The old Lounge thread filled up, so here's a brand-spanking new one to discuss anything that doesn't belong in any of the other threads, such as introductions, chit-chat, and non-GURPS-related discussions.

Well, an intro sounds like a great way for me to get into the discussions. I just joined because I am interested in GURPS. I hope to get into some games once I learn the system, especially a 4e GURPS game, since I know 4e already. It's going to be different, yeah, but I guess it will be similar enough to not take too long to adjust to it.

Welcome. :)

Similar enough to what if I might ask?

Btw. IMO the best way to learn the rules is by playing. This is especially true for GURPS because GURPS has so many optional rules that even if you "know the rules" you won't know how the individual GM will use the rules.
If interested in learning the combat rules I suggest trying out some combat-examples. I'm sure someone here would be willing to help ;)

In reply to MazVN (msg # 3):

I figure it's got to have some similarities to actual 4e, so it can't be a full learning process. Plus i know how to roll dice, and the other basics of playing a tabletop. It's being played by many people, so I also know it's not rocket science. I've seen some of the stupid people on the WotC forums who play 4e, so I'm sure that GURPS has some of them too.

...are you referring to DnD 4e as "actual" 4e?

GURPS really has nothing to do with any edition of DnD. Knowing one will not help you with the other.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:13, Wed 27 June 2012.

I got that feel as well.

In reply to MazVN (msg # 6):

Okay, so if they're nothing alike, then why do they have a GURPS 4e system? To me, that's like having two candy bars and one is chocolate but the other has no chocolate at all, but calling both chocolate. Very confusing. I may not want to try GURPS if I have to a complete learning phase from step 1. I was hoping for a few things to carry over, but the majority to have a new feel.

Okay, GURPS 4e is the 4th edition of the GURPS system, which came out in the mid-80s. It isn't based on Dungeons and Dragons at all. There are no classes or levels, and d6s are the only dice used.

You build characters with points rather than picking a race and class, and the setting can be anything from Fantasy (like DnD) to Sci Fi to superheros to realistic military combat simulations. Anything, really. GURPS does better with "realistic" campaigns... getting stabbed once can kill you, getting shot probably will, and unless it's a superhero game nobody can take more damage than somebody can take in the "real world".

That's an important point. GURPS is researched and designed to reflect the real-world wherever possible.

Ever play Fallout? It's kinda like that. Not in that it's post-apocalyptic (though you could run that kind of game in GURPS), but because you have attributes, skills, advantages or disadvantages.

The system is more like White Wolf's Storyteller system than like Dungeons and Dragons.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:35, Wed 27 June 2012.

In reply to KnightSteve (msg # 7):

GURPS will shatter your expectations in an RPG if all you have is d20 experience. It could be for the better or worse but one can only hope for the better.

Hi Steve.

Well, sorry about the confusion, but as the others have already hinted, GURPS 4e and D&D 4e are two wholly separate roleplaying game systems/engines that are very different from each other. Both games just happen to be in their 4th edition of the give rulesets, like Shadowrun 4e is and HERO 4e used to be (that one now has a 5e and a 6e).

In other words, the suffix 4e cannot be taken to mean that a game has anything to do with D&D 4e, even if it's sometimes the case.

Being an old D&D'er myself I would entice you to look into GURPS 4e though, as it was quite a revelation for me back in the day. Of course, I was becoming dissatisfied with the then 2e D&D ruleset and was looking for something else. I found my home with GURPS.

Try looking at the abbreviated GURPS rules in the free GURPS Lite publication if you want to get a feel for how the systems are different: http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG31-0004

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 8):

I love Fallout, so I may as well try GURPS. Our internet only allows us so much downloads per month, so when our percentage comes back down, I can download the rules. Then I'll read through them a time or two, and see what sort of game I would like to try. My first game will probably be as overwhelming as DnD was. The worst part was I picked a wizard as my first character, and they have too many cantrips and outside of combat actions to keep track of for a newbie. But thanks to the ones who have posted and given me insight for the system. I may be looking for some of you to get in a game in the future.

My advice is to start out with a real-world sort of game. If you're coming from DnD, I'd suggest not trying fantasy at first, because what works in DnD will get you killed in GURPS. It's a much more lethal system.

Besides, if it's the real world you can focus on learning the rules because the setting is something you're familiar with.

Agreed. Also if the people you usually play with are used to D&D then it's hard convincing them to try a new system just to play the same game.
A modern investigation game is something D&D really can't do well but GURPS excel at.

I find playing a fighter, thief or some combination thereof is not difficult at all.  Sure you'll make mistakes in character generation, but that's how you learn.  The skills are pretty easy pickup, just use common sense when mapping an action to a skill.

KnightSteve, one thing to keep in mind is Gurps combat can be very deadly.  But of course it all depends on the gm too.  I've played in games where the combat was minimal and others where someone got a crippled limb seemingly in every fight.  Use a bucker, morningstar and a crossbow.  Take at least a 12 str and have fun with your warrior while he lasts.

I recommend staying away from magic until you've gotten a few characters under your belt.  Playing a mage is really tough.  They have great powers, even if many of them are highly specific, but are limited by how much fatigue (FP) they require.

In reply to jason254 (msg # 14):

A fighter sounds right up my alley. I'm not much for rogues/thieves, because I don't like to sneak. Grab a huge ass weapon and beat the hell of an enemy? Sounds good to me.

I don't really have anywhere in real life to be playtesting new systems, so most of my GURPS experience will be on here. My DnD DM is pretty busy, so we have been alternating campaigns so he has time to write his story for when he's the DM. I've been playing a pre-made campaign.

GURPS Lite is a free download and will introduce you to the basics of playing.  If there's a friendly local games store in your area, they may have a hard copy of GURPS Lite for free (mine back in Alabama did, but not the one I go to here in Hong Kong).

Character creation can be a bit challenging because there are so many options (if you can imagine a character, you can build it in GURPS - whether the GM allows it is another thing entirely (=), but there are several programs and web apps available to do most of the work (some free, some not), and if you end up playing in a GURPS game, the GM may walk you through the process or have you answer some questions about what kind if character you'd like.

When I was starting out in a GURPS Traveller scifi game, I described my character, and the GM punched him up in GURPS Character Assistant in just a few minutes.

Playing is pretty easy.  Roll 3d6 and try to make or beat a target score.  There are a few other types of rolls (reaction rolls, damage rolls, quick contests where you try to beat an NPC's or another PC's 3d6 roll), but that's usually the most common type.

Fighters and thieves are probably the easiest type if you're playing in a fantasy game.  Modern games can be great fun, too.  =)
This message was last edited by the GM at 02:49, Thu 28 June 2012.

In reply to Mad Mick (msg # 16):

Sounds good. I may have to go to my local library and download the rules. I don't think there's even a game store that sells tabletop games, let alone DnD or GURPS. The part of Alabama I live in is kinda starved for good gaming. Alot of nerds, but most play WoW instead.

Welcome Steve!

Everyone is telling you that D&D 4e is really nothing like GURPS 4e...and that is true in the very specific sense. But on the other hand, GURPS is a roleplaying game. So there are a lot of things that are the same. I mean, you make a character and participate in stories. There are dice to roll...hit points are lost. Is it different? Sure. But it also isn't *that* different if you step back.

Okay, next thing. Everyone will tell you that GURPS is very, very deadly--watch out!! On the hand I want to say...sometimes...depends...maybe.

GURPS is a modular sort of game. A GM can turn up all the deadly switches and it can get really, really deadly. Or a GM can turn up all the cinematic switches and and it can be quite hard to die. Heck, even in a realistic sort of game, having a Health (HT) of 15 is going to keep you alive for a long time.

Also, I don't know how D&D 4e plays (I've only played 1-3.5E) but in all those other editions I've played D&D was always pretty deadly at low levels. I mean, how many 1st level characters have I lost? Many, many, many. I remember my sad AD&D 1e 1st Level Mage with 3hp and crap spells (Sleep and Light).  Yeah...I've never had that misery in GURPS.

But instead I want to bring up the things that I really love about GURPS. I love that there are really interesting combat options: I can try and cut off someone's leg, I can punch them in the face...and those choices matter. I love more than anything that the rules support rich non-combat options. I love that I can make a character who is rich and has lots of status...and have it have game rules effects. I can make someone ugly but really charming. I can make all sorts of things!

I love that I have played in GURPS games that were all combat all the time and in GURPS games where there were only 3 combats in over three years (and one of them was a staged combat to help smuggle our team out of Singapore when the triads recognized one of the PCs as an escaped former sex slave property of a triad boss from Mars with a price on her head--don't worry, we got out safely in the end and were able to cover our tracks. It wasn't easy.)

I love that in GURPS I have run games that went from Musketeers with Magic to a team of interstellar sci-fi merchants and smugglers. I love that I have played characters as varied as a single dad ex-cop detective bruiser to a 14-year old girl with psychic powers and social anxiety. I've had players play characters as varied as a woman who is a live action video game heroine to a grizzled, drug addicted former gladiator.

GURPS is awesome-sauce!

<kids in the hall>

Everything this man says is true.

</kids in the hall>

MM, I've found that to be true about pretty much anything trooper6 says.  =)

And lets not forget about such topics as the Blurberry Muffin and the HP of Everest.

I'm thinking of starting up a new game, modern characters who get sucked into Cosmic Weirdness. Starting with 100/-50 points with a couple of point dumps along the way.

It would require players willing to roll with the weirdness who enjoyed "fish-out-of-water", Prisoner/Wonderland-esque confusion and no clear endgame.

Any interest?

Does anyone know of a way to export GCA sheets so they align more neatly for posting here?

What I mean is that skills in a normal export looks like this:

Guns/TL9 (Light Machine Gun) DX/E - DX+3 15 [8]
Guns/TL9 (Pistol) DX/E - DX+1 13 [1]
Hiking HT/A - HT+1 14 [4]
Judo DX/H - DX+0 12 [4]
Jumping DX/E - DX+0 12 [1]
Knife DX/E - DX+1 13 [2]
Leadership IQ/A - IQ+3 14 [4]
Mechanic/TL9 (Automobile) IQ/A - IQ-1 10 [1]

But I would like it to looks like this:

Guns/TL9 (Light Machine Gun) DX/E  - DX+3 15 [8]
Guns/TL9 (Pistol) DX/E             - DX+1 13 [1]
Hiking HT/A                        - HT+1 14 [4]
Judo DX/H                          - DX+0 12 [4]
Jumping DX/E                       - DX+0 12 [1]
Knife DX/E                         - DX+1 13 [2]
Leadership IQ/A                    - IQ+3 14 [4]
Mechanic/TL9 (Automobile) IQ/A     - IQ-1 10 [1]

This message was last edited by the player at 09:44, Tue 03 July 2012.

*nevermind, didn't see the word export. oops.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:09, Tue 03 July 2012.

In reply to KnightSteve (msg # 24):

Guess I'll just do it manually then :)

I think you can use GCA to export to text.  If need be you can add your own tabs and use pre tags when posting to rpol.  I myself have used GCA but it was a long time ago.  I normally just use wordpad and do things by hand.

It would be nice to have GCA sort things by columns, but I don't think that's available as a feature.

However, you can print your character sheet as a PDF and host the PDF somewhere.  It's not editable, but it looks pretty good.  =)

Here's a sample:  https://docs.google.com/open?i...gnd0wQ3B2djN3M3d6QXc

The link doesn't work. But yes I know. I usually tend to do so as well (and use the phoenix sheet option). I just wanted to be able to divide the skills up into a couple of subcategories so they where easier to navigate. It's for some pregenerated chracters who all have over 50 skills. It can be a bit overwhelming to navigate 50 skills to find "the right one" or just to get an idea about what the character can do.

Is there any GCA sheet options that let you divide the skils up into subcategories?

I'm not sure how much GCA has in common with GCS in this regard, but in GCS, you can create "Skill Containers," which then allows you to put skills "into" those containers (you can also create Advantage Containers and Equipment Containers). I've taken to creating Skill Containers such as "Social," "Background," "Combat," "Athletic," etc.

Oops, I fixed the privileges, but it's nothing you haven't seen before, MazVN.

Landwalker, do you prefer GCS over GCA?  I've used GCA and a web-based app, but I don't think I've used GCS before.

I've never used GCA before (because, you know. Money.), but I find that I can get GCS to do pretty much anything I want it to do within reason. If you're running a powers-heavy game it might get a little cumbersome, though—when I was designing my home-built magic-as-power system, it required a lot of finagling and manual cost entry, but I was also asking it to do rather more than it was intended to do. I suspect that with "normal" powers, it could handle those relatively seamlessly, and it's easy to customize most things.

My only real complaint, if you could call it that, is that the default library for GCS (or at least my version), in terms of advantages and disadvantages, but mostly in terms of equipment, is not exhaustive. If it's in Basic, you're fine, and it has pretty good coverage of Martial Arts and Power-Ups 2: Perks, but nothing for High-Tech or Low-Tech (so many guns that require manual entry...).

Additionally, GCS (or, again, my version of it) cannot accommodate the LT hit location system, which forced me to make a lot of notes in the equipment section of sheets to detail exactly which armor pieces were doing what, and how. I don't know if this is a feature that GCA offers, though.

GURPS Rifts. Yay? Nay? Meh? 250 points, probably, so some of the more outre sorts of OCC wouldn't be do-able, but I wouldn't be restricting players to Templates or trying to recreate the rules in GURPS. Just using some of the background fluff.

Definately!

This message was deleted by the player at 15:58, Sat 07 July 2012.

Idea One: Deadboys go rogue. PCs are a squad of Coalition soldiers who, for whatever reason, abandon their duties and go AWOL.

GURPS Torg could also work really well. What do you all think? GURPS Rifts or GURPS Torg?

Torg is unfamiliar to me. I'm for AWOL coalition soldiers ;-)

I spoke a tad prematurely; apparently I sold all my Rifts books on ebay a few years ago and forgot about it.

I'd still like to run some kind of sci-fi high tech campaign. Cyberpunk?

Well this sucks.. I just read that Silveroak was banned =|  From what I could discern, he basically spent his life here and ran some very dedicated games.  I would've even partaken if not for his befuddling typing skills.

Yeah, to be honest that was really hard to get around.

The guy I'm wondering about is kurlumbenus.  Anyone know what happened to him?  He shows up in the Chamber of Lost Souls, but that ban dates from before I played with him.

I knew that Kurly was banned, but I'm not sure what for. In the Chamber, he's listed as having duplicate accounts, but that's from 2008 and I know for a fact he's been around since then. I couldn't find anything on his "final offense," but given his... nature... it's not surprising that he eventually crossed a line somewhere.

His nature?

Thats not really ground for banning is it? because then I think a lot more people would get banned ;)

I didn't know him, so can't say or even guess why.

The Chamber states that Silveroak was banned for making litigious threats against the moderators, which had been previously established as a big no-no for anyone with any interest in continuing their presence on the site. I'm not sure what the details of the situation are, but there it is.

Edit: Nice try, Tortuga. I'm on to you!
This message was last edited by the player at 13:30, Sun 15 July 2012.

^ shakes fist!



I dimly remember that. I think he had some comments moderated or something relatively minor, and flipped out about it. I was in a game with him at the time.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:39, Sun 15 July 2012.

I'm asking as I already had a sort of brush´in with the mod. as I for the first time, started an Adult game and they didn't agree that the players had made the proper statement of age (which I thought they had by simply stating age and country).

Anyway, it came down to a discussion about them referring to the FAQ as "the rules" and me arguing that a FAQ can't be refereed as rules in the sense that you must read a FAQ before posting on a board (or running a game in this case). And then again a short time after confusion over uploading of avatar-pictures where one guide say one thing but it was expected that you had read the FAQ on it.

Anyway some of the things the moderators focus heavily on, confuse me slightly. So its always good to know on what grounds people get banned. So as not to make the same mistakes.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:29, Sun 15 July 2012.

Threatening to sue will get you banned.

I had 1 language warning because I don't always censor myself. I like F bombs, S Bombs, GD bombs and a few other bombs that don't have anything to do with Ordinance.

the Discworld Zombie Edna Coates* is looking for an Ankh Morpork Police Proceedural game. Her only requirement is enough points to buy Injury Tolerance (Unliving; Independent Body Parts (with Nuisance Detachment at whatever value the GM thinks it is worth))...

*Yes, she was related to Ned Coats but she lived, and... er, died after the Glorious 25th of May.

A GURPS Discworld game would be great fun.  =)

This would really be the wrong time to start something The Walking Dead-esque, wouldn't it?

Pee Kitty's Post-Apoc books are on the way, and Kromm is writing GURPS Zombies ...

It's clearly the wrong time!

And I'm already running a game ...

Oh, the itch!

Do eeeet.

You're no help at all! ;-)

C'mooooooonnnnn

I don't like the development of the newly deceased simply reanimating.  It's nonsensical.  28 Days later style makes the most sense biologically.

Why do I suddenly feel like I caught in an "episode" of "Texts from Dog"? (btw - if you don't know about that one already, google it. You'll die. Laughing. Very appropriate for this little debate).

Sensemaking and Zombies?

Well, the scene from TWD in the CDC facility where they showed a video of an animation in progress made it feel perfectly sensible ...

... or something. IMHE Sense is sometimes overrated ;-).
This message was last edited by the player at 18:09, Tue 24 July 2012.

I find it perfectly sensible that the people caught in a zombie uprising may never even find out just why the zombies got up and started ambling around.

A zombie/Walking Dead game would be loads of fun.  =)

I like the infected and overtaken angle, not the walking undead angle.  That's just my viewpoint.  ...And 'sprinters' scare me shitless, for the shat hath already been given at the thought of nay but ONE sprinter :P

@Mick: STOP IT!

;-)

Just to further illustrate my brittle state, take a look here: link to another game

Would that be interesting? Not saying that I'm doing it, though ... not now anyways.

That would be interesting.

You'd need to figure a way to give out survival skills quickly though, most realist characters wouldn't have any.

A few examples of the kind of average people you want would also be helpful.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:49, Tue 24 July 2012.

Sooo... if anyone's up for playing around with 4th edition conversion I've got a Edna built for a 125 point game with a few points in reserve.

what's an Edna

"a Edna" is me failing to delete the complete phrase "a character" in reference to the above quote.

Sorry for the confusion.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:01, Tue 24 July 2012.

In reply to The_Wrathchild (msg # 61):

You do not have time for any more games! Not that I RTJ the zombie-game or anything O:)

OK - let's guage the ACTUAL interest, as in who'll actually RTJ ...

Maz would, evidently ;-)

And no, it'd still not be right now - mayhap in a month or two. Go to the link above  and let your RTJ's do the talkin'

Is there sufficient interest for a GURPS/Cyberpunk 2020 sort of game?

I want to run some kind of contemporary or future GURPS game. One of the following:

1. Cyberpunk. Probably borrowing heavily from Cyberpunk2020.PCs are street operatives, working and hustling, selling their talents as troubleshooters to the highest bidder. 200 points,

2. GURPS Monster Hunters. The players are convicted felons given the chance to avoid death row or life sentences if they work as a paramilitary squad hunting down and eliminating monsters for the Man. 400 points; GURPS Monster Hunters 1 required for the templates.

3. Space. Aliens offered humanity the chance to join stellar society; the governments refused. Those who disagree have been paying to have themselves smuggled into space. The players are normal folks who've decided to take their chances leaving Earth behind. 150 points.

Any interest? Preferences?

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 69):

I'd be interested in 1) or 3). Characters over 250pts outside of a DF game don't really have any interest for me.

Monster Hunters would be most likely to draw me in ...

I'd be interested in the cyberpunk game!

... which of course sounds good as well :-). Let's go get it on!

Posted this: link to a message in another game to the game proposal board, but since GURPS is one of the proposed systems I thought I'd drop notice here too and see what you all thought of the idea. I'd honestly prefer GURPS but I'll go with something else if I don't get the interest I need.

Warning: This will be one of those low-power low-fantasy stat-normalization sorts of games. ;)
This message was last edited by the player at 13:20, Thu 09 Aug 2012.

Sounds interesting.

I had a thought the other day. What about a group collaboration in which we create a universe, a world, a setting complete with a detailed history to play in? what if we used the game Microscope http://www.lamemage.com/ to create the world and once it was created we play within it?

Would there be interest in such an undertaking? We could use the Microscope rules to play out the creation of the world and once it was complete, we could play in the game world and have a definite, creative, vested interest in the game. Obviously when we play it will be using GURPS 4th edition rules.

Below is a review of Microscope from http://rpggeek.com/thread/7164...re-a-game-microscope


Microscope In A Nutshell

In Microscope you outline a vast history and then zoom in and role-play the bits that interest you. You can create and play epics like the entire Dune series or the Silmarillion. Empires rise and fall, mankind conquers the stars, and so on. Instead of open collaboration, each player builds independently on what other people have already established, so you're constantly surprised by the details that emerge as you play.

First things first

Microscope is different from a lot of other role-playing games, so let's start off by eliminating some possible misconceptions. You don't have a single character. You'll play many different characters throughout the game. You may play characters other people played in previous scenes.

You don't play the game in chronological order. You build from the outside in, knowing how the history ends and then going back and exploring the middle. If in one scene the New Columbia sea dome is cracked by Soviet torpedoes, that story isn't over. You can always go back and explore what happened before it was destroyed. You might wind back and role-play the visionaries who built the dome, or dig into the sub commander's career at the academy to find out why he was willing to pull the trigger. You could play four more sessions and then have someone suddenly say "Oh, remember that Soviet sub commander from game one? I'm doing a scene from right before he fired the torpedoes."

What Do You Need To Play?

Three to four people is best, but you can go up to five in a pinch. People say they've had great seven player games but I can't imagine it. You can also play really great two-player Microscope games. You'll need a lot of index cards. I like the 2"x3" blank flash cards, but normal index cards are fine. Some table space or other flat space to lay out all your history cards (wind is the enemy). Pens or pencils. And you need the rules.

Setup: Thousands of Years in One Sentence

To start a new history, all you need is a simple summary like "mankind flees the dying Earth and spreads into the stars." That's your whole history in it's simplest form. Everything you do during the game will expand or explore that one line synopsis.

Next the group decides how your history begins and ends, establishing bookends on your story. That's right, you know how the entire history is going to end before you even start play. But you don't know the interesting bits, how and why it turned out that way. That's what you're going to discover in the rest of the game.

To make sure everyone's on the same page about the kind of fiction you're making, you then create a Palette of things you want to allow or ban from your history. You might make a fantasy setting but require all wizardry to be powered by mana drawn from the natural elements, or create a sci fi setting and forbid humanoid aliens. Then you're ready to start exploring your history.

Play: Zooming In & Out, Jumping Forward & Backward

Play is simple. On your turn you get to create a piece of history. You can make one of three things: either a Period (a large swath of time in the history), an Event (a specific thing that happens inside a Period, like a city being sacked or a soldier coming home from the wars), or a Scene (role-playing to find out what happens in a particular moment in an Event). It's a three-level outline: Periods contain Events which contain Scenes. You put down a card for each thing you make to keep track of the timeline.

You can create new Periods, Events or Scenes anywhere in the history, jumping backward or forward or zooming in and out however you want (q.v. you will not play in chronological order). To keep everyone's contributions connected, players take turns as the Lens, the person who picks a particular Focus that play will center around. So if the current Lens decides the Focus is going to be the magical sword Durandal, then for that round each player must make history that somehow relates to that sword. One player might make an Event where a warrior carrying the sword meets his wife, and another might jump back to a much earlier Period and show the sword being forged by ancient druids. So long as it relates somehow, it's okay.

If it's your turn, you have nearly unlimited authority, so long as you don't contradict anything we already know about the history. But because you can only make one thing on your turn, and you can't make a zoomed in piece of history without something to contain it (a Scene has to be inside an Event, etc.) more often than not you're building on something someone else created. If you want to role-play a Scene, you're probably setting inside an Event someone else described, which is itself inside a whole Period another player invented. So you're simultaneously independent and dependent on what others have made.

(there are other interlocking mechanics I'm not touching on, like deciding whether history is Light or Dark or adding Legacies)

We Role-play Together

When a player makes a Period or Event, they have absolute power to make whatever they want. There is no veto and coaching is forbidden.

But when someone creates a Scene everyone role-plays together to decide what happens. The player making the Scene poses a Question about the history (like "can the seventh rune of power destroy the very gods" or "did Captain Falkes know his wife was cheating on him"). That Question is the agenda for the Scene and we play until we learn the answer. The current player frames the scene (where is it, what's going, where does it fall in the Event), then everyone picks characters they want to role-play. Characters can be people we have already heard about in the history or people invented on the spot. Different players may have different ideas of what they think the answer should be and you choose characters that let you push the answer you want.

How does the game end?

It doesn't! Since you can always go back and add more detail, you can play the same history as long as you want. It's a fractal game. You stop playing a particular history whenever you think you've done enough, or when you're out of time to play. But you can always pack up the cards and come back to it later.

Where's the kaboom?

So everybody has vast creative power and no one has a veto. How can that possibly work? It sounds like a recipe for disaster, doesn't it?

There are a couple of critical factors that make it possible. The freedom to jump anywhere within the history means that if someone makes something you don't like, you just don't build on it. In a linear (normal) game what happens now determines what must happen next (if we attack the king, that irrevocably changes the plot). In Microscope it doesn't at all. Also, because you know how the history ends from the very start and have overviews of how Periods and Events end when they're first described, everyone is working within common boundaries. You can't stray too far off because you know where you need to wind up. Add the Palette synchronizing expectations, and it means you can give everyone vast creative authority without having the game explode.

World Building, or "Look on my works ye Mighty and despair"

When you're done, you've got a game world that everyone in the table has deep ownership in, because you made it together through an iterative process. The stuff that got built on and expanded was what everyone liked. Nine times out of ten, someone will say "Wow, I want to break out [d20/GURPS/FATE] and play a campaign in this world!" Which you absolutely can. In a way the entire process of playing Microscope brings the fun of being a GM and building a world to the table and makes it part of play.

I've played almost 70 games of Microscope with a lot different people, from veteran gamers to people who'd never role-played before. We playtested it for two years (and five separate versions) before arriving at the final rules. There's not a lot in Microscope that's accidental or hasn't gone through a lot of examination."

In reply to Bane Root (msg # 76):

Sounds like fun, but I don't want to buy Microscope, and wont pirate it. What's the feasibility of someone without that rule set participating?

I am working up to running a game as detailed here: link to a message in another game.  As I plan on using GURPS for most of them, I thought I would mention it here as well.

Jeff

Im still trying to acquire it myself and dont want to pirate it/buy it on Amazon either... I'll update you if/when I get a copy.

Re: Microscope.

Howdy all.  I don't post in the Lounge much (more of a lurker, really), but I did catch the above discussion about Microscope.  I checked out the review, and was intrigued enough to bite the bullet and buy it.  I've been itching to give it a test drive all week long, but my local group has been up and down with some kind of bug all week.  So, I thought I'd throw out an offer here for those of you who might be interested.

I'm looking for a small group (me plus 2 or 3 more) to give the rules a test drive.  You shouldn't need a copy of the rules yourself; they're very rules-lite once you get going, and the concepts are very straight-forward (bordering on genius, considering what you can do with them).  So, if you're interested in giving it a try, let me know here or rmail me.  I'm willing to oversee everything and explain the rules; if we get some interest, we'll give it a try.

Cheers,
Navanod

I am interested obviously.

Well then, me and thee and one more makes three, and if Gurpser wants in, that makes four, which is probably the most I can manage for the time being.  So, here's the link - link to another game.  Head on over and sign up.  I'll get started putting up the high points in the morning.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:42, Mon 10 Sept 2012.

Hiya.

As someone that's never GM'd before but is curious to try, let me ask you folks: just how important are detailed maps in a game?

I've been able to write several storylines, settings, characters, etc., but the main thing that keeps stopping me are the maps. I'm absolutely terrible at creating them in every medium I've tried; I'm no cartographer, and I never will be, and that makes me sad.

Any of you have the same problem? Have you never noticed a need for detailed maps in your games? Can you make it work without the maps and, if so, how do you do that? Is it one of those things that a "good GM" just has to be able to do?

I have GM'd a bit and would say the importance of maps depends on the game.  If it is important to the story, I try to find something I can use as I am like the worlds worst artist.  The only other thing is to just discribe the scene really well.

I don't think detailed world maps are all that important.  As long as you can come up with something legible and has all the major points covered that's all that really matters.  No one's going to care how well it's done.  Detailed maps probably matters more for battles.  I've never used it but map tools, for battle maps at least, is pretty popular.

I found a nifty little app called Hex Map that I've been playing around with on my iPod.  MapTools is great, though, and fairly easy to use.  The biggest thing is putting together an image library.

Hi. As the others I would say "it depends". [sorry this got a bit long]

First off it depends if you mean in real life or here on rpol.
IRL it is much less important as the players can simply ask if unsure and get an instant reply "How far am I from the car" or "Can I reach the orc this turn?". In fact, I am of the opinion that a battlemap IRL might actively get in the way of the story. Once you put down a battlemap players tend to go into boardgame mode and forget everything about roleplay and only do roll-play. The game also tends to slow down the game and make it lose dramatic tension. So, when playing IRL I try to minimize my map use. And when I do need them, make do with hastily drawn sketchy outlines. This is also to keep the images in our head where they are much more alive. Once you have a detailed map and especially if you have miniatures, players tend to forget the images in their head and only see what's in front of them - which will always be less impressive than what you can picture with your imagination.

But, I suspect that you are talking about rpol ;)

---

On rpol maps are much more important as the players can't get a quick instant reply to a question. And it doesn't take away from the mental images as you do not have the map in front of you in the same way.
But, that doesn't mean you have to have it, nor that it have to be detailed in any way. But again it depends.
For instance, here on rpol I tend to run battle heavy games, to the point where the battle is the focus of the game, and everything around it is fluff to link the battles. The battles are the places the characters get to play out their strength and weaknesses, show their individuality and make important decisions. So, of course in those game I need a good map just as much as an investigation game needs a detailed setup so the players can solve the mystery. It becomes important to have lots of different object on the map the characters can interact with and allow them to choose between depending on their abilities and personality. That said, the map could as easily be a black and white MSpaint drawn map with a hexgrid overlay. but, since this IS the focus of those games I tend to make a lot out of the maps as it makes the game more exiting and alive.

But, in any game where combat isn't the focus, it shouldn't be necessary. And as for IRL games a battlemap might ruin dramatic tension. For instance, in a zombie survival game it might take away a lot of the tension to know exactly how many yards the zombies are from you exactly how many there are.
In general I also feel that "games with guns" tend to work better without a map. Or, rather, "games with guns" often run into situations that are difficult to portray using maps. A firefight in a staircase. A long-rang encounter with 100s of yards in-between the combatants, an urban combat with people in windows on top of houses, inside buildings an down a street in cover behind cars. All of these situations work better without a battlemap.
Another argument for not needing a map is that unlike IRL if you make a detailed description, the players can always go back and reread it if they are unsure. Where IRL people might overhear or misunderstand something you say.

The only place I think it would be unwise to avoid maps is if melee-combat is somehow important to the game. As all the rules for weapon reach and facing is very important in melee and cumbersome to explain and keep track of without a map. But, thats assuming you are using all the Tactical Combat rules. If you ignore weapon reach and facings, then ta map isn't necessary after all.

---

tl;dr No a detailed map isn't a requirement at all. sometimes a sketchy map might be a good idea. Sometimes a map will get in the way of the story.

Thanks for the input, guys! And yes, I was talking about RPoL ^_^

I've tried MapTools, but I haven't been able to really get a knack for it; my main issue is that I can't find the images I need or like. Mostly I want to try an Age of Sail campaign, and everything I've been able to find is either super-science future or D&D past. Does anyone know where I could fine decent 16th-18th century images, or even anything close?

I've been pointed to HexMap before, actually, but I thought it only did outdoor environments; is that right?

The MSPaint scratch pad method of mapping seems about my speed - very little detail, but enough to give the players an idea. How would you draw something in Paint and post it online? You'd need a Photobucket account or something, right?

Sort of a related question (and my last one, I promise): are you often inclined to ignore the Tactical Combat rules? My own theoretical campaign there would be a lot of fencing and swashbuckling, so I think it would be safe to say that melee combat would be a big part. Imagine the fight scenes in Princess Bride (particularly Inigo vs. Wesley); would you need a map to run those fights? Could you do it without and still maintain the sense of action and drama?

Posting from phone, so short answer.

It depends how detailed you want the combat to be. One of the nice things about using the tactical combat system is that you can really emerge yourself in the tactical details. Reach and mobility suddenly become very important, and _player skill_ starts to play a role. Expert knowledge of the rules /can/ help a weaker character win over an opponent. I like all of that. But for a more climatic storydriven game. It might get in the way of the story and you might prefer to stick to basic rules. You could even allow a duel be resolved was quickly as a quick contest roll.

So, really, it depends on what you want. GURPS is a toolbox. What tools you need from the box depends on what you are trying to build.

...maybe its a good thing I can only post from my phone XD

I am contemplating putting together a very loose arena for the purpose of play-testing a house-ruled ST-Based Damage system. As a fair disclaimer, it's a very complicated system (the kind that uses an Excel spreadsheet), so I don't expect it will be everyone's cup of tea.

Would anyone here be interested in participating in (or learning more about) such a playtest arena?

I am, of course, happy to answer any questions if y'all would like more details about it.

I'm having the devil of a time getting RPMaptools to load properly from the download site.  Does anyone know if there's a Disc I can purchase that downloads everything all at once without having to download and unzip each and every individual file?

I'm a technical moron so am struggling here...

Similarly, does anyone know where I can find an overlay that can line up with hex grids that shows each grid numbered?

Would you consider the Advantage "Extra Attack" for a human be considered Cinematic?  Sword fighter wants to buy "Extra Attack" to shield bash in the same turn without the 2 attacks per round penalty (and countered the -4 off hand penalty with Ambidexterity).

I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, seeing the player spent a crapload of points for it, plus I know of some martial arts that are non cinematic that allow for combinations that allow 2 attacks per turn.

So whaddyathink?

I who am normally very conservative, tend to think its NOT necessarily cinematic, but I'd like to hear from my betters.

Well, Dual Weapon Attack is a cinematic technique, so why wouldn't Extra Attack be cinematic? (Since point cost isn't what makes things cinematic or realistic)
This message was last edited by the player at 15:56, Fri 04 Jan 2013.

Good point. Hence, my gut reaction to be wary of Extra Attack.

Just a note, if he's only looking for shield bash he can save points by not getting Ambidexterity. According to Sean Punch shield bash is not subject to off-hand weapon penalties: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=38490

What if he wants to use two shields at once and just go to town that way?

I did a quick search for "extra attack" in basic and found this on B13:

Warrior. A professional fighter
needs high ST, DX, and HT, and might
wish to buy up Hit Points and Basic
Speed. Useful advantages include
Combat Reflexes, Hard to Kill, and
High Pain Threshold; cinematic warriors
should also consider Extra Attack
and Weapon Master. Combat skills are
a must, and Leadership, Strategy, and
Tactics can help. Modern commandos
should add skills such as Explosives,
Forward Observer, and Parachuting.

I would consider anything mentioned in the same breath as weapon master cinematic.  :)

Extra Attack itself says normal humans can buy one level, it represents unusually good coordination.

^{(sorry for responding to old post, you might have gotten things to work, but hadn't' seen the message).}

I don't think there is. But you shouldn't have to download several files. All you should need is one and then unzip it. It's been a while since I installed it to a new device but as far as I recall, you do not even install it as such. You just unzip it to the desired location and the first time you run it, it automatically create a couple of folder in your windows/user folder (like default maps and resources).

So get this zip: http://www.rptools.net/downloa.../maptool-1.3.b87.zip
Unzip it to wherever you want.
Run it, and you should be good to go :)


Yes, it's pretty annoying Maptools can't put coordinates on hex'es :(

What I do is take the map-picture and then use: http://www.nomic.net/~uckelman/mkhexgrid/ to create a transparent hex-grid with coordinates and lay it over the map, then load the map into Maptools.

mkhexgrid takes some getting used to as well. I suggest using something similar to the following as the spec-text:

columns = 30
rows = 42
hex-side = 22
grid-grain = v
output = png
outfile = tut1.png
grid-color=000000
coord-distance = 0
coord-format=%C%r
coord-size=8
coord-color=000000
bg-opacity=127
antialias=true

But change rows and columns to you prefered size, of course.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:16, Fri 04 Jan 2013.

Alternatively you could do this as a combination attack (MA p.80). It's actually not that much cheaper, but it is the more realistic alternative.

For instance:
Combination (Shield bash/Face + Broadsword thrust/Torso vitals)
 Initially this is at -11/-9
  Put 9 points into this technique and your up to -5/-3
   Also buy Targeted Attack(Shield bash/Face) for 5 points and you attack at -2/-3.
    Finally get Targeted Attack(Broadsword thrust/Torso-vitals) for 4 points and you are now at -2/-1.

So you now have a technique bought for 18 points that allows you to make a very specific but also deadly trademark manoeuvre "bash and stab" where you first attack the targets face with your shield, at a -2 penalty (potentially stunning him). And then stab him in the vitals with your sword at a -1 modifier. All for 18 points.


This is actually a pretty good move. Shield being an Easy skill is cheap to get a level higher and faces are often relatively unarmoured so the low damage doesn't matter as much. And if the shield hit, remember that any injury to face requires a Knockdown and Stun check. The follow-up vital thrust is always deadly, but now the target has lower defense (as it's attack nr. 2) and the target might be stunned!
 Hit or not, this move also opens up for being able to Feint with your shield (requires you to have actually made an attack using the shield). This is good because, again, Shield is Easy so it's cheap to get a high skill with it, and getting a high skill now serves both an offensive and defensive purpose.
finally I wasted some points on making both attack targeted attacks. You could get a regular shield bash/sword thrust for as little as 9 points at +0/+0. But this one has more style, and the targeted attacks can be used outside of this specific combination as well :)
This message was last edited by the player at 19:36, Fri 04 Jan 2013.

These are great suggestions and thanks also for the guidance on Maptools.  Im such a technological dinosaur!  lol

In reply to Ceredyn (msg # 101):

NP. I ended up editing the suggestion to give it a bit more ...style. Sorry if it confuses now that you had already read it :\

The Trademark Move perk let's you add +1 to the all skill rolls for a move like that.

My experience with Extra Attack is that it plays poorly with skill caps. It isn't a very good deal otherwise; you could put those 25 points into the skill for +6, which buys off a Rapid Strike penalty quite nicely. I suppose it does work better when you're trying to do something like shield bash/stab, but there's nothing stopping the user from instead deciding to stab twice.

If you shield bash I assume you can't block with it during that turn, but what about dodge?  Would the shield still help your dodge after an attack?

This combo is cool, but it seems it would hurt your defenses.

In reply to RedSabaron (msg # 104):

There are many benefits to Extra Attack over higher skill and using Rapid Strike.

The points in a skill is really good, but it's only that skill. If you find yourself with another weapon or unarmed, those points won't help you, where EA still works.
EA can also be used with any other manoeuvre, such as a Move and Attack for instance (making the skill cap of 9 much more bearable as 2x9 =~75% chance of a hit). RS may not be used with Move and Attack, not even if using Heroic Charge.
Same as the first point, but EA opens up for a host of different tricks where you can exploit the tactical situation. You could make the "bash and stab" but you could also make a Slam and stab, or a trip and swing or a grab and knee-strike or attack two separate enemies.

I find EA to be cinematic because of the versatility it open ups for. I find it on par with very high skill level or weaponmaster/gunslinger. And despite that I agree somewhat with the statement that trait-cost doesn't automatically make something cinematic, I think the 25 points on this one is an indicator that it is not meant for normal people.

Nope, nothing in the rules prevent you from using the shield to block in the same turn. Nor any loss of it's DB bonus. Not even as an optional rule in Low Tech or Martial Arts.
But yeah, I have seen it houseruels pretty often, that you lose the DB bonus of the shield if you use it to attack.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:38, Fri 04 Jan 2013.

Just like you can attack and parry with a weapon in the the same turn, and wouldn't lose a staff's parry bonus.

Remember though that unless you take a modifier from Powers (multi-strike) you cannot use EA to attack with the same limb more than once. And just because "normal humans can take it" doesn't mean that it's not cinematic, just that one level (without multi-strike) isn't exotic/supernatural.

Shield bashes are not great attacks as it is. I wouldn't add an extra penalty for anyone using one. About the only thing going for them is that they are often heavy, and thus hard to parry.

Very good point.

Ýeah, until you get into cinematic DF play and ad some options from Martial arts. Suddenly you can do Swing cut damage with them and they weigh twice as much, making them über weapons that can't be parried and do a lot of damage as you have weapon-master shield. Get two of them for good measures so you do not have a "no shield side".

...yeah, it can become a bit silly.

Which is what I strive obsessively to avoid.  :)

Thanks for everyone's input.

finally got Maptools up and running again. Still a novice with the whole concept of importing tokens from other sources onto my Maptool, but want to give it a try for greater variety of characters.

Does anyone have a good link to a large treasure trove of character icons I can try to import onto my Maptools?

In my GURPS Star Wars game, one of my players developed the following rules for Force powers for me.  He wanted to get some feedback from the GURPS community as a whole.  There's a lot here, so rather than copy and paste the whole thing, I'm just going to post a link:  link to a message in another game

I wanted to use the magic system to model Force powers rather than using Advantages.  We'd like your feedback on what we came up with.

Anyone up for a GURPS Action game? Troubleshooters doing potentially illicit jobs for private clients. Leverage/Burn Notice/Person of Interest inspired. Sort of cyberpunk without the cyber (or the punk).

It's been my experience that Dungeon Fantasy games tend to have short lifespans here on Rpol.  Any thoughts on why that is?

Let me turn the question around a bit, which GURPS genres last the longest here?

The longest lasting one I was in was Arena of Champions. Arena game. Arena games seem to do really well.
Which other genres seem to have longevity?

I've been in a few fantasy (not DF) games which have lasted quite a while.  I'm of the understanding that the game I'm currently in has been going on for more than a year.

Prior to the game I'm currently in, I was in a Banestorm game which went pretty well.

Fantasy seems to do really well.  However, most of the DF games I've joined have ended after maybe a month at most.

Hm. That's interesting.

I wonder if DF games in meatspace last a long time or if they die out quickly as well?

I haven't had much of a chance to try a face-to-face DF game yet.  I had one which was going pretty well in the middle of last year.  Unfortunately, a leaky ceiling and a rain storm combined to spell doom for the character sheets.  The momentum of the game never fully recovered.

The most successful face-to-face GURPS games I've run have been Supers games.  The most successful ones I've been a player in have been either Modern or Sci-Fi.  While I wasn't a player in the game, I'm also aware that a friend of mine ran a pretty successful game based loosely on the tv show Supernatural.

Thus far, the wrestling game (which I mentioned in the rules thread) seems to be going well.  I'm still working out a few wrinkles in the rules since I'm still trying to figure out how to portray some of the tropes involved with pro-wrestling matches, but it's going surprisingly well.  The group is enthusiastic about playing.  With more time, I'll have more accurate answer of how well; currently, only two sessions have passed.

Games seem to succeed based on two key ingredients:  player commitment and GM commitment.  I don't think the genre has as much to do with it as the engagement of the GM and the players.

I've been in successful supers and arena games, but the two longest-living genres for me have been sci-fi (specifically GURPS Traveller) and fantasy.  I played in both for over four years, and the games were going before I joined them (one is wrapping up now, but the other is still going strong).

I'd agree with that.


It simply seems to me that a lot of the DF games I've joined here on Rpol do excellent when coming out of the gate, but then quickly and abruptly stop.  On more than one occasion it seemed as though a lot of the group simply stopped posting, and, in one of the games, the DM simply announced that he didn't feel like running the game any more.  The most disappointing thing about all of them has been that there are still a lot of character ideas (ones I created for those games) which I haven't fully explored.  I wish I were exaggerating when I said I think the longest one went for about a month before dying off.

I wonder if it has something to do with the character creation process lending itself to a bit less investment. I mean, you can easily just say: "Um...Catperson Swashbuckler, go!" And have no more characterization than that. And even if you have an involved backstory, it isn't going to really show up on the character sheet since (maybe in the quirks) since DF is very, very template based.

So maybe GURPS players are less invested in those PCs and more apt to abandon them than if they were custom made?

The templates provide a lot of choices that make me feel more invested than a ready-made character. I don't think that has anything to do with it.

I think players have failed expectations and become uninterested as a result. Make sure you set clear guidelines for posting frequency. (3-4 times/week and once/24 hours in combat seems very fair.) Hold to those guidelines. Keep your word. Dont change the players' expectations for how you're running the game unless the players are all in favor.

On the player side, all it takes is one person to hold the game up for everything to die out. If you don't want your game to die, be honest and ask your players why they aren't posting. It might be you, as the GM, being boring. It also might be one player who posts half as often as everyone else, which discourages everyone (including the GM).

For less experienced GMs, Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering is amazing. Buy it.

I don't think that's the case (at least, not necessarily). In my multiple failures at running play-by-post DF-style games (i.e. GURPS games that were based on d20-style adventure modules), I took the standard route to character creation of giving everybody X points to do with as they wished.

That didn't seem to evoke any greater level of commitment (for either the players or for myself) than using templates, unfortunately.


That said, I think that one reason GURPS arena games like Arena of Champions, Zuddha Yuddha, etc. have done well is that their format is much more friendly and compatible with the medium of play-by-post.  Your match starts, you have a week or two of activity, and then it's over. If you're busy IRL, you can skip the next round without hurting the game as a whole. If you don't like the game, you can quit without hurting the game as a whole. Nothing that any one player does prevents, or even significantly hinders, the game's continuation, so you avoid the "one bad apple spoils the whole game" problem that's endemic to more conventional PBP adventures.

So how can we apply that to more standard adventures?

It's my experience that unless you have some very exceptional and specific players, then in order for any game to work on rpol, it needs railroads. The players need something clear and concrete to have to respond to every time they log in.

This is easy with combat games such as arena-games. "itøs your turn to take an action".
It could be easy with DF-games as well if you run it purely encounter-driven.

But as soon as things gets lose and the players are supposed to "just small talk" or "figure out what do do next" Its my experience that things slow down and people stop posting.

As LandWalker pointed out, in "talk situations" one unresponsive player slows the game down. In combat-time you just skip that player or let him take some standard action "all out defense".


That's my experience at least.

Stripe's looking for players for a DF game who can post 2-3 times a day.

Here's the link in GPIA if you're interested:  link to a message in another game

Thanks for the heads up.

This message was deleted by the player at 02:23, Sun 17 Mar 2013.

how do I get my name unregistered from this forum? I don't really feel like I'll be playing any GURPS online, if at all at the moment.

Since this is treated like a game, you just need to contact one of the two GMs for the game.  Since I'm one of them, I'll remove you, Steve.

But I hope you give GURPS a chance at some point.  =)

I've been pondering the feasibility of a non-fantasy GURPS West March style sandbox game. For those who aren't familiar with it, it's basically a very gamist/simulationist style where the players occupy the sole point of civilization and sally forth to explore and investigate.

Play is almost entirely location-based. The plot consists almost entirely of clues the players discover leading to other mysterious ruins. The NPCs in "town" are shallowly presented; they're just there to resupply the PCs and provide a place to spend coin.

Expeditions into the wilderness (which gets more deadly the further from town you go) is entirely up to the PCs, as are the parties they form. Tabletop, it's designed as a catch-as-catch can game with groups of players getting together as schedules permit; while there might be 20+ players in the campaign, only 4-8 gather at once.

Anyway, to make this viable on rpol you'd need a large player-base, objective GMs willing to let the players die from unlucky rolls but not actively pursuing their demise, and the freedom to let the PC groups and alliances form and break organically.

In short, all the same traits an arena game calls for.

Out of pique I'd also like to make this non-fantasy. I think a post-apocalyptic game would work just as well, with one last bastion of humanity surrounded by zombies and mutants and what not.

Thoughts?

I am increasingly coming to the sad conclusion that unless a game is very scene/encounter-driven then I quickly drift off. And so does the vast majority of players.

What I mean by this is that every time I log in, thee has to be some very specific thing for me to react to or else I'll end up just not posting. And the word react here is very important. As it's as a passive participants that react to outside stimuli (ie. the GM's).

Games that focus on storytelling I have tried and failed at. I have tried to run the mas a GM and the same happened for my player (but not for me, I have no problem with being a narrative GM, its only as a player).


Anyway, my point is. For this to work I suspect it has to be the same. There has to be some clear goals. Each venture into the wild have to have a clearly set of continual scenes each with one or more specific things to do or not to do. Preferably with some specific die-rolls being needed.
Once things come to combat things become easy (which is also why arena games are easy to keep people interested in).



I might just be a pessimist. I am sure some people enjoy narrative and conversation-driven games. It's just my experience that such games tend to fail :/

An interesting concept that would be fun to try out with a sufficiently frequent posting rate.  Much of the play would come from the interaction of the PC's and their environment, including NPC's, and that requires a large amount of back and forth between the GM and the players.

Well, there would be no goals in this game that the players didn't set themselves... or rather, the goal is always "Explore." Explore what? Everything. Whatever you want to. But there's no particular order to do it in.

You'd need at least one PC to rise to the occasion and choose which blank spot on the map to fill in.

As far as narration? Conversation? Other than the PCs there's nobody to talk to. The only thing there is really to do is explore, kill the dangerous beasties that dwell in the hinterlands, and uncover the setting's secrets.

I guess that counts as a plot: piecing together clues to the days of yore. But it only matters if the PCs want it to.

So I guess the game would be primarily exploration, with combat almost as important, and social/problem solving almost negligible beyond "figure out how to unlock this puzzle" and "don't activate the trap."

I find the premise to be interesting.

In reply to Johnny Angel (msg # 137):

I think it sound like it could be interesting as well.  I've just joined this site and I've been kind of following this thread with interest.  I want to run a game myself someday, and I may want to make it very sandbox-ish at least.  I want to experience playing in such things first to see if I think I'm really up for the task.

It does sound intriguing, Tortuga.

I'm more of a fan of games with a definite story planned, but one that allows plenty of deviation from that story.  Still, the idea of uncovering an ancient civilization sounds like a fun premise.

I've actually wanted to play a game for a long time that's similar to the Kingmaker adventure path from Paizo, where the PCs carve out a new kingdom from the wilderness.  Landwalker had a fun one going for a while, and I'd welcome the chance to do something like that again.  (Ceredyn's Keep on the Borderlands, although module-focused, also offers a great chance to affect the gameworld politically, and it's been interesting to see the shift in the balance of power as a result of the PCs' actions.)

I think with an arena game, the combat provides enough excitement that the players keep coming back for more.   However, I think that at least one game served as a kind of offshoot of Wrathchild's Arena of Champions, where the PCs were members of an adventuring guild, and the whole thing was based on going off and doing different jobs for the guild.  The game you're describing would work very similarly, I think, no overarching meta-plot, but whereas that game was task-focused, your game would be more location-focused.

Some of you know I've recently folded my fantasy game. While some player bickering had an influence on my decision mostly it was because I made it too complicated.

I want to run a GURPS game and I think I've hit on an idea that will keep me focused on a more linear narrative which I think will give the game better legs.

I'm thinking about running an old AD&D module, converted to GURPS with a higher Tech level. Would there be interest in joining me for  a TL 4,  Keep on the Borderlands game?

I'm thinking Dungeon Fantasy plus guns. Ideas? Pit falls?

I would give it a try if just having lots of regular GURPS stuff (Basic, LT, HT, M, MA) but not DF would work.

I've been itching to play a wizard of some sort, so I'd give it a go.

I think that you could pull basically anything off as long as the party was a cohesive group. You could run an old DnD module, or one of your own creation, or even another sandbox game... but if you have 3 different PC groups, you're basically running 3 different games.

By DF with guns, do you mean actual delving, but an "official" higher TL? There is a Pyamid issue that added two options for explosives: Demolisher and Musketeer. In general, DF is TL 3, but it usually includes TL 4 fencing weapons, armor, and the like.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:48, Fri 22 Mar 2013.

In reply to cltchrn (msg # 144):

Yes, that's what I mean. I don't remember seeing that article. Which issue was it in?

Not remembering the number, but it's titled Dungeon Fantasy.

GURPS DF + old D&D modules would be an excellent fit.

In reply to cltchrn (msg # 146):

Found it, Pyramid #3-36, very cool just the kind of thing I was looking for.

http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-2636

In reply to Gurpser (msg # 148):

Are you planning on using the dungeon fantasy rules, or just having a dungeon crawl game? Also what point level are you thinking of?

I'm still trying to decide.  If I go DF it'll be 250 and I'd want to use the templates keeping to them pretty strictly. However I'm thinking lower point levels might be fun too.

There are some "DF on the cheap" template somewhere, with the DF templates shaved down to lower points totals. I can try to find them if your interested.

Do you mean DF 15, Henchmen? 125-point Henchmen and 62-point Bargain-Henchmen. Pretty nifty, even providing lenses for building totally different Hero delvers, a la MH Sidekicks.

In reply to cltchrn (msg # 152):

No, it was unofficial. Here:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=68862 (including links to both a PDF version and GCA version).

In reply to MazVN (msg # 153):

Nice, thanks.

I'm contemplating setting up a new arena game. The last one was actually a lot of fun, but I had made some decisions that ended up biting me in the ass.

The arena I am interested in would be low points. Have absolutely no cinematic abilities (not even extra effort). Would be TL:3 (not fantasy TL:4). Would use no DF-weapon or armour stuff, only Low-Tech. In fact I would likely make sets of armour available and not allow full customisation. And not allow every possible TL:0-3 weapons either.

Now my question is two-fold.

First: Does anyone think they would be interested in such a game?

Second: I need a setting so we can add fluff and give it character outside of "just a lot of numbers". As other mentioned before, what really keeps an arena game going isn't the fights, but the between-fight banter.
After thinking through all the settings I know, I've come to think the Lord of The Rings setting would actually be a pretty good fit. It comes of as more low-tech and slightly less cinematic than many other fantasy settings. It could be historically, but I actually like the option of players making fantasy races. It also has rich background info for players to draw on.
But I would need help to construct an arena where it make sense for dwarves, men, orcs, maybe even else, to fight... well maybe that part isn't so important.



There are a lot of details I haven't worked out yet. But before I dive into it, I wanted to hear if there was any interest at all?
This message was last edited by the player at 17:25, Sun 24 Mar 2013.

I'd play in that. As for a plausible setting, probably some horrible orc pit somewhere. Non evil races are prisoners, forced to fight.

Can I play a Maiar? What about Balrog?

Hehe. Good one.

I'm thinking of running a GURPS Martial arts game. I posted in Game Ideas about it, but thought I'd just jaw on about it here with other Gurpsers (including Gurpser) and brainstorm a bit.

The game is set in a run down and dangerous city. Think Robocop's Detroit or the city from The Crow, though without so many guns. Organized crime runs rampant, and the cops are often just as bad. Gun laws are draconian, so while some people have firearms, fists, baseball bats, and knives are more common.

The players are the top students in their martial arts class, and their instructor has told them that to continue their training they need to use their skills in the real world, protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. That's the structure of the campaign.

While all this fighting is going on, the characters still have lives, jobs, families to maintain. They're devoted to the path of the martial artist, but not so much that they want to withdraw from the real world, get arrested, lose their jobs, so they need to be careful and not neglect practical matters while fighting gangmembers and rescuing kidnapped children.

Power Level:

The PCs have a 75 point base sheet that covers everything about them that isn't related to beating people up. Job skills, other talents, etc. Some of it might be incidentally useful to a martial artist, but I won't pick any PCs who are obviously trying to min-max with these 75 points. Spend them all on ST or DX and I'll raise an eyebrow.

On top of that they get a martial arts package from 25-75 points to spend on skills and techniques taught by the martial art they're learning, ending up with combat skills in the 13-15 range. Skilled students, but not masters.

Difficulty will scale to their abilities. If they're at the 25 points of combat abilities level, their foes will mostly fight at DX level. At the other end, they're fighting trained martial artists.

Thoughts?

What is the hook / necessity that would have them value advancing their training enough to risk their families?

I think you would need a built in hook stronger than just the desire to be better fighters.  Each of them as posited will probably have dependents (assuming they are adults of age) unless families are just extended and not immediate.

The hook is that their development as martial artists has plateaued until they get real world experience/develop their sense of civic responsibility. This doesn't necessarily mean "be a better fighter" unless that's all the character gains from studying their art.

Beyond that I don't want to restrict everyone by giving them the same interior motivations as to why becoming more proficient in their art is important enough for the risk involved.

That's a player-level character creation choice.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:22, Mon 25 Mar 2013.

Another very different game idea. Let me know what you guys think about the following:

It started slowly. Missing pets. A few odd murders. Reports of... things spotted in the parks and sewers after dark. Nothing substantial, nothing that couldn't be explained.

Then someone killed... something. It was big. Inhuman. Ugly, and wearing some sort of chainmail armor, carrying a big club. It took half a clip to put it down, and the autopsy proved that it wasn't human on the inside. The papers called it an ogre.

Then the towers started popping up. Huge structures in the middle of cities, towns, cornfields. Caves opening up in the sides of hills. Catacombs in suburban basements. The military swept into the more public appearances, shutting them down, closing them off, but rumors snuck out of vast treasures, strange monsters, and most interestingly, magic.

Picking up on gamer nomenculture, the media started to call them "dungeons". The governments of the world almost universally declared them disaster sites, cordoning them off, demolishing what they could, collapsing caves, but it can take days for them to learn about those that show up in out of the way places.

A cottage industry has sprung up of brave and reckless dungeon-crawlers trying to get in, get rich, and get out before the military shows up to blow the entrances. Most of the time, they don't come out again. That doesn't seem to discourage people from trying.

Delvers is a GURPS 4e game set in a modern world being spiked with instances of fantasy. The players are those desperate, greedy, or crazy enough to risk making runs into these dangerous places for the treasure that hides within.

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 162):

Sounds interesting. What point total are you thinking of?

I'd like to shoot for characters who are capable enough to consider attempting this, but not so much that it's trivial or easy for them. I'm thinking 150-200 points.

Sounds good. Would you likely be allowing much in the way of military small arms, or just civilian stuff?
This message had punctuation tweaked by the player at 04:49, Tue 26 Mar 2013.

Military gear is available if you're willing to pay black market prices and risk ATF attention. It's generally a lot less inconspicuous to run around with, but that might not matter if you're checking out a cave system in the middle of nowhere.

The way I see the flow of gameplay going is that the players are similar to stormchases, driving around the country looking for rumors of new dungeons before the Feds hear about them, delving into an extremely dangerous situation, then trying to unload the loot they acquire without attracting too much attention.

Would semi-auto LC3 versions of assault riles be available with out going to the black market?

Yep, though state and federal laws are often contradictory about what you can legally transport and how. Don't get caught and it shouldn't matter.

Sounds very interesting.  In a "real" world context of today I could see a few ex-military not quite re-adjusted to civilian life types teaming up with cryptozoologist types to give it a go.

On the don't get caught front, it does not take much of a gunsmith to convert legal semi-auto long arms to full auto with aftermarket parts.

Grenades might be a problem - but it sure would be handy if we had some. ;^)

I sure hope the demise of SWG is a cruel, cruel April Fool's prank.

Who is SWG?

Splattered with Gore

In reply to krusher (msg # 172):

Aaah.

That was my first instinct. Ceredyn is back on the ban list though. I don't know if that is a legacy of any of the other times he requested a ban.

The ban list was last updated thursday the 28th, so it looks like it's a hold over as he was on after that.

Me and Ceredyn do not match in playstyle, but SWG seemed like a fun game, from what I saw of it. Would be a shame for it to stop before the labyrinth is completed. So I think there's a good chance it's just an Aprils joke. :)

Also, because that sentence confused me... what do you mean by "any of the other times he requested a ban"? To help him "not waste time on Rpol" or what? I can relate to that. *nods*.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:03, Mon 01 Apr 2013.

I wonder if the prize he had for the winner of the labyrinth caused the problem, if there is one.

He's not on the "Help Me, I can't help myself list":  link to a message in another game

I think we'll hear from him soon enough.  =)

I hope so..

Copied all my character stuff from there just in case.

I think what I'd like to run is a horror/investigative game mixed in with some other genre. Any requests/suggestions?

"The Fearful Founders": paranormal investigators in colonial America.

"The horror... the horror...": GURPS Horror + GURPS SEALs in Vietnam.

Lately I've been having the idea that a fantasy game mixed with that genre might be interesting.  The movie 13th Warrior with maybe a little bit of the show Supernatural and a dash of the Dresden Files.

GURPS Ravenloft?

GURPS Ravenloft games are fun.  I was in one a few years ago, but it sadly died on the vine.
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:26, Thu 04 Apr 2013.

I wouldn't run it as a DF game, just something dark/gothic fantasy. The slipstream nature of the setting offers a wide variety of character world origins, too.

Infinite Worlds Ravenloft?

I'd submit a character for the Ravenloft game.

I'd like opinions on the following possible permutations, please:

1. Infinite Cadets. Players are cadets at Infinity Patrol HQ, going through their training, when a conveyor accident dumps them into Ravenloft.

2. Rescue Mission. Players are a squad of penetration service scouts, performing a search and rescue mission for a group of cadets whose conveyor went missing.

3. Players are a Time Tours guide, crew, and passengers whose trip to Johnson's Rome gets sucked VERY off course.

4. PCs are swagmen on the lam from the I-Cops; they jump into the wrong Nexus Portal to get away.

In any case, the emphasis will be focused on the atmosphere and horror of the setting, rather than a pulpy fearless monster hunters game. This is horror more than fantasy, and even in case 4, where the players don't have to be from homeline, you won't have weird superpowers or Quick Gadgeteer.

1 or 2, depending on the desired point level, with 1 being the lower.

Point value would be around 125 for cadets, 175 for penetration servicemen, 100 for Time Tours or Swagmen.

Higher point levels mean a proportionately harder game. It'll be scaled to your capabilities in any event.

1 or 2, with a preference for 2.

Went with 2. Go make guys for it.

Hey guys.

I'm writing up a setting for a GURPS game I'm starting soon called A Moon Over Icewood. It's about 18th century town in the Alaskan forest during winter which is plagued by dark and horrific events, which only grow more grim as the winter grows colder and more sinister.

Its straight up horror material, and I'm going full adult with it. I'm writing up a ton of material for it; writing up citizens, important people, buildings, businesses, etc. Its meant to be a combination of mystery and survival, where you're trying to juggle staying alive in an increasingly hostile climate whilst dark forces continue to wear down at the town. Without intervention, all will be lost.

Can anyone suggest any tips on building a setting like this? Things to consider? Material to look at that's similar? Would help a lot in making the setting rich and worthy for players to explore.

Have you seen a film called "Ravenous" with Guy Pearce and Robert Carlyle: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0129332/

It's 19th Century rather than 18th but it's got some common themes with the setting/situation you're describing.

Hope that helps.

No, but I have seen The Grey, where Liam Neison is trapped in Alaska with the survivors of a plane crash, facing the elements, wolves and other dangers.

This may not be what you're thinking of, but the two things that came to mind were comics.

30 Days of Night was turned into a film, which I never saw, but the comic did a nice job of creating the mood for an isolated Alaskan town stalked by horror:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Days_of_Night

And Warren Ellis in his Global Frequency comic looked at a Norwegian town haunted by strange visions:  http://comicbookdb.com/issue.php?ID=2330

Not a lot of settlement in 18th Century Alaska beyond the natives.  Pretty much just maybe some Russian fur trading stations on the coast IIRC.

I second the 30 Days of Night.  I also recall a short story (perhaps turned into a Twilight Zone - not sure) about a small Siberian town where there was an alliance of Werewolves and Vampires each of whom protected the other during their off seasons (endless day/summer for the Vamps, Endless night/winter for the Wolves)

Lost me a the Adult though, and some of the best horror ever written would not need that rating.

Yeah, I'm thinking of shifting the time period to the 19th century, where there were more sort of frontier towns. Not exactly a history buff for Alaska.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:37, Fri 19 Apr 2013.

Long story short:

18th century: The Russians were settling Alaska. The game would work fine if we were playing Russians. The Spaniards messed around a little but left soon, and the Brits had a few isolated trading ports, but nothing significant.

Russia sold Alaska to the US in 1867. We largely ignored it until the 1890s gold rush.

So a 1890s era gold rush sort of game would work, too. It wasn't even a US territory until the early 20th century, though.

I'm not sure the gold rush feeling would work. Its more of a town where people are complacent, rather than loads of miners coming to seek fortune. Early 20th century probably works better. Before they built a railroad in the country, but at least after they started some industry in mining, fishing, and the like.

Then I'd suggest one of:

1. Russian Alaska c. 1860s. They spent 80 years settling it; they could easily have a settled town.

2. A town that was founded during the rush. Take 1890. Add however old you want the town to be. Alaska never has a railroad connecting it to the lower 48 states, but there's an Alaska railroad as of 1902.

3. Set the game in Canada instead.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:59, Fri 19 Apr 2013.

Or pick a whaling town on the coast.  They were pretty quiet in the winter.

Another comic recommendation this time.  =)  For a look at a fictionalized version of a Yukon mining town, you can check out Don Rosa's The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck or its companion book, creatively titled The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck Companion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...es_of_Scrooge_McDuck

Ch. 8, "King of the Klondike," is a neat look at gold-rush towns.

In the Companion, Ch. 8a and Ch. 8b, "The Prisoner of White Agony Creek" and "Hearts of the Yukon," gives you more to look at.

There's also Carl Barks' "Back to the Klondike" and Rosa's "Last Sled to Dawson," but those stories only show the Yukon in flashbacks.

(You'll have to wait for the orchestra soundtrack, though. I think  Tuomas Holopainen is still composing it.)
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:46, Fri 19 Apr 2013.

I originally did set it in Canada but changed it to Alaska to have a more isolated feel. There's more of a human presence in Canada when compared to Alaska.

Again, probably going to just end up setting it in early 1900.

If you set it during the 18th century anywhere but New England is going to be fairly isolated.

And areas of New England would be isolated as well. Our technology really skews our ideas of what isolation is.

Does anybody here know of any good, and preferably straight-forward, methods for making a labeled hex grid other than mkhexgrid?

I have to throw in that final qualifier mostly because I've found that the hexes I get out of mkhexgrid aren't "thick enough", so the lines have a tendency to vanish at certain zoom levels in MapTool...

Maptool stopped working for me.

I can not get Maptool to work currently either.

Hexographer is free and might do what you want.

Can't get it to work?  As in, the program won't start? Seems odd.

I only use it for making maps, not for actually running games online, but I'd like to be able to put labels on the hexes (e.g. so someone can say "I move to C19" or some such).

It's a conflict with the latest version of Java, apparently.

I just discovered I could get the 1.3.b89 version to work if one downloads the zip file rather than the .dmg file.

A general polling of the public interest:

I am contemplating running a low-tech arena game. Very generic, no fluffy frills or any of that. The main objective is to act as a sort of playtest / feedback session for a couple of house rules that I've been working on for quite some time—the primary one being an overhaul of the melee damage system that is intended both to bring the melee damage results more into the realm of believability (rather than the "punch as hard as a Colt .45" neighborhood they're currently in) and to base damage on a modified ST roll in order to get a nice bell curve going, and the secondary one being a different take on the hit location / attack location system.  There are a number of other, lesser house rules as well.

There are a couple of forewarnings about this, though:

1. The damage overhaul is very complicated. It isn't that it does a lot of calculations, but the calculations it does do just don't make sense for RPOL's dice roller. I use a spreadsheet to make the whole thing palatable.
   
   
2. Damage values are significantly lower than RAW. Remember, Low-Tech points out that Fine Mail (DR 4/2*) could "resist all but the heaviest sword cuts and spear thrusts."  That meant that when I set about my calculations, I fully intended for most spear thrusts and sword cuts to have a very hard time with DR 4 mail. Case in point, a ST 12 man making a basic Attack with a broadsword has an average damage of 3.71. Legitimately injuring somebody wearing respectable armor mostly means having to hit where their armor isn't, or making Committed (Strong) or All-Out (Strong) attacks.

This is not apt to be a cinematic arena (although I do allow Weapon Master at the moment, as well as the Cinematic damages from Deadly Spring. We'll see if either of those holds...).  I'm liable to use just about every gritty/realistic optional rule I can lay my hands on. I may also throw in the Last Gasp rules from Pyramid 3/34.

If any of that sounds appealing to you, and if you'd have any interest in assisting with the playtesting of this stuff, let me know.  If it looks like I can get a handful of folks willing to put up with me for a while, I'll set something up and see what happens.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:33, Mon 22 Apr 2013.

Sounds interesting, LW.  I foresee a lot of attacks aiming for chinks in armor.  =)

Doesn't a sword swing or spear thrust average 3.5 for a ST 10 attacker (most of them) anyway?

Indeed!  I am a strong advocate of targeting chinks, gaps (from LT.101), and even just "hit locations that don't have the good stuff covering them."

I'm hoping to also see a lot of uses of things like Sweep, Hook, Setup Attacks (from Pyramid 3/52, "Delayed Gratification"), and the like. Anything to get the edge necessary for a decisive blow!



A two-handed spear thrust, using a basic attack by a ST 10 wielder, is 1d+1 imp, with an average of 4.5. The same numbers are true for a ST 10 basic broadsword slash, only replacing "imp" with "cut."  Meaning that an average person making a ho-hum attack beats Fine Mail more than half of the time—that's hardly "heaviest sword cuts and spear thrusts" territory.

And because the ST-based damage ramps up so quickly by RAW, you get into "DR 4 is a minor nuisance" territory awfully quickly...

I'm not saying that my calculations are going to be everyone's cup of tea, though. A lot of people will probably hate it, both in theory and in practice, and that's fine, and I absolutely understand the rationale behind that position.  I've just always been disappointed by how easily armor becomes marginal in the GURPS muscle-based damage system, so this is something to make me feel better about the meaningfulness of armor in a game world.

Yeah, my problem with it is that fights go on for too long as it is. But for certain types of games nerfing damage probably works. :)

In reply to LandWalker (msg # 215):

Did you take edge protection into the calculation? Since you focus on DR:4 and not DR:8?

I took edge protection into account, but probably not in the way (or with the conclusions) that you have in mind.  The end conclusion was "DR N rather than DR N×2 is the correct focal point."

Rationale looks something like this (although it's early in the morning, so forgive my still-dormant brain if I butcher this):

• DR 4 should be good for resisting "all but the heaviest sword cuts and spear thrusts" by a human opponent.
• By RAW, a ST 10 wielder does an average of 4.5 basic damage with a one-handed Broadsword Cut or 2.5 basic damage with a Short Baton swing.
• The Short Baton, then, defeats the DR of Fine Mail (2 vs. crushing) on an average roll.
• The average roll of a Broadsword cut (4.5) is higher than the DR of Fine Mail (4 vs. cutting) by the same amount (half a point).
• If the mail isn't adequately "resisting" the Small Baton, then it's also not adequately resisting the Broadsword. Which makes sense, because you're still suffering injury even if you aren't getting opened up across the chest.

Basically the shorter version is "If you're still getting slowly bludgeoned to death, then that's not true resistance to an attack."

Yes, that means that in my damage calculation, cutting damage has a very hard time penetrating enough to effect its damage multiplier—and for a person of average strength making an unmodified Attack, it's actually impossible except on a critical hit. And I'm 100% okay with that—swords are for cutting down unarmored opponents, hacking at unarmored locations of an enemy, or for thrusting (especially for armor gaps!).  Not having that pesky Parry 0U means they're also handy for defense and parrying Henri's mace, of course.

You should also consider that if the fine mail has the frequently found 1 DR underlayer intended to protect against crushing / blunt trauma damage, then those average attack examples have no effect as the DR of Fine Mail with padding is 5/3, enough to defeat that average roll of 4.5 and 2.5.  That average guy has only a 1/3 chance of doing any damage at all.

If fighters in the playtest wish to layer armor, they are more than welcome to do so, of course.

As far as the effects of that under RAW, however, you're still looking at someone of wholly unnoteworthy ST defeating DR 4 on 33% of their attacks--and those aren't even attacks where they're trying hard (i.e. Committed or All-Out Attacks).  I understand that different people may draw different interpretations of "resists all but the heaviest" cutting and impaling attacks, but for me, that just ain't it.  If you want to cause injury through that kind of armor, you better be putting some serious muscle into it.

Anyway, it sounds like Mick might be on board.  If two or three more folks are interested in helping take this for a test drive, that should be enough to get things started.

I interpret it as meaningless flavor text.

Although I disagree with your interpretation I'd be more than happy to throw some dice at the the issue with you. Sign me up.

And I'll help you playtest it, man.

I am happy to help playtest as well.

I really appreciate you guys being willing to humor me on this.  3 is enough to get us started, I think, and I can scrounge up a fourth to round it out. When I get home tonight I'll get working on putting something together for it so we can start throwing stones at my glass house.

Isn't there an optional rule where you double the DR against cutting weapons? You only take cutting damage if it gets through that, otherwise it is crushing. I think it is in Low Tech. That coupled with damage rules for armor might give you the realism you're craving.

Alright, folks.  Those brave souls willing to endure this travesty have been added to the game.  Let me know if you have any issues, and I'll continue putting stuff together.  I'll also be uploading the "Damage Spreadsheet" somewhere (any good suggestions?  I only know of Rapidshare and Dropbox, and have limited experience with either) so you can download and commence laughing at it.

link to another game
This message was last edited by the player at 22:07, Mon 22 Apr 2013.

Dropbox is good.  You can also use Google docs, too.

That's the Edge Protection rule I mentioned.

So, anyone up for running a Discworld game (preferrably in 4th ed) involving a sapient ferret?

A . . . sapient ferret?  =)

I want to play the sapient pearwood trunk.

Rather than the Ferreting Sapient?

Yah know, capable of tool use, speaking morporkian, and whatnot

Isn't that more or less CMOT Dibbler? He always gave me a certain ferret-vibe ;)

Someday I'll run a Discworld game with a cyberpunk theme. Shades-runners.

In reply to MazVN (msg # 235):

Well yeah, but I want one that might have a very real danger of being used for sausage... and jokes aside, I like this shades runner idea.

So the slipstream world hopping sandbox game is going great and I love running a single game with multiple groups of players all bouncing around. It's been going for months and is closing in on 5000 posts.

I'd sort of like to run another one, but I'd need to pick a set-up that interests enough players. The basic pattern would be the same:

* multiple groups of players who don't interact directly much, but whose actions have an effect felt by the others.

* long periods of downtime representing day-to-day life that we largely skim over punctuated by sudden adventures generated by player choice and the consequences of their actions

* focus on the characters and their development rather than following a single linear plot.

So I'm looking for suggestions for campaign set-ups.

One that springs to mind easily enough is a superhero game. Players are different teams in different parts of the same city, or different cities.

Cyberpunk would work too. Different attitudes, but different groups of ops.

Fantasy viz a different parties with different goals and different focuses. A Banestorm game, perhaps.

Ideas? Interest?

I second that. The Shade-runners idea is very cool :)

I invite any of you to run with it. I'm not funny enough to run discworld, and failed gamer humor sets my teeth on edge.

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 240):

Thanks for offering it up :)

I might run it at some point but it would probably be a relatively serious encounter-based game. Where the weirdness of the Discworld is sprinkling on top and a mood setter, but not the focus of the game. I also feel I probably don't know the Ankh-Morpork well enough. Although maybe this could help as inspiration: http://discworldapp.com/

I could run it if everyone agreed that it was going to be "weird" discworld instead of "we try to be funny but don't realize how hard comedy actually is" discworld.

Hehehehe, good point.

I don't know, I think you need to lighten up on the bad comedy thing. It's not like we get a lot of good writing here anyway. The only way to get better, at anything, is practice. If you go to an open mic show expecting to hear the next Stevie Ray Vaughan or Bill Hicks you're going to have to sit through somethings that set those teeth on edge.

Okay, never mind then. My plate is pretty full anyway.

Oh, don't worry I wasn't planning on playing. Just think budding comedians should be nurtured.

The app would be great if it came in android. I think you'd do ok running it as long as you are ok with non-disc references.


Edit:also the city watch books are my favorite books. I've always wanted to run in Snapcase's time but that might not be too good for a shades runner game.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:39, Thu 25 Apr 2013.

That would be interesting.

Super Hero? ... Shouldn't they be Sub-heroes in Disc World?

They would but that quote you refer to is about another game.

Well, GURPS Discworld specifically points out that comedy is not the same as incompetence. Funny is not the same as stupid.

"Because a discworld game should be (mostly) comic, some players may come up with silly, inconsistent, or unbalanced characters. This indicates a misunderstanding of the setting. The Disc is a strange place, and much that happens is funny, but the inhabitants are more than straight-men and victims.... Comedy on the discworld comes from situation and personality."

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 251):

Ya know given time and lack of sjgames gratification I will eventually finish my fan conversion.

Okay, I've basically got two game ideas buzzing around in my skull.

The first is a GURPS Supers game set at the start of the Marvel Universe's Superhero Age. Sort of an Ultimates thing, updating the Fantastic Four's initial flight to occur in 2013, along with the appearances of Thor, the Hulk, Iron Man, Spidey, etc. The players would be among the first metahumans right alongside them, with their own origin stories, etc.

I'd do my usual GURPS Supers thing; you can build your "normal" character on 50, 75, 100, or 150 points, but the more you spend the fewer points in powers you get. 250 point characters don't get any powers at all; they're the Hawkeyes and Punishers and Moon Knights of the setting.

How many points in powers you get depends on how much control you give the GM. Total control? You're a thousand point character. Make the mechanics yourself? You get 250. That includes your "normal" self. Give me a theme? You get 500.

Either way, your powers manifest gradually, and you need to learn how to use them.

Idea two:
I'm a writer. I've published a lot of steampunk, and I just finished the rough draft of my first epic fantasy. I think it'd make a fun game, so I'm going to run a game based on it. Not exactly, of course. My games aren't terribly linear, and the protagonist is being replaced by a group of PCs, but the setting, NPCs, and some of the events are the same. So this'd be a 125-150 point TL 2-3 fantasy game set in the world of a novel I'll be publishing in a few months. Sort of a sneak preview for the players, I guess.

Call it a reverse Dragonlance? A game based on a book? I dunno.

Thoughts?

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 253):

I like both, so I would say do both! but I lean more to the supers game just because I like your idea on creating the characters (should I put myself in your hands or go for it myself? yay!).

So I would vote for supers. I got plenty of ideas for powers, some recent!

Well, the 3 power options are:

Leave it in my hands (1000 point character)
Give me a theme, like "Fire" or "Healing". Simple input from the player. (500 point character). Nothing that's an actual power. "Strong" is fine. "Superhuman Strength" is not.
Build it yourself (subject to GM approval; 250 point character)

I'll probably also allow players to specify powers they didn't find interesting.

I'd give any of them a shot.

I've never played GURPS Superheroes before, so the thousand point character would save me a lot of trouble. I'd just have to look up powers as I discovered I had em.

I'm for the supers idea, but I hope powers don't manifest too gradually.

I've seen some fold up before we even got to discovering powers.

The Supers game sounds fun and the idea of being a new hero cutting one's teeth along side cannons is cool.

It wouldn't be instantly, but you'd start to discover them fairly quickly. You'd have an origin in the first or second scene.

You're all welcome to make characters for the epic fantasy game. link to another game

In a Dungeon Fantasy game, what are some tips to help a Bard's Rapier Wit from getting out of hand?

In my current game, it hasn't gotten out of hand.  At the beginning of the night, it took me by surprise, but I read over it, and I'm comfortable with it for the time being.  However, I can see how it might get a little crazy once more points become available.

Here are a few ideas:

1. The foe must be sentient (IQ 6+), viz., he must be able to speak a language.
   
2. The foe must understand the language spoken by the Bard.
   
3. The repartee must be convincingly witty.
   
4. The Bard must have some (even remedial) knowledge about the foe with which to form a witty comment.

Number 1 is pretty self explanatory: If they are not intelligent enough to understand speech, they cannot be affected by a retort.

Number 2 is similar, but I add the following caveat: The Public Speaking roll is at -1 if the foe knows the Bard's language at an Accented level, -3 if Broken.

Number 3 is subject to your interpretation. You could even give bonuses or penalties based on how witty you think it is.

Number 4 is the trickiest one to explain to the players. For example, if the party knows they will be facing the Wizards of the West, the Bard could do a bit of research about them by either asking for pertinent information or doing research themselves (with an appropriate roll), essentially preparing himself to be able to outwit them verbally.

By the same token, the Bard won't usually be able to use Rapier Wit on random encounter Bandit 1 unless the player can convince me that he has some method of discerning similar background information (and they meet conditions 1 and 2). For example, if the player knew that most Shadow-Elves in this region have been stricken with poverty, I would be inclined to allow him to use Rapier Wit on Bandit 1 according to that background information.

As a little bonus, if the Bard has had the opportunity prior to the fight to make a Body Sense roll (not in combat), I allow them to use Rapier Wit so long as they meet conditions 1 and 2.

This can discourage players from wanting to even take the trait because it seems harsh, but if you can convince them of your fairness, it can work.

In reply to cltchrn (msg # 263):

That seems like a good set of guidelines.  I feel as though, I was a little more generous tonight than I should have been.  While I'm understand what the trait does, I haven't seen it in play enough to get a good feel for what modifiers would be appropriate when giving the enemy a will roll.  Your comment about the bandit was insightful.

Honestly, it's okay to be generous sometimes. As a player, it feels good when things work well. The benefit that it gives you is that gauge of how much is too much. If you happen to be less generous next time, the player has no right to complain. It was but for GM mercy that it worked in the first place. It also really helps to be honest. If you just tell your player that you aren't completely comfortable with the use of the trait and that you'd like to try a few parameters to see how they work, they'll be a bit more understanding (viz., less frustrated) than if you just arbitrarily nerf what was working just fine a minute ago.

Hope that helps. :)

In the current scenario, there is a combat tournament going on.  One of the PCs entered the tournament.  The Bard PC is using Rapier Wit to heckle the opponents and help the fighting PC win.  I think it's a cool idea, so I'm allowing it, but I'm concerned it may make some of the later fights far easier than intended.

To this condition I object.  A player can play a character stronger than they are, more agile, smarter, or with any number of abilities or skills that they themselves do not in real life know.  This should be no different.

I would suggest that common sense be your guide.  The advantage states “This advantage is usually only appropriate in a silly campaign!”  To me that means a world where normal rules don’t always apply, such as people are mentally stunned by verbal insults to the point that they don’t defend well when being attacked with sharp objects.

If you're running a realistic campaign I would limit the Rapier Wit in some way.  Give the foes big Will bonuses because, well, how often do you see someone truly stunned by hecklers?

For groups of foes, I've been considering allowing the leader of a group to oppose Rapier Wit with a Leadership roll.

In reply to Johnny Angel (msg # 269):

That right there... pretty good.

I agree with you to an extent, but I was taking that particular idea straight from the text of Basic:


I'm not sure how this could mean anything but what I said, but I'd be interested in how you are reading it. I understand this to mean that the GM may give bonuses or penalties based on the words of the repartee itself. This is not to say it must be an automatic failure if it isn't that great, but it can be a way to both control the potential abuse of the trait while encouraging creativity. :)

In reply to Linkdead (msg # 268):

Given Dungeon Fantasy RAW, Rapier Wit is appropriate. (It's on the Bard template.)


In reply to Johnny Angel (msg # 269):

Another thing to remember about groups is what the trait itself says in Basic:

Emphasis mine. That means five baddies gives -5. Ten gives -10. It's going to fix itself pretty quick. Adding to that your idea of the Leadership roll is brilliant. I am for it. :)

Doesn't Elan use something like Rapier Wit in Order of the Stick?  Or maybe I'm thinking about a swashbuckler class feature that involves creative punning.

I think he may have done so in one of the strips.

Also, the Swashbuckler DF template does allow it as an optional trait.

Any one hear anything from Gurpser?  Do we know if he is alive and well?

I forget the name of it, but I left a game about a month ago that Gurpser had seemed to have abandoned. If I recall, there were posts in another game run by him/her but no word on why the one I played in was dropped.

No clue about Gurpser.  But I did play in some of his games and he would just disappear. So who knows, maybe he will just pop up again.

What are folks best suggestions for avoiding game-death by combat?  By this I mean the granularity of GURPS combat being less than conducive to rapid resolution in PBP situations.

Has anyone experimented with ways to compress the combats?

I usually simplify initiative to "before the opposition" "the opposition" and "after the opposition" and let players post in whatever order during those phases.

I also institute a strict 24 hour clock on combat posting. Post or your turn is skipped.

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone out there that wants to kill B'harne?

That is to say does anyone wanna run a Jihad to Destroy Barney game?

I'd like to run a 1930s pulp supers game. Like all the games I run, focus will be on immersion to the point of balancing your social life and career with running around and fighting nazi spies and gangsters. The game will lead up to World War 2, though it's entirely possible to alter the course of history, potentially into something entirely unrecognizable.

The general focus will be on your careers as crime-fighters as the years roll by. The nature of powers will evolve as the game moves on... in the pulp era, for the most part, they make you better at doing things that fall within the realm of human possibility... though there might be exceptions.

What happens "on screen" will be a relatively short span of your lives. Months, or even years might be skimmed over between "adventures". Most of your life is routine - even if that routine involves fighting mobsters or nazis, only the "important" conflicts that involve all the PCs will be represented "on screen".

I believe this will focus the game on who you are and who you become through your experiences rather than on the experiences themselves, and it allows us to play out decades of in-game time without the game lasting decades.

Characters:
After the event that bestows you with powers, you'll be worth 250 points. You can create characters of any point value up to that 250 (maxing out means no powers). Every play may take one ! skill.

I'm looking for strongly motivated characters with the drive to pursue their goals in absence of GM prompting. There will be a plot, but you'll have the opportunity to pursue your own agendas, and dynamic characters are more interesting than static ones.

Thoughts? Questions? Suggestions?
This message was last edited by the player at 23:47, Mon 30 Dec 2013.

No suggestions or anything other than "I'm down to play this."

So it starts as an origin story?

It's an inciting incident; an event that changes the world with the appearance of superhuman abilities. The players will be involved and among the first affected, which will happen in play.

I second this. :D

Moving this discussion from the Game ad thread.


See, I'm just the opposite. I hate blind character creation.

If I play the experienced, cynical, jaded character I want someone else to play the naive idealist. Then we can bicker and riff off of the differences.

Or if the group are all chatty-cathy's I'll play the taciturn, no-nonsense one who never uses more words than he has to.

Part of the fun (for me) of roleplaying is those character interactions. You get some of that with npc's with a good gm but in my experience it works better with the other PC's.

What is it you dislike about blind character creation?  There is nothing inherent in it to my eye that prevents lots of character interactions.  For myself I like figuring out just what makes the other characters tick in the course of the game rather than knowing up front what a character will be like.

It's about character orchestration, or what in philosophy of literature they call unity of opposites. Maximum dramatic potential comes from a cast who share conflicting personality traits.

A GM interested in a compelling group dynamic can choose to assemble a player-group with an eye towards the most interesting combination, but the problem with blind-creation is that players have no idea what sorts of characters have a greater chance of acceptance, because the GM doesn't know. It depends entirely on what is submitted.

The alternative, with open creation, is to choose players rather than characters. Whatever players best suit your style, and then having them come up with a group that has that orchestration.

In reply to otghand (msg # 286):

As a player I do better when I'm not creating in a vacuum. I am more creative when I have something to work off of.  I like to set up dramatic contrasts up front; believer vs skeptic (like Mulder and Sculley), cynical vs idealistic, impetuous vs careful planner, or city mouse vs country mouse. Now I do find that characters have emergent properties, I discover things about my characters in play and I enjoy that.

As a GM my experience has been that most team-wrecking, and/or fun-wrecking player actions are justified by "I was just playing my character".

And its mostly about personalities, not so much skill sets.

"Unity of opposites", nice to know there is a name for what I'm looking for.

I am never creating in a vacuum - I always have something to work off of, be it a character archetype, a goal, or just the general milieu of the game.  I guess it boils down to gamer vs. story teller.  Unity of Opposites might work well for a storyteller, but it takes away a lot of the uncertainty which can be a source of drama and fun for a gamer, and I skew heavily toward the gamer side of the dial.

Anyway good luck with your game.  I hope you find the right mix of players.

It's literary theory that goes back to ancient Greek dramatists, so yeah, storytellers have done well with it over the centuries. Millennium.

But that's the difference between playing a game and telling a story, and every player/GM likes a different mix of both elements. As JM said, though, a good group can carry a poor game, but a poor group will destroy the best game. The dynamic of the player group is the most important factor to a game's success or failure.

No individual player is as important as how the group (including the GM) plays the game.

For me, as I mentioned, it boils down to two options:

1. Assemble the most interesting character-group from the characters submitted (burden entirely on the GM).

2. Pick great players by hand and have them come up with the group collectively.

On RPoL I tend to go with #1. In person I go with #2, because I know and trust the players well enough that I can invite who suits whatever I'm doing.

And that mix can vary from game to game. I tend to have a strong simulationist* streak but there are times I like a game where I can indulge my inner power-gamer.

As I gm the games that are the most fun for me have had a lot of interaction between the PC's. If the only interactions are npc with PC that gets old for me as a gm.

(1) has it's own problems. I rarely apply to games where I have to construct an entire character and then only have a chance of being selected. It's too much effort for just chance of playing. And then it would end up in the pile of stillborn characters, along with those made for games that never took off. There's already a lot of regret in that pile.

Any game where you have more than 5-6 people applying you're going to have people who aren't going to get in, just because there isn't enough room.

But most of the time I have players hold of on creating their sheets until after acceptance for just this reason.

I actually enjoy the process of creation, but then I use GCA for GURPS which makes it painless wrt bookkeeping.  Most commonly I rough out an idea to make sure it is feasible within the point level and then discuss with the GM.  For me the last 10% of the points are the hardest as they involve the hard choices.

Just so you know, the whole point I was trying to get to, was this conversation. I'm not knocking anyone, just learning here. I definitely go with the 'gamer' side of things instead of the 'story' side. I find people, even here, I know and like to game with, and try to get them together. It works, but it's horrible when they have 'time off', because pretty much, they're in every one of my games. Someone takes a holiday, all my games come screeching to a halt. Option 2, for sure. ;)

I also use GCA, and can do a quick concept up in about 10 minutes. I prefer not to bother, though. I'll submit an idea, bounce it off the GM, and see what they say. "Ew! We don't want that here," either means a re-do, or more likely, a pass. If I get so far off the track, then it's probably a completely different game I'm thinking of, than the GM is thinking of. Either the corrected genre is still cool, or I politely continue on my way, hopefully with no hard feelings. Sometimes that's tough, how do you explain things without using language like you're using now? Which brings us full circle, to the point I was looking for but didn't know how to ask. Thanks, everyone, and Happy New Year! :)

I made a GM Wanted ad and I decided to repost it here, as I'd really love this game to be run with GURPS:

---

I'd be interested in a game featuring cops and their jobs :)

I see two possible variants of such a game:

1. Uniformed police officers on patrol - if we ran with it, I'd prefer for such a game to keep things rather realistic... "Third Watch" RP anyone?

2. Police detectives - I'd prefer this to be rather realistic, too, more like a police procedural than Agatha Christie-like mysteries. But if you wanted to run as the latter, I'd be up for this, too :)

It could be a solo or group game. Adult or Mature.

---

Sooo... anyone interested?

I would definitely be interested in a procedural game.

Well, since I seem to be having difficulty playing the son of Martin Riggs, I wouldn't mind that one either.

When it comes to me, I have a character concept in mind: a Chinese-descent police officer who later becomes a detective. She's played by Hettienne Park :)

She can be fit into all kinds of police games, as I can play her in various stages of her career. On one small RPOL game, she was already a chief of police in Cheyenne, Wyoming :)

So... I was trying to have a GURPS cop game started and I had a dispute with the GM over the character creation. I made an observation that building a competent police detective with some years of experience on the force would require about 150 CPs. The GM disagreed. I was pointed to this character:

http://www.gurpscharacter.com/...nt/lt-nancy-harrigan

According to the GM, this is a realistic police detective built on 100 CPs. I disagree. What do you think about this character, people?

As I said, I don't think it's a realistic character at all. For once, her attributes seem to be a bit too low. A police officer with ST 10, DX 10 *and* HT 10? It seems unreasonable. Police officers are supposed to be fit, as far as I know. I don't know about the States, but back here, the physical requirements to get to the police are actually higher than in the military.

More importantly: the character lacks some skills she'd have picked up during service. Such us Climbing (for climbing fences and the like), Diplomacy (for talking to individual people, crowd control, negotiating etc.), Forced Entry (cops kick down doors occasionally, right?), Tonfa (every patrol officer knows how to use one), Judo & Karate (do American cops really learn the simplistic Brawling for defense?) and Swimming (I'd really like to think that cops are required to know how to swim). Also, as a lieutenant, she'd have some basics of Leadership.

Also, she lacks any skills not related to her job, which is simply unrealistic. She's an intelligent person - so, how come she seems to have no academic skills at all? It looks like she didn't go to school at all, like she doesn't read, watch news... She can't even cook!

Finally, her point balance is helped by her having some serious flaws. She has Addiction, Overconfidence, Stubborness, Workaholic *and* Obsession? It's too much. Not too mention, it makes her into a walking stereotype...

So, I say it's not a good character to use as a reference at all. What do you think?

10 is average.  I've met plenty of cops who are probably ST/DX/HT 10.  Her IQ is great, too.  She's an investigator type.

Fit would have been great, but it looks like she bought extra Per instead.

I don't see a problem with her disadvantages.  Most of them are -5, and they seem perfectly in character.  In GURPS 4E, the rule of thumb is that a PC should have disadvantages worth 50% of the character build.  She's actually only at -41, and I personally like a disadvantage limit of -40.

Her Criminology, Law, Psychology, and Writing skills could all be reasonably picked up during her university career.

Plenty of people (like me (= )have defaults in skills like Cooking and Housekeeping.  If you're doing regular, routine work in a low-stress environment, you normally have +5 or so to the skill roll, which is why she's able to drive to work without flipping her car.  Now, if she were in a high-speed chase, she'd be in trouble.

For point totals, a 50 CP character is an average person.  100 points are good for starting adventurers, and established heroes are at the 150 point level.  Navy SEALs are around 200-250 points.

Could she have more points?  Potentially.  Is she realistic?  You bet.

She looks like a perfectly reasonable cop to me.  =)

Edit:  GURPS Mysteries has a template for a police detective that's worth 60 points.  Give her more rank, Administration, and maybe Leadership, and you have a lieutenant.

Edit 2:  Here's another reference.  A Beat Cop [45] template is on p. 15:  http://gurpsland.no-ip.org/pdf/G4ETemplatesSmall.pdf
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:19, Mon 20 Jan 2014.

The GURPS Cops Detective template is 55 points, which is fine for a real-world detective. Action movie detectives will be worth more, like any action-movie characters.

ST 10
DX 10
IQ 12 [20]
HT 10

Advantages:
Legal Enforcement Powers [5]
Police Rank 2 [10]
10 points in Perception, Charisma, Contacts, Patron, or Will

Disadvantages:
Duty (15 or less) [-15]
Additional -10 points from Addiction (Tobacco), Bad Temper, Bully, Cannot Harm Innocents, Overconfidence, Secret (Corrupt), Sense of Duty, or Stubbornness.

Primary Skills:
Area Knowledge (City) [1]-12, Area Knowledge (Precinct) [1]-12, Criminology [4]-13, Detect Lies [1]-10, Fast-Talk [4]-13, Forensics [2]-11, Guns (Pistol) [2]-12, Interrogation [4]-13, Law (Criminal Law/Procedure)[1]-7/13, Professsional Skill (Law Enforcement)[1]-11, Writing [1]-11.

Secondary Skills:
Acting[1]-11, Driving[1]-9, Holdout[2]-12, Intimidation[2]-12, Psychology[2]-10, Savoir Faire (Police)[1]-12, Shadowing[2]-12, Stealth[2]-10, Streetwise IQ[2]-12

Background:
5 points in Administration, Public Speaking, Brawling, Comptuer Operation, Diplomacy, Disguise, First aid, Guns (Shotgun), Running, Shortsword, or Wrestling


A detective's job is pretty much just to interrogate suspects, interview witnesses, and perform stakeouts. Evidence is processed by forensic technicians. Most physical grunt work is done by patrol officers.

She is also has multiple personality disorder as her name appears to be both Nancy and Susanna. ;^)

More seriously  I think needs more points, probably ~125 total.  A 31 year old police Lt. is not a starting adventurer - that is someone with some experience.  The number of skills in which she has 4 or 8 points indicates time on the job well beyond learned it in college to me as well.

There are some holes as well.  Her police rank is probably too low for a Lt. given there are four ranks below that in the Houston PD.

All in all she seems one dimensional.

There is no good answer for you question, because different GMs have different styles and ideas about realism.

The Cult of Stat Normalizers, tend to like the PCs closer to 50cp, with lower and fewer skills...they tend to expect a lot of skills are done off of default. Sometimes they give general situations bonuses, sometimes they don't.

Other GMs imagine 100 or 150 as being within the realm of realism.

It really just depends on your GM. There is no right or wrong answer.

Ask your GM, I'd recommend asking your GM how often they imagine characters will fail at their primary skill rolls in his or her realistic game. Ask your GM if they give generous situational bonuses or not. Ask how often they imagine there will be PC death. Just get a sense of whether their ideas of realism matches your ideas of realism. If they don't match, ask yourself if you could enjoy this other sort of realism. If not, then maybe you shouldn't be in that particular campaign.

Actually, the GM bailed on me altogether :((( When I declared that I'd prefer to make a character on about 150 CPs, he said that I'm trying to create a superhero and that he's not interested in GMing this kind of game...

Really? 150 CPs is superhero level?

Anyway, some comments to the discussion:



But how is that even possible? There are physical requirements for people who enlist into police academies and I'd imagine that these requirements are above the level of an average (= physically unfit) person. So how can real cops have average physical stats?



Is IQ 13 really "great"? For me, it's just the IQ of a smart person. But definitely nothing genius level...



For me, they're perfectly "in stereotype" :) A cop who smokes and is obsessed about her job... verrrrrrry "original". Plus, they really make her into an annoying personality that wouldn't be fun to play.



Yeah... assuming that she had no other academic interest than preparing herself for a job in the police. Again, that's bad character concept... Why doesn't she have, say, a point or two in Literature? Wouldn't that be more interesting?

Speaking of skills, what about the skills I mentioned? Is it really possible for any cop (including detectives, who are all former patrol officers) not to have any points in Tonfa, the basic weapon of any beat cop? What about Swimming?



And that's another problem. Aren't cops trained in driving well?



Not sure I like it, either. It seems like a template for a very rookie cop. Low attributes (a male cop with ST 10? Definitely not in my country), few skills... and, of course, a ton of disadvantages. The template assumes that there are no cops who are simply well-adjusted, normal people!



I looked at that template and I don't like it. For once, it's optimiized for GURPS 3E. In 4E, that detective would have to have IQ 11... which seems really poor.

And it's one another cop who can't swim and who has piss-poor driving skills (Driving 9? Come on) and who may not even have any skill in running or self-defence (both of them are listed as optional)...



Exactly!
This message was last edited by the player at 21:13, Mon 20 Jan 2014.

You got to look at the relative environment, not the absolute. If I do a low point campaign, its kind of a given you can do all your normal stuff. Buying cooking is nice for RP, but you don't do that in low point games.

Personally, I like higher points as well, but its all relative. Bad guys won't be as good, either. ;) If you disagree enough with the GM, you should probably just bow out. Seriously, you're just going to have more disagreements, and the fact you brought it here is admirable, but it proves you can't work it out.

The sad thing was, there was no "enviroment". It was supposed to be a solo game...

Don't drop the IQ to 11, just raise the value of the template to 75 instead of 55.

It's an occupational template, not a complete character. It's everything that the detective needs to do her job. Swimming isn't part of that job. Most detectives aren't going to be physically taking criminals down by punching them (a great way to get the perp off on an excessive force charge) frequently enough train for it. Most detectives aren't going to get into car chases.

If a character has those skills, it isn't from the template. Sure, the detective might know kung-fu, but the department didn't pay for it, and it's not part of the training.

Compare it with the beat cop template:

Attributes: ST 10, DX 10, IQ 11, HT 10
Advantages: Legal Enforcement Powers, Police Rank 0 to 2, 15 points from Perception, Contacts, Fit, Patron, Strong Will
Disadvantages: Duty, etc.
Skills: Area Knowledge (Beat), Area Knowledge (City), Brawling[2]11, Criminology[1]10, First Aid [1]11, Guns(pistol)[4]12, Guns(shotgun)[1]10, Law(Criminal/Procedure)[1]8/14,

etc etc.

Note that beat cops have Fit, Brawling, better gun skills. They do have climbing and better drive, because that's what a beat cop's job is. It's not what a detective's job is, so it's not a part of the template.

Can a detective have those skills? Sure! It's not from the job, though, because a detective doesn't involve violent take-downs, car chases, or foot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. At least, not often enough that they're trained for it.

Of course, in most US precincts, a Detective did at least 4 years as a beat cop, so they might have retained some of those skills.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:29, Mon 20 Jan 2014.

sigh. I can see your disappointment. Perhaps if you mentioned, you would like extra points for non-combat skills, only, to round out the character? I've seen realistic 300 point characters, and 50 point ones.

The whole skill deterioration rules might account for people not knowing stuff they used to, too. Like me, I don't know how to... uh... well, that rule sucks. I can still pour concrete, I was certified in that years ago, and went years between using it. I do forget a little of the tricks for polynomials, but I can still do the same algebraic stuff with shortcuts.

Maybe you passed all your IQ rolls. I know I haven't. I was a boy scout. Barely tie a square knot these days.

Well, that's why I didn't complain about the lack of Cooking on that template ;)



Yeah, but as you mentioned yourself, all detectives are former beat cops. So, the detective template should be built on top of the beat cop template. I can't imagine that detectives suddenly forget all of their previous training... If you were trained in driving or self-defence, you don't suddenly lose those skills just because your current job doesn't require them.

It'd be especially true for the character I was building, as she was supposed to be a detective that was only promoted from beat cop very recently.



I did mention that. For example, my character was supposed to be of Chinese descent, so I needed to spend 4 points on her Cantonese language. I told the GM that it was all flavour to me, a way of making the character more interesting... but I didn't get any extra points for that.



There are skill deterioration rules in GURPS?

Every 6 months you go without using or reading up on or practicing a skill at all you need to make an IQ roll. On a failure it drops a level.

Interesting. Where's that rule from? (asking for reference's sake)

Page 294 in the Characters book under "Maintaining Skills" in the sidebar. It's an optional skill; I'd only suggest using it in skills intended to emulate reality rather than fiction.

Varsovian,

Really you just need to figure out what sort of GM you are dealing with and what they think "realistic" or "cinematic" is. I like realistic games, but I realized that there are people whose idea of "realism" is completely at odds with my idea of "realism."

Things you should ask a prospective GM:

What cp levels are starting characters?
Do you have a cap on starting attributes? Or do you have a level that you think is cinematically high? (for example you need to know if they think having a IQ 12 makes you unbelievably better than most people and verging on cinematic, or if they think that fits within the realm of average and realistic).
What do you consider an average skill level for a person who uses that skill for a living? For a living if their living is dangerous? (You need to know if their idea of an average realistic firearm skill is 10, 12, or 14).
Is there a level of attribute or skill above which you think the player needs to justify having?
Are you a GM who likes PCs to have lots of skills, including flavor skills, or are you a GM who likes PCs to have fewer skills and rely on defaults a lot more?
When you say realism, what do you mean by that? How does that interact with PC death or frequency of failure?

Just make sure you and your GM are compatible.

Yes, realism and power-level are two different things.

Where trooper6 and I disagree, I think, is in the prevalence and utility of people using skills at or around default. Possibly default + the dabbler perk.

The way I envision competency in GURPS:

1. No default. You've never even sat in a car, you don't know what the pedals do, or how to start it, really. You can jab at the lock with picks, but you've never really seen anyone pick a lock. You know that guns shoot, but you don't even know to hold it firmly, and will never hit an intended target. No chance of success, but failure may be interesting.

2. Default. This includes limited use of the skill personally. You shot some targets at a range once. You've seen other people drive. The concept of the skill is, at least, not foreign to you. The more often you've done it, the better your default, modeled with the Dabbler perk.

3. Skilled. At least 200 hours training, 400 hours self-training or with an instructor lacking Teaching-12+, or 800 hours on the job learning. The degree of skill is largely determined by the degree of utility in your life.

Most people do everything by default. Their "flavor skills" are mostly default, unless it's at least a moderate interest you've partaken in for years (enough to hit that 200/400/800 hour mark). Talent helps a lot in learning.

In my campaigns, for example, most hunters and criminals rely on the guns default. Unless a cop is a sharpshooter he'll have a point. This makes him far better than almost any civilian he comes across. Players skill levels should be examined contextually against this.

And I think that's key. Character competence shouldn't be measured against an absolute, but against the campaign context. Skill 11 is amazing when everyone else has default at 6.

For attributes, advantages that provide the same benefit are more interesting. HT 10 and Fit is more common and more interesting than HT 11. IQ 10 + 2 levels of Talent is more common and interesting than IQ 12. It's more character optimal in most places as well, speeding learning time and providing social benefits, for less cost.

/rant
This message was last edited by the player at 22:49, Mon 20 Jan 2014.

Honestly, I can't see how a 12 makes you cinematic. A 10 is a 50% success rate... in a craft skill, you are going to do very poorly if only half of what you start turns out salable. If you get to an 11, you succeed about 2/3s of the time, 12 means you succeed just over 3/4 of the time, so a successful craftsman best have a skill of at least 12.
12 means you are well practiced in that skill and use it regularly. I would agree that you can't be that good in every skill, but you should be at least that good in those skills you make a living at! 13 is believable.. at 14, you are a standout in your skill; 15 and up makes you a well known merchant of fine wares everyone knows like Tiffany or Swiss Army ...

The problem I have with this approach is that it is unsuitable for the individual who accept a dangerous life, and those people are by definition not average.  I know as a player in a game I am really reluctant to rely on a skill where the downside is potentially fatal if the odds of failure are high.  A skill of 12 is fine when most of the time the task is routine +4 and even when not the downside is an annoyance, not loss of life, limb, or other serious consequence.

I think too little allowance is being made for life skills as well.  Take driving.  I drive an hour each way to work, 5 days a week.  Call it 40 weeks out of the year (allowing for days off, other circumstances, and a preference for round numbers).  That is 40*5*2=400 hours a year.  Do that for very many years and you get some serious points in driving in GURPS terms.  Not the same as a combat driving course, but more than 1 point.

Those 100 point characters are fine for someone just starting out, but that is about it.  That Police Lt. should probably have had wealth, comfortable as well, plus a patron (police dept.) which provides valuable equipment and logistical support.

When playing historical games it can be worse.  You can not play even minor nobility on an average guy point budget because after you pay for the wealth and the title / status, you now suck at the physical tasks the nobility were required to be practiced in.

Lastly, I admit to a preference for playing large than life characters even if not full on cinematic.  Playing average Joe to whom crap happens is too much like life, not an escape from it.

YMMV

Keep in mind the +5 bonuses for routine, day to day tasks. As Trooper6 mentioned, circumstantial bonuses are huge. So is taking extra time, and equipment bonuses.

But remember, there is a difference between high-level and cinematic. You can have cinematic 50 point characters with skills of 10-11, and realistic 150 point characters with skills of 15-16.

Your power level is always in comparison to the NPCs around you, and a good GM will always make sure that you're challenged. The best GMs I've played with have things balanced so that the players' opposition is enough that they MUST come up with a clever plan in order to win, regardless of what their skill levels are.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:45, Mon 20 Jan 2014.

While everyone has a crit failure, let's talk about some realistic skills, and I'll let you figure the numbers.

Profession: I usually hit the right technical fix 90% of the time. I'd say 80% of that is rushed, and 20% of it I might take extra time. When it takes forever, I'd say that's a crit fail, I need to fix it eventually no matter what, there's no 'fail & done' like there is in GURPS. As mentioned, 40+ hours a week, 50+ weeks / year, for 20 years, I should have a bunch of points. Add to this a ton of intense training, including a 4 year apprenticeship. Just guessing, but those numbers would probably get to 20+ skill, and while not trying to brag, I don't think I have a low IQ. (IMO no one who plays GURPS does.)

Guns (rifle): Again, intense training from the military, but not so much training after that. Moderate practice, I'd say maybe enough for 200 hours every 3 years or so. I can hit a quarter at 100 yards, every time. Sure, there's crit fails, but the last time I went shooting, I had 20 hits out of 20 hits. As mentioned, add situational modifiers for bench rest shooting.

Guns (shotgun): Similar to above, but I do trap league. There isn't extra time mods. It's not an 'every day task'. I have a $100 shotgun, so no equip mods. I still hit 24 out of 25. I'm not that great, either. The guys who do it a lot, and have good guns, hit 399 out of 400.

That said, it's a game, and things are modeled. The model might not be perfect, it's all relative, just have fun. The bad guys can't shoot you any better than you can shoot them. It's like a D&D game, one DM has a lot of magic, and another has almost none. I had one, an artifact weapon was a +1 dagger. That's cool if you like it, but to me, it should be Thor's hammer. Just because I don't like it, though, doesn't make it invalid, just a different viewpoint of where the balance should be. You're taking the numbers far too literally, just because I'm a good rifle shot, doesn't mean 20 is good. Instead of you hitting X% of your shots, you need to look at it in the perspective of you hit X% more than the other guy.

Tortuga and I both enjoy realistic campaigns. But we have different ideas about how that realism will be accomplished.
He is more likely to have a person try a skill at default 6 with a +5 situation bonus, while I'm more likely to have a person with skill 11. He thinks it is more interesting to have a person with HT 10 and Fit than a person with HT 11. I'm more excited about having both in my campaign and finding ways to make interesting the distinction between both of those two PCs.

Neither one of these is more correct of an approach. There are so many exciting and different ways to come into a GURPS game!

This is why I say it is rather more important to find out what approach your GM is going to take, so you can know if the approach matches your expectations. If the GM says "cinematic" find out what they mean by that. If the GM says "gritty" find out what they mean by that. If the GM says "low powered" or "high powered" find out what they mean by that. Find out what they mean when they say the game will be a Western...how do they understand the genre?

The key is to find people you are compatible with rather than arguing about the best way to do a thing.

Hmm.

So... anyone compatible with me? I'd really love to do something with GURPS - the cop game or something else...

I'm not really paying much attention to the conversation, but I would love to play a Reign of Steel campaign. I have pretty much all the 3rd ed books, or I'm willing to play 4th with some massive amounts of help in CC. *shrugs* Anyway, if anyone's willing...

I was hoping to play a cop game but mine was an Action one.

In reply to trooper6 (msg # 321):

I agree.  I think in large part the primary goal for starting up with a new gm is to get a feel for how they do things and if that is fun for you.  In the end it's not the specifics in a character that matter but how much fun you have in the game.  But if you get hung up on CP totals you might be missing out on a game you would have otherwise really enjoyed.

I remember a long time ago I had the privilege to play in a game gm'd by sockpuppet.  The CP total was a lot higher than what I was used to which was cool.  I made a character highly skilled in combat without realizing she doesn't do turn based combat which was a disappointment.  I stuck with the game though as I found her writing unbelievably good and her ideas highly imaginative.  I had a blast while it lasted.  Sadly she got burned out and ended the game and I don't think she runs games any more.

Except for this one.  =)

I miss Sock, too!  As Trooper said, it's important to find a GM and players that you're compatible with.  When the right group comes along for me, I don't care if the CPs are 50 or 5,000 and if we're just dungeon crawling fools or anthropomorphic animals.

And I agree, Big Brother, a Reign of Steel game would be a lot of fun.

CC? What's that?

And I do go for the higher points, like I said. The right cop game would be fun... action, as mentioned. Reign of Steel would be cool, but I think I'm a jinx on that. Had it as my very first GURPS book, a BD present with the 3E rules when they were pretty new, they just came out with the revised edition. I've tried playing it s many times, GMing it, have the 4E version of it... alas and alack, I have never gotten very far. I think the very farthest, the PCs raided a recharging shack, and never got around to walking out. But if someone wants to have a possible jinx, count me in.

See? We already have all the players we need... just need a GM. ;)

I miss Sock too. Think she knows how highly people around here seem to think of her?

I'm actually leaning towards higher power games these days. Next one will probably be 150 points.

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 319):



I disagree.  Your power level is often, and I will argue most importantly, measured by the intersection of chance of failure and consequences of failure.  Put another way, it is a measure of what level of difficulty you can face with an acceptable level of risk.

If 99% of the world has relevant skills at 10 and you have a 12, you're high powered.

If 99% of the world has relevant skills at 12 and you have a 12, you're average.

If 99% of the world has relevant skills at 15 and you have a 12, you're crippled.

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 331):

If with a skill of 12 you will fail 25% of the time and failure puts you at serious risk you are not high powered! you are an accident waiting to happen.  You will not have to wait long.

Yeah, but everyone else is twice as likely to fail. Being twice as good as everyone else sounds pretty high-powered to me.

But then "High powered" is a comparative value judgement. Who are you high powered or low powered compared to? Some other character in some other campaign, or the other characters you're going to face in your own campaign?

Is a 350 point character facing 500 point adversaries more "high powered" than a 100 point character in a world of 50 point enemies?
This message was last edited by the player at 04:51, Tue 21 Jan 2014.

I don't think of "high powered" as being related solely to the power of the PC with regard to the other people into the game, but with regard to a larger concept of power as defined by the point total ranges laid out in the book. The relationship of the PC's power lever to the other people in the game I think I'd use the terms "over powered" or under powered."

Let me explain.

If you have a game where the PCs are built on 1000cps, and everybody else is built on 2000cps. The PCs aren't low-powered PCs. They are High Powered PCs...considering that the average PC is 150cps. Now they are also under-powered compared to the NPCs...but 1000cp is still high powered.

Similarly, if the GM sets the starting cp limit at 20cp and has all the NPCs at 10cp...they are over-powered compared to the NPCs...but in no way are they high powered PCs...because the standard starting power is 150cp. They are severely low powered PCs who are nonetheless overpowered with regard to the NPCs around them.

Is the average PC 150 points, though? Compared to what? Every PC in every game run by every GM? Every PC you've played in all your games?

Any value comparison is highly subjective by nature.

I'm splitting hairs, though. "Average" PCs are 25-50 points.

I think at one point Kromm posted that he felt that 250 points was where GURPS really came into its own.

I agree with Kromm. 250 is my favorite level of power, and I can make a normal, realistic guy, or a superhero. There are things the superhero can't do, doesn't have a lot of skills, etc, and that's kind of exactly what we're talking about here. I can do a moderately effective superhero with 250 and skills, but if I do a single-purpose sort of build, I can get something close to superman with 250. Close, mind you, superman is just ridiculous power-wise. I tend to do a good job at that, though, I can kick a 300 pointer's butt with a 200 point guy. Why? I don't have all those extra skills we've been talking about. That's what the GM is kind of leaning toward, probably, is my guess. a minimalist creation viewpoint, go read Order of the Stick, and when you see Min-Max, you'll get what I mean.

I don't know about "normal", but I think it's perfectly possible to come up with a very exceptional "realistic" 250 point character.

I think that 250 points works better in "action movie realism" sort of games, rather than "real world realism" sort of games.

I've seen 400 point "realistic" characters. Exceptional but not outside human ability.

More important than just raw point totals I think are expectations about attribute and skill levels. I don't normally let players cut sheets until concepts are established. Then I'll give out a set of guidelines. This is what I used for a steampunk game. link to a message in another game

Skills for example used this:

Skills

• Skill level 10 is what gets called "amateurish", meaning "not really good enough" (this is, of course, a calumny against amateurs).
• Skill level 12 is what passes for competence in run-of-the-mill occupations. This is the level that you expect of a nameless NPC plumber chosen at random from the Yellow pages.
• Skill level 14 is expertise in the mass occupations and basic competence in intensely-trained elite occupations. This is the level of competence you expect of doctors dealing with routine cases, from commercial pilots, etc.
• Skill level 16 is true expertise. It is the level that you expect in a main skill of a specialist, eg. a designated marksman, the specialist consultant to whom you are referred as a non-routine case.
• Skill level 18 is advanced expertise. An intensely-trained specialist in an elite outfit might be expected to have an 18 in his or her single main skill.
• Skill level 20 is outstanding expertise. This is the skill level of the leading expert whom all the elite outfits wish they could get to work for them.
• Skill level 22 is the sort of thing you see in figures like Don Bradman and Albert Einstein, whose performance and achievement dominates an elite discipline for a generation. Fifty years after these people retire, PhD candidates in statistics write dissertations estimating how outstanding they were.

Now we can argue about how realistic those are but it gives my players a sense of what I expect.

This exactly, except you slight commercial pilots.  The amount of training those guys get and maintain is quite serious.  The Air National Guard / Naval Reserve pilots pretty much always spank the active duty transport pilots in the various competitions simply because they fly so much more.

I'm more or less inclined to agree with those benchmarks, though as a player I find the vanishing returns for higher skill less than optimal for the cost involved. It depends on the campaign and the penalties the GM assesses, of course, but after you hit 13 or so every point of skill becomes increasingly points-inefficient.

One thing that does bother me in character design is equating "high-attributes, few points in skill" with "low-attributes, high points in skill." Someone with a DX 12 and 8 points in Broadsword has a 14, as does someone with DX 14 and 2 points in the skill, but the first character has far more training and experience.

Where this bothers me is when a player takes a high attribute and drops a point or two in a bunch of skills, but their concept is someone highly educated or with a lot of training, instead of a talented beginner.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:00, Tue 21 Jan 2014.

Well as a 42 year old grappler who has been wrestling since 1986 and can't seem to get over on some of these 28 year old world champions I have to, unfortunately, say that sometimes this models real life pretty well.

I'm not talking about effectiveness, I'm talking about the mechanical difference between "High attributes, low skills" and "Average attribute, high skills".

If you want to play a highly trained character, put a lot of points into skills.
If you want to play a highly talented character, put a lot of points into attributes and (where applicable) Talent.

It's more of a pet peeve, but I see a lot of "60 year old tenured professor" with an IQ of 14 and 2 points in their subject, or "grizzled master swordsman" with a DX of 15 and 1 point in Broadsword.

Highly-talented beginner is totally a legitimate concept, but if it's NOT your concept, don't take high-stat low-skills.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:04, Tue 21 Jan 2014.

In reply to otghand (msg # 339):

Well I don't have players build to a point limit, I do build-to-concept instead. So that's less of an issue for me, but having guidelines is even more important.

Agreed, though floating skills to other attributes make a difference.

Speaking of higher powered games, I'd like to run a higher-powered version of "Heroic Apotheosis."

HA was a game in which players found themselves being tossed from world to world and faced with various adventure scenarios. They were high-school students, and through the course of the game gradually learned survival skills based on what they'd been up to.

I'd like to run this general scenario again, with one small tweak:

The players are still "normal" and unexceptional in the real world, but when they travel to a new world they possess one of the locals, gaining stronger bodies and more skills for the duration. They don't start from scratch as outsiders in each world, but have identities and a place in society.

Some of the plot revolves around what happens in the "real" world, and character advancement is the retention of some of the skills learned from those they possessed in their last worldjump.

Does this sound interesting/compelling?

"Real world" characters would be worth 50-75 points, and point levels in other worlds would vary tremendously. Players would NOT be building these other characters; they'd have to discover the capabilities of their new bodies through trial and error.

I saw the advertisement for the new GURPS game and was briefly exited, right up until I saw the Adult tag.  I am curious what the collective thinks of "Adult" games vs. "Mature" games?  I don't have any interest in "Adult".  In my experience (though not on RPOL) such a description usually presages a venture by some into badly written porn, either of the slasher violence variety or the sexual sort.

So what is the appeal on RPOL?  Is your experience different?  How many potential players do you think "Adult" costs you or gains you vs. Mature, and is the exchange favorable?