From: CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: GURPS: Combat as a Quick Contest
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:58:22 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep29.051815.22405@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stuart M Castergine) writes:
>However, our group had to abandon the straight contest of skills where
>it takes a failed defense to equal a hit, because our defense rolls
>were way too high. Even feinting did little to remedy the problem.

In our group, the PCs really love this effect! It lets them engage
many foes at once and have a good chance of winning, but gives the
foe enough of a chance that it's not a cakewalk, but a memorable
battle. As a GM, my philosophy is that as the party's reputation
as deadly warriors grows, sensible and skilled veterans will avoid
them because they know enough to not try and get killed. So arch-
nemeses of the party will send hoards of raw recruits and palace
guards and mindless zombies out to wear the PCs down instead. As a
result, the party needs to have huge defense rolls. As well, since
this opposition is by and large unskilled when compared to the PCs,
the Quick Contest would make most battles cakewalks, which would
bore the players, who expect the battles to be infrequent but epic
in scope! Sure, there is the occasional really nasty foe, but then
such foes tend to use magic and such, which makes them a challenge
despite defense rolls. I think it's all in the philosophy of
the GM regarding combat!

>A parry of 15 is incredibly easy to achieve:
>Broadsword skill 15 (parry 7)
>Plate armor          pd 4
>Medium shield        pd 3
>Combat Reflexes        +1 to all active defenses.
>
>When someone is rolling on a 15, they can go for ages without failing
>a roll.

Very true. However, it seems that with magic, people end up stunned
and falling down a lot (eg, Tanglefoot, Daze, Stun, Mental Stun,
14 hits of Deathtouch...). As well, faster foes, such as most animals
and many unnatural beasts, can run-around or even get behind the party!
And then there's Slams, which, IMHO, are *not* overly effective!
Especially when it's a tiger or bear doing the Slam! Factor in as well
modifiers for bad footing, Invisible attackers, etc. Don't forget
the -4 to defenses when Arm Locked or Leg Grappled. Or that shields
and broadswords are useless versus Close-Combat attacks.

Stunning gives a -4 to defense: and you can't retreat. Being
on your back is -3. Knees: -2, and no retreat. Run-arounds/
attacks from the side: -2. Bad footing is -2. Invisible
attacks allow no defense, or one at -4 if the Hearing-2 roll
is made (not likely in a helm). Martial Arts has clarified that
a Grappled combatant defends at -4. And disarmed foes don't
parry at all. All of the above are cumulative.

     In my campaign, all of these factors and more happen
in most if not all battles. The high defense rolls of the
party rapidly dwindle to 10's and 8's. They get hurt often.
I think the present system allows high defense rolls, but
I think that's to allow skilled PCs the opportunity to
have a fighting chance versus unreal adversity. If the GM
presents no such tactical challenges in battles, he is
robbing the players of a lot of fun, and deserves boring
combats!

>You either have to wait for a really good feint result or a crit
>success to hit the person. combats just went on too long.

Feints just aren't used enough, is all. In real life, the ONLY
ways in which two really, really, really good fighters are going
to connect is by (i) luck (ie, a crit), or (ii) judicious use
of Feinting! My group Feints about every other action in combat,
and adds amusing dialogue when they win or lose by a lot. This
has really speeded up battles against inferior foes, and is
both more fun and more realistic.

>part of valor". You can't go into combat with the confidence that
>you'll make it through OK. Every time, you're worried that this one
>might be your last. I like that.

I get that feeling using the present system, given the above
points. I think it depends on what you throw at the party and
how appropriate it is. ten highly-skilled fencers is a great
foe in a Swashbucklers campaign, but not at all appropriate
against a mage-heavy Fantasy group. Against them, use Iron
Golems who Grapple and Strangle (circumventing defense rolls
that rely on PD); or use Invisible, Deathtouching, Teleporting
mages . . . by the circle!

>Granted, it has made feint a less-important combat move -- I rarely

That is, in truth, a major part of my objection to the proposed
Quick Contest rules.

>Alpha, with a rapier skill of 15, wants to thrust to her opponent's
>vitals. That would drop her to a 12, and while she thinks she can make

If this is representative of your campaign, then I see why we are
not in total agreement. My game is an old campaign that has climbed
to the 290-420 point range, and I regularly see skill-22 PCs attacking
skill-14 thugs. Perhaps that explains a lot . . .

>I'm also a fan of keeping the results of a feint secret from the
>*victim* of the feint (but not the initiator), unless the initiator
>fails his eint roll. If a feint is executed properly, the victim

Great idea! That should be an official rule, IMHO!

>>3. It is not written from the point of view of practical
>>   experience. Its emphasis on skill above all else, and
>>   the lack of a composite nature to the defenses
>>   proposed, reads like a competiton fencer might write
>>   the rules: theoretically sound but useless in a brawl.

That thing with a "3" in front is my blabbing.

>Hey, I resent that remark. :-) I'm a competition fencer, and *I*

100 000 apologies! I have **no** problem with fencers!! I'm
just an evil and opinionated GM ;->

>Armor is the same way, you don't have to parry an attack on your
>steel-plated chest with the same efficiency that an unarmored person
>does, you've got some leeway. And this *isn't* DR.

I've found very few who seem to realize this point. You are
maybe the second or third! When you do no-rules mock combat
(not the SCA's  "no shield bash" "no grappling" "no kicking"
"no tripping" "no bell-punching" "no agressive groin thrusts"
version, which ain't the least bit real and where they use
absurdly huge shields), you really appreciate PD!!!

>I may be a fencer, but in the age-old fencer vs. knight debate,
>I'd rather be the guy wearing a lot of armor. :-). The QC rule
>variation emphasizes this.

I'd rather be an Invisible wizard with Teleport, and go away
and watch the thugs fight the battle from a nearby hill!!

>People who don't like the PD concept don't really understand combat.
>That was one of the most brilliant ideas in the GURPS combat system.

Agreed. PD really exists, and really assists defenses. It does not
hamper attacks, and is certainly not last-ditch. It *aids on the
defensive*!

>(Not that GURPS combat doesn't has it's flaws. Don't get me started. I
>could go on all day about them.).

About any system, for that matter >:-)

>scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu -- Stuart M. Castergine
>Fiver: "Oh, Hazel, look! The field! It's covered with blood!"
>Hazel: "Don't be silly, it's only the light of the sunset." -- Watership Down


______________________________________________________________________
|      From the Most Holy Keyboard of:                               |
|      Dr Manfred Kromm, Reverend of the Temple of the Squid God,    |
|      Professor of Quantum Parapsychology.                          |
|____________________________________________________________________|
|           )                               "This won't hurt a bit.  |
|  |========|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO>------      Afterwards . . . you'll |
|           )                                see things MY way!"     |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc