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.