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 12-07-2014, 04:44 PM   #81
The_Ryujin
 
The_Ryujin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: A crappy state called Illinois
Default Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole View Post
One thing that wouuld be interesting, but I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea, would be to allow the Wait-and-Aim guy to add his Acc to the Perception roll, or maybe Acc-2, min 0. That gives a mechanical advantage to the guy who chooses the frozen Wait. Thing is, I'm not sure if that works in reality-ville.Does using an Acc 5 rifle give you an advatage over a PPQ with Acc 2 or 3 in your ability to detect a target coming around a corner? I'd think not.
Yeah, I'm thinking not as well. At most I'd give a +1 to Per do the shooter focusing his full attention on that area, I don't see a guns Acc making things more noticable and from my (rather limited to be fair) experiance a scope would make things harder to spot at such close range.

Quote:
Alternately, frozen Wait couuld perhaps claim a bonus to the Per contest of up to +3 for repeated Evaluates, which would make the net QC delta 5ve points - enough that you will really need/want to be a truly expert room-clearing guy to win that.
I want to say yes to this idea but I have a hard time seeing how your Per bonuses could stack by looking at thin air, there's no frame of refrance for you to evaluate. I can by +1 for being focused on a small area but given that in this situation there are to many unknowns to process to warrent any bigger of a bonus, at lest in my book.
__________________
GURB: Ultra-Tech Reloaded

Normies: Man! The government is filled with liars and thieves! Me: Well yeah, here's what they're lying about, what they're stealing from you, and who's doing it. Normies: Rolls eyes Shut up conspiracy theorist Me: >.>
The_Ryujin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2014, 04:32 AM   #82
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

Okay, I've talked it over with Kromm.
Short version:
Kromm endorses the Step-while-Waiting variant, but making it an official rule is a hypothetical 5th edition issue (i.e. it is not a rule in 4e):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh
I know that you at some points endorsed the use of a Step and Wait manoeuvre in GURPS 4th Edition, which, contrary to Basic Set, allows performing a Step before the trigger condition occurs, and considered even allowing to use the Move pre-trigger for when the trigger converts to a Move and Attack or All-Out Attack.
[...]
Is the new manoeuvre meant to be [list]First declare trigger condition, then make a step, and if while stepping the turns out to be true, you immediately shift in your declared conditional manoeuvre (including against somebody else who is standing and Waiting), otherwise proceed to wait for the condition to happen'?
Pretty much this. Wait works precisely like it does in the Basic Set, with the one difference being that you already took your movement. The trigger is defined at the very start of your turn, though, and can be set off by another Wait before or during your movement, by something your movement brings into range or into sight, or by events that occur after your movement and before your next turn.
But:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
[...] It may be that +2 [in a Cascading Wait] is too small, and that an official "step and Wait" rule – which does not exist, so we're debating a future edition here – might need to amend this, [...] That sort of refinement is why we playtest.
Long version:
Spoiler:  
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2014, 06:19 AM   #83
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Long version:

Everyone make sure to read the long version. Lots of key context there.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2014, 07:13 AM   #84
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole View Post
Everyone make sure to read the long version. Lots of key context there.
Definitely. (The actual long version is even longer - I left out some of my message paragraphs because it's long already, but it's fully or mostly a reiteration of my concerns in this thread.)

I just posted the short version in to make sure that even with TL;DR, the two important points stand: that what DouglasCole said about Kromm endorsing Step-while-performing-a-Wait is 100% supported by the Line Editor, and that, on the other hand, the endorsed rule does not exist within the 4e ruleset.

For me, the unexpected but understandable nuance was the lack of a 100% blessing for the way things are set in the RAW.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2014, 09:54 AM   #85
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post

For me, the unexpected but understandable nuance was the lack of a 100% blessing for the way things are set in the RAW.
Well, two points regarding that:

1. Like any RPG with close to half a million words of core rules and a couple million words of follow-on content – written by several people, and subject to changes made during playtesting, peer review, editing, proofreading, and publisher approval – GURPS Fourth Edition was necessarily designed by committee. You can't expect every rule to meet with the glowing approval of every individual involved. I was one influence on the design, but no more than David Pulver was – and both of us were junior to decision-makers above us on the ladder. I know that David didn't like every last one of my decisions, he knows that I disagreed with some of his, and both of us were overruled on many things . . . but that's not pettiness or politics, merely the nature of huge projects.

2. It has been a decade since those words were set down – a decade of actual-play experience, of customer feedback, of fellow GURPS writers examining our ideas and creating works that interact with the implications and flaws, of improving our own craft and looking back at what in retrospect feels a little rougher than it seemed at the time. After that long, even the primary creators are entitled to be somewhat critical of the product! I'm still proud of the work and happy to stick to the current edition, but I'm more aware of its imperfections and willing to point them out. If I weren't, I wouldn't be a very honest person!

We often lose sight of the sheer magnitude of this game system. It was created in 1986 and will celebrate its 30th birthday in less than two years' time. I was hired in 1995 and I'll have been working on GURPS for 20 years come summer 2015, yet that means I missed the first decade of its design and evolution, and truly know nothing about why many things are the way they are to this day. The edition I do know about just turned 10 years old this past summer. The total publication list is well in excess of 300 volumes (excluding deck plans, 'zines, marketing items like posters, etc.), which represents tens of millions of words – of which more than five million words are associated with the most recent edition alone. The number of primary authors falls between 80 and 100, higher if you add contributing authors and 'zine contributors. And all of that is ". . . and counting."

So yeah, there are going to be some changes of heart. ;)
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News]
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2014, 10:19 AM   #86
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
Well, two points regarding that:

1. Like any RPG with close to half a million words of core rules and a couple million words of follow-on content – written by several people, and subject to changes made during playtesting, peer review, editing, proofreading, and publisher approval – GURPS Fourth Edition was necessarily designed by committee. You can't expect every rule to meet with the glowing approval of every individual involved. I was one influence on the design, but no more than David Pulver was – and both of us were junior to decision-makers above us on the ladder. I know that David didn't like every last one of my decisions, he knows that I disagreed with some of his, and both of us were overruled on many things . . . but that's not pettiness or politics, merely the nature of huge projects.
Oh, of course, as I said, it's understandable. I've experience with a different sort of game design, and know what disagreements are like.
I just somehow assumed that David Pulver was primarily responsible for equipment and vehicles (as the vehicles specialist), and I underestimated the level of Steve Jackson's level of active participation in such tactical nuances (probably because he isn't as active in author lists of later books, and on the forum, which is a silly line of reasoning now that I think of it). Come to think of it, both of my ideas were silly in retrospect.
So, anyway, my mis-assessment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
2. It has been a decade since those words were set down – a decade of actual-play experience, of customer feedback, of fellow GURPS writers examining our ideas and creating works that interact with the implications and flaws, of improving our own craft and looking back at what in retrospect feels a little rougher than it seemed at the time. After that long, even the primary creators are entitled to be somewhat critical of the product! I'm still proud of the work and happy to stick to the current edition, but I'm more aware of its imperfections and willing to point them out. If I weren't, I wouldn't be a very honest person!
Changes of heart are certainly an important bit. It's just when they seem somewhat sudden that I'm surprised. If a book gets published, and after weeks to a couple years, an author says 'maybe I would do it differently if I knew how others will read it' (or whatever), that seems almost expected; as is when a change is slow. When a book's ruling is defended for some while, then suddenly get changed (or de-recommended) in a new supplement or post, that's what ambushes me.

Sometimes in these cases I have an 'I told you so' feeling. Such as the return of follow-up shots in Tactical Shooting, or the issue of Attack being too good compared to AoA with guns (which got changed in TS, but not in a way I expected). Who knows, maybe some day we'll have an Alternate GURPS treatment of Rapid Fire that doesn't have scaling issues.

But the system is continuing its development - that's the good thing.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:02 PM.


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