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

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

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

That video looks to me like a person with high ST, lots of training, doing a lot of Retreating...possibly also Move and Attacks (backwards) with heroic charges...up against people who don't have training, and who are also only using All Out Attacks...so they have no defenses at all.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by trooper6

That video looks to me like a person with high ST, lots of training, doing a lot of Retreating...possibly also Move and Attacks (backwards) with heroic charges...up against people who don't have training, and who are also only using All Out Attacks...so they have no defenses at all.

Yes these guys don't know how to fight and that is why someone well trained can win the combat against them.

That is what I wrote: “unless foes are stupid and clumsy”. Attacking someone when you don't know how to fight (and especially how to defend) is stupid!

And as long as you use realistic stats and options, it goes in GURPS like in reality. If a player character, even very skilled, has to combat several non player characters and if these non player characters are not unskilled, and, so, not just using the same boring attack maneuver mechanically, the player character will have a lot of problems very quickly: a non player character will eventually strike him in the back, with an all-out attack (no defense allowed), possibly in the head, while the other ones will go on striking him in the front and the sides, maybe with all-out attack (double)... And so on.

But it is a digression. Sorry for that.

All what I wanted to mean is that GURPS can be realistic if the game master and the players want it. Now, if it is realistic, they will get realistic results. Which are usually dramatic in dangerous situations. And adventuring situations are dangerous!

That is why Dr Kromm, and many others, wrote that GURPS is mainly designed for heroic adventures, not for realistic one – in my humble opinion. When we play a roleplaying game, we want to live amazing adventures, like those of Luke Skywalker, Frodon, Sherlock Holmes, etc. We don't want to have a car accident while going to the supermarket, to be killed by a 14 years old gutter kid with a mere knife or to die from a fall while climbing a 15 yards cliff during a training day... All roleplaying games are designed for adventures. As does GURPS.

Of course, with GURPS, it is possible to play differently. Possible, yes. But it is not the main goal of the game. So, even if the basic games mechanics are realistic (and if it is written in the introduction (“GURPS emphasizes realism”), the game is still designed for adventure, where players characters are heroes and not just someone like me (who always does ordinary things, hoping nothing more dangerous than his karate training – which is safe and secure – will happen in his life).

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

...seem like a patch to justify the holes in the system (like falling damage)...

Indeed, but I think the "hole" in this case and others comes from modeling damage that is fatal, but not instantly fatal. In GURPS, the core rules lean towards realism, as it applies to situations that are instantly fatal. But, if you want characters to realistically die from complications due to injuries minutes or hours later, then you do need to include some of the optional rules.

While a lack of core rules detailing game mechanics that will kill a character minutes or hours after receiving an injury might be considered a "hole in the system", I think such complications add more complexity than most gamers want to bother with. Hence, these kinds of rules are optional--what could legitimately be called a "patch". IMHO, this is good game design, not a flaws in the core rules that need fixing. (Ragitsu, you might not have meant to imply that the core rules were broken, but terminology like "hole in the system" and "patch" are somewhat loaded.)

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...

trooper6 addressed this: it's in MA138. In case, gilbertocarlos, you do not have Martial Arts, I think we won't be too far of the mark to assume that internal bleeding will occur in all cases.

Again, I'm curious how a 30m fall will suss out if the victim bleeds internally. I'm curious enough to encourage gilbertocarlos, the original poster, to do the analysis, but not to do it myself. :)

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

trooper6 addressed this: it's in MA138. In case, gilbertocarlos, you do not have Martial Arts, I think we won't be too far of the mark to assume that internal bleeding will occur in all cases.

Again, I'm curious how a 30m fall will suss out if the victim bleeds internally. I'm curious enough to encourage gilbertocarlos, the original poster, to do the analysis, but not to do it myself. :)

Well, I was without PC for some time, and can't reply, but now I have it back, so, I borrowed from one of my players "Martial Arts", readed the "Injury And Recovery" part, and remade the calculations:

0,27% chance that he will stay at 1+HP, maybe stunned for a couple of seconds, then he have about 6% of chance of stop bleeding
49,73% chance that he will fall unconscious(maybe having some seconds of consciousness), the chance to stop bleeding is about 3%, if fall with legs first and he dismembered them, the bleed stop chance is just 0,02%, or 1/5000
37,01% chance that he will stay alive after HT rolls, in this case, the chance of bleed stops in 0,2%, or 1/500, if he lose a extremity, the chance drops to 0,001%, or 1/100000, if he lose a limb, the chance falls to 0,00002, or 1/5 million
12,99% chance that he will be dead just in the moment he encounter the ground

recalculating, the chances of living from a fall is very low, about 1/200, with checks with reality, is very rare, but there are cases of people who jumped from the 10th floor and are still alive...

I admit, i tried to found an reality error in GURPS, who is the same to find an reality error in reality, i am guilty, but i'm regreted from this

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

...I borrowed from one of my players "Martial Arts", readed the "Injury And Recovery" part, and remade the calculations:
...
recalculating, the chances of living from a fall is very low, about 1/200, with checks with reality, is very rare, but there are cases of people who jumped from the 10th floor and are still alive...

Well done, gilbertocarlos; and thank you for an interesting thread. I do enjoy these GURPS reality checks. (It makes me feel superior for choosing it as my gaming system. :) )

[PK]

Originally Posted by martinl

While some good points are being made here, keep in mind that GURPS errs on the side of letting PCs who get in trouble live, unless one uses the all of the nitty gritty injury rules, and possibly even then.

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

I sincerely hope that is not the case. GURPS is consistently noted for it's realism in the pencil and paper roleplaying game community.

You sincerely hope wrong. GURPS is, and has always been, about heroic realism -- the kind of reality where a person can get hit with a flamethrower and be back on his feet again within a few weeks. The kind of reality where a platoon can force-march across a state when necessary. The kind of reality where even a 10-point character can cover 7 yards of distance to attack two foes at no penalty, while parrying two incoming attacks and dodging four others, all while keeping a conversation going with another person, at no penalties, in the span of three seconds.

The fact that others tend to hype GURPS' realism so much is just due to how incredibly unrealistic most other game systems are. Compared to d20, frex, GURPS might as well be a Matrix-level-accurate simulation! But that's relative. Even if GURPS is the "most realistic RPG that exists" (and I'm not saying it necessarily is), that doesn't mean that (A) it's 100% realistic or even (B) that it prioritizes reality over gaming.

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Default GURPS is not. You add on to make it larger than life, not subtract to make it realistic.

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Default GURPS is heroic roleplaying, you subtract to get boring.

That may be the best quote I've seen about GURPS yet . . .

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

That may be the best quote I've seen about GURPS yet . . .

Except boring isn't accurate either. It's a value judgement that isn't relevant to the effect of the mechanics that bring GURPS closer to reality.

EDIT: It's not like someone who is gonna run a game with all the realism switches flipped it gonna advertise it as "a highly boring WWII game." They're going to bill it as a "grittily realistic WWII game" or somesuch.

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

That may be the best quote I've seen about GURPS yet . . .

Why thank you. The system IS clearly known to be realistic, but some try to make the baseline seem otherwise. There is nothing wrong with it at that level of survivability, because the options are there to make things more forgiving (that is to say, heroic).

Or maybe it's because some think that if the system is regarded as "realistic", it will be played and recognized less? That's a fallacious way of thinking.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Except boring isn't accurate either. It's a value judgement that isn't relevant to the effect of the mechanics that bring GURPS closer to reality.

EDIT: It's not like someone who is gonna run a game with all the realism switches flipped it gonna advertise it as "a highly boring WWII game." They're going to bill it as a "grittily realistic WWII game" or somesuch.

Really realistic would require everyone to roll every session to see if random shrapnel kills their character. Not boring, but certainly fun only to those that love creating new characters all the time.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Really realistic would require everyone to roll every session to see if random shrapnel kills their character. Not boring, but certainly fun only to those that love creating new characters all the time.

You'll note, though, that most soldiers who went to war in WWII did come back home alive.

There's certainly a chance that shrapnel will kill the character. But it's hardly 'all the time' and if the GM has the chance set that high, the game is actually more lethal than reality.