Studying an opponent and Omega Strikes

[Erol K. Bayburt]

Has anyone played, or even heard of, a combat system where "studying
an opponent" works as a short term combat tactic? Where the longer a
character fights an opponent (or observes an opponent being fought)
the bigger the bonus the character has to hit that opponent?

I'm thinking that such a system might be a way to use an "experienced
combatants are hard to hit" mechanic rather than an "experienced
combatants have a lot of hit points" one, without running into the
high-variance problem of the former. The first rank-one goblin to
attack the rank-umpteen StudlyChampion would not have any chance of
success, due to the StudlyChampion's huge defense bonus, but the
eleventy-seventh rank-one goblin would have, due gaining a
countervailing big bonus from having watched the first eleventy-six
goblins attack and get slaughtered.

This could also reduce the power of surprise, and might encourage the
sort of "omega strike" tactics seen in cinematic combats. Instead of
leading off with their best attacks as "alpha strikes," combatants
would exchange shots while saving their best, "special" attacks for as
long as possible to maximize their effectiveness - using them as what
I call "omega strikes" by analogy to the standard real-world tactic of
opening with alpha strikes.

Thoughts?

[gleichman]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Has anyone played, or even heard of, a combat system where "studying
an opponent" works as a short term combat tactic? Where the longer a
character fights an opponent (or observes an opponent being fought)
the bigger the bonus the character has to hit that opponent?

Hero System.

In line of to hit, there's analysis combat style and of course combat levels
brought with the limit of requiring time (and perhaps skill rolls) studying
the target.

Find weakness can do the same against defenses.

[Chuk Goodin]

Post by gleichman

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Has anyone played, or even heard of, a combat system where "studying
an opponent" works as a short term combat tactic? Where the longer a
character fights an opponent (or observes an opponent being fought)
the bigger the bonus the character has to hit that opponent?

Hero System.
In line of to hit, there's analysis combat style and of course combat levels
brought with the limit of requiring time (and perhaps skill rolls) studying
the target.
Find weakness can do the same against defenses.

Minor note: these are special abilities some characters have, not
something that applies to everyone. From the original post, it seemed to
me more like the question was about experience with an individual foe as
something that applied across the board.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Has anyone played, or even heard of, a combat system where "studying
an opponent" works as a short term combat tactic? Where the longer a
character fights an opponent (or observes an opponent being fought)
the bigger the bonus the character has to hit that opponent?

Torg:Orrorsh had the "Perseverence" mechanic but it was for a bit
longer timescale than what you're describing here. You gained
points by researching a monster or by having inconclusive encounters
with it, and eventually accumulated enough points to buy your way
to a combat victory. I don't know how well it worked in play as
our encounter with the basic Torg mechanics was disasterous.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
This could also reduce the power of surprise, and might encourage the
sort of "omega strike" tactics seen in cinematic combats. Instead of
leading off with their best attacks as "alpha strikes," combatants
would exchange shots while saving their best, "special" attacks for as
long as possible to maximize their effectiveness - using them as what
I call "omega strikes" by analogy to the standard real-world tactic of
opening with alpha strikes.
Thoughts?

Nice idea! It would seem a natural fit with Feng Shui.

You'd have to be very careful to make sure all characters need this
kind of ramp-up, because anyone who could find a way to be fully
effective early on would go through the opposition like a hot
knife through butter.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Simon Smith]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Has anyone played, or even heard of, a combat system where "studying
an opponent" works as a short term combat tactic? Where the longer a
character fights an opponent (or observes an opponent being fought)
the bigger the bonus the character has to hit that opponent?

Torg:Orrorsh had the "Perseverence" mechanic but it was for a bit
longer timescale than what you're describing here. You gained
points by researching a monster or by having inconclusive encounters
with it, and eventually accumulated enough points to buy your way
to a combat victory. I don't know how well it worked in play as
our encounter with the basic Torg mechanics was disasterous.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
This could also reduce the power of surprise, and might encourage the
sort of "omega strike" tactics seen in cinematic combats. Instead of
leading off with their best attacks as "alpha strikes," combatants
would exchange shots while saving their best, "special" attacks for as
long as possible to maximize their effectiveness - using them as what
I call "omega strikes" by analogy to the standard real-world tactic of
opening with alpha strikes.
Thoughts?

Nice idea! It would seem a natural fit with Feng Shui.
You'd have to be very careful to make sure all characters need this
kind of ramp-up, because anyone who could find a way to be fully
effective early on would go through the opposition like a hot
knife through butter.

My Star Wars D6 duelling rules achieve a similar end.

So as an alternative example of how to tone down the initial lethality of a
fight, here's a brief summary:

A typical starting character with melee skills will have an attack skill of
X, a defence skill varying from X to X-2, and a damage value ranging from
X-2 to X+1. A skill advantage of 2-3 points over an opponent gives a
sufficient margin that you would expect to beat them; (master vs pro; pro vs
novice). In order to hit an opponent, you just have to roll higher than
their defence roll. X will typically be in the range of 4D6 to 6D6.

The intent of the system was always to allow characters to sacrifice
attack effectiveness in order to increase survivability. The stroke of
inspiration that made the system work best was when I decided to allow
characters to reduce their /damage/ and increase defence by an equivalent
amount, rather than manipulating their attack skill.

The way characters and NPCs are supposed to use the system is to start out
with all or most of their damage dice added to defence. This means any
attack by either side that does get through will only do minor damage. As
the two sides become more confident of their relative abilities, they can
increasingly press the attack. You want to arrange things so that your
defence skill is 2-3 points higher than your opponent's attack skill. This
gives optimum damage with an acceptable level of personal risk. Because your
attack skill does not change whether you're fighting offensively or
defensively, there's no particular incentive to try to go all-out at the
start of a fight for an increased chance of a hit. a) It's bad tactics
against an unknown opponent, and b) you can assume your opponent will be on
full defence, so it's more likely that you'll take a (minor) hit than that
you'll get a good hit of your own. Unless you're a hero and the other
guy's just a mook, and even then a trained swordsmook (say, attack 4,
defence 3-4, damage 3, against your attack 6, defence 5, damage 5) may just
about be able to hold you off. When fighting a series of similar opponents,
you'll gradually gain a better idea of how best to allocate your defences
without several rounds of probing.

This system allows cautious duelling characters to wear each other down by
attrition, while berserks can be more gung-ho. Lightsaber duels, which
can be one-hit kills if the two sides go all-out, become possible again.
(Attack 7, defence 5, damage 8 for a reasonably skilled jedi). In our games
we found that lightsaber duels ended with victory for the character
with most Force points; characters would spend one a round, and whoever ran
out first was toast.

Because in D6 Star Wars a 'point' is a D6, the points ranges for to-hit
rolls, defence rolls and damage are all quite similar. In other systems you
might need a more sophisticated conversion factor for damage to defence. You
also need to ensure that there's always a chance of a hit unless one side
grossly outmatches the other. (12D skill versus 2D skill; in D&D terms, 12th
level versus 0th level, ish)

[Simon Smith]

In message <***@zen.co.uk>
Simon Smith <***@zen.co.uk> wrote:

<Snip>

Post by Simon Smith
The intent of the system was always to allow characters to sacrifice
attack effectiveness in order to increase survivability. The stroke of
inspiration that made the system work best was when I decided to allow
characters to reduce their /damage/ and increase defence by an equivalent
amount, rather than manipulating their attack skill.
The way characters and NPCs are supposed to use the system is to start out
with all or most of their damage dice added to defence.

<blah blah yadda yadda>

Or to put it another way, it gives players and GMs partial control over the
game's pace of decision. And in character to boot.

[psychohist]

I'd note that any system with incomplete information has this feature,
though it's handled directly in the character play rather than
abstracted. My system has a certain amount of hidden information, and
people occasionally go easy for the first few rounds while sizing up
their opponents, though it doesn't happen that often.

Warren J. Dew

[Eric P.]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:08:13 -0800, Erol K. Bayburt hath written thusly

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Has anyone played, or even heard of, a combat system where "studying
an opponent" works as a short term combat tactic? Where the longer a
character fights an opponent (or observes an opponent being fought)
the bigger the bonus the character has to hit that opponent?
I'm thinking that such a system might be a way to use an "experienced
combatants are hard to hit" mechanic rather than an "experienced
combatants have a lot of hit points" one, without running into the
high-variance problem of the former. The first rank-one goblin to
attack the rank-umpteen StudlyChampion would not have any chance of
success, due to the StudlyChampion's huge defense bonus, but the
eleventy-seventh rank-one goblin would have, due gaining a
countervailing big bonus from having watched the first eleventy-six
goblins attack and get slaughtered.
This could also reduce the power of surprise, and might encourage the
sort of "omega strike" tactics seen in cinematic combats. Instead of
leading off with their best attacks as "alpha strikes," combatants
would exchange shots while saving their best, "special" attacks for as
long as possible to maximize their effectiveness - using them as what
I call "omega strikes" by analogy to the standard real-world tactic of
opening with alpha strikes.
Thoughts?

ISTR there's a feat in 3.5e D&D supplemental publications that allows
for studying an opponent in order to receive benefits, but I don't
recall what source contains it. I see it as a reasonable combat tactic.

- E


==============================================================
Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html
==============================================================

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Has anyone played, or even heard of, a combat system where "studying
an opponent" works as a short term combat tactic? Where the longer a
character fights an opponent (or observes an opponent being fought)
the bigger the bonus the character has to hit that opponent?

We have what we call "stereotyped attacks" and "stereotyped defences"
from some types of foes. That is these foes always attack and defend
in the same manner, a manner that is fairly effective the first time
you encounter it but loses its impact as you learn to fight against
that foe. This happens a great deal with animals. However, animals are
almost never major foes in a campaign. How this works out is that
foresters or others who spend a great deal of time in an environment
gain a bonus to attack and defence against creatures that they
commonly hunt or that often attack them. They can _teach_ these
methods to others, given the time and the inclination. In some cases,
fighting a large grou of these creatures gives one such an "education'
in fighting them that one is getting a partial bonus by the time the
fight is over. Some animals and all sapient foes are too variable to
have this come up.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
I'm thinking that such a system might be a way to use an "experienced
combatants are hard to hit" mechanic rather than an "experienced
combatants have a lot of hit points" one, without running into the
high-variance problem of the former. The first rank-one goblin to
attack the rank-umpteen StudlyChampion would not have any chance of
success, due to the StudlyChampion's huge defense bonus, but the
eleventy-seventh rank-one goblin would have, due gaining a
countervailing big bonus from having watched the first eleventy-six
goblins attack and get slaughtered.

It blows my mind that you envisage the goblins lining up and attacking
one at a time. Have they taken the "chivalry" disadvantage? On the
other tentacle, if our hero is holding a doorway, where they could
only attack one at a time, his attacks and defences WOULD be somewhat
stereotyped, so we COULD give Goblin #N a bonus and Goblin #N+3 a
larger one, etc.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
This could also reduce the power of surprise, and might encourage the
sort of "omega strike" tactics seen in cinematic combats. Instead of
leading off with their best attacks as "alpha strikes," combatants
would exchange shots while saving their best, "special" attacks for as
long as possible to maximize their effectiveness - using them as what
I call "omega strikes" by analogy to the standard real-world tactic of
opening with alpha strikes.
Thoughts?

I like real-world tactics or tactics that can at least allow my WSoD
to survive. Saving your best attack for last, much like using your own
frail body to find out if the fight is too tough, would make me feel
like I was playing a person with a death-wish.

Will in New Haven

-

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
--
Erol K. Bayburt

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On 8 Mar 2007 06:39:57 -0800, "Will in New Haven"

Post by Will in New Haven
I like real-world tactics or tactics that can at least allow my WSoD
to survive. Saving your best attack for last, much like using your own
frail body to find out if the fight is too tough, would make me feel
like I was playing a person with a death-wish.

Mileage varies widely on what supports or attacks a WSoD. Simply
playing an adventurer makes me feel like I'm playing a person with a
death-wish, and being in a strange romanticized world where saving my
best attack for last or using my own body to find out if the fight is
too tough are *not* crazy-stupid ideas actually help against this
feeling.

It's like being a famous wizard in a game set in the real-world
northern suburbs of Chicago vs being a famous wizard in the fantasy
city-state of Robono. I find that the second is easier on my WSoD
precisely *because* Robono is a fantasy city where spells and magic
items are available for purchase. Now I know that it's a hard hit
against some people's WSoD for spells and magic to be available for
purchase with mere silver, but... mileage varies.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On 8 Mar 2007 06:39:57 -0800, "Will in New Haven"

Post by Will in New Haven
I like real-world tactics or tactics that can at least allow my WSoD
to survive. Saving your best attack for last, much like using your own
frail body to find out if the fight is too tough, would make me feel
like I was playing a person with a death-wish.

Mileage varies widely on what supports or attacks a WSoD.

When you ask for people to give their opinions, you get their
opinions. Since I have been playing, running and designing "gets
harder to hit," as opposed to "gets more Hit Points" for twenty years,
I figured I'd give mine. Of COURSE, mileage varies but one of the
reasons people I play with seem to like ghth better than gmhp is that
it is easier to visualize what the character is doing.

Given your stated preferences, I think you should stick with "gets
more hit points." It's not like this is a wrong approach. There are no
wrong approaches. However, your desire for disconnect with real-world
tactics and seeming (because it isn't really) simulationist approaches
would seem to fit it better.

Will in New Haven

--



Simply

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
playing an adventurer makes me feel like I'm playing a person with a
death-wish, and being in a strange romanticized world where saving my
best attack for last or using my own body to find out if the fight is
too tough are *not* crazy-stupid ideas actually help against this
feeling.
It's like being a famous wizard in a game set in the real-world
northern suburbs of Chicago vs being a famous wizard in the fantasy
city-state of Robono. I find that the second is easier on my WSoD
precisely *because* Robono is a fantasy city where spells and magic
items are available for purchase. Now I know that it's a hard hit
against some people's WSoD for spells and magic to be available for
purchase with mere silver, but... mileage varies.
--
Erol K. Bayburt

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On 9 Mar 2007 07:00:13 -0800, "Will in New Haven"

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On 8 Mar 2007 06:39:57 -0800, "Will in New Haven"

Post by Will in New Haven
I like real-world tactics or tactics that can at least allow my WSoD
to survive. Saving your best attack for last, much like using your own
frail body to find out if the fight is too tough, would make me feel
like I was playing a person with a death-wish.

Mileage varies widely on what supports or attacks a WSoD.

When you ask for people to give their opinions, you get their
opinions. Since I have been playing, running and designing "gets
harder to hit," as opposed to "gets more Hit Points" for twenty years,
I figured I'd give mine. Of COURSE, mileage varies but one of the
reasons people I play with seem to like ghth better than gmhp is that
it is easier to visualize what the character is doing.

OK, I appologize. I misread your comment as implying that the goal I
was seeking was a Bad goal and that I shouldn't seek it.

FWIW, I've been using both ghth and gmhp systems over the past
twenty-mumble years. Both have virtues and faults, from my POV. Which
is preferable depends on what the rest of the game mechanics are like,
and on the particular tweeks of the particular ghth or gmhp system.

Post by Will in New Haven
Given your stated preferences, I think you should stick with "gets
more hit points." It's not like this is a wrong approach. There are no
wrong approaches. However, your desire for disconnect with real-world
tactics and seeming (because it isn't really) simulationist approaches
would seem to fit it better.

It sounds here like you don't understand what I mean by
"simulationist." What do *you* mean by "simulationist" that gives rise
to your parathentical "because it isn't really" wrt my approch?

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On 9 Mar 2007 07:00:13 -0800, "Will in New Haven"

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On 8 Mar 2007 06:39:57 -0800, "Will in New Haven"

Post by Will in New Haven
I like real-world tactics or tactics that can at least allow my WSoD
to survive. Saving your best attack for last, much like using your own
frail body to find out if the fight is too tough, would make me feel
like I was playing a person with a death-wish.

Mileage varies widely on what supports or attacks a WSoD.

When you ask for people to give their opinions, you get their
opinions. Since I have been playing, running and designing "gets
harder to hit," as opposed to "gets more Hit Points" for twenty years,
I figured I'd give mine. Of COURSE, mileage varies but one of the
reasons people I play with seem to like ghth better than gmhp is that
it is easier to visualize what the character is doing.

OK, I appologize. I misread your comment as implying that the goal I
was seeking was a Bad goal and that I shouldn't seek it.
FWIW, I've been using both ghth and gmhp systems over the past
twenty-mumble years. Both have virtues and faults, from my POV. Which
is preferable depends on what the rest of the game mechanics are like,
and on the particular tweeks of the particular ghth or gmhp system.

Post by Will in New Haven
Given your stated preferences, I think you should stick with "gets
more hit points." It's not like this is a wrong approach. There are no
wrong approaches. However, your desire for disconnect with real-world
tactics and seeming (because it isn't really) simulationist approaches
would seem to fit it better.

It sounds here like you don't understand what I mean by
"simulationist." What do *you* mean by "simulationist" that gives rise
to your parathentical "because it isn't really" wrt my approch?

The parenthetical comment was about _all_ simulationist gaming, beyond
the level of hex-based wargaming. I wasn't talking about you
specifically but about all RPG "simulationists." We aren't really
simulating anything but gmhp gets in the way of the "feel" of
simulation, at least in my opinion. I don't think someone who wants to
do some of the things that you describe doesn't have much desire for
the feel of simulation.

In many situations, a decent tactical decision can be made in my
campaign by someone with no knowledge of the game rules. If the right
tactical decisions were usually to hold back your best move until
later in the combat, a player would have to know that from the rules.
Not that there aren't situations where that would be right, I have
thought of several in the last few days and played one out a few
months ago, but those are dependant on specific factors and the usual
choice is to use your best shot.

If there is a possibility that a group of people were in a position to
get into a fight, someone not familiar with the rules in play would
probably not feel that the best way to figure out the dangers involved
was to wade right in. It might be, perhaps often would be, turn out to
be the ONLY way but it would not be the rules-naive person's first
choice. Now that player might like, once he was in the combat and it
proved difficult, it to turn out to be easy to withdraw with only a
few abstract Hit Points lost and the monsters unabel to pursue
effectively. However, most people, without knowing the rules, would
not assume that this was the case.

I like rules that, as far as possible (and it isn't THAT far) mirror
what a person might find reasonable in the situation described,
without reference to the specific rules.

Will in New Haven

--


If you take in a starving dog off the street, and feed him, and make
him prosperous, he will not bite you.
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Mark Twain

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
--
Erol K. Bayburt

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Will in New Haven
The parenthetical comment was about _all_ simulationist gaming, beyond
the level of hex-based wargaming. I wasn't talking about you
specifically but about all RPG "simulationists." We aren't really
simulating anything but gmhp gets in the way of the "feel" of
simulation, at least in my opinion. I don't think someone who wants to
do some of the things that you describe doesn't have much desire for
the feel of simulation.

It's been a fairly long-standing tradition on this newsgroup to use
"simulation" to mean "fidelity to the internal logic of the gameworld"
and "realism" to mean "fidelity to our world". That's why people
are misinterpreting what you're saying.

When Erol says "simulation" he doesn't mean "How much is this like the
real world?" He means, "Does this follow from the internal logic of
the game-world, or is it being manipulated?" In this sense, non-simulation
decisions would be things like "That's an anticlimatic death so I won't
allow it" or "NPCs have to use different tactics than PCs in order to
keep the game exciting."

In this sense it's quite possible to care strongly about simulation while
playing a game with highly unrealistic elements (magic, monsters,
mutant ninja kung fu, etc.)

It probably isn't a great choice of word but it's been used around here
in that sense for several years, and if you use it to mean "realism"
you will probably be misunderstood by quite a few posters. Not a
criticism, just a (hopefully helpful) comment.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Will in New Haven
The parenthetical comment was about _all_ simulationist gaming, beyond
the level of hex-based wargaming. I wasn't talking about you
specifically but about all RPG "simulationists." We aren't really
simulating anything but gmhp gets in the way of the "feel" of
simulation, at least in my opinion. I don't think someone who wants to
do some of the things that you describe doesn't have much desire for
the feel of simulation.

It's been a fairly long-standing tradition on this newsgroup to use
"simulation" to mean "fidelity to the internal logic of the gameworld"
and "realism" to mean "fidelity to our world". That's why people
are misinterpreting what you're saying.
When Erol says "simulation" he doesn't mean "How much is this like the
real world?" He means, "Does this follow from the internal logic of
the game-world, or is it being manipulated?" In this sense, non-simulation
decisions would be things like "That's an anticlimatic death so I won't
allow it" or "NPCs have to use different tactics than PCs in order to
keep the game exciting."
In this sense it's quite possible to care strongly about simulation while
playing a game with highly unrealistic elements (magic, monsters,
mutant ninja kung fu, etc.)
It probably isn't a great choice of word but it's been used around here
in that sense for several years, and if you use it to mean "realism"
you will probably be misunderstood by quite a few posters. Not a
criticism, just a (hopefully helpful) comment.

Thanks, I can see that the definition you are using needs a word and
"simulationist" was one choice. Not the choice I would have made but I
can live with it. "Realism" doesn't really fit what I mean either or
maybe it does. Rules that make recon by throwing yourselves at the
enemy a good choice would make me itch just as badly as rules that
said that the best way to aim your bow was to face away from the
enemy. It is quite possible to play settings with highly unrealistic
elements while preserving ordinary common-sense "realism" such as the
idea that getting into a fight is committal and backing out after it
starts, while not impossible, is generally risky. Given some special
advantage, such as quick teleport, can make an exception but the rules-
naive player should not, in my opinion, find himself constantly being
told "Of course we can do x, y or z, which seems so odd, because the
rules say so."

Anyway, that's the way I like it and I don't think I lose anything
that way.

Will in New Haven

--


If you take in a starving dog off the street, and feed him, and make
him prosperous, he will not bite you.
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Mark Twain

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On 9 Mar 2007 16:57:03 -0800, "Will in New Haven"

Post by Will in New Haven
Thanks, I can see that the definition you are using needs a word and
"simulationist" was one choice. Not the choice I would have made but I
can live with it. "Realism" doesn't really fit what I mean either or
maybe it does. Rules that make recon by throwing yourselves at the
enemy a good choice would make me itch just as badly as rules that
said that the best way to aim your bow was to face away from the
enemy. It is quite possible to play settings with highly unrealistic
elements while preserving ordinary common-sense "realism" such as the
idea that getting into a fight is committal and backing out after it
starts, while not impossible, is generally risky.

Except that "common sense" can be based either on real life or on how
things work in various fictions - action movies, comicbooks, fantasy
novels, etc. Sometimes writers depart from reality in their fictional
descriptions because they don't know any better, but sometimes they do
so because it makes a better story.

For example, a lot of people "know" that pistol rounds are roughly
equal in deadliness to rifle rounds; this is "common sense" from James
Bond and all the other action movies they've seen. But anyone who is
clueful about real-world firearms knows that this simply isn't true -
rifle rounds are actually much deadlier.

Despite this, many of us will prefer game systems that use Hollywood
Action Movie bullets (pistols just as deadly as rifles), rather than
real-world bullets (rifles much more deadly) because we want our games
to resemble what we see in action movies rather than what we know
happens in real life.

Post by Will in New Haven
Given some special
advantage, such as quick teleport, can make an exception but the rules-
naive player should not, in my opinion, find himself constantly being
told "Of course we can do x, y or z, which seems so odd, because the
rules say so."

And the rules say so because that's the way the world designer wants
that world to work. The idea, usually, is to let characters act in
genre-appropriate manner - to act like their favorite fictional
characters - without the rules punishing them for doing so.

Post by Will in New Haven
Anyway, that's the way I like it and I don't think I lose anything
that way.

The problem is when you get a new player who tries to have his
character do x, y, or z because that's how characters in fiction do
it, only to be told "No, you can't do x, y, or z because it's
unrealistic. It's stupid and makes my skin itch when I see it in
fiction, and I won't let it happen in my game." Which is your right as
a GM and world-builder - but it's just as much of an *assumption
clash* (another nifty bit of rgfa terminology, btw) as your example of
a new player confused by "Of course we can do x, y or z, which seems
so odd, because the rules say so."

[gleichman]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
For example, a lot of people "know" that pistol rounds are roughly
equal in deadliness to rifle rounds; this is "common sense" from James
Bond and all the other action movies they've seen. But anyone who is
clueful about real-world firearms knows that this simply isn't true -
rifle rounds are actually much deadlier.

Wrong.

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:25:32 -0600, "gleichman"

Post by gleichman

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
For example, a lot of people "know" that pistol rounds are roughly
equal in deadliness to rifle rounds; this is "common sense" from James
Bond and all the other action movies they've seen. But anyone who is
clueful about real-world firearms knows that this simply isn't true -
rifle rounds are actually much deadlier.

Wrong.

Explain please?

[gleichman]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by gleichman
Wrong.

Explain please?

At it's most simple...

A bullet simply punches a hole in what it hits, and what it hits bleeds out,
and that's the end of the story. One can attempt to play games with
expansion, bullet fragmention and the like- but that core fact overrides
everything else. Hyrostatic shock on humans is a mostly a myth (only rare
exceptions apply like a liver or a good skull hit). Rifles on people waste
most of their energy outside the victim (after exiting) or in tearing
themselves up.

So it basically comes done to whatever makes the biggest hole times the
length of penetration with the latter bound by the thickness of the human
body in the line of impact. Handguns at very good at maxing out that factor.

The advantage of rifles are found in range, ability to deal with much
tougher than human targets, and punch through armor and/or cover.

This is one of the reasons the Spec Ops favor SMG weapons (firing pistol
ammo) for close quarters battle instead of assault rifles despite the fact
that a M4 handles about as well and doesn't have significantly greater
(about the same as I recall) recoil as a MP5. The 9mm pistol round puts a
bigger hole in a person and has a better chance of taking him down quick
than the 5.56mm rifle round does.

I now expect not to be believed. I'm used to that, but in no real more to
debate it yet again. There are good places to go to research this, and for
any interested I suggest doing so.

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:20:04 -0600, "gleichman"

Post by gleichman

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by gleichman
Wrong.

Explain please?

At it's most simple...

[snip explaination]

Post by gleichman
I now expect not to be believed. I'm used to that, but in no real more to
debate it yet again. There are good places to go to research this, and for
any interested I suggest doing so.

OK. I am skeptical of some but not all of your claims here, and I
think a large part of our disagreement comes from different measures
of "lethality" and from different opinions wrt the importance of
bullet expansion. If one is limited to hardball ammo, that does reduce
the differences between getting shot with a pistol vs a rifle, and I
can see the argument for eliminating it.

But I'm not in any better mood to debate this here and now than you
are. Thanks for explaining your view on the matter.

[John Morrow]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
OK. I am skeptical of some but not all of your claims here, and I
think a large part of our disagreement comes from different measures
of "lethality" and from different opinions wrt the importance of
bullet expansion

Part of the problem is also that "rifle ammunition" and "pistol
ammunition" is not terribly specific. The .22LR is a "rifle" round while
the .44 Magnum is a "pistol" round.

And, as to expand on some points Brian made, *where* a particular type of
bullet hits you matters a great deal. A shot to the leg, if it hits the
main artery, can kill you faster than a torso wound that misses major
arteries and there are also ways to get shot in the head that aren't
particularly fatal. Thus the RPG convention that head shots and torso
shots are more deadly than limb shots, though it seems intuitive, is not
always true, either.

John Morrow

[gleichman]

Thus the RPG convention that head shots and torso shots are more deadly
than limb shots, though it seems intuitive, is not always true, either.

Very true, but it's an acceptable simplification under most conditions. Just
assume that the deadly limb hits have been rolled into torso/head rolls as
part of the game's simplification/abstraction.

[psychohist]

Erol K. Bayburt posts, in part:

If one is limited to hardball ammo, that does reduce
the differences between getting shot with a pistol vs
a rifle, and I can see the argument for eliminating it.

Possibly a duplicate post, but I'd note that Brian was analyzing the
differences between the rounds, rather than the differences between
the shots. I tend to agree with Brian that rifle rounds are not
generally more lethal, but I think the shots are: the greater range
of a rifle means the shooter is more likely to be shooting at a target
that isn't shooting back, and may not even know it's being shot at,
especially for the first shot. That makes the probability of hits,
and the probability of hits in more dangerous locations, more likely.
This is why few people go hunting with pistols.

I found this interesting site on information on rifle injuries:

http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/pmrb.html

Admittedly this site does not cover expanding ammunition, but the huge
variation in rifle rounds - especially between rounds of the same
design but different manufacture, such as between NATO rounds of US
manufacture and those of German manufacture - seems to me likely to
dwarf differences in bullet shape. The site doesn't cover pistol
rounds in detail, but says of the Soviet manufacture AK-47 ammunition
that "holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-
point handgun bullet. The average uncomplicated thigh wound was about
what one would expect from a low-powered handgun".

I do think there are pistol rounds where the round itself is likely to
be less lethal: the .22 short pistol round, for example. Then again,
air rifle rounds are probably even less likely to be lethal.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

Post by psychohist
Admittedly this site does not cover expanding ammunition, but the huge
variation in rifle rounds

Expanding ammunition for rifles is basically the same as that for pistols
unless it (like some of the ball ammo) heavily fragments.

Fragments btw aren't instantly more lethal except in a small (compared to
the entire rifle) range band (which is the James Bond test) but are harder
to treat and more lethal long term- which is why fragmenting ammo isn't used
for hunting. Nor is it used for dedicated CQB weapons by the military.

And yes, I was speaking hits- not shots.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:20:04 -0600, "gleichman"

Post by gleichman

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by gleichman
Wrong.

Explain please?

At it's most simple...

[snip explaination]

Post by gleichman
I now expect not to be believed. I'm used to that, but in no real more to
debate it yet again. There are good places to go to research this, and for
any interested I suggest doing so.

OK. I am skeptical of some but not all of your claims here, and I
think a large part of our disagreement comes from different measures
of "lethality" and from different opinions wrt the importance of
bullet expansion. If one is limited to hardball ammo, that does reduce
the differences between getting shot with a pistol vs a rifle, and I
can see the argument for eliminating it.
But I'm not in any better mood to debate this here and now than you
are. Thanks for explaining your view on the matter.

I think his answer was pretty reasonable. As you did, I found his
first response rather unlikely but his explanation is fairly good
The fact that rifle rounds are usually, especially recently, of a
smaller caliber is telling. However, when he talks of pistol "rounds"
in automatic weapons with long barrels, he is no longer talking about
handguns.

The .44 magnum "round" is extremely powerful if shot from the short
barrel of a handgun but much moreso when fired from the longer barrel
of the carbine chambered for the round.

And, of course, he was talking about hits and not shots. He isn't
arguing that someone would be as likely to hit you with a handgun as
he would with a rifle.

Will in New Haven

--

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
--
Erol K. Bayburt

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:25:32 -0600, "gleichman"

Post by gleichman

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
For example, a lot of people "know" that pistol rounds are roughly
equal in deadliness to rifle rounds; this is "common sense" from James
Bond and all the other action movies they've seen. But anyone who is
clueful about real-world firearms knows that this simply isn't true -
rifle rounds are actually much deadlier.

Wrong.

Explain please?

I hope he does because your statement, while a generalization, seems
generally true. Sure there are some rifles that are less deadly than
some handguns but real-world forces do not take handguns to known
gunfights.

One genre convention that always amused me is the cowboys riding into
town and terrifying everyone and over-awing the town by firing
handguns from horseback. Against people who could have sheltered in
second-story windows and used rifles and shotguns.

But I have never wanted to roleplay Hollywood. The "Buffy" campaigns I
played in were fun but it's not usually my cuppa.

Will in New Haven

--

"This ring, no other, was made by the elves, who'd pawn their own
mother to grab it themselves..." <Bored of the Rings>

Will in New Haven

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
--
Erol K. Bayburt

[Mary K. Kuhner]

One place where I know that I, as a player, do *not* want
realism is in the handling of injury. I know that recovery
from even small injuries is timeconsuming and painful and
may leave permanent impairments. But I would rather, in this
respect, that games were like action movies. And it's not very
confusing, because most people have plenty of experience with
the Hollywood conception of injury (in fact, many people have
more experience with it than with realistic conceptions of
injury, at least while they are young).

Realistic injury rules have been tried in various games
(Harn springs to mind) and some people enjoy them, but many
don't. I think that for most players there are large areas
where they actively do not want realism, as well as other
areas where they need it badly. One can hope for a group
with fairly compatible needs.

Saving the best attack for last would be borderline for me.
It's not a genre convention I've really internalized and
I would have to make a deliberate effort, though having
Hong Kong movies as a guide would help a lot.

Finding out, now and then, that a fight is too hard only
after I've gotten into it, on the other hand--that maps so
well to my real-life experiences that it doesn't strike
me as all that unrealistic. Sometimes you just make
mistakes. Two teenage muggers tackled the head of one of
Florida's aikido schools a while back. (She reports that
after they got up and ran away, she wanted to shout after
them, "Come back! I could do so much more than that!")

And in the kinds of situations that arise in games it
seems remarkable that your players can always avoid it.
Are they really capable of ensuring, every time, that there
are no unexpected reinforcements, no highly-capable
people travelling incognito, no treachery in their own
ranks, and no magical surprises? Also, doesn't losing a PC
to an early lucky blow sometimes change a good-looking
fight into not-so-good?

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
One place where I know that I, as a player, do *not* want
realism is in the handling of injury. I know that recovery
from even small injuries is timeconsuming and painful and
may leave permanent impairments. But I would rather, in this
respect, that games were like action movies. And it's not very
confusing, because most people have plenty of experience with
the Hollywood conception of injury (in fact, many people have
more experience with it than with realistic conceptions of
injury, at least while they are young).
Realistic injury rules have been tried in various games
(Harn springs to mind) and some people enjoy them, but many
don't. I think that for most players there are large areas
where they actively do not want realism, as well as other
areas where they need it badly. One can hope for a group
with fairly compatible needs.

I don't know anyone who wants to play realistic injury rules, although
somewhere I am sure someone does want that.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
Saving the best attack for last would be borderline for me.
It's not a genre convention I've really internalized and
I would have to make a deliberate effort, though having
Hong Kong movies as a guide would help a lot.

Writing the rules for it would be a headache I think. Using as a
specialized option for a certain type of character might be
interesting. On the other hand, things you save for last are things
you often don't get to use. Sometimes that is for a good reason: you
have already triumphed.

On a strategic level, this is not an uncommon idea. "I won't use spell
'X' for this encounter unless it goes really sour. We have to overcome
'Y' when we get near our goal and I can't do it twice, at least in the
near future." Whether it's a spell or an enchanted crossbow bolt, the
principal is the same.

An individual combatant might have a technique that could be best used
after she knows her enemy's vulnerability and it would be used late in
a fight. That would be a factor of her style of fighting.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
Finding out, now and then, that a fight is too hard only
after I've gotten into it, on the other hand--that maps so
well to my real-life experiences that it doesn't strike
me as all that unrealistic. Sometimes you just make
mistakes. Two teenage muggers tackled the head of one of
Florida's aikido schools a while back. (She reports that
after they got up and ran away, she wanted to shout after
them, "Come back! I could do so much more than that!")

KNOWING you can get out of a difficult fight and having it be a
regular part of your way of doing things is an extremely unrealistic
mind-set. Your example involves non-lethal combat. In fact, all
examples from unarmed combat are rather tenuously connected to the
level of violence in an RPG.

Here's another example of a real-world mistake of this kind: two men
see a man smacking a child around. They hustle up to the guy to say
something, perhaps intervene physically. He draws a pistol and shoots
one of them. The other one runs. If the player-characters realize that
making a mistake can easily have drastic consequences, I have no
problem at all with the idea that someoties it won't.

Finding out that your opponents in a barfight are going to be your
brand-new inlaws was one of the best examples of this kind of non-
lethal error that I remember. It wasn't in my campaign but my
character had to explain it to his bride.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
And in the kinds of situations that arise in games it
seems remarkable that your players can always avoid it.

Of course they can't always avoid it. The consequences when they don't
avoid it is that they have a hard fight. Fortunately for them, they
rarely meet anyone who is an even match for them.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
Are they really capable of ensuring, every time, that there
are no unexpected reinforcements, no highly-capable
people travelling incognito, no treachery in their own
ranks, and no magical surprises? Also, doesn't losing a PC
to an early lucky blow sometimes change a good-looking
fight into not-so-good?

All very true. The idea is that one can try to avoid unfavorable
fights, not that it will always work.

Will in New Haven

--

"This ring, no other, was made by the elves, who'd pawn their own
mother to grab it themselves..." <Bored of the Rings>

[psychohist]

Mary K. Kuhner

One place where I know that I, as a player, do
*not* want realism is in the handling of injury.
I know that recovery from even small injuries
is timeconsuming and painful and may leave
permanent impairments. But I would rather, in
this respect, that games were like action
movies.

I wanted people to take wounds seriously for several reasons - one of
them being that if people avoid wounding, they're less likely actually
die from carelessness, given it's a permanent death game - so my basic
system is realistic in these respects. That said, the "time consuming
and painful" part can easily be abstracted rather than played in
detail; that it's a character cost doesn't necessarily mean it has to
be a player cost.

Of course, with somewhat magical healing, wounds become much less
serious. Still, even with a good physician's help, it takes hours to
recover from them rather than the seconds in many games. I like the
effect of "stopping for a day to tend to the wounded".

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

Post by psychohist
Of course, with somewhat magical healing, wounds become much less
serious. Still, even with a good physician's help, it takes hours to
recover from them rather than the seconds in many games. I like the
effect of "stopping for a day to tend to the wounded".

The same basic concept is used in AoH.

[psychohist]

Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

It's been a fairly long-standing tradition on this newsgroup
to use "simulation" to mean "fidelity to the internal logic
of the gameworld" and "realism" to mean "fidelity to our
world". That's why people are misinterpreting what
you're saying....

In this sense it's quite possible to care strongly about
simulation while playing a game with highly unrealistic
elements (magic, monsters, mutant ninja kung fu, etc.)

True.

I would add, though, that it's perfectly possible to run games where
the game world does not have a consistent internal logic. Back during
the "strong genre" discussion, I concluded that there are certain
fictional genres that were not amenable to a strict approach to game
world internal consistency; some seemed to feel that reifying genre
conventions in the game world would work, but I felt that it would
result in a distinctly different feel than the genre called for.

It's still possible to run strong genre games, of course; it's just
that a different approach is called for. "Simulation" in the sense of
an internally consistent game world may be a good thing or a bad
thing, depending on one's tastes.

Warren J. Dew

[John Morrow]

Post by psychohist
I would add, though, that it's perfectly possible to run games where
the game world does not have a consistent internal logic. Back during
the "strong genre" discussion, I concluded that there are certain
fictional genres that were not amenable to a strict approach to game
world internal consistency; some seemed to feel that reifying genre
conventions in the game world would work, but I felt that it would
result in a distinctly different feel than the genre called for.

Correct. The primary issue is whether the genre can survive treating
everyone, NPC and PC alike, equally or not. If it can, then the genre
conventions can be reified into the setting. If it can't, then it can
cause verisimilitude problems if looked at closely.

For example, the "red shirt" convention in Star Trek is a story convention
that treats some characters as being more important than others. Since it
makes distinctions between characters for story purposes, it would be
difficult to reify that into the setting. On the other hand, the anime
convention that trained fighters can jump 20 feet into the air could be
reified so long as everyone who is highly trained can do it in the genre.

So you can alter physics, healing, and just about anything else so long as
it becomes a part of the physics and biology of the setting. It's when
the rules don't make sense withing the setting, aren't something that the
characters are allowed to notice, and/or require a megagame awareness of
who the heroes are to work that they aren't really suitable for that sort
of game.

This goes back to the comment about the same rules applying to everyone.
That, and their ability to be aware of or notice the rules without that
breaking suspension of disbelief, that are key.

Post by psychohist
It's still possible to run strong genre games, of course; it's just
that a different approach is called for. "Simulation" in the sense of
an internally consistent game world may be a good thing or a bad
thing, depending on one's tastes.

Sure. But this message board always had a strong presence of players who
tried to play by closely identifying with their characters or even
thinking in character, and such play often desires or even needs a very
high level of verisimilitude to work. So you *can* run a game like Feng
Shui that treats PCs and mooks differently or allows PCs to have unlimited
ammo, but a close look at either of those things by a player or character
with an interest in verisimilitude is going to have problems.

John Morrow

[psychohist]

Erol K. Bayburt

Simply playing an adventurer makes me feel like I'm playing
a person with a death-wish, and being in a strange
romanticized world where saving my best attack for last or
using my own body to find out if the fight is too tough are
*not* crazy-stupid ideas actually help against this feeling.

Attacking all out is not always the approach skilled combatants
choose, even in the player world. I can give a couple of examples:

(1) A former SEAL comes on an attempted mugging, using a knife, in
New York City. He could easily kill the mugger, but instead foregoes
his best attack, instead roughing the mugger up a bit and scaring him
off.

(2) A fencing instructor, without protective equipment, asks someone
in a beginner class to lunge at him, and counts on his own ability to
parry to keep himself safe.

Most of the examples I've seen in games using my rules system are
similar: someone who is much more skilled does not use his full
skill, because he doesn't need to and often because he's interested in
the ability of the lesser skilled opponent.

Warren J. Dew

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by psychohist
Most of the examples I've seen in games using my rules system are
similar: someone who is much more skilled does not use his full
skill, because he doesn't need to and often because he's interested in
the ability of the lesser skilled opponent.

But this is quite different from the Hong Kong movie convention
that against a much *stronger* opponent, it's best to use lesser
attacks and save the big one for later in the fight. I can't think
of a real-world analogy for that, at least in melee combat, except
for cases in which you hope to stop the fight before someone gets
hurt and therefore don't want to trot out the big attack. And
generally you aren't in that position against a more-powerful foe.

There's a beautiful aikido taigi (set-piece series of attacks and
throws) where the attacker has a wooden knife and the defender is
bare-handed. The defender starts out with some rather gentle and
basic knife disarms, handing the knife politely back each time,
and escalates to breakfall throws. The last time I saw it done,
the two participants were indulging in a little roleplaying: attacker
looked crazed and aggressive, and defender had an attitude (in her
body language) of "You *still* haven't realized this was a bad idea?
Okaaay...." as she slammed him harder and harder.

A much superior aikidoka might well use lesser defenses early on
in a fight, to give the other person more time to reconsider before
getting hurt. But against a dangerous opponent we're encouraged
to do something as conclusive as we can, as soon as we can.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[psychohist]

Regarding my examples of people holding back in a fight, Mary Kuhner
posts, in part:

But this is quite different from the Hong Kong movie
convention that against a much *stronger* opponent,
it's best to use lesser attacks and save the big one
for later in the fight.

I agree, it's quite different. Someone wanting that style of game
would not be well advised to use my rules system.

I don't watch those movies much - heck, I haven't watched them at all
if "Hero" doesn't count - but it's my impression that that particular
set of genre conventions is not really compatible with a fully self
consistent rules system.

I will say that there have been examples in my system where people
have modified their tactics in the middle of a relatively balanced
duel to account for new knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses
of their adversary. I can't think of any cases where people purposely
held back to gain the information, though; rather, they started with
what they thought were the best tactics, and when it became apparent
that those tactics weren't the best against that particular opponent,
modified them.

There are also some interesting cases where a group has use
information from a previous failure - typically by a different group -
to inform their tactics on a subsequent attempt.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

Post by psychohist
Attacking all out is not always the approach skilled combatants

Rather specific examples where outside factors are more important then
the combat itself.

The concept might apply to various sportsman type concepts. Ali vs.
Foreman for example with the famous rope-a-dope method.

But I'd have to consider it an exception to the course of general
lethal combat, which typically is almost over before it even begins.
Such concerns are more genre than realism IMO.

Post by psychohist
From a game-play PoV, I don't favor them as they lengthen game length

Pace of Decision for little gain beside perhaps providing a retreat
option (which is basically unneeded IME).

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Erol K. Bayburt
Simply playing an adventurer makes me feel like I'm playing
a person with a death-wish, and being in a strange
romanticized world where saving my best attack for last or
using my own body to find out if the fight is too tough are
*not* crazy-stupid ideas actually help against this feeling.
Attacking all out is not always the approach skilled combatants
(1) A former SEAL comes on an attempted mugging, using a knife, in
New York City. He could easily kill the mugger, but instead foregoes
his best attack, instead roughing the mugger up a bit and scaring him
off.

That might BE his best attack for purposes of winning the fight,
although not for the purpose of killing the enemy. To do this he'd
best be an exceptional unarmed combatant, even for a SEAL. Also, if
he's that good he probably ought to apprehend the mf anyway. Is
leaving people who commit armed muggings running around loose a real-
life convention or a comic-book one.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
(2) A fencing instructor, without protective equipment, asks someone
in a beginner class to lunge at him, and counts on his own ability to
parry to keep himself safe.

That isn't combat; it's training. And it's very common in training
situations.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Most of the examples I've seen in games using my rules system are
similar: someone who is much more skilled does not use his full
skill, because he doesn't need to and often because he's interested in
the ability of the lesser skilled opponent.

Not at all common in real-world combat and one of your real-world
examples was training and the other looked contrived and unreal.

Will in New Haven

--

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Warren J. Dew

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by psychohist
(1) A former SEAL comes on an attempted mugging, using a knife, in
New York City. He could easily kill the mugger, but instead foregoes
his best attack, instead roughing the mugger up a bit and scaring him
off.

That might BE his best attack for purposes of winning the fight,
although not for the purpose of killing the enemy.

I know very little about these things, but are you really saying a lethal
attack might not be as good a fight-winner as a "roughing up" attack?

I note that the setup of Con Air was a highly trained military man (Nicholas
Cage) winding up killing a mugger more or less by reflex.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by David Alex Lamb

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by psychohist
(1) A former SEAL comes on an attempted mugging, using a knife, in
New York City. He could easily kill the mugger, but instead foregoes
his best attack, instead roughing the mugger up a bit and scaring him
off.

That might BE his best attack for purposes of winning the fight,
although not for the purpose of killing the enemy.

I know very little about these things, but are you really saying a lethal
attack might not be as good a fight-winner as a "roughing up" attack?

A lethal attack that exposes you to the knife might not be good as a
non-lethal attach with the immediate objective of neutralizing the
knife hand. A ju-jutsu practicioner might have a strike in his or her
repertoire that could, if done perfectly, kill the opponent by
crushing his windpipe. However, that lethal strike involves either
IGNORING the knife or fending it off with the off hand and the knife-
wielder might be a little quicker than the defender estimates and the
defender might get stabbed. However, using both hands and tripping the
attacker with his leg, the practicioner might be able to take the
knife-hand to the pavement with the attacker following closely behind.
Once the attacker has been disarmed, the practicioner _could_ kill
him, I suppose, but there would be very important moral reasons as
well as legal considerations that would prevent most from doing so.
That might not sound like "rough him up and scare him off" but I
didn't use those words in the first place.

Post by David Alex Lamb
I note that the setup of Con Air was a highly trained military man (Nicholas
Cage) winding up killing a mugger more or less by reflex

It is possible to imagine such a situation. It is impossible for me to
imagine any training that would INEVITABLY lead to that result. Sure,
it might happen.

Will in New Haven

--


If you take in a starving dog off the street, and feed him, and make
him prosperous, he will not bite you.
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Mark Twain

Post by David Alex Lamb
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

[Russell Wallace]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
This could also reduce the power of surprise, and might encourage the
sort of "omega strike" tactics seen in cinematic combats. Instead of
leading off with their best attacks as "alpha strikes," combatants
would exchange shots while saving their best, "special" attacks for as
long as possible to maximize their effectiveness - using them as what
I call "omega strikes" by analogy to the standard real-world tactic of
opening with alpha strikes.

Two of the campaigns I ran ended in omega strikes. The reasons for that
were that both sides were uncertain going in. The arch-villains were
making the PCs offers they couldn't refuse; the PCs had to listen to the
offers before refusing them anyway. Neither side knew the other's full
capability; the PCs didn't even know their _own_ full capability, they
had mystical powers they were still figuring out the full extent of, it
took them some time to work up to their omega strike, figure out exactly
what it was going to be.

And that rocked. I thought - and I think the players would agree - it
was far more powerful that way than if it had just been "well the rules
say I can gain +2 to hit if I make a Study Opponent action, so I'll do
that this round and save my Ultimate Power Blast action for next round".

Sure, if it's a fight where you know the exact score in advance, you
know both intellectually and emotionally that it's a fight to the death,
there's no more negotiating to be done, you have an exact inventory of
your own capabilities and those of the enemy - then there's no reason to
do anything other than open with an alpha strike, _and I expect no less
from the PCs_. To me, jiggling the rules around to make _every_ combat
an omega strike because you get the most +'s that way would cheapen the
occasions on which it _really did_ happen because of the logic of the
setting and the knowledge and motives of the characters - those are the
things that matter as far as I'm concerned.

[Ben Finney]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Has anyone played, or even heard of, a combat system where "studying
an opponent" works as a short term combat tactic? Where the longer a
character fights an opponent (or observes an opponent being fought)
the bigger the bonus the character has to hit that opponent?

GURPS 4e divides combat into one-second rounds; each character in the
combat chooses one maneuver each round. What you describe is, in GURPS
4e, the "Evaluate" maneuver.

GURPS 4e Basic Set, page 364:

Evaluate

This maneuver is the melee combat equivalent of Aim. It lets you
take time to study an adversary in order to gain a combat bonus on
a subsequent attack. ... You are sizing him up and looking for the
right moment to strike.

An Evaluate maneuver gives you +1 to skill for the purpose of an
[attack maneuver] made against *that opponent*, *on your next turn
only*. You may take multiple, consecutive Evaluate maneuvers
before you strike, giving a cumulative +1 per turn, to a maximum
of +3.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
I'm thinking that such a system might be a way to use an
"experienced combatants are hard to hit" mechanic rather than an
"experienced combatants have a lot of hit points" one, without
running into the high-variance problem of the former.

Yes, that's exactly what the GURPS 4e "Evaluate" maneuver is meant to
simulate: using one's skill, rather than massive force, to increase
the odds of hitting a combatant with high defenses.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
This could also reduce the power of surprise, and might encourage
the sort of "omega strike" tactics seen in cinematic
combats. Instead of leading off with their best attacks as "alpha
strikes," combatants would exchange shots while saving their best,
"special" attacks for as long as possible to maximize their
effectiveness - using them as what I call "omega strikes" by analogy
to the standard real-world tactic of opening with alpha strikes.

Another maneuver in GURPS 4e is "All-Out Attack" (Basic Set p. 365),
which is essentially choosing to lower one's own defenses in an effort
to emphasise an attack. The emphasis can be one of "Determined" (to
increase the skill to hit), "Double" (to attack the foe twice),
"Feint" (to make a quick feint lowering the opponent's defense and an
immediate follow-up attack), and "Strong" (to increase the damage if
the attack succeeds).

These and other mechanics allow for highly-skilled fighters to face
each other and, rather than both of them waiting for a lucky blow that
gets past the other's high defenses, actually use their high combat
skills to lower those defenses. (This addresses a common complaint of
previous GURPS editions: that combat between highly-skilled combatants
dragged on forever since only critical hits would have any effect.)

It also allows highly-skilled fighters to be outnumbered by
low-skilled foes and (in following with fictional tradition) use their
high skills to even the odds in various ways.