talk

"Dinosaurs may be lighter than we thought!" That's the news item I welcomed in RPG science: Designing dinosaurs just got easier? a couple of years ago. I liked the sound of that discovery, as the crushing weight of dinos made realistic designs a challenge when considering the effects of weight vs power.

But now? T. rex was bigger than thought, mused paleontologists more recently – over 9 tons for the Chicago Field Museum's resident specimen, Sue ("I'm not fat, I'm just really big-boned"). So we may be back to super-heavy reptiles (go easy on the carbs there, Rex!), and back to various tweaks needed to keep the big dinos mobile under design rules that consider weight.

None of it's a problem. The T Rex designs in my linked article above still work great, even if you want to boost the weight and the required support for it. Don't worry if your final design comes out a wee ponderous, as the new heavy-dino hypothesis suggests a T Rex top speed that's awfully modest for such a big predator: 10-25 mph (about Move 5-12 in GURPS terms).

The big range of that estimated top speed is a reminder of just how much sheer guess work palentologists still have to deal with – so if you want to stick with lighter weights, that's fine too. Which leads right to the key point: While it's an amusing diversion to try "designing" realistic dinos using detailed rules, in the end you can just slap on whatever power, agility, Move, and so forth that the game scene calls for. If you scare the bejesus out of the PCs, you've found the right numbers.

Whatever the poundage, T Rex will always be the king of the dinosaurs. Even if the T stands for "tubby".

Hand-crafted tables of fine wood – for gaming. Our gaming, not billiards and poker and bridge. 

A dropped play surface lets you just cover up a game in progress, and pick up play without a hitch after that bothersome dinner party ends. Individual player stations feature flip-down desk surfaces, storage drawers, and trays for counters or pencils. You get "dice towers" for rolls, transparent map covers and grids, and an extra-sized GM station with built-in screen and rulebook trays.

Will it cost you? Oh yes, it will – over $8000 for the highest-end models. Why, that's probably almost as much as I spent on all those GURPS books over the years! : /

Do I want one? No – because there are no cup holders! Who would build a gamer table without cup holders? I can't believ–

Oh. It does have cup holders. At all player stations. Sigh. Where do I sign?

Go drool on the furniture over at Geek Chic.

Here's a minor, yet-untested melee idea that came up during chatter over some GURPS combat scenarios:

When you close a distance gap to attack, you give the defender more time to react than you do by starting out close enough to strike. Game that consideration with this simple rule:

• If the attacker needs to Step or Move to get within striking Reach, the defender gains +2 on Active Defense vs the attack.
• If the attacker begins his turn within striking Reach (even if he chooses to Step or Move anyway), there is no mod to Active Defense.
• If the attacker begins his turn in close combat and strikes in close combat (even if he then moves away), the defender takes -2 on Active Defense vs the attack.

The first case represents the attacker having to first move to get within striking distance, which hands the defender extra time to prepare (as well as an extra, clearly visible indicator that the attack is coming).

The second case is the default combat norm: You're already within range to strike, and you do so. Nothing special going on.

The third case helps model the "roaring and punching" aspect of close-combat free-for-all. Attacks come from so close, and thus come so fast, that it's hard to defend against them (or even see them coming in the first place).

It's all extremely simple to play out when using a hex map. How will it change combat? I expect the following: Read more...

Here's a quick example of putting the ideas in Game design musing: Pricing breadth in skills to work:

GURPS' Wildcard skills (BS 175) allow purchase of multiple skills for the price of three; Talents (BS 89) allow a bonus to many skills (plus other minor benefits) for a fraction of the eventual cost of full levels in those skills. Both share fuzziness in common: There's no stated limit on on how many skills a Wildcard skill covers (so why stop at 10 if the GM will allow 20?), and you can freely choose the number of skills a Talent covers, within the limits of its group size (gee, should I take one skill or six for the same 5-point cost of a small group?). 

There's no big problem in all that, but what if you wanted more varied costs to reflect the number of skills covered? The "Zeno's method" suggestion in those breadth rules offer a solution: Read more...