From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: GURPS Rewrite
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:51:32 GMT

hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall) writes:
>  That sounds even better. With sections for Quick, Standard, Detailed,
>Cinematic, and Mass Combat; the system will be much more "Universal".

	One thing I would like to see is a 'fast-resolution' combat for 
high-defense-roll characters that merges with the normal system. Currently, 
the only suggestion that GURPS makes is to resolve hitting as a quick 
contest between attack skill and defense roll - which pretty much makes 
defenses obselete, and all-out attacks the 'in' choice. 

	You need a new calculation for 'contest-defense score'. I would 
suggest something like:

Normal Parry = 1/2 Skill ... Contested Parry = 1 1/4 Skill - N
Normal Dodge = Move ... Contested Dodge = 2 * Move - N

	This is intended to work towards merging the contested and normal 
defense roll methods. This way, higher skill means a greater chance to 
parry an equal opponent - just like in the normal method. The 'N' 
penalty can be scaled to make this system faster or slower - i.e. greater 
or lesser chance of parry. In addition, one can give a chart of N vs. 
number of 'normal' turns: i.e. 

1 turn of contested defense combat at -3 penalty = 1 turns of normal combat 
1 turn at -5 penalty = 2 turns of normal combat
etc. 

	Basically, I don't like the radical shift that takes place if 
you use this option which was not suggested to change the nature of 
combat - but just to speed it up. This way, the two systems are more 
alike in how they work. 

>
>  I'd like to see the stat modifiers moved off into their own sections of the
>Ad/Disad chapters, so that it is clear they are secondary stats and not just
>an advantage. This is done more of a selling point than as a major change.
>However, it would clear things up a bit for newcomers.
>
>IMHO, groups should have the choice of whether they want a few or many stats.
>If a group just wants to just use DX on most of the skills, they should be
>able to do so. Likewise, if a group wants DX+Speed, DX+Finesse, DX+Reaction
>as separate abilities, they should also be allowed to do so. This will give
>the game system more "Universal" appeal. (This should only require a little
>more detail in each of the skill headers. The (Physical/Hard) would need to
>be changed to something like (DX+Speed/Hard), etc. I don't think that's a
>major complication.)

	I do. It is a major headache for balancing and preventing abuse, 
as well as *alot* of choices due to the number of skills. I am personally 
in favor of generalized skill aptitudes to handle 'new skill bases' because 
they complicate things very little and are easy to balance - but I've 
already ranted about those enough. 

>
>  The skills should start out lower because it makes an expert more valueable,
>and a bigger investment in CPs is required to become good at something.
>With the points scaled up by 8, it still wouldn't be that hard to bring a
>skill up to a decent level. It just takes more of a commitment in points.

	There should be consistent determinations of what levels in skills 
are 'good', 'expert', and 'world-class'. Unfortunately, since mental skills 
have radically different costs than physical skills at higher levels, 
'world-class' physical skills are very different from 'world-class' mental 
skills. 
	The rules should be clear that although a 20 physical skill is 
incredible, perhaps one-of-a-kind, a 20 mental skill is not nearly so 
impressive. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And when they catch you, 
Columbia University         | they will kill you."         - Watership Down