From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: GURPS: Quick Contest (Update)
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:24:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.38687
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Sep27.183630.10142@ncar.ucar.edu> urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Art Urban (PROFS)) writes:
>Our gaming group did some experimentation this weekend with combat. Here are
>the results:
>
>Higher defense skills leads to slower combat; even slower than usual. This
>means that using full skill for parry, etc., just isn't going to work. 

	Even using the normal rules for GURPS, "high" ("low"
according to some people) defense skills are too high if you look at
them from a combat time level.  There's been suggestions in certain
sourcebooks for ways around this, but I've found that imaginative
combat does wonders... ("Hey!  I'm gonna hit him through the
eyeslits!"  I tend to strike for unarmored areas where the combatant
doesn't get any PD...)

>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)

>In addition, we needed to examine how to handle a "no active defense" situation.
>We resolved that if the defender had no active defense, then there was no
>contest to be resolved. The attacker simply makes a skill roll. However, we
>did want to reward the defender for having armor on, so we modified the attack
>roll by minus the defender's PD. i.e., attacking the pot helmed head of a
>defenseless target is equal to skill-PD-bodyLoc; so for the aforementioned
>example, the roll is skill-3-5, or skill -8.

	I suppose that I could accept this.  Someone defending with
only their PD will usually fail anyway...

>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 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
to fudge my rolls when doing combat/whatever to get the desired
results.  (Of course I kinda have to since most of my NPC's often
don't have ANY stats or skills...I just wing it)
	It helps to keep me in greater control of the situations
that emerge and to stick to outcomes that I consider acceptable.  If
a certain combat is supposed to go fast, I'll make certain that it
does.  If a certain combat is supposed to drag out, it will.  If a
combat is supposed to be very difficult and possibly leave a few
people dying, then that's what will happen.  Bad guys who need to
survive for a future encounter may get a little lucky...whatever.
I'm sure that some people will scream bloody murder for what I do,
but my players are more than aware of it and they honestly don't
care.  (Although when I read this, I begin to wonder why I even USE
dice...I make it sound like I'm always fudging rolls.  I'm not,
honest.  Just occasionally when something begins to diverge away
from an outcome that I feel is necessary, etc.  I mean, I also favor
some rolls for the players...)

>--
>Art Urban 					       urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu
>===============================================================================
> "Oh no! The canary exploded!"                                      -Tom Servo 
>===============================================================================