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 01-10-2015, 04:29 PM   #21
Bruno
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Also, everyone I've ever seen try to use a computer as a direct support tool in a session has ended up focussed on it, rather than the players. I can believe you manage not to, but you put more effort into this kind of stuff than most people.
The computer is an organizational and cognitive support aid I've had to use for the last two-and-half decades; in a lot of ways, I don't actually have many options - either I put the effort into making the computer do the work somehow, or I can't have it.

It's like brain crutches. *shrug* Use them for long enough and you can dance and do Taekwondo in them, and it's easy to forget other people have trouble using them and opening the door at the same time.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Grand Unified Hit Location Table
A Wiki for my F2F Group
Bruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 09:00 PM   #22
Kalzazz
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

I love random init, and the possibility for simultaneous action

Thats probably my biggest house rule

Why is a tick 1/5 a second instead of 1/10? It seems like it should be 1/10th, so an average person that regains 10 per tick gains 100 in 1 second
Kalzazz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 10:54 PM   #23
PTTG
 
PTTG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

Quote:
Originally Posted by LemmingLord View Post
I just thought of a initiative system: every time a player plays a disadvantage or quirk in an entertaining and disadvantageous way, give them an attaboy token. Play proceeds from the player with the most tokens to the player with the least. Npcs go in the average of all assembled tokens (tokens / nbr players).

I'm thinking they'd all reset after each session.
Problem: If one munchkin wants to keep the NPCs slow, he'd just accrue no tokens, keeping the average lower than everyone else.
PTTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 11:00 PM   #24
LemmingLord
 
LemmingLord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

Quote:
Originally Posted by PTTG View Post
Problem: If one munchkin wants to keep the NPCs slow, he'd just accrue no tokens, keeping the average lower than everyone else.
That is a good point. Should I just use the median instead, and let ties go to the players?
__________________
Villain's Round Table
LemmingLord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 09:12 AM   #25
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Well, yes. Anything that requires computer support for the GM during a combat is too complex for face-to-face gaming, because the computer is a terrible distraction from keeping track of how the players are behaving and reacting.

If everyone was playing via computer, this kind of thing could easily be integrated into the software. But playing via computer means you don't have a very social game.
I don't think either of these assertions (computer is too much of a distraction, playing via computer means lack of socialization) are necessarily true. The GM should be using the computer as an aid only. There are a lot of advantages to doing so - Bruno has handled quite a few, but another that comes immediately to my mind is the vagaries of maps. Namely, there are often quite a few bits on the battle map that the players/characters are not aware of - the location of the switch to turn off the trap, where the ninja is hiding, the fact that floor tile there is actually invisible, and so forth. If you have a computer with something like MapTools running, you can easily have everything there, then only put the tokens the characters are aware of on the physical battle map.

As for not being very social, if everyone is using laptops or tablets you can easily still have things face-to-face with everyone just using their computers as aids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrock1031 View Post
Just skimmed it, but that was almost how it played out when I ran it on IRC, actually, except Tank's hands were chopped off and Sith fled when she saw the fight not go her way.

Using IRC with a dicebot for rolls, we took about 2 hours to play it out. Face to face would probably have taken less time.
Cool. Taking 1.5x as much time with minimal familiarity with the characters sounds like it's not too bad of an increase.

Also, thank you for having me play that out. It's revealed quite a few holes I wasn't aware of, which I'll be getting into in a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Defences have gone from being functionally free unless AoA or trading against attack effect to having a delaying cost.
Thanks to the example, it occurs to me that I'm rather overcharging for defenses. Using the penalties from Martial Arts as a guideline, a Parry with an extremely light (3xMinST) weapon shouldn't cost any more IP than a Dodge, while I have it costing over twice as much. Instead of -20, -35 IP compared to thrusting is likely appropriate. Block might be more like -30 IP or -25 IP. Unarmed Parries are arguably a bit hairier, but maintaining the "minimum 10 IP" guideline probably works alright.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
My issue with that is that dodge has more utility for defence (wider application, no worries about weapon size, don't need to carry shield, no issue with unwieldy weapons) normally this is counterbalanced by being harder to buy up. In your first example the knight can dodge for 20IP and parry for 40IP. Which means he could dodge at +4 as quickly as parry, and still suffer the unwieldy penalty.
Dodge for 10 IP, Parry for 40, actually. Also, defenses cannot go beyond double IP - you could Dodge at +2 for 20 IP, but can go no higher than that. He could technically Parry for +8 (!!!) if he wanted to burn pretty much all of his IP to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
We also need to ST ratings for shield as weapons (but then we need them anyway unless they are hidden somewhere and i've never found them)
Indeed. I wrote up a [url=http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=130586]system[/quote] for calculating MinST (using Grip CP from TG) for weapons, and actually intend to tweak that a bit for armor, which would end up covering shields.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Ironically I think for it works well for multiple combatants as it blends them well, and the extra work for each subsequent combatant after the first 2 is less than it is for the first two.
This is indeed the intent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
How would you fit in advantages like extra attack (I want to say half IP costs fo relevant things), ETS & ATR, the former was mentioned for the jedi but not sure if I saw an in game effect come in.
Extra Attack would be a "free" rapid strike - any time you take an Attack Maneuver, you get an extra attack for free. Fractional IP costs can, as I learned from the previous version, make things far too complicated and unplayable.

ETS is mentioned in the first post. It includes Combat Reflexes (+2 Init for determining starting IP) and Lightning Reflexes (+4 Init for same; total is +6), means that even if you somehow fail the Initiative roll you still start at 50 IP, and finally raises the "end of turn IP cap" from 90 IP to 100 IP.

ATR no longer exists, because Init is a finer-grained version of it (of note, +10 Init has the same functional effect as a level of ATR, and costs [100]). My previous version had the option of buying Init with an ATR option, causing you to gain IP to two (or more) separate pools at once, being able to pull from either for defenses and getting to act with one anytime it reached 100. This was abandoned for being overly complicated and narratively confusing - someone with ATR 1 should just grab Init 20 or so and be done with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
I particularly don't like the random factor involved in rolling for initiative, automation or not. It smells of double-rewarding someone for having a high Initiative, and I've never been convinced of random initiative being fun.
It's easy to make some alternatives. If you dislike the random quality, then just say characters start with Init*50 IP - this functionally just assumes a roll of 10 for all characters. If you dislike the double-dipping (which hadn't occurred to me, but I see how it could be problematic), have everyone roll against 10, with +2 for CR and +4 for LR. If you dislike both, have everyone start at IP 50 - but CR gives +10 to starting IP, LR gives +20 (and thus ETS gives +30; actually, under this scheme, having ETS give +40 might not be inappropriate).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalzazz View Post
Why is a tick 1/5 a second instead of 1/10? It seems like it should be 1/10th, so an average person that regains 10 per tick gains 100 in 1 second
I originally had it as 1/10th, but didn't like the results. First off, while allowing people to react to things that happened 1/5th of a second ago isn't completely ridiculous (average visual reaction time is closer to 1/4th of a second, so call it "heroic average"), reacting to things that happened 1/10th of a second ago almost certainly is. I also wanted it to be possible for people to do things that required more than a second to fully recover from without going into negative IP. Finally, I felt 1/5th would make combat flow a bit better overall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LemmingLord View Post
That is a good point. Should I just use the median instead, and let ties go to the players?
I ignored the first post as a joke, but if you'd like to continue this discussion, I'd much prefer if you took it to its own thread. This one is meant to discuss my GURPS Overhaul, not to discuss any and all possible Initiative systems.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 10:01 AM   #26
McAllister
 
McAllister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

Would it be madness to combine this with AP from The Last Gasp? I'm just thinking that if I could blow my AP, IP and defenses for various bonuses on my attack(s), that's 1. really cool, 2. ridiculously overpowered or 3. both.

Also, how does it work with AoA (Double)? Does it halve the IP cost of each attack, or gives you a second one for free? To put it another way, if I want to spend extra IP to get +1 to each attack in an AoA (Double), am I spending 10 or 20?
McAllister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 10:19 AM   #27
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
Would it be madness to combine this with AP from The Last Gasp?
Hardly - it's intended to be used with AP, and my original version actually had specific call-outs to Last Gasp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
Also, how does it work with AoA (Double)? Does it halve the IP cost of each attack, or gives you a second one for free? To put it another way, if I want to spend extra IP to get +1 to each attack in an AoA (Double), am I spending 10 or 20?
All Out Attack doesn't exist in and of itself anymore - instead, you can give up defense for a number of Ticks to get some extra IP. For AoA (Double), an Init 10 character with a 60 IP weapon could give up defenses for the next 3 Ticks for +30 IP, and burn all of those to drop the cost of attacking to 30 IP, doubling his attack rate.

Last edited by Varyon; 01-12-2015 at 10:23 AM.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 10:38 AM   #28
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

Move: So, as noted above, the example revealed several holes to me. The first that jumped out was movement cost - very few things divide evenly into 50, so that's going to cause a lot of nasty fractional costs. There's also the fact that under my system, Basic Move is a statistic that doesn't actually mean anything in and of itself - you've got to divide it into 50 to get movement costs, multiply it by Init/10 to get overland movement rate, and so forth.

Instead, it's probably more useful to define movement cost as a statistic itself. It starts at 10 IP. Every -1 IP is [5], down to a minimum of 5 IP, for [25] - beyond this, get Enhanced Move (likely with Second Nature +150%). Every +3 IP is [-5], to a maximum of 35 IP for [-25] - beyond this, you basically don't have a combat-relevant movement rate. If you can move really slowly - say around a yard a minute - that's probably good for [-35] or so. Being completely immobile is worth [-50].

Encumbrance throws another monkey wrench in, but that's not too difficult to adjust for. If we say every BL lb is +25% (round final value up) to movement cost, that gives us finer gradations than the current system while matching up decently well with it (note here, however, that reaching BL lb is Light, 2xBL is Medium, and so forth, rather than exceeding these values). So, for a Move 10 character (that is, one who pays 10 IP for every yard), below BL is 10 IP per yard, 1xBL is 13, 2xBL is 15, 3x is 18, 4x is 20, 5x is 23, 6x is 25, 7x is 28, 8x is 30, 9x is 33, 10x is 35. Using the normal (x0.8, x0.6, x0.4, x0.2) values, we'd instead see 10, 10, 12.5, 16.7, 25, 25, 25, 50, 50, 50, 50. So my system is a bit less harsh but is probably comparable.

To determine overland movement rate in yards per second, divide 5xInit by movement cost. A Step is how far you can go with 10 IP, round down, to a minimum of 1 yard.

To continue avoiding having to deal with fractions, require all characters to have integer Init scores. For this, simply round off Init and give the character some points back - [2] if he lost .25, [5] if he lost .5, [7] if he lost .75. Don't count this toward the Disadvantage Limit.


Active Defenses: Next up are some issues with defenses. First off, I forgot to include the fact that characters with TbaM/WM should have halved penalties for decreasing the IP costs. Whether or not Dodge benefits from this is up the GM, although I'd personally go with "No."

The other issue is that it's typically best to just stick to your best (for the cost) defense without varying things up at all. With normal GURPS, you suffer from higher and higher penalties as you keep relying on the same defense. IP costs are meant to represent this - as if you want to have a chance at acting you'll need to take a penalty to reduce IP costs - but fail to allow you to slow the loss by varying defenses up.

There needs to be a difference in IP costs between sticking to the same defense and switching things up - but should I go for a Carrot, or a Stick? The carrot approach would be thus - if you have already taken an Active Defense since your last turn*, and you take an Active Defense now that is different from what you took previously (to include Parrying with a different weapon), you enjoy a -10 to IP cost, to a minimum of 5 IP. The stick approach is just the opposite - if you have already taken an Active Defense since your last turn, and you take an Active Defense that is the same as the previous one, you suffer a +10 to IP cost.
I'm leaning toward Carrot, with a slight modification - it's -5 IP to take a different Active Defense than the previous one, and a further -5 IP to take an Active Defense that you haven't yet taken this turn. Once IP cost reaches 10, these become -2.5 IP each instead (round final cost up). If using Parrying With Two-Handed Weapons (MA123), treat eligible weapons as though they were two different ones for purposes of this rule (thus you could Parry at full cost, then Parry at -10 to IP, then Parry indefinitely for -5 to IP).

*A turn here is defined as the amount of time between getting to take Maneuvers.


Rate of Fire: The most problematic issue of all, however, is RoF. As seen in my example, Rcl no longer means anything, and full auto fire is probably far too accurate. How to resolve this?

The fastest way is to use normal GURPS RoF rules for attack bonuses, number of hits, and so forth, and resolve it all in one Tick. The firing character will fail to regenerate IP for the next few Ticks, depending on how long (up to 1 full second) he opted to fire. This is highly unrealistic (we're combining the fire of up to a full second into 1/5th of a second), but it's easy. Slightly more complicated would be to do the above but actually have the hits occur over the course of a few Ticks.

My preferred method, however, is to do away with GURPS RoF rules, which have serious issues of their own, and resolve things a bit... differently. I'm still working that bit out, however.

Last edited by Varyon; 01-13-2015 at 08:40 AM.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 10:42 AM   #29
Lord Azagthoth
 
Lord Azagthoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helmouth, The Netherlands
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

I have defined Extra Attack a little different. Instead of an Extra simultaneously attack, it's an attack which very quickly follows the previous attack that round. Players still wanting to display a simultaneously attack get a -2 per Extra Attack on their to hit roll. (1st Attack = 0 modifiers, 2nd Attack at -2, 3rd Attack at -4, etc.).

Players using the successive attacks get their First Attack at Full Basic Speed. If they have 1 Extra Attack, their second Attack is at 1/2 Basic Speed (round down). If they have 2 Extra Attacks, their 2nd Attack is at 2/3 Basic Speed and the 3rd at 1/3 Basic Speed. For the players, this is a one time notation on their character sheet when they buy Extra Attack.
__________________
May the Force be with us all

Dark Lord Azagthoth

GURPS 4th Star Wars
GURPS 4th Star Wars Forum
Lord Azagthoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 12:03 PM   #30
McAllister
 
McAllister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
All Out Attack doesn't exist in and of itself anymore - instead, you can give up defense for a number of Ticks to get some extra IP. For AoA (Double), an Init 10 character with a 60 IP weapon could give up defenses for the next 3 Ticks for +30 IP, and burn all of those to drop the cost of attacking to 30 IP, doubling his attack rate.
I think I've read through the whole thing again, but I can't grok how gaining 30 IP lets me attack again with a 60 IP weapon... unless we're assuming I have Weapon Master, and I'm spending the IP to cancel out the -3 I get to each attack for Rapid Strike? Or can I actually spend IP to drop the cost of attacks?

Quote:
The most problematic issue of all, however, is RoF. As seen in my example, Rcl no longer means anything, and full auto fire is probably far too accurate. How to resolve this?
What if, for each consecutive tick spent holding down the trigger, you accumulate a penalty equal to RCL? That seems steep. What's the difference between holding down the trigger and firing a semiautomatic as fast as possible? The latter will fire every other tick (at Init 10), and the former will fire ROF rounds every 5 ticks, which makes ROF 2 essentially worthless, and really only gets nice at ROF 10 or so.

In conclusion, I eagerly await your ROF overhaul, because this is tricky.

Quote:
By default, a slam is a Move and Attack with a base cost of 40 IP and deals collision damage based on the amount of subsequent movement leading up to it, to a maximum of a character's overland movement (Move*Init/10)
Why don't HP factor into the equation anymore? Why, in fact, does it need to change at all? As you wrote it, it looks like the slammer needn't worry about falling down, nor about reciprocal damage aside, I suppose, from the Hurting Yourself rules for unarmed combat.

Do you know what the term "pick" means in basketball? It means "I stand here, my teammate runs very closely past me, and I'm in the way of the person covering my teammate." Well-executed, there is collision between the picker and the guy on the other team. I have, standing stock still, allowed people to collide with me and they have fallen down.

You may suppose that what I did was Waiting and making some sort of shoulder- or hip-based Push Attack, but I'm pretty confident that in a slam that's not wildly imbalanced in size, either or both parties can fall.

Quote:
Swinging attacks are capped at skill 9 if the character is moving faster than a combat walk (movement of the mount or platform the character is on doesn't count here).
I totally get this. I point my spear at you, I start running, it's not so hard to keep it on target: whereas I raise my sword over my head, I start running, I have to swing while I run, which introduces timing into the equation as well as keeping track of more movement. What I think is that the surface area of the weapon makes a big difference. Am I swinging a Large Knife at you? Yeah, that's going to have trouble connecting. A Bastard Sword? First, it's going to be easier to get a slice of you, and second, I think it's absolutely going to be easier to hit with a swing than a thrust if I'm holding the weapon with very little distance between my hands: I just imagine the tip control being difficult.

Here's what I propose for the M&A penalty:
Thrusting = -2
Thrusting, Defensive Grip = 0
Swing, Full Striking Area = (-4 + Max Reach)
Swing, Limited Striking Area = -4

By "full striking area" and "limited striking area," I'm referring to the difference between a sword/staff and an axe/hammer. With a sword, I don't care whether I get you with the tip or the middle, but with an axe, I need the head to hit you in order to get that nice cutting damage. As for the skill cap, I never really liked it: I believe there's a level of skill that could make M&A reliable, and the way to make it make sense is to turn the penalties up as high as necessary.

For extra added detail, a "limited striking area" weapon that misses an M&A by a margin of Reach or less has a 50% chance of connecting with the shaft rather than the head, reducing damage by 1, changing it to crushing, and inflicting Hurting Yourself damage on the weapon, using the shaft's (typically wood) DR of 2. Honestly, there's no reason not to implement this rule for all swinging attacks of weapons that have heads: it is how most people break their axes, after all, swinging at a log or whatnot and breaking the shaft against it. It is, however, pretty crunchy.

EDIT: on second thought, I can understand why there's a skill cap. If I make the penalty -6 for a swinging an axe in an M&A, then some maniac who's got a prodigious Axe/Mace 22 from a lifetime of chopping down trees and peasants is rolling against 16, but the peasant, who's rather impressed with his Axe/Mace 10 from fooling around while he scythes his grain, has virtually no chance of hitting at skill 4. I think this calls for a soft-cap: apply the penalty as above, and then, if the skill you're rolling against is over 12, apply the penalty a second time or drop skill to 12, whichever is higher. This way, if I adjust the penalty -4 for the axe M&A, the maniac is dropped down to 14, and the peasant is dropped to 6, which is at least redeemable by Telegraphic Attack.

To summarize, an unskilled opponent swinging wildly for an M&A should connect often enough to be scary, but it should take really impressive skill to do it reliably. This can't be achieved by a flat penalty and I dislike hardcaps, so I support a softcap.

Last edited by McAllister; 01-12-2015 at 12:16 PM. Reason: M&A, man, it's complicated
McAllister is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
house rules, overhaul

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 12:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.