+Peter V. Dell’Orto noted here that sometimes there’s a bit of a mental squaaawwwk! when it comes to comparing piercing vs. impaling damage types.

He makes some good points, and partly, this ties into penetration and injury GURPS-physics.

Impaling damage, by and large, is assumed to result from a deep, often narrow, penetrating injury that gets into your gooey center and punctures important bits.

Piercing damage, by and large, is assumed to result from, er, a deep, often narrow, penetrating injury that gets into your gooey center and punctures important bits.

OK. WTFP? (What are The Factors at Play?)

The difference seems to be that impaling damage assumes a relatively low ratio of energy to momentum; piercing damage seems to be mostly relegated to bullets and stuff that have very little momentum, but penetrate very well.

There are special cases. Bodkin arrows (as defined by GURPS, not hoplologists) change to a (2) armor divisor and pi damage . . . but their energy-to-momentum ratio is no different than the impaling arrows (presumably broadheads . . . and yes I know there’s controversy that the “armor piercing” Type 16 arrows are decidedly not bodkin-points, which seem to be harassment-style flight arrows. Deal with it.).

That being said, here’s a link to an image of some arrow typology. You can see, there’s a lot of them. Some of them (like the Type 9a) are pretty boldly squarish in cross-section, and supposedly make better plate-piercers. Though you still need a wickedly strong bow and a hardened lozenge-shaped arrowhead to even think about it, and accomplishing it requires a few things to go your way, including thinner armor, a properly orthogonal strike, and maybe even poorly heat-treated plate. People will assert that types 7 and 8 are designed to slip through mail, but properly riveted mail is pretty darn strong, and while you may get a narrow puncture, it may also be quite shallow. Ironically, the arrows that have been reportedly confirmed to be hardened through-and-through are the Type 16 compact broadheads (my term). Still, period writings contain censure against smiths who produce improperly soft arrows, so who the hell knows?

Bleargh. Not meant to be a treatise on arrows – but it’s hard to say why GURPS would classify any of the arrows pictured as piercing rather than impaling, though a few are some bastard child of cutting and impaling, it would seem.

But let’s take a “realistic” war arrow: 1400 grains (0.2 lbs., or twice the weight of a standard arrow in GURPS!) fired from a 150-lb bow. GURPS pegs this at about ST 18, or about 1d+4 (or about 2d). Using my rules from The Deadly Spring, it clocks in at 1d+1. In either case, the arrow will have about 160J of energy and about 5.4 kg m/s of momentum. Both arrows are impaling, so they wound like 2d+2 and 2d+8.

Let’s take a .22 LR and a .45ACP, which do 1d+1 and 2d penetration, respectively. With bullet size modifiers, they will wound like about 1d-1 and 3d. The .22LR has only 130J of energy (less than the arrow), the .45ACP has 450J (slightly less than 3x more). The bullets have 0.82 and 3.66 kg m/s of momentum (with the .45 having more), both are less than the arrow.

Wounding? The .22LR is a worse wounder than all others considered here by quite a bit; the .45ACP is either slightly better (by about a point) than the arrow using my “realistic” scale, or quite a bit worse using the GURPS thr-based, more cinematic scale (nearly 4d+1 injury equivalent for a 1d+4 imp arrow). A war arrow can be about the same diameter as the .45ACP, so 3d or more injury isn’t far wrong.

So:

Arrow: 160J  and   5.4 kg m/s momentum. KE/MV = 29.6 m/s
.22 LR 130J  and   0.82 kg m/s                 . KE/MV = 158.5 m/s
.45 ACP  450J and 3.66 kg m/s                .  KE/MV = 123.0 m/s

As it turns out, the .45 ACP has the lowest KE/MV ratio of all the modern bullets I have. Maybe there are some heavy black powder loads with lower KE and higher MV. The upper end seems to be about 500 for the ratio, until you get into saboted projectiles (the M829 tank projectile is nearly 1000!).

But you can see that if “impaling” is for lower velocity ratio stuff, maybe less than 50(?) then there’s really no good reason to distinguish between a GURPS bodkin (armor piercing) point and a regular one. A better division is probably that the AP point is heavier in point and shaft and more expensive with shorter range, the regular point is, well, regular, and you can buy flight arrows with an armor divisor of (0.5) with very lightweight shafts with poor penetration but longer range.

All would do impaling damage. Assuming you have such a thing.

Every now and then people talk. Usually on game forums. And they say things like:

“Oh, yes. I like my flying dragons that eat starships and crap magical poop to be realistic.”

My thoughts on that were similar to how Bill Stoddard replied when someone commented that an increase in Basic Speed granted by a magical Familiar would be perfectly realistic:

“Familiars that grant powers are not realistic in any case, no matter what the powers are'”

Exactly.

But as noted in a previous post, believability isn’t really an axis of gaming. If something is un-believable, likely the game grinds to a halt. Can you have something that’s believable but unrealistic?

Of course.

Example time:

A human NPC gets shot in the chest with a .50 caliber machine gun bullet (a .50 BMG, for those keeping score at home. This is Gaming Ballistic, after all). This person dies. Messily. Realistic, right? OK. Believable? Totally.

Captain America is said to have the strength of ten men, or be the peak of human ability. Depends on the source you go for; comics are notoriously inconsistent with such. Can probably squat or press 800-1000 lbs, since that’s a world-record. If he’s truly super-human, with the strength of 10, maybe he can even squat something like 1500-2000lbs. OK, great. Now stuff all that strength into a 115-lb girl. Call her Buffy. She’s got at least a 10-1 strength to weight rato . . . how fast do you think she can run? How high can she jump? I’d bet on the order of 10-20 feet in the air (1). Straight up. That’s . . . not realistic.

But it’s believable. Or, in the language suggested by a commenter, it has plausible verisimilitude. It plausibly gives the appearance of truth.


I think the language people use to communicate about the topic – sometimes including my own – gets pretty muddled. So for the purposes of discussion, to wrap my own mind around the issue, and to set the tone for future posts on the issue, here’s my own way of looking at things. This assumes most people either want or require believability in a game, as per my previous post.


That’s really what makes stories sing. Not necessarily realism, since so much of gaming is beneficial and/or entertaining escapism/fantasy. But a level of action-reaction that conforms with the expectations of what should happen given the situation involved.

So is the opposite of realistic, then, cinematic gaming? That often seems to be how things are expressed.

But I don’t think that really works.

I think the harsh end of this particular (un-named) axis is probably gritty.  The other is likely something like heroic. And those two descriptors are really both talking about consequences. If I can get my statistics on for a moment: it’s about where in the probability distribution of (potentially plausible) outcomes our event lands.

A gritty tale has the outcomes be from the “normal” outcome of an event to “pretty damn harsh” along the consequences scale. The guys getting riddled with bullets on Utah Beach? Charging a machine gun nest, and getting taken out, as the expected outcome? That’s gritty.

Now, surely you can’t have realistic and heroic, right?

Of course you can. Out of respect for the man, I reproduce in full the following:

Second Lieutenant Audie L. Murphy, 01692509, 15th Infantry, Army of the United States, on 26 January 1945, near Holtzwihr, France, commanded Company B, which was attacked by six tanks and waves of infantry. Lieutenant Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to a prepared position in a woods while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him to his right one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. Lieutenant Murphy continued to direct artillery fire which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, Lieutenant Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer which was in danger of blowing up any instant and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to the German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate Lieutenant Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound but ignored it and continued the single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he personally killed or wounded about 50. Lieutenant Murphy’s indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy’s objective.

It’s very heroic; the Medal of Honor citations are pretty much the definition of military heroism (there are lots of other kinds, of course). It’s also cinematic. I know this, because they made a movie out of it.

So Major Murphy (his rank when he retired) did realistic things, as a real man, and had an outcome of which stories are told, and movies are made. I think it’s the outcome of the various axes that wind up being described as cinematic.

What’s the point? Most fantasy roleplaying thus lies in the realm of believable storytelling with cinematic results. Even the stuff with funky powers, or men dressed up as a bat. But you can wind up with a cinematic tale even with gritty outcome expectations, based in the real-world.

So, is realism not an issue? Of course it is. Some don’t want a game with funky powers or dimension-hopping in the multiverse or fire-farting dragons, who may or may not eat spaceships. I think another axis other than gritty-heroic is something like mundane – fantastical. This is the realism axis.


Realism is more or less the probability you can find a given person, place, thing, or action in the world as we know it today, or as we can potentially project with what we know. As the probability of finding invented (unreal?) plot elements in the game world goes up, the setting becomes more fantasticial. You could pick another word. Exotic might do.

I don’t want to get into fantasy vs. science fiction discussions here. Most FTL travel is “fantastical” in that it doesn’t conform to what we know, though it’s probably less fantastical than some other fictional conceits like magic, since there are at least people, often serious people, talking about warp drives. I always thought Stutterwarp, that is, macroscopic quantum tunneling from the old 2300AD game, was a clever justification for FTL travel that allowed people to believe (!) in the technology.

I think it’s perfectly plausible to have a fantastical game that is also gritty. If you made healing harder in GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, so that the consequences of getting hit with that 3d+8 (2) cut weapon were pretty instantly and uniformly grisly, you could have a game that is described as both fantastical and gritty. The high point values would provide pretty cinematic action, but much like a George R. R. Martin novel, no one is truly safe.

Note that neither of these two axes really touch on the capabilities of the characters themselves. Low point value characters (in GURPS) are not automatically gritty and mundane (though it’s going to be easier). High point value characters, to a certain point, are not automatically fantastical. Navy SEALS and billionaires and professional athletes are likely pretty high point-value realistic characters.

That means we have a third axis – capabilities, which could be a low-medium/average-high scale, but it can also be some level of breadth as well. You can have relatively low point value characters that are very, very capable in one particular area. The oft-repeated warning about not assuming that a 50-point NPC is a mook (you can have ST 12, HT 11, and Guns (Rifle) -15 on 50 points; this will be a one-dimensional but credible threat if armed with any number of TL7+ weapons). The higher the GURPS point total, the higher the skill levels can be. As the total gets still higher, you can either go for breadth (either through more skills, or stat increases) or start picking out Advantages that enhance capabilities or mitigate potential penalties in circumstances (like Catfall for balance, Weapon Master for Rapid Strikes and damage, Combat Reflexes for surprise and defense).

GURPS’ character generation is large and varied. “First depth, then breadth” is one way to go about it, but there are infinite other choices. However, with a large enough point total, you almost get to stop choosing. The Black Ops templates, when I converted them for Fourth Edition, were about 1,000 points, and made use of some newly invented (at the time; this was years ago) wildcard skills too. There’s a basic capability with nearly everything for every op; there are merely some areas in which they are awesome.

Wrapping this up, I’ve picked out three axes to describe a game. I’m sure there are other ways to look at it, though:

1) Background reality: From mundane to fantastic
2) Character capability: In the broadest sense, from a barely specialized focus in a few skills and mostly average stats, to a broadly competent (or super-competent) polymath with loads in stats, advantages, and skills
3) Consequences of risk-taking: from gritty (mistakes are costly and likely permanent; high-risk activity tends to focus on the cost of failure) to heroic (outcomes of high-risk behavior tends to be success-focused, and the game usually has metagame mechanisms to enforce this, like Luck or Destiny Points).

It’s very possible (check out Sean Punch’s weekly GURPS game, The Company) to run a game that’s mundane, with broadly competent characters, but that’s also gritty. The outcomes are highly cinematic (movie-worthy!) stories, but believable, since the stories posit what would happen if you could get a group of special-ops or higher level of characters, trained exquisitely in real-world skills with real-world equipment, carrying out dangerous missions.

The trick, I think, about having discussions about “realistic” versus “cinematic” gaming – and why people fight about it – is that realistic-cinematic really isn’t a good axis. Realism is one aspect of a gameworld description; cinematic is the outcome of the stories. But there’s much more to it, and it’s easy to talk past each other.

(1) Showing my work. Call it 1750 pounds of force, exerted over maybe 1.5 feet. Buffy probably weighs in at 100-120 pounds, tops. Energetically, Force x distance = Weight x height, so that’s about 24 feet, straight up. 1000 pounds over a one foot range exerted on a 100-lb. girl gives you about a 10-foot vertical leap. Karch and Eric? Bite me.

Actually, I’ll start with the Table of Contents.

Sixteen Chapters, about 572 pages to the index; compare GURPS Basic Set, Fourth Edition at . . . 569. Coincidence? I think not!

The first chapter is preceded by the Introduction, which is about what forces led to Pathfinder as a game. That’s an interesting read, and speaks to the difficulties and opportunities in tweaking an established game into a new form.

Un-named: Introduction to Roleplaying and Needed Stuff

After that, the Getting Started chapter starts into the inevitable and useful discussion of what is roleplaying, what you need to play, and a few tie-ins to some merchandising: flip-mats, miniatures, and a link to the Paizo website. I’m all for this – I think game books should tie in to other products, both as a good one-stop source for “stuff I want to have fun more easily” but also to keep game companies solvent. Perhaps this is less true for the 800-lb. Ogre of the game world (D&D and its derivatives), but we don’t exactly play in a hobby with weekly outlets as popular and pervasive as the NFL.

So, having armed yourself with dice, character sheets, friends, and if you’re the GM, perhaps a small assortment of other books – the game says the GM must have the Bestiary, and might want modules or adventure paths – you can get to it.

The game explains how to use the dice; and the roll-high concept.

[Edit: at this point, my daughter has asked me to write: OTTO. That’s her fish.  It is pink with white stripes. Otto. The fish. We now return you to your regularly scheduled read-through.]

It touches on character advancement, and then hits up Rule Zero in two forms: above all, have fun, and the rules can change to fit your needs. We’ll see if Pathfinder is as attached to “optional” rules as GURPS is; I doubt it, since the Pathfinder game/genre is not required to be as mutable. Still, the game gives the nod to house rules, the importance of communication, and cooperation to enhance the fun for everyone.

One interesting note: boy is it nice and convenient to have genre assumptions be relatively fixed. Slipped into this very first section (not sneaky, just assumed) are references to:

  • Noble knights, powerful evil, and conniving rogues
  • Rampaging dragons and lowly goblins
  • Advancement by gaining gold, magic items, and experience points; 
If you don’t know knights, rogues, goblins, dragons, and magic, you soon will. Not a bad thing, but the fact that the system is designed around a set of assumptions allows a level of specificity that is probably one of the reasons GURPS Dungeon Fantasy does so well.

Using This Book

At this point, the book goes into a text description of each Chapter. After Getting Started, we get four or five (if you include Equipment as part of character creation) chapters on character creation, plus another – Chapter 11: Prestige Classes – which is tucked between Spells and Gamemastering.

Combat is given one chapter, Magic, Spells, and Magic Items get one each. Gamemastering, the Environment, and NPCs get a solid wall of text for three chapters.  Finally, the appendices cover special rules and conditions, recommended reading, and a bit more marketing.

Tucked into the chapter explanations is a bunch more genre information. Races tells you that the relevant use of the word race includes elves, dwarves, humans, and gnomes, rather than the way we use it conventionally (a good thing). Classes are defined by ability differentiation and specialization. Skills are broken out to their own chapter, as are special rules-exemptions, often but not always combat-related, called Feats.

Chapter 7 seems to blend the last bits of character creation with how the character interacts with the game world, from alignment to movement to visibility.

Chapter 8 is Combat, which has always been a core bit of DnD and it’s spawn. Or, rather, it has always been a core bit of damn near every RPG ever,with a few exceptions to prove the rule.

Common Terms

Then three pages of Common Terms, a glossary of technical language used throughout the book.

One thing to note: I am reading this as a PDF, and throughout the book, it makes extensive use of cross-referencing and links. In the glossary entry on Ability Score, each of the six scores is linked to its section in the book, and another link to the section on determining and assigning Ability Scores, which is right there later in Chapter 1. Score 1 for electronic books. This is a great feature. Sure, you can get there with Search (and that’s how I do it in GURPS, plus having written for the system, I’ve memorized key page and section locations). But adding links to the Basic Set would be a nice bonus.

It’s here in the glossary where certain concepts hit you for the first time, so you’d better read this more than once. Combat rounds being six seconds long? It appears twice in the entire book – once is here in the glossary, the other is appropriately placed on p. 178, in the first sentence of the section The Combat Round.

This is also where you realize that you’re going to need an entirely new technical vocabulary to play the game. Actions seem to contain something like either eight enumerated, or maybe as many as fifteen or more types of things to do, which hopefully when we get to Chapter 8 aren’t all special cases with non-overlapping concepts.

Also tucked into this chapter is the notion, which is mentioned in the bit on Bonus as well as explicitly called out in the definition on Stacking, that many (but not all) bonuses do not stack together. I can see this being pretty contentious in play, at times. Either that or a commonly and happily ignored rule: stack ’em up. More bonuses = more fun. On the other hand, while bonuses are noted as not usually stacking, penalties are noted to usually stack. I love it when Murphy’s Law is codified in game mechanics. Talk about verisimilitude!

As noted earlier, it’s important to really read through and understand (or have these three pages on hand for reference) the Common Terms. They are key, lay down important caveats that will be assumed for most of the book, and are abbreviated occasionally in many places (AC, DC, Su, DR, Sp . . .).

Example of Play


The example of play is heavy on mechanics, pointing out the die rolls and targets and other things. It does successfully showcase the rules, choices, and special cases that can crop up (piercing rather than bludgeoning damage on skeletons, for example).

One thing that does pop out, but only implicitly, is just how high bonuses can get. “Harsk” fires a crossbow at a skeleton, rolls his d20, and adds 9 to his total in the example.

The example also ends with one PC declaring that he’s getting the hell out of combat (“RUN!”). Or attempting to. It’s a good place, early in the book, to note that all encounters aren’t “stand until dead.”


Generating a Character


Scores, race, class, skills and feats, equipment, details, done. This is where class- or template-based systems can really shine. Limit beginning choices, and get to the game faster.

Ability Scores


The book gives you five different ways to generate your key ability scores, which will define a lot of your bonuses that get tacked on to your d20 rolls, damage rolls, etc. It’ll be challenging to start with the old classic “you cheated” standby of “I rolled all 18’s!” using some of the options – especially the ability purchase option. Unless the GM gives you a lot of points, the best you can do on even “epic fantasy” level is a single 18, one 15, and one 11, the rest 10’s . . . unless you nab a dump-stat or three. For broadly above-average, you can wind up with Low Fantasy averages of 11-12, or Epic Fantasy averages of 14-15, enough for decent but not shattering bonuses (which top out at +4 in the range we’re discussing anyway).

After this, you hit a definition of each of the six key ability scores, and what they effect. While one may quibble with the assignments (your ability to hit and do damage in melee combat is based only on STR . . . except when it’s not for certain Feats), the definition of what impacts what is clear.


Ballistic’s Summary

Overall, the Getting Started chapter is quite well executed. All the basics are here, and enough reference is made to advanced concepts that you know they’re coming. Good use of the digital medium in the PDF file is made for cross-referencing, though I did find myself wishing I could travel backwards to where I’d just come from. That’s user-issue if that feature does exist in Acrobat Reader, though. Might not be a fault of the book.

Otherwise, you’ve got stats, basic concepts defined, and a decent sense of the game mechanics: roll some dice, add bonuses, and exceed a Difficulty Class, of which Armor Class can be considered a subset. Higher DC or AC is harder; higher bonuses and higher rolls are better. The universal applicability of “higher is better” has been asserted here; we’ll see if it’s true, but it would be  a fairly trivial thing to arrange for most mechanics. GURPS has “roll low for skills, roll high for effects,” which is a tweak, but a good one given the mechanics involved, since you roll directly against a skill which is a target. Possibly confusing? Meh. Not very.

Next post will move into Chapter 2, talking about Races.

******

Link summary:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook

0.  Prelude
1.  Introduction
2.  Races

3a. Classes (Barbarian – Monk)
3b. Classes (Paladin – Wizard)

This is a bit of a design gripe, though I don’t know if any of my potential solution brainstorms are worth the hassle of doing anything about it. Still, we’re all entitled to a few disgruntled moments over not much, right?

I’m not a big fan of the impaling damage type. There are two benefits to it, as far as I can tell: it’s a precision strike, so along with piercing  and tight-beam burning damage, you can target chinks in armor, the eye, and the vitals. While Martial Arts changes this a bit, expanding it to crushing damage as well. Also, impaling has a x2 damage multiplier to certain areas like the torso (but lower damage to extremities).

The reason I don’t like it is the assumption that you automatically hit something nasty with your small, pointy blade. And it is usually a blade.

I’ve toyed with forcing a certain minimum damage, maybe “more than HP/4” or something, before a larger modifier kicks in. That would make stabbing dinosaurs in the vitals a lot harder, which is a good thing. I’d change the damage type to cutting, mostly, since by and large if you’re being impaled, it’s by an arrowhead, a spear, a sword point, or a pickaxe/warhammer head. But that makes me want to find a way to have, much like piercing, small cutting, cutting, large cutting, and huge cutting, with the same multipliers, perhaps, from piercing types: 0.5 on the low end to x2 on the high.

Dunno; maybe if you do more than HP/4, any size blade is treated as x2; if you also reach the vitals, it’s all treated as x3. Another way to go might be to leave the HP alone, but treat this sort of wound that exceeds HP/4 as bleeding much worse than usual; apply the x2 or x3 multipliers only to bleed rate and frequency.

I get what impaling is trying to do. I don’t even necessarily think it’s a bad goal. I’m not sure my thoughts would make a better game. But there’s something I find inelegant about it.

Over the next few days/weeks, I’ll be reading through the Pathfinder rules cover-to-cover and making comments. This serves two purposes – a very long series of blog entries, which since I like to post something fresh every day or so, is nice to have a go-to source for something to write. Also, I’ll be comparing it to GURPS a lot, since that is, and given my experience with Pathfinder thus far, will remain my system of choice.

Still, it will also help me learn Pathfinder, and since I play in +Jeromy French ‘s game, that can’t hurt.

******

Forward-looking links:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook

0.  Prelude
1.  Introduction
2.  Races

3a. Classes (Barbarian – Monk)
3b. Classes (Paladin – Wizard)

I was going to post this one today. But after 36 hours traveling and very little sleep, I realized that I had it wrong. At length.

I’ll be revisiting this, most definitely. But I will say this:

I was going to set up “believable” as an overall goal that people who clamor for “realism” actually want.

After thinking about this a lot, I don’t think it’s true

I think believablility is a bit like “rule zero,” which can vary in expression, but is basically what I’m getting at here. Playing RPGs is supposed to be fun. (What I refer to as the Wendler-Dell’Orto Rule of Awesome is a corollary to Rule Zero: To enhance fun, be Awesome.

So, “realistic” isn’t really properly substituted by “believable,” as I originally was going to write. You can have perfectly believable games that are, nonetheless, over-the-top if the consequences of what happens are self-consistent and well explained by in-game or metagame logic.

I think what I realized in contemplating believability is this: If the game and situation is not believable, you probably aren’t going to be playing for very long, if at all. Rules arguments, boredom – all can be consequences of unbelievable games.

As an example: I played in a DnD 3ed game in grad school. My archer (1st level) was shooting at a bad guy. I hit, but didn’t do enough damage to kill him. Bad guy was able to cross what seemed to me to be a ludicrous amount of terrain on his turn, hit me, and kill me. Boom, dead.

I had a real problem with that. My character just stood there for probably six seconds while this guy, arrow sticking out of him and all, closed the distance and put an end to me.

Now, there are probably many things I did wrong. At the time, I was still a GURPS and WEG Star Wars guy (now I’m like 90% GURPS, 10% Pathfinder, but only as a player). So there are probably things I could have done to make that not happen. Maybe shoot and then move backwards.

But it just seemed unbelievable, and thus not fun, and really not Awesome. I didn’t play DnD again for years.

I suspect many game-digressions where rules and outcomes are in dispute can be put down to believability-clash – also known as expectations mismatch. This isn’t always willing in-game immersion. It can be “you’re disrupting my solo-narrative with shared-narrative” too.

But I digress. For now, I’ll leave realistic and cinematic and what axes they’re on to another time.

But for the moment: a game that wants to be successful, and sufficiently immersive to be definitely fun and potentially awesome had better be believable.

I am not a fan of ST rolls as skill tests in GURPS. Quick Contests or Regular Contests . . . meh, at best.

ST is not like IQ, DX, and HT, which are all fairly well described in game mechanical terms as to what they do, though in a way they do it a bit too well. ST is extrinsic to the game, not intrinsic. It is tied to real-world parameters through Basic Lift. It’s totally easy to imagine what ST 45 looks like. You may have even seen an animal that strong (if not presently, maybe a T-Rex or something). You have certainly seen or heard of machines that are many times stronger than a human, and so could be rated with ludicrously high ST skills and be both realistic and believable.

So I would propose the following (in less-specific terms) were I looking at revising.

All rolls should be based on DX or HT.

DX is when you’re using ST for fine control over something. HT is when you’re exerting yourself against another or against your own physical limits. There are a few ways to do this.

But in either case, your ST really should be used to calculate Basic Lift, and from there figure out what you’re doing in terms of a Object Weight-to-Basic Lift ratio. That’ll give you a bonus or penalty.

As examples:

Throwing a shot-put as far as you can, not caring where it hits. It’s a 16-lb cannonball, so the Basic Lift to weight ratio for even “Joe Average” is more than 1 (1.25). The world record is something like 75 feet! That would probably be a DX roll to perform the motions, and a HT roll to prevent injury. Yes, two rolls. The HT roll would be optional if your adjusted roll is (say) 19 or more; you’re just not exerting yourself hard enough to injure yourself. The DX roll might be required to earn any bonuses to skill or ST from skill (such as the “training bonus” that appeared in The Last Gasp . . . and you’ll see it again in Technical Grappling!).

Weight Lifting: This is very nearly a purely HT-based roll, where you are basically moving the weight up and down until your ST falls low enough (due to local depletion of FP – or AP, really) that you really are pushing high multiples of your effective Basic Lift.

When you think of it already, this is more or less what happens – with both thrown non-weapons (DX-based roll to hit, p. B355) and weapons (DX-based skill roll to hit). Range is a multiple of your ST (seems linear, right?) but the distance modifier based on ST-to-Weight ratio is best described by a power law (about 0.44 x Ratio^-0.8, if you must know. R^2 = 0.987).

A force-to-weight ratio is an acceleration. That is, in most circumstances, ALL you need to know to establish maximum range. If you apply your skill correctly (DX or skill roll), you can achieve both range and accuracy. If you push yourself too hard, you can injure yourself.

But by and large, I would, almost always, rather look at even Contests of ST as opposed DX or HT rolls, with ST-to-Weight or ST-to-ST ratio as a modifier.

Over at Dungeon Fantastic+Peter V. Dell’Orto comments casually that he assumes that the local environment in his Felltower Dungeon Fantasy campaign matches whatever is going on outside his house at the moment.

I thought this was brilliant, and extensible

The internet, plus sites like weather.com, weather underground, and apps such as WeatherBug all allow you to get weather data from anywhere on the planet.

It would be a trivial thing, at the start of a game session, to pick a point on the Earth most like your adventuring location and just look it up.

Boom. Temperature, cloud cover, wind condition and direction, chance and type of precipitation. Details that can make your game come alive, without the hassle of weather generation tables.

Thanks for the nifty idea!

Ah, yes. Cabaret Chicks on Ice.

The joke-title for GURPS Low-Tech for quite a while on the SJG Forums.

Recently, since it seems like forever (but only seems that way) since my manuscript went into the queue in production and saw the rough PDF go around, I’ve been going crazy waiting for the Big Damn Ogre to get out of the way. -)

It’s my own fault. I pledged too.

But to pass the time, I’ve been leaking content here and there. Mostly nothing too revealing. I don’t want to overstep my bounds, nor give away too much from the book. It’s a book covering a lot of rules, and if you give away the rules, you give away the game.

Still, I did reveal one or two more concrete hints, such as a discussion on whether the damage from throws and locks was too high relative to the ease of obtaining a grapple.

I also posted something that was in an original draft, and then cut, because, well, it doesn’t have much to do with grappling.

The Secret Diaries of Technical Grappling• The generic penalty for kicking (-2) assumes a torso level kick – presumably the lower torso. Instead, you may kick anything at SM-4 and lower at no penalty, and each SM higher at an additional -1. Kicking to the head is thus -4, while stomping a grounded foe is not penalized!

One of the OTHER reasons this didn’t work is that SM does not equal height, which was how I was treating it. Still, what this does is say for human-sized critters, you can do whatever you want at knee level and down at no penalty to DX, from hips to knees at -1, abdomen and groin at -2, chest at -3, and head at -4.

This was even there in the first place to give a counter and reason to not grapple: avoiding being curb-stomped.

There is also some commentary about stability, but that is in terms of “if you are in an unstable posture, and someone’s exerting control over you, you’re easier to take down.”

And another rule, fun for people who really want to get to the point:

Impaling
Weapons capable of impaling damage can also be used to
control an opponent. If an impaling object is left inside a foe
(either voluntarily or by getting stuck, see Picks, p. B405), it is
considered to have inflicted CP equal to basic damage. These CP
may not be spent, but impart active and referred control, and
definitely allow actions such as Shoving People Around (p. 00)
and Force Posture Change (p. 00)! You may also use Inflicting
More Pain with Locks (p. 00): Roll a Quick Contest of Trained ST
vs. HT, adding half the original injury as a bonus to your Trained
ST. Apply pain using the full margin of victory!

Edit: Since people are visiting this page again, I thought I’d expand the hint to include the entire thing, just to show a bit more about what’s under the hood. 


But for those not familiar, here was the playtest announcement for the book:

GURPS Martial Arts: Technical Grappling puts the current grappling rules in an arm bar until they bang on your desk in submission! The supplement introduces a few new rules that allow grappling to be treated as a continuum of control rather than being “grappled” and “not grappled,” and seeks to find pressure points in the rules for posture and position.

It explains how to model increasing control over an opponent, a different approach to grappling with different parts of the body, and a completely new top-to-bottom take on grappling with weapons. It adds new perks and techniques where appropriate, and revisits existing rules to ensure compatibility with the new ones!

Why pimp the book when there’s really no telling when it will come out (again: Big. Damn. Ogre)? It’s come up a few times on the forums recently, so I was in a TG frame of mind.

What’s going to be in it?

  • A bunch of stuff on strength and how it impacts grappling ability/skill
  • New variable-effect rules so you can achieve a sucky grapple, or a great one. 
  • Lots of detail on posture and position; it’s important in real-world grappling, and it’s important in the new rules
  • An entire chapter on grappling with weapons
  • it revisits, where appropriate, virtually everything in the Basic Set and GURPS Martial Arts to make sure it’s compatible
  • Includes some lenses and styles. Including styles for snakes, cats, dogs, and bears.
I’m looking forward to it seeing publication. But the title of this post? Recently, because there’s lots of discussion on fighting and combat on the SJG Forums, and most fighting and combat involves grappling at some point, my book has come up a lot, usually with me saying “Oh, yes . . . that’ll be covered in Technical Grappling!” 
So one poster referred to it as Cabaret Chicks on Ice Strikes Back. Which I thought was awesome.

Added: I posted another leak  for some rules on disarming. They’re not much of a rules extension from the current ones, but take the same principles and make them cover more stuff.

One of the oft-discussed and frequently derided rules of thumb is the GURPS rule for travel: Move x 10 miles per day.

Now, that CAN be done, but it’s rather unlikely. But . . . if you take the slowest party Member’s Move, and roll (roughly) half-again that many dice, that accomplishes the same thing.

So a bunch of guys with encumbered Move from 4-6 are travelling together. On a given day they”ll roll 6d6 (1.5x the Move 4 for the slowest person). Upper end, they do 35 miles, low end only 5 miles, more typically about 20 miles.

Thanks to +Charles Clemens for inspiring this thought over in the G+ Tabletop Roleplaying Community