How to Be a GURPS GM: Managing Expectations

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

First, many gamers want to play realistic games.

Second, even cinematic and fantastical games rely on a backbone of realism to cover matters that are not specifically altered by the fantabulism of the setting.

The relatively massive success of a certain other game system seems to suggest otherwise for the tabletop RPG subset of games.

What the majority of TTRPG players seemingly want is plausible games and worlds, not realistic/simulated games and worlds.

And while wargamers tend to seek more simulated realism they still prefer to keep the rules in check so the game flows, instead of having to break out an excel spreadsheet to figure out where a shot landed. That's at least what I've gathered from all the wargamers I've talked to and/or observed live and online.

As a general rule, when simulation and fun are at odds most players pick fun.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

The relatively massive success of a certain other game system seems to suggest otherwise for the tabletop RPG subset of games.

What the majority of TTRPG players seemingly want is plausible games and worlds, not realistic/simulated games and worlds.

Yes, if "plausible" means "My character can do the things I imagine them being capable of." There seem to be quite a lot of modern D&D players who are happy with a very abstract combat system and a very weird model of time and space, and will attempt to solve problems with these via contorted reading of rules. The GURPS notion of the reality check has no appeal to them at all.

[ravenfish]

Add me to the list of people who think that, while a 100% accurate simulation of reality is neither achievable nor desirable, a "sufficiently plausible" simulation of reality is one of GURPS's strong points.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Yes, if "plausible" means "My character can do the things I imagine them being capable of."

No, in this context it means "the outcomes you would expect to see in the real world are what happen in the game world." Kromm uses the example: "being hit by a deadly weapon causes pain, incapacity, and possibly death."

Your character being able to do what you imagine they can do isn't what it means because you can imagine implausible, cinematic things they should be able to do. ("Critical hit to the vitals? Bah, that's just a flesh wound!")

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

He's not blithe about it at all. He devotes nearly a full page to it in this 14-page document.

I didn't say he was. I merely cautioned against it.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by pestigor

I think this has set back Gurps the most over the last 20 years. The most visible people talking about Gurps publicly seem to be the ones clinging to the idea that Gurps is a simulator and that has turned off a lot of people.

I think this product can do a lot to help Gurps' misunderstood reputation. I try to point out Gurps is a toolkit and just "use the options you want" on other forums. I also believe there has been a change in "climate" on these forums recently (the place I still believe people curious about Gurps get their first real look at it) has been in a very positive direction.

Of course, the potential players who need to see this the most will never read this because they have dismissed GURPS as a realiaty simulator.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by corwyn

Of course, the potential players who need to see this the most will never read this because they have dismissed GURPS as a realiaty simulator.

Unfortunately true, at at least to some extent. It's a bizarre world that I live in as GURPS Line Editor:

GURPS players are so few in number that the game is all but on life support. The rare few who play it are extraordinarily vocal about both their preference for highly complex simulations and their frustration with the lack of certain content, notably GURPS Vehicle Design. The fact that they are so vocal leads them to believe that they're many times more numerous than they are, while what they're vocal about is precisely what drives away potential new players whose adoption of GURPS might build up the player base to the point where SJ games would deem the "missing" content worth considering.

The counterintuitive-but-incontrovertible truth is that the aggressive domination of GURPS discussions by diehard simulationists is the single biggest factor sealing the fate of the very content those interlocutors crave, while if they were to shelve that talk in public forums for a few years, they'd end up getting more of what they want in the long term.

[Anders]

Now I'm sad.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Anders

Now I'm sad.

Me, too. The delusion that there are loads of realism- and simulation-oriented gamers out there, and that all GURPS needs for success is louder screaming to reach those people, has proven nearly impossible to dispel. Reality is that most gamers don't care about that stuff at all, so shouting that GURPS does that stuff well is actively repelling new blood. But those doing the shouting remain safely ensconced in echo chambers that agree with them and not with my previous two sentences.

[Donny Brook]

I'm glad I'm not one of those people.