TheRPGSite

Awhile back, over in Sett's Gurps flamebait, Jimbob quoted this piece by GURPS Editor Sean Punch. I thought it was interesting food for thought, but didn't want to try to tackle the topic in the midst of that particular clusterfuck. So here, in its own thread, is Sean's essay:

   
Relying on defaults -- whatever the game system calls them -- is rarely fun. In GURPS, I hint that certain skills are necessary for adventurers, true action heroes or not, to keep the story flowing without annoying breaks caused by PCs being incompetent at tasks that adventure fiction commonly treats as "everyman" skills:

• Carousing, Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, or Interrogation -- Eventually, everybody wants to interrogate NPCs. I'm generous about what skills work, but some skill is required.
  
  
  
• Climbing, Hiking, and Stealth -- The party is only as good at these things as its worst party member, and nearly every party has to move around as a unit at some point.
  
  
  
• Driving or Riding -- Travel is vital to adventure, and while "every hero can drive/ride a horse" is often assumed, it isn't automatic in games that have skills for these things.
  
  
  
• First Aid -- Effective bandaging isn't an unskilled activity, AD&D notwithstanding. Non-action heroes often want to do this to "contribute" to party combat effectiveness, so they especially need this skill.
  
  
  
• Gesture -- Sooner or later, communication without making a sound will be vital to almost any party's survival.



• Observation, Scrounging, or Search -- Noticing interesting things takes training, and finding clues and useful items is so central to adventures that no PC should lack at least basic training here.
  
  
  
• Savoir-Faire or Streetwise -- Everybody came from somewhere. It's passing annoying when a player just assumes that her PC would "get on with folks in her element" without having any practical social skills to back up the assumption.
  

I further suggest -- strongly -- that action heroes have this list as well:

• Axe/Mace, Broadsword, Knife, Shortsword, or Staff -- Wielding a stick, knife, or heavy tool to any real effect requires practice. These common improvised weapons are not idiot-proof, trivial, or safe to use without training.
  
  
  
• Beam Weapons, Bow, Crossbow, or Guns -- However easy "point and shoot" looks, it's quite tough in reality. No credible action hero lacks competency at all ranged combat.
  
  
  
• Boxing, Brawling, or Karate -- Fisticuffs are the worst place to be untrained. Your fists are the only weapons you always have, so learn to use them.
  
  
  
• Forced Entry -- No, it isn't easy to kick in a door. Actually, unless you know how, you'll hurt yourself.



• Holdout -- "Concealable" equipment only works if you have skill at concealment, and frustratingly few players realize this.



• Judo, Sumo Wrestling, or Wrestling -- The number of people who think they should be able to grab others automatically is astounding. In fact, this is a difficult feat, trickier than hitting people, and absolutely requires training.
  
  
  
• Throwing -- Whether you're tossing spare magazines to friends or grenades at enemies, this is a trained skill, so it pays to know it.

I think that players would be far less unhappy about surprises if more GMs made lists like this and did everything possible to get players to take them seriously. A PC with Brawling, Fast-Talk, Forced Entry, Holdout, Knife, Scrounging, Stealth, and Wrestling should be able to make and conceal a shiv, overpower a guard, steal his clothes, sneak away from the scene, talk his way past the other guards, and leave through an inadequately bolted back door.[/COLOR]

At first I was reading along and nodding, then I got the end and went "Huh?" I was right there with the opening premise, but it seems to me that Sean's conclusion is backwards. I look at the concept, "Adventure heroes should be broadly comepetent in a certain range of skills," (my paraphrase) and conclude, "Yeah! Damn right! So let's design a game about 'Adventure heroes' so that there's a baseline competence level right from the start!" Sean looks at the concept, "Adventure heroes should be broadly comepetent in a certain range of skills," and concludes, ". . .so the players damn well better spend the points on all those skills so they don't hold up the game!"

This is bizarre to me. Am I alone? Obviously we're dealing with a difference in design philosophy, but I'm pretty mystified as to the "why" of the philosophy in question. I got pretty excited as I read through the piece, going to myself "Hells yeah! It'd so totally ROCK to have a game where this level of 'bare minimum badassery' was coded into the system, and the stuff you spent points on would be raising you above 'bare minimum badassery' into the heigths of Fucking Legendary Badassery (TM)." Then Sean let the wind out of my sails with his "'C'mon, GMs, make sure your players spend their points to reach that bare minimum!" If that level of competence in areas X Y and Z is really necessary for a fun game, why not have the abilities start there? What's the fun of making players spend points to attain the minimum level for fun?

I guess maybe GURPS isn't really set up to address this sort of thing. It's designed around spending points for every aspect of your character. Still, As I read the thing I had the idea that Sean was leading up to some sort of template system, like "Hey, to play Adventure Heroes, give your players this set of base proficiencies and let 'em spend points from there." Wouldn't be hard, would it?

So how do other games address this issue? Well, Heroquest has the "No Self-respecting Hero" clause; basically if a task is something "no self-respecting hero would fail at," then you succeed, no problem. Exactly what qualifies is left vague, but I think that's design; it lets a group tailor it to their own preferences and the needs of a situation.

The old WEG Star Wars handles this in exactly the way I was porposing for GURPS: with Templates. You get to pick a ready-made model of a character type with baseline competency for that archtype built in, and spend points upward from there. A great quick-starter, and little chance for nasty surprises mid-game, like "whaddya mean I only have 3 D to hit with my blaster?! I wanted ta be like Han Solo!" Sure, some templates are weaker/less combatative than others, but presumably you know when you picked "Diplomat" or "Protocol Droid" that you were't gonna be the Fastest Draw in the Galaxy or a whirlwind of Lightsaber death.

Speaking of Star Wars, I really like what SAGA edition is doing with their skills:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2)

This bit of design philosophy is especially relevant to the issue at hand:

QuoteAnyone can do anything in Star Wars if the scene calls for it. For example, over the course of the saga, we see Obi-Wan Kenobi fly ships, deceive people, perform amazing acrobatics, use diplomacy, ride animals, command troops, get information from his contacts on the street, and more. Similarly, Han Solo can fast talk, run, shoot, fly the Millennium Falcon in circles around Star Destroyers, hot-wire doors, lead troops, formulate plans, ride a tauntaun, and use other skills seemingly at will. The new skill system simulates this extremely well. Obi-Wan and Han might not be trained in all the relevant skills, but their untrained bonus allows them to attempt those actions with some chance of success.

In the Saga system, everyone has a basic competency in all skills, which scales up with level. That way nobody has to worry about coming off like Greedo when they wanted to be Han. And it lets you save your skill picks for the stuff you want to be really good in, spending feats on top of that to be fucking Legendary. It's perfect for Star Wars, and I'd wager it's a good fit for any gaming paradigm that assumes a lot of fun, rollicking action.

Why make the players "work at it" (know the right skills, spend the points) to be decent?* I'm seriously wondering. Is there a good reason in terms of game fun for Sean Punch's method? And what do y'all think of the alternate philosophy?

Peace,
-Joel

*Yes, there may be times when you want to run an "ordinary folks" type game of unheroic types, but I'd argue that this is a special case (and solvable by simply yanking out the "base cometency" rug).

Quote from: MelinglorI look at the concept, "Adventure heroes should be broadly comepetent in a certain range of skills," (my paraphrase) and conclude, "Yeah! Damn right! So let's design a game about 'Adventure heroes' so that there's a baseline competence level right from the start!" Sean looks at the concept, "Adventure heroes should be broadly comepetent in a certain range of skills," and concludes, ". . .so the players damn well better spend the points on all those skills so they don't hold up the game!"

If you look at Kromm's post in its original context here (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=24854), you'll see that we're talking about different things. We have got,

• The set of skills which Kromm thinks are good for "competent adventuring heroes in a campaign like an action film", and
• The set of skills which a particular GM will think are essential for PCs in their particular game.

So the list will be different for each campaign. You'll note that he said,

Quote from: KrommI think that players would be far less unhappy about surprises if more GMs made lists like this and did everything possible to get players to take them seriously.

"...lists like this..." That means that there is no One True List Of Essential Skills. There's just, "List of skills X which are useful in campaign X." He's talking about a particular kind of campaign - action heroes.

Quote from: KrommThis brings up an important point, though: Action heroes should generally be at least somewhat competent at picking locks, sneaking, escaping, etc., and at combat with bare hands, improvised weapons, and light weapons. The most vocal whining comes from players who create Mr. Action as a one-trick pony with all of his feats/points/dots in Big Sword or Huge Gun. You can blame the player, but I don't. I always tell my players from Day One that, really, an action hero without basic unarmed, stealth, and evasion skills isn't viable -- please redesign. I haven't seen a GURPS PC without an unarmed combat skill and a Stealth skill in years, now.

His most succinct quote is probably,

"My list is complete so that nobody will complain, "But ANYBODY could hit an enemy with a stick!", or, "What do you MEAN, my attempt to grab him fails?""[/b]

His point is that gamers watch a lot of action movies, and from those ideas they have this idea of certain things - like kicking in a door - being easy and requiring no training. In fact they're not easy and do require training - in GURS terms, skill points.

Now, if GURPS were only designed to simulate action movies, then you would be quite right, that the rules should just begin with those base competencies of being able to do whatever action movie heroes can do. But GURPS is a universal system, not just for action movies. You take the system and apply it to each campaign; part of the application is drawing up a skill list so that nobody says, "but everyone can do that, I saw it in a movie!" or, "you never told me I'd need this skill, how was I supposed to expect that?"

What Kromm is really saying is that GMs should talk to their players, and give them a good idea of the way the campaign will play out.

QuoteThis is bizarre to me. Am I alone?

No, I´m with you.

It´s the GURPS mindset, they have it all backwards.

QuoteA PC with Brawling, Fast-Talk, Forced Entry, Holdout, Knife, Scrounging, Stealth, and Wrestling

Just out of curiosity, not knowing a lot about GURPS, how much character development can be done after buying this list of skills in particular.  Assume that you're playing a standard power-level setting, if there is such a thing.

I've never played or read GURPS, but from what I know, the GM can vary the amount of starting points awarded at will. For example, the guy who wrote the piece Melinglor was quoting may be awarding more points, then insisting the players purchase the skills in question out of that - in effect doing the exact same thing as giving them a baseline competency.

-clash

Quote from: JimBobOzHis point is that gamers watch a lot of action movies, and from those ideas they have this idea of certain things - like kicking in a door - being easy and requiring no training. In fact they're not easy and do require training - in GURS terms, skill points.

Word.  The genre pieces they've seen give the players a sense of entitlement.  They feel that they deserve to be able to kick in a door.  But GURPS is pretty dead-set against entitlement ... it's a system that gives you infinite opportunity, but no rights other than what you purchase.

The lists being recommended are saying (at least to my mind) "You absolutely deserve the action-movie experience, and I want to make sure that you do the things in the rules that let you have it.  Not paying for these skills up front should be a conscious decision, which means that you agree explicitly to the action-movie things you're saying your character can't do."

A different way of thinking about things, but a solid one.  Looks like it'd work fine for getting everyone on the same page.

I agree broadly with what Tony says (and it does give me a little more insight into GURPS logic), but I still think that the article would be much better with - as has been suggested - some sample bundles of skills that people can buy to get said competances. Pretty much every sentence in the article screams out for that sort of thing, so I find it really quite strange that it's absent.

So, to get it straight:

GURPS is trying to teach you about reality?

Is it that?

Quote from: SettembriniSo, to get it straight:

GURPS is trying to teach you about reality?

Is it that?

Well that's an interesting take on what people have said.  I think it may be enough of a tangent from the main line of the discussion that it warrants its own thread.

As far as I can tell, GURPS character gen is about character-*building*, with an emphasis on building. You begin with precisely no skills, nothing interesting about you, and bog average stats, and every deviation from that norm has to be paid for (or taken as a disadvantage).

In other words, it's a system for people who are willing to get very, very picky about game balance. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily - game balance is important to a lot of people - but if you don't have it as a high priority that's going to make GURPS less appealing to you.

Tony, I must admire your diplomatic skills...

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniSo, to get it straight:

GURPS is trying to teach you about reality?

Is it that?

I doubt GURPS is trying to teach anyone anything. It's a game. Maybe you can learn from it, but that doesn't mean it's trying to teach.

-clash

QuoteOriginally Posted by JimBobOz
 His point is that gamers watch a lot of action movies, and from those ideas they have this idea of certain things - like kicking in a door - being easy and requiring no training. In fact they're not easy and do require training - in GURS terms, skill points.

Is this not teaching about how "things really are"?

Quote from: SettembriniIs this not teaching about how "things really are"?

That's the GM's intent, not the game itself.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThat's the GM's intent, not the game itself.

Yes, but when the GM in question is also the line editor for GURPS, that attitude is going to spill over into the game design. GURPS, I have to say, is very realism-oriented. Which, again, isn't a bad thing... so long as you agree with the writers' interpretation of reality. (It also makes genre emulation in GURPS really quite difficult, because some genres depend on realism going out the window a little.)

Quote from: WarthurYes, but when the GM in question is also the line editor for GURPS, that attitude is going to spill over into the game design. GURPS, I have to say, is very realism-oriented. Which, again, isn't a bad thing... so long as you agree with the writers' interpretation of reality. (It also makes genre emulation in GURPS really quite difficult, because some genres depend on realism going out the window a little.)

I'm not saying GURPS isn't realism-oriented. I don't run, play, or read it, but everything I've heard about it reinforces that observation. My objection was about GURPS trying to teach one about reality, full stop. I don't think GURPS is trying to teach anyone about anything. It's just a modelling tool. A game. From all appearances it's a tool which attempts to model what it's designers perceive as reality, but its intent is not AFAICS instructional.

I'm not being pedantic here, Warthur. There is a big difference in philosophy behind an instructional tool and one which is designed to model, and Sett is perfectly aware of that difference. Instructional tools have an agenda. Modelling tools have an unintended bias based upon the assumptions of the designer.

-clash

That's an interesting distinction, but reading Kromm's post I definitely get the impression that he feels that GURPS is a modelling tool which players must learn to use to its fullest, and that learning how real life works is frequently handy for learning how the modelling tool works. He's saying that players - through no fault of their own - approach the simulation with their own ideas about how the world works, and they need to be coached to look at things in GURPS terms. In other words, he's talking about instructional methods for teaching people how to create GURPS characters.

That, I feel, is going to spill over into the design of the game - if that wasn't part of the game in the first place. It may be part of the reason for its popularity, in fact - remember that big study of why gamers enjoy gaming that Wizards commissioned for the purposes of designing D&D 3.0? One of the big factors they idenitified was "Mastery" - having games crunchy enough that people could study the system and become experts at it - and GURPS is definitely that kind of game.

So Sett is wrong in saying that GURPS is trying to teach people about reality, but I think it is fair to say that Kromm feels a need to teach people about GURPS - and the fact that GURPS is a game which you need to learn is a good point for some, a bad point for others.

Quote from: flyingmiceI've never played or read GURPS, but from what I know, the GM can vary the amount of starting points awarded at will. For example, the guy who wrote the piece Melinglor was quoting may be awarding more points, then insisting the players purchase the skills in question out of that - in effect doing the exact same thing as giving them a baseline competency.

-clash

Skills in GURPS are pretty much dirt cheap, by design, because you're expected to hasve a lot of them.  If you think about it, it makes a certain kind of sense that way, in that the average person has a pretty wide variety of aptitudes.  

Melinglor, you should check out Time Lord.  It operates under a very similar assumption to what you describe in your original post.  Your core attributes basically allow you to attempt anything related to them.  Skills or special abilities only indicate exceptional skill or training in a given area, and they just add a small bonus to your main attribute for the purpose of dice checks.

There's also a template system in the Journies fan supplement, that uses a unique combination between baseline stats, optional die rolls, and bonus skill points, to allow as little, or as much customization as you'd care to apply to a template.  It's rather clever.

I quite like the way they do things.  It'd been a while since I'd read it, but now that I'm reading it again, I'm finding I like it even more than I did the first time I read it.

Of course, the baseline of discussion here is about GURPS, which is fine, but I raised the same point on RPG.net a while ago from a D&D standpoint. Because we were initially talking about D&D, the discussion went a little differently.

In GURPs, your base competancy is very low (ie. whatever you can do with average stats and no training at all) while in D&D, you're default competancy level is defined by your characters class traits at the level you're at, ability scores (generally not set at 'average' but assumed to be rolled, point-bought), and whatever you get when you Take 10. (That is, assumed average roll.) Many people complain about the lack of realism where your Wizard, who presumable never hits anyone with a stick (though he might) will get better at doing so as he increases in levels. Also, a sage who, presumably, never goes exploring at all and never has a call whatsoever to hit people, gets better too.

"Why?", people ask. Well, the answer is simple. Because the game assumes a certain type of playstyle, and it assumes that people with levels will hit things. The problem of the Sage is actually moot, because he won't try to hit anything, so the BaB he gains dissolves in actual play. D&D assumes a certain base competancy at adventuring tasks where GURPS doesn't, and shouldn't be expected to. Where it's a boon in D&D (I believe it to be a feature, not a bug), it's a bane in a game which is supposed to be universal.

(In the thread in question, I was actually arguing for a greater general competancy level in PCs, in D&D.)

Ok, I'm seeing better what Sean's saying now. Looks like I'm just bitching at GURPS for being GURPS. :deflated:

So I guess this is simply a playstyle difference thing. Some people wanna build from the ground up, some people want it all laid out for them, and some people want something in between. I'd say my preference is probably the middle.

This statement of Jimbob's takes us in a more fruitful direction, I think:

Quote from: JimBobOzNow, if GURPS were only designed to simulate action movies, then you would be quite right, that the rules should just begin with those base competencies of being able to do whatever action movie heroes can do. But GURPS is a universal system, not just for action movies.

The real issue, then, is in a game delivering what it promises. GUPRS isn't a fair target, because delivering "Action Hero" is only ONE thingk GURPS can do, and it's expected that the group will set that up if that's what they want. So let's pick on someone else, like, say, D&D.

D&D, on paper, claims that the PCs are exceptional, even legendary, heroes, and that even a Level 1 hero is a cut above the rabble, the run-of-the-mill guard, etc. So just 'cause you've only got a Strength mod +2 and BAB +1, doesn't mean you sucky suck; the strongest NPC in your village only has Strength +1. And so on. But in practice, D&D tends to pigeonhole different areas of competence, and promote an attitude of "if you're not the best possible in your 'area,' you suck." In my circle it's just assumed that a "decent" fighter will have +4 STR, rogue +4 DEX, Bard +4 CHA, etc. And probably pretty beefy numbers in the other slots too. That's not written in the rules, but that's how everyone tends to play, and it's borne out by the cold, hard fact that if you don't have those kinds of numbers a lot of tasks will be pretty difficult.

Which is really the big issue. You've got to specialize or you suck. In most areas of the game. Cool maneuvers like tripping or bull rushing are crap on ice unless you take the feat to do it well. The Rogue needs his high DEX to compensate for the light armor; at DEX +2 (supposedly really good by most folks' reckoning) he's going to be hit ironically more often than the brutish fighter.

And skills. Oy vey, the skills. The whole Class/Cross-class skills thing is further aimed at specialization: Sneaky McSneaksneak gets all the stealthy skills, while Hacky McBashbash gets Intimidate. OK, fair enough. But the system makes it so prohibitive to stray from your "area" that most characters in practice suck at a lot of hero-y things. No, I don't want a fighter who's as stealthy as a rogue, but if I want him to be a bit stealthy? No dice, I've got maybe 3 or 4 Skill points a level and it costs two points per rank. Shee-it. Ride's another good example; sure not everyone's going to be an expert horseman but surely a pack of Fantasy Adventurers can be counted on to handle their mounts decently? Yet the vast majority of characters in a mounted group are getting a faceful of dirt the moment trouble shows up. And don't get me started on Spot and Listen and Sense Motive. My fighter can't sense motives worth a damn because. . .why? He's a fighter? Just a dumb brick? Jeez, I know it's not as flexible as a point-build but that's just ridiculous.

I'm finding that every Human character I make these days winds up with Able Learner for just this reason. I'm kinda of the mind that this should be the standard system instead of a specialized, human-only Feat. At least with the double cost gone, a character can branch out affordably. Sure, I can only have half rants but I don't have to sell my firstborn into slavery to get there.

Heh. As you can probably see, I've got a lot more experience with D&D than GURPS. Though I have extensively played another point-buy system, BESM, which at least doesn't quite have GURPS' granularity (Gesture skill? Really?!). But my GURPS beef was largely hypothetical, and kind of a "OK, not my favorite way to play" sorta thing in the end. With D&D it's very real and borne of practical experience. And what it comes down to for me is that D&D doesn't deliver what it claims.

Contrast the Star Wars SAGA skill revamp, where everyone is "pretty good" in ALL SKILLS (though untrained they can't use them for certain expert tasks), then they pick the skills to be "really good" at. I for one like it. A lot.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: WarthurThat's an interesting distinction, but reading Kromm's post I definitely get the impression that he feels that GURPS is a modelling tool which players must learn to use to its fullest, and that learning how real life works is frequently handy for learning how the modelling tool works. He's saying that players - through no fault of their own - approach the simulation with their own ideas about how the world works, and they need to be coached to look at things in GURPS terms. In other words, he's talking about instructional methods for teaching people how to create GURPS characters.

Yes and no. In Kromm's little forum post we've got four things,

• The way the world really is
• The way players think the world is; this is often shaped by movies
  
• The way the particular campaign's world is
  
• The game rules - in this case, GURPS.

#4 is a tool for expressing #3; #1 and #2 will sometimes interfere with this. The game rules are a tool for the expression of a particular campaign world, but reality and players' perceptions of it sometimes interfere with that. Being clear about what the game rules are, and what the campaign is, helps to overcome reality, and players' perceptions of reality.

A list of skills competent PCs should have in your campaign is one way to deal with that; Kromm was simply listing skills that'll come up in a very common sort of campaign - one resembling action movies.

Quote from: MelinglorThe real issue, then, is in a game delivering what it promises. GUPRS isn't a fair target, because delivering "Action Hero" is only ONE thing GURPS can do, and it's expected that the group will set that up if that's what they want. So let's pick on someone else, like, say, D&D.

I'm not really interested in picking on any games. That a game doesn't always do what its blurb or promo says, well I don't care. I'll read the game, and try to play it, and see how it comes out in play. Whether this perfectly matches the promo text, well I don't see how going down that line of argument is at all productive.

If the playstyle the rules make easy is one I enjoy, then I'll keep playing it. If not, then not. A game which aims to be universal will make easy a wide variety of playstyles; it's at this time that a GM will need to make lists of skils necessary in their campaign, as Kromm did.

Quote from: JimBobOzYes and no. In Kromm's little forum post we've got four things,

• The way the world really is
• The way players think the world is; this is often shaped by movies
  
• The way the particular campaign's world is
  
• The game rules - in this case, GURPS.

#4 is a tool for expressing #3; #1 and #2 will sometimes interfere with this. The game rules are a tool for the expression of a particular campaign world, but reality and players' perceptions of it sometimes interfere with that. Being clear about what the game rules are, and what the campaign is, helps to overcome reality, and players' perceptions of reality.

On the other hand, GURPS puts a high priority on emulating #1; while in theory you could run a "cinematic" GURPS campaign by giving the player characters more points, most elements of the GURPS system seem to stress realism.

QuoteI'm not really interested in picking on any games. That a game doesn't always do what its blurb or promo says, well I don't care. I'll read the game, and try to play it, and see how it comes out in play. Whether this perfectly matches the promo text, well I don't see how going down that line of argument is at all productive.

Because "this game doesn't deliver on its promises" is a pretty damning criticism of a game. Most of us have been burned at some point by some game we bought based on the blurb which turned out not to match the blurb at all. Look at Vampire - half the problems people have with it stem from the fluff text stressing storytelling while the system encourages crazed action.

Quote from: WarthurOn the other hand, GURPS puts a high priority on emulating #1; while in theory you could run a "cinematic" GURPS campaign by giving the player characters more points, most elements of the GURPS system seem to stress realism.

GURPS puts a high priority on realism? I've got here GURPS Basic Set, 4th edition. The blurb does not have the word "realism" or anything similar, nor does the introduction. Rather, they go on about how flexible and well-organised it is. Far from stressing realism, the first paragraph of the blurb says,

Quote from: GURPS Basic SetGURPS is the most flexible roleplaying system ever created. With just this book, you can adventure in any world you can imagine. Use all types of weapons from clubs to lasers... magic and martial arts... psionics and superpowers.

Of the six example game elements, only two (clubs and martial arts) could be "realistic", the other four can't be.

On a casual glancethrough, the sole reference to realism (and only reference in the index) in all 576 pages of the Basic Set is on page 11, where they note that random abilities would be more realistic than point-buy, but say that point-buy lets you be more "heroic", ie, end up with the character you want to play.

From what source have you determined that "realism" is the aim of GURPS? I think perhaps you've been reading too many drooling fanboys of GURPS, and not enough GURPS itself, and probably not been playing it.

Quote from: WarthurBecause "this game doesn't deliver on its promises" is a pretty damning criticism of a game. Most of us have been burned at some point by some game we bought based on the blurb which turned out not to match the blurb at all.

That's why we say, "caveat emptor" - buyer beware. If you believe all the hype, not only will you be disappointed with particular products you buy, you'll also bankrupt yourself buying a lot of stuff you don't want or need at all.

Don't just buy a game based on its blurb - have a good look through it, talk to people who've played it, and only then buy it. If you believe the nonsense you get in the advertising stuff, then you deserve to have your money wasted! :p

Besides which, GURPS does not advertise itself as realistic, but as flexible. And it's not realistic, and is flexible, so there you go. :win:

Ok, this is largely my fault for how I kicked things off, but I'd like to ask that the debate over GURPS' goals not take over the thread. I'm really interested in examining the specific design philosophy issue I highlighted. All else is off the point.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm not really interested in picking on any games. That a game doesn't always do what its blurb or promo says, well I don't care. I'll read the game, and try to play it, and see how it comes out in play. Whether this perfectly matches the promo text, well I don't see how going down that line of argument is at all productive.

I think you've got a fair point here. The way I set about this topic lends itself to a "trash X game" sort of debate, which couldn't be farther from what I want. I mean, hell, I attracted Sett to back my position 100%, that should tell me something. :hmm:

What I'm really looking for is: given a desire for X design feature, in this case "Baseline action hero competency built in," how do various games address that or not? Especially games that claim to.

So Heroquest has the "No self-respecting hero" rule, and on top of that the gonzo augment system that lets you throw Love and Bravery and Loyalty and Rivalry on top of your Swordfighting roll, season with Hero points to taste and serve. pretty functional; in my brief run playing Heroquest I never felt like my guy wasn't living up to his Fantasy Hero status. It also helps that narration of success/failure is pretty broad, so you can frame a failure in all kinds of ways that don't mean "you suck as a hero." No "you roll to attack, you miss and fumble your weapon" or "You try to thump him on the head but don't knock quite him out, he sounds the alarm."

Over the Edge works pretty well since there's a pretty small scale to Trait dice, and you get to define broad competencies. If you've got a guy who's not cut out to be an Action Hero, it's 'cause you chose to, with (say) Nuclear Physicist, Snappy Conversationalist, and Stamp Collector. And even then, you could easily turn Snappy Conversationalist toward fast-talking, interrogating, or info gathering applications. You could even wheedle some pivotal but obscure knowledge out of your stamp obsession.

As I mentioned both Star Wars D6 and D20 Saga Edition seem to address it handily, the former with its templates and the latter with its skill system revamp. Very cool.

D&D is, for the reasons I lsited above, the only game that comes to mind that promises heroic characters and in some  ways fails to deliver. Not in all ways. Your D&D PC is no creampuff. But I'd argue that the extremes to which D&D takes specialization is counterproductive to producing PCs that feel like broadly competent action heroes.

There are some patches for this. Action Points come to mind. And as i've suggested, you could do something like reduce cross-class skill cost. But these are just patches. It'd be nice if the system delivered without them.

So, that's where I'm coming from. What do y'all think? Does anyone enjoy this feature in a system, and do you like the way these various games implement it? Are there any other systems out there with cool ways of addressing it?

Peace,
-Joel

In response to the OP,

This is what D&D did until 3E.  PCs were reasonably capable of accomplishing any adventuring action.  If you must have a skill system in 3E, use something like the Star Wars Saga system you mention (i.e. OD&D Thief - which was an add-on class that radically altered the original rules by allowing skill tweaking).

Skill systems allow precise character creation, but quite frequently players will have to sit out because their character isn't "qualified" enough to act.

Genre systems are imprecise in terms of skills, but whenever the characters act according to the genre they are all quite capable.  This means every player gets to play throughout.  The catch is, they are unskilled when they act out of genre.  

For adventure games, a genre system means heroes suck at accounting unless they take it up as a Secondary skill for a few years (by stopping adventuring).  For non-adventure games, it means accountant PCs attempting to adventure will likely get their characters killed.  They have stopped playing to the game's focus.  If the game is "pretend to be IRS accountants looking for for people to audit", then fighting orcs is a deathwish.  Of course, Krag the Slayer would be as equally useless in finding folks to audit.

For most people, I think the failure of the universal systems from the 80's was their attempt at being all things to all people.  Maybe Torg works on this level?  It was universal in regards to settings, but always focused on the adventure genre.

As Thanatos mentioned, D20 D&D makes the mistake of mixing skill systems with genre systems.  D&D levels ARE the representation of skills.  And then, only for in-genre characters.  Before d20 all non-adventuring types were Level-0 characters.  They could be world class scholars or athletes, but their ability to adventure sucked.  The only way to change that was: start adventuring.

In GURPS, players can certainly create competent characters to the scenario and also balance them into a complementary party.  In D&D, this is already built in.  D&D is faster for PC creation and the precise scenario knowledge isn't required beforehand.  However, it cannot simulate every style of play as GURPS tries to.

Since everyone wants to avoid picking on any system, unless of course it's d20/D&D, I thought I'd risk the wrath of WOTC and post a little blurb from the Player's Handbook:

Quote from: Player's HandbookCharacter Skills
When you create a character, you will probably only be able to purchase ranks in a handful of skills.  It may not seem as though you have as many skills as real people do – but the skills on your character sheet don't actually define everything your character can do.

Your character may have solid familiarity with many skills, without having the actual training that grants skill ranks. Knowing how to strum a few chords on a lute or clamber over a low fence doesn't really mean you have ranks in Perform or Climb. Ranks in those skills represent training  beyond everyday use – the ability to impress an audience with a wide repertoire of songs on the lute, or to successfully scale a 100-foot-high cliff face.

So how do normal people get through life without ranks in a lot of skills? For starters, remember that not every use of a skill requires a skill check. Performing routine tasks in normal situations is generally so easy that no check is required. And when a check might be called for, the DC of most mundane tasks rarely exceeds 10, let alone 15. In day-to-day life, when you don't have enemies breathing down your neck and your life depending on success, you can take your time and do things right – making it easy, even without any ranks in the requisite skill, to succeed (see Checks without Rolls, page 65).

You're always welcome to assume that your character is familiar with – even good at, as far as everyday tasks go – many skills beyond those for which you actually gain ranks. The skills you buy ranks in, however, are those with which you have truly heroic potential.

Quote from: howandwhy99As Thanatos mentioned, D20 D&D makes the mistake of mixing skill systems with genre systems.  D&D levels ARE the representation of skills.  And then, only for in-genre characters.  Before d20 all non-adventuring types were Level-0 characters.  They could be world class scholars or athletes, but their ability to adventure sucked.  The only way to change that was: start adventuring.

I'm afraid you've misread me, unless you're mistakingly attributing your own opinion to my (neutral) reading of the rules and their implications.

I don't feel that d20 makes the mistake of mixing. Rather, I feel that it is a virtue, albiet of a specific kind. It is, as the saying goes, a feature and not a bug.

Rather, D&D is a game which includes a moderate base competantcy which varies. Certain things are set minimums based on level. Base Attack Bonus, Saving Throws, Hit Points (to a degree). Skills and Feats are the most variable in a single class, though they too retain a certain minimum capacity. Skills vary in that everyone has every-day capacity (it is assumed) but the Skill variable is set by point allotment and allowed skills.

This is in contrast to GURPs, where the only base capacity is provided in terms of average stats and points. The variability is immense. In D&D 3.x, it is moderate (which can be a very good thing, and something that I personally enjoy). D&D 2nd is static. Base capacity is set in a class (though not across classes, and varies in a certain class - Thief).

Lack of customizability becomes an issue. Sure you can plug and play with older D&Ds, but I don't particularly want to. More than anything else, I'm playing with someone elses idea of what I ought to be.

QuoteThat's why we say, "caveat emptor" - buyer beware. If you believe all the hype, not only will you be disappointed with particular products you buy, you'll also bankrupt yourself buying a lot of stuff you don't want or need at all.

Ack! I hate it when people present this argument!

"Caveat emptor" doesn't absolve the seller of all responsibility for how they promote their game, or for the game failing to provide the experience it promises in the main rulebook. Just because the buyer has the responsibility not to be suckered in by misleading blurbs doesn't mean that issuing forth misleading blurbs in the first place is an acceptable thing to do.

James, it's an interesting text you quote. . .personally, I find it illustrative of the problem I'm discussing. First, D&D claims, in bits like the text you bolded, to offer "a cut above the norm" as a baseline for adventurers. In practice, though, a person with little or no skill ranks is going to fail at a lot of tasks that "Adventurers" or "Action Heroes" are generally competent at in fiction.

To wit:

So how do normal people get through life without ranks in a lot of skills? For starters, remember that not every use of a skill requires a skill check. Performing routine tasks in normal situations is generally so easy that no check is required. And when a check might be called for, the DC of most mundane tasks rarely exceeds 10, let alone 15. In day-to-day life, when you don't have enemies breathing down your neck and your life depending on success, you can take your time and do things right – making it easy, even without any ranks in the requisite skill, to succeed.

It's not the "routine tasks" performed under no pressure or danger, that I'm worried about. It IS precisely the skill checks performed under the kind of duress action heroes regularly encounter that fall flat for me. An action hero can run, jump, climb a tree, and clamber across rooftops, in the course of a dangerous situation. He can commandeer a horse from the stables (or a modern equestrian cop) for improvised flight or pursuit. He's a fair judge of motive, enough to be shrewd in a lot of situations but get suckered on occasion. He can pull off a simple disguise or ruse, conceal a weapon on his person, subdue guards stealthily and non-lethally, and tie up a prisoner. In all these cases, he'll be soundly routed by a highly skilled opponent, but in a system like SW Saga he still has a decent shot with everyone else. In Star Wars, Obi-wan hates flying, but he can handle a fighter in a military engagement and not get killed. When it gets really hairy, Anakin bails him out.

That's the kind of play I'm going for with this "Action Hero" stuff. I find that D&D doesn't deliver that well in some areas, though it does in others (BAB scaling with level, for instance). I'm not sure what your take is, since you quoted the text without much comment. But that's my take.

As far as picking on D&D, it's my honest opinion of the system and a handy example of what I'm talking about. I tried to pick on GURPS first, but I was off base. :p  What can ya do?

Peace,
-Joel

Mel: Good thread, just wish you'd shorten your posts, you're worse than Jimbob and I often find I don't care to read his entire post more often than not.

My thoughts: Gurps is cool. I like GURPS, it's the number two game in my book (that is, the second game I ever played...). I could do GURPS stuff in my head if I had to.  It's granularity is the appeal to me, but its also the reason I don't play it: Many potential players seem intimidated by it.  Making players buy a Gesture skill isn't an issue to me.  I spent four hours in a gesture class one time. I may exaggerate the number of hours, but...

The point is: If someone want's to write down 'Good at charades' on their character sheet (I can think of several movies where this skill showed up...), they literally can via the Gesture skill. And unlike many games, taking it won't 'gimp' the character elsewhere except under the most ridiculous point levels. (10 point GURPS character? betcha someone, somewhere, thinks it's a good idea. The baseline 'low level' seems to be roughly 100 points), though I, for one, miss the 'half point' level of skills.  

And you can still play charades within the rules without the skill.

On the other hand, I am a huge fan of the 'base competancy' idea.  A few of my threads in here explore areas where I've gone off on ideas for a system using it. Where the default attribute was zero, or heroes always succeed at a task unless opposed by another 'heroic level' character.  You know, punching a fool in the face is automatic unless the fool dodges like a kung fu pro.  The only game that I ever saw that handled it halfway well was Champions. (Don't sue me if there is some great, popular game with lots of 'everyman skills' and base competencies that I've forgotten or never heard of. Maybe Tunnels and Trolls, if not having a skill system counts....)

At the table the easiest thing to do is just ignore calls for rolls for 'basic competency' actions. But at the table isn't a design factor. ;)

Quote from: MelinglorWhat I'm really looking for is: given a desire for X design feature, in this case "Baseline action hero competency built in," how do various games address that or not? Especially games that claim to.

I can only think of one - Hong Kong Action Theatre!. All the other games which come to mind have got one of several approaches,

• Ordinary person with extraordinary skills (Millenium's End)
• Superhero (Champions, etc)
• Ordinary person (Recon)
• Universal point-buy, so that by increasing the pool of points to spend and making sure they choose the right abilities, they can be action heroes (GURPS, Hero, d4-d4)
• Zero to hero - begin pretty useless advance to demigod (D&D)

Hong Kong Action Theatre! specifically aims to reproduce Hong Kong action kung-fu movies. These sometimes, but not always, differ a bit from Western action movies in that their characters do fail at things, but their failure is funny and part of the plot.

In HKAT!, a player has a character who's an actor. They have certain basic physical abilities. Then that actor takes a role in a movie, and for that role they get skills - whether or not the actor has any knowledge of, say, nuclear physics, is irrelevant to what their role knows. I don't really recall exactly how they handled skills. What I do remember was that the difficulty of hitting a character was nothing to do with their speed or dodge, but how important they were to the plot! So some nameless goon you can hit firing one-handed submachinegun with your eyes closed from a hundred yards; the chief villain you can't hit even at point blank range with aiming... You have to work up to it!

So there you have an assumption of the action movie genre - the importance of characters to the plot determining how hard they are to kill. When players talk about wanting characters who can do things like in action movies, I don't think that's the sort of thing they mean. I think they want the PCs to be extremely capable.

I think we're really talking here about assumptions, and types of players. As mentioned above, players and GMs both bring into each campaign certain assumptions about how the game world works. "But anyone can shoot someone dead without hesitation! I totally could! I do it in Halo all the time!" So this just shows that the GM and players ought to talk about what sort of game world they're going to have. Still sometimes people will get nasty surprises, but you can minimise it.

The types of players are those who curse character failure, and those who embrace it. When the dice roll and come up badly, some players are pissed off and disappointed, other players welcome the failure as a plot complication. You can usually spot which is which during character generation. Two players at my game table: "Mate, why do you always choose flawed characters?" "Because they're more interesting. Why else?"

The player who hates character failure will be more likely to complain about game systems during play, but also be suspicious of new systems - the guy at my game table does it, I do it when playing - and the one who embraces it, more likely to be indifferent to systems, and ready to try new ones.

Quote from: MelinglorThere are some patches for this. Action Points come to mind. And as i've suggested, you could do something like reduce cross-class skill cost. But these are just patches. It'd be nice if the system delivered without them.

I don't think Hero Points (or whatever you want to call them) are "patches". You could as well call a point-buy system a "patch" for random-attribute, class-level-based systems. One of the basic splits you can make in game play style preferences is between a "realistic" game in which you let the dice fall where they may (randomness is often thought to be "realistic"), and a "cinematic" game in which the player has some control over the results of individual dice rolls. Hero Points are just a tool to let the player, rather than the system decide when and where to be "cinematic" or "realistic."

Quote from: SpikeMel: Good thread, just wish you'd shorten your posts, you're worse than Jimbob and I often find I don't care to read his entire post more often than not.

Thanks, Spike! I'll, uh, work on that. Not an easy skill for me. :)

Quote from: SpikeWhere the default attribute was zero, or heroes always succeed at a task unless opposed by another 'heroic level' character.

Wow, that's a great approach. Simple and easy to implement. Cool.

Quote from: SpikeThe only game that I ever saw that handled it halfway well was Champions. (Don't sue me if there is some great, popular game with lots of 'everyman skills' and base competencies that I've forgotten or never heard of. Maybe Tunnels and Trolls, if not having a skill system counts....)

Hmm, I've read through Champs, but never gotten to play it. How does it handle it well?

Oh, and I won't sue you, but I did mention Heroquest upthread. "No Self-respecting Hero" sounds pretty similar to your "heroic level" idea.

Peace,
-Joel

You want heroic? Start with a high level character. Use a heroic point buy for abilities. There are options.

I don't have my books handy, but if I'm not mistaken, there are rules in the DMG for advancing characters - I think to provide the mechanism for creating a high level NPC.

Multiclass helps with the flexibility; not as much as GURPS, but quite a bit. Want your street urchin to be able to track like a ranger and cast arcane spells and pick locks? Ranger/Sorcerer/Rogue. I'm still re-learning the rules on multiclassing, so there's probably a specific order you should take them and such. And if I recall correctly, that character can now "buy" skills at the 1-to-1 rate for any skill that's a class skill for Ranger, Sorcerer, and Rogue.

So advance your "starting" character a total of 12 levels (say 4 each in the three clases) in a setting the GM has already set up as a heroic campaign using a point buy for abilities that puts the average at 16 and, therefore, the average bonus to skill checks at +3 (or an additional 15% chance for any skill check based on the ability). This also provides an extra three skill points per level to use to increase ranks.  The only hard limit of which I am aware is the fact the you can only have class skill ranks equal to level + 3.

If I had the books and lacked the apathy to convince you, I'd give you a heroic character straight from the existing rules.

It's not common.  For some reason, D&D players seem to like the part of growing into the heroic. JimBob called it zero-to-hero. I start out playing a cleric fresh from the seminary and grow to be the head of the council of abbotts. So it's not heroic from the get go.

But it's not impossible to use the existing rules to create a high-level campaign that's more heroic than your average 1st level adventuring party.

If that doesn't suffice, or if the counter is "well, OK, it can be done but it's a lot of work," well, then, I'd suggest that this is about taste and not about a design issue at all.

Quote from: MelinglorSpeaking of Star Wars, I really like what SAGA edition is doing with their skills:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2)

A *very* interesting link! My first thought: I like it!

My second thought: this isn't going to bring back non-weapon proficiencies, is it?

Quote from: JimBobOzI can only think of one - Hong Kong Action Theatre!. All the other games which come to mind have got one of several approaches,

• Ordinary person with extraordinary skills (Millenium's End)
• Superhero (Champions, etc)
• Ordinary person (Recon)
• Universal point-buy, so that by increasing the pool of points to spend and making sure they choose the right abilities, they can be action heroes (GURPS, Hero, d4-d4)
• Zero to hero - begin pretty useless advance to demigod (D&D)

I've always wanted to check out HKAT! Sounds like lots of fun.

I recall from my reading of Champions (I got it just as my high school group was drifting apart; I never got to play it) that it was also geared for power levels below "superhero;" that at a lower point total you could do Indiana Jones just fine. My issue in that case would be if you still had to delineate a bunch of skills at chargen to be able to do a broad range stuff decently, where I'd rather have that just be automatic, or at least easy to delineate. Probably depends on the granularity of the skill system.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe types of players are those who curse character failure, and those who embrace it. When the dice roll and come up badly, some players are pissed off and disappointed, other players welcome the failure as a plot complication. You can usually spot which is which during character generation. Two players at my game table: "Mate, why do you always choose flawed characters?" "Because they're more interesting. Why else?"

I love flawed characters. Flawed doesn't mean "buffoon" though (or doesn't have to ;) ). I find my feeling about character failure has a lot to do with the system used and how it's handled. If my sword flies out of my hand and into my buddy's eye when I roll a "1", that's not "exploring flaws," that's just "undermining my guy's badassitude." It's not that my guy has to be totally cool and successful at everything he does, but his failures as well as his successes should reinforce and highlight interesting things about his character, including his flaws.

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't think Hero Points (or whatever you want to call them) are "patches".

Actually, in this case I was only referring to Action Points specifically as a patch to D&D; a rules tweak that I find desirable for my present goal, but which only shows up in a couple of supplements. I wouldn't have had access to them if one of my players didn't have the Ebberon book.

Quote from: James J SkachYou want heroic? Start with a high level character. Use a heroic point buy for abilities. There are options.

I'm aware that you can start at a higher level, obviously. And sure, multiclassing can help round out a character. My issue is more that D&D promises "heroic" right from the ground up and doesn't completely deliver. Personally, I want to be "heroic" (that is, broadly competent and capable of impressive feats) before tackling Beholders and Red Dragons, thank you very much. That way I can have my "growing in power" arc AND be  a badass at Level 1.

Peace,
-Joel

And then I read the first preview.

My third thought: Star Wars d20 is getting more and more like Star Wars d6.

I really need to pick up that book next month!

Mel:

Its been a few years since I made a Champions character, long enough that two new editions have come out but:

The game lists a bunch of skills as 'everyman' skills. This list is not set in stone (the GM can change them to fit the setting), but every player had those skills at the basic level.  Thus, every player could drive a car, knew his home neighborhood and so on. There were a rough dozen of them, as I recall. A player could, obviously, chose to NOT be able to drive a car, but he didn't have to pay for the priviledge of using the skill system to actually, you know, do something car related in game.

Obviously a wizard at car driving would sink points into that one skill to improve it beyond the basic level... but I don't think he needed to buy that basic level over again.

Its just so simple that I'm shocked I never saw it again. (wait.. Brave new world??? Lemme get back to you on that one).

GURPS, with their 'default' skills comes a close second, where almost every normal skill is possible, if difficult, regardless of training.  But as has been pointed out elsewhere, GURPS runs on a different assumption: namely that players will want to define just how expirenced their character is in driving cars and throwing rocks in addition to whatever else they want to do.

Quote from: SpikeThe game lists a bunch of skills as 'everyman' skills. This list is not set in stone (the GM can change them to fit the setting), but every player had those skills at the basic level.  Thus, every player could drive a car, knew his home neighborhood and so on. There were a rough dozen of them, as I recall. A player could, obviously, chose to NOT be able to drive a car, but he didn't have to pay for the priviledge of using the skill system to actually, you know, do something car related in game.

Heh. That reminds me by way of contrast of Heroes Unlimited, where you did indeed have to track your level of e.g. Pilot Automobile (82%) or whatever. I hated it. Champions was what I was trying to switch out HE for, but alas, I bought the book too late.

Peace,
-Joel

EDIT: Hey, that was a short post, wasn't it? Cool! You like? :D

Much easier to follow.  Esp. from work, where I don't have twenty minutes to get bleary eyed reading posts on a screen.  ;)

strangely I've rarely had a complaint about Palladium's skill system. Ususally you have more than enough skills, and plenty given to you, that getting Pilot:whatever isn't too much a hassel, but I never did like the Heros Unlimited method compared to the others.

In HU's case it wasn't so much a matter of being hard to get as being trivial to track. The whole "lots and lots of skills to cover every possible area of competency" approach, as opposed to the "well, of coiurse you know how to do all the baseline cultural stuff" approach.

That's all, just a "not my taste" thing.

Peace,
-Joel

Well, checking my copy of Spirit of the Century, player characters get every skill in the book at Mediocre and then decide what they are GREAT at.  And they are great at a fair bit a little over half the skills in the skill list will be allocated at average and higher.

For our Traveller re-set we're pegging the baseline just below Mediocre as they are a little less "heroic".