Mass Combat: Failing Strategy Roll with a bigger Margin of Success than the Winner

[hal]

By definition, any roll that is 10 higher than your skill/attribute being rolled against is deemed to be a crit failure. An 18 is always a crit failure, so you may wish to equate the two in a quick contest. That is to say, a 17 becomes a normal failure if your skill is 17+, with an 18 being a miss by 10.

This is not stated as such in the rules, so take it for what it is worth.

One house rule that I use is that there are no crits in a contest. Keeps it simple as it were.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by hal

By definition, any roll that is 10 higher than your skill/attribute being rolled against is deemed to be a crit failure. An 18 is always a crit failure, so you may wish to equate the two in a quick contest. That is to say, a 17 becomes a normal failure if your skill is 17+, with an 18 being a miss by 10.

This is not stated as such in the rules, so take it for what it is worth.

One house rule that I use is that there are no crits in a contest. Keeps it simple as it were.

Houserule, heh?

Originally Posted by Kromm

As the rules state, the winner of a Quick Contest is the contestant with the greatest margin of success or smallest margin of failure. The rules don't mention critical results because they're not relevant to the calculation of a margin.

Consider a Quick Contest where Character A has skill 14, rolls a 4, succeeds by 10, and scores a critical success, while Character B has skill 30, rolls a 10, succeeds by 20, but scores only a regular success. Character A loses to Character B, and in fact Character B gets a 10-point margin of victory. It might seem to "cheapen" Character A's critical success to say that Character B wins, but all Player A did was roll dice well. It would cheapen Character B's massive investment in her abilities even more to let Character A win with a critical succes. After all, Player B actually paid points -- she bought another 16 levels, which might be 64 points in a skill, 80 points in Will or Per, 160 points in ST or HT, 320 points in DX or IQ, or some combination thereof. To put it in perspective, Player A could "buy" a critical success for at most 5 points (see the box on p. B347)!

Some rules do specifically note what critical success and failure do in a Quick Contest if you win or if you lose. However, actual victory and defeat depend on the margins. This is for the sake of fairness. Points, not lucky die rolls, are the gold standard in GURPS. If we're going to start letting lucky dice trump points, then we might as well have people roll up attributes instead of pay points for them . . .

[hal]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Houserule, heh?

Wellllllll.


Any time I use something that isn't in the rules as expressly written without clarifications by Kromm, if I'm using it, I presume it is a house rule. Lord knows, I've got enough house rules that I use that if going strictly by memory, I may think they're actual rules rather than developed on my own.

Case in point:

Back when there was only GURPS 3e, I used the concept that if your Fatigue was less than the strength required to utilize a weapon at full strength, the character suffered a penalty to hit. It helps explain why fresh troops used in battle were often better off than tired troops in battle. A Broadsword requiring a ST 10, wielded by someone with a ST 12, Fatigue 9, would suffer a -1 penalty to hit.

There are a few other odds and ends that I use, including rules regarding shield rushes and bashes - but not pertinent to this discussion. Suffice to say - anytime I mention something I can't verify with out a page reference, I note as "house rule". Saves on embarrassment later on due to my memory issues. ;)

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by hal

Back when there was only GURPS 3e, I used the concept that if your Fatigue was less than the strength required to utilize a weapon at full strength, the character suffered a penalty to hit. It helps explain why fresh troops used in battle were often better off than tired troops in battle. A Broadsword requiring a ST 10, wielded by someone with a ST 12, Fatigue 9, would suffer a -1 penalty to hit.

Having "fought*" when fresh, merely tired, and exhausted... I have to say that's an excellent house rule.

Consider it yoinked for my more realistic games.


* Sparing practice, the SCA, and LARPing. And yes, even using a "NERF" weapon can get tiring after four to five hours of near constant running and fighting.

[hal]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Having "fought*" when fresh, merely tired, and exhausted... I have to say that's an excellent house rule.

Consider it yoinked for my more realistic games.


* Sparing practice, the SCA, and LARPing. And yes, even using a "NERF" weapon can get tiring after four to five hours of near constant running and fighting.

The problem is - back when Fatigue was a function of ST rather than HT, it worked out reasonably well. Once GURPS 4e swapped hit points for Fatigue with the requisite Stats of ST/HT - the house rule no longer worked as elegantly.

GURPS never really bothered to directly connect fatigue loss with real life other than to say the following:

• 1 hour's walking/hiking unencumbered, will cost 1 fatigue
• a fight taking between 2 to 3 minutes costs 1 fatigue

If it is extra warm, then an additional -1 penalty is assessed per the original old rules.

So at what point in time for a GURPS Character, should a penalty come into play for their combat capabilities under the new rules?

I have to wonder too - does GURPS MASSED COMBAT even take into account the prospect of weary troops fighting fresh troops? One of the pivotal battles in English History surrounds the battle of Stamford Bridge and the Battle of Hastings. Poor King Harald's troops fought the one battle fresh, then had to march to the next site of battle, and fight after having little rest upon their arrival.

Clearly, troop fatigue levels do have bearing on combat, but I don't recall GURPS MASSED COMBAT having them (I could be wrong, so take that statement with a grain of salt!).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by hal

The problem is - back when Fatigue was a function of ST rather than HT, it worked out reasonably well. Once GURPS 4e swapped hit points for Fatigue with the requisite Stats of ST/HT - the house rule no longer worked as elegantly.

GURPS never really bothered to directly connect fatigue loss with real life other than to say the following:

• 1 hour's walking/hiking unencumbered, will cost 1 fatigue
• a fight taking between 2 to 3 minutes costs 1 fatigue

If it is extra warm, then an additional -1 penalty is assessed per the original old rules.

So at what point in time for a GURPS Character, should a penalty come into play for their combat capabilities under the new rules?

I have to wonder too - does GURPS MASSED COMBAT even take into account the prospect of weary troops fighting fresh troops? One of the pivotal battles in English History surrounds the battle of Stamford Bridge and the Battle of Hastings. Poor King Harald's troops fought the one battle fresh, then had to march to the next site of battle, and fight after having little rest upon their arrival.

Clearly, troop fatigue levels do have bearing on combat, but I don't recall GURPS MASSED COMBAT having them (I could be wrong, so take that statement with a grain of salt!).

You need Douglas Cole's Pyramid Article, 'The Last Gasp'.