Talk:List of GURPS books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This list is both out of date and poorly organised - wouldn't it be a better idea to use the same categories that Steve Jackson Games uses on their site? Lokicarbis 04:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

More incomplete than out of date. Many new books are included but older ones are left out. Also, many of the choices under fictional setting are rather odd. Shouldn't that category be reserved for liscensed works based on fiction? If not, than it should properly include all non-historical settings, rendering it rather useless as a category.

This should now be much more up to date. I have added in most of the missing titles from the sjgames gurps book list, as well as split out the 3rd and 4th edition titles into two separate sublists. I agree that the fictional settings choices seems messy. Perhaps we need:

  • Liscensed Settings
  • Genre Toolkits
  • Settings
    • Fantasy
    • Sci-fi

Brehaut 00:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Does it really make sense to have a entry for the GURPS Basic Set Deluxe Edition? seeing as its just chars and campaigns in a box. Brehaut 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Basic Set Deluxe edition has a separate product number from the unlimited edition books, hence a separate entry.

I added in the newest e23 release, Lands Out of Time, under 4E Fictional Settings. I was tempted to put it under Genre Toolkit, as it's effectively a subgenre book, but decided against it because 1) Infinite Worlds is also a Time Travel genre book, but leans heavier on setting material, and 2) it's much shorter than other such toolkit books, even Mysteries. Dahak 07:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just added several books that weren't previously mentioned, and corrected a couple of descriptions - all in the 4th Edition area. Airdrake (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, this article provides a fair complement of GURPS titles. Formatting titles according to date of release takes the mystery out of the list which is what I think were all looking for in a simple format. I'd like to compile a list of titles simply by year. Editions and printings are getting confused with other editions when the whole point of GURPS is it generically makes all editions nearly compatible with each other (and other systems). Individual citations of each title is a lot of work and lists I've seen have ISBN for each title in a spreadsheet format. Given time, the same could go for my pet project 'list of traveller books'. Collectively, we can put something together that does justice to Steve Jackson Games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collector connection (talkcontribs) 05:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Collector connection (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of articles/redirects[edit]

So, anybody want to discuss what books should have articles, and which redirects? I'm going to say the ones that have won an award are the most likely to merit an individual article, but even then, I'm not set on that option. FrozenPurpleCube 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Award-winners, or books with critical acclaim by noted individuals, makes sense for a minimum criteria. Likewise, the notability GURPS Cyberpunk achieved should be sufficient, even if it hadn't been award-winning. My feeling is that short articles like GURPS Bestiary and GURPS Ice Age can probably be merged back into here with brief summaries. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why notabiltiy criteria for these articles should be different from any other. Multiple coverage from reliable sources should be sufficient, as should winning a notable award. -Chunky Rice 16:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, because it might help to have a plan anyway, even deciding what awards are sufficiently notable could help. Or whose reviews are acceptable. We might not even want an article on a given book with reviews and awards available. FrozenPurpleCube 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
My two cents: yes, we do not need special notability criteria, but it is useful to have some consensus about what notability means for specific categories of subjects, as has been done for books (which does not cover reference books and instruction manuals, as GURPS books partly are), numbers and even pornographic actors. For instance, do we consider RPGnet a reliable source, even if the reviews are submitted by users? I'd be inclined to say that they tend to be reliable indeed: while it is not a true magazine, there is some kind of control on the reviews: "Reviews should: Be more than just a few paragraphs in length. Include both description & analysis. Be neither a puff piece nor an attack piece. If reviews don't meet this criteria, they may be rejected." ([1]). Moreover, the coverage and the critical reception for role-playing games, board games and the like follows different patterns than for (usual) books and films. In the same vein, do we count as reliable EN World or OgreCave? --Goochelaar 17:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines for reliable sources are pretty clearly spelled out at WP:RS.'s user based content I think clearly does not qualify, since there's a minimum, if any, of both of those things. It's just a cursory review for basic quality and lack of libel. For those other two, my first impulse is to say that they too, do not qualify, though I would need to look closer to make a final determination. A review from Dragon Magazine, Games, Games Quarterly, Knucklebones or any number of gaming publications should be satisfactory, though. -Chunky Rice 17:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'd generally agree with what's been said above... namely books/supplements that have won some sort of award are notable (and that award should obviously be noted in the corresponding article). The Cyberpunk book is obviously notable as well. I do believe that there are some "staff writers" at I don't know of any way of identifying them except from the "Staff Writer" tag that may (or may not?) appear by their name. I do recall seeing such "Staff Writer" tags (or something to that effect) on some reviews (but can't remember which off the top of my head). As far as I'm concerned, these are just as valid as any review in Games, Dragon, etc. Clearly any review (meeting the appropriate criteria, i.e. not just "user-submitted") should be added to the article, perhaps as well as some suitable quote from the review (either good or bad, but something that denotes the book/supplement was reviewed). Barring such reviews/awards, the article should be redirected to this list here.
Also, ideally we (in the collective sense) will also do this as soon as possible so that all this time spent on the AfDs and the future AfDs will be avoided. Cheers --Craw-daddy | T | 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So what do folks feel about those books that are part of a franchise, such as Transhuman Space, Discworld, Trek and the Vorkosigan book? Separate sections, or links to coverage elsewhere? I'm sure there's an existing page for Trek, but I'm not sure about the other franchises. FrozenPurpleCube 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even know that there was a Vorkosigan Saga GURPS book. I might look that up. I think that leaving them where they are is fine, though a separate section for "Licenced Properties." with a link to the relevant page for the source material would also be appropriate. Also in this category would be the Humanx Commonwealth and Wild Cards. Chunky Rice 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the book has been announced, but I haven't seen it published yet. (And there's also Horseclans, SMAC, Blue Mars and Uplift...) FrozenPurpleCube 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My only other suggestion is when a page gets redirected to the list here, we should add in a (very) brief description of the boo/supplement to the list here. The key thing is that we want to avoid "transferring" any concern about notability from the other article to this list. So any somewhat dubious claim might want to be avoided here. For example, if the book's article says it was the "setting/source of/inspiration for" a number of books, well if that can't be verified we don't want to make the same claim here (after all, if that could have been verified, it's likely that the original article could be kept as that's evidence of notability of that supplement). --Craw-daddy | T | 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, a paragraph summary would be beneficial. Also SJG's list of awards could be documented on the various article pages to provide evidence of notability (in those cases).
  • Staff (2007). "Awards for Steve Jackson Games". Steve Jackson Games. Retrieved 2007-09-05.
  • Staff (2007). "Archive". Academy of Adventure Gaming, Arts & Design. Retrieved 2007-09-05.
Also should we be using {{cite book}} for these entries? I.e. include the authors, ISBN, &c.— RJH (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is decided this page has to be more than a list. This page is now a ghetto, sooner or later when the majority of GURPS book articles have been transfered to this page the AfD nomination is going to come. Normally lists serve a purpose, e.g. to allow easy navigation to articles in that list, with the articles themselves deleted the accusation will be that this list is redundant, a list purely for the purpose of having a list, and that the remaining GURPS books can be served by a category GURPS books, that what few paragraphs of information that there are in this article can be merged back to the main GURPS article.

To survive as much of the detail from the transfered articles as possible must be integrated into this list. This list must serve a greater purpose than just be a list of GURPS books.

I think just about every GURPS article is being nominated in turn.KTo288 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am doing my best to make this article a better one, as you may see. I welcome every contribution, of course! I do not share your pessimism. This list is an integration to the GURPS article: of course the list in itself cannot be notable--no one will ever write a book, or a newspaper story on "List of GURPS books"! Please add authors, years, bibliographical details and other material, within those limits that will not allow this page to be accused of "fancruft". Happy editing, Goochelaar 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely hope your faith in the good faith of other editors is not misplaced and I am being needlessly paranoid, and happy editing to you too.KTo288 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk![edit]

I have merged here some of the material from GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk!, as decided in the AfD debate. --Goochelaar 07:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


The biggest drawback to using the {{cite book}} template is that the book name is no longer left-most on the line. That would make it a little more difficult to peruse the list. But I do think it would be good to list the authors, year of publication and possibly the ISBN for each of the books; even if the cite book template isn't the best choice. Perhaps something like this:

  • GURPS Witch World (Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller, 1989, ISBN 1-55634-143-1) A setting based on the series of Witch World novels by Andre Norton. Included are a bestiary of Witch World creatures, details on the non-human races, a history and geography of the planet, and a color-based system of magic.

What do you think? This could be implemented as a separate template. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a somewhat mixed feeling: on the one hand, this style looks pleasant, and it is true that several of these books are most known (and searched for) for their title or theme than for their author. On the other hand, this format seems to somewhat belittle the importance of the authors, which is perhaps not desirable. What about something more on the lines of the following?
  • GURPS Witch World by Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller, 1989, ISBN 1-55634-143-1 - A setting based on the series of Witch World novels by Andre Norton. Included are a bestiary of Witch World creatures, details on the non-human races, a history and geography of the planet, and a color-based system of magic.
--Goochelaar 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I would probably suggest something like this:
  • GURPS Witch World (Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller, 1989, ISBN 1-55634-143-1) A setting based on the series of Witch World novels by Andre Norton. Included are a bestiary of Witch World creatures, details on the non-human races, ...

I think this strikes a balance between not belittling the authors, but makes for improved readability. The parentheses give the eyes something to distinguish between the title, author (and other info), and the book's description. Otherwise (to me at least), the text seems to all run together and I can't sort it out easily, and that's part of what I want to do, i.e. read it easily as this is an encyclopedia after all.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Before starting, I have one last doubt. Do you know whether doing it "by hand" rather than using a template makes a difference (apart from it being more or less practical or time-saving)? I mean, are templates machine-readable? Do they allow, say, to automatically compile bibliographies or something? --Goochelaar 08:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I would think they could be used in the machine-readable sense, if you're scanning the page source. But I have no idea if they have been used in that manner. — RJH (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That works for me as well. So perhaps something like this?
 {{gurps book
   | title  =Name of the book
   | author =List of authors
   | year   =Year of publication
   | isbn   =10 or 13-digit ISBN number
   | language    =non-English language, if any
   | publisher   =non-SJG publisher, if any
   | description =Brief commentary on the work
RJH (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Great for me. Can you create a template? As for the "brief commentary": will this impose any limit on its length? (Unrelated: I had already merged some about GURPS RebornRebirth, under the Japanese books; we should unify the two summaries...) --Goochelaar 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I put a draft template at {{Gurps book}}. The description field wasn't added. I'm not aware of any length issues, but sometimes I've seen formatting problems for text inside templates.
Test: GURPS Witch World (Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller, 1989, ISBN 1-55634-143-1) A setting based on the series of Witch World novels by Andre Norton. Included are a bestiary of Witch World creatures, details on the non-human races, a history and geography of the planet, and a color-based system of magic.
RJH (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine work! I have begun formatting (and adding data for) a few books with the new template. --Goochelaar 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternate vs Alternative[edit]

I am a native speaker of English, but I am unable to read this article because it makes such frequent use of "alternate" as an adjective. In UK English the correct adjective is "alternative" (except when used to mean "every other"). I tried to make it more readable, following the wp:mos guidelines, but was reverted. Does anyone else agree with me or am I on my own? Thunderbird2 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It currently appears that "alternative" is not preferred in the phrase "alternate history", by WP:COMMONNAME. See also Talk:Alternate history#Propose move to Alternative history and its archives. I made some changes in other phrases to avoid the issue. -- JHunterJ 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


I've currently protected several pages, including this one, for three days in response to edit wars over non-free image use. Please try to resolve these issues through discussion and the dispute resolution process. Relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Edit-warring and elsewhere; please participate there instead of risking further page locks and user blocks. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of images[edit]

Would it be more acceptible if the images on this page portrayed fanned-out stacks of related GURPS books, rather than a squared-up scan of a single cover?—RJH (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant to have a look at the discussions in the (archived) talk page of user Betacommand, and especially this thread. He has labelled several images that allegedly do not comply with fair use policy, and in that discussion his and other editors' opinions are presented (starting about a GURPS book cover), also about book articles and and book list articles. Goochelaar (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Forget that. I've removed them all. Wikipedia firstly, is not a shopping catalog. Based off my interpretation of NFCC 8, non-free images must either be directly of the subject of the article, or the content depicted in it must be discussed critically within the article. ViperSnake151 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, but before reverting your deletion, I'd like to exchange opinions about this. Of course, Wikipedia is not a shopping catalog: in fact, those books cannot be bought here, and several of them are out of print and have been for years. Secondly, there have been, and are, elsewhere debates about the interpretation of NFCC8 and related topics, so I do not understand the "forget that" part. Could you be less succinct? Goochelaar (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree that creating a big gallery of non-free images is probably not ideal if they aren't discussed in any real detail. But one or two group shots, I think, would be apropriate for this list. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GURPS Monsters merits its own article.[edit]

I have found three independent reviews for it while working on J. Hunter Johnson's page. One was published in, but the author is Craig Oxbrow, who is a freelance writer, artist, and minor filmmaker. (I think that should be the criterion for using - whether the writer of the review has a verifiable writing history outside of I'd be happy to start a draft if anyone else cares to contribute. I am NOT an RPG fan, but I was drawn to this through an AfD discussion. (I prefer to fix things up rather than delete.) I can sketch out the article, but someone with RPG expertise should be involved to make sure coverage can actually relate to the RPG audience. Anyway, would anyone care to go along? Lemme know on my talk page and we'll get to work :) Dcs002 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


I only see GURPS Spirits listed under Third Edition Creatures. This is referred to as an important book in Hellboy. Is there no 4th edition version? Is it legal to use 3rd Edition books in 4th Edition games? Ranze (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

2E to 3E[edit]

I cited 2 different versions for the 3E to 4E update PDF which is freely given out (one is two pages longer, it otherwise seems the same but has 2 foreword pages... although the file is smaller in spite of being 2 extra pages, not sure why) but noticed in the foreword that it says when 3E came out they released a "GURPS Update" for adapting 2E chars into 3E.

We do not list that on this page. Since we list the 3>4 update under the 4E section I think we should list the 2>3 update in the 3E section.

I'm just not sure if they still have it up somewhere, but if someone could locate it I would like to see it cited. It would also be good if we could input template:anchor next to each so they link to each other.

I do not know if the 2>3 update is free like the 3>4. (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Settings subsection[edit]

As this is rather large, I would like to propose we split off books which are based on preceding works, like ones which adapt other RPGs or novel series, as opposed to others which are original settings. Ranze (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

GURPS Fantasy Folk: Elves[edit]

GURPS Fantasy Folk: Elves is now a thing. But as I wrote it....could someone else add it to the article? Here's verification it's real: Here's a review: Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I should probably add this is the first book of the intended GURPS Fantasy Folk series for Fourth Edition (current) GURPS. The second draft of two others have been written and publicly announced by Steve Jackson Games, but the others are not yet released. Alden Loveshade (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 DoneCarter (Tcr25) (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it! Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)