How to avoid killing your player characters as GM

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Huh? I don't see how it implies that, since I don't. It just means I can't remember if there's a canonical order for DR loss vs. HP loss. (Or at least couldn't at the time. Turns out there is, and HP is lost first, so DR 6+ saves you from dying to the first shot.)

For a single damage roll, there's no order to be concerned with. If you deal 30 corr to someone with effective DR 20, 10 damage penetrates to become 10 HP Injury, and the fact you hit the DR with 30 corr means it loses 6 DR. If they were independent hits in the same attack roll - say from being beyond 10% of 1/2D range - then there may be the concern that earlier hits could reduce the DR against later hits, but for simplicity as GM I'd just resolve all the hits and modify the DR at the end.

As for your particular build, yeah, at extreme RoF the general rule of "multiply damage and DR by half the number of 'pellets' within 10% of 1/2D" is problematic. Or at least, it is if using that rule - High Tech states that, when going from a single projectile to a multi-projectile load, you divide damage by the square root of the number of projectiles - so the multiplier for 300 projectiles should be around x17.3. Which, don't get me wrong, is still rather powerful, but at least in this case winds up with what is arguably a fair price - a 17d+1 (1/17) corr attack with a Range of 50 would be something like 17d+1 Corrosion Attack (Increased Range x10, 1/2D Only +15%; Armor Multiplier x10 -70%; Decreased Range x1/2 -10%) [43.25]. The fact your attack is still useful at longer range is certainly worth more than a mere [1.75], but it's not as egregious as if it were a 150d (1/150) corr attack!

I will note that those rules in HT don't quite gel with the way buckshot vs slugs functions, where slugs are simply 4x the damage of buckshot - which means if we back-calculate from 16-20 gauge slugs being 4d, 12 gauge being 5d, and 10 gauge being 7d, buckshot for these should be 1.46d (7-8 projectiles, for an average divisor of 2.74; this would be 1d+2) for 16-20 gauge (+2 over RAW), 1.67d (9 projectiles, for a divisor of 3; this would round be 2d-1) for 12 gauge (+1.5 over RAW) for 12 gauge, and 1.94d (13 projectiles, for a divisor of 3.6; this would be 2d) for 10 gauge (+1 over RAW). Alternatively, instead of x4 buckshot damage, just using the rules to calculate slug damage would result in 16-20 gauge slugs dealing 2.74d (3d-1), 12 gauge slugs dealing 3.86d (4d), and 10 gauge slugs dealing 6.17d (6d+1).

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you want some real hilarity, use crushing instead of corrosive damage. It won't directly hurt (armored) people. It'll just fling them away at around Move 50 so they splash when they hit a solid object. Good chance of first-hit lethality and it costs half as much.

You can also save some more points - and double the effect - by making such an attack No Wounding, No Blunt Trauma, and Double Knockback.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by johndallman

the main reason Berserk is a 10-point disadvantage: it prevents you accepting that you're out of a fight.

ge.

That and the "no Active defenses" thing. Someone who doesn't Dodge or Parry ends up at the "stop fighting" point much sooner on average.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Or at least, it is if using that rule - High Tech states that, when going from a single projectile to a multi-projectile load, you divide damage by the square root of the number of projectiles - so the multiplier for 300 projectiles should be around x17.3. Which, don't get me wrong, is still rather powerful...

Yeah, intuitively that seems like a better rule. Dividing a big attack into lots of little attacks shouldn't massively increase the total damage inflicted. The DFRPG falling damage rules have a similar issue, wherein because damage inflicted scales with HP * velocity and yet HP scales with the cube root of mass, dropping a big 32 lb. boulder on a monster from 50 yards up does far less damage than cutting that boulder into 16 tiny 2 lb. stones and dropping them all at the same time.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Yeah, intuitively that seems like a better rule. Dividing a big attack into lots of little attacks shouldn't massively increase the total damage inflicted. The DFRPG falling damage rules have a similar issue, wherein because damage inflicted scales with HP * velocity and yet HP scales with the cube root of mass, dropping a big 32 lb. boulder on a monster from 50 yards up does far less damage than cutting that boulder into 16 tiny 2 lb. stones and dropping them all at the same time.

Pretty sure that goes for the GURPS proper collision damage rules in general.

That's edging on the space where you get the extended wounding modifier house rules. (Though those are usually more oriented towards the problems with small arms vs. cannons. Crushing damage seems to be particularly hard to frame.)

[Varyon]

Well, part of the issue of large rock vs same rock broken up into many smaller rocks is that GURPS largely treats one 10 HP wound and ten 1 HP wounds very similarly (the former will typically be a Major Wound, which can incapacitate, but in terms of getting the character closer to death, the two are basically identical). Things like lwcamps' Semi Cumulative Wounding System, "Conditional Injury" (Pyramid #3/120), or the simple expedient of dividing Injury by 3 for purposes of wound accumulation (so a single hit for 20 HP Injury on a 10 HP character would call for a death check as it puts the character at -1xHP, a consciousness check at -1 to the roll for the same, and a knockdown/stun check because it's a Major Wound... but provided the character survives, they only actually lose 6 or 7 HP, depending on how you round - personally, I'd suggest just retaining fractions here, so that thirty 1 HP wounds deplete 10 HP rather than depleting 0 or 30) address that issue. But that can add complication that many groups won't find necessary.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

Apologies if this has been mentioned before. From experience the most dangerous encounters are regular adventures (without magic, high tech armour, or superpowers) going against opponents with automatic weapons. In my games this most commonly occurs in fairly realistic historic war zones like the American-Vietnamese war. Assuming that type of scenario I employ the following:

Engagements typically start at beyond half dice range in open terrain (half damage) or in very thick cover for short range engagements making it difficult to score a hit. This has the added advantage of seeming realistic as the enemy wants to minimise their own casualties.

Use random hit locations for NPC fire. There is a good chance of striking a limb which is non-lethal.

Make realistic assumptions about enemy behaviour. The Viet Cong for example often used hit and run tactics, this greatly reduces the chance of character deaths. Looking at the American-Vietnamese war from an Australian perspective about 60,000 soldiers were deployed during the war and there were around 500 fatalities, not all of those were combat related. Sure the PCs might be exposed to more danger than the average soldier who might not even see combat, but even casualties amongst SASR soldiers was fairly low (I can’t recall the exact number). As GM I try to investigate the historic reasons for the surprisingly low casualty rate and make sure they are reflected in game.

Encourage PCs to take advantages like Luck and Danger Sense.

Encourage PCs to use reconnaissance and planning, and allow it to work well. Reinforce the idea that GURPS is not like those other games.

I don't think that came up yet, or it maybe it did and I missed it. There's sort of but not quite a discussion going on about various combat rules, or someone's specific campaign setting, and... well... I have nothing to contribute there so I haven't been too fussed to read those thoroughly. ;)

Originally Posted by johndallman

This is what the groups I play in call the "death spiral", and it does mean that the way players should go about playing combats is different from D&D family games. Look at p. B380, "Effects of Injury".

1. If you have less than a third of your hit points left, your Move and Dodge get drastically reduced. If you're in a melee combat, you may want to carry on, but if you're in ranged combat, it's time to stop fighting.
2. When you're on zero or less hit points, you need to make a HT roll at the start of each turn to avoid passing out. It's definitely time to stop fighting.
3. When you're "fully negative", only then are you at risk of death. You won't die for certain until you're on -5*HP.
4. Few enemies will take the time to finish off a downed character when there are still some who are fighting.

So you need some teamwork. A party of characters needs to keep track of each other and be ready to react to someone going down. They need to accept that their fellows will stop fighting when badly injured. It's not cowardice, but good sense, and is the main reason Berserk is a 10-point disadvantage: it prevents you accepting that you're out of a fight.

It's easy to make GURPS characters fall over, but killing them takes quite a bit more damage.

I noticed this bit, though, and it too seemed like good, general advice. I'll risk proving myself a fool by suggesting the real first step is "If you get near 1/3 Max HP range, you need to call it quits and get out of there." Meaning, before your Move is halved from injury. However, I also have to acknowledge this could be a meaningless distinction. Injury can accumulate so quickly, that you go from full HP to under 1/3 HP in a single hit.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I'll risk proving myself a fool by suggesting the real first step is "If you get near 1/3 Max HP range, you need to call it quits and get out of there."

Yeah, probably once you're at or below 50% HP you're going to want to disengage from the fight if possible - although some will want to push and try to win. Below 1/3 HP, you can't really expect to get away unless the foes are either letting you or you have some form of assistance (people to keep them busy, a getaway vehicle, etc), unless you're markedly faster than they are. Of course, realistic characters may opt to disengage from a fight as soon as they take any damage - or even before doing so - either by fleeing or, if that's not an option, hiding and/or playing dead. Tactical Shooting has some options for that (it basically calls for fright checks during combat from things like bullets whizzing past your ears, striking cover really close to you, hitting you, even if it doesn't penetrate your armor, and so forth; a character who fails, provided they don't outright flee in terror, will probably try to disengage once the stun wears off) if desired.

Granted, most players probably aren't interested in playing a character who opts to do the logical thing and stay out of danger whenever possible (or who literally cannot handle being shot at; imagine trying to play CoD if every time a bullet comes close to hitting you, there's a chance your character will flee in a random direction without you being able to control them, drop to the ground and refuse to move for several seconds, etc), so supporting such characters without mercilessly killing them off is a playstyle that needs support. I feel GURPS provides that support, but in many cases it calls for cinematic (or supernatural) traits and/or rules to be utilized.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I noticed this bit, though, and it too seemed like good, general advice. I'll risk proving myself a fool by suggesting the real first step is "If you get near 1/3 Max HP range, you need to call it quits and get out of there." Meaning, before your Move is halved from injury. However, I also have to acknowledge this could be a meaningless distinction. Injury can accumulate so quickly, that you go from full HP to under 1/3 HP in a single hit.

And yet, if the GM runs monsters by this logic, many a good hack and slash game becomes frustrating.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if you view frustrating = challenging and use enough monsters that it's still difficult to force them all to flee, and make pursuit and finishing routed foes off permanently so they cannot recover and eventually counterattack an important part of the game.

But it's certainly different than the common default behavior.

[Ulzgoroth]

The idea that characters can't fight effectively once below 1/3 seems a bit off to me.

It halves your move and dodge. That's bad, but how bad?

Low tech (or certain kinds of super-science) you can still block and parry unimpeded. Your reduced mobility probably means you need to take a less dynamic posture, but you can stay in the fight.

In gunfights, half dodge seems really bad...except realistic-style gunfighting doesn't entirely depend on dodge. If you're prone behind cover, you are leaning on making the enemy fail their attack roll more than on pulling off a dodge. So again, you may not have to drop out of the action at all, just act as a base of fire rather than maneuvering.


Of course, some fights are much more dynamic - in room-to-room assault or a battle with big splash attacks that can only be dramatically leapt away from, the injured character really is mostly a liability who probably does the most good by getting out of the way so their allies don't need to worry about them.

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

And yet, if the GM runs monsters by this logic, many a good hack and slash game becomes frustrating.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if you view frustrating = challenging and use enough monsters that it's still difficult to force them all to flee, and make pursuit and finishing routed foes off permanently so they cannot recover and eventually counterattack an important part of the game.

But it's certainly different than the common default behavior.

Only if your goal is to annihilate the enemies, rather than defeat them. That's not necessarily the best goal to set!

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

But it's certainly different than the common default behavior.

Is this thread about rpgs generally, or is it just about dungeon crawls? Because in the great majority of my campaigns, I don't see what you seem to be calling "default behavior." Even when I ran an intentionally combat-focused campaign, it wasn't about that behavior; it was about duels with the smallsword, typically to first blood.