Math, GURPS, and its reputation for complexity

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Pretty sure both of these are pure rules as written for the game they are playing. Making up a bunch of punitive rulings isn't the standard expectation or anything...

The point is not the rules, it's that if added complexity ruins the game, then ignore the complexity.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'll be shocked if there isn't some knot that can handle that very situation, but even if there isn't, basically weaving a rope basket and shoving the rod in there will do the trick. That'll shorten your rope by a bit, and may take more time than making a more typical knot, but it would be doable... and well below the resolution of most game systems.

Possibly, but they were in a time crunch situation and simply said, "...tie the rope to it..." (paraphrasing). I would not let that fly as a GM. Mercer and his group aren't looking for that kind of complexity so they ignore it.

Which is my point. The game does not HAVE to be complex unless you WANT it to be complex.

[Lancewholelot]

I think the detailed skill list, the many combat maneuvers and modifiers, and calculating damage thresholds can all be very intimidating and confusing to new plays.

Even my long time players can left staggering when asked "Does that put your injury total below 2/3 of your HP?" :)*


*correction
"Does that put you total injury at MORE THAN 2/3 of you HP?" :)

*clarification
"Staggering" seems to be more of an in joke than I realized. It's the term used amongst my group for 30+ years for what the rules call "reeling from your wounds."

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

The point is not the rules, it's that if added complexity ruins the game, then ignore the complexity.

...but why would you even consider adding complexity on top of and in contradiction to the rules in those cases? Not deciding to invent a whole new ruleset on the spot to spite your players is really not the same thing as pruning the ruleset to fit your interests.

Originally Posted by Lancewholelot

Even my long time players can left staggering when asked "Does that put your injury total below 2/3 of your HP?" :)

...The phrasing there is fairly stumbling, yes. You're counting injury up rather than HP down for some reason? Which threshold is this?

[Lancewholelot]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

...The phrasing there is fairly stumbling, yes. You're counting injury up rather than HP down for some reason? Which threshold is this?

p. B419
"Less than 1/3 your HP left – You are reeling from your wounds. Halve your Move and Dodge (round up)."

In earlier editions it was "3. 2. 1 hit points left: Your Move is cut in half: you are reeling from the wounds."

My group has always described the reduced move as "staggering", though looking back, I don't see the term used in the text.

***
It seems to me that people tend to track damage taken rather calculate than HP remaining with each injury, at least until asked about thresholds. This is why I think it contributes to GURPS' reputation for complexity.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Lancewholelot

p. B419
"Less than 1/3 your HP left – You are reeling from your wounds. Halve your Move and Dodge (round up)."

So fencepost nitpicking here: having less than 1/3 hit points left and having "your injury total below 2/3 of your HP" are not actual opposites. If your HP is a multiple of 3, you can have lost exactly 2/3s of your HP and thus not have less than 1/3 of your HP left.

Originally Posted by Lancewholelot

It seems to me that people tend to track damage taken rather calculate than HP remaining with each injury, at least until asked about thresholds. This is why I think it contributes to GURPS' reputation for complexity.

I don't think counting damage up rather than HP down is a general standard. My impression is that if you've got hit points as a thing, subtracting damage from them is the typical game design.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Possibly, but they were in a time crunch situation and simply said, "...tie the rope to it..." (paraphrasing). I would not let that fly as a GM. Mercer and his group aren't looking for that kind of complexity so they ignore it.

Which is my point. The game does not HAVE to be complex unless you WANT it to be complex.

I don't really know knots, but as I said, I'd imagine there's a knot that would be able to secure it, so just assuming your character knows said knot (on account of a successful use of Use Rope in d20 or Knot-Tying or a relevant occupational skill in GURPS) should be fine. Even then, assuming the item you're referring to is some variant of the Immovable Rod (I've never watched any of Critical Role, but that sounds like what you're referring to), I'll note the description of it in the SRD makes no note of it being difficult or impossible to tie a rope to it, so this really seems like another case where you'd have to invent a rule that adds complexity to have the game function the way you're thinking it should. Now, if there was no roll at all to tie the rope, that's probably a case of just simplifying things (although considering the DC of tying a normal knot is only 10, and even a special knot is only DC 15, so long as someone in the party knew Use Rope or had Dex 20+ they could have just opted to Take 10).

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think counting damage up rather than HP down is a general standard. My impression is that if you've got hit points as a thing, subtracting damage from them is the typical game design.

Agreed, I've always treated it as subtracting from your maximum. GURPS doesn't say you're reeling if you've taken more than 2/3 HP Injury, risk unconsciousness if you've taken 1xHP Injury or more, make a Death Check when you take 2xHP Injury, 3xHP Injury, 4xHP Injury, and 5xHP Injury, and automatically die if you've taken 6xHP Injury - rather, these thresholds are below 1/3rd HP, 0 HP, -1xHP, -2xHP, -3xHP, -4xHP, and finally -5xHP. Other games systems are similar - d20 doesn't say you pass out if you've taken more than your HP in damage and die if you've taken 10 more than your HP in damage (or HP+Con damage), rather it says you pass out below 0 HP and die at -10 HP (or -Con HP).

[Rupert]

[QUOTE=Varyon;2476462]I don't really know knots, but as I said, I'd imagine there's a knot that would be able to secure it, so just assuming your character knows said knot (on account of a successful use of Use Rope in d20 or Knot-Tying or a relevant occupational skill in GURPS) should be fine. Even then, assuming the item you're referring to is some variant of the Immovable Rod (I've never watched any of Critical Role, but that sounds like what you're referring to), I'll note the description of it in the SRD makes no note of it being difficult or impossible to tie a rope to it, so this really seems like another case where you'd have to invent a rule that adds complexity to have the game function the way you're thinking it should. Now, if there was no roll at all to tie the rope, that's probably a case of just simplifying things (although considering the DC of tying a normal knot is only 10, and even a special knot is only DC 15, so long as someone in the party knew Use Rope or had Dex 20+ they could have just opted to Take 10).
[quote]
Take 10 in its D&D3 sense no longer exists in D&D. There are certain class features that give similar effects, but only to a limited number of skills. Apparently being able to just not bother rolling when it's easy and not a high-stress situation isn't a convenience for the table, but a special power for some characters. Take 20 is just gone. Useful, speeds the game up, but apparently that's bad or something.

[Lancewholelot]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

So fencepost nitpicking here: having less than 1/3 hit points left and having "your injury total below 2/3 of your HP" are not actual opposites. If your HP is a multiple of 3, you can have lost exactly 2/3s of your HP and thus not have less than 1/3 of your HP left.

Yeah, that mix is simply a lack of proof reading on my part. "below" should be "more than".

Still, my point was that I suspect most people keep track of damage as a negative number pool that is compared to the PCs original HP value. The game is often put on pause as injury is totaled and the threshold below -1xHP is calculated. Yeah sure, some people have no problem with the math on the fly, but that's not really the set of people who are a factor in GURPS' reputation.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Take 10 in its D&D3 sense no longer exists in D&D. There are certain class features that give similar effects, but only to a limited number of skills. Apparently being able to just not bother rolling when it's easy and not a high-stress situation isn't a convenience for the table, but a special power for some characters. Take 20 is just gone. Useful, speeds the game up, but apparently that's bad or something.

Neither does use rope, of course.

Originally Posted by Lancewholelot

Yeah, that mix is simply a lack of proof reading on my part. "below" should be "more than".

Still, my point was that I suspect most people keep track of damage as a negative number pool that is compared to the PCs original HP value. The game is often put on pause as injury is totaled and the threshold below -1xHP is calculated. Yeah sure, some people have no problem with the math on the fly, but that's not really the set of people who are a factor in GURPS' reputation.

I think you're wrong about that. Adding up damage instead of subtracting HP seems both counter-intuitive and obviously more difficult to use because it clashes with the actual system as written. The obvious solution is to not do that thing?