[Sell me] Non-combat GURPS titles?

[khorboth]

I reccomend you get the genre book for whatever you're thinking to run: Fantasy, Horror, Space, etc.

They're always full of advice on themes and game-levers to pull in order to get your desired results. Generally including more-or-less combat advice. Being genre-specific will really help you dial it in.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

Over on RPGnet, in the thread that inspired me to ask this one, someone made a good point which can be summarized as "Players may resort to violence because they don't trust the non-violent solution will meet their impatience."

Which possibly can be paired with "Players may avoid violence when they don't believe it will work".

I run a fair number of low-combat games. Honestly, by the time I run the game, I generally only need Basic plus a few other "crunchy" books like powers and the power-ups talents book.

The genre books are great for inspiration, of course. I've run or played in low-combat games based off of infinite worlds, banestorm, biotech, blue-planet, fantasy, space, blue-planet and even Monster Hunters* -- some of them even in play by post.

A few books I've found explicitly support low-combat play:

Mysteries can support low-combat play quite nicely. Don't have the bad-guys fight back once uncovered, and things work out just fine.

Mass Combat and City-Stats can actually encourage low-combat play, because when you need to fall back on violence, there is a better way to use violence. My players viewed combat as a risky activity that either meant they failed or as a risk to pay for leading from the front. Usually I just ran a few rounds of combat with a very dangerous foe, and did not require them to defeat that foe, just to survive.

*If you have a party that can defeat the monsters fairly easily but needs to do a lot of tracking to hunt them down, the game can feel very low-combat.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Would limitations like "only affects objects" or "only deals knockback" on damaging effects be worth a limitation in an explicitly non-violent campaign? I'm kind of assuming no: they should be assumed parts of damaging powers in such campaigns.

I'm also thinking weapons can still be allowed, but they are only allowed to be used on objects and to get 1 rank of Regard (Fearful) (2 ranks if they're big guns or heavy explosives).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

Would limitations like "only affects objects" or "only deals knockback" on damaging effects be worth a limitation in an explicitly non-violent campaign? I'm kind of assuming no: they should be assumed parts of damaging powers in such campaigns.

In standard GURPS the value of a limitation is generally the same regardless of genre, just like that of an advantage or disadvantage. Of course in a world where magic doesn't work player characters should never take Magery and the GM should tell them not to. But if they insist, I'd still charge the standard 5 points for Magery 0 and 10 points/level after than.

If you're not going to have combat, then player characters shouldn't take abilities that cause damage, and then they wouldn't have occasion to take limitations that only affect such abilities.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Originally Posted by whswhs

If you're not going to have combat, then player characters shouldn't take abilities that cause damage, and then they wouldn't have occasion to take limitations that only affect such abilities.

But damaging abilities can always be used on objects. Otherwise, how are you supposed to break stuff?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

But damaging abilities can always be used on objects. Otherwise, how are you supposed to break stuff?

In a standard campaign with combat, I would call "Only on inanimate objects" an Accessibility worth -20%. But in the campaign you describe, where player characters will never attack a person, I'd be tempted to call it -0%, as it doesn't actually limit anyone.

And in that case, the other limitations still affect every use a character is going to make of an attack ability, so I wouldn't change their value, either.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Originally Posted by whswhs

In a standard campaign with combat, I would call "Only on inanimate objects" an Accessibility worth -20%. But in the campaign you describe, where player characters will never attack a person, I'd be tempted to call it -0%, as it doesn't actually limit anyone.

And in that case, the other limitations still affect every use a character is going to make of an attack ability, so I wouldn't change their value, either.

Okay, thanks.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

Okay, thanks.

A point of note - if the characters aren't getting a discount for their abilities only working on objects, you should probably have NPC's and the like react as though the ability could work on people. It doesn't do so because of the genre conventions you're following for the campaign. You can still threaten foes with death and/or serious bodily harm via your ability, for example (although those who aren't cowed might respond - appropriately - that "You don't have it in you to kill somebody").

As an example, Megaman's Power Buster is never used on a living thing in the Megaman series of videogames (at least the main one; there might be exceptions in X, Zero, or other series - particularly considering how human-like Reploids can be - but those are a bit more mature), only robots. This isn't because it won't work on humans - it's because it would be inappropriate for the genre for Megaman to blast holes in humans. At the end of Megaman 7, he decides he's had enough of Wily's schemes, and points his weapon at the mad scientist while charging up an attack. Wily is, understandably, legitimately in fear for his life (he tries to convince Megaman that he can't actually attack - "Robots can't harm humans," but Megaman insists he's more than a robot and is, in fact, going to kill Wily; Wily eventually gets away, of course, because Megaman reducing him to ash would be inappropriate).

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I haven't yet figured out what setting I want to run, but I managed to write up a bit of "here's how this thing's going to work":

A Note On Damage
As a non-violent setting, no character is allowed to do hit point damage to another character. Anything that can be considered a weapon/attack provides or needs one or more of the following:
* a bonus to Intimidation, either per Equipment Modifiers (p. B345) or Social Regard (Fearful; Can Be Stolen [Quick Contest ST], -30%)
* the Limitation "(Knockback only, -50%)"
* attack that only causes Fatigue damage
* the Limitation "(Only on Objects, -0%)"

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

I haven't yet figured out what setting I want to run, but I managed to write up a bit of "here's how this thing's going to work":

A Note On Damage
As a non-violent setting, no character is allowed to do hit point damage to another character. Anything that can be considered a weapon/attack provides or needs one or more of the following:
* a bonus to Intimidation, either per Equipment Modifiers (p. B345) or Social Regard (Fearful; Can Be Stolen [Quick Contest ST], -30%)
* the Limitation "(Knockback only, -50%)"
* attack that only causes Fatigue damage
* the Limitation "(Only on Objects, -0%)"

Fatigue damage, if it takes FP below 0, starts inflicting hit point damage. Do you intend to limit it to not inflicting hit point damage even in that situation?