Troupe Play in GURPS

[Michael Cule]

This thread on rpg.net lead me to this post which I encourage you to read because otherwise the following won't make a lot of sense.

Back now? OK then...

Trying to establish a troupe style of play, probably in a campaign that is very much run sandbox style has certain difficulties in GURPS. The degree of preparation that is needed to bring a GURPS character up to 'ready-to-play' status and the degree of personal investment that players have in their carefully designed core characters (or perhaps that's just my players? Who knows?) are the main problems. But I think that I can see ways to do this and certain advantages to doing it this way.

The advantages I see are being less trapped by the 'adventuring party' and therefore less afraid to 'split the party' if that's where the story takes you. Imagine how hard it would have been with long running series like ST: TNG to develop character and story if every bloody week you had to give Picard something to do, Riker something to do, Data and Jordi.... You get the idea. You could never switch to a story that was about one character or even two because you would be freezing out the other players.

In my current game I've got story threads about all the main characters but at least one of them has been pretty frustrated because she was dragged across the Atlantic ocean because that's where the party as a whole chose to go and her backstory was left behind in Europe. (I'm trying to make it up to her now she's back: next week she may have to make the decision: kill my hated enemy in the face of the whole royal court or not?)

You can also adapt more easily to the failure of one or more players to turn up, bring in characters capable of dealing with specific problems and give the players a chance to be creative.

But GURPS needs some work in game mechanical terms to make characters ready.

So how about this as an outline:

1) Core characters. Every player gets one personal core character that is theirs and theirs alone. This should be at the full level of character points allowed for 'player characters'. This could be slightly more than that of the 'pool characters': they are supposed to be the leads and they get special treatment even if they're not always in every episode. At least one core character should be in every session but even that can be changed if the story focusses on secondary characters in the style of that ST:TNG episode called (IIRC) BELOW DECKS. The core characters are owned and maintained by the player who created them.

2) Pool characters. These are the supporting characters who are there when story needs dictate. The gruff sergeant, the chirpy young squire, the forensic tech, the girlfriend who is a part time witch. Anyone can play them. They are owned and maintained and probably designed by the GM though he could well delegate that last part (under supervision and with his approval) to players. ("Fred, she's your girlfriend. If Sharon is going to play her next week you're going to have to flesh her out a bit.") They should be fully worked up but may be less powerful than core characters and may be in the process of being designed bit by bit.

3) Experience points. Every character gets one experience point every time it is played. Every player also gets a pool of experience points based on how well they did in a particular session which they can apply to any character they have played. (Although I suspect most of them will apply their points to their core characters no matter where or how they were earned.) A player may spend any accumulated points on a pool character's sheet before he hands it back to the GM.

4) Designing characters bit by bit. This is a tricky part. When a script-writer starts with a character concept he doesn't know everything about the character. He just knows the high points. And when I start a campaign I don't know what I'm going to want the minor characters to be able to do in detail.

And when the NPCs remain NPCs and aren't going to have to be written down in detail I can add as many points to them as I like. ("Oc course the grizzled sergeant has Scrounging! Yes and contacts in the local criminal underworld...." "Did I not mention that the kobold was a Buddhist missionary? If you were a kobold you'd want to believe in a better re-incarnation!")

But if I'm going to allow and encourage the players to build characters in that way I'd better create some guidelines. So:

A) NPCs have a budget of points just like any other character.
B) They also have a limit of Disadvantages and five quirks which are undefined until someone comes up with a nice bit of characterisation.
C) Nothing put on the character sheet may contradict what has been said in game.
D) Any skill or advantage that fits the character may be claimed at any time but you had best pay the points right there. If you need a disadvantage to pay for it and the limit hasn't been reached you can put in a place holder ("I need a -5 disad... Let's not hold up the game...") but you cannot hand the character back to the GM without having established what the disadvantage is. That should encourage players to come up with stuff that is entertaining and adds to the story. ("Giant spiders? I think Rodney the Randy had best roll to control his arachnophobia that he's never told anyone about...")

5) Each session should probably end with a few moments spent planning what the next meeting's stories should be about and which characters will be featured. The GM should be able and willing to go off on a tangent with other characters at the drop of a text telling him the focus character's player isn't going to make it.

Does that make sense? Sound appealing? Practical?