Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by mcv

I think it might actually be best to base skills not on a stat - X, but on stat/2. So increasing your stat won't always increase your skills.

I've done this. It creates obvious breakpoints, which is bad. But it also means that defaulting from a very high Stat becomes much more sensible.

The way I did this was that the first point gets you from DEFAULT to DEFAULT+4, and then increases from there.

Default: 0pts
Default+4: 1pt
Default+5: 2pts
Default+6: 4pts
Default+7: 8pts

For average skills at IQ/DX of 10, this has zero impact. For low IQ/DX, the points in skills have even more impact than ususal. For high IQ/DX, it's lower.

Frex: At IQ8, 8pts in an average skill by RAW gets you Skill-10. Using STAT/2, you get Skill-11. For IQ18, RAW gets you Skill-20. STAT/2 default is 9, 8pts gets you Skill-17.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Tommi_Kovala

I know your couch example was a gross exaggeration, but players like that do exist. I see no other option than confronting them about it. If their character's weren't originally meant to be paranoid, obsessive-compulsive wackos, tell them to stop ruining the game. It would be fine if they played variations of Adrian Monk, but a normal person doesn't second-guess everything. IT could be that the player's motives are elsewhere and he doesn't value immersion, story and setting that much. I hope this is not the case, though.

Sadly this is usually the result of the players being subjected to GMs or modules that thought that something like Tomb of Horrors and the Grimtooth Traps books were normal things for the game world and if you don't state it your character doesn't do it (no matter how logical it would be for them to have gone and done it)

[Dagger of Lath]

Originally Posted by Mylon

To be honest this is probably my biggest gripe in GURPS. That the system not only rewards optimization to this degree, but also downplays skills suchly. Another poster mentioned that for many skills, 1 point is enough to be quite competent. I would prefer a system that requires a little more specialization.

In my campaign all attributes cost 10 points/level.
You can purchase a hobby skill for 1 point which gives you a rating of Easy: 10, Average: 9, Hard: 8, Very Hard: 7.
You can purchase a trained skill for 4 points which gives you a rating of Easy: 12, Average: 11, Hard: 10, Very Hard: 9.
For any trained skill you can purchase an additional +1 level for 4 points.

At the GMs discretion any attribute penalty or bonus may be applied to a skill based on that attribute if they judge that's the intention of the penalty/bonus. For example the Numb disadvantage applies a penalty to dexterity, so the GM may choose that this penalty should apply to a particular DX skill based on the situation.

(Note: This is identical to the skill chart in GURPS basic if you assume an attribute of ten, I just write it this way to make it a little easier).

[Tyneras]

Originally Posted by Ed the Coastie

But I did agree with her that I will in the future save Riverworld as either an announced campaign or else as a "safety net" for favorite PCs who have fallen in battle.

My favorite safety net is the Nightmares disadvantage. Fail your self control roll, and the party wipe was actually a horrible nightmare.... Oh, you also have to redo the whole mission from the last point you went to sleep.

[Anaraxes]

you also have to redo the whole mission from the last point you went to sleep

What's the appropriate point cost for the Save Game advantage? Plus an enhancement to store multiple save games and choose which one to restore?

I would prefer a system that requires a little more specialization

Base skills on a flat 10 rather than a stat. You'll no doubt want to lower the price of stats.

Or turn the whole system on its head and derive stats from skills. "Let's see, you've paid a lot for your character to have really high Acrobatics, Jumping, Stealth, and combat skills. He must be quite dextrous in general. Roll 14- to grab the root and avoid falling over the cliff."

[Steamteck]

Originally Posted by Kromm

QFT. I've had my players plan for their PCs to get captured naked so that they could get close to the bad guys to spy, assassinate, etc. I allow this to work, if the PCs can defeat the obvious barriers to success.n unarmed combat skill and a Stealth skill in years, now.

My group has surprisingly often used this tactic over the years if they know the villain wants them alive but doesn't really understand their capabilities.

[panton41]

After getting onto this thread after reading the uFAQ to figure out a problem for my own game and going back to one of the first posts...

I'll admit one of the first games I ever GMed involved the party who were taken as POWs and escaping. Then again I think I told them that from the start, but it was still a fun game.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Ogo

It's hard to GM this kind of unfair situation without just looking like an unfair GM. It's hard to have an important NPC do something sleazy and not have your players treat every NPC as sleazy: every bartender is an enemy agent, every messenger is a spy, every local priest is an underground cultist.

In my experience, players are more likely to accept "unfair" situations if they know they're "part of the story" and won't mean total defeat.

When the GM runs things in a "realistic", tactics-oriented, ruthless style, players will expect the world around them to be hard and unforgiving (e.g.: capture by enemies means death) and will try to be always prepared for the action.

When the game has a slightly more "cinematic" narrative, players will embrace more favorably unfair situations because they know they won't lose too much, it's all "part of the story" (e.g.: the stupid enemy allows the PCs to escape capture; if the PCs lose their expensive spaceship/warhorses, in the next session they will find a replacement).

I am not saying that cinematic is better - a tactics-oriented game might be more consistant and believable, each style of playing of campaign has ads and disads (and we try to play different campaigns in different style).

Of course is the "story" consists exclusively of the PC's struggle to become more and more powerful, the players will perceive any "bad" situation as a failure.

[oldgringo2001]

I know I'm taking on one of the official Gods of GURPS here, but I don't buy into this advice at all, and I'm going to explain why in detail.

First, any large "standard package" of skills that everyone has is going to bog down things without adding much to the enjoyment of the game. Almost everyone is pretty good at doing a few things; everyone knows someone who is very good at one or two things; very few people really know anyone who is very good at a lot of things. I think GURPS should reflect this. Even superheroes should be just average or even below average in a lot of things.

By following Dr. Kromm's advice, C3P0 and R2D2 would have both been warbots who could have fought their way out to inform the Rebel Alliance of the weakness in the Death Star, if they didn't take it out by themselves first. Real adventure isn't shooting a Grizzly from a mile away with a Barrett .50 BMG rifle on a moonless night using a Starlight scope so there won't be any possibility Yogi will spot you.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Relying on defaults -- whatever the game system calls them -- is rarely fun. In GURPS, I hint that certain skills are necessary for adventurers, true action heroes or not, to keep the story flowing without annoying breaks caused by PCs being incompetent at tasks that adventure fiction commonly treats as "everyman" skills:

• Carousing, Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, or Interrogation -- Eventually, everybody wants to interrogate NPCs. I'm generous about what skills work, but some skill is required.

• Everyone wants to get inside dope, but few get much of it, and usually by accident. A balanced party needs someone with Diplomacy or Fast-Talk to avoid unnecessary conflicts, but neither skill is of any direct use in Interrogation; they can just give bonuses, at most. Carousing's only good for handling your liquor, really.
  
  Use Intimidation on strangers in real life and you are very likely to get in trouble quickly. Sheep may be easy to push around, but sheep are seldom far from a sheep dog, or a shephard, or both, and in real life, Bo Peep may be packing heat, and may bring friends with their own heat. Goliath probably had Intimidation-25, but he should have used some of those points to buy a better Dodge instead, or perhaps Running.
  
  

  Climbing, Hiking, and Stealth -- The party is only as good at these things as its worst party member, and nearly every party has to move around as a unit at some point.

  These are all skills you have to keep practicing or lose. People think Stealth must be easy because they are used to "witnessing" silent approaches in movies and television--but that's sound editing. Five years ago I was walking at least ten miles a day. A few weeks ago, I thought I was dying after walking two.
  
  

  Driving or Riding -- Travel is vital to adventure, and while "every hero can drive/ride a horse" is often assumed, it isn't automatic in games that have skills for these things.

  I guess Sherlock Holmes doesn't count as a hero. I don't think he ever rode a horse or even drove a dog cart in any of the Conan Doyle stories. Even if everyone has one or two points in Drive or Riding, that ain't enough for Mounted Combat, or high-speed chases. You could make a better argument for Bicycle: Even a 1-point level should be enough to outrun any cop, and bikes can dart through gaps prowl cars can't.
  
  
  

  First Aid -- Effective bandaging isn't an unskilled activity, AD&D notwithstanding. Non-action heroes often want to do this to "contribute" to party combat effectiveness, so they especially need this skill.

  Definitely a dandy skill to have in the real world. Too bad so few really have it. I think the character story should demand at least military training, or the type of Red Cross night courses cops need to take in some departments every so often. Having even one really qualified first-aid man (or woman) in a party should require some justification from the players unless the party is a military or police unit with a medic as part of its TO&E.
  
  

  Gesture -- Sooner or later, communication without making a sound will be vital to almost any party's survival.

  So buy Telepathy. I don't allow the Gesture skill in my campaigns. There really isn't such a thing in the real world. Sign Languages are actual languages. Specialized hand signals can only be used as part of the same generalized skill like or skill pair, such as Sailor/Shiphandling, Stevadore, Soldier, Auctioneer/Professional Bidder, Day Trader, and (of course) Being Italian. Anyone who really wants to become a true otaku must read one of the books about Japanese gestures. There are about fifty of them, and at least a couple of them can get you clobbered in Corleone or pummeled in Prizzi (which are both real places in Sicily.) But learning fifty gestures is way below the threshold for something requiring a character point.
  
  

  Observation, Scrounging, or Search -- Noticing interesting things takes training, and finding clues and useful items is so central to adventures that no PC should lack at least basic training here.

  Observation and Search do require training, and it isn't given to a lot of people, even inside police or military organizations.
  
  Scrounging is special. I think it should have required specializations unless it is purchased as a bang! skill. Moreover, to scrounge something to repair something else in a strange way should require Scrounger, basically Gadgeteer but limited to making repairs using materials and/or artifacts that will compel head-scratching in everyone but the Scrounger. Excellent examples can be found by viewing the movie Operation Petticoat, especially the woman's girdle used in place of a valve spring. Making batteries out of cocoanuts would definitely require the second, cinematic level of Scrounger.
  
  

  Savoir-Faire or Streetwise -- Everybody came from somewhere. It's passing annoying when a player just assumes that her PC would "get on with folks in her element" without having any practical social skills to back up the assumption.

  I'm sorry, Doctor, but you're wrong about both of these. Growing up in a culture or adapting to it gives you a Cultural Familiarity. Savoir-Faire is mostly acting in ways that seem both cool by themselves and complementary toward that culture. Maybe "the manner of your Manners" captures it.
  
  Streetwise is the art of getting things done for you without getting things done to you. It can really only be learned by self-teaching; that means at one-quarter of your best speed. And be warned: those pop quizzes can be murder!
  

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

I think the character story should demand at least military training, or the type of Red Cross night courses cops need to take in some departments every so often.

You have police that don't have first-aid training? That seems surprising to me from here in .uk. In the same way, every employer here has to make sure that some of their staff have first-aid training, and keep basic equipment around.

Having even one really qualified first-aid man (or woman) in a party should require some justification from the players unless the party is a military or police unit with a medic as part of its TO&E.

I think you're confusing having a point in First Aid with being a specialist corpsman. A good corpsman has rather more First Aid, plus some Diagnosis, Physician and maybe even basic Surgery.