Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I have just started playing GURPS and really thought it would be the RPG for me but now I am not sure. I have DX 11 and Riding Horses as a skill. Every time I mount a horse I need to check my skill? 1 in 3 chance to fail and then what happens if I fail? Dang, a normal person without the specific skill fails to even mount the horse 95% of the time? I am starting to be afraid to do anything in the game.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Routine use generally gets a +4 bonus. Also look at the Riding skill.
Modifiers: +5 if the animal knows and likes you; +1 or more for a mount
with the Mount skill (p. 210);

So its pretty easy to ride any trained horse and trivial one you know well and your used to each other.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Where is the +4 if it is a routine situation rule? Thanks - edit: found it.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Firstly, if there's no meaningful result from the roll, you shouldn't be rolling - just assume success (Campaigns, p.242). Secondly, routine day-to-day skill use will generally have large positive modifiers (Campaigns, p.325).

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I'm inclined to believe that mounting a horse in calm and uncontested circumstances is simple enough that it either doesn't require a roll at all or is rolled with a significant bonus to skill.

Similarly, a character with driving skill is able to walk into a parking lot and start their car without a struggle.


Is there some reason that the character is under duress? Trying to control a horse while traversing up a narrow and treacherous mountain pass might (at the GM's discretion) require a roll.

Likewise, trying to run to a car an escape from an angry mob piling onto the outside of a vehicle might require a driving roll.

Page 8 of Basic Set: Characters mentions this. It is also mentioned at the top-right corner of page 171. (Campaigns elaborates further.)

"...what happens if I fail?"

That depends.

What is the situation? What was the character attempting to do? Did you fail by a little bit or fail by a lot?

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Hmm, seems we have different rule books.
P242 is something about spells so I will take your word for it. P325 is the second page of the quick combat rules, so again I will take your word for it.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Very GM dependent so the game I am in is a series of checks, albeit with modifiers but it is becoming tedious and a comedy of errors. Not much time to adventure.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

By TL2 in most societies that use horses, most horses that are commercially available/active as riding animals would have Mount +0 or more.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I can see how that could be tedious.

I've been in D&D games like that too.

Is the GM (and group) new to using GURPS?

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Yeah different editions can push stuff to a different spot.
The Table of Context is useful but GURPS supplements have awesome indexes and you can find most things that way too. As long as you recall enough about the thing your looking for to use the right keyword.
I have a blog and much of it is aimed towards GURPS newcomers.
https://refplace.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_28.html
Just ignore the personal or political stuff if its not to your taste. I divy things up pretty well I think and the political stuff pulls a few new people into GURPS, plus I dont want to manage two separate blogs.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Chapter 10 Success Rolls starting p 343 talks about skill rolls. It refers to bonuses for mundane actions and as mentioned above, riding a trained horse for an hour or so should likely be a +4, equivalent to the book example of a "commute to work in a small town".

Time Spent discusses bonuses for spending extra (or less) time, not usually applicable to Riding but say you are trying to open a lock or tidy up a crime scene, you can swing things in your favour that way.

A non-mundane example of checking vs. Riding to mount a horse would be if you are being hotly pursued by armed bandits at the time. That's a +0 roll.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Maybe you should suggest that your gm read this forum, pointing him to this thread. I have very few rolls outside of combat or other stressful situations. For example, riding a normal riding horse at night in a major thunderstorm.

One fun alternate rule from Pyramid was called "taking it to 11". I use this for many non-combat situations. All skill rolls are assumed to be 11. No more rolling, but the players need to learn their bonuses. Things go faster.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

There are modifiers for just about every roll you do in Gurps, starting with Task Difficulty pp.345. In most unstressful situations, menial tasks should not even require a roll.

It's a GM judgment, really. There are too many modifiers to accurately calculate them all up and still have reasonable playtime.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I am a big believer in aplying large negative modifiers when appropriate, but I have to agree. Riding a horse on a decent road during a clear day with moderate traffic is going to be a +4 (mounting a horse should be at least a +6). Now, riding the same horse at night (-7 to skill) during a blizzard (a -5 to skill) cross country (a -3 to skill) bareback (-2 to skill) using only your knees because you hands are tied behind your back (-3 to skill) is likely going to be a suicidal -20 to skill (letting the horse find its way is generally a much better idea because it likely knows what it is doing better than you).

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I think that's the larger problem here, not the rules so much.

At the risk of glibly summarising, is your GM running a "any little thing can kill you, so check for everything" kind of game?

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

That's p. 343 and p. 345 respectively.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

First, a mechanical point:
Look at the skill description in Characters. There are often important modifiers there. In this case, a +1 and a +5 that often both apply to 'normal' riding. If you've got the +5, that'll take your problem right out of the picture.

(Also, follow through on the reference and read the skill Mount. A decent trained mount can give even a non-rider a semi-tolerable chance to get and stay seated. That said, trying to do things with default skill levels tends to be extremely ineffective unless you're being assessed massive situational bonuses. Do not depend on skills you don't have actual points in unless you really know what you're doing.)


But really it sounds more like you have a problem with your GM that can't really be fixed by talking to us. It might be fixed by talking to them.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

A minor failure at a routine task, like riding a horse down a road shouldn't mean much even if you did roll. It probably just means you struggled a bit with keeping the horse from making an unwanted turn or something. Perhaps relevant if you're trying to impress an NPC with your spotless riding, but otherwise irrelevant.

Even a critical failure (which likely only happens on a 1-1-1 result due to all the bonuses probably just means 'The horse suddenly stopped while you were distracted. Make a normal-difficulty roll vs Riding to avoid falling out the saddle'. On success you remain seated, though embarrassed by the fumbling around.

In short, don't roll for everyday routine stuff. This goes for any roleplaying system. You can make player characters behave like complete buffoons in D&D or World of Darkness too by demanding they roll vs Acrobatics to climb ladders or Athletics to walk up stairs, or whatever, but that isn't how any of these systems are meant to be used.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Sorry, that was a pair of typos. That should be B343 ("When to Roll"), and B345 ("Task Difficulty").

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

One can usefully take this further. The PC detective is examining the crime scene and makes a Search roll. In my game that's not "did you find the clue or not": I want you to find the clue. It's the quality: how quickly did you do it, did you find anything else that might help you more, and so on. So the character who put lots of points into the skill still does a better job than the one who didn't, but the game isn't held up for want of the gatekeeper piece of information.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I was checking to see "is that right?" and yes, the skill write up technically suggests this. However, as people said:

1) there should almost certainly be positive modifiers to this. If it is a riding animal it will gives at least +1 for having the "Mount" skill, and if it is *your* mount and you keep good care of it you are likely getting another +5, and even if it isn't in most non-stressful situations you are likely getting +4. (edited because I was working on a presumption that you has skill 11, and I realise that wasn't actually what you said!).

2) the GM shouldn't be asking you to roll *every* time you mount. Only when it is important, like mounting an animal in combat (where the time pressure matters), or where failure is likely to have a dramatic effect. Even if you wanted to enforce riding rolls for normal day to day riding it is probably best to treat it how it is suggested a job roll or commuting roll is treated, ie, you roll once for an entire month, with failure meaning some minor setback, and only a critical fail suggesting there is anything major going to have happened.

The main issue is the number of rolls you are being asked to make, which isn't an issue with the system itself (though it may be impacted by the GM's confidence with the system, if this is the first time they have run GURPS, for example). If the GM did the same in D&D (for example), the chances of even a skilled character failing an average check are higher than you might expect. While the DCs have generally been lowered in 5th edition, the whole "take 10" mechanic (equivalent of the +4 for un-stressful situations in GURPS) doesn't technically exist except as a Rogue class feature. An good skill for a common person would likely be +5 and even on a DC 10 check that leaves a 25% failure chance. Of course the game doesn't actually expect you to roll for every little thing.

You don't mount the animal and waste some time. This might matter in combat (the bad guys have more time to catch up with you, you have left yourself in a vulnerable position etc). It would likely only be a critical failure that there would be any consequence other than wasted time (fall when almost mounted, or maybe the mount bolts while you are half mounted and might fling you and drag you... but even then you probably get another chance to mitigate the failure somehow).

So a normal riding horse has Mount 11, which they average with the unskilled rider's default of 5, making an effective skill of 8. Now, arguably the first time you are riding a horse it will not be stress free, so you might not get that full +4, and the mount isn't likely to know you that well, so you almost certainly won't get you a +5 for that. However, a proper riding instructor will probably be nearby to keep an eye to make sure the horse is calm (and to reassure you too), probably have allowed the horse to acclimatise to you a bit, so you probably still get some bonus (+2 maybe?) and the very least will probably preventing any negative modifiers come in to play. And a lot of new riders will quite possibly fail their first attempt, but not so badly that they end up flat on their arse, and will take a few tries to get on. Once they get used it, even if they don't qualify for a point in the skill they probably qualify for getting the +4 for un-stressful circumstances... just don't go riding anywhere that might be stressful (effective skill of 8 is *not* something you want to be testing).

That the chance of a unskilled rider mounting an untrained horse in unsupportive circumstances is very low is kind of fair enough. That kind of thing would be actively dangerous.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Thank you everyone for such detailed responses. I am a trying to learn this game by reading the rules and I must admit it is really a daunting task. I suppose trying to learn any RPG by reading the rules is daunting though.

To be honest I am disappointed in GURPS so far. I am sitting here wondering why anyone would actually use a horse for anything other than mundane day to day activity so buying and documenting the skill is a waste. I see that the modifier is anywhere from -5 to +5 or more depending upon the GM interpretation of about any number of variables (and a few of the variables one should always apply are located in three different locations of the rules and one must know the DX of the horse and the training of the animal...I am frustrated). I can resolve this whole thing with original D&D as a DM just saying roll percentile and in this situation you have a 20% chance to fail. I bet it is nearly the same thing.

I really want to like GURPS but I feel that I would gut about 80% of the rules as ultimately pointless. Perhaps I should dig out my original 1986 version of GURPS and look through that.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Honestly, this is the GURPS spirit. It's something the GM should do before the game starts, though. If you're running a wild-west game, throw out the rules for lasers, gravity, etc. and ditch the whole magic chapter. If it's an action-based game, there are lots of nitty-gritty rules to ignore too. Take a light touch on the sleep rules, but maybe activate the tinkering rules.

In a fantasy game, throw out guns, activate magic and weapon quality. Tinkering is probably out, but alchemy is in.

So, then, if there's that much monkeying with the rules, why GURPS at all? Why not just use a single-purpose system? Why not play D&D and then Deadlands and then Marvel and then...? 2 big reasons for me.

1) Learning curve. When everything uses the same base system, it is much faster to get into the game you want. You don't have to teach new players the intricacies of the new system every new game and then discard it again for each new genre. I have several players in my group who learn new rules slower. It's fine, they're great to play with, just less crunchy.

2) It works. I can make each genre from realistic to cheezy from ancient to post-modern work in GURPS. So many systems have giant gaping holes in them which they try to patch with new editions which have new holes. Sure, GURPS isn't flawless, but it hangs together quite nicely across the whole spectrum.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Maybe you're playing an Old West game where riding horses to chase outlaws is a thing. Or maybe you're playing in a game about warfare where cavalry is important. There are lots of situations where riding a horse is an important skill, even if it doesn't happen to be an important skill in YOUR game.

GURPS strives to be relevant to ALL genres. That means there will inevitably be pieces you don't want to use for one particular game. Don't try to use everything; just use the parts that make sense for you.

Some people like detailed lists of modifiers to cover as many situations as possible. Other people don't care so much about them. If you're one who doesn't care so much about them, then just use task difficulty modifiers (page 345) instead of the skill-specific modifiers.

For example, if you declare you want to vault onto the back of your horse and spur him away all in one turn, the GM doesn't have to look up the modifiers for Riding. The GM could say, instead, "Well, it's your horse who knows you well, but the horse isn't really used to stressful situations, so I'm gonna call that 'favorable,' for +1." That's all you need to do.

"Many skills suggest difficulty modifiers..." (p. 345). Notice the word "suggest." You are not required to search for and apply all possible modifiers if that's not the kind of game you're running. GURPS allows you to be flexible, playing with the level of detail that you prefer.

What kind of game are you trying to run? Do you prefer to play games where you hardly ever think about the rules or games where players like to carefully build up detail? Do you like to zip through a plot or dwell on scenes? Figure out what you WANT the system to be, then you'll know how much and what detail to use.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I mean, if you just use it to ride to places then you barely need a skill, and if you want to keep things simple (a DF campaign) you could just skim over transports. The GM could just have everyone walk all over or have an NPC drive them there in a wagon as part of a caravan, etc.

But a lot of people are using their horse in combat, possibly with a lance, or using historical horse archery. Others have players riding around on wyverns. For that reason GURPS needs rules for that, otherwise it wouldn't be a very universal system.

When you use GURPS you have to use it with the understanding that you should only pick the parts you actually need. If you're running a realistic conspiracy spy-game with little focus on combat there is no reason to even look at GURPS Martial Arts. If the only thing you're going to to in a spaceship is run around it and shoot aliens you don't need GURPS Spaceships, etc.

If you want to use GURPS for fairly straight-forward 'dungeon fantasy' then I suggest looking at either GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, or the Dungeon Fantasy system which is a slightly modified version of GURPS.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

In D&D a 1 always fails right? (I used much older editions and am not up to date on anything past the early 80s.
So that is a 5% vs. .01852 of rolling a 17 or 18 for automatic failure, much better odds!
Start with GURPS Lite which is free and just a few pages. That way you can read the core rules in maybe 5 minutes.

Next important thing to consider is that GURPS is designed from the ground up to be modular, meaning most skills, rules, and advantages can be tossed out or ignored when desired. This of course is for different genres such as ignore magic in most sci-fi campaigns but also refers to granularity or depth such as techniques or advanced combat options.
The idea is to provide basic tools to do anything - roll under skill on 3d6 to do something while letting those who want more granularity get into much more detail. You will never please everyone doing one or the other - so GURPS allows both and a lot in-between.

If you have a skill and are trying to do something simple or routine, normally you dont bother rolling. The Campaigns book (mostly for the GM) explains this more clearly.

Firs time I rode a horse (very young but dont recall the age) I was using default skill and nervous but had a relative helping me. So I was able to munt (barely) but had no control over the horse and it darn well knew it. It ran around the house a couple of times I think (at least once, my panicked memory may be exaggerating thinking it was several times) then jumped a low fence. I managed to hang on until the jump and somehow lost both shoes and a sock during the ride. I would call this a failed roll (though hilarious to my family), but much later on as an adult I could manage simple riding (still with the default) because the animal was better trained (Mount skill, +1), decent riding instructor who helped me (complimentary roll bonus,+1) and low stress for another +1 to +4.

In many other systems I either can ride a horse or I cant (often based on class), very simple but unrealistic.

Lets take Driving.
After some practice and training in Drivers Ed I could drive a car but was very nervous and made lots of errors. Most people that drive in America dont really have the Driving skill, they operate off the default they get from their parents or school training. For day to day use like that dont bother to roll.
However they get that +4 routine task bonus most of the time. But come a storm, ice, or idiot driver and you need to roll and may even lose that trivial/easy task modifier.
Professional drivers, and in my experience many European drivers actually have the skill and you can really tell the difference.

As you say, for normal use you probably wouldn't bother. But what if your playing a bronco rider or a jockey? Going to and from the dungeon or town to town- sure skip the skill and the GM can justsay everyone succeeds if they have a well trained mount and dont do anything fancy or stupid. But what if your in combat? Thats not trivial as all the noise will spook many horses.
How about playing a Old West campaign? You want to leap onto your horse when escaping from the saloon? Take the skill.
Again, its all modular - use what is appropriate and ignore what you want.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

The "P" was for page number not Powers. The GURPSwiki has Task Difficulty Modifier turns the Basic Set's information into a more useful table.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

First off, I am not angry but rather disappointed. I really appreciate every response to this thread and I read them over and over to wonder what I might be missing.

I have Dungeon Fantasy and have been reading through it for hours. The rules are almost exactly the same but without the other tech stuff. It is obvious to not use the other tech stuff. What I said in earlier posts about gutting the rules refers to DF as well.

I will slug on and see. I will get into a few other games as well but to be honest the gaming community of GURPS appears to be bleak.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

GURPS is not for everyone. You may be one of those who don't like it. It happens, and that's fine.

You remain somewhat vague about what you're trying to accomplish with GURPS, and this makes it hard to advise you. What drew you to GURPS? What do you expect to get out of it? Besides "lots of modifiers," what about it disappoints you?

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Sometimes the issue is less the game than its community. We're helpful here . . . but a company's forums for its games tend to draw a focused, invested community that jumps immediately to the most complex view of the game, or that forgets what it was like to be a beginner.

First, make sure you're in the right forum. Sometimes, the GURPS forum (this one) is like drinking from the hose. You have the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game, so you might find its forum more friendly.

Next, make sure you even want company forums. You get less technical detail and more casual gaming input on forums not run by the company. Examples exist on reddit.

If Facebook is more your thing, there are groups there for the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game and GURPS.

After that, consider that discussion forums and groups let people info-dump rather easily, which can get intense. They're also full of threads that get entangled; it isn't always clear who's answering whom. You might prefer real-time interaction with people who are talking to you. There's a very good Discord server with #introductions and #gurps-newcomers channels.

No matter which path you take, it really helps to word your questions in the form "X is what is I want to do but Y is the vibe I'm getting, based on what I've read on p. 00, p. 00, and p. 00. Is there any way to do X? Where can I find guidance for that in the rules? Do you have any specific advice you're willing to share?"

Finally, don't overlook the official resources – particularly How to Be a GURPS GM.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

The irony is I'm willing to bet there are all sorts of great games out there using GURPS that only uses 20% of the rules by volume!

The problem is GURPS more than most RPGS is a took kit. As such it kind of strives to cover all possible bases. And well that's pretty damn intimidating to come up against as a buy in!

I personally bounced of GURPS for years, until somehow 4rd edition clicked for me.

And even though I've been GMing GURPS for over 10 years now. I still don't have a clue on over half the advantages, disadvantages, skills and magic system. (let alone alternative magic systems, super power options and whatever else) but I don't need to to do what I want.

Or put it this way, I know what I need to know. However that's not much help in abstract because well I had to learn that to know it, and it will likely be different for everyone and every game.

You are also in a different situation from me I'm (always) the GM so I chose what goes into my games, you seem to be a player in the game you are in right now.

So what is you would like GURPS for?

EDIT: ah just read you next post (and Kromms) yep I'd suggest the DF sub forum, you will get more focused advice and help

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I'm confused -- this problem would definitely apply to *any* game system, no? If your GM makes you roll for mundane actions all the time, it will be both tedious and ridiculous regardless of the system. At best (when modifiers take your skill to 18+) it will be somewhat realistic but still completely tedious.

You would typically use your horse-riding skill while chasing or being chased by other riders, to see if you can go faster, or if you can navigate obstacles better than them (going through a forest, jumping over rocks and fallen logs, etc). You would use the skill if you have a time limit to get from point A to point B. You would use the skill if a big monster shows up and may spook your mount, and you need to calm it down. You would use the skill to approach and mount a legendary unicorn you found in the fairies' grove. You would use the horse riding skill combined with some weapon skill during a knight's tournament. You would use the horse riding skill to march proudly in front of the Queen and look all fancy and majestic. That sort of thing.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I have used GURPS since 1e (1986) and while it clicked early on it kind of got "broken" with Supers which did a bunch of special rules which really didn't fit the original concept of "universal" so I can understand if you came in before 4e why it didn't click.

I have done a conversion sheet, D&D to GURPS, since then updating it and making it more general as time goes on but even doing that there are just parts that I have to 'leave to the GM' as my style of play is different and if I want the sheet to be useful I have to keep it as general as possible.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Unless played for laughs. When I was a teenager we had one GM who had a few one shots called roughly translated "Everyday Unlimited 3D6" using an old Swedish RPG called EON/NeoTech. Regular activities were considered 'standard difficulty' with bad criticals.

Aside from the regular skills like Bicycle he let player characters learn amazing skills like "Eating", "Dressing yourself", "Homework". Iirc. 80% of the player characters died before their first school day was over. One character bled out catastrophically failing to dress themselves in the morning, another dropped dead from food poisoning after drinking milk past its expiration date.

It was actually a lot of fun. We had some player characters either taking crazy risks (like trying to slice bread!) or doing everything they could to avoid risks like eating dry cereal sitting on the floor in a corner of the room.

Well put. I get the feeling his GM just likes playing out everyday events with dice rolls though.

For the dozens-of-skills problem spoken about in the thread I generally let people invest in skills after the fact if it makes sense that the character would know that skill. ("Oh crap, I forgot to give my Knight the Soldier and Leadership skills!")

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Really wondering about the context this is coming from, because I can't think of a fictional character type that does anything adventurous and uses horses significantly but never combines them.

Mounted combat, a mounted chase (as pursuer or quarry), mounted hunts, 'simple' mounted travel through extreme environments...

I guess the answer might be Dungeon Fantasy characters who bought the horse exclusively to reduce travel-to-dungeon logistics time. Assuming they never get ambushed while on the horse and never try to use it for anything other than a 'off-screen' strategic mobility upgrade they don't really have any need for a point in Riding.
No, you need to have one number for the animal: the level of its Mount skill. (It is a DX-based skill, but it doesn't actually matter how many points in Mount the horse would have.)

That, ST, and Move are probably the very most important and user-facing stats for a riding animal. (How well it performs, how much it can carry, and how fast it can go.)

Mind, you should have the DX and some other traits, because you very easily might end up needing them. But you don't need those to resolve this. (Campaigns has animal stat block examples you can simply copy.)
You can do the same thing as a GURPS GM if you wanted to just make the numbers up out of nothing. Just arbitrarily decide that they'll roll against 13. The only problem you'll have is if the players of characters who have riding complain that they really should be failing a lot less than that.

I'd agree that if that's what you want to do I personally can't understand why you'd use GURPS. But some people do seem to.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

If Task Difficulty Modifiers were being applied it wouldn't be that much of an issue but the problem is that is kind of squirreled away in the Basic Set.

IMHO it is too many GMs not using that section (it really should have been a quick reference table) that causes people to think they must have insanely high skills.

From Skills on the GURPS wiki:
Extremely High Skill Not Needed

At first glance a mythological hero able to skewer foes while fighting from his back, with the wrong hand, while dealing with poor lighting, and injuries would seem to require a 40+ skill but there is a saner (and cheaper) way to do this.

The warrior should be a master (level 20) in their base weapon skill, have the Blind Fighting skill (which negates darkness penalties), High Pain Threshold, and the techniques Ground Fighting, Hit Location and Off-Hand Training (removing penalties for position, hit location and off-handedness respectively).

"The essential point here is that highly-skilled character concepts can be realized in GURPS through the artful use of reasonable skill levels that do not break the system." - Compendium II p. 125

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

A useful stratagem here is to give every player 5 points that they are not allowed to spend initially, but must hold in reserve till they realize that they really needed some particular skills to make their characters viable.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Not sure how good an example that is, though. Weapon skill 40+ doesn't necessarily break the system, and it might be what you actually want to represent some ridiculously capable characters.

Ludicrous combat skill levels let you do ludicrous things, but that's only a problem if doing ludicrous things isn't the intended outcome.

The Princess Bride "I am not left handed" and "My name is Inigo Montoya" scenes would lose their point if, respectively, the characters are effectively ambidextrous and entirely unhindered by wounds.

(There might be skills where over-the-top levels do strain or break the system, but Melee Weapon doesn't seem to be one of them. And in 4th edition they don't break the pricing system either - IIRC they might have in earlier editions?)

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

That's a easy one as the Technique already exists:
Technique (Off-Hand Weapon Training); Weapon skill-4; cap - Weapon skill
Technique (Feint): Weapon skill; cap - Weapon skill+4

This is ignoring any possible Cinematic Rules that might be in play.

Actually it was only Easy to Hard mental skills that were cheaper. Except for the 1/2 point option the cost all DX skills and the Very Hard Mental skills cost the exact same in classic as in 4e. This makes conversion somewhat easier as you only have to worry about IQ skills and 1/2 points.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Thank you for this post. I am feeling better about working on my future campaign using GURPS again. I took Kromm's advice and read through the 'How to GM' PDF and the most important for me was that it mentioned the first step is to decide how much of the rules you want to use and that is where I am at. I am only playing GURPS to experience it before I GM. I plan on playing in other GURPS games as far as I can find them. This is what I meant about the community being bleak. There just isn't very many GURPS games out there. I have played D&D on and off since 1977 and I have GM'd a few decades and many thousands of hours so I know what I like and what has worked for me. What I want is a low fantasy game where the eyes and focus of the event is pointed toward the adventure and toward the world. The characters are not driving the game but rather experiencing it. I will not even have backstories for characters or in the least the backstory will be minimal. For sure the adventures are not built around the character. Disadvantages/advantages/quirks and to some extent skills and techniques seem to be pointing the lens on the character and the character sheet rather than the adventure. I am currently experiencing a game where it feels like I am trying to avoid failures rather than adventuring. It is a little bit like living in a cartoon. I will carry on and experience more of the game to get it from being a book of rules and having it become more intrinsic. Thanks to everyone posting. I am really benefiting from every post. This forum is quite good. I will use DF for sure but I am learning basic GURPS to be able to find games to play in. Also, the reason I want to use GURPS even though I might strip a lot of the rules is that I have been a huge fan of GURPS melee since I bought Man to Man back in 85.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

...I think we're talking at cross-purposes somehow? What I said was that the entire point is that Westly and Inigo don't have Off Hand Weapon Training - they use their off hand to intentionally handicap themselves (until they decide to shed the limitation and go all-out).

(Also, shouldn't really plug the superseded and deficient Off-Hand Weapon Training technique. It was mispriced compared to Ambidextrous, and replaced by a perk that fully buys off the penalty.)
Again completely at cross-purposes. Some things being cheaper in 3e is irrelevant to this.

I thought there was a thing where the price per point of skills could scale exponentially without limit? But that might be some nonsense I confabulated, my signature disclaimer about 3e ignorance is still mostly accurate.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Yes, the OHW technique was just really odd. One of the reasons why they had to get rid of it though was the Perk of Technique Mastery, as someone could have legally taken Technique Mastery and raised OHW to Skill+4 for an extra 4 CP (meaning that they could have effectively gained 16 CP of value for 10 CP of investment). Since they could have also taken Technique Master for Ground Fighting, and therefore Ground Fighting to Skill+4, you could have ended up with a character that attacked and defended better with their offhand while lying down than with their dominant hand while standing up.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

That's pretty much what you'll find for any game that isn't D&D or D&D-derived. But there are fans of all kinds of systems out there if you look for them.

It sounds to me like you're looking for a fairly cinematic, low-ish powered game. Dungeon Fantasy might be too high-powered for your tastes. The D&D tropes in DF are intentionally very strong, and starting DF characters are already superheroes.

I suggest a game where characters start at around 125 points or so, where bonus character points are easily earned by accomplishing adventuring goals, and where lots of cinematic options are used. Most exotic and supernatural traits are only allowed in racial templates, but Magery and Power Investiture should be available. Keep the disadvantage limit fairly low, maybe a maximum of 25 or 30 points or so. This should keep the character sheets fairly simple and to the point. And remember only to roll for things that matter.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

YES! This is what I am working towards doing. I like it.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Yeah, I was about to say that.

If it's not a dangerous, climactic, or other serious situation, there's no need to get serious about the roll and its mods. Or even roll at all.

Like saddling up for a little ride. It's a quiet moment; the party's making dinner and inventorying their stuff. The knight says "I'm going to ride over to that ridge and see what's there." There's no raging battle, no bandit ambush, no flying lava bombs, just a bored knight and a grazing palfrey.

All the GM needs to do (if anything) is note that the knight's spent a point and has a Riding skill of 12: clearly, she's been in the saddle plenty of times and can handle a mount competently. "Okay, you ride up there without incident. You see . . ."

Dice can still happen, if the table's in the mood to play around. Someone - the knight's player, or the GM, or another player looking to get some banter going – might call for a quick skill roll for the fun of it. No mods, no complications, just a roll.

The GM can respond to success with "Looking smooth!", or describe "failure" as "Whoa, a little shaky on the mount there, but you're fine." Even a crit fail on this zero-stress action might mean "Oops, you needed a second try to get up there. Be careful!". That gets followed by some expected ribbing from the party thief, which earns a comeback of "Yeah? How you doing with the stew there? Let's see a Cooking roll, buddy . . ."

This sort of stuff happens all the time. In short: If it's not serious business, don't bother with serious mechanics; just eyeball the stat, or give it a simple roll, and make up something appropriate. (That falls under the official "Roll and Shout" rule of play, I believe. Though in practice, it's often "Roll and Make Jokes". : )

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Why no backstories for the characters though?

Some backstory which explains why the characters are adventuring together can help make roleplaying easier for characters even if (hypothetically) the characters are forced together and forward by some narrative.

F.ex. one character being the twin sister of the other, and that character having fought in a war alongside another older character. Perhaps the twins are driven by dreams of future greatness, while the older soldier is trying to keep them safe, but also interested in seeing where it all leads.

That sort of thing creates more natural-feeling party-dynamics than the typical "An elf, a dwarf, and a bard sat at an inn", in my experience.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Your example qualifies as "or in the least the backstory will be minimal" and that is about all of a starting backstory required (in my games of course - to each their own). The characters can fill in a little more detail after they experience the world a little more and to be honest, but that time most players don't really care about a detailed backstory anymore.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Actually, what I should have said here is that most exotic traits are only allowed in racial templates, mundane traits are feely available, and the GM will decide which supernatural traits are available.

That way, the GM can decide players can choose to do things like Channeling spirits or having a Higher Purpose without them being part of a racial template, but can exclude effects not desired ("Sorry, Dominance doesn't exist in this setting").

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

This is one of the most important things, so I want to call it out and toss my weight behind it. I realize that some players will insist on rolling, so it's useful to have the right passage handy:"Utterly trivial tasks" even gets a canonical definition on p. B345: The roll is at +10 or better. Don't forget that you can reach +10 easily! "Most mundane tasks" are at +4 or +5, so if there's also lots of time available – enough to get the +5 for that on p. B346 – you'll typically be at +10. In short, if a task offers no sense of adventure (+5 for difficulty) and you can just quietly fiddle around until you get it right (+5 for time), you don't roll; it's like "taking 20." Since most skill rolls take just a few seconds, even at 30× the usual time, you're only talking about a minute or two.

Also be on the lookout for places where no roll is needed! Mounting Up (p. B396) calls for no roll to mount a horse normally – only if you want to "leap astride" in one turn of combat time. Lots of specific tasks work this way, and it's important to note that the specific always trumps the general (e.g., a skill description, which is as general as it comes).

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

You make it sound like there has been some strange cultural swing towards players not caring about backstories. I have no idea where you are getting this from.

This is just me personally, but I wouldn't permit a player to sit at my table for anything but the most mindless of dungeon delving unless they can come up with at least a basic backstory that sounds slightly interesting. I have no interest in being the GM for Adventurer McDude who just materialized in an adventuring party one day to kick goblins and solve death-trap puzzles.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

He did say he's aiming for adventures where the focus is on the adventure and not the characters. I understand where he's coming from. Your starting character comes out of obscurity and performs heroic deeds to become renowned. You don't need to invent details that don't affect the adventure. If I want to say I have Herpetophobia [-10] because of a childhood incident where accidentally I fell into the snake exhibit at the zoo, that's the sort of minimal background adaman14 is talking about. It's assumed that your background is completely mundane otherwise, and it's up to the player to bring the character out of obscurity through adventure.

But he doesn't want Adventurer McDude to come in and kick goblins and solve death-trap puzzles. He wants Joe Swordsman to come in and find a way to defeat or avoid the goblins and to solve or maybe get killed by death-trap puzzles. The interest is in the goblins and the death-traps, not in showing off how awesome Joe is at dealing with them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say which style "most players" prefer, but neither would I try to convince someone which one was better based just on what I preferred.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

There are some games and groups where its nice to be able to swap characters in and out seamlessly without changing the story. Sometimes players aren't the most reliable, but they're still good friends and good players when they can make it, and you really don't want to stop playing because the guy this session's side quest is built around had something come up ... three times in a row.


Its not my cup of tea: I play to tell stories and I want my characters to be deeply connected to the world, but I absolutely understand why a group would play with a collection of interchangeable mercenaries.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Well, that would fall under the wargaming-style playing, or "mindless dungeon delving" as I quite unfairly called it. Unless the campaign is very narrative heavy I tend to be fine with characters walking off at strange time because their player was missing. Or if not I'll just NPC the character and try to have them not die in the player's absence.

I'm not expect (or really even want) players to write 5 page essays about their characters. I don't even need a single page. I just want something that explains who the character is and how they got here.

'Kat is a rather overconfident and highly thrill-seeking thief who grew up on the street. Opportunistic more than kleptomaniac. Not so much loyal as wanting to avoid enraging people she might travel with or meet again. Kat became an adventurer mostly for the thrill and her not-so secret dreams of great riches.'

- would be fine as a one paragraph backstory.

Frankly it is also easier to feedback on and make requests for changes to get the party to fit together better than the player who writes a long epic about their warrior queen mother, and their older sister who was a paladin and got eaten by a dragon, and the younger brother who was a bard and married the dragon, etc. etc.

Those long stories also have the unfortunate tendency to not really go into much about the characters actual personality, although if well written they can be a great source for plot-hooks.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

But that doesn't really tell you much, does it? "Overconfident" will appear as Overconfidence on the character sheet. "Thrill-seeking," "opportunistic," "avoid enraging people," and "dreams of great riches" are completely generic descriptors of nearly every player character in this sort of game. The ONLY bit of actual backstory that's relevant here is "thief who grew up on the street," and I daresay that's the sort of minimal backstory that adaman14 already accepts.

So I don't really think adaman14 is talking about anything particularly different from what you do.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Computer games.

How many people really bother with a backstory for their, say, Diablo 3 character? Now ask how popular such computer games are, and how many people they bring to tabletop gaming; the answers are "very" and "lots." And whether or not we on the tabletop side like it (I don't, especially, so be very aware that I'm not taking sides, just reporting facts), these games are called "computer roleplaying games" . . . the little person running around killing monsters is the role in its entirety.

This is hugely important. Setting computer gamers aside completely, there is a not-so-small school of gamers who believe "my character is defined by what's going on now and what happens from this point on, not by whatever happened before we started this game." That is, the character comes into being when the campaign does, and the past is irrelevant; the PC is the sum of what the player does in actual play, nothing more but also nothing less.

I experience a profound disconnect when I hear "war stories" or read blogs about others' campaigns, and they're on about how it's crucial to resolve each session in full and get all the PCs back to their home base or other "safe space" by the end just in case not all the players can show up next time. In 42 years of gaming, it has always been the case – with no exceptions – that scenes, acts, adventures, and arcs could span multiple game sessions, and that even long combats could pause in bullet time between sessions. And if a player who was involved last time can't show up this time, their PC just goes on autopilot, controlled by player vote.

When that happens, it's never, ever the case that the players say, "Well, let's look at their backstory and see what they would do." It's without exception the case that they say, "Well, let's look at how so-and-so has been playing them lately and continue down that path." It's about ensuring that the PC continues the same path toward some targeted future, not about ensuring that the PC follows some trajectory established prior to the start of the campaign.

I think the issue I have is that "I have tons of plans in the present, and serious goals for my PC's future" isn't perforce mindless merely because those plans and goals don't stem from some point in time prior to the campaign start. My experience is that most players develop those plans and goals in play, as they see what the other players are doing, what the GM is throwing in the group's path, and even as they watch movies and read comics exterior to the campaign and decide, "Huh, cool . . . I'm going to try that!" Such gaming can be extremely cerebral and well-planned; it just establishes a different starting point for the "interesting" part of the characters' arcs. The players are mindful of what's going on and doing a lot of very thoughtful analysis about where that's leading.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

This is generally my experience as well (though over only 37 years).

I will add that for certain rare, pivotal PC choices, players might take a step back to recall their backstory. And if the player is absent, their fellow players might do the same.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

For starters, it does imply stuff about their backstory.

Not every character is a thrill-seeker, it is a trope, in your party it you might find your Warrior or Paladin is in it for justice, the cleric for faith, the barbarian is out to prove something, etc.

Lots of characters are hot-headed and don't mind stepping on toes. Most characters don't have gold as their ultimate objective. If anything I'd argue many PCs are very unconcerned about angering NPCs or even other PCs.

Overconfident is far from universal either, lots of players are overly cautious if anything, and overconfident dungeon delvers or whatever tend to be fairly short-lived.

Whatever your opinion on the short snipped I spent 5 minutes writing, it is a heck lot more than "I'm a rogue, I do rogue stuff". Not every character needs to be breaking sterotypes, but they need to have a clear personality and identity. What I wrote was a fairly typical version of a rogue, but far from the only.

------------------

But hey, to make my point, here are a few more.

'Luke is a cutthroat-seeming thief from the pirate-infested docks district. He cold and calculating, ruthless and murderously sadistic, but ultimately he steals and kills with the ultimate goal of getting rid of the kinds of "rotten" people that made his own life so miserable.'

'Kim is a thief who forced to leave the thief's guild of her hometown. She is fiercely loyal to those she considers her "clan", but dismissive and unemphatic of those outside of it. She will jump at any chance to make elaborate heist plans. Eager and excitable she often seeks to prove her skills in any situation she feels capable.'

'Anastasia is an elegantly-dressed thief and scam-artist who used to be seen nicking valuables from right under the nose of the upper class. Dashing and charismatic her victims rarely realize they were robbed, and even when found out she is skilled at making an escape using rapier wit and rapier blade or any kind of distraction. While she keeps most of the wealth to herself she likes throwing some valuables to the children or any handsome rugged man who strikes her fancy.'

------------------

Are those three generic as well? I'm pretty sure they are all walking thief tropes. I'm also pretty sure you wouldn't play any of them particularly alike. There is nothing wrong with stereotypes, but if you're playing a stereotype with a stereotype backstory, well, you need to know which one of the stereotypes you're going for.

I'm not expecting anyone to write some masterpiece, I just want to know what type of character you are playing, because a list of advantages, disadvantages, and skills is not a character, that's just a character sheet. Besides, in my experience the player who didn't sum up their character's traits as even short backstory won't even remember that they picked "Bad Temper" + "Selfish" + "Loner" and should probably react when some NPC gets all up in their space and compare them to a sewer rat.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

On one hand, yes. And you might recall from the dim past that during the playtest of 4/e, I was one of those who objected to a character creation sequence that involved working out a backstory (or a Traveller-like character biography) as an essential process for creating a character. I wanted to create the character as they were when the camera first tracked them across the scene.

But on the other hand, creating backstory can be a tool for figuring out who the character is now. Indeed, I'd say that it's often useful for doing so, that indeed that's its primary function, and perhaps even that any backstory that doesn't do this may not be worth spending time on, beyond perhaps the barest minimum. To put it in GURPS terms, it's a set of zero point features, like the wealth and Status and Enemies of a portal fantasy character before they stumbled through the portal. But if backstory does affect the character's present motives and capabilities, it's not a mere feature.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I tend to mine character backgrounds for adventure hooks, NPCs, etc. For example, a younger sibling showing up is a greater way of integrating backgrounds to campaigns.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

All right, let's separate backstory from personality, appearance, and goals. Because we're talking about backstory here. Let's also extract anything costing character points, my guesses based on how strong the trait seems to be described.

PERSONALITY
Luke: cold, calculating, ruthless, cutthroat-seeming.
Kim: Doesn't care about people outside her "clan," eager, excitable.
Anastasia: Dashing, charismatic, rapier wit.

APPEARANCE
Luke: ?
Kim: ?
Anastasia: Elegantly-dressed.

GOAL
Luke: Steal and kill to get rid of "rotten" people.
Kim: Make elaborate heist plans, prove her skills.
Anastasia: Keep wealth, but give some to children or handsome men.

CHARACTER POINTS
Luke: Sadism.
Kim: Sense of Duty (her "clan").
Anastasia: Rapier skill.

BACKSTORY
Luke: thief from pirate-infested docks district, life has been miserable.
Kim: thief forced to leave the thief's guild of her hometown.
Anastasia: thief and scam-artist, used to steal from the upper class.

Are these interesting characters? Sure. Are their backgrounds unique? "Miserable thief from the docks," "thief forced from guild," "thief and scam-artist of the upper class." They're not very different. Mostly, the difference is their Social Class.

But no one is suggesting that. We're talking about backstories, not keeping personality out of characters. And even then, we're not talking about having no backstory information at all, just not producing any more of it than would usefully inform the adventuring choices of the character, because the stated point of the hypothetical game in question is to focus attention on the adventure itself, not the past lives of the characters.

I think you're taking this far beyond adaman14's intention.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I've never seen a backstory which split the character's personality from the rest backstory. The story is supposed to tell us about the character after all. Yes, a one-paragraph backstory is going to end up 70% personality. A longer one would have added more actual background by answering the "why"-questions.

My examples were, as I said initially, an example of an extremely minimalist background, which, as you noted, is really more of a character summary; but only because that is what you get when you summarize a character and their backstory.

I really dispute that the biggest difference is their social class. For example, it is implied Luke acts like a complete psychopath, that's pretty much the polar opposite of a Anastasia manners by just that trait alone, and very unlike the other two as well. I could go on, but I really don't think these characters have terribly much in common aside from all being thieves. Heck most of them would probably mutually hate each other. (Aside from Anatasia who would probably be able to work with Kim and Kat.)

Kim is a scheming team-player. Kat is a reckless thrill-seeker. etc. etc.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I don't think you do unless the rider's skill is notably low and their chances of success are of great interest. It's a trained mount, so it gives +1 to just about all skilled riders. Most of the time that's all one needs to know.

If the game involves lots of horse riding in high stakes situations, you'll need to know more, but at that point you should probably want to know more, just as you need/want to know more about your character's car when they're racing it than if they're just using it to get to and from their job in a nice safe city each day.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

You forget that physical skills in 3e capped out at 8/level, making them more expensive than they are now (and vastly more expensive than 3e's easy - hard mental skills).

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

That's how it's always worked in my experience too. "What would K do?" is answered by considering their behaviour in the last session, then the last time they were in a similar situation, then their general behaviour in-game, and if these shed no light, by checking their character sheet for relevant character traits.

In the last session I ran, player M had no character 'on stage' and player K was unavailable, so player M ran K's character (with input from the rest of the table).

Also, for many of the PCs their pre-campaign backstory is worthless for determining behaviour in-game because they've been in play for years of weekly sessions, and are quite different from the character described on their original sheets.
As a player I've found that if I'm required to come up with a detailed backstory for my character there's a very good chance I'll never be comfortable playing them. Assigning disads during chargen is about as much as I'm comfortable with doing before I play them, and even then I'm keen on the idea that you can change round character traits during the first few sessions if they turn out to just not suit the character.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Okay, you're just taking what I say out of context and attacking straw men now. I'm out.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

FWIW: exactly the same here.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I am confused why Kim and Anastasia do not kill Luke, take his stuff, and leave his corpse for the vultures. The issue is that they are one dimensional characters, so there is no reason why the two women would not kill off the man and split everything. By the way, Luke sounds like a Power/Control Serial Killer, so he is likely to be a very bad person who will turn on the women as soon as they anger him.

Now, if Luke possessed Appearance (Handsome), Charisma, and/or Voice, then it might make sense for the women to not kill him off because his reaction bonus from his advantages would offset the reaction penalty from Sadism, at least until he turns against them. The charming murderer is an established trope, and it occasionally shows up among serial killers in real life. They might even rationalize his torture, rape, and murder of his victims, as he may convince them that his victims 'deserve' their fate.

Such a trio might end up as villains in an adventure, as the women would loot the house while the man would 'take care' of any occupants (including the children and pets). Investigators would find horror scenes awaiting them, as none of the occupants would escape 'punishment' at the hands of Luke. Of course, a child might have managed to escape, so the three would be frantically trying to silence them before they can lead the authorities to them.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Interesting discussion, but haven't most of you got rather a long way off-topic?
adaman14, if you have any other questions about your original topic, feel free to ignore the other discussion and ask them. It may look as though everyone's long forgotten about that and moved on to a different subject, but in fact if you ask more questions about that, they probably will get answered. We're just giving our favourite hobby-horses a bit of exercise while we're waiting.
This is just how the GURPS forum is, and it's all right if you're expecting it.
It's a well-known glitch here - new player comes in with questions, questions get answered for a bit, then something someone mentions sparks a huge debate in which the new player and their question appear to get forgotten about entirely, new player departs bemused!

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I'm feeling pretty good about moving forward with GURPS. This forum has been and is very helpful. I mentioned what type of game I want and for sure some don't understand it. There are basically four human approaches to life as studied by behavioral science. There are drivers, analytics, expressive, and amiable. The later two will love to build characters and backstories and love to game the relationships, etc. while the drivers and analytic type normally will like the adventure and world approach. No right or wrong, it just is what it is. I'm good with the thread and thrilled with the instructive input. Thanks all!!

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Hmm... I wouldn't say that it is computer games that drove this. I think a bigger modern driver of new players getting involved in RPGs is more things like watching games being streamed and the like, and those actually often focus primarily on the character side of things (because it is made as entertainment, and watching people act out their characters is more fun than "so that is +2 for flaking, which gives me 26, A HIT"). I think it is more down to:
1) characters without much background and their stories being created by their adventures have been the main for games like D&D, and for a lot of people D&D defines their expectations of what a RPG is. I was introduced to RPGs at a younger age than most players I know, by a family whose dad didn't like D&D, but most players I know either started in the 2000s with 3.x or more recently with 5th edition D&D, and those set some expectations I never had (3.x players particularly having an expectation of gear progression, for example).
2) I personally think it mirrors what happens in fiction (particularly genre fiction) a lot better than detailed backstories. In novel series and tv series we often get presented with a character we have to take in in a matter of a page or two, or a few seconds of screen time and understand who they are. That is usually defined by what they *do*, not their backstory, which we *might* get introduced to as the book/series goes on, but is rarely fleshed out in advance. For example, my first RPG character that I actually made (rather than rolled up, or created for me) was just "I want to be Han Solo" (to the extent that I just called him Space Smuggler, messed writing it up and so he was Space Smaggler). What do we know about Han Solo when we meet him? He is a cocky smuggler guy with a fast ship and a hairy co-pilot, who owes money to some guy called Jabba. That's literally it. He is defined by what he does, not where he came from. We don't need to know his backstory (and aside from his debt, I don't think it ever comes up in the films at all). Other heroic characters are similar. Another big one for me as a kid was Tintin. His backstory: he's a journalist, and that is pretty much just an excuse for his international travel. Kirk: Quick thinking action man captain. We get more as the series went on, but I doubt they had decided he was bullied at university, had been witness to crime against humanity as a child, and had seen his crew mates killed by a weird cloud thing before they wrote the first script. Probably his most infamous 'backstory' action (cheating at the Kobayashi Maru) was a projection of how he had been portrayed until that point, rather something that had informed how he was portrayed. Thinking of other Star Trek captains we have Picard: Older, more cerebral, dislikes children, allegedly French. Sisko was actively unusual at that point for having much of a back story: "has a son, wife killed by Borg, considering leaving Starfleet because of that trauma", and the third part is resolved by the end of the pilot. I can't remember much of early Voyager, so I can't remember if they gave more to Janeway other than "New Captain, woman" in the first episode or not, and Enterprise and Discovery did both put more time into the background of their leads.

I very much think I fall into this category.

Didn't know this was even a thing... we *generally* try to finish off combats before ending a session, but the idea of trying to wrap every session up in a neat bow is just odd. And even worse, you miss out on the chance of a cliffhanger! We don't usually have characters featuring if the player is not there, and we *might* try to come up with some excuse ("they're back at camp"), but if necessary we just treat them as if they are just "out of shot". If they were essential to something we would have the character there, but yeah, would probably similarly come to a consensus based on how they have been played up until that point.

I think this is *mostly* how I envision characters when making them, and as I said, I think actually reflects leading characters in popular culture (which I think will inform many players' visions of their characters) a lot better than detailed backstories do.

I feel similarly. I think I (and I certainly know a couple of players in my group) often feel we haven't got to know our characters yet *until* we get a chance to play them. I can't give you much of a backstory yet, because I don't know it. My last character (a 5e D&D game) was a rogue, but I was playing them as being an ex-soldier. They were not a thief, they just had the relevant skills because they were useful for his military experience... All that really meant was that I wasn't always on the look out for things to nick and/or dick around with out of curiosity, and if that had been it it would have been fine. However, I actually found the fact I had thought more about some other elements of their background a bit more inhibiting to gelling with the character than if I hadn't, and had determined them at the time they became relevant.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I feel like in all these responses someone had to bring it up but I see most folks talking about routine use skill modifier and pointing out that 11 is a pretty low skill.

Skill checks aren't for every use, It's only when you're struggling or need to make it look easy and only when there's a real consequence to failure. So you'd make a riding check if your horse got bit by a snake or if you're trying to break-in a horse you've never ridden with, or performing on the Dressage Square. 11 is a pretty ordinary skill, what most teenage girls who've been out to the farm a few times have. Those tests are tough for that level of experience and you could fail them very easily. Failure depends a lot on the severity of the circumstances and the margin of the roll. You might fail your riding roll to control your snake-bit horse by one and the horse just wheels around in place in a panic letting the snake strike again. You might fail your roll to break in Mean Butch with a critical failure and he throws you into a ravine. You might fail your roll to perform your dressage routine by 2, but other competitors fail by even wider margins so you win the chance to be rewarded by the Duchess and have a few seconds to speak to her without her handlers.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Which is ironic as in several places GURPS expressly states that this is not a low skill.

""Your unmodified skill level is called your base skill. It measures your odds of success at an “average” task under adventuring conditions – in other words, in a stressful situation where the consequences of failure are significant." B171

Thaumatology: Urban Magics pg 30 goes at this from the other end:

"The standard rules are designed for adventurers, not for ordinary working professionals. Professionals make one job roll a month. On a critical failure, something bad happens, with harmful consequences – but not usually as bad as a critical failure during an adventure. (...) With one roll a month, a mage with effective skill 15 or less goes 54 months between mishaps, on the average; one with effective skill 16 or better could go 216 months (or 18 years)."

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

While I also prefer PCs that have little significant backstory, that seems like rather a stretch. Popular culture is full of characters who are tied in to the plot to an almost absurd degree through their personal history and/or ancestry. Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, and an endless pile of others.

Of course, a ttRPG is often less likely to have the arc of the plot detailed in advance. Retconning connections in as things progress is an option for those who like it but that also favors light initial backstory so you've got plenty of room to insert relevant connections.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

The monthly roll for ordinary jobs, is fairly standard in GURPS it was at least in the 3rd Ed. , and is mentioned in the 4th Ed. P. 516.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Keeping in mind the +4 for routine situations, a skill 9 would roll on a 13 or less under uneventful circumstances, so as a GM I wouldn't make anyone roll if they had a skill over 9 for really routine circumstances as they will probably succeed if they play it safe.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I always ask players for a short backstory of their character, in writing. I allow them to change it for about a month. Then they need to give me a somewhat longer and more detailed version of their backstory. I'm not talking much. A paragraph would do.

However, I warn them that I will feel free to add anything that doesn't contradict their backstory. Many players have given me quite detailed backstories because of this.

I have rarely used this, but I have occasionally told people that they have run into a friend from their childhood, but that's it.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

...That would seem like a really good reason to stop threatening your players that way, to me.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

It's notable, though, that for nearly all of these characters, the backstory is revealed gradually over the course of the plot rather than set out at the beginning. For some of them, the backstory was not known even to the creators at the start, but developed as needed over the course of the series. (Luke Skywalker, who you mentioned, comes to mind as an exemplar of this- despite George Lucas's continuing claims that he had a master plan for Star Wars from the beginning, there is clear evidence that the true identity of Luke's father, for example, was a decision postdating the first movie.) I think this is a reasonable approach to take for designing RPG characters- starting out with a rough sketch, perhaps even a stereotype, and filling in the details as they become relevant and as the player gets a better idea of the character.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

True, certainly, but that's going to happen much of the time as a matter of in media res storytelling even in cases where it's all worked out in advance.

(As for Luke, just within A New Hope Luke is established to be the heir to a Jedi Knight, watched over by another Jedi of note, and connected to Darth Vader by way of his father. Sure, the ESB twist probably wasn't planned in at that point, but ANH-only Luke is already firmly stuck with plot-critical lineage.)

((Particularly in fantasy it seems pretty common for the really important backstory to be a character's parents rather than anything the character themselves did.))

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

I got me the backstory writeups, and allowed me to add in the occasional hook. I had one friend who would give me a *very* detailed writeup, except that he left two years unaccounted for. That way, he said, I could put anything I needed to into that time without messing with his backstory. And, he claimed, that if he just wrote the full background that detailed, he felt that it might make me feel as if he's daring me to do something.

Of course, I've known this guy for a long time and we were good friends. He was the best man at my wedding.