From: urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Art Urban (PROFS))
Subject: Re: GURPS: Quick Contest (Update)
Organization: Atmospheric Technology Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:59:09 GMT

In article <38687@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
%>However, the Quick Contest change *does* accelerate combat, with only a 
%>nominal amount of higher fatality. What we saw, was that the inevitable result
%>was arrived at much quicker, via the Quick Contest. I highly reccomend it for
%>anybody attempting to accelerate their combats.
%
%	I'm curious if this combat test was only for medieval combat
%or was it for high-tech combat as well?  (Y'know...guns, etc)


A *good* question! This was simply medieval hand-to-hand. Sorry I did not
mention that. It would be interesting to test high tech.


%>Also, we determined critical success/failure when there was a difference of
%>10 or greater in the quick contest; he who had greater success, or greater
%>failure determined which table was used. Example: A and B roll a quick contest
%>of skill. A has success by 7 and B has failure by 4. The difference is 11,
%>so there was a critical result, and since A's success by 7 is greater than 4
%>we use the critical *hit* table. Had B failed by 7 and A succeeded by 4, then
%>we would have used the critical *failure* results for the defender. Keep in
%>mind, A still gets to hit his target, in the second example. The critical
%>failure on B's part does not negate A's hit.
%
%	Hmm . . . I'd have to test this before saying anything, but
%characters with high skills might end up making critical hits much
%too often.  I'd prefer to keep the old GURPS method.


We didn't really experience any problem due to this change. I *should* have
stated that a natural 3 or 4, or a 17 or 18 is *not* critical success/failure.
Under our test system, there must be a difference of 10. This may reduce your
concern.


%>We will continue to test these rule changes, and if folks are interested, I
%>can keep you posted.
%
%	I'd like to hear more, especially what you were doing with
%ranged combat of any sort.  (Or are you just figuring penalties
%normally?  Then I'd have no argument with the QC system...)  I tend


The whole point of our test was to be as non-evasive as possible, i.e., change
as little as we can. We did not test any ranged combat, but normal GURPS
modifiers, actions, cover-mods, etc. *all* apply. The only change is to convert
the roll to a Quick Contest.

I'll be starting up a new game on the 9th of October, so if there are other
questions, it's possible that some of them may come up during my game.

Also, we did test the extreme of the medieval system. We had everybody in
full plate goin' at it. Full plate in my world is rare, but we did want to
take a look at the extremes. Simply put, combat was *much* quicker, *but* it
helps to have the right weapons. We tried it first with short and broadswords,
but found they are not nearly as effective as a mace. Good strength is
imperative, too, since full plate is close to 85 pounds(!), and most of us
were staggering around under Heavy Encumbrance. 

A good tactic for a fighter up against a superiorly armored foe, is to always
strike at the least PD area of the foe; this is usually hands, and eyes.
Don't bother to go for vital organ/brain hits right off - disable the darn
bugger first!

Oh, one last thing. Our combats were quicker, also due to the fact that the
defender always rolls a defense when they are attacked (since its a QC), and
thereby never needed to wait for the attacker to declare a successful hit.
We still need to compare failures. And on PD only defenses, the defender
doesn't even get a roll...



--
Art Urban 					       urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu
===============================================================================
 "Oh no! The canary exploded!"                                      -Tom Servo 
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc