How do GURPS groups tend to work?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

My experience outside GURPS is there are occasionally people who prefer one are willing to do the other but commonly people gravitate to either GM or PC. I wonder if GURPS matters in that thinking or if it's just sample bias. I admit to not know a sufficiently large sample size to say for sure. I prefer to GM but I think I'd be willing to play if someone else really wanted to GM.

I predominantly GM, but I've been a player in campaigns run by at least four of my players. And there was the time when one of my players and I co-GMed a campaign, with the understanding that the one who wasn't GMing a particular session would play a character in that session.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In order to prevent PCs from being entirely reactive (which I think tends to make protagonists less interesting), I don't start campaigns with "Here is a world."

I work with the players to ensure that the campaign is about PCs who have goals, motivations and objectives that drive them to do adventurous, fun and interesting things, regardless of whether I introduce anything to react to or not. Obviously, PCs sometimes have to adjust their plans to react to new information, new adversaries or unknown factors, but as a rule, I prefer the PCs to have an agenda, other than reacting to restore the status quo.

"This is the way."

I'm a big fan of sandbox design, but not for plotting.

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by kenclary

"This is the way."

I'm a big fan of sandbox design, but not for plotting.

For me the NPCs have their own plots & plans in the setting sometimes at odds with other NPCs and then the PCs show up.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

My experience outside GURPS is there are occasionally people who prefer one are willing to do the other but commonly people gravitate to either GM or PC. I wonder if GURPS matters in that thinking or if it's just sample bias. I admit to not know a sufficiently large sample size to say for sure. I prefer to GM but I think I'd be willing to play if someone else really wanted to GM.

I learned RPGs in a college club, with 15-25 active members most years, where everyone GMed at least a bit, and everyone played. This was 1979-83, so things have had time to change a lot, but most of the people I game with are of a similar vintage.

[Flowergarden]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

For me it's several rounds of interaction before we start play though that could be email or phone and not necessarily face to face. I tend to have a world ready but I also tend to do sandboxes. So I give an overview of the world, and the players then figure out who they want to be in that world and what they want to do. I like players that want to engage the world though and not go off completely on a tangent unrelated to anything.

Yes, my favourite type of games. Not all of my games are like that, but still. I prefer characters be part of the world. Have connections, acquaintances, etc.

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by johndallman

I learned RPGs in a college club, with 15-25 active members most years, where everyone GMed at least a bit, and everyone played. This was 1979-83, so things have had time to change a lot, but most of the people I game with are of a similar vintage.

I'm of similar vintage as well. I've never played in a club atmosphere and generally didn't like "organized" play. I'm not saying your club was like organized play. I just meant I've seen a lot of that in more recent years but it never interests me.

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by Flowergarden

Yes, my favourite type of games. Not all of my games are like that, but still. I prefer characters be part of the world. Have connections, acquaintances, etc.

I think the nature of the game is what tends to make it that way. Fantasy and Space lend themselves well to such matters. I think an espionage game would be more GM driven as the heroes are often agents of some government and get orders. I could though see the "destination" as a sandbox. Like go to this Island and find out who is messing with U.S. space launches. (e.g. Dr No.).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

I think the nature of the game is what tends to make it that way. Fantasy and Space lend themselves well to such matters. I think an espionage game would be more GM driven as the heroes are often agents of some government and get orders. I could though see the "destination" as a sandbox. Like go to this Island and find out who is messing with U.S. space launches. (e.g. Dr No.).

Espionage games can work in a totally NPC-managed, mission-driven way, but the PCs could also be in charge of their particular section, charged with collecting intelligence on a transnational criminal organization, but with the authority to set priorities, select targets and to order specific operations.

Or the PCs could be a faction, which is especially likely in urban fantasy or other genres where there is secret occult knowledge and the PCs discover this secret and start learning magic. They might have started out as agents of the MI6 or KGB, but once they figure out that the target of their penetration operation is a fey changeling and their direct superior is a brain-eating vampire, they will, at minimum, have to make some tough decisions, and they might end up deciding they can't trust anyone but each other (and even then, they've got some doubts about this one guy).

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

I'm of similar vintage as well. I've never played in a club atmosphere and generally didn't like "organized" play. I'm not saying your club was like organized play. I just meant I've seen a lot of that in more recent years but it never interests me.

The most organization that club ever had was that sometimes we knew that Tim would be running the next session of his plot about X next week, and that meant Adam, Rory, Foz and Sue would be playing in that on Saturday.

The difficulty with modern "organized play" is that it presumes the game company knows better than anyone else how their game should be played. Since that presumes the existence of a "best way" (which I'd seriously dispute as a concept) it inevitably means that the game is prescriptive about the form and style of play. Where's the fun in that?

The reason for that approach is that it enables people to run something that must be classed as an RPG, if not a very good one, with less effort and creativity. And "nobody ever went broke underestimating public taste." Making GMing easier is a way to sell more books.

The modern organized play system is at least an improvement on the "tournament" or "competitive" play of the 1980s, where players could compete in leagues, scoring points entirely at the whim of the GMs of the standardised scenarios. As someone who was trying to defend this form said "It's less corrupt than it used to be!" as if that was a recommendation to take up a deeply foolish idea with very little entertainment potential.

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Espionage games can work in a totally NPC-managed, mission-driven way, but the PCs could also be in charge of their particular section, charged with collecting intelligence on a transnational criminal organization, but with the authority to set priorities, select targets and to order specific operations.

Or the PCs could be a faction, which is especially likely in urban fantasy or other genres where there is secret occult knowledge and the PCs discover this secret and start learning magic. They might have started out as agents of the MI6 or KGB, but once they figure out that the target of their penetration operation is a fey changeling and their direct superior is a brain-eating vampire, they will, at minimum, have to make some tough decisions, and they might end up deciding they can't trust anyone but each other (and even then, they've got some doubts about this one guy).

Yes! Great ideas.