Hit location miss by 1

[CelticDruid]

On some hit locations in Martial Arts (P137), if you miss the location (ie. the ear) by 1, then you hit the torso. Wouldnt it be more logical to hit the the location it is attached to? For example, if you miss the ear by 1, then you hit the skull. Example, if you miss the nose by 1, then you kit the face.

[vierasmarius]

I think this was done for balance reasons rather than realism. For example, the Jaw is -6 to hit, compared to the Face at -5. The only difference between the two is that the Jaw gives an extra -1 to knockdown rolls from crushing attacks. If a miss by 1 hit the Face instead of the Torso, there would never be a reason to aim for the Face instead of the Jaw with blunt instruments or unarmed attacks. The Ear and Nose have a slightly larger penalty (-7) but a greater effect on a hit, so again for balance a miss by 1 hits the Torso to prevent them from being over-targeted.

The joints and veins/arteries are apparently difficult enough to hit on their own (-3 relative to the limb or extremity) that it's acceptable to have a miss by 1 hit the parent limb rather than the torso.

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I think this was done for balance reasons rather than realism.

Yes, I think so, too, but with respect to realism the torso hit is at least better than nothing... ;)

Of course it would be possible to add more detail with a further roll! Could be a nice solution in many cases...

For instance if you targeted at the jaw and missed by only 1, roll 1d6:
1: Completely missed the target.
2-4: Hit to the torso.
5,6: Hit to the nearest attached location. (*)

*: In this case the face.

IMHO something like that would be quite fair and a nice add-on if there is a need for more detail :)

[Kromm]

People have summed it up: If large hit location A surrounds smaller, more valuable hit location B, and the penalty to hit B is just an extra -1 or -2 relative to the penalty to hit A, then it would be bad game design to have a miss by 1 hit A. Doing that would remove most or all of the risk of taking the extra penalty to hit. On the other hand, if missing all of A by 1 hits some more distant location X, then missing B should still hit X, because otherwise there would be too much extra risk (targeting B is both -1 or -2 to hit and removes the miss by 1 effect).

[Ronin Rabbit]

Definitely not contradicting the above- all about balance. BUT if you wanted to mess with it on your own for S&G's you probably could. I'd argue the direction/momentum of the attack is a factor. If my sword swing is arced down on your ear (like I'm literally chopping it off) and I miss by 1, who is to say that -1 is towards the "inside" of my target area (to the right if left ear & vice versa) as opposed to the outside? Missing an ear with a chopping swing could VERY realistically be a hit to the torso (technically collarbone/shoulder I guess).

It probably wouldn't be the most objectionable thing in the world to declare by fiat that when an attack misses its hit location by 1 the attack actually goes to a nearby place that depends on the actual physical positions of the two people involved.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Ronin Rabbit

It probably wouldn't be the most objectionable thing in the world to declare by fiat that when an attack misses its hit location by 1 the attack actually goes to a nearby place that depends on the actual physical positions of the two people involved.

I think you'd start to discover that players' mental pictures of a fight are significantly different from each other. I've been surprised by this several times when a game has suddenly had to "zoom in" on some detail. Unless you habitually have players describe each blow in detail, you're likely to have arguments about this.

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by OldSam

For instance if you targeted at the jaw and missed by only 1, roll 1d6:
1: Completely missed the target.
2-4: Hit to the torso.
5,6: Hit to the nearest attached location. (*)

*: In this case the face. Always has to be a (bigger) location with an 'easier' or at least equal modifier.

Given that more detail is wanted:
What do you think about a small add-on like that?
Or do you even know any other existing solutions, which may be better perhaps?

[Kromm]

The problem is one of extra dice rolls. People say that they want more detail, but most of those voting are either theoretical gamers ("I would play GURPS if I had a gaming group. *sigh*") or GMs. Hands-on, regular players rarely find that extra detail is worth an extra roll. Some of the harshest, hardest-to-rebut criticisms leveled at GURPS concern the number of rolls already required in combat: attack roll (and possibly a roll for hit location), defense roll (maybe two, if the defender decides to use Acrobatic Dodge or similar) or critical hit roll, damage roll (several, if there are linked effects), one or more HT rolls for injury effects, a DX roll if there's knockback, etc. Thus, yet another roll and lookup is going to garner mixed reactions.

[Bruno]

It's likely to go over better with a group using all the currently published hit location rules, including the rolls for sub-location. This just adds some more locations with sublocations.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The problem is one of extra dice rolls. People say that they want more detail, but most of those voting are either theoretical gamers ("I would play GURPS if I had a gaming group. *sigh*") or GMs. Hands-on, regular players rarely find that extra detail is worth an extra roll. Some of the harshest, hardest-to-rebut criticisms leveled at GURPS concern the number of rolls already required in combat: attack roll (and possibly a roll for hit location), defense roll (maybe two, if the defender decides to use Acrobatic Dodge or similar) or critical hit roll, damage roll (several, if there are linked effects), one or more HT rolls for injury effects, a DX roll if there's knockback, etc. Thus, yet another roll and lookup is going to garner mixed reactions.

Make it an optional rule in a small e23 supplement, then. I'll grant you that I fall into one of your categories, namely GM, but my players are perfectly fine with extra rules, rolls and look-ups, at least as long as those remain the province of the GM to handle and they interface with the game world through descriptions of the action and the response of their characters, not game mechanics.