Mumbles from the Kitchen -- T. Bone's GURPS Diner

Mumbles from the Kitchen

Un-mopped floor spills and other health code violations from
T. Bone's GURPS Diner

2004.02.01 Miscellaneous question about Weapon Master damage

What I did not see in the Weapon Designer rules which I would have like to have seen is some mention of dealing with weapon master bonuses. Currently 1/5 of Skill doesn’t really do anything once you get past size +3 or so.

You mean adding Skill/5 to damage? No, it's not mentioned in the Weapon Design System, but elsewhere in GULLIVER are notes that such absolute damage bonuses only scale properly when replaced with percentage bonuses. So if each Skill/5 added, say, 20% to damage, or if you used GULLIVER's suggestion for Karate damage bonuses (each skill level over 10 adds 10% damage), that would get the effect I think you are looking for.

2003.10.11 First question about bunny attacks

There's a first for every question. The Q and my A:

I have a question though about a combat action that does not seem to be included in the rules. I have seen official GURPS rules that cover this technique in only one book, GURPS Bunnies & Burrows, in which the maneuver is called "Ripping".

The basic idea is that a bunny (and presumably other similarly built animals) can grapple a foe with its front paws and/or teeth, and then use its hind legs to rip into a foe's torso. In B&B's game terms, once a foe is grappled, the rip is done at skill-2, the defender is at 1/2 dodge, and the rip does thrust+1 cutting.

Are there rules which would cover this sort of situation embedded deep within the GULLIVER rules?

Not really, but is something additional needed?

The only addition that I can think of, if you wanted lots of detail, is modifying damage for weight: a heavy foe on top of you, ripping, can really "dig in". Book 5, under weight and damage, has rules for a weight-based bonus for stomps; seems that could apply here.

(If the ripper were on his back, and the target *on top*, then the target's weight would determine the extra damage...)

If so, can you point me in the right direction? If not, do you have any general ideas about how to handle a move like this, particularly when it comes to attempting to rip a target of different size?

I guess the key is whether shape and size allow the move to work at all. Cats and rabbits seem to have no trouble getting their back feet way up towards their own stomachs or chests, and so I assume they can reach those spots just fine on the victim too, when in the rip "embrace".

But if the target were a Size level smaller, its stomach and chest are going to be moved up higher; maybe the attacker could only rip at its legs?

And if the target were two or more Size levels smaller, maybe the attacker's feet wouldn't reach it at all. Unless he pushed the target down to where the feet are, but then he wouldn't be holding the target any more, so it might get kicked away after the first rip.

Going the other way, I don't see any problems with ripping at a creature bigger than yourself.

Finally, creatures with other shapes may not be able to rip effectively; a human with clawed feet would have to be pretty flexible to rip even a same-sized or larger target. Sounds like a big penalty to me.

2003.09.14 Rambling about ST

A recent ramble on rec.games.frp.gurps, responding to this post and referencing this post:

infornific@aol.com (DW) wrote:

> lwcamp@landau.chem.rochester.edu (Luke) wrote:
>
> (Rest of message deleted for brevity - please see original message)
>
> Excellent points. Your division of strength into
> grappling/lifting/carrying vs combat/speed sounds a lot like GURPS
> Gulliver's Combat ST and Load ST. That might be a simpler way to
> simulate the differences in ST. So a weightlifter might have Combat ST
> 12 and Load ST 16 - he doesn't punch that hard, but he's formidable in
> grappling and can fence with a broad sword. Interesting, it sounds
> like a plausible rationale for split ST. Does anyone know of good
> scientific evidence on how that kind of strength varies with size? The
> division in Gulliver sounds reasonable (large creatures have carrying
> abilities far exceeding comabt strength), but Gulliver did that for
> the sake of playability.

Right, playability. To clarify, the split ST score in GULLIVER is not a split between what Luke described, which is power for pushing a static load, vs max muscle velocity.

GULLIVER's split ST score is only a split between a) how much a creature's muscles can lift, vs b) the game "cost" and "damage" for that strength.

It seems a game shouldn't need two separate ST scores for that, and most games _don't_. If GURPS were set up differently, there'd be no need for a split: cost, damage, and lifting ability would all fit together nicely for any given creature, and we'd all be a bit happier with our single ST score.

However, the game was set up so that big and small creatures (as seen in published examples) don't have realistic lifting ability -- and giving them realistic lifting ability saddles them with point costs and damage that the game doesn't intend them to have (again, as seen by those published examples).

There's not much to do except grumble -- and, as one solution, a) give them realistic lifting abilities ("Load ST"), but also b) leave them with the costs and damage that the game designers built in ("Combat ST"). That's the only purpose behind the split ST in GULLIVER.

As for the aspects of ST that Luke described: The first, force exerted against a static load, is just lifting ability ("Load ST").

The second, maximum muscle speed, has nothing to do with "Combat ST", but is also represented in GULLIVER (the only such example in RPG-dom, as far as I know), in the jumping and throwing rules. It's not represented as any split ST score, but rather much as Luke describes: a max speed (and thus distance) in jumps and throws, drawing on the GURPS Basic Speed stat.

To comment on a paragraph from Luke's post:

>For jumping, running, throwing distance, and the
>actual damage you do with a muscle powered weapon, use a score related
>to your speed - I'd suggest using the average of your HT and DX since
>GURPS uses half of this average for a quantity called Basic Speed
>already that includes some of these effects.

Minor objection: for jumping and throwing, you can't toss out ST; it needs to remain at the core of performance. But yes, Basic Speed works fine in a formula to _cap_ performance of these. (The real-life interplay of muscle force and muscle contraction speed may certainly be more complex, but for simplicity I just use Basic Speed in a calculation that caps performance.)

ST needs to remain part of the damage equation too. Here, too, max speed is a real-life consideration in blows, as Luke described. A game system could follow the lead of jumping and throwing: use ST and weapon mass to get speed, with that speed capped somehow by Basic Speed.

But I didn't work this into GULLIVER. The reason is simple: reworking the system to base weapon damage on an interplay of weapon mass and impact speed would be a tremendous change from GURPS -- essentially, turning weapon impact into a subset of generic rules for collision damage. That might be an interesting change, but I didn't make the effort, and don't know that anyone would care anyway. So I haven't messed with that.

> On a related subject, does anyone know of a good source for real
> world comparisons of average versus peak strength? That is,
> comparisons of how much a reasonably fit man could lift, carry, bench
> press, etc vs Olympic records.

I've found and used a lot of piecemeal stats, but haven't found a satisfyingly comprehensive source. If you do, please pass it along...

> It would be interesting to take the
> record strength feats and figure out the likely GURPS stats.

Yep. Just remember, that any ST score reverse-engineered from a record lift has to account for at least three components:

1) the lift attributed to ST only (no doubt the biggest part of the lift)
2) any extra performance from technique (i.e., Lifting skill)
3) any extra performance from Extra Effort.

So there's my few cents on ST in the game. And if anyone's still awake after all that... well, we all need to get out more. : )

T. Bone
www.gamesdiner.com/gurps

2003.09.07 Giant skeleton aerodynamics

A correspondent is building a Size +1 flying giant skeleton, and has questions about its aerodynamics. (And people say we gamers are geeks! Ha!)

My reply, just for the esotericness of it all:

----------

Basic body structure is just humanoid... What's missing? Surface area for tv or ftv, right? It's a humanoid shape, but the aerodynamics would have to be different.

Good question. Let's think this through...

Ignore density for a second, and use a human-sized (13-lb) skeleton. So it's a humanoid shape, with so much stuff removed, and so many "holes" and open spaces, that it only weighs 7.2 lbs (13 lbs skeleton / 1.8 density).

With all that open space, there's a lot less to catch the wind. Surface area has to be less than human.

But not as low as the surface area for a little, 7-lb human (about 2 feet tall?). Compared with a compact 7-lb human, the skeleton is spreading its mass over much more area -- all those long bones, that wide pelvis, big skull, etc. Lots more to catch the wind.

So... If it has less surface area than a Size 0 human, and more surface area than a Size -3 human, it has surface area in between. Area Scale x1/2? x1/3? x1/5? I have NO IDEA. : (

You'll have to take a wild guess and pick one. I might go with x1/3 (for no other reason than I'd pick a certain lottery number).

So: MAR (=WAR in normal gravity) = mass / (Area Scale x 150). Bringing density back into things, that's 13 / (1/3 x 150) = 0.26.

For your giant skeleton, Area Scale is 1/3 x 2 = 2/3. MAR = 39 / (2/3 x 150) = 0.39.

Square root of that is 0.62. So in a sky dive, its tv would be 62% of a human's -- a somewhat slow fall.

Makes sense to me. It has a lot of surface area relative to its very low mass; it's very unaerodynamic.

----------

2003.05.23 An FAQ: your own original RPG?

A common question: "With so much stuff on your site, have you considered making your own RPG?"

The simple answer is contained on pages like these:

http://www.rpg.net/directory/diy.html
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/fulllist.html

There are hundreds of home-made RPGs out there! I wonder how many ever get read, let alone played...

Any RPG I "invented" would look like... well, GURPS with some changes. I think GURPS makes a great RPG base, and lends itself to tweaks pretty well too... I'm happy to stick with that!

But just for the fun of it: if I were to think up a spanking-new set of mechanics for a game, without legacy ties to GURPS, features might include:

Skills expressed as modifiers (Bicycling +4, Fishing 0, Bolas -3, etc.).
What the heck: attributes expressed as modifiers too, with human average being 0 (ST +3, HT 0, DX -2, etc.).
Log ST (so every +X points of ST = xY lifting ability, etc.). This enables working Contests of ST, unlike GURPS. However, damage would not follow a HERO-like "+X points of ST = +Yd damage".
Skills and other attributes also made into log stats, if and when useful and playable.
Possibly log-based damage? It has its good and bad points...
Task success computed as a roll of 11+ on 3d plus modifiers (skills, attributes, situational mods).
Reworked versions of lots of the stuff at the Diner...

2003.05.03 from the newsgroup files

A recent posting on rec.games.frp.gurps gave me the chance to blather on and on about how to handle collisions in a RPG. Regarding the huge damage that Vehicles would dish out for a 5 mph collision with a car:

"> Erm, am I missing something here? Because 5MPH is slower than walking pace and should NOT take you to death's door!

John, you are correct to sense something funny here. The GURPS Vehicles rule does have a big flaw. Others have made helpful suggestions, but if I can wax pedantic here, allow me to dig to the heart of the problem and set things right.

You can quickly check the robustness of any RPG's collision rules with the "Earth test". Say the PC falls off his second-floor patio and plummets to the ground. How many dice of damage does he take?

Let's see, that's a collision with a 6.5 x 10^21 ton object... Whether the rules inflict damage on PC based on the colliding object's mass or on its HP (per Vehicles' inexplicably odd rule), we're talking... how many millions of dice of damage here? Test failed.

Should anyone say, "but falling uses different rules", that's another problem. A fall is a collision; why the heck should the game have to offer two separate rules for the same situation? As someone else pointed out, GURPS' collision rules and falling rules can result in wildly different damages for a given impact speed, which is not good.

Here's where every set of RPG collision rules I've ever seen gets it wrong. RPGs always base the damage taken by an object in a collision on:

a) net collision speed; and

b) the *other* object's mass (or some stand-in such as HP).

This doesn't always work well, typically resulting in ridiculous damage when colliding with big objects at low speed (per your 5 mph example).

An RPG that wants to do collisions _right_ needs to base the damage taken by an object in a collision on:

a) its *change in speed* due to the collision; and

b) its *own* mass.

(Yep, its own mass. That's the shocker, but it's correct.)

In GURPS, the above rule would suggest X dice damage per mph of speed change, and a damage multiplier based on the item's own mass.

This method always produces good results. Take the Earth test. Falling off a cliff and hitting the Earth at Y mph, any object will stop instantly; change in speed is the same as impact speed, and gives your base damage dice.

A human PC will then use some damage multiplier for human mass (not the Earth's mass!). A mouse falling off that cliff will use a tiny multiplier for mouse mass and may be harmed little, which is realistic. A truck will use a huge multiplier for its own great mass, and will be twisted beyond recognition. Which is what happens when trucks go off cliffs.

So why do humans come off so poorly in street collisions with runaway trucks? Because *change in speed* is key. In a 50 mph collision, the truck's huge mass experiences almost zero change in speed; the human's much smaller mass is rocketed to almost the full 50 mph. The truck takes almost zero dice damage for change in speed, times a big multiplier for its mass; the human takes many dice of damage for change in speed, times a small multiplier for his mass. If the multipliers are set properly, the truck will take little damage, and the human will be sauce.

Last example: 5 mph collision between truck and human. Again, no effect on truck. And little effect on human either -- low damage dice for a mere 5 mph change in speed, times a small multiplier for human mass (not truck mass). That gives the results you're looking for.

(Of course, that ignores the human being *run over* by the truck. Crushing from huge weights is a separate matter...)

So, that's collisions done right. If you want to see a fully worked-up system for GURPS, head to

http://www.gamesdiner.com/gurps/GULLIVER/B6damage.htm#Collisions . You might want to modify or simplify that for your own use, but as long as you get the basics right, as explained above, you'll get reasonable results.

2003.05.03 site update

Recently updated GLAIVE and added a new trivial work, FEND.

2003.03.05 from the mail files

A message from a correspondent, re ESCARGO:

----------

Instead of Ease:-1, Ease:+2, why not invert the sign and call it Difficulty.

Excellent question! Very slow response! Sorry!

So, a simple Ease +2 skill would become a Difficulty -2 skill. A difficult Ease -2 skill would become Difficulty +2.

It's much more understandable then!

Well, I believe that your usage was the initial plan; "Difficulty" is, I agree, more natural as a label.

But after some mental juggling, I thought the math was more intuitive with Ease. The reason: an easy skill will *raise* your final level, so "+2" is intuitive; "-2" is arguably counterintuitive. And since we're talking about an easy skill, "Difficulty +2" sounds all wrong.

The solution that worked here was "Ease +2" -- though again, I agree that "Ease" is somehow clumsier as a word.

----------

2003.02.23 game design musing

Log ST. You know, ST schemes under which every +X points of ST equate to some multiple of lifting power. Typically, this would be x2 lifting power per +5 ST, per the HERO System. ST 15 would lift twice as much as ST 10, just as ST 105 would lift twice as much as ST 100.

Log ST was the choice for the original superhero game that became HERO, and is often labeled a great fix for GURPS' troubles with four-color action. But could it work in GURPS? Some recent emails and forum postings on the topic follow. (My text is in black.)

----------

An email:

You state that Quad-ST is likely the best solution. However, after careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that Log-ST is actually the only way it really makes sense.

I should clarify that -- I don't necessarily think Quad ST is best for everything and anything, but do think it's the best solution that could actually be implemented in 4e, w/ SJG's and players' general approval. In other words, I would see Log ST as too harsh a change to be practical, regardless of its merits. To whit (wit?):

In fact, looking over the attributes (minus ST) one can make an argument that they are Log-based already. Your thoughts on ESCARGOseem to suggest this as well (for skills and attributes, minus ST).

Agreed -- for attribute > 10. For attribute < 10, we'd have to accept that they switch to a different scheme, unless we accept that an attribute of 0 is not "zero", and that attributes can be negative.

That's one of the troubles w/ Log ST. Say we use the "every 10 ST doubles lift" scheme. Then half the lifting power of ST 10 has to be ST 0, and half of that ST -10... I know that HERO does fine with these neg attributes, and there's nothing wrong with them in theory, but I can't see SJG going for it.

We can hand-wave the "zero issue" for non-ST atts, as in "they're low enough to be zero anyway; it's not relevant to characters." But ST that goes lower and lower and lower is normal and needed. We need to accept ST 0 and negative ST as normal -- or, declare that the rules are different for ST < 10. That's an option, but it tosses out the neatness of Log ST...

One of the best things about Log-ST is that the percentage of increase is constant at all levels of ST -- meaning that the costing scheme (using the one from ESCARGO) would actually make sense. So, in your estimation, what advantages does Quad-ST have over Log-ST?

As above, main one would be conservation of a foundation of GURPS: an att of 0 means "zero".

There's another: conservation of a ST-to-damage ratio that's (arguably) meaningful.

Again, let's say +10 ST = double lift, and let's also say damage = ST/10 dice. ST 20, with twice the lift of ST 10, does twice the damage. But ST 110, with twice the lift of ST 100, does only 10% more damage. Similarly, ST 110 is -- what, 1024 times the lift of ST 10? But a mere eleven punches from a man with average ST would inflict as much damage as a punch from the monster with the strength of a thousand men. I always thought this was wonky in HERO. Mixing "exponential" ST with "additive" damage gives funny results -- I can especially see it messing up "uber-systems" like Vehicles, which make big use of clean math.

Even tougher: How do you solve the low-ST issue, where half normal ST would inflict 0 dam, and lesser ST would technically require negative damage?

Exceptions and patches can be used to solve these, but again, it's a shame to have to "break" a system that was chosen for its (very real!) technical merits. For what it's worth, Quad ST doesn't face these particular troubles.

Or perhaps damage under Log ST should be reworked to solve this issue, so it does not scale linearly with ST. I admit, it really isn't all that linear in GURPS even now. But then again, it *almost* is. The required reworking of damage under Log ST would make for a big change in GURPS -- not a bad thing in theory, but perhaps impractical in terms of acceptance.

In short: Log ST does have great merits (I especially like how it allows ST back into the Contest mechanism), but it's quite a change.

Final thought: if one were to adopt Log ST, is there any reason to stick with ST 10 for humans? As long as zero and neg ST are unavoidable, why not set the "fulcrum" right on the zero point -- so positive ST is greater than the human norm, neg ST is less? Kind of like Strong/Weak Will... (It fits my claim that ST isn't really much of an "attribute" at all...) A quirky idea, but I like it.

----------

A forum posting:

However, it has been pointed out by TBone that the one major problem with LogST is the fact that ST 0 is not zero strength at all but is simply a very low number. And the ST scale would have to continue to extend into the negative numbers. This is a bad thing. Thus in the end, I have to agree with him and go with Quad ST as the most logical choice for ST in 4e.

Hmm, now that I've worked to convince you of the flaws in Log ST, can I also say that I think it *could* be made to work in the game?

I haven't worked through this in detail, but here are my untested thoughts on how to shoehorn Log ST into GURPS. (Use +5 ST = x2 lift, for example purposes):

a) Yes, you have to allow for negative ST, unlike the other attributes; ST 0 is just another normal point on the way from ST 1 to ST -1 and lower.

But we already have traits that can be negative, zero, or positive -- think of Strong/Weak Will. So this doesn't have to be seen as evil...

(Hmm, why not ditch HERO's lead, in which a normal human is Log ST 10, and make a normal human ST 0 instead? This isn't necessary to implement Log ST, but it's worth considering...)

b) Ditch any sort of HERO-like "+5 ST = +1d damage" scheme. This ease is one of the attractions of Log ST, true, but the scheme just doesn't match GURPS. Funny things happen when you use additive arithmetic on multiple occurences of log-based damage. And what the heck do we do with negative ST?? Use negative damage?

Instead, use some sort of "+10 ST = x2 damage; -10 ST = x1/2 damage" scheme. It may require a damage table like we have now, but it meshes with GURPS (esp Vehicles) and works at any ST level.

---

I think the above lets Log ST work; b) in particular is key. And we'd get the great benefits that you've talked about in the past. Reasonable cost for Supers. Contests of ST that work just great. Maybe even workable skills based on ST. And ST would mesh better with other attributes, which are arguably log in nature.

(Ironically, by admitting that ST doesn't really fit in with the other attributes and taking the liberty of futzing around with it massively, we're able to get it to act more like an attribute...)

But I just don't see SJG going for a change that big. I guess that's my only objection with it as a serious proposal for GURPS 4e.

I think we both agree that in a brand new RPG, properly-implemented Log ST would be the bee's pajamas.

----------

A forum posting:

Note that in a four-color supers game, the +5 ST = +1d damage rule would work just fine. It might be worth noting that as a customization, either in the Basic Set or in a new GURPS Supers. Of course, you'd have to refigure a few other things as well; all the weapons would need to have different damage values, and DR would become a function of log thickness, I believe.

For the record, the problems with a HERO-like ST score that mixes linear damage with log lifting ability are as follows. Using HERO as an example (human ST = ST 10, 2d damage; +5 ST = +1d damage, x2 lift):

a) Funny math. In HERO, ST 60 offers about 1000 times the lifting power of ST 10 -- yet a punch from that monster does no more damage than six punches from a normal schlep.

Not that that's necessarily a terrible thing, especially when DR is involved. But there's more that's funny. At ST 5, doubling your lift (+5 ST) also doubles damage. At ST 10, doubling your lift adds only 50% damage. At ST 50, doubling your lift adds only 10% damage. Why?

b) The low-end. One-quarter human ST (ST 0) does 0 damage. Combat at small scales won't work. I don't know what patch HERO uses to handle these, but a patch is needed to allow some damage at ST 0 and lower.

In short, the incompatible mix of linear damage and log lift is lousy for real-life simulation, and would wreak merry havoc with systems like Vehicles.

However. Your post is saying, "For four-color supers, to heck with real-life simulation; HERO-like ST works fine."

I'll agree. Punching power follows no logical rules in comics, and nobody cares about the workings of low-end ST in the genre, either. The "problems" can be brushed aside.

More and more, upon hearing good comments on this list, I agree that the key to enabling comic-book Supers in GURPS is to give up any pretense of real-world physics and rules based on these. Instead, go for bogus physics that play -- well, like the alternate-reality physics in four-color comics.

I haven't thought through HERO-like systems for GURPS supers in detail, and certainly haven't played it. But it's worth looking at, I think, as an optional system. (Many things would have to be changed in "four-color GURPS", as you point out; the logical place for the entire system would be in the Supers book.)

Gamers would still have the option of playing Supers under normal GURPS rules, for all the gritty extreme effects that this entails (people-pulping punches, etc.). It actually makes for a fascinating look at "What if Supers existed under *real* laws of physics?" Ooh, messy...

I wonder whether SJG would go for it. Although GURPS' goal is "one set of rules", SJG has always realized that no one set of magic rules works everywhere; a new game background may call for a whole new system of magic.

Is it such a big leap to allow that the world of four-color comics calls for its own unique twist on physics and power?

2002.4.13 site update

Updated recommendations for GURPS 4e, Ingredients for a Better GURPS, to v1.1. Shorter format, less explanation.

2002.4.13 4e poll

I've placed a PDF version of my poll responses here. Why? Don't know; maybe because OS X makes me want to PDFize everything in sight.

2002.3.23 new stuff on site

It's up! See Ingredients for a Better GURPS for my explicit suggestions, mostly outtakes from GULLIVER, for the proposed GURPS 4e. Fun stuff. See you online at sjgames.gurps.4e, and other forums where fine threads are served.

2002.3.23 shallow tech notes

Whew, what a lonely little blog this is turning out to be. Tech notes:

1) Still don't know why some browsers properly piece together the hamburger graphic on the Diner page, and some don't.

2) It's come to my attention that IE may not display the nifty tablecloth-patterned background graphic on the Diner page. I assume this is because those red and white checkers are somehow perceived as a threat to .NET or something and are thus being censored . . .

Sheesh. Some bloggers write about the impacts on the human race of the pace of technological innovation, or the blessings and dangers of nanotech, or what not; I write about my burger graphic. Sigh . . .

2002.2.18 random musing

Read Stephen King's Dreamcatcher? Good yarn or not, Black Ops fans take note: While mainly the story of now-grown-up childhood friends (plus another very special child . . . groan, we've seen that a half dozen times, Stevie), it's also got Greys, telepathic control, icky space disease, disgusting parasite wigglers, and a secret op mission gone bad. Bonus points for spotting the one actual use of the words "black op"!

2002.2.18 new stuff on site

Guest Patisserie Chef Polly Jumped has contributed the full HTML GULLIVER as 11 RTF files. (That's like MS Word format, without the crime.) Head to the main page for download instructions. Thanks, P.J.!

And on a personal note, yes, the promised Recipe for a Better GURPS article is coming along. Slowly, that's all. The world will wait.

2002.1.25 martial arts in games

Interesting news bit: In preparation for the World Cup games, police in Japan have developed a gun that shoots a 25-m square net over fans who bring just a bit too much enthusiasm to the proceedings. Specifically, the police are worried that their standard method to rein in rowdiness -- judo-based restraining moves -- may prove difficult against hyped-up, beefy European hooligans. (Like the police, we'll politely refrain from specifying British. Oops, just did.)

A comment from the World Cup security division, Sapporo HQ, Hokkaido Prefectural Police: "Of course, martial arts form an important part of our training, but if you take the size and power factor into consideration, (the restraining nets) could be more effective."

So, what's the gaming connection?

One: Net guns! Cool! What're the stats?

And two: The above is a nice little reality check against the misconception, perpetrated by rules in GURPS and other games, that martial arts like judo can somehow make physical power irrelevant (or even a handicap). Fun in a cinematic game, but wrong in a realistic setting. As the above police know all too well, while judo can do a heck of a lot to lessen a power disadvantage, in the end power still battles power. See GULLIVER for unarmed combat rules that reflect this.

2002.1.5 site update

Up it goes: the artistically-obnoxious redesign of the GURPS Diner main page, and this new page. Haven't finished writing "A Recipe for a Better GURPS", so there's just a cheap "coming soon" notice.

Also don't know why the burger graphic enclosing the hit counter doesn't align its parts properly in Netscape 4.x and iCab for Mac; it's my first time to dice and recombine a graphic on a web page. The parts do fit properly in OmniWeb and IE for Mac (though the hit counter insists on leaving a little white space on the left). Any gurus know the answer?

Not worth worrying about, though. Upload and move on --

2002.1.3 site update

I'm adding a note in the GULLIVER FAQ about use of GULLIVER material in other home-brewed games or supplements (yes, there have been inquiries).

2002.1.2 gaming site news

An excellent New Year to all!

The author known as a little fish in a big pond has updated his campaign background for little people. It's noteworthy for some great detail on life at a 2-cm height, right down to tiny tech and the scaled-down effects of specific spells.

Find what the petit poisson has wrought (including several more campaign ideas) at http://seasong.home.texas.net/ideahole/ .

2001.12.30 animal design rules

Will change some animal stats in GULLIVER Book 7, implementing more standardized ways of setting animal Move. Rules of thumb: designs will generally use one level of Enhanced Move for four or more legs, with an extra level or two for really great runners. Hooves will generally suggest another half level, but a relatively stiff stance for bearing heavy weight (horses, elephants, etc. -- generally, the combination of Stiff Limb Articulation with Extra Encumbrance for load-bearing design) will suggest half a level less.

This will of course be tweaked to match real animals' speeds, but it seems to often give good results as it is.

2001.12.21 game design musing

Know what's one of the hardest development tasks for a GURPS add-on -- heck, for just about any RPG? A slick system for variable action times. That is, rules to allow one character to perform certain actions (typically attacks) twice as fast as another, or five times for every four of a foe's, etc.

HERO's Speed stat doesn't quite have it. It's great that Speed 10 lets you have an action rate a little slower than Speed 11, which is a little slower than Speed 12. . . but what about a creature a little slower than the human norm of Speed 2? The only level allowed below that is a full halving of Speed to 1, and then no action at all (Speed 0?) below that.

The ideal system would interest itself in relative differences, equally allowing for battles between psi warriors (typical attack times: 1/10 second, 1/15 for the fast ones) or between the living mountains of Ryol III (typical attack times: 3 Earth years for a "punch", 2 for a "jab", 1.5 for a "fast" mountain's jab, etc.).

I've yet to see a proposal for GURPS that makes a good start (IMO). I certainly don't have one myself.

2001.12.20 gaming site news

One of the links on the GULLIVER main page has changed. Matt Jozwiak's Demona write-up is at http://mjozwiak.topcities.com/GURPS/Demona.html .

Get a GoStats hit counter

hit counter added 03.04.13