PDA

View Full Version : GURPS 3 vs GURPS 4?



Coidzor
2009-09-21, 11:37 AM
What're the main changes/differences and if I have the GURPS lite rules for both, which would make for a better first foray into getting a feel for it?

Or was that an april fool's joke on the GURPS site?

The Big Dice
2009-09-21, 01:40 PM
I got the pdf of GURPS Lite for 4th ed out of curiosity more than anything. From my perspective, the biggest difference is that I have GURPS 3 and enough sourcebooks to run the kinds of games I want to run using it. But other than a few minor changes in the skill list, the biggest difference I noticed was the change to the cost of attributes.

Instead of all traits costing the same, with a strange progression to the cost as they get higher, in 4th, Strength and Health cost a flat 10 points per level. While Dex and IQ cost 20. There's probably more than that, but that's the change that stood out most for me.

Kizara
2009-09-21, 04:04 PM
There are quite a number of differences from what I understand, and the 4e is (from everyone I've spoken/posted with) seen as superior and improved from 3e.

In general its a bit less of a headache to work with and has better balance while maintaining (or improving) all its simulationist aspects.

However, as I have only recently got into GURPS and did not play 3e at all, I'll leave someone more familiar with both additions to help fill in the blanks a bit here.


If you are looking to start the game, I strongly recommend 4e because its what's currently being dealt with, and seems like much less of a mess to learn, from what I hear.

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-21, 04:23 PM
What're the main changes/differences and if I have the GURPS lite rules for both, which would make for a better first foray into getting a feel for it?

Although I have some GURPS 3e books, my actual gaming experience is only with GURPS 4e.

If you're new to the system, I would definitely recommend GURPS 4e. The general consensus seems to be that it's better balanced. From an outsider's perspective, the differences would seem fairly minor (when compared say to the shift between D&D 3rd and 4th editions).

The Big Dice is right in the way that stat costs have changed. Also, ST for lifting is now quadratic. Languages are no longer treated as Skills. PD (passive defence) has been removed and replaced with a flat +3. Minor changes to Advantages, Disadvantages and Skills, largely to streamline the system and avoid the bloat in GURPS 3e where every new supplement introduced a new trait, which was not necessarily balanced with those of other supplements. Maneuvers are now called Techniques (and the term Maneuver means something else). Also, I believe Perks are new and did not exist in GURPS 3e.

dariathalon
2009-09-21, 05:53 PM
I'd definitely recommend 4e. As others have said, it is much more streamlined. While the changes are not too extreme, you'd get pretty confused trying to combine the two unless you really knew what you were doing with both.

One of the best examples I can think of for how they've streamlined things is flight. In GURPS 3e, there were about 5 different ways you could get the ability to fly at will (psionics, super powers, magical knacks, being a member of a race w/ wings, etc...) They each cost a different amount of points (and in most cases weren't well balanced with each other) and worked slightly differently (but still none were probably exactly as you would have liked). Now there is one flight advantage (no matter how your backstory says you acquired it). This flight advantage can then be modified to make it work exactly as you want it to through enhancements and limitations.

warmachine
2009-09-21, 06:16 PM
I'll try to avoid writing what's already been written.
Will, Perception, FP and HP are secondary charactersitics based off a primary attribute.
Flat costs of attributes with DX and IQ being 20 per point and ST and HT being 10.
Languages are levelled advantages, rather than skills.
Skills are a relative value based off an attribute or characteristic (ST, DX, HT, IQ, Will or Per), allowing a roll to use a different attribute to normal.
Talents improve a specific set of skills, encouraging specialisation rather than high IQ/DX polymaths.
Modern day shifted to TL8, ultra-tech TLs revamped and capped at TL12.
Percentile modifiers to traits much like Hero.
Psionics advantage-based, rather than skill-based, and reportedly fixed.
A strange mixture of publication strategies where a subject is either encompassed in one hardback book, in one thinner softback or across a series of PDFs.

PirateMonk
2009-09-21, 07:44 PM
Maneuvers are now called Techniques (and the term Maneuver means something else).

Actually, in 3rd, Maneuvers were both things you do in combat, like Attack or Ready, and applications of skills, like Kick, and it was generally confusing.

In general, if you're starting for the first time, 4th is probably better. I generally use 3rd, but only because most of the people I play with are more familiar with it.

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-24, 09:30 AM
Actually, in 3rd, Maneuvers were both things you do in combat, like Attack or Ready, and applications of skills, like Kick, and it was generally confusing.

OK, I didn't realise that. Definitely makes sense renaming the sub-skills as Techniques then. Especially considering that (in GURPS 4e Martial Arts at least) some types of Technique can also be a special sub-variant of Maneuvers as well. Using the same term for both would be doubly confusing! :smallwink:

fusilier
2009-09-24, 02:23 PM
I have run and played 3rd edition, and I have played a little bit in 4th. Fundamentally they are the same. I didn't notice the balance issues brought up by others (like the "Flight Advantage" example), and I never really felt that 3rd was unbalanced. However, the example does illuminate what I think is the main difference. 3rd evolved over a long time, and being open and flexible, there ended up being a lot of different ways to do the same thing -- different sourcebooks would approach what was essentially the same thing, from a different direction, within its own setting. This could result in points for advantages not matching up across different source books. There was some attempt to rectify this within 3rd edition. Compendium I amalgamated some advantages to make things easier to follow.

The main advantage to fourth is an improvement in how the rules are presented. Removing redundancies, providing more cohesion/consistency, and simply being easier to follow.

There are things about 4th which I actually felt were more confusing/complicated, but then there are other aspects that I prefer. The nice thing is, you could probably meld those things you like from one system to another without messing anything up.

It seems like a lot of people who really got into 3rd edition never gave it up -- the differences aren't major, they can be easily incorporated into 3rd, and they've taken the time to figure out the rules. Whereas those introduced to 4th seem to have little desire to figure out 3rd. So the argument that the rules are presented in a much easier way to understand may be entirely valid.

As for the Lite editions, either one will be a decent primer to GURPS. If you decide to switch, you need to realize that some things will work a little differently.

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-25, 08:55 AM
On a cosmetic note (which matters to some and is completely irrelevant to others)...the GURPS 4e hardbacks are in colour, whereas the 3e books were all B&W. The colour art of the new books has received mixed reception (the new edition of GURPS Magic is almost certainly the worst) but generally it's good enough IMO, and the colour layout for the text boxes and page borders make things easier to find in Comparision. Although I also liked the B&W art of 3e myself, but not everyone was a fan of Dan Smith's style, so you can't please them all. :smallsmile:

mcv
2009-09-25, 09:44 AM
Yeah, the art of 4th edition isn't quite as gorgeous as they promised. But it's in colour and it's a lot more consistent than the patchwork art found in the various 3rd edition books.

And that's basically also the difference between the systems: 3rd edition started out pretty neat, though small (compared to its later size), but when it got expanded with a few hundred source books (count them!), it turned into a big ugly patchwork, some parts of which were very cool, others quite ugly, and much of it inconsistent or unbalanced with other parts. 4th edition cleaned all of that up, added a more systematic way of doing absolutely anything you could possibly dream of (and more), but some people feel the end result isn't quite what they'd hoped for.

And of course being able to do absolutely everything inevitably results in inbalances. More subtle and complex inbalances than in 3rd edition, but they're there.

On the whole, though, 4th edition is better. There were a lot of little things in 3rd edition that weren't exactly broken or unbalanced, but still didn't sit quite right (how everybody ended up with DX 15 and IQ 13, for example). That's mostly it, really: because attribute costs and skill costs are more balanced, and because of the introduction of Talents, it's much easier to make regular characters fit your character concept exactly, rather than ending up much smarter because of basic min-maxing.

fusilier
2009-09-26, 03:49 PM
On the whole, though, 4th edition is better. There were a lot of little things in 3rd edition that weren't exactly broken or unbalanced, but still didn't sit quite right (how everybody ended up with DX 15 and IQ 13, for example). That's mostly it, really: because attribute costs and skill costs are more balanced, and because of the introduction of Talents, it's much easier to make regular characters fit your character concept exactly, rather than ending up much smarter because of basic min-maxing.

I haven't noticed that in the games I've played. Although high-IQ isn't uncommon, it's rarely paired with high-DX, it's usually one or the other. At least in most games I've played in (~100-125 points). 3rd uses a cost system that ramps up for all Attributes (ST, is an exception at super-human levels), whereas 4th uses a flat cost, but the cost is different for different attributes. I don't have any problem with the decisions taken in 4th, I feel they are logically sound and make sense, but in practice I don't see much difference in the kind of characters that were created.

I personally like the hundreds of sourcebooks, even if I use them solely as background info, and not use any new rules introduced in them. In fact I've found them useful in other game systems. For the most part they are very well written.