Help a noobie understand critical hits

[whswhs]

I prefer not to roll 84 dice; it changes the statistical pattern. If you roll 6d, the standard deviation is 4.18 (so two-thirds of the rolls are between 16.82 and 25.18). If you multiply by 14, the standard deviation is 58.12. But if you roll 84d, the standard deviation is only 15.65. So that central range is 235.88-352.12 in the first case, but 278.35-309.65 in the second. In other words, rolling more dice makes the outcome substantially less random.

[Outlaw]

The first rule (sometimes unwritten) in RPGs is that the rules are what the GM wants. End of story. If you don't like something, change it. However, if you then post it, expect people to disagree.

Most GURPS players will find it unreasonable to derate a firearm to ridiculous levels. As has been shown, there are many ways to NOT resort to that and still use RAW with other options that are mostly RAW.

That being said, I also do not like critical hits (which is what you referenced in the OP) but would go with one or more of....

• Critical hits are just normal hits
• Critical hits are just normal hits with no defense roll
• A critical hit by an NPC is just a normal hit
• Eliminate most of the critical hit results and expand the "normal damage" to almost the entire range with the rest being incidental (drop what you're holding, fall down, stunned, etc)
• Any other modification you deem necessary that doesn't derate firearms

I treat critical misses similarly.

Obviously, like most rule changes, there are downstream effects of the above that must be managed as well.

Also, it seems a bit wonky to call the damage model, "...a bit silly...", b/c a hit to the head from a "...hunting rilfe..." (which is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to drop game dead or nearly so with the correct hit location) drops a character dead or nearly so.

Regardless, your solution is perfect and 100% correct...for you. If your players like it, go for it.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I prefer not to roll 84 dice; it changes the statistical pattern. If you roll 6d, the standard deviation is 4.18 (so two-thirds of the rolls are between 16.82 and 25.18). If you multiply by 14, the standard deviation is 58.12. But if you roll 84d, the standard deviation is only 15.65. So that central range is 235.88-352.12 in the first case, but 278.35-309.65 in the second. In other words, rolling more dice makes the outcome substantially less random.

As an aside, this is something that irks me a bit about GURPS, the fact that lower damages are more random while higher damages are less random (of course, this isn't really unique to GURPS). I would prefer some option of having it essentially always be the same amount of random, but most methods I come up with for that would be messy in play (with the exception of "replace nd with 1dxn," but the spread one sees out of 1d is arguably a bit too random; something that always used a 3d roll would give the sort of spread I'd like, but then you've got to multiply or divide the result by something with fractions and deal with rounding, and most players - and GM's - would rather not deal with all that).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

• [
• Critical hits are just normal hits with no defense roll
  [

.

This is pretty close to what actually happens even if you use the RAW. I think half the possible results on the Crit hit table are no extra effect and almsot all the rest are things that might be useful to a 145 pt character with ST no higher than 13 (i.e. what you had in Man to Man in 1986).

The 3x damage hits are 2 in 216 after the chances of rolling the Crit in the first place. Cumulatively that's no better than 1 in c. 2000. I've seen lots of crits but never a bonus damage one.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

As an aside, this is something that irks me a bit about GURPS, the fact that lower damages are more random while higher damages are less random (of course, this isn't really unique to GURPS). I would prefer some option of having it essentially always be the same amount of random, but most methods I come up with for that would be messy in play (with the exception of "replace nd with 1dxn," but the spread one sees out of 1d is arguably a bit too random; something that always used a 3d roll would give the sort of spread I'd like, but then you've got to multiply or divide the result by something with fractions and deal with rounding, and most players - and GM's - would rather not deal with all that).

If you're using an electronic roller, the arithmetic can take care of itself.

If not you only really have to divide by the number of dice you rolled. (At worst, sometimes you could factor out the division.) 3 wouldn't be my favorite number to be dividing by. 2d/2 would be a lot easier, though a bit less central tendency. I'd consider 4d/4 easier as well.

If you divided before multiplying by the target number of damage dice instead of after, you'd only be dividing a small consistent range, so it'd be pretty easy to just learn and also easy to make it a lookup table. (However, the curve would be kinda blocky since you'd only have 6 steps.)

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

This is pretty close to what actually happens even if you use the RAW. I think half the possible results on the Crit hit table are no extra effect and almsot all the rest are things that might be useful to a 145 pt character with ST no higher than 13 (i.e. what you had in Man to Man in 1986).

The 3x damage hits are 2 in 216 after the chances of rolling the Crit in the first place. Cumulatively that's no better than 1 in c. 2000. I've seen lots of crits but never a bonus damage one.

The most 'exotic' criticals I've seen were the "If any damage penetrates DR, it's a major wound" and "Normal damage, but the victim drops what they're holding". In every case the actual injury caused an effect as bad or worse anyway. My players fear the Critical Miss table a lot more than the Critical Hit ones.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Varyon

No, I mean Instant Death Wands. When a protagonist shoots someone, the target typically dies.

That's a big if there. The only targets that can be hit at all reliably with guns are (a) mooks, and (b) targets that are immune to bullets.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

That's a big if there. The only targets that can be hit at all reliably with guns are (a) mooks, and (b) targets that are immune to bullets.

Lots of major antagonists ultimately wind up dead from bullets. Consider Hector Barbossa from Pirates of the Carribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - sure, he starts out bulletproof (and basically everything-else-proof), but ultimately gets killed when his immortality curse gets revoked immediately after taking a bullet to the chest (the wound reopens, he comments on finally feeling something - "cold" - and collapses). Several Agents in The Matrix - even when they're Worthy- or Boss-level foes - wind up dead from singular gunshots ("Dodge this"). Wanted is chock-full of major characters - antagonists, protagonists, and switch-hitters alike - who wind up dead from gunshots. Now, it's certainly the case that major antagonists typically wind up in a prolonged fight (sometimes a gunfight, but more often a fistfight or similar) with the protagonist, to build up tension and give a spectacle, and this requires that the protagonist not be able to reliably hit them with firearms... but that's because the audience expectation is that the protagonist hitting them with firearms will kill them, so you wind up with fights that involve less obviously-lethal hits instead, with the more lethal hits reserved for the end. This is also why, in a sword fight with a major antagonist, each character has much better luck with offhand punches and kicks than with their slashes and stabs.

[binn05]

I think this post got out of track a long time ago, and probably OP is not even reading it anymore.
Come on, guys. The first ideas of improving characters' survivability were nice, but then people got triggered because "don't mess with the gun cult." It's his game, if it works for him and his group, everything is ok.
Most of the responses (and I read the whole thread) will just tell a new player to stay away from the community.
It is not like we need a bigger player base /winky winky.

Now for my 2 cents.
Luck
I disagree that Luck is fudging the dice. From what I got from my players, it's a way to have some control over the narrative. They always prefer to have Luck instead of not having it.

Critical Hits and Critical Failures.
If they bother you, and you think they don't work for your game, just get rid of it. You will not break the game or anything like that.
Lots of folks in the community just rule that it bypasses active defenses, and roll damage normally. Some add full damage to that.

Gun Damage
You can either divide damage by 2 and add (2) as an armor division or use 3 instead of 2 (but I think that would break the system) or define an arbitrary value. Say revolvers and pistols are 1 to 2d. Shotguns 1-3d, rifles 3d.
I saw many people using the divide by 2 and the system works fines.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Colonel__Klink

yes

You do realize most people don't play tabletop games because they want an exact reproduction of what they'd experience IRL if they tried to do the same stuff right?

TV Action Violence