Dice Of Doom: GURPS Review

[Dunadin777]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Except that the Monstrous Compendium is one of the core rulebooks. Nothing like that for GURPS.

True, to a degree. D&D keeps coming out with more Monster books, and the Monster Vault stuff is basically a revised Monster Compendium in a completely changed format. They also have the 'essentials' line, which is not quite sufficent to replace the PHBs, but also provides new options for those classes. D&D really doesn't recognize the concept of core books anymore, IMO.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Except that the Monstrous Compendium is one of the core rulebooks. Nothing like that for GURPS.

Because GURPS is Generic and doesn't have a core setting.

Because I have mostly run modern or historicals, what is in the main two rule books has been enough. Were I to run a Dungeon Fantasy campaign like D&D, then I would get the Dungeon Fantasy Monsters book. So, actually, there is something exactly like the Monstrous Compendium...it is the Dungeon Fantasy Monsters book. It isn't core, because not everyone runs Dungeon Fantasy.

[Athanbeli]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

They think combats take forever, but the point is somewhat undercut by their not using Feints and Deceptive Attacks.

Honestly, I find that Deceptive attack's usefullness is not stressed enough in Campaigns. It's presented as an option - almost a secondary and perhaps unnecessary aspect of the game - and not as one of combat's main features.
In my games, almost every single attack is deceptive to a degree. Yet it's easy to pass it by whilst readind the rules.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Wraithe

AND they include a write up for "Rainbow Dash" from "My Little Pony" as a bonus. :)

And I was just about to ask for help statting the characters from that series before finding this thread.

They did a pretty good job, but ponies should have more than 10 ST :).

[Anders]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Because GURPS is Generic and doesn't have a core setting.

Absolutely. It's part of the package when you make something truly generic. I'm just trying to clarify their objections.

[Anders]

Can someone explain to me how it is 'painful' to work out how much damage a sword does in the Basic Set?

[ClayDowling]

Not all that complicated if you're sensible about it. At least when I make a character, even when I'm writing it out by hand, I do the calculation and write it on the character sheet. If you don't do that ahead of time, I can see how it would be an unhappy complication at the game table. Since the character sheets have a place to write it out though, it seems silly not to do it.

[Mr_Sandman]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Can someone explain to me how it is 'painful' to work out how much damage a sword does in the [I]Basic Set[/I`]?

From my reading, the writing presents it as over-complex because you have to:
1. Determine your swing or thrust damage.
2. Determine how that is modified by the weapon.
(Both of those should be done in advance and marked on the character sheet, and shouldn't really affect how long it takes to run a combat much.)
3. Subtract the DR of any armor. Applying an armor divisor if your weapon has one. (The armor divisor doesn't really apply very often in sword fights.)
4. Apply a wounding multiplier to determine the final injury.

He also is very down on the idea of active defense, because it adds a step to resolving combat, and he finds it frustrating to roll a successful attack and have it negated by a defense roll. On the other hand, I think systems where my character's agility and skill with a sword don't help me avoid being hit are frustrating, and think it can be exciting to make your defense roll in a do-or-die situation.

His main points seem to be it's great that you can do anything with GURPS and there are detailed rules for anything that comes up, but it's bad that it takes some more work to do it, and all those detailed rules are complex to use. His other main criticism seems to be that there isn't enough support for GMs who don't want to build their own worlds from scratch and for first time players and GMs; it's not a play out of the box game, and it's not a game for people new to RPGs.

I can see that second point somewhat. GURPS is a better fit for an experienced GM who wants to do detailed and customized world-building than it is for someone who heard about roleplaying and wants to buy something to run for friends that night, all learning as they go along.

I'd be interested in seeing his opinion of other generic roleplaying systems, but I didn't see any others reviewed on the site.

[Anders]

He's coming from the D&D camp, where skill at parrying is built into your hit points and your AC. I'm more comfortable with Active Defense because I cut my teeth on a BRP clone.

[Daeglan]

Has anyone thought of commenting on his review and giving him this info?