do that? Simple, just add "-1". "+1 - 1" equals zero, so it goes away"
"However, since "X + 1 = 2", if I just remove 1 from the left side, I'll change the equation, it would no longer be valid, for example "3+1=4" is valid, but if I subtract 1 from the left, you'll get "3+1-1=4 -> 3=4" which is false"
"So how do we solve this? Simple, just subtract -1 from BOTH sides, so now "X + 1 - 1 = 2 - 1 -> X = 1".
"And THAT'S why you "pass over" the number to the "other side" with a reversed sign.

So, while for me it's trivial to solve X + 1 = 2 by simply doing "X = 2 - 1", that's NOT trivial for people that never managed to properly learn equations.

So, I help kids to learn... To THINK.

That was long... Sorry for that... But perhaps necessary.

Just a few days ago here in the forums I said "damage is flat. No piercing, impaling or whatever modifiers. If you throw a knife, do (example) ST(dice)+2 damage. If a spear, deal (example) ST(dice)+5. Subtract DR - no ablative, semi ablative, no hit locations, no nothing."

And one guy answered me "it's not possible to remove damage types, otherwise you wouldnt be able to differentiate a bow from a sling".

THAT'S the problem with the mindset that I refer to.

My first ever RPG was D&D. My second was Hero Quest.

In Hero Quest, we had TWO traits: attack. And defense. And you played with a single die. Ridiculously simple, excellent for a child. And I had my fun.

If you wanna bring people in, it's like teaching a baby how to walk (Im a father of 4 with a 5th coming by the way). Early on in our lives, we needed great effort to learn it. After we learn how to walk however, we FORGET IT. We just do it without thinking.

So, my recommendation is always, strip it to the bones. Remove ALL combat maneuvers; remove even movement and speed. There is the skills - one to "do hurt", one to "talk", one to do "science stuff". Roll skill, defender has ONE defense, roll FLAT damage, subtract DR. The end. My 6 years old can do that (yes, Im the GM of my little ones).

For Advantages, take them raw (not "rules as written", I really mean raw). No modifiers. Wanna be insubstantial? Cool, 80 points. Ally? 100% of your power, always by your side and loyal. No perks, no quirks, no talents.

Let the complications build organically. "Hey guys, I've been thinking about better differentiate between bows and slings, so how about we use damage types?"

"Hey master, could I perhaps pay points to be able to affect substantial while Im insubstantial?"
"Hmmm... Let me see... Hmm modi...fiers? Oh look, by 100% of the price, you can!

I think Gurps should have a "Begginers", "Intermediate", "Advanced" and "Expert" group of sets. And I think that GL and GUL are Intemediate already. At least imo

[KarlKost]

Other than that, I would like more initiatives like DFRPG, but even more simplified, perhaps like "DFRPG - Starters", DFRPG - Intermediate, DFRPG - Advanced and finally the "Expert", but for Monster Hunters, Transhuman Space, Reign of Steel, FantasyRPG "Powered by Gurps", Infinite Earth, The Cabala Urban Fantasy Conspiracy, Traveller, Cyberpunk, Supers etc etc etc. A few "pick and play" titles without all the thinkering but also without the majority of complications, or at least divided into "look, basic BASIC combat is like this; the OPTIONAL intermediate combat is like this, with all the maneuvers and damage types and stuff; the OPTIONAL^2 advanced combat is like this and so on.

[Inky]

Originally Posted by whswhs

My approach has been somewhat different. I don't give players a text handout on how to use GURPS; rather, I sit down with them, discuss character concepts (with all of them as a group, so they can take each other's choices into account and avoid conflicts), and then guide them through the character design options.

I think that what's needed for this approach is not so much a guide for new players, as a guide for new GMs: "This is how you use GURPS to start a campaign," with a key chapter being "This is how you help players design characters."

The first link I posted, "The Seven-Minute GURPS Character", is that - sorry, didn't make that clear. There's even a PDF handout in it for players to write down salient points about their character so the GM can make the character sheet for them (the link turns out to be a bit shonky, here it is directly), although it was made before the "Seven-Minute" article and doesn't seem to entirely match it.

But even if you're doing it that way, doing the sheets yourself to the players' specifications, they'll still need to know how to play, which can also take a bit of working out from the book, especially combat - so a quick guide can be useful if you've got a player who had something come up and didn't have time to read through the book before you start.

Originally Posted by KarlKost

In Hero Quest, we had TWO traits: attack. And defense. And you played with a single die. Ridiculously simple, excellent for a child. And I had my fun.

If you wanna bring people in, it's like teaching a baby how to walk (Im a father of 4 with a 5th coming by the way). Early on in our lives, we needed great effort to learn it. After we learn how to walk however, we FORGET IT. We just do it without thinking.

So, my recommendation is always, strip it to the bones. Remove ALL combat maneuvers; remove even movement and speed. There is the skills - one to "do hurt", one to "talk", one to do "science stuff". Roll skill, defender has ONE defense, roll FLAT damage, subtract DR. The end. My 6 years old can do that (yes, Im the GM of my little ones).

With a complicated system like GURPS, you do need to start with the basics, explaining first the first things that you need to understand everything else, then going on to more complicated things from there, and so on.

It's possible that being efficient lessons conflicts somewhat with being an efficient reference book. A step-by-step explanation like you describe might be an inconvenient way to lay out a reference book - once you have grasped the basic rules, that long explanation becomes junk that you won't need again.

Basic Set possibly doesn't always get this right - for instance, it explains that GURPS always uses six-sided dice and abbreviates them to "d" only after a few pages and after explaining success, reaction and damage rolls (which might have been simpler to do if they'd already said that and didn't need to explain it again and again), and puts it in an alarmingly-technical-looking section called "Conventions".
GURPS Lite is somewhat more like it (it explains the dice before explaining success, reaction and damage rolls!) but possibly still suffers a bit from trying to be both an explanation for new players and a usable reference work for in play.

In which case, a "beginners' guide" alongside the core books might be handy. The "beginners' guide" to learn from, the core books to use as reference books once you've got the idea of how GURPS works.

There's a lot that can be cut from the GURPS combat system and it still work - even without actually changing the standard rules as written, just using a subset of them. I saw some of your ideas in another thread and some of them involve altering the rules a bit (e.g. redoing the weapon stats so that they do flat damage), which could also be interesting, but even if you stick to things that are fully compatible with the standard GURPS rules, you can get by with really rather little of them.

Here's what happened in the first GURPS game I played that involved combat (I think, though I'm not sure - can't remember).
It was a Dungeon Fantasy game, played online in text chat via Roll20, I played a knight (a pre-gen). I wasn't well and my concentration was all over the place. I read the Combat Lite section in Characters, but I just could not get the hang of what was going on, it just seemed like a confusing mishmash of rolls and I had no idea why anyone was rolling when. There was a lot of "I run at the top right goblin and swing my sword - how do I do that? Can I even reach him from here this turn? Actually, is it my turn or were you talking to somebody else?". The only way I managed to join in at all was that the GM was basically handling all the mechanics for me, and the other players were making suggestions. It was possibly quite hard work for the GM and the other players.
They said to read Combat Lite so I read it again but still didn't really get it, so they sent me some combat cheat sheets and said "print one of these and keep it in front of you, that tells you what moves you have available".
After a while, I had a eureka moment and realised that the basic idea of the whole thing was "You roll to attack, the enemy rolls to defend, then you roll damage". Yes, I had managed to read through Combat Lite and sit through at least one whole battle without working that out. My concentration really was all over the place.
After that, I could fight, without constantly having to ask how to do things. And I also mostly understood what everyone else was doing and whose turn it was. I mostly just used Attack, Move and Move and Attack, because those were the ones I could remember the rules for, but sometimes I looked at the book or the cheat sheet and tried one of the "trick shots".

Originally Posted by KarlKost

Just a few days ago here in the forums I said "damage is flat. No piercing, impaling or whatever modifiers. If you throw a knife, do (example) ST(dice)+2 damage. If a spear, deal (example) ST(dice)+5. Subtract DR - no ablative, semi ablative, no hit locations, no nothing."

And one guy answered me "it's not possible to remove damage types, otherwise you wouldnt be able to differentiate a bow from a sling".

THAT'S the problem with the mindset that I refer to.

To be fair, I read that conversation and possibly what that guy had in mind was that removing damage types would mess up the game balance, making slings unfairly powerful compared to bows (since a bow would no longer have the advantage of doing double penetrating damage). But then, in that one you were redoing the weapons list at the same time, so it's not really an issue.

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by Inky

After a while, I had a eureka moment and realised that the basic idea of the whole thing was "You roll to attack, the enemy rolls to defend, then you roll damage". Yes, I had managed to read through Combat Lite and sit through at least one whole battle without working that out. My concentration really was all over the place.
After that, I could fight, without constantly having to ask how to do things. And I also mostly understood what everyone else was doing and whose turn it was. I mostly just used Attack, Move and Move and Attack, because those were the ones I could remember the rules for, but sometimes I looked at the book or the cheat sheet and tried one of the "trick shots".

I can tell you, this happens more often than not. And when you try to come to the player with "so look, you can have an All-Out-Attack, or try a feint, or..." you already lost the player. It's not that is impossible to grasp (all veterans do it without blinking), but for those that havent taken the pain to read it all 5 times and then to get their little "cheat sheet" to begin, it's too much information at once to process, and they wont go foward with any of it.

So yes, I recommend to begin with "roll your attack. I roll my defense. You roll your damage (or not), subtract my DR".

This is ALL that the Basic Combat Should be.

And, what the "Basic" Combat now is should be the "Optional" Intermediate Combat. You know, that section you dont understand nothing the first time you read, so you read half of it and skip it and decides to "lets start playing with the Basic", and after a few sessions, wanting to improve your game, you finally decide to take a look at, and the magic begins...

Originally Posted by Inky

To be fair, I read that conversation and possibly what that guy had in mind was that removing damage types would mess up the game balance, making slings unfairly powerful compared to bows (since a bow would no longer have the advantage of doing double penetrating damage). But then, in that one you were redoing the weapons list at the same time, so it's not really an issue.

I know. And I understand the guy; that's the thing, I understand both sides. I just wanted to point out the difficulty that Gurps veterans have to reach outsiders, because of the mindsets. Usually, the "simplifications" that veterans make are still too complex haha, because they both are used to and enjoy the levels of realism, however in order to reach the other side, this has to be set aside for a while.

[robertsconley]

Some relevant blog posts.

The Basics of GURPS

The Basics of GURPS Combat

The Basics of GURPS (again)

All my GURPS related posts.

[Inky]

Forgot to reply to this.

Originally Posted by KarlKost

I can tell you, this happens more often than not. And when you try to come to the player with "so look, you can have an All-Out-Attack, or try a feint, or..." you already lost the player. It's not that is impossible to grasp (all veterans do it without blinking), but for those that havent taken the pain to read it all 5 times and then to get their little "cheat sheet" to begin, it's too much information at once to process, and they wont go foward with any of it.

So yes, I recommend to begin with "roll your attack. I roll my defense. You roll your damage (or not), subtract my DR".

This is ALL that the Basic Combat Should be.

And, what the "Basic" Combat now is should be the "Optional" Intermediate Combat. You know, that section you dont understand nothing the first time you read, so you read half of it and skip it and decides to "lets start playing with the Basic", and after a few sessions, wanting to improve your game, you finally decide to take a look at, and the magic begins...

Haha, so it's not just me!

robertsconley, those do look useful.

Also somebody's started another and more extensive thread on the same subject Compilation of source material for new players.

[Kage2020]

Originally Posted by Inky

...it's possible that when they start looking at Basic Set they may go "I don't know what Inky was talking about, this is really complicated".

As whswhs (sorta) noted, and as posted elsewhere, I wouldn't want my players to be looking at a copy of GURPS Basic or, hell, even GURPS Lite. It's like slapping them in the face with a tuna rather than letting them try a well-cooked tuna steak.

Sit them down, pitch them the campaign, then ask them about the characters. Put it in relatable terms (such as those from How to be a GURPS GM, pp.12-15) to get you in the ball park. Ask them for sentence-long concepts/descriptors about their characters (similar to how FATE-distros handle Aspects), and use those to flesh out ads and disads. Continue to go back and forth. You can even pull back the curtain and discuss system to explain options.

I've found it the best way (for me) to introducing GURPS to new players and, for online games, weeding out players that you might not want to play with in the first place.

You can find ways of running the game "lite," too, without just dropping everything. Take a gander at Action 2: Exploits for some of that.

Edit: Much of which might be covered by your 7-min. character link.

Start with How to be a GURPS GM. This covers wshwsh's comments, too.