GURPS Action!

[griffin]

SJGs has GURPS Action! on the e23 Wishlist. This is definitely my personal favorite GURPS PDF product. Personally, I'd love to eventually see a hardcover GURPS Action! book. I'm beginning to think this may be one of the hardest books to write.

Can GURPS really do cinematic action well and still remain GURPS?


The items I want to see featured in GURPS Action! are:

• Reduced die rolls
• Much faster game play
• Good use of wild card skills
• Larger than life cinematic action - check the reality at the door!

There is a Pyramid article that has what I think are many good ideas for implemeting "cinematic points". Anyone with a Pyramid account can check out the following article Cinematic Points! by Chad Underkoffler. I think some of the features in this article adapted to GURPS 4e standards would be definite additions I'd like to see.

Some suggestions I'd make are the following

• Work out an Acrobatic Dodge that uses one die roll and is based on Enhanced Dodge purchased with a prereq. of a certain level of Acrobatics being required.
• Pre-calculate damage using the average for a weapon and use that except for criticals and when a major battle takes place (Boss battle, climatic fight, etc. - not for mooks/grunts/cannon fodder).
• Emphasize larger than life action
• More detail on the cinematic nature of Wild Card (Bang) skills along with some additional examples.
• Lots of examples on cinematic game play in a variety of genres (or tie them together using the Infinite Worlds setting and ISWAT featuring the Iconic characters in the basic book.

So what things would people most like to see in this PDF?

[Edit - added the following due to recent publication of GURPS DF e23 books]
BTW, anything in Dungeon Fantasy (DF) that should be incorporated into GURPS Action? Should DF be required reading for any GURPS Action author?

[GoodGame]

The first three of the four you listed would be sweet as the core of the book..

The rest would probably be some kind of GM kit for quick templating of scenarios, especially some kind of challenge rating system for an action-themed setting. Doing challenge ratings was kind of thrown out before since there's just too much variety in GURPS to do it like say D&D does. But it'd be plausible now.

I'm usually disappointed at the lack of opponents/enemies listed in supplements, so listing some would be a plus.
Examples galore would not be desired. If the gamer wants IW, they can buy the IW setting book, etc..

This would also have potential for resurrecting the 3e versions of Cliffhangers and other pulp settings book, which would be a logical inclusion, excepting that they shouldn't take over the book.


Extra sugar icing on top would be some rules for devolving the system to a set of miniatures skirimish rules, but I wouldn't expect it.

Originally Posted by griffin

SJGs has GURPS Action! on the e23 Wishlist. This is definitely my personal favorite GURPS PDF product.

Items I want to see featured in GURPS Action! are:

• Reduced die rolls
• Much faster game play
• Good use of wild card skills
• Larger than life cinematic action - check the reality at the door!

So what things would people most like to see in this PDF?

[griffin]

GoodGame, thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by GoodGame

The first three of the four you listed would be sweet as the core of the book..

Ok, so far so good.

The rest would probably be some kind of GM kit for quick templating of scenarios, especially some kind of challenge rating system for an action-themed setting. Doing challenge ratings was kind of thrown out before since there's just too much variety in GURPS to do it like say D&D does. But it'd be plausible now.

Can you expand on this. I'm not sure I understand what a scenario template would look like? Does this idea already exist in GURPS or is it something new?
If existing, can you point me too it in one of the GURPS 4e books.

How would challenge ratings be implemented. I'm not really familiar with them in D&D as I haven't played that system since 2nd edition.

I'm usually disappointed at the lack of opponents/enemies listed in supplements, so listing some would be a plus.
Examples galore would not be desired. If the gamer wants IW, they can buy the IW setting book, etc..

Opponents and enemies would just be examples. This is as opposed to templates, which I think should also be included. However, while there would be several templates for appropriate villians and enemies, there should also be a few specific enemies and opponents developed using the templated. Then they could be used for other examples.

The reason for using IW iconic characters is they are familiar to anyone playing GURPS and they have a good range of variety. They are also already mostly cinematic.

A picture is worth a thousand words, and a good example tends to be highly illustrative. Seeing a rule implemented is very important and one thing I think GURPS doesn't do enough of in the books. Stating a rule just isn't enough, it is very important that for GURPS Action! they cinematic rules are shown in action.

This would also have potential for resurrecting the 3e versions of Cliffhangers and other pulp settings book, which would be a logical inclusion, excepting that they shouldn't take over the book.

I agree that Cliffhangers certainly fits in Action! and should get its own section, if not an entire chapter. Certainly a couple of good examples using the cliffhanger style/genre would be useful. Something Indiana Jones-esque would be good.

Extra sugar icing on top would be some rules for devolving the system to a set of miniatures skirimish rules, but I wouldn't expect it.

I'm not sure if that would be desirable. Is there a reason that miniatures would be particularly useful for GURPS cinematic gaming as opposed to any other form of GURPS gaming?


Again thanks for your post.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by GoodGame

Extra sugar icing on top would be some rules for devolving the system to a set of miniatures skirimish rules, but I wouldn't expect it.

Originally Posted by griffin

I'm not sure if that would be desirable. Is there a reason that miniatures would be particularly useful for GURPS cinematic gaming as opposed to any other form of GURPS gaming?

Agreed. Fast action and Miniatures are opposites in my experience. You do either one or the other. Using miniatures turns the game into a strategic game with can be very fun, but its focus is on details which is exactly what you want to avoid in a fast paced cinematic action! gaming style.

I would therefore also prefer focus on the 3-4 first points mentioned.

And if possible you might want to make a turn more or less than 1 sec as a big part of cinematic is relative time. Sometimes it takes 5 secs to get across the room, sometimes it take several minutes to open the door and step through it, all depending on what goes on.
In connection with this the range and movement rules should also be made much simpler.


[Edit]Oh! I just remembered. One thing there would be a most is some rules for 'mass combat' Ie. How to easy set 4 players up against 100 enemies without it taking the entire session. Or possible 4 players and their 100 allies vs. another 100 opponents. See Lord of the Rings for an example of the style of battle I'm thinking about.


A small addition to the Suggested rules:
Do not allow mooks active defenses but let them give a penalty to the attackers Attack roll instead, based on the mooks defense. This makes combat a lot quicker as players do not have to wait from the GM's response but can roll away as long as they know the total penalty to their attack.


[edit again] som earlier threads on this subject:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=31790 (simplified combat)
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=12899 (problems with 1 sec turns)
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=27692 (you already know this one ;))

[griffin]

Originally Posted by Maz

Agreed. Fast action and Miniatures are opposites in my experience. You do either one or the other. Using miniatures turns the game into a strategic game ...

I would therefore also prefer focus on the 3-4 first points mentioned.

Yes, that's my thinking too, but I'd be willing to hear some thoughts to the contrary.

And if possible you might want to make a turn more or less than 1 sec as a big part of cinematic is relative time. Sometimes it takes 5 secs to get across the room, sometimes it take several minutes to open the door and step through it, all depending on what goes on.
In connection with this the range and movement rules should also be made much simpler.

Time scaling might be interesting though, I haven't the slightest idea on how to pull this off. If you only have a single character in play, it might be easier to arrange, but if you've got four or five PCs all doing different things that becomes really problematic.

[Edit]Oh! I just remembered. One thing there would be a most is some rules for 'mass combat' Ie. How to easy set 4 players up against 100 enemies without it taking the entire session. Or possible 4 players and their 100 allies vs. another 100 opponents. See Lord of the Rings for an example of the style of battle I'm thinking about.

Yeah, the whole battle scene with the elf and dwarf fighting their way through legions of opponents counting kills on the move. They are constantly moving forward and never seem to have to pause for things like dodging and parrying. No retreats in there at all. No stuck weapons, and always one hit one kill (or at least the foe is out of the battle).

A small addition to the Suggested rules:
Do not allow mooks active defenses but let them give a penalty to the attackers Attack roll instead, based on the mooks defense. This makes combat a lot quicker as players do not have to wait from the GM's response but can roll away as long as they know the total penalty to their attack.

Useful, though I'd say the GM just needs to know how much they make their roll by and then decide if the mooks defense is good enough to avoid the attack.

[edit again] som earlier threads on this subject:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=31790 (simplified combat)
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=12899 (problems with 1 sec turns)
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=27692 (you already know this one ;))

I'm sure I've already seen these, but thanks for pointing them out, I'll give them a look for items that might prove useful and appropriate for this discussion.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by griffin

Time scaling might be interesting though, I haven't the slightest idea on how to pull this off. If you only have a single character in play, it might be easier to arrange, but if you've got four or five PCs all doing different things that becomes really problematic.

I have no idea either thats why I want others to do it for me, hehe.
Basicly I think you can do one of two. Either just rename "1 sec per turn" to "0,1 to 5 sec per turn" and screw all consistency.
Or you have to change the entire system so that turns are in fact longer, this would probably be very, very time consuming and indeed be an entirely new rules system.

Originally Posted by griffin

Useful, though I'd say the GM just needs to know how much they make their roll by and then decide if the mooks defense is good enough to avoid the attack.

In a campaign I've run I used a similar rule, only for guns though. As I disallowed dodges against firearms.

What I did was: Take the chance of an attack hitting (depending on skill level), reduce this number by the percentage of the change of a dodge succeeding (depending on dodge level).
Then look at the final score and find out what Skill level this corresponds too,
give a penalty to the attacker so that it would lower his actual skill,
to the new relative skill level.

For instance:
Attacker with skill 14 has 90,74% chance to hit.
A defender with effective dodge 9 has 37,50% chance to avoid getting hit.
So out of 100 hits, 90.74 would hit. Of those 37.50% would be avoided. That’s 37,50% of 90,74 = 34,03 hits would be avoided.
That leaves 90,74-34,03 = 56,71% of the hits that would actually strike home.
If the defender did not defend at all, this is about the same number of hits that would hit if the attacker had, had an attack skill of 11.

So from skill 14 to skill 11 = -3.
So the penalty to the attacker would be -3. (or a penalty = dodge-6 (9-6=3))


As mentioned this number varies a lot but you can find an average pretty easy.
Assuming for instance that most Mooks have a defence around 7-9 and players effective attack score is usually around 12-14.
This will give penalties from -1 to -4. I put it at -3... or rather "Dodge-6".

This should just be renamed to "Defence -6".

So if the mook has a parry of 9 he gives a penalty of 9-6= 3 ~-3.


The system can also work the other way around to make a lot of mook-attacks faster. and the players still gets benefits for retreating, dropping, all out Defence, feverish defence and also multiple parries and all the other stuff that affects the defence score. As the penalty is derived directly from it.

Originally Posted by griffin

I'm sure I've already seen these, but thanks for pointing them out, I'll give them a look for items that might prove useful and appropriate for this discussion.

I'm sure you have too (especially the last one as you posted it), and there are more threads about it I know. I remember some, I just don't remember what they are named and couldn't find them with a quick search.

[griffin]

Regarding Mass Combat

Originally Posted by Maz

[Edit]Oh! I just remembered. One thing there would be a most is some rules for 'mass combat' Ie. How to easy set 4 players up against 100 enemies without it taking the entire session. Or possible 4 players and their 100 allies vs. another 100 opponents. See Lord of the Rings for an example of the style of battle I'm thinking about.

I'd want to see something that compresses multiple turns - minutes - into a few rolls. It would NEVER produce PC deaths. Basically, it would advance the plot and then drop out when "critical" areas arise. Damage PCs would take would be limited to a few points and maybe at most a semi-crippling injury. A critical success or failure on PCs roll would drop back to a more standard combat.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by griffin

Regarding Mass Combat
I'd want to see something that compresses multiple turns - minutes - into a few rolls. It would NEVER produce PC deaths. Basically, it would advance the plot and then drop out when "critical" areas arise. Damage PCs would take would be limited to a few points and maybe at most a semi-crippling injury. A critical success or failure on PCs roll would drop back to a more standard combat.

I like this idea.
As for all other things I like to base such stuff off of current rules and do some mathematical mumbo-jumbo to get some result to use as a baseline.

What I've done is much like what I did with my "doge= penalty to hit". I've looked at likelihood of a character with Skill A to hit NPC with defence skill B and then looked at how many attacks would 'hit' in 60 turns.

This is what I came up with:

	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
4	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
5	3	3	3	2	2	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
6	5	5	5	5	4	4	3	2	1	1	1	0	0	0
7	10	10	9	9	8	6	5	4	3	2	1	0	0	0
8	15	15	15	12	12	10	8	6	4	3	1	1	0	0
9	20	20	20	20	15	15	12	9	6	4	2	1	0	0
10	30	30	30	30	20	20	15	12	8	5	3	1	1	0
11	30	30	30	30	30	20	20	15	10	6	4	2	1	0
12	60	60	60	30	30	30	20	15	12	8	4	2	1	0
13	60	60	60	60	30	30	30	20	12	9	5	2	1	0
14	60	60	60	60	60	30	30	20	15	9	5	3	1	0
15	60	60	60	60	60	30	30	20	15	10	5	3	1	0
16	60	60	60	60	60	30	30	20	15	10	5	3	1	0
17	60	60	60	60	60	30	30	20	15	10	5	3	1	0

This is of course if you attacked with a normal attack every single turn of those 60 secs.
Actually I'm not sure what to use it for but it give an idea about how effective a character with a certain skill levels would be against NPC with certain defensive levels.

If you be fair to say that a character with skill 20 could take down 30 enemies in 60 secs for instance.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Maz

...One thing there would be a most is some rules for 'mass combat' Ie. How to easy set 4 players up against 100 enemies without it taking the entire session. Or possible 4 players and their 100 allies vs. another 100 opponents. See Lord of the Rings for an example of the style of battle I'm thinking about.

The way I deal with these situations is I assigned a length of time to the battle, relative to the notional strength of the two forces. If the PC's side is stronger, the battle will be longer. If the PC's side is weaker, the battle will be shorter. Then, I play the PCs' part in the battle for that length of time/number of rounds, then handwave the outcome of the overall battle based on the relative performance of the PCs in their zone(s). (Unless a particular plot element directs otherwise.) If the PCs were knocked out early, or pinned down ineffectively for the battle, I extrapolate that result to the overall outcome. Likewise if they maneouvered brilliantly or slew many foes the overall outcome will reflect success.

A small addition to the Suggested rules:
Do not allow mooks active defenses but let them give a penalty to the attackers Attack roll instead, based on the mooks defense. This makes combat a lot quicker as players do not have to wait from the GM's response but can roll away as long as they know the total penalty to their attack.

A mechanic that has been suggested before it to make attack/defense a Quick Contest.

[El Guapo]

I am so looking forward to this series. I loved DF, but I couldn't help but think, "if only they did something like this for action types." I'd also love to see a totally over-the-top setting (like a new version of Black Ops), but for now, the GURPS Action series sounds exactly like what I'm looking for.

Is the format going to be similar to DF, i.e. 1st book is characters and 2nd is a GM/adventure guide?