Player Desires (Cinematic vs Realism)

[Pinke]

Long time lurker, first time posting! Don't eat me.

Just curious how some other GMs handle a dilema I'm facing which is the player desires vs the game world design. I have a wonderful group of players for a modern campaign but their character builds are all leaning significantly in a single direction ... Cinematic.

I'm all for some old school Jackie Chan action but, after a few tests in the game world, this was going to result in my player's untimely but hilarious deaths in many of the scenarios.

What to do?

I've rejected a few things and made a lot of suggestions ... but really feel the players should be able to play the characters they want to play, not the ones 'intended' for them to play.

So I've made some minor changes to the game world also to accomodate them. I've taken some of the 'luck' style rules from the Action books allowing players to spend CPs to influence dice rolls in game. I figure this will give the players some oppurtunity to explore the gameworld without rolling a new character in the first session.

I've lowered the ST of all NPCs by one or two points standard. Maybe a controversial decision but modern life people don't get to the gym much and will really help people who want to pull the old school Sam Fisher.

I'm giving out some equipment for 'free' and given some extra basic skills to the players as it seemed no one wanted to pay for basic real life skills, and having five PCs without a driver's license seemed overly harsh. (Now, everyone roll against your IQ and see if you can read the bus time table correctly) This also includes some minor character sheet tuning to help players keep their characters competitive.

I've changed the legality class of all firearms to make them harder to acquire but therefore less common amongst NPCs.

I've increased the amount of HP that can be lost before death rolls by 50%.

I've also created an 'introduction' flash back quest where the players will roleplay the doomed expedition of the mercenaries they will be replacing. It is a short combat scenario and everyone will likely die. The ones who make it out will come back as NPC allies with post traumatic stress and a irrational fear of South American tourist destinations.

----------

These are by far the biggest changes that jump out of me I've made so far. I know at least one of the players wants to attempt some very bold actions already which are doomed to certain (but hilarious) failure, so I don't feel I'm being too nice.

I'd like to think I'm doing the right thing here, since most of the changes I've made I can control in future sessions without completely changing the combat system. Furthermore, the 'flash back' quest will let my players see some of the pain they can experience. So far everyone is quite happy and is playing a character they like very much.

They all seem to have a sense of humor, and there is already multiple jokes about impending hilarious failure.

I imagine most people will say 'whatever is right for your player group' which is a fair comment. Though I'm open to suggestions and curious about other peoples choices. Some things I decided against:

- Increasing the overall points of characters ... I instead preferred to tune/clean up sheets later. I don't think precise balance matters ... just all characters have to be useful.
- Lowering damage from firearms (I can't undo this if I do it)
- Changing setting completely (all but 1 player is very keen on the setting)
- Implementing more rules from the Action series
- Force changes to characters
- Build NPCs and challenges exactly to players (I feel in a modern setting players have many unique options to approach a problem)
- Remove law enforcement completely

So yes, any suggestions welcome. Please remember I am rusty, so I genuinely expect I've over looked obvious solutions. I know I could have posted this in a general roleplaying area but I feel this issue is so much more pronounced in GURPS where there are so many options.

[Walrus]

For character creation:
Try to explain your players that large numbers of skills in GURPS isn't obligation of GURPS - it's just obligation of settings that all action heroes are routinely involved in some activities with need in skill training. Yes, GURPS emphasizes that those many activities are skilled ones because they are in real life but it's the way. There is good post of Kromm on that but i always lose its trace.

For campaign rules: just don't be afraid to use any cinematic rules from Basic and Action.

[Captain Joy]

In my experience, if you want your players to have certain advantages, disadvantages, skills, etc., you had better require them, not merely suggest them.

E.g. in my games, I always require my players to take an Everyman Lens. E.g.: my Star Trek Everyman Lens and my renaissance era Monster Hunters Everyman Lens.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Pinke

- Increasing the overall points of characters ... I instead preferred to tune/clean up sheets later. I don't think precise balance matters ... just all characters have to be useful.

Uh... why? I'm reading over your post, and the thing that springs to my mind every couple of sentences is "He's keeping the point totals too low."

Your characters are failing hilariously? Their skills are too low. They can't afford to spend a single point in the drive skill? Their point totals are too low. The enemy keeps trashing them and they keep getting killed by run of the mill goons? Their points are too low. Their points are too low. Their points are too low.

Don't cling slavishly to some particular point total as "realistic." There are real people walking the world at 300 points, and there are real people walking the world with negative point totals. 25-50 is "normal," but clearly, your heroes aren't normal. So why keep them at normal point totals?

- Implementing more rules from the Action series

Why not? Those rules aren't just to make things more cinematic, but to make running a particular game easier for you. Action doesn't include changes so much as a focus on what matters.

Look, GURPS ain't D&D or World of Darkness or any of those other games where you run the game "Rules as written." You can't. Ultimately, at some point, you need to settle down and work out how your game is going to work for yourself. GURPS provides tons of examples and options and has certain defaults and core rules (What GURPS players mean by "Rules as written"), but you still need to navigate them, decide what is necessary, what isn't, and so on.

Action does a lot of that for you. If you find your group is leaning heavily in that direction, and you're new, it seems like an excellent fit.

- Force changes to characters

And yet, you understand how the game works. If players are building their characters in a way that will get them killed, why not notify them of the problem and help them fix it?

I often run into this attitude that GURPS needs to allow maximum freedom to its players, but the fact is, GURPS is so broad, so flexible, that the GM needs to set the basis of the game and keep the players to it. See my comments above.

I'm not saying you should override their vision. But you should help translate that vision into how the world works. If they want to be a swordmaster and have taken broadsword 14, you need to inform them that this is not a "master" in any shape or form, and suggest broadsword 20 with some side skills that are appropriate to your setting/ruleset (techniques, perhaps, or some cinematic skills like Power Blow).

---

Now, as to the rest. Regarding "hilarious failure," you'll want to reread the "TDMs," the table on B345-6. A few to note: A straight roll is only taken under stress. It's the base "adventuring" difficulty. Non-stressed rolls, casual rolls, usually gain a +4. So someone with a Drive of 11 isn't failing to drive down the street on a balmy summer's day 40% of the time. He's failing in a car chase 40% of the time. Driving down the street on a balmy summar's day is +4, and thus 15 or less.

Regarding the swiftness of death: Don't lower damage, don't raise HP. GURPS survival hinges on high health and loads of defense. Characters don't endure bullet after bullet, they dodge them, take cover, and return fire. Higher point totals mean better basic speed, higher dodge, and better health. And all the characters in GURPS Action have Luck for a reason. Luck helps push things to more cinematic levels. Another rule that might help with this is the Flesh Wound rule, where players burn a character point to reduce damage to 1 HP. I prefer this to letting players spend CPs to turn a failed defense to a success, because it amounts to the same thing, but at least grazes them, reminding them of their mortality and keeping the action high.

You're right to not tailor the NPCs to the PCs (though, naturally, boss characters and rivals can and should totally be tailored to the NPCs). Once you've established a high octane baseline for the PCs, you want to keep the NPCs relatively realistic. Some gang-bangers are unlikely to have a guns skill higher than 11. Beat cops will have 12. SWAT will have 14. PCs will have 20. That's what makes them cinematic: They can face down a squad of well armed mercenaries, because they're superior characters.

It seems to me this is what your campaign wants and needs, but you're resisting it, and I'm not really sure why. This will give you your cinematic feeling while doubtlessly doing little damage to your setting, and doesn't require any of the convoluted solutions you've used so far.

[Gigermann]

Let the Players tell you what settings to use—then you know they're happy with it, and if they fall afoul, they know it's their own "fault."

Also, if you haven't already, start looking at Power-Ups 5: Impulse Buys.

[Pinke]

Originally Posted by Walrus

For character creation:
large numbers of skills in GURPS isn't obligation of GURPS

This is fairly helpful advice I should've given first to the newer players most likely. Most character sheet changes have been from the 'all of the skills!' bug.

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

E.g. in my games, I always require my players to take an Everyman Lens.

Good advice too. I guess what I'm doing at the moment is a lens, and should call it that.

They're forming a team to complete specific tasks and originally I thought it might be good to leave the players to decide if they want to try some odd ball character types ... I'm thinking of filling in the driving gap with an NPC at this stage but a lens might be a good approach too.

I'm also just assuming that in a modern setting mobile phones/basic computer use is ordinary. (Not giving out skills for those just assuming most people know basic things like how to push buttons)

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Don't cling slavishly to some particular point total as "realistic."

I see some of your point for sure. Essentially the gist is ordinary people turning to mercenary lives, but it could be that bumping up the points is the way to go. Some things I have been a bit lax with like allowing some skills etc ... which will have minimal use to be free if it's mostly for roleplaying purposes. So that helps. I don't believe point count = character effectiveness, and most of the players aren't too into power gaming.

They can afford driving skills but seem to invest in other areas.

GURPS provides tons of examples and options and has certain defaults and core rules (What GURPS players mean by "Rules as written"), but you still need to navigate them, decide what is necessary, what isn't, and so on.

Have done a fair bit of that. Certainly not running with pure written rules as that would be insane. Sorry if I come across completely new, am not, but I'm usually a player and haven't been on the 'other side' for years. I did read Robin's GM guide to prepare a bit but clearly not enough so far. :(

My players would actually like to avoid the Action books! Since I've still got my training wheels on for basic GURPS GM I'm quite happy to avoid as many books as possible though am happy to steal a bit here and there to make life easier. I'm trying to keep that to very basic things.

They're quite keen on the pseudo realism, but I can tell people going to die hideously if they get too crazy. The two experienced players of the group don't seem too worried about their team being mowed down. (They've actually made multiple jokes about taking skills to escape when it goes wrong)

If players are building their characters in a way that will get them killed, why not notify them of the problem and help them fix it?

Been working on that. I'm trying to meet half way I suppose? Wrong approach?

There are many impending doom jokes, so maybe am focusing too much on trying to make the game easier. That said though, if someone wants to be a knife wielding amateur thespian or a cowardly stage magician that uses stealth and tasers my group is trying to tell me something.

They're well aware the damage a gun causes in the game.

A straight roll is only taken under stress. It's the base "adventuring" difficulty.

I'm well aware of this. Sorry if that was unclear from my joke regarding the bus. Feel free to throw me a private message I guess asking if I know things like that - I really appreciate the advice but feel I wasted your time!

Another rule that might help with this is the Flesh Wound rule, where players burn a character point to reduce damage to 1 HP.

Going to pick this one up. :)

I think it could be sneaked in without upsetting anyone.

Some gang-bangers are unlikely to have a guns skill higher than 11. Beat cops will have 12. SWAT will have 14. PCs will have 20. That's what makes them cinematic:

This is approximately what the NPCs are sitting on which is good to see. :)

PCs don't have skills at 20 but have superior planning/other advantages. In theory with the correct planning they should be able to over come the odds. Just to be clear, they're all quite happy with the setting/set-up. Only one player would have preferred to do fantasy over modern.

This will give you your cinematic feeling while doubtlessly doing little damage to your setting, and doesn't require any of the convoluted solutions you've used so far.

Appreciate the advice.

Suppose am trying to balance up game world vs rules vs player's desired strategies. My gut feeling is that if the players are stepping towards more of a cinematic game then head in that direction. My other thought is maybe the group wants the challenge and I'm under estimating them a bit. I suspect I just don't want to be *that* GM that kills everyone in the first two or three sessions of play.

The experienced players seem well aware of the challenges and risks. The newer players seem to have some grand (and concerning) ideas. Maybe it will balance out when we hit the table.

Sorry, I feel like I've made one of *those* rambling posts without enough information I've seen so frequently.

Excuse my while I crawl under a rock and wish this thread out of existence. :D

Thanks for the advice though to everyone.

[Mailanka]

I think I see some of the problem: The players are ordinary people who nonetheless want a cinematic game. They're Jay and Bob who get tangled up in an action movie plot and eventually bloom into Big Damn Heroes.

It's true that points don't necessarily equal the effectiveness of the character, but they sure help. Even so, points don't necessarily translate into competence. It's possible to design a surprisingly incompetent character who nonetheless blooms into something more powerful. For example, in my chambara game, several PCs started off with talents to skills they didn't have (Forceful Chi, in most cases). This encouraged them to develop their capabilities in certain directions and meant that the advanced in leaps and bounds fairly quickly.

That's not quite the same approach we want here, but a similar one will work. Advantages like Charisma, Luck, Serendipity, Danger Sense, Intuition, Hard to Kill, Daredevil and Higher Purpose are all traits a John Doe might have while he's flipping burgers at McDonalds, completely unaware of his potential. You could easily bump a character up by 50 points and give him a serious edge over his competition without turning him into a killing machine (yet). For example, if he has skill 12 with guns vs gangbangers with skill 11, but enjoys Extraordinary Luck, Danger Sense and Higher Purpose (Protect the Innocent) suddenly bumps to skill 13 if he's protecting some little girl from them, gets to reroll twice every thirty minutes, and is unlikely to be taken by surprise. He's clearly "cinematic" in the sense that things keep going his way, but he's also "realistic" in the sense that he's not actually more skilled than you'd expect an ordinary civilian to be.

Higher traits can help too. If he starts with a DX of 13 (not unreasonable), then that first point of Guns will be pretty decently high.

And I think you should revisit your position regarding Action 2: Exploits. Action is not a book with new rules, it's a streamlining of existing rules. You mentioned training wheels: That's what a book like Action is.

What do I mean? How about this: You're running your mercenary op. How do they get the job (Action 2 page 6)? Once they have the target, how do they scope him out (Action 2 page 11-14)? Once they have all that figured out, how do they get TO the target (Action 2 18-23)? And once they're done, how do they get out (Action 2 page 27)?

See, Action is about taking rules that already exist, like the rules for lockpicking, social engineering, and hacking, and either putting them in one easy-to-find place, streamlining them (as it does with ranges in range combat), or putting together a list of ideas. What are the penalties one might face while hacking a computer? Or when engaged in a car chase? You don't NEED Action to come up with these, but Action 2 puts them all together for you.

If you intend to run a shoot-em-up Mercenary game, even if you don't intend to use the GURPS Action templates, Action 2 is very handy. I often use them for my Space Opera games and they'd fit into a Cyberpunk game pretty nicely.

I'm not pushing you to use them because I think your game needs 300 point, gritty, cigar-noshing badasses. I'm pushing you to use them because if you feel rusty, if you need some suggestions on how the rules work, this book is GOLD. And it's not even really about making the game "cinematic." It's about having a resource for running High Tech thriller games.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Don't cling slavishly to some particular point total as "realistic." There are real people walking the world at 300 points, and there are real people walking the world with negative point totals. 25-50 is "normal," but clearly, your heroes aren't normal. So why keep them at normal point totals?

This is an important truth. The word "realistic" is routinely misused by GURPS GMs, GURPS writers, even GURPS editors, to justifty a low-point total agenda.

There is nothing unrealistic about a 250 or 300 CP individual.

Not only can such people exist, in our world. Such people do exist.

[Jovus]

Originally Posted by Pinke

I see some of your point for sure. Essentially the gist is ordinary people turning to mercenary lives.

That's your problem right there. Ordinary people turning to mercenary lives either immediately get training or they die. The system is behaving properly. (Doubly true when by 'mercenary' you really mean 'adventuring group' - going around being a small group of people without logistical support getting into trouble is not a survival strategy.)

Originally Posted by Pinke

But it could be that bumping up the points is the way to go.

Yes, absolutely. People gain a lot of points in Boot and the follow-on schools. In order to survive, the characters need to gain a lot of points, quickly, even more on both counts than your typical teenager-cum-Private.

This is even realistic. Someone who gets shipped to Vietnam and survives a tour has a lot more points than he did before being selected for the draft. He gains those points in training and under fire. (Including, probably, points in Luck.) If your PCs stay at the 'ordinary person' point level and don't quickly die, that's much more 'cinematic' in my mind than them quickly growing in ways that allow them to survive.

However, if you want to start at a low point level and have them trained up in the game, that's an option. Just don't expect to throw them off the deep end with a live mission first, unless the organization they're working for doesn't mind throwing bodies in a meat grinder.

[Kromm]

I find that you can compromise on realism – whether the origin of differing expectations is player-player or player-GM – by enforcing realistic rules across the board, but giving the players lots of points and requiring Luck for everyone. That's pretty much how I run my current campaign, which is a nominally realistic modern-day one (see .sig). The players who want grit, gore, broken bones, procedural investigation, and technothriller attention to gear get it . . . while the players who want slightly glossy "Judo CHOP!" secret-agent action with martinis, car chases, and women in leather catsuits get that, too. It comes down to where they spend their points and when they invoke their luck.