GURPS: The Specialist

One key difference between a 5E and a GURPS-based game like Dungeon Fantasy is that you can create viable non-combat characters in DF. In 5E, everyone has the 'default dungeon skills' baked in, and everyone knows how to fight.

What fun is a non-combat character?

Or, is the only fun of a typical 5E game combat? If 5E has a weakness, combat is the game's default playstyle, followed by 'messing around' in social situations where everything is handled so softly that the game is more community theater LARPing than a game with rules.

I was creating characters in Dungeon Fantasy (and GURPS Space) today, and it wasn't that bad. GURPS Character Sheet has package deals, and while sorting through them isn't as easy as GURPS Character Assistant (you are more sorting and deleting in the former, where the latter has guided choices), I got through it and ended up with characters I was happy with.

I like mixing and matching games in GCS and pulling in things from other books if I want them; with GCA, you strictly define the books you use before you even start creating characters (and GCA's scripts will delete unused things in a library via the scripting system). GCS goes along with the assumption that GURPS is one colossal game: do what you want. GCA adheres to the model: GURPS can create tightly defined subset games out of book collections, with valid choices only applying.

There is a 'must have' advantage in GURPS called combat reflexes, which I would only allow combat veterans to have. It raises all your combat-related reflexes and bonuses and is a must-have for frontline fighters (in any genre of game). You could play an entire campaign and never need that advantage, and some support and mage characters may never even consider it.

My characters were more skill and social builds and were not the front-line fighters. My bard was a total urban and social skill monster, and I realized the character may never step one foot into a dungeon or seriously fight anyone - and I could still have fun playing them. They may learn to fight later, but it isn't needed. They had basic defense skills and could use a short sword and buckler, which was good enough.

Same with my space pilot. Knew how to shoot a blaster but had some extraordinary pilot abilities that would make any adventure with the character unique and fun. Did I need the combat-focused Starfinder engineer build or assume piloting skills? No, I paid points for some fantastic pilot abilities, and they will get used.

Both characters were 'combat light' and could function defensively. I always have the option to turn them into complete fighters if I want or keep going with their specializations. I could invest my following 200 points with that bard and make them a sword-swinging ninja barbarian (who sings), which is my choice. Or not. I could take my pilot and make them a power-armored, missile-launching, mobile ground forces Starship Trooper (who can pilot), which is my choice. Or not.

I could make the starship pilot a bard.

Oh, class-based systems, how you suck the life out of the hobby. My mind is back to 30 years ago when we first played GURPS and discovered how class-based systems are terrible and limit your imagination. The more significant point is I can play a game in GURPS that isn't focused on combat and killing and still have a great time. 5E is so damn bloodthirsty it is almost shocking, but it covers up all the violence in a veneer of no-bloodshed, family-friendly, fun adventure art.

That squarely focuses on killing and combat.

I could play games with my pilot or bard and have many things to do. They can fight defensively. Given the campaign threat level I establish, they can buy as many combat skills as they need to get by. But they can play the starship or social game quite effectively, immerse themselves in those worlds, earn XP, and improve quickly without taking a single life.

I don't feel bad about taking a non-combat specialist because I always have the option to turn them into a cold-blooded killer. In a class-based game, forget it; that choice you made at level one sticks with you for the whole game; enjoy sucking at combat your entire life, wizard.

On the flip side, if I spun up a space soldier or fighter good at combat, they could do something else for the rest of their career. Become a mage. Learn how to be a ship captain and free trader. Learn how to be a thief. Become a space doctor. Or a ranger. The combat skills are there; maybe they get used occasionally, but I am not being forced to become an epic dealer of death with the slow treadmill of XP turning me into a killing machine every passing day.

You can play GURPS as a to-the-point, hex-by-hex game of death and violence hyper-optimized murder simulator. But it doesn't force you to. If all you want to do for your following 200 points is buy skills that help you become the best florist in the universe, go right ahead. Get some plant growth powers from the supers book, and create plant minions. Whatever you want to do!

And referees don't need to constantly up the need for better combat skills either. The game is deadly, and the power curve can be as steep as you want. The combat challenges can stay "low level" for the entirety of the campaign, and there is no power curve. It is up to the group and referee how hard they lean into combat play.

You could play the bard with basic defensive skills and do an entire campaign that way, with only a few fights here and there. The bard could entirely focus on defense, disarm foes, knock them down, use magic to subdue them, convince them to surrender, dodge or block all attacks, and fight non-violently. Give them a code against killing as a disadvantage and lean into it as roleplay. Earn XP by dealing with problems intelligently and with creative use of skills. Leveling up does not mean more deadly; it means more effective. It reminds me of Adam West Batman.

5E and B/X can't do that. The power curve is built in, and the game forces you to take 'combat power' and forces these false, MMO-like, higher-level challenges on you.