The Schizophrenic Group at Odds With Itself

[innerdude]

So, last night my secondary gaming group got together after a long (LONG) hiatus. For my primary group, I'm GM-ing Savage Worlds with some close friends that's just a flat out blast. It's somewhat casual, but the group has some great character concepts, and are really engaging with the story and world.

For my secondary group, I'm a player in a GURPS campaign. And while the players all have decent character concepts, last night was proof positive to me that this is a group that just loves to psychologically handcuff itself. Two of the players are flat-out two of the biggest power gamers I've ever seen. One is a casual gamer who shows up, has his character ready, and enjoys playing, but is really just there to hang out with his buddies. The fourth player is an RPG newb just getting his feet wet (and then there's me, who prefers more story- and character-driven roleplaying).

I've just never, ever seen a group that seems to want something very specific from its RPG experience, and then does everything possible to prevent themselves from getting the experience that they want. This is a group that deep down is just dying to play a heroic, gamist RPG that's primarily focused on combat effectiveness and battle tactics (yup, as much as I might groan inwardly, these guys were tailor-made to play D&D 4e--yet all of them have universally stated that they loathe D&D 4e).

For some reason, the GM and the two power gamers are just totally in love with GURPS---widely regarded as one of the most gritty, "simulationist" RPG of all time. And I've somewhat figured out why the two power gamers are the way they are---they've been playing GURPS for so long they've just decided that to not die, they basically have to come nigh-close unto cheating the system to stay alive. These are guys that will take a hundred points of disadvantages, basically relegating their characters to be mumbling, psychotic sociopaths, just so they can ensure that they can stay alive and get into combat all the time.

And as a (mostly) outside observer (the two main players and GM have been gaming together for over 15 years; I've only been playing with them for a year and a half), I'm just baffled by how "gamist" their "inner playstyle" is, yet they've somehow latched on to one of, if not the worst system to express that desire.

I can't count how many times one of the two power gamer players has said something like the following within 60 seconds of each other:

1: "Dude, my character is so uber, I rock in battle!"
2: "Dude, I'm not going in there, I'll get destroyed. One little hit, and you're gone."

I don't know if this fully represents the way he says it, but it's just this total 180 degree mood swing. One minute he's wanting to brag endlessly about how well he's optimized his character, the next he's trying to find every possible way to ensure that if he absolutely has to fight, that victory is assured (because if it's not, you probably die).

Here's the other thing---We just made the switch from GURPS 3e to GURPS 4e, which does give them a few more "gamist" hooks for combat, but as I watch the way they choose their combat options, I'm seriously thinking, "Good golly, this is just D&D with a much slower, clunkier combat system." Battles were already slow in GURPS 3, in GURPS 4, where every combat maneuver requires calculating four or five separate modifiers PER ROLL (and there's usually three or four rolls for player turn), it's just gone to a craaaaawwl. They want to enjoy the tactics and thrill of combat, but then use a system that basically ensures that combats last forever, ensuring that they never get to have more than one combat per session. And even when fighting, each player gets less actual "screen time" because turns take so damn long.

Yeah. I'm just baffled.

I don't know if anyone else has seen something like this, I just thought I'd share and see what people think. Anybody else had an experience with a group like this?

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Is there any way you could run a one-shot for them in a more fitting system (possibly even 4E), in an attempt to broaden their horizons?

 

[innerdude]

Is there any way you could run a one-shot for them in a more fitting system (possibly even 4E), in an attempt to broaden their horizons?

Well that's the thing, it's not like the three main participants (the GM and the two power-gamers) aren't experienced in other systems. They've all at various points played D&D 2e, 3e, Pathfinder, White Wolf / Vampire, Amber diceless, etc. I even GM'd a short lived Savage Worlds campaign (their comments: "Yeah, it's okay, but it's basically GURPS Lite, and if I want GURPS, I'll just play GURPS").

From the GM's perspective, I think he actually really likes GURPS because it's "simulationist." He likes the sense of "realism" that brings, lets him do the kind of world-building he really likes. The problem is it then forces the two players to power game to the hilt so they can get into combat all the time and not die outright in Round 1. Oh, and another thing--the two players are constantly trying to get the GM to allow more "gonzo," "heroic" skills and options, because that's the kind of "cinematic" flavor they're going for, when GURPS works best in "gritty" mode.

It's a total clash of playstyles---GM simulationism, players gamist, where I'm stuck in the middle wanting a simulationist / narrativist blend.

I just can't figure out why they're so attached to this system that seems to be putting each other's creative agendas in constant opposition to each other.

For example, I can see GURPS really, really shining when you approach it as being as "gritty" as its default mode assumes. Suddenly you'll go much, much farther in avoiding combat altogether. You'll sneak in, you'll talk to people to glean information, you'll find creative solutions to avoid combat altogether. Suddenly your game becomes much more like a medieval episode of "Burn Notice," and not Rambo. This kind of thing forces you to approach your character's actions as if death truly DOES await around every corner. This makes for interesting set-ups where you're looking for actual PLOT PROTECTION from the PLOT ITSELF ("Yeah, you could kill me....but do you really want to deal with the consequences?"), and not just because your character has lots and lots of hitpoints, etc. And that style of play sounds like a lot of fun to me.

What doesn't sound like fun is watching two power gamers eke every last bonus out of a system so they can be "uber fighters" in a system that treats combat as a necessary, yet preferably avoidable component.

 

[Umbran]

I just can't figure out why they're so attached to this system that seems to be putting each other's creative agendas in constant opposition to each other.

Well, you've already mentioned why the GM likes it, so there's no real mystery there.

Why do the players cling to it? Not knowing them, I can only guess, but let me try that guess. I think you're missing the trees for the forest, so to speak - in lumping each under the big names of "gamist" and "simulationist" you miss the details that matter for understanding the behaviors of individuals, instead of general groups. To wit: "gamist" play for many people involves a component of being a "gearhead" - playing with rules details and mastering them so that they do what you want is fun for many people. Or, you could say, system mastery gives some folks a warm fuzzy feeling.

If you pull out the stops, GURPS has a *lot* of gears for the gearhead to play with.

What doesn't sound like fun is watching two power gamers eke every last bonus out of a system so they can be "uber fighters" in a system that treats combat as a necessary, yet preferably avoidable component.

Well, note that the two powergamers are not *watching* two power gamers. They are busy *being* two powergamers. Thus, their experience of the game is different than yours. The style-clash may be less between the powergamers and the GM, and more between you and the powergamers!

 

[Balesir]

This almost sounds like a clash between motivations and values; I had my eyes opened to this in myself (and others) several years ago at one of the better management training courses. Basically, they are motivated by gonzo, heroic, tactical play with losts of action adventure tropes and sensitivities, but their values say that 'winning the game' is cheating unless it's ruthlessly "realistic" (for a very specific definition of "realistic", I note, that doesn't blink at sociopathic psychopaths getting along well in their chosen career...)

This isn't really "schizophrenic", as such; it's actually quite common, to some degree. A gap between what motivates us and what our values tell us is "good" is quite normal and may even be desirable, to some extent. This example does not sound like a particularly helpful expression, but values are hard to change (and motivations almost impossible), so I suspect that there might be a significant "caught in a rut" thing going on. Good luck with that

 

[innerdude]

This almost sounds like a clash between motivations and values; I had my eyes opened to this in myself (and others) several years ago at one of the better management training courses. Basically, they are motivated by gonzo, heroic, tactical play with losts of action adventure tropes and sensitivities, but their values say that 'winning the game' is cheating unless it's ruthlessly "realistic" (for a very specific definition of "realistic", I note, that doesn't blink at sociopathic psychopaths getting along well in their chosen career...)

This isn't really "schizophrenic", as such; it's actually quite common, to some degree. A gap between what motivates us and what our values tell us is "good" is quite normal and may even be desirable, to some extent. This example does not sound like a particularly helpful expression, but values are hard to change (and motivations almost impossible), so I suspect that there might be a significant "caught in a rut" thing going on. Good luck with that

Actually, this is a fairly prescient response. I think maybe that sense of setting the challenge "to 11" is part of the gamism. They get an even greater satisfaction out of "winning" when the challenge is stacked against them; it suits their "step on up" motivation even more.

And Umbran's "gearhead" observation isn't wholly off base either. Both the power gamer players are well-known for digging through books looking for "the perfect combo."

So with some additional clarity on their motivations, how can I fight for my creative agenda constructively without stepping on people's toes, or diminishing their play experience?