# From 4E to GURPS: D&D and Simulationism



## underthumb (May 1, 2009)

I've read a number of threads pertaining to dissatisfaction with D&D 4e's treatment of HP, powers, and the like. The general thrust of the criticism is that many of the mechanics of 4e do violence to one's intuitions about how a given effect would manifest in the game world (e.g., HP as non-physical injury, enemies being pulled near you...somehow...via "Come and Get It", etc.). I share these sentiments, but I wonder whether those who are presently dissatisfied are playing the wrong game entirely. I wonder whether they should try GURPS 4e.

I've been a D&D player for decades, and it's only in the last year or two that I've picked up GURPS. While you can read plenty about GURPS elsewhere (and the starter rules are free), I think a number of complaints about 4e are expertly addressed by GURPS, rather than by D&D 3e.

For instance:

GURPS starts by trying to model what would happen in mundane reality. Thus all of its baseline rules exist to generate believable, realistic interactions within this reality. GURPS provides rules to completely bypass these expectations and use more cinematic rules (not to mention magic) but the point is you can always fall back on “what would likely occur in real life”. Should you choose to use the basic, “realistic” rule set, it means (among other things):

-Losing HP always represents some kind of physical injury, HP is mostly determined by strength, and HP can never go much higher than strength. This means that normal humans can be killed by just a few hits. GURPS Combat, like real world combat, becomes a matter of avoiding injury, rather than soaking it up.

-In combat, there are a collection of maneuvers that allow you to precisely specify how you will attack (or defend), in a way that is highly granular. So rather than simply “narrating” how some combat interaction happened, you can literally choose to lunge forward towards an enemy, land on one knee, and stab for his groin. There are specific rules for each of these maneuvers (see GURPS Martial Arts) allowing you to specify a complex set of actions for dealing with your foes, including feints, beats, ruses, called shots, disarms, acrobatic moves, etc. GURPS is also careful to note which actions are and are not “realistic” in terms of whether highly skilled humans can actually perform them. You decide whether you want to integrate them into your campaign.

Anyhow, these are just two examples. Have any of those who are dissatisfied with D&D 4e tried playing a fantasy game with GURPS 4e? If so, what were your experiences?

For the record, I’m presently GMing a Forgotten Realms game using the GURPS rule set.


----------



## WizarDru (May 1, 2009)

underthumb said:


> Anyhow, these are just two examples. Have any of those who are dissatisfied with D&D 4e tried playing a fantasy game with GURPS 4e? If so, what were your experiences?
> 
> For the record, I’m presently GMing a Forgotten Realms game using the GURPS rule set.




I left AD&D to move to GURPS, which was my gaming system of choice for nearly fifteen years before D&D 3e brought me back.  While I haven't moved to GURPS 4e, I have browsed it.  I think it's a great system for some things and a terrible system for some others.  As a replacement for D&D?  Well, that depends on the players and the game style, mostly.

GURPS is great for something like George R. R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series...but terrible for something like Elric or The Belgariad.  D&D has always been high adventure, while GURPS is much more suited to grittier fantasy.  It can do high fantasy, but it has different weaknesses...which may mean a lot or little based on an individual group's tastes.  D&D 4e moves solidly into the high-pulp gamist realm, while GURPS is smack dab in the magic-realism simulationist realm.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 1, 2009)

I am very familliar with GURPS 3E and I have the 4E books. I think its a wonderful system and great for roleplaying in different genres. 

Its not D&D. GURPS can do fantasy very well but with a very different feel. GURPS combat is richly detailed, more simulationist than abstract, and because of these factors its overkill for simple dungeon exploration style play. If I am craving detailed crunchy combat, then GURPS is the first system I think about.

I lke older D&D systems for both thier abstraction and simplicity. Combat can be resolved swiftly with or without a map or minis. The lesser degree of modifiers and "fiddly bits" help keep the action easy to resolve as part of the roleplaying experience rather than as a separate tactical mini game. 

Thats the one problem I have with 3E/4E D&D and GURPS. All of these systems feature so many modifiers and options that combat takes you right out of the game world and straight to tactical situation. That doesn't make these systems bad or anything, just not what I really want out of a D&D style combat system.


----------



## Herobizkit (May 1, 2009)

I left the reams of AD&D2 for GURPS for a while.  I really enjoyed the free-form ability to create any genre of game using the same rules.  Palladium tried, and the same issues that occurred with Palladium occurred with GURPS, and occured with 3.x product glut - too many alternate rules and options that weren't measured against onoe another for "balance".  

Normally, I'm an advocate against the concept of balance... the DM's job is to find balance in the rules and present his game and vision using said rules... but GURPS makes more too much prepwork for little return.  Sure, there are shortcuts, as in all games, but for the most part, the prep time was too much for me as a GM.

As a Player, I started my GURPS experience in a low-fantasy game.  It was by far and away the polar opposite of my D&D experience to date.  I tried to re-create a Bard-type character and ended up with a half-elf who got bossed around and assumed too much.  Hit locations, weapons snapping when hitting larger weapons, one-hit kills no matter how good you are, "slow" magic (in GURPS, each round is 1 second long and many spells have to be "charged" for up to 3 seconds to reach maximum efficiency) and an overall too-realistic and un-heroic feel to the game.

When 3e was released, I had abandoned GURPS for an easier, self-contained ruleset that seemed more heroic and familair to me.

As for 4e, I have yet to read any of the rulebooks.

IMXP, GURPS is a far better rule set to use with any genre EXCEPT Heroic Fantasy.  But in truth, you get out of GURPS what you put into it and then some, so take that into consideration.  If they re-release (or have included) the Rules Compendium 1 and 2 for GURPS 4e, get 'em... they're just like the 3e Unearthed Arcana and DMG2, respectively.


----------



## underthumb (May 1, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Thats the one problem I have with 3E/4E D&D and GURPS. All of these systems feature so many modifiers and options that combat takes you right out of the game world and straight to tactical situation. That doesn't make these systems bad or anything, just not what I really want out of a D&D style combat system.




Hmmm. Well, GURPS 4e has GURPS Lite, which is pretty damn simplified, in addition to GURPS Ultra Lite. These are officially supported ways of playing with maximum abstraction and speed, and there's no requirement of using miniatures.


----------



## slwoyach (May 1, 2009)

I've actually wanted to try GURPS for years, but finding a group is far more difficult than finding a DND group.  One problem I do have with GURPS is it seems there just aren't enough character points to build a well rounded character.  Every time I try to build a character, there just aren't enough points.


----------



## underthumb (May 1, 2009)

WizarDru said:


> GURPS is great for something like George R. R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series...but terrible for something like Elric or The Belgariad.  D&D has always been high adventure, while GURPS is much more suited to grittier fantasy.  It can do high fantasy, but it has different weaknesses...which may mean a lot or little based on an individual group's tastes.  D&D 4e moves solidly into the high-pulp gamist realm, while GURPS is smack dab in the magic-realism simulationist realm.




Can you elaborate on where you see it has weaknesses in dealing with high fantasy? It seems like everything is there if you want to build D&D-style adventures with cinematic combat and warriors absorbing huge amounts of damage (e.g., ablative damage resistance, Luck or Ultra Luck, spending character points on creating automatic successes, etc.).


----------



## underthumb (May 1, 2009)

slwoyach said:


> I've actually wanted to try GURPS for years, but finding a group is far more difficult than finding a DND group.  One problem I do have with GURPS is it seems there just aren't enough character points to build a well rounded character.  Every time I try to build a character, there just aren't enough points.




Well, the GM sets the point value for starting characters. So if there aren't enough points, that has to do with the type of campaign you're playing, not with GURPS in particular. Super Hero games, for instance, regularly feature PCs with over 1000 points.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 1, 2009)

slwoyach said:


> I've actually wanted to try GURPS for years, but finding a group is far more difficult than finding a DND group. One problem I do have with GURPS is it seems there just aren't enough character points to build a well rounded character. Every time I try to build a character, there just aren't enough points.




I think GURPS could get a little more traction if there were a 3rd party support system that could publish adventures and other support material. SJ games should let freelancers submit adventures and sell the good ones as pdfs at least. Even when thier WW II and Traveller lines were getting a steady stream of supplements there was little to no adventure support. Fantasy? Forget it. 

BTW no matter what the campaign or point total is, there are never "enough" points.


----------



## pawsplay (May 1, 2009)

GURPS can provide a far superior Elric experience than any version of D&D ever published. It can also run traditional dungeon-run adventures beautifully, grittier fantasy, or more epic, romantic stuff, too. It is nonetheless not D&D. If GURPS characters aren't powerful enough on X points, add more points. The idea that GURPS characters are too weak is ridiculous; they are as strong as the GM allows. 

GURPS tends toward blow-by-blow simulation, but that is not the main goal. Just as with any other game, the goal is to provide a resolution when you ask the game a question. GURPS combat can be dialed to a very abstract level; using the basic combat rules, simple armor, and no hit locations, you can recreate D&D combat almost note for note. You can also turn GURPS combat into something else by giving PCs lots of character points, allowing very high defenses, and using various optional rules, resulting in swashbuckling action that is the polar opposite of gritty realism. 

There is no rule in GURPS that prevents an ordinary human from having ST 1000 and enough hit points to shrug off a tank shell.


----------



## avin (May 1, 2009)

GURPS is the best RPG system. Done


----------



## underthumb (May 1, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I think GURPS could get a little more traction if there were a 3rd party support system that could publish adventures and other support material. SJ games should let freelancers submit adventures and sell the good ones as pdfs at least. Even when thier WW II and Traveller lines were getting a steady stream of supplements there was little to no adventure support. Fantasy? Forget it.




Yeah, adventure support is hard when GURPS allows for so much customization. This creates high variance in the assumptions of GURPS campaigns. However, SJ Games are actively seeking adventure proposals from freelancers, but again, it's easier said than done.

As for 3rd party support, I think they're very worried about maintaining the value of the GURPS brand in terms of its reputation for quality, professionally edited works.


----------



## Umbran (May 1, 2009)

I've played with GURPS for fantasy - not GUrPS 4e, and not because I disliked D&D 4e, so take my view with a grain of salt.

In general, I found combat using the GURPS rules full-on was a horrid, tedious, confusing mess.  It runs much more quickly and smoothly if you use only the basics.  

However, when played that way, I don't see much advantage to using GURPS over using 2e or 3e D&D restricted to lower levels.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 2, 2009)

My impression is that you can dial the complexity up or down, to a large extent. As for doing 'D&D-like', Dungeon Fantasy looks to be the shiznit. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that most of what gets in the way of people adopting GURPS is, well, its _name_ first of all, and the. . . 'configuration' of the system, I guess - not the way it actually _plays_ - perhaps second. Doesn't do itself (or rather, its popularity) any major favours there. Shame, because it's got a lot going for it, including the best RPG supplements, overall.

I've had some fun with the system, and I'd certainly be willing to play it again.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 2, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> My impression is that you can dial the complexity up or down, to a large extent. As for doing 'D&D-like', Dungeon Fantasy looks to be the shiznit. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that most of what gets in the way of people adopting GURPS is, well, its _name_ first of all, and the. . . 'configuration' of the system, I guess - not the way it actually _plays_ - perhaps second. Doesn't do itself (or rather, its popularity) any major favours there. Shame, because it's got a lot going for it, including the best RPG supplements, overall.
> 
> I've had some fun with the system, and I'd certainly be willing to play it again.




One of the things it doesn't have going for it is a decent level of support. No adventures or supplemental products to support the major worldbooks, just more and more sourcebooks. Playing 2nd fiddle to Munchkin on the printing schedule doesn't impart a sense of support either. 
[RANT] I waited forever for my copy of Thaumatology after several delays for Munchkin printing [ END RANT]

I do really like the system though.


----------



## pawsplay (May 2, 2009)

Umbran said:


> In general, I found combat using the GURPS rules full-on was a horrid, tedious, confusing mess.  It runs much more quickly and smoothly if you use only the basics.




It runs smoothly and quickly with all the bells and whistles, too, but don't drink from the firehose.


----------



## DragoonLance (May 2, 2009)

Umbran said:


> In general, I found combat using the GURPS rules full-on was a horrid, tedious, confusing mess.




This.  That and many other reasons that have mirrored many people's complaints of D&D 3e is why I am dragging my group away from GURPS into D&D 4e.  I'm tired of building a big bad NPC for hours in the GUPRS character creation system for a PC to "one shot kill" with a master strike to the eye.  I'm tired of characters that manage to be everywhere in the same combat (the biggest complainer about moving to a grid based combat happens to be that player...)  

Basically as many other people has stated, the move to 4e D&D has made GMing fun again for me personally, and I think the players will really like it once they figure out they can do more than just hit the same monster until it goes down, or in some cases always stabbing for the eyes.   I know my player than almost always plays a blademaster ranger type is excited about the powers such as "hit and run." It's what she always envisioned her character doing, while she generally ends up doing nothing in GURPS thanks to the magic/range heavy players and low hit points on monsters.

I can understand some people's need for "simulation" in RPG, but after GMing GURPS for years I think (especially in their 4e) the simulation is inherently flawed, which just makes it a different type of game for the players to try and manipulate.  I would rather go with a system that is blatantly gamey but is far more balanced in the long run.

One of my other big gripes with GURPS is the lack of character development.  Sure you can earn points, but this amounts to roughly 2x advantages or +2 stat (or buying off a disadvantage) in a YEAR OF PLAY (playing 4-6 hours every other weekend!)  It's easier to build a new character instead, which was the same problem I had with Palladium systems.  Sure it had leveling, but the gains were so minor as to be worthless when you could just build a far better lvl 1 character from a newer book.  

Also, while GURPS has plenty of material available, most of it is background or so vague you really have to spend alot of time developing every session.  As the kind of GM than is really bad at improv, this means that GURPS is a huge drain on my free time, as opposed to D&D where I can use the 4e monster manual or even the tons of 3e material (locations, dungeons, characters etc.) and then populate it with monsters that will be a challenge but not too tough or too easy, or build my own in about 10 minutes.  I have the older GURPS monster books but the system has changed enough that I might as well rebuild them from scratch as GURPS 4e uses far different math for attacks and defence than the older material.


----------



## underthumb (May 2, 2009)

DragoonLance said:


> I'm tired of building a big bad NPC for hours in the GUPRS character creation system for a PC to "one shot kill" with a master strike to the eye.




You can of course use damage resistance, or magic, or any other measure to make your baddies more tough and less vulnerable to insta-kills, so I guess I'm a little puzzled by this comment.



> One of my other big gripes with GURPS is the lack of character development.  Sure you can earn points, but this amounts to roughly 2x advantages or +2 stat (or buying off a disadvantage) in a YEAR OF PLAY (playing 4-6 hours every other weekend!)




I'm also puzzled by this comment as well. As the GM, you set the pace of development and determine how many character points your players get. So if it's too slow, you just advance them faster.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 2, 2009)

underthumb said:


> Well, the GM sets the point value for starting characters. So if there aren't enough points, that has to do with the type of campaign you're playing, not with GURPS in particular. Super Hero games, for instance, regularly feature PCs with over 1000 points.



He wanted a well-rounded character, not a superhero.

In other words, just throwing more points at the problem does not make it go away.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (May 2, 2009)

Earlier editions of D&D tried to be something they were not. They told themselves sweet nothings like "hit points are believable if narrated really creatively" and "rolling only three specific traits make characters more realistic." Then 4e came, and D&D came out of the closet: "I'm here, and I'm a high fantasy over-the-top swashbuckling action game!"

Honesty is refreshing.


----------



## darjr (May 2, 2009)

I love GURPS. I also don't run it with all the options on. I highly recommend you try that first.

As far as DMing prep, don't use the rules for character gen to create your antagonists. Give them what they need.

One more thing, absolutely use other character stats to base skill checks on. An example would be the classic one where you have a high dex fencer facing a high skill fencer. Some of the combat should be using the skill as an int based check. Or even a health based check for a long drawn out fight. That big skill character will then shine against the big dex lower skill character.

It's a GURPS innovation that is subtle and really is an 'option' in the 4e core, but has since been adopted as a core mechanic. It'll keep your players honest.

As far as point rewards and character advancement, there isn't any real reason not to give lots and lots of points if you want, or none at all. Consider giving out abilities and boosts to skills and stats directly instead.

And absolutely check out 'dungeon fantasy', if you like the style, it'll save you a ton of work. GURPS is very toolkit and can be some work to define a campaign, DF has done a ton of this for you.

Oh, one last thing, don't get hung up on the adv/disadv system. I've seen it used to really detail a great character, but in the begining I'd just worry about the 'BIG' issues of a character and just freeform the rest. Kinda like you'd do for a D&D character without the dis/adv system.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 2, 2009)

DragoonLance said:


> I'm tired of building a big bad NPC for hours in the GUPRS character creation system for a PC to "one shot kill" with a master strike to the eye.




Uhm...

Why are you doing that? Character points exist purely as an accounting device for _player characters_, and there is no point at all in using them for NPCs - especially since they don't measure combat effectiveness (unlike D&D monster levels). Just give the NPC the precise stats you want without worrying about the points - the result _will_ be "rules-legal".



> One of my other big gripes with GURPS is the lack of character development.  Sure you can earn points, but this amounts to roughly 2x advantages or +2 stat (or buying off a disadvantage) in a YEAR OF PLAY (playing 4-6 hours every other weekend!)




On average, you should get about 3 CPs per typical gaming session. If you play every other weekend, you should end up with about 80 CP after a year of gaming. This will get you (in GURPS 4E):

+ 4 to IQ or DX (and these attributes are significantly more powerful than in D&D).
+ 8 to ST or HT
+ 20 in any one skill
+ A number of low-key advantages, or one or two really powerful ones.

Admittedly, using the base assumptions characters don't get as powerful as quickly as D&D characters - but that doesn't mean that their advancement is slow (and it could be argued that advancement in D&D is spectacularly fast). And if this is too slow for everyone's tastes, the GM _can_ vary the rate of advancement.



> Also, while GURPS has plenty of material available, most of it is background or so vague you really have to spend alot of time developing every session.




It is easy to run GURPS with almost every setting out there. I've run GURPS for Eberron and Warhammer Fantasy, and I know of a guy who has used it for an extended Forgotten Realms campaign.


Regarding GURPS combat: It _can_ be tedious, but it doesn't have to be if you do it right. Here is some advice for "mook" enemies which I found useful:

- Don't give them a HT of more than 12, or else it will take them forever to fall unconscious.
- Don't give them a high Damage Resistance (DR 4 - the equivalent of chain mail - at most), or else your PCs will only be able to kill them with the "Death of a Thousand Cuts", which will get boring quickly.
- Don't give them a weapon skill of more than 12, or else they will be too good at parrying attacks.

If you want to make such mooks more dangerous, either give them higher ST and hit points (one of the most memorable fights of my campaign was three PCs against five ogres - the ogres didn't hit often, but when they did hit, they were in for a world of hurt, thus keeping the PCs on their toes. Using the optional Shield Damage rules also added to the fun - the shields of the PCs gradually disintegrated over the course of the fight...), or make them more numerous - this way, the fight will last as long as if you had used fewer but tougher opponents, but the players will have a definite sense of progress as each mook falls down.

Ignore these restrictions for "elite" foes - the kind of enemies who would warrant names of their own instead of just "generic guard #7". But there shouldn't be more than two of them unless it's a truly epic fight - instead consider giving them more mooks as buffers.


----------



## Skallgrim (May 2, 2009)

I myself love GURPS (and I really urge everyone out there who hasn't looked at it to download the FREE PDF and look at it).  

However, D&D does have its strengths (and, I think, one of the strengths of 4e is recognizing and playing to D&D's strengths).  The critical one, for me, as a GM with relatively little prep time available to me, was the availability of published, prepared, adventures.  This was a godsend.

For a GM with the time, skill, and inclination to create their own adventures, GURPS is a very flexible, fun system that can encourage a lot of player creativity.


----------



## DragoonLance (May 2, 2009)

Well, for example we ran a Wierd War 2 campaign for the last 3 years.  Nazi soldiers are laughable mooks, even SS; they were never any kind of threat, even at platoon or company strength plus heavy weapons.  When characters actually use cover, are really trained at their primary weapon (and in GURPS who woudn't pour points into a single weapon skill?)  Only tanks or Stukas were actual threats, and even then a bazooka or heavy sniper rifle could cause massive damage thanks to hit locations.  The wierdness of the GURPS range system and the IMO overinflated damages for WW2 weapons are roughly the equivlent of everyone firing Save or Die spells at long range.  For those not familiar with the system, an average human has 10-15 HP, and a battle rifle inflicts 7 or 8D6 damage.

I'm not always the GM, in the game we play on alternating weekends the GM is very stingy, sometimes handing out 1/2 a point for a game session.  In this setting character development is a joke.  In this fantasy setting I find myself as a player bored to tears in combat, simply repeating the same hack or fireball against ork #2342 ad nauseum.  

Disposable mooks are not the problem although they contribute greatly to boredom in combat.  Uberbosses that are immune to gunfire arn't the solution either cause then players feel railroaded and just roll their eyes.  I'm not complaining about the material available as such, it's great for getting a feel for a setting, but for example in trying to build a Greek "Clash of the Titans" campaign there is NO MATERIAL that directly provides anything greater than adventure hooks.  No premade missions, maps, etc.  Its too "generic" for my tastes anymore.  I won't say the players didn't have fun with it, but as a GM I had to try something different or face burnout.


----------



## darjr (May 3, 2009)

Skallgrim said:


> However, D&D does have its strengths (and, I think, one of the strengths of 4e is recognizing and playing to D&D's strengths).  The critical one, for me, as a GM with relatively little prep time available to me, was the availability of published, prepared, adventures.  This was a godsend.




Preach it!

SJGames needs more published adventures. I know they have some, and they have some micro settings that are essentially this, but there needs to be more. I dunno the current state of GURPS third party licensing but I'd really like it if they could open up the gates a bit more on this.

I'm hopeing that their whole PDF push goes a bit in this direction. I'd like them to put out a line of little adventures. Something good for a nights play or two. I understand the issues about genre, but I think just picking a genre and getting a few out, then picking the next one, would go a long way to help us GMs.


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> He wanted a well-rounded character, not a superhero.
> 
> In other words, just throwing more points at the problem does not make it go away.




Yes, it does. A character can be quite round on 1000 points.


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2009)

DragoonLance said:


> I'm tired of building a big bad NPC for hours in the GUPRS character creation system for a PC to "one shot kill" with a master strike to the eye.




Surely you've gotten your time's worth out of them by then. A memorable NPC needs development, even if you run them in a fairly deadly game. I hope you are not building complete NPCs from points, down to their hobby skills, unless they are significant personae. The way I see it, a 500 point NPC in GURPS takes no longer to make then a 10th level D&D NPC, and the fact that they can die quickly is just a potential time saver. 

And, of course, there is no reason at all why an NPC has to die so easily. You can make combat less deadly, make the NPC tougher, or use any number of optional rules to give you some control over the situation. If you create Doctor Doom, by all means give him Super Luck with the defensive option.


----------



## Ariosto (May 3, 2009)

I played GURPS a fair bit when it was first released, and on into the second edition. As an old fan of _The Fantasy Trip_, I found some of the basics of the combat system pretty familiar and pleasing. Various other bits and bobs are nifty, too ... but the whole shebang eventually lost its appeal for the fellows with whom I was playing, and for me.

Different people tend to like rules-heaviness in different areas. Also, there is no direct correspondence between that and "realism" in any sense. D&D 4E is by my standards a notably rules-heavy game -- but way down in the rankings in terms of verisimilitude.

The GURPS magic rules can bring home the inflexibility of a complex system, if one has a quite different view of how that aspect of a fantasy world is to work.

For a D&D-style game, I prefer ... good old D&D! I have never needed a heap of complicated rules to make it satisfyingly realistic. That comes from paying attention to the imagined world -- the first-order phenomenon -- not from getting buried from the start in a removed approximation.


----------



## Ariosto (May 3, 2009)

The older *Hero System* is geared more to the fantastic, while offering (having pioneered them) many of the game-mechanical features one might find appealing in GURPS.

GURPS sourcebooks (and indeed the basic rule book itself) can be excellent material to have on hand, even if one is not running a campaign with the system.


----------



## Umbran (May 3, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Yes, it does. A character can be quite round on 1000 points.




But, that can create rather different problems.  Assuming that GURPS 4e handles character advancement in a manner similar to earlier editions:  1000 points is high - we played gritty Dark Ages style on... 300 or so, I think.  I think 500 to 1000 was what was normally considered appropriate for GURPS Supers, no?  

As with point buy systems in general, large point totals can make you a well-rounded character.  It can also make you a focused character that is nigh-broken by comparison.  The dichotomy between rounded and powergamed characters is heightened by point-buy, so if your players aren't all on board with what style you want, you can have problems by throwing points at the problem.

Which is not to say that throwing points at it will not work for you - merely that there's a trade-off to be made with that solution.


----------



## Ariosto (May 3, 2009)

> GURPS 4e uses far different math for attacks and defence than the older material.



Thanks for the heads-up! I sometimes give a game another go after a spell away.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 3, 2009)

DragoonLance said:


> Well, for example we ran a Wierd War 2 campaign for the last 3 years.  Nazi soldiers are laughable mooks, even SS; they were never any kind of threat, even at platoon or company strength plus heavy weapons.




If you thought the enemies were weak, then your GM was deliberately playing them that way. Plausibly, their weapons should have been no less dangerous than those of the PCs.



> The wierdness of the GURPS range system and the IMO overinflated damages for WW2 weapons are roughly the equivlent of everyone firing Save or Die spells at long range.  For those not familiar with the system, an average human has 10-15 HP, and a battle rifle inflicts 7 or 8D6 damage.




It should be pointed out that losing those "10-15 HP" meant that your character would be forced to start rolling versus unconsciousness every round, not that he was automatically dead. With 8d6 damage, a 10 HP character would be at -18 HP, which in GURPS 4E would mean that he needs to roll versus HT once to see if he stays alive.

Which is entirely realistic - WWII weapons _were_ very lethal, and I don't see what's supposed to be overinflated about it.



> I'm not always the GM, in the game we play on alternating weekends the GM is very stingy, sometimes handing out 1/2 a point for a game session.  In this setting character development is a joke.




That's simply bad GMing, and not supported by the rules in any way - the rules recommend 1-5 character points for every session. So don't blame the system for that.



> In this fantasy setting I find myself as a player bored to tears in combat, simply repeating the same hack or fireball against ork #2342 ad nauseum.




If all your character has bothered to learn are fireballs, then that's not surprising. What _other_ spells can he cast?



> Disposable mooks are not the problem although they contribute greatly to boredom in combat.  Uberbosses that are immune to gunfire arn't the solution either cause then players feel railroaded and just roll their eyes.




How about picking up some of the volumes of "Creatures of the Night" from e23? These monsters should be useful for both fantasy _and_ Weird War II - and provide challenges which require a variety of tactics to overcome.

Apart from that, use different terrain (steep hills and cliffs, bunkers and other fortifications) or environments (snow, rain, fog, night) to make things interesting. Let the defenders use their brains for once. Let the PCs figure out how to pass by kill zones to get to superior positions. Make the enemies use all the same dirty tactics as the PCs, and more besides (since they usually have more time to prepare for a combat). This can make any fight a lot more interesting.



pawsplay said:


> Yes, it does. A character can be quite round on 1000 points.




1000 CP is not needed for a well-rounded character - it's perfectly possible to create such a character on 150 CP, just as long as you remember that GURPS attribute values don't mean the same things as their D&D counterparts and don't attempt to sink all your points into your attributes.

IQ 13 is entirely sufficient if you want to create a "brainy" character, and DX 13 if you want to create a character who specializes in physical things. Remember to leave at least 30 points available for skills, and you shouldn't have too much trouble in creating a well-rounded character.

"Well-rounded" doesn't mean "getting everything you want" - that's what experience is for.



Ariosto said:


> The GURPS magic rules can bring home the inflexibility of a complex system, if one has a quite different view of how that aspect of a fantasy world is to work.




Pick up GURPS Powers, which is brilliant for coming up with your own system of supernatural powers - or GURPS Thaumatology, which provides numerous examples for varying the existing spell system (as well as some entirely different variants as well).


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2009)

Umbran said:


> But, that can create rather different problems.




Sure. I was just pointing out that if a character cannot be rounded on X number of points, you can simply keep adding points until it is feasible. It is a ridiculous premise that there will never be enough points to round a character. 

Player: My 150 point character doesn't feel well-rounded. I need 37 more points to buy the abilities I want.
GM: Here. Have 37 more points.
Player: Noooo!!!!! What have you done?


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2009)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> 1000 CP is not needed for a well-rounded character




Generally it's not needed for anything but a junior X-man and up. But it would be laughable to claim it is not sufficient for fixing any deficiency of roundness for any reasonable character below that level.



> "Well-rounded" doesn't mean "getting everything you want" - that's what experience is for.




I think it means "getting everything you want." That is, everything you want for your beginning character. There is no way to build a "well-rounded" knight-turned-vampire on 100 points. But if you add together the cost of the knight template and the vampire template, you should have a good idea of what the right neighborhood is.


----------



## ProfessorPain (May 3, 2009)

I highly recommend Savage Worlds. It is a universal system, like GURPS, but its much smoother. It definitely leans toward a certain style of play (high energy, cinematic); but its a great system and you can use it for virtually any genre.


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I highly recommend Savage Worlds. It is a universal system, like GURPS, but its much smoother. It definitely leans toward a certain style of play (high energy, cinematic); but its a great system and you can use it for virtually any genre.




Counterpoint: I find it less versatile than D6, to say nothing of GURPS or Hero, and I could never get it to do Star Wars right, which is mostly what I bought it for.


----------



## ProfessorPain (May 3, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Counterpoint: I find it less versatile than D6, to say nothing of GURPS or Hero, and I could never get it to do Star Wars right, which is mostly what I bought it for.




I haven't really had this experience with it. Sure it is less fleshed out than something like GURPS, but it is meant to be a streamlined system. GURPS is definitely a more complete system. Personally I find GURPS a little on the cumbersome side and a little old fashioned for my taste. Still a fan though. I have a bunch of GURPS books at my house. And no one does historical supps like GURPS. 

Haven't played d6 yet, looking forward to giving it a whirl when I get a chance.


----------



## Ariosto (May 3, 2009)

My own "generic" favorite is the grand-daddy of them all: Chaosium's Basic Role Playing System.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 4, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I highly recommend Savage Worlds. It is a universal system, like GURPS, but its much smoother. It definitely leans toward a certain style of play (high energy, cinematic); but its a great system and you can use it for virtually any genre.




I own Savage Worlds, and though I have not tested it yet like it well enough - the rules are simple and quick.

That being said, I wouldn't use it for games with characters diverging significantly from the human norm.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 4, 2009)

I'm puzzled to how it is that Savage Worlds (and now BRP) came into it, given that the thread's (meant to be?) about 'D&D and Simulationism', and more specifically 'from 4e to GURPS' in fact.

Now, SW and BRP are fine, and do what they do pretty well IMO, but what they _don't_ do is anything like what GURPS does. Not at all.

But hey, no big deal.


----------



## underthumb (May 4, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> I'm puzzled to how it is that Savage Worlds (and now BRP) came into it, given that the thread's (meant to be?) about 'D&D and Simulationism', and more specifically 'from 4e to GURPS' in fact.




I suppose people are just commenting on the "universal" part of GURPS, and comparing it to other universal systems. Which is fine, but again, I don't think any other system is as good at handling both gritty realism and crazy cinematic stuff. The fact that GURPS can run any genre you can throw at it (or all of them combined) is beside the point in this case.


----------



## Ariosto (May 4, 2009)

Most games, I think, handle one end of the spectrum better.

_GURPS Supers_ and _Superworld_ more comfortably fit a scenario in which one extrapolates somewhat realistically the effects of super strength or firepower than one with more fidelity to comic-book tradition. The scale of ratings means that high-powered stuff tends to involve bigger numbers than in some other games.

_Hero System_ inclines more the other way. Mechanical distinctions at the scale of normal humans are not so fine. (There's a similar problem in old-style D&D, with everything from a squirrel to an orc in the "one hit die" range.)


----------



## WizarDru (May 4, 2009)

underthumb said:


> Can you elaborate on where you see it has weaknesses in dealing with high fantasy? It seems like everything is there if you want to build D&D-style adventures with cinematic combat and warriors absorbing huge amounts of damage (e.g., ablative damage resistance, Luck or Ultra Luck, spending character points on creating automatic successes, etc.).




Sorry, typo there: it should read high-LEVEL fantasy.  I haven't played GURPS 4e, but I ran a high-fantasy game for 11 years in GURPS 3e quite successfully, so I'm not saying it can't...just that it suffered for several weaknesses that made it less suited than D&D for the game we were trying to play.  When I revived that campaign setting earlier this year, I did so in D&D 4e.

GURPS is a wonderfully modular system, but some of it's sub-modules are (or were, at least) ridiculously over-complex.  The GURPS Vehicles wheel-barrow comes to mind.  Many of the modular systems offered solutions to the problems, but like D&D 3e, adding more rules or exceptions or what have you to a system renders it more counter-intuitive and less enjoyable, to my group at least.  Issues like having to guard against min-maxing were exacerbated by the GURPS system  The realistic combat meant could be deadly, regardless of level...and that sometimes that wasn't really appropriate or enjoyable (it remains a fact that the deadliest opponent my Supers players faced was not the evil super-villains, but a bunch of escaped mental patients armed with AK-47s.

Many of these same elements occurred for high-level fantasy play (or the GURPS equivalent of high point-value play).  Of course, that term itself is a relative one and another potential weakness, depending on your tastes.  Character development in GURPS is astoundingly slow, overall, and the traditional carrot-and-stick of the level system is not present here.  Getting a new feat is nice, but when it takes you four sessions to get just one very basic feat...well, it's not quite as exciting...especially if it's part of a chain you're saving up for.

None of which is to say that any of these issues can't be addressed using the rules as written...they can be.  But I've found that D&D now fills those needs with less work on my part and appeals more directly to my gaming style.  I don't you'd be disappointed playing high-fantasy with either system.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 4, 2009)

WizarDru said:


> Sorry, typo there: it should read high-LEVEL fantasy.  I haven't played GURPS 4e, but I ran a high-fantasy game for 11 years in GURPS 3e quite successfully, so I'm not saying it can't...just that it suffered for several weaknesses that made it less suited than D&D for the game we were trying to play.  When I revived that campaign setting earlier this year, I did so in D&D 4e.
> 
> GURPS is a wonderfully modular system, but some of it's sub-modules are (or were, at least) ridiculously over-complex.  The GURPS Vehicles wheel-barrow comes to mind.  Many of the modular systems offered solutions to the problems, but like D&D 3e, adding more rules or exceptions or what have you to a system renders it more counter-intuitive and less enjoyable, to my group at least.  Issues like having to guard against min-maxing were exacerbated by the GURPS system  The realistic combat meant could be deadly, regardless of level...and that sometimes that wasn't really appropriate or enjoyable (it remains a fact that the deadliest opponent my Supers players faced was not the evil super-villains, but a bunch of escaped mental patients armed with AK-47s.




I should note that the GURPS 4E rules have been significantly reworked to make cinematic and high-powered campaigns easier, as well as make submodules more coherent and simpler.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 4, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> I'm puzzled to how it is that Savage Worlds (and now BRP) came into it, given that the thread's (meant to be?) about 'D&D and Simulationism', and more specifically 'from 4e to GURPS' in fact.
> 
> Now, SW and BRP are fine, and do what they do pretty well IMO, but what they _don't_ do is anything like what GURPS does. Not at all.
> 
> But hey, no big deal.




I can't speak to Savage Worlds, but BRP (like its elder brother, RQ2) take a giant step towards simulationism compared to D&D, and so are pretty germane to the discussion.

I've run a short Dark Sun campaign very successfully using RQ2 rules with additional house-rules to support elements of the Dark Sun flavour. I've also run a couple of sessions so far of Eberron using RQ2, which fits very nicely with the 'film noir' pretensions of the original descriptions of Eberron.

cheers


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 4, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I can't speak to Savage Worlds, but BRP (like its elder brother, RQ2) take a giant step towards simulationism compared to D&D, and so are pretty germane to the discussion.



Oh.  Well, right y'are then. The impression I got from Savage Worlds was of something solidly in the opposite vein, so to speak. But yeah, now I think of it, I guess at least some implementations of BRP (or thereabouts) are more pro-simulationist (?) than D&D was. Um, or is.

And really, even SW might be more so. . .


----------



## kitsune9 (May 4, 2009)

underthumb said:


> I've read a number of threads pertaining to dissatisfaction with D&D 4e's treatment of HP, powers, and the like. The general thrust of the criticism is that many of the mechanics of 4e do violence to one's intuitions about how a given effect would manifest in the game world (e.g., HP as non-physical injury, enemies being pulled near you...somehow...via "Come and Get It", etc.). I share these sentiments, but I wonder whether those who are presently dissatisfied are playing the wrong game entirely. I wonder whether they should try GURPS 4e.
> 
> I've been a D&D player for decades, and it's only in the last year or two that I've picked up GURPS. While you can read plenty about GURPS elsewhere (and the starter rules are free), I think a number of complaints about 4e are expertly addressed by GURPS, rather than by D&D 3e.
> 
> ...




I would like to play GURPS every once in a while. I have the 4e core books and Fantasy. I do like the simulation aspect of the game, but do need it a little more cinematic which I know they have the rules for that as well.

Unfortunately, my group is a "D&D only" fan club.


----------



## jasynjonz (May 27, 2009)

So, I've played GURPS 4 and A lot of DnD, including 4 and Savage Worlds.  My favorite system for everything we have discussed is the Hero System, which is very Gurpslike with a lot less tedious rule set for combat.  So much depends on what your group likes that it would be hard to find a real answer here.  I run a heavily home brew first edition ADD campaign and play in a 4e.  I like everything, any rule set is just a tool.  

As per this discussion, Savage Worlds might be the best balance I have seen and leaves a lot open to the gm to make it realistic.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 27, 2009)

Here is something GURPS is great at: Plausible setting design, especially when it comes to mixing and matching different elements.

Let's say you want to create a setting with a base technology similar to that of the WWI era. No problem - GURPS High-Tech has lots of support material for that tech level. Weapons, equipment, general implications of this tech, and so forth.

But let's also say you want to add in magic - and that magic is capable of bioengineering feats which in the real world we will likely only be capable of creating in another hundred years. So you can first decide on the magic system. Do you want the default system from the Basic Set/GURPS Magic? Or one of the variants from GURPS Thaumatology? Or something based on GURPS Powers instead? You have a far greater range of options than in pretty much any other RPG out there with these books alone (and yes, that definitely includes _any_ edition of D&D!). And for the bio-tech creations, you only have to go to GURPS Bio-Tech and define your bio-tech tech level. As simple as that you have worked out the basic parameters of your setting.

And starting from there, you can work out the _implications_ of your choices. Take combat and warfare - in which fields will which approach make the most sense? What kind of uses will magic, magical biotech, and mundane technology have? Which will contribute that?

The same questions can be asked for politics, society, communication, espionage... and by looking at all the possible combinations you can not only work out plausible answers, but come up with lots of great story and adventure ideas!


----------



## Mircoles (May 27, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> I'm puzzled to how it is that Savage Worlds (and now BRP) came into it, given that the thread's (meant to be?) about 'D&D and Simulationism', and more specifically 'from 4e to GURPS' in fact.
> 
> Now, SW and BRP are fine, and do what they do pretty well IMO, but what they _don't_ do is anything like what GURPS does. Not at all.
> 
> But hey, no big deal.





I guess because they're multi-genre systems also. I prefer GURPS to either of them, though BRP does have some nostalgic appeal, it doesn't have  quite the versatility of GURPS.

Savage Worlds has potential, but it seems to lack something in comparison to GURPS.


----------



## Set (May 27, 2009)

I would love for D&D to include more of the 'simulationist' aspects of GURPS, not because I give a fig for 'realism,' so much as for the fun aspects of *choosing* to stab at the eye, or kick someone in the junk, or attempt an arm lock, instead of just 'I swing. Okay, hit.' or 'I grapple.'

GURPS, in my opinion, really shows it's roots as a child of Man-to-Man, a magicless melee combat simulator, and the armed combat system is simple and elegant, if you're used to it (and awkward and kludgey if not, just like every other game, ever). But the magic / fantasy aspects of it really never inspired in the same way, and I'm much more of a sorcery buff than a swords buff, so we ended up 'D&Difying' our games somewhat, allowing Magery to go up past 3 levels (to 1/3rd IQ, or 1/2 IQ for single-college Magery), and all damaging spells (or healing spells or other spells with levels of effect) to be able to be bumped up to as many dice as your Magery. After years of play, with Mages running around with 150 to 200 character points (this was old-school, when characters started at 100 cp, which is apparently considered 'weak' by today's standards), 5 die blasts fueled from 50 pt powerstones allowed them to blast dragons out of the sky in our epic 'reunion game.' The 200 cp earth mage created an elemental large enough to batter down the gates to the arch-nemesis' castle and we stormed in with an army of zombies raised by the necromancer (and, in GURPS, a single zombie is pretty scary, since nobody has more than 10-14 'hit points'). (We also made buying extra hit points and strength past 13 cheaper, in that game, so that the non-mages didn't get left out.  Then again, we also 'sped things up' by getting rid of PD entirely, making combats run much quicker.  Apparently GURPS 4E did something similar, but then added 3 to all defense numbers, *completely freaking negating the change,* but hey, at least they came close to our house rule!)  

We even had to 'nerf' some things, such as Force Dome, as 'totally indestructible' turned out to be a little *too* good. (The nerfed Force Dome had DR equal to Magery and hit points equal to spell skill.)

It was as high-fantasy a game as anyone could want.

Even in an *unmodified* GURPS 3rd, the shining knight character single-handedly slew a dragon, and another fighter, more greco-roman in flavor, handily whacked the leg off of a tyrannosaurus, felling it before it could devour him (although a 'buff' spell from a friendly mage, increasing his ST by 4, helped!) and then simply backing off from the crippled beast, since two more T-Rexes were attacking his comrades!

None of this was done with over 200 cp (closer to 150, IIRC), back in 3rd edition (without any special rules to 'D&Dify' it), so it's hardly 'super-hero' power levels! GURPS can be as 'high-fantasy' or over-the-top as you want. I've both run and played in Forgotten Realms games using the GURPS rules, although our group now prefers 3rd edition D&D for fantasy. (GURPS fantasy worked much better for us than 2nd edition, which had quite a lot of stuff that didn't balance well with other stuff, once the plethora of kits, specialty priests, Complete Humanoids race and Players Options 'build your own race and class' stuff got into the mix.) We still use GURPS for some Supers games (alternating with Villains & Vigilantes and Mutants & Masterminds, since we are schizo that way).

One thing I always liked about GURPS is how you'd get 1 to 3 cp at the end of every play session, and could immediately make some minor change to your character, such as learning a skill or training one up, or mastering a new spell. In AD&D, you'd go four or more sessions between 'level-ups,' and often get a bunch of stuff at once, necessitating some dead time while everyone 'leveled up' their character. The slow gradual growth appealed to me better than the, 'Hey, by killing that last orc, I learned how to cast 3rd level spells!' Each new option had time to get integrated, instead of getting lost in the flurry of new stuff. Instead of 'evolving' every 4 or 5 sessions, you'd grow more like Batman, not gaining a bunch of new super-powers every six issues, but slowly getting better, building on his strengths. There was never a session that you walked away from thinking that you hadn't gained anything, because you hadn't leveled.


----------



## D&D DAVE (May 27, 2009)

My group has switched from 4th edition D&d , to GURPS 4e. 

The rules have inspired one our players to take on the gamaster role for our group, the options really sell the game and the lack of classes is a real breath of fresh air.


----------



## avin (May 27, 2009)

All hail to GURPS!


----------



## qstor (May 27, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> I prefer GURPS to either of them, though BRP does have some nostalgic appeal, it doesn't have  quite the versatility of GURPS.




I agree that the Choasium system doesn't work as well as GURPS in supers or other areas like that. I've played it and run it but i couldn't seem to master the system for Traveller so I'm using the new Mongoose game. I've never run supers but the Hero system or Mutants and Masterminds seems more popular rule settings for that area.

Mike


----------



## Gabriel Angelfire (May 2, 2011)

sorry for resurrecting dead topics but i happened to stumble upon it and every time I see players smack talking the realism of D&D combat to praise Gurps´ realistic one I must give my POV.

Simply and direct

In Gurps you roll 3d6 for an attack, rolling under your skill it´s a success. The defender rolls 3d6 vs his defense skill, whatever it is. Now, the curious thing about this so realistic system is that, no matter what you are defending against, you roll 3d6 under your defense skill and voilá, you made it!

Got a defense score of 17? heck yeah, facing a 30-year of experience skilled swordsman? no worry, roll 17 or less and he won´t touch ya.
Facing a dire, gigantic rhinoceros the size of an elephant? he is charging right at ya? No worry, roll under 17 and you´re done.

The ancient great fiery wyrm? Come up to him, mock the heck out him. Ask the DM (or GM, or Storyteller...) if you can roll first (order of rolls shouldn´t matter, so it´s ok), rolled 17 or less? Continue the mocking dancing and singing: "Can´t touch this! ta nanana, nana, nana...".

In Gurps the skill of attacker matter only up to a point, since unskilled attackers also have the chance to miss their rolls, but the point is that: as long as the defender makes his roll, he is off alright, no matter what he is up against.

I mean, it should make a difference when it comes to defending yourself if you´re facing a common street punk or Lyoto Machida (UFC Light Heavyweight champion. His styles mixes a deadly variant of Shotokan with Jiu-Jitsu)

Just my POV, I know the topic is dead but.. needed to say it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 2, 2011)

Gabriel Angelfire said:


> sorry for resurrecting dead topics but i happened to stumble upon it and every time I see players smack talking the realism of D&D combat to praise Gurps´ realistic one I must give my POV.
> 
> Simply and direct
> 
> ...




There are provisions for attack skill to matter more, it depends on how fiddly you want to make the rules. One option is to reduce defense by one for every two the attack succeeds by. This means that Beefy McBadass attacking with a 22 skill rolls an average 10 to hit making Dodgy McSmartypants -6 on his defense roll. Now that 17 (an absurdly high def score in most genres) has become a mere 11.


----------



## pawsplay (May 4, 2011)

Gabriel Angelfire said:


> In Gurps you roll 3d6 for an attack, rolling under your skill it´s a success. The defender rolls 3d6 vs his defense skill, whatever it is. Now, the curious thing about this so realistic system is that, no matter what you are defending against, you roll 3d6 under your defense skill and voilá, you made it!




Unless he does an All-Out Attack, and attacks twice, causing you to take a -2 on your second parry. Hope you make them both. Or he might Feint-and-Attack.

Or unless he makes a Deceptive attack.



> Got a defense score of 17? heck yeah, facing a 30-year of experience skilled swordsman? no worry, roll 17 or less and he won´t touch ya.




That's a huge defense score. Like Spider-Man huge.



> Facing a dire, gigantic rhinoceros the size of an elephant? he is charging right at ya? No worry, roll under 17 and you´re done.




Actually, parrying very large opponents does come with serious consequences, beginning with the possibility of weapon breakage. And very large Dodge scores are a rarity.



> The ancient great fiery wyrm? Come up to him, mock the heck out him. Ask the DM (or GM, or Storyteller...) if you can roll first (order of rolls shouldn´t matter, so it´s ok), rolled 17 or less? Continue the mocking dancing and singing: "Can´t touch this! ta nanana, nana, nana...".




Unless of course, he has multiple Extra Attacks, allowing him to bite, claw, claws, and tail slap you, in one round, causing a -2 cumulative penalty to each of your defenses. 



> In Gurps the skill of attacker matter only up to a point, since unskilled attackers also have the chance to miss their rolls, but the point is that: as long as the defender makes his roll, he is off alright, no matter what he is up against.




Unless he is up against an equally skilled foe.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 4, 2011)

I have played more GURPS 3e than I have played any other system, and a large chunk of that was heroic fantasy. It's definitely different, but fun none the less.

I've always liked the _feel_ of D&D, but until 3e I never much cared for (large chunks of) the rules. So I bought a lot of 2e stuff for inspiration, but ran it with GURPS. I never got that feel that I was going for quite right, but it had a feel of it's own. Now, if I had been rule-savvy enough, or experienced enough in game theory, I might've been able to reproduce it better, but I wasn't and I didn't until D&D 3e came along, which seemed to have the feel built in.

As others have mentioned, where GURPS really shines is setting creation; outside of a couple of long running D&D-esque campaigns, we mostly ran one-shot games or short mini-campaigns inspired by whatever was on our minds at the time. We threw them together in no time by grabbing bits from the many various GURPS books we had. 

Slap a couple of GURPS books together and you have a fully supported setting.


----------

