GURPS vs. Specialized RPG

[AxeAlex]

If, however, the game's about him having to get a gun and fight mobsters, then part of the fun of playing Joe Schmoe is in having difficulty obtaining that gun and learning to use it well enough to fight the mobsters. If the GM just rolls over and says "Ok, you get a gun. It's easy enough 'cos you're a PC", he's denying you (the player) the opportunity to actually play the character you've rolled up.

I actually agree with all this. I don't want the gun to materialize in my hands. I just think preventing me from having a gun because "It's hard and complicated and takes weeks" or "You are an office worker, you can't find a gun" is simply really a weak way to tell me "No, you can't have a gun".

But then again, if that adventure only involves me and the other players would be bored to watch me get my gun, just give me the gun and go on with the plot!

If you wanna use my gun-trip as a plot point for later (Trouble with the police who spotted me, for example) I won't have ANY problem with that either. Just dont refuse it, and don't make the other players bored and try to tell me it's MY fault because I want a gun.

[Segev]

In games where equipment is bought with CP, think of it as "narrative advantage." If you buy that gun with CP, then your character has it. You can tell the story about how he got it, and at most the GM will work with you to tweak it so it makes sense in the setting (or he'll tell you you can't spend the CP on it). If you do not, you will have to make an adventure in and of itself about getting it (unless it's really just a common item you can buy at your local AdventureMart).

Items you "acquire through roleplay" are like the superpowers Jimmy Olson got periodically in the silver age comics: here for an episode and gone just as easily as they came.

Spending CP on something makes a statement about that item and how important to your character it is. Not in an emotional, "my character loves this!" sense, but in the sense that a katana is important to a samurai or a suit of plate mail and a mighty steed are important to a knight. Kagome almost always has a bow and arrows with her once she learns to use them in Inuyasha; she paid CP for them to add them to her character. If she hadn't, she'd not be assumed to have them without special effort to get and keep a set. They'd be vulnerable to theft, they could break, she could run out of ammo with narrative ease, and generally she wouldn't be able to assume she has them at the start of any given subquest. She'd have to "role play" reacquiring or securing them specifically.

[goto124]

Why are RPGs being compared to pre-written fiction, when the latter doesn't face the problem of 'there are real human players behind the characters'. The former are for the entertainment of the players, latter for the entertainment of the readers.

[Jayabalard]

By that argument, though, you'd have to spend CPs on really mundane things like a wrench.

Not at all. You're assuming it gives you some sort of mechanical bonus. That isn't necessary.

Obtaining most mundane items (say, a letter opener) doesn't make you any better at mundane tasks (eg, opening letters). They provide no bonus.
Obtaining a wrench doesn't give you a mechanical bonus for having that item. Either

1. your mechanic ability has the "requires wrench" limitation, and you HAVE to have one to accomplish anything as a mechanic...
2. your mechanic ability does not have the "requires wrench" limitation, and you therefore don't need a wrench to do it, and don't get a bonus for it.
3. You lack the mechanic ability, and can't do anything whether you have a wrench or not.

Obtaining a spellbook doesn't give you a mechanical bonus for having that item. Either

1. your spellcasting has the "requires book " limitation, and you HAVE to have one to accomplish anything as a spellcaster...
2. your spellcasting ability does not have the "requires book" limitation, and you therefore don't need a book to do it, and don't get a bonus for it.
3. You lack the spellcasting ability, and can't do anything whether you have a spellbook or not.

Obtaining a gun doesn't give you a mechanical bonus for having that item. Either

1. your guns has the "requires item" limitation, and you HAVE to have one to accomplish anything as a gunslinger...
2. your gun ability does not have the "requires book" limitation, and you therefore don't need a gun to do it, and don't get a bonus for it.
3. You lack the guns ability, and can't do anything whether you have a gun or not.

You can't merely "have" psychic powers just because you want them; there has to be some precedent for it, in your background or the setting.

I don't see that as any more or less reasonable than "you can't merely have a gun and use it just because you want it"

On the whole "being a PC means having the determination to do [plot]" thing, yeah I agree. PCs are a cut above the rest, they're willing to do things that Joe Schmoe isn't.

[AxeAlex]

Not at all. You're assuming it gives you some sort of mechanical bonus. That isn't necessary.

I can bash heads with my wrench. I can sabotage machinery by just throwing it in the machine. I can screw and unscrew things, all thing I couldn't do without it.

Even if I HAVE NO MECHANICAL SKILL.

But if in the setting I can't acquire magical powers because I have to be born with it, I will never be able to acquire it. (Avatar: The Last Airbender, Harry Potter, Mass Effect, Dragonage, Star Wars)

But I SHOULD be able to acquire a Gun, an Armor or a Wrench.

Again:

Tell me my character has to work long and hard to develop psychic powers... no problem. I can believe that easily.

But if you prevent my character from getting a full set of armor from the local blacksmith because I didn't get the armor during character creation, that sounds stupid, meta and forced. You will break my immersion and my willing suspension of disbelief, which are important concepts in roleplaying games.

@Segev

I could get behind paying for "special" items... Magical, unique, plot important items. Not something I could loot from a dead enemy.

But, if I find a gun, the GM don't get to decide I lost the gun just like that because I didnt pay for it during character creation. I'm ok with losing the gun in a scene relevant to the plot, not randomly between 2 scenes.

[Anonymouswizard]

But if you prevent my character from getting a full set of armor from the local blacksmith because I didn't get the armor during character creation, that sounds stupid, meta and forced. You will break my immersion and my willing suspension of disbelief, which are important concepts in roleplaying games.

Or maybe he makes horseshoes, not armour. Much more call for horseshoes in this village, only the local lord can afford armour so my friend only makes it to commission.

A week later when your armour is finished the griffon has been slain by the other party members.

That's why equipment is different.

Huh? Because you can just walk into a random shop and buy an item that requires specialist training and time to create?

I actually agree with all this. I don't want the gun to materialize in my hands. I just think preventing me from having a gun because "It's hard and complicated and takes weeks" or "You are an office worker, you can't find a gun" is simply really a weak way to tell me "No, you can't have a gun".

But then again, if that adventure only involves me and the other players would be bored to watch me get my gun, just give me the gun and go on with the plot!

Stop trying to convince me that getting a gun is easy. In my experience most PCs would only have a vague clue where to start. No matter what you say guns are rare in most of Britain and not something most 'adventurers' would be able to get easily. But hey, that applies to most of your enemies, so it really isn't unfair.

Seriously, I think I've run more games where the PCs have easy access to firearms and their opponents don't then the other way round. So if I decide that maybe I want to beef up the realism for once and make guns hard to get you won't be able to wave your magical PC pass. Did you not hear my 'guns are rare' note when assigning your skills? Because there will be one.

If you wanna use my gun-trip as a plot point for later (Trouble with the police who spotted me, for example) I won't have ANY problem with that either. Just dont refuse it, and don't make the other players bored and try to tell me it's MY fault because I want a gun.

It is your fault, because you agreed to play my 'realistic' game with more brawling than shooting. But don't pretend it's my fault that you can't except guns being more out of reach than 'I go to Soho'. Just except that if you need to put down the werewolf today the silver arrows might work as well as lead bullets (or silver bullets).

[NichG]

It's not that "Adventurer" is an explicit mechanical advantage. It's that, if you don't have the GM railroading things to not need it (and possibly to make it impossible to obtain), those who do not make the kind of choices which could obtain them such useful tools will not be successfully pursuing the set of goals and overcoming the associated obstacles commonly known as "the plot."

There's a reason that Joe Schmoe the office worker doesn't get involved with gangs, mafia schemes, or the local vampire cult. Even if such things are happening around him, he turns a blind eye or allows their efforts to obfuscate to be sufficient, because he's not interested. Or, if he is forced to be interested, it scares him. He's as uncomfortable chasing down this vampire cult as he would be pushing hard enough to get ahold of that firearm.

So each and ever obstacle that's been named to "getting a gun" has an equivalent obstacle to "being in the adventure." If Joe backs off from the one, he'd also back off from the other. Just as he "can't" break through those barriers to getting a gun, he "can't" break through the barriers that the mafia, vampire conspiracy, or close-knit gang put in place to keep outsiders from interfering.

So it's not that "being an Adventurer" is inherently a mechanical advantage; it's that "being the sort to make the choices that gets one involved in the plot means you're also the sort to have the dedication to get a gun."

What I was getting at with the low CP total comment is that if we're talking about a system that purports to be universal, it should also be able to run games about people who normally would run straight away from an adventure of the lethal variety as fast as they were physically or mentally able, but because of their circumstances they're involved and can't just 'un-involve' themselves easily.

[AxeAlex]

Or maybe he makes horseshoes, not armour. Much more call for horseshoes in this village, only the local lord can afford armour so my friend only makes it to commission.

Of course, but then I wouldn't buy him an armor... Wouldn't I? Would he also NOT sell horse shoes, but only farm tools, if i needed a horse instead but didn't pay for the horse during character creation?

A week later when your armour is finished the griffon has been slain by the other party members.

So you want to blackmail me or the others players with boredom. (YOU WILL DO NOTHING MEANWHILE!)

Do I HAVE to wait behind? Oh mighty GM? Can't I go with them and get my armor later since anyway I always luckily survive without needing armor or guns? But when I return I guess my armor will be stolen, because you don't want me to have it and won't simply tell me so.

Huh? Because you can just walk into a random shop and buy an item that requires specialist training and time to create?

You are putting words in my mouth.

Stop trying to convince me that getting a gun is easy. In my experience most PCs would only have a vague clue where to start. No matter what you say guns are rare in most of Britain and not something most 'adventurers' would be able to get easily. But hey, that applies to most of your enemies, so it really isn't unfair.

If 4k criminals per year and even more hunters can get a gun, then you can get a gun in the UK. If my character has the gender-neutral-balls to take on your dangerous and life-threating plot, YOU tell me he can't get a gun? GM fiat. You want me to stop? I will stop. That does NOT mean I'm wrong.

Seriously, I think I've run more games where the PCs have easy access to firearms and their opponents don't then the other way round. So if I decide that maybe I want to beef up the realism for once and make guns hard to get you won't be able to wave your magical PC pass. Did you not hear my 'guns are rare' note when assigning your skills? Because there will be one.

If you tell me at character creation "You don't have access to guns" No problem. I can get behind that and I respect that 100%. If you only tell me "It's in UK", you must NOT get angry and shut me down when I attempt to get a gun. If you do, you are stonewalling me.

It is your fault, because you agreed to play my 'realistic' game with more brawling than shooting. But don't pretend it's my fault that you can't except guns being more out of reach than 'I go to Soho'. Just except that if you need to put down the werewolf today the silver arrows might work as well as lead bullets (or silver bullets).

Again, tell me straight-up you do a no-gun game, NO PROBLEM. Tell me you do a game in "Modern UK", and anyone would expect it to have guns if they fought werewolves or the mafia.

[Segev]

What I was getting at with the low CP total comment is that if we're talking about a system that purports to be universal, it should also be able to run games about people who normally would run straight away from an adventure of the lethal variety as fast as they were physically or mentally able, but because of their circumstances they're involved and can't just 'un-involve' themselves easily.

Another GM who really likes GURPS tends to do this. He falls for a ... perhaps not a fallacy, but a bad spot of reasoning that I suspect you're also falling for. I could be wrong, so my apologies if what I'm about to say misses the mark entirely.

This particular GM regularly complains about games where the PCs have actively high chances of success, whether at rolling for tasks or doing really spectacular things or just plain overcoming "ridiculous odds." He talks about how much more awesome it is when the guy who needs to roll under a 5 manages to do so than when the guy who needs to roll under a 17 does so for the same task. How the latter is "too superhuman" for his taste, and thus his accomplishmetns are boringly easy.

However, he forgets that the reason it's "impressive" in theory is that it doesn't happen often. He loves it in fiction, but he forgets that, in fiction, that "million to one chance" isn't a chance at all: the author writes the story how he wants it to go, so it's going to succeed if the author wants it to. Mr. Average Schmoe is "lucky" because authorial-granted luck is his superpower.

This is a problem because, when this GM runs GURPS, he wonders why his players are annoyed at their constant failures if they've taken his advice on what kind of game he wants to run. And when he plays games, he intentionally builds "not powergaming" characters who are meant to "win by pluck," and gets annoyed by the "overpowered" characters who took actually effective mechanics and thus succeed far more than he does, overshadowing his characters. (I'd call it the Stormwind Fallacy, but he isn't actually saying it's bad RP to have an effective character.)


The reason the quoted bit reminds me of this is that, when those characters who lack the drive, means, and talent to be "adventurers" find themselves caught up in those situations described, and cannot un-involve themselves...they usually wind up dead. They're the extras killed because they weren't heroes and were in the way of the bad guy. Tales don't revolve around them because the story would just be "and then he was forced to kneel in front of the gang-banger, and two bullets were put in the back of his head. The end."

The characters who rise to the occasion and do more than just observe and hope they survive are not the sort who get deterred by the one mugging and by their buddy the policeman telling him he doesn't want to associate with those kinds of people.

The only time that's likely to play out is if it's a tale about how the guy BECAME heroic-minded. He is shown failing at these "get a gun" tasks due to his discomfort and lack of dedication, then gets caught up in a situation he cannot escape and really DOES rise to it. The end of the movie would probably show him going and getting a gun just because he COULD. Or proving he doesn't need one by somehow socially or physically "owning" the early-scene antagonists that were in his way. (Or simply dismissing the problem for which he originally wanted a gun, now that he's too badass to be intimidated by it.)

[goto124]

Reminds me of certain games where level 1 PCs are really fragile, and player kept rolling up new characters until someone survived...

[NichG]

Another GM who really likes GURPS tends to do this. He falls for a ... perhaps not a fallacy, but a bad spot of reasoning that I suspect you're also falling for. I could be wrong, so my apologies if what I'm about to say misses the mark entirely.

This particular GM regularly complains about games where the PCs have actively high chances of success, whether at rolling for tasks or doing really spectacular things or just plain overcoming "ridiculous odds." He talks about how much more awesome it is when the guy who needs to roll under a 5 manages to do so than when the guy who needs to roll under a 17 does so for the same task. How the latter is "too superhuman" for his taste, and thus his accomplishmetns are boringly easy.

However, he forgets that the reason it's "impressive" in theory is that it doesn't happen often. He loves it in fiction, but he forgets that, in fiction, that "million to one chance" isn't a chance at all: the author writes the story how he wants it to go, so it's going to succeed if the author wants it to. Mr. Average Schmoe is "lucky" because authorial-granted luck is his superpower.

This is a problem because, when this GM runs GURPS, he wonders why his players are annoyed at their constant failures if they've taken his advice on what kind of game he wants to run. And when he plays games, he intentionally builds "not powergaming" characters who are meant to "win by pluck," and gets annoyed by the "overpowered" characters who took actually effective mechanics and thus succeed far more than he does, overshadowing his characters. (I'd call it the Stormwind Fallacy, but he isn't actually saying it's bad RP to have an effective character.)


The reason the quoted bit reminds me of this is that, when those characters who lack the drive, means, and talent to be "adventurers" find themselves caught up in those situations described, and cannot un-involve themselves...they usually wind up dead. They're the extras killed because they weren't heroes and were in the way of the bad guy. Tales don't revolve around them because the story would just be "and then he was forced to kneel in front of the gang-banger, and two bullets were put in the back of his head. The end."

The characters who rise to the occasion and do more than just observe and hope they survive are not the sort who get deterred by the one mugging and by their buddy the policeman telling him he doesn't want to associate with those kinds of people.

The only time that's likely to play out is if it's a tale about how the guy BECAME heroic-minded. He is shown failing at these "get a gun" tasks due to his discomfort and lack of dedication, then gets caught up in a situation he cannot escape and really DOES rise to it. The end of the movie would probably show him going and getting a gun just because he COULD. Or proving he doesn't need one by somehow socially or physically "owning" the early-scene antagonists that were in his way. (Or simply dismissing the problem for which he originally wanted a gun, now that he's too badass to be intimidated by it.)

For me, its a pet peeve when people make implicit assumptions about what kinds of game can be run. A lot of people have a fairly narrow comfort zone as to 'how does a game work?', and I like to challenge that as much as possible. Especially in terms of things advertising themselves as universal systems. In this case it's the assumption that there must be a set of tasks which should automatically be considered trivial for any character just on the basis of 'they're an adventurer'.

You could absolutely run a game about people who lack the drive, means, and talent to be adventurers. But if you're doing that, you also have to scale the challenges. In D&D I wouldn't throw a violent conflict with a Prismatic Great Wyrm dragon against Lv3 characters, and in a super-low-power game I wouldn't throw a squad of gun-toting gangsters who immediately open fire against Arthur Dent. There might be the threat of 'these guys are gangsters, if they decide to kill you, you will just die', but the structure of the game would be such that it is possible for Arthur to progress in his goals, even work against the gangsters if thats what he wants, while at the same time being able to avoid triggering 'the gangsters just want to kill him now'.

For example, Arthur finds out that his friend who he trusted actually borrowed a ton of money from gangsters in his name. He doesn't have said money. The gangsters want said money. They're not going to just show up and shoot him, because then they don't get money, but they aren't going to let up on him and allow him to just not deal with the issue. Maybe they'll propose something he can do that will make it right, or maybe they just give him a time limit and say 'bring us $20000 or we take a limb', or whatever. In a standard adventurer-level game, the PCs would then go and acquire explosives and semi-automatic weaponry and would raid the gangster boss. For an Arthur Dent-level character, that isn't an option, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have viable options.

And actually, you can dial it back even further than that. There's no need to involve life or death violence at all in order to have a workable game. You could have a game about a war of the chefs in the world of high cuisine, a game about merchants trying to build up a network of political favors and trade contracts to seize control of an economy dominated by major guilds (violence could come up, but it shouldn't be that frequent), etc.

[Anonymouswizard]

Of course, but then I wouldn't buy him an armor... Wouldn't I? Would he also NOT sell horse shoes, but only farm tools, if i needed a horse instead but didn't pay for the horse during character creation?



So you want to blackmail me or the others players with boredom. (YOU WILL DO NOTHING MEANWHILE!)

You're the one who implied that it would be unfair to not let players go in with a gun, if you want to still adventure while waiting for your equipment that's fine but me.

Hey, if you ask your friend Dave he might be able to find a gun for you in a couple of sessions. It depends on the skills and contacts of Dave/you.

Do I HAVE to wait behind? Oh mighty GM? Can't I go with them and get my armor later since anyway I always luckily survive without needing armor or guns? But when I return I guess my armor will be stolen, because you don't want me to have it and won't simply tell me so.

You can. There will be a slight chance that the armour won't be ready (rolled behind the screen so the players don't realise that if it isn't is because it ties in with what I had planned for next session). Even then you'll probably have a better suit than your current one waiting.

You are putting words in my mouth.

As did you earlier in the thread. I don't see how it's any different when I do it.

If 4k criminals per year and even more hunters can get a gun, then you can get a gun in the UK. If my character has the gender-neutral-balls to take on your dangerous and life-threating plot, YOU tell me he can't get a gun? GM fiat. You want me to stop? I will stop. That does NOT mean I'm wrong.

Possible to get does not mean easy to get. Seriously, I live in the UK, was born and raised here, and your first thought is 'Anonymouswizard is wrong and stupid'.
Other possible reasons you can't get a gun:
-You aren't playing a character with a decent reason for one.
-Part of the adventure involves the black market going quiet.
-The current adventure has a time limit. I use this a lot.
-Poor dice rolls, try again next session.
-I plan to drop some guns as loot soon, and just buying one will ruin the specialness.
-Heavy police cover at the moment, the underground has gone underground.
-There just aren't any around right now. Probably in the coat of the easily defeated thug you're supposed to loot them off.
-You can get a gun, but there's an ammo shortage for some reason.

Yes, several of these tie into the MPOS game I plan to run soon, where a black market in combat magic has pushed the firearms one into essential oblivion.

If you tell me at character creation "You don't have access to guns" No problem. I can get behind that and I respect that 100%. If you only tell me "It's in UK", you must NOT get angry and shut me down when I attempt to get a gun. If you do, you are stonewalling me.

...you have strange ideas about how easy it is to get a gun in the UK. It's not impossible, but I will not let you go 'right, session 1, I'm off to Soho to get a gun'.

Again, tell me straight-up you do a no-gun game, NO PROBLEM. Tell me you do a game in "Modern UK", and anyone would expect it to have guns if they fought werewolves or the mafia.

Except the British people I play with. All the time. As in, some of us were surprised when the GM said we could start with guns (the ones who weren't has already asked). None of us even thought the trouble of getting a gun worthwhile in other games because hey, it's set in the UK, not USA, so it'll probably be really difficult to get them.

If we want a game where PCs use guns we either make up a government agency or play a game set in America. Otherwise we do not get a magic PC pass that makes it easy to buy guns.

[AxeAlex]

For example, Arthur finds out that his friend who he trusted actually borrowed a ton of money from gangsters in his name. He doesn't have said money. The gangsters want said money. They're not going to just show up and shoot him, because then they don't get money, but they aren't going to let up on him and allow him to just not deal with the issue. Maybe they'll propose something he can do that will make it right, or maybe they just give him a time limit and say 'bring us $20000 or we take a limb', or whatever. In a standard adventurer-level game, the PCs would then go and acquire explosives and semi-automatic weaponry and would raid the gangster boss. For an Arthur Dent-level character, that isn't an option, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have viable options.

Arthur Dent here will need some drive or "adventurer gusto" if you want a plot out of this. Jo Schmoe would get a loan to pay them, go to the police and go in protective custody, or deal some kind of payment plan with them...

And actually, you can dial it back even further than that. There's no need to involve life or death violence at all in order to have a workable game. You could have a game about a war of the chefs in the world of high cuisine, a game about merchants trying to build up a network of political favors and trade contracts to seize control of an economy dominated by major guilds (violence could come up, but it shouldn't be that frequent), etc.

Alright, but none of your games will be interesting if they star Joe Schmoe. Joe Schmoe is a lesser chef than Ace McCook, so he agrees to work for him. Joe Schmoe is also a merchant of no-ambitions, so his store gets bought by the guilds and he uses the money to get a house, and start another line of work.

You're the one who implied that it would be unfair to not let players go in with a gun, if you want to still adventure while waiting for your equipment that's fine but me.

No, I imply it's unfair to use your personnal dislike of guns to prevent players from having guns. I'm ok with having to find it.

Hey, if you ask your friend Dave he might be able to find a gun for you in a couple of sessions. It depends on the skills and contacts of Dave/you.

Seems reasonable and not hard.

You can. There will be a slight chance that the armour won't be ready (rolled behind the screen so the players don't realise that if it isn't is because it ties in with what I had planned for next session). Even then you'll probably have a better suit than your current one waiting.

But then, the men-at-arms who started with armor and paid it with CP would be a worse fighter than my giant farmer who started without, as soon as I acquire the armor. So, he was penalised to start with it. Which is a bad incentive, in my opinion. That's why I don't like to pay for equipment with character points.

As did you earlier in the thread. I don't see how it's any different when I do it.

I apologize if I put word in your mouths, and I didn't mean to. That still doesn't make you justified to do so, and you should not be proud to do it. Admitting you are arguing agaisnt a vilified version of me won't get you anywhere.

Possible to get does not mean easy to get. Seriously, I live in the UK, was born and raised here, and your first thought is 'Anonymouswizard is wrong and stupid'.

Still putting words in my mouth. I -honestly- don't think your are stupid. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I view you as a lesser human being or disrespect you in anyway.

"Other possible reasons you can't get a gun:
-You aren't playing a character with a decent reason for one.
Then I shouldn't START with it. I could still ACQUIRE one.
-Part of the adventure involves the black market going quiet.
If guns are not available, then of course I can't have guns! Not the point. Guns are available in UK
-The current adventure has a time limit. I use this a lot.
Could be justified.
-Poor dice rolls, try again next session.
Perfectly reasonable.
-I plan to drop some guns as loot soon, and just buying one will ruin the specialness.
GM Fiat. You could do it, but you still refuse my action based on your own preference instead of the universe we play in.
-Heavy police cover at the moment, the underground has gone underground.
Justified. But if you pull this out of the blue, then I will hear "No, I don't want you to have a gun but won't simply tell you"
-There just aren't any around right now. Probably in the coat of the easily defeated thug you're supposed to loot them off.
I don't think a thug with a Gun should easily be defeated if I don't have a Gun... Maybe I didn't get intended sarcasm though. Not the point.
-You can get a gun, but there's an ammo shortage for some reason.
Some reason is very important, if not it's still you stonewalling me based on your own préférences, not the setting you sold me.

Yes, several of these tie into the MPOS game I plan to run soon, where a black market in combat magic has pushed the firearms one into essential oblivion.

That is justified. It's not simply "Modern UK in which you fight werewolves", in which most people would expect guns.

...you have strange ideas about how easy it is to get a gun in the UK. It's not impossible, but I will not let you go 'right, session 1, I'm off to Soho to get a gun'.

Never asked for the Gun to appear in my hand. I just expect to be able to acquire and use a Gun without getting blackmailed with boredom or told i'm unreasonable or told it's too hard and my character can't pull it off.

Except the British people I play with. All the time. As in, some of us were surprised when the GM said we could start with guns (the ones who weren't has already asked). None of us even thought the trouble of getting a gun worthwhile in other games because hey, it's set in the UK, not USA, so it'll probably be really difficult to get them.

You are arguing on lack of interest, not on accessibility. See my previous posts.

[noob]

You do not need gun training for being way more lethal with a gun than with a knife but knife have multiple advantages:
1:When you are really angry and in your house you already have your knife in the kitchen and so you have the time to grab it and use it to kill before you realize you do not want to kill.
2:It does not attract all the cops and people in an enormous radius super fast.
3:You can cut bread with it.

[Elderand]

You do not need gun training for being way more lethal with a gun than with a knife but knife have multiple advantages:
1:When you are really angry and in your house you already have your knife in the kitchen and so you have the time to grab it and use it to kill before you realize you do not want to kill.
2:It does not attract all the cops and people in an enormous radius super fast.
3:You can cut bread with it.

You forgto several actually, knife have no security, in all the excitment it's possible to forgot to remove it and being unable to fire a gun, knife goes stab no matter what.

You leave the safety off so you never forget it, congrats you just exponentialy increased the chances of shooting yourself in the foot, or junk for the idiots who tuck a gun in the front of their pants. It's comparatively harder to fataly stab yourself with a knife.

Gun can jams, knives go stab

Over short distance, knife and running beat drawing and firing a gun

Guns need to be reloaded, knives go stab

A broken gun is useless for it's intended purpose, a broken knife is still a knife, just a shorter one.

[NichG]

Arthur Dent here will need some drive or "adventurer gusto" if you want a plot out of this. Jo Schmoe would get a loan to pay them, go to the police and go in protective custody, or deal some kind of payment plan with them...

If I look at those 'Jo Schmoe' plans, one simply wouldn't work, and the other two would generate a reasonable plot.

First the one that wouldn't work. The premise of the scenario is already 'things are bad enough that the main character needed a loan from the mob (or at least, his friend did)' suggesting that they may not exactly be in a position for banks to want to make life easy for them. If we go by the source material for Arthur Dent, he's a pretty canonical example of the system letting someone down at every possible level, so it'd totally be along the lines of the premise for that avenue to be impossible or to require a nontrivial sequence of plans and actions to make it happen (hey, a plot!).

Similarly, something like a 'payment plan' just buys time, it doesn't make the money appear out of nowhere. So that direction still leads towards plot, probably in the form of a bunch of serial mini-adventures trying to accumulate the necessary cash.

And the best one of the three is 'going to the police'. That means that this character is now basically strung between two big forces that could utterly crush them if they make a mis-step. The police want the character to keep up the mob contact and get someone to incriminate themselves (after all, right now its just threats and impossible to prove, so while the police might provide some basic assurances, they're not going to be able to make the problem actually go away for the character). And if the mob finds out that the character went to the police, they aren't going to appreciate that. So now the character might end up having to be a mole for the cops. Sounds like a plot - even an adventure - to me!

Alright, but none of your games will be interesting if they star Joe Schmoe. Joe Schmoe is a lesser chef than Ace McCook, so he agrees to work for him. Joe Schmoe is also a merchant of no-ambitions, so his store gets bought by the guilds and he uses the money to get a house, and start another line of work.

A character needs a drive, but that's all. They can be hapless or craven or greedy or courageous or just want to go to sleep or whatever. So long as a drive exists, it is possible to create interesting situations centered around it. Even a character who only desires the status quo or to get out of their current anomalous situation can cause things to move, so long as they're in a situation which they actively want to move away from. A hapless guy who 'just wants to go home' still has a drive to do that very thing. If you put a risky opportunity in front of them to end the situation right then and there, that makes for an interesting choice for that kind of character (which is more important to me, avoiding this immediate risk or getting out of this generally risky situation?). The main constraint with 'unwilling protagonist' type characters is that you can't run long campaigns with them unless they grow in some other direction as a result of their experiences (because once the situation is resolved, either they pick a new drive or the game ends).

Not to mention that 'not being willing to risk your life' and 'not really wanting to do anything for any reason' are very different. If I'm running a game about competition between hot-shot chefs, Joe doesn't need to be willing to face down the mafia in a gun battle to be an interesting character. He just has to be willing to challenge another chef to a cooking battle to decide once and for all who has the best waffles. Someone can be passionate and courageous within the thing they've made their speciality without being passionate and courageous in a shady part of town filled with people who want to mug or shoot them. Someone doesn't have to be a D&D-style adventurer to have motivations, goals, characterization, and a willingness to take risks. It just means that the risks they're taking are measured and have limits - risking their pride as a chef rather than literally risking their life, etc.

[noob]

"Over short distance, knife and running beat drawing and firing a gun"
At what cost?
You also die real life is lethal for everyone.
And there is statistics someone shot by a gun die WAY more often than someone stabbed by a knife.
And you know one person with a knife will die super fast when facing people with guns.
When you have a gun in real life the fact everything is super lethal will make reloading nearly a non issue(you die before shooting 6 times).
And with a knife you will not have the occasion to stab people 6 times because you will die before too.
Guns breaking is a non issue because you are dead before or you die simultaneously(and the same thing happens when you have a knife).
Guns jam really rarely humans scare off and do not want to run toward someone with a gun super often(You REALLY do not want to run with a knife toward someone with a gun).
The main reason you over thrust knives is that you see movies(where they try to make knives look more awesome than guns) but in real life people use rifles/guns and when they want some melee weapon they take a bayonet on their rifle.

[AxeAlex]

If I look at those 'Jo Schmoe' plans, one simply wouldn't work, and the other two would generate a reasonable plot.

Jo Schmoe will not succeed in a plot with low chances of success. Not in a RPG, in a story told from a single author yes, because the author controls the dice rolls and all the odds. But if you are playing with players who like a challenge and not in collaborative story-telling, they can't be Joe Schmoe. That's what Segev meant. (I think)

A character needs a drive, but that's all. They can be hapless or craven or greedy or courageous or just want to go to sleep or whatever. So long as a drive exists, it is possible to create interesting situations centered around it.

Of course, but it is a very important requirement. And that's why we are following him. Most people don't have the drive needed to be the star of a plot/story implying low chances of success. Most people just fail in these circumstances... That's why they are low chances of success!

Not to mention that 'not being willing to risk your life' and 'not really wanting to do anything for any reason' are very different. If I'm running a game about competition between hot-shot chefs, Joe doesn't need to be willing to face down the mafia in a gun battle to be an interesting character. He just has to be willing to challenge another chef to a cooking battle to decide once and for all who has the best waffles. Someone can be passionate and courageous within the thing they've made their speciality without being passionate and courageous in a shady part of town filled with people who want to mug or shoot them. Someone doesn't have to be a D&D-style adventurer to have motivations, goals, characterization, and a willingness to take risks. It just means that the risks they're taking are measured and have limits - risking their pride as a chef rather than literally risking their life, etc.

I 100% agree with all that. But you still aren't telling the story of Joe Schmoe.

[NichG]

Jo Schmoe will not succeed in a plot with low chances of success. Not in a RPG, in a story told from a single author yes, because the author controls the dice rolls and all the odds. But if you are playing with players who like a challenge and not in collaborative story-telling, they can't be Joe Schmoe.

Of course, but it is a very important requirement. And that's why we are following him. Most people don't have the drive needed to be the star of a plot/story implying low chances of success. Most people just fail in these circumstances... That's why they are low chances of success!

I 100% agree with all that. But you still aren't telling the story of Joe Schmoe.

Then it seems like Joe Schmoe is just a strawman and actually has nothing to do with my point, since evidently I'm not in fact talking about Joe Schmoe, but rather simply a 'non-adventurer' protagonist. I'm not sure where 'low chances of success' came in as a general tag for a plot, either.

'Chance of success' isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a series of static gates set by the GM and rolled through (or failed) by the players. What a player decides to do determines their chance of success. Arthur Dent has a near-zero chance of success of winning a gunfight against 6 gangsters. Arthur Dent, by virtue of his 3 point investment in 'Dry British Wit', has a good chance of success of making a series of innocent comments to start a domestic squabble between the single gangster guarding him and his moll, then sneaking away in the confusion.

A PC chef in a game centered around cooking wars is likely to have good chance of success in making a souffle that doesn't fall or in remembering the classic recipe for a Hollandaise sauce. That doesn't mean they're going to do well in his attempts to find a black market gun dealer, or even to not run in panic when entering the shady part of town and encountering a mugger.

[AxeAlex]

Then it seems like Joe Schmoe is just a strawman and actually has nothing to do with my point, since evidently I'm not in fact talking about Joe Schmoe, but rather simply a 'non-adventurer' protagonist. I'm not sure where 'low chances of success' came in as a general tag for a plot, either.

Joe Schmoe IS a strawman created to show you can't do any plot if your are too afraid, unconfident, lazy and unmotivated to do anything... He was thought up by Segev earlier in this thread. So yes, maybe you aren't talking about him!

Any non-adventurer protagonist you might be talking about will have an adventure... Which will make him an adventurer by a narrative view-point, even if he is NOT called an adventurer in-universe. We aren't implying everyone should fight dragons with magics swords. Only that any protagonist (PCs) in a RPG story needs a little something more than real random people (Joe Schmoe) don't have.

'Chance of success' isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a series of static gates set by the GM and rolled through (or failed) by the players. What a player decides to do determines their chance of success. Arthur Dent has a near-zero chance of success of winning a gunfight against 6 gangsters. Arthur Dent, by virtue of his 3 point investment in 'Dry British Wit', has a good chance of success of making a series of innocent comments to start a domestic squabble between the single gangster guarding him and his moll, then sneaking away in the confusion.

Escaping gangsters with dry british wit is NOT something a random no name person can pull off. It IS a classic move a classic guile hero would do. Most real people would remain captive until killed... You can't tell me you are using realistic and down-to-earth characters when he escapes gangsters with intellect and stealth and lives.

A PC chef in a game centered around cooking wars is likely to have good chance of success in making a souffle that doesn't fall or in remembering the classic recipe for a Hollandaise sauce. That doesn't mean they're going to do well in his attempts to find a black market gun dealer, or even to not run in panic when entering the shady part of town and encountering a mugger.

Agree 100%. But if you make the story around cooking he doesn't want nor need a gun, so the point is moot.

[Segev]

The trouble is that "Joe Schmoe" IS the non-motivated guy who lacks any special talent or nerve or skill or luck and, if caught up in adventure, is Extra #3 that gets shot by the bad guys.

He's the kind of character that GM I mentioned loves to say makes for exciting stories, because that GM forgets that his very criteria for it not being an "overpowered, boring" character is that he NOT be so "good" at whatever the campaign is about that he succeeds more than 50% of the time.

Adventures are about people facing what is, to your average Joe, long odds. I'm pretty sure that if I got caught up in one of these plots, I'd either have to change some fundamental drive in myself or I'd wind up dead (if I couldn't escape), and either way I wouldn't be a very interesting protagonist simply because I wouldn't stay in the thick of the action for very long.


No, your PCs don't have to have specific kinds of drive, but they need drive. They need determination, in some direction, and they need talent or skill or luck to let them overcome difficult situations.

Joe Schmoe in our earlier example is the guy who can't get a gun because he is deterred by very reasonable deterrants for an average guy, but which could all be overcome if risks are taken and nerve is shown to keep perservering.

Agnes Protagonist may not WANT a gun, so she might also be stymied by those obstacles, but that would be a matter of desire. She also probably didn't really try to get one unless somebody pushed her to despite her lack of caring or reluctance. Agnes Protagonist might be caught up in a situation she'd rather just leave, but she's got the nerve, drive, skills, luck, or talents to let her face the long odds against her survival or escaping and determinedly pursue them anyway.

She acts like a PC, going for what she wants. Not WANTING a gun doesn't make you a non-Adventurer. Not being able to get one because of a few obstacles that make you just give up even trying? That does.



As to getting equipment "through play" vs CP, again, there's no guarantee what that equipment will be, and if you got it through play but the other player had to buy his, presumably he also has a share of loot that is equally valuable to that new armor you got. If not, the reason you're more powerful and he's being "punished" is that you took more than your fair share of loot. This should even out with a couple more encounters, where he gets dibs until he's made up the disparity.

[AxeAlex]

As to getting equipment "through play" vs CP, again, there's no guarantee what that equipment will be, and if you got it through play but the other player had to buy his, presumably he also has a share of loot that is equally valuable to that new armor you got. If not, the reason you're more powerful and he's being "punished" is that you took more than your fair share of loot. This should even out with a couple more encounters, where he gets dibs until he's made up the disparity.

Never saw it as "getting an unfair amount of loot". That could be true from this point of view. And in a system with magic items, I can only accept your point.

However, in a "mundane" story. As soon as the giant farmer gets equipped like the knight (Which, I must admit, could take time), the knight will become "weaker", because there IS no type of equipment for him to look foward to, and the farmer is naturally "Stronger" and "Tougher", but now has the same stuff on him!

So yes, you are right in most default settings with magic items or super-technology or whatever where better loot will always be available. But it still raises the problem of which equipment is rare enough to point-buy, and which is not. And that can lead to arguments like the gun one we just had. The GM has to personally rule out which is which...

Having a default "value" you can have, setting the value of different available equipment choices, and raising/lowering that total value depending on character specs (He's rich or poor) seems like the better option, instead of requiring character points for each specific stuff the character wants, which will encourage to screw with the system to get a more powerful character, and then encourage the GM to prevent some character choices to respect those arbitrary limit.

[Segev]

Never saw it as "getting an unfair amount of loot". That could be true from this point of view. And in a system with magic items, I can only accept your point.

However, in a "mundane" story. As soon as the giant farmer gets equipped like the knight (Which, I must admit, could take time), the knight will become "weaker", because there IS no type of equipment for him to look foward to, and the farmer is naturally "Stronger" and "Tougher", but now has the same stuff on him!

So yes, you are right in most default settings with magic items or super-technology or whatever where better loot will always be available. But it still raises the problem of which equipment is rare enough to point-buy, and which is not. And that can lead to arguments like the gun one we just had. The GM has to personally rule out which is which...

Having a default "value" you can have, setting the value of different available equipment choices, and raising/lowering that total value depending on character specs (He's rich or poor) seems like the better option, instead of requiring character points for each specific stuff the character wants, which will encourage to screw with the system to get a more powerful character, and then encourage the GM to prevent some character choices to respect those arbitrary limit.

The solution's actually pretty simple: award CP for advancement, and tell the famer that his new equipment needs to be bought from those CP or it will be plot-lost for game balance reasons. The knight now has bonus CP to spend; if he chose, he could "catch up" to the farmer's strength etc., or he could focus on other areas of knightly awesomeness to maintain his own unique strengths.

[AxeAlex]

The solution's actually pretty simple: award CP for advancement, and tell the famer that his new equipment needs to be bought from those CP or it will be plot-lost for game balance reasons. The knight now has bonus CP to spend; if he chose, he could "catch up" to the farmer's strength etc., or he could focus on other areas of knightly awesomeness to maintain his own unique strengths.

I get your point, but I don't think I like it... Forcing people to spend CP on loot seems meta and forced to me. As is making sure a player loses the armor he didn't spend CP on to properly "acquire".

Just like preventing the knight from losing his armor because he point-bought it ALSO seems unorganic, anti-immersive and silly to me. If he is at the mercy of thieves, he SHOULD lose that armor. But because he spent CP on it the GM will feel guilty to do so... I don't like that.

But then, I guess it boils down to preference and what a given gaming group likes and doesn't like.

[Segev]

I get your point, but I don't think I like it... Forcing people to spend CP on loot seems meta and forced to me. As is making sure a player loses the armor he didn't spend CP on to properly "acquire".

Just like preventing the knight from losing his armor because he point-bought it ALSO seems unorganic, anti-immersive and silly to me. If he is at the mercy of thieves, he SHOULD lose that armor. But because he spent CP on it the GM will feel guilty to do so... I don't like that.

But then, I guess it boils down to preference and what a given gaming group likes and doesn't like.

GURPS has you covered, to a degree: you spend CP on wealth and buy your armor with that. Since "wealth" is a game construct, if Joe Farmer gets that full plate as loot, presumably the knight is getting wealth as loot, too. I'm sure he can find something to spend it on, while Joe's gotten his loot in the form of that armor.

Thta's also how D&D handles it, incidentally.

BESM would require the CP solution, simply because CP are supposed to represent your character's mostly-permanent state.

The other way, besides making Joe Farmor "pay" for his armor, would be to simply give Sir Knight the CP value of the armor Joe's acquired and let him spend it. Joe got his story reward; Sir Knight instead "learned a new technique" or something, represented by the CP.

[AxeAlex]

GURPS has you covered, to a degree: you spend CP on wealth and buy your armor with that. Since "wealth" is a game construct, if Joe Farmer gets that full plate as loot, presumably the knight is getting wealth as loot, too. I'm sure he can find something to spend it on, while Joe's gotten his loot in the form of that armor.

Seems good to me. And yes, it seems comparable to D&D.

BESM would require the CP solution, simply because CP are supposed to represent your character's mostly-permanent state.

Never tried that way, but I don't think I would like it. (But I guess I could be wrong)

The other way, besides making Joe Farmor "pay" for his armor, would be to simply give Sir Knight the CP value of the armor Joe's acquired and let him spend it. Joe got his story reward; Sir Knight instead "learned a new technique" or something, represented by the CP.

I dont know. I like my "personnal" power to augment independently to my stuff.

All in all good points though. I'll have to think about all that.

[NichG]

Any non-adventurer protagonist you might be talking about will have an adventure... Which will make him an adventurer by a narrative view-point, even if he is NOT called an adventurer in-universe. We aren't implying everyone should fight dragons with magics swords. Only that any protagonist (PCs) in a RPG story needs a little something more than real random people (Joe Schmoe) don't have.

Escaping gangsters with dry british wit is NOT something a random no name person can pull off. It IS a classic move a classic guile hero would do. Most real people would remain captive until killed... You can't tell me you are using realistic and down-to-earth characters when he escapes gangsters with intellect and stealth and lives.

The thing is, 'gangsters' isn't 'death manifest upon the mortal plane'. Generally speaking, a gangster isn't going to want to actually kill the average non-gangster they interact with. They're going to want to extort money from them, bully them into cooperation or silence, use them in some way or get them permanently under their thumb, or even just tip their hat and keep on going down the street. 'Most real people' would survive just fine, and would push on the situation using the particular abilities they feel comfortable in pushing with without risking their life. That might be going Stockholm and trying to ingratiate themselves towards their captors in order to earn an increased feeling of safety, for example. Or just sitting there and trying to get their own emotions under control.

There also seems to be a very low bar being set for average people. An 'average person' in the modern world is able to overcome all sorts of obstacles. Its not that those obstacles are inherently unsuitable for gameplay, its that people haven't made a serious effort to understand how one would go about doing so and making it enjoyable. Or rather, people have, but that mostly shows up in niche or specialized systems. For example, I've seen games about going camping, the dynamics of a clique of high-school girls, competing over a romance, etc.

She acts like a PC, going for what she wants. Not WANTING a gun doesn't make you a non-Adventurer. Not being able to get one because of a few obstacles that make you just give up even trying? That does.

There's a lot of space between a complete lump and someone with enough force of will to get through any obstacle. That is to say, you can have characters who do give up trying in response to certain kinds of obstacles, but not in response to others.

In the example of my Arthur Dent being exceptional, he's exceptional but only in one very specific way. Another example would be Rincewind, who utterly fails at anything proactive unless it's related to his immediate survival. They're protagonists, but they're not generalists. Rincewind can run away and dodge with high probability, but he can't manage to win a fight, acquire a specific object, make friends with an enemy, gain political position, etc with the same high probability.

Since all my examples have been from media so far, here's an in-game example. Recently I was in a game session where my character was on a boat that was being boarded by soldiers, and everyone was being taken prisoner. Now, my character had a lot of drive for certain things, but he also has a lot of limits. When a couple soldiers started attacking my character for skulking around, he quickly surrendered and let himself be tied up rather than even take a single combat action against them. Because the obstacle of 'there are 30 soldiers and 1 of me' is something he knows he can't get around by fighting, even though he does have a gimmick that would absolutely guarantee that he'd survive the fight if he tried (but would be in substantially worse position as a result). Maybe he could have slipped the bonds, intentionally fallen off the edge of the ship, swam for shore, infiltrated where his friends were being kept, etc like an action movie star, but that's not this character.

That doesn't mean he wanted to be a prisoner, or that given the choice he wouldn't've stayed stealthy and avoided being taken captive at all. What it means is that he wasn't an omni-character who, in all situations, can beeline directly towards his drive without consideration of the lay of the land.

What I'm hearing about 'adventurers' here is this idea that 'I want' is sufficient to accomplish anything that is not directly related to the GM's challenges. That's the mark of a character who is high-powered compared to their situation, because they are so broadly competent that they don't have to worry about how to accomplish a thing, they simply need to decide that they intend to accomplish it and it will eventually happen. And that's fine, there's lots of gaming to be had with that kind of character since you can still have above-the-normal challenges. But you can also find a lot of gaming in the regime of characters who have a more limited set of things they can or will do to pursue their drive, or who are driven more strongly by aversion than desire.

[goto124]

So the answer to 'can I have a gun' is 'depends on the type of game and its power level'?

[Mr. Mask]

If your engagement and challenges amount to a highschool lovers' quarrel, then yes, the PCs are unlikely to have the gumption or drive to get an illegal firearm. If they are fighting for their lives, then either they are doing their best to stop the adventure, or getting a gun is both easier and safer.

[Anonymouswizard]

If your engagement and challenges amount to a highschool lovers' quarrel, then yes, the PCs are unlikely to have the gumption or drive to get an illegal firearm. If they are fighting for their lives, then either they are doing their best to stop the adventure, or getting a gun is both easier and safer.

Depends ENTIRELY on the setting. My unknown Armies character stuck to archery because it was easier and safer than trying to get a gun (which is not a magic kill anything weapon). He was fighting for his life at least every other session, and nobody in the party ever thought 'hey, maybe I should try to get a firearm' because it was easier and safer to stick to the weapons we had training in.