Talk:List of GURPS books

message: This list is both out of date and poorly organised - wouldn't it be a better idea to use the same categories that Steve Jackson Games uses on their site?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More incomplete than out of date.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)
thread_title: Obsolescence

message: 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)
thread_title: GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternate vs Alternative 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of images 

message: I have found three independent reviews for it while working on J. Hunter Johnson's page. One was published in rpg.net, but the author is Craig Oxbrow, who is a freelance writer, artist, and minor filmmaker. (I think that should be the criterion for using rpg.net - whether the writer of the review has a verifiable writing history outside of rpg.net.) 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)
thread_title:  ''GURPS Monsters'' merits its own article.  

message: 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)
thread_title: Spirits

message: 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. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 2E to 3E

message: 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)
thread_title: Settings subsection

message: 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: https://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/elves/ 
Here's a review: https://enragedeggplant.blogspot.com/2021/10/review-gurps-fantasy-folk-elves.html
Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I appreciate it! Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  GURPS Fantasy Folk: Elves 

message: There is now a set of SJG published guidance books, most notably ‘How to be a GURPS GM’ and three subsequent books in the series with more focussed applications. There is also a set of three PDFs on how to create templates. I think these might warrant a section of their own, possibly below the core books and before the section on rules supplements since they are broadly applicable. 
Given a common criticism of GURPS is the perceived lack of support for new GMs I think readers would be interested in these books and it is worth highlighting them with their own section.
What do people think? DanMar1972 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GM guidance books 

message: Was just updating the "Infinite Worlds" section of the article and added all but the one I wrote (GURPS Infinite Worlds: Worlds of Atomic Horror). Per Alden's post about Fantasy Folk: Elves above, I wanted to let someone disinterested add it if they deem it appropriate to do so (link: https://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/worldsofatomichorror/) MattW93 (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GURPS Infinite Worlds: Worlds of Atomic Horror