Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Exactly, there's no need to penalize the attack, sometimes the head is easier to hit because the opponent has ducked right onto your fist, it happens all the time.

This is why I like leaving that option of a random hit on the table, most of the time you don't use it, but in some instances it makes perfect sense to use it.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

If we're talking about armored combatants I would totally agree, but don't you think that a random attack is, in almost all fights against someone without body protection, better than a normal torso attack? ("better" because of the good chance to hit a point where it really affects your opponent - ok, if you're doing "a lot" of damage, than you might waste some of it, but I think this is rather a special case, especially if we consider that limb cripples are quite effective)

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

You're letting the word "random" confuse you.
This type of attack represents a precise strike at the most convenient and most easily hit target available, the "random" part of it is the determination of what that easily hit target is, not the attack itself.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Yes, I know ;) My point was that IMO in a combat <without armor> players who choose to strike/shoot at a random hit location, get usually a <free advantage> in comparison to those just going for the default (torso)! (Because they can have a lucky head-shot, leg-cripple or something like that).
Am I overlooking something?

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

As mentioned earlier, with many damage types the multiplier is smaller if you hit the limbs, see p.399, but other than that it's much more realistic this way.

The -5 to hit someone in the face or -4 to hit their foot is based on it not being convenient to do so, in real life it's much easier to hit people in the face or stomp on their feet as they move about and give you that opportunity.

That random roll simply signified what is most convenient to hit that second without requiring a lot of exposition on the part of the GM.

In other words, in a very narrative game I could say "Your opponent steps up to punch at you, weaving and positioning his head within easy striking distance of your fists, you're at +5 to hit his face."

But most of us GMs aren't going to be that narrative and we often forget to give enough detail on realistic opportunities, so that random roll can help, sometimes.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

What you're overlooking is that generally, random hit location hurts you as often as it helps you. Yes, you certainly can win the lottery and strike a hit location that's optimally affected by your weapon of choice, despite lacking the skill or refusing the accept the penalty to hit that part with a called shot. However, you can also lose. A spear hitting the arm doesn't get its ×2 wounding modifier; a leg hit that puts a gunman on the ground makes him no less dangerous to you, as being on the ground gives him no penalty to hit (p. B551) and even lets him brace (p. B364); any limb hit wastes injury beyond that needed to cripple; a lethal skull hit in a self-defense situation could have you up on charges; any hit that happens to randomly land on a more-armored area is simply less effective; and so on. Averaged out over all kinds of weapons and combats, random hits are on the whole a wash . . . they hinder the attacker as often as they help him, and are in no way a uniformly "free" advantage.

Anecdotally, players in my campaign absolutely detest random shots because the majority of the time, enough body blows to drop someone to 0 HP is the goal. Throwing a big, potentially fight-ending shot, rolling the dice, and hearing, "Okay, you crippled his hand" . . . well, that isn't a good thing. I've never seen random hit locations consistently work out better than torso hits.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Thats kinda what I like about the Millennium's end system you pick your target and how well you rolled decides how close to that target you hit. and it might hit open air or it might hit a hit location on the completely opposite end of the body.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Swedish rpg "Western" has something similar, with hit locations on a transparency that you put over a picture of what you're trying to hit. I like the idea! At http://www.alvione.com/rollspelsmuse...tern/02-00.htm you can see the transparency and some pictures to put behind it.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Aces and Eights does this as well, it's one of the few things I thought was good about that game. Too bad it's otherwise generally unplayable, IMO.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Ok, good to know, obviously I really did underestimate that aspect... ;)
Thanks for the great help!

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Tactically speaking, in a lethal fight, cutting damage is almost always useful regardless of location (assuming relatively similar DR on all locations). Given a choice between targeting the torso, and targeting randomly with a decent chance of inflicting a fight-ending blow (crippling blows are also major wounds, for instance) I find that with a cutting weapon random location is often the best option.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Major wounds aren't all that fight-ending sometimes. But in a melee fight most forms of crippling are going to have a dramatic impact regardless.

Cutting is probably the most random-target friendly damage type.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

My point was crippling his leg, and maybe causing a him to fail a knockdown roll is often preferable to doing less than 1/2 HP damage to the torso (since torso armor is usually better). It is certainly preferable to missing the leg. This makes random attacks with cutting weapons often a good tactical choice.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Which is fairly consistent with real-world knife training, which can be grossly oversimplified as "If you have a good edge, slash like mad. There are no bad targets."

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Yes, absolutely and therefore GURPS wins again (Kromm may drink a glass a of wine in the Game Designers drinking game)! Seriously though I just wanted to point out that random location is not always a poor tactical choice as you seemed to imply.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

And situation. "If I give up the beating will stop" versus "If I give up I and/or my buddies will be used for bayonet practice."

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Spammer necro, man.