What do you want for the 35-year anniversary?

[Sam Baughn]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I do desperately hope that:

1. GURPS fans won't overlook or forget about GURPS Action 6: Tricked-Out Rides.
   
   
2. GURPS writers won't miss that this page explicitly states: "All supplements from GURPS Action 3: Furious Fists to GURPS Action 7: Mercenaries offer good worked examples of what we seek."

I realize that realism diehards are frowning and shaking their heads at that, but I happen to know that emulationist rules like those in GURPS Action sell better than simulationist ones.

Are you saying that a collection of generic vehicles not quite suitable for a volume of GURPS Vehicles might fit better as an Action supplement (possibly something like GURPS Action 8: Heavy Machinery)? And that you might be interested in proposals for such a thing?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Sam Baughn

Are you saying that a collection of generic vehicles not quite suitable for a volume of GURPS Vehicles might fit better as an Action supplement (possibly something like GURPS Action 8: Heavy Machinery)? And that you might be interested in proposals for such a thing?

I was hinting at proposals not for collections of vehicles (proposals for those are fine, but as you rightly point out, they fall into the realm of the GURPS Vehicles series), but for riffs on and extensions of the work I started in Tricked-Out Rides. Namely:

1. Around 10 basic vehicle archetypes of a relatively narrow type, like "motorcycles," "fighter jets," or "small powerboats" (for reference, Tricked-Out Rides did "street cars"). There might be fewer archetypes for vehicles that vary mainly in customization; e.g., I'm not sure there are that many distinct motorcycle types. There may be more in cases where variety resides largely in frame size and design: number of engines, masts, wheels, wings, whatever; presence or absence of, say, a bomb bay, cargo hold, or flight deck that defines the class; little details like being enclosed or not; etc. These would spark capsule descriptions, a Vehicle Table, Chase Statistics, and a Mounted Weapons Table.
   
   
2. Any global modifications – customizations expressed via cost factor (CF) – that apply to these archetypes. This section would start with the one in Tricked-Out Rides, remove things inapplicable to the vehicles being discussed (e.g., I suspect that "armored" is silly for motorbikes, though there might be an armored wind shell as a later accessory), and add any necessary new ones (it'd be hard to do aircraft without something that affects Stall, or watercraft without a way to change Draft).
   
   
3. Notes on standard features that these archetypes get for free. Street cars get lights, mirrors, locks, horn, heater, instrument panel, basic sound system, spare tire, airbags, seatbelts, etc. What do helicopters start with automatically? How about construction equipment (which gets a huge head start from GURPS Action 5: Dictionary of Danger)? Powerboats? This is very important, as much of what makes design a pain is adding in stuff that 95% of all examples have anyway . . .
   
   
4. Lists of non-universal accessories available for the vehicles under discussion. To save space, I imagine that what is and isn't available from Tricked-Out Rides would be reduced to simple, no-description lists. Word count should be saved for equipment specific to the focal archetypes.
   
   
5. Asides on relevant special considerations that either span several of the above categories or fall outside them. For street cars, I talked about electric cars, how to handle weight if needed, emergency kits commonly found in trunks, and how to keep military weapons used against tinfoil tanks from ruining the game. For, say, fighter jets, you might want to talk about stowage/hangarage volume, emergency kits for pilots, and any special rules needed to turn the chase rules into dogfight rules.
   
   
6. Four to six sample vehicles built using the previous rules, with an Example Table.

Point #6 is the only thing that would approach "a collection," and it would take up only a smallish portion of the supplement. The main goal would be to provide the tools to quickly sculpt whatever the plot calls for from a nearly ready-to-go archetype that could, in a pinch, just be used "raw."

This would not absolutely have to be for the GURPS Action series. I could totally see supplements like this for, say, GURPS After the End or any other reasonably high-tech genre or setting that has both motorized vehicles and people who customize them. The key points are no math more complex than multiplication or addition, standard stuff swept under the carpet with a blanket "of course," and telegraphic rules (no more than a short paragraph for even the most complex gadget).

[Kromm]

A fun fact . . .

All 11 street-car archetypes in Tricked-Out Rides are based on real-world vehicles. I looked up the best-selling make and model in each category, pulled up technical specs from the manufacturer's website, and calculated Move from 0-60 and top speed, cribbed weights and Range wholesale, worked out SM from linear dimension, found Occ. from number of seatbelts, took MSRP as "good enough" for Cost (I don't believe in adjusting GURPS $ for inflation from 2002 to present . . . that's exactly the kind of complexity I disagree with in rules), and judged Locations from the picture. Obviously, pure game concepts were more arbitrary; ST/HP came from weights, while I had to take stabs at Hnd, SR, HT, and DR, but kept them centered on typical values (for cars, Hnd 0, SR 4, HT 11, and DR 5). In a few cases I admit I "averaged" two or three similar real-life cars.

I worked out CFs by looking at cars known to be above-average in one area. Or by going to the sites of people who mod cars and seeing how much they charged for souped-up, armored, etc. vehicles.

Discrete accessory prices and weights were also just ripped off manufacturers' sites and trusted "as is."

So . . . the stats aren't cinematic, just generic and simplified. Of course you can find exceptions, sometimes extreme ones. Of course some of these things realistically affect others in complicated ways. But I ignored all that because close enough is generally good enough.

Thus, someone more interested in simulation than emulation could still work on a supplement like this, as long as they were willing to hide all their math and just use the simple approach of Tricked-Out Rides.

[Kromm]

Lastly, I'll add that there are pitfalls to avoid, too:

Physics and engineering calculations. Yeah, yeah . . . wing loading for planes, surface-area effects on watercraft speeds, power curves for anything with an engine, blah, blah, blah all exist. For the big variations, just add archetypes and hide the math. For the small ones, use CF-type modifiers.

Cross-interactions. In particular, ignore the effects that stats have on one another. Assume that you can hold any stat constant while changing any of the others.

False precision. And while you're at it, remember that even two examples of the same vehicle off the same production line in the same day describe bigger "error bars" than matter in a game. Just say "yes" to ballpark figures and roundoffs.

Hype. Really, just about all fighter jets with N engines and Q seats made between year X and year Y are about the same. Yeah, somebody's national propaganda engine doubtless wants you to believe the Mitchell-Bradshaw Maverick II, designated F-41, is better than the PiG-82 Zhpyat, but that's at the level of CF variations at best . . . and probably more to do with plot armor in any story you're going to tell in an adventure game.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Physics and engineering calculations. Yeah, yeah . . . wing loading for planes, surface-area effects on watercraft speeds, power curves for anything with an engine, blah, blah, blah all exist. For the big variations, just add archetypes and hide the math. For the small ones, use CF-type modifiers.

I would note that, if you really care about the physics and engineering calculations, you can do both of those things without involving GURPS at all, you only really need to involve yourself with GURPS at the point you're converting the physics and engineering into game statistics.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Yeah, somebody's national propaganda engine doubtless wants you to believe the Mitchell-Bradshaw Maverick II, designated F-41, is better than the PiG-82 Zhpyat, but that's at the level of CF variations at best . . .

Were I to write something along these lines, I'd probably approach this exactly like I approached ethnic cool in DF.

Originally Posted by Kromm

and probably more to do with plot armor in any story you're going to tell in an adventure game.

(Considers the DR value of plot armor.)

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I would note that, if you really care about the physics and engineering calculations, you can do both of those things without involving GURPS at all, you only really need to involve yourself with GURPS at the point you're converting the physics and engineering into game statistics.

Exactly.

It's important to focus on the "RP" in "RPG." Up to a point, you need stats for things PCs will interact with: personal equipment, animals, and vehicles, and even cities, armies, and planets. But you can just define the parts that affect actions and skill rolls, and black-box the guts of these objects. You can even define the player-facing parts 100% realistically without design rules . . . the real world is full of examples. (If it isn't in the real world, "realistic" is suspect and any design is likely full of false precision and silliness anyway.)

My overall belief is that you use RPGs to design and play characters. Designs for other things are best done in dedicated games that cover those other things. Bolting wargames, gear-design minigames, etc. onto an RPG is what makes the RPG crufty.

One of my lasting regrets about Fourth Edition is that I wasn't stricter about enforcing all this from Day One.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

Were I to write something along these lines, I'd probably approach this exactly like I approached ethnic cool in DF.

In a way, Tricked-Out Rides is basically a treatise on ethnic cool's close cousin "brand-name cool" as it applies to street cars. It starts with essentially realistic archetypes and lets players say things like, "Yeah, well, mine is 50% faster just because!"

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

(Considers the DR value of plot armor.)

I do sort of regret not adding a box on giving vehicles Daredevil, Luck, and Serendipity . . . I'm not sure they should be things you can buy with $, but it seems like they would be fair modifiers to the point cost of Signature Gear. Then again, Signature Gear is already plot armor.

[Opellulo]

I'm rejoining Gurps after a 10+ year hiatus and i must admit i would really like a "GURPS Next" or Gurps lite 2.0 (if not a whole streamlined 5th ed.) to expand the gospel.

I mean it's a bit depressing that in this gaming renaissance GURPS looks like a relic from the days of old. Once you strip everything down it's one of the simplest and most immediate systems available; too bad that some of its concepts (and the general feel) look straight out the '90.

If you put the Gurps manuals side to side to some of the cool modern systems like "Lancer", "Quest" or heck even "Tales from the Loop" the effect is staggering.

[Dexion]

I think the Action series is really great, and not just on the vehicle theme.

The way the vehicles are treated there is in my opinion the best way to look at them. Something precise and coherent but easy to access. Moreover in my example, I took the Basic 1/2 ton truck and applied the Monster Hunter customization rules to it. Like I use Tricked-out Rides with pleasure. That cover very well all the needs for this type of cars.

It is certain that certain categories of vehicles are not to be treated to the same level of precision as others. Cars and motorcycles are very common in the action scenes. Much more than trains or cruise ships, for example.

So there is no need to treat them separately in their own supplement. A category of mass transport vehicles (with a section for Air / Sea / Land) may be sufficient, just like a global one for industrial or military vehicles. Because the precise level of detail per vehicle doesn't have to be deep, just the highlights. Very small details are always GM's job anyway.