GURPS 5E?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There's also the prospect of the GMing headache, "I know the bronze armor the villagers are wearing had the tin component of the bronze provided by a mage who conjured the tin up with an Earth to Stone spell (technically Earth to Metal, but still). Now the PC mage wants to cast dispel on the armor. What should happen to the bronze? Does it just become copper, copper with gaps caused by the loss of tin, some kind of copper/clay combination? I so don't need this!"

Note that this particular problem comes about because you're already venturing out into House Rule land. The actual spell in Magic only lets you produce the bronze and not a separate amount of tin. Dispel Magic will work on the bronze but Earth to air (at 3x cost) will let you make mundane iron or steel just Go away. The first knight you leave in his arming garments that way is going to be very surprised.

<shrug>Magic (both the book and the phenomenon) is like that. It lets you violate the Laws of Physics almost be definition.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

First thing out of the gate is proper, full indexing. Whether it’s broken out as a separate item or remains as a specific enhancement, I should be able to look in the index and find some reference telling me what page to find hooves on, rather than having to remember that it’s an enhancement. Off the top of my head, I would think under Strikers for Extra Limbs, but I vaguely recall that it might be under Enhanced Move. Having to remember where it is slows me down and I’m a veteran of GURPS. Imagine if I’m a newcomer and want to create a character with hooves.

Actually, they're under Claws. I do agree with you about a better index, though - GURPS books have historically had very good ones, and the 4e core rules are conspicuously bad in comparison.

Alphabetization, of skills particularly, just doesn’t work. The earlier editions up to 3rd Edition, Revised had it right. Breaking them down into broad categories with no more than three or four pages of text makes it a lot easier to find the appropriate skill, especially if you don’t know how the skill is broken down in GURPS. You’ll be a long time finding sword when it’s broken down into Broadsword, Fencing, Shortsword, and Two-Handed Sword and it isn’t much easier when they’re all lumped together as Melee Weapons.

I absolutely disagree with this. All this does is make it harder to find a skill that does have a name you know, or think you know, because now you have to remember what kind of skill it is or look it up. Better to have a supplement or (for an online tool) a good set of supplemental pages of categorised skills, advantages, etc.

Note that a lot of these issues of organisation go away for a good searchable online rules set, because you can have indexing pages set up in any number of ways all linking to the relevant page for the skill, etc.

For Advantages and Disadvantages, break the section about Exotic, Supernatural and Mundane away from Types of Advantages. Merge Advantages and Disadvantages into a single list initially, then break it down into eight sublists, as follows: Realistic Mundane Advantages; Realistic Mundane Disadvantages; Cinematic Mundane Advantages; Cinematic Mundane Disadvantages; Exotic Advantages; Exotic Disadvantages; Supernatural Advantages; and Supernatural Disadvantages. Head the Mundane, Exotic and Supernatural sections with the text broken out from Types of Advantages for the respective category. Within each category, it would be helpful to gather the lists together by type, i.e. Physical, Mental and Social.

This is like skills, but worse. Where does 'Common Sense go?'. It's considered mental and (presumably) mundane, but it's arguable that it's something that even exists, and its actual game function is actually as a meta-trait - it doesn't modify the character, but the player's interaction with the GM.

As with Advantages and Disadvantages, combine Perks and Quirks into one chapter but divide the chapter into two sections: one for Perks; and one for Quirks.

In what way is this better than having them with advantages and with disadvantages, as now? Perks and Quirks are not necessarily the opposite of each other.

It comes up every few years on the forum, so make it explicit in the text of the Skill: Climbing is specifically mountain climbing, not tree climbing and bonuses and penalties proceed from that basis.

So why does it list modifiers and speeds for climbing trees as well as mountains (and as well as ropes and buildings)?

Combat, Tactical Combat and Special Combat Situations are a bit awkward. I preferred the older Basic Combat (combat without hex maps and miniatures) and Advanced Combat (combat using hex maps and miniatures) but also felt that there was a lot of repetition that could have been cut down to “here are the changes from the same item in Basic Combat.” Most Special Combat Situations belong in Basic Combat. Mounted Combat should probably be a section within Basic Combat, with some items more appropriately found in Advanced Combat as opposed the older separate chapter for Mounted Combat.

So now you're splitting up mounted combat and putting it in two places. I'm not seeing the advantage.

Also, I think you're seeing combat in Campaigns as being split into two sections, basic and advanced. It's not. It's split into three - 'combat' (basic, if you like), 'tactical combat' (advanced), and 'special combat situations', with the last chapter covering all kinds of things for both 'tactical' (hex based) and non-hex based.

Sidebars are preferable to boxed text and a single picture as cover art is preferable to multiple smaller pictures. I still have an affection for different characters in bubbles (or hexagons, if I must) as the cover art for a single volume Basic Set or the Character volume of a multi-volume set.

Sidebars are a serious layout problem. They also have the problem of confusing people new to the books - are they supplemental material akin to a footnote? Are they simply more important information? The actual answer can be the first, the second, or both.

Almost all of this is your personal preference, not anything that's objectively an improvement.

Aside from a more comprehensive index being necessary my biggest annoyance with the 4e core rules is the three-column layout, and that seems long-gone.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Combat skills probably deserve a rethink to sort through which weapons can be employed by more than one skill, which weapons share the same skill usage, and which weapons are better represented by techniques that buy off differences between different weapons. For example, the no longer extant Black Powder Weapons skill might be better replaced with a technique that lets a user of smokeless propellant Guns deal with the smoke black powder produced, or a technique to enable someone who uses a flintlock to buy off the penalty for using a wheellock.

That's an argument for replacing familiarity (and thus being able to buy off lack thereof with a few hours practice) with techniques (that take points, and thus by default hundreds of hours of training). That doesn't remotely pass the 'sniff test' for 'realism', and if someone has a low number of points invested in the skill they'd be better off starting from scratch in the new skill if this happens often. That means a nasty, bloated character sheet.

If this needs changing it needs to be towards more streamlining, not less.

With Attribute normalization, it might make sense to bring back escalating costs for increased Attributes.

With what? When did this happen, and why do you think it's a good idea in any 5th edition? An expanded discussion for GMs about setting stat limits and what those limits should be for different campaigns, sure. An assumption that the popular, baseline campaign will have 'normalised' stats, however, requires some evidence that this is what the average player or GM wants (assuming they care about it in the first place).

[David Johansen]

The problem with escalating stat closts is that it creates optimal builds and break points in the game. It also makes the accounting trickier as an elf ends up paying five points less for a 14 than a human does.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by David Johansen

The problem with escalating stat closts is that it creates optimal builds and break points in the game. It also makes the accounting trickier as an elf ends up paying five points less for a 14 than a human does.

That's how 3E did things and it ended up giving many races a major point benefit. And when you were playing campaigns where racial bonus stats weren't a thing, it also turned into a case of watching carefully how you wanted to spend points and avoiding certain breakpoints if possible.

This is one thing I'm very happy was left behind when 4E was released.

[acrosome]

Here's a random suggestion:

Except for special needs such as character height get rid of feet as a unit of measure. Make all lengths in yards, so that non-Americans can just call them meters.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Here's a random suggestion:

Except for special needs such as character height get rid of feet as a unit of measure. Make all lengths in yards, so that non-Americans can just call them meters.

Or just go metric - https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/metric-...nited%20States. :-)

Honestly, converting feet to metric (either m or cm) is simple enough, and character height can be either, too.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Here's a random suggestion:

Except for special needs such as character height get rid of feet as a unit of measure. Make all lengths in yards, so that non-Americans can just call them meters.

Basically using any non metric system for a next GURPS Edition will reduce sales worldwide, because only the US and GB are using the old measure system even the US military uses metric standards for good reasons.

SJG must decide whether it wants GURPS to be a niche product for English-speaking fans from the U.S. and U.K., or whether it wants to go global.


If SJG still uses feets and such fine, but than stop complaining about not making enough money with GURPS, because it was SJGs own decision.

It´s a old theme in this forums and there is a old Dr. Kromm quote " SJG is a texas game company first, US second..." .

By the way yards are NOT meters and in a game which is proud that it passes a reality check, but not a reality simulator, this will have consequences for long range fire and such. The german translation for 3rd Ed for example struggles with problems arising from fact the translator just changed yards to meter 1 to 1, once you go into the detail.

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by Willy

Basically using any non metric system for a next GURPS Edition will reduce sales worldwide, because only the US and GB are using the old measure system even the US military uses metric standards for good reasons.

SJG must decide whether it wants GURPS to be a niche product for English-speaking fans from the U.S. and U.K., or whether it wants to go global.


If SJG still uses feets and such fine, but than stop complaining about not making enough money with GURPS, because it was SJGs own decision.

It´s a old them in this forums and there is a old Dr. Kromm quote " SJG is a texas game company first, US second..." .

By the way yards are NOT meters and in a game which is proud that it passes a reality check, but not a reality simulator, this will have consequences for long range fire and such. The german translation for 3rd Ed for example struggles with problems arising from fact the translator just changed yards to meter 1 to 1, once you go into the detail.

Basic Set, page 9.

Metric Conversation.

Gives you EXACT conversions of feet to meters.

For most things, 1 yard = 1 meter is more than good enough to game with, and if they REALLY need an exact measurement in meters, then the conversation table is there, on page 9 of the Basic Set..


Surprisingly, most of the things people "want" in a 5e is already a thing in 4e.


There is only a few things I would want changed, and I already have my own house rules that addresses that so I am fine with 4e.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by zoncxs

Basic Set, page 9.

Metric Conversation.

Gives you EXACT conversions of feet to meters.

A conversion table to metric is a far cry from using metric as the baseline. It still asks the player/GM to do extra math in their head as the imperial system is only relevant in the US.

If SJG wants the units used in GURPS to be relatable outside the US (making the game as a whole more easy to parse for non-US citizens), having the system use metric baseline with an imperial unit conversion table would make more sense.