File: Iron GURPS.gif (33 KB, 765x860)

33 KB GIF

>>98776775 >>98785973 >>98797680 >>98802878

Iron GURPS thread. Roll 'em.

How do I turn a Tight-Beam Burning attack into a laser? That is, how should I price each of the following as enhancements or limitations:
>Rain, fog, smoke, snow, and similar phenomena interfere with your attack, adding extra DR to the target equal to the Vision penalty (per meter).
>Multiply your attack's Armor Divisor by (5) when it strikes material transparent to visible light, like glasses, visors, windows, etc.
>In a cinematic game, your attack can bounce off of mirrors as if it had Ricochet enhancement, but any mirrored surface is also impenetrable if angled correctly (requires a Block roll, but ignore Damage to Shields).

>>98756471
According to Powers, the first part and the third part together are just treated as a Feature (+0%) when writing up laser weapons as Sample Abilities.
The second part feels comparable to Surge, Arcing (ignore all but 1 DR on conductive metal armor, +100%), but at at half level, so I'd price it something like +50%.

>>98756530
Ah, okay. That seems about right.

>>98756471
>Rain, fog, smoke, snow, and similar phenomena interfere with your attack, adding extra DR to the target equal to the Vision penalty (per meter).
The only strictly rules-compliant way I can think of would be to buy some of the damage with a limitation of 'only with vision penalties less than n' repeated for every possible vision penalty. A more sensible approach would be to simply make a new nuisance effect.
>Multiply your attack's Armor Divisor by (5) when it strikes material transparent to visible light, like glasses, visors, windows, etc.
Simply purchase (additional) armour divisor as a limited enhancement (Basic, p.111).
>In a cinematic game, your attack can bounce off of mirrors as if it had Ricochet enhancement, but any mirrored surface is also impenetrable if angled correctly (requires a Block roll, but ignore Damage to Shields).
Ricochet as a limited enhancement, and something like accessibility (only against non-reflective targets).

Tiny Terrors seems kind of shit:
Concepts are mostly weak jokes, often referencing boomer media like Monty Python and the Holy Grail (and the killer rabbit already has stats in Dungeon Fantasy).
Introduces random bullshit like normal fairy folk being good, and more good the smaller they are, just to give a distinction between playable fairies and their overpowered evil counterparts.
Builds monsters around the advantages of being small (which are very considerable in GURPS) with none of the disadvantages. In fact, makes most of them absurdly strong and tough, or with unprecedented levels of advantages such as Magery 12.
Adds loads of special rules which can't be replicated with normal GURPS stuff, often without it even being necessary for the concept.

File: Ka V-80.jpg (92 KB, 908x674)

92 KB JPG

>>98776824

I'm going to try putting David Pulver's gun and missile design systems (part of the vehicle design system) to the test for the next month. If anyone has any requests for weapons for possible inclusion as examples in the final text (or an add-on) or examples of weapons which seem likely to push the boundaries of such design systems (and thus show if they have flaws), just name them here.
Note that you will need a fair bit of data on the real-world weapon to be available to say if the design system is working as intended, so sources would be helpful.

File: Capture.png (8 KB, 286x271)

8 KB PNG

>>98757046

>>98756315
>What happened to all the GURPS blogs and which one do you miss the most?
I'm still here. I've just been too lazy to do anything.
(Though maybe I don't count as a blog since I don't have an RSS feed. I should fix that.)

File: Capture.png (6 KB, 719x135)

6 KB PNG

>>98757039
Wait, I do have an RSS feed! I just completely forgot it existed for four years. Oops.

About dual wielding and magic, correct me if I'm wrong here:
>Regular magic
AFAIK you need to first put the spell on your hand, but once it's on your hand, you can throw the fireball with one hand and make an attack with the using the normal dual wielding rules right? Or even rapid strike.
>sorcery
I think all spellcasting in sorcery is concentrate actions so you cannot dual wield those. Or rapid strike.
>advantages as magic
Assuming you didn't add malediction, all of the attack advantages like binding, innate attack, affliction ranged obscure, all of those are regular-ass attacks so you should be able to cast and smack.
>ritual casting
all are concentrate, like sorcery, so no casting and smacking.

File: Sorcery attacks.png (112 KB, 1100x465)

112 KB PNG

>>98761660

>>98758876
>Regular magic
>AFAIK you need to first put the spell on your hand, but once it's on your hand, you can throw the fireball with one hand and make an attack with the using the normal dual wielding rules right? Or even rapid strike.
Correct. Missile spells 9and jets, whips, etc.) are activated using attacks, with all the usual rules for attacks. You can even dual-wield spells.
>sorcery
>I think all spellcasting in sorcery is concentrate actions so you cannot dual wield those. Or rapid strike.
Some sorcery spells require attacks rather than concentrates; see image.
>advantages as magic
>Assuming you didn't add malediction, all of the attack advantages like binding, innate attack, affliction ranged obscure, all of those are regular-ass attacks so you should be able to cast and smack.
Correct.
>ritual casting
>all are concentrate, like sorcery, so no casting and smacking
Depends on what you mean by ritual casting. Some ritual systems allow conditional casting which can activate with an attack.

>>98761159
>Some sorcery spells require attacks rather than concentrates; see image.
Ah, I see, so after you switched to your spell, you can cast and smack as normal.
You'd go
>turn 1: concentrate to ready firebal. Turn 2: Fireball one hand, swing the other. Turn 3+: repeat until you need a different spell
>Depends on what you mean by ritual casting. Some ritual systems allow conditional casting which can activate with an attack.
I meant ritual path magic, and I think you're right, ritual path magic has conditional casting.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Say I want to put an obscure attack after a melee attack as a follow-up. (the idea of the attack is a "limpet smoke mine" where you glue it to an enemy and it generates smoke all over the enemy)
Do I have to put in the "ranged" to turn it into a ranged attack first or does adding "follow-up" already does it for me?

>>98762027
Follow up is an attack modifier (gun symbol in unrevised basic set, 'A' in the revised one) and can only be applied to Affliction, Binding, Innate Attack, and advantages modified with the Ranged enhancement. Thus you need to add Ranged to Obscure to make it eligible for Follow-Up (Basic Set p. 102).
This does lead to the rather absurd situation where you might have to add Ranged to Obscure in order to make it eligible for Follow-Up and then make it a follow-up for a melee attack.

>>98762204
Oh well, it's a bit silly but what can you do.
There really should be a "melee attack" enhancement instead of only being a limitation.

File: Hazel_Custom_(High_Mobili(...).png (447 KB, 750x800)

447 KB PNG

>>98770542 >>98836554

Page 10 bump
Have you ever played a character who wields multiple shields?

>>98762268
It is in Thaumatology, p. 114

>>98764865
>Only for crushing, cutting, or impaling Innate Attacks
>Take the Melee Attack limitation (p. B112) as usual, and then add a +100% enhancement
Not quite what I mean. This is again taking something that is already a ranged attack and then turning them to a melee attack. What I mean is how several powers have the ability to become attacks by adding ranged, there should also a version of that that turns them to melee attacks.
Obscure being the easiest example. No reason you shouldn't be able to stick a smoke generator on someone with your hands.

>>98764948
Look at You've Got the Touch box in Power-Ups 8 on p. 17. If that doesn't help I guess I just don't get what you're trying to do.

>>98765935
>If that doesn't help I guess I just don't get what you're trying to do.
NTA, but I think that what he wants is to be able to make an inherently non-ranged ability into a melee attack without having an enhancement called 'ranged' added to it. The rules already seem to allow the effect he wants, it's just the convoluted stack of modifiers, one of which has a confusing name, which he doesn't like.
In theory, this could be handled in the same way that melee capable (power-ups 4, p.19) is; a variable cost enhancement based on a flat cost plus the value of the equivalent melee attack limitation. Unfortunately, obscure has a unique cost for ranged, so you can't set it to just +40%+(melee attack value). So the rules for such an enhancement would basically be to stack ranged and melee attack, which is the same as simply taking both modifiers, as you have to under the official rules.

>>98766713
I still don't get what he's trying to do. Assuming >>98762027 is him he wants to give an effect beneficial to the target of an attack as part of that attack. There is obviously something specific he is after that he has either not described thoroughly or that I missed his description of. I don't see what he is trying to do from how he is trying to do it and it seems neither does he.

Were he one of my players I would be asking him to describe what effects he is after and do so in plain English. I would then buld it and he could explain why and how that build doesn't do what he described. Right now it seems he is stuck on using follow-up which I suspect might not be the ideal way to achieve his actual goal.

>>98766861
>he wants to give an effect beneficial to the target of an attack as part of that attack.
No.
When you use obscure as an attack, it is a penalty. Anyone in the area has -X to a specific sense roll (usually vision), and the basic idea is a smoke grenade, where you throw it somewhere, and it obscures the area.
What I want is simply a way to put the obscure on someone as part of a melee attack without the convoluted way of making it ranged, then adding a limitation to transform the ranged attack into a melee attack.

I just think it's weird that there's a ranged enhancement which transforms normal, non-attacking abilities into ranged attacks but not a melee enhancement that does the same thing but is already a melee attack.

>>98767105
>When you use obscure as an attack, it is a penalty. Anyone in the area has -X to a specific sense roll (usually vision), and the basic idea is a smoke grenade, where you throw it somewhere, and it obscures the area.
Which is a hinderance to the person making the attack and a benefit to the target. Any futher attacks the attacker makes against that target are hindered. If you just want to toss an obscure grenade use the Ranged enhancement of Obscure.

>What I want is simply a way to put the obscure on someone as part of a melee attack without the convoluted way of making it ranged, then adding a limitation to transform the ranged attack into a melee attack.
You can put obscure on someone as part of an affliction. Affliction is easily converted to a melee attack. Using Innate Attack as the delivery for a follow-up in order to do what Affliction was built for seems to me to be the whole source of your troubles. The Melee Attack limitation (p. B112) is what turns a ranged attack into a melee attack. Affliction is a ranged attack which can be then turned into a melee attack and which can put an advantage on the target. Obscure is normally a self-only effect so you need something to get it to a target. That something is either Ranged, Melee Attack or Affliction.

A "limpet smoke mine" or "smoke grenade" is not an offensive tool it is a defensive tool. Giving someone cover from future incoming fire by shooting them is like biting them with fangs which inject super soldier serum.

What are you really trying to do here? Not "how do you want it to function mechanically."

So, I'm okay with HP recovery from Healing, Regeneration, medicine, magic, etc., scaling with HP. That only makes sense. One problem I've run into that doesn't quite sit well with my logic is scaling the healing from traits like Leech and Damage Resistance (Absorption).
I'm running a high-power game that uses logarithmic point costs for ST, TK, DR, any attack that inflicts Control or Injury (but not Fatigue or attribute penalties), and similar abilities, so it's very easy to get very high levels of HP, DR, and Leech. The problem here is that it's extremely easy with my house rules to refill HP or improve traits to absolute ridiculous extremes. For instance, a dude with ST 100 [300] and DR 20 (Absorption, +100%) [200] could take a single attack for 20 basic damage, then suddenly just heal 100 HP or double his HP by spending those character points from absorption. I really feel like 20 basic damage should equate to 20 HP of healing or improvement at most, or half that since each HP is worth 2 character points at base level. If a PC wants to heal or boost traits more efficiently, then he should take multiple levels of Absorption.
I'm thinking of keeping the HP scaling from healing, but somehow reducing the character points gained from DR (Absorption) and anything gained from Leech. Maybe divide it by the user's HP/10? But then PCs may just dump HP and buy up high levels of DR and Damage Reduction. Maybe that's okay; I'm not sure. Maybe give diminishing returns to trait improvements, using the SSR table as a guideline? But this doesn't really address healing. In any case, this also means that traits other than ST, TK, HP, etc., are very hard to raise, but I think that's fair, since many such traits scale differently anyways. Depending on the situation, even 1 FP can be far more valuable than 100 HP.

>>98767812
>Which is a hindrance to the person making the attack and a benefit to the target.
Nope
the person is also at -X to everything.
>You can put obscure on someone as part of an affliction.
this is just as convoluted as adding the ranged enhancement forllowed by a melee limitation, and it's cheaper too.
Any build that requires affliction to do something that is supposed to be a penalty but ends up counting as an advantage is overpriced when using affliction. See any attempts at making a "shrink enemy" spell.

>is not an offensive tool it is a defensive tool
Its an offensive tool because now the target is completely blind (assuming obscure 10).

And "how do you want to function mechanically" is extremely relevant because having to jump through hoops to do something simple is retarded.

>>98767909
Why not just charge the unmodified cost for traits gained via absorption? You've already got a discount for high DR, so it would be 'double counting' to give the discount again on purchased traits.
I don't think that HP gained through DR with absorption or leech is supposed to scale with your HP (or with the victim's in the case of leech). Things get pretty weird if you allow that.

>>98768224
That would solve the problem for healing/improving traits such as ST, HP, DR, etc. Although, I feel that other traits would still be too cheap.
The big reason that I went with logarithmic point costs for these traits is because, in my experience of GURPS, something like +10% ST and +1 HT are roughly equivalent value, but +1 ST and +1 HT are not.
If I can't come up with a solution, though, then I'll go with your suggestion until I come up with a better idea.
>I don't think that HP gained through DR with absorption or leech is supposed to scale with your HP (or with the victim's in the case of leech). Things get pretty weird if you allow that.
I kind of agree. But I remember a Kromm post from a while back saying that HP scaling for Absorption and Leech is the actual RAI and RAW interpretation. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned it earlier; that's what I thought didn't make sense.

>>98768375
maybe this can help?
https://mygurps.com/index.php?n=Main.AbsorptionRevised

Say you have a scorpion man that can make an extra attack with his tail.
You buy striker
and extra attack
but you don't want extra attack to be used with his regular hands/weapons.
How much is an accessibility: Only to attack with his tail be? -40%?

>>98769170
For Striking ST, Powers p. 79 prescribes −60 % for One Attack Only. You could extend that to Extra Attack.
For Extra Attack, Powers p. 49 prescribes −20 % for Single Skill. You could rule that Brawling (Humanoid with Tail) is a separate skill from Brawling (Humanoid).

>>98769291
>For Striking ST, Powers p. 79 prescribes −60 % for One Attack Only
This seems more fair. Pretty sure single skill is only -20% because most skills have multiple weapons.
Having Extra Attack only for ax/maces (which is like 5 weapons) give the same price reduction as extra attack: only for tails feels a bit wrong to me, so I'll go with -60%.

>>98764294
Not a dual shield weild, but a player of mine in a Bionicle game used only a shield as his Toa weapon. He was the Toa of Air, and used his powers to jet around the battlefield, doing good damage with his shield rush attack.

Good times

>>98768375
Some options:
Charge full price for Leech, and have it scale with HP. An ability which causes damage and heals you proportional to HP doesn't need logarithmic pricing if HP is priced logarithmically.
and
Scale the points you get from absorption with the opposite of whatever logarithm you use to scale the cost of DR. This may involve annoying math in the middle of combat, but balances everything out.
or
Charge full price for DR with absorption or charge the cost of the absorption enhancement as if the DR was full price. In either case, drop the price of absorption which only feeds into a single trait to about +5%. Optionally, remove the option to put it into any trait and make them take a modular ability as their single trait if they can use it to fuel multiple abilities.
or
Make an entirely new absorption advantage. [1/level], maximum level equal to your DR/5. Each level lets you turn 5 points of damage which is stopped by your DR into character points which can be spent on one of these options (chosen when the advantage is purchased):
A: a single trait, as per absorption enhancement
B: healing HP, at 2 points / HP (scaled with your HP)
C: healing FP, at 3 points / FP
D: filling ER. at 3/1 ratio

>>98756315
>what happened to all the GURPS blogs and which one do you miss the most?
Not enough of a connoisseur to know the GUPRS blogs that are out there but I miss Dungeons & Gurps uploads on YT, he seems to be on cooldown lately. Last video 3 months ago. I especially enjoyed his short fight scenes.

>>98756398
roll 3d100

>>98776775
dice+3d100

File: 1703835391660013.png (134 KB, 340x447)

134 KB PNG

>>98756989
Children, help this man make totally not GURPS Vehicles.

Wildcard! skills only.

Would that work for a more streamlined / pulp kind of game?

>>98776881
Yeah, it could work. Power Ups 7: Wildcards should help give you ideas. It suggests 15-20 wildcards to cover everything in a game that doesn't use standard skills. You could take something like the Skill List from, idk, the FATE Core RPG and use each skill from there as a wildcard.
If you want a bit more distinction, then I suggest taking each of the 30 different Skill Trunks from Power Ups 10: Skill Trees, and turning of them into a wildcard, but pricing them at twice the cost of a VH skill, instead of three times the cost.

Rolled 51, 94, 81 = 226 (3d100)

>>98776775
>>98776785
It goes in the options field

Rolled 9, 12, 94 = 115 (3d100)

>>98777283
Mage: The Ascension, Voodoo, and Tactical Shooting? Voodoo was already basically a rip-off of Mage with an even more retarded woke spin, so it's basically just Mage with more detailed gun rules.

>>98777829
Autoduel, biotech, and voodoo. So it's voodoo with sick car chases and bioroids and wetworks. Could be a pretty sweet game.

Rolled 10, 34, 47 = 91 (3d100)

>>98780576
Forgot to roll

>>98756315
>my gurps books are just on my shelf collecting dust because nobody wants to play
>only hope now is just playing online TTRPG sessions.
Bros it hurts. How do you cope? Nobody at the LGS seems interested in trying out GURPs. And GURPS has a reputation of being crunchy and too math heavy so most want something simple.

Lastly how's the print on demand quality between Amazon (I am a leaf if that matters) and Drive Through RPG?

>>98782834
It's as crunchy as you let it be. If you are lazy while approaching a fight just roll a d6 to see if they win. Don't have to be complicated. The success rolls for other things are simple I think. What's tough is crafting and leading an adventure that is fun to play. The same could be said of any RPG, maybe?
My brother will spend a few days here with me soon and we will try to play casual GURPS sessions with no pressure. I'll report back with results.

I have spent the last few days consuming GURPS books, trying to wrap my head around the worst organized writing for a game system I have ever seen. Despite this, the underlying system seems pretty cool. My preconceptions have been changed, thanks in part to reading and watching people explain this convoluted shit in a reasonable way. Though I do hate book flipping just to figure out what something unexplained and sometimes unsourced actually means. If that helps at all, because, again, half of this is written like someone explained the system forty years ago and adopted a shorthand without realizing no one knows what the fuck they're talking about. I plan to run some test scenarios solo just to get a feel for it.

>>98785046
The worked examples make a lot more sense
see Dungeon Fantasy for the biggest one.

>>98785046
>How many game systems is this for you, lieutenant?
https://youtu.be/Xlg7oEGwax8?si=hTovsI4gFubYFS6f&t=36

>>98756398
Rolled on my own. 33, 34 and 44.

>>98785973
>Dungeon Fantasy
>Egypt
>Imperial Rome
Delvers from across the empire brave ancient Egyptian tombs and their horrible guardians to retrieve treasures beyond reckoning. Kino.

File: gurps social engineering (...).png (31 KB, 674x561)

31 KB PNG

>>98795915

Page 10 bump
Have you ever used the Heraldry skill in your games? Have you ever played a character who had his own coat of arms?

>>98795516
Yeah it gets rolled at default or something like 11. As a result I have given up on PCs recognizing important people by their insignia

If I give Super Jump Limited use, do I get to use super jump for 1 minute or is it a single jump?

>>98797436
1 minute. Ongoing effects gets 1 minute per use. Instantaneous effects get 1 activation per use. What counts as as "instantaneous" is never clear, because jumping could be interpreted as instantaneous effect in a certain way. It's confusing, I know. I never quite understood it either. Just assume that an advantage gets 1 minute per use, unless it's specifically called out as one of those that get only one attack or activation per use, which includes: Affliction, Binding, Healing, Innate Attack, Neutralize... and that's all I can recall off the top of my head.

File: 1787181471969782.jpg (157 KB, 1000x667)

157 KB JPG

>>98800198

What would a d100 GURPS homebrew look like

File: kw0kge3e3bh41.jpg (50 KB, 720x546)

50 KB JPG

>>98756398
44, 59, 33

>>98797548
Thank for the explanation, I wish the books were a little clear on that.

>>98797677
BRP, with more options.

Just learned that GURPS Armor Design is coming out about a year ago, so here's my personal armor creation app that this reminded me of. Have fun anons.

https://gurpsforge.netlify.app/

>>98801712
>https://gurpsforge.netlify.app/
Cool app.

>>98756398
76- Steam tech
24 - Cops
21 - China
Chinese kung fu cops in steam punk Hong Kong.

File: gurps fourth edition revi(...).png (62 KB, 951x620)

62 KB PNG

>>98804538

>>98804494
I haven't seen anybody complain about anything but (1) the deletion of slavery rules...

File: basic set fourth edition (...).png (300 KB, 504x939)

300 KB PNG

>>98804545

>>98804534
...and (2) the groveling apology for removing """offensive""" terms.

>>98804538
>apology for removing
*apology for previously including

>>98801845
Thanks I also just realized I am a bit retarded and wrote "Armor Design is coming out about a year ago" instead "in a year" and you're a bro for not making fun out of me, anon

>>98805218
Haha yeah, I totally noticed and didn't mention...

Can you put reduced time on Healing to be able to heal as a free action?
I mean it's not an attack (not without the ranged modifier anyway), so I feel like this should work.

>>98806095
Don't see any reason why not. As you say, it isn't an attack and it doesn't have any special time reduction rules, so it seems to be fair game. Given that it's already overpriced, and there doesn't seem to be any way to remove the cumulative penalty for repeated use, I can't imagine there will be any balance issues.

>>98806138
Thanks for confirming.

Why is this Eggplant guy's pdf compendiums only on boosty? Shit is inaccessible.

>>98807473
Probably something to do with the fact that he's in Russia, and Russia is at war. I imagine that between his government being paranoid about enemy agents operating within their territory and Western companies refusing to do business with them, there are a lot of restrictions on his internet. I think he mentioned discord being banned there.

>>>98807473
What do you mean by "inaccessible"? When I click on the download button, it prompts me to sign up, which I'm not going to do. But it seems accessible to me.

>>98809493
I thought he was Bulgarian or something.

>>98809515
You can't sign up, it errors out. As >>98809493 said war stuff, which I realized after being pissed about it. But there shouldn't be an issue with him throwing that shit up on some other file service. I just love clicking through hundreds of individual blog posts.

What's a good disadvantage to replace Trickster for a fairy race?
I had added it to a fairy racial template cause "haha fairies trick people" but it's too annoying for any player race to have.

>>98814819
Off the top of my head, I think Curious, Impulsiveness, Short Attention Span, and perhaps certain Compulsive Behaviors and Odious Personal Habits can be useful for representing the whimsical behavior of fairies, so take your pick.

So a player wants to take Energy Reserves in my game, and he brought up a problem I hadn't thought of before: multiple Energy Reserves.
The way I'm reading the rules, it's possible to have multiple single-point Energy Reserves, each recharging at 1 point per 10 minutes. This makes buying a single pool kind of pointless, because it's always better to buy multiple pools for more recharge.
I am deliberating several different ways to approach this:
>forbid multiple ER pools (but this makes certain concepts I want to allow impossible)
>ER recharge rate is shared between ER pools (but this will cause a major headache if different pools have different modifiers that affect recharge)
>all ER pools refill to maximum in 100 minutes, or 10% per 10 minutes if ER is 10+. This seems like the fairest choice. Although, if I go this route, then I'm tempted to extend a similar benefit to regular FP (let FP fully recover with 100 minutes of rest, or 50 minutes if you have snacks, regardless of FP). Otherwise, ER is just too good if it has scaling recovery while normal FP doesn't.

>>98815092
Pretty sure you can only have multiple pools if they have different purposes, like for different powers and such.

>>98815092
>>98815547
>Pretty sure you can only have multiple pools if they have different purposes, like for different powers and such.
I think this is basically correct. Each energy reserve is tied to a specific power source (Powers, p. 7) and can only be used to pay the cost of abilities (and skills, spells, etc.) associated with that source. There is no overlap, so you can take a 1 point magical ER and a 1 point psi ER and they will recharge independently, but you can't use the former to feed your psi abilities or the latter to pay for magic spells.
If you want some of your psi ER to have different rules, you can put modifiers on some levels of it (as per Partly Limited Abilities, Power-Ups 8 pp. 6-7) but it is still all part of the same ER.
However, the rules aren't terribly explicit on this point, so I'm mostly extrapolating from the fact that doing it differently would lead to the perverse result of it being better to take multiple energy reserves, for exactly the reason stated.

File: gurps reign of steel zone(...).png (58 KB, 743x736)

58 KB PNG

>>98819553

>AI influenced by green parties
>hates nuclear power
kek

>>98819315
>killing humans, but only in environmentally friendly ways
lma0

I'm writing up a necromancer.
What zombie templates do you guys like to use?

>>98820110
I mostly just use generic eggplant zombies
https://enragedeggplant.blogspot.com/2019/09/monsters-zombies.html

>>98820110
GURPS Zombies generally covers pretty much every type of zombie I would want and the rules in there are fine, so I just pick from there. The basic-bitch animated corpse template works well for sword-and-sorcery necromancers (e.g. the one in The Scarlet Citadel). Although literary ones tend to be a bit more 'ensouled' than implied by game mechanics, the difference is subtle and not really worth bothering with.

>>98820110(me)

Looking at the costs for Allies, especially considering Zombies with it's 5% = 0.2cp rule, a zombie horde is really cheap.
You can have 100 zombies, even intelligent ones, so long as they are at 0 points or below, for 12 points available all the time.
Using Basic Set for 1 point being the lowest cost of an ally still leaves us at 60 points for such a horde

If I got a generic system and only used the CRB, could I make a functional and fleshed out werewolves vs gray aliens fighting on the moon using Nazi lunar bases as staging grounds with GURPS or are splats mandatory?

>>98821620
What is the CRB?

>>98821620
You could do that, but you would have to improvise some templates (neither werewolves or grays are in the basic set) and probably fudge some equipment / vehicle rules.
'Splats' isn't a generic terms for RPG supplements, by the way. It is rather specifically referring to the White Wolf model where each of the factions within a line would have their own supplement, such as Clanbook: Malkavian, Clanbook Gangrel, and so on. The generic version became known as a '*book: *' which was pronounced 'splatbook: splat', since asterisks were informally called 'splats' in reference to them looking like a bug which had been 'splatted' (crushed into a messy blob). Eventually this led to any book which was part of a series with one volume for each part of a fairly predictable set (e.g. one for each race, character class, etc.) being simply a 'splat'.

>>98821620
3rd ed GURPS has better rules for nazis, werewolves, and spaceships, but you're going to need a bunch of supplements to make it work. 4th ed can just about handle it with the basic set.

>>98821651
Core Rule Book(s), presumably.

I'm thinking of allowing Super-Effort for Control and Create, among other advantages (like ST, DR, TK). Anything I should be wary of?
I'm fine with letting Control gives thousands of DR with Power Block and Create doing thousands of damage with improvised attacks. Enemies will have ultra-tech battlesuits and handheld nuclear weapons; this is why I'm allowing Super-Effort, so superhumans can compete with technology.
But I sense that stuff like combat penalties through Control and Afflictions through Create might be too much, since combat penalties and Afflictions scale logarithmically rather than exponentially in most GURPS rules.
I'm thinking of either adding a cap or using logarithmic scaling for these particular benefits, though I don't know which is most fair and sensible. For afflictions, reading "Create Level" as "meters" on the Size/Speed/Range table and applying the Range penalty to the HT roll seems fair, since Afflictions add SM to resist according to GURPS Powers. For combat penalties, I might just cap it to -10, since that's hwo a lot of natural phenomena like Visibility penalties work; but I'm not sure if that makes sense for all situations.

>>98821869
Combat Penalties should be based on what is being created, super effort should just scale how much of the area he can give these penalties.
Like if you are using Control to create difficult terrain than the penalty is based on the kind of difficult terrain you create. Doesn't matter if you have (or use extra effort) Ice Control 500 if what you say is that you're creating slippery ice, the penalties are based on what slippery ice gives.

No idea if this is raw but that is what makes sense to me.

>>98821894
RAW, you're partly right. Combat penalties are based directly on the level of Control, up to whatever limit makes sense for the stuff being controlled. For stuff like Light & Darkness, the penalty makes sense to cap at -10. For something like Control Ice, the GM might cap the penalty at -2 for Bad Footing on slippery ice; although the player might argue that it should be higher, since he paid for Control Ice 500, he should be able to make the ice perfectly frictionless; then you have arguments over the physics of quasi-liquids and dipole interactions. For something like Control Gravity, there is theoretically no limit, because GURPS already has rules for Different Gravity, and those penalties go onto to infinity (or until your heart stop because the gravity is too high to pump blood anymore). But what should be the limit for something that GURPS doesn't really give limits for, like Control Wind or Control Earth or Control Space-Time?

>>98821869
If you don't want to deal with massive bonuses and penalties to skills, resistance rolls, etc. you could simply define a new form of super-effort which only enhances ST-like values. So you could control absolutely tons of something, but still only give reasonable penalties to sense rolls or whatever. I think this is the approach I would recommend, with the value at about +200%.
However, consider that the extreme cost of abilities like Create with a +400% enhancement might be enough to prevent abuse. If someone spends a thousand points on Control Metal 10 (Super Effort, +400%) they have an effective control level of 100 while using super effort, but just spending all those points on Control Metal 50 gets you half the skill penalties and a quarter of the weight / area. Buying it as telekinesis, DR, and obscure gets you 83 levels for 1k points, and you can bring the cost down further by making it affect only one category of stuff.
Obviously things get a bit more crazy if you expect players to spend significantly more than a thousand points on an ability, but at that point you may need to consider what thousands of points in DX, IQ, and skills will do.

>>98822090
>super-effort which only enhances ST-like values
>at about +200%
I think I might just go with this then

>>98821998
if you're dealing with an actual substance, then at some point it stops being a penalty (i.e. something that disorientates you or makes it hard to do precise movements) and starts being something you need to overcome with ST / damage. -10 seems like a fair point for that.
For something more abstract, like space-time, then I think you can basically just carry on adding penalties all day. You're paying 20 points base, +100% for natural phenomenon, +400% for super effort, and at least eight levels to even make the super-effort worthwhile; you should be able to really fuck shit up for everyone to an almost unlimited degree. A thousand-point innate attack with cosmic (irresistible attack) and a decent amount of area effect is virtually unstoppable. A thousand points split between afflictions with malediction 3 and will lets you completely incapacitate most opponents. A thousand points in IQ and mind control is likewise absurdly powerful. When you're dealing with characters who can actually compete with nuclear weapons in a points-buy system, you're going to get some seriously abusable options. I think all you can really do is talk to your players and agree to try and stick to genre conventions, not just figure out how to break an all-too-delicate rule-set.

>>98821651
>>98821698
These two posts are prime examples of why people associate GURPS with autistic people.

Most people who play RPGs know that CRB refers to Core Rule Book and Splats are additional non-core books providing supplemental material. Even D&D retards would understand these terms. GURPS mains are lost unless it is explicitly stated to them and will reach for "um, actually" explanations.

>>98823063
I've seen "splatbooks" before (though only very rarely), and I think the anon's explanation was unreasonably autistic--IMO, it's perfectly fine to refer to non–Basic Set GURPS books as splatbooks. But I've never seen "CRB" before.
t. been on /tg/ for a decade

>>98823074
I will also note that for most of its existence, GURPS didn’t have a single core book — it’s called the Basic Set for a reason. (1E and 2E were box sets, 3E got two Compendiums, and 4E was always two books until Revised.)

How thick is 19lbs of leather armor on the torso?
I was using the armor app to make a "leather jacket" to protect my vampire-hunting cowboy PC and DR 3 for 19lbs seems pretty good considering a lot of the ghouls in the campaign do 1d6 damage.

But I don't want to look out of place while wearing this "leather jacket".

File: Capture.png (82 KB, 1771x716)

82 KB PNG

>>98825757

>>98825423
(1) Low-Tech p. 104 explains that, in order to grant DR 3, leather armor must be "heavy leather"--pic related. So just use that description.
(2) Low-Tech Armor Design (in Pyramid vol. 3 iss. 52) explains that leather grants 8 DR per inch. So DR 3 implies 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) of thickness.

>>98825423
Nothing higher than DR 1 cow-hide leather is going to look anything like normal clothing, nor be sold as such.
You might be able to make DR 2 clothing with the very toughest skins and careful tailoring, but it's not going to be commonly available, and it will be more like a modern motorcycle jacket with thinner sections on the inside of the joints than a typical 'cowboy' style leather jacket.

>>98825464
>>98825555
So it'd look a bit too conspicuous to walk around in, all right, thanks for the explanation.

>>98825757
Well, it sounds like it's a somewhat modern setting? At least 1800s, you could just have a tailor sew a bit of mail or rivet steel plates in your leather jacket. That'd be fairly inconspicuous and provide a lot more protection than basic leather.

>>98825768
It's set in 1898.
>sew a bit of mail or rivet steel plates
That sounds like a cool idea. I'll try that instead.

>>98825423
>>98825757
>>98825768
Concealed steel plates in vests have been around for basically the whole modern period and were available commercially in America during the civil war at the latest. Unfortunately, bites tend to target every body part except the torso, so armour there is of limited use.
GURPS traditionally gives 'heavy boots' DR 2, which may be a little optimistic for pure leather. These can protect your ankles and maybe calves, but that's more useful against snakes than monsters.
Traditional cowboy thick denim (reputedly so stiff that jeans could stand up by themselves) might qualify as DR 1 against cutting, as per winter clothing in Low-Tech.
Many 19th century cowboys would have worn wool coats rather than leather jackets. Victorian wool coats were made of felted wool and were quite tough (and warm, and heavy), probably as good as light leather, providing at least DR 1 against cutting.
A traditional bowler hat (more common in the old west than Stetson style ones) might give DR 1 against crushing to the skull.
Any cowboy will want a pair of tough work gloves, which again is good for at least DR 1 against cutting.
Although not official, I would give all of the 'heavy clothing' which gives DR 1 against cutting similar DR against burning and corrosion.
Long story short, DR 1 is quite possible, anything better is going to only cover small areas or be obvious.

File: Capture.png (109 KB, 923x937)

109 KB PNG

>>98825881
See GURPS Old West p. 37 for cowboy clothes.

>>98825881
>Unfortunately, bites tend to target every body part except the torso,
You can still put plates or mail in the arms, which is probably the most likely place to be bit besides the neck while standing.

>>98825910
The most common places for human bite wounds IRL are the hands and face. The hands mostly because they are often shoved towards the mouth, whether that is to grapple, strike, or parry. The face because that's the most convenient target for a bite if you are grappling while oriented in the same direction (the most common result of a standing grapple, even if it ends on the ground). Neither is easy to protect with discreet armour.
Dog bites are often on the legs or groin (presumably because that's where dogs can easily reach), sometimes the hand or forearm (from the human putting their limb near the dog's face, for similar reasons which end up with bite wounds on the hands).
Vampires, presumably, favour the neck.
Of these locations, only the forearm seems possible to armour discreetly.
GURPS rules don't really support bites hitting the arm instead of the main target, since that rule only applies to weapons for some reason.
Still, DR 3-4 instead of DR 1 is pretty great if you're facing about 1d cutting damage, since that makes crippling the limb impossible, reduces average damage to very little, and can cause the biter to suffer damage from the hurting yourself rules. If using the blunt trauma and edged weapons rules from low-tech it will also prevent penetration, reducing injury and avoiding any contamination.

I'm making a text adventure engine and I'm shopping around for systems or parts from systems that I like. I know almost nothing about GURPS except that it's known for being autistic (a good thing for me, since the computer will handle the autism for the player just fine.)

Any aspects that you think GURPS does extraordinarily better than other systems? Things you'd leave out? Suggestions on how I should get how it works?

I haven't done any tabletop in 10+ years, so there's a lot I don't know. Basically familiar with DnD/Pathfinder from videogames.

>>98829153
Read "GURPS Lite". It's officially available for free. You can see what it does for yourself.

>>98829484
Thanks, I appreciate that

>>98829522
Oh, but to answer your questions: It's very complete. The guys who wrote GURPS made it so that it can function as the system for any kind of game. I do mean any. There's a lot of rules, you probably want to pick and choose specific traits and rules to include in your engine. Like, use parts of GURPS instead of all of GURPS.

>>98829153
Character creation: GURPS uses a points-buy system which allows very flexible character creation. Unlike most RPGs, you buy attributes, skills, and traits from a common pool. Traits and attributes can take modifiers, which alter how they work and what they cost. This is easily abused, so possibly not great for a video game unless carefully balanced.
It doesn't just use a shallow 'reskin' for similar things. Although it builds on common mechanics, firearms feel different to bows, magic feels different to psionics, and most genres have supporting game mechanics which make them play differently.
The writers (mostly) know what they are talking about. This has become less true recently, but many GURPS writers put a lot of effort into researching a subject and a lot of thought into presenting it in a playable way. This isn't something you can easily take, but it's worth bearing in mind that sometimes doing the reading and thinking (and real experience of what you're writing about) can make a big difference. Don't just steal from games, or you will end up with slop. The closer your research comes to reality, the better your product will be.

What was the last actually good supplement? Skill Trees?
It feels like everything you might actually want for GURPS has either been declared as 'never going to happen (vehicle design, bestiary, better versions of stuff like realm management) or been done, except for filling out the (original meaning) splatbooks: Aliens, Fantasy Folk, Hot Spots, Magical Styles, Vehicles, etc. Most of the latter have been done so badly that I'm not even looking forward to seeing them. Only the Vehicles line seems to be consistently high-quality so far, although Hot Spots and Fantasy Folk have had a few high points.

>>98830499
Either "Gun Stats" or "Meta-Tech". I only bought and read Meta-Tech and it's great.

Can I get a list of ways to get through high defenses? I have a PC with a big shield and he pretty much always manages to defend against any attack
I don't want to use the same trick all the time so I'm making a list

Here's the ones I know:
>a lot of attacks on the same turn, like 4
>deceptive strike with a high skill NPC
>Feint with a REALLY high skill NPC
>Beat with a high ST monster gets rid of at least one of parry/block
>flanking
>rear attacks
>flails (-4 to parry, -2 to block, IIRC)
>area attacks
Did I miss anything?

>>98831375
Destroying the shield (shield HP)
Overpenetrating the shield (if it's being used as cover)

>>98831402
Good point, I forgot about breaking the shield itself

>>98831375
Grappling. He can't use shields in close combat.

>>98832208
But he can use it to help defend against the initial grapple, which will often be an armed parry, potentially causing injury to the grappler.

Consider not deliberately building too many encounters to make his build shit. That's neither fun nor realistic.
That said:
In combat; regular spells, maledictions, rapier wit, kiai, hypnotic hands, invisible opponent, total darkness, fright checks.
Take his shield away: smash it, set it on fire, attack him when he's not got it around, force him to go into confined spaces where it is a hindrance. Doing this too often is a serious dick move though.
Problems that can't be solved with (his usual form of) violence: moral dilemmas, puzzles, mysteries, wilderness survival, etc.

>>98831375
How's his Dodge (including shield bonus)?
If not so great, hit him with more than one ranged attack per turn. He can only block one, then he's down to dodge, unless he has parry missile weapons or something.

File: shields up defending your(...).png (55 KB, 1304x761)

55 KB PNG

>>98832867

>>98832740
>he can use it to help defend against the initial grapple
Not if the grapple targets the shield.

>>98832740
>Consider not deliberately building too many encounters
Nah I'm not gonna go out of my way to fuck him over, but it's good to know how to challenge his build in combat.

>In combat; regular spells, maledictions, rapier wit, kiai, hypnotic hands, invisible opponent, total darkness, fright checks.
Take his shield away: smash it, set it on fire, attack him when he's not got it around, force him to go into confined spaces where it is a hindrance. Doing this too often is a serious dick move though.
Problems that can't be solved with (his usual form of) violence: moral dilemmas, puzzles, mysteries, wilderness survival, etc.
Thanks
>>98832755
>How's his Dodge (including shield bonus)?
13 (6 speed +1 Combat Reflexes +3 big shield +3)
Ranged attacks is a good point too thanks for reminding me.

>>98832794
Good one, trying a grapple against the shield is a great idea.

File: Stoddard Limericks.gif (6 KB, 567x214)

6 KB GIF

>>98832965

Someone pay this man to write something, he's clearly got too much time on his hands.

>>98832919
Where is this? He hasn't posted anything on his Livejournal blog since April.

>>98832965
Substack

>>98831375
Surround him with weak enemies. He can only use the shield against attacks from the front and one side.

>>98835786
https://williamhstoddard793246.substack.com/archive
Strange, it doesn't show up on a Google search for "william h stoddard substack".

>>98835879
Blocks your path: >>98764294

Is there any reason I'm missing here why the Song and Dance limitations for Magery are worth -40% each when they feel more like +0% features for the benefits they give, while Extravagant Rituals is worth -30% despite being more limiting than both Song and Dance combined?

>>98837522
Where is song and dance limitations?

>>98837749
Dance and Song are limitations for Magery in the Basic Set. Extravagant Rituals is a limitation for Magery from Thaumatology. Dance (-40%) prevents you from ever omitting the movement part of Magic Rituals, but lets you ignore verbal part, while I think Song (-40%) is the opposite. Extravagant Rituals (-10%/level) makes it so that you treat Magic Rituals as one step worse, so at three levels, you're always dancing with your whole body and shouting out your spells regardless of actual skill.

>>98838042
The thaumatology stuff is probably more balanced.

>>98838060
Probably. But I'm wondering how I should reprice all the limitations in the Basic Set, then, since those seem to be overpriced. Not just Dance and Song, but Musical and maybe the others too.

>>98838081
Well, going with power-ups: Limitations, having talking and gestures is -10% each.
So it's probably something like that. Certainly not 40%.

File: Capture.png (100 KB, 1665x753)

100 KB PNG

Page 10 bump
campeões do mundo ou algo

Can anyone explain how Dungeon Fantasy Companion 2 got it's value for the Bulky disadvantage?
>Bulky: Your SM +1 gives enemies +1 to attack and Vision rolls against you. You need five times the usual amount of food (meaning $30 and 7.5 lbs. of rations daily). If you get armor made, body and leg protection cost and weigh double (head, arm, and hand armor are unaffected), and you cannot have foot armor. The GM may rule that if a horse couldn’t negotiate a gap, tunnel, bridge, etc., neither can you.
I'm trying to make a big fat harpy (also SM +1) template, and I'd like them to have their own version of bulky.

>>98840369
The effects seem to just be those of SM +1 made a bit more explicit.
The centaur has 70 points in ST (including lifting and striking ST) and SM +1 would usually give a 10% discount on that, but that's far from the -35 in the template.
Possibly they just made it up, based on the notion that size is actually worth more than the zero points GURPS usually charges for it.

File: harpy dragon's crown.jpg (33 KB, 684x450)

33 KB JPG

>>98840915
In that case I'm just gonna port it to my Harpy template with a few alterations and leave at that.
I am using the Dragon's Crown harpy which is more like a birdtaur anyway, they just got the torso of a human, everything else is bird.

>>98840369
These two are for sure part of it:
>Increased Consumption 2 [-20]
>Horizontal [-10]
(has Hooves (aka Claws) [+3], so the damage penalty doesn't apply)
With the 10% discount for the ST >>98840915 mentioned, it would be close enough to the [-35] for DFRPG work

>>98840915
>size is actually worth more than the zero points GURPS usually charges for it
Marge?

Has anyone done a "conditional injury for dummies" article?

I'm doing a pirate campaign and my players ocasionally get trade goods.
Are there any rules for figuring out price differences between markets? Or some sort of simple trade caravan/ship rules.

>>98846150
Mailanka did a write-up on his blog at some point and I think there's a simplified spreadsheet on Let's GURPS blog. I turned it into an auto table in Excel for my players' character sheets which makes it pretty trivial to use.

>>98847650
Pyramid magazine, volume 3, issue 87, Eidetic Memory: Medieval Sea Trade.
I think that there are some other ones in Pyramid issues too.

>>98848866
Thanks

I remember seeing a rule somewhere for adjusting hireling loyalty based on the level of Charisma or Born War Leader of the PC that did the recruiting. Does anyone remember seeing that somewhere? I think it was a houserule from some blog but I'm not 100% sure.

File: hireling initial loyalty (...).png (25 KB, 669x373)

25 KB PNG

>>98849293
Dungeon Fantasy 15 p. 30: The bonus to reaction rolls from Charisma or Born War Leader applies to the reaction roll that determines the hireling's initial loyalty when you hire him.

How do you approach making a GURPS game?
Pen and Paper?
Google Docs?
Hand made Wiki?

Ive been doing small wikis to have the content I allow and I think it works fine but I would like to see other points of view

>>98852463
Google docs mostly, but all player-facing content will be printed too, because you can't rely on the fuckers to actually read anything outside of the game.

I want to give the players access to Impulse points, but I don't want them to be able to buy success for defense rolls.
I'm okay with pretty much all other uses of spending points like player guidance, buying effect, etc, I already find active defenses cumbersome to balance around, having them be able to just say "actually I dodge by spending an impulse point" would try my patience too much.

Either way, how do I word this as a limitation? If I'm adding an extra limit to the impulse point usage, I want to at least make it slightly cheaper in exchange.

Im struggling with the blunt trauma rules. Im trying to get a DF-style game going and the knight in the group wound up in a situation recieving multiple maul swings to the head. His helmet DR was sufficient to block the damage so he was unscathed, but this seemed a bit silly to us. In a world where hand-egg players get concusions and brain damage from by gurps standards not critically injurious tackles it's weird that an arbitraly strong helmet can soak all the momentum from a headblow too. So I was thinking of treating blows to the head like fall damage i.e. 1 blunt trauma per every 5 damage(though this might be better as 1 per 10). This thought however, opened a whole can of worms about innate DR, should wounding modifiers apply to head BT even though raw they dont, knockdown rolls, murphys rules where blunting your axe causes you to do way more damage to flex-armored foes than a sharp one etc... So i was wondering if anyone else had felt similar and come up with a good rule for impact based head trauma specifically and for the clusterfuck of BT in general?

>>98853662
Seems like that can just be something like 'cannot buy success on active defense rolls, -5%'. I wouldn't give more than -5% at most, since you can use the points for almost anything except a tiny subset of rolls. I guess it's technically a type of aspected, if you really care about distinguishing limitations.

>>98853850
Personally I've house-ruled that you always get blunt trauma on any armor.
How I do it is
>5 Crushing damage blocked by DR = 1 blunt trauma
>10 of any other kind of physical damage (so no burn, tox, corr, etc) damage blocked by DR = 1 blunt trauma
And yes, any point of damage to the skull leads to HT check.
I've been using this rule for a while and it's worked fine.

And I've just ruled that this only applies if your weapon is purpose built for doing blunt, so a dull axe just isn't got the kind of shape to deliver the same amount of blunt trauma as a purposely built mace.
(you can always add a hammer head to an axe with low tech rules anyway)

>>98853850
My recommendation would be to have rigid armour only provide full protection from blunt trauma to the torso. Hits to the head, neck, limbs, or extremities count as flexible for the purpose of blunt trauma.
Alternatively, have rigid armour reduce blunt trauma by half or something. This works well for trauma plates taking high-powered hits.

>>98853850
>His helmet DR was sufficient to block the damage so he was unscathed, but this seemed a bit silly to us.
GURPS "rigid" armor also has nonrigid internal padding o algo, doesn't it?

>hand-egg players get concussions and brain damage from by gurps standards not critically injurious tackles
Remember that the controversy over football injuries is mostly about long-term damage over time, not damage from any single tackle. Also, tackles involve falling on the ground (a 2-yard drop that can deal falling damage), not just getting hit.

>>98840915
>size is actually worth more than the zero points
I switched to logarithmic point costs for ST, and SM as an advantage/disadvantage instead of a limitation, and I've never looked back. This is the way it always should've been.

>>98854131
How did you actually price that?

>>98854140
For ST, every 300 points gives x10 ST, following the SSR table (×1.5 ST is 50 pts., ×2 ST is 100 pts. ×3 ST is 150 pts. ×5 ST is 200 pts., and so on). This doesn't change anything at the human scale, but it works the same if you change the "default" scale of the game from dinosaurs to mice or anything else.
For SM, each ±10 to SM is worth ±10 pts. I didn't try to scientifically break down all the different effects of SM on Vision rolls, Attack rolls, melee reach, grappling contests, resistance to Afflictions, living costs, equipment costs, etc. I just more-or-less went with my gut. Temporary Disadvantage gives a limitation value equal to disadvantage value, so I worked it in reverse to get the point value of SM.

>>98854206
>±10 to SM
meant to type "±1 to SM"

File: file.jpg (199 KB, 959x771)

199 KB JPG

>>98852463
Obsidian is very cool. I'm using it to hyperlink the "Basic Set" with the "Skill Categories" pdf to make browsing the basic set easier. It's really simple to work with.

>>98854206
So from ST 10 to 20 it's just 10 points per level, as usual, right? Presumably 21-30 becomes 5 points per level. What then? If you follow the S&SR table, then that implies 31-50 is 1.25 points per level and it just gets more fiddly from there.

Is there any enhancement (other than Malediction) that changes an uncontested Resistance roll to a Quick Contest? If not, then how much should such an enhancement cost?
I could see it being a +0% feature, since you could theoretically have your attribute reduced below 10, in which case you're worse off than if you didn't have the enhancement.
I could see it being worth +20%, the same as Based on Different Attribute, since you're in effect just exchanging an imaginary attribute of 10 for a real attribute.
I could also see it being worth +50%, the same as the first level of Cosmic, since it's effectively breaking the normal rules of the game.

>>98857446
At very high ST, buying individual points of ST does become finnicky. That is true. But when ST is that high, anything smaller than a 10% difference in ST is rarely important enough to matter. So ST is often bought in two parts: a base ST score which goes from 1 to 20 and costs 10 points per level, and a multiplier that follows the SSR table.

>>98858748
I suppose that you could always add malediction to something and then make it Weaponised (Power-Ups 8, p. 19), although that would be a very questionable use of the modifier and possibly require cosmic if allowed at all. That still leaves you with range penalties in the contest, but at the highest level of malediction these can be ignored if the attack needs to make a normal attack roll.

Malediction is insanely good for what it does:
Bypassing DR costs +300% using Cosmic. You might argue that includes +50% for the basic cosmic power modifier (i.e. trumps all non-cosmic powers) but that's still +250%. Penetration modifiers like contact agent and sense-based that only let you bypass DR sometimes start at +150%.
Having to make a success roll at standard range penalties seems like a +0% swap for an attack roll.
Adding a resistance roll would just be Resistible, which is -30% for a straight attribute roll.
So the remaining effect of malediction, which is making it a quick contest instead of two success rolls is 'logically' the difference, which comes to a -70% limitation (-100% for afflictions, which already allow a resistance roll)! That's obviously wrong, since even if you assume your attribute and your opponent's are equal, your odds of winning increase in a contest. Since it's also easy to buy up the attribute you use, I'd say it is clearly an enhancement, not a limitation.

>>98852463
A lot of wordpad notes and a bunch of digital art

>>98852463
I just ask chatgpt to prepare everything for me

>>98852463
I spool up a new website in raw HTML.

I have once again updated the unofficial Realm Management supplement in the gurpsgen part of the repository. Now it very nearly serves as a complete replacement for Rice's system. I'm going to take a break before working on it again, so the screwed-up headings will just have to wait.

What skill does one roll to fuck up the entire internet?

>>98861084
Looks cool. Might test it out next campaign.

>>98862933
Deliberately? Either Computer Hacking (cinematic) or a large combination of skills, of which the most prominent is Computer Programming.
Accidentally? Fast-Talk combined with Code of Honor: Izzat (never admit fault in yourself, your clan, or your caste; make life harder for those outside your clan and caste).

File: Capture.png (124 KB, 1899x930)

124 KB PNG

>>98867615

Page 10 bump
tfw still too depressed to enjoy converting PDFs to HTML
I did 40 percent (the first two chapters) of GURPS Reign of Steel, but I just don't care.

File: Dont be Sad.jpg (87 KB, 994x1192)

87 KB JPG

>>98867441
Keep pushing. Depression is self-reinforcing and drains the joy out of achievement, but relentlessly driving yourself to get shit done even when it doesn't feel good can eventually beat it. You just need bloody-minded perseverance even in the face of apparently insurmountable emotional blockage. Never give up; I've been there many times, but whenever I really push myself, I get better.

Am I the only one who hates who damage is super cheap in gurps but buffs are extremely expensive?
Like, giving someone +4 ST or 2 DX costs 50 points (10 base +400%) but for the same price you can just buy a 10d6 innate attack which will make much more difference in combat.

I don't think the problem is buffs being expensive, the problem is damage is too cheap. Innate attack should have its price doubled or even tripled.

Can anyone explain why eggplant adds "no signature" to these buff spells?
>https://enragedeggplant.blogspot.com/2023/11/wizardry-body-control-spells-i.html

File: Capture.png (39 KB, 684x570)

39 KB PNG

>>98868574 >>98868694

>>98868515
GURPS Sorcery p. 9: Every buff spell has No Signature by default, so that it is an "invisible beam attack".

>>98868566
(Without No Signature, it would be a visible beam--or, with Melee Attack, Reach C, some kind of obvious slap on the back or flashing touch.)

>>98868566
>>98868574
Seems like a silly thing to add. When I think of someone using a buff spell, I do think they actually touch the other guy or do some sort of obvious magic casting so no signature is actually working against the typical "sorcerer" fantasy.
No wonder every sorcery spell is overpriced if they keeep adding useless enhancements like those.

>>98868694
>I do think they actually touch the other guy
"Touching the other guy" is not "obvious magic casting".

>or do some sort of obvious magic casting
That's correct for D&D. The D&D Second Edition Rules Cyclopedia says that all spells involve gesturing and speaking, and the Pathfinder First Edition SRD says that Bull's Strength involves gesturing and speaking plus a focus for a cleric or some bull hair for a sorcerer.
But it is not quite correct for GURPS (Basic Set p. 237). By default, GURPS spells do require gestures and speech, but only below skill 20. Once you hit skill 20, "you simply stare into space as you concentrate". The entire GURPS Sorcery system is based on needing no gestures or speech, because "many spells require no roll at all to cast" (Sorcery p. 5).

If you as a GM want buff spells to be obvious in your campaign, then you are allowed to forbid the use of No Signature. Alternatively, see Alternative Rituals (Sorcery p. 7), which lets you use any two of speech, gesture, and paying 1 FP.

>>98868844
I can't think of any fantasy setting where casting magic is as subtle as gurps makes it to be.
The psy system (advantage + skill) is probably more classic fantasy-like than the sorcery system and basic magic, IMO.

If I had infinite time I would convert all spells to that.

>>98868925
You can always use the Requires (Skill) Roll [−10%] limitation (Power-Ups 8 p. 17) in building sorcery spells.

>>98868925
>I can't think of any fantasy setting where casting magic is as subtle as gurps makes it to be.
A lot of older fantasy writing (especially sword & sorcery) has it be fairly imperceptible except for the effects. For example, magic in Howards Hyborian Age (Conan stories) is mostly very cinematic 'trickery' (e.g. hypnotism and use of drugs, poisons, etc.) but when you see the actual 'real deal' like in People of the Black Circle or The Scarlet Citadel, there's no magic words, no gestures, no glowing lights. The sorcerer just exercises his will and gets results.
Since cinema (and later tv and video games) became a big deal though, people expect some cue that magic is actually being used, and since cheap-ish CGI (mid ninties) glowing light effects are pretty standard.

How much would it be for an enhancement to add knockback to a thing that doesn't have knockback?
Like I want to make a lightning bolt that knocks people back (specifically, raiden from Mortal Kombat has a lightning bolt attack that knocks you back); and from what I can see, my options is
>add an innate attack follow-up that deals crushing with no wounding, no blunt trauma and no knockback
and that's it.
I think +50% cosmic: attack does knockback could work, if a bit expensive.

>>98873503
>and no knockback
Correct that to "double knockback"

>>98873503
Double blunt trauma can be added to attacks which don't usually do blunt trauma to give them the basic level. That suggests that it would be 'fair' to grant some level of knockback for +20%, but also implies that it would work as per cutting damage, only doing knockback if it fails to penetrate. You could also rule that cutting-style knockback could become crushing-style for another +20%, but that's two questionable extrapolations and +40%, at which point I'd say you may as well just go with Cosmic or a linked crushing attack. The latter is more clearly rules-compliant and allows you to fine-tune the amount of knockback, and should work out cheaper too unless there is something weird going on with the burning attack.

>>98873921
thanks for the summary, I want to go with cosmic because having to roll separate extra dice that doesn't really count as damage is annoying.

How good it Power-ups Roll your own skills and Template Toolkit Quick and Pointless?
Also, did the revised basic books bring anything good?

>>98878279
Roll your own skills: fairly shit, but if you really feel the need to add new mundane skills, it at least gives you a framework.
Quick and pointless: OK, although it is mostly just spelling out the obvious.
Basic set revised: no new contents, layout is arguably better (but other stylistic choices worse), art is better (but repeated from other books), added material is well-chosen from other books, removed material not really important, political commentary and censorship annoying.

>>98880375
>removed material not really important
Unless you want to play a game that involves slavery.

>>98880503
To be honest, the slave loyalty table doesn't seem especially realistic. I don't think slaves are notably less loyal than employees (who often come to feel entitled to their wages and resent having to actually work for them) and most low-IQ humans respond a lot better to the threat of violence and a clear pecking order than to abstractions like a sense of obligation in a freely agreed contract. A 1-in-18 chance of fanatical hatred for the institution of slavery seems especially unlikely; that's very much a modern White attitude projected onto slaves. I doubt that more than one in a thousand would care at all if not coached by abolitionists.

Planning a western-themed game in a post-apocalyptic setting (or post-post-apocalyptic really). Possibly with some levels of 70s retro-futurism
Anyways, what would be a plausible enough explanation for why people are mostly using late 19th century firearms? Single-action revolvers, lever action rifles and such. I was thinking that those are the only ones people can/know how to still make, but I don't know enough about gunsmithing to know if this is true

>>98884774
With sufficient time and devastation, any knowledge can be lost, and 19th century firearms generally followed a fairly sensible path of efficient designs which could be made with the tools they had, so it isn't especially unlikely that more-or-less the same types of gun would show up again as they rebuild industrial society.
Manual repeaters are more reliable than automatics if you have inconsistent ammunition, use black powder, can't make really good magazine springs, etc. all of which seem plausible for a post-apocalyptic setting.
That said, it seems unlikely that such firearms would be dominant for very long. They require an industrial base and industrial societies don't seem prone to technological stagnation at that level of development (although we only have one example to go from, so who can really say?). Single-action revolvers seem especially 'fragile' in that they have no real advantages over double-action ones in terms of reliability, so they are unlikely to be popular for long, unlike bolt, pump, or lever action rifles.

I was reading a book, and in it, a wizard had the ability to talk to animals, and he used birds to search a forest for a specific monster.

How do you stat that in gurps?

>>98887502
>a wizard had the ability to talk to animals
Speak with Animals (Basic Set p. 87), possibly with Sapience (Powers p. 77)

>he used birds to search a forest for a specific monster
If he just ordered them to do it without offering a reward, Mind Control (Basic Set p. 68) with Independent and possibly Suggestion (Powers p. 61)
Alternatively, high levels of Charisma (Basic Set p. 41) or Diplomacy (id. p. 187)

>>98887554
>If he just ordered them to do it without offering a reward,
Actually he befriended them, and later on they keep following him (and he feeds them)
So I guess if it was a campaign it would start with diplomacy and later one he'd pay for them as an ally group?

>>98887571
Yes. See Social Engineering pp. 28 and 75 for guidance on how a good reaction roll on a request for aid can cause the requestee to become open to getting hired as a hireling, and Dungeon Fantasy 15 p. 30 for guidance on how a loyal hireling can become an ally.

Let's say you have a Natural Weapon (from pyramid 3-65).
Normally, without a limitation, when you buy a natural weapon, you get 2, allowing you to "dual wield" the attack.
If you add "limited use 1/day" can you still dual wield the attack on the one use you get?

>>98890645
As far as I can tell, Natural Weapon isn't an 'attack' advantage unless it has the Ranged enhancement, so Limited Use gives you full use of the ability (presumably including all valid limbs) for one minute per use.
The alternative interpretation, that each attack counts as a use, could go either way, but I'm inclined to say that since it allows RoF attacks with a ranged innate attack, it should work with any form of increased attack rate, including DWA, AOA(D), Rapid Strike, Extra Attack, etc.

>>98891185
>As far as I can tell, Natural Weapon isn't an 'attack' advantage unless it has the Ranged enhancement, so Limited Use gives you full use of the ability (presumably including all valid limbs) for one minute per use.
Huh, I always just assumed it was "innate attack but it scales with ST naturally" but now that I think about it, you might be right.
>The alternative interpretation, that each attack counts as a use, could go either way, but I'm inclined to say that since it allows RoF attacks with a ranged innate attack, it should work with any form of increased attack rate, including DWA, AOA(D), Rapid Strike, Extra Attack, etc.
either way, I agree that this make sense.

We've never used the infinite worlds setting in our group. Does it complicate things?

>>98893844
I've never used it either, but it seems like there's no way it couldn't complicate things. It's way more setting than any campaign needs.

>GURPS
>>Edition 4
>>>Hot Spots
>>>>Renaissance Venice (series)
>>>>>Renaissance Venice (book)
>>>>>>Version 1.0.1

Rate my jumping house rules. I made those because I hated having to calculate jump distance every time any player wanted to do anything cool.
Now, I hear you say "just leave jump distance calculated on the character sheet" but I'm playing fantasy, so changing basic move happens a lot, whether due to dropping backpacks or due to magic buffs.

>There's only 1 kind of jump. Anyone can jump 1 yard in any direction.
>If you make a DX check, you can just 2 yards. There's no jump skill.
>Super Jump only has 1 level. It allows you to jump your full basic move in yards in any direction.

>>98899779
>This formula is too complicated for so-called gigabrained GURPS players

File: gurps broad jump distance(...).png (83 KB, 1612x942)

83 KB PNG

>>98899833

>>98899818
forgot image

>>98899819
I don't want to have to look it up every time
and the formula is different for broad and high
and the formal is different for running or not
And I don't want to deal with inches when everything is the map is in yards.
Even the book says
>(Don’t interrupt a battle to calculate jumping distance every time somebody jumps onto a chair!)
Which always leads me to just allowing 1 yard jumps anyway. Might as well make it a proper consistent house rule.

File: gurps dungeon fantasy 2 j(...).png (47 KB, 1314x472)

47 KB PNG

>>98899868

>>98899779
Dungeon Fantasy 2 p. 7 has an official simplified rule: on a roll vs. Jumping, a running broad jump spans up to (Jumping ÷ 2) yards, and on a failure you can grab the edge of the gap with a further roll vs. DX.
I don't know whether DFRPG has something similar.

>>98899850
>Jump skill/2
So a person with Jump 12 can jump 6 yards? That's now too much lol

>>98899868
That's running broad jump, not standing broad jump.

>>98899833
>I don't want to deal with inches when everything is the map is in yards.
Convert the formulas to yards, then.
>Standing high jump: Basic Move ÷ 6 − 5/18, in yards
>Running high jump: Basic Move ÷ 6 − 5/18 + run ÷ 36, in yards (no greater than standing high jump × 2)
>Standing broad jump: Basic Move × 2/3 − 1, in yards
>Running broad jump: Basic Move × 2/3 − 1 + run, in yards (no greater than standing broad jump × 2)
>Reminder: All fractions are rounded down (Basic Set p. 9)
Put it on an index card or something. (Optionally, simplify 5/18 to 1/3.)

>>98899899
I don't know how to tell you this but no one wants to divide anything by 18 in the middle of a session
even the simplification requires too much math.

>>98899779
I'm not clear why you felt the need to remove the jump skill or change super-jump. 1 yard with no roll, 2 yards with a jumping roll, doubled for every level of super jump seems fine and avoids rewriting templates, etc. Change '1 yard' to a step (so very fast characters get a better jump) would seem even better (this changes the result of a jump roll to +1 yard or doubling the result, whichever you like best).

>>98900254
>Change '1 yard' to a step (so very fast characters get a better jump) would seem even better (this changes the result of a jump roll to +1 yard or doubling the result, whichever you like best).
I like this idea, I'll do that.
>change super-jump
Super jump is both weak (at low levels) and overpowered (at high levels) due to slam damage nonsense and the fact that it scales exponentially. Changing it so it scales with your basic move resolves all problems it has.

>>98900269
>Super jump is both weak (at low levels) and overpowered (at high levels) due to slam damage nonsense and the fact that it scales exponentially. Changing it so it scales with your basic move resolves all problems it has.
I guess. Personally I hate breaking existing templates, so I'd probably change it to something like a linear increase of Move yards per level or just change the maximum jumping speed to be Move so that you can stay airborne for more than 5 seconds and only ever hit with your standard full-move slamming speed. Of course, slams are always a high-risk tactic, so I'm not too paranoid about them since inflicting damage on yourself (whether from hitting the target or missing and hitting an obstacle) and stop-thrusts tend to discourage over reliance, but if they are causing issues in your game, then do what it takes to handle them.

Lets say you make an ability that is an innate attack that deals piercing damage, with a follow-up toxic damage.
When you put "Cost FP" limitation on it, do you put on one of the two advantage or do you put it on the entire ability?

>>98900491
In the examples given on GURPS Powers pp. 143 et seq. you put it only on the first advantage.

File: Capture.png (42 KB, 818x641)

42 KB PNG

>>98900520

>>98900509
forgot image

>>98900514
Thanks, forgot the examples exist.

>>98884774
>Anyways, what would be a plausible enough explanation for why people are mostly using late 19th century firearms?
Extreme societal collapse several generations back, and a current society that has an insufficient industrial base despite a vague knowledge and understanding of weapons and standards of the past.

For example, maybe they can't make smokeless powder. Black powder is dirty, extremely dirty, so even if they're aware of automatics, and even if they know how they work by and large, if they don't have access to smokeless powder the automatics mostly become jam-o-matics.

Or maybe smokeless does exist but it's so incredibly expensive that the common people can't possibly afford it. You can think back to the year 1915 when what we think of as modern firearms were really solidified, well in those days it was still incredibly common for a person, especially a person who wasn't wealthy, to have an older black powder cartridge revolver rather than a new-ish smokeless powder revolver, and certainly not a new automatic pistol. Just because something exists, and can be made, doesn't mean it's common or affordable.

None of that is to say that revolvers are actually simple to manufacture or design, keep in mind. They're not even any better at wear resistance than most automatics, it's just that the issues that come from black powder effect them much less.

How does the persistent enhacement works? When does it do damage?
Lets say you have a fireball. Innate attack 1d6 burn, AoE 2 yards, persistent.
You throw the fireball at an enemy.
The enemy and everyone around him takes 1d6 burn. if the enemy stands still, when does he take damage again? At the start/end of my turn? At the start/end of his turn?

>>98902466
I think that the only thing that makes sense is if it happens at the end of the affected character's turn.
My reasoning for it happening on the target's turn is that it would be weird for persistent attacks to work differently to non-attack hazards, and since GURPS has no concept of a 'combat round' all affects which happen to you once per turn happen in your turn. It's also much more convenient than keeping track of everyone who has moved through your attack area and applying it in your turn.
I think it should apply at the end of the turn, because you don't know until the end of someone's turn whether they have moved through an area. If you checked at the start of a turn, area effects would only matter if you end your last turn within the area, which doesn't seem to be the intention. The rules for fire apply an effect which varies depending on how much of your turn you spend in an area, which again strongly implies that such effects are end-of-turn ones.
On the other hand, Dungeon Fantasy 11 (p. 26) has Elemental Storms which have Persistent and explicitly work on the caster's turn (implied to be at the end of the turn, but not actually stated).

>>98904044
For all the rules, sometimes GURPs just leaves thing to GM arbitration huh
I'll rule that it happens at the end of the turn, like you say, but it's annoying that there's no answer official answer to this.

>>98904081
Well, if they actually read their own material, checked for issues, and clarified how common situations are meant to be resolved, they wouldn't have enough time to remove all the naughty words that everyone used a couple of decades ago, like 'eskimo'. They have to prioritise what is really important!

I'm trying to do a poltergeist style telekinesis power.
The idea is that it can only affect objects, but it will properly float objects, not just animate them like the animation limitation, but I don't want to affect living creatures at all.
I see the "cannot punch" limitation, but no "cannot grab". From a RAW perspective, even if I add "can't affect self" "can't punch" I can still use TK to grapple people.

I was thinking of using "Aspected" for this, as in "aspected: Objects Only (-20%). I feel like that would be fair.

File: gurps high-tech loud clapping.png (37 KB, 710x855)

37 KB PNG

The Loudness Levels Table on GURPS Powers: Enhanced Senses p. 21 specifies "loud hand clapping". However, the Hearing Distance Table on GURPS High-Tech p. 158 does not specify the type of "loud clapping" to which reference is made.