Points per each Game Session? What is average or normal?

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Kromm

That said, I've often toyed with the idea of retroactively optimizing PCs, things like shaving off 30 points of IQ-based skills to raise IQ by 1, lowering point total by 10 points despite the increased efficiency. I often suspect that's the missing link that keeps starting and earned points from working the same way.

That's very close to what's actually in the book --- for skills defaulting to each other, at least, if not explicitly for attributes. (I'd consider extending it skills v attributes to be obvious.)

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It feels – I don't know? – manipulative to muck about with rewards to ensure that people do or don't do certain things. On an intellectual, emotional, and social level, people get out of the game what they put in. They don't need me handing out affirmations and validations, nor dishing out reprimands.

If someone's fun is tuning in only for fights and action, and playing their character as a rook on a chessboard . . . well, fine. That doesn't have to be my fun, but I don't need to take away their fun because of that.

If someone's fun is talking in a different voice and "becoming" another person . . . well, fine. That doesn't have to be my fun, either – and I don't need to take away their fun because of that, either.

The list goes on. My feeling is that using points as a tool to craft players in my image is imposing my values on them. It makes me an old-timey, adversarial, control-freak GM.

So on some level, I do think it's important that the players and the GM have common, or at least compatible preferences at the table. If the GM would, for example, really rather run a game where the PCs act like nice people rather than sociopathic jerks, that's absolutely fair… but the solution to that is to Talk to Your Players Like Adults, not to use game mechanics to try and get the idea across indirectly. If a player says "I do $UNACCEPTABLE_THING!" the correct answer is "No you don't."

I don't know if I'd call it manipulative, but if anything, it certainly seems petty and passive-aggressive for a GM to tolerate problematic behavior during the session while making a mental note to dock points from the perpetrating player at the end of the session. It also runs the risk of unfairly penalizing players who are playing in good faith and would gladly knock it off if asked but, for whatever reason, don't realize that what they're doing is an issue.

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's an innate property – I wouldn't say "flaw" – of GURPS that despite being the same points with the same purchasing power, points spent at character creation can be invested in ways that pay off better than those earned in play going forward. It's a bit like comparing someone with a million dollars to someone who has earned $50,000 per annum for 20 years.

I've been thinking a lot about that lately. In some sense, points absolutely do have more purchasing power in a lump sum than they do when spent gradually. It's definitely not a flaw in the system—if there is a flaw, it's in our perception of points as having value independent from the context in which they are spent.

I don't quite like the idea of letting players just respec for a more optimal build. That reifies points too much. If you buy Expert Skill (Underwater Basket-Weaving)-12 [4], you no longer have those four points; you have Expert Skill (Underwater Basket-Weaving)-12 instead. The only time I would give a refund is if a skill goes for several sessions without seeing significant use, in which case the reversal of the point transaction represents a diegetically inconsequential retcon.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

So on some level, I do think it's important that the players and the GM have common, or at least compatible preferences at the table. If the GM would, for example, really rather run a game where the PCs act like nice people rather than sociopathic jerks, that's absolutely fair… but the solution to that is to Talk to Your Players Like Adults, not to use game mechanics to try and get the idea across indirectly. If a player says "I do $UNACCEPTABLE_THING!" the correct answer is "No you don't."

Of course, this sometimes results in immature or overly-entitled players whining about 'railroading' (I have seen this happen, with a player who did not like his in-game actions having reasonable in-game consequences), but 'that too is a lesson.'

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

Of course, this sometimes results in immature or overly-entitled players whining about 'railroading' (I have seen this happen, with a player who did not like his in-game actions having reasonable in-game consequences), but 'that too is a lesson.'

If I'm the GM, I usually try to get this handled, in Session Zero, with a comment something on the order of:

"I don't tolerate abusive jerks in my real life, and I have zero interest in hanging out with people who want to pretend to be abusive jerks, in a table-top RPG. I don't expect anybody to play a paragon of virtue, but I expect everybody to create a character who qualifies as a reasonably decent person."

Of course, if I'm a player, and I find myself in a group that wants characters who dress in black, and wander around slaughtering peasants, I just call the GM and bow out of the campaign -- no muss, no fuss.

Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often, since I usually talk to the players about the sorts of settings they like and games in which they've participated, in part to scope them out about that very thing. :)

But, at this point, we've kind of wandered away from the OP's question. :)

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

If I'm the GM, I usually try to get this handled, in Session Zero

I agree completely!

The context of all of my posts is of course there has already been a Session Zero . . . Indeed, in my case, there's often a Session -2 where we discuss meta-game issues like schedule and play-style expectations; a Session -1 where the players who accept the decisions of Session -2 discuss the campaign's general genre and themes with me, and negotiate any lines we don't want to cross; and a Session 0 where the players who accept the decisions of Session -1 work out team composition and inter-character relationships. My campaigns last for years and make it to Session 200 at least, if not Session 400, so this time investment is a drop in the bucket.

However, I get the impression that this isn't universal. After close to three decades of working on GURPS, I know that there are GMs who just throw out something like, "This campaign will use the following GURPS books. Make 200-point characters using only those. The game starts next Thursday." That's dangerously close to setting up the campaign for failure. If you do things that way, you may end up with little choice but to use points to channel player actions, because you didn't do the work of picking compatible players and agreeing on acceptable actions.

Originally Posted by tshiggins

But, at this point, we've kind of wandered away from the OP's question. :)

Not so much. :) You cannot separate the question of how many points to hand out from that of what the GM sees points as being. Well, you can do that, but it's like negotiating a salary without also discussing workload or hours, or talking about health plans, vacation time, bonuses, etc.

In a campaign where points are used as a blunt instrument to guide player actions, you need to give out more points so that you have something to take away . . . or if you prefer the carrot, you must set an upper bound on session awards. If the potential award is realizable only with a specific approach to the game, the actual award might average out much lower, which is closer to the real answer to the question. A campaign where pushing exactly the right buttons can earn you 10 points/session but most players push the wrong buttons and see 2 points/session is in effect one where people earn 2-3 points/session.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

Of course, this sometimes results in immature or overly-entitled players whining about 'railroading' (I have seen this happen, with a player who did not like his in-game actions having reasonable in-game consequences), but 'that too is a lesson.'

Personally, if the player has their character do something I disagree with, my response is going to be more along the lines of "Here are the consequences... are you sure you want to do that?" than "Nope." But that would depend on what the action was. Being a bully/jerk/all-around-unpleasant person? That has in-setting consequences if you decide to go ahead with it after the warning. Doing something outright unspeakable? Your character probably dies in a freak accident or similar before he/she gets a chance to complete the action, and you'd best have a really good reason why you thought that was an OK thing to do if you want to be able to make another character.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Kromm

However, I get the impression that this isn't universal. After close to three decades of working on GURPS, I know that there are GMs who just throw out something like, "This campaign will use the following GURPS books. Make 200-point characters using only those. The game starts next Thursday." That's dangerously close to setting up the campaign for failure. If you do things that way, you may end up with little choice but to use points to channel player actions, because you didn't do the work of picking compatible players and agreeing on acceptable actions.

I don't think I was there for Session 0 of the example I gave, since I wasn't GMing; I was a new player brought in to some games a friend was running when we got back into contact. I'm not sure there ever was a Session 0, though he's run pre-game sessions before.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Personally, if the player has their character do something I disagree with, my response is going to be more along the lines of "Here are the consequences... are you sure you want to do that?" than "Nope." But that would depend on what the action was. Being a bully/jerk/all-around-unpleasant person? That has in-setting consequences if you decide to go ahead with it after the warning. Doing something outright unspeakable? Your character probably dies in a freak accident or similar before he/she gets a chance to complete the action, and you'd best have a really good reason why you thought that was an OK thing to do if you want to be able to make another character.

Unfortunately, the friend who was GMing was a little too forgiving, which was annoying for those of us who were playing with a (teenager or early-twentysomething, not sure) person who didn't seem to get that it's not railroading to say 'of course my character does not trust your character after what you did last session, I am simply playing my character in-character.' (I may be mixing up two or more different arguments we had with him, since he pulled stuff like this more than once, and even the overly-forgiving GM did sometimes point out consequences that he'd have, which the kid thought was railroading.)


A problem that I think a lot of GMs have (and had more when the internet was less useful for this, as was the case with the example I've been reminded of) is 'these three or four people are all the players I can find.' Then you're stuck with either not playing, or playing with people that don't all get along and possibly even don't want to play the same games, or have badly-clashing play-styles. My friend wanted to run more GURPS games, but had a hard time getting enough players who were inclined to play GURPS for the games he wanted to do (at one point that was two, counting me), so he was running in other systems... and still had players who would probably have been happier with really different play-styles from each other.

He was pretty reasonable about point awards, basically 'you get a point for being in-character, you get a point for achieving something meaningful or doing something impressive with your skills,' and one that I really think deserves a mention: 'you get a point for saying something quotable in a character-appropriate way and moment.'

[Christopher R. Rice]

You know, reading this thread and all the diverse views has set me on a bit of a journey the last couple of days. I think I need to revise my general character point award guidelines. My methods of recruitment tend to remove bad actors before we even start character creation so I'm not sure if I need to have a leveraging method for good behavior anymore. What do you guys think? What do you do in your games that I might be able to do in mine?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

A problem that I think a lot of GMs have (and had more when the internet was less useful for this, as was the case with the example I've been reminded of) is 'these three or four people are all the players I can find.'

Yeah, for my old gaming group, my point of contact with it was a friend of mine that was a bit of a jerk IRL, and a problem player in-game. When I was GM'ing a campaign for That Other Game, he opted to play a samurai, and played him - like most of his characters - as an overbearing bully. While that may not have been historically inaccurate for a real samurai, it didn't fit my idea of bushido, so I told him he needed to cut it out to adhere to the class requirements. The next time he did it, I said "Congratulations! You're now a Fighter without Bonus Feats." He thought I was being unfair, so I let him take back the action... and I believe the next session he pushed that character off onto another player and made a Halfling Rogue. He similarly insisted I was being unfair when NPC's treated her like the adult she was rather than excusing her actions as those of a child ("Halflings look like little kids!" "Not in my campaign."). When we later tried out 4e (4e of TOG, not GURPS 4e), with me GM'ing, he again insisted I was being unfair when I had a kobold do something other than jump onto his waiting sword*. Needless to say, unless his attitude has changed (I haven't spoken to him in over a decade), I don't think I'd want to game with him in the future.

*The encounter involved a room with two levels - the ground floor the characters were on, and an upper floor that had a lot of missing bits. There were special "traps" setup in the room that consisted of a rope anchored to something heavy, run through a pulley hanging from the ceiling of the second floor, with a counterweight - a crate full of rubble - on the other end. The kobolds could run up to a rope, grab it, and cut it, simultaneously dropping a crate (harming anyone underneath unless they succeeded at a Reflex Save, and the rubble made the area cost double to travel through) and transporting themselves to the upper floor, where they had a large stockpile of javelins to throw at the characters; I would generally have them use one of the traps when one of the characters was under its corresponding crate (nobody bothered to look to see where each rope lead, but I did have it mapped out where each rope would drop its crate to). After seeing a few kobolds do the rope trick, the player decided to move to the closest anchor and Wait to attack whatever kobold showed up. Unfortunately, he chose an anchor that had a crate that nobody was under, so no kobold had any reason to use it... particularly when there were some anchors that had crates over the heads of other PC's.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

I don't think I was there for Session 0 of the example I gave, since I wasn't GMing; I was a new player brought in to some games a friend was running when we got back into contact.

That's a tricky situation.

My way of handling a situation like that is to start by vetting the potential new player personally. There's no way I'm going to invite in someone who creeps me out, trashed one of my campaigns, trashed my apartment, or whatever!

If the player seems fine to me, I mention to the existing players that we have an interested party. If this player is known to the group, I'm not shy about naming them – I think it's fair that, like me, the players have a chance to draw the line at someone who caused problems for them. After that, I put the matter to a vote; I refuse to thrust someone onto my established players unilaterally, as that's a real bad-faith move.

If the vote passes, I run an intro session. If we're at, say, Session 124, then the next gathering is Session 124a, not Session 125. It's used to introduce the player, bring them up to speed on how we game and what we've been doing, and introduce their character in a scene that brings them into the game world with a splash.

So there's the equivalent of a Session Zero. It's arguably more of a filter, not less.

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

A problem that I think a lot of GMs have (and had more when the internet was less useful for this, as was the case with the example I've been reminded of) is 'these three or four people are all the players I can find.'

Yes, that can put a lot of pressure on a group and especially a GM to skip anything resembling the above and to tolerate someone solely because they're a gamer. I think that's the Five Geek Social Fallacies – most notably #1 (Ostracizers Are Evil) – in action.

However, I was fortunate. I started gaming in a small city where, in the late 1970s, every kid wanted to try D&D . . . our problem was deciding which of the 15-20 gamers at our school fit the campaign we had planned, and we often had gaming groups of 10+ people (my biggest was 13). Then I moved to one of Canada's largest cities, which had lots of games shops, games conventions, and campaigns with waiting lists to get in. And then I became a games professional who attracted gamers just because of that – I'm sure the fact that I had five copies of every GURPS book and could give out freebies helped.

My attitude would doubtless be different if I'd ever struggled to have more than one or two players rather than struggled to keep groups to less than eight players.

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

My methods of recruitment tend to remove bad actors before we even start character creation so I'm not sure if I need to have a leveraging method for good behavior anymore. What do you guys think?

I think you need one or the other, but not both. I prefer thoroughly vetting players to having an open-door policy that forces me to engage in a complicated system of rewards and punishments. As discussed above, that's privileged in that it's a practical option only if you have a deep pool of potential players. At the same time, reward-and-punishment systems get dangerously close to running a railroad – though less "You must do this to complete the adventure" and more "You must play like this to achieve anything in my campaign."

Of course that answer reflects my own biases, which aren't so much Geek Social Fallacies as an almost political belief in inclusiveness, along with an intellectual or artistic tendency to believe that diversity and challenges to my way of thinking make me smarter and/or more creative. I dislike "yes men" and cheerleaders.

For instance, while I'd have no truck with a fascist of any stripe, someone who's merely very far right of my rather far-left self would be welcome if they were polite enough and not in my face all the time. Similarly, while I'm an atheist, I have no problem with religious gamers at my table as long as they don't proselytize. And this extends to artistic preferences; I'm more of a shades-of-gray, antiheroes-are-still-protagonists storyteller, but I don't close my games to people who prefer the Big Damn Heroes model.