Math, GURPS, and its reputation for complexity

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

By 'major wound' I mean "half hp in one shot". Consciousness checks in one shot should be rare, death checks in one shot should be essentially a nonissue, at least for important characters.

Spoilers, but...

Orson in Record of the Lodoss War: Chronicles of the Heroic Knight is slain by a single attack (stabbed by a mook skeleton of all things); he stays alive for a bit by going berserk, but once that expires he drops dead.

Kat in Halo: Reach dies from a single shot, a needle rifle round through the head. She doesn't even get proper last words - she just cuts off in mid-sentence and drops.

Tara in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer gets killed in one hit by a stray bullet aimed at another character.

Kaladin Stormblessed in Words of Radiance takes a single clearly-fatal hit (a character in powered armor punches him in the gut); the only thing that saves him is that he regains his powers immediately afterward, part of which is regeneration.

Goblin Slayer from the series of the same name takes a single unexpected hit from a Goblin Champion and certainly looks like he's well into Death Check territory. He keeps fighting and scares off the goblin horde because he's bat-s***-insane, but it takes a Resurrection spell (which in this setting works on the mostly dead, but not on the all dead) to put him back together.

Chad (Brad Pitt's character) in Burn After Reading dies instantly from a single gunshot wound when he's discovered hiding in another characters closet.

Wash in Serenity takes a boarding harpoon through the chest and immediately collapses, dead.

Marle in Until the End of Time (a surprisingly-good Chrono Trigger/Chrono Cross crossover fanfic, linking the two games better than I think Square will ever manage) dies from a single stray bullet on a battlefield.


The examples can go on. Suffice to say, major characters getting into Death Check territory (both cases of making it through and suddenly dying) from a single hit is absolutely something that happens in fiction. If you don't want it to happen in your game, give characters plenty of Impulse/Destiny/Wildcard/etc points and use the Flesh Wound rules.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Anthony

In an RPG, you have to assume that people's decision making will be influenced by the effectiveness of the weapon. The reality of cinematic genres is that guns just don't get used much by the heroes (and are generally ineffective when used by the bad guys), and if you want to emulate that in an RPG, you have to make guns ineffective. That doesn't have to be low damage, it could be low accuracy (though we have the separate problem of armor; it should be possible to punch out someone wearing tactical armor).

While that is true as far as it goes I don't think that cinematic effects should be a baseline for a generic game.

What we really need is a solid middle ground, where the default rules are grounded in reality without chasing obsessive realism.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The examples can go on. Suffice to say, major characters getting into Death Check territory (both cases of making it through and suddenly dying) from a single hit is absolutely something that happens in fiction. If you don't want it to happen in your game, give characters plenty of Impulse/Destiny/Wildcard/etc points and use the Flesh Wound rules.

Or in addition to whatever point total characters are built on; give X levels of Hard to Kill as a common setting advantage to all PCs.

Characters will be rendered unconscious but with enough levels of HtK the only way they will die will be on a critical failure on the Death check.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Frost

While that is true as far as it goes I don't think that cinematic effects should be a baseline for a generic game.

What we really need is a solid middle ground, where the default rules are grounded in reality without chasing obsessive realism.

The existence of books like Tactical Shooting seems to plainly demonstrate that the default rules are already in a middle ground...

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The existence of books like Tactical Shooting seems to plainly demonstrate that the default rules are already in a middle ground...

They are in a middle ground between "too detailed for most people" and "too detailed for almost everyone".

Tactical Shooting is well into 'false resolution' territory.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by Anthony

They are in a middle ground between "too detailed for most people" and "too detailed for almost everyone".

Tactical Shooting is well into 'false resolution' territory.

Despite my campaigns very much looking like what you'd probably enjoy, we strongly disagree.

I prefer to start with a strong foundation of 'realism/verisimilitude" and then hack away until I get the system I want to run. I'd hate to have to go back towards grim and gritty. Because I sometimes like to step back into running some variation of "High Cinematic/High Fantasy/Supers/Fairy Tale + Grim and Gritty".


Also, for every argument of "but all the other games emulate some literary genre"... well, GURPS emulates 'reality' and that's why we're here. It's doing what we want it to, if it didn't, most of us would be playing some other game.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Also, for every argument of "but all the other games emulate some literary genre"... well, GURPS emulates 'reality' and that's why we're here. It's doing what we want it to, if it didn't, most of us would be playing some other game.

This is a very good point and may explain why GURPS has the popularity (lack thereof) it does. Most people don't want reality.

Take, for example, the battle of Mogadishu (Blackhawk Down). An almost complete majority of the Somalis were simply spraying and praying. A large extent of that majority were simply poking the barrels of their rifles around corners or out of a window and dumping the mag. In large part, the Americans that got hit were hit by pure bad luck (or good luck depending on which point of view you have). Now, the decisions that put them in the line of fire would make a difference but once you're in that position, it's just luck. Throw in the commander's orders which you have to follow, some RPGs and it's a nightmare on top of a nightmare. Eventually the GM is going to have plenty of <=9 rolls from enough directions that there won't be any active defense except hit the deck in between sprints (if you're lucky). Now, that's reality but is it that much fun?


That's possibly why Arneson and Gygax came up with the ridiculous level/hit points system that became D&D. It's the only reliable way to have the mighty battles typical of D&D. From bits and pieces I've read and seen, PCs in the original Castle Blackmoor concept were weak (closer to reality-ish?) and there were many TPKs.

Meh, I could be wrong though.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

T
That's possibly why Arneson and Gygax came up with the ridiculous level/hit points system that became D&D. It's the only reliable way to have the mighty battles typical of D&D.

Meh, I could be wrong though.

I've played a lot of D&D but I've also adapted a lot of D&D to Gurps and my experience says no in multiple ways.

You could pull the equivalent of Blackhawk Down with a horde of Orcs. 1 out of every 20 Orcs will hit and when they do it's for double damage (natural 20 rules). There is some number of orcs that will be able to kill any PC who stands there and slugs it out with them. The DM has to follow tropes of D&D like "Level Ettiquette" to avoid this because it wouldn't be fun either.

Those D&D modules I adapted to Gurps were very popular with my players and many of them were certainly "high level" by the usual measurements. High number sof ablative HP is just one way of doing things and not a requirement.

[Lovewyrm]

Originally Posted by Opellulo

To me it only holds back the game: GURPS at its core is a remarkably elegant, sleek and easy to teach system. Unfortunately when it is played at a level just above Lite it quickly spirals to a monster bloat of rule wrinkles that makes difficult to run any adventure that do not adhere to its version of "realism". Generic? Absolutely! Universal? Not so much...

You use every rule of your favorite system, right?
You don't leave a single one out, can I assume that?

Also, you don't enjoy versimilitude? Believability?
Well if you want to play a cartoon then yeah, GURPS is a bit tough to deliver...
If you ignore the cinematic rules or just *have fun*.

Let's take D&D again, for example.

Why do people often cite "Remember the rule of cool" when talking about D&D.
That if you want to be a Legolas who surfs down a flight of stairs on a shield, the DM should let you do it?

Isn't D&D already fun? Isn't it already free from the bonds of "reality fetishism" GURPS dives into so?
Why would players and GMs of other systems need to be reminded of "Rule of Cool" too?

Or why are there little prambles like "Remember, rules should not come before fun".

Hel, it's in the preface of even things like "The mythical GM emulator", which is a real terse booklet that can act as a 'randomized GM like oracle'

And even THAT mentions how rules should only be a loose guideline.

So...uh...do you play some secret perfect roleplaying system that does not have such stipulations? If so, please share.

P.S.:
In GURPS there's probably some actual optional rules for shield surfing somewhere, including the abrasion factor of rough hewn rock stairs vs the DR and HP of the shield and it's metal bandings (if it has any).
In fact, you could probably find some way to really game out, without having to homebrew, how many spear tips a ninja elf can walk on with any given pair of shoes before the sole gives in.

Hel, one of the spear bearers might even be able to roll a counter to tip slash a knot of a sandal at a penalty to unwind the foot armor.

Without homebrewing.

If so, then damn GURPS is full of cool, rule of cool. Praise be.
Edit: Oh wait, I'm apparently supposed to hate such a premise because such an optinional rule might get in the way of fun if I forget to not use it if I don't want to calculate the abrasion factor into things.

Oh yeah, found it, I knew I had it somewhere.
A reminder of Gary Gygax that AD&D is the opposite of realism and should only be an fun pasttime and not work
And I think Gygax was actually the "Rules guy" of D&D.

Yet, even D&D GMs must be reminded about Rule 0 and "just allow fun things".
And under those premises.
GURPS and D&D and every other system, probably, become equal.

Unless you don't want that to be the case. Then GURPS loses. Cause you don't want it to have that boon.

Edit the nth:
One more thing:
Why not see all the 'rules' in the basic set as some excellent value for money?
Something that is preferrable to getting nickle and dimed on subscriptions and co.
The basic set has so much breadth that the universal in the name is more apt than it is not.
Proper expectations and approaches are, of course, required
Like actually making a superhuman/superhero character and not trying to copy a 'comic' cartoon where everything EVERYTHING is pulled out of a hat at all times.

Can you do a standing backflip and land on your feet? Mundane, really.
But if you can't do it, someone who can has a superpower compared to you. Fitness, compared to the everydayman (at least these days) is superpower. So, no need to make the cartoony hulk.
Just make someone strong, fast, and then sprinkle in some super abilities to it.
And if that's too mundane, just GM the game in a way that everyone has unkillable, with the achilles heel of "other supers". Cause that's what superheroes need. They need to not die of bullets from the police or military.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Frost

What we really need is a solid middle ground, where the default rules are grounded in reality without chasing obsessive realism.

I feel the GURPS default is in a decent place here, with the exception of its ridiculously-large skill list. Trimming that down (as already suggested in the thread) would go a long way.