How to Be a GURPS GM: Managing Expectations

[whswhs]

I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that there are two different senses of "realism": First, there is realism embodied in the rules, the attempt to make the rules produce results that simulate reality, in the way that a computer program might simulate (some aspect of) reality. Second, there is realism as a supplement to the rules, in which the GM decides what happens by thinking about how things happen in reality, and perhaps even overrules or sets aside the formal game rules if they generate results that conflict with reality—that is, what GURPS calls "reality testing" (and in fact officially includes in the rules). In some ways the two are actually opposed to each other.

The first approach has limitations. It amounts to creating a computational model of some aspect of reality, and that kind of modeling is really hard; some aspects of reality, such as weather and economic activity, resist being modeled. GURPS players often talk about "gamable abstractions," models that are simple enough for a GM to make sense of, while not being so hopelessly out of touch with reality that their results will regularly have to be discarded.

The second approach is more like a narrativist method of simulation: rather than generating outcomes by applying rules, the GM simulates reality by asking "what would I expect to happen now?" That is, it draws on prudence, the sense of how the real world works. But it has its own limitations: Not every GM knows how guns work, or wrestling, or financial transactions, or predator-prey cycles, or (pick your topic). So we have a demand for guidelines, and that turns into a source of new rules, and that adds to the complexity of GURPS.

[Armin]

Originally Posted by scc

Not what I really want and would probably be for the best, something Star Wars inspired.

That, right there, is the problem with GURPS and settings. No matter what gets done, 90+% of the customers say something just like that.

[JulianLW]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that there are two different senses of "realism": First, there is realism embodied in the rules, the attempt to make the rules produce results that simulate reality, in the way that a computer program might simulate (some aspect of) reality. Second, there is realism as a supplement to the rules, in which the GM decides what happens by thinking about how things happen in reality, and perhaps even overrules or sets aside the formal game rules if they generate results that conflict with reality—that is, what GURPS calls "reality testing" (and in fact officially includes in the rules). In some ways the two are actually opposed to each other.

The first approach has limitations. It amounts to creating a computational model of some aspect of reality, and that kind of modeling is really hard; some aspects of reality, such as weather and economic activity, resist being modeled. GURPS players often talk about "gamable abstractions," models that are simple enough for a GM to make sense of, while not being so hopelessly out of touch with reality that their results will regularly have to be discarded.

The second approach is more like a narrativist method of simulation: rather than generating outcomes by applying rules, the GM simulates reality by asking "what would I expect to happen now?" That is, it draws on prudence, the sense of how the real world works. But it has its own limitations: Not every GM knows how guns work, or wrestling, or financial transactions, or predator-prey cycles, or (pick your topic). So we have a demand for guidelines, and that turns into a source of new rules, and that adds to the complexity of GURPS.

I agree that GURPS isn't a reality simulator. It's a fiction simulator. And because fiction has so many tones and tropes and genres, there are all kinds of rules combinations and options to achieve the desired results, which leads to a lot of complexity.

I have to admit that one of the things I like most about GURPS is that it does do a remarkably better job (I suspect; I'm not really a gamer outside of GURPS) of simulating realism (as opposed to reality, i.e. the fictional style) than any other game I've heard of. So if GURPS isn't a reality simulator, it certainly can be a realism simulator.

But one of the other things I like best about GURPS is that it's a great comic book/sci-fi/sword and sorcery simulation, too. And what I like even better than that is the that it can be tuned to be a simulation of grittily-realistic comics.

Yes, GURPS has a lot of complexity, but not much more, as far as I can tell (from a huge distance), than a lot of other games out there. Looking at the stat block for characters or monsters from some other games, they often seem likely to be far more confusing than a GURPS stat block to me.

GURPS isn't a reality simulator, but, with all due respect to Kromm, it does seem to be a fiction simulator.

[Emerikol]

I think a lot of people confuse individual elements of rules being realistic with an overall simulation of reality. I see it in wargaming. Abstraction can be realistic at the level of abstraction. It often doesn’t “feel” realistic.

I’ve found three issues with game realism
1. players want it to feel realistic. Often what feels realistic isn’t realistic though.
2. Some people confuse cinematic tv reality with reality
3. Others get confused when something non-existent in reality is something they claim is unrealistic.

So I think GURPS does fine and probably leans towards realism more than most games but isn’t truly realistic. Who cares though as long as it feels realistic and/or meets our cinematic expectations. As for fantasy, it’s fantasy get over it.

[Tymathee]

A little nit-pick about the taste of realism of the typical forumite in regards to DF. The Dungeon Fantasy product line, as I understand it, assumes the kind of default realism akin to Peter Jackson's envisioning of LOTR/The Hobbit. Those incredible stunts Legolas does? Like the barrel hopping on a fast flowing river while shooting arrows? Yeah, that's the sort of stuff DF characters should be doing. It breaks my suspension of disbelief when GMs allow traits like Heroic Archer (which especially reeks of that wacky Peter Jackson-esque cinematic action) on the ubiquitous Scout template but insist on hyperrealism in other aspects of action in their campaign. I guess there's nothing wrong with deviating from the default realism assumed in the DF line if that's the flavor you prefer but it makes it challenging to broach the DF topics when a significant number of forumites assume greater realistic realism than what DF appears to prescribe. That's all my pouty mini rant for now.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by scc

SJG has always for some reason been hesitant to produce settings for GURPS.

(Snips the long, long list of GURPS settings everybody's provided, adding Caverntown, Wellsprings of Creation, and Cold Shard Mountains at the end.)

It crosses my mind that the real issue here is not SJ Games being reluctant to produce settings, but rather authors being reluctant to develop them. Except for the initial push on Transhuman Space, we've mostly seen one-offs or a desultory trickle of supplements stretched out over years. IIRC, for 4e, Yrth, which is nominally the premiere fantasy setting for GURPS, has gotten the core book, one location, a book of styles, a dedicated Pyramid issue, and the odd sidebar or article here and there. Infinite Worlds has done a bit better, but I wonder how much the various supplements for it hold together as expanding on a setting rather than places to go on adventures which fit within a broad premise.

And I think there are reasons for that. The publisher has never been eager to push authors into projects, preferring to let them develop their own ideas. Authors are largely disinclined to play in other people's sandboxes. I mean, I've dabbled in Yrth but don't find it particularly compelling, and by the same token I don't see, say, Peter or Phil eager to add onto Wellsprings. And, of course, as we've seen demonstrated on this very thread, customers all want different things, so there is no steady chorus of voices demanding more content for, say, Solar Patrol, no matter how deserving a setting it is. It's plausible that if SJ Games decided on, say, a big Yrth push and actively recruited authors for it, we might see customers drawn into it once there was a detailed Yrth-based ecosystem, but there are lots of ways that could go wrong.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

It crosses my mind that the real issue here is not SJ Games being reluctant to produce settings, but rather authors being reluctant to develop them.

And I think there are reasons for that. The publisher has never been eager to push authors into projects, preferring to let them develop their own ideas. Authors are largely disinclined to play in other people's sandboxes.


It's plausible that if SJ Games decided on, say, a big Yrth push and actively recruited authors for it, we might see customers drawn into it once there was a detailed Yrth-based ecosystem, but there are lots of ways that could go wrong.

It would help if SJG even would add something like this " We search authors for a Yrth expansion, set in Caithness after 2005 ". The actual wishlist let´s lots of room for authors, which is great because it gives room to be creative. On the other hand this way you can only wait and hope that a writer feels inclined to write the projects you want.

I like the wishlist, because browsing it gives you a general feel how GURPS will develop, but sometimes things needs a little push, even if it´s so small as explicitaly write " we search authors for.... "


Added: By the way a friend worked cordinating authors in a bigger european publisher, you are right that a lot can go wrong if a author is forced to write something which the bosswants, but the authors doesn´t like, even if he tries. A fantasy example may be Karl E. Wagner writing a conan novel.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Armin

That, right there, is the problem with GURPS and settings. No matter what gets done, 90+% of the customers say something just like that.

What I really want is a well-supported, finely crafted setting made exactly to my personal taste. :-)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Tymathee

A little nit-pick about the taste of realism of the typical forumite in regards to DF. The Dungeon Fantasy product line, as I understand it, assumes the kind of default realism akin to Peter Jackson's envisioning of LOTR/The Hobbit. Those incredible stunts Legolas does? Like the barrel hopping on a fast flowing river while shooting arrows? Yeah, that's the sort of stuff DF characters should be doing. It breaks my suspension of disbelief when GMs allow traits like Heroic Archer (which especially reeks of that wacky Peter Jackson-esque cinematic action) on the ubiquitous Scout template but insist on hyperrealism in other aspects of action in their campaign. I guess there's nothing wrong with deviating from the default realism assumed in the DF line if that's the flavor you prefer but it makes it challenging to broach the DF topics when a significant number of forumites assume greater realistic realism than what DF appears to prescribe. That's all my pouty mini rant for now.

Delvers to Grow supports play with the the DFRPG boxed set down to 62-points. "DF 15: Hirelings" steers in the same direction in the broader DF product line.

the new Crypt of Krysuvik adventure pushed to backers this very day is an adventure targeting 125-poing characters.

So...workin' on it.

[Tymathee]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Delvers to Grow supports play with the the DFRPG boxed set down to 62-points. "DF 15: Hirelings" steers in the same direction in the broader DF product line.

the new Crypt of Krysuvik adventure pushed to backers this very day is an adventure targeting 125-poing characters.

So...workin' on it.

Ya, if people want harsher realism then it'd be more appropriate for characters that are at lower point totals... as they reach that 250 point mark though, I would expect to see them performing feats of such caliber. The crunch at that level supports it anyways (like the aforementioned Heroic Archer). It just irks me when people inject those lower point total sensibilities at the 250 point DF which appears to very explicitly support more cinematic play. So if I see people replying with something along the lines of "... but thats not realistic!", I roll my eyes.