Beats Suck(?)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

Actually, it is the generic case for Quick Contests that you only need to have a better margin than your opponent. Feints aren't a Quick Contest, despite the similarities, and do require to have succeed as well as having the better margin.

I've been reading it this way, for years...but, OK...yes. p348 of the basic set. In most of the QCs in Martial Arts, you must succeed AND do so by more than your opponent, I think. You must successfully accomplish your move, AND do it better than the other guy.

I've been steeped in QCs for the last few weeks on a project, so my head is swimming with this a bit.

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

In most of the QCs in Martial Arts, you must succeed AND do so by more than your opponent, I think. You must successfully accomplish your move, AND do it better than the other guy.

A quick check with CTRL-f doesn't turn up anything that says you need to succeed, merely that you need to win a QC.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

A quick check with CTRL-f doesn't turn up anything that says you need to succeed, merely that you need to win a QC.

Hrm. I'll need to find out why I came to the conclusion that you had to succeed your roll.

For example, in Takedown, it's resolved as a Quick Contest. But if you don't do the technique right, you shouldn't be able to throw your opponent regardless of what he does.

Ah HA! Resistance Rolls, on the same page.

Originally Posted by Basic p348

Most abilities that can affect an unwilling subject offer the subject an attempt to resist using an attribute, skill, or supernatural ability. This is sometimes a Quick Contest between the attacking ability and the defender’s resistance, in which case two special rules apply:

1. The attacker must succeed to win. He cannot win by having the smallest margin of failure. If he fails his roll, he loses automatically and his subject does not need to attempt a resistance roll.
2. The attacker must win to affect the subject. All ties go to the defender.

I lumped all martial arts contests, being clearly done on unwilling participants, into this category. This may not be correct, but it was my interpretation. Will check with Kromm and RPK and Peter...

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I lumped all martial arts contests, being clearly done on unwilling participants, into this category. This may not be correct, but it was my interpretation. Will check with Kromm and RPK and Peter...

Sean confirms they're Quick Contests, and not resistance rolls. Resistance rolls are for supernatural or mind control stuff.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I've been reading it this way, for years...but, OK...yes. p348 of the basic set. In most of the QCs in Martial Arts, you must succeed AND do so by more than your opponent, I think.

GURPS is so complex, and as these forums show, there are so many doubts and misunderstandings (even on the most basic rules, and among the most expert players/GM) that sometimes I wonder:

1) Are we actually playing the same game?
2) Is there a single GM in the whole world who actually plays GURPS "correctly"?
3) If most GM/players make (unknowingly) so many 'mistakes' and forget about that many details... what is the point of having all this detail in the first place?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Lupo

GURPS is so complex, and as these forums show, there are so many doubts and misunderstandings (even on the most basic rules, and among the most expert players/GM) that sometimes I wonder:

1) Are we actually playing the same game?

Sort of, yes. We all switch toggles and stuff to make the game enjoyable for us. The basic framework is there, and solid.

2) Is there a single GM in the whole world who actually plays GURPS "correctly"?

To the extent that means 'exactly as RAW says,' I think not...even Sean uses some house rules and judgment calls, IIRC.

Still, for the definition of 'correctly' that includes 'having fun, I'd say most GMs meet this criterion.

3) If most GM/players make (unknowingly) so many 'mistakes' and forget about that many details... what is the point of having all this detail in the first place?

For those who want to use it to facilitate their version of fun, I suppose.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Lupo

GURPS is so complex, and as these forums show, there are so many doubts and misunderstandings (even on the most basic rules, and among the most expert players/GM) that sometimes I wonder:

1) Are we actually playing the same game?
2) Is there a single GM in the whole world who actually plays GURPS "correctly"?
3) If most GM/players make (unknowingly) so many 'mistakes' and forget about that many details... what is the point of having all this detail in the first place?

These kinds of existential questions can be asked about any game, even Monopoly. Ask some people about "The free parking rule" some time...

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Lupo

1) Are we actually playing the same game?

I'm not really sure that's relevant. Are we speaking the same language? Yeah, certainly, even though I might have a different accent and a different way of phrasing things than you do, and we might get into arguments over grammar, or what I mean when I say X when you would have said Y. But we can communicate well enough.

If you sat at my table, you'd understand the GURPS I was running, even if I ran it differently than you did.

2) Is there a single GM in the whole world who actually plays GURPS "correctly"?

I'd be tempted to point to Kromm as a sort of "by definition" thing, but even he'll use GURPS differently for different games. GURPS Action and GURPS Dungeon Fantasy both sprang from his tabletop, after all, and both use the game differently. I'm not really sure there's a "correct way" to play GURPS.

(There's a "better way," and that's why some of us strive to master the rules more and more, but that's different, I'm not sure if that makes sense)

3) If most GM/players make (unknowingly) so many 'mistakes' and forget about that many details... what is the point of having all this detail in the first place?

For the mistakes: as a guide, to help them improve their game. For those who choose to use different rules: to supply them with all available options. For example, I don't know the digging rules at all, but that doesn't mean someone else isn't using them. And I had been screwing up the grenade rules until relatively recently, and it was reading the book that showed me the problem.

[Gunrunner]

One thing I don't understand about Beats - and this may turn out to be a real big reason to use it - is this: What is the cost, or downside to using it?

With a Feint, you give up a turn to use it, where you could otherwise attack. With a Beat, it doesn't seem like it costs anything to try as long as you satisfy the condition of successfully defending or being defended against. MA says that you can attempt a Beat with an attack you just used if it was successfully parried or blocked. Does this mean you can do it on the same turn? That would make more sense to me.

If you attempt a Beat on the NEXT turn after your attack was successfully blocked or parried, then it would be balanced like a feint in that Beating costs you a turn to use, but it doesn't make sense realistically. Shouldn't a Beat be a unified action with the parry or block? Otherwise, the opponent would have the opportunity to strike back with the same weapon before the Beat could be initiated, which is not what a weapon that has just been knocked out of the way should be able to do before the defense penalty can be taken advantage of.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Gunrunner

One thing I don't understand about Beats - and this may turn out to be a real big reason to use it - is this: What is the cost, or downside to using it?

With a Feint, you give up a turn to use it, where you could otherwise attack. With a Beat, it doesn't seem like it costs anything to try as long as you satisfy the condition of successfully defending or being defended against. MA says that you can attempt a Beat with an attack you just used if it was successfully parried or blocked. Does this mean you can do it on the same turn? That would make more sense to me.

For clarity,

Originally Posted by MA100

A strong fighter can try to batter down his enemy’s guard
in preparation for an attack. This is a Beat. An option for a
ready melee attack, it requires a Feint maneuver. Unlike a
feint, a Beat must target one particular defense

So yes, you must "take a turn" to do a beat, and yes, you get the sort of strangeness you describe.