From: maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Time mechanics
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 20:46:51 EDZ
Distribution: world
Organization: Sweet Oblivion

slp66@cc.usu.edu writes:

> > 
> >> The other day, my GURPS group was attacked.  The party was asleep in a
> >> building when the attack hit.  Now, they have to wake up, grab their stuff
> >> put on their armor, grab a weapon and run to the battle.  According to GUR
> >> mechanics, this is going to take at least 15 to 25 seconds and that being
> >> very generous.  By that time (TL 7 weapons...guns and gernades and stuff) 
> >> fight is over.
> > 
> > Yes, that sounds about right.  If the baddies toss a couple of grenades in 
> > room you are sleeping in, or spray the room with a high rate of fire weapon
> > you don't get much opportunity to realize what's happening, don your
> > bulletproof vest, find your weapon in the dark, take the safety off and cha
> > a round, then aim and fire.  That's realistic.
> 
> The fight was 100 yards away at the outer perimeter.  The point is that there
> is no way the PC's could have been involved in the fight.  GURPS fights go to
> fast for characters to be involved unless they are right there.

Really? It's very hard to know where the fault lies without more
detailed information about the situation. Was there a clear line of
sight to the perimeter? You can easily shoot a rifle to 100 yards and
beyond. What did the attackers do? Shoot some sentries and run away? Or
did the guards take the attackers out before the PC's arrived?

Either way there's not much the PC's could realistically do, even if
they were in gear etc. Even running the 100 yard distance takes 10-20
seconds - plenty of time to shoot somebody and run away. This is called
hit and run tactics and yes, they work just like this. A lot of
guerrillas would be dead if real World(tm) used AD&D timescale.

If the guards were overrun, the PC's would have a fight in their hands
anyway, so what's the problem?

> Ok, in Harn you can run away.  Not in Gurps. Hey you better stay where you are
> and hope you can fight it out.  Manuevering in GURPS is suicidal.  It's very
> bad.  Don't try it.  You'll get killed.  Now, in AD&D you can manuever and ha
> a chance of surviving.  you can move and engage and if you do it right, you'v
> got it made.  Now, which system is move realistic?  AD&D.  In real life you c
> maneuver and shift positions.  GURPS won't let you do that to save the
> farm.

This is pure BS. First of all you are comparing GURPS TL7 weapons to
AD&D (and Harn) _swords_and_bows! Actually, if you use low tech weapons
in GURPS, you have _better_ chances of running away. There's even no
"free attack for disengaging" and if you move at top speed, few people
will be able to stay within melee distance AND attack (this, ofcourse
doesn't apply to characters overburdened with armor and equipment vs.
fast, unencumbered foes - but them's the breaks). Deploying secondary
ranged weapons (bar thrown hand weapons) is likely to be even slower and
less effective, unless there is absolutely no cover available. 

There is also a question of terrain. If there are no terrain features
providing cover and the opposition has effective ranged weapons, only a
fool will run away. Drop down, stay down and crawl to safety and/or
shoot back. Remember that guns can be shot while moving at very little
penalty to hit (aiming's just the hard bit). At close ranges moving also
makes up a lot of the range/speed modifier. 

Taking the mortar kill zone example, yes they are deadly. So they are in
real life, which we are trying to simulate. But staying in kill zone
gets you dead 100% sure. Run for it and you have at least some chance. A
small chance always beats none at all, that's why people try to get out
of kill zones.

The way I see it, your problem lies with that you're used to AD&D style
"heroic" gaming and have trouble understanding that real firefights and
Rambo have very little to do with each other.

jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H. Kim) writes:

>	I disagree strongly here. GURPS combat speeds (in the games I have 
> been in, anyhow) have been strongly *unrealistic*. GURPS has characters act 
> to their *physical* limits all the time. As a result, in combat, everyone 
> tends to turn into cool-headed, cold-blooded killing machines who don't 
> stop for a second, and who throw off all pain near instantly. 

You're right. In GURPS people have the capacity to perform to their
physical limits. According to SJG, this is mainly because playing
"frozen" characters can be really boring. In reality people don't like
to get their heads blown off. That's what PC's and NPC's should also
think and their players should act accordingly. "Freezing" due to
surprise etc. is already covered by GURPS (stun rules). "Freezing" due
to decision making can be simulated easily - just give the player a set
time (say, 30 seconds) to decide his next move. Otherwise the character
just stands there thinking what he should do.

> A character 
> who has his left arm chopped off can fight at no penalty after a second. 
> This is mildly acceptable if you are playing a bunch of special ops 
> commandos, but is preposterous for almost anyone else.

Well, crippling hits cause physical stun, which _might_ be over after
one second. Then again, it might not and you just might be in deep shit...
 
> 	People act differently in swordfights with real blades against an 
> opponent who wants to kill you than in SCA combats. 

It depends. In many real-life cases survivors tell it was over before
they realized what was actually happening. 

The action can stop, ofcourse, but this usually because of either

a) melee combatants get some distance between each other and are
hesitant to close in first. GURPS simulates this easily with the WAIT
maneuver. 

or 

b) People in ranged combat get behind cover and don't want to stick
their heads out to get blown off. Wise players simulate this in any
system - dumb players die because of this in good systems. Also a good
case for WAIT (opportunity fire).

> Shooting a person is 
> more difficult than target practice. Statistics will back me up here - in 
> police encounters, shots fired at close range, even arms length, still have 
> a high chance of missing. I would recommend the movie 'Unforgiven' to those 
> who find this hard to believe. 

I would recommend IPSC to those who do not believe this. Yes you can
miss at very short ranges when trying to shoot too fast. And that's
against paper targets which neither move nor return fire. But I really
don't see what it has do with the rest of the argument. If you don't
play with inhuman skill levels, GURPS simulates this well enough (-2 to
hit with pistol in close combat - many other systems treat this as
certain success/double chance/whatever inappropriate)

[Twilight 2000 stuff deleted]

> The damage values are low compared to people, but 
> that is an obvious concession to playability. 

Let me tell an example: In a TW2000 (2nd ed.) session a PC was ambushed
by an enemy. The enemy was right behind him and demanded surrender. What
did the PC do? He DROPPED a grenade behind his back. He survived (rather
easily, I might add) - the NPC enemy did not. You call this realistic
and playable?


--------
root@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) Official SRP Headquarters