One-Line Advice for new GURPS GMs

[Gnomasz]

Describe failed attack rolls as missed opportunities, not missed attacks.

"You don't see any opening and hold back," basically. Not tested yet, tbh, but it seems to answer so many questions. "Why didn't I try to parry this?", "Why are we flailing around our weapons each round?". Be sure to consult Your players about this, though, as some might see it as taking away their control over character.

[Kalzazz]

I once had a DM who liked doing things of that nature, I hated it. I much preferred to think 'a swing . . . and a miss!' than 'I sat here doing nothing'

Even worse is when the DM described things as 'hesitating', GAH! I hate that. I am a Champion of Justice, Champions of Justice do not just up and hesitate!

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I once had a DM who liked doing things of that nature, I hated it. I much preferred to think 'a swing . . . and a miss!' than 'I sat here doing nothing'

Even worse is when the DM described things as 'hesitating', GAH! I hate that. I am a Champion of Justice, Champions of Justice do not just up and hesitate!

I am with Kalzazz here. I am really allergic to anything that seems like taking away player agency, barring...mind control, failed control rolls, etc.

I was watching Titansgrave, GM'd by Wil Wheaton...and he takes over PCs interior feelings in ways that does not fly with me.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by trooper6

barring...mind control

Actually I hate mind control powers for just that reason, including allowing players to use them on NPCs

[shawnhcorey]

Don't be afraid to ask questions on the GURPS forum.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

Actually I hate mind control powers for just that reason, including allowing players to use them on NPCs

When mind control happens, I usually take the player aside and tell them they are being mind controlled and this is what the controller is telling them to do...and then I let them roll play it. I don't puppet them. My players who are into RP challenges enjoy the challenge and respect that I didn't just hijack their character.

[Kalzazz]

I agree with that approach

Its rather fun to see what evil evil things the players get up to

I don't mind mind control, I just dislike the idea of hesitation and such

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Gnomasz

Describe failed attack rolls as missed opportunities, not missed attacks.

"You don't see any opening and hold back," basically. Not tested yet, tbh, but it seems to answer so many questions. "Why didn't I try to parry this?", "Why are we flailing around our weapons each round?". Be sure to consult Your players about this, though, as some might see it as taking away their control over character.

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I once had a DM who liked doing things of that nature, I hated it. I much preferred to think 'a swing . . . and a miss!' than 'I sat here doing nothing'

I use a close variant on these rules from TBone, only changing the rule that the hesitation/close miss dichotomy to being attacker's choice, unless it is a blind attack, wild swing, a berserk attack, etc.

[dfinlay]

After character creation, GURPS has one game mechanic. All else is optional.

That one mechanic being "roll three dice. Compare the total to some number on the character sheet, plus or minus a number describing how hard the task is. If the roll is lower, the character succeeds. If higher, he/she/it fails."

95% of what remains is advice to the GM on what value on the character sheet to compare to, how difficult to rate the task at and what the results of success/failure are.

The remaining 5% (things like crits, fight checks, damage and reaction rolls), while they can add a lot to a game, are both optional and unnecessary.

I feel this one is really important because people constantly seem to think that GURPS has too many rules.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I agree with that approach

Its rather fun to see what evil evil things the players get up to

I don't mind mind control, I just dislike the idea of hesitation and such

If a failed to hit roll was always interpreted as an hesitation, I would agree with you. Now, If a failed to hit roll was always interpreted as a true attack, but so clumsy that the target doesn't have the least effort to do to avoid it, I would find it very boring too.

Attack, failed. Attack, failed. Attack, failed. Attack, successful but parried. Attack, failed. Attack, failed. Attack, failed ..

.
There are a lot of good reasons to fail an attack. Especially in just one second!

Hitting too far. Hitting not far enough. Hitting too much on the right. Or too much on the left. Not succeeding to find an opening in the foe's guard. Not being fast enough to attack again during that second. A one second hesitation. The sudden urge to catch your breath. And so on.

Making interpretations vary gives a more living game. Choosing only one interpretation, and always the same, makes it poor and boring.
So, my hint for this thread ...

Interpret dice rolls and make your interpretations vary.

Some games are rule and dice roll light. Some other, like GURPS are not. A GURPS combat turn, for instance, requires many dice roll. One to attack, one to defend. One for damage. And, often, one more for damage consequences. It gives 4 dice rolls just for 1 attack!

If you describe the results of each of these rolls, it might become exceptionally living and interesting. If you don't, the players might just remember that they had many, many dice to roll.