Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

It's kind of a cliche that players are a little paranoid. their characters are always over-prepared and overly cautious. You know the story: "the old gentleman invites you to take a seat--" "I check the couch for curses/spikes/landmines etc!!"

The problem is, if the GM tries to set a scene as innocuous, it always looks like a trap. The more innocuous it is, the more it seems like an excuse to strip characters of their resources: "You're at the grocery store one morning after a night out--" and the player thinks "oh great, something is going to happen, and I've got no gear, and he'll probably tell me I'm hung over, too. No fair!"

There are tons of examples in fiction of heroes being caught off guard in a crummy situation and having to suffer through. "Die Hard" comes to mind; can you imagine as a GM, announcing "ok there's broken glass everywhere. Wait, did I mention you don't have shoes on?"

Similarly, there are tons of great stories where the protagonists walk into a trap. Not just a simple ambush, but that they follow the wrong clues for a long time, or someone is lying to them, or promising something to them, and they end up being suckered into something really terrible or dangerous. In the latest James Bond film, his contact sells him out. He ends up being drugged, wrecks his Bondmobile, and gets tortured. It's good cinema, but losses like that are frustrating to players who are generally happier detecting or resisting poisons, using their gear rather than destroying it accidentally, and escaping from bonds. 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.

So how do you do it?

A few thoughts: for the unprepared situation, "terror at the grocery store" scenario, I think GMs just have to make clear that if players are caught with their pants down, s/he still, as GM, has their interests at heart. It might be rough but the situation is designed for them to get through it. I can't think of another way of doing it.

For situations of betrayal or entrapment I think GMs should allow some chance, however remote, for the players to figure out the ruse as it's going along. Preferably this should be something beyond a secret check, so that when the sh*t hits the fan, the GM doesn't just say "oh well you failed a [something] roll 3 hours/months ago." S/he should be able to point to some turn in the plot where they went wrong.

Additionally, GMs could be extra generous whenever players have survived something particularly harrowing. We tend to reward success (discovering a plot) but some consideration should be given to dealing with suffering and failure as well! (getting caught in a plot and extricating oneself at great cost).

Anyway, I'd love to hear your thought on this, and how you've played with situations like these.

[EDIT: apologies for the use of "he" for GM's.]

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

In general I tend to avoid situations or scenarios where the PC's are required to be placed in a situation like this.

As you pointed out, the players tend to become frustrated and angry with a loss of control.

Having the PC's being captured is always terribly tricky and I've found that most PC's become violently opposed to incarceration.

BUT you asked, "How to handle these situations."

First, condition the players.

If they head out to the grocery store armed to the teeth and wearing full armor, they are likely to incite panic and a local SWAT team.

Once they get the picture that messing with a SWAT team is no fun, they'll eventually begin to be more circumspect in crossing the law.

Other things that you can do, is to require a high level of detail when it comes to your transitions. (ie: GM: "Let me get this straight, You're wearing Improved Body Armor under a Tank top? While carrying your lance, a PS1 Sniper Rifle, and how are you holding the SMG?!?")

Unfortunately a LOT of players don't like this level of detail, but in demanding this level of detail it also helps you avoid the "I pull out my 2-handed battle-axe! Oh yeah? From where?" syndrom.

Ironically in demanding this level of detail, you're also going to tip off the players that something's up.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

For the most part, I don't. Some linked reasons:

1) I've been on the receiving end of a few "take all the toys away" adventures. They've mostly felt like something designed to be fun for GMs of a certain mindset but with little or no consideration of what the players might enjoy. I certainly didn't have any fun with any of them, and I doubt my players would either. So be sure that your own motives are pure and that you're not falling for the false logic that "to be interesting, an adventure must be challenging, therefore any challenge must be interesting."

2) When I've been in such adventures, it's also been set up in a blatant, contrived fashion, where the GM imposes strange new limitations without preamble or logic, or simply declares that the PCs are without their stuff. If you, the GM, can't start a story any better than that, I don't see why the part which involves me, the player, should be any more interesting.

3) For most players, there's a strong element of wish fulfillment in their desire to play these games. They like playing PCs who are powerful. I don't necessarily mean that in a munchkin-y way, but simply that they like playing characters who have a range of options and definite ways of making an impact on the world around them. They do not, therefore, usually enjoy situations where that ability is artificially reduced. Even ignoring the power issue, there are questions of being allowed to play out the character concept. I know that if I'm playing a wizard or a mechanic or a swashbuckler, it's because I like playing a wizard or a mechanic or a swashbuckler. What my character's abilities are, frequently, are a significant part of what makes that character interesting to me. If I'm in a situation where I can't cast spells, fix stuff, or swing from chandeliers, well, that's a pretty dull evening for me.

4) Players also like stuff. There's a grand tradition in RPGs of acquiring stuff, and sorta using the aquisition of stuff as a marker of progress. Taking stuff away, for many players, is contrary to the point.

5) While we might like, say, watching movies where Bond gets captured and beaten up along the way, those aren't the moments we want to emulate. We want the moments where he's using his gadgets, blowing away the opposition with an array of guns, and getting the girl. Those bloody-and-tied-to-a-chair scenes, with their complete lack of glamor, tend to be less than fun.

The few times I have intentionally set out to put PCs in a situation where they're held captive, deprived of stuff, or what have you, have been in situations where it's appropriate to a genre and puts them in an advantaged position. My most notable success was in a cliffhanger action campaign. Unlike relatively gritty campaigns, where sensible captors would have just shot the prisoners in the head, there's a long tradition in cliffhangers of prisoners being captured and taunted, but then escaping. It's easier to get players to go along with it if they've got assurances that any disabilities you saddle them with are very likely to be temporary. Moreover, in this particular case, where some PCs were captured by evil Nazis and held captive on a submarine, that put the PCs in a situation where, once they escaped from their cell, they were in a very good position where they could sabotage the submarine and foil the Nazis. Capture wasn't just something they could recover from; it ended up putting them in a more effective position.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

In general my PCs have slowly become less like the hyper-paranoid stereotype you refer to. This has happened over time as they've gotten used to my GMing style. Now, when I have a really nasty trick to spring on them, they enjoy every second of it. One key is to use these double-cross or secret-bad-guy scenarios sparringly. If the PCs have been taught through experience that innocent situations are the most dangerous, they will react that way. If, instead, most NPCs are what they appear to be, the PCs will relax this paranoia reflex. This will make those times when the PCs are double-crossed that much more exciting and memorable. My PCs still talk about the 'healer' that traveled with the party for 3 sessions (about 3 weeks in game-time) while 'curing' the party leader. In fact the healer was not a healer at all, but an agent of the Big Bad Guy. He had the party leader wrapped head to toe in bandages and his tounge cut out as he drained his attributes slowly over days and days. This was so memorable because in that 'reveal' moment, the PCs suddenly connected the dots and saw all those subtle clues. The party leader did a good job of keeping his mouth shut between sessions and was virtually bursting at the seems as the party came closer and closer to their realization.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Or are you just happy to see me?

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

My game style is one that avoids most situations like those. I'm a GM who really does want his players to have fun and have the PCs succeed.

So, if a player checks the cushions for mines, I tell him that it's odd for him to do that. Most of the time I let them know ahead of time if something seems innocent it probably is... 99% of the time it is.

If they get captured, I usually have it done for a reason and by that time they realize there's always a way out. In fact, there's usually several ways out, though I rarely reveal all the escape possibilities. Usually I work with their skills and let them figure it out and give them hints on the way. It's not life-and-death with me, it's more like a puzzle to be figured out.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I just thought of another piece of good advice that I got from an ancient issue of Dragon magazine.

In short before you throw ANY trap or situation at your players, make certain that YOU can think of at least two successful methods for escape/avoidance.

The reasoning behind that is that if YOU as the GM can't think of an appropriate way out, neither will the players, and your campaign will come to a quick and painful end.

On the contrary if YOU can concieve of two weaknesses, then the players are likely to come up with their own ingenious methods as well.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

That's a good suggestion.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

<thread jack>

N-no! I swear! That's just my IBA!

Besides, just why are you so preoccupied with my bragart?

</threadjack>

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

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.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I think that as GM's we also have to make sure we're not reinforcing player Paranoia by hosing them when they forget or neglect something that their characters are unlikely to forget or neglect.

"Well, you didn't say you were buying more arrows while you were in town."

You can also communicate that you will always assume that they're being careful in situations where care is called for. If they're creeping up on an enemy outpost, they don't have to describe in minute detail how they're checking for booby-traps and scouts to get the benefits of their characters abilities, i.e. perception. They should describe their actions, but only to the degree that it helps them role-play. Painstakingly detailed descriptions of such things put me to sleep.

B

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

On the other hand, it could be that the GM's motives are suspect, putting his desires for a particular kind of story ahead of the player's right to play his character in what seems to him a sensible fashion. It's one thing if the PCs start out being utterly paranoid without any in-game reason for it. However, it's quite another if the GM creates a world where the couch cushions may very well be booby trapped from time to time, or where very bad things are likely to happen if the PCs find themselves in a situation where their equipment is taken away from them.

True, normal people don't second-guess everything. But PCs aren't normal people, nor do they inhabit a normal world. They inhabit a world full of lethal hazards, both hidden and obvious. Self-preservation is always a valid motivation for a PC, and in a dangerous world, checking to make sure that couch isn't mined and the old man isn't an alien wearing a mask simply makes good sense.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

One realistic way to handle PC alertness, though I've never seen it used in a game, would be to have people specify their alert level. Higher alert levels increase your assumed level of preparation, but mean that everything takes longer, fatigues you more, and gives you penalties on skills which are not related to what you're worrying about.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Well, if GMs make every routine thing explosive...then they'll be paranoid indeed.

So in order to have the players not freak out about going to the grocery store, it has to happen in the game frequently enough not to be a warning bell.

Some GMs/Players avoid normalcy and routine and only do go-go-go action. This means that all routine and normal things are seen as further parts of go-go-go action.

Having fully fleshed out worlds, realistic reactions to odd PC behavior, etc, tends to mitigate this situation.

For example, in whswhs's THS campaign that I'm playing in, I can tell you my PCs entire weekly routine and his daughter's routine. I know when he goes to the gym, when he comes in to work, how he gets to work, what activities his daughter does every day, when he goes to church, what bars he goes to after work and how regularly he does so, when he has all the kids in the play group over at his house for the weekend, when they are at other houses. The PCs regularly eat dinner together. Groceries have been bought, the news has been read, regular 10am meetings are had. We know our characters' routines and habits so well that bringin them up doesn't ring warning bells. Also, whswhs is just as likely to give us interesting in a positive way interactions or plot hooks as he is negative things...that we never start freaking out when he asks us when the next time we pick up our dry cleaning is.

Most recently, Bill asked us if we read the news in the morning and if so which sections. This seemed as much a character development question as anything else. My character read the front page and the sports section in the morning while he was jogging in the moring. Another PC read the front page and the Science Sections. Another PC read the front page and the Business section. Another PC doesn't read the news...just plays video games. We shared and we all learned something about each other's characters...unfortunately, on this day, there was a toxic meme in the front page news. Does that make us too paranoid to read the news from now on? No, because we've established that our characters read the news daily (well, most of our characters). Most of the time we read the news we learn about current events, get hints of how our actions have influenced the world, pick up plot hooks and clues, etc.

You have to have the routine actually be routine most of the time (and play it in game now and then), if you actually want the players to react that way to it. And if done right, the routine can be a solace...and island of refuge from the really not routine go-go-go action things that happen the rest of the time...so when you start threatening the refuge? Look out!

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

This is certainly how I GM my games. The players are welcome to say that their PCs are sleeping in armor, carrying an extra 20 lbs. of weaponry, setting heavy watches, etc., but then they have to accept a random fatigue penalty all the time. They're welcome to sniff for poison in drinks, frisk their host, and take a metal detector to the sofa, but then they have to accept severe reaction penalties from potential patrons and benefactors. They're welcome to say that when camped in the wild, they use the latrine with one hand on a loaded gun, but then they have to accept a roll to avoid an embarrassing incident ("On a failure, let's hope you have spare clothes and a shower bag. On a critical failure, let's roll to see what bits you shot off by accident . . .").

Generally, once people realize that I intend to be hard-nosed about this, they do what normal, sane humans do and don't sleep upright against walls, in full armor, with hands on loaded guns. Being heroic and skilled doesn't make such activity any less fatiguing or risky, after all.

That said, I've never once had a player complain when the camp is attacked at night and I've said, "Well, unless you were on watch, you're probably not in armor." Of course, this is in part because I'm fair about letting people "play dead" and surprise their attackers, and about making sure that those in their skivvies get bonuses to evade heavily laden foes. I'm also fair about surprises . . . I don't have leopards attack camps of armed men sleeping around campfires, and I don't have would-be assassins attempt suicide attacks at every juncture. In any event, most players of warriors seem to be keen on showing that their heroes can best foes even while naked and armed with nothing but a snapped-off bedpost, or while dressed in formal wear and armed with only a piece of silverware.

In the field on an adventure, though, I would never penalize a player for checking for traps or covering tracks. Of course professional adventurers take measures while actually on the hunt or being hunted. I can't imagine why even the bookish academic would forget his concealed .25 or use the front door instead of the back door while going to the library, if his objective is to research a dangerous conspiracy that might be spying on him even as he works, and I wouldn't fault the ex-commando for putting Claymores outside the party's log cabin at night after assassins have made a couple of attempts on party members. I only start assessing "readiness level" penalties when the measures taken are excessive and inappropriate. Things like concealed weapons and trip-wire mines are designed to let people be ready without being excessively on edge.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Hose your PCs for not being paranoid enough, and they will be more paranoid. Make generous concessions to their alertness and common sense - or just avoid sneaky things like poisoned dinners, sudden betrayals, and hidden traps altogether - and they'll relax.

Capture situations and other sorts of one-track plot devices require a bit of faith on the part of the players that this will be fun and exciting (honest!) and they'll get all their important stuff back at the end.. and that faith needs to be rewarded by the GM. Other posters have commented on turning the capture into an advantage (by putting the prisoners into an otherwise secret or heavily-guarded area where they can foil the enemy plan/take out the enemy leader/learn the big secret/steal the artifact/whatever) and I think that's an excellent idea.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

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.

This brings up an important point, though: Action heroes should generally be at least somewhat competent at picking locks, sneaking, escaping, etc., and at combat with bare hands, improvised weapons, and light weapons. The most vocal whining comes from players who create Mr. Action as a one-trick pony with all of his feats/points/dots in Big Sword or Huge Gun. You can blame the player, but I don't. I always tell my players from Day One that, really, an action hero without basic unarmed, stealth, and evasion skills isn't viable -- please redesign. I haven't seen a GURPS PC without an unarmed combat skill and a Stealth skill in years, now.

I consider this obvious . . . but really, it isn't. In skill-intensive games such as GURPS, especially, I can genuinely see how a player might not realize that stealth, evasion, and fighting unarmed are separate, trained fields that require an investment. The best way to set up fun and interesting capture and surprise scenarios is to make sure you subtly coach your players to design their PCs in such a way that they're not utterly useless if captured naked or forced to rely on subtlety instead of major force.

(I'll add that we can thank well-meaning but ultimately poorly conceived class systems for the common perception that only Thieves need stealth and Monks need unarmed combat, and that such things are beneath Warriors . . .)

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Except my freakin' horse!

Otherwise, I've had pretty good expirences both as a player and as a GM with ambushes, prison breaks and the like. It does require a measure of trust between the GM and the players, though.

I don't really have a problem with PCs acting unreasonably paranoid, in general. It may be because I'm blessed with fairly good roleplayers.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

My friend Bryon from the group I used to game with in Iowa made CHAMPIONS stats for practically every hero in the Marvel and DC Universes. On one occasion, someone was playing Black Panther and discovered that he had neglected to give him the Stealth Skill when the character was trying to sneak up on a villain. So, the Black Panther had to make the standard 8 or less default roll for "Everyman" skills, and blew it. The GM announced that Black Panther had accidentally knocked over some garbage cans.

From that day onward it became a running gag in that group. Whenever anybody blew a Stealth roll, someone was bound to say, "That dang Black Panther is knocking over trash cans again!"

But Bryon never forgot to give a character that skill again.


One thing that eases the Paranoia factor a bit is that I cut my players a fair amount of slack about preparedness. If the player did not actually say they were taking a specific precaution ahead of time, but it is plausible that their character would have taken it, I allow him to make what I call a "Retroactive Smarts Roll" to see if the character had thought about it.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Absolutely. In GURPS, I make IQ useful even to non-intellectual PCs in this way. If they woulda, coulda, shoulda done something . . . well, on a successful IQ roll, they did. I'll even be nice and let them use relevant skills (like the Soldier skill, for weapons n' tactics stuff), if better than IQ. I specifically reserve automatic hosing for PCs who have suitable disadvantages -- Absent-Mindedness ("Oops, you forgot!"), Impulsiveness ("You went off and did it before you prepared!"), Laziness ("You just didn't bother."), Slow Riser ("Er, you just got up . . . no way you're that on the ball."), and of course Cursed ("I want to hose you. Please thank me and ask for more."). And I grant automatic preparedness to PCs with traits such as Common Sense ("Of course you did that first -- it's only sensible.").

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

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.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• Gesture -- Sooner or later, communication without making a sound will be vital to almost any party's survival.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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 further suggest -- strongly -- that action heroes have this list as well:

• Axe/Mace, Broadsword, Knife, Shortsword, or Staff -- Wielding a stick, knife, or heavy tool to any real effect requires practice. These common improvised weapons are not idiot-proof, trivial, or safe to use without training.
  
  
• Beam Weapons, Bow, Crossbow, or Guns -- However easy "point and shoot" looks, it's quite tough in reality. No credible action hero lacks competency at all ranged combat.
  
  
• Boxing, Brawling, or Karate -- Fisticuffs are the worst place to be untrained. Your fists are the only weapons you always have, so learn to use them.
  
  
• Forced Entry -- No, it isn't easy to kick in a door. Actually, unless you know how, you'll hurt yourself.
  
  
• Holdout -- "Concealable" equipment only works if you have skill at concealment, and frustratingly few players realize this.
  
  
• Judo, Sumo Wrestling, or Wrestling -- The number of people who think they should be able to grab others automatically is astounding. In fact, this is a difficult feat, trickier than hitting people, and absolutely requires training.
  
  
• Throwing -- Whether you're tossing spare magazines to friends or grenades at enemies, this is a trained skill, so it pays to know it.

I think that players would be far less unhappy about surprises if more GMs made lists like this and did everything possible to get players to take them seriously. A PC with Brawling, Fast-Talk, Forced Entry, Holdout, Knife, Scrounging, Stealth, and Wrestling should be able to make and conceal a shiv, overpower a guard, steal his clothes, sneak away from the scene, talk his way past the other guards, and leave through an inadequately bolted back door.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

This is one of the rare cases where I agree with Kromm's approach to things, more or less. If you want to be the all-round hero - spend the points on it! And the GM, for their part, should cut some slack. "But I would have -" "Would you? Okay, make an IQ roll."

There's also a degree of trust involved. I've sometimes found that players new to my GMing take a while to settle in, and realise that I'm there to present an interesting game world - I'm not there to screw them up for giggles. I'm not an adversary, I'm just a guy who has a whole heap of NPCs to play. That's a GM - a player who has many characters instead of one, and who makes judgments about rules. There is no malice at my game table. Once they realise that, most settle down and relax.

But it's true there are different player responses to character failure, loss, imprisonment, maiming and so on. Just the other day I was saying to a gamer buddy, "I have these two players... for one, a failed dice roll is just a failure, and something to swear at. For the other, a failure is something to laugh at, or something which is going to make the game more interesting." And then last night at the first session of a new campaign, they confirmed this view for me. One was creating a character, and gave him "bad knee" and "law-abiding" as traits. The other player said, "why do always create flawed characters?" The player looked puzzled and surprised, and said, "Because they're fun, of course. Being flawless is boring!" Guess which of the two players consistently has more fun... ;)

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

It is, however, often funny! I once played a bookworm socialite, whose only combat skill was fencing. As this was pre-WWI London, it was a less than useful skill. The rest of the party got themselves captured while I was looking for a contact at a party. I went to rescue them, armed with evening dress and an (unloaded!) revolver. The butler didn't notice the gun was unloaded, but the first goon I ran into did. That was the end of that.

I have a list for most the campaigns I've run. It overlaps quite a lot with yours, though I don't have quite so many categories of combat skills as you do. I have Computer Operations at TL7+ and Area Knowledge, and Research in most settings. I'll also point out things like swimming.

This is one of the places I miss half point skills. There are lots of places where IQ-1 or -2 is enough.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Kromm, you just made my night. This is exactly the sort of cheat sheet I've been looking for!

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Seconded. This will save me a lot of time.

Do you have recommendations for a good old fantasy game or Space opera?

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I think it's important to note that the broken glass does not really make Bruce's job harder. I don't see it giving modifiers of any kind, and I'm not even sure whether Bruce's character suffers damage (in the RPG-sense). Rather, the broken glas let's him demonstrate how bad-ass and tough he is. Look, he crawls through broken glass, bloodies his feet, grimaces with pain - but when push comes to shove, he isn't really inconvienced! Cool!

In movies, many details are just there to make the inevitable victory of the hero more heroic. If you want a similiar effect in RPGs, you need to scale up the description (The pain! The blood!), and scale down the game-mechanical effect (You lose 1 HP. Roll vs First Aid. You get back 1 HP.).

Unless, of course, you're running a very realistic and gritty game. In this case, by all means check whether Bruce's wounds get infected! :)

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Our group's ex-werewolf always carries a guitar case containing a two-handed battle axe. Doesn't seem unreasonable to most, she looks like a rock musician.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

It's a cool list, but I disagree about the unarmed combat skills. With most skills, 1 point buys you +4 to your skill. With action hero PCs, that' usually a jump from a default 6-8 to a semi-respectable 10-12. That's a good investment; you'll certainly do better if you spend one point each on Diplomacy, First Aid, Stealth, and Streetwise, than if you just increase your main skill by one level.

But with hitting and grabbing, you get that 1-point level for free, since you can use DX at no penalty. And I'm not convinced it's a better idea to spend 4 points on Wrestling to get that +1 than to spend the points on whatever skill you're focusing on and get an equal +1.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I think perhaps Kromm's assuming 200+CP characters, which he's previously stated is about minimum to be "action heroes". With 200 CP to spend, you're not going to be needing to save 1 or 2 here or there. There are 16 skills as a minimum in Kromm's list. 4CP in each would be 64CP in all, giving an average of Attribute+1, or a "professional minimum" level of 11 in each, even with entirely average attributes - and I'm sure Kromm would argue that "action heroes" should not have average attributes ;)

I go for lower-powered campaigns, myself... 30-75CP.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

If you want to employ a ruse, you need to make sure that there is a sense of "normalicy" in social situations. Thus, you should use social settings extensively even outside of such ruses. Make sure that the PCs frequently try to get information, gain allies, request favors or similar things that require them to go to pubs, high society functions, and so forth. Actual combat at such situations should be rare - but make sure to ask the PCs what they will take with them at these situations, implying that carrying weapons or armor will be a terrible faux pas if discovered.

But if the PCs wish to conceal such items when going to such a setting, only give the NPCs a chance to spot them instead of making it automatic. The skill of the PCs should count for something, and sometimes such paranoia does pay off.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Thought experiment:

For 16 points, you get all those skills at the 1-point level. Compared to your suggestion, that saves you 48 points. Assuming you have two primary skills* from outside the list, each at 12+ points, you can drop those down two levels as well. That saves you another 16 points, for 64 points total.

Now, for 60 points, you could get +2 to DX, IQ, and HT, buying down Will, Per, and Basic Speed. All the skills you bought stay at the same level** and almost all of your defaults go up by two. Plus you just saved 4 points. A better deal, yes?

In GURPS, it's simply not reasonable to spend more than one point on nonessential skills. You should put the minimum investment in each of your backup and emergency skills, and spend the savings on attributes. This has been the case for twenty years, though the exact numbers have changed. check it out


*Obviously, most characters have 3+ primary skills, which makes it even more profitable to redirect points from backup skills to attributes.
**Unless you took Observation or Scrounging - but remember those 4 points you saved?

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

How about if the 'you're at the corner shop hung over' is an excuse for some red herring or positive outcome RP based stuff - say helping an NPC who's locked herself out of her car.
She may be a one episode extra, or she may be the spouse, girlfriend, daughter or indeed the persona of a significant NPC...
If every 'interrupt time' encounter features the Glasgow Triads leaping out from behind a post box your players are probably right to be paranoid.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

PCs in my games end up with really long skill lists. A quarter or a third the points in skills is typical. For 150 points, that means 40 or 50 points in skills, that's typically 25 skills. For 200 points (which where I like to run games) that's around 60 points, going into 35 or so skills. Non-combat types end up with lots more skills, since there's not much point in high levels in most non-combat skills.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Mind, if the GM tries to railroad the PCs into being captured, the GM should expect that the PCs are going to scream, flail, and really gripe about this -- and probably come up with something that is entirely different and involves bioterrorism.

(That... was a pretty bad session; none of us were acting in character because we didn't really care about taking out the Bad Guy Base in question, but these Leet NPCs were shoving it on us (with promises of Nifty Tech), and neither we nor the GM had anything else that we could do instead. So instead of being captured and fighting our way out, we gave them a floating derelict ship that was contaminated with uber-viruses. And kept the Nifty Advanced Tech.)

If the PCs come up with the idea themselves, though, it's not bad at all.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

The only time my group has a problem like this is when the munchkin is present. If the PCs are searching every seat for a trap and trying to conceal full body armor on a trip to the grocery store then the characters should have paranoid, otherwise, it’s bad role-playing. I realize that those are just “bad” examples, but if you’re having that problem with your PCs then they need to explain why their characters are so incapable of trusting other human beings (or whatever species they are).
Our Hero game has the characters ambushed every time we take them out and we still don't act paranoid. Why? Because they don't get ambushed every time they go out, and we understand the difference. And, honestly, the characters don't necessarily know when the session has begun. Once it becomes obvious that someone is gunning for us, we begin to take reasonable precautions (activating powers before leaving, calling ahead to inform where we’re going that we’re coming, and, if we can, we’ll bring Jessica, the walking-talking disaster area). Sometimes, to mess with the GM (because it’s funny) we might do something off the wall like decide not to leave the club, but to send someone else to go get the movie projector (which was so blatant a ploy to get us out in the open, we couldn’t resist messing with him).
In my GURPS Supers Super San Diego game, I have reveled in watching the munchkin slowly drive himself insane as his expected ambushes never materialize. For two game-weeks the PCs were tracking down leads and getting information trying to determine who had originally kidnapped them. The munchkin wanted to go to the public library in full battle gear, the other PCs said he could go, but they wouldn’t be seen with him . . . ever again, if he did that.
A healthy amount of skepticism is fine, and, realistic for characters, but when they take every situation to the most improbable extreme, then there is a problem. So, in my opinion, if your players are acting too paranoid outside of possible logic, start asking them some pointed questions, all beginning with “If you’re so paranoid:”
“Where do you keep your money?”
“Where do you buy food?”
“Why do you have a security system?”
“Why do you trust the other PCs?”

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Would you rather your character had starved? ;p

Besides, I think I'd have run that one a little differently these days. Anyway, he got the sword back, didn't he?

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Thank you! I've been trying to make something like this for months and keep leaving things off of it.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

How is it unreasonable? I guess if you play by numbers it might be. Some people play by character concept. In those cases what might be defined as primary skills for the game aren't necessarily going to be the character's strongest abilities though; it might be something else that defines that character. Or their highest skills might be some key primary, but I still spend a few points on a hobby, interest, something else that has nothing to do with the campaign. I find it a bargain to take a point or 8 from an "important" skill to round out my characters and make them feel more real.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

If you can laugh at your failures, then it's likely that you've already made it past the point where you see your GM as an adversary and insist on being on top of every situation. At that stage, you don't need a big list of skills or a powerful PC. You can revel in mediocrity. Note that I love to play fallible PCs who get captured, in over their head, etc. :) However, lots of players -- especially those coming from computer games and war games -- do not. :(

My list is complete so that nobody will complain, "But ANYBODY could hit an enemy with a stick!", or, "What do you MEAN, my attempt to grab him fails?" Things like "Why is it so hard to hit somebody on the head with a stick?" are practically FAQs . . . the answer being, "Well, the game assumes that you do so swiftly and return to a guard position, second after second." Few players seem to have the patience to take an Evaluate maneuver for three seconds to get +3, or the will to take the risk of an All-Out Attack for another +4. I see nearly all real-world combat as having this +7, with blows thrown more like every four seconds with little thought to defense than every second with much thought to defense. If your players also see things this way, you can omit melee skills in many cases.

Computer Operation would go on the list at TL8+, but I think that Research is a more specialized skill for the group "brain." Area Knowledge is nice in theory, but so few campaigns start out, stay, and/or end up in a given PC's stompin' grounds that, in practice, it isn't very useful. I'd hate to make every PC take Area Knowledge (Montréal) and then send them off to Cabul on their first adventure. Swimming was a deliberate omission -- I don't think it comes up often enough to matter, and usually, there's a boat.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Two issues here:

1. I didn't suggest "put 1 point into each of these skills" but "have these skills." For unarmed skills, I'd strongly recommend that the player spend enough to get the ST or damage bonus that the skill offers fighters with higher levels.

2. It isn't entirely true that DX is as good as skill. Sure, basic punches and grabs can use DX, but players usually want to do fancier stuff. You can't try, say, arm locks, choke holds, elbow strikes, judo throws, knee strikes, and lethal strikes without learning skills. These have no DX default. And many skills offer built-in bonuses at any level. For instance, Judo and Karate let you parry weapons effectively -- and give a superior retreat bonus -- allowing an unarmed fighter to take on a guy with a knife, like in the movies. The unskilled unarmed parry of DX/2+3, at -3 vs. a weapon, gives a DX 10 man a Parry of 5, or 6 if he retreats. The same guy with Karate at DX-2 for a point has an unarmed parry of (DX-2)/2+3, with no -3 vs. a weapon, for 7, or 10 if he retreats.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Indeed. I've always frowned at the (seemingly very common) idea of There's Gold in Them Skills, which states that you should reduce the points in skills and raise the governing attribute instead. I've almost never done it myself, and always discourage my players away from that kind of thinking.

I understand the response to the munchinism in this would in the lines of "IQ means more than just intelligence, it's also education, and DX is more than just reflexes and balance, it's also how you have learned to maneuver your body", but I still prefer a character with 2, 4 or even 8 points in background and "concept" skills, to a character with a greater attribute, just because "it makes more sense". Especially if s/he's been using the skill(s) most of her life.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I try and find a balance for starting characters. Generally they're pretty inexperienced so the attributes are within a few levels of the skills. When I build a wily old veteran I generally widen that margin by at least a few levels and pour more points into the skills which that character uses a lot. It's probably the wrong way to look at it, but I just find it more flavourful that way.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I totally agree. And I don't think that my way is The Right Way, or that there is such a thing. Just how I think characters ought to be made, so they would suit the games we're playing.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

My regular players know that I am perfectly capable of springing an unexpected situation on them.

In one case, the players created characters for what had been hinted could be considered an espionage/counter-terrorism campaign. The first adventure seemed to be exactly that, with the PCs escorting a captured militiaman/terrorist on his way to testify and trying to protect him during a running gun battle through O'Hare airport with his former companions. The PCs were successful in making it through the gauntlet and bundled their prisoner onto a chartered 747...only to have it shot down on takeoff by a terrorist with a Stinger missile.

The next session -- the actual start of the campaign -- saw the PCs waking up naked and hairless on Riverworld. (My wife still hasn't forgiven me for that one...)

One of my favorite standard games (usually a campaign starter) is "Strangers in a Strange Land", where the PCs find themselves castaways on a tropical beach with minimal equipment. (Yeah, I know it sounds a lot like Lost...but I was running this scenario for more than a decade before the show came out.) The PCs have been escapees from a slave ship (D&D), shipwrecked cruiseship tourists (Danger International), crash-landed space tourists (GURPS) or crew (AD&D Spelljammer), and even once soldiers (from a Twilight 2000 campaign) who emerged from cryogenic suspension into the world of Cadillacs & Dinosaurs.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I don't blame her. I wouldn't feel entitled to inflict that big a surprise on my players; if the prospectus didn't at least say, "something unexpected will happen," I wouldn't consider that I had the players' consent to a gaming contract, and I would think they were entitled to reject the campaign as "not what we were promised."

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

That's because most GMs entirely forget about task modifiers, positive or negative. So default-level skills are useless. The GM makes a PC do a Driving roll the moment they start up a vehicle, and gives them no bonus for being under no pressure, taking time and having a nice straight road to follow, and so on.

When GMs forget about task modifiers - as most do, just as they forget about Reaction Rolls - then default skills are useless, so PCs need to spend points in skills if they don't want to be entirely useless. This leads to long skill lists.

Long skill lists mean it's more cost-effective to raise attributes than raise skills; if I have 20 DX-based skills with 1CP in them, or 10 with 2CP, or 5 with 4CP, then it's better to raise DX than raise those skills. I learned this well in a recent game where I had a character who had Observation, Tracking, Survival and Scrounging - once they all had at least 2CP in them, it was better to improve Perception than improve any one of those skills. And even if I only really wanted to improve one of them, once they had 4CP in them, well it was only 1 more CP to get all four improved - and default-level Detect Lies, etc, went up along with them.

That applied for my character with his short skill list (less than 20, short by GURPS standards), because so many of the skills were based on one attribute (Per). It applies more strongly still for the typical GURPS character with 30+ skills, usually based mostly on DX or IQ (most characters will tend to focus in one area).

In theory you'd not want to raise just the one attribute because the skills would sometimes go with other attributes, but in practice most GMs never do this, "do an IQ-based Broadsword roll", etc.

If GMs were to remember to use task modifiers properly, then skill lists would become shorter, and players would tend to spend CP on a few skills, rather than a token 1 or 2CP in the skill, and then 20CP in attributes. Players will create specialists when the GM does not force them to become generalists by forgetting task modifiers.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Actually, I think 4E will open this up a bit, and have more use of modifiers to skills, as well as skills using other Attributes. I honestly hadn't thought about using skills at default with modifiers until I was working on a game of 12 year olds, where they wouldn't have skill points invested.

Also, 4E just brought out the idea of alternate Attributes to most of us. I know as a player, its always 'what I can do with what I know' compared to 'what I can do,' so my games end up reflecting that. Especially in puzzle solving, where that swap in attribute allows the swordbunny to actually know something non-violent.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I use modifiers all the time. Defaults still suck,though. Consider the DX 12 guy driving a car. Driving is DX/AVE, defaulting to DX-5. So he's got a skill of 7. Plus 4 for routine stuff gives 11. That's 62.5% chance of success; put the other way around, a 37.5% chance of failure. He's only got a 40% chance of making two rolls in a row. That's pretty slim odds, for something your life depends on.

And, of course, we're talking about adventurers! Many of the things that adventurers will do (or at least, the things I'll roll dice for) are not routine. Consider trying to drive a car while people are shooting at you. There's no way that's a routine, no pressure situation. That skill level of 7 is now only a 16% chance of success A failure may not send you to a fiery doom, but getting stuck in the mud may be just as bad. One point in the skill gives DX-1, or 11. That gives a 62.5% chance, plus a reasonable chance of getting to retry the roll.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Actually, "something unusual will happen" is pretty much SOP for my campaigns...as my regular players -- including my wife -- are all fully aware. Nobody expected the campaign to remain strictly espionage/counter-terrorism for very long. Most of the players had actually anticipated either a time-travel scenario (they knew I had been reading up on history) or else a trip to the Hollow Earth, and with the exception of my wife all enjoyed the Riverworld campaign. What I had failed to take into account is that my wife had never encountered the Riverworld concept before, and so she was totally lost for the first couple of sessions.

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.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

A TDM of +6 to +10 gives 13 to 17, respectively. Meaning 83,8%+ chance of success.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Um, failure doesn't necessarily mean "you crash your car to a gas-truck and everything explodes BOOM, you and a dozen passersby die!". In my games, someone driving a car with a default skill, on a normal trip through the city, failure by 1-4 would mean stalling the car at traffic lights, not noticing a STOP sign, or a near-crash with brakes screeching and fingers being waved. Failure by 5-8, would be a dent in something or so, and only a critical failure would mean injury to the driver. I would probably even ask for another Driving roll, and only if that too was a critical failure, there would be a life-threathening accident. Otherwise, 1d damage and a $1000 repair job.

If you get routine bonuses to a skill roll, the result of a failure are usually "routine", too.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Good point about the one-point investments. I'm still not convinced, though, that it's worth while to spend 8 points on Karate to get the damage bonus, if unarmed combat isn't a focus for you. For two points more, you could get Striking ST +2 and enjoy the bonus on all your muscle-powered attacks. I do think it's best to spend just one point on backup skills.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I believe most drivers have one point in Driving (though there are some who disagree). Drivers with years of experience - you know, the people with the low insurance premiums - probably have 2 points in it. Professional drivers (truckers, racers, cops) presumbly have enough points invested to get their skill to 12 or better...

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I mostly agree. There's such a huge gap between brand new drivers (young people 16-21)* and experienced drivers that a point of skill seems the best way to represent that.

*Statistically speaking of course.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

You know... I heard Ewan McGregor say about Calgary once (paraphrasing) "We drove through gansters in Russia, mud valleys in Mongolia, almost got killed by a moose in Alaska... but F***, I hate Calgary."

Around here drivers who have any measure of skill points are outnumbered by those who just own cars.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I think in 4e, one of the things that has changed just optimizing by increasing DX and IQ is the addition to the new skill roll rules. Specifically, rules that allow the GM to switch the controlling ability a skill is based on, and the rules that discuss flat 10 roll in order to get at training and not just skill.

Nowadays, all those folks with only 1 pt in a Karate might find themselves in trouble when having to do an IQ based Karate roll to figure out something intellectual about Karate, or when doing a based on 10 roll to highlight training experience.

Now, many folks will still just optimize...but now there are compelling reasons not to do so as a matter of course. That, and the increased cost of DX and IQ makes it more difficult to optimize that way.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Sure... But the IQ- and flat 10-based uses of Karate are pretty inconsequential next to its primary use, that is, punching and kicking. In fact, I can't think of anything "compelling".

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

GDW's TNE rules had levels of alert for starships, and keeping your on a high alert level for too long made everything become harder as the crew deteriorated and routine maintenance needs piled up. I threatened the use of similar rules in my GT game, and suddenly the PCs changed their watch orders to something that had most people off-duty or doing normal shipboard duties, rather than most people closed up in action stations when performing normal cruising operations.

Mind you, I think there were only three potential ship-ship combats, and only one turned real.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Oddly, even my munchkin player is okay with sleeping in armour not working, and in my D&D game he didn't even bother with the feat that would let him do so.

As for fending off foes while naked, I'm put in mind of an incident years ago which saw a young hero trying to drive lions off his horses at night wearing nothing more than his hat (complete with an array of exotic feathers) and his boots (for the thorns) and flailing wildly about him with his rapier.

I'm of much the same mind, except for those PC whose players have been so unkind as to encumber them with Absent Mindedness. As I've watched someone in RL who probably qualified for Absent Mindedness walk right through a tripwire we'd set not two hours previously, and right in front of his position in his line of sight, and shown him (along with the rest of the section), I have no qualms with being mean to the Absent Minded characters at all. Fortunately it was only a trip-flare, and not the claymore it might have been had it not been merely an exercise.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

FWIW, I would imagine that raw experience (measured by 10 + relative skill) would be pivotal in a master's decision to teach a would-be disciple the Seven Secret Kicks or the Hand of Death. And I suspect that once we get a mass-combat system, IQ-based combat skill rolls will stand in for Soldier, Tactics, etc., for such irregular troops as PCs.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Agreed - but these are hardly matters of daily concern, right? Even in settings where the Hand of Death is in fact real. Most users of Karate are probably happy with the "I punch him" approach.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

As I said, "FWIW." :) It might not be worth much, but I wanted to say it.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Ah, sorry, I didn't really notice the shorthand :) Serves me right for not concentrating on posting, but on cooking.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

All of that depends on the sorts of campaigns you run/play in. My THS character has boxing. He has only been in combat once in 2 years of play time. He also made an IQ based Boxing roll once to make some intelligent analysis of a boxing match he was watching on vid screen. So...both instances have shown up equally so far (i.e. not matters of daily concern.) On the other hand, since he works out in a boxing gym a LOT, Boxing (Sport) comes up all the time...though I do think I had to make an IQ based Boxing (Sport) roll once to deal with some rules question as well.

I could imagine a campaign where such things--base 10 rolls or IQ rolls for combat skills happens a lot. And in those campaigns? I could see buying up DX/IQ over buying up skills not always being the first choice.

Also, in the THS game I'm in, you can't spend cp's on things unless you've used that thing in game. So that tends to mean that we end up spending a lot of our cps on upping our skills rather than upping our abilities...and we grow as PCs in ways that reflect what we are doing. My PC has invested a huge portion of his cps in PS:Parenting. Considering the way he parents and how much he uses IQ the rest of the time (not as much)...it would be hard to justify an increase in IQ. An increase in HT or ST? Without a doubt. But IQ? That would be a hard sell to the GM. And now, I have a character who has PS:Parenting at IQ+4--which really reflects how, rather than being a natural parent, has worked hard on being a good parent over the years.

Also, when I created this character (Who has an IQ13 by the way)...I had to justify that high of an IQ score. whswhs asked me...why does this character as you've defined him have this high of an IQ? Perhaps you'd want to lower the IQ and up the skills with points to better match the concept? In the end I made a convinceing enough argument for why my Luddite Boxing beefbot actually did have an IQ13. But if I didn't have a convinceing argument I doubt whswhs would have let me keep the IQ13--which I think is entirely fair.

So...if you are coming from a concept/RP first mode of character creation...or if you are in campaigns that freqently call for alternate style rolls (or equally rarely call for standard rolls) then the non-optimized way of making characters becomes a lot more prevalent. For example, it had never even occured to me to even think about optimizing my characters until someone explained how it was done here on the boards...and I'd been GM'ing GURPS for over ten years before then.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Not if you've seen the traffic around here... let's see how many hours practice time is it for 1 CP?..... that means my skill should be..... 39! Wow, I am good.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

It may be worth noting that I didn't specifically set out to run a combat-free campaign. But the PCs have been fairly cautious about getting into fights. Perhaps they have an appreciation of how much of a downside there is to violence at that TL.

I had actually forgotten that discussion by now. But I would speculate that it might not have been quite as stringent as it sounded to you. At least, if I worded it that way, it's most likely that I wanted to make sure you thought about what made sense for the character concept; that I was invited you to change it rather than proposing to reject it. Or, at least, that I was saying, "Give me a bit of story about why this guy has this trait and how it fits into who he is."

But, of course, Gianni ended up as the lowest IQ on the team, whose other members are mostly ferociously bright.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Commuting by car may be a "routine" task for someone who knows how to drive, but for someone who has no training or experience operating a vehicle beyond seeing other people drive, and is therefore operating on default, having to do so much as pull out of a non-straight driveway backwards is certainly not "routine," and actually commuting is not an unstressful situation by any stretch of the imagination! I am therefore disinclined to believe that someone operating on default is entitled to that +4 routine bonus, but I would give it to a commuter with as little as 1 point in that skill.

The same could be true of a lot of skills. The first time you go to a range, shooting is not routine, but it is once you get the idea, which then gives you +4 in addition to whatever skill you pick up. That's why people can reliably hit a torso-sized target at 100 yards at a firing range after less than 5 hours of instruction, and still be completely useless at that range, or much lower ranges, in a stressful situation, even if they do manage to take the same amount of time to brace and aim, which they probably will not.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I might be inclined to be a bit more lenient there. For one thing, five hours on the shooting range is really a good deal less than the 200 hours that are supposed to correlate with 1 CP. I'd say that yes, the first time you try something easy, you don't get +4, but you get that bonus well before you have enough training to claim a skill point.
Your shooting example would seem to me to cut both ways, as it were. From what you describe, the shooter is becoming competent at 'easy' tasks while still being incompetent under stress (no +4 bonus!).

EDIT: Hmmm, we seem to be getting a bit away from 'Roleplaying in General' and towards 'GURPS'. Maybe we should discuss this elsewhere?

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Character surprise is pivotal to nearly any genre of narrative play; we need scenes of surprise and failure in order for the scenes of success and overcoming odds to be exceptional.

In Star Wars, paranoid players would absolutely miss out on most of the movie... Playing cautious Luke, "I'll examine the droids to see if they have any kind of markings like they may have been stolen - I certaintly wouldn't want to get involved in any imperial entanglements!" Or complaining when a sandman surprises him, "no way, I said I was looking around carefully and we had our scanner going for like thirty minutes! How could he have snuck up on me?" - or "nah, space ports are dangerous and Obi Wan's a jedi; I'll stay back with the droids on the outskirts of town and let him do it." - or "Ok, let's come up with the perfect plan for rescuing the princess...<2 hours later of game time> yeah, but what about escape? once we get in don't we have a plan for getting out? <meanwhile the player of Leia has hung herself from boredom>" - or Han "I'll set hyperspace coordinates for a random planet, come out of hyperspace early, check the ship for any tracking devices and destroy or ditch them, and then make several smaller jumps to throw off the empire's tracking..."

Of course the other star wars movies are the same. The plot is moved ahead BY mistakes and BY the characters NOT thinking of everything and from the group failing!!

From a simulationist standpoint, too, being in red alert readiness mode too often is going to be both stressful and unrealistic.. No matter how awesome a character might be, no matter how much time they spend planning for every eventuality, they are going to miss things - and the fun gained by planning evaporates quickly when you have to spend increasing game-time discussing it, writing it down, and so forth. The more players you have, too, the more people have to agree/disagree on group preparation.

I like what I heard earlier in this thread:
1) Degree of readiness in more importan than the specifics of that readiness.
2) If a specific of readiness comes up, make an appropriate roll (in GURPS I'd use a relative skill bonus to the IQ stat) to see how specifically ready you might be.. If on green alert, assume that most of your "preparedness" is in a cupboard or backpack and would take some time to recover.
3) The GM should make sure players know what skills/feats/etc characters should have to assure they can deal with the aftermath of surprises...
4) The GM and players should have an understanding concerning the necessity of surprise.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

That's what my group go with: I have stated to them that the plot is open to suggestions, so if some PC's are being a little too careful, a player may suggest: 'Now we've crept back out again, maybe the villains' henchpersons could be waiting for us? 'The Boss wants a little word with you...' '

So the cinematic scene of; 'the lights come on, and you are surrounded, with your dependent held hostage' is now possible.

Or: '-if the plot is flagging, have someone come through a door with a gun'.

It takes trust, but it's rewarding.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Actually, in my experience with commuting the two least stressful ways to drive are a) on a freeway or b) in really heavy traffic. Combine the two and you're not driving, you're sitting in a car listening to the radio or talking to your co-commutors.

It's stressful for reasons largely unrelated to the Drive (Automobile) skill for many people, I cheerfully admit. But the difficulty of driving a car at 5-20 KM/H when there are no pedestrians, signs, bikes, cats, dogs, squirrels, or people in tractors to distract you and/or leap out into traffic is pretty negligible.

I'll give you the reversing out of a crooked driveway, however.

I think I'm somewhere between my Default in Drive (Automobile) and the 1 pt level. It takes a good minute or two of reversing, adjusting, pulling forward, adjusting, reversing, adjusting, etc. for me to park in a stall, usually. That's me failing my Drive (My mothers enormous boat of a minivan) check and trying again and again and again until I can get the stupid thing into the stall AND still be able to open my door enough to escape the van. But I swear that behemoth gives me a -4 equipment penalty on parking just from having blind spots you can hid small cars in.

But even if I can't get the van in straight with enough space to avoid whacking the car next to me, I don't hit anyone or anything, I don't do something horrible to the gearbox, I don't accidentally set off the airbags, and I don't knock the wheels off alignment by driving over a curb. Most driving roll failures just mean "back it up and try again".

It's only when you're doing something interesting that your failures are going to do anything other than cost you some time, and even then, I think most failed rolls should be far less spectacular than "You hit a tree and die, the end." If I fail a Broadsword roll when attacking, I don't cut my own head off, so I don't see why Vehicle skills should be THAT much worse.

GM: The off ramp has a speed limit of 40k/h, you know when you slow down the Don's goons are going to catch up, right?
Driver: When? Bah! I'm going to take the ramp at speed, 80k/h. I'd like to see the Don's men catch me now!
GM: *shakes head* whatever. Roll it.
Driver: *rolls dice* Crap.
GM: Ok, you tear around the curve on the ramp, but it looks like you've missjudged the maneuverability of your 1984 Corola. You mount the curb and drive with two wheels on the sidewalk for about 50 meters before you manage to pull yourself back onto the road. Make a Perception based Driving roll.
Driver: *drops dice* Woo, made it by 3!
GM: The car's handling funny, it keeps listing to the right. You think you may have knocked one of the front wheels slightly crooked in that stunt. You'll be at -2 to handling rolls until you can get that fixed.
Driver: Well, at least we're alive and still doing 80! I check the rear view mirror briefly to if I lost the Don's men.
GM: Oh right. *rolls some dice* Looks like Tony and Frank aren't so lucky...

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Just a couple of thoughts:

Usually when I've GM'ed face-to-face, it's been with a small group of my close friends. (I miss'em since my move to a new state!) Generally, we'd all at one time or another GM'ed one another in various games (everybody had their favorite system/setting.)--so I think we pretty much trusted each other, knowing full well that "What goes around might well come around," if you get my drift.

That said--most players (myself included) have seemed to me fairly tolerant of being Surprised/Captured/etc. so long as they still got to role-play their character with a certain amount of panache, or so long as they could see the event in question as essential to the plot--or the result of a failed roll! (When the dice hit the table with the Sign of the Beast: Three Sixes, everybody knows it's bad juju all 'round.) From time to time, I would either end a session or start a session with the characters getting captured, so that Getting Free became the focus of a session, and an opportunity for Heroic Exploits.

Perhaps I'm lazy--scratch that: I know I'm lazy!--Perhaps it's out of my laziness, but over time I've come less and less to plan specific solutions to certain puzzles, traps, or prison-capture problems: Rather, I tend to give strong bonuses (or decide the outcome of a situation) based on how creative and well-role-played he PCs' proposed solutions are. I started this after one session many, many moons ago when the players got together and came up with a solution far more creative, elegant, and interesting than the "solution" I'd planned. Of course, this has worked the other way too: I've also turned creative player paranoia into "What's Really Going On," when they outthought my own deviousness.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

(Sorry for responding to an old thread here.)
I once read an excellent example of the exact opposite: a GM noticed that for every trap or problem he devised, the players came up with a different solution than the one he had planned, so he made a trap for which he saw no way out, and the players found one.

Ofcourse you should only do this once the group has proven able to solve really hard problems. But in that case it can actually be a great idea.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Two parries, increased ability to kick, increased damage over-all and access to a few techniques that make you extremely lethal? Worth it.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

I can't remember who wrote it, but I once saw an interesting suggestion for GMing pulp-style deathtraps. The author suggested thinking of three different ways to escape ... and then making sure that the first two the players attempted always fell short. That way, you kept the "thrills and chills" atmosphere of desperately improvising a last-minute escape as that third method finally came through in the nick of time.

Obviously, you'd want to use this somewhat subtly and/or judiciously lest you get lynched by your players. But it can make for some neat situations if done just right.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

In every gamer's experience, there are times when his character gets his bootie handed to him. There are also times when he's gamed with a competitive type GM who's out to 'get' the party. Both of these occasions are unpleasant, especially when they are one and the same. Many players react by doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Gamer, first Call of Cthulhu game: "No, I'm not taking a gun. Guns are illegal."

Same gamer, a few CoC games later: "I'm going jogging. With my sword."

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

That is really good advice. I had a gurps game pretty much stop,because the Gm put in a pit trap that we couldn't get out of.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Never had the second experience, actually, and I've been gaming since 1975.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

Since we're dreding up old threads...

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.

Re: Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM
 

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.