Star Wars or Matrix with GURPS rules

[Jediphile]

There's already a 4th edition 

 

Well that explains why I was able to find a copy of 3rd edition for 3 bucks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Already?!?

 

Isn't GURPS 3rd edition almost 15 years old or so?

 

Besides, 4th edition looks a lot like 3rd edtion as far as I can tell... I guess they didn't want to alienate any of the fanbase...

[Jediphile]

So far GURPS Lite looks alright.  However I am not crazy about random NPC Reaction rolls.  For some reason, I think that NPC reactions should be based on role-play, and not ROLL-play.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure, but I tend to see something like that as a tool in case the GM and players are not going to be bothered to role-play a situation - role-playing the party's visits to 10 shops in a town can drain your incentive to play like crazy.

 

Besides, any good GM will take PC behavior into consideration - of course they're not going to get a favorable response if they persist in telling everybody they meet just how stupid and ugly they are

[Darque]

Heck if I know.

 

I only bought it because I have some Gurps sourcebooks (great generic material for writing inspiration actually) and the Alpha Centauri book (based on the best TBS game of all time )

[Jediphile]

Heck if I know.

 

I only bought it because I have some Gurps sourcebooks (great generic material for writing inspiration actually) and the Alpha Centauri book (based on the best TBS game of all time )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have both editions of GURPS, and though I haven't studied the whole thing down to the letter, they look very much the same, so I think you sourcebooks are just as relevant in GURPS 4rd Ed. as in 3rd Ed. It's nowhere near like the D&D 2e to 3e switch, which was a totally different game.

[Kissamies]

Yeah, they didn't change it that much. Also, much of the changes they made have been suggested as alternate rules for years. Compared to D&D 2e to 3e change, it is a very throughout polish rather than complete overhaul. Most of the 3rd Ed sourcebooks should be useable on 4th, but not the rules heavy ones like Martial Arts. Here's what they think.

[Darque]

OMG! OMG! OMG! They made a Hellboy game?

 

Must get

[metadigital]

Yeah, they didn't change it that much. Also, much of the changes they made have been suggested as alternate rules for years. Compared to D&D 2e to 3e change, it is a very throughout polish rather than complete overhaul. Most of the 3rd Ed sourcebooks should be useable on 4th, but not the rules heavy ones like Martial Arts. Here's what they think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great link, thanks!

 

I haven't played any GURPS, but just reading the summary has impressed me.

 

[EnderAndrew]

If you're too lazy to role-play a reaction, then there shouldn't be a reaction.

 

If you just want combat and number simulation that is fine, and then random NPC reactions shouldn't really matter.

[Lancer]

@ Jediphile:

 

This might interest you (or might not) but I found a site where somebody made a Matrix game utilizing the d6 ruleset. You can find it here.

[Jediphile]

@ Jediphile:

 

This might interest you (or might not) but I found a site where somebody made a Matrix game utilizing the d6 ruleset. You can find it  here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

 

Although the site doesn't seem to have been updated for a year (which is rarely a good sign...), it still has some good information on it. Don't like the d6 so much, since it also has the D&D to make building stats far more attractive than skills, but even then it might be a good basis for some ideas.

[Guest Fishboot]

I have a soft spot for GURPS (Although, whoever "Smif" is who can't stop himself from putting a gigantic gaudy signature in every illustration in the dang 3rd Edition manual should be shot). I loved some of the 2nd Edition sourcebooks - GURPS Cyberpunk and GURPS High-Tech were both fantastic books, although the rules, while fun to read, were very inefficient (as in slow - count the number of rules and modifiers that go into effect when you fire a Tommy Gun with hollow point bullets at full automatic at a guy in partial soft cover - it will make your head spin).

 

It would probably be productive to jerry-rig a fast combat system onto the impressive GURPS character creation and skills systems (Although it's easy to powergame a character if you let a player get away with it) if you want to use it for anything where you'll have more than one real fight every two or three sessions.

[EnderAndrew]

Only having 4 attributes, but 50 million rules just doesn't work for me.

[Kissamies]

GURPS makes do with 4 attributes, and some more optional secondary characteristics, but relies heavily on Advantages and Disadvantages to give the variety. Some of the level based ones are like mini-attributes themselves.

...Although, whoever "Smif" is who can't stop himself from putting a gigantic gaudy signature in every illustration in the dang 3rd Edition manual should be shot...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be Dan Smith. My printing of 3rd Edition manual is so old that it doesn't have any of his illustration, heh. All over the Compendiums, though.

 

The ranged attack and rapid fire rules are exactly the kind of thing that have been steamlined on 4th Ed. No more grouping the bullets in 4 round bursts, etc. Still not the simplest thing in the world, but much smoother. They are so sure about their rapid fire rules that they decided to make each pellet in a shotgun shot an individual projectile. Not necessarily a good idea. Well, I bet there's eventually going to be High-Tech or Vehicles for 4th Ed to make the rules all complicated again

[Lancer]

One other thing comes to mind if suggesting a Matrix RPG. I haven't really tried it myself but from what I hear "Feng Shui" is probably the best system out there for cinematic action roleplaying like in action movies and such. The focus is on emulating wild combat stunts (i.e the crazy stuff in typical jackie chan jet li, chow yun-fat movies) as done in the movies at the expense of realism. The players are even encouraged and rewarded for exceptional stunts such as jumping off a cliff on a motorcyle and landing on to an airplane.. Or running up a wall, doing a backflip while shooting a plank releasing heavy barrels that fall right on top of your enemy. ..etc etc.

 

In other words, this is *definitely* not GURPS.

 

The Feng Shui system might be of interest if you are looking to emulate the exceptionally cinematic combat of the Matrix movies... Since GURPS' specialty is on emulating realism and the combat in the Matrix is anything but realistic, Feng Shui would probably be the better pick for emulating Matrix combat.

[Lancer]

It would probably be productive to jerry-rig a fast combat system onto the impressive GURPS character creation and skills systems (Although it's easy to powergame a character if you let a player get away with it) if you want to use it for anything where you'll have more than one real fight every two or three sessions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

SLA core mechanics meets GURPS character creation.. A match made in heaven.

[Jediphile]

It would probably be productive to jerry-rig a fast combat system onto the impressive GURPS character creation and skills systems (Although it's easy to powergame a character if you let a player get away with it) if you want to use it for anything where you'll have more than one real fight every two or three sessions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

SLA core mechanics meets GURPS character creation.. A match made in heaven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's the sort of thing I was toying with in my homebrewed rules. I ran into trouble with the combat system, though, because I found it difficult to create a combat system that had enough options to be both fast and strategic. How do you reconcile genuine combat options with a fast-paced battle resolution mechanic?

[Loof]

One other thing comes to mind if suggesting a Matrix RPG. I haven't really tried it myself but from what I hear "Feng Shui" is probably the best system out there for cinematic action roleplaying like in action movies and such. The focus is on emulating wild combat stunts (i.e the crazy stuff in typical jackie chan jet li, chow yun-fat movies) as done in the movies at the expense of realism. The players are even encouraged and rewarded for exceptional stunts such as jumping off a cliff on a motorcyle and landing on to an airplane.. Or running up a wall, doing a backflip while shooting a plank releasing heavy barrels that fall right on top of your enemy. ..etc etc.

 

In other words, this is *definitely* not GURPS.

 

The Feng Shui system might be of interest if you are looking to emulate the exceptionally cinematic combat of the Matrix movies... Since GURPS' specialty is on emulating realism and the combat in the Matrix is anything but realistic, Feng Shui would probably be the better pick for emulating Matrix combat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A second a recomendation of feng shui for any action heavy game, and it would probably suit a matrix game very well. Actualy it's the only rpg I have ever played where combat realy is fun, and just as imaginative as the other parts of gameing.

 

Feng shui is very fast and very easy to get a hang of, just as an example I first played it at a convetion. Thought it was fun and bought it after the session, went home read the rules and started to GM it three days later :D

 

I can also recomend the game from a pure rulessytem interest point of view, even if you arent interested in playing a HK action inspired game, it's full of good ideas on how to make action sequences in rpg's more enjoyable. And has alot of good rule ideas that can be incorporated into other systems and settings.

[EnderAndrew]

Now I must get a copy of that game.

[Lancer]

That's the sort of thing I was toying with in my homebrewed rules. I ran into trouble with the combat system, though, because I found it difficult to create a combat system that had enough options to be both fast and strategic. How do you reconcile genuine combat options with a fast-paced battle resolution mechanic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can you give an overview of what combat options you want in your game?

[Lancer]

Now I must get a copy of that game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I actually had tried looking for the game today at my local gameshop.. Not there. ARGH..Annoying because I had seen the game stocked there for the longest time and now when I want it.. not there.

 

I might actually have to search it online.

[Jediphile]

That's the sort of thing I was toying with in my homebrewed rules. I ran into trouble with the combat system, though, because I found it difficult to create a combat system that had enough options to be both fast and strategic. How do you reconcile genuine combat options with a fast-paced battle resolution mechanic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can you give an overview of what combat options you want in your game?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't really have it all figured, but basically it was about choosing a stance from which to perform your attack, only each of them would leave in a position, where you would be vulnerable to certain counterattacks, so that a good warrior would want to know lots of them and thus avoid being as vulnerable. You would only be allowed to perform certain attacks from certain stances until you improved your attack forms, and only be allowed to switch from certain offensive postures to certain defensive positions until you learned to master those too. For example, one warrior could be caught in one disadvantageous position after his attack, especially if it failed (didn't hit or was parried), and might not be able to reposition into a good defensive position before the enemy took advantage of it. With greater skill he could switch between these positions easier.

 

I also wanted a Counterattack skill that would allow you an extra upon a succesful parry. It would work like this - if the enemy attacked you and you parried rather well (depending on die result and skill level), you could make an immediate counterattack on the assumption that you had opened your opponents defense with your parry. However, if you did this with a sword, you would make the attack of whichever was lower of your sword skill and your counterattack skill. The enemy would still get to parry, though, and could also make his own counterattack, if he succeeded well, meaning that very experienced warriors would be able to make a lot of counterattacks in a very short time.

 

Hmm, any of that make sense, or should I rephrase?

[Loof]

I didn't realy get all the details of yoru combat system.

But if you are looking for a system with very detailed mechanics and lots of predescribed options, maybe feng shui isn't what you are looking for (although of course it's still what you need ).

 

The feng shui combat system isn't great becase it has alot of tactical options, it's greatnes is that it has mechanics that encurage the players to describe their actions well (for instance the player saying "I hit him" or even worse "I hit him agian" would result in severe to hit penalties for boring description).

Although the system for initiative and action points is pretty nice (they are the same thing every action you preform you subtract its action cost from your initiative and check whos highest to se who goes next), and you can buy alot of special atacks and stuff (exalted is in my opinion something of a ripoff of feng shuis shtick trees), but they dont form advaced chains of counteratacks that follow predescribed rules or anything like that.

 

I think the original producers of Feng shui went out of buisness but I found out just the other day that it's now being sold by atlas games.

 

URL:

http://www.atlas-games.com/fengshui/index.php

[Lancer]

Didn't really have it all figured, but basically it was about choosing a stance from which to perform your attack, only each of them would leave in a position, where you would be vulnerable to certain counterattacks, so that a good warrior would want to know lots of them and thus avoid being as vulnerable. You would only be allowed to perform certain attacks from certain stances until you improved your attack forms, and only be allowed to switch from certain offensive postures to certain defensive positions until you learned to master those too.

 

Sounds really cool. It sounds like your system would be doubly pertinent for martial arts style games.

 

 

For example, one warrior could be caught in one disadvantageous position after his attack, especially if it failed (didn't hit or was parried), and might not be able to reposition into a good defensive position before the enemy took advantage of it. With greater skill he could switch between these positions easier.

 

Perhaps a phase combat system somewhat like SLA Industries or PO could work here.. ?

Tentatively, say you have 5 phases in a combat round. Someone rather inexperienced in his particular attack style would only be able to act in the latter stages phase 4 or 5 of the combat round..And can only attack once. As he learns more and more maneuvers/styles he can both act sooner (in phases 1, 2 or 3)as well as in more phases (say, when he is *very* proficient in his style and/or more agile he can act in phases 1, 2, *AND* 3) Alternatively, everytime your character successfully "repositions" before the enemy takes advantage and counterattacks, this give an extra attack to your character in the following phase in addition to his standard attacks. The above would of course be modified by your character's skill/maneuver rank...etc.

 

 

I also wanted a Counterattack skill that would allow you an extra upon a succesful parry. It would work like this - if the enemy attacked you and you parried rather well (depending on die result and skill level), you could make an immediate counterattack on the assumption that you had opened your opponents defense with your parry. However, if you did this with a sword, you would make the attack of whichever was lower of your sword skill and your counterattack skill. The enemy would still get to parry, though, and could also make his own counterattack, if he succeeded well, meaning that very experienced warriors would be able to make a lot of counterattacks in a very short time.

 

Hmm, any of that make sense, or should I rephrase?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Say... if your parry roll exceeds the target number by some number (say 5 or more) and you have the counterattack skill then it is in effect. As long as you and your opponent succeed in employing counterattacks in succession then all these occur during the same phase. Maybe you could impose a limit on how many counterattacks occur per phase? Perhaps a low Agility character can perform at most one counterattack per phase whereas more agile characters can perform 2 or 3 or so in one phase.

[Jediphile]

Perhaps a phase combat system somewhat like SLA Industries or PO could work here.. ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I wanted it all to be timed. Every single action/attack/option would have a specific duration assigned to it determining how long it took to perform (in seconds and fractions of seconds). There would then be a die roll (low - d4 or d6) to determine how long it took to 'recover' from an attack. Then the character would onto the next attack. Dexterity would slightly modify these durations, however - high Dex would let you do them slightly faster, while low Dex did the opposite. Still, all Attributes would be chosen in a point system (like GURPS) instead of random die rolls (as in D&D), so you'd have low Dex only if you chose to.

 

Say... if your parry roll exceeds the target number by some number  (say 5 or more) and you have the counterattack skill then it is in effect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep, that's the sort of thing I had in mind.

 

As long as you and your opponent succeed in employing counterattacks in succession then all these occur during the same phase. Maybe you could impose a limit on how many counterattacks occur per phase? Perhaps a low Agility character can perform at most one counterattack per phase whereas more agile characters can perform 2 or 3 or so in one phase.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Another problem was that I wanted a fatigue system, but didn't know how to make one that wasn't cumbersome to the players. I'd let you do all the attacks you wanted to, only you'd be tired in seconds if you took them all, of course.

 

It was sort of inspired by the lightsaber duels of Episode I (or the entire prequel trilogy for that matter). They mostly looked very futuristic, but on the extra material on the Ep. I dvd, Nick Gillard speaks of it as being "chess at a 1000 miles a second", and when you see them practice it, it's actually much more dramatic than when you see it in the film, because it's much more convincing. In the film you know they're tricking you, but you don't know that it's actually just the backgrounds and lightsaber glows that are added in - they really do fight that fast, though they did train it for months first, of course. But it made me think when Nick Gillard said that it was so fast that they could only attack here or parry there, because there was no time for anything else. Now, I know I won't be doing jedi-battles in my system, but as a basis I liked those comments.

[Lancer]

No, I wanted it all to be timed. Every single action/attack/option would have a specific duration assigned to it determining how long it took to perform (in seconds and fractions of seconds). There would then be a die roll (low - d4 or d6) to determine how long it took to 'recover' from an attack. Then the character would onto the next attack. Dexterity would slightly modify these durations, however - high Dex would let you do them slightly faster, while low Dex did the opposite. Still, all Attributes would be chosen in a point system (like GURPS) instead of random die rolls (as in D&D), so you'd have low Dex only if you chose to.

 

Do you have rounds? If every single action is timed then sounds like it would eliminate the need for rounds/phases all together.

 

The problem with having every action time down to fractions of seconds is that it would be nigh impossible to have your PCs actions synchronized chronologically with one another.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding an aspect of your system but seems to me that the more the fight drags on, the more spaced out chronologically a combatant's attacks will be with respect to everyone else. There would be an accumulated "time differential" which would produce some really strange effects. With a large time differential you will tend to get unusual scenarios like one of your PCs fighting in the future by 5 sec with respect to another... Then that PC will be fighting a couple of seconds ahead of the next character and so on.

 

This might be precisely why this sort of thing is simplified in all RPGs with concepts such as rounds and phases.

 

Maybe you would have to "reset" time back to zero after all your characters have completed one standard barrage of attacks?.. But then this basically is exactly what a round is...