|
NovemberMike posted:A standard fire team is going to be boring as gently caress. If you're just interested in doing a combat run you'll have a standard Rifleman, Fire Team Leader, LMG Gunner and Grenadier, each with training in their weapon (and with the Fire Team leader having extra Rank). An approach that's more cinematic is going to say that Johnny knows how to hotwire cars and is extra quiet, Rico is good at the survival stuff and knows some basic medicine, Marcus is a sharpshooter and is good at working on electronics while Darryl is a master of setting up explosives and messing with mechanical stuff (building temporary shelters, picking locks, that sort of thing). You're going to want something extra to differentiate the characters. This paragraph really demonstrates the realm of your thinking. Gau is a goober but Gau is also right. You're still working off an idea of optimization and class-based roles, and while that might work in certain games, it isn't always relevant. It's the difference between Mission: Impossible spy games, with an action team and the hacker and the face man and so on, and a more realistic spy game where you're all CIA field agents. Both games are about spies, but the genre is different. Games with roles and niches like you're talking about are a lot more Hollywood actiony or video game-ish, and encourage characters with about that much depth. You only make those 'concessions to the fact that it is a game' if that is the sort of game you are playing. A lot of people aren't playing that game.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
DiscipleoftheClaw posted:I am not saying 'WW2 Soldiers' as a broad class. Obviously there are Combat Engineers, Pilots, Sailors, Marines, Medics, etc. And guess what - GURPS has templates for those, but they all did not serve in the same unit!! Also, yeah, uh, most cops do have the same skillset. Pick a show. List all of the characters that have no differentiating skills. See how many of them are people with actual screen time. quote:Ok, that paragraph just doesn't make any sense. 'There's no obsession with matching roles perfectly, but two characters shouldn't have the same skill at a high rank.' Pick one position, you can't have both. Two characters can be good at fighting, or talking, or whatever, but find a way of differentiating them. You don't have to fill out slots A, B, C, D and E but make sure you don't have 7 A's. quote:I think this gets to the heart of the argument. You can't seem to enjoy playing a character unless he has some extra special rules gimmick that no one else has. Not everyone has to play this way, and GURPS isn't really designed for that sort of play, which is why people are arguing with you in this thread. I've played all kinds of characters, but it's easiest to GM a group when everyone has a decent idea of when they should jump into the action and what they should do. quote:Well, in GURPS, with skills default, the long ranged gunfighter and the close range customer will probably only like, have a 1 or 2 point difference between their skills at most. Like a guy with Rifles - 18 is going to have Pistols - 16, both will probably have Fast-Draw (Ammo), etc. The close range gunfighter cares about a few things. He needs a high Basic Move so he can act first and dodge well (both very important when you're shooting guns at close range with no armor). He cares about Fast Draw (Pistol) and Fast Draw (Ammo), both at high levels. He cares about Jump, Running and other skills that help him cover ground quickly. He also cares about HT because he's putting his body out there in front of the flying lead. The long ranged gunfighter is going to care about stealth to quietly get into position. He cares about Tactics to help him gain an advantageous position before the fight starts. He doesn't care about Fast Draw (Ammo) as much because he's got a gun with more shots and he's going to spend more time aiming. He care about Observation so you can see everything from a distance. This character also doesn't need the whole body DX, so it might be useful to give him DX for his arms only at a discount. Properly built, these characters could be 40-50 points off from each other at a medium point level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Properly built, these characters could be 40-50 points off from each other at a medium point level. Could you clarify what you mean by a "medium" point level?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Gau posted:Could you clarify what you mean by a "medium" point level? 100-150 points. The low cinematic level. quote:This paragraph really demonstrates the realm of your thinking. Gau is a goober but Gau is also right. You're still working off an idea of optimization and class-based roles, and while that might work in certain games, it isn't always relevant. It's the difference between Mission: Impossible spy games, with an action team and the hacker and the face man and so on, and a more realistic spy game where you're all CIA field agents. I've played in games that have ambiguous power relationships and I don't have a problem with that, but it's just easier to GM a game when everyone has a role. If anyone can do something, half the time nobody does and it's a lot easier for me if the explosives guy goes "hey, that's my job" rather than five people not taking the hint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I've played in games that have ambiguous power relationships and I don't have a problem with that, but it's just easier to GM a game when everyone has a role. If anyone can do something, half the time nobody does and it's a lot easier for me if the explosives guy goes "hey, that's my job" rather than five people not taking the hint. I know jack poo poo about GURPS, but as far as I can tell the only appropriate response to your mixed system v gming argument is in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7v542EmXac
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:
Not all roleplaying games are like TV Shows? I'm not really sure what your point is here. Ambivalent adressed this above, so you can just respond to her point rather than me emptyquoting her, I guess. NovemberMike posted:Two characters can be good at fighting, or talking, or whatever, but find a way of differentiating them. You don't have to fill out slots A, B, C, D and E but make sure you don't have 7 A's. Except that in a system like GURPS, talking really comes down to three or four key skills - and most characters can reasonably have some level of these, even high levels. You seem to seriously be advocating that its ok to have two gladiators in your GURPS Rome game, as long as one uses the trident and net and one uses a shortsword or something. It is loving weird. NovemberMike posted:I've played all kinds of characters, but it's easiest to GM a group when everyone has a decent idea of when they should jump into the action and what they should do. "NovemberMike posted:The close range gunfighter cares about a few things. He needs a high Basic Move so he can act first and dodge well (both very important when you're shooting guns at close range with no armor). He cares about Fast Draw (Pistol) and Fast Draw (Ammo), both at high levels. He cares about Jump, Running and other skills that help him cover ground quickly. He also cares about HT because he's putting his body out there in front of the flying lead. Ok, first of all like, this demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the rules. Buying up HT is going to help you like, not bleed out or pass out, but with no body armor at even like, TL5, one or two levels of HT may keep you from dying but will not keep you combat effective. HP would do that slightly better, but it is still pretty limited! And poo poo like striking ST and lifting ST are not really appropriate for normal characters in an old west game - hence why they are marked 'Exotic' in the book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
DiscipleoftheClaw posted:Not all roleplaying games are like TV Shows? I'm not really sure what your point is here. Ambivalent adressed this above, so you can just respond to her point rather than me emptyquoting her, I guess. I did respond to her point. It's easier to GM a game with reasonable niches. I was giving GM advice. quote:Except that in a system like GURPS, talking really comes down to three or four key skills - and most characters can reasonably have some level of these, even high levels. You seem to seriously be advocating that its ok to have two gladiators in your GURPS Rome game, as long as one uses the trident and net and one uses a shortsword or something. It is loving weird. There's nothing wrong with spreading out your points, in fact on of the perks of having a character with high attributes is that they can be decent to good at a lot of things without wasting a lot of points. As for the gladiators, I wouldn't have a problem as long as they aren't the exact same character. Even if they were I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it as long as I felt the players were reasonable. quote:Again, this doesn't need to be based on your idea that they all need crazy different rules. To use an example, I'm in a Japanese Samurai game currently - mechanically speaking, myself and the other courtiers all pretty much do the same thing. When presented with situations, we are not constantly stepping all over each other? I don't really consider like, sharing interactions with other characters to be evil like you do though, so maybe you would loving hate the game! Social interactions are the easiest thing to spread around because they lend themselves to people actually talking it through and the backgrounds of the characters making a real difference. Things like "who picks the lock" or "who disarms the bomb" don't work as well when everyone's just a pile of points rather than a character built to do something. quote:Ok, first of all like, this demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the rules. Buying up HT is going to help you like, not bleed out or pass out, but with no body armor at even like, TL5, one or two levels of HT may keep you from dying but will not keep you combat effective. HP would do that slightly better, but it is still pretty limited! And poo poo like striking ST and lifting ST are not really appropriate for normal characters in an old west game - hence why they are marked 'Exotic' in the book. HT builds up your Basic Move and Speed, which is important in gun fights, it keeps you both moving and alive better than a few points of HP, it's the basis for the running skill and it helps you out with all kinds of Wild West dangers like poisonous snakes, heat and hunger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I was giving GM advice. Please don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
Gau posted:Please don't. You really got your panties into a bunch didn't you? You were flat out wrong with your example. Space games tend to benefit from niches because you need to fulfill certain roles to keep the ship running (engineering, pilot, medical at minimum for anything long-range). NovemberMike fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jun 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
GURPS Basic Set, p17 posted:To calculate Basic Speed, add your Stop being misleading. Furthermore, having more HP is going to keep you from having to make some of those HT rolls from, you know, running out of HP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Stop being misleading. How was I misleading? Basic Speed = (HT + DX)/4. How is it misleading to say that HT helps your basic speed and move? Also, it would totally make sense to take your HP up to the 30% limit suggested by the rules, but even two points in HT will improve your chances of surviving a deadly injury (and staying awake below 0hp) from 50% to ~75%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:You really got your panties into a bunch didn't you? This. This is what I have a problem with: you being a stupid, idiotic troll (or, even better, just that stupid) because I insist that there are different ways to play the game that many people here enjoy. I'm not flat out wrong, and no, my panties are quite untwisted. A lot of people have tried to explain to you what we mean, and you insist on arguing with us. You're really going on that niche protection makes games better, instead of seeing our point that you don't need an Engineer to run a ship, you need someone with Mechanic (High-Performance Spacecraft) at 12 or better. That person could be a pilot, a prostitute, or a robot. Making her defining concept that she is a wrench-turner is oversimplification at best. Go on. Play your game however you like. Just don't advocate niche protection in a thread for a system that specifically eschews niche protection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Gau posted:Go on. Play your game however you like. Just don't advocate niche protection in a thread for a system that specifically eschews niche protection. GURPS doesn't eschew niche protection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Gau posted:Hey was there any niche protection in The Decline? Were there any niches at all? No, and that was a fantastic game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I did respond to her point. It's easier to GM a game with reasonable niches. I was giving GM advice. I'm going to disagree with that, actually. In a lot of games, heck I'd go so far as to say most games, having niches makes it harder to balance player 'screentime' because you have to take their specialities into account when designing sessions and make sure they all get a fair share. It is a lot easier in a system explicitly designed around the idea (the Leverage rpg, for instance, with its flashbacks and other story mechanics) than GURPS which doesn't have anything to help with that sort of player involvement imbalance. Meanwhile a game where the players all have largely similar characters in mechanics (a collection of roman legionaires, a group of cops or, heck a group of civilians with so few points they're all nearly identical just because of a lack of skills) requires keeping less in mind while designing your session while also subtly encouraging people to emphasize their character's personalities more than their mechanics in order to present their own unique voice, presuming they're at all interested in the game. edit: To take the aforementioned example of the 'specialist hacker' character looking for information (the classic Shadowrun 'Decker Problem'): You end up either spending a bunch of session time letting him exercise his speciality while nobody else is doing anything, or going over it really fast so he doesn't feel very fulfilled or saying 'you can't find that' and well he's now wasted all those points on his sheet. Meanwhile if everyone's a decker you can make that an adventure or if nobody is you can outsource getting that information to an NPC, making it an entirely different sort of encounter that (hopefully) everbody is equipped to engage with and have fun. atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Jun 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Hey was there any niche protection in The Decline? Were there any niches at all? No, and that was a fantastic game. Heh, that's a great example of Niche Protection. Going through, here's something unique for each character. Scott Hardman - Grenades, Demolition, Traps, Engineer (Explosive) Dylan Harrison - Tough Brawler, good with weapons, good at a lot of physical stuff like sneaking, jumping etc Dan Sattler - The brains, he's good with computers, math, economics, tactics that sort of thing. Has a few special skills like forgery, surprisingly good combat skills, but they rely on having guns which in this setting means he's likely only good for a one shot. Nurse Cassidy - The team medic. She has both first aid and physician. Mike Wallace - Not much, really. Looks like a gimmick character built around Daredevil at low points. It's hard to differentiate the characters at a low point level, but either you guys made a significant effort or the GM chose players that avoided overlapping too much on defining traits. quote:edit: To take the aforementioned example of the 'specialist hacker' character looking for information (the classic Shadowrun 'Decker Problem'): You end up either spending a bunch of session time letting him exercise his speciality while nobody else is doing anything, or going over it really fast so he doesn't feel very fulfilled or saying 'you can't find that' and well he's now wasted all those points on his sheet. Meanwhile if everyone's a decker you can make that an adventure or if nobody is you can outsource getting that information to an NPC, making it an entirely different sort of encounter that (hopefully) everbody is equipped to engage with and have fun. The Decker problem is just bad design because he's playing a fundamentally different game than the other players. NovemberMike fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jun 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Ok, bad example. Niches, sure. Protection? Not really. Remembering the recruitment for that game people designed who they wanted to play rather than a role they wanted to fill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
drat, it's really hard to hit this target when it's moving so fast...
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
The protection comes from the fact that skills cost CP. You made a character that dealt in explosives and fire, and you couldn't make him a daredevil skateboarder as well because of the limits the game places on you. If you had tried, you would have been punished by the character creation system. EDIT: If you're talking about the recruitment, it probably didn't have people in the same niche because most people naturally support niche protection. If someone sees a Thief, they generally won't make another or they'll try and do a different take on it (a con artist rather than a cat burgler, for example). NovemberMike fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jun 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
I like how you just ignored like the other half of UJ's Post. Also, how can you just like, claim that having a character who does hacking stuff while other characters don't is bad design when you were advocating it for a page and a half before? And you claim Action! as a good example of Niche Protection, when one of Action's templates is loving Hacker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
DiscipleoftheClaw posted:I like how you just ignored like the other half of UJ's Post. Also, how can you just like, claim that having a character who does hacking stuff while other characters don't is bad design when you were advocating it for a page and a half before? And you claim Action! as a good example of Niche Protection, when one of Action's templates is loving Hacker. It's not bad design for one character to be the hacker, it's bad design for one player to be playing a different game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
Ok, so you are just trolling, since you switched arguments completely in the span of three posts. Thanks for clearing that up! In other news, for people who are not Trolls, how do people feel about bonus points for Templates? The main question I ask is I was thinking of running a Colonial Mystery game, and essentially the way law enforcement worked in the Colonies, one player would have to be a magistrate. That entails quite a bit of Wealth, Status, Law Enforcement Powers, and Rank - which would cut heavily into their budget to actually be a good investigator. I pictured like, one player being a magistrate, since most colonies had very very few, and two or three other people being his assistants/household staff/friends/other public figures (militia leaders, tax collectors/sheriffs, etc.) who helped him out. Should I worry that one PC having to spend like, 40 points of a 100 point budget on social advantages is too much? I mean, he will get ingame effect out of them, obviously, but I could see how it could be a problem too. I am torn!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
I don't really think that guy should get bonus points, but you'd need to make it clear in recruitment that one guy is going to have to take on this position of responsibility and not be able to spend his points elsewhere. Alternatively, since magistrate is such a rare position, that character could be built on more points than the other PCs. Is there a way the magistrate could be an NPC, or is it so tied to the game's concept that someone has to be playing it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
I think it depends on your concept of the game. I've played several games in which one person was just Better, and it fit well. It helps that I've had players who don't mind a disparity in ability, they're just in love with their characters. If your players are cool with it, you could use a point bonus for the magistrate to represent the period idea that some people are just Born Better (blood, or whatever).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
So you are incapable of understanding that "Hacker" as in the guy who takes 10 minutes to reprogram a missile, an hour to repurpose anything to anything else and 12 hours to create absolutely anything from scratch (and has reasonable combat skills as well) is different from a "Decker", which is a Shadowrun character that isn't physically there with the other characters and is playing a different game? Stop trying to draw false equivalences and be honest. EDIT: The magistrate doesn't need more points. A mystery is exactly the area where having access to the jail and police, the ability to demand suspects be held in prison (until the local courts disagree) and a fair amount of money are useful tools. NovemberMike fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jun 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
quote:Should I worry that one PC having to spend like, 40 points of a 100 point budget on social advantages is too much? Not necessarily! If the intention is for the magistrate is to have all this stuff ON TOP OF being a highly skilled investigator/soldier/sheriff, then I think yeah, you might have to grant extra points to that. On the other hand, if the magistrate's key qualification is that he Is Important People or Knows Important People, then the social advantages would quite well represent that. Personally, I'm of the opinion that everyone should start with the same point total, but there's certainly arguments against it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
GURPS supports all of the following types of games: 1. Games with characters that have very, very similar skill sets with minimal game-relevant differentiation (realistic infantry combat games, ordinary people games) 2. Games with characters that have very heavily aspected job roles (DF, Action, Monster Hunters) 3. Games with omni-competent characters that are "specialized" in name only because they are all so good at everything that any one of them could step into any other one's job and still make all the rolls (Black Ops, high point-value Transhuman Space games) This is a dumb argument because you can do any of those things with GURPS. I have played in, and run, games that range from "everyone takes the same template and customizes with quirk points" to "everyone takes a wholly different template with non-overlapping abilities" and both work equally well. Mechanically, both are completely valid. Anything else is just arguing over what type or style of game is preferable and the entire point of GURPS is that you can stop worrying about the system as far as it relates to that discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
I can actually agree with that, The Oldest Man. What I have a problem with is this.quote:NovemberMike, what people are trying to say is that there's an entirely different form of adventure that doesn't call out different roles at different times; it's more representative of how real people would deal with a real difficult situation, not how a fighter would disarm a trap. It's absolutely retarded because he claims that it's more realistic to have an adventure that doesn't call out different roles at different times, which is mind bogglingly stupid. In any random WWII adventure being able to drive a tank, fire a rifle accurately, hike, decipher a code, deliver a baby, change a tire, blow up a bridge, fight to the death with knives, ski down a mountain, escape on a boat, climb a sheer cliff, fake a German accent, escape a makeshift prison, hide from enemy soldiers or any number of other things would be useful. Many of these are going to call out to a specific role. Or this. quote:Stop being misleading. Which was in response to me claiming that HT increases basic speed and move. I don't actually disagree with the fact that GURPS can be run with fairly generic characters. I'd personally only do it for a 1 shot, but I can understand if someone wanted to focus on that style of game a bit more. EDIT: And this. quote:Oh, hey, thanks for making GBS threads on me for trying to be nice and explain things to you. You're a swell guy. It's nice to know that some people can't stop playing D&D. It's hard to argue seriously with anyone that calls disagreeing with them "making GBS threads on them". He just seems like a petulant child, and it's honestly kind of funny. NovemberMike fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Jun 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:It's absolutely retarded because he claims that it's more realistic to have an adventure that doesn't call out different roles at different times, which is mind bogglingly stupid. In any random WWII adventure being able to drive a tank, fire a rifle accurately, hike, decipher a code, deliver a baby, change a tire, blow up a bridge, fight to the death with knives, ski down a mountain, escape on a boat, climb a sheer cliff, fake a German accent, escape a makeshift prison, hide from enemy soldiers or any number of other things would be useful. Many of these are going to call out to a specific role. A realistic WW2 infantry combat game would feature maybe three of those things, and everyone would be doing them. Which is, I think, the point. Realistic infantrymen are a pretty samey bunch as far as military training goes. Even elite special forces operators are crosstrained so that no one person is the only good sniper, or demolitions expert, or forward observer in the team. The team's sniper might have an extra level in Rifle bought with quirk points but the main difference is simply that they're carrying the sniper rifle. Like, it's fine that you want to have a lot of Indiana Jones adventure poo poo in your games, but I've played a number of expertly-run infantry combat games that revolved around a bunch of grunts with basically all the same skills doing basically one thing and they were fun on a bun. I've also run DF so frankly I don't see where the hostility is coming from. Both styles are valid, both styles are fun (for me).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
Guns kill people, bros people die when they are shot roll for shock, buddy --- So I'm about to get GURPS DF up and running and I am identifying some key things to bone over the party. Namely, two characters have two handed weapons so they are weak to ranged attacks. This is the current line up: Thief Holy Warrior focusing on Healing (2-hander) Barbarian using an oversized warhammer (2-hander) Swashbuckler Wizard 1 undecided As I understand it, Wizards should be following the guidelines of: Recover Energy 20+ Primary Spells 20+ Take some kind of staple offensive spell of some kind that is useful like fireball or lightning ball or something? Sadly I don't have a character to actively pick apart but as at least one (two?) of the players are goons I assume they're looking at this thread too and wondering why people are getting hella salty about someone trolling about Cops or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
The red flags for DF wizards are Recover Energy at 20, a big meaty Energy Reserve, and spells at an efficient break point (either 15 or 20). If they're missing one of those it's a good idea to check with the player and find out exactly what they're trying to do. If they're missing all of them, they probably don't have a firm grasp on the magic rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:30
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:A realistic WW2 infantry combat game would feature maybe three of those things, and everyone would be doing them. Which is, I think, the point. Realistic infantrymen are a pretty samey bunch as far as military training goes. Even elite special forces operators are crosstrained so that no one person is the only good sniper, or demolitions expert, or forward observer in the team. The team's sniper might have an extra level in Rifle bought with quirk points but the main difference is simply that they're carrying the sniper rifle. Not quite. If you're running a WWII game you should probably have at least 15-20 points to differentiate that farm boy who knows how to work on machinery from the hick from Alabama who's been shooting since he was 4 from the guy that people generally like. And SF are crosstrained, but the impression I've gotten from my brother is that one guy will be a trained medic who could walk into an ER and save someone from a bad gunshot wound (or do it with more risk in the middle of a battlefield) and the rest of the guys know how to apply a tourniquet, understand what all the chemicals in the kit are and can diagnose basic problems. It's the difference between having a 17 in First Aid and Physician and a 12 in First Aid and a 10 in Physician.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
quote:It's hard to argue seriously with anyone that calls disagreeing with them "making GBS threads on them". He just seems like a petulant child, and it's honestly kind of funny. I promised myself I wouldn't respond to blatant trolling anymore, but it's kind of dishonest to quote me and Gau in the same post and act like we're the same person?? Gau doesn't live in New Jersey, so he is obviously built on WAY fewer points than I am. Anyway, I can see the point on the whole Status thing and not giving out bonus points. Honestly, making them pay for it was my initial thought, but I was worried about players reactions to it. Really, I suppose my main problem with the Magistrate role is that it leaves one PC with a heavy burden of Leadership - and I've found that it's really hard to get people to lead. I'd make it a NPC, but then it would be a NPC giving the PCs a whole bunch of orders, and I don't want to like, railroad people through a freakin' mystery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Not quite. If you're running a WWII game you should probably have at least 15-20 points to differentiate that farm boy who knows how to work on machinery from the hick from Alabama who's been shooting since he was 4 from the guy that people generally like. And SF are crosstrained, but the impression I've gotten from my brother is that one guy will be a trained medic who could walk into an ER and save someone from a bad gunshot wound (or do it with more risk in the middle of a battlefield) and the rest of the guys know how to apply a tourniquet, understand what all the chemicals in the kit are and can diagnose basic problems. It's the difference between having a 17 in First Aid and Physician and a 12 in First Aid and a 10 in Physician. That's just, like, your opinion. Man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Not quite. If you're running a WWII game you should probably have at least 15-20 points to differentiate that farm boy who knows how to work on machinery from the hick from Alabama who's been shooting since he was 4 from the guy that people generally like. And SF are crosstrained, but the impression I've gotten from my brother is that one guy will be a trained medic who could walk into an ER and save someone from a bad gunshot wound (or do it with more risk in the middle of a battlefield) and the rest of the guys know how to apply a tourniquet, understand what all the chemicals in the kit are and can diagnose basic problems. It's the difference between having a 17 in First Aid and Physician and a 12 in First Aid and a 10 in Physician. You should read the Skills Chapter in GURPS again. A skill level of 17 in Physician would make you like, Christian Barnard or something. A skill level of 13 or 14 is considered an 'Expert'. Also, again, you only seem to be focusing on highly cinematic high points action movie style games. That five point difference in skills probably costs upwards of like, 30-40 points, and a lot of GURPS games don't have that to throw around, especially when you are already buying a highly expensive Special Forces template.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
DiscipleoftheClaw posted:I promised myself I wouldn't respond to blatant trolling anymore, but it's kind of dishonest to quote me and Gau in the same post and act like we're the same person?? Gau doesn't live in New Jersey, so he is obviously built on WAY fewer points than I am. Perhaps you could start with an NPC magistrate, let the players go off on a mission, see who the natural leader of the party is, and then kill/incapacitate the NPC, requiring a promotion? I am not sure how that would work in your setting, though!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
DiscipleoftheClaw posted:You should read the Skills Chapter in GURPS again. A skill level of 17 in Physician would make you like, Christian Barnard or something. A skill level of 13 or 14 is considered an 'Expert'. Exaggeration. Not every statement is literal and I've been running high power campaigns recently. quote:Thief Watch out with the Thief. They're tough to hit but otherwise mediocre in combat. If you're expecting to run a more traditional dungeon crawl he'll be quite weak. If you remember that DF is based around adventures rather than simple dungeon crawls though, you'll be quite fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Perhaps you could start with an NPC magistrate, let the players go off on a mission, see who the natural leader of the party is, and then kill/incapacitate the NPC, requiring a promotion? Ah yes the Pike Maneuver
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Perhaps you could start with an NPC magistrate, let the players go off on a mission, see who the natural leader of the party is, and then kill/incapacitate the NPC, requiring a promotion? That's actually a really good idea. I may have to steal that at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Man, I feel like that conversation was partially my fault  .You know, I've gotten a lot more things worked out since last I posted, and I'm feeling pretty confident about going ahead with this, but... I can't, for the life of me, figure out a good name for the campaign. I don't know how people can so succinctly sum things up in just a few words like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 06:16
|
|
