Updates in this colour.
The following GURPS books are in general use for this setting:
- GURPS Basic Set
- GURPS Space
- GURPS Spaceships n
- GURPS Ultra Tech
- GURPS High Tech
Cinematic skills and advantages are not generally appropriate, but may be negotiable. See Character Creation for more details.
Note Tech Level and technology comments here
All the below house rules are open for discussion.
For some time I have been thinking about how best to resolve group tasks, and wrote some discussion in an earlier version of this page. Having had further thoughts, I have amended my earlier musings. The main changes are, addition of an alternate option, and modification of the initial option for dealing with all-success tasks.
Group tasks tend to fall into two categories:
- If any group member succeeds, the task succeeds (single-success task)
- All group members must succeed for the task to succeed (all-success task)
The two examples I have used previously are, respectively: Searching a room for an item and sneaking past a guard.
Single-success Task Example
So the four of you are trying to spot the clue at the crime scene, GM says, “roll Search.” Two characters have Search and the other two roll against the default. The odds of success have gone up dramatically, and probably more than is warranted. By that logic, 216 morons are almost certain to get a critical success in the search so the PCs should go everywhere with a few platoons of cheap-to-hire temps.
All-success Task Example
Now consider an alternate scenario: The four of you are sneaking into a building, but you have to get past the security guards. The GM seas, “roll Stealth.” Now a single failure is likely to get you all spotted. Four people are easier to spot than one, but are they four times easier?
The reason I would like a single roll to resolve these sorts of issues are as follows:
In the first case the odds of success go up unrealistically as more people are added to the task; it potentially becomes too easy for the players and encourages ‘an army of minions’ approach that diminishes PC heroism.
In the second case it can become too difficult and therefore a disincentive for the players to work as a team; if two of the party are sneaky and one is clomping noisily about in plate mail it makes sense for the third character to wait outside the building. Now, while that might be realistic, it’s less fun.
So I have had some thoughts on single-roll methods, and note that the WOIN rules have an interesting simple mechanic that might be an alternate option.
Using this method for single-success tasks:
- One character (the Primary) makes the roll
- Up to four other characters may assist by rolling an appropriate skill or default, each success of which adds +1 to the Primary character’s roll.
- Rationale: +4 as a ceiling feels about right for game mechanics (it’s the difference between a routine task and a difficult stressful one), 5 people is about the maximum that can be easily co-ordinated as a single small team.
-
Note that a critical failure by an assisting character can hinder the Primary, either with a -2, or the GM may be creative.
- The task must be such that assistance can be usefully applied, players may be asked to justify and explain how they are assisting.
- Players will generally, but not always, have discretion over which character is the Primary (and can therefore choose the most skilled), however specific circumstances may prevent this
- eg: If the if the senior engineer is flat on his back in medical and directing the two-week hire on apprentice on how to repair the spin gravity ring over the comms the GM might reasonably rule that the apprentice is the Primary despite having to rely on a default skill
Similar rules apply:
- One character (the Primary) makes the roll
- All other participating characters roll, each failure modifying the Primary character’s roll by -1, with no minimum.
- Rationale: The lack of a modifier floor prevents silly situations where a master thief can sneak an entire armoured regiment into the enemy camp with a single roll.
-
Each critical success by a participating character adds +2 to the primary’s roll, or the GM may be creative.
- Players will generally, but not always, have discretion over which character is the Primary (and can therefore choose the most skilled), however specific circumstances may prevent this
- This is the main reason I modified the previous entry – to protect party niche; previously it would be logical to have the worst character being assisted by the better ones, with the amended mechanics best player is hampered by the less competent ones, which still makes, for example, the thief the focus of attention when thiefly things are being attempted.
Single-success Tasks
In WOIN, every character that helps on a task gives an extra dice to the dice pool (roughly equivalent to an automatic +1). However WOIN rules have caps on the dice pool for character competence, ie more characters help, but only to the point of allowing the primary to be as good as they can be.
An equivalent mechanic could be that each assisting character neutralises a negative modifier but never gives a plus.
All-success Tasks
In WOIN, tasks such as these are designated as group tasks. To succeed in a group task, everybody rolls and more than half the group must succeed on their rolls for the group to succeed.
|
Turn Sequence (reproduced from B391 – my italics)
The “turn sequence” is the order in which active characters take their turns. It is set at the start of the fight and does not change during combat. The combatant with the highest Basic Speed goes first and takes his turn, then the on with the next-highest Basic Speed, and so on, in descending order by Basic Speed. Once every active character has taken his turn, one second has passed and another second begins. Tied Speeds: If multiple NPCs on the same side have the same Basic Speed, the GM simply decides who goes first – it isn’t really important.
|
The problem with this is that once GURPS characters reach about TL 5-6, and certainly by TL 9 when this game is set, the ability of characters to deal damage vastly outweighs their ability to take damage. Thus, despite what the game designers say above, who goes first is critical. Who goes first often determines the outcome of an encounter (Bang! You’re dead…) While I considered it, I am not going to use the rules from GURPS Tactical Shooting.
Turn sequence will be set at the start of a fight and will not change during combat.
Combatants will roll 1D and add it to their Basic Speed, along with the following modifiers.
- Someone in combatant’s group has Combat Reflexes or Enhanced Time Sense and makes a Leadership or Tactics roll: +1
- Combatant has Combat Reflexes or Enhanced Time Sense: +2
- Combatant’s has Tactics (not default) and makes a Tactics roll: +1
- Unfamiliar weapon: -1
- Drunk, drugged, etc: Apt penalty
- Other advantages or disadvantages may apply
- Other situational modifiers may apply
This means that the Speed 7 character with Combat Reflexes will probably win against the Speed 5 character without the Advantage, as is should be, but it is no longer certain and it allows characters with abilities such as Luck to use it on the roll.
XP will be awarded to the group. That is, at the end of a session/module when it is time for XP, and I decide the quality of group play might be worth 3 points then everyone gets three points, rather than say OK: Mary Sue found the treasure, killed the level boss and solved the riddle: 5 points. Morty had some quality role play and helped escape from the Killbots: 3 points. Bazza brought chips and rolled dice when he wasn’t playing with his phone: 1 point.
This kind of development inequality can be a problem in GURPS so I’d prefer group XP.
However, to encourage individual creativity and contributions…there will be Stars! When a player does something worth recognition (solving a difficult puzzle, excellent role play, etc.) they may be awarded A Star!
When a player collects 10 stars they can trade them in for 1 Group XP or… something nice. This is under review…
I have played this in my other GURPS group and it works really well.
It means no private talks, no secret notes or texts. All players have access to all information.
It serves two benefits:
One, it draws a clear line of separation between the players and the characters. Your characters can be horrible to each other, and the players can join in on the fun. If the Witch Hunter wants to search the Hedge Wizard’s backpack it’s not done via a secret note to the GM, who then takes the player’s character sheet and does mysterious things with it. The Wizard will be describing what is in the pack and the Witch Hunter will be telling them at the table what they are doing with the items (“Ew, she keeps bat guano in her pouch? That’s disgusting!”) Which leads to…
Two, everyone gets to enjoy the play. Instead of showing up to the session to sit at the table while the GM spends half an hour in the kitchen with the elf who has wandered off into the forest, only to have the elf then come back and recap what happened for fifteen minutes while leaving out the most important bits everyone actually gets to enjoy all the game.
This is less of an issue in online play, but the principle applies.
Down sides:
- Players must be able to draw a clear line between what they know and what their character knows and avoid metagaming.
- Some elements of surprise are lost; there can be fun in not knowing certain things and enjoying the reveal, this rule can prevent that in some circumstances.
When player characters are working at cross-purposes it happens by mutual consent. Consider the following examples:
Scenario One:
Alice: “My thief is an evil worshipper of Drok, now that the Paladin is injured and his back is turned I’m going to kill him and take his holy symbol for the magic ritual of desecration.”
GM: “Hmmm. Bob, how do you feel about that?”
Bob: “No way, I put a lot of effort into this character!”
GM: “Alice, if you still want to try that move, I’m warning you it will fail.”
Scenario Two:
Aeris: “Del, I need Jonquist alive!”
Del: “Nah, he’s an asshole. I unhook the strap that’s holding him to the wall.”
GM: “Aeris?”
Aeris: [laughing] “No, that’s funny, and an interesting challenge to have that plan foiled.”
GM: “OK, you unhook the strap. Aeris, you see Jonquist go whooshing past you with a look of abject terror on his face as he is sucked through the hole in the hull and out into space.”
I find the -1 per tech level rule is overly harsh, as well as being unrealistic. This applies especially in the Dominion, which has a somewhat balkanized set of tech. There will be many cases where it does not apply, so unless I say it does you can ignore it.
Rationale: The underlying skill to pick up and fire an 1800’s model Peacemaker revolver is essentially the same as for a modern revolver. Yes there will be issues about separate percussion caps and paper cartridges and wot not when Dirty Harrytries to use Josey Wales’old weapon, and Josey will be surprised by the kick on Harry’s gun while noting that the modern construction makes it overall easier to use than his own gun, but these can be dealt with through a familiarity penalty, not a tech level penalty (which would be -3 from TL5 to TL8, in either direction in this example).