From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Time and judgement
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:15:04 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <2AAFBCF1.19992@ics.uci.edu>, 
 mmadsen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen) writes:
> Also, in the midst of hand-to-hand combat, an attack often
> degenerates into "windmilling" and wild punches that don't land and leave
> _huge_ openings for counter-attack; thus, attackers often break off to
> regain equilibrium.
> 
> If these things _didn't_ happen, GURPS would be _very_ accurate.  

Yeah, good point. If you were actually able to see people playing out a
GURPS hand-to-hand fight, it would probably look a LOT like one of those
70's Kung Fu movies, in which fights are fast but rehearsed. The combatants
remain erect and in perfect combat stance the whole fight, and all their 
blows are accurately executed (they only miss when the other guy executes
a perfect block or dodge). Remember? 

Whoosh *smack*!
*Smack thud*
Swoosh woosh! *sha-WACK*
Cha-wok! *Woosh*
(Pause. The shirtless fighters pose and flex. Close up on face, then
 extreme close-up on eyes). 
HEEEE YAAAA!! *Woooosh*! Sha-WACK! Sha-WACK! Sha-WACK!
(Bad guy falls down).

But anyway..

> Since people do become flustered, I was thinking that maybe some _simple_ 
> rules could be implemented to model this behavior.  In this manner, the 
> _player_ might be making the "tactical" decision to hesitate, even if that 
> wouldn't be the "tactical" decision for the _character_.  Sure he should 
> shoot X, turn and shoot Y, while proceeding to cover behind rock Z, but 
> the _player_ rolls and fails a perception roll or something.

Well, like I said, I agree with your point. But would you like to actually
suggest something? I'm convinced lengthening the rounds is not the answer
and people seem to think the idea of ``inserting'' rounds retroactively is 
too simplistic. So what do you think?
 
> I'm suggesting that some simple perception roll (or similar mechanic) be
> used to determine when you can/do act -- something simple, nothing complex,
> and something that would make the McDonald's masacre simulate well in
> GURPS.

This is a start, but I'm thinking that this is not likely to go over well
with players (``WHADDYA MEAN I CAN'T DODGE!? WHAT!? I'M CONFUSED IN THE 
HEAT OF COMBAT?!''). What I've tried to do so far in my GMing (not because
I'm bothered by GURPS rules, just becasue I want to keep the players honest)
is just police the characters' actions. If the character wants to do something
that I suspect would take even a fraction of a second longer one round, I
tell the player he/she has to wait for the next round (or have the action
spill into the next). Example -- one of my players recently wanted to reload 
while looking for cover to move up to. The character has Speed Load and Fast 
Draw, so he could reload in one round, but I ruled that searching for decent 
cover would take an additional round. I think if GMs are alert to making sure
actions take as long as they really would, some realism can be preserved. 

Even though it seems to have been panned by a lot of readers, I still like
the idea of the GM call to insert rounds (randomly or whatever) into a 
fight after it is over. It wouldn't have to happen in every fight. Someone
brought up the example of a character wanting to make a clean, quick, kill,
like a back attact or something. For that, the character would perhaps have
a moment to compose her/himself, concentrate, etc., so that by the time the
attack occurs, any confusion/frustration will be on the part of the victim.
As a GM I would rule that an encounter like that would not take any more
than 3-5 seconds, and I would play each round as per the original rules. 
But for a stand-up knife fight, duel or something where there's likely to be
some ``flurry of blows,'' I'd see no problem in saying the fight took longer
than the actual combat rounds suggested. As for the scenario where one player
wants to help Pete, well, Pete's fight would take longer as well, so there
would be no change in the way the fight would take place. 

I really think that would enhance realism. An example: With the original
rules, the party finds themselves in a bar where they are being harrassed
by some low-life peons. Push comes to shove and a fight ensues. They know
the cops/city watch/MP's/illuminati/principal will show up soon, so they
want to get it over with. In the original rules, how long does it take the
PCs to mop the floor with a handful of locals? 20-30 seconds? Okay, just
play out the fight. Let's say it ends up taking 25 seconds. After the fight
is over, the GM rules that there were 20 or so seconds in there that the 
PCs lost track of. That's close to twice the time needed by the original
rules, and it might be enough for someone to have hailed a cop, called the 
teacher or whatever. Also, the GM doesn't tell the PCs how much time he
inserts into the fight, because no one can tell exactly how long a fight
takes, right? This could enhance realism in situation where keeping track
of time is important (what if there is a bomb set to go off in one minute
in the bar?) 

Okay,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chadd VanZanten SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU  ``You know, I thought this was a
good idea but this is one weird mama-jama.''  -- TV's Frank, MST3K
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.misc