From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Time and judgement
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:32:56 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

mmadsen@ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen) writes:
>The reason you need a "high-resolution" system (e.g. detail down to one second
>increments) is that sometimes it's very, very necessary.  If you want to
>handle a psycho with a knife stabbing ten people in a matter of seconds
>(_not_ difficult to do!) that kind of resolution is necessary.  Likewise for
>someone firing an assault rifle or point-sparring, etc.  Real fighting can
>be very, very fast.
>
>Of course, while fighting _can_ be very fast, it _isn't_ always.  This is
>the main complaint against GURPS.  The answer is _not_ to increase the
>duration of a round to ten seconds (or whatever value) and say "oh, they
>circled each other, parried once or twice, then scored an 'effective hit'."
>That removes the possibility of quick combat.  What we need are some simple
>rule-additions to make GURPS more realistic.  Characters need incentives
>to take a breather, circle each other looking for openings, duck behind
>cover for intervals of more than one second, break off attacks to regain
>their bearings, take in the scene around them, and so on. 

	Two problems with this: 
1) 	In real fighting, people do not generally hesitate or step back 
because it is tactically efficient or any other logical reason. Often it is a 
much better choice to not to stop, but that sort of intensity and cool is 
beyond most people. 
	As long as you let the player choose a new action every second, his 
character's reaction time and concentration is going to be much greater 
than realistic. If a fight is 'all over before anyone really knew what was 
happening', then the player should not have decided what to do seven times 
during that period. It should be a one round fight, since people did not 
get a chance to realize what was going on and react to it. 

2)	IMO, the *last* thing GURPS needs is more combat rules. Resolving 
fights second by second will take forever if combats last realistic 
periods of time. GURPS advanced combat is already very time-consuming and 
overloaded with rules. 

	Yes, there are some cases where the 5 second phase is unrealistic. 
But I think that for the vast majority of cases, it is more realistic and 
playable than a 1 second phase. 
(Firing guns is handled by the rate of fire. As far as the psycho with the 
knife - there are a number of well-documented cases of mass slayings. The 
easiest one to look at I think was the recent shooting at a McDonald's in 
Texas. That was over fairly quickly, as I recall, but was *not* even close 
to the speeds at which it would be resolved in GURPS.)

>
>P.S. The "GM-call" isn't such a bad method considering it's simplicity --
>     it's very efficient ("OK, as long as this is a duel, let's say you
>     circle for...oh, ten seconds..."), but having "brakes" to slow things
>     down built in to the rules is not good.

	The 'GM-call' method becomes a *real* point of contention in 
fights larger than a duel. I.E. Player: 'I want to kill this guy quickly 
so I can go help Pete over there.' GM: 'OK. It'll take you eight seconds.' 
Player: 'Eight seconds! It's only two strikes. He'll be dead by then.' 
GM: 'I'll slow down his fight, too.' 
	At this point, things start resembling Amber alot, since it is 
almost entirely up to the GM's judgement how the fight goes. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Deservin's got nothing to do with it."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu |
Columbia University         |                - William Munny, 'Unforgiven'