Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

[Otaku]

While I began as being rather literal and sometimes have favored the abstract, at this point I prefer a "straight forward" interpretation of the rules.

What does that mean? Where the rules suggest (or spell out) that they are literal, then they are literal. Where they imply (or again preferably make clear) they are abstractions, they are abstractions. Given that GURPS is as much a tool kit to build your own RPG system variant than it is a specific game, I believe this to be the most fitting; if I disagree with a rule being abstract or literal versus what the rules state, the rest of RAW allows me to remove that rule and substitute my own (though I risk the consequences if I don't make that clear to the players or take it into account when using the rest of the system).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Well lets keep it to one example:

"The victim might twist so that the knife slides
out (dodge),"

Do we image that lifting your body of a weapon is anyway analogous to dodging an incoming blow, in either rate of success or in avoiding further damage?

Do we have a statistically acceptable pool of playtesters? ^_^
I actually don't know if the rates are supposed to be analogous.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

" use his shield to shove you away (block),"

This one is a bit better, but a block in GURPS is blocking the weapon which obviously impossible here. What's described is a shove. This might seem a pedantic distinction but try and visualise how this manoeuvre would actually physically work, say with an impaling knife, longsword of spear. Then again you have the issue of the weapon being removed without causing damage.

Well, blocking (or Parrying) a rifle in Close Combat seems to also be described as shoving it away, but it's canonically done using Active Defence numbers.
How would you propose to resolve it? Allow free Shoves on an opponent's turn? Allow an attack that cannot be defended against?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

"or restrain your wrist (parry)."

That not a parry that's a grapple (or conceivably a bind weapon). How is parrying blade going to stop someone twisting of further thrusting a weapon into you?

I might consider a beat, but that going to hurt a lot!

Mostly by pushing it out of the wounding position, preferably with minimal to negligible twisting to avoid further damage. (But then again pulling-out damage is normally abstracted away for normal impaling/cutting swords anyway.)

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

"His armor DR would
affect the second attack – despite the knife being
inside his armor – because you have to rip through
him and his armor. "

No it won't unless I'm actually trying to drag my weapon through the armour, and why would I do that?

If I have thrust my sword through your armour enough to get the tip through, I'm actually going to either:

push further in (we're both moving around at this point so chances are that will change the angle of the wound channel widening it over all.

pivot my weapon to widen the wound channel using resistance of the armour as leverage.

Now DR would make twisting the weapon (as in the classic stab, twist, pull, bayonet drill*) difficult so I'd count it against that.

If nothing else if DR is partially fixing my penetrating weapon in place and stopping me from further working it into you, it's going to hamper the above defensive efforts to pull off the blade (dodge), push me off (block), or 'parry' it out.

So how would you handle it in a less-abstract way?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

And then this leaves aside the second to hit roll that just does't makes sense at all here (I see this as analogous to increasing the effects of grapple that you had previously established). I'm rolling to hit you while my weapon is inside you, and at a penalty?

But even in TG one rolls to hit when trying to strengthen a grip with the very hand you're using to hold the opponent, right? Without releasing, such as during a Choke Hold. (Note: I'm not trying to dive into a deep discussion of TG mechanics, just bringing it up as an example. Though on a different thought, TG does seem to include a fair share of abstraction too.)

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Thing is rapid strike is just that two faster hits in the same space of time as one normal one. But once you start moving away from that basic premise it get's less and less appropriate for describing more and more varied things.
Another case in point rapid strikes require a readied weapon, So I can stab and twist with a sword, but not with an axe?

None of this is a big thing, all these things can be house ruled with a couple of seconds thought (and this particular one can be handed with TG).

Also I realise the examples are designed to be range of flavour descriptions to widen rapid strike to things we'd possibly want to emulate, and that's fine too.

None of this is stuff I lie awake at night thinking about, but you asked for an example and this is one.

*more modern ones seem to involve thicker shorter blades designed to push ribs apart IIRC

Yes, I asked for examples because I'm genuinely interested in how people handle the typical dilemmas of this spectrum. At the literalist side, the dilemmas are apparently having pick one out of:

• Making up a [more] complex ruleset to handle every possible situation or
• Making ad hoc rulings all the time in-play, thus making it hard for players to estimate the effectiveness of their tactics before having said tactics resolved in-game or
• Forbidding things because there's no specific rule for it and variants #1 and #2 are not considered acceptable or
• Going the abstract way (which is a shift away from the literalist side of the spectrum).

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Do we have a statistically acceptable pool of playtesters? ^_^

Possibly not, but dodging attacks coming at you and trying to pull you body of an weapon in side you is different enough to not require one I think.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I actually don't know if the rates are supposed to be analogous.

Only if it's a dodge, the assumption is they are?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, blocking (or Parrying) a rifle in Close Combat seems to also be described as shoving it away, but it's canonically done using Active Defence numbers.

Bit of difference between deflecting (i.e or imposing your shield between) a rifle out of alignment than doing the same to a knife inside you. How are you shoving the weapon here? You can't, your talking about shoving the wielder and hoping they extract the weapon as they move back.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

How would you propose to resolve it? Allow free Shoves on an opponent's turn? Allow an attack that cannot be defended against?.

That all assumes I'm doing this as a standard attack (or part of rapid one) I'm not.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Mostly by pushing it out of the wounding position, preferably with minimal to negligible twisting to avoid further damage. (But then again pulling-out damage is normally abstracted away for normal impaling/cutting swords anyway.)

That doesn't sound much like parry to me. And if we're talking about this kind of attack than abstract waving away the difficulties in extracting a blade in combat while some one is trying to keep in it there isn't really going to work, considering that what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So how would you handle it in a less-abstract way?

Honestly probably though armed grappling in TG, but if that wasn't liked on case by case depending on what the player was describing.

Either way you now asking a different question (not that that's a problem)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But even in TG one rolls to hit when trying to strengthen a grip with the very hand you're using to hold the opponent, right? Without releasing, such as during a Choke Hold. (Note: I'm not trying to dive into a deep discussion of TG mechanics, just bringing it up as an example. Though on a different thought, TG does seem to include a fair share of abstraction too.)

True, but I think the rolling to improve or break grips is better match (damage and/or effect being consequence of CPs). Especially as you can choice to break the grapple of the weapon in you, or break the grip of your opponent on the weapon. (the latter would also be disarm).

Your also grappling your opponent weapon as well (starting at 0 CP).Ultimately TG had the whole interaction as a fluid spectrum of effect thanks to the CP mechanic. Regular combat is series of distinct situations.

I think what we're describing is better emulated with former than the latter.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Yes, I asked for examples because I'm genuinely interested in how people handle the typical dilemmas of this spectrum. At the literalist side, the dilemmas are apparently having pick one out of:

• Making up a [more] complex ruleset to handle every possible situation or
• Making ad hoc rulings all the time in-play, thus making it hard for players to estimate the effectiveness of their tactics before having said tactics resolved in-game or
• Forbidding things because there's no specific rule for it and variants #1 and #2 are not considered acceptable or
• Going the abstract way (which is a shift away from the literalist side of the spectrum).

[/list]

Well I'd argue there's happy medium between the first two, I make a ruling possibly adjusting the RAW, and them consistently apply that if and when the same situation re-occurs. One of the benefits of the GURPS system is it robustness when being tweaked

Alternatively use TG if it fits, nut well ultimately TG is just an official (albeit optional) play tested version of this anyway.

I would't do the third because well where's the fun in that!

The fourth is always going to be the balance between pleasing verisimilitude and bogged down play. But then that's a constant one anyway.

Anyway the turkey needs basting, so cheers and Merry Christmas and I might not be replying for a while!


"the turkey has a passing interest, but the pig is fully committed"

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Possibly not, but dodging attacks coming at you and trying to pull you body of an weapon in side you is different enough to not require one I think.

Only if it's a dodge, the assumption is they are?

To rephrase: I have not been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they're sufficiently non-analogous. Which doesn't mean that I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt in the other direction.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

That all assumes I'm doing this as a standard attack (or part of rapid one) I'm not.
[...]
Honestly probably though armed grappling in TG, but if that wasn't liked on case by case depending on what the player was describing.

Either way you now asking a different question (not that that's a problem)

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

True, but I think the rolling to improve or break grips is better match (damage and/or effect being consequence of CPs). Especially as you can choice to break the grapple of the weapon in you, or break the grip of your opponent on the weapon. (the latter would also be disarm).

So what's the difference between rolling Wrestling before you can successfully clinch your fingers/arms tighter (without letting go) and rolling Shortsword before you can successfully push the blade deeper or twisting it (without letting it slip out)?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Well I'd argue there's happy medium between the first two, I make a ruling possibly adjusting the RAW, and them consistently apply that if and when the same situation re-occurs. One of the benefits of the GURPS system is it robustness when being tweaked

Fair enough, but it seems to have the drawback of both - the unpredictability before the ruling is made, the increased complexity after.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I would't do the third because well where's the fun in that!

The fourth is always going to be the balance between pleasing verisimilitude and bogged down play. But then that's a constant one anyway.

Mostly agreed.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Anyway the turkey needs basting, so cheers and Merry Christmas and I might be be replying for a while!


"the turkey has a passing interest, but the pig is fully committed"

Merry Christmas!

[McAllister]

I think part of the problem is that GURPS can handle almost any action, and most of them have penalties. "I kick him in the leg"? Somewhere between -4 and -1, depending on your Techniques. "I kick him in the knee"? Could be as high as -7, using the Knee location from MA. "Damn, he's three hexes away, can't I run up and give him a jump kick in the face?" "Well, as a Move And Attack you'll trying to roll under 9, as a Committed Attack you're at -4 for not knowing the Jump Kick technique and -5 for hitting the face, and as an All-Out Attack you're in the same boat, and all of these penalize your defenses next turn. Which do you do?"

In GURPS, the situation should fit the rules. The rules tell you what you can do. You should do one of those things, and you can fudge the description a little if you want. If the description doesn't fit what you want to be doing, it's probably because you can't or shouldn't be doing it.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

To rephrase: I have not been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they're sufficiently non-analogous. Which doesn't mean that I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt in the other direction.

OK, to me they seem really obviously non-analogous.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So what's the difference between rolling Wrestling before you can successfully clinch your fingers/arms tighter (without letting go) and rolling Shortsword before you can successfully push the blade deeper or twisting it (without letting it slip out)?

The whole bit about the CP continuum of lasting effect vs. single effect then start from scratch again of normal attacks.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Fair enough, but it seems to have the drawback of both - the unpredictability before the ruling is made, the increased complexity after.

Certainly a danger, but if your careful it's outweighed by the benefits of both. Another factor is that complicated etc are relative terms to our own thresholds of what's acceptable or fun.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Mostly agreed.

Merry Christmas!

Have a good one

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

OK, to me they seem really obviously non-analogous.

They apparently seemed analogous to TKD/Kromm, though. So there seem to be opinions on the whole spectrum.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

The whole bit about the CP continuum of lasting effect vs. single effect then start from scratch again of normal attacks.

You need to succeed at a skill roll and not be Active-Defended against to even roll for CPs (even if you're already holding the target). You need to succeed at a skill roll and not be Active-Defended against to even roll damage (even if you already impaled the target with the first of the two attacks). CPs have a lasting effect. Injury has a lasting effect. DR reduces penetrating damage (thus, injury). CR reduces 'penetrating' CPs.
The new (TG) mechanic of CPs seems to be quite similar to damage mechanics, to-hit mechanics etc.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Certainly a danger, but if your careful it's outweighed by the benefits of both. Another factor is that complicated etc are relative terms to our own thresholds of what's acceptable or fun.

Hmm. The acceptable amount of complication indeed varies.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by McAllister

I think part of the problem is that GURPS can handle almost any action, and most of them have penalties. "I kick him in the leg"? Somewhere between -4 and -1, depending on your Techniques. "I kick him in the knee"? Could be as high as -7, using the Knee location from MA. "Damn, he's three hexes away, can't I run up and give him a jump kick in the face?" "Well, as a Move And Attack you'll trying to roll under 9, as a Committed Attack you're at -4 for not knowing the Jump Kick technique and -5 for hitting the face, and as an All-Out Attack you're in the same boat, and all of these penalize your defenses next turn. Which do you do?"

In GURPS, the situation should fit the rules. The rules tell you what you can do. You should do one of those things, and you can fudge the description a little if you want. If the description doesn't fit what you want to be doing, it's probably because you can't or shouldn't be doing it.

You've just pointed out another interesting phenomenon:
People coming from the abstract end of the spectrum sometimes think lightly of fluffy actions that are actually quite hard both in real life and in ruleset+GM combinations at the literalist end of the spectrum
(This also reminds me of the attitude by the Age of Ravens fellow [who was quoted by DouglasCole on Gaming Ballistic {and replied to}].)

I generally consider the ability of the literal-end approach to cut off implausibly difficult actions to be a good thing, but I've seen players unhappy about it more than once. (Then again, I've seen both players and GMs unhappy about things being too easy too.)

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

They apparently seemed analogous to TKD/Kromm, though. So there seem to be opinions on the whole spectrum..

that's true of all subjects everywhere.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You need to succeed at a skill roll and not be Active-Defended against to even roll for CPs (even if you're already holding the target). You need to succeed at a skill roll and not be Active-Defended against to even roll damage (even if you already impaled the target with the first of the two attacks). CPs have a lasting effect. Injury has a lasting effect. DR reduces penetrating damage (thus, injury). CR reduces 'penetrating' CPs.
The new (TG) mechanic of CPs seems to be quite similar to damage mechanics, to-hit mechanics etc.

Yes there are certainly similarities (and IIC they were designed to be so) but these things represent different things when grappling and when in normal combat. A parry while grappling is not the same as a parry while fencing. CP is not strictly analogous to Damage here anyway because damage is inflicted in discrete amounts and not removed, CP is actually a changing values that varies according to both combatant's actions. It further complicated in the case of armed grappling damage is based of CP of course!

In melee after a few passes of attack/defence we'll have both possibly inflicted an amount of damage on each other.

In grappling after a few passes of attack/defence we'll have an ongoing CP relationship with each other, and that relative relationship will have had it's own implications for teh relative position we find ourselves in. As well as what ever effects we may have leveraged with CP's during that period. This is in addition to damage inflicted through CP and CP leveraged actions.

DR and CR might have similar effects in the system they refer to (i.e they both reduce effect) and are similarly invoked (roll to hit, roll defence then roll to damage/CP) but are actually very different things.

Also just like claws negate CR, so do weapons (and I'd certain argue that having a sword inside make how sweaty you are, or how many straps you have pretty irrelevant).

Although for added grim fun I have bleeding wounds add to CR on bare skin for grappling that locations with other attacks!

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hmm. The acceptable amount of complication indeed varies.

yes, although I should say this isn't me looking for areas to add extra complication to GURPS:Campaigns, this is you asking me for an example where RAW fluff and raw Crunch don't correlate, and me giving you one in my opinion.

While I know your feelings on TG, I do find TG actually has a much wider application than just grabbing each other.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You've just pointed out another interesting phenomenon:
People coming from the abstract end of the spectrum sometimes think lightly of fluffy actions that are actually quite hard both in real life and in ruleset+GM combinations at the literalist end of the spectrum
(This also reminds me of the attitude by the Age of Ravens fellow [who was quoted by DouglasCole on Gaming Ballistic {and replied to}].)

I generally consider the ability of the literal-end approach to cut off implausibly difficult actions to be a good thing, but I've seen players unhappy about it more than once. (Then again, I've seen both players and GMs unhappy about things being too easy too.)

Yeah, I was drawing directly on the Age of Ravens fellow. Needless to say, he wanted some things that I don't want and vice versa. I don't necessarily want to be playing a badass just because I'm playing an RPG. In a 250-point Martial Arts game, yes, I'm absolutely going to be pull off a Jump Kick to the Skull for massive damage if I want to, although if I'm building a swordsman, I might not invest in those techniques. In a 50-point game, I'll be lucky to hit a random hit location with a knife or a punch. I expect that character to be no more capable of backflips than I am.

What are people unhappy about being too easy? I'll admit I don't have the play experience to speak on such matters.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Many Words

Just to make sure, could both of you articulate what exactly it is that you're going back and forth about?