GURPS: I Don't Need Those Other Games

After being outside the GURPS market and gaming scene for a while, I noticed one thing about GURPS and the view on other games: They are mostly unnecessary, and the rules in them, no matter how innovative, are also unneeded.

Pathfinder 2's "3 action economy?" Or D&D's several "special action types" and the limitations around their use? A solution to what problem?

GURPS solves every action economy game design issue with the 1-second turn. There are many "overly game-designed"  elements in other games that GURPS just does not need since the core game loop is almost programmed like a computer simulation game. The more abstraction you layer onto a game, the more you must invent these phases, limits, special action types, action economies, spell limits, conditions, and other fiddly bits to make the abstraction layers work.

You see this in "grand strategy wargaming," and newer game designs take this "macro abstraction" and apply it to individual-scale combat encounters.

GURPS says, "Your clever game design makes your game more complicated."

GURPS would also say, "The problems you inherited from D&D were solved decades ago by simulation-based systems."

The classic Aftermath game was also a simulation-based game that solved many of AD&D's problems. We played this back in the day, and we did not need other game systems and their cute ways of doing things, dice pools, armor class numbers, or any of those other abstract concepts.

Yes, we don't have all your fun rule subsystems, but are we here to fiddle with character builds while optimizing feat and class combos,  or just have the minimum needed to "tell a story together?"

Back then, a solid simulation system could tell any story, and that was all we needed.

Genres & Games Reorganization

GURPS survives every reshelving and storage run with my library. It occupies my "best shelf" constantly, and I don't see it ever moving. Other games come and go, and the biggest loser this season is 5E; that game is far too huge for its own good; my collection is nearly a dozen boxes, and the game is bloated, unplayable, and makes the sin of relying on computerized character creators to manage it all. The more you buy for 5E, the less happy you are since nothing is supported in one place.

At least with GURPS, I have the GURPS Character Sheet (sidebar link; please support the project), which covers everything the game has published and everything I will ever add to it.

Losing 5E freed up space on my shelves for a few other fantastic games. GURPS, of course, does them all, but some are still worth playing and checking out. I am finding that the "alt boutique" style games, which take one game and slightly tweak it to "play better," are also becoming big losers in this round of shelf shuffling.

Why do I need Castles & Crusades, Shadowdark, Old School Essentials, Swords & Wizardry, and many other games (that I still love) when I have OSRIC and my PoD copies of AD&D (not for play, just for Gary's wisdom)? OSRIC is my Rosetta Stone, while AD&D is like Lord of the Rings.

Sometimes, I want to return to those first days, fire up the time machine, and be there again. None of the new games, OSRIC, or my inspirational material does that. Compared to the OG game, it is all "second source photocopies." AD&D powers the time machine, and OSRIC gives me the rules.

And yes, I get it. Why not just play Dungeon Fantasy? I have everything I need right here, plus GURPS! While I love Dungeon Fantasy, we did not need this in the 1980s when we had GURPS. In fact, GURPS was superior to AD&D, and it did not have to "play to the genre" since GURPS was every genre and every type of game rolled into one.

The "dungeon fantasy" genre was really championed by D&D 3.0 when Wizards took over and turned D&D into a board game, which was cool. They rolled it back massively with D&D 5E, and the game is more theater-of-the-mind. Back in the day, this was "fantasy roleplaying" and not "dungeon roleplaying," if you get my drift. There is a clear difference between the "fantasy" and the "dungeon" genres, and extending this further, D&D 5 is in the "epic heroic" genre more than it is in the other two and arguably closer to the storytelling game FATE.

Sometimes, I feel "playing to a genre" lessens the game. I enjoy Dungeon Fantasy a lot. Still, if I am in my time machine, I am comparing GURPS (3.0) with AD&D. I am limiting my comparisons strictly to the "fantasy" genre without having to pull in all the "needed lists" that must be present for the "dungeon" genre to feel well supported.

Need examples of the fantasy genre? Go back to the classics. Robin Hood, Conan, King Arthur, and even John Carter. GURPS does these out of the box, even with the basic rulebook. You have characters, a low technology level, rare magic, monsters, sword swinging, and many skill tests.

AD&D started more in the fantasy genre, then it was overtaken by the dungeon genre, slowly developing the "dungeon genre," which was once seen as a lesser genre than fantasy. If your game "only did dungeons," it felt less capable. Given that D&D 3.0 elevates the "dungeon genre" to something akin to a professional sport, this comparison is completely flipped on its head. The "dungeon" is seen as "fantasy," and the traditional fantasy genre has been forgotten or is seen as a lesser genre - at least within gaming.

These days, Pathfinder 2 holds the torch for the dungeon genre, given its massive development efforts, strict balancing, and almost religious adherence to its standards and tropes. This is the standard-bearer game. D&D 5 has moved on to epic heroic storytelling and is in the "live play" genre. Even though D&D 3.5E is in the same tactical dungeon genre, Pathfinder 2 is supported and works hard to fix the near-constant imbalance issues. D&D 3.5E is still very broken. 

Pathfinder 2 recently ditched the OGL and SRD, and the game is better for it.

GURPS and Pathfinder 2 are tactical dungeon battle games where "builds matter on the board."

You are not in the dungeon genre these days if you are not delivering a tactical board game. This is mainly due to expectations, and the complexity of character builds in these games. You need to "prove your build on the board" in a dungeon genre game, and there is no real good way to do that in theater-of-the-mind gaming. Especially if part of combat is positioning, pushing, reaction attacks, line of sight, vision, movement, and any "on the map tangible" design element.

Pathfinder 2 goes the extra mile to codify skill use in combat and gives those defined actions to attempt. Pathfinder 2 is the model future GURPS development should follow. Clearly define everything that can be done, and then balance the heck out of it. While you are at it, make every choice equal and enjoyable.

The most significant difference is that Pathfinder 2 puts everyone on the same level of progression regarding combat power. GURPS lets you make that choice yourself. Pathfinder 2 is the more straightforward game to balance and creates encounters for, but that comes at a price.

GURPS does both fantasy and dungeon genres well, with a realistic filter over the game. It also delivers a tactical board game. The fantasy genre gets forgotten in the hype, marketing, and advocacy. In GURPS, you can lean into the storytelling side more effortlessly than in Pathfinder 2. My "Robin Hood" does not need a "class built with archetypes" and a "carefully crafted combat style." My Robin Hood needs skills and abilities to "do that RP stuff."

Suddenly, Pathfinder 2 feels like overkill to play Robin Hood or King Arthur.

Even Dungeon Fantasy feels like overkill, to be honest. Why am I messing with all these class templates? Why 250 points? Where is the "enemy disadvantage" for the sheriff and his men?

The average customer in the gaming market cares very little for any of these distinctions; they just want to play "Critical Role" or "Robin Hood," and they will pick up any game with a fantasy scene on the cover. They will notice if the game makes them do too much work to have the experience they seek or if parts are missing, ones they expect to be there to deliver on the promises in their heads.

GURPS is the best middle-ground in all of these cases. You can have tactical play and depth. You can have rules-light story-gaming. You can have the classic "fantasy" genre without all the dungeon cruft, or if you use Dungeon Fantasy, revel in the "dungeon" genre.

But it isn't the "best in class" game in the tactical or dungeon genre, and it could be argued that it is a matter of choice in the story-gaming genre. GURPS (base rulebooks) is still the best-in-class game in the traditional fantasy gaming genre and has been that way since the 1980s.

I can design my Robin Hood or John Carter character and not worry about classes, tactical abilities, class templates, or +1 swords; I can define a character through skills, abilities, advantages, and disadvantages—and I'll be playing the superior game for the fantasy genre.

GURPS in 2025

I am starting a few new GURPS campaigns in 2025, but the end half of 2024 has been tough. Right now, I am cleaning out 40 years of games and putting things in storage. I will unbox a game, put it on a shelf, see if it interests me, and then box it up and realize I don't have time for it or I have better.

Some never go away and never get boxed up. GURPS is one of them.

OSRIC and first-edition dungeon gaming are another. The entire D&D concept has been warped into an unrecognizable state today. This isn't even the same game I remember. When I go back to basics, this is where my inspiration and truth lie.

There is one fork of modern D&D that I like. It started in D&D 4th Edition for us, with the "tabletop dungeon board game" playing a central role in the game. This fork started in D&D 3.5E, went to D&D 4E, and today, it lives on in Pathfinder 2E. The whole "figures, dungeon tiles, and d20 gaming" only exists in that form here, and to be honest, the genre is very close to GURPS' hex-based adventuring.

Pathfinder 2E is a sister game to GURPS. It has pre-chewed character options and adopts polyhedral dice as randomizers. If you want it "on the table" and like that tactical hit, play GURPS or Pathfinder 2E and forget everything else exists.

Everything I like about gaming is lost when you go to the rules-light or theater of the mind games.

Also, a lot has been "done for me" in a game like Pathfinder 2E, and I can spend weeks converting it to GURPS with time I don't have or just open this and play for a while, exploring what the designers did with the game. They have good ideas and fresh takes here, improving the characters I build in GURPS since I have external inputs and things to reflect upon.

GURPS, for me, with the fantasy genre? I am still reflecting on what I like about it. There is a "thing" there, a place I want to be; I just haven't found it yet. I don't want to simulate kitchen-sink fantasy, nor do I want to convert endless spells and monster lists. GURPS can do much more than emulate; it can create something new. If I play GURPS in the fantasy genre, I want magic to be strange and mysterious, something that reflects the person. I want monsters to be myth-like representations of human weaknesses and sins. GURPS tells those stories much better than it does, emulating other games.

At least for me.

I am also playing the excellent American Truck Simulator (ATS) on my PC over the holidays and reflecting on how stupid the "Traveller cargo model" is. Science fiction RPGs have been stuck with this 16th-century "the captain buys the cargo and sells it somewhere else" model of merchant campaigning, and compared to ATS, it makes the entire "space game cargo model" seem stupid.

In ATS, you aren't randomly buying air conditioner units in one town and taking them to another, praying somebody wants them. No, a company is hiring you to haul them and get them from place A to place B intact because they need these units there, and they need them there now. You can see why when you drop these cargoes off at job sites, factories, food processing plants, truck dealerships, and every other location in ATS.

You are a part of a larger economy.

And all the while, you are dealing with the little things that could mess this up: fuel, sleep, idiot drivers, produce inspection stations, weigh stations, local laws, what lanes trucks can drive in, and how fast, hazardous cargoes and getting certified to haul them, trailer types, jobs that are just not available, or there are too many good ones, and you need to pick and choose your destination, repairs. You learn the terrain and the skills required to get across it safely. You know all the things truck stops and garages do and need to keep this truck running well.

Even using mirrors, lights, and turn signals is essential knowledge.

And you get to run a company with drivers, and you need to manage garages and trucks.

If you are into space gaming, and your merchant campaigns fall flat because they fall into the "roll cargo, fly somewhere, and sell," play this game to the point where you buy a truck and learn the game. Learn how to back up. Learn how to repair your vehicle. Learn when to gas up and rest. Obey the rules for weight stations and produce inspection stations. Learn the laws and read the signs. Learn how to navigate.

You could "work" for just a company in this game, take their loads, and learn how it feels to be a company hauler. In a space game, if a company is terraforming a world, that is an almost insane amount of cargo, machinery, construction equipment, habitation pods, and other "stuff" that isn't made locally in that target world. And terraforming operations can last hundreds of years, and the "flavor" of the cargo will change over time.

You could just play that as a part of a single campaign and get to know the drop-off points, who lives there, the local space militia and law enforcement, what problems they have, what they need, the company managers on-site, and you will build this world in your mind as you haul there.

Many of today's science fiction games have this "hop around" mentality where "new backdrops are fun!" While ATS has "varied backdrops" in the places you go, it focuses on more than one part of that experience, changing how I think about science fiction gaming.

Just replace the trucks with starships, and you have an excellent science-fiction game.

GURPS would do this type of game exceptionally well, and you don't need Star Trek or Star Wars to support it. Fantasy, for me, is the same way. I don't want D&D to prop up my GURPS Fantasy game. I want to find something GURPS can simulate well, without emulating anything, and focus the experience on that.

GURPS also has "fine-grained" skills, and I will need a crew to cover what I don't know but need. GURPS Ultra-Lite can fill those NPCs just fine, and I don't need to spend days creating a crew. Are we hauling hazardous materials? Let's hire a hazmat specialist for this trip only. Do we know any, and are they on-planet? Would hiring them as a permanent position make sense, since we haul these high-paying loads often?

Let's do the math.

For me, this is where GURPS shines. I get a world model and concept built in my head, like, "What if ATS was a space trucker game?" GURPS makes that dream come alive. However, the idea for the game comes from the outside and doesn't originate in emulating other games. The entire ATS concept "in space" is mind-expanding and strong, especially diving into the level of detail this game forces you to think about.

To me, the kitchen sink fantasy is like the Traveller cargo-hauling model. We assume "it works there" so "we can port it in" without looking elsewhere and asking, "Can't we do better?" ATS has forever changed my mind on merchant campaigns and cargo hauling. Better models exist that can tell better stories. Recycling other games is not how we find them.

I want to find that in the fantasy genre, which must come from outside of "fantasy roleplaying."

Games Other than GURPS: OSRIC & S&W

I have been on a GURPS break and am working on writing and immersion in a few other games. I know, "Why play other games when you have GURPS?" Sometimes, I want to relive things, play games where a lot of work has been done for me, explore the systems I have out, and sort through the ones I consider "core" in my library. I am drawing down my library size, so games will revisit a shelf for a while, and I will ask, "Do I really want this?"

The first I have been pulling out and exploring is OSRIC, which is, at its core, first-edition AD&D, but OSRIC is "just the rules." The first edition is likely the "greatest version of D&D ever written," it invalidates most everything that came after, even the 5th Edition. Sometimes, I want to go back to the start to "rebase" my gaming expectations, but it does not get much better than the original.

I use OSRIC because this is the community-supported version of the game, and it is still open and free to publish expansion work with. The AD&D books sit nearby, just to absorb Gygaxian wisdom, but the 
"rules engine" is all OSRIC, along with a few BRW Games expansions.

AD&D was there when GURPS started, so this game, being one of the inspirations to "make a better mousetrap," is strong here. I can see why GURPS is the way it is when I go back to race and class combos. There is an unmatched sense of freedom in GURPS. The divergence came when GURPS started adding skills and rules, and the game grew away from that "simple core" in the earlier editions.

That sense of freedom that GURPS gives is tempered by a "why?" when I read these rules. Gygax was trying to build a game and world model, almost like a video game, where mechanical balance was created by limitations and allowing some combinations by not others. In GURPS, there are no limitations, and it is as mix-and-match as a modern game, such as Pathfinder 2's near-infinite combinations, though on a far more finely granulated level.

Those choices create a mini-game inside of character creation. There is a "game" here where you are trying to figure out "why Gygax was going for." with these combos and limits, which is more than just slapping arbitrary restrictions everywhere. The racial abilities "in the dungeon" were supposed to play a more significant role in the game, almost like the superpowers we see in 5th Edition, and that "in the dungeon" experience was not supposed to be abandoned or marginalized at high level. There were supposed to be "20th-level dungeons," almost like a video game.

AD&D changed more in the second edition into a story game supporting the novels. They are mostly the same game, but the tonal shift is significant. GURPS is better suited for story gaming since its skill list does much more than several games in the dungeon genre.

Combined.

There are stories I can't tell in the first edition or any B/X clone that GURPS makes simple. When I am just "rolling polyhedral dice in a dungeon," OSRIC works fine. OSRIC keeps me out of the market for newer games and the endless stream of B/X clones, which suits me just fine. Why have the rest when we have the best? The only exception is Swords & Wizardry, which is quite likely the best B/X game ever written.

Still, OSRIC and S&W can't tell the stories that GURPS does. It isn't close.

The first edition was harsh, and characters died regularly. This is just like GURPS, but in this game, creating a character was fast, so you cared, but it wasn't a huge setback. In GURPS, I can spend a few weeks designing a character, both a blessing and a curse.

The first edition I love also has a "survival game element," which is also in GURPS. I love the idea of a harsh world standing in the way of "getting to the dungeon" and "going home." You get a lot of people in the hobby who bemoan "wilderness encounters" as "resource-wasting elements" that "insert RNG into encounter balance inside a dungeon." I hear "video gamers complaining about video game things," which is the optimizer thing again, and "the game is programmed to be won" crowd back at it.

First-edition and many original role-playing games weren't "written to be won"—they were written to challenge a party of a certain level range and present things "as is." The massive push for "encounter balance" wasn't until the Wizards came in with D&D 3.0 and started turning the game into a card game.

GURPS isn't "written for balance" either; it is "written to simulate reality," which gives the game a flatter power level and makes it easier to balance. After a few combats, it gets simple to balance GURPS fights, which are usually over quickly (unless you make dodge and parry insanely high).

The "dungeon games" do "dungeon gaming" the best. GURPS does "everything else" the best. When I use GURPS to run fantasy game worlds, it isn't dungeon gaming, and the stories are much more varied and textured. The stories are better. But the focus shifts. Dungeon games (OSRIC, S&W, etc.) are like handheld game consoles that do that experience the best. GURPS is my PC, which does every other experience so well that nothing else competes.

When I try to "limit GURPS" to do SRD-style fantasy, I always lose more than I gain. I feel constrained to the concepts and rules "from other games" than what GURPS allows me to express. It isn't GURPS but "trying to be AD&D using GURPS." I don't want to be "designing a fireball or magic missile spell" inside of GURPS, but having magic be that strange, unknown, powerful, and "magical" force it is in novels and books.

"Using GURPS to simulate other games" is a lose-lose situation, at least for me. GURPS does a lot more and a lot better, and trying to design "other game stuff" limits your imagination and storytelling capability. So many games are moving away from the SRD and OGL and getting better for it. In my experience, moving away from "SRD magic" makes the entire concept "of magic" a more compelling, strange, and mysterious thing.

Can I simulate the SRD using GURPS? Yes, and it works well.

Do I want to? Not really. The fantasy books I read that present magic as a strange and unknown force don't follow SRD mechanics. GURPS does that well, and this is how I use it. I don't want players "expecting a converted SRD" in my games; I want them to use their imagination and weave together strange effects and powers that aren't possible in any other game.

Again, GURPS tells that "story of magic" better than any other game.

Tying myself to an SRD world limits my ability to tell it.

I want to "express the impossible," not "design inside the limits of another game."

Even the designers of Pathfinder 2 are discovering that tying their concepts too tightly to the old ways limits their ability to create new classes and magical traditions, and adherence to SRD concepts limits their freedom. They have a playtest of their new necromancer class that was impossible with the old SRD wizard concept hanging out there as a junk drawer saying, "I can do that!" This is a counter-example, but it shows how an assumed concept can limit designer freedom.

Why do I like the first edition? It was my first game. This also expresses "SRD mechanics" in their simplest form. While limited in scope, it tells that "dungeon story" well enough.

Having OSRIC out and giving that my "SRD gaming" fix allows me to use GURPS to tell the stories I want it to tell and the ones I feel it does best. OSRIC is also a fantastic GURPS reference if you want to go that route, with plenty of inspiration.

In some ways, this is the fight between Dungeon Fantasy and GURPS over the game's "identity" - at least regarding the dungeon genre (and, by extension, Fantasy). Before DF, we did things the GURPS way. After DF, there is a DF way of doing the genre.