[Hack] Player-facing GURPS?

[Christopher R. Rice]

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.

^This. Phil is 100% right here.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

Also this. No gaming is better than bad gaming. It's a hard lesson to learn.

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. 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!

I do this. And again, THIS. It's important to have as much communication with your players at the table as possible. And for players if you have a close-mouthed GM ask questions, talk about what you liked and didn't like. BE OPEN.

[The Benj]

Yes, I've often run it that way. Eyeballed penalties instead of rolling contests.
The only thing where it doesn't really work is combat, but my games tend to be very combat light anyway.

[pestigor]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Also this. No gaming is better than bad gaming. It's a hard lesson to learn.

Pushing 50 with a lot of medical issues my time is precious to me and this is probably the single most important thing I remember as a gamer.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by pestigor

Pushing 50 with a lot of medical issues my time is precious to me and this is probably the single most important thing I remember as a gamer.

It really is important. Sometimes it's a terrible or vindictive GM. Sometimes its a bad player (pick your flavor of spotlight hog, power gamer, or just someone who wants to burn the campaign to the ground). Sometimes its both. Whatever the circumstance if you aren't having fun you are not obligated to stay. Ever.

[Micahel Silverbane]

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.

This sounds like a complicated way to say, "Apply BAD to combat rolls."