Generic Unfocused Role-Playing Systems

So, yesterday was Veteran’s Day (no comment) and I didn’t post anything as I slept in till one, spent the day mostly doing yard work, and then finished up watching the Firefly series with my wife. Regarding the latter, I have managed to get my lovely spouse addicted to the series over the last couple weeks, and boy was she pissed when we got through the last episode: how dare this show get cancelled! And this is from a woman with immense dislike/disdain for a) westerns, and b) science fiction. Guess it was a good show, huh? Stupid FOX network.

ANYWAY, I did have a chance to wander down to Gary’s and read through the GURPS core books (now in its 4th edition!), but I just didn’t take the time to post my opinion. Please allow me to do so now (if briefly):

First, let me just say that GURPS, in its current incarnation seems very nice, smart, and even a little sexy. The system is of course elegant in its own way, certainly consistent, and GURPS is perhaps the best supported game on the market in terms of both quantity and quality of supplemental texts.

The fact that it’s divided into two core books is a bit off-putting (to me) who would prefer RPGs to return to the days of smaller more concise rule sets, but whatever. The main thing I wanted to look for was anything that would stand out as clear objectives of game play in the book…i.e. does anything in the rule set tell one how to play this damn game in the first place? This is due to the comment thread on my axiom post of the other day; check it out to see what I mean.

See, to me it appears that one thing RPG designers have gotten away from is explaining just what the hell people are expected to do with their gigantic rule books. Game authors simply assume that people buying their games are role-players who have played before or have friends who have, and who are going to simply using the author’s new game to play the same way they always have, just using a new set of rules. I believe this is a problem for a couple/few different reasons:

1 – it completely neglects the idea of growing the hobby, by limiting texts to existing role-players.
2 – it assumes that all role-playing gamers “play the same way” as the game author (which may not be accurate)
3 – it assumes that existing gamers know how to play the damn game (at least in the fashion the designer intends).

Now that being said, GURPS is a game that’s been around for awhile and has a pretty decent following, and since I don’t play it, who am I to knock it?

Well, how about a potential player (with a game this large should I call myself a “potential investor?”)? I buy A LOT of games, and some (like Palladium) that might raise eyebrows from some folks. A game has got to offer me SOMEthing, though, if I am going to make a purchase and I can’t help take a critical eye to any prospective game.

So back to “clear objectives;” does GURPS have ‘em?

Well, not that I could find in the player’s book. This is simply a huge guide to making a character for the GURPS game. Subject to GM approval, of course. Created with an eye towards what’s “fun” to play, of course. With plenty of options for making a “heroic” character, of course.

Interestingly, GURPS points out that their character creation system is NOT as realistic as it could be, as “realism” would require randomness in chargen, rather than a balanced point buy (after all, some people are born smart AND strong, and some people are born neither). However, GURPS points out its system is designed to provide “game balance” (so that some characters don’t upstage others) AND also allows players to create HEROIC characters (rather than Joe Shmoes).

I call this interesting because it is very straight-forward and matter-o-fact about things other games do, but simply assume “need not be present in writing.” I give GURPS a thumbs up for being smart and classy even if, right here, it pretty much loses my interest (because I’m not interested particularly in playing characters that are “balanced” or “heroic” and I am no fan of the drawn-out process of point-buy chargen).

Still, it doesn’t tell non-GM players what exactly they’re supposed to do, except “look to the GM.” Ugh.

Now the GM Book DOES have some information on how to create an adventure and run a game, which is a step up from Rifts, but it’s still pretty abstract about it…and even a bit disingenuous from what I’d see as the GURPS stance. I’ll get to the latter point in a second; basically, the books states it is the GM’s job to CHALLENGE the players (though it doesn’t specify whether this means challenging the players, their characters, or both). GMs are supposed to use their role and understanding of the system to craft adventures that offer “a challenge.”

There is even a sidebar on “dungeons” (!!) and creating site-based adventures. Here we see the origin of the GURPS game…someone wanted to do D&D with an elegant, consistent system (that included rules for skills, advantages, and disadvantages) that could be easily ‘ported to other genres. Ugh…here I thought Steve Jackson had more high-minded motivations…I know a lot of people use GURPS for reasons other than creating site-based adventures.

But that’s just it. GMs are supposed to “challenge” their players? Really? Your telling me GURPS is designed to facilitate a gamist creative agenda?

If such is the case, where’s the meta-game? In the character creation system (min-maxing through the point-buy?)? In simply being smarter than the GM or the other players (where’s the “balance” in that?!)?

And here I thought GURPS was best suited for facilitating the simulationist, with setting books like “The Prisoner” and “Renaissance Italy.” I guess those supplements were simply written to allow players to be challenged by GMs in different settings, rather than allowing exploration of the unique setting material. Wow…I was waaay off! ; )

SO anyway, not exactly what I’m looking for in a game. I am too old, too busy, and (yes) too lazy to spend the time learning a universal system when I don’t personally believe all role-playing games can be distilled to universal game mechanics. I just don’t. Gamma World would not benefit from a GURPS-like system and neither would Hubris Game’s Maelstrom RPG (the former doesn’t require the extra rules to play, the latter is played with a system that resolves scenes not tasks…in many ways Maelstrom is far more elegant than GURPS). And as a stand-alone game? Eh…it’s a little bland (despite being sexier than its predecessors), while still somehow seeming “over-produced.”

On the other hand…for RPGs with cool settings that have totally lame systems (or settings that don’t HAVE RPGs), one could do a lot worse than picking up GURPS and the corresponding supplement (I see GURPS did a Blue Planet supplement in 2002). But you’ll probably need to bring your own clear, specific objectives to the table with you.

: )