GURPS PC 'roles'- a thought on pen and paper role playing in general

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I see this sort of thing, but even worse with the typical D&Der, sort of a "Fish don't know what water is" thing.

You're not discussing the roles of RPGs, but the roles of GURPS (and mostly Action). GURPS, by default, focuses on what I like to call "Agent" play. The abilities with the highest costs and the most mechanical focus tend to be abilities that agents would use, face-to-face, to get a particular job done. For example, GURPS has four different Influence skills, allowing four different core Influence strategies... but it only has one Politics skill, only one Strategy skill. Other games have different emphasis, different roles (though it's not always obvious, because many games copy one another: If you played nothing but D&D and its many knock-offs, you'd be forgiven for thinking that "Healer" was just a standard role in all games)

Imagine, for a moment, you were playing an entirely political game, a game about roman senators and generals trying to outmaneuver one another in an effort to gain empire. Each character has a different focus. Some specialize in demagougery, some focus on hob-nobbing with the aristocracy, some focus more on the military. You have different roles within that political/strategic structure, but none of the "I'm a combat role!" Being able to punch another senator in the face is not particularly useful.

GURPS does understand this. That's one of the big points behind the GURPS Template design books: You need to choose the roles/niches appropriate for your campaign. Often, the agent-style of play is what people are looking for and what they want, but not always. The typical GURPS Cabal campaign, in my experience, does not turn on how well you can punch someone in the face, but how well you can subvert organizations and uncover ancient secrets. It's the sort of game where players complain that Archaeology is OP. On the other hand, the combat-oriented roles of GURPS DF is different from the combat-oriented roles of GURPS Monster Hunters or Action. Action, for example, has no "I'm good at dealing with supernatural problems" niche, while DF has several, and Monster Hunters also doesn't... because every character should be good at dealing with the supernatural.

Thus, campaign design is game design, and game design is organic. Each game is unique and different. You can move and slot predefined roles into a campaign if you want, but it'll feel like other predefined campaigns. Better to understand how roles work, holistically, and design your niches as appropriate for the intent of your campaign.

I am very not sure I agree.

Given your political game set in roman times- it will never be useful or applicable that being able to mix/deliver poison will be a good thing? (murder- indirect). It will never be applicable that you have resistance to poison or disease (survival)? It will never be useful to support one of your fellow senators via whatever skills you have? Senators will never have to use there own deductive reasoning to figure out situations (problem solving)? They will all obviously have some social traits, and likely divide up multiple sub-types from there as a focus from the game, but I still think my categories encompass the type of activities that would take place in any game.

If you believe I am wrong I legitimately want to hear how and why, but please understand this is not a 'flash in the pan' conclusion so much as something that I am drawing from a good deal of role playing background, so I may be resistant to something that appears, to me at least, to be a straightforward application of what I am proposing.