04-06-2021, 07:49 AM | #21 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: GMT-5
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
Doesn't make a lot of sense for many situations. Like firing ranged at an unsuspecting target.
|
04-06-2021, 09:38 AM | #22 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
The random hit tables generally give too high a chance of hitting extremities when using ranged weapons, they're more normalized for melee weapons.
|
04-06-2021, 05:12 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
Random thought; Roll twice on table, if second hit is Torso or Abdomen it takes precedence. You could likely come up with a more complicated way or change up the table, but as a quick rule this could help.
|
04-07-2021, 05:25 AM | #24 |
Join Date: Aug 2019
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
The main thing here is that Torso occupies 2 hit location slots, creating an uneven spread on even dice. A reasonable solution would be to remove torso on 9, shift extremities closer to 10 and then insert Groin hit location at 6 or so. It was always weird that this large and important hit location, compared to abdomen, is not in the list.
In addition, Turn Torso/Abdomen into Torso/Torso instead if you'd like Torso to remain the most likely hit location.
__________________
Your level of GURPS proficiency: Pedestrian: 3e vs 4e Proficient: Early 4e vs Late 4e Master: Kromm vs PK GURPS: Shooting things for fun and profit |
04-07-2021, 03:12 PM | #25 |
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kentucky, USA
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
GURPS evolves over time. The random hit table relies on the traditional 3d roll, which we know doesn't give even chunks of probability. I generally put down the differences to no perfect solutions being available at the time.
I think that, were the table redone, it would be the (as far as I know) newer 1d, 1d style that we see in books like GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 8 Treasure Tables. So, for example, you'd have something like: 5, 1-4 Left Leg 6, 1-4 Right Leg where both would give you identical 11.11% chance, if your intent was identical hit chance. I think that method would be easier to adapt to alternate body styles, handedness and similar, since 2d gives 36 possibilities and 3d gives 216, which should probably cover even complicated centipede-taur monsters.
__________________
GURPS Fanzine The Path of Cunning is worth a read. Last edited by Tyneras; 04-07-2021 at 03:15 PM. |
04-07-2021, 03:20 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Jan 2017
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
Quote:
|
|
04-08-2021, 07:55 AM | #27 |
Join Date: Jul 2015
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
So the current Random Hit Location table has some problems.
From a Simulation standpoint, you get wonky results like the Torso only showing up about 1-in-4 rolls, and additional stuff like rolling "Foot" when an NPC throws a punch at a random target. Clearly, you can ignore results like that, but why have the table setup like that in the first place? From a Game Mechanics standpoint, it very much favors non-torso hits. In melee combat especially, most non-torso targets are high value, and you bypass the difficulty of hitting one specific location. I've seen this play out in my early games where players who didn't want to take the penalties for hitting limbs or HVTs would just opt for a random roll, and very rarely end up with the torso. I also fell like a unified Melee/Ranged RHL chart never really felt right in the games I ran. My solution was this:
Disclaimer: This approach has worked really well in my games, and my players agree that when a randomly targeted attack does occur, the results fit what they expect. Of course the emergent behavior is the PCs tend not to bother armoring those locations as much. And that just makes it easier for me when they encounter foes that are well trained in "defanging the snake". |
04-08-2021, 10:18 AM | #28 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
Quote:
In my experience in firefights with guns non-torso hits are actually undesirable, because most of the time that means a limb and their damage is capped. This is fine if you hit the attacker's main arm or hand, but otherwise they can keep shooting if they make their HT rolls. A solid Torso hit that puts them deep into negative hit points is much better. Now, if you're using guns and good torso armour but little limb armour (as is the standard today), or melee weapons and armour that generally lets through only about the amount of a major wound, it'll be different. It really depends on the setting whether limb hits are more desirable for the attacker than torso hits. Even head hits can be undesirable if the head is well armoured. Quote:
Removing these locations from the random table favours the PCs (usually more skilled), and means that if a PC is shot in the vitals, the players know that the GM decided to try and kill their PC. That can, depending on the group, lead to ill feeling.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
||
04-08-2021, 12:28 PM | #29 | ||||||
Join Date: Jul 2015
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
Quote:
From a game mechanics perspective (still focusing on melee combat), the 1 in 4 chance for a torso hit really reduces/removes the incentive for players to bother deliberately targeting specific hit locations. If you have a high chance of hitting some sort of HVT other than the torso, what do you have to lose? Before I change the chart, the emergent behavior from my players was "Lets just make RHL attacks since there is only a small chance of hitting the well protected torso, and a hit on just about any other location is more likely to cause immediate debilitation". What I wanted was "Hey, this dude has a very well armored torso, but nothing else is really protected. I can make an RHL attack, but will probably still hit the torso anyway, or I can take a hit penalty and target a more vulnerable location." Quote:
1. Opposition isn't wearing any torso armor, like an assault vest or plate carrier. A 9mm to the unprotected arm is way more effective than smushing it into the armored torso for no HP damage. 2. For crippled arm/hands, the foe is only using a 1-handed weapon like a pistol. For anything larger, you more significantly reduce their ability to return effective fires by crippling an arm, even if it is their non-dominant one. 3. For crippled legs, you have removed their ability to "Dodge and Drop", and their ability to move quickly to cover more than a yard away. So maybe if you cripple a leg and they fall fully behind cover, you are worse off. But then if they are prone and fully behind cover, they likely aren't shooting back at you on their turn. Now, if you are shooting at an unarmored insurgent, yeah, you are more likely to force HT checks to stay conscious/not die on a torso hit vs a limb hit. So I do get the lost damage vs. limbs, but all things considered, if I had a 12 HP character, I would MUCH rather take a 7 dmg 9mm round to the torso and be able to keep fighting at pretty much 100% than take it to the arm or leg and have it be crippled. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Everyone's table/player base is different, but here are the changes I noticed in the games I run after introducing my house rule RHL tables. 1. Players no longer make very many RHL rolls unless they are playing fairly low skilled (13 or less) characters. This is exactly the sort of behavior I wanted to drive. 2. When players DO wish to strike HVTs, they do them directly and take the appropriate penalties. This is exactly the sort of behavior I wanted to drive. 3. When foes make randomly targeted attacks, there are no longer any ridiculous outcomes (see punching a foe's foot), and the attacks they do throw still threaten PCs significantly. This is exactly the sort of behavior I wanted to drive. 4. At the beginning, PCs became less concerned about making sure their Necks/Hands/Feet/Groin were properly armored. Unintended consequence. But this only lasted until they ran into some higher skilled goons who went for TA-Hand or Stamp Kick-Foot. Then they learned the folly of their ways. Again, YMMV, but it's safe for me to say these drove almost exactly the sort of behavior I was looking for in my games. |
||||||
04-08-2021, 12:52 PM | #30 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: table make why does random hit location hitting left side more likely?
Quote:
In reality, people don't attack the limbs because they're high value targets. They attack the limbs because they're easy to hit. |
|
Tags |
hit location table, left arm, left leg, right arm, right leg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|