From: a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:18:13 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA writes:
>
> 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?

Oh. So GURPS is the end-all be-all of reality gaming. Right.

> 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.

If your sternum deflects a round it will at the very least give you one
hell of a bruise and enough impact shock to put you down. If bone in your
chest cavity actually stops a round without suffering damage with the
projectile still embedded within you, you are either very lucky or made of
steel.

I realize there are documented cases where rounds that strike the chest
simply 'deflect' off a bone, but more often that not (many small calibre
rounds included!) the bone suffers some kind of trauma, such as splintering
or shattering.

> The sternum and skull are actually well-documented as having a high chance
> of stopping or deflecting such hits.

What is a 'high chance'? Half of the rounds that strike that location? What
calibre? What type of round?

I've seen the effects of a hollow-point round on both the chest cavity and
the skull. The bone did *not* stop the .38 that struck. If anything,
deflection can exacerbate the effect of a round that has entered the body.

> 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 don't think I said either was wrong. The issue that I took with Bryce
Koike was with regard to his ridiculous statement that people "should" aim
for the head and vitals, and not the chest. GURPS terminology or not,
people involved in a firefight should not be methodically selecting the
lower region of the torso as opposed to the upper region. It doesn't happen
that way in real life. If a game like GURPS claims that it is "realistic",
it should reflect this.

> 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.

I'm one of the debaters in favour of the hydrostatic shock theory. But HSS
or not, the point I made was that you don't "aim" for the heart when you're
in combat. Fill your target's chest with lead, and he'll die! That's all
there is to it.

> Try the Journal of Trauma for *realistic* views on the subject.

I've read it. I agree that it is a terrific source of information for
gaming damage tables, but it isn't the only source of authoritative
material. I've gleaned plenty of information from a pathologist who happens
to be a friend.

> 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.

You mean "in many RPGs", or "in some RPGs". Not all RPGs fit under your
description.

> 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.

Your arrogance is amazing. You seem to be under the impression that this is
the only way to game. Wake up, man.

> 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.

I like the TW:2000 hesitation rules. Too bad their damage system is so
shoddy.

> 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.

Oh fer Chrissakes, relax. I strung psychology with physics and medicine.
All three disciplines have guidelines or laws that you can follow, although
psychology has the least reliable ones.

And again, you seem to be obsessed with the idea that the PCs have to be
these real tough hombres that are the center of the universe. Have you ever
considered a gaming style where this isn't the case?

> 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.

You can have your medal back.

> 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.

I've played plenty as well. Just because *most* games allow characters to
get up and walk away after being hit by a shotgun does not make it *right*.
It doesn't make it wrong, either.

> 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.

In your obviously not-so-humble opinion. You state your opinions as if they
were facts, which leads me to question the validity of what you write.

+ 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.

OK, let me spell it out for you. Snipers are specially picked and trained
infantrymen who exhibit a high degree of self-preservation and patience.
They use weapons that are specifically designed for accurate long-range
fire, and are extremely selective with their targets.

In a firefight, you empty your weapon in the general direction of the
enemy. If you hit, great, if you don't, maybe you can keep his head down so
he doesn't shoot you.

> 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.

Snipers almost always use scopes. Snipers do not fire at any target that is
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.

GURPS isn't so much the issue here. It's the application of those rules by
the players (specifically Bryce Koike) that I am questioning. And I have
never claimed that there should be different rules for sniping, firefights
and executions. Do not put words in my mouth.

> 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.

No. In a firefight, you do not have the luxury of aiming for the head. In a
melee, you do. This is why a parallel cannot be drawn.

> 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.

He did not. He made the claim that individuals in a firefight should always
aim for the head or vitals, and that if you do not, you lack "combat
skill". I proved to him that his claim is incorrect.

> Your combat experience is admirable. Here's a medal. But it *is* a small,
> statistical sample of a huge phenomenon.

I gave the medal back already, and you need not patronize.

> 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.

Tsk. I hope you don't represent all GURPS players. You're rude.

All of your ranting seems to focus on a couple of things. They are:

        1) GURPS is wonderful and can do no wrong.
        2) PCs should be center of the universe.

I disagree with both. Too bad the issue that Koike and I were debating had
nothing to do with them.

--
J.D. Frazer, a481@mindlink.bc.ca, (Vancouver, B.C., Canada)
-----------------------------------------------------------
*BRRRRAPPAPPAPPAPPAPPAPPAPPAPP!*
"MEIN LEBEN!" <thud>
"You shoulda thought about that when you signed up, buddy." - Valaria