From: CX6L <CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Organization: McGill University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:04:10 GMT

In article <15972@mindlink.bc.ca> a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) writes:
>> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:

>> Sorry, I should use proper GURPS wording:  shoot for the vitals or the
>> BRAIN (if you've got time to aim), not for the TORSO. The torso is a large
>> area with all sorts of nice bones and things to get in the way of unaimed
>> shots.

>Huh? The chest and torso are one and the same. To be totally accurate, the
>chest is part of the torso. The torso includes the entire trunk of the
>body, from the base of the neck to the waist, excluding the arms.

Yes, but gamers try and use game terms to describe things. This
avoids abiguities and puts us all on the same wavelength. In
GURPS, there is a target area called the torso (area 9-11). A
part of this is the chest (9-10) and the rest is the abdomen
(11). We're talking GURPS here, not anatomy. Try and speak our
language, OK?

>"[...] nice bones and things [...]" do *not* "[...] get in the way [...]"
>of projectiles travelling hundreds of feet per second. If a projectile hits
>bone, the damage will be that much more serious.

No. While perpendicular or near-perpendicular impacts on bone
with large calibre a/o high-velocity firearms can and do cause
this effect, a good deal of the time, a round impinges upon
bone non-perpendicularly, or simply does not have to kinetic
energy to shatter bone. Then the round is deflected or stopped.
The sternum and skull are actually well-documented as having
a high chance of stopping or deflecting such hits.
     The variability of damage dice allows for this. Low-end
rolls indicate grazes. High-end rolls: perpendicular impacts
near stress lines of a bone causing fragmentation, or just
missing bone altogether. Both can and do happen. Neither is
consistent or "right".

>> I'm not going to sit around and argue the reality of this because I've
>> never been in a war or any gunfight, but generally-speaking if I really
>> wanted to kill someone, I'd shoot at the general heart region.

>Which is located in the torso. Aiming for the heart is silly. Just pump his
>chest full of lead and let the hydrostatic shock do its work. You need not
>actually penetrate the heart to kill someone.

No, again. Hydrostatic shock is still hotly-debated. Many pathologists
question its existence, or at least question whether it is of note
when compared to tissue-trauma and classical shock. Internal bleeding,
as well as shattering of firm organs (liver) and puncturing of soft
ones (spleen), is still generally regarded as the primary cause of
mortality. The whole tale of hydrostatic shock being the great killer
in gunshot cases was heavily bolstered by magazines of low scientific
value, such as SOF, in the 70's and 80's. Try the Journal of Trauma
for *realistic* views on the subject.

>> I'd call that aiming for the vitals (-3 to hit) because I'm not just
>> pointing my gun at the guy and shooting (which I do happen to know is much
>> easier), and if I hit, I may very well damage something "vital"  =)

>I don't understand this "aiming for the vitals" stuff. Snipers aim for the
>base of the neck to kill and the thighs to incapacitate. They do this
>because they usually can afford to -- they often have ample time to aim,
>and their weapons mount scopes. If you're in a firefight, reality dictates
>that you simply try to put the other guy down before he can hit *you*. This
>means you aim for the largest part of the body: the chest.

Yes, but in RPGs, the PCs are supposed to be the rare and heroic
members of society who *can* do such "impossible" things. Their
exceptional skills and toughness are meant to reflect this. In
most games, there is a desire to simulate the situations shown
in movies et al., where James Bond can use a .25 pistol to kill
a foe with a single chest shot. Real-life isn't like this, unless
the chest shot hits the heart, aorta, etc. So in the game, we
allow the PCs to aim at the vitals, brain etc., to simulate this.
     It is true that most PCs are hard-case, cold-blooded killers
by real-life standards. But there are people who fight despite
wounds, face down heavy fire and cooly aim between a foe's eyes
when the foe is shooting. They aren't very nice people, and are
rare. However, if the PCs want to be like that, there are rules
for High Pain Threshold, Combat Reflexes and Strong Will to
let them. What's unrealistic isn't what goes on. What is,
perhaps, unrealistic is that there would be six hard-cases like
this in one place. But if that's how the players want their
characters to be, let them. If you want statistically averaged
personalities, try a random-roll game. I believe Twilight 2000
has a "Coolness Under Fire" stat that would make you happy.

>That's a pretty broad statement. I disagree with you entirely. Games can
>approach reality by obeying various laws, such as physics, medicine,
>psychology, and the like.

Oh come on, Frazer!! "Laws of psychology"????? What?!?!?!
Psychology is a soft "science" where the standard deviations
are huge. Human behaviour is highly unpredictable. Someone
with modest willpower could f**k the "laws" of psychology
at any time. PCs are such individuals. So they don't wilt
under fire. Oh well. As for laws of physics and medicine,
as a physicist, I think GURPS does a fine job on the former,
and you're no more qualified than I to speak on the latter,
except that I have read scientific journals on the latter.

>> In reality you might get shot in the leg and go down, preferring to nurse
>> your wound than fight the pain, leap up, and continue the battle (as people
>> are apt to do in almost all the RPG's I've played in).

>Your RPG experience hardly dictates what everyone else does in their games.
>Additionally, game systems that allow a character to jump up again and
>consistently ignore the pain associated with a gunshot wound do not
>approach realism.

Sorry. I've played dozens of systems and hundreds of games with
dozens of players. Most games allow a character to work around
injury and keep going. Almost all players like this, and want
their characters to ignore anything less than a killing or
incapacitating shot. So maybe your group likes to play characters
who go down when shot in the foot. Most folks do not. Playing
a game where the slightest injury takes you out is not fun at
all.

>> A brain shot in GURPS is a -7 to hit. Unless you're sure of yourself,
>> you're never going to make that shot.  But if you're a sniper and you're
>> sitting on a building, why not?  You've got your full ACC bonus and +3 from
>> aiming...if that's not good enough, then nothing is.

>Sniping is drastically different from normal firefighting, as I've pointed
>out above.

Why? Let's see. The gun is the same. The firer has the same degree
of skill. The target is still mortal. . . ahhh! Your famous "laws
of psychology" again! OK, so it is more comfortable to shoot when
no one's shooting back. However, a skilled gunman can and will,
if he's a bit of a cold fish, call his shots. His skill is the
same, he just can't aim a long time or use a scope. This will not
likely matter at close range. GURPS says that a gun is a gun, and
skill is skill. They work everywhere. If you'd like a system
where sniping, gun combat and execution by a firing squad are all
different rules producing different results with the same weapons
and firers, try Top Secret. GURPS tries to *rationalize*, not
complicate, the true situation.

>> I can think of other situations where this is appropriate. Melee combat
>> when a guy is decked out in plate mail but without a helmet, etc...

>Melee is not projectile combat. You can't draw a parallel.

NO! GURPS has a philosophy: injury is injury. Combat, regardless
of its form, consists of a few basic parts: placing the attack
where it can injure, avoiding defensive or evasive actions on the
part of the target, and resolving injury. Combat is combat.
In GURPS, projectile and melee can and do mesh easily together.
One does not need ridiculous "ranged combat phases" and "close
combat phases" etc from older games.
     In real-life, one cannot draw such a line. A real-life
sambo master who taught a friend of mine in New York had his
gun jam under fire. So he approached the foe, zigzagging,
closed to arm's reach and disarmed the guy, and took him out
with his bare hands. This example blurs the line a lot. I want
to play a game where this is possible. A bullet pierces flesh:
so does a rapier. You zigzag and duck to avoid bullets: you
dodge a rapier. Where's the difference?
    Try Twilight or T.S. if you want separate rules to resolve
fire and melee. They show conclusively that the distinction is
irrational and complicates the game without contributing to
enjoyment.

>> Could you please get off your high horse and just conduct a normal
>> conversation?  I honestly don't understand why you're so offended.  If
>> you're really interested in getting off on games, go pick on AD&D for a
>> while...
>
>Touchy, touchy. High horse? You make statements that are blatantly untrue
>and claim that they are facts, then disparage someone for his lack of
>combat knowledge. I point out that you're wrong and back my claim up with
>real-life examples, and you say I'm on a high horse. Maybe you should calm
>down, then check your information before claiming factuality.

Look. Bryce Koike and I do not always see eye-to-eye on this board.
But he just presented a reasonable interpretation of the GURPS rules
that was obviously well thought out, and he tried to apply it to the
thread "Reality vs. Games". He used the language of the game, and
simply requested you do the same. Your combat experience is
admirable. Here's a medal. But it *is* a small, statistical sample
of a huge phenomenon. In fact, Steve Jackson Games used a large
database of injury results to fabricate the rules in GURPS.
If you want to laud your obvious edge in the realm of what "really
happens out in the street" over someone, try opening a new group
called rec.guns.kill.kill.kill or alt.the.nam or something. This
is a gaming board. Speak the language, or get out.

______________________________________________________________________
|      From the Most Holy Keyboard of:                               |
|      Dr Manfred Kromm, Reverend of the Temple of the Squid God,    |
|      Professor of Quantum Parapsychology.                          |
|____________________________________________________________________|
|           )                               "This won't hurt a bit.  |
|  |========|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO>------      Afterwards . . . you'll |
|           )                                see things MY way!"     |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy