Recent comments

You're of course right that when skill level gets high, each additional level confers a shrinking number of added percentage points to the chance of success on a skill roll. I always find it interesting, though, to also turn such probabilities on their head and look at them again. In this case:

Instead of chance of success, look at chance of failure. It's 50% at Skill-10. Increase that to Skill-11, and the chance of failure drops to 37.5%. That's 12.5 percentage points, but a 25% decrease in the size of the chance of failure itself (50 points x 3/4 = 37.5. I welcome suggestions from the more learned on how to better express in words this difference between an absolute change in percentage points of a probability, and a percentage change in the degree of probability itself.)

This welcome percentage decrease in probability of failure gets better with each added skill level! At Skill-14, the chance of failure is 9.3%. Raise skill to 15, and the chance of failure plunges by half to 4.6%. That's a greater decrease in chance of failure than the improvement from Skill-10 to Skill-11 bought!

The increase to Skill-16 further slashes the chance of failure to 1.9%, less than half of Skill-15's chance. Skill-17 cuts the chance to less than a third that of Skill-16, or 0.5%. And finally, Skill-18 divides that remaining chance of failure by an effective infinity, to achieve 0% chance of failure.

So, that's another way of looking at the matter of whether increasing skill levels are worth less and less, or not. Yet that doesn't do away with the original viewpoint. They're both good observations. In the end, what's the deal – is each added level of skill actually worth more than the previous level, or less?

I wrote my thoughts on just that topic in an earlier article, noting how arguments can be made for each side. Here's the article; tell me what you think.

http://www.gamesdiner.com/game_design_musing_point_cost_scale_stats

Good question. The answer: The various GLAIVE Mini mods only address modifications to damage and/or ST. Fencing Parry isn't one of those mods, as I'm not aware of any way that the fencing Parry does or should modify damage/ST. (In fact, the GLAIVE Mini mods already generate the main fencing weapons perfectly, or almost so – I believe smallsword ends up with ST 7, not GURPS' ST 5.)

But it would be nice, I agree, if guidelines also addressed which weapons get a fencing Parry. Perhaps something like this: Weapon must have Reach 1 or more, must have poor swing dam relative to thrust, and must have low weight.

The second of those represents a very light blade, and would mean the Thruster mod if using GLAIVE Mini. The third could be gamed with something like "3 lbs. or less", though I personally would prefer something comparing weight (or wpn ST) to wielder ST. Actually, Martial Arts p110 offers exactly such an option, essentially throwing out the binary fencing Parry concept, and replacing it with a modifier to multiple parries based on user ST vs wpn ST (while using overall weapon weight to adjust Parry vs flails).

So GURPS itself does offer an optional system for "building" the fencing Parry, which sounds like what you want. (However, looking at those rules, I have to say that they're on the harsh side, requiring lots of ST before they'll let you recreate the basic fencing Parry. If you want to make things a little easier for the fencers there, perhaps the Thruster mod could offer -2 ST rows, for the purpose of determining multiple Parry mod per Martial Arts p110.) 

Finally, I'll note that whatever criteria you use to to determine what weapons get the fencing Parry, GURPS offers ways to bypass those criteria. Use the Main Gauche skill, and any knife gets the fencing Parry. Use Weapon Adaptation, and a broadsword or other weapon can get the fencing Parry. Maybe there are other methods too.

Any thoughts on the above?

Thanks, would love to hear your feedback later.

I wonder whether there have been RPGs in the past that shipped with (or otherwise offered) their own unique rulers for combat distances. There must be, though I can't think of one off-hand. (I am reminded of Car Wars' funky "turning key", which IIRC was also initially a fan-created tool.)

Downloaded and printed the PDF last night. It looks great and gave me no problems printing.

You kids with your Portable Entropy Engines (nice phrase!). Back in the day, we were lucky to have dice. We pulled chits out of a hat. We'd close our eyes and point to digits in the phone book. We'd ask Grandpa how many years it was since his buddy Mort the Shriner passed on. That was our d20.

That's some complex armor! Application of EP would of course depend on the effect wanted. Is DR so high (Piercing 33*) because the armor is really supposed to offer incredible protection even vs very high damage (in which case I'd use high DR and modest EP), or is it so high just in the attempt to simulate incredible penetration resistance (in which case much lower DR but great EP might be good)?

Well, not knowing that, and just to see what happens, we could apply the suggested rule of thumb for very flexible armor... but results aren't totally clear, since this armor has multiple split DR. Hmm, how about we use base DR 21 (taken from "Crushing") as the "lower DR score", and then for each of the other damage types, use its original DR + (half of 21 = 10) to get EP. So: Piercing = DR 21, EP 43; and Cutting = DR 21, EP 33. Crushing, of course, is just DR 21. (As for the "Other" damage type: ...I don't know, would EP be relevant?) 

So there are some starter numbers, but those could be adjusted wildly, as much as desired. 

Re cost: EP is a -60% limitation on cost of DR. That already includes what 4e calls a -20% limitation for Flexible. But, per discussion in the comments, add another -20% if the armor also has the demerits discussed for 4e's Tough Skin, which (as one example) lets any scratch deliver poison even if armor resists damage/penetration. So, EP becomes a net -80% if it can't stop secondary effects like poisons; and even the underlying normal DR can optionally take that -20% too, if it also can't stop secondary effects.

Now, a remaining problem: How to price EP that differs for Cutting, Piercing, etc.? Or how to do so for DR, for that matter? Is the cost of split DR already covered in 4e??

Finally, as for the skull: That's be just plain DR, no EP, bought for a small body location; does that sound right? 

Huh. That silk is strong stuff! I wonder whether multiple layers of it might make really effective, all-around armor. And whether any armies (China?) ever did that. (At least for the elites that the armies could afford to spend big yuan on.)

I heard the same anecdote for silk versus arrows; make wound treatment clean and easy.

I asked about antitalents on the GURPS forum last year and got this from Sean "Kromm" Punch, GURPS' line editor: (sorry for the poor formatting) but it's also here: http://fedword.webnode.com/  You are naturally inept at an important adventuring activity, which is most often defined by a set of closely related skills. "Anti-Talents" come in levels, and have the following drawbacks: ·        You have a penalty of -1 per level to success rolls associated with the activity covered by the Anti-Talent. This penalty effectively lowers your attribute scores for the purpose of the pursuit in question, and always affects any specific skills the GM lists for the Anti-Talent. The GM may apply it to other skill rolls, too, where their purpose overlaps the endeavour penalized by your Anti-Talent. ·        You cannot learn any of the skills specifically listed for your Anti-Talent, regardless of how you attempt learn them. You're forced to function at default with these skills, and this is still subject to the penalty mentioned above. Even magical skill transference and cybernetic skill implants will somehow fail, thwarted by your brain's wiring. (The GM may permit you to buy off Anti-Talent with earned points in a campaign where it's actually possible to get your brain rewired!) ·        You receive a penalty of -1 per level on all reaction rolls made by anyone in a position to notice your Anti-Talent, if he would regard your ineptitude as worthy of derision, or as a sign of weakness or inferiority (GM's judgment). You may never have more than four levels of a particular Anti-Talent. However, overlapping Anti-Talents can give penalties -- to both success rolls and reaction rolls -- in excess of -4. The GM sets the point value of an Anti-Talent to reflect the scope of the adventuring activities it impacts. He may opt to associate Anti-Talents with specific numbers of skills -- as is done for Talent (B89) -- if he feels that all of those skills are likely to be significant to the character and in the campaign. He should always forbid Anti-Talents that cover activities that would be irrelevant to a given character, or that are unlikely to play a role in the campaign. ·        Small (An occasional adventuring activity, or 6 or fewer related skills) -5 points/ level. ·        Medium (A common adventuring activity or 7 to 12 related skills) -10 points/ level. ·        Large (A very common adventuring activity, or 13 or more related skills) -15 points/ level. When counting skills, skills with multiple specialties are considered to be one skill for this purpose. You cannot have Anti-Talent in a single specialty of a skill; if you are inept with Guns, for instance, you are inept with all guns. All rolls to interact with animals, including Animal Handling, Falconry, Packing, Riding, Teamster, and Veterinary. Reaction penalty: all animals. All rolls for non-combat athletics, including Acrobatics, Bicycling, Climbing, Hiking, Jumping, Lifting, Running, Skating, Skiing, Sports, Swimming, and Throwing. Reaction penalty: athletes, fitness nuts, and members of highly non-sedentary societies. All IQ rolls the GM requires to recall trivia, as well as Area Knowledge, Connoisseur, Current Affairs, Expert Skills, Hidden Lore, and Hobby skills. Reaction penalty: anybody who values knowledge. All social rolls, including Acting, Administration, Carousing, Connoisseur, Detect Lies, Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Gambling, Gesture, Intimidation, Leadership, Merchant, Politics, Propaganda, Public Speaking, Savoir-Faire, Sex Appeal, Streetwise, and Teaching. Reaction penalty: anyone you try to impress. All combat rolls, including all combat skills. Base your active defences on your penalized defaults - don't penalize them directly. This doesn't affect your Dodge score. Reaction penalty: anyone who would react poorly to Cowardice (B129). All rolls for stealth and concealment, including Camouflage, Disguise, Holdout, Shadowing, Smuggling, and Stealth. Reaction penalty: thieves, spies, and anyone who catches you in the act. 

I've added one rule to grazes: a graze will never do more than HP/2 damage, rounding down, unless the attack is a Large-Area Injury (see p.B400).The only problem with grazes is that they mess with the hit location rules. For quite a few locations, a miss by 1 means a hit to another location (usually torso).  That rule would have to be disregarded when using grazes. Either that, or the attack hits the torso, and is a graze.

Thanks for the info on Star Frontiers. Brings back some memories! I'm surprised to see that it's available for free. I wish more companies would do that with out of print games.