[Hack] Player-facing GURPS?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

What people are thinking of as a way of dealing with abusive GMs is Narrative Control, which is a whole other basket of chaos. Personally, I’m more in favour of dealing with abusive GM’ing by telling that GM where to go, but if people want to discuss Shared Narrative Control in GURPS, I suggest that they start a separate thread. GURPS isn’t really a system designed for shared narrative control though, I’m afraid.

I agree with the basic point: I generally think that exit is more effective than voice, and also that it potentiates voice, as it were—the person who knows that you can walk out if you're unhappy has more incentive to listen to your voice. Though I'm not quite sure how changes in narrative control address the problem of abusive GMs. But maybe that's for the proposed other thread.

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I agree with the basic point: I generally think that exit is more effective than voice, and also that it potentiates voice, as it were—the person who knows that you can walk out if you're unhappy has more incentive to listen to your voice. Though I'm not quite sure how changes in narrative control address the problem of abusive GMs. But maybe that's for the proposed other thread.

Maybe if GMs railroad their players that might be viewed as something curable by changing narrative control.

I've debated with people with this view and we've went around and around on definitions and what freedom in the game really is.

[sgtcallistan]

My players have always had the ability to suggest and by suggesting, modifying, the game itself.

They still abide by their own rolls, by simply having them describe what they hope for before rolling, which happens in the middle of the table.

It's pretty old hat, but the business where players may say 'wouldn't it be fun if...' and the GM says 'that's good' or 'I'm taking that on board' due to trust and long experience of what works and what doesn't has really been a liberating experience.

My last 'semi-abusive' GM (DnD 3rd) who had been a disruptive and random player, actually gave us vast caves full of swarms of undead to turn back to the stone age (I don't think he'd got the threat balancing against party abilities right, specifically how powerful mass turn undead could be BY AREA, or perhaps he'd been playing Diablo).

We praised him for a fun game, one that had made us feel powerful, and had a new and exciting flavour.

He never GM'd for us again, which we actually missed.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Do you want to keep the odds the same? If so, note that with a contest of two rolls, you're rolling six dice, so you need to roll six dice for any contested roll. And you need to take both sides of the roll into account.

I once created a modified "to hit" table which factored in the opponent's Active Defense score to get the required success roll. The same principle could be used for Quick Contests and other opposed skill rolls.

Multiply the PC's percent chance of success by the NPC's percent chance of countering that success, then fudge as necessary to get required success number on 3d. For example: 50% success vs. 50% chance of countering = 25% overall chance of success, which converts to ~8 on 3d.

IIRC, odds of success didn't change that much for high skill attacker vs. low skill defender (e.g., Skill 16+ vs. Dodge 5), but went way down for high skill attacker vs. high skill defender.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I once created a modified "to hit" table which factored in the opponent's Active Defense score to get the required success roll. The same principle could be used for Quick Contests and other opposed skill rolls.

Multiply the PC's percent chance of success by the NPC's percent chance of countering that success, then fudge as necessary to get required success number on 3d. For example: 50% success vs. 50% chance of countering = 25% overall chance of success, which converts to ~8 on 3d.

IIRC, odds of success didn't change that much for high skill attacker vs. low skill defender (e.g., Skill 16+ vs. Dodge 5), but went way down for high skill attacker vs. high skill defender.

I certainly understand the principle. But I don't think that either "do this calculation involving multiplication of percentages and rounded to the nearest required score" or "look things up in this table in midcombat, every time there's a fight" is going to help with GURPS's reputation as far as quickness and simplicity are concerned.

I think that rolling things on 6d when there are contests might be the better way to go.

[Farmer]

At the end of any session, we have a review. A GM posts on our private board what they think worked and what didn't and players do the same. Discussion ensues. Clarifications are provided, understanding is gained, changes considered and/or made if appropriate. We try to keep the good stuff going and add to it, and reduce or remove the bad stuff. Obviously we're not always successful, but it certainly helps a lot!

[Opellulo]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

It’s a completely different issue. This thread has almost been derailed by the misunderstanding. Player-facing mechanics have nothing to do with preventing abusive GM’ing or disempowering the GM (which aren’t quite the same thing, for that matter).

The GM can be very powerful in a system with player-facing mechanics. They set the roll difficulties, and if they choose to set them arbitrarily high, they can. If they choose to set an NPC lynch mob on the PCs for arbitrary and vindictive reasons, they can then set the difficulty of escaping that mob very high for added effect.

It’s notable that some systems with player-facing mechanics are used a lot for horror games, which should make the point. In fact, insofar as they effect the flavour of the game, they can make it darker; the monster doesn’t just have a good chance of making success rolls against the PCs, it is a mass of looming high difficulties. The statistics may be the same, but the tone is still more oppressive.

It shouldn’t be too hard to convert GURPS mechanics into something more player-facing, though that may involve the players rolling damage on their own characters, which may feel a bit odd. What people are thinking of as a way of dealing with abusive GMs is Narrative Control, which is a whole other basket of chaos. Personally, I’m more in favour of dealing with abusive GM’ing by telling that GM where to go, but if people want to discuss Shared Narrative Control in GURPS, I suggest that they start a separate thread. GURPS isn’t really a system designed for shared narrative control though, I’m afraid.

I really like this take but I disagree on the conclusion: I could reply with "what is GURPS?".
To me it's a simple system to covert basic physics, psychological and social challenges on a system of "roll under 3d6", anything else it's just "modules" you keep adding to improve the "resolution" of your games. Narrative is not part of this equation so you can use whatever "narrative control system" you want or create a new one fitting the GURPS mechanics.

Bad GMs however are another can of worms, one that cannot be faced with rules alone.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Tymathee

This would be something I'd be greatly interested in. There's been groups I've played in where the GM was legitimately poo-poo'ing on the fun of the players, either mine or that of my fellow players. They don't deserve to be bullied.

There are no game mechanics which can overcome someone being a jerk in the real world.

If you don't enjoy gaming with a particular group, get out. There's no reason to waste your time playing with them. That goes doubly if, by remaining, you enable someone else's antisocial behavior.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

GURPS isn’t really a system designed for shared narrative control though, I’m afraid.

The one exception might be the Impulse Buys rules.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Farmer

At the end of any session, we have a review. A GM posts on our private board what they think worked and what didn't and players do the same. Discussion ensues.

This is a sign of a good gaming group. Feedback like this is vital to improving everyone's experience. Clearly, your GMs and players mutually respect each other and cooperate to make things better.