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 08-24-2010, 11:52 AM   #31
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
That doesn't even seem like a counterpoint. Stopping the fight because of pain rather than being totally unable to continue and not stopping a fight just because somebody's broken your arm aren't really in conflict.
My point was that most people stopped fighting because they were in pain or afraid. The more wounded they are, they more pain they'll be in and the more afraid they'll be.

Most people will stop fighting if you seriously injure them. This is due to psychological factors, not physiological. Having your arm or less cut off would rapidly result in physiological shock too, of course, but even before that, odds are that people would be psychologically out of it.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 11:58 AM   #32
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosignol View Post
That sounds pretty much like a textbook example of being stunned and not making the HT roll to recover for some time.
Except that it doesn't work that way in GURPS. The odds of having stun last for minutes is pretty much nil.

The odds of a HT 10 person failing more than three in a row (being out of it for five whole seconds) are less than 10%. The odds of failing nine in a row (ineffective for ten seconds) are less than 0.2%. Care to figure out what it is for a whole minute?

Not to mention that the HT 10 person will not really react much at all in 50% of cases. Just a -4 penalty to anything done this second and no penalty after that.

Reality testing this is unfortunately unethical, but does anyone really believe that this is 'realistic', rather than being massively forgiving to reduce realistic effects of violence on PCs?
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 12:02 PM   #33
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Fount of glory? Some norseman you are. :)
Apparently a poor one. The first thing I noticed upon having an arm and shoulder crushed was how unrealistic it would be to assume that I could do anything effectively just a second later.

We could argue that I'm a wimp. But even the less injured people in the car crash were not functional or coherent for minutes, despite having what in GURPS terms would be less than HP of injury for all but one of them (who had an injury somewhere between HP and HPx2).

And according to doctors and paramedics I've spoken with, that's the near universal experience. Any exceptions are just that, notable exceptions. People who are horribly maimed and then manage to do something afterwards are extremely notable, not normal.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 12:26 PM   #34
rosignol
 
rosignol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Except that it doesn't work that way in GURPS. The odds of having stun last for minutes is pretty much nil.

The odds of a HT 10 person failing more than three in a row (being out of it for five whole seconds) are less than 10%. The odds of failing nine in a row (ineffective for ten seconds) are less than 0.2%. Care to figure out what it is for a whole minute?
I really can't assess how much of that is on account of failing the HT roll, and how much is on account of the perception of immediate danger having passed and people generally being unsure of what to do next in an extraordinary situation- which is another valid reason to 'do nothing'.

Quote:
Reality testing this is unfortunately unethical, but does anyone really believe that this is 'realistic', rather than being massively forgiving to reduce realistic effects of violence on PCs?
I'm okay with that.
__________________
What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.
― William Lamb Melbourne
rosignol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 12:30 PM   #35
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosignol View Post
I really can't assess how much of that is on account of failing the HT roll, and how much is on account of the perception of immediate danger having passed and people generally being unsure of what to do next in an extraordinary situation- which is another valid reason to 'do nothing'.
When it results in not doing something that would reduce the danger and help coming faster, it looks a lot like 'stun', doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosignol View Post
I'm okay with that.
Which is absolutely valid, but that's you choosing to play a less realistic game, probably because reality can be depressing.

It's not really appropriate to use rules designed to be unrealistic when we are discussing how to emulate reality with the game rules. The choice to have a more realistic option available should be there, though.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 12:31 PM   #36
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
We could argue that I'm a wimp. But even the less injured people in the car crash were not functional or coherent for minutes, despite having what in GURPS terms would be less than HP of injury for all but one of them (who had an injury somewhere between HP and HPx2).

And according to doctors and paramedics I've spoken with, that's the near universal experience. Any exceptions are just that, notable exceptions. People who are horribly maimed and then manage to do something afterwards are extremely notable, not normal.
Do people who were in a car crash but suffer little to no injury avoid this period of incapacitation?
__________________
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 08-24-2010, 12:32 PM   #37
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
When it results in not doing something that would reduce the danger and help coming faster, it looks a lot like 'stun', doesn't it?
This is where the untrained combatants rules and/or fright checks would seem to be relevant.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 12:33 PM   #38
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Do people who were in a car crash but suffer little to no injury avoid this period of incapacitation?
From what little I've seen, maybe. They are more likely to do so than others, certainly.

For example, the person in a car behind the one hit was able to call for help. Even a person in the other car who was injured, but less so, was able to act after a pause of several seconds, not minutes as with the more injured people.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 12:34 PM   #39
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
This is where the untrained combatants rules and/or fright checks would seem to be relevant.
Indeed.

The incapacitating mechanism for most wounds is a Fright Check, or at least something that would use substantially the same rules.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 12:46 PM   #40
umbros
 
umbros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Danville, VA USA
Default Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

I would say the difference between someone getting their nose broke in a fistfight and giving up and a Marine continuing to fire a machinegun after suffering multiple gunshot wounds is training. Repetitive ground in training. In both situations the individuals logical mind has shut down and "instinctual" response has taken over. It's just that the Marine's response has been altered back in basic training by a Drill Sergeant screaming in his face. He does what he was programmed to do under stress. Scared? keep shooting. tired? keep shooting. Hurt? keep shooting. Until you hear a cease fire.
umbros is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
combat, hit locations

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 03:13 AM.


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