The Gaming Den

Dean wrote:Worse still this is a known "problem" for militaries and their solution is still to feed, train, and move 99 other people just to get one psycho that'll actually kill people they want dead.

Er, while it is a known problem, they've also had great success moving away from bullseye targets to ones that look like humans.

Of course, whether or not they should train people not to see other humans as something it's ok to kill once they leave the military is another issue.

Human shaped targets wouldn't solve it unless you made them believe their were actual humans inside. It's not a matter of the person not having the capability to make the shot, it's a statement that even after all the bootcamp and letting real enemies come at people with real guns an enormous majority of all trained soldiers still shoot to miss because killing humans on command is just about as far from our nature as it's possible to get.

In 1947, American WW2 general SLA Marshall published a book called Men Against Fire, the first investigation into how many soldiers were actually trying to kill the enemy in combat. SLA Marshall's conclusion is that 75% of soldiers in combat situations did not shoot to kill. According to SLA Marshall during the Vietnam War, a combination of using human sillhouette targets and range-training that focused less on shooting a stationary target accurately and more on hitting a briefly visible target quickly have been able to ingrain a significantly higher shoot-to-kill rate in American soldiers. There are those who question whether or not SLA Marshall was just coming up with a just-so story or even whether he fabricated findings to fit his theory, but so far as I know, the work done by SLA Marshall and follow-ups by other Army colonels/generals is the only time a major study has been done, which means either you agree with their conclusions or you think they're wrong/lying and are back to square one, having no idea how many soldiers shoot to kill at all.

Personally, I do not find it very difficult to believe that training for reaction shots builds in a reflex that does an end run around the human conscience. The real world tends to reward cynical pragmatism like that.

Conscience is terribly slow, most of the time it just takes a backseat and then takes credit for whatever happened.

So training to shoot as a reflex is clearly a way to bypass conscience.

However you still have to deal with the PTSD if the person wasn't on board with the idea of killing people.

Blade wrote:However you still have to deal with the PTSD if the person wasn't on board with the idea of killing people.

I think the number of unemployed homeless veterans getting sodas dumped on their heads proves that you clearly don't. There are plenty of kids out there willing to step on land mines in exchange for a couple years of free room & board.

There any good articles that disprove that 20/80 combat kill or effectiveness? I've heard it's outdated but didn't get linked another theory or study.

That study also says the 'effective soldiers' were also the highest casualties, so it might also be a study of "people unaware of how much danger they are in" is 20%.

OgreBattle wrote:There any good articles that disprove that 20/80 combat kill or effectiveness? I've heard it's outdated but didn't get linked another theory or study.

Sure. Look up SLA Marshall and the Ratio of Fire by Roger J. Spiller for the most quoted "anti-" Marshall piece. This is similar http://www.canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/w ... r-fire.pdf. If you are interested in this stuff more generally, can I strongly recommend "Brains & Bullets" / "Wargames" by Leo Murray (it has appeared by both titles)? And then for a geekier read, Anthony King's "Combat Soldier".

In 3.5 D&D, creatures that succeed a saving throw are aware they've been the target of a spell or ability and resisted it. Does the same thing happen if a spell they weren't otherwise aware of fails to penetrate spell resistance?

Specifically, I have a demon in position to spam some nasty spell-likes on a sleeping target, and I wonder if failing to penetrate SR would wake the target up.

So what makes GURPS work as a modular game, what's the core mechanic that's kept and what bout it makes it worth keeping

I'm not sure I've seen anyone here say GURPS works as a modular game. Rather, individual modules are so meticulously well researched that they are good source books no matter what game you're running. c.f. the goof about GURPS Asparagus when there was an OSSR of Gurps VTM. That would also be the thing that makes it worth keeping.

OgreBattle wrote:So what makes GURPS work as a modular game, what's the core mechanic that's kept and what bout it makes it worth keeping

To a degree, it is modular, but there are some caveats.

Effectively, Gurps is point-based. Every power has a points cost, and every character can be summarized as a point total. If you're playing a space-opera you'll have a list of relevant abilities and you'll be able to make characters appropriate for that genre.

If you make a character for a D&D-esque fantasy game, even though you follow the same process, your character may not be appropriate for space opera.

Many abilities that you pay actual points for in one setting wouldn't be worth points in another. Some of this is addressed with Tech Levels (a skill may have a different cost depending on the technology level of the setting), but that means that characters 'moving' to a different Tech Level would have to recalculate their point expenditure.

Outside of the variations in characters abilities/costs based on tech level/setting, the intention is that the same types of stats can apply to a large number of settings. If you know how to read the damage of a primitive weapon, you know how to read the damage of a future-tech weapon. In either case, you roll attack, the target rolls defense, if you win you roll damage and the target applies soak. That works if it's a sword versus a man in plate armor or a laser blaster against someone in power armor.

How does GURPS handle modern and future vehicle combat then?

Do tanks whittle at each other like swordsmen, or is it somehow different. Would players be better off firing bazookas at other humans or is there some way they discourage using anti tank weapons vs humans? Like these are things I wasn't satisfied about with RIFTS

OgreBattle wrote:How does GURPS handle modern and future vehicle combat then?

Do tanks whittle at each other like swordsmen, or is it somehow different. Would players be better off firing bazookas at other humans or is there some way they discourage using anti tank weapons vs humans? Like these are things I wasn't satisfied about with RIFTS

But firing RPGs at other human beings is a very valid tactical choice IRL.

I believe in the military they refer to it as "noob tubing".

Yes I know explosive rounds are used against machine gun nests, fortifications, the taliban fires RPG's into the air for fragmentation, etc. but you also know that's not what I fucking meant for that question

OgreBattle wrote:Yes I know explosive rounds are used against machine gun nests, fortifications, the taliban fires RPG's into the air for fragmentation, etc. but you also know that's not what I fucking meant for that question

Apologies, I really didn't. I haven't played RIFTS, but I have played Twilight 2000 and Recon and it is pretty standard fare in those games.

OgreBattle wrote:How does GURPS handle modern and future vehicle combat then?

Do tanks whittle at each other like swordsmen, or is it somehow different.

Tank fights are roughly congruent with my understanding of historical tank fights. If your gun pierces the enemy's armor, everyone inside takes a pile of damage and usually becomes too badly hurt to keep operating the tank. If your gun doesn't do that, the damage is probably negligible unless you got lucky and crippled a tread or something. Combat is either about setting up unanswered shots by surprise or range-manipulation, or (if the tanks have front armor that is likely to shrug off a hit) about maneuvering to get flank/rear shots.

Would players be better off firing bazookas at other humans or is there some way they discourage using anti tank weapons vs humans? Like these are things I wasn't satisfied about with RIFTS

Antitank weapons in GURPS are expensive, unwieldy, inaccurate against small targets, require lengthy reloading (or replacing) after every shot, have an unfortunate minimum range, and are generally very inferior to rifles in a standard tactical shootout. That they deal hilarious overkill isn't usually relevant, bullets kill people just fine.

GURPS has a lot of levers they can fiddle with to make weapons distinct, and the people involved put actual work into making sure the levers are in the appropriate places. The tradeoff is from accessibility and usability.

Thanks, the precision penalties and minimum range makes up for what RIFTS lacks

In RIFTS (and Warhammer 40k), a single shot laser cannon will be a superior anti dude weapon because there's little or no accuracy penalty for a small target (often an accuracy boost if the cannon is mounted on mecha while the rifle is wielded by a human), RIFTS also makes multi shot weapons into more damage rather than more shots most of the time.

I'm looking at the GURPS Basic Set - 3rd edition Revised. Page 138 - Vehicular Comabat

There are two main types of combat from vehicles. The first is with personal weapons (eg firing from a getaway car). This will happen from time to time in many campaigns; these rules cover it adequately.
Other combats use weapons actually mounted on the vehicle (tanks, planes, autoduelling, etc). The drivers either use their own Gunner skill, or carry gunners as passengers. This is more complex, and different for every type of vehicle. It is covered in detail in GURPS VEHICLES

Some vehicles get a dodge (like a fighter jet) and some don't (like a tank) instead relying on armor for apassive defense.

For shots AT A CAR, that penetrate, you roll 2d6.

2 - Hits drive
3-4 Hits passenger (randomly assigned)
5 windshield shattered, -3 to driving rolls until fixed
6-8 exits harmlessly
9- tire hit, reduce speed by 10mph
10-11 cargo damaged (DM ass pull)
12 - Engine crippled, car stops

If you crit a car, roll 1d6; on a 1-3 the driver gets hit, on a 4-6 the engine is crippled.

The mounted weapons are extremely dangerous - they can kill people very easily since they're designed to damage vehicles.

Are there a series of words that would work to rate complexity of a device?

Something like simple; standard; complex but hopefully with 5 levels?

In D&D parlance, small, medium, large are like that, but huge and gargantuan in plain language are interchangeable. I could use simple/basic/standard/complex/ and insist that simple is easier than basic, but it's not intuitive...

So, if you wanted words that range from least complex to most complex (as related to building a device) what would you use?

Other less than simple adjectives: Trivial, Plain, Easy, Obvious, Primitive, Rudimentary, Crude

For more complex adjectives: Intricate, Masterful, Tortuous, Multiplex

Gundam model kits are high, master, perfect grade. Lego uses age ratings.

Looking at how official document stuff rates complexity: https://globalpmstandards.org/tools/complexity-rating/

Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High

Though going with numbers or A, B, C... grade seems easier and can tie into mechanics

deaddmwalking wrote:

OgreBattle wrote:So what makes GURPS work as a modular game, what's the core mechanic that's kept and what bout it makes it worth keeping

To a degree, it is modular, but there are some caveats.

Effectively, Gurps is point-based. Every power has a points cost, and every character can be summarized as a point total. If you're playing a space-opera you'll have a list of relevant abilities and you'll be able to make characters appropriate for that genre.

If you make a character for a D&D-esque fantasy game, even though you follow the same process, your character may not be appropriate for space opera.

Many abilities that you pay actual points for in one setting wouldn't be worth points in another. Some of this is addressed with Tech Levels (a skill may have a different cost depending on the technology level of the setting), but that means that characters 'moving' to a different Tech Level would have to recalculate their point expenditure.

I think Tristat attempted to balance skill costs based on how useful they are in different genres. I'm not going to claim they were successful at anything, but as a GURPS alternative, it's probably worth considering.

Which edition of D&D has the best (read: most interesting) form of attacks of opportunity?

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:Which edition of D&D has the best (read: most interesting) form of attacks of opportunity?

It depend on how you want to define "best" and "interesting," but I'd say 3e. You get the most AoOs in that edition, you can take feats to do special things with AoOs like stop movement or cast a spell reactively, you can build a halfway decent tank by focusing on AoOs, and since they affect more than just movement they actually have an interesting tactical effect on people in your reach.

4e and 5e are simpler to resolve due to the more restrictive triggers, which isn't negligible, but they totally lack the AoO options and ability to affect more than movement that 3e has; 4e Defenders do sorta-kinda-AoO-ish things as a byproduct of marking, but don't really interact with them directly any more than immediate-action spells and maneuvers do in 3e.

1e and 2e do have attacks of opportunity, they just aren't called that, they're part of the "fleeing from combat" rules. When anyone retreats from melee without Withdrawing, they let everyone attack them (with all attacks they can normally make, not just one) into their rear square/hex (which is a significant accuracy boost and great for Backstab-ing thieves); also, if you're in combat with an ally and you or the ally Retreats or Withdraws the other one can stop your enemy from pursuing.

There's an argument to be made that AD&D AoOs would be the "best" version (it's the most powerful and hands out free perks that a 3e martial character has to spend feats on), but the reliance on theater of the mind combat, every non-Fighter's aversion to entering melee, and the inability to build on top of the mechanic makes it lose out on "interesting" to 3e, I think.