GURPSnet-Digest Monday, January 20 2003 Volume 04 : Number 3767 In this issue: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] Re: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] Grappling, oh, and Combat Fatigue was: RE: Might-Spell Re: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] Re: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] Re: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] Re: Call for SCA Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue Sv: IQ vs ST/DX/HT Motivation of soldiers (was Re: Where did that shot come from?) Re: Motivation of soldiers (was Re: Where did that shot come from?) Re: Motivation of soldiers (was Re: Where did that shot come from?) Resisted Spells Re: Resisted Spells Re: IQ vs ST/DX/HT See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the GURPSnet-L or GURPSnet-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:00:49 +0100 From: Thomas Ackermann Subject: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 12:47:52AM +0100, Thomas Ackermann wrote: > Yes, for me - i just would ignore that ST-rule for fatiguged characters. > You will have your effective ST not reduced till the evening - or maybe > even over-time, so 10 or 12 hours of work, fight, magic ... > > You will be at halved Move and Dodge at ST 2 and 3, and will need to stop > fighting at ST 1 and fall unconcious at ST 0! > But otherwise, you will be completely effective for any contest of ST or > oter use of ST! > > So, just ignoring or deleting that sentence in Basic :-) > > But i would like an official statement on that! Having said that, i would add that ONE thing should still use the loss-of-ST rule for used fatigue: Extra Effort! There it is needed, that you performance is reduced from fatigue ... In all other cases, not. Byebye, - -- Thomas Ackermann | Tel. +49-(0)228/631369 | Mobil: 0178-2016033 Email: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:44:19 -0800 From: Steffan Thomas Subject: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue As a GM, and a semi-trained swordsman (style: Iaido), here are my objections: 1) I would rule that the discard weapon must come at the start of your action. I don't like the idea of taking a free action in the middle of a turn. Beginning, or end, but not middle. (judgement call, YGMMV) 2) If he hits you, you are suffering a minus to your action from all of the wounds you took. (OK, you may have HPT) 3) your own armor will penalize you as much as his. If you don't have armor, you probably got seriously hurt in step 2 (again, you may have HPT) 4) your opponent should be able to retreat, leaving you in his weapon range, but you've discarded your weapon. (back him up to a wall?) 5) how is it that your opponent is down ST, but you aren't? If we are talking about attacking someone who has already killed one of your buddies, this isnt a good tactic. ("OK, fred. Go and die on that guys sword, so Joe can jump him afterward. Don't worry, I've got a resurrection scroll...") Yes, someone who has fought to exhaustion is easier prey. But a good tactic would require fighting someone who is on an even footing at the start. Like having extra fatigue, and playing for time, and *then* jumping him, while you are at 7 of 14, while he is at 4 of 11. Someone said earlier that the ST loss comes after combat is over. To me, that means that the battle is done, you take off your helmet, and relax. Not after killing one foe, and before engaging the next. Also I have realism problems with this. If weapon takeaways were a winning tactic against superior training, we wouldn't have weapons. Just more training. Yes, some empty-hand masters were reputed to be able to fight good swordsmen, and take their swords away. But that was Ueshiba-sensei. (O-sensei) Don't expect a 125pt PC to be able to do it to a 125pt NPC. Against a 25pt goon, sure. 50pt soldier, OK. If your opponent is better than that, don't bother trying. If you want to test this, find an aikidoka & kendoka in your area, hopefully of equal training time. count how many times the aikidoka throws his opponent, and how often he gets hit. (Use heavier weapons if your aikidoka is willing.) My guess is that the takeaway will work sometimes, but that the kendoka will get away more than 50% of the time, and almost always hit. SCA or Fencers would work in place of the kendoka if you have one, and some variant of grappling should sub for aikido. or just ask your local aikido teacher how useful weapon takeaways are. All the teachers I have ever met have said that they may work against a punk with a knife, but a real weapons master will make you very, very dead. - -s Thomas Ackermann wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 02:05:36PM -0800, Clayten wrote: > > Well, grappling someone armed with a sword, who swings it as if at > > full strength, isn't a piece of cake. > > Huh? > > Grappling someone with a sword is the *easiest* way to defeat a superior > sword-fighter and the like! > > Just Step and Attack into Combat - he get´s an attack at you, but you > can defend normaly with your weapon. You should NOT use a shield - but > he will most probably have one - what will lead even more to his end. > Let go of your weapon as a Free Action and Grapple just his upper body > with both hands. He will be at DX-4 (and any DX-based Skill at -4) ... > Take him down in a Contest of ST what will be quite easy if he was using > a bit of Magic, Psi or Super abilities in front or just came from a > another fight - and this will be quite easy: You can use ST, DX or Judo > against his weak ST.Then pin him. Ready. > > Not a piece of cake? :-) > > OK, you could interprete the "Attempt a pin" rule on B112 about +1 for every > 10 lbs he has over you as his *complete* weight, so with armor and > equipment - then a pin will be more difficult and you need help with that. > But i don´t think this rule is meant like that, as the armorerd fighter > will have his own problems with his weight - even think about the > more realistic rule on B103, sidebar: Changing Position in Armor, then > a fighter in Heavy Armor is even more a joke then before. It will not be a > piece of cake but baby´s play ... > > I don´t think that can be right in the GURPS system. > Some think needs to be changed - we need an errata! > > > And, it only kicks in at the end of the fight. For me, that's not as > > soon as you take one guy down, it's when the adrenaline starts to > > fade. If you are in a fight, win, and then sit down and wait for > > your heart to slow down, you will be at a disadvantage if jumped. > > However, if you keep going and look for another opponent, I don't > > think you've entered that cool-down phase. > > > > If you want more realism, give one fatigue per ten seconds of active > > fighting, up to a maximum of encumberance + 1. This avoid the silly > > issue of a nine second to-the-death fight being free, but a ten > > second one being fatiguing. > > Yes, for me - i just would ignore that ST-rule for fatiguged characters. > You will have your effective ST not reduced till the evening - or maybe > even over-time, so 10 or 12 hours of work, fight, magic ... > > You will be at halved Move and Dodge at ST 2 and 3, and will need to stop > fighting at ST 1 and fall unconcious at ST 0! > But otherwise, you will be completely effective for any contest of ST or > oter use of ST! > > So, just ignoring or deleting that sentence in Basic :-) > > But i would like an official statement on that! > > Byebye, > -- > Thomas Ackermann | Tel. +49-(0)228/631369 | Mobil: 0178-2016033 > Email: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:10:24 -0800 From: Steffan Thomas Subject: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue Here is how I would trigger the exhaustion/ST loss in my opponents: (opfor is the Patrol) Patrol is walking down forest path, when an arrow takes the 3rd guy back in the eye. Sighting movement in the trees, we lay down a withering fire of arrows for 30-40 seconds, until the movement in the trees stops. Some of the troops start forward to loot the bodies, but the NCO waves them back in line. He's fought on this front before, and knows that pit-traps & carnivorous plants await. We brush the mud from our cloaks, take a breath, and start onto the trail again, when green-clad forms drop from the trees overhead. Bright knives flashing, they are in among our archers before we can react. Weakened by the earlier barrage, the few who manage to draw a sword are quickly cut down. Our Infantry close in, but the enemy knocks a hole in them with shoulder rushes, and flees into the woods. Still, more than a few fell under our swords. Elves. I hate Elves. Let me fight the dwarves, any day. - -Excerpt from "Fighting Uruk-Hai" by Mowg Frog-Stomper. Minas Morgul Press. 953DR ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 02:18:44 +0100 From: Thomas Ackermann Subject: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 04:44:19PM -0800, Steffan Thomas wrote: > 1) I would rule that the discard weapon must come at the start of your action. > I don't like the idea of taking a free action in the middle of a turn. > Beginning, or end, but not middle. (judgement call, YGMMV) You may do whatever you wish, but i prefer to stay as close to GURPS as possible. When too much changes are needed, then GURPS is not a good system and i would need a nother one :-) But it think, GURPS can manage that ... On regards of Free Actions, please read B107, Free Actions and again B113, Free Actions (esp. for Close Combat) - it is *explicitely* allowed to throw away you weapon *whenever* you want! > 4) your opponent should be able to retreat, leaving you in his weapon range, but > you've discarded your weapon. (back him up to a wall?) Yes, that´s true - and hit the one thing i would like to change in GURPS. There is an optional rule where you loose your next Step after a Retreat. I find this not only usefull, but needed and would like to see that as the standard, not an option ... Anyway, *use* this optional rule :-) (Otherwise, the result would be an endless series of Retreat, then Step; Retreat, then Step; ... bringing both Defenses so high that combat will go indefinitely and also would never allow to force an opponent who is just not so good as yourself backwards - to that wall :-) Otherwise, you would be right - Retreating would help, as long as you will not be grappled. But this will happen ... > 5) how is it that your opponent is down ST, but you aren't? If we are talking > about attacking someone who has already killed one of your buddies, this isnt a > good tactic. ("OK, fred. Go and die on that guys sword, so Joe can jump him > afterward. Don't worry, I've got a resurrection scroll...") This is not about constructing situations. I just say, that loss of ST for earlier fights, magic, psi or other things will result in series of Close Combat, Grappling and Takedowns. If that is such realistic, OK! But i think the resulting fight will look different from what most people on that list do - incl. Kromm - and will change the way, GURPS will be played. It just does not feel right! > Yes, someone who has fought to exhaustion is easier prey. But a good tactic > would require fighting someone who is on an even footing at the start. Like > having extra fatigue, and playing for time, and *then* jumping him, while you > are at 7 of 14, while he is at 4 of 11. Characters should maybe be able to dispatch some lesser foes and still go further to get the real enemy, not needing one hour of rest for the next room! > Someone said earlier that the ST loss comes after combat is over. To me, that > means that the battle is done, you take off your helmet, and relax. Not after > killing one foe, and before engaging the next. Yes, there will be a better explanation for that rule and when it strikes ... > Also I have realism problems with this. If weapon takeaways were a winning > tactic against superior training, we wouldn't have weapons. Just more > training. Yes, some empty-hand masters were reputed to be able to fight good > swordsmen, and take their swords away. But that was Ueshiba-sensei. (O-sensei) > Don't expect a 125pt PC to be able to do it to a 125pt NPC. Against a 25pt > goon, sure. 50pt soldier, OK. If your opponent is better than that, don't > bother trying. That´s exactly what i say :-) I also have realism problems with this ... So, the loss-of-ST rule cannot be true in it´s current form! Byebye, - -- Thomas Ackermann | Tel. +49-(0)228/631369 | Mobil: 0178-2016033 Email: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:13:04 -0800 From: "Brian G. Vaughan" Subject: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue From: "Thomas Ackermann" > ONE fight of 11 seconds and our ST 11 is ST 7, our ST 12 is ST 8 > So, after one fight, fighting is already over for them - just send > another person to grapple him, take him down and pin him to suffocate > him to death or so ... The text on B134 says that fatigue is only assessed at the end of a battle. "Battle" implies a long series of many different individual combats. So, a fighter who defeats one opponent, and is attacked by a second opponent, would still be fighting the same battle, and fatigue wouldn't have been assessed yet. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:39:25 +0100 From: Thomas Ackermann Subject: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 06:13:04PM -0800, Brian G. Vaughan wrote: > The text on B134 says that fatigue is only assessed at the end of a battle. > "Battle" implies a long series of many different individual combats. So, a > fighter who defeats one opponent, and is attacked by a second opponent, > would still be fighting the same battle, and fatigue wouldn't have been > assessed yet. That would be fine! Your group attacks a castle ... Enter room after room, soem time they are no enemies, but in several, there are. Is this ONE battle? I would like to be that. The same i feel for a complete day of fighting - like in mass combat. Still, the loss-of-ST effect for Mages, Psis and Supers implies results nobody realy wants to have, i think ... Much too much grappling and Close Combat - taking advantages of a foe with lowered ST. Byebye, - -- Thomas Ackermann | Tel. +49-(0)228/631369 | Mobil: 0178-2016033 Email: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 22:16:06 -0600 From: Jeff Wilson Subject: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] > > >From: Emily Smirle > >Thomas Ackermann wrote: > > ONE fight of 11 seconds and our ST 11 is ST 7, our ST 12 is ST 8 > > So, after one fight, fighting is already over for them - just send > > another person to grapple him, take him down and pin him to suffocate > > him to death or so ... > Fatigue is assessed after a battle, not merely per fight. The second guy will have to wait until the first guy lets down his guard and starts to feel the effects before this would work. Granted, this was written with hand-to-hand battles in mind rather than days-long gunpowder age battles, but people may not be able to let their guard down while enemies are still skulking about. > > That´s it already! > > > > I´m not sure that this is realistic ... > >One fight of 11 seconds at one attack, parry, and infinite dodges per >second, or erratic movement at a sprint for one second intervals. That >is INTENSE and taxing. > >What normally happens is a two to five second attack/defend interchange >followed by focused defence and wary circling, repeat as necessary. > This is more like it. Basic goes on to say in the sidebar on p.134 that it shuold take 120 or 180 turns of fighting before more fatigue would be realistic. >secondly, wearing someone down is certainly a valid tactic, but a kind >of dumb one. If you have that many mooks standing about, why don't they >just mass tackle him? > > It didn't work with Rodney King for instance. Sometimes there are restrictions on how many men may attack an opponent at once; narrow quarters indoors, or on a footbridge, poor communication or lack of training in coordination, perhaps. And sometimes there are formalities involved, like in one-on-one tournament fighting; if the home team can set the pace, they can often fix the tournament by tiring out the best challenger by having lesser skilled fighters stay on the defensive and spar for the full duration in back-to-back bouts, then send their best in fresh against the worn-down rival. - -- Jeff Wilson How Am I Posting? 1-800-555-6789 "If your SecOp can see you, so can the enemy." -Cpt Law ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 06:58:43 +0100 From: Thomas Ackermann Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 10:16:06PM -0600, Jeff Wilson wrote: > Fatigue is assessed after a battle, not merely per fight. The second > guy will have to wait until the first guy lets down his guard and starts > to feel the effects before this would work. Granted, this was written > with hand-to-hand battles in mind rather than days-long gunpowder age > battles, but people may not be able to let their guard down while > enemies are still skulking about. > > This is more like it. Basic goes on to say in the sidebar on p.134 that > it shuold take 120 or 180 turns of fighting before more fatigue would be > realistic. And what does than mean? What rule needs to be written in that sidebar? What is a "battle"? A complete day of fighting? Same fatigue-loss for every 120 or 180 seconds? When is a "battle" over? When is a "fight" over? Even if we find a working, realistic way for loss of ST due to fatigue for ordinary fighters, there still is the same problem for mages, psis and supers! When you use 2 to 4 fatigue for *anything* - you are such weak, that you cannot realy fight more! This just cannot be true! Byebye, - -- Thomas Ackermann | Tel. +49-(0)228/631369 | Mobil: 0178-2016033 Email: ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:48:26 -0000 From: "McCarty-Eigenmann" Subject: Grappling, oh, and Combat Fatigue was: RE: Might-Spell > > Well, grappling someone armed with a sword, who swings it as if at > > full strength, isn't a piece of cake. > > Huh? > > Grappling someone with a sword is the *easiest* way to defeat a superior > sword-fighter and the like! And utterly laughably ridiculous. > Just Step and Attack into Combat - he get´s an attack at you, but you > can defend normaly with your weapon. You should NOT use a shield - but > he will most probably have one - what will lead even more to his end. > Let go of your weapon as a Free Action and Grapple just his upper body > with both hands. He will be at DX-4 (and any DX-based Skill at -4) ... > Take him down in a Contest of ST what will be quite easy if he was using > a bit of Magic, Psi or Super abilities in front or just came from a > another fight - and this will be quite easy: You can use ST, DX or Judo > against his weak ST.Then pin him. Ready. > > Not a piece of cake? :-) its certainly biased and silly. What fighter is that unbalanced that he'd justify the +3 bonus for the attacker? If he AoA's for extra damage, sure. But a simple cut? No, unreasonable. If he did that he'd be stumbling all over the battlefield on a miss. It gets sillier when you consider that a sword blow from a shield fighter is a swing, then a withdraw and return to guard stance. This promulgates the myth of the one armed fighter that poor and sport ma teachers use to justify set piece training. The fechtbuchen show grapples in combat - but they only show them in exchanges between men with single weapons. Why? Examples from talhoffer: Single weapon to single weapon - A steps in to attack, B parries and A grabs the sword hand. He has the sword pinned offline away from the opponents body. He then recovers his sword and attacks. A attacks B with his longsword, B sidesteps and beats A's sword to the ground, then wrenches his sword up to attack. B drops his sword and makes a tackle at A's legs, hoping to take him down asap. Talhoffer suggests that both men are trying to take advantage of the circumstances as they change. A better model might be: A steps into the same hex as B to make a grapple - B attacks. A parries. assuming B is stupid and doesn't spot A's tactic and A goes for a grab at the exposed sword arm. assuming again that B is dumb and withdraws slowly, so A makes the grab. If B is a shield fighter he then breaks A's arm with the edge of his shield. If B doesn’t think of that he can make a slam with the shield into A's body, or face, or sword arm. Any of which on a fail interposes the shield with A's weapon. And followup attack. All of which happen at essentially the same time as A dropping his sword to continue his grapple. A's better tactic is to parry-then AoA for two actions: grab with off hand, then attack the restrained arm with his sword. Stepping in to grapple v. a shield or even a two handed fighter requires too much luck to be viable. Assume B has a dagger instead of the shield. A parries and grabs and drops his weapon ready to make the grapple. B stabs his exposed chest or stomach - and he should be at a bonus as A's restrained by the grab too. Ok, no other weapon: A parries and grabs and drops his weapon ready to make the grapple. B punches A in the face. B grabs A's arm. Welcome to wrestling skill. This is all assuming that B doesn’t just rotate his wrist and drawcut A's arm in the first place, or make a ST v. ST and free his arm or ... This model works if A charges in and has DR4+ armour. If he wears his shield on his back and carries a dagger in his hand he has a more useful chance. Gurps lack of decent _flexible_ initiative rules is the problem here. Oh - re: fatigue in battle - all pro fighters will be Fit or Very Fit. Historical samples tell of fechtmeisters fighting all comers all day and no indications of drops to 1/2 move [a silly rules, imo, and certainly should be subject to Will rolls] the ancients tell of battles that lasted hours. The Zulus were recorded as running all day then fighting battles successfully. Greatest respect to the SCA'rs - but they are mostly dillentantes. Not athletes. mce ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:15:19 +0200 From: "Kaj Sotala" Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] > What is a "battle"? bat-tle n. 1.a. An encounter between opposing forces: an important battle in the Pacific campaign. 1.b. Armed fighting; combat: wounded in battle. 2. A match between two combatants: trial by battle. 3.a. A protracted controversy or struggle: won the battle of the budget. 3.b. An intense competition: a battle of wits. I'm pretty sure a battle means the end of whatever encounter or conflict is going on. In your attacking castle example, the battle's probably over when the entire castle has been taken (or the attackers have been repulsed, obviously). Some people have one of those days. I have one of those lives. ICQ 18051088/AIM Xuenay/MSN Xuenay@Hotmail.com | http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:40:39 +0200 From: "Kaj Sotala" Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] (sorry, forgot to leave in the attribution the first time) From: "Thomas Ackermann" Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] > What is a "battle"? bat-tle n. 1.a. An encounter between opposing forces: an important battle in the Pacific campaign. 1.b. Armed fighting; combat: wounded in battle. 2. A match between two combatants: trial by battle. 3.a. A protracted controversy or struggle: won the battle of the budget. 3.b. An intense competition: a battle of wits. I'm pretty sure a battle means the end of whatever encounter or conflict is going on. In your attacking castle example, the battle's probably over when the entire castle has been taken (or the attackers have been repulsed, obviously). "To get a life you have to lose a life." - Pasi Ojala 19.11.1997 ICQ 18051088/AIM Xuenay/MSN Xuenay@Hotmail.com | http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 06:03:45 +0100 From: Thomas Ackermann Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue] On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 08:15:19PM +0200, Kaj Sotala wrote: > 1.a. An encounter between opposing forces: an important battle in the Pacific campaign. > 1.b. Armed fighting; combat: wounded in battle. > 2. A match between two combatants: trial by battle. > 3.a. A protracted controversy or struggle: won the battle of the budget. > 3.b. An intense competition: a battle of wits. > > I'm pretty sure a battle means the end of whatever encounter or conflict is going > on. In your attacking castle example, the battle's probably over when the entire > castle has been taken (or the attackers have been repulsed, obviously). Fine :-) What, if you need several days for that castle? Yes, i think, a battle can be all of a days work. So, fatigue should not kick in for fighters, till they finish days work. But still, that will get quite artificial in most situations and games ... Also, that does not solve the problem with mages, psis and supers! It cannot be right, that one of those uses a apell/ability and then is such a nice weak baby ... Byebye, - -- Thomas Ackermann | Tel. +49-(0)228/631369 | Mobil: 0178-2016033 Email: ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 12:35:26 +0100 From: "Rasmus Juul Wagner" Subject: Re: Call for SCA Re: Might-Spell and ST and Fatigue Ooh.....good points. Short-term fatigue vs. long-term exhaustion. I like the idea of charging one or more points of fatigue after any life-and-death combat. Taking 10 minutes to rest out after a fight, more if you're heavily loaded, sounds realistic to me. That's what happens after a rush of adrenaline. Even a serious rollercoaster ride leaves me about as exhausted as moving furniture and heavy boxes for an hour or so ( my older sister moves around a lot). But, that's AFTER the immediate threat has been dealt with. In the short term, hyper-active fighting and slashing, dodging and running, will leave you short of breath. Perhaps you can keep it up for a number of turns =ht-fatigue taken (I use Fatigue=HT); after that, you make HT rolls every turn, modified by fatigue, to avoid slowing down. The Wait maneuver allows you to catch your breath. It needs some work (how long must you rest? What happens when you slow down? how do you handle all-day battles?), but what do you think? It saves the trouble of having yet another stat or pool of points to keep track of. > It's been a few years since I've taken up the rattan, but I'll try. A > fight certainly tires you, no doubt about it. BUT ... an average > person would take 40 minutes (at one fatigue/10 min.) to recover from > that amount of exhaustion. I don't think an 11 second fight tires you > that much, no. But then, I consider that to be a general problem with > GURPS' implementation of fatigue; the recovery rate is really > balanced more towards spell-casters using fatigue as 'magic points,' > not towards a realistic modeling of the way fatigue works. > > Don't forget that an 11-second fight -- the way GURPS runs fights -- > isn't realistic, either. You may get a blinding fast exchange of > blows... but not 11 seconds of either constant attacks of movement at > a flat-out sprint every single second; I'm not sure what the fatigue > effect of moving for 11 seconds at GURPS' one-second combat round > hyperspeed would be. > > I'd say the reduction in ST is realistic, *but* it's the sort of > temporary exhaustion you can shake off during the melee -- while both > fighters are circling each other. Long-term fatigue (and ST) loss > should sneak up on you more slowly. Perhaps if you had both fatigue > (recovers 1/round) and exhaustion (recovers 1/10 min.) ... for every > 4 fatigue you take, take one exhaustion... you can get winded in an > exchange and shake it off, but you'll slowly see your long-term > endurance slip too. Of course this too breaks down with GURPS > bullet-time combat rounds -- at this rate you can lose 4 or more > endurance in a minute of furious GURPS-speed exchanges. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 12:41:52 +0100 From: "Rasmus Juul Wagner" Subject: Sv: IQ vs ST/DX/HT I agree with you that IQ is too cheap, especially when swords are obsolete. Lately, I just charge double for it, and let scientific geniuses take advantages to boost their performance in their chosen field. But if I were to split something out, I'd make a stat called Ego. Ego would cover Will, act as Charisma, and function as the base stat for a number of skills (almost all skills dealing with personal interaction). Having perception as a function of intelligence works for me. Having the "processing power" to deal with the input from your sensory organs, and the understanding of the "context" of your surroundings to notice out-of-place things, seems to me to be important when making perception rolls. And those things, IMO, are functions of IQ. > > Well, there are varying schools of thought on the desireable number of > stats, and I'm not a strict adherent of any. The trouble is, once you start > adding you will soon come to see more gaps that need filling - I'm quite > happy to leave the job of fine-tuning to the Ad/Disad System. > > However, I have variously fiddled the numbers when it comes to IQ because I > think it does cover too much. This may be the outcome of GURPS's origin as > a combat-oriented system - it pays too great store by physically 'useful' > traits. Thus I usually take Will and Perception out of IQ, leaving them at > 10 unless purchased separately. I mean, I don't think that a highly > intelligent person is usually very strong-willed or perceptive, or vice > versa. > > The 'Will' options from Compendium I (IIRC) might help you there. > > Volker > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 12:56:39 +0100 From: "Rasmus Juul Wagner" Subject: Motivation of soldiers (was Re: Where did that shot come from?) Capture by ANY armed forces, regular or irregular, runs the risk of torture, rape and mutilation. Training and preparing to kill other human beings requires a certain mindset; war is a thoroughly unnatural thing, and most sane people have strong reservations about killing others. The thing that makes death-dealing possible for your average soldier is Fear. You must fear the enemy; not only does it keep you sharp and careful, but that fear is what makes you pull the trigger. So, kicking the prisoner around a bit, slaughtering a village of civilians that look just like the guerillas you've been fighting for months, that's sympathetic magic just like "tribal" torture. It's just not as colorful and ritualized, because we, the civilized people of the world, don't do these things anymore. Having said that, first-world soldiers ARE more civilized. Indoctrination and training fosters pride, and an attitude to war that says "highly skilled professional, who happens to be in the killing-people business" rather than "mighty warrior of my people". First-world soldiers are more closely monitored, by media and by officers who don't get shot at much and who have to look good to their bosses. Still, I wouldn't want to be an Iraqi soldier captured by American soldiers far from the cameras. Sorry 'bout the off-topic posting. > As wise as any other choice, but it depends on who you are facing. > Capture while alone could result in rape or torture or both. Mutilation > of superpower soldiers when captured by third world troops is > commonplace. [afghans v. victorian british, russians, etc. amerinds v. > US. Africans v. each other and all imperial powers] > Tribal forces view torture as a strengthening process for themselves; > "look, we made one of them scream - we are more powerful than them" very > old sympathetic magic. > > Looking thru history celts tortured prisoners, as did the amerinds, the > various arabs, turks, africans, chinese, americans, brits, etc, etc. > only the vikings iirc, but they might decide to sacrifice you to god for > luck on a battle, so that's debatably helpful. > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 10:20:13 -0500 From: Emily Smirle Subject: Re: Motivation of soldiers (was Re: Where did that shot come from?) Rasmus Juul Wagner wrote: > Having said that, first-world soldiers ARE more civilized. > Indoctrination and training fosters pride, and an attitude to war > that says "highly skilled professional, who happens to be in the > killing-people business" rather than "mighty warrior of my people". > First-world soldiers are more closely monitored, by media and by > officers who don't get shot at much and who have to look good to > their bosses. > > Still, I wouldn't want to be an Iraqi soldier captured by American > soldiers far from the cameras. Case in point why being captured away from official observation could be bad: the Canadian Van Du's... one paratrouper regiment which had such a long history of sevearly abusing civilians and captured soldiers that the government eventually disbanded and dispersed *ALL* the paratroupers; now various infantry brigades have small detachments of their own paras, but there are no continous independant groups. OTOH, they brought their own cameras and doccumented their exploits for personal records, so they weren't exactly camera shy. Even if you don't get picked up by a group with a history of savagery on the battle field, "civilized" troups are likely to kick around the captive a bit and otherwise handle him or her roughly. Not exactly torture, but it's like having a cop bang your head into the door frame as he stuffs you into the back seat of the squad car: not fun. - -- Let the sun never blind your eyes Let me sleep so my teeth won't grind -- "Grind", Hear a sound from a voice inside Alice in Chains ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 13:13:03 -1000 From: "Kenneth Peters" Subject: Re: Motivation of soldiers (was Re: Where did that shot come from?) From: "Emily Smirle" > > Still, I wouldn't want to be an Iraqi soldier captured by American > > soldiers far from the cameras. > > Case in point why being captured away from official observation could be > bad: the Canadian Van Du's... one paratrouper regiment which had such a > long history of sevearly abusing civilians and captured soldiers that > the government eventually disbanded and dispersed *ALL* the > paratroupers; now various infantry brigades have small detachments of > their own paras, but there are no continous independant groups. - -- That sort of situation probably requires three relatively unlikely situations to be occuring at once: 1. Lack of respect for the enemy combatants. However, this is common with the first world troops dealing with well... pretty much anyone not a first world military. 2. Poor leadership with regards to troop behaviour, condoning if not outright supporting it. Treating prisoners badly is probably the least of a units problems if this is an issue. The unit probably has a very low opinion of the military and civilian leadership. 3. Lack of proper instruction of facilities to handle captured individuals. This was a problem in the first Gulf War where there were ridiculous numbers of POWs and not enough handlers or facilities. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:13:54 +0100 From: Thomas Ackermann Subject: Resisted Spells Hi! I have a problem with Resisted Spells ... B150, Resisted Spells together with the Errata about reducing the caster´s skill-level to the highest of 16 and the subjects resistance (i assume, of course, up the maximum of the casters full skill-level!), give the following situation: The casters skill against a resisting living target, who´s resistance is 16 or higher, is reduced to that targets level of resistance! So, after a target has a resistance of 16, our mage´s skill is reduced to exactly that level! This in turn means, that a mage can never get a better chance than about 46 percent incl. critical successes, *even* if his skill-level is 150 and the resistance only 16 ... Is that realy what was wanted with the rules and the errata? Byebye, - -- Thomas Ackermann | Tel. +49-(0)228/631369 | Mobil: 0178-2016033 Email: ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:22:58 -0600 (CST) From: Bret Indrelee Subject: Re: Resisted Spells On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Thomas Ackermann wrote: [ snip ] > This in turn means, that a mage can never get a better chance than about > 46 percent incl. critical successes, *even* if his skill-level is 150 and > the resistance only 16 ... > > Is that realy what was wanted with the rules and the errata? Yes, I believe it is. The defender should always have some sort of defense, especially if they invested all those points into either Magic Resistence or Strong Will. It also prevents the mage from investing everything into a single spell. In my opinion, both of these are good things. - -Bret - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bret Indrelee | "Unleash the baby ducks." bret@io.com | www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=020522 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:06:37 +0100 (MET) From: "Onno Meyer" Subject: Re: IQ vs ST/DX/HT > I've done SciFi adventures where lots of people bought down their ST and > up their IQ. I took a more balanced approach and found it was quite > viable. Although I did not have the huge skills that some of the other > characters had, I didn't become totally useless outside my niche. > -Bret What kind of SF game? For a realistic or semi-hard game in our solar system, Earth gravity is the worst the PCs are likely to encounter. In an interstellar game like Traveller, there should be worlds with higher gravity every now and then, just like worlds with lower gravity. (Some people find the level of reserve power in my vehicles odd, but if you're hovering over a 1.5 G world, a lot of the reserves are gone ...) Onno ------------------------------ End of GURPSnet-Digest V4 #3767 ******************************* To subscribe to GURPSnet-Digest, send the command: subscribe GURPSnet-Digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@io.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-testlist": subscribe GURPSnet-Digest local-testlist@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "GURPSnet-Digest" in the commands above with "GURPSnet-L". --==IFJRGLKFGIR56711UHRUHIHD--