Narrativism in GURPS

[Qoltar]

Originally Posted by nanoboy

....................

What I am thinking is that the U in GURPS could be made more accurate, if there was a way to put in some narrative components. (Keep in mind that when I say "narrative," I am not referring to GURPS lacking stories. I'm talking about rules systems that allow players to alter the game world in ways that are outside of their characters' control.) These concepts are apparently in vogue in the indie RPG world right now, and they seem kind of neat. However, most of the indie games lack the level of simulation that GURPS provides for those of us who actually like that sort of thing. Basically, I'm wondering if anyone knows of good ways to elegantly work these ideas into GURPS, because when I am ready to game again, I would love to have my cake and eat it, too.

Just because those ideas are 'in vogue" in the Indie game world that doesn't mean they are actually good ideas or would work with GURPS.

Stuff from The 'Forge'/ Indie games or the IPR world likely doesn't work that well with GURPS.

GURPS is a traditional roleplaying game.

Now if what you really want is to streamline things so its easier for you to GM a GURPS game session or two - thats already very doable with GURPS as it is.

One player could makle up some aspects of the game world ahead of time and e-mail it to you and the rest of the group, another player could coordinate making the characters and character sheets with the GCA - things like that. You would still be the one in control as the GM, you just had some of the lkegwork and research done ahead of time.


- Ed Charlton

[nanoboy]

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth

Mind, I've nursed a kid during a game (draped a cloth to keep the kid from being too distracted to nurse; my Big Shirt would've shown nothing of interest anyway), and I've even dealt with a "pay attention to me!" toddler when GMing, once, at a con.

You are my hero.

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth

Oh, right, you had a different question... Narrativism in GURPS. Hm. Personally, from my experience tossing characters back and forth doing solo-roleplay with the spouse (not that kind of roleplay! for one thing, having a kid zonked out on one's chest (who will wake if one attempts to move it) crimps the style...), it's pretty easy to... just use the characterization stuff as a guideline. Maybe roll if you can't decide what would be most interesting. Maybe make a little chart for yourself -- something like

"If skill is 1-6, um, no, fail unless really dramatic and/or the dice love ya.

If skill is 7-11, player can choose whether success or failure will be cooler, and roll if GM disagrees with player's choice.

If skill is 12-15, assume success under most circumstances; player may choose to fail, GM should ask for a roll if the situation is kind of tricky or if the GM needs time to think.

With skill of 16+, failure is rare, will tend to be spectacular ("perhaps you shouldn't've cross-circuited to B with so much power in that jefferies tube, eh?"), and/or driven by narrative necessity. Roll if there is a really tricky situation.

In all cases, PC vs PC should be worked out gently between the players, with the above guidelines, but any case of the players sounding crabby should have the GM pounce in and say, "Let's roll dice for this one."

If the GM goes entertainingly purple on the prose, hopefully the players will get into the spirit of things and you can go, "He wounds you severely on the arm" and they'll clutch the arm and moan, "Augh! I've dropped my weapon, and can think of naught to do but fall to the floor, hoping to avoid getting the return swing in my throat! I shall grope for my fallen weapon, hoping it isn't kicked away in the scuffle!" (And the GM can go, "What's better?" in an undertone, and the player can go, "Ooo, kick it away! Kick it away!" Or maybe the other players will have a vote...)

These are good ideas.

Originally Posted by Qoltar

Just because those ideas are 'in vogue" in the Indie game world that doesn't mean they are actually good ideas or would work with GURPS.

Stuff from The 'Forge'/ Indie games or the IPR world likely doesn't work that well with GURPS.

GURPS is a traditional roleplaying game.

Now if what you really want is to streamline things so its easier for you to GM a GURPS game session or two - thats already very doable with GURPS as it is.

One player could makle up some aspects of the game world ahead of time and e-mail it to you and the rest of the group, another player could coordinate making the characters and character sheets with the GCA - things like that. You would still be the one in control as the GM, you just had some of the lkegwork and research done ahead of time.

I agree that ideas being in vogue don't necessarily mean that they're good. Just look at 1970s fashion. That said, I think that a lot of the ideas being pursued by the indie publishers are good ideas. I think that a lot of them will stick and probably get absorbed into more mainstream games eventually.

The thing is that I am so familiar with GURPS, and I so love the simulationism of it, that in the long run, I don't want to abandon it when I decide to run other more narrativist systems. It seems like GURPS could accommodate narrative mechanics, and that's the purpose of the original post.

[Qoltar]

Originally Posted by nanoboy

The thing is that I am so familiar with GURPS, and I so love the simulationism of it, that in the long run, I don't want to abandon it when I decide to run other more narrativist systems. It seems like GURPS could accommodate narrative mechanics, and that's the purpose of the original post.

Then stick with GURPS - you'll be happier in the long run.

Also, give up on using the term 'Narrativist'. One time in the Roleplaying In General section we had a thread that discussed GNS theory and all that stuff. I kind of remember Kromm and a few others got in there and said things to the effect that GNS and GURPS don't mesh well.

On other forums folks complain that GURPS is too Narrativist already. My response is that I think GURPS is just fun if run with the right attitude.

Also, if you think GURPS is a bit complex - there are plenty of shortcuts and tricks that GURPS GMs have come up with over the years that make it run faster.

Believe it or not 3 by 5 cards and 4 by 6 cards help a lot during a game session - especially for back * forth idea sharing and questions between players and the GM.


If you want - PM me and I tell you how I run my Combat scenes in a way so that players hardly even notice the mechanics of it all.

Another thing you can do is to focus heavily on the characters once your players and you have created them.



- Ed Charlton

[Crakkerjakk]

I honestly think the best way to implement more FATE-like mechanics is to use already established GURPS mechanics whenever possible. I mean, Qoltar's right, you can create a more narratively focused game by giving PCs Luck, Serendipity, Destiny, or using CP for flesh wounds, rerolls, etc.

The problem (in my mind) is that these mechanics aren't tied into roleplaying your character well. I mean, sure, my Spiderman character has Serendipity, but he gets to use that regardless of whether I'm playing him as the smart-talking webhead we all know and love or as a grim Punisher clone that doesn't represent the disads on my sheet. Sure, I'll get docked CP at the end of the session if I have Spidey go around shooting people in the head during the session, but wouldn't it be nice if there was a way to reward players mid-game for roleplaying well?

As previously mentioned, I find awarding CP tends to rapid inflation in characters, and plus I want the players to be hungry for more rewards, so I want them to use whatever I'm rewarding them with instead of hoarding them. Perhaps players could even use the eeps to power Ultra-Power style abilities from Supers or something.

I really think having some sort of "X Point" (Fate, Luck, Hero, whatever) that is awarded mid-game for sticking to the traits on your sheet works well. However, I don't think they should stand double-duty as both character improvement eeps and narrative control eeps, as it encourages players to give up one to pursue the other.

I think you could scale what precisely the Luck Points allow you to do depending on genre. In Supers games they allow you to use Ultra-Power, in Pulp games Seredipity, while in more realistic games they just let you use Luck.

[Xenarthral]

Originally Posted by nanoboy

Most stuff is kind of hand-waved. For instance, you run out of bullets, if the GM thinks it would be interesting or dramatic for you to do so. Or, when you take enough damage, you describe the consequence to your own character, and if the GM likes it, that's what happens. That's one of the things that's neat about it. There are several ways that players can add to the game world. They can make up facts with the Academics skill, put Aspects (descriptive details that have game implications) onto places, make up weird gadgets on the fly, etc.

I think I've missed something here... or several things...

What of the above is impossible/incompatible with GURPS, barring
a) players who cannot be trusted with that kind of power (which is as much,
if not more, of a problem for games where the above is in the actual rules);
b) players who accept neither deviation from the rules as written nor results
that could be decided with a roll of the dice being decided by GM fiat;
c) control freak GMs will not allow the players to add anything to his world, except possibly PCs, appropriately edited;
d) and so on?

Unless my players have explicitly been keeping track of their bullets (e.g. filled-in boxes on a scrap of paper), they are in danger of running out, or at least need reloading, if they're been firing a lot, if it would be interesting/dramatic, if I realise it and if I think I can get away with it.
While there's obviously a big difference between "I describe the consequences of the hit" and "I describe to consequences of the hit that did
7 points of damage", I have little problem leaving the description to the player.
If the player can techno-/bio-/clio-/legal-/whateverbabble something while referring to a character's relevant skill (possibly following a successful roll)
and it and it fills in blanks or sounds better than what I wrote, why not. Heck, some of the campaign ideas I've been fiddling with (for GURPS) are partially built on that very idea.
etc.

I am a rather enthusiastic handwaver.

[nanoboy]

Originally Posted by Xenarthral

I think I've missed something here... or several things...

What of the above is impossible/incompatible with GURPS, barring
a) players who cannot be trusted with that kind of power (which is as much,
if not more, of a problem for games where the above is in the actual rules);
b) players who accept neither deviation from the rules as written nor results
that could be decided with a roll of the dice being decided by GM fiat;
c) control freak GMs will not allow the players to add anything to his world, except possibly PCs, appropriately edited;
d) and so on?

Unless my players have explicitly been keeping track of their bullets (e.g. filled-in boxes on a scrap of paper), they are in danger of running out, or at least need reloading, if they're been firing a lot, if it would be interesting/dramatic, if I realise it and if I think I can get away with it.
While there's obviously a big difference between "I describe the consequences of the hit" and "I describe to consequences of the hit that did
7 points of damage", I have little problem leaving the description to the player.
If the player can techno-/bio-/clio-/legal-/whateverbabble something while referring to a character's relevant skill (possibly following a successful roll)
and it and it fills in blanks or sounds better than what I wrote, why not. Heck, some of the campaign ideas I've been fiddling with (for GURPS) are partially built on that very idea.
etc.

I am a rather enthusiastic handwaver.

The difference is that these games have rules for the narrative. There are rules for how the players can change the world in ways that their characters could not do. There are rules for how they can make someone else's character do something that an aspect of his says to do, and there are bonuses and penalties for those sorts of things. That's the fundamental difference.

[whswhs]

I am not able to talk about narrativism in GURPS, because I have read Forge material on GNS, and I have not been able to get even a general sense of what any of the three key terms means. Gamism doesn't have much to do with my concept of "game," narrativism has almost nothing to do with my understanding of narrative, and simulationism is radically in conflict with my understanding of the proper methods of simulation. So I don't think I can contribute productively to a discussion in those terms.

More concretely, you seem to be asking for a way to get interesting narrative elements to emerge from an rpg by providing game rules that generate such elements. That seems really odd to me. If anything, I would call it a "gamist" attempt to simulate "narrativism" without actually engaging in narration, by coming up with rules that substitute for the narrative art.

What do I mean by the narrative art? Well, take my just ended supers campaign. One of the players created her character with an Enemy of equal but different powers: Nemesis, her character, was a woman who had been granted strength and combat skill by Ares (the gifts of Achilles) and commanded to wage war against a man who was granted intelligence and strategy by Athene (the gifts of Odysseus) until one of them won. Well, I brought him in as a hidden mover of a series of attacks on her superteam—but eventually I had him decide that if the team could defeat high-end supers, they had a shot at defeating gods. So he and the whole team went to Olympus and defeated Ares and Athene in battle. And just as they fell, I had the titan Prometheus come through and call on Zeus to surrender his throne to his successors: Not a new generation of gods, but mortals of godlike power, as Prometheus had long ago prophesied.

Now, the whole storyline emerged from things that were on Nemesis's character sheet. She had bought Aegis as an Enemy; she had bought the gods as a power source; she even had her character under a curse from Aphrodite for her rejection of love. But turning them into a meaningful story meant my taking a theme that the player had given me, and coming up with incidents that suited it . . . and that's what I think of as "narrative." You get it not from rules, but from going away and thinking about the PCs and the game until things pop up from your subconscious.

That's not to say that there aren't useful rules for letting players shape the narrative a bit more. I admire greatly, for example, the use of drama points in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and of FUDGE points in FUDGE. I'm just not sure whether I'd call them narrativist. . . .

Bill Stoddard

[Crakkerjakk]

Yeah, I'm not really up on the Forge aside from knowing it's a website on which pretentious people discuss RPG design. But I thought it was fairly clear what the OP was asking about.

[moldymaltquaffer]

Don't get me wrong, I like the GNS idea, just not the way FORGE describes it.

As they see it, narrativist play is simply letting the players power the story largely independent of the GM, and (a bit more specificly) trying to dominate the other players into following *their* storyline.

I don't agree with that.

Of course, by their accounting, I'm a simulationist. I build the world. The players tell the story of their characters within that frame. This also makes me a narrativist. Except that it doesn't.
(There's WAAAAAAAAAAY too much mental masturbation over there.)

If you want to run a sandbox-style game, GURPS is wonderful. You don't need to go thumbing through a monster manual or try to modify rules on the fly.
It's when you want to abandon the frame that things start to fall apart.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

As previously mentioned, I find awarding CP tends to rapid inflation in characters, and plus I want the players to be hungry for more rewards, so I want them to use whatever I'm rewarding them with instead of hoarding them. Perhaps players could even use the eeps to power Ultra-Power style abilities from Supers or something.

You mean like, maybe, the page in GURPS Supers that starts GURPS Powers introduces the concept of a power that is applied by spending character points: Matter formed with the Create ability vanishes in 10 seconds unless the creator spends character points to stabilize it, for example. Other abilities can also benefit from character-point expenditure in a supers campaign. (p. 114)?

Bill Stoddard