Falling from the 10th floor is not as bad as seems...

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

This is not the case. Kromm has repeatedly stated that GURPS 4e, at least, has been designed with heroic adventuring in mind. For example, this post. Or the many times attributes of 10 have been confirmed to be "average healthy 18-25-year-old male in good condition", not "statistical mean of the human population". Or how Combat Reflexes are essentially discounted so that characters are more likely to survive in combat. Or the way unarmed combat skill get a damage bonus for high skill that weapons just don't. Or the fact that several rule books have now had "Harsh Realism" sections - if you need a section on "Harsh Realism", your default rules are not realistic.

Those repeated statements seem like a patch to justify the holes in the system (like falling damage), not how the books read. It took Martial Arts to neck attacks particularly gruesome. Not to say I don't have fun, but I do realize things aren't as good as they could be.

And not everyone plays 250+ point character campaigns where Flight/Extraordinary Luck/Enhanced Time sense/and the like are allowed.

"Harsh" Realism sounds like beyond the norm. That is to say, extra lethal.

By the way, how much do you think Combat Reflexes should cost?

[Langy]

Combat Reflexes is probably worth at least 25 points - just the +1 to all active defenses is worth probably 20 points (15 points for +1 to dodge, 5 points to expand that +1 to dodge to the other defenses). That leaves 5 points for its other benefits.

"Harsh" realism doesn't mean "more lethal than real". It means "stuff that's realistic but will make the game a lot more lethal".

[Ragitsu]

Then why not just call it "Realism"?

Edit: However, the supposed great deal on Combat Reflexes is mitigated by the fact that it can only be taken once.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Then why not just call it "Realism"?

Because when you're playing a roleplaying game going towards "Realism" is rather "harsh" on PCs.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Then why not just call it "Realism"?

Because "Realism" is a continuum.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Those repeated statements seem like a patch to justify the holes in the system (like falling damage), not how the books read.

Could you point to somewhere in the books where it says "Realism has been priorizied over adventuring", or anything similar?

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

"Harsh" Realism sounds like beyond the norm. That is to say, extra lethal.

Er, no. If it was more lethal than reality, it wouldn't be "realism". It would just be "harsh". "Harsh Realism" implies a distinction from the normal case, which priorizes character survival.

[Chef Zomagic]

Personally, I don't think a fall from a tenth story window is what the system was designed for. I think it was designed for realistic jumps; those times when you have an emergency situation and maybe have to jump off a rocky ledge... not a ten story BUILDING. If you fall from a 10th story window IRL, there is a 99% chance you are going to die. I'd just take it as read that the character was dead from either impact or bleeding by the time anyone else could get to him, unless I were playing Supers or Cliffhangers (which dictates all deaths must be dramatic).

[Gollum]

In my opinion GURPS remains the most realistic game I have ever seen. But it doesn't mean that all GURPS results are realistic.

Indeed, GURPS is not just universal. It is generic. Which means – as it is very well described in the Basic Set – than you can play it as you want: with very few rules, to have a fast-moving game, or with detail for every contingency.

So, the level of realism depends on the options you choose. If you don't use the bleeding optional rules, for instance, GURPS is much less realistic. A fall, or even a bullet in the head, won't kill average Joe as often as in reality.

If you want realistic rules, use realistic options.

But, in this case, be warned: player characters will die quickly if they have to face too much danger. Remember for instance that, in reality, combating several foes at the same time is almost impossible, even for an experienced karateka... Unless the foes are stupid and clumsy (and played like that by the GM).

You can't have heroic actions with realistic characters and realistic optional rules. You have a choice to make.

GURPS allows you to play as you like.

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

And in about 60 seconds. So, gilbertocarlos, is that realistic enough for you now? As I said, I'd be curious to see you stat out the different probabilities after adding in the bleeding the rules. My guess is death from internal bleeding in most of the time.

Well, then, bleeding should have to specify what bleeds, what not bleed, because he say that the GM decides, but cutting, piercing and impaling usually bleeds, most of the others don't, but if it is a major wound, then may bleed...

Originally Posted by Gollum

In my opinion GURPS remains the most realistic game I have ever seen. But it doesn't mean that all GURPS results are realistic.

Indeed, GURPS is not just universal. It is generic. Which means – as it is very well described in the Basic Set – than you can play it as you want: with very few rules, to have a fast-moving game, or with detail for every contingency.

So, the level of realism depends on the options you choose. If you don't use the bleeding optional rules, for instance, GURPS is much less realistic. A fall, or even a bullet in the head, won't kill average Joe as often as in reality.

If you want realistic rules, use realistic options.

But, in this case, be warned: player characters will die quickly if they have to face too much danger. Remember for instance that, in reality, combating several foes at the same time is almost impossible, even for an experienced karateka... Unless the foes are stupid and clumsy (and played like that by the GM).

You can't have heroic actions with realistic characters and realistic optional rules. You have a choice to make.

GURPS allows you to play as you like.

Well, actually it is possible to one guy knock down more than one at a time, he needs to have a much higher skill than opponents, but a trained person could win from enemies without training, of course, it is note jackie chan like, it is more retreating, don't engage all at the same time, don't go AoA, this video show this well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHCEqZbad8c

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

Well, then, bleeding should have to specify what bleeds, what not bleed, because he say that the GM decides, but cutting, piercing and impaling usually bleeds, most of the others don't, but if it is a major wound, then may bleed...

Please see MA138 for more details on what bleeds and what doesn't. For example, under Dismemberment: "Destroying a body part causes profuse bleeding. Bleeding rolls are at an extra -1 HT for a superficial loss (ear, nose, etc), -2 for an extremity, or -3 for a limb. Add another -1 for an extremity or limb actually severed by cutting damage. For a limb, make bleeding rolls every 30 seconds--not once per minute--regardless of how it was lost. In all cases, once HP lost to bleeding equal the injury needed to cripple the body part, revert to using the normal bleeding rules."

This makes it very clear that a crushing attack that destroys a body part not only uses the bleeding rules, but also uses the severe bleeding rules. (if you use the optional bleeding and/or severe bleeding rules). Whether to use those rules is a matter of GM judgement. And it is also a matter of GM judgement whether a crushing attack might also cause bleeding. If a person fell off of a 10 story building and the damage location that was rolled was the torso rather than the limb, would I as a GM, imagine that a person falling off of a building have bleeding internal injuries? Yes, I would. That seems logical. Making logical decisions is part of being a GM, in my opinion.