Simulationst or Light

[Ji ji]

GURPS has a solid core of rules that makes it very good even using lite version.
Yet I like to use every possible detail. There are areas where I am near obsessive with simulation, specifically medical and combat areas. Moreover, I often give various situational bonus or malus to rolls going in further details. For example, rule of 1/2 DR as a malus to stealth rolls is generally good, but for example I can assign only -1 malus for a DR 6 cervelliere, while nobody can be unhearable if moving in full plate 10 meters away from a sentry.
If I prefer GURPS over every other game, it's because it permits the best and more detailed simulation.

[Quinlor]

One of the things I like most about GURPS is that it let me vary the level of detail freely in the same game. I my games, some things are played out in great detail and others are just painted in broad strokes. Unlike any other games system I have tried, GURPS works beautiful at both extremes and allows the transition almost frictionless.

However, I think the level of detail is mostly unrelated to both the question of simulation and realism (which are also mostly unrelated).

I greatly enjoy game mechanics that are anti simulationist (like Luck, Player Guidance, Bought Succsess …) and also decide many aspects of the game world (but not of the player actions) by fiat, so I am definitely not a simulationist GM.

The realism level of my games varies between moderately realistic and all out unrealistic, but is much more constant in a given campaign than the detail level.

Realism has, IMOH nothing to do with the level of detail or the level of simulation, but with the themes of the game and how they are described. You can play out very unrealistic action in great detail. I personally find this combination a lot of fun.

I personally think that the real world is much to complex for simulation leading to realism, especially at a high detail level.

Originally Posted by Warden

I would like to ask, what is 'basic' GURPS to you?

Is there a general consensus, or is it totally subjective?

Thanks

I'm going to say it's subjective. For me, it's GURPS with the training wheels still on. Not to say that you have to use every optional rule (because some of them are diametrically opposed to others in terms of desired outcome), but that the real power in GURPS is in finding the right set of optionals to make the game fit your style.

[Gollum]

Some systems use very light rules. Some others use heavy rules. As it has been said above, GURPS allows both...

But something which is even more amazing is that it is so consistent that it allows both in the same game!

My favorite example. A PC tries to shoot a NPC 10 yards away, in a foggy forest. The NPC is running to flee. The PC, bracing his .45 pistol, is aiming at him for 3 seconds. Suddenly, he pulls the trigger.

What will happen?

You can use all the modifiers given by the rules: distance and speed, visibility (the fog), cover (trees and bushes), accuracy modifier of the weapon, bracing, aiming bonus... Or just decide that it is a very, very hard shot, which gives a flat -8 to the roll. And it will give about the same result!

So, which is best?

Both. If you are in the middle of a combat involving a lot of characters, and if the NPC is not an important one, not bothering with detail is certainly the best choice... But if this NPC is the big bad boss and if this shot will determine whether it will be the end of the campaign, taking every bonuses and penalties into account will suddenly become very important. And it will even add a lot of suspense to the game... Will our hero succeed? Just wait a minute to do the calculation of his effective skill... Then, roll the dice...

All that to say that I use both. Light rules most often, but very detailed ones as soon as it adds some suspense or drama to the game. And it sometimes do.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by d10tavern

How many people would you say play GURPS as more of a simulationist system, taking into account every little detail, and how many play it more as a light system, ignoring most of the details and just sticking to the basic system?

What has that got to do with Simulationism?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I usually pick a couple areas of the rules where I want more details (depending on the genre and campaign), and use that to zoom in on that part of the action, mechanically. The rest of the areas of the game I just use the basic system and glaze over the finer details.

That describes how I run my campaign, too. Sometimes I go a step further and turn on the extra-detailed rules when one specific scene calls for them, but otherwise leave them switched off. For instance, I don't bother looking up exact modifiers to Explosives (Demolition) and whipping out the calculator to determine the damage when somebody slaps a C4 block onto something fragile during a foot chase, but I do work out all the details when the entire adventure culminates in a demolition job. Likewise, I'll fret the details of bleeding, surgery, antisepsis, and long-term recovery for a mortal wound, but never for a 1 HP knife cut in a minor brawl.

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

My current campaign is pretty "talky" (to the point of soap opera sometimes), so there are entire sessions where the rules don't matter

There's a huge element of that in what I said above, too. There are entire months of weekly gaming wherein the dice get rolled maybe four times. I don't rely on rules to provide "realism" in situations like having discussions with friendly NPCs, or when the PCs make plans, assemble gear, and assign tactical roles. I find that I can get a fairly intense level of detail without using the game system at all. Indeed, I find conversation and preparation more immersive and believable without constant interruptions for dice rolling.