This session was much more eventful than the previous. We split up the party to try to bring the NPC noncombatants back to join us, figuring they'd be safer that way.
Meanwhile, the rest of us got pursued by creatures that might be zombies, and tried to move away. The zombies managed to chase us into an ambush by badger-men.
I enjoyed the chance for combat, because combat is really my character's specialty. But it went badly for us--the two fighters with this subgroup were nearly unscathed, but the three other people with the party were badly injured, though still conscious. Our party's healer is among them, and rather preoccupied with trying to keep his blood inside.
Meat had lots of hits on target in that combat, but the jackal-men had very high DX and kept dodging successfully, so he didn't manage to take them down expeditiously. He's barely scratched, but he's let others get hurt.
And the zombies that were pursuing us are closing in on us, and we're too injured to run...
In other personal GURPS news, it sounds like Andy is reviving his GURPS campaign set in 1930. I still haven't been able to decide whether I want to play or not.
The plus side is that I love my character. He's cool and stylish (based on Nick Charles)--I like him.
The big minus is that I've often felt that Andy tends to minimize the specialness of characters. I know that Lori felt that her character's Empathy and Intuition weren't having much effect. For myself, I felt that Alec's really impressive social modifiers were not given their due; Alec has +10 in reaction modifiers compared to Forrest, but I felt that Alec was getting barely better treatment.
I thought that this might be a consequence of my inexperience and vanity, but Andy has now been taking steps to reduce the Eidetic Memory that forms the schtick of Steve's character Forrest. And he's not acting to tone down the point crock of Eidetic Memory, he's acting to mute the impact of the actual eidetic memory itself. Now, it's certainly the case that Steve is more intent upon finding loopholes to exploit than he is on playing a character in depth, but this still seems like Andy working to mute the specialness of the character.
I can understand the temptation, I suppose--it can be daunting to handle the raw specialness of everyone in the group. But I think that in my GMing, I'm more inclined to play up the specialnesses than to downplay them--and I think I'd rather have that be the case as a player.
I'm still pondering.