I have revised basic combat rules (article)

[Bloodlust]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Don't forget that RAW already says

• "Normal" adventuring skill use is expected to be under stressful, high-stakes conditions, like combat. There's a +4 TDM for routine skill use. (Also +5, in the same category in the TDM chart.)
• Trivial tasks get at least a +8; +10 also suggests that the skill roll just be waived in most circumstances. (There's an old RPG rule of thumb that says "if both success and failure aren't interesting results, don't roll.") You generally don't roll to drive down a street or land a plane in good conditions.
• Extra time spent gives up to +5. (People rarely have the luxury of spending 30x as long on a given task -- except their hobbies! -- but x2/+1 or x4/+2 isn't hard to commit to if it's really an important roll.)
• Supervision/leadership gives +1 (or +2 if the leader has a crit success). Few people truly work alone with no supervision or direction whatsoever.

If people are rolling against 10s for routine daily chores, they're probably not following the rules as written or intended in the first place. "Professional" (including those peasants farming) is supposed to be 12+; the basic +4 TDM makes it a 16, so the only fails are crit fails. If a GM is making players "roll to hit" for a gun already pressed against the head of a helpless victim, the GM's doing it wrong. (Maybe you want to roll just to see if the gun jams, but there's not a "and still missed" in that. Most GMs I know just treat a coup de grace as "OK, it's dead. What do you do now?")

Oh, yes, I'm aware of this, I personally don't have many problems with task difficulty. What I'm saying is that novice GMs (especially in my country, where there's only a small percentage of people playing GURPS because only Basic Set is actually translated into our language) do not know all this all too often. In almost 600 pages of Basic Set task difficulty and situational bonuses are mentioned like only twice, and the subject of its importance is never elaborated too much, unlike combat or injuries or finding a job or whatever. People often do not understand that all tasks should be modified for difficulty, including combat. They keep making these surprised faces when I tell them that after all "common" modifiers like Accuracy bonus, Rapid Fire bonus, range penalty, and visibility are taken into account, there still situational modifiers for each target! An average human is +0 to hit, as it is "average" difficulty, while an elusive Eldar might give -5 since they are so fast, and a slow walking zombie is +5 because it slowly walks toward you in a straight line. When there is no difficulty modifier attached to the task, that should always mean that the task's difficulty is +0 "average".

So this article is necessary, and I'm writing it in my spare time.

I also plan to make articles on the following subjects:

- small units combat to close the rules gap between individual combat and Mass Combat. Core mechanic is that every unit has an aggregate hit point pool of its individual soldiers (like a mob rule) and deals a certain number of aggregate damage. The main roll mechanic is a take on Long Task, where success by 0 on an attack roll means 100% base damage dealt, and degrees of success of failure modify that number by 10% per point. Once a unit takes more damage than in an individual soldier's hp threshold, casualties are sustained, models get removed and aggregate damage gets reduced (since there are now fewer models firing). I've tried this approach in Warhammer 40 000 games, and the results are better than using their standard overcomplicated rules. Let's you roll much less dices too.

- suggestions on how to abstract a lot of stuff in GURPS. There are genres where certain genre conventions do not align with reality at all, and trying to play them with GURPS just ruins the game. Cinematic rules don't always help, so I perceive it is necessary to have an article that tells how to make abstract hit points (like those in videogames, regeneration in Call of Duty, etc.), balancing issues for games that are completely away from reality and such.

- political-military sandboxes, how to make factions, seize and accumulate resources, develop your empire (or whatever) and economy, wage politics and wars. This is supposed to be a huge supplement to Mass Combat (one of the most used supplements in my entire GURPS collection) which will expand it from "you can do that" to "that's how you can do that".

Any additional info you can share on such topics would be greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by Otaku

Very Basic Melee Combat: Really Simple Shortcuts for Really Quick Battles is an article originally from Roleplayer 23, but I read it in GURPS Compendium II* as a sidebar on pages 89, 91, and 92.** Looks like it was officially posted here on the official site, so it is readily accessed by all of us. :) This article might be worth checking out, whether for additional ideas to incorporate in the above rules, or in case there are similarities between the rule sets (in which case, I'd say the article confirms they're a good idea).

That was an interesting article to read, thank you! Especially the part with multiple combatants, as I'm planning an article on this topic too. Though it is even more abstract than what I'm planning.

Including "armor modifier" into an effective skill is also a good idea! I'm doing that sometimes when I need to overcome "an armor problem" - an armor being too tough for some weapons even on the best damage roll while being too ineffective vs other weapons. This is a typical genre convention problem like I mentioned above. In such cases I simply make armor as a target number modifier from -2 for light armors to -10 for best armor in the setting (this is inspired by the Armor Class attribute from D20 systems). This way any weapon can do damage (DR score is ignored)! Obviously, works best with abstract hit points and weapon damage numbers.

Originally Posted by RyanW

There might be a simpler, less intrusive way to streamline the "what do I do this turn" bottleneck.

If you have your action written down before the turn sequence comes to you, you get a +2 to implement it, provided you don't change any significant details or stop to reassess (if there are multiple rolls, maybe make it +1 to all or +2 to one, player's choice). You're maintaining tempo, keeping your focus, etc. (or whatever character-side excuse for an explicitly player-side house rule, if you even feel the need for one).

Nice home rule! Though not good for me to use in my new combat system as it still leaves the combat as "consecutive turns" - that's what I'm leaving behind.

Originally Posted by Purple Snit

I have to wonder - at what point do the changes to the system make it an entirely new system? If you redo combat, add Characteristics, streamline skills, overhaul disadvantages, as various threads have discussed lately, at some point this becomes an entirely new game, and isn't GURPS at all.

Well, GURPS isn't a castle. It's a bunch of bricks. You can use thousands of bricks to build a castle, or you can put three bricks atop one another and say "it's a castle!"
Either way is fine, which is the greatest strength of GURPS - flexibility.

Originally Posted by Purple Snit

As a GM, the thought of having to keep track of everyone's intended moves for every turn doesn't appeal - it was always a pain in Car Wars, where all actions were supposed to be declared up front.
If it works for you, that's great, but I don't think it would enhance my games.

It's fine, I'm not forcing my thing onto anybody =) For me there's no prob at all to keep up to dozen combatants in my head, I'm good at visualizing stuff, so I value a cinematic result a lot.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Bloodlust

Oh, yes, I'm aware of {TDMs|... novice GMs (especially in my country... do not know all this all too often... So this article is necessary, and I'm writing it in my spare time.

Then education does sound useful -- so thank you for that. I misunderstood you to mean that you were creating more house rules to handle the "problems" that you'd mentioned.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Bloodlust

Nice home rule! Though not good for me to use in my new combat system as it still leaves the combat as "consecutive turns" - that's what I'm leaving behind.

Yeah. I was just presenting it here for the consideration of anyone who looking at this, but might be interested in a more modest change.

[Boge]

My group tried a method like this. We all had white boards and we'd write down our planned actions.

What I didn't like about it was a wasted action. That's not very fun.

There are some realistic improvements though. I always notice with normal rules that the second an enemy dies, or the second an ally gets in trouble, some players rush over to the next task, which would take a moment to observe what is happening first. But that doesn't happen.

Reading over this has me wanting to try it again though. I'll pitch it to the GM we play with. It was his idea originally, so I'm sure he's 1000% on board with it.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Purple Snit

I have to wonder - at what point do the changes to the system make it an entirely new system? If you redo combat, add Characteristics, streamline skills, overhaul disadvantages, as various threads have discussed lately, at some point this becomes an entirely new game, and isn't GURPS at all.

This is a hoary old complaint applied to pretty much every game, any time anyone comes up with houserules. (Oddly enough, such semantics-chopping seems restricted to RPGs: I don't think I've ever heard anyone question whether variant table rules meant the card players weren't playing poker any more.)

Now leaving aside that some of us came up in the era where EVERYONE houseruled, and no one but rookies played OD&D RAW, my eternal answer is that stipulating so, so what?

Me not being a player at your table, it doesn't affect me one tiny little degree what rules your group does or does not use, or what labels you do or do not slap on your games. Neither do my houserules affect you in the slightest degree. I call the game I play GURPS. If, upon looking at my list of houserules, you decide that's too variant for you, that's cool: you do you. I've yet to hear a good reason for anyone to care.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Boge

My group tried a method like this. We all had white boards and we'd write down our planned actions.

What I didn't like about it was a wasted action. That's not very fun.

Outsmarting enemies and making them waste their actions feels pretty awesome though. Pros and cons. This requires the GM/monster advocate to play fair (i.e. by the same rules as the PCs).

For example, if I am facing a goblin from 2 yards away, and instead of declaring that "I step forward and hit him with my axe," I instead declare that "I Wait until he's within 1 yard and then hit him with my axe and step back," then there's a good chance the goblin's "I charge and hit him with my sword" must be implemented as a Move and Attack instead of an Attack, which means it can't retreat from my attack and can't parry and gets -4 to hit and a skill cap of 9, both now and on the attack I'm immediately going to declare after my Wait goes off ("I hit him again before he can recover!") and before he can make his own attack.

So I get defensive and offensive advantages by outsmarting him with a Wait. If I instead declare that I'm fleeing from him at top speed I probably waste his action entirely (Move and Attack against a target that's no longer in reach even after moving).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Outsmarting enemies and making them waste their actions feels pretty awesome though. Pros and cons. This requires the GM/monster advocate to play fair (i.e. by the same rules as the PCs).

For example, if I am facing a goblin from 2 yards away, and instead of declaring that "I step forward and hit him with my axe," I instead declare that "I Wait until he's within 1 yard and then hit him with my axe and step back," then there's a good chance the goblin's "I charge and hit him with my sword" must be implemented as a Move and Attack instead of an Attack, which means it can't retreat from my attack and can't parry and gets -4 to hit and a skill cap of 9, both now and on the attack I'm immediately going to declare after my Wait goes off ("I hit him again before he can recover!") and before he can make his own attack.

So I get defensive and offensive advantages by outsmarting him with a Wait. If I instead declare that I'm fleeing from him at top speed I probably waste his action entirely (Move and Attack against a target that's no longer in reach even after moving).

Neat trick standing stationary, pre-empting an incoming attack, and then stepping backwards fast enough that the attacker has to follow you to even get a chance of a hit. Note that when you declare a Retreat, the attacker gets to attack and then you move away. I'd allow the held attack to go first, but the step should come after the attacker gets their swing in, IMO. Otherwise held actions are altogether too strong, and every sensible combatant will use them, and thus fights end up as stalemates, or combatants have to start doing really weird things to avoid triggering Held actions.

[Purple Snit]

"This is a hoary old complaint applied to pretty much every game, any time anyone comes up with houserules. (Oddly enough, such semantics-chopping seems restricted to RPGs: I don't think I've ever heard anyone question whether variant table rules meant the card players weren't playing poker any more.)

Now leaving aside that some of us came up in the era where EVERYONE houseruled, and no one but rookies played OD&D RAW, my eternal answer is that stipulating so, so what?

Me not being a player at your table, it doesn't affect me one tiny little degree what rules your group does or does not use, or what labels you do or do not slap on your games. Neither do my houserules affect you in the slightest degree. I call the game I play GURPS. If, upon looking at my list of houserules, you decide that's too variant for you, that's cool: you do you. I've yet to hear a good reason for anyone to care. "

Yep, I'm from the OD&D era myself. And in my experience, houserules made it way harder to go from game to game because everyone did things differently. It wasn't the best system, though obviously we survived and kept playing. I comment because, as this is a forum, we're supposed to comment and discuss; not thinking an idea is great is as valid as loving it, as long as discourse is civil. You can absolutely do whatever you want at your table, and yes, this is a very good system for tinkering. I was just musing "how much does it change before it isn't the original game?" But to each their own - this is just my 2 cents' worth. I don't want to derail the OPs thread any further.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Neat trick standing stationary, pre-empting an incoming attack, and then stepping backwards fast enough that the attacker has to follow you to even get a chance of a hit. Note that when you declare a Retreat, the attacker gets to attack and then you move away. I'd allow the held attack to go first, but the step should come after the attacker gets their swing in, IMO. Otherwise held actions are altogether too strong, and every sensible combatant will use them, and thus fights end up as stalemates, or combatants have to start doing really weird things to avoid triggering Held actions.

Temporary stalemates over distance make a lot of sense though and are a feature in real life, e.g. this match https://youtu.be/qSlVOYeiGrc is 80-90% Waiting in GURPS terms.

If someone has to bite the bullet and Move or Move and Attack or All Out Attack to get into distance, that seems okay to me as a GM even if it triggers a Wait-and-attack. Disarming attacks on a weapon are another way to break that stalemate under GURPS rules. Or you could withdraw a few steps and switch weapons, or manipulate the environment (close doors), attempt intimidation or social manipulation or even (gasp!) parley for surrender, rather than violence.

Therefore I let the whole Wait complete including the step, per rules as written, instead of trying to hold the step until later somehow.

IME allowing players to have lulls in the violence without being tactically punished for it is nothing but good for roleplay.

[Bloodlust]

Originally Posted by Boge

There are some realistic improvements though. I always notice with normal rules that the second an enemy dies, or the second an ally gets in trouble, some players rush over to the next task, which would take a moment to observe what is happening first. But that doesn't happen.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm trying to fix in addition to all the other things. I ran some more test combats, and this time I was writing the narrative like I intend to use it in my novels. Scenes descriptions now literally feel like a Hollywood movie! All inconveniences of the older combat systems are gone and every scene is now easy to read, grasp the disposition of combatants and understand what's going on.

Originally Posted by Boge

Reading over this has me wanting to try it again though. I'll pitch it to the GM we play with. It was his idea originally, so I'm sure he's 1000% on board with it.

If you do that I encourage you to share the experience =) I'm interested to get some feedback to see if my tweak is easy enough for new players to use it, if there are any inconveniences or mechanics that I overlooked, etc. In my RPG community, this feedback would be extremely hard to receive since people here rarely play GURPS.

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Outsmarting enemies and making them waste their actions feels pretty awesome though. Pros and cons. This requires the GM/monster advocate to play fair (i.e. by the same rules as the PCs).

For example, if I am facing a goblin from 2 yards away, and instead of declaring that "I step forward and hit him with my axe," I instead declare that "I Wait until he's within 1 yard and then hit him with my axe and step back," then there's a good chance the goblin's "I charge and hit him with my sword" must be implemented as a Move and Attack instead of an Attack, which means it can't retreat from my attack and can't parry and gets -4 to hit and a skill cap of 9, both now and on the attack I'm immediately going to declare after my Wait goes off ("I hit him again before he can recover!") and before he can make his own attack.

So I get defensive and offensive advantages by outsmarting him with a Wait. If I instead declare that I'm fleeing from him at top speed I probably waste his action entirely (Move and Attack against a target that's no longer in reach even after moving).

Enemies that are aware you're using this trick will eventually overcome it. They'll be closing in slowly, use a lot of Evaluate maneuvers, use Heroic charge to negate Move and Attack skill cap. An enemy may also use a lot of Feint maneuvers, trying to trick your defenses, and only risk an actual attack, once he accomplishes that. And this attack can include Decieving attack, using all the excess skill, if there's a cap anyway. There might be other ways to outsmart the wait, tho this needs more thinking.

And I think running will do no good - you only move backward at half speed, or need to spend movement points to turn around, so this can only help if you're much faster than your opponent, otherwise he can chase you.

Still, we're discussing an ideal position when two combatants face each other without interventions or some circumstances, or have no other means to get at the opponent other than with melee weapons.