Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-13-2012, 10:45 AM   #11
Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Default Re: An idea from another game

Quote:
Edman

Would this be transportable to GURPS? You can still know things, without needing to buy them as skills, and if you do buy them as skills, the GM has to create situations where they come up.
GURPS already partially covers this with default skills costing 0 points. OTOH, one of the basic assumptions in GURPS is that you get what you pay for in terms of a character. So you can have a character who can sing and even be a singer for 0 points; but if you want a great singer, it's going to cost points (for some combination of skill, musical talent, voice advantage and controlling attribute [HT IIRC]).

I can see arguments for and against "the GM has to create situations where they come up." On the one hand, if you paid points for it, situations where it's at least potentially useful ought to come up at least once in a while.

Broadly speaking, there are three kinds of situations where skills are useful.

First, the skill may be directly useful as the solution to the situation, e.g. Guns skill for using a revolver in combat or Chemistry to whip up a needed batch of acid in a chem lab.

Second, it may be useful in providing clues if the player thinks to have the character use the skill, e.g., using a combination of Language: English (Cockney), Language: English (Australian) and Area Knowledge (Rocky Beach, CA) to find the legacy of a will written as a poetic riddle in rhyming slang by a former Australian [the plot of the Three Investigators and The Dead Man's Riddle].

Finally, if knowledge of the skill is thorough enough, the challenge may be getting to the point where you can make use of the skill. E.g., you have the skill Gunner/TL4 and the GM informs you that yes, you could move back out of range of the enemy guns on the wall and still be able to hit them if you increase the powder charge you're using, at the risk of possibly bursting the barrel. Now, all you have to do is move a half ton of metal on a wooden carriage that has no wheels back 100 yards, without having it fall over on its side, get stuck in the mud or catch on a rock projection and set up. Of course, once you've gotten to the new position, the barrel's tilting six inches to the right. If you want to fire the gun as it is, you'll start softening up a new spot on the wall and the recoil will eventually rock the gun over so it ends up laying on its side, unless you move the gun again or spend some time with a pick and shovel making the gun position nice and level, so what are you going to do now? After you've fired a few shots from your nice, level gun position, recoil has moved the gun back six feet, so will you put more elevation on the gun or is somebody going to get on the ropes and drag it forward six feet? Great, the day's getting warmer and there's a nice stiff breeze but it looks like the rounds are hitting lower than they were a half hour ago. Probably a result of the powder being warmer, the air a little less dense and that head wind. Well a little more elevation or a little more powder would probably take care of that. What to do? And it started as such a nice, simple day! (sigh.)

All those examples depend on the GM knowing enough about the skill to create an interesting situation. In RL, GMs aren't polymaths. If a GM is weak in a particular area, say music, players will be discouraged if not outright forbidden from taking musical skills because they're not going to be important in that GM's campaigns. They may appear for colour, (e.g. a group of minstrels is entertaining the court when you enter the hall), but it's expected to remain in the background. If a player insist on taking a point in musical instrument (lute), a point in singing and another point in performing after that warning, I don't think the GM is particularly required to provide the player with situations to use those skills. Without knowledge of the skill, the GM may not be able to do much more than, "You play your lute and sing a popular new song? Make a roll vs. lute and one against singing. Made them both? Fine you didn't make hit any sour notes or stumble over the lyrics. Make a roll vs. performing. Made it by three. Okay, you collected twenty-five silver pennies, more than enough to pay for a meal and a night's lodging at the inn." That's going to get old fast.

If the player is filling the GM in on the nuances of the skill, either the character will be able to handle the situation fairly easily, after all the player effectively planned the situation, so he knows the solution as soon as he recognizes, "Oh, yeah, I told the GM about this last month. I guess he figured it'd come as a surprise to me about now." or the player will be explaining to the GM why he's wrong about how the situation would be resolved.

And, yes, the high scores cost points is not solely the result of the way GURPS is played, it's integral to GURPS as a system. It would be a different system if it gave high skills for free. OTOH, default skills make it possible to know a skill (at a low level) for 0 points and as has been pointed out a Perk (most of which are a point or two) would cover having a high skill in circumstances where it doesn't really matter (possible alternate translation: sure he's good, but he chokes under pressure every single time.)

Last edited by Curmudgeon; 11-13-2012 at 10:49 AM. Reason: moving aside
Curmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:52 AM   #12
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: An idea from another game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goober4473 View Post
Pure flavor, I'd assume. One of them decides to stand up on the table and sing a song, for no mechanical benefit.
Flavor is a huge part of the point of RPGs. Otherwise, they'd be purely abstract games, like tic-tac-toe or Nim.

If you're going to argue that Singing is useless here because there's no mechanical benefit, you also have to ask why (a) the player is wasting everyone's time with a useless action, and (b) why the player would care whether or not he's successful in such a pointless, meaningless, waste of time. There's no game-mechanical penalty for being bad at it, either, so why worry?

But personally, I don't see the game as so limited.

The OP describes a fairly narrativist take on the use of points. You'll see a very similar idea in many discussions of GURPS character building and campaign creation. Often, people will point out that the things players spend their points on are in indication of things they want to do in the game -- and thus that a good GM will take that into account, and create, modify, tweak so as to let the characters shine in their own chosen spotlight manners. This is a general principle for running games. It's not written down as a "rule" in GURPS, though. GURPS leaves "rules" for mechanics, and the rest is just "advice".

Note that you have almost every skill in the GURPS book for zero points -- at default levels, where they're not likely to be much good for problem-solving.

The remaining difference seems to be the notion that you can declare yourself to be "good" at something, yet also assert that such skill has no positive effect on the game. This gets into weird philosophical questions about what it will mean, operationally, to be "good" or "bad" in the absence of any measurable effect in the game universe.

In this case, the GM will have to work to make sure that no situation ever arises that might demonstrate the player's assertion to be false. That is, it's the opposite of the case earlier: rather than using skills the PC does have as an indication of what should happen, the GM takes all the skills the PC _doesn't_ have -- not having paid points for them -- and makes sure they never come into play in a meaningful manner. Thus, the player gets to make empty assertions about their character.

That doesn't seem particularly harmful -- but then, it doesn't seem particularly valuable, either. I imagine the concept arose because the designers were frustrated by point-buy systems that made them spend points on "useless" skills, and they just wanted to be able to describe their character without backing it up, mechanically.

One reason that problem arises is overly-restricted point budgets; the answer, just let 'em have more points.

One drawback there s the munchkin that sinks all his points into a combat monster. One response is to take that at face value and give him lots of nasties to fight, even if they mysteriously ignore the other PCs that they could mop the floor with. That's the game he "bought" with his points, after all. And it fits plenty of fiction.

Another response is to value skills differently. Recently, there was a thread on just this, tweaking point costs according to the skills expected utility in the upcoming game. Just as the true cost of Advantages and Disadvantages can depend on the setting, so can the true value of skills.

Last edited by Anaraxes; 11-13-2012 at 12:40 PM.
Anaraxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:59 AM   #13
copeab
 
copeab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: near Houston
Default Re: An idea from another game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goober4473 View Post
Pure flavor, I'd assume.
Why not just assume you have the skill at default and have a very high modifier for the situation?
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

GURPS 3e stuff: http://copeab.tripod.com
copeab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:59 AM   #14
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: An idea from another game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edman View Post
Oh, of course, but is that just how GURPS is played, or an integral part of the system? Would it be a different system if your character would actually have the skills Housekeeping, Connoisseur: Flatulists and Dreaming without paying points for them? I know I don't mind if my players' characters are assumed to have the background skills they want, as long as having those skills don't come into play.
I suppose it's sort of viable for obscure skills like some Connoisseurs or Dreaming. Anything as useful as Housekeeping will look weird if it's on the sheet but can not be used on an adventure.

Now, I'm totally okay with a leveled Perk that adds +2 to +4 per level for 'useless' skill rolls. +4 if it's just there to claim that you're one of the world's most impressive X-skillers, or +2 if it actually adds to things like Job rolls, complimentary skill rolls for impressing people and the like, but not for the primary use of the skill.

E.g.
Singing that only works on non-competitive Karaoke is probably okay at +4/level. If it works for Job rolls and singing competitions that have little to no effect on the primary and secondary plot, +4/level looks okay. If it can be used for Bardic Skills somehow, or for attuning to an alien artifcat, then no way.

Sex Appeal. A bonus to impress nameless NPCs who never provide any sort of aid or information. +2 if somebody can be impressed by your ability to maintain a hunk/gal in every port and thinks it makes you cool. +4 if it's only there as an Informed Attribute that gets mentioned from time to time but changes nothing else.

Such perks really occupy a niche similar to that of 0-Point Special Effects (from Powers) and Shticks.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 12:13 PM   #15
Dusqune
 
Dusqune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Re: An idea from another game

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab View Post
Just a thought ... why would a player want a skill they can't actually use to influence events in the game world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
If you're going to argue that Singing is useless here because there's no mechanical benefit, you also have to ask why (a) the player is wasting everyone's time with a useless action, and (b) why the player would care whether or not he's successful in such a pointless, meaningless, waste of time. There's no game-mechanical benefit for being bad at it, either, so why worry?
These. If the character really wants to get up on that table and sing well, the GM can make a roll behind a screen, smile, ignore the results, and say "Yeah, you impress your friends and you all have a great night." or whatever. Or he can make you roll agaisnt the default. Personally, as a GM, if you declare you do something, it will probably have some impact in the game. For example, when you meet the person you are supposed to be helping as part of the main adventure, he might go, "Oh, gosh, it's you?" with a good or bad inflection based on how good/charismatic//bad/obnoxious you were with your singing, because he happened to be there that night. IMO, if we start narrating the daily parts of our lives that have no impact on the game, then we might as well go play the Sims (which is a good game, not meaning to bash, here).

At the same time, I know trying to stat myself out as a GURPS character I kept racking up my point total because I had little skills everywhere* (or maybe just some sort of Gaming! skill... idk, expensive either way). So...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
In RL, GMs aren't polymaths.
...apparantly I need to quit GM'ing. ;P


*You may say this is high IQ. I counter with the fact that I am pretty terrible socially, so either I have lots of points in skills or I have high IQ and seven levels of shyness... either way, it's a lot of points for a bunch of stuff that would not be cp-efficient for an adventurer.
__________________
Addiction to Creating New GURPS Characters: Cheap, Legal [-1]
Indecisive (Self Control: <=6) [-20]
Laziness [-10]
Dreamer [-1]
Secret: {REDACTED} [-30]
Delusion: Has a Quirk-Level Delusion [-1]
Dusqune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 12:17 PM   #16
GodBeastX
 
GodBeastX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Behind You
Default Re: An idea from another game

Noted that I didn't read every post, but I tend to view skills based on difficulty and other facets. For example, cooking skill. Can you boil water and make pasta without it? Yes. Driving skill, can you commute to work without it? Yes.

It's usually the stressful or difficult situations where the skill roll comes into play. Take cooking for example:

Quote:
This is the skill of being a chef – you do not need it to heat water and open boxes, or to cook rat-on-a-stick over your campfire. A successful skill roll allows you to prepare a pleasing meal.
So I tend to look at skill as something that sets you above those status quo around you. A person with voice advantage and such probably has a great singing voice, but does that make you a performer? I think anyone who gets in front of an audience would probably tell you about how poorly their first performances probably went.

Modifiers are an important part of GURPS that I think get overlooked sometimes in my experience (Probably not everyone's), and I use them heavily. Singing for your friends might be +5 modifier. They already like you and probably want to support you. Imagine all the people who show up for talent contests with their friends going "OH YEAH! THEY SING GREAT!" and they don't sound good at all.

It's really how you want to manage it as a GM. This blurb in the campaigns book puts it best.

Quote:
To avoid bogging down the game in endless die rolls, the GM should only require a success roll if there is a chance of meaningful failure or gainful success. In particular, the GM should require success rolls when . . .

• A PC’s health, wealth, friends, reputation, or equipment are at risk. This includes chases, combat (even if the target is stationary and at point-blank range!), espionage, thievery, and similar “adventuring” activities.

• A PC stands to gain allies, information, new abilities, social standing,
or wealth.

The GM should not require rolls for . . .

• Utterly trivial tasks, such as crossing the street, driving into town, feeding the dog, finding the corner store, or turning on the computer.

• Daily work at a mundane, nonadventuring job.
There's a lot of times you can just assume everything goes well.
GodBeastX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:02 PM   #17
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: An idea from another game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
GURPS already partially covers this with default skills costing 0 points. OTOH, one of the basic assumptions in GURPS is that you get what you pay for in terms of a character.
It's also important to realize that GURPS points aren't just about buying the ability to face challenges. They're often as much about buying a share of the spotlight. If you don't charge points, there's little to stop you from saying "I'm going to be a really good singer, but I promise not to 'solve problems' with it" and stealing the thunder from the minstrel who actually did spend points to become a great singer. Also, I would be scratch my head (and lose immersion) if the big dumb fighter can sing great except when trying to get something out of it.

On the other hand, I have no problem with people being creative with the explanation of their skills. If the elf has a beautiful, lilting voice, but the dwarf has a powerful baritone, that's fine to distinguish what their Singing 14 means.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:46 PM   #18
copeab
 
copeab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: near Houston
Default Re: An idea from another game

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
It's also important to realize that GURPS points aren't just about buying the ability to face challenges. They're often as much about buying a share of the spotlight. If you don't charge points, there's little to stop you from saying "I'm going to be a really good singer, but I promise not to 'solve problems' with it" and stealing the thunder from the minstrel who actually did spend points to become a great singer. Also, I would be scratch my head (and lose immersion) if the big dumb fighter can sing great except when trying to get something out of it.
OTOH, I can see a "Stage Fright" limitation on certain skills
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

GURPS 3e stuff: http://copeab.tripod.com
copeab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 02:28 PM   #19
malloyd
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: An idea from another game

If the contract is the result doesn't affect the game, who cares if you are good or not? You get up on the table and sing. End of scene. You can't be good enough to have impressed anybody - that'd violate the contract. You can't have been bad enough to offend anybody, ditto. There's no reason to *care* if you were good, because per the contract it does not matter.
__________________
--
MA Lloyd
malloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 02:59 PM   #20
dbm
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lancashire, UK
Default Re: An idea from another game

I can relate to the OP's post and think the idea has value. Other parts of GURPS are based on the principle of utility being the driving value point costs. Advantages and powers seemed to be built off this concept. Treating skills similary would make the system more consistent.

A skill which is highly appropriate to the campaign could be charged at a premium versus a skill with little chance of impacting the game. The difficulty would be that the classification of skills would vary by campaign - broad sword is a great skill at TL3 but fairly redundant at TL8.

Currently skills are classed as Easy > Average > Hard > Very Hard. How about classifying them as Colour > General > Valuable > Highly Valuable or some such?

In a Dungeon Fantasy campaign dancing would be a Colour skill, riding might be a General skill, observation might be a Valuable skill and weapon skills might be Highly Valuable.

In a game of courtly intrigue, climb might be a Colour skill, weapons might be General, dancing might be a Valuable skill and sense motive might be Highly Valuable.

I think this could have legs for an Alternative GURPS article in Pyramid? The GM would need to allocate skills to each classification as part of their campaign design work but some exemplars could be built up.
dbm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
alt gurps, skills

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.