From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Time and judgement
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:23:15 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Sep10.221822.6127@news.columbia.edu>, 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:

>>I don't really agree, but if folx are bothered by combats taking too
>>little game time then why not change perceptions instead of adding
>>rules? When asked how long a X-round fight took, roll Xd6 for the
>>answer.

> 	Is it just me, or is this for all practical purposes the same 
> thing as saying that a round is around 3 or 4 seconds? 

No, it's not the same, because a 3-4 second round will change other 
rules. For example -- RoFs for firearms, Move score and HT rolls just to
name a few. Some effects would have to be discovered while playing. Are 
you going to triple/quadruple Move? How about RoFs? Would some stats be
tripled and some not? The guy who brought this up was looking for a nice
simple rule to tack on. The 3 - 4 second round would be a MAJOR change, 
and probably wouldn't solve the problem.

> 	Saying after the fact that a fight took longer than it did 
> leads to alot of inconsistancies. Like being unable to communicate 
> during combat because saying anything meaningful takes to long, then 
> finding out later that you actually had plenty of time to say that. Etc. 

Well, the idea was to change the perception of how long combat takes. You
know, the fight was over before you knew it, but you find out it actually
took longer. The problem is that GURPS allows PCs to use every single round
to its fullest, and that combat should take longer to compensate for the
seconds the PCs lose track of. What you are suggesting is that combat should
take longer, but the PCs should still be able to use every second to its 
fullest (i.e. since the combats take longer, the PCs will be able to talk
more). That misses the problem -- we wanted to simulate the dizzying flurry
of combat. Combatants lose a second here and there in the heat of the fight.
If you insert those ``lost'' seconds during the combat, it might give one 
side an unfair advantage. If you insert the seconds retroactively, both 
sides have lost the time and no one is given an edge.
 
> 	Why exactly is a 1 second conceptual turn desirable? Some say 
> that it is neccessary for realism. However, I don't see this. What makes 
> a combat feel 'real' to me is the fear, confusion, hesitation, shock, and 
> pain of the combatants. Playing at the one second level, you generally lose 
> all this, because you have at least 30 to 60 seconds to decide on what your 
> character can barely register. 

So, now you give the players 30 to 60 seconds to decide on 3-second actions.
The players are still going to get at least ten times as long as they should
to make one round-decisions, it's an unavoidable problem, unless you give 
the players exactly as much time as their players get. If the players did
actually did experience as much pressure/fear/excitement as their characters,
they probably wouldn't want to play. Fighting is extremely distressing, 
especially when you are fighting to live. Why try to change rules and screw
everything up when: 1) You can't achieve that level of realism without 
playing in real time; and 3) that level of realism wouldn't be all that fun
anyway. What you have to do is put the players under a pale semblance of the 
pressure the characters are experiencing. Enough to be exciting, but not so
much as to be distressing or really frustrating.

> 	Using a longer time scale results in greater realism on average, 
> I think, as well as simplifying things and allowing such novel actions as 
> talking during combat time. 

Yeah, novel concept there, but is it realistic? I'd say no. You just can't
have a conversation while fighting IMO. And besides, what will happen is
that while before the characters were choosing phrases to fit into one or
two seconds, now they will choose even more complex phrases to fit into
3 seconds. As per your example:

Player: My character says, ``Hey Pete! I'll take the spellcaster on the
right, you take the fighter on the left, and then whoever finishes first 
will take the guy in the middle!'' No wait, too long for a 3 second round. 
Okay, my character says, ``Pete, you go left. I'll go right. Meet you in 
the middle!'' Okay, that will fit in one round.

See what I mean? The problem of characters making complex decisions in 
very short time periods will still exist, just on a different time scale.

Sounds like we might be approaching different problems here. I thought we 
were talking about the problem of GURPS combat going too fast, that the 
characters can use every round with perfect efficiency, and there was never 
any time allotted for lost time in the ``flurry of combat.'' It sounds like 
you are approaching the problem of GURPS combat being inconvenient for 
players.

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