12-17-2014, 12:35 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
I'm pretty strongly on the literalist side of things (including serious discomfort with the idea of using AoA Double to represent 'stab-and-cut' actions).
However, I think it's a serious mistake to treat GURPS terms of art as having any strong relationship with the regular English meanings of the words. For instance, even for a humanoid with a 1-yard step I don't see any reason to assume that a Step is a single stride, and for lots of other characters that use the same Step mechanic it obviously can't possibly be a single stride because they don't even use legs, have a Step longer than their entire body, are flying or swimming, etc.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
12-18-2014, 02:53 AM | #12 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
The second part in both those doesn't require a 2nd hit roll let alone a penalised one (the weapon is already in the target etc). I'm also iffy about defences and to be honest iffy about DR for some as well. Now TG has a work around to an extent (armed grappling inflicting further damage once the weapon is in the target). There was a recent thread on this. Not a big thing in anyway, but when state an example the natural reaction is to judge the example by the criteria its demonstrating. |
|
12-23-2014, 01:12 PM | #13 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
"The victim might twist so that the knife slides out (dodge), use his shield to shove you away (block), or restrain your wrist (parry). His armor DR would affect the second attack – despite the knife being inside his armor – because you have to rip through him and his armor. Similar logic applies to a stamp- and-grind with the heel, chop-and-draw with a sword, a grapple that nabs one arm and pulls it across the body to trap the other, and so on." |
|
12-23-2014, 01:22 PM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
|
|
12-23-2014, 04:33 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
GURPS is fine as long as it simulates what I want it to simulate, to the level of depth or accuracy I want that thing simulated.
|
12-24-2014, 01:00 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-24-2014 at 01:06 AM. |
|
12-24-2014, 01:05 AM | #17 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
|
|
12-24-2014, 04:32 AM | #18 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
Also, you said 'especially' - so what are the other finely-detailed reasons? I'm asking because I'm really curious; I've usually found players unhappy when an action is either declared impossible due to a lack of rules, or made undesirable by the need to recall highly different or complicated rules for said action. |
|
12-24-2014, 04:36 AM | #19 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
'Explanation/description is just a special effect' seems to be quite common in the Powers part of GURPS, but not as easily accepted by at least some of the people. Particularly the 'Sure, you can do things the cool way, as long as you do not get a free bonus out of it'. |
|
12-24-2014, 05:52 AM | #20 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
"The victim might twist so that the knife slides out (dodge)," Do we image that lifting your body off a weapon is anyway analogous to dodging an incoming blow, in either rate of success or in avoiding further damage? " use his shield to shove you away (block)," This one is a bit better, but a block in GURPS is blocking the weapon which obviously impossible here. What's described is a shove. This might seem a pedantic distinction but try and visualise how this manoeuvre would actually physically work, say with an impaling knife, longsword of spear. Then again you have the issue of the weapon being removed without causing damage. "or restrain your wrist (parry)." That not a parry that's a grapple (or conceivably a bind weapon). How is parrying blade going to stop someone twisting of further thrusting a weapon into you? I might consider a beat, but that going to hurt a lot! "His armor DR would affect the second attack – despite the knife being inside his armor – because you have to rip through him and his armor. " No it won't unless I'm actually trying to drag my weapon through the armour, and why would I do that? If I have thrust my sword through your armour enough to get the tip through, I'm actually going to either: push further in (we're both moving around at this point so chances are that will change the angle of the wound channel widening it over all. pivot my weapon to widen the wound channel using resistance of the armour as leverage. Now DR would make twisting the weapon (as in the classic stab, twist, pull, bayonet drill*) difficult so I'd count it against that. If nothing else if DR is partially fixing my penetrating weapon in place and stopping me from further working it into you, it's going to hamper the above defensive efforts to pull off the blade (dodge), push me off (block), or 'parry' it out. And then this leaves aside the second to hit roll that just does't makes sense at all here (I see this as analogous to increasing the effects of grapple that you had previously established). I'm rolling to hit you while my weapon is inside you, and at a penalty? Thing is rapid strike is just that two faster hits in the same space of time as one normal one. But once you start moving away from that basic premise it get's less and less appropriate for describing more and more varied things. Another case in point rapid strikes require a readied weapon, So I can stab and twist with a sword, but not with an axe? None of this is a big thing, all these things can be house ruled with a couple of seconds thought (and this particular one can be handed with TG). Also I realise the examples are designed to be range of flavour descriptions to widen rapid strike to things we'd possibly want to emulate, and that's fine too. None of this is stuff I lie awake at night thinking about, but you asked for an example and this is one. *more modern ones seem to involve thicker shorter blades designed to push ribs apart IIRC Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-25-2014 at 03:16 AM. |
|
Tags |
abstraction, combat, rules |
|
|