12-26-2014, 08:35 AM | #31 | ||
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
12-26-2014, 08:53 AM | #32 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
The trend seems to be that literalisation has more new penalties than new bonuses compared to an abstract resolution, in terms of getting stuff done etc. Not always, but IME more often then not. Mostly further riffing about choices along the Literal/Abstract spectrum of playing/GMing. It's a runaway chain reaction, though! |
|
12-26-2014, 10:13 AM | #33 | |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
It was not the feelings of a particular "crowd" with respect to game mechanics. It was not an attempt to "nerf" Aim. It was a recogniation that when simulating the behavior of real-world shooters, the kind of global awareness and ability to do anything other than aim and shoot is basically zero. It was not a game-mechanical desicion, but a simulationist one. As always, Rule Zero applies. If you want to allow Aim and Attack, booyah. Go ahead.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
|
12-26-2014, 10:59 AM | #34 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
|
|
12-26-2014, 11:23 AM | #35 | |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
"the Tactical Shooting crowd was unhappy with regular Attack maneuvers being too easy, so they added the demand that getting Acc requires an AoA."makes it sound as if we had some sort of long-standing rules thing that we brought to Hans, and the "demand" was added as a response. No - Hans looked at real life, and wrote the AoA requirement into the manuscript for both sighted shooting and aimed fire. This was discussed in playtest, and Hans stood firm that this was the way reality worked, and was the best way to simulate the way real people shoot. It had, for example, not occurred to me even a little bit to do this. Hans brought it to the table by writing it. At least, the sequence of events is incorrect: Hans wrote it in the book first, stood firm at keeping it there, and then post-publication, people developed opinions on whether or not they liked this rule. It does read to me that Vicky was saying that there was a game-mechanical decision made to nerf a rule. He has made this point (sometimes correctly) with other things - like the decision to make Arm Lock require a grapple before it can be applied, not just a Judo or Wrestling parry made in Technical Grappling. That *was* a deliberate nerf.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
|
12-26-2014, 11:29 AM | #36 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
And just to make sure I don't make the wrong impression: I'm also among the 'Basic Set ranged AoA is very meh compared to ranged Attack' crowd. I just think it would've been better if ranged AoA had a +4 instead of +1, while Accs of weapons were lower. That way, there's still incentive for archers, throwers etc. to AoA instead of Attacking. (I also feel uncomfortable with breaking the 'Attack, Defence, Damage' paradigm. I.e. the expectation that normally all three stages are relevant; with AoA-only Acc, the incentives become tipped to the other extreme for modest-skill characters.) ---- Anyway, here are other examples of people ranting about stuff being too effective: Recent discussion of nerfing Reaction Modifiers. My rant about Interrogation seeming way too effective. A large faction of boxes with 'Harsh Realism' in their headers. So yeah, such opinions exist, and they are not necessarily wrong or right. I'm kinda surprised you (McAllister) didn't see them much. |
|
12-26-2014, 11:38 AM | #37 | ||
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
My point remains that Attack was too good (compared to AoA), and TSh made it not so good, in fact to the point of making it useless beyond minimum range unless the skill levels are truly truly outrageous. I'm happy that Attack is no longer silly-powerful (encouraging Matrix-style gunfights), but I'm not so happy that it tipped the manoeuvre choice to the other extreme. Quote:
Or maybe you mean that the case of Arm Locks was overwhelmingly balance-driven as opposed to realism-driven TSh Aim/Attack case? |
||
12-26-2014, 01:12 PM | #38 | ||||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
Quote:
It's not. Those CP are spent to leverage some other effect. CP goes up and down according to both sides actions and is leveraged in far more complex ways than the way Regeneration restores HP. Quote:
Quote:
However no system is at the same base line for this in every aspect of play, so in some areas there is more scope to add more in before reaching that point. Grappling for me is one in GURPS. Stabbing and working the blade in the wound for me is more akin to GURPS Grappling in TG, than it is to rapid attack in Melee. I could house rules the standard melee combat rules (but I suspect they might end up aping TG anyway) Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-26-2014 at 01:34 PM. |
||||
12-26-2014, 01:32 PM | #39 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
Literalism in this context just means the rules are describing what happened exactly. That's not the same as the rules are describing what happened realistically. Given we just had an entire thread about step and wait, I find your point that the TS crowd what to make realism (not literalism) more difficult a bit odd. I think it more that if there is such thing as a TS crowd, it's more that they want to reflect more nuance in describing things. Perhaps more importantly they want to amend rules so that they more closely match what they are modelling. Making aimed (sighted) shots is not about they felt the need to give the AoA penalties to aimed shot actions. It about the fact that they recognised that when your sighting down you gun you lose situational awareness. At the same time they pointed out that unsighted shooting should have other benefits over sighted shooting as well. If nothing else shotguns got better in TS (says my P++ at Boom stick range and 3x15, M1014)! ;-) Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-26-2014 at 01:57 PM. |
|
12-26-2014, 01:45 PM | #40 | ||||||
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
Quote:
With the other point, you're making more game-mechanical arguments. That's not my point either. As I note with my comment just prior, on a game-mechanical basis, I agree with you. Hans didn't give a rip about game-mechanical considerations when he wrote the rules about sighted and aimed fire. He looked at what was happening, and said "what GURPS maneuver maps to the real-world event?" He decided that AoA was the right map. As for my thoughts on Aim and accuracy, the world will need to wait a bit longer for those, but I can assure you that they are several thousand words long. :-) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But note that such things can be mitigated with tactics. For one, it suggests that if you're going to use aimed fire, you want friends with you to lay down cover fire to force Fright Checks that have the foes keep their heads down. it also suggests shooting from cover or by surprise. Both of which are exactly the tactics that are used in the real-world, so I'm sure Hans is still sitting there saying Mission Accomplished. But with a German accent.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon Last edited by DouglasCole; 12-26-2014 at 01:51 PM. |
||||||
Tags |
abstraction, combat, rules |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|