|
Another solution, given a post-apocalyptic setting and a little hand-waving, is to make 'real' ammo really rare and have the commonly available ammo be of poor enough quality (1/2 dam or more) that there's more shooting in most fights.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
It actually seems like a good rule for post-apoc for me. No one ever said surviving some kind of world-shattering event was meant to be easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
Twobirds posted:Another solution, given a post-apocalyptic setting and a little hand-waving, is to make 'real' ammo really rare and have the commonly available ammo be of poor enough quality (1/2 dam or more) that there's more shooting in most fights. Ah yes the "Metro 2033" rule
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
There are also ways to add some cinematic rules to the mix. Unkillable 1 gives you characters that are pretty close to DnD characters in a higher tech game, for example. In more realistic games, characters are still pretty survivable as long as they have cover, decent saves and some body armor to take stray bullets. Also, remember to put in weapons that are appropriate to the setting. James Bond should be facing up against weapons similar to his Walther PPK (2d-1 pi-), which isn't really that much more dangerous than a guy with a sword. A Metro 2033 rule seems easy enough to do though too, maybe halve damage, range and give a -2 accuracy bonus. This would still put assault rifles in the 2-3d range, which is pretty dangerous, and you could feed the players high quality stuff, but it would be reasonable for the random locals to be using lovely stuff they scavenged that had been in the elements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
Also there are some other solutions in the Campaigns book to having more cinematic gunplay. One is the Flesh Wound rule, where someone who gets hurt can spend a CP to rule that it does 1HP of damage and they explain it was JUST A FLESH WOUND. I actually like the 3rd Ed version of this better, where they spent the CP at the end of the fight if they survived. They had just been stunned/knocked out/it is not as bad as it looked and it turns out they only got a ding for the whole fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
Action has an Extra Effort option that lets you spend FP to regain HP. That seems like a pretty alright balance between taking all the damage all the time and spending CP to reduce it to 1. It's an exhaustible resource, requires a Will roll, and the GM can always put a limit on how much they can get back in one fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 06:38
|
|
|
So, since the New Game Idea thread is pretty much dead, I'll take to posting my GURPS ideas here. Seeing as lots of them pop up now that I've come to know GURPS a little and it can run ANY idea I come up with, here's a nice little one.The Union Medical Technologies; Corporate Property Recovery Division posted:Here at The Union Medical Technologies, we pride ourselves in the quality and reliability of our product. Our affordable prices and payment plans make our replacement organs and limbs affordable for everybody. However, sometimes payments go too far over due. Yep, GURPS Cyberpunk game based on Repo Men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Lynx Winters posted:You don't actually start dying until you're at -1xHP. My barbarian in a live GURPS Dungeon Fantasy game (you know the one, it was the mushroom one) was near constantly at negative HP but he made it out after chugging all the healing potions forever (shoutouts to all out attack)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 08:29
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:My barbarian in a live GURPS Dungeon Fantasy game (you know the one, it was the mushroom one) was near constantly at negative HP but he made it out after chugging all the healing potions forever well that was because we had a necromancer instead of a healer and then when we got a healer he was retarded but more to the point, yeah, the barbarian was hovering at around zero HP for a good long while and was still effective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
I think I'm going to deal with it in my game by making guns more expensive (what would be a good amount to multiply the costs by? I'm not sure) and giving most of the NPCs swords/crossbows/muskets/a few TL5 guns, with only a few groups having TL6-7 weaponry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
The multiple should depend on how rare you want them to be. You could also base the economy off a lower TL. If you set up the campaign as TL 5 with access to higher TL stuff, then TL 5 weapons would be pretty easy to get, TL 6 weapons would be double cost, TL 7 would be quadruple and TL 8 would be 8x cost. You'd also start the campaign off at TL 5 wealth levels, so you'd have $2000 rather than $20000.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:The multiple should depend on how rare you want them to be. You could also base the economy off a lower TL. If you set up the campaign as TL 5 with access to higher TL stuff, then TL 5 weapons would be pretty easy to get, TL 6 weapons would be double cost, TL 7 would be quadruple and TL 8 would be 8x cost. You'd also start the campaign off at TL 5 wealth levels, so you'd have $2000 rather than $20000. The PCs' hometown (or at least most of them, not sure whether I should allow backgrounds from different places or keep it simple), and some of the other factions, would be TL5. There would be one or two places at TL6. Other places would be TL4 or lower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
What was the pre-apocalypse TL? It's possible to make cartridges for most TL:8 rifles using TL:5 techniques. You could reasonably expect many of the TL:5 gun malfunction problems using lower-tech cartridges though (misfires from cartridges bursting, failures to extract or fully cycle, feed failures, corrosive primers, ect).
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:What was the pre-apocalypse TL? It's possible to make cartridges for most TL:8 rifles using TL:5 techniques. You could reasonably expect many of the TL:5 gun malfunction problems using lower-tech cartridges though (misfires from cartridges bursting, failures to extract or fully cycle, feed failures, corrosive primers, ect). TL8/very early TL9. WWIII happened in 2023. Has anyone in this thread ran a game where the PCs and NPCs use guns a lot? How many PCs get killed in those situations? Since I haven't GMed any GURPS games before (my only GMing experience is a bunch of Paranoia games, which handles this quite differently), I'm not sure if I'm overestimating this problem or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Sam. posted:TL8/very early TL9. WWIII happened in 2023. It really depends on if the PCs are wearing body armor and are intelligent about cover. If they just stand there or charge at the enemy shooting indiscriminate snap-shots they're probably going to die. Since Active Defenses aren't very good at range, the idea is to tack on as many penalties to your opponent's shot as possible by crouching behind cover, flashbangs, smoke grenades, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Another thing: Would it be a good idea to make an overall map of the campaign's area showing the cities, faction boundaries, terrain features, major roads, etc. and let the players see it, or not? On one hand it would probably make travel more convenient, but on the other hand not having a map could make it more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Sam. posted:Another thing: Would it be a good idea to make an overall map of the campaign's area showing the cities, faction boundaries, terrain features, major roads, etc. and let the players see it, or not? On one hand it would probably make travel more convenient, but on the other hand not having a map could make it more interesting. Considering their TL there's no reason why they wouldn't have access to maps. And having a map for yourself is always a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
Sam. posted:Has anyone in this thread ran a game where the PCs and NPCs use guns a lot? How many PCs get killed in those situations? Since I haven't GMed any GURPS games before (my only GMing experience is a bunch of Paranoia games, which handles this quite differently), I'm not sure if I'm overestimating this problem or not. It depends on how the players act. You can't just run into the middle of the battlefield in your shorts. If the players are wearing appropriate armor (ie. at least a decent helmet and body armor with ceramic plates at TL 8), taking cover appropriately and making use of any tech they might have they'll do fine. IIRC WWII is the most dangerous era, since you lack good body armor but you've got fully powered rifle cartridges. One thing to remember is that guns create an appropriate threat. Being under fire from a sniper means that everyone hits the ground and rushes for cover, where in DnD it would mean running across the field and popping a potion every once in awhile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Sam. posted:Another thing: Would it be a good idea to make an overall map of the campaign's area showing the cities, faction boundaries, terrain features, major roads, etc. and let the players see it, or not? On one hand it would probably make travel more convenient, but on the other hand not having a map could make it more interesting. It depends on how detailed you want to make it. If you want to go hardcore you can buy topographic maps from the USGS that cover anything from a small city to a state for ~$10. You can also just grab a roadmap. Mark out some points of interest with a marker (Town here, bandit territory here, that sort of thing) and let the players know that modern towns might be abandoned with supplies, be utterly destroyed or have a group settled there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Gunfights in GURPS are fine if your players are thinking tactically and are understanding of the fact that they really, really don't want to get shot. If they run out into an open room and try to shoot people they're going to die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
Really powerful characters can just run in, though. You can make a superman style character that can take getting shot by artillery if you have the points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
So, I'm a little new to GURPS, and to GMing in general, but I had an idea I really liked and GURPS seemed like the best way to model it. Hoping to get some feedback, and maybe some suggestions on how to improve/refine. The basic concept is that a few millenia back, Mages started noticing that Earth's Mana was rapidly dropping. While wondering what to do, a pair of Goddesses appeared and gave them the skills and knowledge necessary to transport themselves to another, Earth-like planet with more abundant Mana. From there, they began colonizing and expanding. Fast-forward a few thousand years, and they've fully colonized another planet and have recently begun colonizing a third. To shorten it, the setting is kind of "Dungeon Punk"-ish, though that's generalizing a bit too much perhaps. The majority of countries are at TL 5 with a few schizo-tech cases of TL 6-and-beyond stuff. The Magic-centric country and the Altered country are both closer to TL 6 though, as they have focused a bit more on developing technology (technology in this case being Magic; if you take the definition of technology to include "The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes", then Magic is essentially that, which is meant to represent a theme I'll get into in a bit). Altered is a term meant to represent beings that have suffered Mana-poisoning (said differently, they're Magical Mutants). When it happens to animals, you get Demons (and some other creatures like Dragons and stuff, but they're basically all just sub-classifications of Demons); when it happens to Humans, you get Altered. This is basically how you'd get things like vampires and werewolves, though they don't have to be so exotic, as the only real "racial trait" they have is Magery 1; ALL Altered are capable of using Magic if taught, unlike regular humans who need to Awaken to their Magic, usually from a teacher/mentor, though sometimes (and far more rarely) on their own. That's part of why the Altered kingdom (which came about as a result of the Altered Purge in some countries a few centuries back) is considered to be as potentially dangerous as it is. If it hasn't been made apparent yet, Race-relations are kind of a thing, both between Altered and regular humans, and between different countries (and also between most people from the New Worlds and people from the Old World). Ironically, the difference between Altered and high-powered Mages is essentially nil; using Magic gradually alters an individual's nature to be more magical. Not that that stops discrimination, mind you. (Also, don't ever call an Altered a Demon, or your likely to seriously piss someone off, and even using "Altered" in place of their nationality is likely to be considered rude, or at least ignorant). Magic is basically the means by which everything is done, and all PCs would have it. In-Universe, Magic is the application of one's will in domination of reality, and Mana (plentiful in both Persons and the World) is the energy source used to do so. Using Magic requires forming a "contract" (for lack of a better word) with the World, designating what you want to do and how you want to do it. The standard form for this exchange is Symbology: the use of runes and magic circles. However, you can essentially use anything. Think of the World like a server: you say to the server "Hey World, I've got this thing I just set up/did, here. Gimme magic!" and the server then looks at what you did and goes "Ok, let's see here... ah, that corresponds to a Fireball spell. Pay up the toll and you get your spell". In terms of game mechanics I was thinking of running it roughly like this: Magery is it's own stat (essentially 10+Magery), independent of IQ. You can pick a Skill to base your Magic around. For buying Magic, you buy it at (10+Magery+however many levels of that Skill you bought). I think this works because it means that, for the purposes of buying and using magic, your Skill is essentially independent from Attributes or that Skill's difficulty, which I think works both from a narrative perspective as well as a game-balance perspective. Magic would be Syntactic. You buy Nouns and Verbs as Very Hard skills based on the above calculation. The general rules laid out in Thaumatology would apply, though I'd probably just ignore the cost/time taken table they have there in favor of just free-balling it based on what you actually try to do, with respect to similar spells listed in the Magic book. The setting would probably be an Academy in the Magic-centric country. A few higher-level students are asked to join a rookie task force to help deal with some small incidents, and gradually become pulled into a larger and larger collage of clusterfuck. That said, I'm still trying to work some things out. Everyone would use Magic, though to different ends (hence making it it's own stat). Since things would, thus, be really Magic-heavy, I'm trying to figure out how to give the PCs the energy to deal with that. My initial thought would be to give them an ER equal to Magery+10, but that might be giving them a little too much leeway. There are some other things I think I need to work out, but I'm still trying to sort everything out in my head. Any thoughts, comments, etc, would be appreciated. e: Holy drat this post ended up being bigger than I thought it'd be. Golden Battler fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 07:25
|
|
|
This looks neat, and I love me some syntactic magic.Golden Battler posted:In terms of game mechanics I was thinking of running it roughly like this: Magery is it's own stat (essentially 10+Magery), independent of IQ. You can pick a Skill to base your Magic around. For buying Magic, you buy it at (10+Magery+however many levels of that Skill you bought). I think this works because it means that, for the purposes of buying and using magic, your Skill is essentially independent from Attributes or that Skill's difficulty, which I think works both from a narrative perspective as well as a game-balance perspective. But I don't really get this. What Skill, specifically? Is it any skill, like I could take Broadsword as a Magic skill? Or is it just Thaumatology, like a generic spell-making skill? If the magic words are the skills, then they're just Magic/VH skills and that's all and you don't need to pick a skill. I hesitate a little bit about making a new attribute to base a new system around. That seems like complicating an already complicated system. You mentioned Will, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in casting a spell. Am I misunderstanding?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
Hm... probably not any Skill, though just about. Probably "physical" spell casting would use Body Sense. You could tie it quite a few other skills though, I imagine. I think the "usual" one, the one that most people in the setting would likely use, would be Symbol Drawing. However, you could probably use Musical Composition or whatever else to make things work. My reasons for this, as well as for making Magery it's own attribute, are both for flavor and for balance. My intent was that basically everyone who does much of any fighting will be using Magic in some form. You may be a Magic Swordsman, or perhaps a Magical Rogue, or whatever other archetype, but Magic is prevalent throughout it all. Thus, I didn't want to tie Spellcasting to IQ, as then "pure" artillery mages are going to have a pretty distinct advantage. Like this, they may still be better at spellcasting due to their focus, but the downside is that they'll fair far less well when a magic-using brawler gets up in their face. e: Mind you, I'm still open to suggestions. I arrived at this point by trying to think of a way of preserving both the flavour of the world I want to make as well as game balance, but if anyone can think of a better way of doing it, I'm all ears. Golden Battler fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
You could have magery be based on either INT or DX. Another alternative would be to base it on Will, which would give INT mages an advantage but would make it cheaper for people to get the requisite skill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:You could have magery be based on either INT or DX. Another alternative would be to base it on Will, which would give INT mages an advantage but would make it cheaper for people to get the requisite skill. You should bother reading what he posted. GB: I like the idea of having Magic as another stat, it's an option people don't use nearly often enough in TG for homebrew games where it would actually work really well. It also means you can have "Natural" spellcasters without having people who are exceptionally gifted at magic without being otherwise smart, and you can have smart people who aren't good at magic. It's something similar to what I have for the GURPS Mass Effect idea I have been kicking around, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
I am reminded of EABA, kind of - for those not familiar, it is another Generic RPG, with a heavy focus on homebrewing and kitbashing your way to victory. In it, they recommended having another stat for like, Magic/Edge/Psy whatever is appropriate for your Campaign world - of course, in EABA, it doubles up as a luck resource in addition to being what you base your powers off of. I miss EABA. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
DiscipleoftheClaw posted:I miss EABA. Why? Did the Blacksburg Tactical Research Center turn into another Waco, except with pretentious RPGs instead of eschatological Christianity?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:GB: I like the idea of having Magic as another stat, it's an option people don't use nearly often enough in TG for homebrew games where it would actually work really well. It also means you can have "Natural" spellcasters without having people who are exceptionally gifted at magic without being otherwise smart, and you can have smart people who aren't good at magic. It's something similar to what I have for the GURPS Mass Effect idea I have been kicking around, actually. Yeah, I realized this does work if you're going that route. Instead of Magery as an Advantage you have Magery as an Attribute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:You should bother reading what he posted. I did. He has a problem with INT being a prerequisite for a good mage, and the easiest way to do that without messing with balance too much is to change the associated attribute. Look at imbuements and the mystic knight as another way to do this. This allows players to have a DX based magic system that really supports DX based characters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I did. He has a problem with INT being a prerequisite for a good mage, and the easiest way to do that without messing with balance too much is to change the associated attribute. Yeah DX based guys are really left out in the cold under the existing rules as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Yeah DX based guys are really left out in the cold under the existing rules as it is. Winson, I love you. Never change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Yeah DX based guys are really left out in the cold under the existing rules as it is. I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, but Magic generally isn't that great for a DX based character. The list of spells is basically a set of things you can do instead of hitting someone in the face with a sword. Imbuements give you a way to complement your ability to fight normally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, but Magic generally isn't that great for a DX based character. The list of spells is basically a set of things you can do instead of hitting someone in the face with a sword. Imbuements give you a way to complement your ability to fight normally. The joke is that DX is already mostly the best stat, since it determines basically all your fighting stuff as well as most physical stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Piell posted:The joke is that DX is already mostly the best stat, since it determines basically all your fighting stuff as well as most physical stuff. Unless you're magic heavy. If you're in a magic heavy system, then INT can be used instead of DX for all the physical/fighting stuff. His system has 2 problems. 1) DX based characters don't want to be casting fireballs, they want to to be hitting things with swords and 2) Int is still hosed over because you just removed it's combat application without doing anything to DX. Looking at your system I'd keep magery for int as it is and just add in imbuements as a DX skill. This gives melee characters the ability to add in some magical power but doesn't let them step on the wizard's niche.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Looking at your system I'd keep magery for int as it is and just add in imbuements as a DX skill. This gives melee characters the ability to add in some magical power but doesn't let them step on the wizard's niche. Imbuements are maybe the worst thing they have published in ages, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
How does the wizard have a niche if everyone in the world is a wizard? Personally I think the way I'd do it is make Magery a lot cheaper, like 5 points per level, and make Magery 0 a free thing for everyone. It's still IQ based that way, but it's not unreasonable to still be good at it. Making it a straight up new attribute could work though, I'm just not sure how I'd price it. I want to say +/-10 per level since now you're dropping more points into stuff, but given all the wacky poo poo magic can do that seems really cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
One thing you could do is allow IQ!, which is IQ without the associated Will and Per ranks and only costs 10 points, but only allow a certain number of points. This makes it easy to gain a few points of IQ for the purpose of spellcasting, but a dedicated caster would be forced to buy the regular thing for most of the points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
Yeah, the general assumption is that DX-using characters would want to be using Magic. A guy with nothing but DX and sword skills would certainly be a great swordsman, but he's going to have a hard time against a swordsman that can teleport behind him or choose to hang back and fling fireballs when he needs to. I think syntactic magic supports this system for... reasons I can't seem to find the right words to describe Lynx's suggestion gave me a slightly different idea. The goal is basically to make the skill the Mage chooses relevant to their spellcasting, as well as Magery. Another way to do that might be learning Nouns/Verbs at just (chosen skill+Magery), -3 due to being Very Hard. The big difference with this is that the actual Attribute score that your chosen skill is tied to is mixed in to the equation. A notable observation is that this would make it pretty easy to get high levels of Nouns/Verbs. Given the setting and what would be going on, this maaay prove to be better? I'd only worry about letting the PCs have that much freedom, but I can pretty easily use aspects of the setting to reign them in if I needed to, I think. e: e2: Actually no I remember my thought process. I'm intent on binding spellcasting to a skill partially for the flavor and partly because I'm also intent on making spellcasting not inherently IQ-based. The problem with learning Nouns/Verbs as Very Hard skills at (10+Magery) is that that seems kind of low for what is supposed to be a pretty magic-heavy game. Golden Battler fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jun 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
First thing first, watch out for easy access to teleportation. It can have effects that you didn't think of. Secondly, the reason a a DX character doesn't want to be using magic is because he doesn't want to spend the 4-5 seconds casting that teleportation spell (or however long, I didn't check). If you want to give melee characters powers, try giving them access to actual powers. They won't be able to do as many things, but it gives the wizards a niche (do random poo poo with magic) while giving the other guys the ability to compete.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 02:43
|
|