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 01-26-2016, 10:38 PM   #51
Kalzazz
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

I think I kind of disagree on this . . . . I more or less am prone to handling making things cinematic by A - throwing more points at the PCs, and B - not being heavy on the 'harsh realistic' or 'realistic' type rules more than using cinematic rules (and those cinematic rules I use I tend to treat as PC powers . . . for instance, I allowed a PC to take unlimited ammo perk, but it was explained in game as 'my chi powers my laser pistols, I have no need of ammo' rather than cinematic convenience)

I also tend not to use any rules like bleeding (or armor damage much) that tend to be more 'hurts the PCs', since well, who cares if enemies bleed or have damaged armor? The party has either killed them or not, but its the PCs who have to deal with the consequences of bleeding and damaged armor

But things like combat options and active defenses and HP pools? Those seem such core GURPS things that a deviation from it is major . . . I would give say Clone Wars 'Roger Roger' mook battle droids penalties like no active defense and other things that can be explained in character (and with good reason for it, their dumb mass produced fodder droids! It is easy to explain!), not supposedly skilled human adversaries.

As a note, I do specifically that in my current cinematic Zombies and Loin Cloths campaign (post apoc mish mash zombie fun times, inspired by Myth the Fallen Lords, He-Man, Conan, and miscellany!) . . . garden variety undead don't tend to use much combat options, and often have Fragile (Unnatural) so they die without HT checks after eating sufficient amount of damage . . . its a major distinguishing trait between them and other types of adversaries

As for whether this feels like 3e? Hmmm, I am not so sure whether or not, I do note that for me 3e trended more toward 300pt characters, as that gives my preferred 'mid level' sort of feel (that I am beginning to think may be more like 400 in 4e, but I am not sure), where characters can comfortably scrap with the goblins of the world (by oodles or otherwise buffed goblins dogpiling the party) or can begin to scrap with more potent foes (by the entire party dogpiling one dragon or such) . . . I can't place a specific feel to how 3e combat differed from 4e, I mean, yeah, lots of game mechanic tweaks and such. Actually, I think the core difference is I think 3e due to lacking deceptive attacks, and having different ROF involving mechanics tended to at higher levels focus a lot on just throwing attacks back and forth until either someone flubbed a defense roll or you got a crit? Its been so long since I did 3e.

Though I really remember loving brain shots in 3e, because well, only way to avoid enemies getting to roll HT and stay up!

As a note, I actually find Aiming to be exceptionally cinematic as a DM, it is pretty much a flashing neon sign 'The enemy is charging up his attack!' it provides tension and anticipation, and inspires characters to try to take the enemy out before its next go rolls around

Not sure whether Dun could parry there, as I think he just used a Move and Attack, which negates parry
Kalzazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 02:17 AM   #52
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

Quote:
I think I kind of disagree on this . . . . I more or less am prone to handling making things cinematic by A - throwing more points at the PCs, and B - not being heavy on the 'harsh realistic' or 'realistic' type rules more than using cinematic rules (and those cinematic rules I use I tend to treat as PC powers . . . for instance, I allowed a PC to take unlimited ammo perk, but it was explained in game as 'my chi powers my laser pistols, I have no need of ammo' rather than cinematic convenience)
We risk a definitional debate. Let me simply point out a different perspective, and then we can drop it: Consider cinematic not as "more powerful" but as "more focused on narrative, in a fashion people are used to from cinematic movies."

Consider, for a moment, that Star Wars routinely describes, and depicts, Stormtroopers as lethal threats. "Only imperial Stormtroopers are so precise," says Obi-Wan Kenobi. The Stormtroopers destroy the guards on Leia's and the rebel troops on Hoth, and completely pacify Bespin. So they're no slouches. And yet some farm kid, a princess and a smuggler have no problem making fools of them. Why? Surely not ridiculous skill. When they face other, more narratively important opponents, their advantage evaporates. Luck might be possible, but again you'd expect that luck to be useful when they're going toe-to-toe with Boba Fett or Darth Vader, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We could say "Well, all the narratively important characters are Force Sensitive" and create this complex "force sensitive" mechanic that effectively gives the heroes a sort of cinematic advantage.

Or we could, you know, use cinematic rules. The real reason storm troopers lose easily to the heroes is not that storm troopers suck, but because they don't matter. They're there to heighten tension, not to present a real threat. Storm troopers will never be the force that defeat Luke and Han, but instead, Darth Vader will, because Darth Vader matters. Likewise, in Psi-Wars (or Action or many other cinematic genres), the Troopers don't really present a threat nearly as much as a named NPC.

Now, of course, you could handle that sort of thing a different way, but why reinvent the wheel especially when the wheel works so well? Especially if we're rapidly prototyping and more worried about a game hitting the table sooner than later, rather than rewriting the system for "the perfect game?"

That's not rhetorical, but a challenge, and it's not a question that I need you to answer TO ME, or even here, because it doesn't matter TO ME. Just something for you to consider.

As for whether this feels like 3e?

3e was also less precise. 4e has modifiers and perks and lots of very fine traits. What I see in this playtest is a lack of refinement and precision. I think that's why it strikes me as 3e-ish.

Quote:
As a note, I actually find Aiming to be exceptionally cinematic as a DM, it is pretty much a flashing neon sign 'The enemy is charging up his attack!' it provides tension and anticipation, and inspires characters to try to take the enemy out before its next go rolls around
Most of the time I have an NPC aiming, especially in a fight like this, it's a sniper and the players won't see him. That might not really fit the genre that Psi-Wars is trying to emulate. Perhaps I should reconsider your approach in this regard, as a trooper very obviously steadying his weapon and firing would be a very dramatic and clear moment.

(I try to write my mook-type NPCs with very few maneuvers and options explicitly written out, so I don't have to really think about them, but they get a real sense of how they fight with just a few lines on an NPC sheet. Noting an aim and AoA determined attack, to reflect sighted attacks, might not be a bad idea, especially to differentiate professional troopers from wild space pirates)

Quote:
Not sure whether Dun could parry there, as I think he just used a Move and Attack, which negates parry
You're right, that's my mistake. I rarely use Move-and-Attack without some cinematic options, so I forgot that it negated parry. In that case, I would just have him move close, because retaining his destructive parry is more valuable than making a wild swing attack.
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars.
Mailanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 02:07 PM   #53
Joe
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

Hey Mailanka - a quick question for you about the PsiWars setting.

(Which I'm enjoying immensely, by the way - I love the way you're taking us through the process of constructing a new campaign framework step-by-step.)

What made you decide to give the Space Knights serious armor? That seems like it was one of the key factors that made Dun useful in the last fight - maybe even the key factor - even more important than his force sword.

The term "Space Knight" does sort of suggest "shining armor", but of course SW Jedi go into battle conspiciously unarmored - indeed, it seems like it's very much part of their schtick. What made you opt for the former, and not the latter?

Not a critique - I'm just interested.
__________________
My (ahem... hugely entertaining... ahem) GURPS blog: The Collaborative Gamer
Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 02:17 PM   #54
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
Hey Mailanka - a quick question for you about the PsiWars setting.

(Which I'm enjoying immensely, by the way - I love the way you're taking us through the process of constructing a new campaign framework step-by-step.)

What made you decide to give the Space Knights serious armor? That seems like it was one of the key factors that made Dun useful in the last fight - maybe even the key factor - even more important than his force sword.

The term "Space Knight" does sort of suggest "shining armor", but of course SW Jedi go into battle conspiciously unarmored - indeed, it seems like it's very much part of their schtick. What made you opt for the former, and not the latter?

Not a critique - I'm just interested.
First, don't be afraid to criticize. I hope I don't come across as defensive. The intent of Psi Wars is not that people will go "Wow, this is a great setting!" I've written better settings and, in fact, I'm showing you all the warts of the design. The reason I'm doing that is so, I hope, you'll think "Well, gosh, I can do that too!" If you feel like you can do it better, doing so honors the intent of Psi Wars. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to go "Well, I don't like them having armor. I think they should use, say, precognitive parry instead."

I'd agree with that sentiment, by the way. The reason I gave Dun armor is that the space template doesn't have precognitive parry. I wanted a jedi. GURPS Space did not give me a jedi. So, I thought "Well, then let's give him some armor for now, see how that feels."

In later iterations, I'll change things around. We're still exploring. As Kalzazz said "Why not a force buckler?" Well, why not indeed? And then, when we get to martial arts, let's see how precognitive parry works.

I know what I really want, which is jedi, but I'm willing to entertain other ideas in the meantime, and in so doing, I might find something I like. I must confess, I'm coming around to the idea of a shining space knight with force sword and force buckler, in no small part to watching Dun shrug off blaster fire and then cut people down to size.

That's another reason I'm not converting Star Wars, because obviously jedi with armor is "doing it wrong." But if we're not converting Star Wars, we're free to experiment, to see what we like and what we don't.
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars.
Mailanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 02:51 PM   #55
Randyman
 
Join Date: May 2009
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

IOW, you are showing how the sausage is made. Bold, and hopefully as useful as you intend it to be.
__________________
"Despite (GURPS) reputation for realism and popularity with simulationists, the numbers are and always have been assessed in the service of drama." - Kromm

"(GURPS) isn't a game but a toolkit for building games, and the GM needs to use it intelligently" - Kromm
Randyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 02:58 PM   #56
Kalzazz
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

Notably Clone Wars cartoon Jedi DO wear armor! And tbrock's Star Wars campaign had armored Jedi, so Jedi with armor doesn't seem to be doing it wrong
Kalzazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 03:45 PM   #57
Joe
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mailanka View Post
I'm showing you all the warts of the design. The reason I'm doing that is so, I hope, you'll think "Well, gosh, I can do that too!" If you feel like you can do it better, doing so honors the intent of Psi Wars. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to go "Well, I don't like them having armor. I think they should use, say, precognitive parry instead."

I'd agree with that sentiment, by the way. The reason I gave Dun armor is that the space template doesn't have precognitive parry. I wanted a jedi. GURPS Space did not give me a jedi. So, I thought "Well, then let's give him some armor for now, see how that feels."

In later iterations, I'll change things around. We're still exploring. As Kalzazz said "Why not a force buckler?" Well, why not indeed? And then, when we get to martial arts, let's see how precognitive parry works.
Great answer! It's very satisfying to hear your reasoning laid out like this. Thanks!
__________________
My (ahem... hugely entertaining... ahem) GURPS blog: The Collaborative Gamer
Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 11:04 PM   #58
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

Today is GURPS-Day, and Psi Wars kicks off Iteration 2 with a look at what campaign frameworks can bring to a campaign. In this case, I steal liberally from GURPS Action, and share notes on how to adapt GURPS Action 2: Exploits to cinematic space opera in the vein of Star Wars.
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars.
Mailanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2016, 11:57 PM   #59
Kalzazz
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

I probably misspoke, I didn't mean to directly say 'high points = cinematic', I recall enough of Kromm's stories about high gritty realism meets high points and such

I don't find such rules to work terribly well though (and I have muddled with such on occasion)

1. It causes odd asymmetry, where PCs are rolling defenses and baddies arent, and PCs are using options and baddies aren't . . . it hurts feelings of 'being in a world' instead of being in a video game . . . and it doesn't seem to emulate the movies that well, Luke and friends do at times not hit when they shoot and such

2. As noted in the 'How to fight robots' part on Ultra Tech, forfeiting the use of options is great for robots . . . and the Clone Wars battle droids definitely seem much more prone to 'stand here so I can get killed' than Stormtroopers (notice that battle droids slowly plod along in neat rows, while we see Stormtroopers moving at a quick time trot and such). I cannot emphasize how big a deal this is in my Loin Cloths and Zombies campaign, the difference between foe types on 'can use options and active defenses' and 'can't use options' . . . really, I would save this for the battle droids

3. Options and defenses are fun! It makes GURPS GURPS! And defenses don't need to be unstoppable, I mean, an encumbered Evil Trooper is probably dodging vs a 7. Also, this gives players the chance to use Deceptive Attacks and such, and nothing makes for a happier player than 'Ooh, the Evil Trooper rolled a 7, dodge! Nooo, but wait, thanks to your deceptive -1, HIT!'

4. The main way I would handle the difference between Boba Fett/Vader and Stormtroopers really is numbers . . . . I would make a boss stronger, but expect the party to dog pile them as opposed to mooks which should try to dog pile the party (and I try to schedule boss fights at the end of the session, because boss fights should be the climax and if the fight goes against the party then hey, end of session have plenty of time to figure out how to fix it before next session)

5. If I am trying to do rapid prototyping, rather than trying to dream up 'The One True Way TM', I'm starting with a baseline I'm comfortable with, which is to not use said cinematic rules and start with 300pt characters and go from there . . . . I would only differ from that starting point if I have very specific ideas in mind that don't match it. I certainly wouldn't add the cinematic rules in the very first go round (Loin Cloths and Zombies does differ from this, it uses Bulletproof Nudity, because He-Man and Conan inspired, and 400pt characters . . . but I think I had a lot of prep for it, a good couple hours on the phone with players etc). Most of my games have started at this baseline then been adjusted from there.

I definitely wouldn't stat out some weird 'Force Sensitive' advantage, and I definitely wouldn't stat out NPCs, I do not stat NPCs, and I do not stat advantages for PCs to take. My own rapid prototype approach would go as follows

'Hey friends! I want to run 'I Can't Believe its not Star Wars! Go ye forth and make 300pt TL 11 characters, you can use any GURPS book you can find! As soon as everyone has something that sorta kinda resembles a rough draft of a character show them to me and Ill hack together something that resembles an adventure and off we go!', and once players give me characters I will try to think of something to fit the characters and off we go

Of course, I am not going to claim my approach is the right approach, and one reason I'm following this discussion is to get better ideas on approaches
Kalzazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 12:02 AM   #60
Kalzazz
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Default Re: Mailanka's Musings -- GURPS Content Post

Though while I really dislike the 'no active defenses or combat options', I do admit I'm torn on handling damage . . . I currently, usually, just give mooks HT 10, so chances are they will fail a HT check sooner or later, and reserve higher HT for things which are supposed to need more killing . . . . I have tried using the 'die at 0 HP' or 'auto fail death checks' rules before . . . and just really seems to fall flat to me, just seems 'Its GURPS, you gotta fail your HT or you gotta be overkilled to oblivion', and skipping the HT check just seems to feel wrong

But you then have the issue of encouraging 'No true kill but overkill' and the desire to wield weapons of mass destruction as they are the only way to make cannon fodder die in a timely fashion

In Zombies and Loin Cloths, a lot of the beasties have Fragile (Unnatural), so it does make for a fun change of pace switching between types of undead or living foes that require 'killing till they die then kill some more' and 'one good hit and they are down for the count'
Kalzazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blog, blogs, determined attack, telegraphic attack

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 08:56 AM.


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