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 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?

Β· tootstream Β· 0 Β· 0 Β· 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Mastodon instance for tabletop gamers.