Simplified combat rules for non-combat intensive campaigns

[marceloyoiti]

Does anyone knows how to simplify gurps combat rules to a handful of dice rolls (say 5 or 6)?

Using the combat rules in a campaign which is not combat intensive is a waste of time. Even with the simple combat system a brawl between two tough guys takes at least an hour. What I'm looking for is a way to roll for combat like the way one rolls for other conflicts. Negotiating with a merchant for example: Quick Contest of Merchant skill, the winner gets a price which is 10% better than the fair value.

I don't want to tweak the rules in a way that imbalances the skills too much. A Quick Contest of best weapon skill is too simplistic since it doesn't include equipment, attributes (specially ST, HT and HP), advantages (e.g. Combat Reflexes), or even weapon type (Guns (Rifle) vs. Brawling).

The only idea I thought that consider the above traits is the following:
1) Quick Contest of an attack roll with best weapon (larger damage) from character A vs. defense roll with best defense from character B (counting DB, Acrobatic Dodge and the Retreat option).
2) Vice versa.
3) Damage roll of character A - DR character B. Consider injury modifiers as a hit to the torso. If the result is negative (very high DR) note it down anyway.
4) Vice versa.
5) HT roll for character A plus any bonus from relevant advantage (e.g. Hard to Kill) reduced by the injury in #4 (note that a negative injury in the roll above gives a bonus) divided by the total HP at the beginning of the combat. Characters with High Pain Threshold divide by 2x HP at the beginning of the combat, while characters with Low Pain Threshold divide by HP/2. In the end, round down.
6) Same for character B.

Result:
Add the margin of rolls #1 and #5 for character A, and #2 and #6 for character B. The one with the largest margin wins.

If the GM wants, she can match the results of the combat to the rolls. The winner getting half the damage rolled and the looser getting the full damage seems ok for a short and balanced bout. The winner with no damage at all and the looser with 0 HP if it was a wash.

That sums up to about 6 rolls per combat with some maths in the middle. . . 10 minutes. I think it takes into account all the most combat relevant traits.

What do you guys think? Any suggestions? Is it balanced? How should I put ranged weapons in the mix?

[LemmingLord]

I think what you describe would be a workable and yet still retain some of the essence of the GURPS combat system.

Another thing to consider is to describe the combat situation to the PCs and ask them what they they want their character to accomplish BY THE END OF THE FIGHT and ask them to make a single roll against the skill, stat or defense roll that would be appropriate. Give them relevant bonuses and penalties. Then have them all roll. Note that most of the time will be discussing these modifiers. A player can and should point out anything about his character that should be counted as a bonus and a gamemaster can and should point out anything that might be a modifier pro or con (though there comes a point where you might want to just forget modifiers if you as the gamemaster would like to see the character succeed in this case).

If they make a critical success, they accomplished what they set out to do and get a bonus of some kind in the narration.

If they make their roll, they accomplished what they set out to do, other specifics are determined by the gamemaster and players.

If they miss their roll, they did not completely accomplish what they set out to do or, if the player is willing, the character can be more successful but only at the expense of being captured, knocked unonscious or having some additional complication that will come up later in the game.

If they critically fail, they fail AND they are captured, knocked unconscious and/or have an additional complication to deal with later in the game.

[Jonas]

Aren't the combat lite rules in the basic set more then simple enough? No hit locations, no bleeding, all the fancy facing stuff is irrelevant...all you really need to worry about is hitting your target, not being hit in return and seeing who goes into negative HP first.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Aren't the combat lite rules in the basic set more then simple enough? No hit locations, no bleeding, all the fancy facing stuff is irrelevant...all you really need to worry about is hitting your target, not being hit in return and seeing who goes into negative HP first.

I think the trick here is the OP seems to want simple because he wants fast. I don't necessarily think those two things are related.

For example, there are a couple different ways to speed up combat which don't require jettisoning all the rules if speed is the goal.

1) I don't use them, but you could use mook rules from Dungeon Fantasy. You hit the mooks one time and they are out, combat over. So some of the combatants would be books, some would be worthy, some would be bosses. So you get a variety of combat experiences.
2) One of the easiest fixes I think of is don't give the bad guys really high HT, or pair that high HT with Easy to Subdue. Don't go higher than 10 or 11 HT and your fights will just not last that long once they start taking damage.
3) Use hit locations. Using hit locations means that a blow to the head can end a fight right there. Breaking someone's leg can also effectively end combat quickly.
4) If the problem is that there are people with really good defenses, don't build antagonists with such great defenses. Encourage the use of deceptive attacks and better positional tactics...which means...combat map.

Anyhow. Simple is awesome, but simple doesn't always mean quick. Counter-intuitively sometimes adding more rules can make combat really quick.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by trooper6

I think the trick here is the OP seems to want simple because he wants fast. I don't necessarily think those two things are related.

For example, there are a couple different ways to speed up combat which don't require jettisoning all the rules if speed is the goal.

I do grant the point of all of this. On the other hand, and speaking as a noncombat GM, I've often been struck by the fact that most game rules for roleplaying a debate, or an attempt to persuade someone, or an attempt to pass forged credentials, or a computer hacking effort, come down to a simple contest of stats or skills, with maybe a complementary skill roll or two—for the entire effort. In contrast, you hardly ever see game rules in which a fight comes down to two opposed skill rolls, winner defeats loser. Rather, fights involve a series of exchanges, each exchange represented by an attack, a defense, possibly a damage roll, perhaps a roll to withstand incapacitation through damage.

Could a set of rules be written where combat came down to a quick contest, or even a regular contest?

Bill Stoddard

[SCAR]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I do grant the point of all of this. On the other hand, and speaking as a noncombat GM, I've often been struck by the fact that most game rules for roleplaying a debate, or an attempt to persuade someone, or an attempt to pass forged credentials, or a computer hacking effort, come down to a simple contest of stats or skills, with maybe a complementary skill roll or two—for the entire effort. In contrast, you hardly ever see game rules in which a fight comes down to two opposed skill rolls, winner defeats loser. Rather, fights involve a series of exchanges, each exchange represented by an attack, a defense, possibly a damage roll, perhaps a roll to withstand incapacitation through damage.

Could a set of rules be written where combat came down to a quick contest, or even a regular contest?

Bill Stoddard

The consequences of losing a fight are usually incapacitation or death. The consequences for your other examples are rarely so severe.
Tone down the consequences of losing a fight, and I'm sure the same sort of quick contest used for those other actions would work just fine.
You could also go the other way and turn other contests such as social interactions into a combat style contest, but I believe it was a positive choice not to take that approach with GURPS Social Engineering, and that was a good choice.

[Snaps]

If you want really fast go with:

-Quick contest of skill to hit
-Roll normal damage and apply to DR, etc.
Or
-Convert damage so that each dice is just 4 damage. Everyone would do their damage when they hit. If you want a little more variation let them add their amount of success on their hit roll to their damage (this would simulate hit locations, etc.)
-Use normal HT rolls for injury, death, etc.
Or
-Just say that everyone dies at a certain amount of damage. I'd go with HT 10 dies at -HP, HT 11 dies at -HPx2, HT 13 dies at -HPx3, etc. (Yes this means that HT 20 only dies at -HPx10!)

Hope this helps.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Could a set of rules be written where combat came down to a quick contest, or even a regular contest?

How about a Regular Contest of the lowest of Tactics or Leadership by the unit leader (with a decent penalty (-4?) for leaderless groups and use the average score or something instead). Modify for superior numbers, weapons, position and so on.

Also keep track of who would have won (and the MoS) for each roll if it was a Quick Contest instead. The Regular Contest determines who achieved the objective. The Quick Contests determine casualties.

Loss by 2 or less: One fighter suffered a Major Wound. He is at half HP and knocked down.
Loss by 3-6: One fighter has suffered a Crippling wound to a random limb or extremity. Half HP, knocked down and crippled.
Loss by 6-9: One fighter is unconscious. 0 HP and unconscious.
Loss by 10 or more: One fighter was killed.

Or something like that.

[Snaps]

I should mention too, that if you just want to speed up combat, nothing for me has ever made it faster than the optional rule from 3e where every 2 points you make you attack roll by automatically gives the defender a minus one to their defense.

Combat flies with this rule. We could easily get a 5 PC fight vs. 10 or more opponents done in under an hour. Hell, a lot of times it was done in under ten minutes.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Snaps

I should mention too, that if you just want to speed up combat, nothing for me has ever made it faster than the optional rule from 3e where every 2 points you make you attack roll by automatically gives the defender a minus one to their defense.

Combat flies with this rule. We could easily get a 5 PC fight vs. 10 or more opponents done in under an hour. Hell, a lot of times it was done in under ten minutes.

Can't you get the same result by encouraging players to use excess skill for Deceptive or Rapid Strikes?