[Lite] wound modifiers

[thrash]

Does anyone have a work-around or simplification for wound modifiers (Lite, p. 29; pp. B327, 379)? It's a super-fiddly step (11 damage types in four bins) that nevertheless plays a huge role in weapon effectiveness (e.g., why bows are more popular than slings).

The Fantasy Trip pre-dates the concept altogether. GURPS 3e had it, but with fewer (5) damage types to choose from it was less fiddly. It's not optional in any version of the 4e rules-as-written (unlike, say, hit location) and it's not really possible to avoid discussing it through judicious weapon selection (unlike, say, armor divisors in Lite).

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by thrash

GURPS 3e had it, but with fewer (5) damage types to choose from it was less fiddly.

I would not say 3e damage was less fiddly.

4e: .45 ACP deals 2d+2 pi+.

3e: .45 ACP deals 2d+2 cr and penetrating damage is increased by 50%, but it has all these weird exceptions because it isn't really crushing but we don't have a nomenclature for what it really should be.

[Varyon]

What's the fiddliness you're having trouble with? For Lite, I don't think there's any hit location or armor type interactions, so all you need to do is keep in mind what the WM's are - x0.5 for pi-, x1.5 for cut/pi+, x2 for imp/pi++, and x1 for everything else.

[Anthony]

Yeah, 4e wasn't actually simpler, it was just that a lot of things that are damage types in 4e were special cases in 3e.

In any case, is your intent to use Lite to get people into regular GURPS, or are you okay with them learning rules that don't entirely match up? Because you can represent wounding modifiers as increased basic damage with targets having increased DR against those damage types.

[thrash]

I would like to use Lite for pick-up games, primarily at conventions. My hope would be that this would serve to interest the players in the full system. As such, it would be nice if it delivered on the promise that "all the detail is optional – use it only when it makes the game more fun." (p. B8). At the very least, I would not want new players to have to un-learn something I taught them (because it was incompatible) before moving up to the full system.

My frustration is that this particular sub-system -- damage rolls -- seems to have an irreducible level of complexity in GURPS. Getting to "how many HP?" takes, by my count, five different inputs (damage dice, 1/2D range, armor divisor,* DR, and damage type), a table look-up, and a sequence of five mathematical operations (of which three are multiplication/division).** Yet this is one of the "only three basic “game mechanics” in GURPS." (ibid.)

I just don't see a good way to simplify this process and still achieve approximately the same results. I could skip talking about 1/2D range most of the time. For an introductory scenario, I could stick with civilian weapons and ammo that don't require armor divisors. But the damage types and wounding modifiers seem to be baked into the system in ways impossible to gloss over or simplify without altering the outcome.

Hence the question.



* I run ultra-tech games (space and cyberpunk) by default, and so can't always ignore armor divisors the way Lite does.

** Contrast this with The Fantasy Trip, with two inputs (damage dice and armor), one addition, and one subtraction.

[RyanW]

Easiest way, without altering the outcomes of any rolls, is to just avoid weapons that have armor divisors or wound modifiers. If everything is crushing, regular piercing, or burning, the wound modifier is always x1. I would add impaling, because doubling a number is still simple.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by thrash

I

Hence the question.

Some of these probems mostly exist in theory. As you noted atacks beyond 1/2D range are extremely rare and so unlikley to be successful without specilaized sniper gear and training. So that can be glossed over.

Yo also control what weapons fall into the hands of the PCs. so you can simplify the P class by not handing them any P or P++. Some scenarios might have P only.

Corrosion and Toxic can be quite rare unless acid and poison come up and then all you ahve to say is "corrosion is what acid does and toxic is poison.". Many chemical weapons do Afflcitions rather than toxic damage too.

So youc an have UT scenarios where the PCs might see only P and Burning and Cr (their unarmed attacks). Maybe Imp and Cut if non-improvised melee weaposn are available. you could avoid even those most of the time by giving them guns.

You don't have to attack your PCs with the Radiation Rules either.

So I think actual problems are much smaller than theoretical problems.

[Varyon]

If you don't want to use wound modifiers... don't. Just say something like "full GURPS differentiates between damage types, but for simplicity we will be ignoring that here." Similarly, you can ignore armor divisors. How to "correct" for this is up to you - you may want to halve the damage of pi- weapons (and increase the damage of pi+/pi++). If you're running a game with ultra-tech weapons, you may either wish to increase the damage of weapons with armor divisors, or just outright reduce armor DR to be more in line with how it would function against a "typical" weapon for the scenario (or a combination - halve DR to account for lasers, and increase the damage of particle blasters by 2.5x).

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Just say something like "full GURPS differentiates between damage types, but for simplicity we will be ignoring that here."

My first thought. If introduction and education are the goal, then it doesn't hurt to mention why you might want to use the full ruleset. And if you're trying to show how detail is optional, then what better way than leaving one out? Certainly, you'll lose the ability to differentiate some weapon type that was the reason that detail was introduced in the first place. But that's no worse than never having had it at all, and having to make up your own houserules from scratch if you do decide you want mechanics to reflect that difference (as with TFT).

[thrash]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Easiest way, without altering the outcomes of any rolls, is to just avoid weapons that have armor divisors or wound modifiers. If everything is crushing, regular piercing, or burning, the wound modifier is always x1. I would add impaling, because doubling a number is still simple.

That's an interesting suggestion. I could see offering a restricted firearms list with nothing but pi rounds. I have a harder time seeing how I could similarly restrict the melee weapon list, since even a small knife has both cut and imp attacks.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

So youc an have UT scenarios where the PCs might see only P and Burning and Cr (their unarmed attacks). Maybe Imp and Cut if non-improvised melee weaposn are available. you could avoid even those most of the time by giving them guns.

A broken beer bottle is treated as a knife (with a 0.5 armor divisor!).

Originally Posted by Varyon

If you don't want to use wound modifiers... don't. Just say something like "full GURPS differentiates between damage types, but for simplicity we will be ignoring that here."

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

And if you're trying to show how detail is optional, then what better way than leaving one out?

I don't accept that one can simply ignore this particular detail: it makes a significant difference in how weapons perform. A 2d+2 pi TL9 auto pistol does less damage to an unarmored target than a 2d pi+ TL8 auto pistol. This is not otherwise obvious from the statistics. Other examples are more egregious.

For most purposes, I suppose I could list the wounding modifier in place of the damage type, For example: SMG, .45 2d+1 [x1.5]. That would, at least, give a clear indication of the differences in effectiveness. It glosses over the changes to wound modifier for Unliving, Homogeneous, or Diffuse, but in a sf setting that mostly comes up with robots and vehicles.