From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Time and judgement
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:01:48 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>>When asked how long a X-round fight took, roll Xd6 for the answer.
>
>> 	Is it just me, or is this for all practical purposes the same 
>> thing as saying that a round is around 3 or 4 seconds? 
>
>No, it's not the same, because a 3-4 second round will change other 
>rules. For example -- RoFs for firearms, Move score and HT rolls just to
>name a few. 

	I have now seen several suggestions to the effect that there should 
be several 'lost rounds' inserted into the combat after the combat is over. 
It is functionally equivalent to insert 10 'lost rounds' into a 10 round 
combat, and to say that each round in that combat is 2 seconds instead of 
one. This involves no more change of combat mechanics than the 'lost round' 
method. It is simply saying that there is one lost second for every combat 
second instead of one lost turn for every combat turn. 

>
>> 	Saying after the fact that a fight took longer than it did 
>> leads to alot of inconsistancies. Like being unable to communicate 
>> during combat because saying anything meaningful takes to long, then 
>> finding out later that you actually had plenty of time to say that. Etc. 
>
>We wanted to simulate the dizzying flurry
>of combat. Combatants lose a second here and there in the heat of the fight.
>If you insert those ``lost'' seconds during the combat, it might give one 
>side an unfair advantage. If you insert the seconds retroactively, both 
>sides have lost the time and no one is given an edge.

	I fail to see how inserting the 'lost time' into the length of the 
round can give any side an unfair advantage, unless that side is depending 
on the timing of something outside of combat - like a fire burning, etc. 

> 
>> What makes a combat feel 'real' to me is the fear, confusion, hesitation, 
>> shock, and pain of the combatants. Playing at the one second level, you 
>> generally lose all this, because you have at least 30 to 60 seconds to 
>> decide on what your character can barely register. 
>
>The players are still going to get at least ten times as long as they should
>to make one round-decisions, it's an unavoidable problem, unless you give 
>the players exactly as much time as their players get. 
...
>Why try to change rules and screw everything up when: 
>1) You can't achieve that level of realism without playing in real time; and 
>3) that level of realism wouldn't be all that fun anyway. 

	Sorry if I was unclear here. This problem is not an absolute thing, 
which exists in the 1 second round and not in the 5 second round. 

	*However*...I think that this is less of a problem for the 5 second 
round than for the 1 second round (about 5 times less). There is a point 
to trying to increase the feeling of reality in a game even if you do not 
achieve full, total realism. If you do not believe that, then you might 
as well stop playing because these games are never going to be 100% 
realistic. 

>
>> 	Using a longer time scale results in greater realism on average, 
>> I think, as well as simplifying things and allowing such novel actions as 
>> talking during combat time. 
>
>Yeah, novel concept there, but is it realistic? I'd say no. You just can't
>have a conversation while fighting IMO. And besides, what will happen is
>that while before the characters were choosing phrases to fit into one or
>two seconds, now they will choose even more complex phrases to fit into
>3 seconds. 

	I am not convinced of this. Using one-second rounds, it is virtually 
impossible to say anything during combat time. This is why the players 
scrambled to find short phrases, because communication was so difficult. 
At the 3-5 second level, they will be less forced to stretch in order to 
communicate. 
	If the fights are timed more realistically, people will be more 
likely to use realistic dialogue - like saying 'Oh my God! I'm hit!' and 
not having it take two rounds. 

>
>Sounds like we might be approaching different problems here. I thought we 
>were talking about the problem of GURPS combat going too fast, that the 
>characters can use every round with perfect efficiency, and there was never 
>any time allotted for lost time in the ``flurry of combat.'' It sounds like 
>you are approaching the problem of GURPS combat being inconvenient for 
>players.

	Not at all. I think that dialogue like 'Watch out! He's behind you!' 
and 'Get that asshole!' and such is perfectly realistic for combat, and it 
is ridiculous that you should have to worry about how many rounds these 
take. My advocacy of speaking in combat was on the grounds of realism, not 
convenience. 
	Everyone seems to agree that combat takes longer than GURPS 
currently represents it. The question is how this should be reflected in 
how combats run - so that characters become less of the intense battle 
machines they currently are - or whether it should just be applied at 
the end. 
	I think that applying the lost time retroactively results in lots 
of inconsistencies - especially the timing of events outside of combat have 
an influence on how things go. (i.e. the door will lock in 10 seconds, 
someone outside of combat trying to complete a task, etc.). 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Deservin's got nothing to do with this."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu |
Columbia University         |                - William Munny, 'Unforgiven'
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy