Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-17-2014, 12:35 PM   #11
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

I'm pretty strongly on the literalist side of things (including serious discomfort with the idea of using AoA Double to represent 'stab-and-cut' actions).

However, I think it's a serious mistake to treat GURPS terms of art as having any strong relationship with the regular English meanings of the words. For instance, even for a humanoid with a 1-yard step I don't see any reason to assume that a Step is a single stride, and for lots of other characters that use the same Step mechanic it obviously can't possibly be a single stride because they don't even use legs, have a Step longer than their entire body, are flying or swimming, etc.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2014, 02:53 AM   #12
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
You had a comment on Rapid Strike and other specific examples, right? Back in the other thread. Could you post about them now, please? I'm curious.
rapid strike being stab and push further in, or stamp and grind, being my main ones.

The second part in both those doesn't require a 2nd hit roll let alone a penalised one (the weapon is already in the target etc). I'm also iffy about defences and to be honest iffy about DR for some as well.

Now TG has a work around to an extent (armed grappling inflicting further damage once the weapon is in the target). There was a recent thread on this.

Not a big thing in anyway, but when state an example the natural reaction is to judge the example by the criteria its demonstrating.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2014, 01:12 PM   #13
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
rapid strike being stab and push further in, or stamp and grind, being my main ones.

The second part in both those doesn't require a 2nd hit roll let alone a penalised one (the weapon is already in the target etc). I'm also iffy about defences and to be honest iffy about DR for some as well.
Well, MA seems to already work on your concern:
"The victim might twist so that the knife slides
out (dodge), use his shield to shove you away (block),
or restrain your wrist (parry). 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. Similar logic applies to a stamp-
and-grind with the heel, chop-and-draw with a
sword, a grapple that nabs one arm and pulls it
across the body to trap the other, and so on."
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2014, 01:22 PM   #14
McAllister
 
McAllister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Well, MA seems to already work on your concern:
"The victim might twist so that the knife slides
out (dodge), use his shield to shove you away (block),
or restrain your wrist (parry). 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. Similar logic applies to a stamp-
and-grind with the heel, chop-and-draw with a
sword, a grapple that nabs one arm and pulls it
across the body to trap the other, and so on."
Exactly. I'm a literalist in terms of effect, and I don't care about description. You have Warp, so you want to say that all your Dodges involve teleporting a few inches out of the way of the attack, even when you're not using the Warp advantage for the active defense? Fine by me. But as soon as you say something like "well, why am I suffering the uneven footing penalty if I'm not using my feet to avoid the attack?" I'm going to say "that's real cute, it is. Now roll your penalized Dodge, activate Warp as an active defense, or do something else that's supported by rules."
McAllister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2014, 04:33 PM   #15
Xplo
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

GURPS is fine as long as it simulates what I want it to simulate, to the level of depth or accuracy I want that thing simulated.
Xplo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 01:00 AM   #16
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Well, MA seems to already work on your concern:
"The victim might twist so that the knife slides
out (dodge), use his shield to shove you away (block),
or restrain your wrist (parry). 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. Similar logic applies to a stamp-
and-grind with the heel, chop-and-draw with a
sword, a grapple that nabs one arm and pulls it
across the body to trap the other, and so on."
Actually those are the examples I was originally referring to. About half of those have me thinking "yeah...no" especially in terms of the 2nd to hit roll.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-24-2014 at 01:06 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 01:05 AM   #17
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
Exactly. I'm a literalist in terms of effect, and I don't care about description. You have Warp, so you want to say that all your Dodges involve teleporting a few inches out of the way of the attack, even when you're not using the Warp advantage for the active defense? Fine by me. But as soon as you say something like "well, why am I suffering the uneven footing penalty if I'm not using my feet to avoid the attack?" I'm going to say "that's real cute, it is. Now roll your penalized Dodge, activate Warp as an active defence, or do something else that's supported by rules."
I think I more the other way, the rules should fit the situation, not the situation the rules.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 04:32 AM   #18
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Actually those are the examples I was originally referring to. About half of those have me thinking "yeah...no" especially in terms of the 2nd to hit roll.
Any particular reason why you discount the possibility of the blade/boot slipping out/off and similar events described in the box? (Admittedly, the box didn't both to mention a failed roll as a case of a slipping.)
Also, you said 'especially' - so what are the other finely-detailed reasons? I'm asking because I'm really curious; I've usually found players unhappy when an action is either declared impossible due to a lack of rules, or made undesirable by the need to recall highly different or complicated rules for said action.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 04:36 AM   #19
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
Exactly. I'm a literalist in terms of effect, and I don't care about description. You have Warp, so you want to say that all your Dodges involve teleporting a few inches out of the way of the attack, even when you're not using the Warp advantage for the active defense? Fine by me. But as soon as you say something like "well, why am I suffering the uneven footing penalty if I'm not using my feet to avoid the attack?" I'm going to say "that's real cute, it is. Now roll your penalized Dodge, activate Warp as an active defense, or do something else that's supported by rules."
That's certainly an interesting other way of handling the spectrum, somewhat to the side of the main axis, but probably closer to the abstract side of the stick.
'Explanation/description is just a special effect' seems to be quite common in the Powers part of GURPS, but not as easily accepted by at least some of the people. Particularly the 'Sure, you can do things the cool way, as long as you do not get a free bonus out of it'.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 05:52 AM   #20
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Any particular reason why you discount the possibility of the blade/boot slipping out/off and similar events described in the box? (Admittedly, the box didn't both to mention a failed roll as a case of a slipping.)
Also, you said 'especially' - so what are the other finely-detailed reasons? I'm asking because I'm really curious; I've usually found players unhappy when an action is either declared impossible due to a lack of rules, or made undesirable by the need to recall highly different or complicated rules for said action.
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 off a weapon is anyway analogous to dodging an incoming blow, in either rate of success or in avoiding further damage?


" 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.


"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!


"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.

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?

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

Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-25-2014 at 03:16 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abstraction, combat, rules

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.