GURPS Combat. Ramped up or pared back?

[Warden]

How do you run your GURPS combat?

Do you go with all bells and whistles blowing, or are you down to the skeleton remains? Perhaps somewhere in between?

If you do go with all the options ticked, what does it run like?

[Stripe]

We use bleeding and damage accumulation rules both. Basically, if it makes it more deadly, I generally use it. I guess that puts us in firmly in the "bells and whistles" category. The biggest reason I got MA was for the grim realism rules.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Warden

How do you run your GURPS combat?

Do you go with all bells and whistles blowing, or are you down to the skeleton remains? Perhaps somewhere in between?

If you do go with all the options ticked, what does it run like?

Pretty lean to bare bones if you add in that a number of thing I handled for the players behind the scenes.

To give an excample, if a player has more than a 16- I automatically funnel the excess into Deceptive Attack without bothering to explain. My players aren't really interested in detailed combat.

[Gigermann]

I go as crunchy as the Players will allow—which is, typically, "all options ticked," as they apply to the situation—as I am a "simulationist GM." That said, combat only gets as complex as the Players, themselves, make it; that is, if they actually use all the options available—if they use nothing but basic Maneuvers, it doesn't amount to much (most Mooks aren't capable of complexity, which makes the GM's job easier), and if they rarely get injured, extended injury rules don't get used, etc.

I think the groups that I play with/run for know the system well enough that, even with "all options ticked," it still goes relatively smoothly.

I do wonder what the percentage of GURPS GMs that fall under the "simulationist" category is?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Warden

How do you run your GURPS combat?

Do you go with all bells and whistles blowing, or are you down to the skeleton remains? Perhaps somewhere in between?

If you do go with all the options ticked, what does it run like?

I'm not consistent. It depends on the theme and focus of the campaign. When I ran Salle d'Armes, a campaign focused on a French fencing academy in the early 1700s, I used a lot of options, and I likely will do so with Water Margin, a campaign set in a world-spanning Chinese Empire. On the other hand, I've run GURPS campaigns with almost no combat and therefore few options.

When I go for high combat, I like to use the crippling and bleeding rules (together with the rules for field surgery, especially premodern field surgery), lots of techniques, formal martial arts, and the committed attack and defensive attack options, which give more nuances to combat tactics. On the other hand, I don't like the option of buying off the penalty to hit a specific part of the body by taking a technique; I think if you're going to try to shoot someone in the head you ought to have the sense that it's a hard shot. That's really a reflection of my narrative preferences, not of actual experience with armed combat.

That configuration of rules served me well in Salle d'Armes. The players had to make significant tactical choices, but we didn't seem to bog down in calculation and the like; most combat decisions had a clear dramatic aspects to them. GURPS seems to work pretty well for that.

Bill Stoddard

[Warden]

That's what I like about the game.

It's very obvious I know, but the ability to just flick a switch and turn an option off or on without screwing the system up, is brilliant.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

When I go for high combat, I like to use the crippling and bleeding rules (together with the rules for field surgery, especially premodern field surgery), lots of techniques, formal martial arts, and the committed attack and defensive attack options, which give more nuances to combat tactics. On the other hand, I don't like the option of buying off the penalty to hit a specific part of the body by taking a technique; I think if you're going to try to shoot someone in the head you ought to have the sense that it's a hard shot. That's really a reflection of my narrative preferences, not of actual experience with armed combat.

I thought hit location Techniques were a 3rd Edition thing, deliberately dropped from 4th Edition. Have I overlooked or misunderstood something here?

[aesir23]

Depends on the campaign and the players.

Generally I use all the bells and whistles that I can remember without pausing combat to look anything up.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I thought hit location Techniques were a 3rd Edition thing, deliberately dropped from 4th Edition. Have I overlooked or misunderstood something here?

They've been replaced by Targeted Attacks (in Martial Arts). Although they're listed as an Optional rule, I think.

TAs are much more balanced because they're bought for specific attacks and locations instead of making all hit locations earlier like in 3e.

(e.g. Spear Thrust/Face is it's own Hard technique)

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I thought hit location Techniques were a 3rd Edition thing, deliberately dropped from 4th Edition.

Changed, and not in Basic, but still present as an optional rule. Targeted Attacks, page 68 of Martial Arts.