Kicking it off ... with a question!

[clementk]

Originally posted by ACK:
Why GURPS?

Well I don't actually play Gurps much at all but Gurps Lite has a good mix of detail and playability and is free. And because (aside from GT which is almost all goodness) books like Celtic Myth, Cthulhupunk, Lensman, New Sun, Prisoner, and Transhuman Space are well done books and have been a great source of game ideas for me.

Oh and GT Modular Cutter is one big shopping spree / accessoriznatin for Cox'sun Mayami Asuiti Huatian ( CT / T20) . KAWAII!

What do you like about GURPS versus T20 or even running old school rules like CT or MT or T4 or whatever?

Heh Gurps came out originally in 1986, Man-to-Man in 1983, and The Fantasy Trip* in 1980 I think so I consider GURPS to be old sk00l as well. There were homebrew Gurps Traveller conversions out long before an official GT book.

(including Andy Slack IIRC)

The sourcebooks are good reads, great material in general, and are easily convertible to BESM / Tri-Stat dX, between the notes in the back of GT 2nd edition and the fine JTAS article Vast Imperium, Bold Travellers including equipment and ships. (using the Personal Gear and Own a Big Mecha attributes; tho' I'd use the OBM version in BESM)

Really system doesn't matter that much to me as a player and I have Gurps Character builder and other tools to help chargen. (soooo many options eep!) As for running a GT game I'd use BESM or perhaps my flavor of Fudge with bits from GT etc. as opposed to a straight GT game.

IMO it's all a potential source of ideas regardless of the system name slapped on the cover.

How do you feel about Steve Jackson Games?

Evil Stevie 0wnz <FNORD>. Hail Eris!
Asides from Gurps, SJG also has some great board / card games like Ogre, Munchkin, Dino Hunt, INWO, Car Wars, and Chez Geek. Also a very fun sense of humor.

Casey

* which while not being SJG it was designed by Evil Stevie and he cites it as a direct inspiration for GURPS

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
"Simulationist" is a term from one (functional, but over-rated, IMO) paradigm of gaming.

IMHO it's the only functional paradigm of gaming. The others I've seen are either plain broken (not self-consistent, not true to life) or not useful (they hang together, but don't help you to improve your group's gaming experience).

But that's another thread.

"gamist" is more like d20.

For the nth time, d20 is not inherently gamist, simulationist, or narrativist. All D20 is is a linear probability spread vs linear difficulty (which is functionally much the same as GURPS/CT pseudo-binomial roll vs exponential difficulty), with a separation of binary and graduated mechanics into skills and feats (like GURPS but not CT), and separate point pools for each mechanic (its chief difference from GURPS). It packages into levels for balancing reasons.

Now the games generated from D20, like D&D or T20 or Conan, they're usually gamist/simulationist hybrids. But d20 is too abstract to be any of the three.

<gamism> This style has a definite sense of 'winning' as one progresses.

Now that is true. Gamists are all about completing the adventure. They do their damndest to rescue the princess, kill the evil wizard, save the kingdom. They hate failing. [The power-levelling thing is more of a side-effect -- if the mechanics reward PCs for overcoming challenges, then since gamists seek challenges they'll get lots of rewards in passing.]

A pure simulationist is playing more to find whether his character could rescue the princess etc, he doesn't mind losing if "it's realistic" that he should lose.

Narrativists want the best possible story -- they might see a gallant and tragic failure to rescue the princess resulting in their character's gory death as a superior outcome. Purely narrativist systems (rather than hybrids with a drama point overlay) can be radically different, e.g. you don't roll dice for hits and damage but for who gets the right to describe the combat.

Really, G/N/S are not types of systems or styles of play but reasons for making decisions. A given decision, during system design or during play, will almost always be made for a gamist, simulationist, or narrativist reason. In hybrids the player/designer will make some decisions on one ground and others on another, but each indivdual decision will be made in exactly one of the three modes.

and indeed I haven't found any players of any game that even care whether a system is roll over or under, just so long as it works.

Amen, brother.

And paraphrasing something from the other day, if someone has a difficulty problem with roll over vs under, should they really be playing traveller? Wouldn't they be happier with something simpler?

 

[Malenfant]

Well, I told you I had trouble following G/N/S theory - thanks for the clarification.

I'm not even sure why roll-over or roll-under makes any difference anyway. Surely they're the same in practise, when it comes to probability (e.g. you have the same chance to roll under 5 on 3d6 to succeed as you have to roll over 16 on 3d6 to succeed, right?). Or is this just an aesthetic thing?

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'm not even sure why roll-over or roll-under makes any difference anyway. <snip> Or is this just an aesthetic thing?

Seems to be. As in rolling high to succeed makes you feel better. I've played enough of both types that it doesn't make any real difference to me as long as I know before I roll.

Well that and negative modifiers being better in some roll under systems.

fwiw here is one replacement for Gurps' roll under.

Casey

 

[clementk]

A few more things I like from the GT books:

- Brubeks* "When you already know where you are."
- Marines in kilts with da pipes playing.
- some excellent writing ranging from fans to established game/book writers (both in JTAS and Gurps/GT books)
- Humorist Anton Wilson Peale III
- in general a good mix of fuctional book design with ample illustration to help flesh out the books with the art ranging IMO from at least serviceable to excellent

Casey
* the Endeavor pcs found out that Brubeks are *not* flame-proof when they burnt one down during a barfight recently

 

[daryen]

While I won't argue your assertion on GURPS artwork in general, I do have to mention my observations of the last two GT products I bought:
- Humaniti: Did any of the artists actually read the text before drawing? That has to rank at the top of any list for artwork directly contradicting the text next to it. While I still think the book is worthwhile, the artwork is pathetic. I won't even discuss the glowing knife on the cover ...
- Sword Worlds: If you are going to do a character discription of the "typical" Sword Worlder, is it necessary to include a picture of him beating the snot out of someone else? Here you have a whole book trying to explain that they aren't nuts, but the "typical" guy is a thug. Go figure. (This book's cover absolutely rocks, though.)

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by daryen:
That has to rank at the top of any list for artwork directly contradicting the text next to it.[/QB]

You obviously haven't seen Transhuman Space "Spacecraft of the Solar System", have you (also by SJG, funnily enough). A 64-page catalogue of spaceships for the TS game, meticulously described in the text... and none of the artwork in the book even remotely resembles any of them.

In fact, this was true for all the art in the line before that... thankfully Christopher Shy - who was the person responsible for the art - left SJG after that, and afterwards the art suddenly started to resemble the text. The worst thing SJG has ever done was hiring him, I think.

 

[clementk]

Andy Slack Traveller using Gurps Lite:
converting CT characters to Gurps Lite
house rules for playing Traveller using Gurps Lite

After reading these it looks very playable + free.

fwiw I haven't seen either the final GT: Sworlds Worlds or TS: Spacecraft of the Solor System. GT: Humanati did have some problems.

Casey

 

[aramis]

Why is GURPS such a good simulationist system?

1) for basic one-on-one melee, it is based upon observations of members of the Amarillo branch of the SCA, using videotape to capture the action and timing... according to SJ's designers notes for Man To Man (GURPS Rules boardgame, effectively GURPS Edition 0BetaP1).

2) It has the most detailed employment rules I've seen in any game.

3) The editorial approach is "scads of details".

4) the playtesters tend to correct for simulationtionism... since its primary draw is simmulationists.

5) It has some strongly gamist elements... but they ususally take a second place to realism (Point-based CG is generally a Gamist approach).

6) it has some of the most detailed rules for vehicle design around... and they've been around for a while, and revised for realism.

7) many expansion sets to the core rules body... each with known (and often commented on in the prefix to the section) wierdnesses.

This is both a blessing and a curse when doing GT:
1) Due to the no-rules-bending ideology of the GURPS line staffers, if something looks vaguely like a ___, call it that, and use the extant rules for those. This can really skew expected results away from "Setting Elements derived from Rules Elements", to wit, expected weapons mixes. Immmaterial for some, a major issue for others.

2) Use of Imperial Measures (Which are now fairly US only, and canadian/mexican/japanese intended for exportability to the US). Note that foreign versions use Metric. This results in the largest DTon of any Traveller Flavor.

3) 3-5 times as many skills as the other commercial traveller flavors. Higher overall competence for starting characters in field, and while each skill is usually fairly narrow, a few key skills can be used to default for competence leves that can be rather surprising.

4) excessive levels of detail for those of a non-simulationist bent. (this is a strong point for many simulationists, and some narrativists... it can be a major problem for many narrativists and some gamists... and a delight for rules lawyers)

5) a tendancy to draw highly visible muchkin and/or rules lawyer players, due to the high rules precision and depth of rules-canon. (This is a chronic image problem for GURPS as a whole. Point mongering in GURPS is a survival skill. For GT characters, Eiditic memory can make a HUGE difference, if you can convince your GM to let you have it.)

6) A tendancy of players to assume setting elements from rules corpus for the few rules changes that have been allowed... (Specifically, for GT and GPD, the TL scale was adjusted... so many of the items in GV, UT, UT2 and GS need careful review...)

Don't get me wrong: GURPS is good at what it does. GT is a credible rendition of the TU. But it has a number of assumptions that can and will cause setting differences. FOr example, the lack of powerplants in the GT design sequecne (Yes, they are subsumed in the PP Slice mode, but it makes converting either way difficult...). The differences in weapon effects and ranges, which strongly affects the nature of weaponry mounted. The differences between GT:BTC and TTA. the massive differences in trade systems. Which have a massive change in the ideals of how much trade there is, what the GPP is, and how many troops there should be.

TO answer the question Why be anything besides Simulationist?

As a former simulationist...

Because I game to tell good stories. A GM's job includes maintaining verisimmilitude (ability to maintain Willing suspension of disbelief by the players), and making an interesting story. I grew out of needing ammunition to argue rules with players. Yes I still have some simulationist ideals... which is part of my beef with TNE & T2K. (Specifically, Virus rankles the simulationist in me...) But as i have aged, the narrativist simulationist blend of CT and MT has drawn my favor more and more... and story is what it is ALL about for me now. I tend to prefer "realistic space opera" to "gritty hard sci fi"... and the one thing gurps as a ruleset doesn't do well is break out of "Gritty"... too much rules precision.

And Malenfant, I have GT, and GTFT. I've read a large enough chunk of the GT line to spot creeping differentiation. On par with the CT& MT vs TNE & T4 divide, on a nummber of levels... mostly ship designs and some military setting impacts... I respect Doug Berry's work. I disagree with it greatly, but I *DO* respect it.

System effects do shape settings. Beyond the obvious "GT diverges in 1116". The issues in BTC were either copyright, playtest, research, or some combination. Been playing traveller since 1983... been through EVERY edition. Including the Non-OTU Traveller:2300... and seen canon wars so bad it totally split the traveller community.

The Roll-Down, thats a minor feel issue... especially since someone, long ago, on WWIVnet, posted to the GURPS sub, a roll high mode for GURPS: 3d6 + Skill, for 21+ Swap 18&3, 17&4, 16&5 for specific die roll efffects; extraordinary "crit" goes to 20-(skill/5). I forget who posted it. I've used it occasionally, for people who really couldn't grock the roll low mentality.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I would like to state for the record that the whole "Simulationist/Gamist/what have you" article is WAAAAAAAAAAAY over-analytical, and of a stripe and mentality akin to some soulless efficency expert's writing... And here I thought RPGs were entertainment! Its like the Comic Book deconstructo guys gone mad... I got a sure cure for the "Jaded" types out there... try focusing on a thing called CONTENT rather than prepackaged minutae...

Editorial Concluded.

 

[Malenfant]

I think the GNS thing is over-rated and over-analytical too, but as with any paradigm its fans think it can solve everything and wash the dishes too.

I'm vastly more interested in more practical aspects of gaming theory - particularly, how does one actually construct a good campaign, what kind of story structure does one use, how much should one base it on a TV series/movie/Computer RPG structure (and is it valid to do so), etc etc. These are important questions that all GMs could benefit from, and I sometimes feel that these are getting left behind in all the navel-gazing of things like GNS and Robin Laws' GMing book.

Obviously the point of gaming is to enjoy it and to take part in stories, but things like GNS theory do nothing to actually help GMs construct their campaigns and come up with ideas and actually turn them into something playable - all it does it tell them what styles of play there are. And fuel endless flame wars about the topic on rpg.net .

Plus it also gives people yet another thing to get opinionated about. You'll find people in these flame wars who claim that narrativism is vastly superior to simulationism and who'd argue for ages about it, and so on. It's all a matter of personal taste and style.

I'm much more simulationist in style, but I'm also a bit narrativistic. I like my universes to be detailed and realistic, but I'm no slave to dice rolls - I do like to tweak things a bit as a GM so that there's a bit of drama, and I wouldn't just kill a character because the dice said so. That said I can't stand most of the systems that allow players to influence outcomes of rolls, and the systems that encourage 'pure' narrativist play are just way too loose for my tastes.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Senator Joe McCarthy: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Simulationist Party?"
I try to let fun and coolness run it. At least in the non FTF arena, I have found it personally to be way more fun if the mechanics are as close to invisible as possible... it aids in creating the illusion that the characters have a life of thier own. by describing what is happening in the game, and giving the players a chance at describing what thier character does. To me, goes a lot farther than "It's Monster X, roll 2dX to say Hi properly..." sort of "takes the magic" out of it.
As a matter of preference, I enjoy it more when players focus on thier characters as mythical people, rather than assembliages of points and data.

I had a GM once (In Palladium, of all things) that wanted to do a slave to the die roll thing, and it turned out to be a very bad game... thanks to Palladium's rediculous hit location and combat effects system... Combat went from "The creature slashes at you with his sword cutting your arm and causing x amount of damage" to "the Creature (note: not a snake or reptile of any kind) slashes at your arm, you take x damage, and now you are also afraid of snakes and public speaking..." Dice rolls and the like should always be tempered by what is in the realm of possibility of a given situation, in my view...

 

[Drakon]

"It's all a matter of personal taste and style."

Bingo.
Personally, I prefer the narrativist style of play. But to me, gaming is about having fun, first and foremost. People ain't the same, especially in their desires or what they see as fun. Some folks like to game. Some like the story, the narrative, and some folks have fun with the "what if" aspect of it all. And a lot of folks mix and match, and change all around.

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by ACK:
Why GURPS?

Nicely detailed rules for creating stuff like worlds and vehicles. Too fiddly for running a game, though -- I don't have the time to practice all the rules, and will probably stick to BESM/Tri-Stat in the future.

What do you like about GURPS versus T20 or even running old school rules like CT or MT or T4 or whatever?

I liked MT's task system, and the way that skills counted for more than stats. T20 has too many special-case rules, and I really dislike character classes. (D20 Modern isn't too bad, in that the character classes are more personality types rather than careers.) Never used T4 rules for anything but vehicle design.

How do you feel about Steve Jackson Games?

I liked open playtesting. Now that that seems to have dissappeared, I'll be letting my Pyramid subscription lapse -- and I suspect my GURPS purchases will drop off as I won't have had the chance to try the products for a while first.

 

[kafka47]

My dislike of GURPS is rather well-known but I am not going to talk about that.

I would rather praise SJG for bringing in a new look for Traveller when it was down in the dolldrums of the gaming world. SJG managed to energize Traveller back from the mistakes that were committed by IG. Therefore, GT does have its place amongst the Traveller cannon. I am glad to see that also GT is also maturing in terms of its orientation toward Traveller. Books like the Sword Worlds and Bounty Hunters fill in gaps, as did most of the World sourcebooks. I would hope that we would be seeing more of these products in the future. I also have high hopes for Nobles becuase of the author.

I would hope that once this product cycle is up, we are going to see something that really blows the Traveller community away in its production of the Milieu dealing with Interstellar Wars.

The idea of Terra reaching out to the Stars only to find them occupied by Little Men from Vland is one of the epic stories of Traveller that needs to be told. I just hope that there will be lots of backstory to talk about the Starleaper's mission and why Bernard was chosen. Did the Illuminati know something ahead of the rest of Terra's population?

 

[William]

Officially - as in according to both Marc and Loren - No. Big "No!!!" when it comes from Loren, I might add. No, the idea is that it was a well and truely huge freaking shock to "Starleaper" to find "HUMANS?!?" out there ahead of them. GT:RoF has some ideas, however... ;'>

William