My Review of GURPS

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I just reviewed GURPS (Genaric Universal Roleplaying System) on my blog. What do you think?

http://ultimatejosha.blogspot.ca/2012/04/tabletop-rpg-review-gurps.html

[JellyPooga]

I think you've missed some of the potential that GURPS offers. Yes, combat can be lethal and lower-point games tend towards "gritty realism" rather than "heroic fantasy", but as you creep up the scale the "gritty" gets a bit smoother and the combat more forgiving.

It's true that higher point games can slow things down, but not neccesarily. High points does not have to mean more Advantages, more Skills and more complex; it can just mean "higher values" (higher ST, higher HP, etc.).

As for cinematic play, GURPS Basic: Campaigns offers various optional rules under a heading entitled just that! It doesn't stop there though. GURPS is what you want it to be. Some things just require a little more work to achieve than taking the optionals at face value. If you're looking for a game that you don't have to put much effort into, as a GM, then GURPS is not for you; it can be very heavy on the GM to run, but it can do anything and do it well!

[ngilop]

it depends on the point-allowment o how 'gritty' games can be, also you should really include in your review of gurps that any setting you cna think of (down to revolutionay russia, im not joking here) has been made for GURPS


and more importantly that a lot majority fo people have already played gurps, but not known it. but that is only if they played any of the Fallout Games, they are alreayd fmailair with GURPS though they know it as teh SPECIAL system.

basically GURPS is the game where with teh right books its for everybody.. plus its cheap on the ice just go to your local Dollar tree and buy 10 D6s for a buck.

[DefKab]

I notice that your reviews are often painted with very broad strokes... Maybe I'm missing the intended audience for your reviews, but it seems to me, when you say you're reviewing a role-playing game, you want to include more than the fact that it's a role-playing game.

Now, if you're using it as a part of a review scheme of several game types, from board games, to video games and beyond, then yes, your broad strokes of Game Style, and playability are probably the only important factors beyond 'It's an RPG'...

But if you're saying "This is my role-playing game review of GURPS", then we already expect it to be a RPG, and the broad strokes should be a set up to a deeper look into the game. You start off with the scope of the game design (IN GURPS case: All), and the playability, and then you work in. Why did you feel that it didn't live up to its examples? I know how RPG's work, or else I'm probably not reading your review, so you can assume that I'll understand a more mechanical viewpoint. Include mechanics, die setup, interesting characteristics of the game. Get some detail, and it'll be more than. "This is GURPS, it tries to be a variable play style, and while fun, it doesn't really achieve it." That's a header. Not a review.

But again, I may just be missing your intended audience, and the scope in which your reviews are meant to hit...