Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

By following Dr. Kromm's advice, C3P0 and R2D2 would have both been warbots who could have fought their way out to inform the Rebel Alliance of the weakness in the Death Star, if they didn't take it out by themselves first.

Of course, they were also NPCs. I was talking about PCs.

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

Real adventure isn't shooting a Grizzly from a mile away with a Barrett .50 BMG rifle on a moonless night using a Starlight scope so there won't be any possibility Yogi will spot you.

And I wasn't suggesting that level of competence at all, merely lack of incompetence. Two commonly held beliefs that are wrong from the point of view of the game's design are:

1. You don't need skills to do a lot of basic stuff.
2. Having skills means having training.

My statements were about point #1, mainly. I wasn't saying that anybody needed enough skill at every one of these areas to be an expert. I was saying that most PCs need enough points in a few of these areas not to be incompetent, because GURPS is by default a harsh system that doesn't let you do a lot of things that other games call a basic attribute roll or otherwise treat as non-skills.

A lot of what you said gets #2 wrong, too. Skills in GURPS can reflect training, sure, but also natural aptitude. That's why we did away with the link between points in skills and age, in fact. In general, having a skill level just means you aren't incompetent. Only having a high skill level suggests actual training.

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

Everyone wants to get inside dope, but few get much of it, and usually by accident. A balanced party needs someone with Diplomacy or Fast-Talk to avoid unnecessary conflicts, but neither skill is of any direct use in Interrogation; they can just give bonuses, at most. Carousing's only good for handling your liquor, really.

The stance of the game's developers is that you can use just about any social skill to extract information. This isn't hidden away in a special book, either: Requests for information are a basic use of reaction rolls (pp. B559-562), and Influence rolls can replace reaction rolls (p. B359). Even Carousing is good for far more than drinking . . . the Basic Set version is good for reaction bonuses (p. B183), and books like Action 2, Dungeon Fantasy 2, and Monster Hunters 2 greatly expand its scope in adventure-fiction genres.

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

These are all skills you have to keep practicing or lose.

Please remember that I'm talking about how the game actually works, not how you run it. Skills do not degrade in GURPS unless you're using the optional rule on p. B294 (clearly marked as "optional," too), which outright says that it's poorly suited to most campaigns. Regardless, that rule holds only in play; starting characters can have whatever skill levels they can afford.

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

I guess Sherlock Holmes doesn't count as a hero. I don't think he ever rode a horse or even drove a dog cart in any of the Conan Doyle stories. Even if everyone has one or two points in Drive or Riding, that ain't enough for Mounted Combat, or high-speed chases. You could make a better argument for Bicycle: Even a 1-point level should be enough to outrun any cop, and bikes can dart through gaps prowl cars can't.

I think you took my list the wrong way if that's how you interpreted my claims. I was specifically saying that PCs need to be able to handle the usual way of getting around in their setting at better than default, not have high-speed chases. The entire point of my whole list was to point out things that people tend to assume their PCs can do without realizing that in GURPS, no points in the skill means rank incompetence. There's a wide margin between "don't overlook this skill completely" (what I said, quite clearly) and "you need action-hero levels of all of these skills" (what you read, I'm not sure how).

Re: First Aid

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

Definitely a dandy skill to have in the real world. Too bad so few really have it.

Rather irrelevant to being a hero on adventures, which isn't about the real world but about adventure-fiction tropes. In adventure fiction, the protagonists can bandage each other up, use smelling salts, etc. without screwing up. That isn't possible in GURPS without a skill, however.

Your later claims here suggest that you've misread First Aid as being the skill of a fully trained medic. It isn't . . . it's just the skill of knowing that what to do with the bits found in a typical first-aid kit. In real life, most moms have at least this much knowledge; I was pointing out that in GURPS, they don't without a point in a skill. Again, it's a harsh rules set that doesn't give the typical person any competence at anything.

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

So buy Telepathy. I don't allow the Gesture skill in my campaigns. There really isn't such a thing in the real world.

That isn't what the game assumes. I was working within the parameters of the game, not those of one GM's campaign. People can be competent or incompetent at gesture in real life, and all this skill does is indicate comptence. It doesn't signify a deep, technical gesture vocabulary, but merely a basic ability to notice gestures and project them clearly. Once more, without skill, the game assumes you're inattentive to this stuff.

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

Observation and Search do require training, and it isn't given to a lot of people, even inside police or military organizations.

Again, please see fallacy #2 mentioned above. You can be adept at a skill without training in GURPS. Specialized training is just one way to justify a skill level – and typically, a high skill level. Aptitude is another. Training is only required for skills without defaults and those that expressly state that they're limited to people with specific backgrounds (e.g., Cryptography on p. B186 and Intelligence Analysis on p. B201).

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

Scrounging is special. I think it should have required specializations unless it is purchased as a bang! skill.

And again, that's just one GM's view. It isn't how the game actually works. Also note that it has nothing to do with repair, as you seem to be claiming, merely with locating useful items on a casual search. Nothing on pp. B218-219 implies repair ability.

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

I'm sorry, Doctor, but you're wrong about both of these. Growing up in a culture or adapting to it gives you a Cultural Familiarity. Savoir-Faire is mostly acting in ways that seem both cool by themselves and complementary toward that culture. Maybe "the manner of your Manners" captures it.

Streetwise is the art of getting things done for you without getting things done to you. It can really only be learned by self-teaching; that means at one-quarter of your best speed. And be warned: those pop quizzes can be murder!

Again, you misread me. My point was that people create so-called adventure heroes who supposedly are tough, street-smart types or suave, high-society types, and then omit the associated social skills. They assume that being from said social stratum grants a grasp of it, quite separate from Cultural Familiarity. That doesn't work in GURPS because such grasp is always a skill. I do agree that for adventure heroes who are neither from the streets nor the heights, these skills are inappropriate. However, a rather huge number are supposedly from one of these backgrounds and can't put their money where their mouth is.

—

Remember, I'm not here to talk about house rules or how things should be. I'm here to explain the game's actual design – what's written in the rules and what the designer's meant by it. As one of the authors of the game, I'm in a good place to do that. You're free to disagree for your campaign, but you can't really call what I'm saying "wrong" when it's clearly what the rules are saying.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

I know I'm taking on one of the official Gods of GURPS here, but I don't buy into this advice at all, and I'm going to explain why in detail.

First, any large "standard package" of skills that everyone has is going to bog down things without adding much to the enjoyment of the game. Almost everyone is pretty good at doing a few things; everyone knows someone who is very good at one or two things; very few people really know anyone who is very good at a lot of things. I think GURPS should reflect this. Even superheroes should be just average or even below average in a lot of things.

This is just a matter of GM/Player preference.

I think there are two different continua that are involved in this conversation (perhaps even more).

Realism vs. Heroism
Few skills vs. Many skills.

You, oldgringo seem to be a Realism/Few Skills GM. You think having few skills is the more realistic thing to do, probably you value people relying on defaults a lot...and that you like realism as a value.

kromm seems to be a Heroism/Many Skills GM. He seems to like players having a wide variety of skills and see that being part of a heroic value set for his games.

I have seen GMs here who are Heroism/Few Skills...they tend to find Heroic games work best for them with fewer skills...perhaps with bang skills.

I am generally a Realism/Many Skills GM. I think realism is better reflected by having people have more skills to reflect their entire lives.

So I don't think that anyone is wrong, it is just a matter of preference. Though recently I was possibly going to join a game run by a Realism/Few Skills/Stat Normalizer GM. I was drawn to his Realism values...but then I learned about his Few Skills/Stat Normalizer values. I didn't play the game. A GM that expects most of the players to be unskilled in most things, and sitting around 12s for things they are skilled in, spending most of their time trying to get positive TDMs by taking more time, etc...that isn't my cup of tea. But I appreciate that it is the cup of tea of others.

I just think it is most important for people to know what their values are and then be able to articulate those values clearly so that people can decide if they are compatible with each other gamestyle-wise.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Of course, they were also NPCs. I was talking about PCs.

I think that really sums the matter up right there.

There are statistics about what the average person in a given society can be expected to know. But then there are statistics about what the average person who goes in harm's way can be expected to know; and there are requirements for what such a person needs to know. Neither of those is equivalent to the "average person" level.

At the very least, in many campaigns, the heroes are going to need to be somewhat unusual people who put themselves in harm's way, whether cops, or soldiers, or explorers, or supers, or knights on a quest. And unless part of the intended drama is watching the heroes struggle with tasks that they really don't know how to do, it will better serve the focus of the story—the theme—to let them be competent at the incidental tasks, and test them against the primary tasks. That's why GURPS Supers has "no nuisance rolls" perks, for example.

Now, in a horror, or apocalyptic, or survival campaign, having people struggle to survive without the necessary skills can be perfectly thematic. It just will produce a different effect.

Bill Stoddard

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by whswhs

There are statistics about what the average person in a given society can be expected to know. But then there are statistics about what the average person who goes in harm's way can be expected to know; and there are requirements for what such a person needs to know. Neither of those is equivalent to the "average person" level.

Exactly. What it comes down to is that I can't design and develop the game around whatever a few individual GMs might think; I must respond to the majority. In preparing GURPS Fourth Edition, I took several months nonstop to review postal mail, e-mail, con surveys, web surveys, sales feedback, old playtests, and even Usenet posts that reflected customer interest; I read thousands of comments from hundreds of GURPS players. One of the strongest takeaway messages was that while there's a strong current of high-realism gaming in GURPS fandom – almost entirely anchored to Steve's mention of realism as a guiding principle in the foreword to the First Edition – it's a minority view. Yet it had somewhat hijacked system development. The typical gamer wants rules for people who go in harm's way in adventure tales, which is why Fourth Edition is most definitely biased in the direction of adventure fiction.

However, Fourth Edition is still a generic game. An interesting thing about generic games is that you can't assume an era or a nation, or even a species or a planet. A designer must present things in as neutral and background-free a manner as possible. This means not assuming a working grasp of anything much on the part of the PCs. One upshot of this is that no matter how adventure-oriented and heroic things get, nobody has any competence they didn't pay for.

There's a conflict inherent in these two views, however. On one hand, adventure heroes are typically capable, and rarely held up by simple challenges like "I don't know how to drive" and "I have no idea how to find information." They are not experts at everything, but they aren't utterly worthless at very basic tasks, either. On the other hand, a generic system doesn't make any assumptions about what "basic tasks" means. To bridge that gap, one needs to make lists of skills that all human adventure heroes on Earth should probably have.

That's all I was doing in my post way back when. Somewhere along the lines, though, I was misread as saying, "Every realistic PC in any game needs all of those skills at high levels." My actual intent was more like, "All classic adventure heroes need one skill off each of several lists at better than the zero-cost default level." The contrasts are manifold.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

When I design a character for a modern campaign (or a modern character for a fantasy campaign) I like to make him an amateur pentathlon athlete. Shooting, swimming, fencing, riding, and running -- that's a good start ;-).


Hans

[Lord Carnifex]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Realism vs. Heroism
Few skills vs. Many skills.

<snip>

I have seen GMs here who are Heroism/Few Skills...they tend to find Heroic games work best for them with fewer skills...perhaps with bang skills.

I am generally a Realism/Many Skills GM. I think realism is better reflected by having people have more skills to reflect their entire lives.

<snip>

I just think it is most important for people to know what their values are and then be able to articulate those values clearly so that people can decide if they are compatible with each other gamestyle-wise.

That's quite a nice and useful analysis. Something to consider putting on a prospectus. For the record, I'd probably be a Realism/many skills/stat normalizer, with the exception that my cyberpunk and M:tA games are heroic (cinematic)/many skills/normalized with the vision statement of "Could Chow Yun Fat do it? Then so can you!"

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

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.

I agree with the rest you've written, but this item needs to be thought about a little more.

Many RPG rules systems offer players an alternate route of creating a character who is less stuff-dependent than the norm.

In GURPS you get the choice of unarmed combat skill vs weapon skill, e.g. Karate vs Sword or Karate vs Guns. Karate skill costs more than the regular skills, and furthermore is less efficient, especially against armour. The benefit is you can always fight; your weapon cannot be taken away from you; you always have it with you. The only downside of a gun is monetary acquisition cost, which is on average trivial, and the risk of running out of ammo, strongly mitigated by the possibility of looting ammo from fallen foes if using a standard caliber. A sword has only the drawback of breaking (the gun might also jam, but usually that's a more temporary problem than a broken sword).

In Hero System, using the Ultimate Skill suplement, a player can purchase Penalty Skill Levels for using improvised equipment, to make a MacGyver-type character who can solve problems using scrounged gear, e.g. using a sewing needle or a splinter of steel to pick a lock, without facing the regular rules penalty for not using proper gear. There's no "versus" here, simply a trait the player can purchase if he wants to achieve this effect, with the alternate to this effect being to spend those points to buy more normal skill.

In Sagatafl, most spellcasters carry a Focus item to reduce the Roll Difficulty for a subset of spellcasting attempts (e.g. Fire Magic or Black Magic), but an alternative choice is to have an Internal Focus, which has the same effect but costs more Essence (so that typically the RD reduction you can afford is smaller). Think of it as GURPS' Magery with a Gadget Limitation, vs Magery with no Limitation.

In each case, the player can make a choice to make his character resistant to stuff-deprivation, but if stuff-deprivation never happens, then that player's character suffers, due to being less efficient throughout the entire campaign, whereas if stuff-deprivation does happen once in a while, then the character gets to show off his resistance to it.

Visualize a 10-session campaign. Matt makes a regular style character, who is stuff-dependent, and Peter makes a character who is entirely resistant to stuff-deprivation.

If stuff-deprivation never happens, then in each session, Matt kicks 10 units worth of butt, and Peter kicks 8 units worth of butt. Total 100 vs 80 butts kicked.

If stuff-deprivation happens twice during that 10-session campaign, then in those two sessions Matt kicks 5 units worth of butt, while Peter still kicks a consistent 8 units worth of butt in every session. Matt: 90 units worth of butt, Peter 80 units worth of butt (but with a non-flat graph)

If stuff-deprivation happens in seven of those 10 sessions, Matt's score is a paltry 65 and he has a legitimate grievance against the GM. But so does Peter if stuff-deprivation never happens.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Bookman

That's a good suggestion.

My NPCs disagree vehemently. Every single one of them. I tried to explain the idea to them, but it didn't make any sense at all to any of them. Probably because it makes no sense to me either.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Kromm

(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 . . .)

Such things are beneath warriors in many settings. Easily worth a GURPS 5 CP Secret (Knows several warrior-inappropriate skills).

The important distinction here, of course, is between traditional warriors and efficient adventurers.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Cassandra

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.

The problem is, GURPS encourages the gold-in-skills thinking. So you're encouraging your players to go against the flow of the rules.

I'd never do that. Instead, I change the rules, so that they encourage the kinds of character creation decisions that I want to see, and discourage those that I don't want to see. So that players can feel free to go with the flow of the rules without any fear of my disapproval.