Tell me why you don't like GURPS.

[jjordan]

In today's day and age GURPS really needs a D&D Beyond solution that allows you to electronically edit the beejezus out of it. Take the basic rules, add the content you want, remove what you want, edit what you want, pay for content ala carte and put the whole thing into an electronic document of PDF that you can share with your players. That would make the game far easier to set up and take care of most of the problems people have. Setting up a game is a really high bar to clear.

[Stonehead]

1. The full Core rules (Lite doesn't count) not being legally "free" as in being free of a potential suing if you publish a fiction and made your in-book character sheet GURPS style. S.Jackson's history with TFT makes it understandable why he'd never publish a SRD equivalent, but still makes me feel sour.

2. The 4 primary stats not weighted equally. More an aesthetical displeasure for this one, though. I'd split DX and IQ each into 2 separate stats, and keep the other 2 as the current 4E.

Although apart from these two big dislikes, GURPS is like a blissful dream for the diehard simulationist that lives inside my brain...

On the topic of #2, I have another fairly in-depth complaint about GURPS.

Attributes have linear point costs, and some attributes are based on others, which doesn't really make much sense. IQ for example, starts at 10, and costs 20 points per point per +/-1. Will and Perception both start at IQ, and cost 5 points per +/-1. So, mechanically, it's indistinguishable from IQ costing 10 points, and Will and Perception starting at 10.

The central conceit of a point-buy system is that things should be priced roughly equivalently to their utility, but going from 10 to 11 isn't nearly as useful as going from 14 to 15, especially because of the way defaulting works with the 3d6 curve.

Honestly, I think a lot of prices in the book would benefit from an exponential curve cost. They even have a similar system with skills, where +1 costs 1 point, +2 costs 2 points, +3 costs 4, and from there it's 4 points per increase. I don't understand why the rest of character building doesn't follow this template. A 4d6 damage attack is more than twice as useful as a 2d6 attack, which you could do with a sword anyways.

[Gnoman]

I'm not fully getting what you're meaning here.

The ability to increase the derived statistics is for cases where you want a little more (or less, possibly to offset taking a very high attribute score for lots of skills) HP/PER/Will without adjusting the base stat. You do not have to pay to raise both - by default Will and Perception are identical to whatever IQ you have, and they increase directly.


Skills are the only place where increasing them costs a non-linear amount because that is how the game tries to adjust for difficulty - First Aid is simpler (and costs less points) than Surgery. You could make the argument that the balance between attributes and skills is wonky - it is usually cheaper to raise the attribute if you have more than three or four skills keying off it, but I don't think putting a curve on attribute costs would fundamentally change that. You already have to put an immense amount of points into an attribute to get ahead of the bell curve with defaults.

[Rynjin]

The problem with GURPS is that first word. "Generic".

It's designed for you to be able to play any kind of game in the one ruleset.

In theory, this is very cool. In practice, it creates a mediocre play experience for 20 different kinds of game instead of a satisfying play experience for 1 kind of game.

The d20 chassis also isn't that inherently interesting on its own, to boot. The main allure of d20 games is the abundance of content, new and old, and published adventure material for it.

So for a "generic" system, I'd rather play something like Savage Worlds, which is less flexible, but still flexible, and has amore instantly engaging ruleset.

But realistically, I wouldn't want to play a generic ruleset anyway. Why not pick a specialized game system and run that? Eg, if I want to play a cyberpunk game, why would I choose GURPS over Shadowrun or, well...Cyberpunk?

The final nail in the coffin is that most existing popular d20 systems...have enough flexibility and content to run any kind of game anyway. So if I want to run a cyberpunk game, why wouldn't I just use the existing material available for Pathfinder (1st and 3rd party) and some homebrew to do so instead of learning some generic system that doesn't bring anything else to the table?

GURPS has no real reason to exist in the first place, because the very concept of a "generic" roleplaying system is flawed in a way.

Edit: For some reason I conflated GURPS and d20 Modern in my head, probably because I recently tried to make a character for a d20 Modern game for the first time in forever and just couldn't drum up any interest for it. My general complaints still stand, but I did a big dumb. The d20 specific complaints apply to d20 Modern and its similar ilk.

[MoiMagnus]

I'm not fully getting what you're meaning here.

The ability to increase the derived statistics is for cases where you want a little more (or less, possibly to offset taking a very high attribute score for lots of skills) HP/PER/Will without adjusting the base stat. You do not have to pay to raise both - by default Will and Perception are identical to whatever IQ you have, and they increase directly.

I think that what he means is that to get a certain value of IQ, PER and Will, what you need to pay is by the rules:

(IQ-10)*20 + (PER-IQ)*5 + (Will-IQ)*5

But that's equivalent to

(IQ-10)*10 + (PER-10)*5 + (Will-10)*5

In other words, IQ could cost 10 per point instead of 20, and PER and Will could be decorrelated from IQ and starting at 10 and that would lead to the same result, but with less maths.

[DigoDragon]

Honestly, I think a lot of prices in the book would benefit from an exponential curve cost. They even have a similar system with skills, where +1 costs 1 point, +2 costs 2 points, +3 costs 4, and from there it's 4 points per increase. I don't understand why the rest of character building doesn't follow this template. A 4d6 damage attack is more than twice as useful as a 2d6 attack, which you could do with a sword anyways.

The attribute cost table from 3rd edition worked on an exponential curve, and all the attributes costed the same. Might be close to what you are looking for.

Skill cost was more exponential in 3e too.

But realistically, I wouldn't want to play a generic ruleset anyway. Why not pick a specialized game system and run that? Eg, if I want to play a cyberpunk game, why would I choose GURPS over Shadowrun or, well...Cyberpunk?

Well, GURPS has the advantage of needing to only buy two books to play several genres. Whereas if I buy a Cyberpunk rulebook, it's really only good for playing Cyberpunk games. I don't disagree that GURPS doesn't excel in any particular genre; it does need a bit more work than other systems to put together a campaign, but that's the trade off with a generic system.

[u-b]

In other words, IQ could cost 10 per point instead of 20, and PER and Will could be decorrelated from IQ and starting at 10 and that would lead to the same result, but with less maths.

Mostly the same result. They play differently with the disadvantage limit, but yes, there are no further problems if the GM chooses one or the other.

[Lord Raziere]

Well, GURPS has the advantage of needing to only buy two books to play several genres. Whereas if I buy a Cyberpunk rulebook, it's really only good for playing Cyberpunk games. I don't disagree that GURPS doesn't excel in any particular genre; it does need a bit more work than other systems to put together a campaign, but that's the trade off with a generic system.

Yeah, and specialized systems don't exist for everything. sure if you want to play something established as a specialized rpg, you don't need GURPs, its when you want to play something no one has made an rpg for that you need something like it.

[Willie the Duck]

Well, GURPS has the advantage of needing to only buy two books to play several genres. Whereas if I buy a Cyberpunk rulebook, it's really only good for playing Cyberpunk games. I don't disagree that GURPS doesn't excel in any particular genre; it does need a bit more work than other systems to put together a campaign, but that's the trade off with a generic system.

That is definitely a theoretical advantage. For the specific historic implementation of the game that ended up happening, it runs headlong into the issue that those supplemental books are/were often considered the best part of the system. Thus if you wanted to play GURPS: specific genre, you would get the GURPS player's book and GM's book (or in 3e likely the GURPS basic set and compendium I) and GURPS: Genre. Compared to a 1-2 book specific genre game unto itself (or, as we often did, a 1-2 book specific genre game and GURPS: genre and only use the well-researched setting information), this doesn't really change much.

[Mordar]

The problem with GURPS is that first word. "Generic".

It's designed for you to be able to play any kind of game in the one ruleset.

In theory, this is very cool. In practice, it creates a mediocre play experience for 20 different kinds of game instead of a satisfying play experience for 1 kind of game.

The d20 chassis also isn't that inherently interesting on its own, to boot. The main allure of d20 games is the abundance of content, new and old, and published adventure material for it.

So for a "generic" system, I'd rather play something like Savage Worlds, which is less flexible, but still flexible, and has amore instantly engaging ruleset.

But realistically, I wouldn't want to play a generic ruleset anyway. Why not pick a specialized game system and run that? Eg, if I want to play a cyberpunk game, why would I choose GURPS over Shadowrun or, well...Cyberpunk?

The final nail in the coffin is that most existing popular d20 systems...have enough flexibility and content to run any kind of game anyway. So if I want to run a cyberpunk game, why wouldn't I just use the existing material available for Pathfinder (1st and 3rd party) and some homebrew to do so instead of learning some generic system that doesn't bring anything else to the table?

GURPS has no real reason to exist in the first place, because the very concept of a "generic" roleplaying system is flawed in a way.

I agree with all of this - my mindset is one of "play the game in the system designed for the game", in no small part because I grew into RPGs when there were 20 different systems and that was the default assumption. No one complained about learning a new system...it was just an accepted cost of playing a new game.

I do think, though, GURPS deserves some credit for doing this way back in 86, before d20 meant anything other than what you rolled to hit and for saving throws on a chart. It provided opportunity for mixed-universe games...and even mixed-in-universe games like WoD that those games didn't provide...and deserves credit for doing that in a way that appealed to a lot of people.

Thus I give credit to GURPS which paved the way for D20 and Savage Worlds as universal systems.

That being said, I would always rather play Deadlands in the original system, not the universal system it spawned...because generic is a term best limited to medicine, IMO.

- M

[Mr Beer]

The central conceit of a point-buy system is that things should be priced roughly equivalently to their utility, but going from 10 to 11 isn't nearly as useful as going from 14 to 15, especially because of the way defaulting works with the 3d6 curve.

Not really true, when we try to roll under 10 it's 50%, under 11 is 62.5%, so we increase our chances by 12.5%. 14 is 90.74% and 15 is 95.37%, so we increase our chances by 4.62%.

It is true to say that a skill monkey is incentivised to have DX and/or IQ as a high stat, rather than spread the points around, in order to obtain a high default and then buy a bunch of skills cheaply. That's not the same thing though - it's not that any particular value is much more or less effective than the preceding value plus 1, rather that 'the higher, the better'.

[SimonMoon6]

I will say (at least) one thing in defense of a "generic" system.

I would love to have a system that really was capable of being a generic system, a game that you can use for any setting and have it work easily and well. And there's a very good reason for that. Superheroes.

Specifically, I'm talking about comic book superheroes and how they play in a game system. There are many problems with trying to have a game system for comic book superheroes and the biggest problem is scale. Superheroes are a *lot* more powerful than mere action heroes or fantasy wizards and warriors. A LOT more. No, I mean a LOT more. Like, way more than you can imagine.

Superheroes can lift mountains. Heck, they can lift planets. They can chain together all the planets from an entire galaxy and fly through space with them. (Superboy actually did this once.) Superheros are really really powerful. And they regularly fight cosmic beings that are of incomprehensible power levels. No, not gods. These cosmic beings are more powerful than mere gods. They're on a completely different scale.

So, if your game system is stuck at a low power level, where you're seriously worried about the difference in damage between a .38 and .44 pistol... or the difference in damage between a halberd and a guisarme... then you're too caught in the tiny details to every be able to run a game of the power levels appropriate for a superhero game.

And, yes, not every superhero is that powerful. But if you're going to run a superhero game, you have to be able to cope with the power level of every possible superhero.

So, that's a big issue. GURPS can not handle that sort of power level obviously. It would be great if it could, but it's just not generic enough.

But there's another, related issue. Superheroes can be *anything*. Sure, they might just be guys with powers. Or they might be guys with skills. Or they might have skills and powers.

But they might also be wizards. So, the game needs to handle wizards.

They might be spaceship pilots. So, the game needs to handle spaceships.

They might be vampires. So, the game needs to handle vampires.

They might be dimension travelers, so the game needs to handle interdimensional travel.

They might be time travelers, so the game needs to handle time travel.

They might be cyber-enhanced punks, so the game needs to handle cyberpunk stuff.

And so forth. Etc ad nauseum.

A superhero universe contains every kind of genre. So only a generic game can handle a superhero universe. And there are very few that come close to being able to do so. Sadly, GURPS is not one of them, but it's not a failure in my eyes because it tried to be generic. It's a failure in my eyes because it failed to be generic enough.

I have often run multi-genre games, games where depending on where you go, the rules for the universe are different. I've done a multiversal game with various published fictional universes being the universes that exist, each with their own rules. I've done a game where there was a mosaic world, where each part of the world was from a different universe each with its own genre (and therefore rules). This is the sort of game that is my specialty, the sort of game that my players have enjoyed more than any other games I've run. But I had to use a superhero game system for anything like that. Even when the focus is mostly on swords and sorcery... you need a superhero game because only a superhero game is generic enough.

I did try using GURPS once for a multi-genre game based very loosely on the Philip Jose Farmer's The Dungeon series, and it was fine, but there was no way that superheroes could've been involved.

[Luccan]

The problem with GURPS is that first word. "Generic".

It's designed for you to be able to play any kind of game in the one ruleset.

In theory, this is very cool. In practice, it creates a mediocre play experience for 20 different kinds of game instead of a satisfying play experience for 1 kind of game.

The d20 chassis also isn't that inherently interesting on its own, to boot. The main allure of d20 games is the abundance of content, new and old, and published adventure material for it.

So for a "generic" system, I'd rather play something like Savage Worlds, which is less flexible, but still flexible, and has amore instantly engaging ruleset.

But realistically, I wouldn't want to play a generic ruleset anyway. Why not pick a specialized game system and run that? Eg, if I want to play a cyberpunk game, why would I choose GURPS over Shadowrun or, well...Cyberpunk?

The final nail in the coffin is that most existing popular d20 systems...have enough flexibility and content to run any kind of game anyway. So if I want to run a cyberpunk game, why wouldn't I just use the existing material available for Pathfinder (1st and 3rd party) and some homebrew to do so instead of learning some generic system that doesn't bring anything else to the table?

GURPS has no real reason to exist in the first place, because the very concept of a "generic" roleplaying system is flawed in a way.

Edit: For some reason I conflated GURPS and d20 Modern in my head, probably because I recently tried to make a character for a d20 Modern game for the first time in forever and just couldn't drum up any interest for it. My general complaints still stand, but I did a big dumb. The d20 specific complaints apply to d20 Modern and its similar ilk.

In defense of the actual game I'd argue d20 Modern is an Urban Fantasy book and the designers were just in denial. While d20 Past is the pulp/adventure equivalent. They just bought their own "everything can/will be d20!" hype a bit too much and said "we can do hard Sci-Fi and mecha!" rather than doing Science Fantasy, which still would've fit their other stuff. There's an alternate universe where, just like it's stated that Past connects to the light worldbuilding in Modern, Future is said to be the end result. Where Shadow is just an accepted parallel universe and wizards and goblins work on spaceships openly.

[Theoboldi]

Well, GURPS has the advantage of needing to only buy two books to play several genres. Whereas if I buy a Cyberpunk rulebook, it's really only good for playing Cyberpunk games. I don't disagree that GURPS doesn't excel in any particular genre; it does need a bit more work than other systems to put together a campaign, but that's the trade off with a generic system.

Yeah, and specialized systems don't exist for everything. sure if you want to play something established as a specialized rpg, you don't need GURPs, its when you want to play something no one has made an rpg for that you need something like it.

There's also the issue that often more spezialised systems come with their own quirks and peculiarities that you may not enjoy so much, like being bound to a very specific setting, demanding a certain playstyle that you don't like, or emphasizing parts of the genre or setting in their mechanics that you would actually rather gloss over.

Having a generic system that you know you enjoy can offer a preferable experience in that case, as it lets you personally adjust how you wish to experience the genre.

[DigoDragon]

There's also the issue that often more spezialised systems come with their own quirks and peculiarities that you may not enjoy so much, like being bound to a very specific setting, demanding a certain playstyle that you don't like, or emphasizing parts of the genre or setting in their mechanics that you would actually rather gloss over.

For me, that's Shadowrun. The system and setting seem pretty much married together. Perfectly fine if you're wanting to play Shadowrun. Not so much for anything outside that.

On the other hand, I was able to hack Starfinder to run a cyberpunk game pretty well. The setting isn't as integrated, so it wasn't too difficult to make it work with my homebrew setting.

[MoiMagnus]

There's also the issue that often more spezialised systems come with their own quirks and peculiarities that you may not enjoy so much, like being bound to a very specific setting, demanding a certain playstyle that you don't like, or emphasizing parts of the genre or setting in their mechanics that you would actually rather gloss over.

Having a generic system that you know you enjoy can offer a preferable experience in that case, as it lets you personally adjust how you wish to experience the genre.

A generic system can also has its share of quirks and peculiarities, and playstyle that work better.

In a good specialised system, you can get a feel if those quirks and emphases playstyle by reading through the universe and associated art. For example, you'll probably understand if the PCs are supposed to be bold and adventurous (meaning the the system is forgiving enough to fall back to plan B if things go wrong) or cautious and well prepared (meaning that the system heavily reward preparation/scouting/...).

However, I'll fully agree on the last point: mastering at least one generic system that you enjoy is a very good idea. Both because it allows you to always have a system compatible with whatever campaign idea you might want to try, and because it gives you a comparison point to evaluate any other system you might encounter.

[Theoboldi]

On the other hand, I was able to hack Starfinder to run a cyberpunk game pretty well. The setting isn't as integrated, so it wasn't too difficult to make it work with my homebrew setting.

Right, and that's something that I think is somewhat understated when it comes to RPG discourse. Hacking a system that is meant for a specific playstyle or setting for an entirely different setting or kind of game can work very well if you enjoyed its mechanics and know how to adapt them. There's nothing inherently sacred or important about the creator's original intent, and in fact that kind of hacking is how we got many of the larger design movements in the industry, like D20 or Powered by the Apocalypse.

A generic system can also has its share of quirks and peculiarities, and playstyle that work better.

In a good specialised system, you can get a feel if those quirks and emphases playstyle by reading through the universe and associated art. For example, you'll probably understand if the PCs are supposed to be bold and adventurous (meaning the the system is forgiving enough to fall back to plan B if things go wrong) or cautious and well prepared (meaning that the system heavily reward preparation/scouting/...).

However, I'll fully agree on the last point: mastering at least one generic system that you enjoy is a very good idea. Both because it allows you to always have a system compatible with whatever campaign idea you might want to try, and because it gives you a comparison point to evaluate any other system you might encounter.

I do want to reiterate that I do not disagree with you at all. Yes, each generic system has its own particular style, and is suited especially for certain games and groups. It is simply my belief that a specialized system is not necessarily a silver bullet for a group's needs, and that far more needs to be considered when choosing what to play than just whether something was created with the intent for a specific playstyle or setting.

What generic systems could stand to do is, in fact, to make their own peculiarities and intent more clear and immediately open, just as specialised systems should. That way, it would be easy to pick one based on tone and gameplay, whether that be GURPS' focus on detail and world simulation, or FATE's focus on character-focused stories and building narrative momentum to win scenes.

[Psyren]

On the other hand, I was able to hack Starfinder to run a cyberpunk game pretty well. The setting isn't as integrated, so it wasn't too difficult to make it work with my homebrew setting.

That's actually intentional; you could run a Starfinder game that takes place entirely on, say, Absalom Station, or Continuum, or even the Burning Archipelago - and it would end up feeling very cyberpunk what with all the corporations, hackers, corrupt officials, and artificia/augmented humanoids running around. You don't actually have to do any of the space travel stuff.

[Tanarii]

Specifically, I'm talking about comic book superheroes and how they play in a game system. There are many problems with trying to have a game system for comic book superheroes and the biggest problem is scale. Superheroes are a *lot* more powerful than mere action heroes or fantasy wizards and warriors. A LOT more. No, I mean a LOT more. Like, way more than you can imagine.

Superheroes can lift mountains. Heck, they can lift planets. They can chain together all the planets from an entire galaxy and fly through space with them. (Superboy actually did this once.) Superheros are really really powerful. And they regularly fight cosmic beings that are of incomprehensible power levels. No, not gods. These cosmic beings are more powerful than mere gods. They're on a completely different scale.

&

But there's another, related issue. Superheroes can be *anything*. Sure, they might just be guys with powers. Or they might be guys with skills. Or they might have skills and powers.

I've never before really been able to put my finger on why superheroes as a genre, in comic book, film and RPG form, slightly turned me off.

Reading this post, it crystallized. THESE are the reasons the superhero genre rubs me the wrong way! Moment of clarity

[Pauly]

&
I've never before really been able to put my finger on why superheroes as a genre, in comic book, film and RPG form, slightly turned me off.

Reading this post, it crystallized. THESE are the reasons the superhero genre rubs me the wrong way! Moment of clarity

It also hits on why GURPS isn’t a satisfactory vessel for superhero games. GURPs works in the premise that physics are real and human limits can be stretched but not broken.

[Eldan]

The other problem with running a game based on a kitchen sink superhero setting like DC & Marvel, especially, is that superheroes can't just be incredibly powerful, they can also be quite weak. You have 1 superhero chaining planets together and towing them around, and another superhero who has the powers of "wearing a mask" and "being pretty good at stick fighting", for example. Or "carrying a gun". No, not amazing supergunfighting ala Deadshot, there's literally superhero characters who just carry a gun and have the power of shooting two goons. And comics have trained people to assume that these are not only characters who act in the same world, but can occasionally team up and have the same adventure. Now, most superhero RPGs solve that with some kind of powerlevel, meaning The Question won't commonly team up with Superboy, but even then, people expect that a superhero system is able to model both characters and make them interesting.

"Superhero" is too many different archetypes and power levels. The span is too wide.

[Lord Raziere]

The other problem with running a game based on a kitchen sink superhero setting like DC & Marvel, especially, is that superheroes can't just be incredibly powerful, they can also be quite weak. You have 1 superhero chaining planets together and towing them around, and another superhero who has the powers of "wearing a mask" and "being pretty good at stick fighting", for example. Or "carrying a gun". No, not amazing supergunfighting ala Deadshot, there's literally superhero characters who just carry a gun and have the power of shooting two goons. And comics have trained people to assume that these are not only characters who act in the same world, but can occasionally team up and have the same adventure. Now, most superhero RPGs solve that with some kind of powerlevel, meaning The Question won't commonly team up with Superboy, but even then, people expect that a superhero system is able to model both characters and make them interesting.

"Superhero" is too many different archetypes and power levels. The span is too wide.

*rolls eyes*

Eldan, please.

Batman characters aren't even hard to make effective at the same level as other supers. mostly its just a matter of the stats they'd used at lower levels being given a couple more points, thats it. those characters are meant to be superhero skill monkeys anyways, and are probably more practically useful than a world-destroyer or whatever anyways because in most conceivable situations, what use do you even have for destroying a world for a hero? you either have encountered something incredibly hyper-evil like a planet of demons with like, a core of pure hatred or something in which case, things have probably gone pretty south/contrived so the GM can make it useful, or your just some dude committing genocide and thus not a hero at all.

I mean you can argue that such a character so strong could do the save the planet from a meteor thing but if they're that strong to toss around a planet, a meteor should be nothing but an easy strength check. which isn't a common situation compared to say, investigating where a criminal went, which is probably a very common check to make if your a superhero fighting crime.

and thats not even the end of it. like MnM 3e, take Int 10, Inventor advantage, Technology 10, and you have like a big skill check to just making whatever technology you need to help out in the current plot, no powers needed. takes some prep-time, but as Batman, 3.5 wizard, and such demonstrate prep-time is a small price to pay for being able to have a potential solution to anything.

[Batcathat]

*rolls eyes*

Eldan, please.

Batman characters aren't even hard to make effective at the same level as other supers. mostly its just a matter of the stats they'd used at lower levels being given a couple more points, thats it. those characters are meant to be superhero skill monkeys anyways, and are probably more practically useful than a world-destroyer or whatever anyways because in most conceivable situations, what use do you even have for destroying a world for a hero? you either have encountered something incredibly hyper-evil like a planet of demons with like, a core of pure hatred or something in which case, things have probably gone pretty south/contrived so the GM can make it useful, or your just some dude committing genocide and thus not a hero at all.

I mean you can argue that such a character so strong could do the save the planet from a meteor thing but if they're that strong to toss around a planet, a meteor should be nothing but an easy strength check. which isn't a common situation compared to say, investigating where a criminal went, which is probably a very common check to make if your a superhero fighting crime.

and thats not even the end of it. like MnM 3e, take Int 10, Inventor advantage, Technology 10, and you have like a big skill check to just making whatever technology you need to help out in the current plot, no powers needed. takes some prep-time, but as Batman, 3.5 wizard, and such demonstrate prep-time is a small price to pay for being able to have a potential solution to anything.

Yeah, this was my thought as well. I'm not sure about GURPS, but at least in M&M, building Batman would probably take at least as many points as building Superman considering all the skills he's supposed to have.

[elros]

When I GMed Champions, the players knew we were not recreating the DC or Marvel universe. The Avengers was a great movie, but would be impossible to GM. They even lampshaded that in Age of Ultron when Hawkeye commended that the world was ending and he had a bow and arrow. Hard to match the power of Thor and the Hulk.

I always struggled with world building a superhero game because of the complex relationship between the government, law enforcement, and superheroes. I know that theme has been well covered in Civil War, the Watchmen, and other comics, but I struggled GMing it. For example, one of my players wanted to make a character that could teleport enemies right into a jail cell (which would have screwed up a lot of encounters), and I had to say the laws prevented detainment without due process. He argued that causing violence legally and beatinf someone into submission was legal, so why wouldn’t teleportation? I didn’t have a good answer, but the player went along with it for the sake of the game. Frustrating though!

[Rynjin]

Yeah, this was my thought as well. I'm not sure about GURPS, but at least in M&M, building Batman would probably take at least as many points as building Superman considering all the skills he's supposed to have.

Which is the issue, IMO. I think it's kind of annoying that building "peak human" (or slightly beyond) characters like Batman, Deathstroke, Captain America, etc. is actually more difficult (and less effective) than building a character with powers, since the latter can make better use of arrays to get proper bang for their buck.

I like M&M but attributes are WAY overpriced. Why would I waste 40 points on boosting Fighting to 20, then need to rely on further points in Equipment to get my damage (totaling up to about 60 points), when I could just take Damage 20 and Close Combat (Skill) 20 for a total of 30 points?

[Eldan]

*rolls eyes*

Eldan, please.

Batman characters aren't even hard to make effective at the same level as other supers. mostly its just a matter of the stats they'd used at lower levels being given a couple more points, thats it. those characters are meant to be superhero skill monkeys anyways, and are probably more practically useful than a world-destroyer or whatever anyways because in most conceivable situations, what use do you even have for destroying a world for a hero? you either have encountered something incredibly hyper-evil like a planet of demons with like, a core of pure hatred or something in which case, things have probably gone pretty south/contrived so the GM can make it useful, or your just some dude committing genocide and thus not a hero at all.

I mean you can argue that such a character so strong could do the save the planet from a meteor thing but if they're that strong to toss around a planet, a meteor should be nothing but an easy strength check. which isn't a common situation compared to say, investigating where a criminal went, which is probably a very common check to make if your a superhero fighting crime.

and thats not even the end of it. like MnM 3e, take Int 10, Inventor advantage, Technology 10, and you have like a big skill check to just making whatever technology you need to help out in the current plot, no powers needed. takes some prep-time, but as Batman, 3.5 wizard, and such demonstrate prep-time is a small price to pay for being able to have a potential solution to anything.

That's not what I meant. I know you can make Batman work in a Superman game.

What I Mean is that "superhero" is an enormously broad concept and making all superheroes work in the same game system is very hard. Not at the same level. At different levels. I'm saying that making a system where you can have a low level character with no powers, a masked vigilante who fights small group of gangsters, as well as a high level character who rearranges planets is difficult and having both high and low levels work by the same system and having both the highest and lowest power ends of the system work is complicated.

What I mean is that if you want to make every possible superhero comic character in the same system, the system has to be able to model a character who is a normal person with one or two skills marginally higher (say, Zorro or Green Hornet or the Phantom) as well as a character who operates on a cosmic level (say, Lucifer) and that having both in the same system is weird. Not in the same party and have both be useful. Just modelled in the same system.

"Superhero game" is a weird concept. That's all I meant.

(And I specifically didn't mention Batman, because Batman is a really weird case of someome who has nominally no superpowers, but has so many advantages that he fights on the same level as the superpowered guys anyway.)

[Batcathat]

Which is the issue, IMO. I think it's kind of annoying that building "peak human" (or slightly beyond) characters like Batman, Deathstroke, Captain America, etc. is actually more difficult (and less effective) than building a character with powers, since the latter can make better use of arrays to get proper bang for their buck.

I like M&M but attributes are WAY overpriced. Why would I waste 40 points on boosting Fighting to 20, then need to rely on further points in Equipment to get my damage (totaling up to about 60 points), when I could just take Damage 20 and Close Combat (Skill) 20 for a total of 30 points?

To be fair, part of that is arrays being very abusable with a permissive GM (not necessarily a bad thing, but worth keeping in mind). But sure, I can agree that attributes are pretty pricey considering what you get for them.

[Talakeal]

Yeah, this was my thought as well. I'm not sure about GURPS, but at least in M&M, building Batman would probably take at least as many points as building Superman considering all the skills he's supposed to have.

In the official DC book Batman actually has his own sidebar explaining why Batman costs more points than Superman despite being lower power level.

[SimonMoon6]

I think the Justice Society is perfectly emblematic of the difference in power levels between superhero characters.

On the one hand, you've got the Spectre who is powered by Yahweh himself, with virtually unlimited power , capable of growing large enough to hold a planet in his hands and hit someone with it.

And on the other end of the spectrum, you've got some other heroes each with one minor gimmick. Like Wildcat, who's a good boxer and that's it. Yeah, he owns a motorcycle too. But he has nothing else going for him. (They retconned in a "nine lives" power later.)

Or consider the Golden Age version of the Atom. His gimmick is... he's shorter than most guys. And that's it. I mean, okay, he then went and trained to be really physically fit because he kept getting picked on. But he's just a physically fit guy with nothing else (at least until they retconned him into having superstrength, which he kind of seemed to have anyway because Golden Age comic books weren't the most clearly written and illustrated stories in the world).

Or the Golden Age Sandman. He's just a normal guy except he also has a gas mask and a gas gun. And that's it. Later, he got rid of those two special gimmicks so that he could have a skintight costume and a sidekick.

Or Doctor Mid-Nite. He at least has a little bit of a gimmick. He can see in the dark. And he has some sort of gas bombs that make it dark. But with all that phenomenal power, he has to have a weakness: he can't see in normal lighting conditions unless he wears his special goggles which have a tendency to break in combat.

And these guys are not only in the same world as the Spectre, they are his teammates.

[icefractal]

I wouldn't say I actively dislike it, but I did run into a few issues when we played it.

1) Stats seem to be balanced for a combat-heavy game with significant use of melee weapons and armor. In a modern/future game where people have guns and also don't get into fights that often, IQ is the god-stat, DX is useful for action-y characters, the other two are much lesser.

2) Related to that, IQ is too broad. I had a high IQ because I was the "science guy", but because all the social skills also run off IQ, that made me technically a better "face" than the face for any skill I put even one point into.

3) Related to that, it really seemed like "max stats, one point in skills" was the optimal strategy. So much so that it was apparently "cheesy" to put a 16 IQ, for a scientist character. I'm aware that generic systems require somewhat more self-balancing on the players' part, but "a smart character putting too many points in being smart breaks the game" seems like a huge flaw.

4) There were so many skills that it was easy to forget one that the character conceptually should have, leading to looking foolish when it came up.

5) The one-second rounds and large number of possible actions led to rather slow combat. Probably avoidable with sufficiently disciplined players, but IME it was slow.