Are GURPS Tech Books released in wrong order / badly planned?

[Gigermann]

I actually like the "salad bar" approach to LT (take what you want, leave the rest). Maybe it'd be a good idea for someone to work up a UT Compendium X series, which would be a good venue to clear up any discrepancies, and put back in some of the crunch that missed the cut.

At this point, I think I would go with a TL-based approach, rather like the original run of 3e UT (which, rather than a raw equipment list, was broken up into sections based on TL)—FREX, UT Compendium 1 - TL9 (seems best to start closest), which could be used to fold in a lot of TS/HT concepts. Seems like TL9 & 10 would be the most needed.

Just spitballin'

[DanHoward]

Personally I would not have been involved with Low-Tech if it was separated into Tech Levels like the first edition. The separation into broad "technologies" is more sensible: easier to lay out and reference, and is far easier to use when trying to design a world.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Personally I would not have been involved with Low-Tech if it was separated into Tech Levels like the first edition. The separation into broad "technologies" is more sensible: easier to lay out and reference, and is far easier to use when trying to design a world.

I agree with Dan. An UT Companion series should go the same way as the LT Companions.

[Kromm]

The "divided by TL" approach of earlier editions had a lot of conceptual problems.

Historical TLs (TL0-8) are averages. For any real culture, you must look at what they actually used on a case-by-case basis. Calling a particular culture "TL4," say, is in a way like summing TLs for some very large number of specific items – let's call it n – and then dividing by n, rounding to two places, and getting a result between 3.51 and 4.50. There may well be some 0s, 1s, 2s, 3s, 5s, and even 6s in there! If n/2 examples are TL2 and the other n/2 are TL6, you could get TL4 without a single TL4 item. That is, putting everything under a TL sends the message that all of that stuff is contemporary, which is rubbish. Sorting tech by type rather than TL removes that deceptive bias by association.

Future TLs (TL9-12) are even worse for this! Really, everything about the future is a guess, and once you start tacking on "^" for superscience, it doesn't even have to be a particularly educated guess. Why should star travel accompany blasters? Who says that this flavor of nanotech will accompany that flavor of fusion power – or indeed, that either will ever be invented? In a generic RPG, that stuff should be left up to the setting creator, not shanghaied by some game designer. Again, there are false associations.

Whereas grouping by category shows a clear evolution in terms of durability, deadliness, efficiency, added functionality, or whatever. The TL numbers are still there to show where the big steps are, but they're only meaningful relative to one another in that one category. There's the weak promise that, on average, most TLn innovations will be somewhat appropriate for a TLn society, but not a prescription that you must have TLn there. And speaking as the guy who answers questions: Many gamers used to think that we were saying, "You have to use all the TLn stuff together." That's why we changed tack.

I think it's a stronger approach when your highest-level divisions – your chapters – are defined by major categories that people can agree have real-life meaning (e.g., weapons, transportation, and medical technology) than when they rely on a mutable, subjective game convenience such as TL. Plenty of customers buy GURPS books for other games or just to read. For them, TL is a quirky and ignorable game stat, nothing more. Really, that's how I feel about it as well. After working for years on GURPS, I've seen no evidence that any real historical culture or well-known fictional one fits TLn perfectly . . .

[jacobmuller]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Am I alone in the feeling that Low-Tech, High-Tech and Ultra-Tech were released in the wrong order and/or not properly planned?

Apparently you phrased this badly LOL Sticking to that theme - you are not alone.

It would be nice if all the tech books were rewritten to smoothly flow into one-another. But that'd take a lot of work, work frequently needs to be paid for, therefore the rewrites would cost money. I'd presume less work to reformat than to create and less work = less cost.

Would the power behind the throne care to posit a price for, eg UT mkII? See how many "I'd buy it"s it garners and, if it's a popular concept, add it to The Wishlist...

[Gudiomen]

Speaking as someone who works in big projects... you either do the best you can, admitting it won't be perfect. Or you don't do it at all. I just saw a 3-year project sink beacause the person responsible took so much time trying to make it perfect, that costs exceeded reason. And it became so abstract and idealistic, that no one was willing to keep shoving money into it.
A less "perfectly planned" project would have seen benefits in the first year, flaws and all. And would have kept going, being perfected gradually.

Had GURPS waited for the stars to align, it might not have had enough profit to keep going. Also, experience gained helped more recent projects.

On a personal note, the order was just right for me... because I game more, the lower the tech-level gets. If the order had been chronological, I'd get the short straw. Its a matter of perspective, I guess.

[Dammann]

I'd eat up a UTC series. The LTC series is great reading, but it mostly just that, to me, leisure reading material. UTC I would actually use. I'd love to see a companion about weapon design, ala this thread, with a design sequence and worked examples. I would certainly be fascinated to read a series that discussed social implications of various UT fields, too. There is room for crunch as well as fluff, although advice on integrating technology into a sci fi campaign doesn't seem so fluffy (in the pejorative sense) to me.

The way to look at this isn't "we had to do something under constraints, so now we live with what we have," it should be, "given the base we have built, what do we add onto it to make campaign creation a smoother process with more options.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Dammann

I'd eat up a UTC series. UTC I would actually use. I'd love to see a companion about weapon design, ala this thread, with a design sequence and worked examples. I would certainly be fascinated to read a series that discussed social implications of various UT fields, too. There is room for crunch as well as fluff, although advice on integrating technology into a sci fi campaign doesn't seem so fluffy (in the pejorative sense) to me.

Seems like Pyramid is the right venue here. Enough small stuff that lots of qualified people can contribute. Every take - even on the same thing - is likely to have validity to a subset of gamers.

[Dammann]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Seems like Pyramid is the right venue here. Enough small stuff that lots of qualified people can contribute. Every take - even on the same thing - is likely to have validity to a subset of gamers.

Well I already buy Pyramid. I am thinking this is a way for SJG to get a little more of my money!

Seriously, though, you may be right. A design sequence for UT weapons might be only long enough for a Pyramid article.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Greetings, all!

Am I alone in the feeling that Low-Tech, High-Tech and Ultra-Tech were released in the wrong order and/or not properly planned? UT lacks some of the neat weapon upgrades found in HT, and surprisingly doen't have any G-suit at all; HT & LT seem to produce strange results when combined (the armour rules seem to be not quite compatible); UT battlesuits - which are supposed to make infantry resistant to small arms - are defeated most typically by HT rifles with proper AP ammo. Overall, UT seems to suffer most from the 'unpolished' feel, though I'm not that much of a HT/LT nut, so I might be overlooking stuff.

Oh, and even Bio-Tech seems to have discrepancies with other books - notably the 1:10 drug price issue (though Pulver thinks BIO is actually right and UT is wrong) and the BIO spaceships vs. Spaceships spaceships discrepancies.

Perhaps there is / will be some grand unified PDF / article / thread that would make those books compatible? Something like the thread on using UT and BIO with THS.

Thanks in advance!

I understand what you mean, but I think its an effect of discovering what works as you go along. Would they, for example, use the CF system throughout High and Ultra if they could do it all over again. Probably. But would you want to wait for that to be discovered before getting the books? I wouldn't. There are limits to planning, and we call them hindsight.