Rules you'll import into your next GURPS Game.

[Astromancer]

GURPS! The wonderful game with a rule for everything. But our beloved authors and editors can't think of everything. So what rule or rules are you going to import from some other game system into your next GURPS Game?


I'll start. In another game which I got recently, but haven't played yet, there's a charming rule that divides foes into two categories, Worthy or Unworthy. I won't go into what defines the two groups, in your game your rules, but how damage was decided was simple and useful. Worthy foes take the weapon's normal damage. With unworthy foes you roll for damage normally but instead of points of damage you get dice of damage. Example: If the child of Zeus is attacked by a highwayman (this child of Zeus is in 17th century England) and in defending himself with a rapier (1D6+1) strikes his foe and gets 3 points of damage, then the GM rolls 3D6+3 to decide how much damage the highwayman takes.

The whole idea of different levels of damage for different types of foes would fit several types of games. I know other games have different rules for "Mooks." But this rule has a different flavor and it's very simple.

[Astromancer]

I forgot to say, "It's your turn now."

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

With unworthy foes you roll for damage normally but instead of points of damage you get dice of damage.
..
rapier (1D6+1) strikes his foe and gets 3 points of damage
..
GM rolls 3D6+3 to decide how much damage the highwayman takes.

Is damage the dice, or is damage a multiplier to the original damage? Trying to figure out where the +3 comes from.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Plane

Is damage the dice, or is damage a multiplier to the original damage? Trying to figure out where the +3 comes from.

As I had three points of damage on a worthy for or three times one six-sided die plus one. Thus 1D6+1 x 3 equaled 3D6+3.

[AlexanderHowl]

It just seems like bonus damage for free. I think that a better difference between Worthy and Unworthy foes is that Unworthy foes would retreat when they take (Will/2, rounded up) damage during a fight while Worthy foes will not retreat until they take (Will×2) damage. In that case, a Will 10 Unworthy enemy would retreat after taking 5 points of damage (a roll of 2+ on a 1d+1 impaling attack against an unarmed foe) while a Will 10 Worthy foe would only retreat after taking 20 points of damage.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

It just seems like bonus damage for free. I think that a better difference between Worthy and Unworthy foes is that Unworthy foes would retreat when they take (Will/2, rounded up) damage during a fight while Worthy foes will not retreat until they take (Will×2) damage. In that case, a Will 10 Unworthy enemy would retreat after taking 5 points of damage (a roll of 2+ on a 1d+1 impaling attack against an unarmed foe) while a Will 10 Worthy foe would only retreat after taking 20 points of damage.

I might use your idea in a more realistic less magical setting.

[Dustin]

Unknown Armies has a nice mechanic for morale and Fright Check-type situations, where someone who has failed an appropriate roll to keep their $hit together must choose between Freeze, Flee, or Fight.

from memory, in GURPS terms these would look like:
Freeze - Do Nothing
Flee - full Move away
Fight - All-Out Attack

This works well for NPCs, providing a quick GM's framework for 'what the goblins do when their line falls apart' or 'what the bandits do when their leader is killed' etc.

It also works well for PCs who have failed a Fright Check or similar. The player retains a lot of control over what their PC will do, but is usefully constrained by the mechanic to act in an appropriate manner. It seems better than a lot of the Fright Check table results anyway, where at our table PCs always end up rolling the 'vomiting' result no matter what the fear stimulus was.

[Gnomasz]

I'm not sure if I'm going to include any of those, but
1. just today I've been pondering a crossover of DnD 4 edition mechanics and Peter's post on offloading from the GM: long story short, I'm thinking of not rolling for NPC's attack nor defense, and instead having attacked PC just roll defense with enemy-dependent penalty or bonus, and applying a flat penalty to PC attacks depending on targets' defenses.
2. I'm not happy with GURPS default tactical scale of 1 inch being 1 yard – not when using 3D scenery. I'm considering both DnD's scale of 1 inch to 5 feet, and Iron Kingdoms' 1 inch to 6 feet, going gridless, and only dividing figure sides into front and back (for simplicity).

[gmillerd]

How to players react to the new power of mooks being vulnerable to damage? Do they pick fights more? Do they fight more? Are there gratuitous called shots because of the benefit? Does combat tend to be the most used hammer in the tool set? Are the players a murderous scourge?

I find it to be the case that player on mook violence, with such vulnerabilities, makes nearly everyone a mook. And the paper target is significant to not just game time in combat, but the structure of the game seems to have more combat and more blood in general.

When I do this, I only do it for "aggressive unnamed mooks". Not for player ambushes or picked fights on mooks or named individuals. I tend to make the lines blurred, so cops that show up on the scene or reinforcements are not mooks.

The vulnerability only lasts a secretly rolled 1d6 rounds + 1 round per number of mooks in total the party is out numbered by (5 man party, 10 mooks, 1d6+1 or 1 man and 10 mooks, 1d6+9).

If the mooks receive a named individual on their side or the scene changes dramatically (said cops, said reinforcements, or bruce lee shows up) the vulnerability ends immediately.

The vulnerability is damage "doubled", but this damage is just FP in addition to the normal HP, and stuns durations are doubled.

I find that the math isn't a hardship and the fights are structured. The player characters cannot rob a bank, treat unnamed cops as mooks or pick fights as the medieval inn and so forth.

Also from time to time mooks can give a good showing or turn out to not be mooks. Its at this time that I am very thankful to not be running with a blanket vulnerability rule (like the 1 HP rules and such). The system is there, but people tend to be thinking "will I be force to reload when the named guy arrives" or "should I observe these guys for a round or two to see if they might be trained combatants and not common thugs."

I used to stop mook vulnerability when an innocent person attacked as a mook was damaged, but I found that its more fitting to let things play out. They are mostly just dazed rather than dead with the FP rule anyways.

[AlexanderHowl]

If the characters are powerful enough, you really do not need any extra rules to get rid of mooks. Deal 24 HP of injury to the throat of a person, and the vast majority of them are going to fall down and stay down (even if they are still awake and alive, they will be hoping that the knife wielding manic will just ignore them). If the child of a god cannot do at least that much damage, they are not much of a demigod.

For example, imagine that you have a ST 14 and DX 14 character with Ambidexterity, Combat Reflexes, Signature Gear (A pair of very fine, balanced, long knives), Weapon Master (Knife), Fast-Draw-16, and Knife-24. With a single action, they can strike two different opponents with different knives in the throat at an effective skill of 16 with a 2d+5 cutting attack. If the targets fail to defend, they suffer an average of 24 HP of injury to their throats.