View Single Post
Old 12-17-2014, 12:21 PM   #9
simply Nathan
formerly known as 'Kenneth Latrans'
 
simply Nathan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wyoming, Michigan
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

I like to keep things simple, so I usually abstract a lot of things into simpler versions.

I have on my weapons table a single type of combat knife ("Dagger", or GURPS Large Knife), one short sword (no separate entries for cutlasses or falshions), one broadsword (the "Arming Sword" or GURPS Thrusting Broadsword), one fencing sword (edged rapier), one hand-and-a-half sword (longsword instead of katana or bastard sword), and one two-handed sword. I don't use hit location rules or piecemeal armor, and if I were to introduce the former I would still forbid the latter. I only have max damage critical hits rather than the random critical hit results table. I ignore Major Wounds, Mortal Wounds, Knockdown, and any other rules that don't feel immediately obvious, intuitive, and easy to remember for me and my simple-minded ways.

And still I love GURPS combat for how concrete things feel. Small HP pools, armor-as-DR, Active Defenses, and HT rolls to remain conscious/alive feel both more realistic and more engaging than a large HP pool that represents durability, dodging, and luck coupled with Armor Class as an abstaction including both armor and dodging.
__________________
Ba-weep granah wheep minibon. Wubba lubba dub dub.
simply Nathan is offline   Reply With Quote