StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2006-01-03 04:53pm**

So I was looking through the archives for threads relating to my favorite RPG system (Yes, yes, safetys off flamethrowers now) and a point got me thinking that has been raised in a couple of game system VS debates without, to the best I could find, actually being challenged/defended at all. This thread is intended to discuss this specific point as it relates to GURPS, without necroing any previous VS debate or starting a new one.

Anyway, the thing I noticed was the opinion that the GURPS character creation system invites abuse. Specifically, that it is possible for a player experienced with the system to create a character that will completely overshadow and outperform the rest of its party in any campaign, cooperative or competitive. I have yet to encounter this 'Golden Combo' in my 15 years with the game, so I was wondering if my players and myself are simply a lot less devious than I thought, or if y'all full of shit.

My challenge: Show me a broken GURPS character. Something that no party built on equal points with the same opportunities can have fun around, in a cooperative or competitive campaign of any point value you like from 0-1000. If you'd like to talk smack about GURPS without being able to do that, I'm flexible: Just describe the golden combo that broke your game, and how.

Posted: **2006-01-03 04:57pm**

I'm a through and through GURPS-hater.

Even to the point of naming Steve Jackson as one of the great geek criminals of history.

My problem with GURPS is that it really was the pioneering force behind unified role-playing. Where one system is touted as being able to do everything. And they can't.

That's what shits me.

I'd rather have a dozen systems that do a dozen different things REALLY WELL, than one system which does a dozen things kind of well.

Posted: **2006-01-03 05:03pm**

The OP wrote:This thread is intended to discuss this specific point as it relates to GURPS

Posted: **2006-01-03 05:20pm**

Shut your dirty mouth GURPS-ite

. I just thought I'd point out the problem that I have with the system. I've heard many stories from other gamers about the character problems, but have never encountered them myself when playing GURPS.

Posted: **2006-01-03 05:32pm**

I played a bit of GURPS in my late teens and read the GURPS newsgroup a lot.

The horror story 'bodiless telepath with instant planetary mind control' only works if you remove the Disadvantage caps.

Otherwise, it's really not much more open to abuse than any other system I've ever seen. Yes, you take a lot of INT and DEX so that you can just put half a point into your skills. Most systems have point breaks and god stats.

The main issue we had with GURPS was its tendency to assume Realism over Romance (see GURPS: Black Ops).

Posted: **2006-01-03 05:46pm**

weemadando wrote:Shut your dirty mouth GURPS-ite

Touche`

Posted: **2006-01-03 05:56pm**

Gadgeteer, Snatch, and whatever that Super was that let you take multiple actions were all horribly abused in games I've seen.

Posted: **2006-01-03 05:59pm**

GuppyShark wrote:The horror story 'bodiless telepath with instant planetary mind control' only works if you remove the Disadvantage caps.

Or if the other PCs also have their own planet for one reason or another and the challenges are scaled to there. That sounds like a fun social/competitive campaign. I'd probably run it diceless instead though, because of

GuppyShark wrote:its tendency to assume Realism over Romance (see GURPS: Black Ops).

See? I'm not a shameless fanboy.

Posted: **2006-01-03 06:21pm**

SirNitram wrote:Gadgeteer, Snatch, and whatever that Super was that let you take multiple actions were all horribly abused in games I've seen.

Gadgeteer and Snatch just provide cool gear. A 25-point Slow Gadgeteer with sufficient funding or a 50-point 'Mr Fusion' Gadgeteer living in a cardboard box can indeed be a major force on that alone in a 'realistic' campaign (MacGuyver, Doc Brown), but in most cinematic or super-powered games everybody's getting cool gear from somewhere. Snatch with the 300% enhancement that lets you keep the stuff is pretty ballsy (Topper in Wild Cards, Bugs Bunny), but the rest of the group is going to get some great stuff for the same 320 points too.

Altered Time Rate definitely has some abuse potential, though. Advice to the novice GM: Do not let them load Limitations on this one. I still wouldn't call it a game-breaker, but forcing you to give it to every supervillain can put some cracks in the ol' suspension of disbelief.

Posted: **2006-01-03 07:59pm**

Starting to bring back memories. Yeah, a lot of the trouble started in the old GURPS Supers.

I think it's possible to have any character in negative points cost (again, assuming no Disadvantages cap) by reducing stamina and increasing hitpoints via GURPS Supers.

I should probably mention that my GURPS knowledge is from the old edition, when GURPS Vehicles was brand new and provoked more than a little "WTF? This is a game in itself!"

Posted: **2006-01-03 08:31pm**

GuppyShark wrote:I think it's possible to have any character in negative points cost (again, assuming no Disadvantages cap) by reducing stamina and increasing hitpoints via GURPS Supers.

Yeah, that works wicked good in 3rd edition if you're playing in a Supers campaign with no radiation, disease, or poison.

In 4th ed hit points are based on ST and fatigue is based on HT, which has always made more sense to me.

Posted: **2006-01-03 08:33pm**

Apparently I played a different GURPS: A 50 point Gadgeteer with access to Ultratech books was more than enough to break a few games.

Posted: **2006-01-03 09:03pm**

I'm on 4th Edition, and it's the standard for me; anyone know anything broken about those? (So far, it's worked pretty good, actually!)

Posted: **2006-01-03 09:03pm**

I never had this problem.. but then I haven't run more than a couple GURPS games and my players know that my response to people trying to twink themselves to the extreme is to let them.. then brutally crush them in a gory and humiliating manner.

Posted: **2006-01-03 09:23pm**

SylasGaunt wrote:I never had this problem.. but then I haven't run more than a couple GURPS games and my players know that my response to people trying to twink themselves to the extreme is to let them.. then brutally crush them in a gory and humiliating manner.

And there you have it, ultimately. I prefer to have a meeting of GM and player goals before it get to that point. On the other hand, a killer countdown one-shot session can inspire some liberated displays if everybody knows what's going on, so it's not to be viewed solely as a punishment.

Posted: **2006-01-03 09:32pm**

Raw Shark wrote:
SylasGaunt wrote:I never had this problem.. but then I haven't run more than a couple GURPS games and my players know that my response to people trying to twink themselves to the extreme is to let them.. then brutally crush them in a gory and humiliating manner.
And there you have it, ultimately. I prefer to have a meeting of GM and player goals before it get to that point. On the other hand, a killer countdown one-shot session can inspire some liberated displays if everybody knows what's going on, so it's not to be viewed solely as a punishment.

Congratulations, under this system literally any game can be managed for brokeness. D&D's Complete Warrior isn't broken because you ban Hulking Hurler, etc.

Posted: **2006-01-04 12:00am**

I don't remember what version it was, but I seem to remember the strength of Telekinesis doubled every level, so in a 100 point campaign a character with modest disadvantages and all his points in TK could, for example, drop a super-tanker on a major metropolitan area from 8,000 feet.

Posted: **2006-01-04 12:54am**

That kind of stuff is why it's good to have a basic philosophy for how many points translate into how much damage (or other effect) and apply it uniformly across all powers. If you take an exponential approach with some powers, a linear approach with others, and just put in numbers that feel right with the rest, it's going to be a nightmare to balance, and you're going to end up with seriously over or underpowered abilities.

Posted: **2006-01-04 02:46am**

Raw Shark wrote:
And there you have it, ultimately. I prefer to have a meeting of GM and player goals before it get to that point. On the other hand, a killer countdown one-shot session can inspire some liberated displays if everybody knows what's going on, so it's not to be viewed solely as a punishment.

It's my personal opinion that a good GM is adaptable enough that one twit trying to twink out (either because he wants his character to be l33t or just because he's trying to break the game) isn't a problem.. mostly because the GM has far twinkier options with which to counter.. of course the danger there is that you get some GMs who try to absolutely micromanage every little detail and can't adapt their story on the fly or they get all tyrannical. You don't want to stifle creativity after all, just asshattery.

But most of my players got that sort of thing out of their system early on so I don't really have to worry about it anymore.

Posted: **2006-01-04 05:43am**

Raw Shark wrote: My challenge: Show me a broken GURPS character.

Any Character with TL +2.

Posted: **2006-01-04 06:12am**

SirNitram wrote:Congratulations, under this system literally any game can be managed for brokeness. D&D's Complete Warrior isn't broken because you ban Hulking Hurler, etc.

Ummm... Yeah. I must've been talking about banning stuff. I just didn't think I was because that's not what I said at all, unless you're referring to my comments on excessive Disadvantages or Limitations, which contradict the suggested book procedure.

Thunderfire wrote:Any Character with TL +2.

I'll inform General Custer.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:That kind of stuff is why it's good to have a basic philosophy for how many points translate into how much damage (or other effect) and apply it uniformly across all powers. If you take an exponential approach with some powers, a linear approach with others, and just put in numbers that feel right with the rest, it's going to be a nightmare to balance, and you're going to end up with seriously over or underpowered abilities.

Now there's a point I can conceed. Fixed in 4th ed though.

SylasGaunt wrote:It's my personal opinion that a good GM is adaptable enough that one twit trying to twink out (either because he wants his character to be l33t or just because he's trying to break the game) isn't a problem.. mostly because the GM has far twinkier options with which to counter.. of course the danger there is that you get some GMs who try to absolutely micromanage every little detail and can't adapt their story on the fly or they get all tyrannical. You don't want to stifle creativity after all, just asshattery.

But most of my players got that sort of thing out of their system early on so I don't really have to worry about it anymore.

Thank you, SylasGaunt, for summing up my eventual point better than I probably would have: No RPG session has ever been ruined by the rules more than by asshats.

Posted: **2006-01-04 09:44am**

Raw Shark wrote:
Thunderfire wrote:Any Character with TL +2.
I'll inform General Custer.

This was a TL 1/5 vs TL 5/5 fight. Give the CSA a TL7(todays techlevel) division and watch what it will do to their TL5 union opponents.

Posted: **2006-01-04 01:54pm**

Raw Shark wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Congratulations, under this system literally any game can be managed for brokeness. D&D's Complete Warrior isn't broken because you ban Hulking Hurler, etc.
Ummm... Yeah. I must've been talking about banning stuff. I just didn't think I was because that's not what I said at all, unless you're referring to my comments on excessive Disadvantages or Limitations, which contradict the suggested book procedure.

Because that's the only GM way to manage things? Nice way of putting words in my mouth. Do it again and you're toast.

Posted: **2006-01-04 04:26pm**

SirNitram wrote:Because that's the only GM way to manage things? Nice way of putting words in my mouth. Do it again and you're toast.

If you say so I agree, Mighty One.

ThunderFire wrote:This was a TL 1/5 vs TL 5/5 fight. Give the CSA a TL7(todays techlevel) division and watch what it will do to their TL5 union opponents.

I'm not enough of a masochist to try to argue the irrelevance of a TL difference between societies.

Posted: **2006-01-05 07:10pm**

Not having played 4th ed how is it different from 3rd?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

GURPS-Hater Challenge!

GURPS-Hater Challenge!

Re: GURPS-Hater Challenge!