How to Run Harsh, Gritty, Realistic, Simulationist and Detailed Campaigns in GURPS

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Well, two-weapon fighting is rarely effective without extreme amounts of training. The real benefit of two-weapon fighting is the ability to defend or attack with either hand. I think that 4E GURPS is more realistic about the benefits (and difficulties) of two-weapon fighting than any other system I have used.

On what are you basing that assessment? I've studied Rapier and Dagger, Sword and Buckler, and a little Escrima. Yes it takes more training than a single weapon, but a lot less than learning say, Law or Physician.

I'd argue (and have), based on my own training, that the real advantage is not multiple attacks or parries, but being able to defend and attack simultaneously.

[Minuteman37]

Originally Posted by aesir23

On what are you basing that assessment? I've studied Rapier and Dagger, Sword and Buckler, and a little Escrima. Yes it takes more training than a single weapon, but a lot less than learning say, Law or Physician.

I'd argue (and have), based on my own training, that the real advantage is not multiple attacks or parries, but being able to defend and attack simultaneously.

I suppose an example of this would be locking blades with an opponent as you swing around and stab them in the chest with your off-hand knife?

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

I suppose an example of this would be locking blades with an opponent as you swing around and stab them in the chest with your off-hand knife?

Usually the opposite: parry with the knife and thrust with the sword in "single-time." There are very few attacks with the dagger in the old manuals.

[Ultraviolet]

Harsh, Gritty, Realistic, Simulationist and Detailed Campaigns is what a group of us tried back starting in 1996 using 3rd ed and SPECOPS.

We created Navy SEALs according to the templates, researched a bit about what gear they realistically would use, how much it weighs etc.
We tried to use what we could find about tactics, SOP etc.

The first GM played things harsh and realistic we think, and if you got shot you were more or less out of the rest of the mission.

It worked out fine, to a certain degree. It was find and we had some good missions as well as some bad. We learned that when we decided a certain infiltration route was the best for us the opposition had mined it. And the ideal OP spot for us was also a prime spot for enemy artillery.

One of the ways things starting to get silly was just how powerful 350 pt 3rd ed characters were compared to regular goons. Remember 3rd ed had 25-50 points for ordinary folk and 100 pts as standard adventuring characters, and recommended 350 pts for elite soldiers.
Characters were kind of boring because the constraints of the template and points allowed for Attributes meant everyone was ST 11, DX 13, IQ 13, HT 13 with variety only in certain of the MOS skills. The skills and stats used 90% of the time were Stealth, Vision, Camo, Guns.

Another thing was point optimization and (ab)using the default system led to odd things. E.g. the template called for at least 1 point in each of a handful of Guns skills. Naturally you'd want to be better with Assault Rifles, but posting a shedload of points into this for a skill of 24 meant you had through the roof Defualts for everything else. Same went for a single sky-high Survival for high defaults for other Survivals plus Camo.
Due to the 3rd ed oddities of the shooting mechanics using Snap Shot and Acc meant no unaimed shot was ever likely to hit while only a single second of aiming meant it could only miss on a crit failure. The accumulating Recoil penalties of MGs meant no burst longer than 1 second was ever viable.
In consequence we only ever made aimed single shots or 3-rnd bursts, and made head shot almost every time. So nobody ever got though a single magazine. Which meant a standard loadout of 6 mags was stupid to lug around because it meant too high Encumberance. And we started to hyper-optimize loadouts to the point of it being ridiculous.

Things also started to get boring when the realism of setting up a long term OP to observe enemy activities meant long sessions of doing nothing while nothing happens until when something finally happened it was so fast and the response time from Command to get Order to Shoot was so slow we missed action.

A later reboot had all characters be ex-specops mercenary types, allowing for more leeway in Attribute selection, allowing Skill degradation from the template's demands etc. Much more varied characters, and our missions had more wide skill use. Plus we got to be bad guys once in a while. But as we did not micro-manage equipment and income succes of missions hardly mattered, only surviving.

Latest attempt was an urban mercenary campaign, using elements from Action (with little succes) and Tactical Shooting. Action elements were hard to apply since we're all used to detailed playing out of every little thing, which means the introductionary preparations took all the time from the actual mission.