GURPS Is A Story Game

[Baulderstone]

Interesting thoughts so far. Really, if you look at the second edition AD&D DM advice it leans to story oriented play as well. Which lead to the extreme anti-story backlash in some 3e D&D circles and the widening divide in philosophies.

Since you have brought AD&D into it, I always find it odd that people that have an aversion to any kind of meta mechanic are completely unbothered by XP for gold in early editions of D&D. One most groups get past the first few sessions, they have all the standard equipment they want and gold just starts piling up in the treasure box on their character sheet. At that point, their lust for gold is driven mainly by the fact that getting gold will score them XP. It's completely meta, and it's a central pillar of Old School D&D play.

I'm not knocking XP for gold. I think it can be a fun mechanic. I just find it an odd disconnect.

 

[Luca]

XP for gold was needed to avoid "fight everything to death" degeneration if you only award xp for monster kills.

 

[Voros]

XP for gold was needed to avoid "fight everything to death" degeneration if you only award xp for monster kills.

I’ve never bought the ‘if you award xp for killing monsters everyone fights to the death’ argument in D&D.

In 2e wasn’t xp always for defeating or overcoming monsters not killing them per se? I recall modules and GM advice to award PCs for talking to an opponent and avoiding a fight as well. When I played 2e we used xp for gold (which was an optional rule), xp for overcoming opponents and story/milestone xp.

We did initially fight everything to the death when playing D&D but that was because we were kids, at that time we were using gold for xp only and it had zero impact on our hack n’ slash approach. As we got older we changed our play-style. I don’t recall xp being a big factor in this at all.

 

[Endless Flight]

The older I get, the less XP bookkeeping I like. I find the best way is for the GM to give XP awards in decent-sized chunks at certain points in the game, like after accomplishing a important task or mission.

 

[dbm]

The older I get, the less XP bookkeeping I like.

With D&D our table standard is to level up after every (10 hr) session at earlier levels then drop off to every other session once the PCs have a few levels on them.

 

[Voros]

The older I get, the less XP bookkeeping I like. I find the best way is for the GM to give XP awards in decent-sized at certain points in the game, like after accomplishing a important task or mission.

I like the PbtA/World of Dungeons approach that some of the games use, for instance the sf Traveller-like Offworlders.

It is a point system where you get a points for the broad goals of the game and doing things that fit your class, so for instance in Offworlders you get a point for successfully completing a mission, making a profit and discovering something new and interesting in the universe. A fighter would get a point for defeating something in combat, a thief for successfully sneaking by an enemy, etc.

Far easier to track and something that can be easily done at the end of a session.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

The older I get, the less XP bookkeeping I like. I find the best way is for the GM to give XP awards in decent-sized at certain points in the game, like after accomplishing a important task or mission.

I’ve moved entirely to milestones in D&D and Savage Worlds. Accomplish something big? Everyone level up. Boom.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Since you have brought AD&D into it, I always find it odd that people that have an aversion to any kind of meta mechanic are completely unbothered by XP for gold in early editions of D&D. One most groups get past the first few sessions, they have all the standard equipment they want and gold just starts piling up in the treasure box on their character sheet. At that point, their lust for gold is driven mainly by the fact that getting gold will score them XP. It's completely meta, and it's a central pillar of Old School D&D play.

I'm not knocking XP for gold. I think it can be a fun mechanic. I just find it an odd disconnect.

It's not like it went unremarked at the time. I remember it being a major weapon in the arsenal of the Runequest partisans.

 

[David Johansen]

My favorite experience system is Rolemaster's. Experience for skills used, hits given, hits taken, crits given, crits taken, kills, spells cast, miles travelled. See, that's simulationist. The record keeping is no harder than looking at your combat record sheet where you track the bad guy's hit points. GURPS experience is a carrot and stick system that rewards showing up and playing in character.

 

[Tulpa Girl]

With D&D our table standard is to level up after every (10 hr) session at earlier levels then drop off to every other session once the PCs have a few levels on them.

While I like the simplicity of the idea, that doesn't work quite as well with TSR-era D&D where the different classes have different XP requirements for leveling up.

 

[dbm]

While I like the simplicity of the idea, that doesn't work quite as well with TSR-era D&D where the different classes have different XP requirements for leveling up.

Sure, but we play 5e

 

[David Johansen]

Now on to a deconstruction of the OP! With all due respect, I believe you're wrong.

[/QUOTE]

Really? I wasn't getting that at all :o

See above: Refereeing advice=/=part of the system. IMO, all authors simply outline their own preferred styles...which in this case is Dramatist. A fact I find unfortunate, but true nonetheless.

When the designer wrote the referee advice it is also a source of insight into their intent and design philosophy. So you're wrong

Not true, sorry. For a start, XP is a gamist tool.
1) It simulates the character having a personality, backstory, obligations and so on...and uses a gamist method to make sure the player is not going to break the simulation (often).
2) It simulates the task of herding cats making the players stop the Monthy Python jokes and playing the game - something familiar to any GM, but definitely not a narrative concern.

No, it's basically arbitrary and rewards whatever the GM and players can agree on.

...except, of course, for games where you don't have any access to Innate Attack. Or for characters who want more versatility.
In games where you have access to Innate Attack and the like? Then Innate Attack and other offensive powers are THE way to go for combat damage. As it should be in a supers game, say: mundanes shouldn't be equal to the superpowered beings.

Not really, it takes a lot of points to match an M16 with a grenade launcher mounted.

edit* okay this was actually AsenRG:
Yeah, but that's actually wrong.
The reason that you need many points to improve Strength is that you have a simple criteria for what a "point" represents: 200 hours of practice.
Now, for strength gains, that would be totally wrong...except that if you include the rest periods, which you need in order to improve Strength, you come up with a surprisingly close number.
Obviously, I can't measure the points needed to develop an Innate Attack. But odds are it wouldn't be exactly easy.

Read my statement again, I specifically referred to skills. And it was in the context of discussing how point values in GURPS are an arbitrary creative decision.

The reason that you need many points to improve Strength is that you have a simple criteria for what a "point" represents: 200 hours of practice.

No, you actually didn't at all, in fact you specifically referred to Strength.

Oh, you mean like "gold for XP" in OD&D? The one which produces caper-like behaviour, same as in the stories that the authors were inspired by?

You're forgetting the 1000 -4000 GP x level to train cost that means you can fail to level even when you have the experience. It's a gamist mechanism that allows massive hauls of loot to be gained and lost. Personally I just cut out the middle man and only give XP for GP spent on training.

Also, "mechanically balanced results" aren't really a feature of simulationist systems, though. They are a feature of gamist ones, and maybe of simulationist/dramatist ones...but despite some gamist legacy, and somewhat dramatist GMing advice, GURPS ain't any of those!

GURPS is balanced much like Chess, until the white player moves the first piece, on in this case spends the first point.

Actually, you get penalised for not playing your character, which is subtly different. Contrast that with Aspects in Fate. If your aspect penalises you in play you get an immediate reward in the form of a Fate Point that can be spent as a benefit, and this is open ended. In GURPS, you can get more positive points at character creation by accepting some form of limitation during the game. If you avoid that limitation, you are getti
ng free points and that would break the game. If you want to categorise this it is at best ‘gamist’, not ‘narrative’.

That's just a matter of granularity, points gained at the end of the session or immediately. There are optional rules in GURPS that allow points to be spent in play which would be more to the point but is admittedly an option.

There are several factors that influence GURPS point costs and the mix of mechanisms is one of the system’s ‘proud nails’ in my eyes. GURPS is reality tested as the baseline, which is to say that things that exist in the real world are modelled from that perspective if possible. This is seen most clearly in skills as others have already mentioned. For the non-real stuff that clearly doesn’t work so they use the game impact as a measure of cost. Again, sounds more gamist to me?

And that would be because GURPS is not just a combat simulator. Strength has big advantages in terms of carrying capacity which has a huge impact on mobility etc. Sounds fairly simulationist to me?

So is HERO where Strength cost 5 points per point and provides 1d6 damage and energy blast supplies 1d6 damage for 5 points gamist or simulationist?

These exist, but they are not primarily for NPCs. The small number of items like that get discussion, things like megalomania and so on. Yes, they are not purely simulationist but neither are they narrative. I don’t see how being a person who can come back from the dead gives you narrative control of the game, one of the key features of a narrative game as I understand it? Even luck only allows you to re-roll dice (until you buy increasingly high levels of luck, I will admit. But that is a 99% outlier in GURPS options)

But they're in the Character's book and never earmarked as being GM only, you're imagining things.

In short, no. Characters makes clear that the GM controls the ally, not the player. “Your Ally is usually agreeable to your suggestions, but he is not your puppet.”(p37) “the GM will adjust your Ally's abilities in order to keep his point total a fixed percentage of your own as you earn points. ... The GM decides how the Ally evolves, although he might ask you for your input.”(p37). Yes, these mechanisms allow the player to suggest ideas for the game, but the GM controls these assets, not the player.

Unless you build them with a slave mentality.

FInally, the coup de grace: “The GM's task during the game is simple. All he has to do is listen to the players describe what they're doing, then use the rules of the game to tell them what happens, so they can describe what they want to do next . . . and so on.”(p492) The players only decide on the actions of the their characters and the GM controls everything else. This is the text-book definition of a simulationist game!

Except that there are all these disadvantages and advantages that can be used to undermine that.

Yeah the Fate Fractal concept where the character sheet can represent anything within the setting.

Except GURPS doesn't explain it that way while Fate explicitly highlights it (page 270, Fate Core)

Except you can build pretty much anything in GURPS, rules as written. So, is the entire first book being the build-anything book not explicitly highlighting it?

DaveDovia
Furthermore all the elements you picked for the nation of Davedovia are descriptive rather than narrative. The nation has exceptional citizen hence Ally Group and so on.

Even the use of the term nation describes a philosophical element of the setting's culture rather something that part of a narrative.

So nice but you will have try again.

There is no mechanics for the player to a create a kingdom, it is possible for a character to have the rank and/or status of a king.

No, I just disproved your premise so you moved the goal posts.

Hmm, leaving the Pundit aside, I find it strange to argue that GURPS is a story game and Rolemaster is not. I don't think that GURPS, as it is usually played, could quite be called a storygame; it's more a matter of how you're playing it. And in that sense I will accept that any game can be played as a storygame. So I feel like this line is a little arbitrary. I'll certainly agree that Rolemaster is more difficult to play that way but it's certainly possible.

It's a question of structure and design philosophy.

 

[robertsconley]

David Johansen you had the wrong person on many of the quotes you attributed to me.

 

[robertsconley]

No, you actually didn't at all, in fact you specifically referred to Strength.

You attributing other statements to me. The only mention I made about this was in post #2

GURPS Is A Story Game

I'm going to spin this off from the character death thread because it's not about character death. My premise is simply this GURPS is a narrative oriented game. I know this shocks people thanks to the involved rules for combat and digging holes. Never the less, I believe it to be true. In...

www.rpgpub.com

Asen mention points for Strength in post #24

GURPS Is A Story Game

I'm going to spin this off from the character death thread because it's not about character death. My premise is simply this GURPS is a narrative oriented game. I know this shocks people thanks to the involved rules for combat and digging holes. Never the less, I believe it to be true. In...

www.rpgpub.com

Except you can build pretty much anything in GURPS, rules as written. So, is the entire first book being the build-anything book not explicitly highlighting it?

Obviously not otherwise the chapters on Equipment (page 264), Animals and Monsters (page 455), Technology and Artifacts (page 462) . Finally there Chapter 19 Game Worlds on page 505 which has nothing on pretending to be a kingdom.

No, I just disproved your premise so you moved the goal posts.

I am not buying that the intent of Steve Jackson was to allow people to pretend to be kingdoms with the core books of GURPS. Kings yes, kingdoms no.

 

[robertsconley]

Since you have brought AD&D into it, I always find it odd that people that have an aversion to any kind of meta mechanic are completely unbothered by XP for gold in early editions of D&D.

I always thought it was baloney and quickly did away with it

Full Size Image

 

[Edgewise]

It's a question of structure and design philosophy.

See, I thought you were just trying to demonstrate the permeability of these definitions, but you're actually just trying to redefine them a bit. I'm back to not quite getting the point. No matter, though - you do you.

I always thought it was baloney and quickly did away with it

In my homemade games I've replaced all my XP award mechanics with this one: one hour of play = 1 XP. Never had a complaint. But now all this talk of gamification has me thinking I should throw in an extra XP every session for players that show up on-time.

I can see the 1 GP = 1 XP working even though I've never played with it. It's definitely incentivizing a certain play style, but I have no problem with that sort of thing as long as it's simple and relatively non-intrusive. Whether or not this is considered "storygaming" is inconsequential to me. What is consequential to me is that it is super-simple and it provides a reasonable (and highly controllable) rate of progress.

In my own experience, complex incentives and systems that require GMs to rate player performance are a huge pain. First of all, in the heat of the moment, I don't think they have any effect on player decisions, so it doesn't end up incentivizing anything. But if you're trying to simulate reality, you're going to have to do something really novel; the closest I've seen to a realistic character progression system was the original Traveller, where you simply had to invest time and money to learn a skill via training.

And the part about rating player performance was a lot less fun for me as a GM than I expected. The same guys kept playing well every week and the same guys were kind of passive. But since the system didn't actually effect player behavior, the net effect was handing out Player Recognition Awards, which gets kind of awkward when the same guys keep winning.

 

[dbm]

That's just a matter of granularity, points gained at the end of the session or immediately. There are optional rules in GURPS that allow points to be spent in play which would be more to the point but is admittedly an option.

It is different, because you are not being rewarded in play for promoting your disadvantages; you are penalised for trying to get extra points for nothing.

So is HERO where Strength cost 5 points per point and provides 1d6 damage and energy blast supplies 1d6 damage for 5 points gamist or simulationist?

That specific mechanic sounds very gamist to me. Other mechanisms within HERO are simulationist.

But they're in the Character's book and never earmarked as being GM only, you're imagining things.

You suggested they were, not me:

Some advantages like Extra Lives, Luck, and Unkillable also primarily model narrative concerns like the villain who is thought dead but found alive again.

Unless you build them with a slave mentality.

Nope. They may follow your orders without question, but you still don’t control them. The GM decides how they attempt to follow your orders. And Slave Mentality also notes that they need careful supervision, which sounds very much like a simulation of how you would exert control over highly compliant beings.

Except that there are all these disadvantages and advantages that can be used to undermine that.

The only thing even vaguely like ‘narrative control’ covered in the books is ‘buying success’ (p346) which is half a page in a total of 575. So GURPS is less than 0.1% narrative! Even Serendipity(p83), which is probably the thing closest to narrative influence says “You are free to suggest serendipitous occurrences to the GM, but he gets the final say.” The GM is still in narrative control of the game.

 

[E-Rocker]

I don't particularly care whether or not GURPS is a story game, but I did want to point out that it has a supplement, GURPS Power-Ups 5: Impulse Buys, that explicitly provides mechanics for giving players some narrative control. The following will sound like advertising copy, because it is (copied & pasted from Warehouse 23), but I still think it's good information.

Power-Ups 5: Impulse Buys is an exhaustive study of escaping the mindset that character points are for keeps and only the GM has a say in the story. Highlights include:

• Buying Success. Influence success rolls, damage rolls, rolls on tables, and more -- up to and including avoiding "nuisance rolls."
• Player Guidance. Alter setting and plot, obtain cash and favors, and seek divine intervention . . . for a price.
• Survival. Deflect injury, infirmity, and even death for both yourself and your Allies.
• Amazing Feats. Use points to push your abilities past their limits to pull off combat tricks, high-powered magic, and super-stunts, and even to make permanent changes in the world.
• New Kinds of Points. Learn about splitting character points into multiple categories -- not to mention Destiny Points, Impulse Points, Serendipity Points, and Wildcard Points.
• Shaking the Foundations. Revisit where points come from, where they go, and whether you even need them.
• And Much More. Bids and wagers with points? Karma? Bullet Time? It's all here!

If you've ever felt that character points should do more than buy skills and Hit Points, or yearned to adapt points-for-outcomes systems from other RPGs, then you'll find Power-Ups 5: Impulse Buys refreshing and useful!

 

[David Johansen]

David Johansen you had the wrong person on many of the quotes you attributed to me.

Possibly, that was a massive multiquote mess. I'll look it over. Okay, you already did it and I'm getting a headache Sorry

 

[David Johansen]

You suggested they were, not me:

No, you're assuming "villains" are npcs.

 

[David Johansen]

See, I thought you were just trying to demonstrate the permeability of these definitions, but you're actually just trying to redefine them a bit. I'm back to not quite getting the point. No matter, though - you do you.

Not quite, I'm talking about fixed assumptions about the nature of specific games, and how they don't always match the actual game.

So, it's the permeability of the perception of a game rather than the permeability of the definition.

I suppose what's brought it into mind, is getting a warning somewhere, the other day, for suggesting that one might find Fate or The Apocalyse Engine as unplayable as Rolemaster or GURPS depending on preferences. I get tired of some games getting a pass and others being considered fair targets. In certain other forums one can get banned for saying anything negative about D&D but people can freely crap all over threads about games I like. It gets on my nerves. I hadn't really associated the events previously. But it may just be my dander is up a bit.

 

[robertsconley]

And the part about rating player performance was a lot less fun for me as a GM than I expected. The same guys kept playing well every week and the same guys were kind of passive. But since the system didn't actually effect player behavior, the net effect was handing out Player Recognition Awards, which gets kind of awkward when the same guys keep winning.

Which is why when I started using OD&D ten years I turn this int a milestone system instead of judgment of roleplaying. I gave higher awards when the players achieved some goal that they set for themselves. The more difficult or involved the goal the higher the award multiplier. The math already worked well and changing it to milestone made the players like it. I also use the same system for 5th edition with different factors.


Still tally XP for monsters tho.

 

[David Johansen]

One thing I do for Rolemaster is to take the "idea points" which are 50% of total experience awarded to the group and divide them up in a manner that balances out the rewards while still allowing the high scoring players to stay in the lead. It adds an incentive for active play. So that's a bit fuzzy but the players like hearing who got high score last session. That's a rather gamist thing I suppose.

 

[Skarg]

GURPS is a toolkit that especially in later publications allows all sorts of gameplay styles.

"Narrative" or "story-based" may be one of the ways people can play GURPS.

That doesn't mean that GURPS itself is a story-game. I think the argument/essay format here is getting in the way of the true situation.
i.e., this:

My premise is simply this GURPS is a narrative oriented game. I know this shocks people thanks to the involved rules for combat and digging holes. Never the less, I believe it to be true.

Seems to me just a non-starter that shouldn't be argued except maybe for academic fun.

It's an essay thesis statement... and so expresses a theory that can be argued, but is only true from it's own limited perspective.

When I run GURPS, it is not a story game.

In particular I suggest reading the Writing Your Own Adventures in GMing section starting on page 500 which contains such gems as "Features of A Good Adventure: A clear introduction, a plotline that builds tension or mystery, and a clear conclusion." And in the Dungeons side bar "Likewise, the “plot” for a hack-and-slash adventure will be very simple. “Joe the Barbarian, with his friends Ed the Barbarian and Marge the Barbarian, went down into a cave. They saw lots of monsters and killed them and took their treasure. A dragon ate Ed. Joe and Marge ran away. The End.” If you want to create a situation that actually makes sense, you have advanced to the level of adventure design. Congratulations."

Yeah that's the GM advice section in the end and like this post, presents one way of looking at running an RPG. And yeah, it has some pretty narrative-oriented perspectives, which is kind of annoying to me, but those narrative-oriented bits can and should be ignored by GMs not into that perspective.

Admittedly you may need to separate character creation from combat. The combat system is a detailed simulation but it can still be deconstructed down to roll against skill to hit, roll against Move +3 to dodge or 3 + Skill /2 to parry or block. Roll damage, subtract armour start rolling HT to stay conscious at 0, Start rolling at -HT to stay alive. Not as bad as all that at the root is it?

It's not "bad" at all. GURPS combat kicks ass, and yes, is not all that complex once you learn it, unless you roll out lots of advanced supplements.

But let's talk about characters because that's really where the narrativist roots show most strongly. GURPS gives out points for character traits called "Disadvantages" which give the players narrative control over the content of the game. For instance, you get points for having a dependant like a girlfriend or a child with a strict injunction that you obtain no character point rewards if they are harmed in play. Similarly, failing to play your disadvantages is penalized by removing the character point reward for roleplaying. Yes that's right there's an 'experience' reward for playing in character. What does that simulate? That's right, nothing.

Those guidelines for giving out points are not directly simulating anything, true.
They're also not directly narrative-ating anything.
They're just an attempt to provide an incentive to roleplay your character.
And like the other guidelines for giving out additional points, they can be completely ignored or replaced by GMs, and often are.

I can't really pull up all the forum conversations over the years where the designers, and Dr Kromm in particular, have discussed the pricing of advantages and disadvantages but this is one of the places where GURPS philosophically differs from HERO. The GURPS prices are set based on how desirable or undesirable the trait is in narrative terms or how much they impact the game. Really, I've always thought they were pulled from somewhere else entirely but anyone who's tried to run GURPS combat as a wargame can tell you that the points system doesn't balance on tactical utility. Compare Innate Attack's pricing to Strength and you'll find you're paying a huge premium for Strength's broader applicability to non-combat damage. Even using Super Effort Strength from Supers you only break even at 100 points. Anyhow, the reason the pricing seems a bit arbitrary at times is that the narrative utility is being considered rather than mechanical utility.

Well, I would not say the point values are "based [...] in narrative terms", for the most part.

I would say the point values are based on a wide variety of things.

And that it's an almost impossible task to give point values on the same scale of points to various levels of polearm skill compared to a alcoholism or law enforcement powers or wealth or social status or x-ray eyes.

And 4e GURPS has made a Herculean effort to try to make all the possible character abilities in all situations have some sort of rational system for costing X amount of points.

And that it's a potentially useful tool so a GM can describe and weight things.

But that it's also kind of insane and as an expert GURPS GM and simulationist, I largely ignore most of the point system. Because it's all apples and oranges and a bit silly to me since it's mostly so non-representational. And it seems like a huge time/attention sink that I'm not very interested in.

But I wouldn't tend to use the adjective "narrative" for GURPS point costs.

If I were, I'd probably be talking about the few advantages and disadvantages that specify frequency that some ally or enemy or whatever appears. I almost never use those, because that's not usually the way I run games.

But fine, those elements are a bit narrative-ist I guess, and those are precisely the bits I don't use.

Some advantages like Extra Lives, Luck, and Unkillable also primarily model narrative concerns like the villain who is thought dead but found alive again.

Yeah, depending on how you interpret them, maybe. And similarly, why I tend not to include them. Remember, GURPS is a toolkit and if you don't use the narrative bits, you don't lose much of anything still have a massive detailed game system that still wants plenty of trimming.

And, things like Extra Lives, Luck and Unkillable can also be used in entirely non-narrative-ist ways. For example, They can be interpreted as blessing, or inspiration, or magic, or something else in-world.

But the telling features are carrots and sticks that reward appropriate behaviour, mechanical tools that give the players some control over the contents of the narrative, and a design philosophy that is focused on producing "good stories" over producing mechanically balanced results.

I'm curious what specific GURPS mechanics you are thinking of that "give the players some control over the contents of the narrative"?

 

[David Johansen]

I'm curious what specific GURPS mechanics you are thinking of that "give the players some control over the contents of the narrative"?

Again, Advantages and Disadvantages that let you insert characters and concepts into the game. Say I want a character with a Status 6 Multimillionaire girlfriend. I can buy that and you're telling me it doesn't affect the content of the narrative?

Some things like modular abilities could be used to go farther.

But, no, honestly my premise is pretty weak because Story Game has a pretty extreme and specific definition. Which is what made the premise fun to poke around with. Like Skarg, I find the points system annoying in places and not to my liking.

Sometimes, I think the hobby has drifted far enough away from me that I'm crossing the horrizon.

 

[Skarg]

Again, Advantages and Disadvantages that let you insert characters and concepts into the game. Say I want a character with a Status 6 Multimillionaire girlfriend. I can buy that and you're telling me it doesn't affect the content of the narrative?

No, I would say that's just a way a GM may allow a PC to start with a relationship with that sort of character.

The "narrative" is what happens to happen during play, or maybe later get re-told in a narrative voice.

The effect of the rich high-status girlfriend will be whatever it is, based on logical cause and effect of that situation.

That's just allowing players to define relationships as part of the starting description of their character.

It's no differently narrative than players choosing whether to start with a bow, or the "Detect Food" spell.

It might even be described as less narrative "agency" or whatever, because the GM will decide what the girlfriend chooses to do, not the player.

The parts I find weird about those sorts of (dis)advantages in GURPS are that I think they over-specify (for my tastes) things like the frequency of appearance, roles, and sometimes the CP totals for those characters. I think that's kind of BS and would only take those things as rough guidelines. I just have them be a way a player can start with such a relationship and suggest a point value for it, but after that, the NPC is just a part of my game world and will naturally do what they do as often or not as makes sense due to natural cause & effect.

Like Skarg, I find the points system annoying in places and not to my liking.

Sometimes, I think the hobby has drifted far enough away from me that I'm crossing the horrizon.

Yeah, even hanging around the GURPS forums, there are WAY more conversations about how to model weird super powers and stuff (mostly things I'd probably never include in my games) and mainly just talking about how many points it should cost if they mix X limitation with Y ability, and I tend to think "uh, why do that and who cares what the exact points are - just model the thing and ingnore or handwave the points".

 

[TristramEvans]

So is HERO where Strength cost 5 points per point and provides 1d6 damage and energy blast supplies 1d6 damage for 5 points gamist or simulationist?.

[/QUOTE]


I think its definitely polyplutionist, maybe a little optmifunctionist. I wouldn't call it domnopyrotheatrictionist at all.

 

[Trippy]

I think its definitely polyplutionist, maybe a little optmifunctionist. I wouldn't call it domnopyrotheatrictionist at all.

Man, this thread turned political!

 

[dbm]

I don't particularly care whether or not GURPS is a story game, but I did want to point out that it has a supplement, GURPS Power-Ups 5: Impulse Buys, that explicitly provides mechanics for giving players some narrative control.

For sure. To put that into context, however, I have over 350 GURPS publications (don’t judge me!) and that is basically the only focus on narrative mechanisms and how to add them to GURPS. By any objective measure, the existence of Impulse Buys proves that GURPS is very far from a narrative game!

 

[Edgewise]

I think its definitely polyplutionist, maybe a little optmifunctionist. I wouldn't call it domnopyrotheatrictionist at all.

Hey, not that there's anything wrong with it, but you don't need to tell us everything that you do in your private life! #TMITristamEvans

 

[TristramEvans]

Hey, not that there's anything wrong with it, but you don't need to tell us everything that you do in your private life! #TMITristamEvans

 

[Black Vulmea]

Hmm, leaving the Pundit aside . . .

First sensible thing anyone's said about El Pundejo in this thread.

Since you have brought AD&D into it, I always find it odd that people that have an aversion to any kind of meta mechanic are completely unbothered by XP for gold in early editions of D&D. One most groups get past the first few sessions, they have all the standard equipment they want and gold just starts piling up in the treasure box on their character sheet. At that point, their lust for gold is driven mainly by the fact that getting gold will score them XP. It's completely meta, and it's a central pillar of Old School D&D play.

You're overlooking the significance of the stronghold in early D&D - it takes a steady supply of gelt to build, staff, and maintain a castle or a temple, or to conduct spell research and produce magic items.

 

[AsenRG]

My favorite experience system is Rolemaster's. Experience for skills used, hits given, hits taken, crits given, crits taken, kills, spells cast, miles travelled. See, that's simulationist. The record keeping is no harder than looking at your combat record sheet where you track the bad guy's hit points. GURPS experience is a carrot and stick system that rewards showing up and playing in character.

Well, no game is perfect. Not even GURPS, alas!

Yes, I like Rolemaster's approach better, too.

When the designer wrote the referee advice it is also a source of insight into their intent and design philosophy. So you're wrong

No.
That would only be true if you assume that the Referee advice was written to complement the rest of the rules. But, for way too many games, it's not true, IMO(bservations).
The Referee advice seems to be (usually) slapped on to support whatever playstyle the writers think 1) it is a popular playstyle among fans and/or 2) want to promote, and/or 3) have been using themselves, and/or 4) would be easiest for a new GM (assuming - correctly IME - that experienced ones wouldn't need it) and/or 5) would help selling new supplements, and/or 6) other.

And you'll notice that I left the option "supports best the way the rest of the rules to achieve the best synergy for how the game is meant to be played" as part of the "other". Because really, it's not a standard. Not by a wide margin, if I can discern intentions from text...and I'm pretty sure that my abilities in said area are no worse than yours or anyone else's!

 

[Mook]

To the question of whether GURPS is or is not a "story game," I feel like it's both (and synthesizes quite well with elements of Fate). The "Generic" in GURPS doesn't refer to setting/genre but play style. The default system, out of the box and analogous to most other multi-genre RPGs? Sure. Hyper-detailed with an array of options and rules tweaks? You bet. On-the-fly, roll 3d6 against a target number with modifiers? Hell yeah!

I see concerns sometimes that "all GURPS games feel like GURPS games," but that's never matched my experience. For that party of Force Recon played by ex-mil grognards counting every round and tin of food, trying to stay behind enemy lines as long as possible to sew mayhem? Full treatment: range penalties, bleeding rules, nothing cinematic of any kind, firearms malfunctions, skill familiarity, all of it. Not a story game.

The party of children's imaginary friends banding together to enter Dreamland and rescue their kids from the Boogeyman? 3d6 roll low, no damage modifiers, range bands (if that!), and a ton of Influence Points so the players can just go nuts. Definitely a story game (by my definition).

Totally a different feel, a different game experience. I haven't had that happen with other games like Fate, Risus, Savage Worlds, etc.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Well, for starters, I disagree with the design of an adventure. I do not have a start point, certainly no plot building tension, and no conclusion in mind.

Situations exist. The PCs may or may not interact with them. The NPCs involved in the situations will react if the PCs interact.

What happens, happens.

Some of us still run sandbox games.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

You're overlooking the significance of the stronghold in early D&D - it takes a steady supply of gelt to build, staff, and maintain a castle or a temple, or to conduct spell research and produce magic items.

This with bloody knobs on.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Also, as Kyle A. has been saying for years, rules system is absolutely the least important part of any RPG experience.

If everybody at the table wants to run a "story game," you can run a "story game" with literally any system out there.

And, why does it matter?

Let's say GURPS IS a story game. So what? I can still use it to run a sandbox world. (which does not guarantee a "satisfying climax" to an "adventure.")

 

[Baulderstone]

You're overlooking the significance of the stronghold in early D&D - it takes a steady supply of gelt to build, staff, and maintain a castle or a temple, or to conduct spell research and produce magic items.

Domain management isn't something that comes in until late into a campaign and plenty of players just don't engage with the idea.

 

[Baulderstone]

First sensible thing anyone's said about El Pundejo in this thread.


You're overlooking the significance of the stronghold in early D&D - it takes a steady supply of gelt to build, staff, and maintain a castle or a temple, or to conduct spell research and produce magic items.

That's all part of the late game, and many people either aren't going to get there or simply aren't interested in the option of domain management. I guess you can view domain management as a mandatory part of the campaign arc with XP for gold as part of that system to help enforce it.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Or you can view it as how the writer and his players played the game, and later players weren't interested.

The first players WERE interested in domain management.