>>98598164
>Thread question: What GURPS advantage would you most want to have in real life?
Innate attack, preferably with a combination of enhancements (e.g. Malediction and No Signature) that let me kill people who annoy me without getting caught.

>>98598164
Unaging.

File: b349bf.jpg (84 KB, 873x916)

84 KB JPG

>>98598182
>tfw the guy you attacked in public keeps succeeding his death save and you're praying he hits -5x HP before someone finds you with his unconscious body

>>98598164
Cosmic Power. Even if I only get a single 1-point slot, I'd figure some way to be creative with it. But if I'm allowed to use Power Stunts, then even better.

File: South Park S8E1.gif (523 KB, 640x360)

523 KB GIF

>>98598548

>>98598164
If were going high end Warp

Low end, a few levels of independent income would be nice

File: succ.gif (16 KB, 468x60)

16 KB GIF

>>98598164
My budget build: Allies (5% power; roll of 12 or less; Minion, +50%; Summonable, +100%) [1].

>>98598164
>Thread question: What GURPS advantage would you most want to have in real life?
Probably the highest level of Wealth allowable.
>>98598209
This is better, though.

>>98598164
>TQ
Could go with some really tricked out Patron advantage.

>>98598164
Jumper (Time) would be a risky but op one. Going to the future, getting fitted with all the latest upgrades, then returning to your home time as a god would be pretty sweet

So, if you use affliction on an instant advantage like warp, you get to trigger it immediately.
What if I grab a continuous advantage like "Altered Time Rate" make it last 1 second with fixed duration + reduced duration, and then add >Nuisance Effect: Actual time is for one use only (-5%)
I think this should count as an instant duration advantage now and allow the fella you gave the extra maneuver to just use the maneuver immediately instead of waiting for his turn. And since it's gone with one use, there's no weird effect on his actual turn.

I imagine this isn't RAW but I'd say it makes for a fair house rule, right?

>>98602597
>I imagine this isn't RAW but I'd say it makes for a fair house rule, right?
I think it's still problematic, since without an 'instantaneous effect' it isn't clear what actually happens. If you want to give someone an extra action on your turn, I can't see any real balance issue, but if you're thinking that you get to control their action then that's stretching the definition of an instantaneous effect to breaking point.

>>98602648
>. If you want to give someone an extra action on your turn,
That's what I want to do.
That said, I'd say that if you wanted to control their action you'd have to link mind control to it, and I think it would be fair if done this way.

>>98602659
Yes, that seems legitimate. Mind Control is actually intended to let you control the actions of others, Affliction isn't, and the Advantage enhancement for it is very sketchy, so you need to be careful when designing abilities based on it.

File: suicide is groovy.gif (2 MB, 266x200)

2 MB GIF

Random question: why do so many gamers often directly associate "realism" with "lethality"? GURPS is perhaps the most realistic TTRPG I've read, at least without going full Pheonix Command; that is, for me, it strikes the perfect balance between realism, playability, and customization. Paradoxically, I've found GURPS to be far less deadly compared other RPGs, like Cyberpunk, World of Darkness, and low-level D&D.
Gun shots and stab wounds are absolutely deadly in GURPS. But thanks to core rules like HT rolls for survival at -HP, rules for recovery, plus optional realistic rules like Last Wounds, Body Hits, and Conditional Injury, I've found it actually quite hard to die in GURPS so long as medical assistance is available and I don't get shot in the skull or vitals, which is realistic. It's not always quite how many times you're hit, or even how hard you're hit, but where you're hit, and how deep. I'm sure they're out there, but I have yet to find a single other game system that actually properly models this.
Compare/contrast Cyberpunk, where active defenses against firearms aren't allowed at all, so unless you can find cover, there's no point in trying to lower your posture or move quickly to make yourself a harder target to hit, which removes an entire tactical element from the game. Or World of Darkness, where everyone has the same health track, and most damage types can't be soaked, so a squirrel can tank a .50 cal, but an elephant dies to a papercut.
Sorry for the rant, a couple friends some while ago complained about combat in GURPS not making any sense to them. Then one started running his own Cyberpunk campaign, but sees no problems with the rules, because he refuses to learn the rules. And the other friend asked me to run a Mage the Ascension game. I've already read the GURPS Mage the Ascension book, and I quite like it. But he doesn't want GURPS. So I've been learning WoD game rules and have just been having an endless headache.

>>98603776
I didn't realize how rarely my players have even suffered major wounds to limbs until I had to have them roll for crippling duration recently

>>98603776
I prefer the cyberpunk "no active defense against firearms" thing, and use the rules from one of the pyramid articles that makes it very hard but not impossible to dodge bullets.

>>98603835
I do something somewhat similar:
Basically, to dodge bullets, you need to see the shooter, and you have to declare your defense (including all active defensive options) before you know the result of the shooter's attack roll.
If you have ETS or any cinematic advantage (TbaM, WM, etc.), then you can declare defense after the attack roll, but you still need to see the shooter.
If you can't see the shooter, but can see the bullet coming (make a Sense roll, modified for bullet SM), then you can still attempt a defense, but at a penalty for the bullet's speed modifier.

>>98603835
I think it's a little simplistic since you can move away from where the barrel's pointed IRL, and I think Restricted Dodge from Tactical Shooting models that adequately

>>98603835
I prefer letting my PCs parry bullets with swords like ninjas.

>>98603914
I like the idea of Restricted Dodge representing pre-emptive evasive maneuver against a gunman. The one problem I have with Restricted Dodge is that it only allows you defend from one gunman per turn. I prefer "Do-or-Die Bullet Dodging" from Pyramid #3/34, which still requires you to declare defenses ahead of time, but still allows you to dodge more than one gunman at once.

>>98603874
>>98603988
Forgot to add that I also use the optional rule that penalizes multiple Dodges, so deciding which gunmen are most likely to hit you and which ones you want to Dodge first is a tactical choice.

>>98603984
I'm of the opinion that Parry Missile Weapons always should've been a technique, rather than its own skill, and shouldn't require ETS to parry bullets if you can clearly see where the shooter is aiming.

>>98603998
Different anon here, I literally just typing to ask about that. Good system, I like it.

>>98603776
Possibly related to the general trope across many forms of media that realism must be bleak, depressing, ugly, and boring. There's an obvious motive for those who are in the business of selling fantasy to make reality seem bad, combined with the political agenda of progressivism to portray the past (and the future, if their utopian vision is not followed) as even worse than what they offer, which might explain this.
There's also the fact that one of the most obvious signs of unrealistic fiction is the sense that protagonists are never in real danger. Therefore realistic fiction must surely be extremely deadly, since that is the opposite of extremely safe.

>>98604013
That makes sense, but the default penalty would have to be huge in order to avoid situations where highly skilled fighters could actually parry bullets reliably.

>>98604594
Parry Missile Weapons is a Hard skill, so a default of something like -6 to skill (and half that to Parry, so -3) should probably be fair, then apply the usual modifiers for Parry Missile Weapons. So that gives -8 to Parry bullets, -5 to Parry small low-tech missiles, -3 to Parry large low-tech missiles, then... -1 to Parry small thrown weapons, and +1 to Parry large thrown weapons? To keep things in line with the existing Parry modifiers for thrown weapons, you might drop those latter two modifiers down to -2 and -1, respectively.
-8 to Parry should be functionally impossible for the average dude (skill 10, parry 8), unless he uses both All-Out Defense (Increased Parry) and Extra Effort (Feverish Defense), and even then that only brings up his effective Parry score to a measly 4 (~2% success chance), so it's still more a matter of luck than skill. A master warrior (skill 20, parry 13) with All-Out Defense and Extra Effort could get an effective Parry of 9 (~37% success chance), which doesn't seem too crazy to me.

>>98604830
>>98604830
I think even the -5 penalty to Parry bullets for Parry Missile Weapons is harsh enough. -5 to Parry is equivalent to -10 to skill; practically impossible already by the game's own Task Modifier guidelines. It's the same penalty to Block more than once per turn (an optional rule from Martial Arts), which the Basic Set also treats as impossible.
I'd keep the same modifiers as Parry Missile Weapons on the lower end, but condense the modifiers on the higher end. So it's -5 to Parry bullets, -4 to Parry small missiles, -3 to Parry large missiles, -2 to Parry small throwables, and -1 to Parry large throwables. That way you have a smooth range of modifiers that also match up with the existing penalties for Parrying thrown weapons.
That might still seem generous, but think of it another way. If you can see the shooter, then the speed of the bullet doesn't matter, because you're watching the shooter, not his bullet. Things like the speed of barrel sway and rapidly changing aim are represented with things like Ranged Feints and Prediction Shots. So the only thing that matters is the size, or SM, of the path that the bullet travels. In a manner of speaking, a Parry against a bullet is an attack against its flight path. You're trying to hit the cross-section of that flight path with your weapon.
According to the rules for Combat Writ Large, the area of a melee attack has a SM equal to the attacker's SM-9. Once a projectile becomes smaller than SM -9, it should stop being harder to hit, but by that point, the target is smaller than the area of your attacking/parrying surface. Apply that SM -9 to skill, and half that to Parry, then you get a penalty of -5.

>>98604830
>>98604944
Your logic seems reasonable, but the conclusions don't seem to match reality. I don't think a person with mediocre weapon skill who is trying very hard (or a highly skilled person who is parrying normally) has a 4% chance of parrying a bullet coming at him. I think the odds of that happening are considerably less than 1%. I also don't think that skill and effort will increase your odds very much except at superhuman levels, and the vast majority of your chance to 'parry' a bullet is simply that you can cover a certain fraction of your surface area with your weapon, and the shooter has a certain chance of hitting it by mistake.
Although a bullet's flight path is arguably a valid target, it's one which is not only small but also moves rapidly as the shooter shifts their point of aim and difficult to perceive due to having to infer it from the weapon. So I'd recommend that for parrying things which move too fast for you to see the thing itself, you take an additional penalty equal to at least half the range penalty to the shooter (if you want to make a system which distinguishes exactly when this happens, maybe something like half the range penalty to the shooter, or half the speed penalty for a moving target, whichever is less).

>Quick and Pointless
Sex hehehe.

One of my players wants the ability to spend FP in response to being attacked to reduce the damage taken. They want this to work even if they've all out attacked.
My current build of this is DR 4 (Reflexive +40%, Costs FP 1 -5%, Emergencies Only -30%) [21].
Unsure if this does the job though and it is strictly worse than just buying DR 4

>>98606679
It works, but since it's worse than just plain DR which doesn't require FP loss, it sucks. Multiplicative modifiers would sort of fix this, but you're still paying a lot to add Reflexive to something that didn't need it until you took Costs Fatigue. Incidentally, you should at least be able to take Costs Fatigue at the increased discount for only lasting a second, unless the intention is that once activated this would remain on for the rest of the fight.
Stacking more limitations on it would make it more efficient, but you're still going to have the issue that you're paying +40% to have it work no better than baseline.
I'd suggest a custom nuisance effect 'drains 1 FP when hit' for like -5% on DR and just pay [18] for 4 levels. It's not elegant, but it's better than overcharging to meet a concept.

>>98606679
The Reflexive enhancement is very explicitly only for advantages that take an action to activate. DR is an advantage that does not require an action to begin with, so charging points for it is bullshit.

>>98606749
yeah its only meant to least for a second. I had forgotten about the increased discount for Costs FP in that case.
The final ability will have more limitations on it so it will be cheaper. Maybe for my next game I will do multiplicative multipliers
I will go with a nuisance effect. Thank you.

>>98606865
That is a good point. I thought Costs FP made using the ability require an action but rereading it I seem to have been mistaken.

>>98606865
>>98606884
There's an Active Defense limitation you can use instead. It's in the Powers book as a special under limitation under Damage Resistance. It's specifically for this situation.

Power Ups: Limitations also reprints it, clarifying that it doesn't replace your normal active defense (you can use both). So even RAW it should still usable after an all-out attack.

>>98607007
*special limitation under Damage Resistance

== GURPS Combat Example ==
Combatant A: Guns (Rifle) 13; Armed with Mauser 98 (Dmg: 7d+1, Acc: 5, Fixed x2 Scope: +2)
Combatant B: HP: 10; HT: 10; Unaware, Seated (-2 to hit)
Engagement at 140 yards (-11 to hit)

>Turn 1: Combatant A uses Ready maneuver and braces, giving +1 to next shot; Combatant B unaware.
>Turn 2: Combatant A takes Aim maneuver, giving +5 to next shot; Combatant B unaware.
>Turns 3-4: Combatant A takes Aim maneuver on both turns, giving +4 for next shot (+2 for scope and +1 for each extra turn of aim); Combatant B unaware.
>Turn 5: Combatant A takes All-Out Attack: Determined, firing single round at Combatant B with random hit location. Final effective skill is 12 (-11 for range, -2 for seated opponent, +1 for all-out, +1 for bracing, +7 for acc plus two extra seconds of aim, +2 for scope).
>Combatant A rolls 9 to attack and hits Combatant B successfully, rolling 25 damage and hit location: neck.
>Combatant B drops to -15 health. This is below -1xHP, so he rolls on HT to avoid passing out and then again to avoid dying. He succeeds on both rolls, but he is now bleeding out. Combatant B makes HT rolls at -5 every minute for continued bleeding, losing 1HP for every failed roll.
Charlie Kirk is taken to the hospital and ultimately dies from his injuries.

>>98607007
>Power Ups: Limitations also reprints it, clarifying that it doesn't replace your normal active defense (you can use both). So even RAW it should still usable after an all-out attack.
Seems like that should only be possible if you have Active Defence, Independent. Powers p. 154 makes it pretty clear that the Active Defense limitation usually requires that you would be able to take an active defense even if it doesn't 'use up' an active defense. But if you take that and also eliminate the dice roll, you've reduced it to a 0% modifier, which seems fair, because you've just built an ability which works all the time, just like default DR.
Careful reading of Powers, p. 153 suggests that since the ability qualifies as neither Always On or Switchable, it must be a Transient ability. Since no rule seems to add any requirement for Concentrate or Ready to activate it, it can be inferred that doing so is a free action which can be done at any time. There doesn't seem to be any rule which says you can't interrupt the attack sequence to activate it just before rolling damage. Therefore, it would seem to be valid to just put 'Costs Fatigue, 1 FP/second, -10%' straight onto DR without any other modifier and have it work as a force field which automatically drains your fatigue when it absorbs damage, and which you can choose to deactivate at any time to save FP. I'm not sure how to handle it if you can't turn it off, since it obviously doesn't qualify for 'always on'. I guess it's maybe a nuisance effect.

>>98607186
>Powers p. 154 makes it pretty clear that the Active Defense limitation usually requires that you would be able to take an active defense even if it doesn't 'use up' an active defense
Ah shit, I missed that bit

What the hell, no one told me that GURPS Space has an adventure design chapter.

>>98607320
Everybody is too busy cumming all over the world-design sequence and the alien-design sequence to notice anything else.

Let me see if I understood all of this correctly, about reflexive, reduced time and ranged on non-attacks
Let's take Obscure.
Usually, obscure takes 1 ready to activate.
Reflexive would allow me to activate it when being attacked, out of my turn.
Reduced time would allow me to activate it as a free action on my turn.

If I put "Ranged" on obscure it's now an attack. This means it can no longer take reflexive or reduced time, right?
But Kromm added Reflexive to a healing that had the ranged modifier added, does that mean that reflexive is only forbidden is it's an actual attack that does damage or causes penalties?
>https://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=1254800&postcount=5

>>98608239
Kromm is only infallible when he's speaking ex cathedra.

Let's say I want to have an ability usable once per scene, a limitation introduced by metatech. By doing this, for the price of getting a -20% discount on the ability, it both has a duration of 1 minute, and it now requires a ready action to activate.
If I want to remove that ready action, it costs (+20%); with reduced time 1. That results in ability that has a duration of 1 minute but costs the same as the same ability but forever.

Would it be fair to instead apply the reduced time 1 to the 1/scene limitation itself? So that it would now be (-16%) which I think you round down to (-15%).

I wonder how unbalancing it would be to have a campaign switch where the heal limit (-3 per heal past the first) is connected to the person being healed regardless of the healer.
Like, normally it's connected to the healer. A healer gets a -3 each time he heals that specific person (with that specific spell if I'm not mistaken). But if another healer appears, he can heal that person without the penalty even if the guy has been healed 10x or whatever.

Switching to the person being healed means that once a person has been healed, the -3 sticks even if another healer appears. It's a nerf to magic healing but I think it makes more sense.
It also protects dungeon fantasy niches because even if you have 4 healers in the party, the max amount of heals is still more or less the same.

>>98615216
I could see it being used offensively to disrupt other healers. If you don't want a guy to be healed, then you can just make a whole bunch of Healing attempts against him to stack up his penalty against other healers, but spend as little FP as possible to actually heal him. If you want to avoid this, then you should make it so healing only works on subjects who are either willing or perhaps totally helpless.
Since this makes Healing effectively exclusive with other healers, it should be worth some limitation value (supposing you're talking about the Healing advantage; I don't use GURPS Magic, so I have no clue about spells). I'm not sure how to price it, though, since it would largely depend on how common healers are in the setting. If you're worried about everyone in the party being a healer, then something like -15% seems appropriate, the same value as three levels of the Hard to Use limitation, which gives a -9 penalty to skill, as if everyone in the party had already tried to heal the same guy at least once.

>>98615526
I like the idea of making it a limitation -15% seems fair. Also yeah, good idea, gonna add to the rule that healing targets must be willing or helpless.

How do I add disadvantages to my doubles from duplication?
The idea is to create a duplicate using construct so it's disposable and doesn't harm my points, but they're weaker, dying at 0hp as if they had the Fragile: Unnatural disadvantage.

I'm thinking of adding it as a temporary disadvantage, with some feature saying that it only applies to the doubles.

>>98617053
I would argue that you could buy Fragile: Unnatural for your main character with the limitation accessibility (dupes only).

>>98617323
Oh, good idea. I quite like this, this allows me to put various others stuff, like if I want to make a double that can't attack, I can add "pacifist" with doubles only, and so on.

>>98617574
I think you should add those to the duplication advantage itself as temporary disadvantages rather than directly onto your character. Otherwise you could just buy tons of disadvantages with (doubles only) for free points, and you never even have to use your doubles

>>98617700
Oh yeah, I didn't think about it in that manner. So I'd add, say "temporary disadvantage (pacifism with accessibility: only dupes)" or similar instead of just having them be disadvantages on the character.

>>98610329
It's absolutely not in line with the rules, but the principle is somewhat sound. You could argue that the numbers for modifiers are only balanced when used as intended, but honestly they aren't well balanced even then, so use whatever gives reasonable results.

>>98608239
That seems like a bad build by Kromm. I think maybe he just forgot how Reflexive works. I believe that Active Defense is more appropriate for 'trigger on being attacked' abilities.

dead system
How do I design a tank made of transparent plastic in GURPS Vehicles?

>>98624258
Many plastics are transparent by default (before manufacturers add colour), although they might not be as clear as glass. So, provided you can make a tank out of not-especially rare plastics like acrylic, PVC, styrene, or polycarbonate, you can easily get it transparent. Polycarbonate is pretty hard, and most plastics have reasonable strength to weight, so this shouldn't be too hard so long as you don't need every last piece to be transparent (you can possibly build the engine housing out of polyetherimide, but not the engine itself, nor a gun barrel, since the maximum temperature it can handle is about 200C). It isn't going to have the strength of a vehicle made of metal and ceramics, but it isn't going to be unusable either.
Simply build your tank with a relatively cheap and lightweight frame, then use composite armour.

>>98624436
Note that due to reflection and the number of components which will need to be made of metal, a transparent tank will be far from invisible. In fact, it will probably stand out more than a camouflage-painted one. However, you can somewhat enhance the benefits of transparency by using Fresnel-effect panels to 'smear' light around internal components and distort the outline. There are no rules for Fresnel camouflage in GURPS, but it should function like a limited and bulky version of active camouflage, effective only in the visible spectrum, but available one TL early.

Any tips for narrating success and failure? The basic set is pretty vague.

>>98629195
If you only just made it (margin of zero) then you only barely succeeded. It might seem that you were about to fail, but then you just about managed to pull it off, probably in a rather graceless and imperfect fashion. Someone throws a punch at you and you just barely manage to get your arm in the way, but it's enough to spoil their blow.
Success by 1 to 3 is a decent performance, nothing shameful, but nothing to write home about. You put up your guard and avoid the brunt of the attack.
Success by 4 to 6 is a solid display of competence. This is the level at which it seems like the challenge is a bit below your ability, and you make it seem easy. Your opponent feels that there's no way past your guard.
Success by 7-9 means that you're in a state of 'flow' where every move you make is the right one. You feel like your hands know where to be without really having to think at all.
Success by 10+ or Critical Success is where you casually accomplish the task and get to show off a bit by adding a flourish. Your opponent is left baffled and humiliated.

So, I was at my FLGS a few days ago, and they had copies of the new Revised book. It is one fat bastard of a book! An absolute unit, as the kids say these days.
(I didn’t buy one ‘cause I have one coming through the Ring of Fire KS, but I -did- buy something else from them.) I may have to look into getting a book reading stand!

>>98630205
I can imagine. I'll have to imagine since I choose the PDF option.

Just checkin', there any guides to using Vehicles 3e with 4e? I wanna stat things out as a hobby, but I don't wanna put in unnecessary effort if someone's already wrote a guide.

File: GURPS Vehicles conversion(...).png (16 KB, 905x328)

16 KB PNG

>>98632050
It isn't difficult.

>>98632050
Describing Vehicles (Pyramid Volume 3, Issue 120) covers basically everything.
If you're just statting for a hobby in itself, why not stick with 3rd edition? Or, if you're doing real-world vehicles, simply take real-world data and translate it straight into 4th edition stats.
4th edition compatible vehicle design system is in the works, but may be a year away at this point I'm afraid.

Anyone notice that SirPudding is back on the GURPS discord after sperging out and leaving? He is most of the reason why nobody uses that fucking place now that Garthar St. Olaffson is gone.

>>98630205
I bought one from my FLGS. They weigh ~6.5 lb or just shy of 3 kg. Heavy but worth it, 100% worth it.

>>98629195
More success means they did it better. Success by 0 means they did it by the skin of their teeth: their weapon barely hit the enemy, they barely didn't clip a car on their drive today, they almost didn't find the secret passage, etc. Failure by more means they screw up more, but remember that for both margins of success or failure, that they shouldn't horribly fail unless they *critically* fail.

Or make them fail worse/succeed better based on the margin, it's GURPS, I am not the boss of you.

Looking to play

Discord: mistergamor
Steam: /id/theonlywarith/

>>98633038
>Discord

>>98633243
Get over yourself, you "holier than thou" faggot.

>>98634114
>discord

File: Ransom-Columbo-2-1.jpg (172 KB, 1164x768)

172 KB JPG

How do you model Columbo's ability to always know who the murderer is right away?

>>98634262
Who are you quoting? No-games infecting another thread as usual.

who the fuck is SirPudding

>>98634504
a retarded faggot who is friends with christopher r rice which should sum up how most people feel about him

>>98634454
Precognition, maybe? Basic, pg. 77
Or Foresight, in the Basic Set Revision, pg. 326
Or just really high Detective! skill, which is probably closest if you don't want him to be Supernatural

>>98634498
>discord

>>98634498
I don't need to go on dicksword to play games though

>>98634454
Detect (Murderers), although Intuition is more realistic

>>98634454
Does he ALWAYS know RIGHT AWAY, or is he just usually right fairly early?
Empathy, Intuition, good IQ and skill levels, and GURPS over-optimistic handling of Detect Lies will get you good enough, I think.

>>98635013
Neither do I. I play GURPS mostly IRL. Still use it to talk with friends while playing vidya or GURPS when I do play it online.

>>98633038
>discord
You need to lurk more.

Empathic healing from powers says you take on the injuries of the target
but is the HP transfer rate 1 to 1?
Or is it just "instead of spending FP you spend HP"? Which would mean you take 1 HP per 2 HP you heal.

Rules added by splats you fundamentally disagree with?
For me it's
Area effect and Healing, Mind Control, and Telekinesis. From Powers page 100.
>If the advantage has a FP cost, multiply this by the radius in yards.
This makes it literally impossible for any reasonable character to ever use area healing as an advantage, while in no fucking setting in the universe has area healing spells completely drain someone like this. It's utter retardation.

>>98640832
My reading is that it literally does what it says; you get the exact injuries, etc. that you heal. If you heal 3 HP, you suffer 3 HP injury. If you heal a crippled leg, your leg gets crippled. If you heal someone's AIDS, you get AIDS. I'm less certain whether damage scales with your own HP, but I'm inclined to say yes. So if you have 10 HP and heal someone with 20+ HP, you can heal them at a rate of 1 of your HP for 2 of theirs.

>>98640865
Yes, that's bullshit. There's no such charge for attacks which add FP cost with Costs Fatigue, so why screw over the handful of abilities which have inherent FP costs?
GURPS in general seems determined to make healers of all kinds hard to play. Healing spells suck, Healing sucks, medical skills are a huge pain to learn and often take massive penalties.

>>98640871
Makes sense I suppose. I'm also wondering if you get to choose how much you heal or if you're forced to just kill yourself to heal somebody who took too much damage.
If you can't select how much HP you heal then that (+50%) cost is way too low.

>>98640892
Normal healing lets you choose, and there's nothing in the rules which changes that, so I'd say it's pretty clear you still get to choose.

File: Snarf 6.png (2.54 MB, 1390x1910)

2.54 MB PNG

Bros, this vehicle thing is going to be tough. I hadn't really considered that in order to debug it, I will need to create literally hundreds of vehicle designs (because we need lots of examples for every vehicle type, and there are a lot of vehicle types), matching against real world data (which will often be hard to find, and harder to confirm if it is accurate), then remake them over and over again to see if new rules give better results.

>>98642941
>pic
why wouldn't pic related work IRL?

>>98643096
It would work just fine. GURPS Vehicles even has rules for it--wheelform propulsion (Expansion 1 p. 4) plus smartwheels (Vehicles p. 21).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowheel

>>98643127
Neat
time to build one and drive in style

>>98633038
Pudding sperged out and left at some point? Huh, that must have been nice for a while.

File: SJG_Online_Policy_2026-08-12.png (84 KB, 1675x117)

84 KB PNG

...Huh? SJiGgers don't like game aids now? What happened?
https://www.sjgames.com/general/online_policy.html

>>98644941
>NOOOO CLAUDE IS GOING TO TURN GCS INTO A COMPUTER GAME NOOOO
I bet it's just out of touch old people and AI tardation once again

File: triangle-bird.png (362 KB, 594x865)

362 KB PNG

>>98644941
Looked into it. The Steve is dipping his toes into VTTs.
It's vague lawyerspeak but I think they want the option to surgically remove fan-made competitors to whatever it is they'll be selling.

Translation of the new policy:
1. Don't make anything full-game-sized, like a Foundry VTT system.
2. We still hate phones.
3. We now reserve the right to kill you for no reason, even if you didn't violate our vaguepost policy. Tread lightly. IYKYK.

Anything pre-approved like GCS or the Foundry Game Aid are likely safe unless SJG wants to take them over.

>>98645145
If they do another to harm GCS they can get fucked. That's an absolute requirement for me to play this piece of shit game, and I make free shit for GURPS.

>>98645145
Why make an expensive and totally unnecessary dead-tree edition if they're going to turn to VTTs? What the fuck? But if they're doing this I bet GCS is doomed

>>98645145
>>98644941
>barely publishing anything, and what they do make is mostly useless for 99% of the players
>now closing their grip on fan content
why can't they just let this game go, fuck off steve you don't care about gurps anymore so stop trying to kill it.

I just got a chance to look over the new revised edition and I have to ask how do you write the new intro and stay able to get up in the morning and look in your mirror and not just slash your wrists? I mean writing that mealy-mouthed surrender notice would have destroyed any normal persons will to live.

>>98643809
Very nice. He was gone for a week and you could have a conversation without wanting to shoot fireworks at his house.

>>98646343
Please post a screenshot, I'm not interested in downloading it

File: SJG Cuckery.png (300 KB, 504x939)

300 KB PNG

>>98646343
The thing about leftists is, they don't care about how much they humiliate themselves, because they don't experience shame like normal people. They are essentially psychopaths, except without any of the redeeming features.

>>98648119
I hate this communist horseshit.

>>98648389
I understand that SJG feel like they need to apologize for still existing, what with writing shit like this

>>98648119
>unhoused person
look
I'm not a chud or anything
but come the fuck on

>>98648119
This is retarded. How can you be "guilty" of doing something that wasn't bad at the time?

>>98648398
I work in government social housing where we have "customers" not "tenants", and even we would get told to knock it the fuck off.

>>98649301
Moral relativism only applies when they are talking about some retarded cannibal raping your children because that's normal in his culture. You have to obey rules which haven't been invented yet.

>>98648119
I like changing Slave Mentality to Heteronomy, Slave Mentality is a specific thing distinct from Heteronomy, and the disadvantage describes the latter, although the former could also be a didadvantage.
Did they change the inaccurate names of other disads like Selfish which should be called Vain or something similar?
Wanting to rename crippling is retarded though, it's a normal word and if your legs get cut off then you're crippled, not debilitated.

What triggers me more is that they removed the cool little icons for advantage groups and now we only have those gay letters.

I'm really curious how game sessions work with the gurps devs
>Real Time (metatech page 33)
>Your ability works in real-world time rather than game-world time. If it normally has a number of uses per game day, it now gets that many uses per hour of game play. If it has a number of uses per game week
>session = 1 week
>hour = 1 day
How the fuck do they play that they go through 1 in-game day per hour of play
Any game I play usually spends the entire session or even multiple sessions without a single day passing.
And weeks only pass when we're skipping time or using a game that has downtime rules.

>>98651567
In not just GURPS, but games in general, even in the simplest most braindead systems, I will often see multiple sessions pass without even a single in-game minute passing (mostly because players are retarded), so these ratios are totally fucked.
Even if my players weren't retarded and I never ran combat or any sort of action whatsoever, I would still match up each real-time hour/scene to each in-game hour and each real-time game session to each in-game day at the absolute slowest.

>>98651567
I don't have my books with me, but I do have my notes I keep for my games, which includes some of the rationale that was included for the Game Time modifier:
>These ratios assume a campaign with a significant amount of "fast" time (when game time is faster than real time; routine travel, long tasks, etc.) and "real" time (when game time equals real time; e.g., players discussing how to best approach an NPC merchant).
So I think that pretty much answers your question. The modifier assumes a game with lots of downtime and very little action or combat.
Which is unbelievably fucking stupid, because a huge chunk of GURPS game rules are dedicated toward action and combat, and many traits are priced with the assumption that action and combat will be an important part of the game.
At least the text acknowledges this and includes a suggestion to change it for games people actually play:
>They may be unfair in any game with a significant amount of "slow" time (when game time is slower than real time; e.g., combat).
>In such a case, the GM may adjust these ratios, multiplying the frequency by anywhere from 2 (e.g., "twice per hour" becomes "four times per day", and "once per session" becomes "twice per week") to 7 (e.g., "once per hour" becomes "seven times per day", and "twice per week" becomes "14 times per week").
I'd go one step further from just changing the ratios, though, and follow >>98651677's suggestion to just straight up change it to real-time.

>>98648119
>and we did do it in the addenda
I am happy about this. That's a step forward.

To the anon who suggardaddies Pulver for Vehicles(respect): how are things going with the illustrations. I keep getting Youtube ads about AI quick mesh modeling or whatever and I get a bit pumped up but then my reason reminds me they probably lock the design into proprietary 3D formats once done and the export to Blender or whatever else would be problematic. Who knows. Wish I could allocate time towards it.

Also how much is shipping to Europe for the Revised brick? How long is the wait for people who live near the warehouse? Some mentioned a wait but because they ordered it through the Ring of fire supplement kickstarter.

>>98652603
>That's a step forward.
?
How is it a step forward?

>>98652614
It is better style.
It’s funny that some people still wrestle with “he or she,” as if English hadn’t already handed us the wonderfully simple “they.” Why drag two pronouns into the sentence when one has been doing the job for centuries?

>>98652954
"He" should be the default, unless it's referencing somebody who can only be female

>>98652954
Using they to refer to a single person, even if the person is unknown is both clunky as fuck and wasteful.
>b-but it's just two extra letters
Now multiply that a million times due to the number of examples and descriptions any RPG book needs.
Just use "he". Simple, works, and only insane people would care.

Example:
>Pick one target in 5 yards. The target takes 1d6 damage and he must make an HT check...
vs
>Pick one target in 5 yards. The target takes 1d6 damage and they must make an HT check...
"they" reads clunky as fuck.

>>98652954
Using singular "they" is stupid because it introduces confusion between singular and plural, even infecting verb conjucation.
>I need to find the murderer. If he escapes, he could kill again.
>I need to find the murderer. If they escape, they could kill again.
>The murderer later killed himself.
>The murderer later killed themselves. (some retards use "themself")
I unironically think that even a neopronoun like "ze" is better than singular "they".

>>98653024
Retarded argument. Two extra letters are not worth complaining about, especially when it's still only one syllable.

>>98653074
"You" is already both singular and plural, and even uses "are" for one person. Does that confuse you? "They" works the same way. In "I need to find the murderer; if they escape…," the murderer already establishes that it’s one person. "He" isn’t clearer—it just invents a sex you don’t know. And "ze" would mean creating a new word to avoid using one English speakers have naturally used for centuries. Ymmv.

>>98653220
>"You" is already both singular and plural, and even uses "are" for one person. Does that confuse you?
As a matter of fact, I am autistic enough to type out "you (singular)" and "you (plural)" on a semi-regular basis.

>>98653220
There is a reason most people append random words after "you" when using it for plural, like "you guys" "you folks" "you people". The reason is to avoid confusion.
I've seen it happen here, when I say "you" without specifying, anons get defensive and think I'm talking about them specifically.

File: b7983f8d-b0ae-49c7-9c9c-f(...).png (474 KB, 663x577)

474 KB PNG

>>98653236
(picrel)
>>98653296
You just disproved your own point. When context leaves "you" ambiguous, people add "guys" or "people." When "they" is ambiguous, we can likewise say "that person" or "those people." Occasional ambiguity is solved with context, not by declaring a basic pronoun unusable. English even abandoned singular "thou" and kept ambiguous "you." Somehow civilization survived.

>>98653074
>conjucation

>>98653341
>When "they" is ambiguous, we can likewise say "that person" or "those people."
Or, you can use "he". Not ambiguous, perfectly simple, doesn't need anything else added to it, and used all time by normal people.
There is no universe where singular "they" is better, it makes the text worse in every way.
also
>You just disproved your own point.
>anon sees two posts making two different points
>thinks they're the same person

>>98653406
But "he" isn't neutral or unambiguous. It means the person is male. If you don't know that, you're replacing a number ambiguity already resolved by context with information you simply made up. That's the universe where singular "they" is better: this one.

>anon sees two posts making two different points

No i was laughing with the poster who was talking about their (singular) autism, then the second reply marker was a rebuttal to their (singular) argument.

>>98653444
>But "he" isn't neutral or unambiguous
At this point you're just resorting to straight up lying. He has always been neutral and unambiguous. When you say something like "a character" and later use "he" when continuing the sentece you are not saying the character is male, this has never been the case.

>>98653444
Gender ambiguity is significantly less bad than number ambiguity.

>>98653472
"Generic he" was a convention, not proof that "he" has no gender. If I write, "A character entered the room. He sat down," virtually everyone assumes the character is male. That alone proves it isn't unambiguous. Your defense relies on context making "he" generic anyway. So you accept context resolving a pronoun's ambiguity for "he," while claiming context cannot do exactly the same for singular "they." You don't get to use context only when it rescues your preferred pronoun.

>>98653511
Except the number usually isn't ambiguous because the singular antecedent already tells you:
"A customer left their wallet."
Obviously one customer. "His wallet" adds potentially false information, while "their wallet" adds none. Preserving an unknown fact is better than inventing one.

>>98653542
>virtually everyone assumes the character is male.
Only people who lack media literacy.
It's not "rescued by the context" because the context is need to assume it's male, not the opposite. The rest of your post is letting your political biases show, so I'll ignore it for your benefit.

Anyone who genuinely wanted to clean up English pronouns would either advocate for just removing the female ones (since 'he' is already acceptable for persons of unknown gender) or simply eliminating the person / object distinction and use 'it' for everything. They don't do that because that isn't their goal. They want to annoy people, and cause social division.

>>98652603
>To the anon who suggardaddies Pulver for Vehicles(respect): how are things going with the illustrations.
Things are not going well on the illustration front, because I got distracted by talking to David about the text and my current shift pattern at work doesn't leave me with many full days off. I generally do best with creative stuff when I can spend like ten hours at once on something rather than thirty minutes a day or something.
I've got a week off at the end of September / start of October, and then I will be back to a pattern of a few long shifts each week rather than many short ones in November, so hopefully more progress on the visual front then.
>I keep getting Youtube ads about AI quick mesh modeling or whatever and I get a bit pumped up but then my reason reminds me they probably lock the design into proprietary 3D formats once done and the export to Blender or whatever else would be problematic. Who knows.
I don't think the format is likely to be an issue. Blender can import a huge number of formats. Getting AI to actually generate good models is likely to be the problem. Vehicles are something that neural net image generators still struggle with, especially if they are something other than cars, trucks, and buses. 3D generators are likely to be even worse.
There's also the problem that regardless of how good an image you can generate by prompting an algorithm, many people just don't like 'AI' and don't want to buy a product made with it. I still haven't spoken to David about the subject, but I don't get the impression that he's keen on it, and quite frankly I'm not all that keen myself.

>>98653735
Obligatory reminder that adjusting the PDF line spacing, or publishing in unpaginated HTML/EPUB, will be a lot quicker and cheaper than making a zillion random images.

File: Capture.png (31 KB, 615x566)

31 KB PNG

>>98653747
And this time I'll back up my words with a screenshot of the last email that Pulver sent to me back in December, when I offered him 500 dollars. He explicitly endorsed the idea of making Not-GURPS Vehicles look like the CORPS Vehicle Design System, which barely has any art at all (as you can see from the screenshots that I posted in the previous thread: >>98566035).
If Pulver doesn't want my 500 dollars, fine. But Mr. 1500-Dollar Big Shot should at least remind him that there are options other than wasting time on making amateur art.

I'm against singular they because it's only advocated for by modernist onions faggots who hate themselves and their culture, history, and traditions.

>>98653024
For that example I'd drop the pronoun altogether, but I otherwise agree

>>98653236
>>98653296
"Ye" as a plural "you" should be brought back

>>98653341
"You" wasn't ambiguous, it was formal singular

The new revised has an ugly page border and I hate it. I wish they would have gone with a thinner or maybe even no border.

>>98656021
The borders -are- thinner in Revised, and the cutout corners are smaller, too.

File: Capture.png (118 KB, 503x825)

118 KB PNG

Steve Jackson steps down as CEO to focus on game design and development (remains president of company); is replaced by Sabrina Gonzalez (already on board of directors)
https://www.sjgames.com/ill/archive/2026-09-11

>>98656241
el goblina...

>>98656247
>el
>for a feminine noun
Languages should never have been taken out of the skill section.

>>98656241
Here's hoping the two just forget about gurps completely.

>>98656261
>la goblino
Satisfied?

>>98656733
>*goblinx

>>98656755
le luz extinguidx...

>>98656261
I like languages-as-skills since my degree was in linguistics, but my players are physically unable to give a shit so we are going with the Basic Set treatment

>Ramming: Basic Set p. 430
>Skyscrapers: Pyramid vol. 3 iss. 96 p. 4
Has anybody tested these rules for realism?

>>98656929
Which book tells me the effect of jet fuel on steel beams

>>98657258
Literally the Basic Set. Jet fuel is no more intense than flamethrower fuel (p. 281), or a furnace (p. 433) and mild steel structures are covered on p. 558. There's basically no way for 3d fire to damage DR 20+ steel, but p. 558 also has stats for a skyscraper, which is not only merely DR 10 (despite it's structure being mostly DR 20+) but also combustible. Very sus.

>>98598164
Knife skill over 25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsgFebeE2q4

>>98658896
He also has weapon master for sure, thats where the bonus damage for the delimbing comes from.

>>98658896
>>98659329
>parried missiles
and enhanced time sense plus parry misisle weapons or whatever those are called.

>>98658896
Which book has rules for reflecting ranged attacks directly back at their attacker via parrying?
Ideally, I would want a technique or optional rule somewhere (like those for Power Stunts), but I'll also take an Imbuement Skill or advantage as a last resort.

>>98660305
Parry Missile Weapons
It is its own separate skill, rather than a variation on the parry active defense. See Basic Set p. 212 and Martial Arts p. 58. Also see >>98604013.

>>98660325
Doesn't actually answer the question asked.

>>98660305
The only rules for doing that which I'm aware of are adding Reflection to DR and Vengeful Defense (Perfect Defense, Pyramid vol. 3 issue 4). Neither is compatible with knives, so you need some kind of weird rule like DR which relies on you having a knife in your hand.

>>98660305
>Which book has rules for reflecting ranged attacks directly back at their attacker via parrying?
Doesn't exist
yes, it's a huge oversight since star wars has been a thing since the 80s and yet in the half a century since the GURPS writers have yet to add a simple technique to reflect blaster shots.

They wrote garbage like how to make jokes so insulting someone is stunned (rapier wit) but won't add the basic bitch act of reflecting projectiles back at the shooter.

Is there an advantage for gorging like snakes and sharks do, where they eat one largr meal and don't need to feed for days?

If not what do you think would be a fair point cost?

I'd give it 5 points for being able to eat a week's worth of food in advance.

Chuds, I'm new to GURPS and debating whether I should buy the new Revised Basic Set single tome instead of the two book set. The only reason I would not buy it is because of the language policing faggotry. Give advice.
Also, the cover art is fucking horrible and makes it look like a child's toy.

>>98661771
If you're a CHUD (aka Chad Stud), never give money to Steve Jackson Games.
Have you seen who is their new CEO?
>>98656241

>>98661771
Just pirate. Pay sjg only to share the pdfs with other elegan/tg/entlemen while they're as turbo pozzed as they are.

>>98661720
Anon's Animal Album isn't official, but it includes a perk called Nutritional Reserve, which basically does that.
You could also take an extremely limited form of Payload.
Or, realistically, just call it part of being cold blooded and having a slow metabolism.

>>98661771
Two books is more convenient. A 500+ page hardback is fucking cumbersome (and only lets one person at the table look up rules at once), and even if you only want a digital version, the new BS is bloated and slow.
Also, don't give money to companies who make it clear that they hate you.

>>98661789
>>98661801
>>98663318
I definitely want to get a physical version, the only reason I wouldn't buy the revised is a general refusal to accept faggot language censorship

>>98661771
I find the two column layout in the revised edition way easier to read than the original three column one. That's the best change IMO. The addenda are just compiled material from supplements form over the years. The one vs two books thing is a matter of preference.

As for the edits, it's mostly minor stuff but they did rework the section on slavery and remove a table for slave loyalty. If that's a deal killer you'd be fine with the original two book set and maybe printed copies of the revised addenda. Some blog posted a full list of changes but I can't link it with the spam filter.

>>98656241
Dios mio! La creatura!

Are there any good official GURPS fantasy settings books?
I get that gurps has a few settings but they're usually only half described as examples in more generic books like GURPS fantasy.
I want an actual book that is solely about a single specific fantasy setting, similar to how you can just grab the grayhawk gazeteer or the karameikos campaign setting book.

>>98665894
https://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/fantasy.html
>Banestorm
>Castle Falkenstein
>Conan
>Discworld
>Mad Lands
>Harkwood
>Goblins
>Horseclans
>Collegio Januari
>Technomancer
Also, for some reason GURPS Camelot is not listed on the linked page.

>>98666086
Thanks! I had forgotten discworld had an official gurps book

>>98665894
Banestorm is OK. It isn't great, it isn't terrible. It's a fairly generic fantasy setting which includes all the basic tropes, with one major twist (races from different realities, including humans from historical Earth) and a couple of minor ones (e.g. goblins aren't stupid and evil, but instead clever and fairly civilised).
The other original settings which got a whole book are mostly rather niche, gimmicky, and tricky to play in.
The licensed settings are generally good. Discworld is the ultimate comedic fantasy setting, and Conan's Hyborian Age is probably the best sword-and-sorcery setting ever written, so you're fairly safe with them. The others are only as good as the source material, which is patchy.
Camelot and Celtic Myth are two takes on 'authentic' fantasy Britain. Most of the historical setting books have a decent amount of mythic stuff (especially Russia, Greece, and Japan).

>>98661359
>>98661574
Fug. I guess the closest official thing that works is Vengeful Defense, if I just tweak it slightly to work with weapon parries and not just armor and shields. Thanks for answering.

>>98667002
>Vengeful Defense
What is this? Can't find on powers or basic

>>98667002
>>98661574
>>98661359
I just house ruled a technique for my version of Star wars gurps

>New Technique:
>Reflective Parry
>Defaults: Parry Ranged Weapons -5.
>Max: Parry Ranged Weapons.
>After a successful parry against an appropriate ranged attack with the appropriate weapon (usually Force Sword vs an energy attack, but things like a mirror vs a gaze or a baseball bat vs a ball also work), you may send the attack back at your attacker or at any other target. Make a Reflective Parry check, with all modifiers a ranged attack of that type would get considering the attack would be coming from your position. If you succeed, the new target has to deal with that ranged attack as if he were the target of the original attack (so he has to defend or take damage, etc.).

>>98667194
Vengeful Defense is from Pyramid 3-004, on page 14. The articles covers defensive imbuements for armor and shields.
If you don't know what Imbuements are, they're covered in Power-Ups 1. If you're familiar with Powers, then these are basically Temporary Enhancements, but for equipment instead of powers.
They're kind of expensive point-wise (every Imbuement requires a separate Very Hard skill for every type of combat or equipment operation skill it can affect), finicky to use (roll against skill and spend FP every attack or defense), and lack any clear guidelines for inventing new Imbuements (the most damning thing, in my opinion). So most tables don't use them, which is disappointing, because they cover an extremely common trope in fiction. They're still far less of a headache than the rules for enhancing gear in other books, which involves stat'ing every gear item as an ability and having to pay out a different number of points for the same enhancement whenever you want to enhance any mundane gear item.
I know some anons just skip all the rules above, instead taking the rules for Temporary Enhancements from Powers and applying them to gear items; maybe requiring an Unusual Background or appropriate advantage (Gadgeteer, Weapon Master, Magery, Power Talent, etc.) to do so. I honestly think that's the best way to go about it.

Im trying to find a gurps combat example video on youtube where there is a party of adventurers sleeping in the woods. A band of gobelins or something else wake them up attacking them and all the adventurers die. Can you help me find that video?

>>98667521
Was it by this guy?
https://www.youtube.com/@easy_rpg

>>98667573
Can't remember if it was him or Dungeons and Gurps, or maybe a totally different creator. Thanks for trying though. Maybe ill search with "tpk" or "total party kill" or "gurps deadly" lol.

does anyone have a link to that GURPS Gun Stats Automatic Sheet?

>>98669299
nevermind found it in my search history

>>98661771
I only bought the revised pdf to read on my nice tablet because sometimes they update the pdf on warehouse 23 and I want access to that.

>>98670397
But they update the old BS pdf file too

How do you simulate the "you must cast a spell and then put it in your hand" aspect of combat spells but using spells as advantages?

Did revised remove the picture of a black fat woman stealing shampoo from the Kleptomania page?

File: Screen Shot 2026-09-14 at(...).png (978 KB, 1060x750)

978 KB PNG

>>98672191
Nope. It's still there.

>>98672889
that's pretty funny

>>98672889
That woman doesn't look black to me.

>>98673096
That's the Steve Jackson CEO.

>>98673096
As the whitest man on south america, I'm qualified to say that that is a black woman.

>>98672170
That's basically Takes Extra Time. If you really want to reproduce it exactly, add custom modifiers to change the required ready to a concentrate (going by the cost of Requires Concentrate and Requires Ready, this is worth another -5% per level of TET), allow the attack to be held once prepared (probably around +5%, possibly also per level of TET; compare Preparation Required and Immediate Preparation Required, which is worth half again as much, suggesting a fair price for TET you can carry ready to go is two thirds what it normally is), and the slight risk of doing so (maybe a nuisance effect, but probably applied only to the value of whatever lets you hold the effect, so unlikely to make a difference).
Alternatively, if you aren't too bothered about emulating the effect exactly, take Limited Use, Once per Day, Fast Reload. Treat not needing ammunition and concentrating instead of readying as balancing each other out. This lets you walk around with a 'loaded' hand indefinitely, but then you have to concentrate for 3 seconds to reload it.

If anyone cares, I've updated the GURPS Realm Relations PDF in the /unofficial/gurpsgen/ folder. Most of it is mechanically identical to the previous version but with a little more style and cleaning.

>>98675787
I'm curious, but I refuse to risk downloading malware.

>>98675931
Do you not run a virus scanner on your computer?
(and no, I don't mean BS like norton or macafee, an actual one)

>>98675931
>PDF
>malware
You can disable JavaScript in your PDF reader's settings.

I am sorry but I still like Technical Grappling more than Fantastic Dungeon Grappling. The former is not complex in actual play, even turning on shit like weight based advantage; it's just a weirdly organized book with some strangely worded areas that makes it seem more complicated than it actually is. FDG is too cartoonish.

>>98680724
I'm not a fan of FDG, but I prefer Egg and Nate's expansion to ANTOG. I just like having everything be quick contests, and they added rules/mechanics for all the missing grappling shit you can do that's not in ANTOG's Pyramid article.

>>98680724
FDG is literally just simplified Technical Grappling, how is it cartoonish?

>>98680879
Have you actually used ANTOG?

>>98681907
Mostly, but not quite. The differences are subtle but important. FDG is best suited to Dungeon Fantasy, naturally.

>>98681950
What are the important differences? Afaik it's just removing the extra detailed modifiers.

>>98680724
The only thing that's an actual hassle about Technical Grappling is recalculating BL every time ST changes due to penalties from CP, then recalculating encumbrance penalties, because grappled opponents count against encumbrance. If you completely ignore all that, then it's not any more headache to run than Dungeon Grappling.
While I generally prefer Technical Grappling, there are a few options from Dungeon Grappling that I like that aren't in Technical Grappling. Stuff like better penalties for grappling limbs, more options for spending CP, rules for using Human Shields and swallowing opponents whole, and so on.

So, normally, if you want to have access to an attack for a limited time per day, you need to buff yourself with it with affliction or alternate shape or whatever because otherwise, just using daily, you only get a single use of the ability. (the difference between activating a buff that lets you shoot lasers for 1 minute vs a single laser per day).
Naturally that is expensive to do, for little gain.

However I figured out a way to get it to work, and I want to know if I'm right.
>take any old bonus and add 1/day. Like "+2 DX [40]; once per day, -40%". This gives you +2 DX for one minute. You can name this as a proper "ability", like "Cat's Agility" or something.
>Then you take innate attack and add "Accessibility: Only while Cat's Agility is on (-XX%)"
>Now you have an innate attack that is only usable for 1 minute per day, and doesn't cost a gazillion points due to putting it under an affliction.

I think this should all be 100% legal, pls correct me if I'm wrong.

>>98681950
>Have you actually used ANTOG?
Yes, that's why I said I like it.

>>98682865
>penalties from CP
What, like going to jail?

>>98683071
Yes, that seems entirely within the rules.

>>98684076
Thanks, good to be sure.

>>98684001
heh

File: blaze01.jpg (77 KB, 640x480)

77 KB JPG

How would you adapt the classic diablo 2 sorcerer spell Blaze?
Basically, instead of creating a wall of fire wherever, you sort of leave a fire wall where you walk.
I'm trying to figure out how to have an ability that comes out as you walk, but can't figure it out.

>>98684150
I think that Area Effect, Emanation, Persistent, and Wall taken together will do something like that, although it will require an attack every turn to keep it going, so you may need to add Extra Attack (this specific attack only) if you want to be able to do this and fight normally as well.

>>98684261
In the specific case of spreading fire everywhere you go, you may be able to get away with an Aura which does enough burning damage to set the floor on fire. This will require a lot of dice if you want it to work on soil, cobblestones, etc. but almost anything will burn if you put enough heat into it. You will also want significant amounts of DR against burning damage, since although you are immune to your own aura, you aren't immune to the fires it starts, getting splashed with molten rock, etc.

>>98684261
>>98684283
Once you make it an innate attack with wall, is there any reason you can't use a move and attack maneuver? I mean the bulk penalty is just -2 and you're "aiming" at the floor anyway.
I think it'd be
>innate attack burn, melee attack, area effect, persistent, wall, accessibility: only when using move and attack, nuisance effect: attack comes from your feet
You're not immune to your own fire so you can't move backwards, but I guess you can just buy enough DR (fire only) to be immune to your own attack.

>>98684325
Emanation doesn't require attack rolls, because it can't scatter away from you, so there's effectively no penalty to using Move and Attack. Indeed, it is pretty much required if you want to drop six yards of fire behind you.
I'm not sure you can be harmed by your own Emanation, but sufficient DR to deal with any ordinary fire is probably wise because secondary fires definitely can hurt you.

>>98684551
I think part of the emanation description is that you're not harmed so this way works.

Which gurps book do I go for to get more detailed rules for sailing the high seas?
Something beyond "roll navigation to chart course" and "roll shiphandling to make good time".

>>98687208
Wilderness Adventures
Swashbucklers

>>98687226
Thanks

>>98687226
Having taken a look right now, GURPS swashbucklers has a lot of words about the history of the era and so on...
But no useful material for someone playing a GURPS 4e sea-based campaign that isn't even set on earth.
And Wilderness adventures is like 80% about land travel, with barely any rules about what happens when sailing the seas.

I'm thinking gurps isn't really the system to run a sea-based campaign.

>>98687346
>I'm thinking gurps isn't really the system to run a sea-based campaign
Somewhat inclined to agree if a bespoke system exists

File: Capture.png (39 KB, 715x558)

39 KB PNG

>>98687346
GURPS Vehicles and Vehicles Expansion 1 have a few more sailing-related rules.

>>98687372
I'll take a look, thanks.

>>98687208
Supporting Cast: Age of Sail Pirate Crew (more in there than just pirates)
Renaissance Venice: Merchants of Venice has some stuff too including travel times, rentals, shipping, seaborne events
Vehicles: War Galleys has some naval warfare stuff

>>98687672
>Renaissance Venice: Merchants
Interesting, sea events sounds really useful. Thanks

>>98687672
>>Renaissance Venice: Merchants
This is actually a very useful book now that I've read it. Far more than Swashbucklers, people really should recommend this more.

Are there simplified combat rules for GURPS? For situations where the PCs are guaranteed to win but I still want a few rolls to see how well they win or how long it takes.

>>98688129
Maybe some of the cinematic rules in the Basic Set can help? IE. mook rules where one hit is enough to knock the basic enemies out. No need for knockout rolls etc.

the Action series also has some rules for really streamlining the fights. Like just narrating stuff that happens, like a chase or something, then having a few rolls for taking a shot or whatever here and there.

>>98688129
Could just do a quick contest for that with the most relevant skill/attribute. Although this still lets the players fail if they lose the contest, but failures in this instance could just mean delaying the inevitable if they truly are guaranteed to win.

>>98688129
The BATTLE system from Action 7: Mercenaries.

>>98688389
Good reminder, that one should work fine.

>>98688422
https://papermenplasticmonster.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-ultra-simplified-gurps-combat.html?m=1
On using it at smaller scale.

>>98684283
You need to be as hot as the fucking sun to reach the flashpoint for stone and soil, just make it be magic fire that stays there without an apparent source of fuel.

File: Bruh wat is dis.png (1.5 MB, 976x876)

1.5 MB PNG

>>98688459
I had to copypaste the words in to notepad to be able to read this lol.
Thanks for the link tho, actually very useful.

>>98688517
Gurps powerups: enhancements has "cosmic: Incendiary" which allows you to set fire to things by lowering their flammability so even with a single point of damage you can still set fire to anything.

How much would it break the game if I allowed something like the Based on Different Attribute enhancement to be applied to almost any aspect of any advantage?
For instance, TK 10 with Based on ST, so the actual level of TK is equal to ST/10 x (level of TK). Or an Innate Attack with ST-based Range, so 1/2D becomes ST and Max becomes 10xST. Or an Affliction with Based on Will, so the Resistance roll becomes a Quick Contest of the attacker's Will vs the target's HT, but still requires an attack roll at normal range modifiers and allows active defenses and DR to stop it; this is a lot simpler than having to take Malediction and Weaponized to get the same effect.
There's already some precedent for this with ST-based damage on Innate Attacks, Strikers, Natural Weapons from Pyramid #3/65, variants of Based on Different Attribute from GURPS Supers, and the Muscle-Powered Range enhancement in Meta-Tech. So I don't think it should be too game-breaking if used in moderation. As long someone doesn't try to stack the same enhancement multiple times on the same ability to get exponential scaling, or use this as a loophole to put Super-Effort on something that already has exponential scaling, then I think it might be fine.

>>98688604
Would break the game whenever it makes an advantage not have to buy levels, so TK is a no-no.
Granting new abilities to advantages (transforming a simple HT check into a quick contest, because HT checks are way easier) is also a no.
Everything else is probably ok.

>>98688708
>TK is a no-no
With ST-based TK, I'd allow it as a +50% or +100% Cosmic enhancement, since that's arguably just a cheaper version of Extra Arms 2 [20] + Stretching 7 (Force Projection, +50%) [63] + some other modifiers I'm likely missing.

>>98680879
>Egg and Nate
Egg did all the work and Nate did nothing. Also, nobody actually uses ANTOG, because it is a shitty system. Technical Grappling and Fantastic Dungeon Grappling are superior in every way.

File: cat a puta.jpg (12 KB, 400x107)

12 KB JPG

What is the actual name for the classic age of empires style catapult?
Cause GURPS Low Tech uses the historical names and I have no idea which is which from name alone.

>>98689464
>I have no idea which is which from name alone
t. too stupid to read the descriptions
>The monankon has one arm, one torsion spring, and no string; the sling pouch is fastened directly to the end of the arm. The arm swings from horizontal to vertical, hits a cushion, and stops, releasing the missile.
That horizontal piece at the top of the AoE "catapult" is the monankon's cushion.

File: Age of Empires 2 onager icon.png (68 KB, 210x210)

68 KB PNG

>>98689502
Also: Low-Tech notes that "onager" is an alternative name for the monankon. Age of Empires 2 changes the name of this unit from "catapult" to "onager", and the AoE2 images are big enough that you can see the cushion quite clearly.

File: Age of Empires 2 traction(...).png (96 KB, 256x256)

96 KB PNG

>>98689526
Note, however, that AoE2's mangonel is just another version of Low-Tech's monankon, and Low-Tech's mangonel actually is AoE2's traction trebuchet. You can tell because there's no upper horizontal piece.

I already knew GURPS had chinks. But now you're telling me it has mankos, too? I need to give SJ Games some money ASAP.

>>98689502
>>98689526
>>98689546
>monankon
Thanks
>too stupid to read the description
Wow rude
I just couldn't parse the descriptions properly. I can only see the apple in 2d.

>>98689600
What GURPS disadvantage is it where you can only imagine an apple in your minds eye in two dimensions?

>>98690092
Dull?

>>98690092
>failure of shape rotation
It's the opposite of 3D Spatial Sense. Treat it as an anti-talent for Aerobatics, Free Fall, Navigation (Hyperspace and Space), and maybe Piloting. Compare the Born Spacer talent.

>>98690092
Slave Mentality

Am I the only one who lets his players just use quirks a bonus points for character defining traits?
Like I don't care if the quirk is not strong enough to be worth a point, as long as they're some sort of character trait that helps the player roleplay the character.
So quirks like
>innate sense of superiority
>constant bragger
>always makes a haiku after a battle, but can never put points in poetry
Which are technically illegal, I allow it if they flesh out the character.

>>98691516
I pretty much do the same thing. I more or less treat roleplay quirks like FATE aspects: going against the quirk can cost points, or at least earn a reminder from the GM; but roleplaying it well, especially if it's inconveniencing, can give points too.
Though, I like to keep my PCs at a similar power level, so often I rule that points in excess of more than 10% to 30% the party average can only be spent on Impulse Buys, much like Fate points from FATE.
I also treat certain Unusual Background perks like Fate aspects as well; something like "Friends with God" might not be worth a full-blown Patron advantage, but could give permission for certain Impulse Buys that might otherwise require more justification.

>>98691621
Yeah, I also give xp for roleplaying the quirks, but I've never had players end up too far away from each other in XP like that.
I like the idea of giving some extra XP as impulse buy only tho, might start doing that.

>>98690092
Probably just Hidebound

>tfw I spent my 5 points from behing hidebound in various Games skill specializations instead of something actually useful
>2pts in Games (D&D)
>1pts in Games (Pathfinder)
>2pts in Games (Gurps)
Actually, would you have to specialize per edition?

>>98691516
I get the concept, but at least two of those three examples absolutely seem like things which should be worth a point. Constant bragging is especially likely to cause serious issues and could easily justify a full Odious Personal Habit or Compulsive Behaviour.

>>98691516
Aren't all of those valid -1 pt quirks though

>>98692409
2 points in D&D defaults to:
20 points in Uno

this article
>https://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=6172
says that one of the benefits of status in low tech societies is servants.
Then can I have a couple of servants to carry my loot (that don't fight) in a medieval fantasy game or are these servants only to watch the mansion?
Naturally my character has wealth to match his status and could hire actual henchmen (that would, in fact, fight) but I want to know if the status itself would be enough do it for non-combat stuff.

>>98694236
I think you're interpreting that backward. Status doesn't give free servants to you. Rather, if you have Status, then you are expected to have servants, and not having them may cause your effective Status to drop (Basic Set p. 265).

Mildly related is this rule on Dungeon Fantasy 17 p. 6 (copied on Dungeon Fantasy 23 p. 4):
>Status 2 = your living expenses are waived in one town
>Status 3 = your living expenses are waived in all towns in your kingdom
This benefit represents, not your own personal manors and servants, but your ability to oblige your social inferiors to give you accommodations for free.

>>98694774
Also, if you don't have Status, then you are expected to not have servants, and if you do have them then you may get a bad Reputation for being uppity.

>>98694774
>>98694796
I see.
Status seems overpriced. All the benefits seem very nebulous and minimal, and they require to buy different advantages like wealth to be able to keep these minimal benefits (and if you're wealthy enough to keep up your status, you're wealthy enough to not need the status)

File: timitled.png (180 KB, 1490x860)

180 KB PNG

>>98598164
Why are there no vehicle sheets for 4th!?
Does no one use vehicles at all!?
We have these things but I can't get a sheet for my party's truck?

>>98695253
The canonical vehicle stat formats are all in Third Edition.
>Full: GURPS Vehicles p. 137
>Compact: GURPS Vehicles p. 139
>Simplified: GURPS WWII p. 100
Or just stat up the vehicle as a character using Template Toolkit 2 and/or Describing Vehicles if you're a faggot.

File: GURPS WWII Jeep.png (55 KB, 782x676)

55 KB PNG

>>98695612
Here's a Jeep in the GURPS WWII simplified format.

I want something that's somewhere between the standard Skill List and Wildcard Skills that can replace the entire skill list, but still work alongside standard skills and wildcards for players who want them. I like the skill categories used in Power Ups 10 - Skill Trees, and I think I might use that as my baseline. However, I need something that's compatible with the way existing skills are priced, and Skill Trees don't work because they're meant to totally replace the existing skill system.
I'm thinking of taking the Skill Trunks from Skill Trees and just calling them "Skill Categories", priced at twice the point cost of a Very Hard skill. That might sound cheap, but I already have a house rule that allows PCs to improve skill from default as techniques, so it's not too expensive to get a good number of skills at a high relative level after a large initial investment.
To make Skill Categories more attractive without invalidating Wildcards, I'm also thinking of giving them bonuses similar to the Alternative Benefits described in Power Ups 3 - Talents or the Other Bonuses described in Power Ups 7 - Wildcards, but not any of the other Additional Benefits described for Wildcards (except perhaps Wildcard Familiarity). Meanwhile, Wildcards get all the Additional Benefits, including Hyper-Competency, so hopefully they stay relevant.
Does that sound fair and reasonable? Has something like this already been done?

File: 4th.png (382 KB, 1599x905)

382 KB PNG

>>98695612
>>98695615
I've tried to keep things in 4th. Been using stats like these.
I meant, do people not use vehicles in their games, not do people not use the vehicles book.
I would really like some more in depth and convenient to use location and structure sheets too

>>98695253
Vehicle stats in 4th are one-line. It should take you all of five minutes to make a sheet for them.

>>98695678
I think that double normal skill costs for something about as broad as a wildcard or trunk skill is pretty much perfectly priced without any need for extra bonuses (beyond Wildcard Familiarity and Wildcard Techniques, which are necessary to keep them simple) to make them more attractive.
I'd be cautious about letting players buy skills as techniques from a wildcard-like master skill, since you're basically reducing skill cost to 1/level at that point. At the very least restrict how many skills they can do that with (e.g. one for each master skill) and cap it at the level of the master skill.

>>98698497
>cap it at the level of the master skill
I forgot to say that. But that was exactly my intention. Thanks.

Does anyone else feel it incongruent how the Control advantage for forces at level 10 can 100% neutralize any such phenomena when used normally, but when used for Defending with Powers gives only DR 10?

>>98699616
For some reason gurps writers overrate the SHIT out of DR, so letting control give DR at all was probably a super careful consideration.
I would multiply by 5 any DR granted by advantages such as DR itself and any use of power defenses, in any setting but a TL 3 one.

How would you make an ability that "marks" a target?
It doesn't do anything, just allows for other abilities to actually target the enemy.
Like you'd have "Accessibility: marked targets only".
And the actual mark would be delivered like an attack, but that does zero damage, but leaves a mark.
Should I just use "Innate attack, no wounding" and say that the mark is a special ability worth 0%?

>>98699616
I'd let DR scale with the incoming attack. Something like "1 DR per level of Control, or 1 DR per two dice of damage per level of Control, if better." So at Control 12, you're pretty much impervious to any Innate Attack that doesn't have an Armor Divisor. This might make Control a bit too good as a defensive ability, but given how niche Power Blocks are to begin with, and how Power Dodges are in many ways just better, I think it's fair.

>>98699938
I think there's a certain fear of having hits which achieve nothing be a major feature of combat (especially since you're so likely to get your 'hit' negated by parries, etc. already). Likewise you don't want to encourage everyone to use ultra high damage weapons to overcome DR and instantly kill any unarmoured target.
However, they really do go overboard with it. There are many ways to get through a lot of DR, most of them available to normal fighters without special equipment, such as striking at weakly armoured locations, chinks in armour, all-out-attack (strong), and non-striking attacks like grapples, sweeps, hooks, etc.
My personal preference would be to have all damaging effects and damage resistance operate on a logarithmic scale, so you can have meaningful distinctions between weak and strong humans struggling to break through thin metal with basic levers, but also make it possible to build characters who can shrug off a battleship's guns without an absurd points cost. That would require an extreme rewrite of the GURPS rules though. I got about half-way in figuring it out before I got distracted by other projects. I'm hoping that Mission X will just solve it and I won't need to finish it, but if it doesn't, it's a potential option for the next big thing after the vehicle design system is done.

>>98700550
That would depend a lot on what exactly is preventing other characters from attacking the target in the first place. Is the target invisible? Behind a wall? On a separate plane of existence? Depending on circumstances, something like Affliction with Obscure (Reversed, +0%), Warp (Tunnel, +100%), or Jumper (Tunnel, +100%) could work.

>>98700628
>all damaging effects and damage resistance operate on a logarithmic scale
This is what I feel like too. But like you said, I don't want to have to recalculate damage and DR for literally everything in the game.
For now, I just use logarithmic point costs for ST, TK, DR, etc. In general, every 10 levels worth of points approximately doubles the total actual level of ability.
I feel like this is the only way you can balance ST against DX and various traits that already have exponential scaling, like Super Jump, Enhanced Move, Damage Reduction, and so on.

>>98700550
I feel that should technically be an Affliction which inflicts a zero-point 'disadvantage', since it's adding a trait to the target. Unfortunately, that adds a resistance roll, which is fucking annoying when you just want a simple effect.
A compromise would be to make it an attack with no wounding and Symptoms (disadvantage, mark). Since the mark is a zero-point feature, or at most a quirk, this is cheap or free to add to the attack, but you still need to inflict enough 'virtual damage' to exceed one third the target's HP, so your damage needs to be significant. I don't think the combination of no wounding and symptoms has ever been confirmed to be 'rules legal' either, although it is a popular approach for tricky builds like this among fans.
To make matters worse, DR stops both damage and afflictions, so if you want the mark to ignore armour, you need to pay a fortune to give it an infinite armour divisor or some other penetration modifier.

Nevermind, I completely misread >>98700550. Disregard everything here >>98700550.
I agree with >>98700686. That sounds like a good start. To get past armor, I'd make a 1-point attack with Cosmic (Irresistible Attack).

>>98700701
>disregard everything here
Meant to point at my own reply >>98700649

>>98700701
>>98700686
Thanks I'll go with a symptom or similar. I will need cosmic no DR I guess cause it absolutely should be able to mark someone regardless of their armor.

>>98700728
That said, if the final result costs above 3, I'm gonna lower it to 3 cause just dropping obscure (reversed, ranged +50%) completely ignores armor, has no roll to resist, and still gives the target a -1 to vision rolls, so an attack that does nothing should not cost more than that.

Me watching a fight and thinking about it in GURPS terms like "Oh that's going to cause shock; looks like he's recovering from stun; he's got good HT it seems."

>>98700736
Obscure doesn't actually 'stick' to the target though, does it?
I actually think that the OP idea to just make an extremely limited innate attack with no wounding is probably the best method, with the accessibility on the other abilities specified as something like 'only against targets hit by the marker attack within the last 60 seconds' or something. So you aren't adding a trait to the target, you're just making the other abilities dependent on circumstances.

I have a power that is supposed to target multiple people, but they're not all gathered in the same spot, so area effect is not correct.
The idea is to shoot 1 beam at multiple different targets.
What's the best way to go about it?
rapid fire with some accessibility to prevent multiple hits on the same guy?

>>98703591
>The idea is to shoot 1 beam at multiple different targets.
Do you mean multiple beams, one at each target? Or do you mean one beam that passes through multiple targets one by one, like the stereotypical chain-lightning attack?

>>98703591
If you need to make a bunch of completely independent attacks, that's one Innate Attack (or whatever) and multiple levels of Extra Attack (only for that attack type).
If you want to build an attack which can hit an unlimited number of targets within range, then you actually do want Area Effect, only with Emanation, Selective, and a very large area.

>>98703611
multiple beams, each hitting a different target
>>98703756
>one Innate Attack (or whatever) and multiple levels of Extra Attack
AFAIK nothing stops an extra attack to hit the same target, so I'd still be adding some sort of limitation to remove the ability to hit the same guy?
>If you want to build an attack which can hit an unlimited number of targets within range, then you actually do want Area Effect, only with Emanation, Selective, and a very large area.
I want skill to matter, emanation just hits everyone automatically

>>98703915
>AFAIK nothing stops an extra attack to hit the same target, so I'd still be adding some sort of limitation to remove the ability to hit the same guy?
Correct.
I guess you could add requires skill roll on top of emanation, but you still wouldn't have range penalties and the like, so rapid fire (may only use spraying fire with one shot per target) or multiple attacks (can't choose the same target twice in a turn) seem like the way to go. The former is simpler, and probably cheaper, but restricts you to a 30-degree arc, so you may need extra attacks anyway if you want to get everyone you can see. You will also want a very high rate of fire (probably up to twice the attack's range, although half that will be enough if the range is 15 yards or less), because even though you are only allocating one shot per target, you need the extra shots to cover the empty space.
The 'can't shoot more than one shot at each target' is probably a limitation on the rapid fire enhancement itself. Extra Attack will need two limitations; can't be used for anything except the innate attack, and can't attack the same target more than once per turn. The latter should be fairly high value, since it would be quite cheap to just add enough area effect on an attack to hit everyone within range anyway.

Has anyone converted a Warhammer Fantasy bestiary to GURPS?

>>98705277
Bestiary, no. There is a conversion of other shit on the trove.

I have some questions about Incapacitating Conditions in the Basic Set.
It says some afflictions let you "stagger", but I don't see any afflictions that actually mention that word.
I also see exactly one affliction, Choking, that mentions the word "drop"; which is less a problem, but it seems strange to me to define a term or keyword, then use it exactly once.
It also says that all Incapacitating Conditions leave you effectively stunned; but the description of some Incapacitating Conditions say you still get to act normally. For instance, Hallucinating and Retching seem to let you act normally.
I want to know whether: (1) the -4 to defend for stunning still applies while Hallucinating or Retching, (2) whether the penalties to DX affect active defenses (the rules on p421 says that temporary reductions to DX affect skill normally, but not Basic Speed, so it seems Block and Parry should be reduced, but not Dodge), and (3) whether those penalties double up with those for being stunned.
If the -4 defense penalty from stunning still applies, then that means that in all cases for Hallucinating and Retching, you can attack more easily than you can defend; but this seems backwards from the precedent set by the rules for Shock and Knockdown/Stunning, which let you defend more easily than attack.

>>98708822
Oh, one last question: what are the differences between Stunning, Paralysis, Sleep, and Unconsciousness? My current interpretation:
>all of them let you Do Nothing
>Stunning gives -4 to defend
>Paralysis, Sleep, and Unconsciousness do not allow active defenses at all
>Stunning and Paralysis lets you remain conscious and aware of surroundings
>Unconsciousness means you are totally unaware of your surroundings
>Sleep means you're blind to your surroundings, but can still hear
Sleep and Unconsciousness aren't actually described anywhere in Incapacitating Conditions, even though they're listed as Incapacitating enhancements to the Affliction advantage, so I'm just guessing here.
One big thing I'm stuck on is whether Sleep should be able to be ended early by an attack or a loud noise (much like Daze), whether a loud noise should still require a Hearing roll (possibly at a modifier for Sleep), and whether someone who wakes up should still be groggy (IQ roll vs. mental stunning) even if they know they are in combat (e.g., they were put to sleep by a wizard's spell while in the very heat of battle).

>>98598164
Should I get the hardcover GURPS books or just paperback print on demand books? I'm not sure anymore. I know PDFs exist, but if it ever gets to real life roleplaying I'd rather avoid screens.

>>98709708
The hardcovers I've got (except for the original faulty printing of the basic set) are good quality and have stood up well to use and time. I've got some Amazon print-on-demand softcovers too and they aren't bad either, although they have been more recent purchases so I can't speak on their longevity.
Ultimately, it depends too much on your individual circumstances to make a judgement for most books, but I'd recommend getting at least the most-used ones (basic set and powers) in hardcover (on the other hand, I've got multiple copies of the 3rd ed revised basic set which have survived for decades in paperback, so maybe don't bother).

Looking to get into GURPS as my first (and only) universal system. I really like what I see about it being extensive and very gritty/grounded. How well does it handle modern military combat with realistic/simulationist outcomes? Fire and maneuver, suppressing fire, morale, the overall chaos of a real life firefight?

I play GURPS solo on my phone, and making NPCs was too time consuming, so I had AI make me an html file that can read .gct files. You select what you want and copy the sheet.
It's nothing special, but making NPCs on the fly is 100x easier.
Attributes and skill levels have to be calculated on your own based on the points allocated.
Obviously useless if you can use the actual GCS program on PC. It can also read .gcs files if you need that.

https://files.catbox.moe/sfigkd.html

Example:

Charlatan — selected items

ADVANTAGES
Increased Dexterity (B15, lvl 2) +40

Increased Intelligence (B15, lvl 3) +60

Talent (Smooth Operator) (B90,PU3:15, lvl 1) +15
· Reaction Bonus

Absolute Timing (B35) +2

Acute Hearing (B35, lvl 1) +2

Charisma (B41, lvl 1) +5
· +1/level to Influence rolls

Flexibility (B56) +5

DISADVANTAGES
Callous (B125) -5

Chummy (Gregarious) (B126) -10
· React to others at +4; -2 to IQ-based skills when alone, or -1 in a group of 4 or less

Trickster (B159) -15

PERKS
Honest Face (B101) +1

SKILLS
Fast-Talk (B195, IQ/A, Criminal, Social, Spy, Street) +4

Psychology (B216, IQ/H, Humanities, Social Sciences) +4

Sleight of Hand (B221, DX/H, Arts, Criminal, Entertainment, Street) +8

Acting (B174, IQ/A, Social, Spy) +2

Holdout (B200, IQ/A, Criminal, Spy, Street) +2

Animal Handling (@Specialty@) (B175, IQ/A, Animal) +1

Disguise (Own Race) (B187, IQ/A, Criminal, Spy, Street) +1

Lip Reading (B205, PER/A, Spy) +1

Public Speaking (B216, IQ/A, Business, Scholarly, Social) +1

Sex Appeal (B219, HT/A, Social) +1

—
Total: +125

>>98714110
GURPS Tactical Shooting has extensive rules for stuff of that nature.

>>98714110
Morale is up to the GM (Fright Checks and stuff) but IIRC not even Phoenix Command has morale rules of note

>>98714110
Generally good, except the morale rules are a bit hazy. You've got general loyalty rules in Social Engineering and fright checks for really scary moments, but the middle-ground of 'willing to fight but more or less enthusiastic' is a little vague.