From: mmadsen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen)
Subject: Re: Time and judgement
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Reply-To: mmadsen@ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:24:01 GMT

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

[SKIP DOWN A WAYS FOR COMMENTARY]

>mmadsen@ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen) writes:

[My original post]

>>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.
>

[J. Kim's reply]

>	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.

Perhaps I should clarify.  In reality, people often do not take in the whole
situation very clearly; thus, they hesitate in order to look around and take
in the situation.  Also, in the midst of hand-to-hand combat, an attack often
degenerates into "windmilling" and wild punches that don't land and leave
_huge_ openings for counter-attack; thus, attackers often break off to
regain equilibrium.

If these things _didn't_ happen, GURPS would be _very_ accurate.  Since
people do become flustered, I was thinking that maybe some _simple_ rules
could be implemented to model this behavior.  In this manner, the _player_
might be making the "tactical" decision to hesitate, even if that wouldn't
be the "tactical" decision for the _character_.  Sure he should shoot X, turn
and shoot Y, while proceeding to cover behind rock Z, but the _player_ rolls
and fails a perception roll or something.

>
>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.
>

I didn't communicate this, but my idea was that much combat time wouldn't
be played out, because it would be "short-circuited" by some other game
mechanic.  For instance, in GURPS Martial Arts, they suggest, for tournaments,
to simply roll a few dice to determine the time between "clashes" so that
a sparring match would last a few minutes, not a few seconds.

I'd like to see some simple rules that would make circling your opponent
useful in a tournament/duel (when you don't want to be "touched") but not
as useful when fighting for your life as skinheads kick you on the ground.

>	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.)

I'm suggesting that some simple perception roll (or similar mechanic) be
used to determine when you can/do act -- something simple, nothing complex,
and something that would make the McDonald's masacre simulate well 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.

I agree whole-heartedly.  I was simply making the point that it's quite
good, _considering_ its utter simplicity.  As you can tell, I'd prefer
some mechanics.

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

Matt Madsen
mmadsen@ics.uci.edu

P.S.  What I'd really like are some _suggestions_ on how to accomplish my end.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy