[Plane]

*learning history now*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackm...mpaign_setting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)
dood

Originally Posted by ericthered

What pages and books would I look this up in?

B371 "If your foe is stunned, he rolls at -4; if he falls unconscious, you are automatically free!"
TG35 "In Technical Grappling, breaking free is no longer a Quick Contest. It is an attack, directed at the grapple rather than the opponent." .. "Your foe may “defend” using Parry or Dodge."
Pyramid 3/83 pg 27 has Ponce's "Possession Under Control" idea of using "Mental Control Points" for Possession, adapted from TG.

I also noticed while checking this that Pyramid 3/103 has Christopher Rice's "Stability Points" which would be interesting for Possession and GURPS Horror stuff.

I'd probably call them MSP (Mental Stability Points) though, since "stability" can be a physical concept too, like how it appears on TG and how postures like crawling are described as "three point", so since points (generally limbs like legs/arms) provide stability, you might describe them as "physical stability points".

Originally Posted by ericthered

For another game, it could be interesting. I thought we were staying out of TG for this fight.

I think it just hasn't come up yet since my low-DX attempts to grapple you have failed. I sorta figured your low ST was the reason you hadn't grappled (since your Control Points would not be impressive) since you would otherwise have a huge advantage grappling in the classic system both due to your DX and also because you can attack competently with more than just fists, meaning if you used hands to grapple you could kick and bite/butt accurately where I could not.

Post 1: "I'd like to try out some of Doug Cole's add-ons... Control Points from Technical Grappling an Action Points from "The Last Gasp" in Pyramid 3/44 if you have access to either."
Post 13: "Wow, we're playing full Douglas Cole then? All right."

Technically I had only said "some of" though, and only one thing from Pyramid outside his canonical printings. Much as I like the HT rolls to mitigate crushing damage he has in his blog ("Shrug It Off") we haven't used that since it's not in an actual book, and it would probably make the fight drag on too long.

Although... if we HAD been using SIO, I might've make more All-Out / Committed attacks against you since my higher HT would've occasionally functioned like higher DR.

Originally Posted by ericthered

That could work... I still think damage should be mitigated though.

One aspect of mitigation would be the randomized aspect, where you might do a targeted hit on a vulnerable location with an intentional slam, the target would be random with accidental slam.

Another being the inability to get "strong" +2/+1 bonuses... plus the idea of making it suffer the "defensive attack" damage penalty.

To mitigate it below defensive attack, we might involve the next tier of penalty using technique design.

MA100 has the worse of -2 or -1 per die for defensive attack, or +1 to an enemy's defenses if you were grappling/grabbing since grapples don't have damage toe penalize. In TG I think this was changed though (no bonus to target's defence) since you have the Control Points roll to apply the "damage" penalty to.

MA90 rates the damage penalty that Defensive Attack suffers as being worth +4 to skill, whereas a fixed -1 to damage is only +2 to skill. I think we would want accidental hits to be at least 1 tier below defensive attacks, meaning +6 to skill.

MA91 rates +1 to any defense made by opponent as +2 to skill, which basically scales with how Telegraphic Attack works (+2 to defenses and +4 to hit)

So if there was some way of calculating some large basic penalty for accidental hits, and then applying whatever combination of damage penalties and defense bonuses seems appropriate to pay for it.

The very weird thing about accidental hit rules (B392) ...

flat 9 or the number you would have had to roll to hit him on purpose, whichever is worse.

Is that this means that people with low DX / low skill / blindness basically are very unlikely to accidentally hit anything, even giant targets.

Really the only penalty that would make sense here is actually size modifier, since if you are hitting a random location in the hex, only SM would affect how much space in the hex they're taking up.

B392's SIaCC rules sort of need some modification to be more believable here, though I realize they're in there to balance out low-DX blind guys from having a higher chance of accidentally hitting people than intentionally doing so.

We could fix that though by having any miss (even a miss against a guy you were aiming for) having the same randomized after-chance.

B91's custom technique rules might have a fix there:
"Special Benefits: Each built-in exemption from the usual rules gives -1 to the default penalty."

Since the "whichever is worse" aspect is one of the built-in rules, if we ignore that, then people could just roll against a flat 9 however bad their modified skill would normally be... although I think that's just to ignore one half of WIW, so if modified skill doesn't matter, you'd still use a 9... because why should your skill/DX/vision matter when your secondary target is an accidental one?

Although due to the -1 to hit for Special Benefits, that should be a flat 8 instead. Since 8 is the maximum, the GM can then just add on other disadvantages (-3 to damage, +2 to opponent's defenses) as needed for things like "attack-esque things that happen without actually attacking".

On that line, since M65 basically changes a punch (thrust-1) to thrust-2 (-1 to damage fixed) plus the worst of -2 and -1 per die, that's basically a +6 penalty a tier below the damage penalty to Defensive Attack, as suggested above.

This is also seen at M75 for Jam except thrust-0 kicks become thrust-1 plus worst of either -1 per die or -2.

Do you think accidental colissions should be penalized like this (like Aggressive Parry and Jam, both less damage than Defensive Punch and Defensive Kick) or worse?

One thing I'm not 100% sure on how you'd play is if you took Defensive Attack and then made a Jam or an Aggressive Parry, if you would apply Defensive Attack damage penalties to the damage made by active defences. That could result in something even lower, like a thrust-4 aggressive parry becoming a thrust-6 aggressive parry.

If anything, I'm wondering if standard operating procedure should invert in that case, like maybe someone taking All-Out Defense should get +2 not just to their parry, but their bonus to hit if their parry succeeds and a bonus to damage if that roll hits? *shrug*

Plus one thing I hadn't thought about... since you roll to hit each time on secondary accidental targets, do you think that's additional chances to roll a critical miss? To roll a critical hit?

Originally Posted by ericthered

I don't like charging for rotations unless you're moving, and moving fairly fast. I think that its important not to charge too much AP for "Footwork"

Yeah I forgot my earlier idea of just paying AP for Movement Points and then being able to spend MP without paying further AP until it runs out. That would spread out and not deplete someone too much with 60-degree turns and 3ft shuffles.