What does GURPS do well compared to DND 3.5?

[rezplz]

So I've been thinking of looking into GURPS, mainly because I like the idea of a game where you can make whatever you want without a class system, and I think it does more "realistic" fantasy better than DnD. So I was wondering how the playground would compare and contrast the two gaming systems, and if they had any advice for someone who primarily plays 3.5, who wanted to give GURPS a try.

[Starscream]

I think GURPS is a great system, personally. Fun, simple to learn, and very very versatile.

I've never really used it for fantasy games, though. That is what D&D excels at, and it would be too hard not to compare the two.

I tend to treat GURPS as sort of a drawer marked miscellaneous when it comes to settings. If I want to play fantasy I play D&D. If I want to play a superhero story I used Mutants and Masterminds. If I want horror I play Call of Cthulu or World of Darkness.

But whenever there's something you want to play that doesn't fit into a category like that, GURPS is your friend. I've used it for Ghostbusters games, Doctor Who games, Lupin III games.... if you can imagine it you can stat it out in GURPS. It's probably the best "generic" system out there.

Oh, and let's not forget that the best book series ever, Discworld, got its own GURPS supplement. That alone makes it worthwhile.

[Brainstomper]

Gurps is a good system but if you run it you must clearly define what is and isn't avaible for pc generation. Buying paranoia in anything I run is a free set of points.. I let them "buy" it later after they realize that there are really bad things trying to eat thier souls. Character generation itself can be very time consuming as well. It is rather funny when you get hard core D&D powergamers running scared from a single crossbow, because it does stand a good chance of killing a more experinced character.

[sonofzeal]

GURPS... hmmm.... Well, I haven't played much, but here's what I've noticed...

- Far more attempt at verisimilitude, especially with regards to combat. Almost every weapon has significant distinct features, and hit points don't go up automatically (though you can bring them to absurd levels if you really focus on that). As a result though, it's substantially grittier and its basic level than the relatively heroic D&D, with death being much more immediate from even basic threats.

- Balance is left up to the player, rather than (supposedly) inherent in the system. It's almost trivially easy to god-mode your guy, especially for combat, but the system is designed such that it isn't as big a temptation, if that makes sense.

- Er.... I should have a third here. Oh well.

[Corey]

It's almost trivially easy to god-mode your guy,

Or as batman/skill monkey, although I think they cut back on that a bit in 4th Edition by nerfing Eidetic Memory.

Also: Disadvantages/Quirks are on the whole a great idea, but they do lead to players taking the template "Disagreeable Idiot". Of course, that can be a problem in D&D too in the paladin class, or indeed w/o any game-mechanics benefits at all. ;)

[Satyr]

The comparison is actually quite simple: As a rule of thumb, everything D&D does, Gurps does better. This is made extra obvious with the Gurps: Dungeon Fantasy line of games, which is mostly fantasy in the same niche as D&D, with very similar strengths but without the usual weaknesses.

Yes, by default, Gurps is grittier than D&D. But that's no achievement. There are few systems out there which are not grittier than D&D, so this sounds a lot like "by default, elephants are larger than dogs". And beisdes, the important utterance here is "by default". You can easily ignore this aspect, go for highly cinematic rules and make the game about as gritty as a cartoon about kittens.

Yes, the game has a strong focus on verisimilitude and how the things do work, this another major bonus, especially when it comes to fantasy games. Verisimilitude is an essential component of any fantastic setting.

Now what many people interpret as a problem with Gurps is that it has little boundaries and pretty much requires players and gamemasters to create a framework for their campaign on their own. So people hav e to come up with their own idea of how cinematic or gritty the campaign is supposed to be, how powerful characters should be and which kind of abilities are open to them, and so on. This can be a bit overwhelming, especially at first, but I think this is a very respectful treatment for the players. Compared to D&D, especially in 4th edition, where there is a very narrow definiton of what fits in the game and what not, and a tendency towards "we know better how to have fun than thou", which could be interpreted as condescending, but is almost always limiting. Now, limits aren't bad, a framework is a pretty good thing for most campaigns, but this framework in Gurps is pretty much a product of your preferences and ideas while the framework in D&D is mostly forced upon the players.
I like this a lot, because I'd rather be seen as a mature, thinking individual who can make his own decisions than a small child that should be taken by the hand and treated as if it doesn't know what it wants.

When it comes to the rules, Gurps is deep in the "standardized rules, lots of options" territory, and I mean lots of options. The beautiful thing is, they work all after a very similar pattern, and once you understand how the rules work in generally (and that you are supposed to use the combat options and don't just stand there and hit), you can use them in the specific cases as well. In Gurps, every action bases on the exact same mechanism, and because the game is very focused on how things work in reality, they are also often intuituve to use.
Again, the loads of options can look overwhelming and pretty much requires that the gamemaster or the group decides which rules they want to use and which ones they don't like for this campaign.

Character creation can take for a really time in Gurps, again because of the number of options. But, and that's the good aspect, it's fun, and you build indeed a unique individual character and not an archetype with a unique name.

When I introduce new players to gaming, I almost always use Gurps, because it is one of the most simple systems to explain, and has almost no logical fallacies within is rules and helps to get a grip on how to create interesting, multidimensioal characters.

Now, Gurps is not free of problems. My major issue (the fact that an otherwise very logical and rational games uses imperial instead of metric scales) is probably no problem for you.

[sonofzeal]

Now, Gurps is not free of problems. My major issue (the fact that an otherwise very logical and rational games uses imperial instead of metric scales) is probably no problem for you.

Mine is that you need to fully establish personality at character creation, and can get penalized in-game for not following that, rather than letting your character evolve naturally through the first few games like I usually do for D&D. Most of my characters are far more nuanced, and often different than I expected, by game three. I find that's much harder in GURPS, and having rules that mandate my RP kinda grates.

[Satyr]

Interestingly, this was never an issue for me. First of all, I have little reluctance to apat a character with the GM's consent if it doesn't work out as intended (mostly minor adjustments, but sometimes things need a tad more pull). That is not so much an issue of the game, but of the group, if you ask me.

Secondly, I find helpful to create a RP frame for a caracter and act accordingly. I find it much easier to create a well-rounded, deep character with this approach.
This guideline for characters is actually the reason why I think Gurps is perfect for new gamers, because it is very helpful for the creation of interesting characters, which is the most important thing a character could be in any campaign.
I never found the character traits in Gurps restrictive; I usually pick them myself, as well as their intesity, so if I don't like one trait, I'll just ignore it. It's definitely better than anything D&D has to offer in this regard, meaning lots of nothing and the *shudder* alignment system, or lots of neglection with a tad of undifferentiated buzz words.

[Roderick_BR]

I think GURPS is a great system, personally. Fun, simple to learn, and very very versatile.

Great, yes. Fun, yes. Very very versatile, heck, yes. Simple to learn? Nopes.

That said, yes, GURPS is great if you want to fully custom stuff. You can create pretty much anything given the right books, and set how much points everything cost, so you can make up your own balance tiers.
The only real problem is that you can't make something like power levels. For example, you can make a newly created character with the equivalent of a 20th level fighter D&D's sword fighting ability, with the health of a 1st level wizard.

That, and you sometimes get lost on what you should do, since you can make anything.

[sonofzeal]

Interestingly, this was never an issue for me. First of all, I have little reluctance to apat a character with the GM's consent if it doesn't work out as intended (mostly minor adjustments, but sometimes things need a tad more pull). That is not so much an issue of the game, but of the group, if you ask me.

Secondly, I find helpful to create a RP frame for a caracter and act accordingly. I find it much easier to create a well-rounded, deep character with this approach.
This guideline for characters is actually the reason why I think Gurps is perfect for new gamers, because it is very helpful for the creation of interesting characters, which is the most important thing a character could be in any campaign.
I never found the character traits in Gurps restrictive; I usually pick them myself, as well as their intesity, so if I don't like one trait, I'll just ignore it. It's definitely better than anything D&D has to offer in this regard, meaning lots of nothing and the *shudder* alignment system, or lots of neglection with a tad of undifferentiated buzz words.

I can certainly see that side of things. When coming up with personalities, often it helps to have a prompt. For me in D&D, the process is usually "what role to I want to fill", followed by "what classes/PrCs would be a fun way to fill that role", followed by "what personality is suggested by that class/race/PrC combo, and how can I shake that up a little in a fun way". I'll then get a general idea that can be summed up in a few words (benevolent retired master thief, straight-laced pacifist healer, gregarious orc warrior, etc), and enter play with that. The concept usually gets refined as I go, adding detail and nuance and facets and often diverging from the initial concept.

Unfortunately, this doesn't translate very well to GURPS in my experience. In GURPS I find that I really need to have a firm grasp of the character before I can even begin choosing advantages/disadvantages, as otherwise there's not much of a launching pad given like there is in D&D with your race/class combination. I can see why it works for people who approach things differently, and I can make do, but it's not what comes naturally to me. I suppose if I did it enough, it'd become as easy, but that'll only come in time.

[Satyr]

Great, yes. Fun, yes. Very very versatile, heck, yes. Simple to learn? Nopes.

I disagree. Why di you think that the Gurps rules are difficult to learn? My experiences are completely the oppposite of that.

The system is very simple to learn the basics and use them. It becomes more difficult if you increase the overall complexity and options, but that's a given and even then, the learning curve can be as flat or as steep as you want it to be. Gurps has the major advantage that the rules are very streamlined and very plausible, which makes it simple to use them intuitively.

I can certainly see that side of things. When coming up with personalities, often it helps to have a prompt. For me in D&D, the process is usually "what role to I want to fill", followed by "what classes/PrCs would be a fun way to fill that role", followed by "what personality is suggested by that class/race/PrC combo, and how can I shake that up a little in a fun way". [...]
Unfortunately, this doesn't translate very well to GURPS in my experience. In GURPS I find that I really need to have a firm grasp of the character before I can even begin choosing advantages/disadvantages, as otherwise there's not much of a launching pad given like there is in D&D with your race/class combination.

Yes, I think that with D&D, you start with the mechanical aspect and the suppposed power of the character, with Gurps you start with the personality and then develops the role out of it. D&D is more of a top-down method, starting at the macrolevel and adding details, Gurps is a bottom-up approach, starting with very little and develop the character furthe on until you have the final concept.

It slightlyy changes if you use a template heavy approach to the game, like Dungeon Fantasy, where you basically start by selecting a character class and then individualise it which comes out quite similar to D&D.

[Tinydwarfman]

I disagree. Why di you think that the Gurps rules are difficult to learn? My experiences are completely the oppposite of that.

The system is very simple to learn the basics and use them. It becomes more difficult if you increase the overall complexity and options, but that's a given and even then, the learning curve can be as flat or as steep as you want it to be. Gurps has the major advantage that the rules are very streamlined and very plausible, which makes it simple to use them intuitively.



Yes, I think that with D&D, you start with the mechanical aspect and the suppposed power of the character, with Gurps you start with the personality and then develops the role out of it. D&D is more of a top-down method, starting at the macrolevel and adding details, Gurps is a bottom-up approach, starting with very little and develop the character furthe on until you have the final concept.

It slightlyy changes if you use a template heavy approach to the game, like Dungeon Fantasy, where you basically start by selecting a character class and then individualise it which comes out quite similar to D&D.

+1 to dungeon fantasy. It is a great set of books that give people class like templates for some structure, but is still more customizable like d&d. Also, most cheese in GURPS comes from players investing all their points in on exotic advantage (like a ridiculously big innate attack) that makes them very one dimensional and fairly easy to spot. This is also not a problem in most games, especially fantasy where you cannot just buy any exotic advantage. Beware of supers games though.

Also, GURPS is very realistic, so if you just ask a beginner what they want to do in an attack, GURPS can do it. You don't need to have feats to actually do fun stuff in combat. Grab his weapon? ok. Sneaky attack to out maneuver his defenses? ok. Aim for the head/arm/groin? ok.

[Gnaeus]

Personally, I really like the gurps magic system. It still isn't exactly balanced, with proper min-maxing it is very strong compared to a melee, but it channels mages in a very believable way. A given type of magic will have basic level spells, which you have to know in order to learn the harder spells. So a wizard whose knowledge runs to divination can't just learn fireball, he has to learn basic fire spells first.

[Killer Angel]

I like GURPS a lot (even if, after all, I like D&D more). It's simpler than D&D and magic is very hard to master (unless you'd have lots of points); outside fantasy (and even inside it) there are a lot of settings, which gives all the flavor you need. And it's more realistic.

One of the "bad" point in GURPS, is that it encourages min-max (with skills and the system of advantages/disadvantages), and the process of character creation is fundamental, a lot more than D&D.
Once the character is ready, there's no much more you can do to improve it: unless the DM gives A LOT of points, increasing the characteristic is almost impossible, and also increasing skills... after some point, to give +1 to a skill is painfully hard.
In D&D (while still difficult), you have more flexibility to correct initial errors.

[Drascin]

Mostly, realistic or halfway gritty combat. D&D is designed so it takes a lot of HP damage to kill you. GURPS isn't. This is your friend when you're trying to go for more gritty fantasy.

Also, much more customizable character creation. On the other hand, actually evolving your character is the next best thing to impossible, even for a point based game, so I hope you liked your initial concept and don't feel like branching out later, or you have an understanding enough GM to let you half-remake your full sheet if you do.

So really, they're entirely different game paradigms.

[Autolykos]

One of the "bad" point in GURPS, is that it encourages min-max (with skills and the system of advantages/disadvantages)

I'd disagree here. It certainly allows Min/Max (which can't really be prevented in any heavily customizable system). But it's always the DM who encouages/disencourages Min/Max. If he allows One-Trick-Ponys to always use their favorite toy, Min/Max becomes attractive. If he lets the opposition learn from their defeats and change their tactics accordingly, Min/Max is a lot less powerful.
However, I find the magic system kind of clunky (compared to the rest of GURPS - it is still quite elegant compared to D&D). But this problem can be solved with some house-ruling (and easy house-ruling is one of GURPS' chief advantages).

[Killer Angel]

I'd disagree here. It certainly allows Min/Max (which can't really be prevented in any heavily customizable system). But it's always the DM who encouages/disencourages Min/Max.

Well, this is certainly true.
I was merely stating my experience: I began to play GURPS while I was playing also AD&D (2nd ed.).
AD&D was less min-max then 3.x D&D, and my group (as players) began to "optimize" with GURPS, thanks to reasonings such "if I increase by 1 point INT, I can save 23.5 points on these 13 int-based skills, to have 10 skills at the same value and 3 skills 1 higher...", and "I need 2 points! let's see if I can take a couple of quirks..."

[Satyr]

Personally, I really like the gurps magic system. It still isn't exactly balanced, with proper min-maxing it is very strong compared to a melee, but it channels mages in a very believable way. A given type of magic will have basic level spells, which you have to know in order to learn the harder spells. So a wizard whose knowledge runs to divination can't just learn fireball, he has to learn basic fire spells first.

That really depends on how you work it. Making something like Ceremonial Magic only (plus solitary ceremonies) mandatory for magery and you have a very slow, very accurate form of magic using two standard modifiers. Very simple changes, very different feeling to it. It is very hard to make absolute statements about anything in Gurps, oncluding magic, because it pretty much ends up as the one way you like it.

Once the character is ready, there's no much more you can do to improve it: unless the DM gives A LOT of points, increasing the characteristic is almost impossible, and also increasing skills... after some point, to give +1 to a skill is painfully hard.

No, not really. If you use the standard guidelines in Campaigns, characters gain something between 0 and 5 CP per game session, and a similar bonus when a story arc is concluded. Meaning that in a typical three act adventure, with three to four sessions per act, a character gains roughly 30 CP on average for a neat longer adventure or a short campaign.
Since CP in skills depend on training, you usually spent them in the offtime between campaigns, so you usually stockpile bonus CP until you find a teacher, have time for studies, etc. increasing a skill costs 4 CP per level on the higher levels. increasing an ability costs between 10 and 20 CP - so it is perfectly fine to assume, that a character can increase one ability and between 3 to 6 skills per campaign.

In addition, characters can - and should - gain additional advantages and disadvantages from the plot. Remember, character development is not the same thing as character improvement. If your character slays a big, dangerous monster, he might get a reputation, for free (or, to put it otherwise: You get extra CP which is bound to be used to gain a fitting reputation). If your reputation as a monster slayer opens you the door to the monster hunter guild, you could suddenly gain the guild as a contact group and a claim to hospitality in guild facilities.
Even better, the local noble has offered the hand of one of his sons in marriage to the hero or heroine who slays the monster, and you are now married - you gained a nice dowry (wealth, independant income), and increase in status, but you also got the princeling as a tedious and bratty dependent (that's a disadvantage) who will get you in constant trouble and is pretty much a hostage wonder.

It's not unlikely that your CP total doesn't change at all through these changes, or perhaps even is reduced (that depends on how incompetent the prince is in fact), so it is not very accurate to speak about character improvement in this case, but it is one hell of character development.

[Killer Angel]

No, not really. If you use the standard guidelines in Campaigns, characters gain something between 0 and 5 CP per game session, and a similar bonus when a story arc is concluded.

wow, I totally didn't remember about that...
Our DM was used to give us 0-1 point per game session.
I suppose that explains a lot...

[Satyr]

That depends on how you play. If you have a very fast-paced, plot oriented style (or just don't play that often) it makes sense to handle out points with great generosity. If you have detailed character studies with long monologues and most focus on character talks and weekly or even bi-weekly sessions, I would also reduce the number of CP.

[valadil]

My favorite thing about GURPS is that it makes melee combat much more interesting. Between the different maneuvers and hit locations there's a lot more to think about. Even if you're going one on one against an enemy you're never just slogging away taking turns trying to hit.

[Oslecamo]

Also, GURPS is very realistic, so if you just ask a beginner what they want to do in an attack, GURPS can do it. You don't need to have feats to actually do fun stuff in combat. Grab his weapon? ok. Sneaky attack to out maneuver his defenses? ok. Aim for the head/arm/groin? ok.

You can do the first ones whitout feats. The feats just make you better at it. Hiding to make your oponent flatfooted is a skill. And why aim for the head/arm/groin when a full attack or well aimed spell should be enough to take your oponent down?

[Cyrion]

It also sounds like they changed the character point system in the update to 4E. It used to be an arithmetic scale for both skills and abilities- physical skills ended up needing 16 points to advance.

I've always liked GURPS for its flexibility, single mechanic, and encouragement to improvise. I've always felt that the tenor of the game is different in that if you don't know, roll 3d6 and the GM adjudicates from there. D&D has always felt more restricted than that (especially prior to 3.x). That may be an artifact of the GMs I've had, though. The flexibility thought- that's a biggie. Sure, what you want is probably buried in the rules somewhere if you have enough books, but if you can't/don't bother to find it, roll 3d6...

I haven't upgraded to 4E yet, so my comments here are from a 3E perspective- GURPS is really easy to optimize. Dump your points into abilities, and your skills start high with minimal point investment. Also the magic system results in quite different mages. Just for comparison, look at the fireball- in order to duplicate the "standard" fireball- you're going to start out spending 3 fatigue to get to 3d6 on a single target (a respectable amount of damage in this system). Now, if you want to hit more than one target, you're going to have to multiply that by the radius in hexes; a 20 ft. radius fireball is 7 hexes, so you need 21 fatigue... Increase your range and things keep adding up. This isn't necessarily bad, but you have to recognize the changes this dictates.

Personally, I really like the GURPS system. I like the way it allows you to customize characters from the get go and it's my system of choice for pretty much anything other than fantasy. I'm not keen on it for fantasy because of the high PD and DR values- very quickly you've got characters (or their opponents) who simply can't be damaged- either because they can't be hit or because you can't get any damage through. This forces an arms race in ability scores that has cascading imbalances.

[Gametime]

You can do the first ones whitout feats. The feats just make you better at it. Hiding to make your oponent flatfooted is a skill. And why aim for the head/arm/groin when a full attack or well aimed spell should be enough to take your oponent down?

Wasn't his whole point that a strength of GURPS is that it rewards those sorts of "fun" maneuvers?

Logically, it follows that a weakness of D&D is that it does not, in favor of attack attack attack attack attack attack attack.

[Tinydwarfman]

You can do the first ones whitout feats. The feats just make you better at it. Hiding to make your oponent flatfooted is a skill. And why aim for the head/arm/groin when a full attack or well aimed spell should be enough to take your oponent down?

You have to spend a feat or else be an incredibly stupid thing to do. That is not fun. I don't want to have to invest one of my few feats to be able to use a sub-par tactic. You can't hide in the middle of combat, I am talking about deceptive attack, or a feint, or a beat. You can also hide in gurps, and use interesting tactics to take a stronger opponent down, you just don't have to spend a feat for it to be at all useful. And even if you spend a feat, who uses any maneuver except trip grapple and (very) occasionally disarm.

The reason why you want to aim for the head is that I don't allways want a RAWR POWER ATTACK fighter, I might want a quick nimble dagger wielder who target chinks in his opponent's armor. Full attacking is boring.

[Greenish]

You can do the first ones whitout feats. The feats just make you better at it. Hiding to make your oponent flatfooted is a skill.

You can't hide in the middle of combat, I am talking about deceptive attack, or a feint, or a beat.

You can hide or feint in 3.5.

Of course, just because something is possible in one system doesn't mean it can't be done better in another.

[Oslecamo]

You have to spend a feat or else be an incredibly stupid thing to do. That is not fun. I don't want to have to invest one of my few feats to be able to use a sub-par tactic. You can't hide in the middle of combat, I am talking about deceptive attack, or a feint, or a beat.

You can feint in D&D, and actualy use it for hiding in combat. It's in the rules.

And if you invest well in your BAB and str, you can perfectly disarm that goblin shaman of his wand/staff whitout the feat. You just cannot disarm Grarcan the barbarian that has as much combat prowess as you.

You can also hide in gurps, and use interesting tactics to take a stronger opponent down, you just don't have to spend a feat for it to be at all useful. And even if you spend a feat, who uses any maneuver except trip grapple and (very) occasionally disarm.

Because you cannot hide in D&D to get a suprise round on that ogre and take it down before he can move?

The reason why you want to aim for the head is that I don't allways want a RAWR POWER ATTACK fighter, I might want a quick nimble dagger wielder who target chinks in his opponent's armor. Full attacking is boring.

Play a rogue. Or pick up ToB. Or check out the combat options section of the PHB.

[Greenish]

Play a rogue. Or pick up ToB. Or check out the combat options section of the PHB. Or play GURPS if you like it.

Fixed that one for you.

[Oslecamo]

Play a rogue. Or pick up ToB. Or check out the combat options section of the PHB. Or play your favorite system if you like it.

Now is properly fixed.

[Greenish]

"Play your favorite system if you like it."

I detect some redundancy there.