I think the first few pages of Fate Accessibility Toolkit crystallized one of the reasons I have problems taking GURPS seriously as a game system. I have some more thoughts on this, but the short of it is disability as a disadvantage in order to get more points to offset that disadvantage.
@craigmaloney I've never played that system but I can totally see how that would go awry.
@craigmaloney Agreed. I think the origin of the approach was Champions, where it made a little more sense. But that's because Champions was designed around the X-Men comics and not trying to be an Ultimate Everything Simulator.
@craigmaloney I wouldn't go so far as to use Fate (bad FUDGE ripoff that it is), but Steve Jackson never understood the HERO system he was ripping off.
HERO explicitly states "a disadvantage which doesn't disadvantage you is worth no points". If you make a pyromaniac egotistical dwarf with increased running, reach, and flame-resistance, that stuff's all just description, not points.
@mdhughes I quite like FUSGE and Fate. I think they're rather complementary. And I think GURPS 3e and 4e really tried to accentuate that disadvantages are supposed to figure into play, but creating a laundry-list of disadvantages means at some point they're not getting played.
@craigmaloney FUDGE is great, and in the subjective system immune to rules-lawyering, you just assign scores and play; Fate added a bunch of stuff that's not needed and lets you rules-lawyer it.
GURPS 3 games always ended up being ridiculous deviant lists of disads trying to not die, the couple times I tried GURPS 4 we never made it past chargen over-optimization.
@mdhughes I'm not sure I follow how Fudge brings any more immunity to rules lawyering than Fate does. Perhaps it's the subjectivity of when an aspect can be compelled or not that drives some of that distaste?
@craigmaloney @mdhughes to me, the key insight in more modern designs is making the player complicit in bringing character disads into play, rather than dumping that whole burden on the GM. Key part of that is moving the rewards of having and highlighting the character flaw into the play session, rather than front-loading it into character creation.
@rafial @craigmaloney HERO really works well at making the mechanics do most of the work, and a clear process for the Referee to handle the things that need judgement. But it's hard to get buy-in from players for giant tomes of rules.
The systems that work best for me now are all ancient and freeform, OD&D, T&T, Fighting Fantasy (Advanced or not), RuneQuest 2/3, or FUDGE at the latest. I haven't played a system made post 1995 in years. I read Zweihänder, but I dunno all those rules.
@mdhughes different systems produce different experiences (as they should). What I reach for depends on what kind of play I want to have. BX D&D, 5e D&D, FATE Accelerated, Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds, Warhammer 3e are all tools in my toolbox. I also acknowledge there are game out there that work just fine for people who are not me. I"ll play PbtA, but I'd never choose to run it.
@Canageek @rafial @craigmaloney The point of "points" in Champions is not to reward players for rules-lawyering (ironically!) or cheating, but to measure combat/campaign effectiveness. So you pay a lot for offense & defense, more for control powers, a ton for bases and vehicles which offer a lot of defensive ability & utility.
GURPS doesn't know what points are. It's trivial to waste hundreds of points and get no effectiveness out of it, or pile up cheats and be powerful on a low-point character.
@Canageek @rafial @craigmaloney Yeah, enough Referee guidance can keep GURPS chars even enough for a campaign; but I'm lazy, I want to spend my time writing villains and their plots, not keeping That Guy from making Superman while everyone else makes Aquaman and Matter Eater Lad (or genre equivalents).
A Mastodon instance for tabletop gamers.