From: scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stuart M Castergine)
Subject: Re: GURPS: Combat as a Quick Contest
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:18:15 GMT

In article <23SEP92.13072030.0064@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.201247.16087@ncar.ucar.edu> urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Art Urban (PROFS)) writes:
>>I don't know if anybody is going to be willing to discuss this, but here goes:
[combat system and rebuttal thereof deleted.

I'm in between the two of you. I agree with the second poster that the
proposed system was inconsistent and not reflective of what's really
going on in a fight.

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.

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.

Add a retreat onto that (+3) and your up to an 18 parry. It takes a
critical failure for him to blow it.

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.

So we switched to the quick combat. It has it's flaws, but it has
taught our players the meaning of the term "discretion is the beter
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.

Granted, it has made feint a less-important combat move -- I rarely
see it in our group. But it has it's place. An example where it might
be used:

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
that, her opponent's defense is 14, so unless she whittles down his
defense a little bit, she's unlikely to win the quick contest. So she
feints and beats him by three, which gives her an edge on her vitals
attack. Voila.

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
shouldn't have the advantage of being able to alter his tactics to
compensate for it (wow, she won that feint by eight points -- I
retreat and go on all-out defense next round). However, if the person
fails their feint roll, then the defender should know that (what a
sloppy excuse for a feint).


>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.
>

Hey, I resent that remark. :-) I'm a competition fencer, and *I*
wouldn't have written the rules the way he did. Fencers *do* know the
value of PD, for example. I've been on both ends of that -- wanting to
scream as my tip slides uselessly along somone's chest, not grabbing,
and being very thankful that I was able to turn my shoulder just that
little bit to produce the same effect for myself. What you wear
matters a *lot.* Folds and creases in the fabric can catch points, as
can raised seams, zippers and buttons. The smoother and glossier a
target is, the harder it is to make an impaling attack stick. As for
cutting and crushing attacks, PD is still important, because you can
afford to cut it a lot closer. If your parry is a little short, and
you just stop some of the weapon's force, your armor can blunt the
rest of the force, or deflect it.

  Also, foil fencers often parry attacks onto their arms or legs,
because it is not valid target. We try to avoid it, because it
registers as an off-target and stops the action, which can be as
detrimental to you as your opponent -- it robs you of your riposte. It
is much easier to defend oneself when one knows that one has fewer
vulnerable spots. Frankly, you can afford to be a little sloppy. In
foil fencing, the rules serve as invulnerable armor for your arms,
head and legs (theoretically: you should see some of the bruises I
get. Ouch.), allowing you to be less particular about protecting them.
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.

P.S.
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.

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.

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




-- 
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