Most old house rules have been absorbed into other works on this site. On this page are a few miscellaneous 3e tweaks – some much used, others tasted and soon forgotten – that didn’t fit elsewhere. (A few now have some sort of simulacrum in GURPS 4e.) It’s all ramshackle old stuff (1997 or earlier!), but might contain something of interest for your modern GURPS game. The old 3e house rules These rules fall under categories inspired by the time-honored motion picture rating system in the US: G (General GURPS): It may or may not be in the main rulebooks, but it already appears somewhere as an option in GURPS, or…
-
-
“Magic” skill for GURPS
GURPS was long funny in that it offered skills for each and every specific application of magic (i.e., hundreds of spells), but no skill to cover a mage’s overall understanding of magic itself. Such a skill – name it Magic for simplicity – fills that gap and lets you fine-tune magic in your campaign, in at least 10 fun ways. This old article was written for GURPS 3e; its Magic skill is at least partially covered now by the Thaumatology skill that later appeared in GURPS Grimoire and then Basic Set 4e. Still, the notes may hold a new idea or two for your 4e games. Magic skill Create a skill named Magic (M/VH, with bonuses…
-
Pricing breadth: Talents and Wildcard skills in GURPS
Here’s a quick example of putting the ideas in Game design musing: Pricing breadth in skills to work: GURPS’ Wildcard skills (BS 175) allow purchase of multiple skills for the price of three; Talents (BS 89) allow a bonus to many skills (plus other minor benefits) for a fraction of the eventual cost of full levels in those skills. Both share fuzziness in common: There’s no stated limit on on how many skills a Wildcard skill covers (so why stop at 10 if the GM will allow 20?), and you can freely choose the number of skills a Talent covers, within the limits of its group size (gee, should I take one skill or…
-
Game design musing: New Damage for ST (GURPS)
This old (2010?) article was placed under the “Rules Bit” umbrella of minor rules tweaks for GURPS. But mucking with ST-based damage scores involves a number of considerations; it’s not really a “hey, gang, new rule tonight” kind of thing. So, this 2023 rewrite places the article under the “Game design musing” header, complete with “CAUTION” graphic noting that this is stuff for system hackers. Intro: Refinishing the table What’s wrong with GURPS‘ table linking ST scores to thrust and swing damage? Nothing! It’s done its job for decades, and so far no one’s gotten hurt. (Except all those on the target end of ST 14, 2d swings, of course.)…
-
Rules Bit (GURPS): Revised Toughness
Intro: “Go ahead, runt, punch me in the gut.” Imagine that’s the growl of a hulking bully with an Olympic wrestler’s build. And imagine that your physique is more that of… er, a guy who once gamed a wrestler PC. (Did you have to imagine very hard?) It’s easy to imagine that your best punch to his gut – or just about anywhere beefy – simply won’t hurt the guy. At all. Oh, maybe a few dozen punches would start some bruising, sure, but you don’t get that chance; his first punch has you coughing up the lunch money as soon as your limbs start working again. That sort of mismatch can be mighty realistic, but…
-
Anouncing MERC: Make Every Roll Count
Make Every Roll Count (MERC) by Ben Finney is a set of gaming guidelines for placing story first and making the most of gamers’ time at the table. More narrowly, it homes in on a key question at the heart of all RPGs: When should the dice be used at all, and toward what end? The answer involves a change from the too-common focus on resolving tasks, to a focus on resolving players’ intent. While MERC includes specific guidelines for use with GURPS, it’s applicable to RPGs in general. I think it offers good advice to GMs both new and experienced, and am pleased to see it here at the Diner. What do you think? MERC: Make…
-
MERC: Make Every Roll Count
Intro: Keep it interesting! RPGs evolve. New games don’t just invent snazzy new mechanics; they poke deep into questions of what game-table play is about. MERC stems from author Ben Finney’s interest in the innovations of recent games, and ways to strengthen those concepts in the now-classic RPG GURPS. Broadly speaking, MERC is a set of guidelines for placing story first and making the most of gamers’ time at the table. More narrowly, it homes in on a key question at the heart of all RPGs: When should the dice be used at all, and toward what end? From the GURPS perspective, that often equates to “When should we make success checks?” The general answer…
-
RPG science: Character tails
Got a game character with a nice fluffy tail? Those things can be good for more than just Furry decor, you know. At a recent TED conference, biologist Robert Full presented research into the wonders of the wall-crawling gecko. (The video, embedded below, is worth a view; you’ll see both people and robots mimicking the gecko’s Spidey-like climbs.) But while uncovering the secrets of the lizard’s famous feet, scientists found the creature’s tail enabled some amazing acrobatic feats of its own, all with nice character-design potential. As the biologists point out, a passive tail – a simple dead weight – hampers maneuverability. But an active tail does quite the opposite. Here what’s…
-
Game design musing: Pricing breadth in skills
If fluency in a foreign tongue costs your character 5 points, how much should fluency in ten languages cost? In the midst of recent email correspondence about ESCARGO, I’ve dredged up a game design topic long of interest to me: a decreasing cost scale for multiple instances of traits. Wait – is there some reason why ten 5-point languages should cost the PC less than 50 points? And isn’t ESCARGO all about increasing the cost for more stuff? Let me explain: Depth vs breadth Many a game designer (or just dedicated hacker) has pondered the topic of breadth vs depth in character skills. (Some of the below could be adapted…
-
Mail about mail (and other armor and EP topics)
In this earlier post, I mentioned that I’d been answering email questions about my Edge Protection (EP) rules for armor in GURPS. For those with an interest in EP, here’s a paraphrasing of my correspondent’s questions (in quotes) and my replies: In the table converting classic DR to DR+EP, mail still has reduced efficiency vs. impaling. This is surely a 3rd ed leftover, no? After re-checking, yes, it is a 3e holdover. In 4e, mail has no special vulnerability vs impaling (or piercing, for that matter). I should change the the article’s stats for mail to match: Mail: GURPS 4/2*; new DR 2; EP 5; Notes: DR 2, EP 3 vs impaling…
