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 12-26-2014, 08:35 AM   #31
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yes there are certainly similarities (and IIC they were designed to be so) but these things represent different things when grappling and when in normal combat. A parry while grappling is not the same as a parry while fencing. CP is not strictly analogous to Damage here anyway because damage is inflicted in discrete amounts and not removed, CP is actually a changing values that varies according to both combatant's actions. It further complicated in the case of armed grappling damage is based of CP of course!

In melee after a few passes of attack/defence we'll have both possibly inflicted an amount of damage on each other.

In grappling after a few passes of attack/defence we'll have an ongoing CP relationship with each other, and that relative relationship will have had it's own implications for teh relative position we find ourselves in. As well as what ever effects we may have leveraged with CP's during that period. This is in addition to damage inflicted through CP and CP leveraged actions.

DR and CR might have similar effects in the system they refer to (i.e they both reduce effect) and are similarly invoked (roll to hit, roll defence then roll to damage/CP) but are actually very different things.

Also just like claws negate CR, so do weapons (and I'd certain argue that having a sword inside make how sweaty you are, or how many straps you have pretty irrelevant).

Although for added grim fun I have bleeding wounds add to CR on bare skin for grappling that locations with other attacks!
That CP can be reduced by appropriate manoeuvres and HP restored by Regeneration seems like a difference too far-buried, when the issue is that in both cases you're having your weapon (grappling hand/impaling blade) right there in a tight contact with the target, even somewhat controlling the target, but you still roll to hit before you can apply the ST-based part of you weapon (CPs or damage).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
yes, although I should say this isn't me looking for areas to add extra complication to GURPS:Campaigns, this is you asking me for an example where RAW fluff and raw Crunch don't correlate, and me giving you one in my opinion.

While I know your feelings on TG, I do find TG actually has a much wider application than just grabbing each other.
Sure. I'm genuinely interested about the compromise of strong literalists when choosing between adding more rules (but making them more literal) or using the rules as-is (but keeping them more abstract).
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
Also, GURPS Discord is a nice place for (faster) Q&A and overall GURPS dicussion.
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 08:53 AM   #32
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
What are people unhappy about being too easy? I'll admit I don't have the play experience to speak on such matters.
As an example, the Tactical Shooting crowd was unhappy with regular Attack manoeuvres being too easy, so they added the demand that getting Acc requires an AoA. Just as one example.
The trend seems to be that literalisation has more new penalties than new bonuses compared to an abstract resolution, in terms of getting stuff done etc. Not always, but IME more often then not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
Just to make sure, could both of you articulate what exactly it is that you're going back and forth about?
Mostly further riffing about choices along the Literal/Abstract spectrum of playing/GMing. It's a runaway chain reaction, though!
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
Also, GURPS Discord is a nice place for (faster) Q&A and overall GURPS dicussion.
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 10:13 AM   #33
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Burnsville, MN
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
As an example, the Tactical Shooting crowd was unhappy with regular Attack manoeuvres being too easy, so they added the demand that getting Acc requires an AoA. Just as one example.
This isn't really an accurate interpretation of this event. Hans examined the reality of aimed and sighted fire, and made a judgement that if you're doing these things, you're not capable of perceiving actions by other foes, nor interrupting your maneuver with a defense. He both shoots and has done a ridiculous amount of research about experts that shoot, and made the judgement that these two maneuvers (and especially Aim + Attack) required total focus. This is to aid the "Literal" interpretation of the maneuver. Simulation in a particular idiom.

It was not the feelings of a particular "crowd" with respect to game mechanics. It was not an attempt to "nerf" Aim. It was a recogniation that when simulating the behavior of real-world shooters, the kind of global awareness and ability to do anything other than aim and shoot is basically zero. It was not a game-mechanical desicion, but a simulationist one.

As always, Rule Zero applies. If you want to allow Aim and Attack, booyah. Go ahead.
__________________
The Deadly Spring "...probably the most infamous Pyramid article of all time."-Jeffro's Car Wars Blog
Gaming Ballistic: Home of Gaming Ballistic, LLC and my blog.
DouglasCole is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 10:59 AM   #34
McAllister
 
McAllister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole View Post
This isn't really an accurate interpretation of this event. Hans examined the reality of aimed and sighted fire, and made a judgement that if you're doing these things, you're not capable of perceiving actions by other foes, nor interrupting your maneuver with a defense. He both shoots and has done a ridiculous amount of research about experts that shoot, and made the judgement that these two maneuvers (and especially Aim + Attack) required total focus. This is to aid the "Literal" interpretation of the maneuver. Simulation in a particular idiom.

It was not the feelings of a particular "crowd" with respect to game mechanics. It was not an attempt to "nerf" Aim. It was a recogniation that when simulating the behavior of real-world shooters, the kind of global awareness and ability to do anything other than aim and shoot is basically zero. It was not a game-mechanical desicion, but a simulationist one.

As always, Rule Zero applies. If you want to allow Aim and Attack, booyah. Go ahead.
To be fair to Vicky, "unhappy with regular Attack manoeuvres being too easy" could mean that they were too easy compared to how difficult they are in reality. It's not clear that his contention is that it was a game-mechanical decision.
McAllister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 11:23 AM   #35
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Burnsville, MN
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
To be fair to Vicky, "unhappy with regular Attack manoeuvres being too easy" could mean that they were too easy compared to how difficult they are in reality. It's not clear that his contention is that it was a game-mechanical decision.
The full context of the quote:
"the Tactical Shooting crowd was unhappy with regular Attack maneuvers being too easy, so they added the demand that getting Acc requires an AoA."
makes it sound as if we had some sort of long-standing rules thing that we brought to Hans, and the "demand" was added as a response.

No - Hans looked at real life, and wrote the AoA requirement into the manuscript for both sighted shooting and aimed fire. This was discussed in playtest, and Hans stood firm that this was the way reality worked, and was the best way to simulate the way real people shoot.

It had, for example, not occurred to me even a little bit to do this. Hans brought it to the table by writing it.

At least, the sequence of events is incorrect: Hans wrote it in the book first, stood firm at keeping it there, and then post-publication, people developed opinions on whether or not they liked this rule.

It does read to me that Vicky was saying that there was a game-mechanical decision made to nerf a rule. He has made this point (sometimes correctly) with other things - like the decision to make Arm Lock require a grapple before it can be applied, not just a Judo or Wrestling parry made in Technical Grappling. That *was* a deliberate nerf.
__________________
The Deadly Spring "...probably the most infamous Pyramid article of all time."-Jeffro's Car Wars Blog
Gaming Ballistic: Home of Gaming Ballistic, LLC and my blog.
DouglasCole is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 11:29 AM   #36
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole View Post
This isn't really an accurate interpretation of this event. Hans examined the reality of aimed and sighted fire, and made a judgement that if you're doing these things, you're not capable of perceiving actions by other foes, nor interrupting your maneuver with a defense. He both shoots and has done a ridiculous amount of research about experts that shoot, and made the judgement that these two maneuvers (and especially Aim + Attack) required total focus. This is to aid the "Literal" interpretation of the maneuver. Simulation in a particular idiom.

It was not the feelings of a particular "crowd" with respect to game mechanics. It was not an attempt to "nerf" Aim. It was a recogniation that when simulating the behavior of real-world shooters, the kind of global awareness and ability to do anything other than aim and shoot is basically zero. It was not a game-mechanical desicion, but a simulationist one.

As always, Rule Zero applies. If you want to allow Aim and Attack, booyah. Go ahead.
To be fair, 'retaining ability to maintain an aim up to the point of pulling the trigger (on an Attack, i.e. without sacrificing situation awareness)' still falls under 'Attack is too easy'.

And just to make sure I don't make the wrong impression:
I'm also among the 'Basic Set ranged AoA is very meh compared to ranged Attack' crowd. I just think it would've been better if ranged AoA had a +4 instead of +1, while Accs of weapons were lower. That way, there's still incentive for archers, throwers etc. to AoA instead of Attacking.
(I also feel uncomfortable with breaking the 'Attack, Defence, Damage' paradigm. I.e. the expectation that normally all three stages are relevant; with AoA-only Acc, the incentives become tipped to the other extreme for modest-skill characters.)
----
Anyway, here are other examples of people ranting about stuff being too effective:
Recent discussion of nerfing Reaction Modifiers. My rant about Interrogation seeming way too effective. A large faction of boxes with 'Harsh Realism' in their headers.
So yeah, such opinions exist, and they are not necessarily wrong or right. I'm kinda surprised you (McAllister) didn't see them much.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
Also, GURPS Discord is a nice place for (faster) Q&A and overall GURPS dicussion.
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 11:38 AM   #37
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole View Post
The full context of the quote:
"the Tactical Shooting crowd was unhappy with regular Attack maneuvers being too easy, so they added the demand that getting Acc requires an AoA."
makes it sound as if we had some sort of long-standing rules thing that we brought to Hans, and the "demand" was added as a response.
Now I'm trying to figure if the word reads as a too-harsh one.
My point remains that Attack was too good (compared to AoA), and TSh made it not so good, in fact to the point of making it useless beyond minimum range unless the skill levels are truly truly outrageous. I'm happy that Attack is no longer silly-powerful (encouraging Matrix-style gunfights), but I'm not so happy that it tipped the manoeuvre choice to the other extreme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole View Post
At least, the sequence of events is incorrect: Hans wrote it in the book first, stood firm at keeping it there, and then post-publication, people developed opinions on whether or not they liked this rule.

It does read to me that Vicky was saying that there was a game-mechanical decision made to nerf a rule. He has made this point (sometimes correctly) with other things - like the decision to make Arm Lock require a grapple before it can be applied, not just a Judo or Wrestling parry made in Technical Grappling. That *was* a deliberate nerf.
Generally, about half of both buffs and nerfs seem to happen for reasons of trying to get closer to realism. The other roughly half seems to be about balance. I'm not sure why 'this is how things are in real life' can not be a justification for a nerf. It just seems like a different way of phrasing it.
Or maybe you mean that the case of Arm Locks was overwhelmingly balance-driven as opposed to realism-driven TSh Aim/Attack case?
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
Also, GURPS Discord is a nice place for (faster) Q&A and overall GURPS dicussion.
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 01:12 PM   #38
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
...
Just to make sure, could both of you articulate what exactly it is that you're going back and forth about?
TBH is seem to have evolved over time and threads. We do seem to have moved away from the initial conceptual question to get mired in a TG debate again (but it was kind of inevitable once examples were brought in).

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
That CP can be reduced by appropriate manoeuvres and HP restored by Regeneration seems like a difference too far-buried, .
Ok leaving aside you've ignored the majority of my reply to you in order to make the 'regeneration is to HP as Spending CP is to CP', comparison. Let's tackle that

It's not.

Those CP are spent to leverage some other effect. CP goes up and down according to both sides actions and is leveraged in far more complex ways than the way Regeneration restores HP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
when the issue is that in both cases you're having your weapon (grappling hand/impaling blade) right there in a tight contact with the target, even somewhat controlling the target, but you still roll to hit before you can apply the ST-based part of you weapon (CPs or damage).
Sorry I think I have already pointed out the differences between a grappling contest using TG and armed combat contest using normal attacks and defences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Sure. I'm genuinely interested about the compromise of strong literalists when choosing between adding more rules (but making them more literal) or using the rules as-is (but keeping them more abstract).
For me there's always going to be scope for 'more realism' but you do obviously reach a point of diminishing returns in terms of play value. But as we said earlier where that point is varies of all of us.

However no system is at the same base line for this in every aspect of play, so in some areas there is more scope to add more in before reaching that point.

Grappling for me is one in GURPS. Stabbing and working the blade in the wound for me is more akin to GURPS Grappling in TG, than it is to rapid attack in Melee.

I could house rules the standard melee combat rules (but I suspect they might end up aping TG anyway)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-26-2014 at 01:34 PM.
Tomsdad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 01:32 PM   #39
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
As an example, the Tactical Shooting crowd was unhappy with regular Attack manoeuvres being too easy, so they added the demand that getting Acc requires an AoA. Just as one example.
The trend seems to be that literalisation has more new penalties than new bonuses compared to an abstract resolution, in terms of getting stuff done etc. Not always, but IME more often then not.
I think your conflating literalism with realism/verisimilitude here.

Literalism in this context just means the rules are describing what happened exactly. That's not the same as the rules are describing what happened realistically.

Given we just had an entire thread about step and wait, I find your point that the TS crowd what to make realism (not literalism) more difficult a bit odd.

I think it more that if there is such thing as a TS crowd, it's more that they want to reflect more nuance in describing things. Perhaps more importantly they want to amend rules so that they more closely match what they are modelling.

Making aimed (sighted) shots is not about they felt the need to give the AoA penalties to aimed shot actions. It about the fact that they recognised that when your sighting down you gun you lose situational awareness.

At the same time they pointed out that unsighted shooting should have other benefits over sighted shooting as well.

If nothing else shotguns got better in TS (says my P++ at Boom stick range and 3x15, M1014)! ;-)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-26-2014 at 01:57 PM.
Tomsdad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 01:45 PM   #40
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Burnsville, MN
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
To be fair, 'retaining ability to maintain an aim up to the point of pulling the trigger (on an Attack, i.e. without sacrificing situation awareness)' still falls under 'Attack is too easy'.
That's not my point. My point was only that your chronology was reversed. There was no "Tactical Shooting crowd" until tactical shooting existed. Requiring the attack following the Aim to be All-Out was an innovation by Hans, as far as I can tell.

Quote:
And just to make sure I don't make the wrong impression:
I'm also among the 'Basic Set ranged AoA is very meh compared to ranged Attack' crowd. I just think it would've been better if ranged AoA had a +4 instead of +1, while Accs of weapons were lower. That way, there's still incentive for archers, throwers etc. to AoA instead of Attacking.
All-Out is definitely "meh" compared to other options with only a +1.

With the other point, you're making more game-mechanical arguments. That's not my point either. As I note with my comment just prior, on a game-mechanical basis, I agree with you. Hans didn't give a rip about game-mechanical considerations when he wrote the rules about sighted and aimed fire. He looked at what was happening, and said "what GURPS maneuver maps to the real-world event?" He decided that AoA was the right map.

As for my thoughts on Aim and accuracy, the world will need to wait a bit longer for those, but I can assure you that they are several thousand words long. :-)

Quote:
(I also feel uncomfortable with breaking the 'Attack, Defence, Damage' paradigm. I.e. the expectation that normally all three stages are relevant; with AoA-only Acc, the incentives become tipped to the other extreme for modest-skill characters.)
I don't understand the relevance here.


Quote:
Anyway, here are other examples of people ranting about stuff being too effective:
Recent discussion of nerfing Reaction Modifiers. My rant about Interrogation seeming way too effective. A large faction of boxes with 'Harsh Realism' in their headers.
Boxes with optional rules are not rants. You might want to temper your language? "Demand" and "rant" aren't exactly words tuned to provoke polite discussion. They're tuned to start fights.

Quote:
So yeah, such opinions exist, and they are not necessarily wrong or right. I'm kinda surprised you (McAllister) didn't see them much.
You're generalizing. I said that the chronology of ONE thing - Aim followed by AoA - is not supported by a "tactical shooting crowd" "demanding" a change to a rule. I also did not offer an opinion of the rule itself, only pointed out that your portrayal of how the rule came about does not match what actually happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Generally, about half of both buffs and nerfs seem to happen for reasons of trying to get closer to realism. The other roughly half seems to be about balance. I'm not sure why 'this is how things are in real life' can not be a justification for a nerf. It just seems like a different way of phrasing it.
I've merged these two subthreads into one reply. The change to Aim/AoA is indeed a nerf - if you want the benefit to spending a second of Aim, you must take AoA and lose your defenses for the rest of your turn. My sole point was chrological - basically pointing out that your implication that the cause-effect was looking at game mechanics and that led to a rules nerf. Not what happened. Hans made a call about what happens in real life mapping to AoA, not Attack. Any buffs/nerfs (and in this case it did make it a more costly option to aim/shoot) were incidental.

But note that such things can be mitigated with tactics. For one, it suggests that if you're going to use aimed fire, you want friends with you to lay down cover fire to force Fright Checks that have the foes keep their heads down. it also suggests shooting from cover or by surprise. Both of which are exactly the tactics that are used in the real-world, so I'm sure Hans is still sitting there saying Mission Accomplished. But with a German accent.
__________________
The Deadly Spring "...probably the most infamous Pyramid article of all time."-Jeffro's Car Wars Blog
Gaming Ballistic: Home of Gaming Ballistic, LLC and my blog.

Last edited by DouglasCole; 12-26-2014 at 01:51 PM.
DouglasCole is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abstraction, combat, rules

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 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.