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

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

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



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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
-Joel

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

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

If you look at Kromm's post in its original context here, you'll see that we're talking about different things. We have got,

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

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

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

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

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

His most succinct quote is probably,

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

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

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

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

QuoteThis is bizarre to me. Am I alone?

No, I´m with you.

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

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

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

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

-clash

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

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

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

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

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

So, to get it straight:

GURPS is trying to teach you about reality?

Is it that?

Quote from: SettembriniSo, to get it straight:

GURPS is trying to teach you about reality?

Is it that?

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

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

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

Tony, I must admire your diplomatic skills...

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniSo, to get it straight:

GURPS is trying to teach you about reality?

Is it that?

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

-clash

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

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

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

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

-clash

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

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