One of my personal training clients is a gamer. Well, generally lapsed gamer in any case. He used to play D&D - 3.5 as far as I can tell - when he was younger.
He and his friends have gotten a bit nostalgic for their D&D playing days. He dug out his old D&D books and they've been thinking about playing.
So the other day, between deadlifting and bench pressing, he asked me - "Do you recommend GURPS?"
My answer wasn't very eloquent, but it came down to this:
If you miss playing D&D, and you've got the D&D books, take them out and play D&D.
Because really, his question was, will playing GURPS satisfy my urge to play D&D the way we used to?
It might, but the easier way to do it is to just play the game you used to.
If his question was, "I'd like to play fantasy RPGs again, and we liked D&D but we want something different, do you recommend GURPS?" Or "I want to try GURPS, do you think that's a good idea?" or "I liked fantasy gaming but I didn't really like the D&D rules, do you recommend GURPS?" my answer would have been different. If it was just "Can you recommend a good fantasy game to me?" it would have been GURPS.
If he was going to play with us, the answer would be GURPS as well. It would be "We play GURPS, here's what you need to know before you walk in the door."
If he had none of his old D&D stuff, I would have pointed him either to GURPS for a whole new system, or Labyrinth Lord or told him to get a PDF of B/X D&D for something d20 based.
But it seemed to me that telling him to play GURPS was telling him to go the wrong way about scratching that "play the game we used to the way we used to" itch.
I did tell him where and how to find GURPS Lite, and told him to come to me with any questions. I hope he downloads it, reads it, likes it, and wants to play it. I still think GURPS does fantasy gaming very, very well and it's a complete blast. I think it does D&D-style dungeon crawling at least as well as D&D does in some respects. But it wasn't the answer to his real question.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Thursday, February 28, 2013
What do people who love the game, hate about that game?
One thing I find interesting is what people dislike about the games they like.
It's usually very different than the common wisdom of what's wrong with the game.
Rolemaster is my best example of this. One of my friends goofs on it sometimes, knowing I played it. He calls it "chartmaster." "Hold on, there is a table for that." "I could do that, but I need to look it up on a table."
But in my experience people who play Rolemaster don't bitch about rolling on the critical hit tables. They don't groan about how un-fun having a special table for your weapon is. They don't moan about figuring out what -60% and lose both legs means. That's where the fun is. Rolling on the critical hit table was even better than finding out what was in that treasure chest the monster was guarding.
When we bitched about Rolemaster, it was having to do some of the chargen. It was being unable to get healed up after your first fight and then needing a new PC right away. It was about taking a long, long time to generate NPCs level by level. We didn't like the whole "roll to see if you learn spells." As much as the game was fun, the whole class-and-level-and-point-buy aspect was really time consuming. We liked the game, but not that aspect. The few times I attempted to re-start playing the game after we'd quit all halted during the process of trying to re-write chargen so it was a little easier and more balanced . . . not because of the tables.
It's a lot more interesting to me to know what the people who love the game hated about it. Sometimes what looks terrible on paper plays well and is a source of the fun. It's more instructive to know what doesn't work for the people who actually like the rest of the system.
So what game system do you love, and what's the part about it that sucks (contrary to the common wisdom), or what is said to suck about your game system of choice that actually doesn't (contrary to common wisdom)?
It's usually very different than the common wisdom of what's wrong with the game.
Rolemaster is my best example of this. One of my friends goofs on it sometimes, knowing I played it. He calls it "chartmaster." "Hold on, there is a table for that." "I could do that, but I need to look it up on a table."
But in my experience people who play Rolemaster don't bitch about rolling on the critical hit tables. They don't groan about how un-fun having a special table for your weapon is. They don't moan about figuring out what -60% and lose both legs means. That's where the fun is. Rolling on the critical hit table was even better than finding out what was in that treasure chest the monster was guarding.
When we bitched about Rolemaster, it was having to do some of the chargen. It was being unable to get healed up after your first fight and then needing a new PC right away. It was about taking a long, long time to generate NPCs level by level. We didn't like the whole "roll to see if you learn spells." As much as the game was fun, the whole class-and-level-and-point-buy aspect was really time consuming. We liked the game, but not that aspect. The few times I attempted to re-start playing the game after we'd quit all halted during the process of trying to re-write chargen so it was a little easier and more balanced . . . not because of the tables.
It's a lot more interesting to me to know what the people who love the game hated about it. Sometimes what looks terrible on paper plays well and is a source of the fun. It's more instructive to know what doesn't work for the people who actually like the rest of the system.
So what game system do you love, and what's the part about it that sucks (contrary to the common wisdom), or what is said to suck about your game system of choice that actually doesn't (contrary to common wisdom)?
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Giant-sized humanoid striking tactics for GURPS
Here are some tips for giant-sized, high-strength humanoids in combat in GURPS. Mostly giants, like this fellow here, but also ogres, djinn and ifrits, big weapon-using demons, etc. It's aimed at armed striking; grappling is a big topic and it depends heavily on your skill and what rules you are using. Striking is a bit easier to deal with, but still can stump a new GM wondering how to make giants a real threat with weapons.
First, the best way to be a giant-sized fighter is to also be a highly skilled giant-sized fighter. Skill wins fights in GURPS (much like in reality), and you need some skill to fight.
No matter how high your ST, you must hit the target, and then the target must fail to defend, in order to take advantage of that damage. Miss or have the guy defend and it doesn't matter how much damage you could have done.
Second, you must be able to survive your opponent's turn. High HP from ST is nice, but against a powerful delver (such as a knight doing 3d+8 cut, like the one in my DF game) it won't keep you alive long.
But as a GM it can be painful to make giants with skill 18 or 20 just to keep up with the PCs who casually parry their attacks, feint them, and then slaughter them. It seems like too much skill, and it's implying a level of weapon mastery that might just not be appropriate. What if the giant's skill is more like 12-14? What can you do to still be a threat to human-sized delvers who have high defenses and high-powered attacks?
Throw Stuff - Familiarize yourself with the rules for throwing objects on Basic Set, p. 355. A high ST will let you throw pretty heavy stuff pretty far. The sweet spots are right between BL/2 and "up to BL" - you do the most damage at the best range. Second-best is a bit heavier. Try to get a good range and damage, and throw away. Stones, etc. are okay. Weapons are better - throwing axes, slings (swing damage!), and maces are good choices. Thrust-based attacks are second best, but can be very lethal. Throwing weapons will reduce the defense choices of your targets and limit their options to retaliate while you attack.
Heavy Weapons - Try to take advantage of the rules on Parrying Heavy Weapons (p. B376). Most human-sized (SM 0) opponents you'll face will use weapons in the 2-6 pound range (average is about 3, for a Broadsword or Small Mace). Two-handed weapons will get up into the 7-12 pound range, depending on which ones. To break these weapons, you need a weapon 3x this weight. To automatically overcome parries by these weapons, you need a weapon heavier than their Basic Lift. So get a big weapon (possible oversized - check DF1 or LTC2 for rules on these) of at least 10 pounds, preferably 15+, is a great choice. Two-handed weapon users and shield users will frustrate this, but you limit the options of the one-handed weapon parrying types significantly.
. . . but not TOO Heavy - Avoid weapons that have a U on their Parry (so you can't attack and Parry on the same turn) if possible (but see Defensive Attack below), and ones with a double-dagger indicating they need to be re-readied. Time you spend not attacking or unable to defend except by Dodge is time you are vulnerable.
Chain Weapons - Look into using a flail or chain of some kind. Morningstars, kusari, flails, or nunchaku are all good choices. Parry against them is -4, Block is -2. They are a bit harder to use but they effectively trade 1 point of skill for a -2 Deceptive Attack (-4 parry, -2 block, no penalty to Dodge). They won't help against Dodge monsters, however, but they may force opponents into dodging.
Armor Up - Armor is heavy when you are big, but you need to protect your vital areas and your legs/feet. You won't be able to last long if you can't stop a high-damage cutting attack from just sawing one of your legs out from under you. Carrying an appropriately-sized shield so you can Block missiles and melee attacks and gain the DB for your Dodge and Parry.
Okay, that's gear choices. But we still need to turn that moderate skill (12-14) into a winning skill.
Reach - use your Reach. A bigger fighter + a big weapon = a long reach. Use Wait, take steps back, etc. Sure, charging forward into the shortest possible range and doing All-Out Attacks sounds good, but it means a short life and makes giant-sized opponents nothing more than high-HP fodder. Don't be fodder. Save AOAs for right after the highly-skilled opponent Feints you badly out of position and you feel like you need to incapacitate him now to survive. Otherwise, defend first and damage second. Keeping a foe out of his easy melee range and backing up to force him to come to you can keep you out of a skilled attacker's Feint range, too, so you don't need to worry that his skill will overcome yours. Try to force your opponent to All-Out Attack, Committed Attack, or Move and Attack to reach you.
The rest of these require GURPS Martial Arts. Sorry. Basic Set doesn't give you a lot of tactical tools for strong guys. GURPS Martial Arts specifically set out to correct that.
Defensive Attack - the stronger you are, the more this costs to use. But do it anyway. Trade some of your damage for a +1 to defend, or to allow you to defend despite attacking with a Parry U weapon. Losing 1 point per die on a 5d+3 attack is trivial if it means avoiding a damaging swipe in return. Your "jab" is a knockout, so why not take the +1 to one defense for what's effectively little cost?
Fight like George Foreman did in his comeback. You know you have a one-punch knockout. So wait for the chance to throw it, and keep working on your opponent to get an opening.
Telegraphic Attack - this is your friend. You trade a +2 to your opponent's defenses for a +4 to your own hit roll. +4 turns a 12 skill into a 16 - that's the optimal - best chance to avoid a critical failure; critically successes aren't affected by Telegraphic Attack. It turns a 14 into an 18, which allows you to absorb up to 2 points in penalties for hit location, bad footing, or other assorted penalties like Shock.
But it gives your opponent a +2 to defend! This is true, but it's better to force a roll to defend than to just miss. A failed defense roll or a natural 18 (critical failure!) can only happen if you hit. So suck up the +2 and hope they fail to defend. If they do, try against - and if that defense is a Parry or a Block, all the better for Beat.
Beat - Beat is your friend. It's a ST-based feint. In order to beat, you need to have prior contact with your opponent. If they Parried or Blocked your last attack, or your Parried theirs, you can Beat. This is where Defensive Attack and Telegraphic Attack help you. DA gives you a better chance to Parry or Block, and then you can use your weapon or shield to Beat. Telegraphic Attack helps you hit, which might score past their defenses and kill the target. If they Parry or Block, you get to Beat. Beat is resisted by either DX-based or ST-based skill, so highly skilled opponents can still counter. But a ST 28 giant has an edge over anything other than a skill 28 opponent. This really helps strong opponents.
Remember that Beat affects the defenses of the target against all attackers, so this helps if you have allies (fodder, fellow giants, whatever). Set the guy up for your friends to butcher!
Beat is limited to one defense, so a two-weapon fighter (who can parry your attacks), a Dodge-based defender, or a weapon-and-shield defender can likely frustrate this approach. But it does limit the options of the defender.
Finally, Consider Rapid Strike using Extra Effort. Spend the FP to drop the attacks from -6/-6 to -3/-3 and go for a pair of Telegraphic Attacks, or a TA and Beat, or Beat and Attack, whatever. You'll need a good pool of FP to do this, however.
All of this advice applies to a lesser and lesser extent the more skilled you get. If you are a ST 30 guy with Weapon Master, Broadsword-20, and Shield-20, you're going to fight like any other skilled attacker and just have higher damage in the process. But for a moderate to low skill high strength humanoid, it's worth trying the approach(es) above to be a real threat.
I hope that helps some GMs who wonder why their players regard the ST 25 skill 12 ogre as fodder but treat the ST 13 skill 15 orcs with a little respect.
First, the best way to be a giant-sized fighter is to also be a highly skilled giant-sized fighter. Skill wins fights in GURPS (much like in reality), and you need some skill to fight.
No matter how high your ST, you must hit the target, and then the target must fail to defend, in order to take advantage of that damage. Miss or have the guy defend and it doesn't matter how much damage you could have done.
Second, you must be able to survive your opponent's turn. High HP from ST is nice, but against a powerful delver (such as a knight doing 3d+8 cut, like the one in my DF game) it won't keep you alive long.
But as a GM it can be painful to make giants with skill 18 or 20 just to keep up with the PCs who casually parry their attacks, feint them, and then slaughter them. It seems like too much skill, and it's implying a level of weapon mastery that might just not be appropriate. What if the giant's skill is more like 12-14? What can you do to still be a threat to human-sized delvers who have high defenses and high-powered attacks?
Throw Stuff - Familiarize yourself with the rules for throwing objects on Basic Set, p. 355. A high ST will let you throw pretty heavy stuff pretty far. The sweet spots are right between BL/2 and "up to BL" - you do the most damage at the best range. Second-best is a bit heavier. Try to get a good range and damage, and throw away. Stones, etc. are okay. Weapons are better - throwing axes, slings (swing damage!), and maces are good choices. Thrust-based attacks are second best, but can be very lethal. Throwing weapons will reduce the defense choices of your targets and limit their options to retaliate while you attack.
Heavy Weapons - Try to take advantage of the rules on Parrying Heavy Weapons (p. B376). Most human-sized (SM 0) opponents you'll face will use weapons in the 2-6 pound range (average is about 3, for a Broadsword or Small Mace). Two-handed weapons will get up into the 7-12 pound range, depending on which ones. To break these weapons, you need a weapon 3x this weight. To automatically overcome parries by these weapons, you need a weapon heavier than their Basic Lift. So get a big weapon (possible oversized - check DF1 or LTC2 for rules on these) of at least 10 pounds, preferably 15+, is a great choice. Two-handed weapon users and shield users will frustrate this, but you limit the options of the one-handed weapon parrying types significantly.
. . . but not TOO Heavy - Avoid weapons that have a U on their Parry (so you can't attack and Parry on the same turn) if possible (but see Defensive Attack below), and ones with a double-dagger indicating they need to be re-readied. Time you spend not attacking or unable to defend except by Dodge is time you are vulnerable.
Chain Weapons - Look into using a flail or chain of some kind. Morningstars, kusari, flails, or nunchaku are all good choices. Parry against them is -4, Block is -2. They are a bit harder to use but they effectively trade 1 point of skill for a -2 Deceptive Attack (-4 parry, -2 block, no penalty to Dodge). They won't help against Dodge monsters, however, but they may force opponents into dodging.
Armor Up - Armor is heavy when you are big, but you need to protect your vital areas and your legs/feet. You won't be able to last long if you can't stop a high-damage cutting attack from just sawing one of your legs out from under you. Carrying an appropriately-sized shield so you can Block missiles and melee attacks and gain the DB for your Dodge and Parry.
Okay, that's gear choices. But we still need to turn that moderate skill (12-14) into a winning skill.
Reach - use your Reach. A bigger fighter + a big weapon = a long reach. Use Wait, take steps back, etc. Sure, charging forward into the shortest possible range and doing All-Out Attacks sounds good, but it means a short life and makes giant-sized opponents nothing more than high-HP fodder. Don't be fodder. Save AOAs for right after the highly-skilled opponent Feints you badly out of position and you feel like you need to incapacitate him now to survive. Otherwise, defend first and damage second. Keeping a foe out of his easy melee range and backing up to force him to come to you can keep you out of a skilled attacker's Feint range, too, so you don't need to worry that his skill will overcome yours. Try to force your opponent to All-Out Attack, Committed Attack, or Move and Attack to reach you.
The rest of these require GURPS Martial Arts. Sorry. Basic Set doesn't give you a lot of tactical tools for strong guys. GURPS Martial Arts specifically set out to correct that.
Defensive Attack - the stronger you are, the more this costs to use. But do it anyway. Trade some of your damage for a +1 to defend, or to allow you to defend despite attacking with a Parry U weapon. Losing 1 point per die on a 5d+3 attack is trivial if it means avoiding a damaging swipe in return. Your "jab" is a knockout, so why not take the +1 to one defense for what's effectively little cost?
Fight like George Foreman did in his comeback. You know you have a one-punch knockout. So wait for the chance to throw it, and keep working on your opponent to get an opening.
Telegraphic Attack - this is your friend. You trade a +2 to your opponent's defenses for a +4 to your own hit roll. +4 turns a 12 skill into a 16 - that's the optimal - best chance to avoid a critical failure; critically successes aren't affected by Telegraphic Attack. It turns a 14 into an 18, which allows you to absorb up to 2 points in penalties for hit location, bad footing, or other assorted penalties like Shock.
But it gives your opponent a +2 to defend! This is true, but it's better to force a roll to defend than to just miss. A failed defense roll or a natural 18 (critical failure!) can only happen if you hit. So suck up the +2 and hope they fail to defend. If they do, try against - and if that defense is a Parry or a Block, all the better for Beat.
Beat - Beat is your friend. It's a ST-based feint. In order to beat, you need to have prior contact with your opponent. If they Parried or Blocked your last attack, or your Parried theirs, you can Beat. This is where Defensive Attack and Telegraphic Attack help you. DA gives you a better chance to Parry or Block, and then you can use your weapon or shield to Beat. Telegraphic Attack helps you hit, which might score past their defenses and kill the target. If they Parry or Block, you get to Beat. Beat is resisted by either DX-based or ST-based skill, so highly skilled opponents can still counter. But a ST 28 giant has an edge over anything other than a skill 28 opponent. This really helps strong opponents.
Remember that Beat affects the defenses of the target against all attackers, so this helps if you have allies (fodder, fellow giants, whatever). Set the guy up for your friends to butcher!
Beat is limited to one defense, so a two-weapon fighter (who can parry your attacks), a Dodge-based defender, or a weapon-and-shield defender can likely frustrate this approach. But it does limit the options of the defender.
Finally, Consider Rapid Strike using Extra Effort. Spend the FP to drop the attacks from -6/-6 to -3/-3 and go for a pair of Telegraphic Attacks, or a TA and Beat, or Beat and Attack, whatever. You'll need a good pool of FP to do this, however.
All of this advice applies to a lesser and lesser extent the more skilled you get. If you are a ST 30 guy with Weapon Master, Broadsword-20, and Shield-20, you're going to fight like any other skilled attacker and just have higher damage in the process. But for a moderate to low skill high strength humanoid, it's worth trying the approach(es) above to be a real threat.
I hope that helps some GMs who wonder why their players regard the ST 25 skill 12 ogre as fodder but treat the ST 13 skill 15 orcs with a little respect.
Monday, February 25, 2013
GURPS & Combat Skill (other blog posts worth reading)
GURPS combat gives you a spread of possibilities not open in much more abstract combat systems - you can decide how much you want to commit to your attack (All-Out Attack, Committed Attack, Attack, Defensive Attack), where you want to attack (various hit locations from "anywhere is fine" all the way down to optional rules covering spine, arteries, and joints), and how you are attacking (normally, telegraphically, deceptively, as a progressive indirect attack aka setup attack), attack mode (point or edge, or even point, edge, or something exotic), and even how you're defending (riposting, stop hitting, stop thrusting, or counterattacking).
Whew, a lot to choose from, if you're even using half the options from GURPS Martial Arts. If you just stick to Basic Set, about half the stuff I listed above disappears - but not all of it. There is still enough to make it tricky to figure out what's useful to do with the skills your PC has.
But even once you know those options, it really helps if you know what your odds are - what a skill 12 versus skill 15 versus skill 18 even means in actual play.
A few things are fairly obvious - the higher the skill you roll against, the better. Getting a net final skill roll (aka effective skill) of 15 ups your critical hit chances (crits go from 3-4 to 3-5). A 16+ is even better, because it cuts critical failures down (17 is a normal failure, 18 critical, instead of 16 being a failure and 17-18 critical failure) and raises your chances at a critical hit (3-6, or almost 10% of the time).
Luckily, Doug Cole has covered this for both melee and missile weapons.
Skill Levels for Combat in GURPS (well, melee anyway).
Skill Levels for Ranged Combat in GURPS
Those two posts helps break down a lot of options and possibilities into a few good guidelines. If you're just getting started in GURPS or if one of your players is, this is a good way to figure out what makes sense to try out in fights.
If you want to try out GURPS combat, I've just heard that someone is hosting a Saturday night online "GURPS gladiators" game (looks to be small g, not only the Retarius vs. Murmillo kind). No, I won't be there, I'm busy on Saturday nights right now.
Whew, a lot to choose from, if you're even using half the options from GURPS Martial Arts. If you just stick to Basic Set, about half the stuff I listed above disappears - but not all of it. There is still enough to make it tricky to figure out what's useful to do with the skills your PC has.
But even once you know those options, it really helps if you know what your odds are - what a skill 12 versus skill 15 versus skill 18 even means in actual play.
A few things are fairly obvious - the higher the skill you roll against, the better. Getting a net final skill roll (aka effective skill) of 15 ups your critical hit chances (crits go from 3-4 to 3-5). A 16+ is even better, because it cuts critical failures down (17 is a normal failure, 18 critical, instead of 16 being a failure and 17-18 critical failure) and raises your chances at a critical hit (3-6, or almost 10% of the time).
Luckily, Doug Cole has covered this for both melee and missile weapons.
Skill Levels for Combat in GURPS (well, melee anyway).
Skill Levels for Ranged Combat in GURPS
Those two posts helps break down a lot of options and possibilities into a few good guidelines. If you're just getting started in GURPS or if one of your players is, this is a good way to figure out what makes sense to try out in fights.
If you want to try out GURPS combat, I've just heard that someone is hosting a Saturday night online "GURPS gladiators" game (looks to be small g, not only the Retarius vs. Murmillo kind). No, I won't be there, I'm busy on Saturday nights right now.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
PCs are special. They are beautiful and unique snowflakes.
"You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake."
So spoke Tyler Durden, while assembling his army of terror. (In my interpretation, because he couldn't just own up to liking Marla and hating his job, but that's neither here nor there.)
It's often quoted about PCs, especially in old school games.
But I have to disagree.
The PCs are unique. They are special.
Why do I say so?
Special
1 : distinguished by some unusual quality; especially : being in some way superior
2 : held in particular esteem
3 a : readily distinguishable from others of the same category : unique
b : of, relating to, or constituting a species : specific
4 : being other than the usual : additional, extra
5 : designed for a particular purpose or occasion "
Unique
1: being the only one : sole
2 a : being without a like or equal : unequaled
2 b : distinctively characteristic : peculiar
3 : unusual
I think a lot of those fit PCs.
They are ones you play. The world is full of NPCs. You generally aren't playing out their exploits, tracking their growth, calculating their encumbrance, and rolling for their actions. The ones you care about are the PCs. Obvious, sure, but it's important. It's part of what makes them special - they're different from the NPCs/GMPCs/whatever you call them in the rest of the world.
They are the interesting folks. Do you play out the lives of boring people doing ordinary things and then let them hear from the GM about the cool NPCs doing the cool adventures? No? Too Mary Sue, probably? The players get to run the people who do the things worth doing, or you're left wondering, why not play the others?
Generally you're playing interesting folks doing interesting things. Or not-so-interesting folks doing interesting things. But they're worth paying attention to.
The game does revolve around them. You show up on Sunday (at least on my schedule) and play these guys, out of everyone in the world. What happens to them and what they do is where the fun comes from in the game. The world doesn't revolve around them (although it might, depending on the campaign and game), but play does.
It's even perfectly okay in some game systems for the PCs to use different rules. Sometimes it's a matter of resolution (early D&D doesn't stat out monsters and PCs to the same degree) or actually different rules (Check how GURPS influence rolls work on PCs - you can make NPCs do stuff, but merely penalize PCs for acting against what the dice dictate.)
You generally get each guy once. Unique - if your knight Fred the Fearless dies, it's generally not considered okay to just make a new guy named Fred the Fearless with the same stats. They aren't interchangeable like chess pawns (or even chess kings). If Fred the Fearless dies irrevocably, his experiences die with him, even if the player can remember them. His next guy can't claim to have done the stuff his previous guy did. Even if you do allow people to just, say, put a "II" or "Jr." next to the guy's name and run him, it's still a different character.
Okay, so if say they're special . . .
Does this mean you fudge rolls for them? No, that's a different decision. "Special" does not mean "given special privileges" or "get the rules changed for them." That may be a valid decision in some games, but it's not the same decision. In some games, yeah, the world really does work differently for PCs than for NPCs. In others, the rules are more-or-less the same but main contain some differences (D&D has different attack matrices for monsters vs. classed PCs, and monsters don't generally come with stats or stat modifiers). Some games - Dying Earth for one - is especially brutal in this regard, since NPCs and other PCs can force you to play your PC differently based on their and your rolls.
Does this mean the world is play-balanced for them at all levels of play? No, that's also a different decision. "Special" and "unique" do not need to mean "provided a consistent challenge." Again, a different decision. It's a choice about how you structure the campaign world and the play within it, not a judgment on the PCs per se.
Do I need to make up a 10-page background for them? No, of course not. And "special" and "unique" doesn't imply a huge background. Snowflakes don't need to have a 10-page background to be unique and special. You can whip a guy up in one minute and play him the next minute and he's still special, even if his background is "Fred the Second, little brother of Fred the Fearless, takes up his brother's gear and heads to the dungeon to avenge his brother." Done. Still special. You'll still remember the guy if he accomplishes anything interesting, even if parts of his character and specific details fade away.
So I'm just saying . . . In my opinion, the "beautiful and unique snowflake" thing is a bit overused and it's a fairly inaccurate characterization.
Really, what people want to say, in my experience, is "In old school games, PCs don't deserve special consideration just for being PCs." I think that's true, but they are beautiful and unique snowflakes all the same. They are all different, they're pretty delicate, and you treasure them until they melt, which happens depressingly often if you play my sorts of games.
So spoke Tyler Durden, while assembling his army of terror. (In my interpretation, because he couldn't just own up to liking Marla and hating his job, but that's neither here nor there.)
It's often quoted about PCs, especially in old school games.
But I have to disagree.
The PCs are unique. They are special.
Why do I say so?
Special
1 : distinguished by some unusual quality; especially : being in some way superior
2 : held in particular esteem
3 a : readily distinguishable from others of the same category : unique
b : of, relating to, or constituting a species : specific
4 : being other than the usual : additional, extra
5 : designed for a particular purpose or occasion "
Unique
1: being the only one : sole
2 a : being without a like or equal : unequaled
2 b : distinctively characteristic : peculiar
3 : unusual
I think a lot of those fit PCs.
They are ones you play. The world is full of NPCs. You generally aren't playing out their exploits, tracking their growth, calculating their encumbrance, and rolling for their actions. The ones you care about are the PCs. Obvious, sure, but it's important. It's part of what makes them special - they're different from the NPCs/GMPCs/whatever you call them in the rest of the world.
They are the interesting folks. Do you play out the lives of boring people doing ordinary things and then let them hear from the GM about the cool NPCs doing the cool adventures? No? Too Mary Sue, probably? The players get to run the people who do the things worth doing, or you're left wondering, why not play the others?
Generally you're playing interesting folks doing interesting things. Or not-so-interesting folks doing interesting things. But they're worth paying attention to.
The game does revolve around them. You show up on Sunday (at least on my schedule) and play these guys, out of everyone in the world. What happens to them and what they do is where the fun comes from in the game. The world doesn't revolve around them (although it might, depending on the campaign and game), but play does.
It's even perfectly okay in some game systems for the PCs to use different rules. Sometimes it's a matter of resolution (early D&D doesn't stat out monsters and PCs to the same degree) or actually different rules (Check how GURPS influence rolls work on PCs - you can make NPCs do stuff, but merely penalize PCs for acting against what the dice dictate.)
You generally get each guy once. Unique - if your knight Fred the Fearless dies, it's generally not considered okay to just make a new guy named Fred the Fearless with the same stats. They aren't interchangeable like chess pawns (or even chess kings). If Fred the Fearless dies irrevocably, his experiences die with him, even if the player can remember them. His next guy can't claim to have done the stuff his previous guy did. Even if you do allow people to just, say, put a "II" or "Jr." next to the guy's name and run him, it's still a different character.
Okay, so if say they're special . . .
Does this mean you fudge rolls for them? No, that's a different decision. "Special" does not mean "given special privileges" or "get the rules changed for them." That may be a valid decision in some games, but it's not the same decision. In some games, yeah, the world really does work differently for PCs than for NPCs. In others, the rules are more-or-less the same but main contain some differences (D&D has different attack matrices for monsters vs. classed PCs, and monsters don't generally come with stats or stat modifiers). Some games - Dying Earth for one - is especially brutal in this regard, since NPCs and other PCs can force you to play your PC differently based on their and your rolls.
Does this mean the world is play-balanced for them at all levels of play? No, that's also a different decision. "Special" and "unique" do not need to mean "provided a consistent challenge." Again, a different decision. It's a choice about how you structure the campaign world and the play within it, not a judgment on the PCs per se.
Do I need to make up a 10-page background for them? No, of course not. And "special" and "unique" doesn't imply a huge background. Snowflakes don't need to have a 10-page background to be unique and special. You can whip a guy up in one minute and play him the next minute and he's still special, even if his background is "Fred the Second, little brother of Fred the Fearless, takes up his brother's gear and heads to the dungeon to avenge his brother." Done. Still special. You'll still remember the guy if he accomplishes anything interesting, even if parts of his character and specific details fade away.
So I'm just saying . . . In my opinion, the "beautiful and unique snowflake" thing is a bit overused and it's a fairly inaccurate characterization.
Really, what people want to say, in my experience, is "In old school games, PCs don't deserve special consideration just for being PCs." I think that's true, but they are beautiful and unique snowflakes all the same. They are all different, they're pretty delicate, and you treasure them until they melt, which happens depressingly often if you play my sorts of games.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
How Adventurers Become Dungeon Dwellers
One of my players burst out with a gem at our most recent game session.
The players started to talk about staying in the dungeon, protecting it from other adventurers, and otherwise ensuring they maximize their loot without letting anyone else get any.
"Is this how dungeon monsters get started?"
Pretty much.
Step 1 - find the dungeon.
Step 2 - start to exploit its treasures.
Step 3 - worried about rivals, you start to camp out at the dungeon, set traps, ally with monsters in the dungeon to help you protect it, etc.
Step 4 - you finally move into the dungeon full time. You can only protect so much, so you start locking doors, setting traps, blocking off passages, and creating your own little patrol area/safe zone. You stay there with your magic items and treasure.
Step 5 - Other adventurers finally show up, and you instantly and suspiciously attack them. They're clearly the other adventurers come for your stuff that you've feared this whole time. They're after your stuff and that of the other monsters whose loot you covet for yourself.
Final stage - Before you know it, you went from "Borriz Borrizman, bold dwarven delver!" to "that crazy dwarf in Room 23."
So if you ever wondered about the Lich-King down on level 11, well, he started as an adventurer and just didn't leave. Now he's down there, and yes, he does regard all of the treasure in the whole damn dungeon as his. That's why he moved into the dungeon into the first place, to protect it from you!
Thanks to Aaron, Borriz's player, for this eminently logical train of thought.
The players started to talk about staying in the dungeon, protecting it from other adventurers, and otherwise ensuring they maximize their loot without letting anyone else get any.
"Is this how dungeon monsters get started?"
Pretty much.
Step 1 - find the dungeon.
Step 2 - start to exploit its treasures.
Step 3 - worried about rivals, you start to camp out at the dungeon, set traps, ally with monsters in the dungeon to help you protect it, etc.
Step 4 - you finally move into the dungeon full time. You can only protect so much, so you start locking doors, setting traps, blocking off passages, and creating your own little patrol area/safe zone. You stay there with your magic items and treasure.
Step 5 - Other adventurers finally show up, and you instantly and suspiciously attack them. They're clearly the other adventurers come for your stuff that you've feared this whole time. They're after your stuff and that of the other monsters whose loot you covet for yourself.
Final stage - Before you know it, you went from "Borriz Borrizman, bold dwarven delver!" to "that crazy dwarf in Room 23."
So if you ever wondered about the Lich-King down on level 11, well, he started as an adventurer and just didn't leave. Now he's down there, and yes, he does regard all of the treasure in the whole damn dungeon as his. That's why he moved into the dungeon into the first place, to protect it from you!
Thanks to Aaron, Borriz's player, for this eminently logical train of thought.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Why Game Systems Have Bloat (aka, Support)
Often the concept of game systems getting bigger - more rule books, more supplements, more adventurers, more everything - is presented in pretty malicious terms. The companies want dependent customers, so they keep out a steady supply of supplements that you need, to keep you dependent on them.
While this can be true it's not the only model I see. I see this one a lot:
1) Game comes out. People buy it and like it.
2) People clamor for more support for the game. Authors and publishers and fans alike want to add their own stuff to the game. ("I like GURPS but it needs ninjas. Here's a book on ninjas.") If it doesn't get this support, it probably dies somehere along the line. If it does, it might be fan demand ("Write a book on ninjas!") or authorial ideals ("I love this game, but it needs ninjas!") Or it might just be a fanzine, or a fan publication, or a fan website. People want support for their games, and either buy it or make it.
3) Eventually there is so much stuff out there that people feel like it's too much, problems with the system's design choices are exposed, and want to try starting over with the basics. A new version comes out. Start over at #1, if it's done well.
Repeat repeatedly.
You can try to dodge around this a few ways, and there are good ways to do it (supplements are useful but truly optional for play) and less good ways to do it (supplements are critical and non-optional for any kind of play in the larger community). There are good reboots (new version fixes nagging problems in the old one) and bad reboots (new version creates new problems, or serves only to replace something that didn't need replacing). Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
That's speaking as someone who writes supplements and buys them. I write stuff I think the game could really use, and I hope to sell them to people who think the same thing ("Yes, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy really does need ninjas!") It's part of the life cycle of games, in my opinion, and it's healthy rather than malicious.
While this can be true it's not the only model I see. I see this one a lot:
1) Game comes out. People buy it and like it.
2) People clamor for more support for the game. Authors and publishers and fans alike want to add their own stuff to the game. ("I like GURPS but it needs ninjas. Here's a book on ninjas.") If it doesn't get this support, it probably dies somehere along the line. If it does, it might be fan demand ("Write a book on ninjas!") or authorial ideals ("I love this game, but it needs ninjas!") Or it might just be a fanzine, or a fan publication, or a fan website. People want support for their games, and either buy it or make it.
3) Eventually there is so much stuff out there that people feel like it's too much, problems with the system's design choices are exposed, and want to try starting over with the basics. A new version comes out. Start over at #1, if it's done well.
Repeat repeatedly.
You can try to dodge around this a few ways, and there are good ways to do it (supplements are useful but truly optional for play) and less good ways to do it (supplements are critical and non-optional for any kind of play in the larger community). There are good reboots (new version fixes nagging problems in the old one) and bad reboots (new version creates new problems, or serves only to replace something that didn't need replacing). Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
That's speaking as someone who writes supplements and buys them. I write stuff I think the game could really use, and I hope to sell them to people who think the same thing ("Yes, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy really does need ninjas!") It's part of the life cycle of games, in my opinion, and it's healthy rather than malicious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
