Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-07-2009, 08:16 PM   #1
copeab
 
copeab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: near Houston
Default The problem with reality ...

I've started this thread so as not to threadjack the other one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cambers
The comments above about using it as a game setting are interesting. I collect the GURPS WWII books for intellectual curiosity but feel uncomfortable about the idea of running it for a group as a game.
I think the reason you find a lot of players not interested in WWII rpgs is combination of weapon lethality and lack of magical healing.

Your best place to look for players for WWII games is wargamers. not roleplayers. Your other option is to either tone down the lethality of weapons (eg, 3e stun points) or add some type of quick healing (magical or technological).
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

GURPS 3e stuff: http://copeab.tripod.com

Last edited by copeab; 03-08-2009 at 01:28 AM.
copeab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 09:54 PM   #2
reb
 
reb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: phoenix az
Default Re: The problem with reality ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab
I've started this thread so as not to threadjack the other one.



I think the reason you fin a lot of players not interested in WWII rpgs is combination of weapon lethality or lack of magical healing.

Your best place to look for players for WWII games is wargamers. not roleplayers. Your other option is to either tone down the lethality of weapons (eg, 3e stun points) or add some type of quick healing (magical or technological).
i've ran several ww-11 games and the players had a goodtime! a campaign i ran a year ago focused on a marine raider unit and the special ops nature of it was totally fun.they waxed plenty of nipps and the campaign took place all across the pecific , the canal , saipan , tinian , phillipines and so on.several died but they made replacements and carried on.in any war you can die and a soldeir knows that and a g.m who is unwilling to realistically kill the characters is no fun to play under and that spoils the fear factor and suspense of combat. adventure hero stuff all the way , take some of them with yah when you go down!!!!!!!! hoo-yahh!!
reb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 01:53 AM   #3
jimminy
 
jimminy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Default Re: The problem with reality ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab
I've started this thread so as not to threadjack the other one.



I think the reason you find a lot of players not interested in WWII rpgs is combination of weapon lethality and lack of magical healing.

Your best place to look for players for WWII games is wargamers. not roleplayers. Your other option is to either tone down the lethality of weapons (eg, 3e stun points) or add some type of quick healing (magical or technological).
I'm a known enthusiast of historical games. My WWII game went for a year and will be back in a few months and now I am running a game set during the First Crusade. Really, I haven't found it a problem. 'Healing Potions' and 'Magic' are just shorthand for metagaming aspects you use to keep important characters alive. In a way, 'healing potions' are the most literal and unimaginative short hand!

Yes war is horrible and in the real world most people's lives sucked. You go into even a realistic game assuming that the heroes are the 'special few' (ie Dick Winters or any number of others real 'hero' soldiers) and that, though they certainly could die, they have a fighting chance of making it out alive. You don't play a sickly peasant with no chances of doing anything but dying of the plague in a medieval game, you don't play a shop assistant who never has any adventures in a modern game and you don't play the poor schlub who got his face blown out during a training accident in a WWII game. All those people are NPCs, of course, but you play the guys who have adventures and have a chance of succeeding, as we know people actually have throughout history.

We use the 'points for success' rule. It works well because on the one hand it gives prudent players a chance to avoid real 'bad luck' situations. 'I succeed in my Dodge, I make that Perception roll' but it also keeps them a bit more realistic in terms of advancements and point totals, because they spend a point here and there on survival.

We also used a 'character tree' system which I first saw in TSR's 'Dark Sun'. Your main character is the hero but there is assumed to be at least one other character in the background who is a part of the same force and having similar experiences. He has half the points the main character has earned since beginning play. If the main character is killed or wounded, the backup character comes in. Newly created characters start at standard starting point value plus half the average points earned by the group.

Also, you minimise the number of random things that can kill the heroes. Yes, in war you can get hit by a mortar with no chance. Yes in real life you can get hit by a bus one morning for no reason. Yes in a Dungeon Crawl a trap can just be a roof that falls on you which you have no chance of avoiding, meaning instant death. In Dungeon Crawls characters don't get the flu and die, they don't slip in the magic bath. In 'real world' games CIA agents don't just get hit by a bus. You're still playing a game and the characters are still heroes. While mortars still fall and bullets still fly, and they are all still lethal, there is a basic understanding that the heroes will have some chance. The tone may be slightly more raw and gritty than your average dungeon crawl, if you are going for gritty, but it doesn't have to mean instant death.

NPCs get killed meaninglessly. They die of pointless shrapnel wounds and are bombed by friendly airplanes. Mortars come screaming in when it is dramatically appropriate. The 'feel' is still there. But like a war movie or novel or survivor account, the deaths happen at important moments to punctuate the plot. It's 'realism' but you're still playing a game and telling a story and you follow those basic unwritten rules.

We played WWII for a year, as I said, and I didn't pamper my players. There were many times I expected the heroes to die and somehow they pulled something off and got out of the situation. I didn't set out to kill them outright, because they're the heroes of the story and we're friends and what kind of game is that? But players will do things and situations will get hairy... No central PC ever died though two were wounded and had to use backup characters for a game or two. One had the 'Luck' advantage and that helped him, the other was just realistically careful (which is good! Something a 'realistic' game will encourage!) and spent points for success to avoid real bum luck. Still, sometimes he had no points to spend and he had to take his blows.

In Crusades one character has died, but it was not a big deal. Punched home the tone, let us know that medieval life could be raw, but if anything it enhanced the game, and the next character that player made was better.

I'm always surprised when people thing a game set in WWII means instant death for all the heroes. It doesn't in any other gaming genre, so why should it here? The rules I talk about above really do help keep the tone, too, even though they may seem metagame or supernatural or whatever. The players treat NPCs as real people would treat other real people. They flinch from danger as any sensible person would and take time to work out the best course of action. In other words, it helps it really feel like a WWII story, and that is the key thing. There are no healing potions to swig or medi-packs to grab and they know that if they get hit it will hurt, but that just adds to the experience and that's what we want going into a game, just like that's what you'd want going in to see 'Saving Private Ryan' or reading a real-life account of the exploits of Dick Winters or any of his WWII-wide brothers-in-arms.
__________________
I have a role-playing (loosely) themed radio show 'The Role-Playing Hour'. Tune in online and listen! Audio clips (some are a little blue, I warn) here and episodes here!
jimminy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 05:08 AM   #4
copeab
 
copeab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: near Houston
Default Re: The problem with reality ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimminy
I'm a known enthusiast of historical games. My WWII game went for a year and will be back in a few months and now I am running a game set during the First Crusade. Really, I haven't found it a problem.
Given the damage of personal weapons of that period, HT 13 and Rapid Healing will drastically improve a character's survivability without being terribly unrealistic.

Quote:
Also, you minimise the number of random things that can kill the heroes. Yes, in war you can get hit by a mortar with no chance.
The problem is that, in war, most soldiers are killed by things they can't see or shoot back at. Over 60% of casualties are from artillery, which infantry can't do anything but hide from.

Quote:
The tone may be slightly more raw and gritty than your average dungeon crawl, if you are going for gritty, but it doesn't have to mean instant death.
Instant death isn't the main problem -- it's the character getting knocked out of the campaign for weeks until he heals.

I can also tell you, from hanging out on Twilight 2000 boards for a long time, that military gamers tend to prefer game combat to be as lethal as real combat.

Quote:
I'm always surprised when people thing a game set in WWII means instant death for all the heroes. It doesn't in any other gaming genre, so why should it here?
I think its a common assumption for most military games.

Quote:
they know that if they get hit it will hurt, but that just adds to the experience and that's what we want going into a game, just like that's what you'd want going in to see 'Saving Private Ryan' or reading a real-life account of the exploits of Dick Winters or any of his WWII-wide brothers-in-arms.
Ah, well I'm one of the few people who hated SPR and I didn't especially like Band Of Brothers ;)
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

GURPS 3e stuff: http://copeab.tripod.com

Last edited by copeab; 03-08-2009 at 07:11 AM.
copeab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 11:07 AM   #5
trooper6
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
Default Re: The problem with reality ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab
I think the reason you find a lot of players not interested in WWII rpgs is combination of weapon lethality and lack of magical healing.

Your best place to look for players for WWII games is wargamers. not roleplayers. Your other option is to either tone down the lethality of weapons (eg, 3e stun points) or add some type of quick healing (magical or technological).
Or you go for hardcore roleplayers who aren't bothered by lack of magic at all. I have been GM'ing for a long time, and have only rarely run games with magic. Mostly I run realistic games from Swashbuckling to near future. Very heavy on the roleplaying. Any of my players who enjoyed the games I ran before, would have no hesitations jumping into a WW2 game I ran. They'd know there would be lots of opportunity to RP, it would be full of hard moral choices and danger.

I've probably run gritty Swashbucklers and gritty Espionage the most. And both of those involve lethal weapons and no magical healing. I've never had a problem finding players.

And I do have a WW2 campaign percolating in the back of my mind. French Resistance actually. But I won't run that until I get settled in Boston and find a group of players who are serious hardcore roleplayers of a method actor style. If I didn't do that, I could imagine a lot of fun with a sort of Seven Beauties game. Soldiers separated from their unit and stuck behind enemy lines with no directives and no supplies.
trooper6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 12:01 PM   #6
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: The problem with reality ...

The research burden is a big one. You need a GM who knows a lot about 1939-1945 or is willing to learn, and players who aren't totally ignorant. Its also hard thinking up adventure, plot, and character ideas for a new genre.

Also, WW II was one of the least pleasant wars ever fought for the chaps on the sticky end. That's not easy to fantasize about, although some fortunate and crazy types enjoyed it.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper

This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 01:21 PM   #7
jimminy
 
jimminy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Default Re: The problem with reality ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas
The research burden is a big one. You need a GM who knows a lot about 1939-1945 or is willing to learn, and players who aren't totally ignorant. Its also hard thinking up adventure, plot, and character ideas for a new genre.

Also, WW II was one of the least pleasant wars ever fought for the chaps on the sticky end. That's not easy to fantasize about, although some fortunate and crazy types enjoyed it.
We actually had a lot of fun mixing genres. It was the 20th century, everyone saw movies, a lot of 'genres' got involved in that war anyway (this is the left hook which floored Captain Axis!) so it kinda works. One week would be 'War is Hell!' Next would be romance. Next would be hard boiled mystery (it was the golden era for hard boiled anyway). Next would be thriller. Next would be spaghetti western (a bit early, but still...). Next would be a dungeon crawl. Next would have 'Medal of Honour' on the PC allusions. Next would be 'whodunnit' etc etc etc. Worked really nicely.
__________________
I have a role-playing (loosely) themed radio show 'The Role-Playing Hour'. Tune in online and listen! Audio clips (some are a little blue, I warn) here and episodes here!

Last edited by jimminy; 03-08-2009 at 01:39 PM.
jimminy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 01:36 PM   #8
jimminy
 
jimminy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Default Re: The problem with reality ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab

...

The problem is that, in war, most soldiers are killed by things they can't see or shoot back at. Over 60% of casualties are from artillery, which infantry can't do anything but hide from.



Instant death isn't the main problem -- it's the character getting knocked out of the campaign for weeks until he heals.

I can also tell you, from hanging out on Twilight 2000 boards for a long time, that military gamers tend to prefer game combat to be as lethal as real combat.



I think its a common assumption for most military games.



Ah, well I'm one of the few people who hated SPR and I didn't especially like Band Of Brothers ;)
You're right about the HT thing. I recommend that my players take a decent enough HT to give them a chance (and to justify passing military training).

60% of casualties might be from artillery, 60% of people in the real world probably die from heart attacks and cancer. 60% of innocent caravan guards are killed by orcs. Adventurers have a chance. Let the artillery fly, describe how gruelling it is, what it is like staying low as the ground shakes, let their buddies foxhole get hit. If they get up stupidly, let them die! If they get up heroically, give them a chance of dying Play it when it's interesting or glamourous, and kill plenty an NPC. Make it a real threat every so often, when the characters have a chance, enough that it seems there. Maybe the building is getting shelled and they need to get the macguffin out! As long as it feels right and the worldwide statitistics match...

Don't sugarcoat it and don't be raw. Whatever 'realism' you choose it is still a genre and a story you are going for. If your players like ultra-realism then give an artillery strike each game, the chances of death always closing in... But if that's what they like. Otherwise use them to punctuate the story and keep the mood. I know as I explain it, it sounds like being silly or molly-coddling, but it's just like giving clues to a mystery when the players get stumped. The players won't notice, they'll just have fun, it's part of the fabric of the world.

It can be a pain waiting to heal, which is why we used the character tree. Still, with space planned between some adventures, we only had to use the other characters on the tree once per player (and one got hurt worse than the main character).

Combat is still potentially lethal, of course. If there was no risk it wouldn't be fun. I don't recommend removing the chance to die... And also, mixing combat adventures with plenty of non-combat games is the key. If the military players WANT to have a really high chance of dying meaninglessly then of course, give it to them! It's their enjoyment. Basic recommends giving players death when they really ask for it too.

I was just throwing BoB and SPR out there as examples most people will recognise. 'Insert favourite military tale' here. Grit and 'realism' levels can be toned up or down appropriately, but really it's all about genre and what your players enjoy. The point is, it is just as playable as other games and once you take the crutch of healing potions, etc away (which, I admit, plenty of players are scared of) you realise you never really needed them anwyay.

And as other posters have said, it was a horrible war. You go into that in as much detail as you feel comfortable with and as is respectful. We had some emotionally rough games and some lighthearted ones. We ranged from the tone of 'The Naked and the Dead' and the tone of 'Hitler: My Part in His Downfall'. For many soldiers they have mixed memories too: great friendships, foreign countries, being young and free, and interspersed moments of horror, death, tragedy and even adventure and heroism. That's what makes it such a great genre to play. You can run through the gamut of the human experience and mine adventure ideas from anywhere.

EDIT: Oh and of course if you don't wanna play a military game with no healing potions then don't play! Just play to have fun, either way. I'm just saying, it can work just as well the other way, if everyone enjoys it and that's what they want.
__________________
I have a role-playing (loosely) themed radio show 'The Role-Playing Hour'. Tune in online and listen! Audio clips (some are a little blue, I warn) here and episodes here!

Last edited by jimminy; 03-08-2009 at 01:43 PM.
jimminy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 09:52 AM   #9
sgtcallistan
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chatham, Kent, England
Default Re: The problem with reality ...

Have run a WWII game based around a Russian fighter squadron. The lethality was quite high; a new CO was blown to bits in his first fight (fortunately just an NPC, but he had the only radio); another pilot was lost at sea over the Murmansk area.

We dealt with the PC deaths by having back-up characters; either the player could choose a favourite NPC pilot from the squadron, or take the new guy posted in (taking pot luck (alcoholism, bad sight, unluck), but with the same number of points).
One got to play an RAF pilot who was there to teach how to use the new Hurricanes; had some experience in earlier fights: the Battle of Britain!

Last edited by sgtcallistan; 03-09-2009 at 09:53 AM. Reason: spelling
sgtcallistan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 12:29 AM   #10
reb
 
reb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: phoenix az
Default Re: The problem with reality ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by trooper6
Or you go for hardcore roleplayers who aren't bothered by lack of magic at all. I have been GM'ing for a long time, and have only rarely run games with magic. Mostly I run realistic games from Swashbuckling to near future. Very heavy on the roleplaying. Any of my players who enjoyed the games I ran before, would have no hesitations jumping into a WW2 game I ran. They'd know there would be lots of opportunity to RP, it would be full of hard moral choices and danger.

I've probably run gritty Swashbucklers and gritty Espionage the most. And both of those involve lethal weapons and no magical healing. I've never had a problem finding players.

And I do have a WW2 campaign percolating in the back of my mind. French Resistance actually. But I won't run that until I get settled in Boston and find a group of players who are serious hardcore roleplayers of a method actor style. If I didn't do that, I could imagine a lot of fun with a sort of Seven Beauties game. Soldiers separated from their unit and stuck behind enemy lines with no directives and no supplies.
aka......cross of iron.
reb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
wwii

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.