Real Men Don't Play GURPS

[Anders]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

. . . Whswhs' secret to his success as a GM.

More seriously, it's my comment expressing doubt at the actual usefulness of various systematic-recommendations-likely-to-improve-RP-quality. Probably because they were never systematically tested in terms of ability to improve things, and are merely based on a dozen or two anecdotal data each.

Right. We need a double-blind test. Neither the player nor the GM should know what they're doing. Our group could volunteer - we play that way anyway.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

More seriously, it's my comment expressing doubt at the actual usefulness of various systematic-recommendations-likely-to-improve-RP-quality. Probably because they were never systematically tested in terms of ability to improve things, and are merely based on a dozen or two anecdotal data each.

That's inherent in the nature of art.

A few years ago, I read a fascinating book called Hollywood Economics. And its basic conclusion was that the success of movies simply was not predictable. It wasn't even predictable with ordinary random variation such as is represented by rolling 3d6; its level of randomness was higher than could be dealt with by standard deviations and expected values. Every so often you get a breakout film that no one anticipated, and then the industry changes a bit, as it did after Star Wars. Such films are genuinely essential to the industry—if you took them out of the accounting, ordinary successful films wouldn't keep film studios viable in the long run—but no one knows how to make one to order.

Now, this is in perhaps the biggest artistic enterprise on earth, with the largest audience and the largest statistical pool of data, and with a lot riding on interpreting those data accurately. But they can't tell what will hit the bullseye and what will fall in the dirt—or circle back and hit the marksman in the butt. The omens for scientifically planned manufacture of successful art on any smaller scale such as gaming are poor. At most we can have rules of thumb and anecdotes of how a problem was solved.

Bill Stoddard

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

. . . Whswhs' secret to his success as a GM.

More seriously, it's my comment expressing doubt at the actual usefulness of various systematic-recommendations-likely-to-improve-RP-quality. Probably because they were never systematically tested in terms of ability to improve things, and are merely based on a dozen or two anecdotal data each.

Robin Law's book main idea, is the best game is the best game for your group, the categorization was more away to points out how different draws of the hobby can interact to help you think about what will work for your group.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Robin Law's book main idea, is the best game is the best game for your group, the categorization was more away to points out how different draws of the hobby can interact to help you think about what will work for your group.

I tend to approach things the other way around: Come up with ideas for games I would want to run and then try to put together groups suited to those ideas. As my favorite Brecht quotation has it, "If the government doesn't trust the people, why can't it dissolve them and elect a new people?"

Bill Stoddard

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I tend to approach things the other way around: Come up with ideas for games I would want to run and then try to put together groups suited to those ideas. As my favorite Brecht quotation has it, "If the government doesn't trust the people, why can't it dissolve them and elect a new people?"

Bill Stoddard

Well I would put it this way, find out what common ground you and your players have, so you run a game that you both want to run, and your players want to play in. After all the GM is part of the group as well.

At the end of the day RPG are a social activity to be enjoyed by all the participants. how you form your social groups is your own business.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Well I would put it this way, find out what common ground you and your players have, so you run a game that you both want to run, and your players want to play in. After all the GM is part of the group as well.

That's really well stated. That's the goal, there - either pick a group that wants to play the game you want to play, or pick a game that suits the group you want to play with. Then play and have fun. Not having fun is the only way to really screw this up. :)

[gruundehn]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The last time I made a character for AD&D (2e) the DM said "roll dice until you come up with a set you like." I rolled 25 sets of stats and still finished 45 minutes before his wife did. I did have an 18 DEX, 17 ST, 16 Con and no stat below 12.

This was neither swift nor "suthentic" but the campaign ended up being great in spite of the demi-buttocked game system. Of course the characters all gained effective Advantages and Disadvantages that were never on the character sheet and unsupported by the game system.

I'm waiting for an opportunity to transplant my swashbuckler from that game to Gurps. I can write him up in Gurps faster than I can roll all those dice too. I can put all his alcohol-related Perks on his sheet too.

Real Men might triumph over the limitations of certain game systems but after a while you realize this is doing things the hard way and you've got better things to do with your time.

My favorite character from 1st ed AD&D was Tunk named that way because that was the way his brain worked. 18 (98) Strength, 3 IQ (later 4) 12 Dex and Wis and 18 Con. I played him with two phobias: Ghosts and Harpies. Ghosts he hid from and Harpies he attacked mindlessly (as if he ever did it any other way) because he believed they would kill him - and later in his life, they did.
But that was back then and now I prefer a system that lets me decide what my character is going to be, not rely on random dice rolls. And Tunk's rolls were random, but fun.