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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-01-2010, 10:43 PM   #271
combatmedic
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: a crooked, creaky manse built on a blasted heath
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff_wilson View Post
If the GM doesn't bother to become familiar with basic facts of life like that, the cumulative errors from uncoordinated guessing can and will begin to produce ridiculous results, like cab drivers being paid more wages than they take in in fares.
Is this a joke? Who actually calculates the income of cabbies for an RPG? How would this ever come up in play? This would matter if you were running some kind of taxi-cab driver campaign, but it seems like a 'window dressing' detail in most anything else.
combatmedic is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 12:13 AM   #272
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by jalapeno_dude View Post
Especially for tabletop games, where there's a limited amount of time per week (month, year, whatever...) you get to spend with the group, the goal of playing is at least partially social. That is, part of the reason we (or at least I) game is to have fun with a group of friends.

If people aren't having fun, then I'm doing something wrong, and I'm going to adjust my game to change that. . . .

. . . If, say, I'm really excited about running a Transhuman Space game (which I am, certainly!), but after the first few sessions it becomes clear that everyone is playing to relieve stress and doesn't want to get into deep philosophical questions, then I'm going to be disappointed. But I'm not going to force my setup down the player's throats: instead I'm most definitely going to, as you say, "destroy the imaginative integrity of my game world to keep a player happy." I'm going to make it more pulpy, more action-driven, and less philosophical. And sure I'll be a little disappointed, but in the long run it's for the better. You (or at least I) need to tailor the campaign to the players, and that doesn't just mean taking that into account when coming up with the premise: it means making constant adjustments to work towards a better gaming experience: in your words, "destroy[ing] the imaginative integrity of my game world to keep a player happy."

Is that at least an understandable position?
I suppose it's understandable, but I find it strange on a couple of levels.

One is that it sounds as if you try to figure out your players' tastes, come up with a campaign premise that you think will suit them and that you like, and start running it. And then if it doesn't work you retrofit. What I do is describe the campaign in somewhat more detail than that, telling the players what to expect, and then ask them to pick from a list of from half a dozen to fifty different proposed campaigns. I pick out two or three popular proposals that a lot of people like, and put together player groups. So the players have already evaluated the premise and said that they want to play a game based on it.

One is that you seem to me to be confusing substance with emphasis. I've had campaigns that turned into something different from what I expected to run. But I didn't deal with that by changing the world, or, usually, be redefining the rules. Rather, I did it by giving the players more of the stuff that already existed within the world that they seemed to be responding to. Remember, my worlds have a lot of pre-existent detail, some in the form of concrete things and some in the form of categories of things within which I can invent new concrete things.

But most basically: In a certain sense, you could say that you view what you are doing as entertainment, whereas I view what I am doing as art. But that's an oversimplification, in that I think of art as entertaining. It's not something people are suffering through because it's good for them; it's something they enjoy more than they enjoy more casual entertainment.

Now, that does take a somewhat unusual type of player. But I have a plentiful supply of such players. I don't have to put up with casual players who are just there for stress relief and don't want to deal with anything deep. I have as many players as I want who are prepared to deal with challenging stuff and find it fun.

I don't view what I'm doing as "running games for my friends." On one hand, I have friends who don't game and don't want to try. On the other hand, I regularly invite new people into my games. My upcoming campaigns, for example, will have three people I've never run games for before. One is the wife of a former players who's coming back, and she and another player are also in a Call of Cthulhu campaign that I play in; the third is a member of the online SJ Games community who just moved to San Diego, and sat in on one of my sessions as an observer. These are people who value the activity, enough to fit it into fairly busy schedules, and who value the kind of content I can provide for the activity. If they don't, they don't have to sign up for my games. Many of those who do become friends, but that's not a requirement. What's a requirement is that they are ready to come to me for a demanding pleasure, one that they have to actively engage with.

And really, that's the kind of thing that helps make me interested in having someone as a friend. In terms of the people I game with, the fact that they value the imaginative integrity of my game worlds, and that it contributes to their pleasure in gaming with me, helps establish them as the kind of people I want to have as friends. Presenting the kind of worlds that I find interesting and getting to know people who chose to play in them has helped me gain many of my current friends, and has given me and them many hours of entertainment.
whswhs is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 12:22 AM   #273
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by LemmingLord View Post
And as long as you don't mind when we don't get to met any of those characters you've spent an hour a piece making, then we probably will both have a great time. :)
Which, as I've said, I only do for recurring or "big bad" villains. for most adventures these days, I'm a minimalist.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is online now  
Old 01-02-2010, 07:40 AM   #274
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole View Post
Which, as I've said, I only do for recurring or "big bad" villains. for most adventures these days, I'm a minimalist.
There is an important compromise position here, and one that I often use: I draw up a generic "police officer" or "sailor" or "orc" character sheet, and use it for all the people who would be mooks in a more cinematic campaign. It takes much less time—I can do a low-end character sheet in twenty minutes or so—and can easily see recurring use. In fact, I may well do several such character sheets at the start of a campaign. To allow for customization, I may put in "Hobby skill, 2 points" or such like.

Bill Stoddard
whswhs is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 09:55 AM   #275
vitruvian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen View Post
But what does the point cost of their traits have to do with this? If I decide that a pyrokinetic can throw fireballs that do 2d of burning damge, have a max range of 500 yards, 1/2 damage of 250 yards, Acc of 3, RoF 1, and are affected by things that nullify or enhance psionic powers, isn't that defined? How would knowing how many points it would cost for a PC to have this power add extra definition?
It would let you know better how much the NPC pyrokinetic would cost as an Ally or Enemy for one of the PCs?
vitruvian is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 10:06 AM   #276
zorg
Experimental Subject
 
zorg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: saarbrücken, germany
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
It would let you know better how much the NPC pyrokinetic would cost as an Ally or Enemy for one of the PCs?
In many cases, this will be irrelevant. I don't charge points for allies acquired in play. How much an enemy acquired in play lowers your CP total is largely academic.

You'd need a CP cost of the NPC if he was bought either way at character creation, of course.
__________________
Like a mail order mogwai...but nerdier - Nymdok
understanding is a three-edged sword
zorg is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 10:19 AM   #277
vitruvian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by zorg View Post
In many cases, this will be irrelevant. I don't charge points for allies acquired in play. How much an enemy acquired in play lowers your CP total is largely academic.

You'd need a CP cost of the NPC if he was bought either way at character creation, of course.
Well, if you're not doing CP totals for PCs either...
vitruvian is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 10:31 AM   #278
Ze'Manel Cunha
 
Ze'Manel Cunha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
Well, if you're not doing CP totals for PCs either...
After game start it becomes somewhat moot anyway.
In one adventure your PC loses a hand, gains a contact, gets a lot of money, the next adventure he gets a replacement hand, loses a contact, gains an ally, loses some money, gains an enemy.

Adding or subtracting those point values gained in play to the PC's character sheet doesn't really do anything other than reminding you what happened in continuity, so for game balance purposes it's moot, meaningless.
Ze'Manel Cunha is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 10:39 AM   #279
trooper6
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
There is an important compromise position here, and one that I often use: I draw up a generic "police officer" or "sailor" or "orc" character sheet, and use it for all the people who would be mooks in a more cinematic campaign. It takes much less time—I can do a low-end character sheet in twenty minutes or so—and can easily see recurring use. In fact, I may well do several such character sheets at the start of a campaign. To allow for customization, I may put in "Hobby skill, 2 points" or such like.

Bill Stoddard
I often do something similar. Though, I don't generally write it down. I work from a rubric on how to assign stats and skills...so I know what a generic "police officer" or "sailor" is going to look like before I start the game and don't need to write it down.

But "Orc"...that I'd probably stat up more fully, because there is an existing racial template I'd have to think about. But once I statted up the generic orc soldier, I'd just reuse him.
trooper6 is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 11:01 AM   #280
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

Quote:
Originally Posted by trooper6 View Post
I often do something similar. Though, I don't generally write it down. I work from a rubric on how to assign stats and skills...so I know what a generic "police officer" or "sailor" is going to look like before I start the game and don't need to write it down.
Well, for example, in my current fantasy campaign The Foam of Perilous Seas, the ship had generic sailors, gunners, marines, and cabin boys. But it would have been wrong if a sailor cost 75 points, a gunner 55 (because gunners are chosen from the more experienced sailors), and a cabin boy 120! So I wrote out generic character sheets to make sure I had the right relative values. That also let me work out, not the primary skills, but the secondary and background skills that they could be expected to have picked up. Really, it's largely a medium for thinking things out.

Bill Stoddard
whswhs is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
crunchy, faq, no-wing, wing

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 01:05 PM.


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