Quote from: estar;1120461I understand where you are coming from.

 The setting has everything to do determining how far a character jumps, if I told you that unless otherwise stated it works like it would in the 12th century western europe, you could then look in a book to find out how far the average person can jump because that how it would work on the planet Earth. The same as if we played a Barsoom campaign that the lower gravity give character born on earth greater strength and movement capabilities compared to the inhabitants of Barsoom.

The same applies even when the setting is fantastic like the world of looney tune cartoons. If something isn't covered in the rules you look at the source material and get the answer.

And if the players don't know then the referee should be knowledgeable enough about the setting to teach the players what they need to know.

Conversely if one used a set of rules that allowed character to do a 40' standing long jump but yet contend the setting is similar to that of western europe of the 12th century that an issue. The rules doesn't reflect the setting of the campaign and need to be changed so they do. The players can rightly point out the inconsistency in the referee's ruling and what been described about the setting.

 
And yet the wargaming and the tabletop RPG community of the early 70s prior to the release of D&D didn't have the issue that you are talking about. It been documented that they relied on tersely written mechanics. For everything else got the details from various books and publications. The most fantastic material also drawing inspiration from film and tv. Since they are the ones who invented tabletop roleplaying in the first place perhaps something being missed by the present day hobby.

 Or the referee needed to be a better coach and teacher. Or the players should be asking questions. Or players should take some responsibility and read some source materials on the setting before playing the campaign.

No it is not obvious how far a average person can go with a standing broad jump (7.5 feet) but it is answer that can be easily found even in the 70s.

 I don't agree, such rules made it into various RPGs and later editions of D&D for two reasons.

1) Gygax didn't do well in teaching a critical aspect of running tabletop roleplaying campaigns when writing D&D. That the ultimate source of your ruling is the setting of your campaign. Later when Gygax and co were caught in TSR expansion, they "gave" in and basically said "fine, you want rules, we will give you rules" and thus AD&D and later editions.

2) Because this critical point wasn't taught the rest of the hobby treated tabletop roleplaying as another game rather it is own thing. People were taught and still taught that you play games by their rules or you are cheating. And like you said if a games doesn't have a rule is not covered and thus not part of the game.

However to be fair to Gygax he did touch on this in the 3 LBB talking about it in the introduction however it wasn't followed up on.



and ending with this in Book 3.



 

When I debate this or talk about, often people think that I am criticizing the behavior of players. Saying that they are too lazy to read, or that you are wrong about what is obvious or not. That not the case.

The burden is on the referee as the person who choose the setting, responsible for making rulings, and managing the campaign. The referee having pick the setting shouldn't assume that the players knows anything about the time or place that was choose. So it on the referee to be a coach and teacher when they see the players making incorrect assumptions.

Especially if they choose something not commonly known like an original setting based on the mythology inspired by the religions of southeast asia. I am aware of this when running the Majestic Wilderlands irregardless whether I am using GURPS or OD&D. Sure I try to make things easier by using commonly known tropes so players are more comfortable in making assumptions. But there always somebody who hasn't  read Lord of the Rings and knows little of Middle Ages and thus it falls on me to coach them until they are comfortable with the campaign.

The way to make tabletop roleplaying better is not better rules but better referees. The rules are just one of the tool to make the campaign happen. In addition, your viewpoint makes recruiting people into tabletop roleplaying more difficult. Because it sets up the requirement that one has to learn a intricate set of rules along with the setting as well.

The approach I advocate, the one used by many who originated the hobby, is one where players describe what they do as if they are there as the character then if a dice roll is needed the referee will tell the player what they need to know. Over time the player will learn the mechanics but in the meantime they are having as much fun as the players who mastered the rulebook.

Wrapping it or what does this has to do with fucking GURPS?

Steve Jackson is an old school wargamer and he known for games with simple but elegant mechanics and for games that cover a lot of details in its mechanics. From what I read and experienced he comes from the same place as the wargamers did in the 70s. Except what we mostly have seen from them are the first steps. With Steve Jackson we see the result of a experienced referee with years if not decades of consistent ruling under their belt. Put down in written form.

What many in the OSR don't get is that if you run a setting long enough, if you write down the things you rule on. The accumulated mechanics will put you in a similar place. Maybe not as detailed as GURPS or D&D 3rd edition but it not the 3 LBB of OD&D anymore either. If your setting is consistent then the resulting set of mechanics will have an internal consistency of their own.

For GURPS, Steve Jackson and his team are very good at designing consistent ruling across a wide variety of topics. Which is one reason why I gravitated to them back in 88 and why I still use them from time to time when I run a Majestic Wilderlands campaign using the GURPS rules.

There's too much to unpack here, but one of the fundamental issue I have is that you're laying down 100% of ALL the responsibility on the GM for coming up with this information when GMs themselves will inevitably be unequipped to handle such issues when they're initially introduced into the hobby and are tackling this type of problem for the first time. And while you rightly point out that the original rules material was (and perhaps still is) lacking in teaching GMs how to make this types of rulings, it is unrealistic to expect new or even experienced GM to make things up on the spot every time. Sometimes they have no realistic way to know, and at the end of the day, the GM is a client purchasing a product that's ostensibly supposed to tell them these things (i.e. the rules) so they don't have to make them up themselves.

If I, as the GM, I'm the one 100% responsible for coming up with the rules for how everything works in the game, then WTF am I giving game companies my money for?

Additionally, a lot of these rules components are pretty much applicable to most settings anyways. I don't need some specialized rules for jumping for every single, separate setting I play. Most game worlds are assumed to be roughly Earth gravity and have human or humanoid characters with near identical basic anatomy to Earth humans. It's only when playing in worlds that are specifically not based on Earth-like gravity that I need specialized rules, and published settings will typically include them rather than laying the whole responsibility of coming up with them on the GM. And typically they are just be a modifier for the baseline rules for jumping used in the system rather than a completely new sub system just for handling jumping in that specific world.

The vast majority of actions are the same regardless of what setting you play. Its only the specific knowledge that characters have available that typically changes, but knowledge rolls (or task resolution in general) typically work the same regardless of setting because all of these things are determined by the rules set. Its only the minutia that tends to vary by setting.

The "source material" is also not always a good place to look for these details because sometimes the source material isn't even a game manual, but some a story, movie or TV show that may have no game materials. Even when the source material is real life that's still not always an effective source for how to handle things in terms of the game rules because real life figures don't always apply universality. On the example of jumping (again) I might be able to find real life sources for jumping distance, but not everyone jumps the same distance in real life. Best I will be able to find are averages (which don't tell me how far an athletic character jumps vs a non-athletic one) or records of competitions between athletes that are above average compared to the general public in terms of leaping ability. So none of that stuff gives me exact figures that directly transcribe to the game rules. I would have to look up various jump distances and extrapolate how far a base jump distance would be and how much impact an ability roll may have on it for rules purposes, based on the system I'm using--so again, system matters.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703There's too much to unpack here, but one of the fundamental issue I have is that you're laying down 100% of ALL the responsibility on the GM for coming up with this information when GMs themselves will inevitably be unequipped to handle such issues when they're initially introduced into the hobby and are tackling this type of problem for the first time.

A good GM will have been a player for a while first, learning from both good GMs and bad. There is a natural course to things.

QuoteIf I, as the GM, I'm the one 100% responsible for coming up with the rules for how everything works in the game, then WTF am I giving game companies my money for?

Exactly. You don't have to.

But here you've not distinguished between rules and rulings. No rules can ever be 100% comprehensive. That's because we have a social creative hobby. If you go through a game session and they players didn't think of something which the rules don't cover, then you have a rather dull and unimaginative game group. Absent a rule, the GM must make a ruling.

Every rule set is finite, and thus incomplete. The only question is how comprehensive it is. Again: if it's light then the GM must spend time coming up with a ruling, if it's dense then the GM must spend time looking up charts. Either way things are slowed down. That's why a skilled GM either knows their game rules very well, or becomes good at making rulings quickly. The latter skill is always important since as I said no rule set is complete.

No rule set can be complete, which is why game companies keep publishing more rule books. Relevant here, since we're talking about GURPS, is its 3rd edition - which was famed for its worldbooks. This allowed GMs to have interesting game worlds without having to invent an entire world from whole cloth, like Tolkien, or needing a history degree. That is, they published base rules and setting books. Now they mostly just publish base rules and then more rules.

With GURPS 3e you had to make up some rules, but didn't have to make up a setting. Now with 4e you don't have to make up as many rules, but you do have to make up a setting.

Either way as GM you have to make something up. That's the job. But again, we have a social creative hobby, you'll do better if you're social and creative. If you're a socially inept dork you can just play computer games, and if you're not creative you can play board games. But if you're social and creative, or would like to try to be, then you play tabletop rpgs. Which means making something up, however much you pay game companies.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1120707A good GM will have been a player for a while first, learning from both good GMs and bad. There is a natural course to things.


Exactly. You don't have to.

But here you've not distinguished between rules and rulings. No rules can ever be 100% comprehensive. That's because we have a social creative hobby. If you go through a game session and they players didn't think of something which the rules don't cover, then you have a rather dull and unimaginative game group. Absent a rule, the GM must make a ruling.

Every rule set is finite, and thus incomplete. The only question is how comprehensive it is. Again: if it's light then the GM must spend time coming up with a ruling, if it's dense then the GM must spend time looking up charts. Either way things are slowed down. That's why a skilled GM either knows their game rules very well, or becomes good at making rulings quickly. The latter skill is always important since as I said no rule set is complete.

No rule set can be complete, which is why game companies keep publishing more rule books. Relevant here, since we're talking about GURPS, is its 3rd edition - which was famed for its worldbooks. This allowed GMs to have interesting game worlds without having to invent an entire world from whole cloth, like Tolkien, or needing a history degree. That is, they published base rules and setting books. Now they mostly just publish base rules and then more rules.

With GURPS 3e you had to make up some rules, but didn't have to make up a setting. Now with 4e you don't have to make up as many rules, but you do have to make up a setting.

Either way as GM you have to make something up. That's the job. But again, we have a social creative hobby, you'll do better if you're social and creative. If you're a socially inept dork you can just play computer games, and if you're not creative you can play board games. But if you're social and creative, or would like to try to be, then you play tabletop rpgs. Which means making something up, however much you pay game companies.

I didn't really argue against that. My original point was just a nitpick at someone claiming that D&D didn't force you into classes and some other stuff, where I mentioned that D&D limited choices based around class, "Especially in old D&D (the older the more limited).", then estar nitpicked my nitpicking and the discussion morphed into game rules vs GM rulings.

Obviously no system can be fully comprehensive, but they can still lack rule elements that may seem obviously necessary in retrospect, like how long can a character jump if they were leaping across a chasm, which is a likely scenario in an adventure game, but not something that would necessarily come to mind when initially designing a RPG back when they were still on their infancy.

Rules don't always need to be comprehensive, however. Some rules can also have a wide range of applicability without having to be comprehensive, such as task resolution mechanics, which can give you a base guideline of how to handle actions where failure might be a possibility, even if not all actions are defined in the game. Such rules can serve as the middle ground between the GM having to make something up from scratch cuz things aren't handled in the rules, and having extremely detailed rules, cuz they provide the GM with something to fall back on even when things aren't 100% covered in the rules.

I don't have a problem with the absence of jumping rules, because it's something everyone's done so it's trivial to come up with something reasonable - not necessarily realistic, since who's ever been a warrior in mail jumping a chasm? - but reasonable. And that's good enough.

The rules need to be there for things which are not intuitively obvious from most people's everyday experience, like lockpicking or making traps or the like. But again, the GM will never be relieved of the burden of just making things up because making things up is what roleplaying games are.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703If I, as the GM, I'm the one 100% responsible for coming up with the rules for how everything works in the game,

Yes the referee is 100% responsible.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703then WTF am I giving game companies my money for?

1) Because often it is leisure activity done in the time one has for a hobby and the game company's product save you time.
2) ANd/or because you like the material the game company writes for your campaign.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703There's too much to unpack here, but one of the fundamental issue I have is that you're laying down 100% of ALL the responsibility on the GM for coming up with this information when GMs themselves will inevitably be unequipped to handle such issues when they're initially introduced into the hobby and are tackling this type of problem for the first time.

That is something to consider but not what this part of thread is about.  If you want to start a thread about teaching novices about RPGs I have plenty to say on the topic.

In regards the GURPS, product line is poorly designed to teach a novice to RPGs. They do have two decent books, How to be a GURPS GM "http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/howtobeagurpsgm/" and GURPS for dummies https://www.amazon.com/GURPS-Dummies-Adam-Griffith/dp/0471783293, however I think they are better for somebody who already played RPGs.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703And while you rightly point out that the original rules material was (and perhaps still is) lacking in teaching GMs how to make this types of rulings, it is unrealistic to expect new or even experienced GM to make things up on the spot every time.

How far can somebody throw a broadsword in a setting based on a fantasy medieval Europe? I doubt you will say 1 feet, and I doubt you will say 100 feet. If I had to guess, I would say most people would put it at somewhere between 5 to 15 feet.

The point is I know a figure flashed through your head when you read that. If that came up in a system that didn't account for throwing a sword. I would say go with the number you thought of.  If need right it down in a notebook so you can reference it again if it comes up.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1120703The "source material" is also not always a good place to look for these details because sometimes the source material isn't even a game manual, but some a story, movie or TV show that may have no game materials. Even when the source material is real life that's still not always an effective source for how to handle things in terms of the game rules because real life figures don't always apply universality. On the example of jumping (again) I might be able to find real life sources for jumping distance, but not everyone jumps the same distance in real life. Best I will be able to find are averages (which don't tell me how far an athletic character jumps vs a non-athletic one) or records of competitions between athletes that are above average compared to the general public in terms of leaping ability. So none of that stuff gives me exact figures that directly transcribe to the game rules. I would have to look up various jump distances and extrapolate how far a base jump distance would be and how much impact an ability roll may have on it for rules purposes, based on the system I'm using--so again, system matters.

Irregardless of system what I do is think of the following

What is the everyman level?
What is the trained level?
What is the experienced professional level?
What is the Olympic/Noble caliber level?

By structuring my research  to answer those four questions, I wind up with numbers I need within the time I have for a hobby. The rest can be extrapolated between these four points of information. Given time the initial result can be refined if need be. I did this with the Merchant system I use in my Majestic Wilderlands. Started with something basic and added details over time. To often people try to build everything at once. Just start with what you need and build it over time. But if need be, buy a product that has to work done.  But nobody has a rules system that cover everything one can do a in a setting.

Quote from: David Johansen;1120275One thing I think people miss is that many advantages and disadvantages are actually narrative currency which the player uses to include things they want in the game.  Want a lover?  Take a Dependant.  Want a kindly mentor to learn spells from take a Contact or a Patron.  GURPS is actually a narrativist game not a simulationist one.

That is an excellent insight, although sadly it means GURPS will never be the game for me.

Quote from: David Johansen;1120275One thing I think people miss is that many advantages and disadvantages are actually narrative currency which the player uses to include things they want in the game.  Want a lover?  Take a Dependant.  Want a kindly mentor to learn spells from take a Contact or a Patron.  GURPS is actually a narrativist game not a simulationist one.

Maybe some GMs run some aspects of GURPS in a narrativist way, but I would say most of the game is simulationist.

The character points system and traits you mentioned are about agreement on what kind of character you can start with, mainly, and subject to GM approval. I have NEVER seen a GURPS GM or players have an action during play be to buy a relationship with character points.

It happens more if you allow some undefined points to be set aside.  It can be a good option since it lets the players tailor to the setting and scenario on the fly but it can also be abused, of course.

Personally, I pretty much never use disadvantages for pre-generated characters because people always hate the ones I pick.  If you don't like disadvantages in GURPS, hand out more points and either limit them or ban them.  I'll often put the limit at ten points of disadvantages.  Though I've said many times before that character creation is actually the weakest part of GURPS.

Quote from: Skarg;1120792Maybe some GMs run some aspects of GURPS in a narrativist way, but I would say most of the game is simulationist.

The character points system and traits you mentioned are about agreement on what kind of character you can start with, mainly, and subject to GM approval. I have NEVER seen a GURPS GM or players have an action during play be to buy a relationship with character points.

Sadly my experience is similar, except for "in potential, between sessions." Often the xp points during tend to fuel INT or DEX or some other skill, and GMs want starting adv/disadv points more fixed and prepared for their campaign before they embark. The temptation for most GMs is "Everything On!" -- across just about every RPG I've played -- not just GURPS. But it is a stumbling block that feels most detrimental to campaigns using skill-based games, in my experience, as the system mastery swing can be horrific.

I am more of the view: no points for adv/disadvs, all subject to GM approval (often to be given as roleplay rewards during campaign on case-by-case basis for being a consistently pro-active, cooperative player at the table).

It helps kill the impetus for chargen system mastery dead. It is not something I want -- at all -- in my campaigns. I just want people to enjoy my fictive world and see their emergent stories grow from their own adventures. Less fussy, more play.

Mhmm. "Everything On!", or anything close to it, seems crazy to me for GURPS...

Quote from: Skarg;1120822Mhmm. "Everything On!", or anything close to it, seems crazy to me for GURPS...

Further proof Gurps is beyond redemption! :rolleyes:

The problem I have with many disadvantages in GURPS is that the player gets the points from them, but the negatives tend to fall on the whole party. Either from the shared stigma of the one character's social and hygienic disads, or by having to spend valuable game time dealing with the one character's physical or psychological limitations.

Although, that said, I've still managed to have a lot of fun playing in GURPS games over the years.

Quote from: Omega;1120851Further proof Gurps is beyond redemption! :rolleyes:

No, not at all.

It's just that GURPS contains lots of content for pretty much every era, every genre, every supernatural and technological whatever, every level of magic and psionic and super hero power, every level of detail, realistic to four-color-comic book, hyper-detailed to broad strokes, etc etc etc, and has countless settings books, support for time travel, religions, etc and on and on and on.

So naturally, saying "Everything On!" is asking for a cacophony of unmanageable unbalanced incompatible nonsense.

But it also means GURPS can handle countless different settings and styles of play, and so can be tailored to taste.

And, just because I said it seems crazy to me, doesn't mean there aren't GURPS GMs who do try allowing most/all things, and enjoy it... though the reason I don't do that any more, is because I've learned so many times by including even just certain spells, that that often leads to things I don't want in my game worlds.

Exactly. It is a bit crazy. And flaws do tend to cost overhead playtime with busywork maintenance.

I myself like to "curate" the options in class-based games already, like D&D. And from skill-based games, like In Nomine, CoC, d6 and GURPS, it became rapidly apparent that such "curation" of options became even more mission critical. But too often I see GMs, especially new GMs, just flip the switch on and assume a) they can handle it all, b) it can be handled by all the players, and c) it enhances gametime's signal to noise ratio.

For me that "Everything On!" is a recipe for disaster. GURPS is very much not instant cake mix. It's a kitchen; it's a toolkit.

I think GURPS needs to reprint its 3e Cookbooks filled with Recipes.

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

I've just not had much problem with having a working set I like with since I started with TFT and then GURPS 1e, and don't often try to play in other GMs' games.

And yes, my working set is basically 3e with some pieces from 4e and house rules, and 90% of the things you could do in GURPS, never to be used (e.g. no supers, psis, or cinematics).

And I'd admit that especially since 4e, the GMs, settings and house rules of others that I have looked at, have much more likely looked like nothing I'd want to play, than they used to back before 4e came out. They seem to be enjoying themselves, but I have a hard time relating. I'm not sure how much of that is good or bad - no doubt it depends on your perspective.