/gurpsgen/ - GURPS General

Do you use a map for your games?

How do you run them, if not?

File: 1385819584312.jpg (64KB, 1600x1143px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1600x1143px

So is there anywhere that covers what guns can and can't handle +P ammo? It just says super vaguely in High Tech that most TL 6 and some 7-8 guns can't.

>>46746001
roll20 maps are pretty easy to use. Beyond that, you can keep track of relative positions in combat in a narrative way.

>>46746061
>SJW20
>not superior MapTool
Boy, you dun goofd

Say, GURPSFriends, would any of you happen to be able to share After The End 2 The New World. I snagged it here the other day, but i tried to copy it from my phone to my laptop and it got corrupted.

Help a GURPSFriend out?

File: After The End 2 - The New World.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>46746086

File: images (23).jpg (22KB, 384x383px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 384x383px

>>46746128
Thanks buddy, you're EGGSCELENT!

How would one go about modifying GURPS turns to run quicker? We did a mock run earlier today, and it took several turns before anyone was even able to take a useful action. I seem to recall one of the books having rules for 3-second turns...

>>46746069
>>SJW20
How does it affect your games?
>superior MapTool
I know people who migrated from maptool to roll20.

>>46746415
>I know people who migrated from maptool to roll20.
And I know people who migrated from PC to consoles, or from South Korea to North Korea. What's that supposed to prove?

>>46746467
No, you don't.
>What's that supposed to prove?
Maptool is not superior for everybody.

>>46746490
I don't think Roll20 is superior to anyone aside from hipster posers playing their "rules-light" "coffe-break" "ar-pee-gees" on their gay-ass iPads. But if someone is smart enough to play GURPS, he is smart enough to operate MapTool, so I don't know why would you want to hold yourself back with inferior product.

>>46746383
How long were people spending on turns? People should know what the fuck they're doing every single turn before they go, otherwise shit takes forever.

On the otherhand, if you must you could just allow 3 actions per turn.

>>46746534
It's more convenient, though. And maptool has (had?) connection problems in my experience.
It's funny how you correlate computer literacy and overall intelligence.

>>46746560
>On the otherhand, if you must you could just allow 3 actions per turn.
"All Out, Double; All Out, Double; Normal Attack"
Whoever goes first either kills or incapacitates everybody, or gets in some big hits without the drawback that's supposed to accompany them.

"Fast-Draw Arrow and load it; Aim; Fire"
One of the biggest things keeping ranged attacks in check (the time taken, plus the ability for possible targets/people who see you aiming at them to find cover) is completely negated. Again, first turn wins.

It sounds like a viable solution at first, but it won't really work at all.

>>46746560
The turns themselves weren't taking very long, but it's, like... take 3 Move actions to get to cover and you can't really do ANYTHING else in that time, or similar. I get why it's modeled that way, but it takes a ton of turns. This is coming from other games with longer turns (not D&D), though.

>>46746383
>How would one go about modifying GURPS turns to run quicker?

Print a cheat sheet and make sure players know their options. Takeing a step in and Evaulateing if you are closeing melee distance or takeing an Aim action with a ranged weapon should fly past. A group that knows the rules well can take turns very fast.

>>46746560
>On the otherhand, if you must you could just allow 3 actions per turn.

That would dramatically slow things down as people have a lot more choice to make, and have to remember a lot more about how the situation changed before they take their action.

GURPS, as is, every action is a single, discreet moment.

>>46746796
Yeah, GURPS isn't like D&D where you expect to do 3 things every time your turn comes up. That said, 3 actions to get to cover? They had to move 15 yards? (Most people are about Move 5.)

The good news about turns being small chunks of time and energy is that if you can't think of something great to do with one it isn't a huge loss.

>>46746704
>>46746815
Hence why I didn't really recommend it.

>>46746796

Personally, I've never had a problem with the ultra short turns. I kind of like it. Makes things feel snappier to me.

>>46746840
Part of what makes turns take a while is people used to D&D that want to be able to draw a sword, walk thirty feet and attack on their turn. I've had several people I taught surprised by how little a distance you can move and make a melee attack.

>>46746908
I agree. I've found that once people get used to the shorter turns everything runs quite smoothly.

>>46745890
>Polite Discussion Edition.
Oh I see what you've done here

>>46746560
This anon >>46746815 gets it
>Print a cheat sheet and make sure players know their options

I'm running GURPS games for teens in local youth centre. If anything, it taught me that:
>Character creation ca be done under 15 minutes...
... if you use triage-like system. Which means player is answering set of very basic and simplistic questions, getting out of them the basic outline of a character within roughtly 2-3 minutes. And handling a list that contains nothing else but names of advantages/disadvantages with their prices speeds things up even more. Everything else is then spent on filling in the character sheet and refining the original idea.

>Combat is piss-easy and turns can fly at subsonic speed...
... if you provide your players with their specific sheet listing all their options. Make it in some large, easy-to-read font, well-roganised and clean. When people don't have to think about the whole situation, but react with their possibilities, you cut out the whole "Fuck, what should I do now" that usually bogs down combat.

>Having someone with hell of experience in the group is essential
It doesn't matter if that be GM or one of the players. You simply need someone who got all the ropes. GURPS can be easily accessed by completely green players, but only if someone is "baby-sitting" them, in a sense of giving them clues. There is nothing worse than entire group with their GM that have no or barely any clue what to do and how to resolve things, because they will instantly get bog down in page flipping and chart analysing when shit starts rolling.

>Even without any assist, GURPS combat isn't all that slow
It takes roughtly 60-80 seconds per player, third of that when they know what to do and how to do it. While it's not the fastest game around, it's nowhere near as slow as the meme carries

>>46746908
Similar here. After a while I've started simply explaining rules with "you've got a single second to do things - how much you can do in that time?"
While it's an exaggeration, it helps immensely players new to GURPS to get hang of things.

File: Rule - Quicker Combat.png (147KB, 473x907px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 473x907px

>>46746383

Positioning is pretty fast anyway.

It could be replaced with an opposed Tactics roll at the beginning, with success allowing you to be in or near to good positions from the start of actual combat.

File: Rule - Tactics.png (167KB, 438x850px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 438x850px

>>46747825

There's a slightly more indepth version of that here, from the "10 rules that we think should be core" Pyramid article.

>>46746010
Well that's because it depends entirely on the gun. If High Tech does not say in a listing that a T7-8 gun cannot use it then it can.

Just remember, Glocks can't.

>>46746010
Asking /k/

And I'm sincere here. It literally depends from gun to gun, not the TL as such. The rule is vague, because there is no "general rule" for that, it's simply a question of exact model of the firearm.

>>46747852
Born War Leader really is mandatory for warriors who want to also be able to lead/fight tactically since they cannot afford lots of IQ.

It always feels a bit limited though since nobody is actually taking strategy or intelligence analysis in most games, I could see throwing in heraldry as well for earlier period games to make it more worthwhile.

>>46746534

>implying i want to struggle with a hacked-together tool from 2004 when playing games
>implying i don't want to use a simple web app that Just Works so i can focus on the game

Just because I CAN use MapTool doesn't mean I WANT to. I can code in Fortran but I'd much rather use Python.

>cloth gloves gives you Bad Grip effectively reducing all weapon skills by 2
What? Freakin' gauntlets are basically gloves with armor on top of that and they don't affect combat skills.

File: grey gloves.jpg (12KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x220px

>>46748520
I never understand that too.

By direct translation to my language, it's pic related. But then again, worksman gloves, the one you wear for BETTER grip, are also made out of cloth. Not to mention all the other possibilities of what can be called "cloth gloves".

But hey, two days ago we had a small talk about Climbing and how GURPS assumes both sliding down a rope with proper gear and gloves has the exact same penalty (!) as if using only your arms and legs.

Since we apparently now talk about clothes and different thread gave me an idea....

Are there any rules about grabbing loose garments, long hair or stuff like that? Or actual penalties PC is getting for having any of those.
For example let's say the PC is having those long fabulous hair, maybe even braided to be less of a hassle. Any actual rule/modifier in HtH combat or melee in general to simply grab those hair?
Same for capes, long cloaks, dresses, togas and so on and forth...

>>46748606
I believe I've seen something about it in Technical Grappling, but I'm away from books currently.

>>46748554
Well, I can imagine that some kinds of cloth can be rather slippery, but there also "light leather gloves" that have exactly same stats. And honestly, I never saw leather gloves that don't provide additional friction.

>>46747825
>>46747852
Which Pyramid is this?

>>46748764
#3/70 Fourth Edition Festival. The article in question is called Ten for Ten.

File: 600x600.jpg (88KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x600px

>>46748520
>>46748554
That always confused me too. Gloves seem so damn punishing compared to gauntlets.

>>46748606
>>46748633

I feel like I've seen that somewhere, but I can't remember. I think just a +2 of generic good conditions could simulate someone that offers a solid handle.

>>46748520
>>46748554
>>46748941
Keep in mind these are low tech gloves from before we got precise sewing machines. Also, it's implied that these gloves are enough to provide significant protection against the cold, so they're probably fairly thick (no synthetic super-thin insulating materials yet); hand-protecting work gloves should probably be treated as armor.

File: poa2.jpg (35KB, 640x391px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x391px

Damn, I just had to go and find out the damage for that thing. It's just 7d+1 pi-, though.

>>46749035
>Keep in mind these are low tech gloves from before we got precise sewing machines
So are the gauntlets with leather glove insite that are set against "bare" gloves. And I don't want to burst anything for you, but it's much, much easier to not only sew such things by hand, but also there is quality of low tech leather, absolutely shit sewing techniques and what not.
In short - in low TL it's EASIER to make precise cloth glove with relatively low skills, as compared with leather glove used for gauntlet, which takes very specialised tools and lot of skill to be made and then properly binded with the metal elements.

>>46745890
I'm trying to make a new melee weapon in GCS, but how do I make it so it's based off swing/thrust damage?

>>46749222
Low-tech sewing + thick-ass materials (which i covered in the rest of the post you chose to ignore) = bulky gloves; it's not just the techniques on their own. Gauntlets are harder to make, which is covered in their cost, but they can be thinner due to lack of insulating material making them less obtrusively bulky and not granting Bad Grip.

>>46749302
Look at other weapons in library - they use sw and thr for damage value.

>>46749305
>thick-ass materials
>cloth (not padded cloth)
>light leather
Ahem. If it was thick, it would provide more protection like relevant body armor does.

File: work-gloves.jpg (31KB, 480x299px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x299px

>>46749305
So let me get this straight
Cloth gloves with a thickness of roughtly 1 cm and all the flexibility and friction of cloth are giving Bad Grip
Leather gloves with a thicknes of roughtly 1-1.5 cm with the rigidness of leather and then packed into even more rigid gauntlets are perfectly fine and not giving Bad Grip.
Let's not even talk about weight comparision

Please explain me how pic related are giving bad grip IRL

>>46749357
>Cloth gloves thick enough to protect against the cold
>Not fur or anything like that, just thick-ass cloth.

You're imagining thin cloth gloves, either fashion accessories or work gloves to protect against burrs or splinters, when what the books give are thick motherfuckers meant to keep out frost.
Also, DR 1 vs. cutting despite not being explicitly meant to protect form injury means that shit's incredibly thick and bulky.

>Ahem
Get fucked.

>>46749446
>when what the books give are thick motherfuckers meant to keep out frost.
The issue at hand is how the book DOES NOT divide between work gloves and thick-ass mittens made out of fur.

File: 1434619569600.jpg (9KB, 261x192px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 261x192px

This thread has lots of pretty autistic arguements lately. Let's stop this and be chill? It's GURPS and we all love it. Let's be nice to each other.

>>46749454
Wouldn't sturdy work gloves be Padded Cloth or Light Layered Cloth hand armor (e.g. Ham Fisted but no Bad Grip)?

>>46749494
Dunno. But they still provide you with Bad Grip, which is ridiculous, since they are used to improve the gripping.
This is one of those few moments when I'm setting up house rules and get over the issue.

>>46749488
Maybe that's because recently there was a discussion about early firearms, which is a guaranteed way to have a shitstorm, especially when non-GURPS players join in

>>46749510
Gauntlets don't though. If your treat protective work gloves as thin armor (which makes sense as armor = protective), all they give is Ham Fisted, which means only fine motor control suffers; you'd maintain a solid grip on your tools and whatever you're working with, but I wouldn't recommend trying the thread a needle while wearing them.

That being said, it's not like anyone's doing to break down your door for trying to change The One True and Holy Systems that is GURPS to better fit your tastes.

>>46749520
IIRC, the shitflinging started a handful of threads ago when some faggot started bitching about Judo the skill versus Judo the martial arts style. He later admitted to never having looked at the system and was there just to shitpost.

>>46749446
Equivalent of such gloves would be gambeson made of padded cloth. It provides 1 DR.
Because, you know, thick gloves would also soften crushing blows and slightly resist thrusts.

>>46749566
Tell me about it. He even came back after two days just to reignite the shitstorm.
What for, really?

On the plus-side, I found an initiative to finally finish reading supplements to Martial Arts thanks to that guy, so still something good came out of it.

>>46749488
No, shut up, imperial uber alles, torture doesn't works and Roll20 us enough for everyone.

File: Captain Marvel showing Cthulhu who is the boss.jpg (595KB, 702x1020px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 702x1020px

Say /gurpsgen/, did someone already played a high power level Supers campaign? I am talking about shit like Superman-level flying bricks, blasters that can nuke entire cities and telepaths that can mind control whole countries instead of street level Supers, that I know GURPS can do well.

>>46750040
It depends more on the players than the game mechanics.
If you are playing with idiots that like to go ahead, you can end up with "Chronicle"-tier mayhem done by street-level Supers.

But the system as such can easily handle high power Supers. It simply takes hand-picked players that won't go in the deep end with abuse of their powers

>>46750051
Well sure, any game can be great with good players. I was just imagining if the game wouldn't break in half at such level.

>>46750040
Considered running a high power supers game, but the point budget required to emulate the genre was too intimidating for the rest of my group.

Not that I blame them, though. Figuring out how to invest 1500+ points is fucking daunting.

>>46749566
You mean the guy who thought it should be renamed 'grappling martial art' or the guy who pointed out the sport/combat skill decisions in MA are often very wonky?

>>46750079
Again, it heavly relies on the players. The game as such can easily handle the whole thing. The trick part is not to end up with Dave Genero, Conqueror of the Worlds

I think the only way you can check this by yourself is getting your players (I assume you are the GM) and talk about their ideas for characters. If they will give straighforward answers circling around simple ideas - go for it. The moment players start to describe their Super as a hodge-podge of barely related powers, you should take note, as they are probably going for the wreckage and not any particular scenario.

>>46750110
>Figuring out how to invest 1500+ points is fucking daunting

Try incorporeal and/or mind-related stuff. Points are flying like crazy with those. Meanwhile, you can make Superman Lite for about 500 points.

Speaking of which - can anyone throw some ideas for a low-tier Super? And something other than Kickass clone? I've hit a serious "artistic" block and I can't think about the new character at all. And the game will be held on Friday, while all I've got is "I don't want to play as brawler"

>>46750234
But all supers are stupid brawlers to some extent, that's why people hate them.
Make Raven

>>46750334
Was aiming more for polymorph, because you can always sneak pass people instead of punching them.
Raven is impossible below at least 1k points, I've got 350 and another 150 for disadvantages

>>46750234

A conjurer?

Using Snatcher with speed and bulk enhancements, you can produce pretty much whatever you like.

Pretty good for relatively low-power games, where being able to summon a LAW remains useful.

>>46750379
>a LAW
Why not the law, in form of police patrol? This is how I always imagine low-level Supers, "Dirty Harry" style. Where they see some shit going, but first ask the bar owner to call the cops, because there is a bank robbery going and then run ahead to punch people.

Ok, so this will be within the limit of Supers, I guess.

Our GM proposed a semi-serious campaign in style of The Men Who Stare at Goats. TL7, 80s, real-world setting. We are supposed to play as recruits for the military program based around concept of latent powers and other New Age bullshit.
Now things to consider:
- this is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek campaign
- characters are suppose to be high school kids to make it even more cliche
- the actual extent of ANY powers should be very, very weak, if not outright non-operational, as the whole point is "maybe blind luck, maybe actual powers"
- bare basic military training (but non-lethal!) included with the pack
- point limit is 250 with disadvantages already in it

Now my problem is - I have no clue how to make non-functional powers. I've got a simple concept of telepath/emotional vampire, but soon realised that applying any of those powers into character would made them very much functional, which is against the whole point of the campaign.

Any ideas how to solve that? I'm sitting over it since yesterday morning and it goes nowhere. Either I'm not including ANY powers at all in the sheet, or they are "too functional".

>>46750410
Add in extremely limiting/nonsensical Accessibility. You read minds... but after maintaining contact with the target for over an hour, or only on Sundays, or only when the target is actively visualizing a particular symbol, etc. You absorb emotions... but really only one emotion — ennui — and since the effects of having your emotions eaten away are identical to ennui already (e.g. listlessness, apathy, no energy, general mopyness, etc.) it's hard to verify.

>>46750181
My fear is the sheer scale that things can get in GURPS, when a tank has over 1000 DR and can cause about 6dx12 damage and you are building a character that not only can take on many of them with his bare hand and win, but are also expected to do so without actually breaking a sweat things can get out of control really fast and have unintended consequences.

So, Kromm mentioned something about new series a-brewing. What do you think it will be? I bet it's going to be something set in future, such as Cyberpunk, because there are still no Ultra-Tech series yet, and TL9 is the least broken part of UT.

>>46750852
>Cyberpunk
I'd wager something more far-future than that, as all the main points of cyberpunk are held up well enough by the Action series. I'm putting $50 on not!StarWars.

>>46751064
Nah, there's plenty of genre-specific stuff for Cyberpunk - hacking, body augmentations, vehicles, drones, weapon modifications, and so on.

>>46751142
>Body augs
Well now I feel dumb. I was only thinking of hacking and how a lot of people seem to prefer quick contest of Computer Hacking vs. comp's defense (or a flat success roll penalized by BAD). Yeah cybernetics is definitely not covered by Action.

>>46750852

How long ago was this? Kromm was teasing a new series a month or so ago and it turned out to be After The End. Was this more recently?

>>46751245
And even then, simplified hacking is good for modern settings, where you tap randomly on keyboard while letters run on the screen, but typical cyberpunk hacking has to be more badass, including keyboards connected to the head, silver avatars flying in cyberspace and fighting things Black ICE and getting your brain fried by enemy firewall operated by corporate hacker.

>>46751283
Nah, that was after After The End 2
>The revised first draft of the inaugural volume of another new series showed up on time. That should go to peer review shortly.
http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/191842.html

>>46751283
This was on his blog the same week they released AtE 2.
>The revised first draft of the inaugural volume of another new series showed up on time. That should go to peer review shortly.
So yeah, looks like we're getting an EVEN NEWER SERIES.

>>46751317
>>46751335

Was just checking before I got hyped. Now I am hype. I'd like an Ultra-Tech series, since it's not been covered that well, but they'd have to be pretty specific about the setting/tech for that. In an ideal world, I'd want space opera, but we'll see. We got a timescale anywhere?

>>46751413
I wish someone from SJG would post how their editing pipeline works - does the pre-production happens before peer review, or after pre-press?

>>46751413
That message was posted on 8 April, so it's only been about a week and a half. After peer reviewing, which I'm assuming will take a while, there's probably going to be at least one cycle of revision and then they'll probably take some time getting the formatting and assets together.

If it's out by July I'd be surprised.

>>46751457

There's a post on the official forums where Kromm details exactly what needs to happen for Vehicles 4e to be ready to print, which is probably the closest to a "this is how our pipeline works" description I've seen.

Fellow GURPSers, halp!

I'm pretty new to GURPS, this will be about half a year I'm playing it. After running countless one-offs for practice our GM decided it's about time to get back to our old homebrewed setting and apply GURPS crunch.
It's a TL3, relatively high fantasy, emulating high medieval setting with tons of magic in in. The magic circles arround borrowing powers from "The Things Beyond" and while helpful and easy to access, it's not exactly the safest thing to do or use, as it tends to nastly backfire for its users. Average magician can barely qualify anymore as human by the peak of their carrier and that's if they've managed to live for that long. Think "Chaos meet Hollywood voodoo meet why would anyone even try to use that".

The GM gave us 200 points for our characters "and as many disadvantages as would still make sense within the character concept". I've decided to run with it and make a sorceress trying to get herself immortal and partially succeeding... while literally turning her body into dust. So the concept is for ghost-like being made out of dust and sheer willpower. She doesn't technically have a physical body, but it will always manifest as as a desaturated, faintly glowing representation of her state and clothes at the moment of failed ritual (much to her annoyance). While she's not an aimless ghost busy with haunting, she still falls under all setting rules about ghosts - she can be compelled and dispelled, she can't cross lines made with chalk, she can be captured into special kind of sack, red ribbons repell her and what not. The only technical difference is that she can't be sent to the Afterlife, as she has no unfinished business and is basically trapped indefinitely in this state, in this plane.
>TBC

>>46751550
The "body" itself is problematic, as it takes willpower to maintain. Hitting it, smashing or even pouring water on it (as it is made out of dust particles) cause it to dissolve and she must first reform to act at all. The "body" also limits her ghostly properties. She can't cross through solid surfaces, as she must travell with her dust, but can get amorphic and for example "pour" through a keyhole. In the same time, she can't use this dust body for physical interaction, as it can't hold anything or even touch things, acting like a fog. Ghost-style interaction with the world remains (so she doesn't exactly have to touch anything), just as her own weak telekinesis "from the school years". She no longer can use summoning, in theory being now a summon herself, but definitely should still have skills and advantages related with it. Her occult skills are still pretty valid though. Aside of being now technically a ghost, she has an ability to desintegrate things into dust, just like her own body, but very, very limited and taking long minutes of constant "contact" (the idea is about covering the target and "dissolving" it)
Now, the GM agreed to all of this and the implications (since the character makes much more sense within the boundaries of the setting) on simple condition - I will manage to transform it all into GURPS crunch and stay within the "200 + all fitting disadvantages" limit.
>TBC

File: mtg_insidious_mist_by_depingo.jpg (89KB, 1024x773px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1024x773px

>>46751561
What I know for sure I will need:
- most of the meta-traits of the ghost, including "always on" insubstantiality and still being affected by gravity
- technically it's a curse, so it can pass as one
- no fine manipulators is a thing... probably
- pretty much everything related with ghosts (disturbed voice, frightens animals)
- magic susceptibility
- he can't lift anything as such, but technically light encumbrance is within limit of her powers
- in theory, she's a one-hit wonder, as single hit is enough to dessolve her
- so technically I can dump completely ST and get HP to 1
- getting back into "shape" takes time, so it can be bargained for a discount
- and it can be put under FT expendeture, so it could be further discounted
- can pact be treated as a disadvantage?

On the other hand I will need to
- waste at least some points into summoning
- make at least a semi-competent occultist
- if it will come to it, I can drop the ability to dissolve matter into dust, but would rather stick to it

Any ideas for disadvantages that would increase the poll of points and would be fitting? Or advantages for a cheaper version of said competent occultist? I'm perfectly aware I'm asking a lot, but... pretty please?

>>46751561
>She no longer can use summoning, in theory being now a summon herself

I'm not sure that really follows. What kind of magic are you using?

At any rate, I don't think you will have much room to waste any points on nonfunctional abilities. Aside from knowledge skills, a quirk like "lost the ability to summon" would do.

File: Herrerasaurus_scale.jpg (7KB, 357x154px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 357x154px

Speaking of the Judo Skill...

Does it only function against other humans/humanoid beings, or can it be used against entirely different species as well?

For instance: Victor, with his Judo-18, gets attacked by a juvenile herrerasaurus and successfully parries it's bite. Can he then perform a Judo Throw on it?

File: classy and inspirational.jpg (90KB, 845x960px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 845x960px

>>46745890
>Polite Discussion Edition.
Pardon me for saying so, but perhaps your game of choice could do with a tad of improvement in the areas of complexity and ease of use.

Also, the behaviour of people who admire your game leaves something to be desired.

I'd like to conclude by enjoining you to have biblical relations with a member of your family.

>>46751648
Should be fine; the basics of judo — leverage, redirection, etc. — don't rely on specific human physiology as much as they do basic physics, so there shouldn't be an issue on using it against a velociraptor.

That being said, I'd still give a familiarity penalty the first time you try and judo throw a dinosaur; it's very much a First Encounter With a New Way to Die.

>>46751626
Magic and Thaumatology, in both cases only the "core" books for the entire line, not the expansions for them. And it has more to do with setting rules than anything else.

But the quirk would definitely be better. And cheaper

>>46751686
It has more to do with a guy who came in here... 3? 4 threads ago and was intentionally starting arguments and simply trolling. The he confessed he didn't even read the rules or the game at all, but wanted to do some shit-lifting exercises.
And the next thread was about early firearms, so half of /tg/ came in to "contribute", not even trying to keep it related with GURPS (which, oh the irony, is one of few games that has no issues whatsoever with fantasy ban on firearms)

>>46751686
GURPS Lite, my friend.

>>46751686
>Also, the behaviour of people who admire your game leaves something to be desired.
People who go into random threads to spam "Just use GURPS" aren't fans, they're just trolls, m8. Exactly the same kind of people who go around saying "just refluff PF".

>>46751686

Most folks here get along perfectly fine with one another.

Rarely do you get someone that can't fathom of other GURPS gamers playing in a different way (while having fun!) and has to start a rage-a-thon in response.

>>46751886
Because they have realistic rules or because its the default for the GM to say what is and is not allowed in a particular campaign?

>>46752158
Both

And there are always clear boundaries of what and how can be customised within Tech Level of the setting, even if it's some kind of "weird" world (for example a steampunk one).

How well does GURPS run horror?
Obviously, there's, well, GURPS Horror for advice, but is it better to go to a more dedicated system?

SOMA: the tabletop one-shot.

>>46752231
I think Call of Cthulhu will be much more fitting for this particular one-shot.
And without Sanity rolls. At all. Just getting your Sanity lowered each time.

>>46752231

Extremely well.

The default level of realism dissuades over-the-top action and the penalties for failing Fright Checks are harsh.

Additionally, the GURPS Horror supplement has rules for Stress and Derangement that will come in handy when attempting to emulate the strain of a mortal mind constantly facing threats both otherworldly and "mundane".

>>46751550
>>46751561
>>46751578
Anyone? Anything?

Also, bump

>>46751550
>I've decided to run with it and make a sorceress trying to get herself immortal and partially succeeding... while literally turning her body into dust.
But Anon, women can't be Rubric Marines.

Seriously though gimmie a bit and I'll try and make your sorcerous.
Also this >>46751626
I assume by "Magic" you mean the default spell system with the expanded spell lists from GURPS: Magic. "Thaumatology" doesn't really tell us much though as that book is essentially Magic System Variants: The Book; saying your magic system is Thaumatology is like saying you're Pathfinder character's class is "Core." From the fluff I'm assuming you're at least using the Assisting Spirits rules from page 90. If you could give me a bit more detail, though, that'd be awesome.

File: twins_by_mariannainsomnia-d57xp4a.jpg (148KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 800x800px

>>46752877
Something GURPS dose well for horror gaming is that a character can be competent and dangerous and still face things that are clearly dangerous.

If you've got a handgun then 7 crazy people with fireaxes is still a very scary thing to face unsupported. You'd be better off running away.

Bamp

File: Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 4.10.55 PM.png (108KB, 857x219px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 857x219px

I would personally add on Megalomania to your disadvantages, seeing as how your sorceress tried for immortality, but that's not inherent to the character concept so I didn't include it. In fact, I only included the disadvantages central to the *build* and I strongly recommend you add some sort of personal disadvantages too (is the sorceress greedy, ill-tempered, insatiably curious, etc.) If you're hurting for more points, a negative Appearance isn't out of the question.

Your Stealth is mediocre, but you should be able to exploit your diffuse form to regularly get circumstance bonuses (if your GM allows, you can just use the rules for Abilities Enhancing Skills from p. 162 of GURPS: Powers; roll IQ to get a +4 to Stealth or -1 if you fail). I revised the attributes a couple times, so double check the numbers to see if I missed updating any of them.

In general, your Pact limitation (possibly on your Magery) would require separate disadvantage, e.g. if your patron elder squidbeast from beyond the stars requires you to live by a very chaotic set of rules, you'd probably have a fairly expensive Discipline of Faith and would also receive a sizable discount.

And I just realized that I left out the corrosive attack; I'd say it's Corrosion Attack 1d (Always On, -20%; Aura, +80%; Melee, C, -30%; Onset, Exposure Time, 1 min., -30%) [10]; you now have 30 points to invest in spells.

>>46749438
Guys 1 cm is a fuckton of leather, you're looking at a lot closer to 2 maybe 3 mm. It doesn't give bad grip because it doesn't insulate at all; it's not very thick.

>>46757016
Forgot to link.
>>46751550
>>46751561
>>46751578
>>46753631

Hey GURPS Friends, I have a Dungeon Fantasy artificer player that wants to build a mechanized side kick with a pseudo magic bent, something like a golem. Are there any good sources for the *process* of building a robot, and even more especially, a magitech robot?

>>46759090
Head up, there *are* rules for this, but it really really goes against the set tone and theme for DF. Your adventurers/"heroes," not captains of industry. I would say that golem building is under the same monopoly as enchanting i.e. NPCs only. If they want it, I'd say have them quest for a Legendary Master Artificer and have the PC Artificer "help" him with it.

>>46760382
The plan I kinda had was to leave clues around for the location of magi-tech artifacts that would make the construction possible. Then once all the parts are gathered, simply let the player spend character points to buy an ally but just fluff it as "you built the golem, good job."

>>46760560
Ah that's fine then, but why bother with the "process" of building a magitech robot? If they have 8/8 McGuffins for it, robot = done. Are you looking for McGuffin ideas?
Or by building do you mean "stat out mechanically"? Because I thought you meant "what rules do my PCs follow to build a robobuddy in-game."

File: qbtBAoQ.jpg (282KB, 1920x912px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1920x912px

>>46759090
Do you need the process written put for you? Or would you rather just stay it out, then play and have fun?

>>46761313
>>46760922
Well, I was just thinking from an inspiration standpoint if there was a good way of doing it. But for example, I was thinking that the player would find physical representations of abstract "human" concepts.

Thinking about it now, I guess it was a silly question.

>>46761313
Oh, so THAT is how they were going to weaponise them!

>>46761453
Human concept might be too mumbo jumbo. I'd keep it magical but simple, e.g. special magically-conductive metal to fashion the body, a mystical crystal power source, one-of-a-kind (well two-of-a-kind I suppose) rubies for the eyes, stuff like that.

>>46761493
And that's official concept art for the sequel/reboot!

>>46752158
There is a very neat mechanism preventing players from going beyond official TL of the setting. If you try to do something beyond given TL, you get -5 penalty for each level you are trying to jump ahead. And the max skill level is 20, which represents pretty much ungodly prowress.
So for example Renaissance would be TL4 (or even tail end of TL3, really). Trying to build in it magazine fed automatic rifle is almost impossible to figure out withing the setting, as that would come with instant -15 penalty (all of the listed elements being from TL7). A genious gunsmith would spent decades on this and it would be still prohibitely costly prototype, assuming he would succeed at all.
On the other hand, inventing Minie balls wouldn't be that hard, since they show up in tail end of TL5. Even if we count them as TL6, that's "only" -10 penalty to skill and if we really insist, that's only -5 (since it's technically a TL5).

This of course applies to all inventions (and not just guns) done by people from low TLs that aren't reverse-engineering something more advanced (which comes with own penalties), but are genuinely inventing something for the first time.
So as you can see, you can't have "too advanced" stuff in the game just by sheer rules of it.

>>46762543
Minie balls are weird because it's a extremely simple, dramatic increase to the range and firepower of everyone with a gun.

>>46762865
... try to mass-produce them without pretty much modern metallurgy and casting.
I dare you.
I fucking double-dare you.

Which is exactly the reason why they've popped out so late.
I know but a single work of fiction that ever took into account problems with experimental weapons. Quigley down under. Who cares if Quigle's Sharps is fast-firing, got superior range and comes with neat sights, when he carries with himself all the ammo that exists for it, meaning he ends up without bullets. Twice.

>>46763074
Sorcery > RPM

>>46764639
Seconded

File: 1301webcat03_img_25.jpg (192KB, 1000x1128px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1000x1128px

>>46763074
>... try to mass-produce them without pretty much modern metallurgy and casting.

It's trivially easy. It came around late because the basic idea wasn't understood.

File: 639797.jpg (190KB, 880x660px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 880x660px

>>46763074
Well, depends what you mean by 'modern'.. the early modern period, starting in 1500 CE or so, could have produced them without any trouble. It's a cone of lead. They acutely have looser tolerances then a earlier rifle bullet, because the gas expands the round to engage the rifling.

Hey /gurpsgen/, complete newfag to GURPS, I want to run my first GURPS campaign now set in Star Wars, so what should I know? are there any good Star Wars GURPS supplements? do I need to read a bunch of books and sort of build it myself? if yes than what books? are there any podcasts I should listen to?
also I've heard GURPS is unfriendly for new GM'S/Players, would you say that's true?

>>46766001
> I want to run my first GURPS campaign now set in Star Wars, so what should I know?

The basic rules (in GURPS basic set) and a good idea for what you like.

>are there any good Star Wars GURPS supplements?

Nope, not really.

> I need to read a bunch of books and sort of build it myself?

You could build it with the Basic Set. You might want Powers, to build Force Ablities, Space and Spaceships.

>GURPS unfriendly

Not really. it takes a bit to learn and it's for people that like the sort of brutal, cruncy sim heavy game, but if you like that it's great.

>>46766105
okay thanks a lot anon, So I should read the basic set and then some other books for ships, weapons etc

>>46766001
>I want to run my first GURPS campaign now set in Star Wars, so what should I know?
>Are there any good Star Wars GURPS supplements?

There are no official Star Wars supplements for GURPS, but there are a couple of fan-made ones floating around the net. It would also be worth your while to investigate the SJGames GURPS forums - there's been plenty of stuff talked about there which would no doubt be of use.

>>46766001

Shilling for this guy again, but this blog: http://mailanka.blogspot.com/ is written by someone who's building a Star Wars clone called Psi Wars in GURPS. They have long posts discussing the merits of technology, why they include things, how to get the right feel. If you're interested in tweaking, you can read their reasoning and methodology. If not, you can just skip to the summaries and copy the end result to get the right feel.

I'd also like to point you to the Cinematic Combat Rules in Basic Set Campaigns. Some of them are very useful for stormtroopers and mercenary goons.

File: 19789999.jpg (105KB, 400x345px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 400x345px

>>46765853
>>46765981
>Mass production
>Provide tools for individual casting

Which is my entire point. It makes HUGE difference if you are making single "ball" at a time or 10 using 10 such casts...
... or thousand per hour, semi-mechanised. The same reason why such basic thing like shot towers dramatically increased quantity and quality of round balls by mid 18th century, while also decreasing their price.

We are dangerously close going back to the recent firearms shitstorm, so I will simply drop the issue when we still can drop it.

>>46766439
Not the original anon, but you can always start with GURPS Lite just to see if that's really the type of game you want to play. It's often better to start with Lite as a form of trial instead of getting directly into deep water and then ending up with a pile of books, flipping pages in search of some absolutely optional rule for tertiary application of skill N.

>>46762865
Personally I find it ironic how for centuries everyone was going for the perfect ball shape, while conical bullets are not only much easier to produce, but also come with better ballistic properties. Even if they are not in Minie system and with smooth-bore weapon, they still are more effective than round balls.

>>46766803
>>46767471
>>46768321
Thanks guys!
>not the original anon, but you can always start with GURPS Lite just to see if that's really the type of game you want to play. It's often better to start with Lite as a form of trial instead of getting directly into deep water and then ending up with a pile of books, flipping pages in search of some absolutely optional rule for tertiary application of skill N
that's what scares me, that I'll just get in over my head and won't understand what the fuck I'm doing anymore, but I really want to get it done on the other hand, and from what I understood from the general's pdf it seems like GURPS is perfect for the kind of game I want to play.

>>46768296
Are you dum-dum? No one was mass-producing bullets back then. Every soldier cast his own balls for his, because the alternative was to have a logistic nightmare - there could be guns of 20 different calibers in a single regiment.

>>46768618
*for his gun

>>46762543
Automatic rifles are TL6.

But yes you are right.

File: 4a7b413281983.jpg (34KB, 780x722px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 780x722px

>>46757016
Holy smokes, this is amazing! I wasn't even looking at Injury Tolerance, because... well, it's called "Injury Tolerance" and not "Insubstantiality". Many, MANY thanks, anon!

But I've got few questions about all what's listed here
>Perception
I understand it's slightly dumped for budgetary reasons?

>Diffuse
I can't find anywhere actual description of "Misty" and "Cosmic" elements. Misty is kind of self-explaining within the context, but Cosmic?

>Hiking
Um... why?

>Corrosion Attack
The only rules for those I was able to find were for armour destruction, so all the elements of it from the bracket are pretty much beyond my understanding when it comes to price and effects by the crunch.

About disadvantages and quirks
>Quirks
"Lost ability to summon", given the entire situation
"Low self-esteem about own appearance", given she's vain and in the same time will have to endure the rest of eternity in the same dress, which will remain fashionable for only limited set of time. It's not helping her projection is ghastly at best. I prefer to put it into quirk rather than disadvantage, since -10 points feels like cheating
-2 points in total
>Disadvantages
Bad Temper, since she was and still is choleric [-10]
Jealousy, aimed toward other, "full-bodied" and good looking women. [-5]
Magic Susceptibility, because, she's under all rules for ghosts. Easily level 3 [-9]
No sense of smell/taste, as she lacks any kind of sensors for those, much to her annoyance [-5]
Overconfidence, which brought her to her current state in the first place [-5]
Weakness (red ribbons, chalk, cold iron, mistletoe) [-5] Not sure if there is something better to describe aversion to those things, but in contact they still are harmful for her, so...
In total that's -39. With quirks -41

Meaning Magery definitely goes up by notch... no, make that two [-31]
Ritual Magic definitely goes in [-27]
Increased Threshold [-22]

Yay, I've got now not 30, but 52 points for spells!

Once again, thanks, anon.

>>46768618
Not the original anon, but you've just reitterated his dare - how you can't mass produce them.

Meaning the discussion just hit a full circle.

>>46768802
Magery is 10/level, not 5, so you've got 42 points for spells in the end.
Which is still 12 more than the original suggestion for this build.

>>46768831
No, he said that it is impossible to mass-produce them (implying that it would make them useless). I said that there is no need to mass-produce them, you just give soldiers new bullet molds. If I recall correctly, Minie ball is not even the simplest design, sufficiently long bullet will provide obturation even without the conical hollow in the base.

However, everyone in that discussion overlooked one important thing - Minie balls provide only a marginal increase of performance unless they are used in rifles, and mass production of rifles is entirely another question.

>>46768296
It's a single operation, there's no reason not to cast them in batches with simple hand tools. A gunsmith with a large set could turn out more then a hundred an hour. A manufactory could turn out ten thousand a day.

>>46768618
You can cast minnie balls in lots and trade them between weapons. Looser tolerances mean they are interchangeable with barrels a couple millimeter out of true.

>>46768802
>but Cosmic?
It's a generic enhancement that translates to 'it breaks the usual rules'. If Diffuse means you usually can't speak, an enhancement that lets you speak anyways might be done with a Cosmic enhancement. Usually it comes in levels of +50%, +100% or +300% though, in order of 'least rule-breaking' to 'most'. Personally, I would've instead payed for an advantage that negates 'Cannot Speak' (No 'Cannot Speak', for 15 or 25 points), but this would be costlier by 5 or 15 points, after getting back 10 points from the missing enhancement on Diffuse, so it's pretty much how your GM wants to run it.

>Hiking
1 point wonders abound in GURPS. Hiking reduces on-foot travel times at no extra cost to the user, 1 point is enough for most.

>>46768802
>Perception
Bingo, though party role also played into that decision; you're a genius and world-class mage, not a scout.
>Diffuse
My bad. Misty comes from GURPS (Horror). It combines Infiltration (e.g. the ability to seep through key-holes and tiny gaps) with a multitude of drawbacks, including half Move speed, can't block line of sight or attack directly, and loss of speech. The +50% level of Cosmic allows you to avoid drawbacks; the example given is Serendipity no longer needing *plausible* coincidences. Since we're avoiding a drawback of Misty and not the advantage as a whole, I had it cost as much as half of the limitation's discount (e.g. applying the 50% to Misty's -20% and not Diffuse).
>Hiking
Hiking is more than just strapping on a comically oversized backpack and hitting the nature trail; it's your go-to skill for traveling over land. The skill is necessary for most any adventurer that will travel from place to place.
>Corrosion Attack
All those modifiers are from the Basic Set. Melee + Aura means it automatically affects anyone you touch or that touches you. Always on means it can't be turned off if inconvenient. Onset, Exposure Time, 1 min. means you need to apply contact for a whole minute to deal the corrosion damage. Essentially, for every minute you cover something or rest a "hand" on it, you deal 1d cor; it would take a long time, but you would be able to break through damn near anything.
>Disadvantages
Weakness should probably be replaced with Dread; Weakness is more for environments that specific items, and at 1 HP the effect is the same: you don't ever want to fucking touch it.

Aaaaand I just realized I left out some ghost traits. Add Doesn't Eat or Drink [10] and Unaging [15]; I'd say you still effectively "sleep" to avoid having to concentrate 24/7 and maintain your body. You don't have as many points for spells, but 27 ain't bad. You'll be back up to 30 with full quirks.

>>46746415
>Superior Maptools.
>Requires you to use an outdated version of Java to not fucking break.
>Memory hog if you want it to do anything besides shit itself.
>Connection issues that rival The Siege at its launch.

Curious where you're getting the SJW part, if only out of morbid curiosity.

On the Detachable Limbs advantage, what's a good limitation to only be able to remove the head?

So is the meme that gurps is hard and complicated true?

Can you guys write down a guy hitting another uising a magical firesword.

Also, how does magic work? Lets say i want to throw a bolt of lightning on someone, what do?

>>46770450
>So is the meme that gurps is hard and complicated true?
No.

>Can you guys write down a guy hitting another uising a magical firesword.
Roll 3d6, compare to whatever skill your sword uses, your opponent rolls to defend, compares to skill he used to defend, if you hit and your opponent fails to defend, roll damage.

>Also, how does magic work? Lets say i want to throw a bolt of lightning on someone, what do?
Roll 3d6, compare to your skill, your opponent rolls to defend, compares to the skill used to defend, if you hit and your opponent fails to defend, roll damage.

>>46770450
Hard? No. Complicated? Ehhhh... GURPS gives a *lot* of options in terms of both campaign rules and character options, and it's up to a competent GM to trim the fat for newbie players. A half-decent GURPS GM can make the game super newb friendly, but if the GM is new to the system as well, they need to be very careful and conservative when choosing what rules to use. A lot of the memery stems from people leaping into the system, assuming its like other dedicated systems and everything printed is supposed to be used, and bitching that there's too much (because there really is if you use everything and aren't prepared for the level of detail and crunch that comes with it).

Roll 3d6 and try to get under your Broadsword skill. Your opponent rolls 3d6 and tries to get under one of their Active Defenses. If you succeed and they fail, you hit; otherwise you miss or it's dodged/parried/blocked. It can get more complicated (how aggressive are you attacking, are you doing anything tricky, etc.), but that's the basics.

There is literally around a dozen magic system for GURPS — from the traditional library of discrete spells a'la D&D to WoD Mage fuckery to Weeaboo Fightan Magic to praying for miracles to comicbook powers to damn near anything else the GM can think up — on top of countless tweaks for said systems — you can include the hermetic decans or the sepherothic spheres, draw from real-world occultism via traditional materials and magic laws, have spirits assist in casting in return for your fealty and life force, have spells tick up towards a magical catastrophe rather than drain your personal energy, and tons of other things.

>>46770527
Candidly, the only two convoluted things that occur regularly in my games are ritual path magic (completely optional magic system, so I'm doing it to myself, and I read the effect shaping variant which looks way simpler, so I should try that) and Encumbrance... which I like the idea of, but I wish it wasn't such a bookkeeping problem. Use an item, go down 0.5 lbs, check encumbrance brackets...

Well, inventory management in general. I like that GCS can handle it automatically, but I like playing on p&p, so the constant erasing and writing bothers me. Maybe I should make touchy-feelies for constantly used items?

>>46771769

Have you considered bringing a laptop to the game table?
GURPS Character Sheet calculates encumbrance automatically

>>46771769
>check encumbrance brackets
Once a battle starts, I usually don't deal with encumbrance until its over.

I'm actually working on an entry level story for GURPS to help some of the newfriends who come over here, that will evolve its rules as it goes on. Looking for teegee to contribute, once I get the first part finished!

>>46771769
For regularly used consumables (ammo, basic potions, etc.), consider using the semi-infinite ammo rule for at least tracking weight; you're treated as always carrying five of the item regardless of the actual amount — within reason of course (if you manage to get up to 6 or 7 that's fine, but no loading up on 20 potions without increasing effective weight) — and once you're totally out you remove the sum weight.

File: 26752007500320.jpg (90KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x320px

>>46769822
So I found a nasty loophole, not exactly intentional. Since the character still sleeps, that means there is a need to stay in single place for... well, few hours. And I'm dealing 1d damage PER MINUTE to the place of resting.
I guess removing the "always on" part would cost me additional... 2 points? 1 point?

Other than that, Dread sounds really, really promising. Plus it goes from -5 of Weakness to -10, giving me in the end 32 points for spells.
And if my own assumption about the "always on" bit of corrosive attack is right, that's nice and round 30 points for spells

I can't even express how grateful I am for all the help with this character. Anon, you are amazing

>>46770450
The game as such is extremely straight-forward, being basically a series of 3d6 rolls and comparison between the outcome and your skill, BUT the system as a whole is giving you literally shitload of options to pick from.
And this is the part which scares most people.

Which is really ironic, given how GURPS as such is a modular system, so there is literally no need to use options that don't apply to your setting. Who cares if there is entire line of Spaceship, if your setting is about Bronze Age mythical heroes? Unless any of them is an ancient astronaut, that is. But you get the picture, right?

GURPS is pretty much a HUGE box of LEGO blocks. It doesn't mean you must use all of them to build your perfect set.

Fellow GURPS players, I've got a question.

What would be the CHEAPEST possible way to (under GURPS rules) use witcher signs? Just to recall for those unfamiliar, we are talking about specil kind of magic
- very basic, simplistic and of very limited effect, gesture-based spells (the gesture part is mandatory)
- most of them have effects that are telekinetic in nature (three types of barriers and what could be described as "force push")
- the source of magic needed to use them lies within a magical medallion, tuned for the user
- they need to be really, REALLY quick to cast
- some of them so quick they should still leave plenty of time to do something else right after
- they can be openly frowned upon by anyone having any degree of magical training, as they are simple enough to be used by people without ANY magic talent at all, just by properly performed gesture and focus
- they can't drain the user too much, since the caster is usually busy with not being crushed/mauled/smashed/ripped apart/clawed/tentacle raped/whatever else by some nasty monster

Anyone? Anything?

What's the closest thing that I could get to cartoon-style durability (ie toonforce)? No Visible Injury, lots of DR, and a big health pool?

>>46772689
For the Force Push, Innate Attack (crushing) (No Wounding, Double Knockback, Gadget Limitation) That should be pretty damn inexpensive, but it's only one effect. Takes one second, costs nothing and requires you to hold the medallion.

>>46769822
>Essentially, for every minute you cover something or rest a "hand" on it, you deal 1d cor

This would pair quite nicely with Lifebane, which would offset most of the cost.

File: GURPS Witchers and their World - Characters.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>46772689

File: GURPS Witchers and their World - Monstrum.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>46772689
>>46773149

And the bestiary for completeness' sake.

>>46772415
It'd cost two points, yeah. And I'm glad to help, I like making weird characters that use odd traits.

>>46772689
Honestly, they sound like Metatronic Generators (Pyramid #3/46 Weird Science), which are advantages built as items. As-is, the rules are more superscience themed (hence the name and the issue it appeared under), but it's easy enough to file the serial numbers off and make it fantasy.

>>46772854
Injury Tolerance (Reduced Damage, x1/4) + Unkillable 2 + Regeneration (Only when unconscious/dead) + Dramatic Death (One-liners only). You take significantly less damage, but even the worst blows are met with a silly quip and a couple minutes offscreen.

High Pain Threshold too; toons don't scream in agony after something happens to them, they YEEOWCH for dramatic effect once and they're done.

>>46773171
Nah, I've got the original bestiary from Polish tabletop and it takes no time to turn them into GURPS rules, but signs are kind of hard to pull

Thanks for the rest anyway

bamp

>GURPS thread almost dead
Why?

>>46776293
Because there isn't a shitty argument or debate to be had to keep the thread "alive".

File: 1432204450304.png (83KB, 790x773px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 790x773px

>tfw no reworked Ultra-Tech

>>46777640

I write a blog where I basically just post custom Ultra-Tech stuff and the more I poke into the guts of UT the worse it gets. I really really want to just pitch SJG saying I'll rewrite the entire fucking thing to not be shit but I have a day job now. And releasing that shit free on the internet would be a quick way to get a cease-and-desist letter.

I'm thinking about running a saints row 1&2 kind of game but in medieval times with peasant gangs etc. Maybe some low magic or just alchemy.

Problem is that my group has never role played so it must be simple and I have not played Gurps before so even more simpler.

Any suggestions for books and maybe rules?

File: rich evans.png (415KB, 769x600px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 769x600px

>>46777640
>getting ready to GM GURPS for the first time
>ask players what they'd like to play
>everyone decides on a sci-fi setting
>realize Ultra-Tech is shit
>it's too late to back out without looking like an asshole
>this will be their first impression of GURPS

File: haters gonna make some good points.png (165KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 600x800px

>>46778040
Use Alpha Centauri book? This usually solves the inherited issue of UT being shit, since most of people is busy arguing if Miriam did nothing wrong

File: tumblr_ma2fv7MNva1qfcebpo2_1280.jpg (307KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 800x600px

>>46778040
Do like TL 9 or 10^ and very carefully restrict tech....or go all crazy and make a tl 8^ seting about memory swapping. Problems people have with ultratech are like guns and armor, and you can do scifi without scifi guns or armor.

>>46778040
So don't use Ultra-Tech. Especially if it's your first time, just stick to the Basic Set. There's enough in Characters and Campaigns to run some basic sci-fi. Just use Advantages to represent things like cybernetics, making sure to add vulnerability to electricity or whatnot. You don't even need expansive hacking rules or anything, just make it a contest between whatever skills are appropriate.

It won't be the most in-depth or detail-oriented GURPS Sci-Fi game ever run, but if your players expect that on your first time running any system, much less one as expansive as GURPS, your game is doomed to fail anyway.

Would tiefling fall under Supernatural Features or simply Appearance - Monstrous?

>>46779132
It wouldn't really be either, as none of their physical features are really supernatural, and they're not naturally hideous-looking. What you're likely looking for is Social Stigma in a setting where people assume they're evil, or just a feature in a more cosmopolitan setting. Appearance is about actual physical appearance, not whether or not your features make you a target for racism.

At most, something like a quirk-level Supernatural Appearance (Glowing Eyes) or something is the farthest I'd go. And even then, for the traditional Tiefling, that's not something that's true for every one of them, so even then it'd be better to leave it up to each individual character.

>>46779248
Anon, my question was purely about their appearance. You have to cram those horns, unnatural skin colour and everything that's not Prehensile Tail and Claws under something.

And you've instantly started to talk about racism. Literally who cares?

>>46779306
In that case, you seem to have missed what "Appearance (Monstrous)" actually means. It means you literally look like a hideous, disgusting monster. It doesn't just mean you look weird, it means you look UGLY. Like, "you cause vomiting on sight" ugly. It also applies a large reaction penalty because of this (which is why I thought you were trying to use it to represent peoples' natural hatred of them due to their appearance, which is a common thing in many settings).

If all you want to do is have something that says "All tieflings have horns and tails.", then you're just looking for a feature: a 0 point trait that says "You have horns and a tail."

>>46779467
>Humanoid
>That looks like a fucking devil
>Not "Monstrous"
I guess I'm simply not desanitised enough to handle this.

But thanks nontheless for reminding about features. I completely forgot there even exist, since most of the time I'm playing as humans, extra average ones.

>>46779306
Monster Hunters Demons have vestigal horns and tails as a 0-point feature; it'd be like that. Social effects of their appearance are as described by other anon above.

>>46779682
>Humanoid
>That looks like a fucking devil
>Not "Monstrous"
Appearance (Monstrous), as I stated, specifically refers to something that is monstrously UGLY. Not just weird or exotic, but disgustingly, horrifically unattractive.

>>46779682
Appearance makes you ugly, but 'ugliness' is a relative qualifier, what you perceive as 'ugly', among tieflings may just be the most average joe. In GURPS terms, a negative appearance (with no Universal enhancement) only makes you ugly or pretty relative to the norm for your species. Social Stigma, on the other hand, makes you reviled among a subset of people (among all humans, among all non-tieflings, etc), and while not necessarily tied to one's appearance, a tiefling's demon-like features are a dead giveaway of their race, which instantly triggers the Stigma.

>>46779467
>>46779682
>>46779686
It kinda depends on the setting, to get an idea of what "Monstrous" means, In Dungeon Fantasy, you have something like an 80ish percent chance of being banned on sight from a new town, and being mobbed if you try to enter anyway.

If in your setting, a tiefling looks so frightening that people will look the city gates as you approach, and it's not because of some social stigma instead (Classic fantasy racism) then it is monstrous appearance.

On the other hand, if technicolor people are pretty much normal in the setting, it's a 0 point feature.

And on the other paw *starts purring* if technicolor people are "exotic cool" ("That chick has dope horns, I wish I wasn't just a normal person, I'm gonna treat her better than regular people!") then it's probably actually an advantage.

File: tieflingmage.jpg (23KB, 278x562px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 278x562px

>>46779132
Dungeon Fantasy gives Infernals (the analogue to Tieflings) two levels of Unnatural Features to represent the fact that every Infernal/Tiefling has a unique form (e.g. some have ram horns and thick lizard tails while another might have a lion's tail and a single unicorn spike, some have red eyes while others have black, etc. etc.) that make them stand out and easy to identify, even among their own race. They also have Social Stigma (Infernal) [-15] because good ol' fashioned fantasy racism.

>>46779682
Does pic related look "hideous" or "disgusting"? Social Stigma (Monstrous) is totally different from Appearance (Monstrous); your standard sexy vampire has SS (Monstrous) because he's a bloodsucking monster and Appearance (Handsome or better) because he's bishie as fuck, while a fully human victim of a horrific full-body third-degree burn could easily land in or around Appearance (Monstrous).

>>46779832
Even Dungeon Fantasy, which is unapologetically human-centric D&D-esque genre-savvy fantasy and gives all elves all Attractive and all orcs Ugly because humans find elves hot and orcs not, has Infernals not have a default appearance modifier. There are ugly Infernals and sexy devil ladies, but the race as a whole is neutral in terms of pure appearance.

There is nothing hugely wrong with UT. And I do not get these DR complaints.

TL appropriate armour stops or resists TL appropriate small arms, what is wrong with it?

>>46779964
Her nose is definitely hideous. Nice tail, though.

>>46779966
The complaints are usually that weapons overpower armour, which is true to an extent, and that some of the stuff doesn't scale well with High Tech.

The rest of the book is fine though.

>>46779966
UT assumes antipersonnel weapons will become ass destroying people exploders.

Historically, however, that's retarded. Weapons have become less powerful with a focus on being strong enough to do the job and defeat body armor.

File: tumblr_o3me54Wz4g1qgv7j1o1_1280.jpg (414KB, 1280x933px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1280x933px

>>46779964
It's relative, though. A huge man wolf might have Appearance (Monstrous) in a game where such creatures exist only as mythical, rampaging beast while in a game where you can see two giant wolf-men on the bus doing crosswords on any given day might just have 1 point Distinct Features.

>>46780371
I never really liked the "new tieflings", and the massive gator-tail was always a big part of that. It always looked like the tieflings had just stolen the dragonborn's tails or something (that was another weird-ass bit: why do the dragonborn not have tails?).

I've always much preferred the older approach: each tiefling's appearance is mostly human with a few fiendish quirks, and tails (when they have them) were generally more traditional devil-tails.

>>46780750
Eh, we had explosive bullets that worked pretty good. They were only forbidden because it's bad to blow up human beings with your rifle.

>>46780817
I agree. There is some biological awkaredness with the big, stiff tail that seems like it would get in the way a lot.

>>46780750

World war 2: .30-06 Springfield M2 AP able to defeat 20mm mild steel at 100 meters.

Current: 5.56mm M855 EPR able to defeat 9mm mild steel at 100 meters.

We aren't even getting better anti-armor performance.

>>46780750
Is the damage of the weapons fine in terms of relation to how much armor protects? You could probably just reduce everything by 75-50% if that's the case

>>46751245

Yeah but it is covered in lavish detail by Transhuman Space.

My vote is space opera now that they've dropped the Traveller license.

>>46781045
>Forbidden

It's complicated. Saint Petersburg Declaration says that explosive rounds under 400 grams aren't to be used to kill doods, but are perfectly alright to use to wreck equipment. There's some debate if the .50 Raufoss Mk 211 is to be used on people or not. It's armor periceing explosive incendiary.

The reason not to shoot explosive rounds is simple though, as using explosive rounds at short range is dangerous to yourself and offers little advantage over ball ammo that requires 1/1000th the cost.

>>46781328
Yeah, I think it'll be a space opera/Sci Fi series. That way they've got all the main "bases" of rpgs covered - past/fantasy (DF), modern (Action), and then future/sci-fi.

After The End/post-apoc sits somewhere in the middle of those three extremes, and Monster Hunters is a popular offshoot of modern era games.

That said, given they've got a new edition of Car Wars coming out, I'd give my first born for an updated Autoduel series, but I know that that's unlikely.

File: kiria_and_her_esper___u7_by_adamkuczek-d9ohv2j.jpg (224KB, 1240x620px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1240x620px

Control ropes is stupid that said. Just use binding they said.

>>46768802
Hiking is one of those skills that every character should take at least 1 point in.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=369148

>>46785185
depends on setting, honestly
high to ultra tech it becomes pretty trivial since you'll have better means of transportation more often than not, and unless your GM is smart he won't put you in a situation that punishes you for not taking it.

>>46785185
I find the constant "everyone needs Hiking and TL-fitting transport skill" (so Riding or Driving) highly-overstated in importance.
The skill is only useful when the game by itself circles around moving around and treats that as important element of the scenario, not just thing happening in the background. So sure, Hiking would be nice if your party is bunch of Cossacks exploring Siberia, but what real use it has for, say, space colonist, bound within the limits of their cramped colony complex?

>>46785749
But how many campaigns *don't* feature some significant overland travel? While setting an entire campaign about a spaceship as in your example is valid, it's far from common, so "put one point into Hiking and a transport skill" is useful advice for like 95%+ of campaigns.

>>46785855
Well, my current one doesn't.

But it's a street level supers game taking place in an area the size of Staten Island.

File: 7ee8d5e29db8d168cb8c7203ec2fae8e.jpg (436KB, 570x858px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 570x858px

>>46785749
I don't know. You could really make a case that Mark Watney uses Hikeing to pace himself and make it back to the habitat ahead of a standstorm in The Martian.

It can be vital to have a get somewhere skill if you need to know how much a chapter in a story where you have to move fast fucks you up. Being the guy that is only down 2 FP rather then 6 can make a huge difference.

Beyond that.. it's one point. Even a harsh point limit won't generally be so low you can't grab 1 point each of Hiking, Driving, Area Knowledge (wherever you live) and Housekeeping. You might never roll them, but they do a good job of saying "this is an adult".

>>46785855
>But how many campaigns *don't* feature some significant overland travel?
Any campaign set in a single big city. Even if you decide to leave it, most of the time you would do it by train, plane or coach.

>>46786407
>only one point in housekeeping
>don't even take Good Wife talent for your female paladin or knight or whatever
Yeah, that's just sad.

John Middleditch was just on Colbert talking about GURPS, thought you guys might want to know. And yeah he was a total dork about it.

>>46787517
>John Middleditch
Who? Google show me only random amputee.

>>46787544
My bad misheard, it's Thomas Middleditch is a canadian actor

>>46786407
>shallow breathing
Who is this fine lady?

>>46787591
Her name is literally on the fucking picture.

>>46780750
No, weapons got 'weaker' because 5.56 is much handier than .30-06, weapons will have to get bigger again if body armour keeps getting more widespread.

Also you cannot apply bullet logic to things that work on entirely different physical principles.

>>46780556
Nothing wrong with that, combat armour resists but does not outright stop it. You SHOULD need power armour to be able to safely wade through small arms fire.

>>46785855
Any campaign bound in some specific, relatively small area, ranging from large city and ending in a literal basement (yep, you can have a fucking CAMPAIGN set in a single, large room)
Any group that plays episodic scenario, so each new game starts already in the place where all events will take place
Any investigation-based scenario/campaign/game, where the entire thing will be held within a city block.
Most of horror games set in modern period tend to happen within some very small area/single building
As already mentioned, "supers" tent to work within a singular city

And so on and forth. Hardly a >5% of campaigns. I fully understand your arguments, because Hiking CAN be absurdly useful, but it doesn't mean there aren't dozens of game types where moving between locations is completely glossed over or not even taking place.

>>46786407
It's not the price that I questions. It's the idea to have the skill at all. In theory, you can make a roll for Hiking without having it. Sure, it's with penalty and what not... but that's how people act when they say get lost in alien/new/strange place. They wander around.
I've got no issue about price, because it's laughable single point. I'm more against the attitude of "you MUST have Hiking, regardless of anything". As I've already mentioned, there are dozens of possibilities where you are not moving at all or moving on such small distances it's pointless to even roll for that or take the passive effect into account.
Don't get me wrong, I get your point and in many cases Hiking is important. I just don't see it as a mandatory skill.
The same way I see no point of mandatory "cold blood" skills/perks/advantages that oh so many people always pick, regardless of setting and considering them absolutely vital. What if you DON'T want to resist fear and panic? Or what if you find it absurd to be able to resist them, when you, say, role-play a teenager lost in the middle of nowhere, while suddenly something scary happens?

>>46773149
>>46773171
Ugh... who wrote this? And based on what?

Please tell me this was created by someone who only played the first video game... Jesus... I mean as a rules it's not that bad, but everythign else...

>>46778040

...except that it's not that bad?

The main problem comes down to it being inflexible if you don't want offence to beat defence.

Don't just use the entire book willy-nilly. Pick and choose, and if you feel like it, say that armours or force fields are 2-3x as good.

>>46781941
>I'd give my first born for an updated Autoduel series, but I know that that's unlikely.

Well, Vehicles *is* supposed to be out this year. Autoduel would play well with that and ATE.

I'm hoping for an updated Technomancer though. That'd be amazing.

File: tumblr_o3me54Wz4g1qgv7j1o4_1280.jpg (307KB, 1280x900px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1280x900px

>>46788240
I think you are right. It is wrong to call hiking and the like must have. Better to say they are quite useful and a good investment for most characters.

Is there some GURPSanon who can provide the Cyberpunk manual?

File: portrait_01.jpg (109KB, 800x1131px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x1131px

>>46746069
I just want to ask one simple question - why are you trying so hard? Are you dev for MapTools? If anything Project MOTE already surpassed that buggy piece of shit. And as far as r20 goes - you can fuck off back to your cave and stay there. Cocksucker thinks that you HAVE to use a certain tool to have fun. Why don't you just eat some shit again, and try a little harder to think before you spread that noxious miasma of stench you call breath to the gaming community.

Please note >Polite Discussion Edition. you unwashed manchild.

>>46746010
Unless you are using the default '9mm autopistol and 40cal revolver' thing from the books, you can really just look up some of the firearms on wikipedia and kind of take it from there.

>>46789120
>being so mad about 2 days old post
You'd better delete yours and pretend that never happened.

>>46789120
Yeah, your post just oozes of politeness.
>Cocksucker thinks that you HAVE to use a certain tool to have fun
That's exactly the same argument that is always being used against GURPS. "Boo-hoo, you don't need something as powerful as GURPS, you can just have fun with refluffed Pathfinder"

>>46789159
>You'd better delete yours and pretend that never happened.
Like I give a fuck what you think.

Any idea if there will be another edition of GURPS? If there would, what do they need to change/add in your opinion? I really don't see anything that needs to be added, maybe official tools, instead of GCS.

>>46789181
Yeah, that wasn't a polite post.

I don't understand what the second part of your post suppose to mean. It's a GURPS thread, isn't it? I implied that you can use any way to play GURPS, as long as you and others having fun. What was the point attacking r20? Why not use Fantasy Grounds if you can afford it?

>>46789199
>What was the point attacking r20?
Because it has extremely limited functionality, shits itself if your map is larger than 20x20 and is made by literal SJWs.

>>46789240
>Because it has extremely limited functionality, shits itself if your map is larger than 20x20 and is made by literal SJWs.
Please elaborate these points for me, so I could see your position more clearly.

1.How is it limited? I mean, how and what exactly you feel is restricting you and other players to have fun?
2. The 20x20 thing is not true. You can make your map following some of the guides. Like https://wiki.roll20.net/Mapping_with_Gimp
Point number 2. helps you with grid and size.
3. SJW - I don't really see how it is related to anything other than your personal autism. Honestly, were you molested by them or something?

I've tried few VTTs and stopped on roll20 because it was the most convenient way for everyone in our group.

>>46787909
I... didn't scroll down that far.

>>46789240
Why not make a separate 'FUCK ROLL20.NET' thread? Why shit in this one here?

File: stop-police.jpg (137KB, 640x477px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 640x477px

>>46789120
>>46789184
>>46789199
Why are you doing this?

Seriously, GURPS threads are one of those few things on /tg/ that go without shit-lifting and there are good reasons for that.
What are you even trying to achieve here?

>>46789319
>Why are you doing this?
So, what you saying is that GURPS threads ignore the shit out of shitposters? Is that how you deal with it?

>What are you even trying to achieve here?
Do you have trouble reading?

File: keep-calm-and-stop-shitposting-4.png (33KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x700px

And that covers all of you. Want to have some idiotic argument? Start separate thread to jump on each other. Or go for a date. I don't care.
But either keep it GURPS or simply stop posting your tired "HURR GURPS IS TOO COMPLEX" and "DURR D20 IS TOO SIMPLE" memes.

>>46789332
No, I don't have trouble reading. I'm here for game discussion. Mostly covering rules. I was in the middle of post asking how to create proper amorphous monster that keeps reforming back again after each time being shattered, but not making it simply unbeatable for TL3 characters.

So what do I really care about some pointless arguments? Ignoring stuff is the best way to shut them off completely in the net.
Since I've made myself clear, I consider this discussion over

File: scary_hallucinations.jpg (29KB, 571x547px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 571x547px

Any idea if there will be another edition of GURPS? If there would, what do they need to change/add in your opinion? I really don't see anything that needs to be added, maybe official tools, instead of GCS.

>>46789363
>I was in the middle of post asking how to create proper amorphous monster that keeps reforming back again after each time being shattered, but not making it simply unbeatable for TL3 characters.
I would bet that using advantages/disadvantages and limitations on advantages should do this. It was YEARS since I've played GURPS, but I still like it for the most part (except the firearms).

So as I've stated: how to make an amorphous monster that can't be "killed", as hits, stabs, slashes and what not will only shatter it into tiny fragments that then reform and keep going again? But it can't go too powerful, as it has to still be destroyed one way or another instead of ripping the entire party into pieces.

Anything else than Diffuse from Injury Tolerance and giving it low HP, so it can be easily broken? And how to limit the time needed for it to reform again, as it can't get "tired"?

>>46789387
Unkillable with Achilles' Heel?

>>46789433
This.

If it's some sort of magic construct - it sounds like one - just put the weak spot on some object that needs to be removed or destroyed. This way as long as the power source is intact, the monster will keep on going, but the moment players take it out - it's dead in the water.

>>46789364

The Fourth Edition Festival issue of Pyramid had some rules that they'd make core if they could. And there's been some long threads over on the forums about it - mostly things like "use RPM for default magic" (which I think is a bad idea, because RPM is waaaay too mother-may-I, even if it is cool), or "improve the organization of the basic set and advantages".

File: GURPS 4th - Dungeon Fantasy Monsters 2 - icky goo [sjg-0329, v1.1].pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>46789387

There're some examples here that might help.

>>46789364
Ain't broken - don't fix it appears to be current motto of the company. And it's hard to disagree.

Seriously, they can sustain themselves on simply updating things originally made for 2nd and 3rd edition with ease (which is what they are actually doing) and by working over Ultra-Tech with supplements. So why even bother with new edition?
I'm not saying the game is perfect as such, but given the sole nature of generic modular games, you can fix everything by yourself on a fly and still keep it within the rules. Especially since most of issues are some minor stuff

>>46789364

Nothing. The game is more or less as good as it can get IMO.

A bit of polish here and there might be nice, but no fundamental changes or additions would be necessary IMO.
Clean up the formatting in Basic Set a bit, maybe? I rarely have any trouble (except certain tables being in places you don't expect them to be, maybe, but I've learned those exception by heart by now) but it seems to be a common complaint.
Clean up aiming, sights and the like. What the fuck is a rangefinder and why is it so great?
Do a do-over of Ultra-Tech (or just make Ultra-Tech 1.5) to make it more versatile and more in-line with High Tech and by extension Low-Tech. More options for sci-fi settings that don't fit the absolute mold they present.
Vanilla magic is outdated and meshes very poorly with the rest of the system, clean it up or replace it.

>5d x 0.34 = 1.70 or 2d-1
How this was calculated? I cannot find any rules for rounding dice.

>>46790415
High-Tech p. 166. I'm pretty damn sure it's in other locations too, but I can only remember High-Tech off the top of my head.

>>46790415
High-Tech, p. 166.

>>46790513
Thank you! That finally starts making sense.

>>46786407

Mm hm. Unless you absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt that the GM will never put your character in a position where he/she will have to walk across several miles on a regular basis, 1 point in Hiking is a solid investment.

I just picked up Horror: Madness Dossier, and goddamn this shit looks weird but cool. Has anyone ever run something in that setting?

>>46780556
>weapons overpower armour

This isn't directly thrown at you, but: No shit, welcome to the history of warfare since at least the 15th century.

>>46791734
Guess what - we're at the point of history where the personal armor is relevant again. Modern armor has no problem stopping rifle bullets (7.62x54R or 7.62x51), and arming common infantrymen with anything more powerful is also not feasible. Tank armor is also pretty tough right now. So yeah, right now, shield defeats sword.

>>46787591
>Geist in the background

NOPE NOPE NOPE DANGER WILL ROBINSON

>>46791885
We've had too many soldiers come back from the field sans limbs in recent wars for me to buy that. Sure, body armor can defeat most guns, but they aren't the only weapons you need to worry about.

>>46791885
>Modern armor has no problem stopping rifle bullets (7.62x54R or 7.62x51), and arming common infantrymen with anything more powerful is also not feasible.
This is, as always, a budget concern more than anything. Body armors with Level IV penetration resistance exist, and they're growing more and more common as they become cheaper, but rifles capable of penetrating such resistance are also growing more and more common and cheaper and cheaper.

Even just level III protection for the torso is over $200, a ballistic helmet (not sure about their rating, and of course they offer very limited protection even for such a vital body part as the head) are easily over $150. We were told when I did military service that ours cost about 200€.

Now, try to add all of that together, and try to extrapolate that in order to get some actually effective protection, and it becomes fairly clear that the day the opponent fields $1000 worth of """protection""", you can feasibly field AND MAINTAIN the common infantryman with a rifle capable of beating it.

This of course hasn't even begun to take into account the temperature, mobility and circulation concerns that arise when you try to protect a soldier from small arms.

>>46792268
>military
>budget concern
Don't make me laugh. $1000 is fucking nothing as far as military equipment goes.

>>46792233
Well, you see, having some protection is always better than having none. That's why militaries widely adopted helmets in WW1. For a long time, there was no way to have a balance between protection and weight - body armor was either too heavy, and therefore useless, or it was unable to protect against anything, and therefore useless. But since 80s, pretty much every non-shithole country has body armor as standard issue equipment for the infantry. Of course, even the most modern body armor cannot provide a protection for every body part. But compare it to tanks - tank armor also cannot provide same level of protection all-around, so the designers have to sacrifice side and rear armor. And yet everyone is still trying to make tanks that are as well-protected as possible.You see, at one point after WW2 France thought that, since it is impossible to completely protect the tank against any threat, they should just not bother with protection at all - take a light tank, slap a big gun on it, and hope that its speed will protect it. And it turned out to be a huge mistake - while resulting tank had greater max speed than its contemporaries, its tactical mobility was extremely constrained - crews were just too afraid to leave cover. Meanwhile better protected tanks such as British Centurions and Challengers could just go wherever they please. And so French ended up designing better-protected tank just like everyone else.

As for "rifle capable of beating it" part. You see, modern armor already offers good enough protection against rifle rounds, and battle rifles are already pretty cumbersome for infantryman to carry. Of course, .50 BMG will tear through any body armor, but can you imagine arming every infantryman with something like an anti-materiel rifle? It would be unfeasible on so many levels.

>>46792268

Oh, and in order to prove a point, take a look at for example 12.7×99mm NATO, perhaps more commonly known as .50 BMG.

The cartridge is literally a century old at this point, but it fucking LAUGHS in the face of modern personal armor.
Is it wieldly? Is it practical? Is it cheap? Well no, not really, it's probably harder to successfully field than early 20'th century main battle rifles like the ones primarily used in WW1. Of course, it's probably nowhere near as hard to field as heavy body armor is.

Key thing is, it's possible. Comparatively even easy.
Even carbines firing the round exist today, look at for example Barrett M82CQ.

And that's with a cartridge that's literally 100 years old.
Imagine what a cartridge designed today, fired from a modern rifle designed for it, could to.

>>46792754

Exactly. If they're willing to spend $1000 on armor they're easily willing to spend $500 on a weapon to beat it.

>>46792780
The problem is that there are other problems with weapons that can beat modern armor, aside from their price.

Take .50 BMG, like >>46792764 said. Is it really possible to use it as main infantry weapon? Hell no. Recoil, weight, encumbrance - those are problems that you cannot solve. Then there is volume of fire. Barret has what, 10-round magazine? And how much that single magazine weighs? And how many of them a single soldier can carry? And you actually believe that it is possible to train every soldier into a marksman? You know how everyone believed before WW2 that it is absolutely necessary for a soldier to have a weapon that can fire at 1000 meters? And just look what happened then. Intermediate cartridge happened, that's what. And then even lighter intermediate cartridge. Of course, there are homing bullets being developed right now, but consider this - if it takes a $100000 gun and $2000 bullet to defeat a $1000 armor, doesn't armor still comes out on the top?

>>46792926
>Recoil, weight, encumbrance - those are problems that you cannot solve.
Recoil can be partially solved with advanced stocks, even simple spring-designs will partially solve this problem. It's not perfect by any means, but it's demonstrably doable (this is, again, discussing a cartridge that was designed 100 years ago, cartridge-based firearms as such only really saw a breakthrough about 150 years ago, so we're talking what's comparable to bronze-age technology here.)
Weight is not an issue next to the massive body armor it's supposed to defeat.
As for encumbrance, it's no pistol or anything, as I said more comparable to a WW1-era main battle rifle than anything.

>if it takes a $100000 gun and $2000 bullet to defeat a $1000 armor, doesn't armor still comes out on the top?
In such an alien scenario, yes, but in reality this has never been anywhere near the case, a much, MUCH more realistic comparison would be a $5 bullet fired from a $2000 gun defeating a $10000 armor, in which case the gun easily comes out on top.

>>46793057
>more comparable to a WW1-era main battle rifle than anything
No it's not.
Mosin rifle weighs 4.5 kg, and that's one of the heaviest rifles of its time. If we go into later semi-auto designs, SVT weighs 3.8 kg, M1 Garand and FN FAL both weigh around 4.4 kg. Barrett M82, on other hand, weighs fucking 13.5 kg in lightest configuration. .50 BMG round weighs thrice as much as .303 round. And seriously, bolt-action rifles? This is your example of successful infantry weapon?

File: Crusader_rifles.jpg (207KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1920x1080px

>>46793057
Oh, by the way, I found you a good historical analogy for .50 BMG anti-materiel rifle - anti-tank rifles.
Boys - 16.3 kg.
PTRD - 17 kg.
Tankgewehr - 17.7 kg.
And so on. Can you imagine every soldier being armed with one?

>>46793235

You're talking about the M82A1, the M107CQ is a full 5 lbs lighter than that. 25lbs or 11kg. That's for a cut-down anti-materiel rifle though, not a weapon built from the ground up to serve as an infantry weapon, like the armor it's supposed to defeat would be.

Level IV body armor weighs 3.4kg (or 7.5lb for the metrically impaired) for a plate (to be combined with a vest) that covers little more than the vitals from a direct frontal hit. You're really telling me a 10+ kg rifle is an issue when you're fielding 50+ kg armor? I find that very hard to believe.

And I'd like to reiterate, again, that this is in discussion of a cartridge that's literally a century old, whereas the armor is cutting edge technology.

>And seriously, bolt-action rifles? This is your example of successful infantry weapon?
No, it's but one well-known example of a viable, essentially 100 year old one. (By the way, Barret M87/M107 is semi-automatic, not bolt-action, minor detail but I'm a stickler for them).

And still, even in absolute worst nightmare-scenario, a kill with a 10kg rifle from 100 meters is still preferable to, I don't know, trying to get up close and sword-fight your opponent with a chain-sword or something stupid like that? And much, MUCH preferable to not being able to kill your opponent at all.
Even if modern armor forces us to move back to what's more unwieldy than WW1-era weapons, those ""heavy"" weapons will STILL easily defeat whatever armor is thrown up against it.

>>46793057
Or in GURPS a 10 dollar HEAT grenade from a $300 launcher can defeat a $200,000 power suit.

>>46793502
>not a weapon built from the ground up to serve as an infantry weapon
Then why no one built such a weapon yet?
>You're really telling me a 10+ kg rifle is an issue
Yes, it is an issue if you can't hit anything with it and have shit all ammunition for it.
>that this is in discussion of a cartridge that's literally a century old
So fucking what? Show me a modern cutting edge cartridge that should scare the shit out of me. Surely we have had some real technological breakthrough in the last 100 years? Oh no, we didn't (except maybe for telescopic cartridges with polymer casing). Most likely we will be using cased cartridges for another 300 years, just like we used muzzleloading guns for, like, 400 years.
>No, it's but one well-known example of a viable, essentially 100 year old one
Come on, it was struggling to do its job even in WW1, by WW2 it was only used because most countries didn't had industrial capabilities to completely switch to semi-auto rifles, and because generals were extremely conservative.
>a kill with a 10kg rifle from 100 meters
It will be extremely hard getting even that kill, considering how little ammunition you have, how much recoil you will suffer (especially since you made your weapon so light), and how incredibly obvious every shot is (please don't tell me you don't have muzzle break on your gun).
>And much, MUCH preferable to not being able to kill your opponent at all.
And that's why no one is working on any anti-body-armor weapons for infantry.

>>46793613
Good luck hitting that power suit with your Acc 2 and tiny Range before it will pulverize from three kilometers away with its advanced sensors and long-range weaponry, though.

>>46793613

That's also true in reality, (well, we don't *really* know for sure about the $200,000 powersuit bit since those don't exist yet, but even multi-million dollar light armored vehicles don't generally stand a chance) but a grenade isn't as accurate, wieldy or portable as a heavy rifle would be.

The main reason I chose to omit grenades and went for an antique bullet-based cartridge is to prove my point though, HEAT grenades fired from anything even halfway comfortable (40mm) are a fairly new invention, 70's or 80's design IIRC, and as such they're almost halfway a little bit "as modern" as modern personal armor is, whereas the 12.7×99mm NATO I mentioned is a 1910's design.

>>46793776
>Then why no one built such a weapon yet?
No point. Massive body armor isn't widespread enough to justify it. Same reason the airforce is so outdated, F16 is over 40 years old by now, but any realistic opponent won't have anything better to put up against it.
>So fucking what? Show me a modern cutting edge cartridge that should scare the shit out of me.
No, this isn't about you and what you're scared of, I honestly don't care how much of a hard-ass you are (or even think you are).
>It will be extremely hard getting even that kill
Not even half as hard as going in for that kill with the chain-sword or whatever you propose. Unless you include jetpacks or something in your Iron Man body armor design you'll get several shots off before the opponent has even closed half the gap.
Firearms are here to stay, they're not going anywhere.

>>46793776
>long-range weaponry
What long-range weaponry? If you're not using 10+kg rifles or grenade-launchers, what ARE you using?
And if you can field such weapons, why can't I field the same?

>>46793791
Your heavy rifle is going to be a piece of shit. The lighter you make it, the more recoil you will suffer and the faster it will break apart. Muzzle break will raise a giant cloud of dust that will form a large "KILL ME" sign in the air over you. Advanced stocks I will believe when I see one. Meanwhile, armored infantry will have much better volume of fire since they have automatic weapons with plenty of ammunition for them, but in reality, all they have to do to kill you is to land a grenade 10 meters away from you, which will kill your unarmoured ass with fragments. And, by the way, that's the reason why no one will drop the armor.
>the 12.7×99mm NATO I mentioned is a 1910's design
Oh, you just can't stop waving that fact like it proves something. .50 BMG shits on modern armor because it's a big fucking round that packs shitton of powder. By that logic, XVIII century artillery also shits all over modern armor - why don't we arm infantry with shoulder-fired culevrins?

>>46793902
>Not even half as hard as going in for that kill with the chain-sword or whatever you propose
What chainsword? What gap? What are you even babbling about? Stop putting words in my mouth if you want to be taken seriously. No one is going to "close the gap", all they need to do is to drop some light ordnance on your positions to kill or wound your unarmored troops with fragments.
>Firearms are here to stay, they're not going anywhere.
Where did I implied otherwise?
>What long-range weaponry?
I dunno, something that can be mounted on TL9 powersuit and cannot be carried by a single person?
>why can't I field the same
Because you are not in a powersuit and you have budget of $300, as was said in that post >>46793613

>>46794014
In >>46791885
>So yeah, right now, shield defeats sword.

This is clearly not true by any stretch of the imagination.

File: 1409554721678.gif (4MB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 800x800px

>>46794086
This is clearly a metaphor, you dumbass. Or wait, you actually thought I was proposing to arm infantry with literal shields and swords?

>>46794122

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read to mean shield = infantry armor, and sword = infantry rifle.
In which case rifle easily beats armor any day. As always.

In your imaginary scenario where shield really DOES beat sword, you have to beat that armor SOMEHOW, no matter what it takes, if you seriously believe that armor beats rifles, militaries would jump to the next thing that WOULD beat armor. In such a highly unrealistic scenario chainswords or handheld fist-nukes or whatever seemed like the most reasonable weapon.

Oh, an interesting one that just popped into my mind is FRAG-12, which exist as (aside from HE and HEFA) a 12-gauge HEAT shotgun round, capable of penetrating half an inch of armor plate.
Or, you know, all body armor.

>>46794263
Your problem is that you don't understand the purpose of armor. For some reason you believe that armor should make its wearer completely invincible, otherwise it doesn't working. However, even if armor provides limited protection, it is already good enough. If it reduces casualties by 20%, then it should be worn, and it poses a problem to enemy, from strategic point of view. Right now, we have armor that can completely protect torso from intermediate cartridges. There is armor in works that protects against rifle cartridges. And we don't have any rounds that are both more powerful and can be feasibly used in infantry weapons.
>12-gauge HEAT shotgun round
That's good, but:
- What effective range does it have?
- How accurate it is?
- How much single shell costs?
- How much single shell weighs?
- What weapon will we use it with? AA-12 that weighs twice as much compared to any assault rifle?

>>46793776
Using power armour in open battle where tanks and aircraft can play with it is crazy.

Power Armour is best suited for urban warfare and other places without heavy weaponry.

>>46794458
>If it reduces casualties by 20%, then it should be worn, and it poses a problem to enemy, from strategic point of view.
I agree completely.
But what you proposed earlier strictly isn't true by any stretch of the imagination. Going with the same metaphor you went with earlier, shield beats toothpick, shield does not even remotely beat sword.

>That's good, but:
Oooh! I know this one! Me! Me! Pick me, Sir!
>- What effective range does it have?
75-100 yards.
>- How accurate it is?
Essentially as accurate as a slug. More accurate than a pistol, less accurate than a rifle. For single shots (the way it would be used) about as accurate as a SMG.
>- How much single shell costs?
Couple of cents, it's always extremely hard to estimate mass-production military costs for weapons, vehicles or especially ammunition. Training could of course be done with cheap slugs of similar performance.
>- How much single shell weighs?
A bit. This is probably the most major issue.
>- What weapon will we use it with? AA-12 that weighs twice as much compared to any assault rifle?
Saiga-12 for example, 3.5kg in it's normal configuration.
The 10-round magazines are less manageable than the regular AK-47 30-round magazines (but just as easy to switch, and the weapon is just as easy to maintain), so a soldier might carry 3-4 such magazines instead of 5-6, including the one in his rifle.
40 rounds as opposed to 150.

>>46794744
>75-100 yards.
So it is outranged by assault rifles.
>For single shots
>using single shots
>2016
Same problem as with .50 BMG - long gone the days when anyone actually believed that regular soldier can reliably hit anything with a single shots.
>Couple of cents
I will never believe that miniature HEAT shell, with contact fuse and everything, could cost couple of cents.
>Saiga-12
Except it's not a military weapon. It's just not durable enough. Don't think that just because it is based on AK automatically makes it as reliable.
>40 rounds as opposed to 150
I googled a little, and it appears that soldiers carry at least 250-300 rounds of ammunition. Anyway, that's still a big deal.

Compared to your previous idea of .50 BMG rifle, you fixed two problems - heavy recoil and large weight of weapon. But now there is a new problem - bulky and expensive ammunition.

>>46795057
>it appears that soldiers carry at least 250-300 rounds of ammunition. Anyway, that's still a big deal.
That's for 5.56×45 or equivalent though probably? I did military service with what was a more substantial and heavier (and thus more accurate, most of it was in the barrel) AK-ripoff, and we had 150 or 180 rounds each, depending on task. (Different vests would only have room for so many spare magazines, the older one that was slowly being phased out had 5 magazines + 1 in gun, new one had room for 4 + 1 in gun). Anyways, the gas-mask, boots and ""gas resistant"" coat was always way, way more of a pain in the ass than the ammunition, so I'm sure you could go a bit higher than 40.
But yes, I agree, it is a big deal. A huge deal in fact.

>>using single shots
>>2016
I don't know how others do it, but we were always taught this was the way to go, supposedly statistics show that taking even half a second to aim gives you better results than a magazine thrown willy-nilly in the general direction.

>But now there is a new problem - bulky and expensive ammunition.
This can only be considered a problem when you show me a non-bulky and non-expensive covering armor capable of withstanding conventional ammunition that this is supposed to beat.

If we're moving a bit into the future, (I take it we are, considering covering heavy armor capable of stopping rifles isn't fielded yet in real life) XM25 and similar weapons could very easily fire designated anti-armor rounds, such rounds have been conceptually proposed but never actually designed due to, well, them lacking a clear battlefield purpose yet.(Since they exist for shotguns, see FRAG-12 from earlier, it's an easy thing to design a similar warhead for a cartridge that's even bigger)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE

From what I've read, XM25 was very popular among the troops fielding the prototype, and since the regular airburst ammunition ignores a large part of the battlefield cover, so against normal infantry you need much, much less rounds, compensating for a lot of the bulk and weight issues that way.

Although XM25 isn't officially on the field yet, (at least!) the Chinese and South Korea have ripoffs fielded (combining a traditional assault rifle or carbine with the airburst weapon, hence the weight) in the form of QBZ-03 and S&T Daewoo K11 respectively.

File: 75d6e68b68b6d89823775214c6de1001.jpg (61KB, 567x515px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 567x515px

>>46748554
>>46748941
>>46749035
A workmans glove does have shit for gripping, isn't just cloth. Pure cloth gloves slides easily.

>>46749222
Gauntlets won't cover your palm with mail nor cloth, it would be a special trated leather.

>>46795465
>show me a non-bulky and non-expensive covering armor
What's the point, if bulky and expensive armor is already being adopted by absolutely everyone?

>>46795498
From what I've read, its ammunition is pretty damn expensive. It has HEAT shells, but they are obviously made to be used against light AFVs, so the question of how effective they are against human-sized targets still stands, especially considering their low muzzle velocity.

>>46795831
>What's the point, if bulky and expensive armor is already being adopted by absolutely everyone?
But it isn't. The vast majority of armor on the field protects against little more than stray shrapnel if you're lucky, not a hit from a rifle.

>>46792764
While the first .50 BMG were designed and field in the early 20th century the modern ammunition for it is being designed and updated today, such as Raufoss Mk 211 (introduced in the 1981) or M903 SLAP (introduced in 1991).

>>46795498
The strike plates in a modern armor vest can resist multiple impacts by .30-06 AP and massively reduces battlefield fatalities and injuries.

It turns out when you field such armor and oppose unconventional forces they don't grab bigger guns, they just start running away and putting old artillery shells in dead goats by the road.

>>46795114
let them have their fun. Plus, I am really interested in the climax. Will they shake hand or spit in each others back?

>>46796029

Strike plates protect little more than the vitals, and while they save the occasional life, they rarely if ever change the course of a battle.

What unconventional forces are you talking about specifically? Do they even have morale and training to go up against a professional opponent? Do you have any evidence backing up your statement that it's actually the (nearly undetectable from range) strike plates that cause enemies to flee? I'm really interested to see your sources here.

>>46795887
Fielded by whom? Third-world shitholes? Modern armor provides protection against armor-piercing armor bullets.

>>46796029
Well, to be fair, there are no bigger guns for them to grab, and they can't make their own.

>>46796089
Isn't it obvious? We will bicker until the bumplimit, and then just won't restart the argument in a new thread.

>>46795887

Nope! That's a misconception from the flack jacket days.

The UK's Osprey, the US IMTV, SPC and IOTV, Russian Ratnik and a dozen others are all variations on the theam of strike plates mixed with ballistic fibers, protected by rugged nylon for field use.

All are available in huge numbers to field personnel and can stop a .30-06 AP (a very powerful round made to defeat armor and cover, used as the standard in DOJ armor test).

>>46796165

It provides resistance for the torso in a best-case scenario, not protection as such.

>>46796140
>Strike plates protect little more than the vitals, and while they save the occasional life, they rarely if ever change the course of a battle.

Nope.

This is the IOTV. It covers a human from the throat to the groin, shown here with optional deltoid and groin protector. The vest itself, as you can see, really covers the front of the body. Any impact between the waistline and the throat will hit the plate. Armor systems like this massively reduce casualties from gunfire.


>What unconventional forces are you talking about specifically? Do they even have morale and training to go up against a professional opponent? Do you have any evidence backing up your statement that it's actually the (nearly undetectable from range) strike plates that cause enemies to flee? I'm really interested to see your sources here.

US involvement in Iraq and Afganistan. It's not the strike plates, silly goose, it's the fact that when they shoot a marine he doesn't fall down. That's fucking terrifying, and only has to happen a few times before you give up on trying to shoot them at all. Psyops had milita fighters thinking US marines were robots.

>>46791885
Yes, because modern warfare is totally about infantry fighting with infantry and we are doing massive tank offensives...

We totally don't focus entire military engagement around extensive air activities, bombardment and short-range tactical rockets, all of which can completely ruin the day for ground troops without even being afraid of retaliation.
And that's even without counting shit like chemical, biological or nuclear warfare.

File: AR500_Armor_IOTV_Front.jpg (923KB, 1037x1555px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 1037x1555px

>>46796319
Forgot my picture. Man, that's an ugly fucking thing.

>>46792268
Helmets are not designed to stop bullets. They never were.
They exist to stop debris and metal shards after artillery explosions and similar factors.

>>46792926
Are you aware military equipment is no longer WW1 tier? And how even the most basic infantry unit nowdays is using some means of transportation, which means they can carry MUCH more.

Plus you are forgetting something very, very obvious.
Military-grade body armour weights. A LOT. Which gets really funny when you are complaining about the weight of weapons and rounds for them, completely forgetting they still weight less than the armour covering soldiers body

>>46796190
No, modern armor provides full protection in the torso.

This is IOTV test I was able to find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abd9bpvd6zY
That's from the perspective Russian armor, relevant parts at 9:42 and 12:40. Note that they are shooting armor-piercing rounds. This armor is intended for heavily armoured "assault engineers", but apparently Ratnik will be available in versions that give it level 5 (7.62x54R) or level 6A (7.62x54R AP) protection in Russian classification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQcHQ_MJXQ

>>46796319
>>46796349

That's like 30-35 lbs, and doesn't breathe, like, at all.

>>46796486
Yeah, but it's obviously not 50+ kg as you claimed before.
>and doesn't breathe
>The vest is also equipped with a mesh inner cover that is designed to improve airflow inside of the armor

>>46793791
I will give you best example about cheap weapon system defeating costly weapon with deadly precision.
Stinger rockets. A high-tech rocket that could effortlessly down equally advanced gunship. Cost of single Stinger: 40 grands.
Cost of Hind gunship: 12 fucking millions
That means with a price of single gunship you can have stockpile of rockets capable of destroying 300 of them.

And this applies to all kinds of weapons.

At least since the introduction of heavy crossbows, it's always "sword stronger than armour", not the other way around. And most importantly - armour always cost much more than weapons capable of piercing it, meaning you can have bulk of those, while only single armour.

>>46796349
How common is it?

>>46795057
>I will never believe that miniature HEAT shell, with contact fuse and everything, could cost couple of cents.
In GURPS High Tech, there's a version that's $2 GURPS dollars, ($20 as experimental round).
Regular old (non-armor piercing) 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) are $0.8.

So, shotgun HEAT rounds are 2.5x as expensive. Militaries and the like who have a direct supply with the producer and buy ammunition in colossal bulk with contracts written for potentially decades at a time obviously pay much less than the market price.

>>46796637
Eh, Stingers are overrated. Most Hinds in Afghan War were lost to anti-aircraft guns.

>>46796601

It's also just a vest, and is only marginally effective against shots from the side and does fuck-all for arm, leg and head shots.

>improve airflow
I.E. give some basic pretense of airflow. Some semblance of airflow is an improvement over no airflow.

>>46796786
Did the Afghanians have ready access to Stinger though, or were AA-guns the best they had?

>>46796804
It protects the area that is most likely to get hit and contains absolutely most vitals.

>>46796824
Nah, America was supplying Mujahideen with Stingers and older Redeyes, and then blew their role out of proportion.

File: 1459804159158.jpg (78KB, 707x1130px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 707x1130px

I think it works fine if you use TL10 armour with TL9 ETC guns because batteries for laser guns are hard. Also lasers struggle against heavy hard armour anyway.

It means armour is pretty balanced against weapons.The heaviest gun you would want as a standard infantry rifle does 10d+2(2) with AP rounds which is not quite enough to reliably penetrate TL10 ballistic/hard armour on the torso but will zip right through the limbs and face.

So basically its just like today except you can cheaply and lightly make the whole body impervious to fragments and pistol rounds.

>>46797297

Hardly surprising that armor is effective against weapons that are for all intents and purposes antiquated. It seems neither intended nor really functional that you'd use armor that's 100+ years ahead of the guns it's up against. (standard assumption is TL 9 is 2030 or so, TL 10 is 2120-2500).


Even in a halfway realistic setting, you'd at least have to give access to TL-10 ammunition options for those "flintlock" guns, in which case the armor is screwed:
HEMP
For 10mm it's 8d(5) imp inc + linked blah blah blah. Double normal cost.
Heavy pistol, machine pistol and storm carbine are 10mm, lots of weapons are above.

File: 1238341992970.jpg (71KB, 576x660px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 576x660px

>>46797615
Why? If power issues stop railguns and lasers being man portable what else will you use?
Its both realistic and a common staple of science fiction to have generally conventional guns existing for quite some time.

And no TL10 starts in 2070 by default, the M-16/M-4 is an older design today than many TL9 guns will be in TL10. Plenty of viable modern weapons uses designs or are directly based on designs from the early 20th century. What the hell do flintlocks have to do with anything?

Also TL9 ETC guns are as good or better than the TL10 weapons at penetrating armour anyway.

>>46796786
... and those AA guns were also cheaper than Hinds, so? Seriously, what kind of cherry-picking is that? "This weapon system A doesn't count, it was all weapon system B".
Which was even fucking cheaper than Stingers

>>46798153
>If power issues stop railguns and lasers being man portable
Aren't you the one proposing TL10 hard armor? If power supply is a crippling issue for firearms, it's going to be devastating for advanced armors.
Similarly, if you have a powered TL10 armor capable of functioning for any meaningful period of time, the armor has a large enough power-supply to also power the guns it's carrying.

>the M-16/M-4 is an older design today than many TL9 guns will be in TL10
How far into TL10 are we talking here? The very moment you as much as fart you might be developing what UT labels as TL10 hard armor every enemy and half your allies will start developing guns that can beat it.

>Plenty of viable modern weapons uses designs or are directly based on designs from the early 20th century.
BECAUSE the opponent doesn't have weapons or armor that can beat it. Someone mentioned F-16 earlier, and he's right, it's an outdated design 40 years old, but no realistically conceivable enemy has had the budget or know-how to develop a better fighter yet, hence it stays.

>Its both realistic and a common staple of science fiction to have generally conventional guns existing for quite some time.
Absolutely, conventional guns have lots of potential, but they will never exist in a state where they can't devastate armor, unless you're specifically and exclusively fighting people from the sand-planet Nigroidia or something.

>>46798399
That was my first post you initially replied to. And no I am talking about the unpowered hard armour, you can have full body pistol/fragment protection and AP rifle protection on the chest for less weight than modern body armour like this >>46796349 at TL10. Actual powered armour is basically impervious to anything a man can carry and use except anti tank grenades. The power suits in GURPS either use 20 pound batteries or small RTG/fusion generators. Neither is very useful for man portable weapons and energy weapons would still be less efficient than an actual firearm at TL10.

And no for guns its just because those designs still work. An M2 will still kill most things, modern pistols firing AP ammo to defeat vests still work in basically the same way pistols did 80-100 years ago. Firearms technology is very mature, only things like ETC or caseless will change it much.

>>46798794
>Actual powered armour is basically impervious to anything a man can carry and use except anti tank grenades.
Not even remotely true. Gyrocs are 15mm, shotguns in all their variants (including Gauss) are 18.5mm. They do as a minimum 5dx2(5) imp inc with a linked effect. That's for a pistol-sized weapon.
On an average roll they're doing damage through 175 DR. A TL10 Heavy Battlesuit only has 150 DR, so even an average hit to something unimportant will sear your flesh beyond recognition.

Let's not even get started on dirt-cheap man portable RPG's ($2000, 1/100 the cost of a battlesuit), the tiniest of which does 6dx8(10) cr inc with a linked, enough to do substantial damage through 1600+ DR!

GURPS: Internet Warfare

>>46796945
>>46796824

They had plenty of stingers, and while the US reporting has overstated their role they were very useful.

"AA gun" is an overstatement though. Hinds were mostly lost to DShK heavy machine guns, a weapon that, while capable of anti-aircraft work, isn't really an AA gun.

>>46796486
>>46796804
That's wrong, again. the IOTV has side plates and optional deltoid protectors that offer protection to the upper arm and, importantly, the brachial artery.

While heavy the wicking fabric prevents heat exhaustion if hydration is maintained. A young man can wear it in 110 degree heat.

>>46796665
It's the current standard body armor of the US Armed Forces and is replacing the older OTV and Interceptor systems in reserve and national guard units. IIRC, the 2014 contract was for 750,000 units.

So.. super, super common.

>>46788665
>Well, Vehicles *is* supposed to be out this year.
Source?

Anyone has a guide on how to build a good encounter.

>>46803800
Take the player total point, divide by 50.
Add 8.
That's the skill of your NPC.
If your PC's are combat-oriented and built primarily as killing machines, give them 2 NPC's each, otherwise one to one and a half each should do.
Play them as you would play a player. If your allies drop like flies, run for it. If you think you can save an ally, go for it. If you think you can outmaneuver someone, do it.


As with the rest of GURPS, build upwards from the basics, once you know what your PC's are capable of handling, consider improving the NPC's ST score or give them better equipment, make sure to highlight it!
"This guy looks really strong!", "His sword is gleaming and he's wearing plate, he's either a show-off or his gear is well-made!" for example.

Does anybody know a good supplemente if a fantasy bestiary?

File: RPG Systems.jpg (97KB, 696x767px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 696x767px

Are there rules for using advantages as a disadvantage or limitation?

Playing a supers game and want a drawback to be my char basically gets affected by Temporal Stasis from Powers (pg 118) whenever she's hit by an enemy superpower (lasting until one turn after she's no longer getting hit).

How would you do this?

>>46804549
Dungeon Fantasy Monsters? Banestorm also has some.

>>46804549
Dungeon Fantasy Monsters?

>>46804622
>wii
>not Pathfinder
>Witch Girls Adventure
>not a dildo

anyways, what you want there is the ability to stasis yourself as a power block. I'm not sure how to add in that you can't not do it, but stasis-ing yourself in response to all superpower damage (and thus taking none) is generally an advantage, with a minor side effect of not moving at all. And a really pricey advantage, at that.

>>46804833
Yeah. Basically what I'm going for is:

Immune to all superpowers (and magic, and psi) as the advantage

And with going into stasis whenever it takes effect (and can't prevent it; beneficial powers trigger it, too. similarly, can't force it so can't protect against mundane attacks or anything) as the limitation(s)

Quite aware it'll probably net as an advantage.

File: Capture.png (22KB, 531x287px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 531x287px

A couple threads earlier there was statement that +2 to any skill is way too OP compared to rerolling 3 times (like Luck). Well, it's only true if you have particularly low skills.
Picrelated - highlighted cells are where skill+bonus has bigger probability of success than rolling at skill+0 3 times.

>>46804824
I don't have that book. Can you hook me up?

So inm new the Gurps, is there a quick way to know which rules/books ill need to my setting

>>46804622
You're basically asking for a way to be 100% invulnerable to any form of damage, with the drawback of being unable to move for at least a second afterwards?

Affliction 1 (Temporal Stasis, +1000%; Accessibility, Self Only, -80%; Reduced Duration, 1/60, -35%; Reflexive, +40%; Unconscious Only, -20%; Uncontrollable Trigger, Supernatural Effects, -%10) [100] (technically 99.5).
>When you are struck or targeted by any supernatural affect — be it laser vision, psionic mind control, or a cleric's healing spell — your body automatically steps "out of time," making you immune to whatever is targeting you but also freezing you in place for a second after the offending effect ends.

It's hard to resist my knee-jerk reaction of calling this OP. Immunity to all resistible Psi, Magic, and Super powers normally comes out to 90 points (each counts as a Very Common category worth [30]), and TRUE invulnerability to damage has no fair price — GURPS just doesn't do actual honest-to-god invulnerability, and normally you just by enough levels of Hardened DR to be effectively invulnerable vs. whatever you're facing. I want to say this whole thing just reeks of muchkinism.

At the same time, however, losing your turn after you're attacked is a *huge* drawback, allowing you to be easily stunlocked by any supernatural effect, even a piddly 1 point of burning damage (a permanent magical effect, like trapping you in a magical permanent bonfire, would be quite similar to death). This is on top of the ability not protecting you vs. mundane attacks. Those are some pretty big holes in your defenses.

>tl;dr I guess it's okay but don't be surprised or argue with your GM if he shoots the idea down.

>>46805391
>New
Lite. That's it. Don't run before you are sure you can walk. It's easy to add stuff in as the group (especially you) become more familiar with the system, but taking stuff out's a pain and you're liable to drown your players in OPTIONSOPTIONSOPTIONS or game-slowing rules (or both!) before the game gets far enough for you to realize you've made a mistake.

If you need something not covered in Light, only draw from Characters, and even then sparingly.

>>46805664
Thanks, that helps a lot.

The power has already been approved in concept. Just a matter of figuring out how to stat it.

Original concept just had the immunity on 24/7 with no stasis. That got shot down.

She can't even shoot a gun. This is more a way for the bookworm to survive next to all the other fighty supers than an attempt at becoming an OP combat monster.

>>46805858
Just pray your DM hasn't seen torchwood anytime recently.

>>46805214
Check the OP