GURPS: Star Trek (The Unofficial WorldBook).
Rolock
I just got the STAR TREK unoffcial sorcebook from the IO FTP site. Who-wee.
I'll admit it's good, but geeze the skills are so GOD-AWFUL expensive. Ever
tried to build a Terran helmsman/navigator??
I think one of his skills is Pilot: Starship (a physical/Average skill) at
DX+5!!!!
If you go by a base DX of 10 that's 32 points!
For ONE skill.
I figured it out, and the whole package (helmsman skills and the EVERY cadet
required skills beofre that) comes up to something like 243 points!
I think I'm reading something wrong here.
It says all skills must a a minimum of 1 point in it, so that inclines me to
think it's more like how the minimum skill levels are handled in the Black Ops
supplement. It says you need a 14 in some skill, and depending on what your
attribute is, the cost might be lower to buy guns 14- for a dex 13 agent, than
it would be for a DX 10 agent.
If that's the case, then it isn't that bad, but the points required are still
pretty extreme. That brings up another question.
What would be an appropriate starting level for a Trek campaign. Don't even SAY
100 points. with the skll requirements, that's right out the window. You could
put it at 150, but it doesn't leave much room for customization. I was thinking
somewhere around 200, but that's just me, and it strikes me that they'd need
that much to pay for the skills for the most part. Any ideas?
Robert Kelk
Rolock <rol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I just got the STAR TREK unoffcial sorcebook from the IO FTP site. Who-wee.
> I'll admit it's good, but geeze the skills are so GOD-AWFUL expensive. Ever
> tried to build a Terran helmsman/navigator??
>
> I think one of his skills is Pilot: Starship (a physical/Average skill) at
> DX+5!!!!
> If you go by a base DX of 10 that's 32 points!
>
> For ONE skill.
>
> I figured it out, and the whole package (helmsman skills and the EVERY cadet
> required skills beofre that) comes up to something like 243 points!
>
> I think I'm reading something wrong here.
No, that's what it says. Star Trek is a cinematic setting, so high
skills are to be expected, but I think some of the required skill sets
are rather expensive ...
> It says all skills must a a minimum of 1 point in it, so that inclines me to
> think it's more like how the minimum skill levels are handled in the Black Ops
> supplement. It says you need a 14 in some skill, and depending on what your
> attribute is, the cost might be lower to buy guns 14- for a dex 13 agent, than
> it would be for a DX 10 agent.
That's a much better way to do it: re-write the tables, assuming every
cadet has stats of 10 across the board, and see how much the cost drops.
I suspect you could probably build a competent officer on 150 points or
so.
The way I use those skill lists is as suggestions (much like the
"character type" paragraphs in the printed GURPS books) - I require
characters to have at least 75% of the listed skills, but ignore the
skill levels. (Within reason, of course - if the player wants Chief
Helmsman Skywalker to have Piloting-8, I'll say no.)
> If that's the case, then it isn't that bad, but the points required are still
> pretty extreme. That brings up another question.
>
> What would be an appropriate starting level for a Trek campaign. Don't even SAY
> 100 points. with the skll requirements, that's right out the window. You could
> put it at 150, but it doesn't leave much room for customization. I was thinking
> somewhere around 200, but that's just me, and it strikes me that they'd need
> that much to pay for the skills for the most part. Any ideas?
As I said before, Trek is a cinematic setting. Don't even think about
using less that 150 points per character. (And that's for someone like
Jake Sisko or Harry Kim!) PCs starting as experienced officers can have
as much as 200 points.
When I ran my GURPS Trek game, the PCs started with 200 points each
since they were all first-shift bridge crew (Captain, First Officer,
Chief Tactical Officer, etc.) This gives sufficient room to play with
stats and skill levels, while still ensuring competent PCs. The major
NPCs were 175 point characters.
--
Robert Kelk Rober...@NOSPAM.pwgsc.gc.ca
------------------------- You know what to do --^ ------------
Opinions in this posting do not necessarily reflect the official
position of the Government of Canada or its departments.
Pauli Hakala
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Robert Kelk wrote:
> Rolock <rol...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just got the STAR TREK unoffcial sorcebook from the IO FTP site. Who-wee.
> > I'll admit it's good, but geeze the skills are so GOD-AWFUL expensive. Ever
> > tried to build a Terran helmsman/navigator??
> >
> > I think one of his skills is Pilot: Starship (a physical/Average skill) at
> > DX+5!!!!
> > If you go by a base DX of 10 that's 32 points!
> >
> > For ONE skill.
> >
> > I figured it out, and the whole package (helmsman skills and the EVERY cadet
> > required skills beofre that) comes up to something like 243 points!
> >
> > I think I'm reading something wrong here.
>
> No, that's what it says. Star Trek is a cinematic setting, so high
> skills are to be expected, but I think some of the required skill sets
> are rather expensive ...
But IMHO, normal run-of-the-mill cannonfodder starfleet 'professionals'
should never have a piloting skill of 15. Skill 15 is something what you
do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so skilled
in the whole world. Yep, 32 points should correspond to 16 years of
training in only the Piloting skill..
Skill 15 is the level you can use to fly amidst the skyscrapers at almost
mach one speed whilst dodging missiles with a modern jetfighter. Sulu
had a pilot skill of perhaps a bit over 15, but then again, he is
clearly the most skilled pilot ever seen in the Star Trek universe..
By comparison, Star Trek battles and manual piloting schemes have not
involved anything fancy, except in the classic Trek series sometimes.
Cannon fodder 'NPCs' never pull of anything even approaching heroic
maneuvers, and so they should not have skills much higher than 11-13. In
Star Trek, the battles are solved by shields, firepower and tactics - Not
by fancy piloting work or agility.
> > It says all skills must a a minimum of 1 point in it, so that inclines me to
> > think it's more like how the minimum skill levels are handled in the Black Ops
> > supplement. It says you need a 14 in some skill, and depending on what your
> > attribute is, the cost might be lower to buy guns 14- for a dex 13 agent, than
> > it would be for a DX 10 agent.
>
> That's a much better way to do it: re-write the tables, assuming every
> cadet has stats of 10 across the board, and see how much the cost drops.
Yeah, with certain minimum level in professional skills (10 or so) one
could list the skill training provides as DX+1 and so on, instead of using
fixed levels.. In fact, I think it would be prettymuch more realistic.
> I suspect you could probably build a competent officer on 150 points or
> so.
No, that would be a major hero to boot - A player character material.
Standard cannon fodder officer would be glad to be a 50 point character on
the average. Especially high ranking officers of starfleet are
'paper-pushers' who do not have many points.
> The way I use those skill lists is as suggestions (much like the
> "character type" paragraphs in the printed GURPS books) - I require
> characters to have at least 75% of the listed skills, but ignore the
> skill levels. (Within reason, of course - if the player wants Chief
> Helmsman Skywalker to have Piloting-8, I'll say no.)
Yes, some level of minimum requirements are necessary. Skill level of 8
is, however, quite sufficient to get a drivers license in todays world...
> > If that's the case, then it isn't that bad, but the points required are still
> > pretty extreme. That brings up another question.
> >
> > What would be an appropriate starting level for a Trek campaign. Don't even SAY
> > 100 points. with the skll requirements, that's right out the window. You could
> > put it at 150, but it doesn't leave much room for customization. I was thinking
> > somewhere around 200, but that's just me, and it strikes me that they'd need
> > that much to pay for the skills for the most part. Any ideas?
>
> As I said before, Trek is a cinematic setting. Don't even think about
> using less that 150 points per character. (And that's for someone like
> Jake Sisko or Harry Kim!) PCs starting as experienced officers can have
> as much as 200 points.
I agree with this. Major heroes have much points.
But I disagree that an average starfleet officer, pilot or what have you
would be even close to 100 points. (Otherwise PCs would not be the
outstanding heroes they are, for one).
> When I ran my GURPS Trek game, the PCs started with 200 points each
> since they were all first-shift bridge crew (Captain, First Officer,
> Chief Tactical Officer, etc.) This gives sufficient room to play with
> stats and skill levels, while still ensuring competent PCs. The major
> NPCs were 175 point characters.
Yeah, you can get pretty close to the original Classic Trek main
characters with 200 points.
-Pauli
Andrew Priestley
Rolock wrote:
> I just got the STAR TREK unoffcial sorcebook from the IO FTP site.
> Who-wee.
> I'll admit it's good, but geeze the skills are so GOD-AWFUL expensive.
> Ever
> tried to build a Terran helmsman/navigator??
>
> I think one of his skills is Pilot: Starship (a physical/Average
> skill) at
> DX+5!!!!
> If you go by a base DX of 10 that's 32 points!
>
> For ONE skill.
>
> I figured it out, and the whole package (helmsman skills and the EVERY
> cadet
> required skills beofre that) comes up to something like 243 points!
>
> I think I'm reading something wrong here.
>
> It says all skills must a a minimum of 1 point in it, so that inclines
> me to
> think it's more like how the minimum skill levels are handled in the
> Black Ops
> supplement. It says you need a 14 in some skill, and depending on what
> your
> attribute is, the cost might be lower to buy guns 14- for a dex 13
> agent, than
> it would be for a DX 10 agent.
>
> If that's the case, then it isn't that bad, but the points required
> are still
> pretty extreme. That brings up another question.
>
> What would be an appropriate starting level for a Trek campaign. Don't
> even SAY
> 100 points. with the skll requirements, that's right out the window.
> You could
> put it at 150, but it doesn't leave much room for customization. I was
> thinking
> somewhere around 200, but that's just me, and it strikes me that
> they'd need
> that much to pay for the skills for the most part. Any ideas?
One point of order: My group assumes that in higher tech worlds,
such as Star Trek, or any universe with virtual reality and cyberwear
technology, piloting would quickly become an IQ based skill, except,
perhaps, in small fighter-type craft. So our piloting skills are
Mental/Average. On Star Trek, the helmsman pushes a lot of buttons and
such, you never see him take a stick and throttle control in his hands
and settle his fett on a set of control pedals. Even han Solo flies the
Falcon more by switches and knobs than by stick and rudder, although
fighter craft retain these old type controls.
In our space campaign, I play a pilot who flies by VR type controls and
cybernetic interfaces, it seems to work well and is quite consistent
with projected technology developments. The Space Shuttle is currently
flown more by dial and switch than by stick, as far as I know.
As far as point values are concerned...it would depend on whether your
players are Star Fleet or something else. Star Fleet is an elite
formation, drawing from the finest stock in the Federation. Because
Star Fleet's mission is equal parts scientific and military, it suffers
from less prejudice than today's military, and can draw the elite of
society into its fold more readily than our current military can. The
de-emphasis of money in society has also reduced the financial
incentives of civilian occupation over Star Fleet service. All this is
by way of justifying a Star Trek, Star Fleet starting point value at
150-200 points to create a well rounded character. You can certainly
ignore the proposed minimum skill levels and adjust the point level to
suit your tastes, but to duplicate characters like Picard, Geordi,
Ryker, Spock, Sulu, Chekov, and, if you must have him Kirk. These
characters may actually be more on the line of a 200-250 or even 300
point characters.
Andrew
Andrew
John L. Freiler
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
<big snip>
> One point of order: My group assumes that in higher tech worlds,
> such as Star Trek, or any universe with virtual reality and cyberwear
> technology, piloting would quickly become an IQ based skill, except,
> perhaps, in small fighter-type craft. So our piloting skills are
> Mental/Average. On Star Trek, the helmsman pushes a lot of buttons and
Our group has always hated the pilot as a DX based skill, But, for
dogfighting and such, making pilot seemed like an OK idea. We solved this
as follows:
There are now two skills:
Pilot (M/A) which covers the knowledge of how to get the plane started and
off the ground and landed.
Flying (P/A) which covers aireral acrobatics and dogfigthing.
Each skill is aided by a high alternat stat the same way as Guns is
modified by IQ. Thus Pilot gets a +2 for DX of >=12 and flying gets a +2
for IQ of >=12. Oh, and they default to each other at a -4 or so.
I don't have my notes handy, so some of the details may be off, but you
get the idea.
John
Brett Slocum
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:27:27 +0200, Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi>
wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Robert Kelk wrote:
>
>> Rolock <rol...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > I think one of his skills is Pilot: Starship (a physical/Average skill) at
>> > DX+5!!!!
>> > If you go by a base DX of 10 that's 32 points!
>>
>> No, that's what it says. Star Trek is a cinematic setting, so high
>> skills are to be expected, but I think some of the required skill sets
>> are rather expensive ...
>
>But IMHO, normal run-of-the-mill cannonfodder starfleet 'professionals'
>should never have a piloting skill of 15. Skill 15 is something what you
>do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so skilled
>in the whole world. Yep, 32 points should correspond to 16 years of
>training in only the Piloting skill..
Skill 15 is defined as professional level skill. I would hope that a
good percentage of fighter pilots have this level of skill which
represents having few troubles operating under normal or slightly
difficult conditions, but would be in trouble under extreme
circumstances. Aces I would put more in the 17-20 range.
32 points is 16 years of training only in a casual environment of 10
weeks of training per year. At Star Fleet Academy, you could lean 32
points of skills in about 3 years of full time training (40 hours a
week) or 4 years, assuming proper amounts of personal time off (about
3 months/year).
>Skill 15 is the level you can use to fly amidst the skyscrapers at almost
>mach one speed whilst dodging missiles with a modern jetfighter. Sulu
>had a pilot skill of perhaps a bit over 15, but then again, he is
>clearly the most skilled pilot ever seen in the Star Trek universe..
Hmm, I would put at least a -5 penalty for your scenario, but more
likely -8. If Sulu has skill 15, he will hit a skyscraper or dodge
into a missile half the time. Not very good odds.
>By comparison, Star Trek battles and manual piloting schemes have not
>involved anything fancy, except in the classic Trek series sometimes.
>Cannon fodder 'NPCs' never pull of anything even approaching heroic
>maneuvers, and so they should not have skills much higher than 11-13. In
>Star Trek, the battles are solved by shields, firepower and tactics - Not
>by fancy piloting work or agility.
I agree here.
Brett Slocum, slocum AT io DOT com, unSPAM address to reply
http://www.io.com/~slocum/
Tekumel Home Page: www.io.com/~slocum/tekumel.html
GURPS Home Page: www.io.com/~slocum/gurps.html
Jeff Rahn
John L. Freiler wrote:
GURPS Vehicles distinguishes between Piloting (small spaceship) and Piloting
(large spaceship). Perhaps the large spaceship skill should be Mental, as it
makes sense to assume that captial ships aren't going to be doing any complex
aerobatics. OTOH, at TL 12/13+, you can pack some pretty impressive engines on
even capital-class ships. Maybe a better distinction would be Piloting
(high-performance) and Piloting (low performance), with any ship having an
sAccel of...oh, say 1.5-2G's or better being considered high performance. For
slower ships, reaction time is rarely a big factor (at least as far as
piloting goes) so make it a mental skill. Or maybe the control panel is big
enough that you have to have a lot of agility to hit all those buttons, and
it's still physical...:-)
Gregory Deych
>
>But IMHO, normal run-of-the-mill cannonfodder starfleet 'professionals'
>should never have a piloting skill of 15. Skill 15 is something what you
>do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so skilled
>in the whole world. Yep, 32 points should correspond to 16 years of
>training in only the Piloting skill..
>
Really? GURPS defines skill 15 as being posessed by somebody who is
"Veteran" in his profession. So yes, an experienced pilot with a more
then a few years under his belt, but hardly a world-class ace.
-
Gregory Deych
"My Kung-fu is the best!"
Please delete the .rve portion from my e-mail address.
Andrew Priestley
Jeff Rahn wrote:
In our current game, a TL10-11 universe with non-sentient AI
computers, my pilot flies a light freighter by VR. His normal VR
display is a cockpit type image with heads up display, he does not need
to physically manipulate any controls, he just adjusts them by thought.
Technically, through his wristcomp and the VR patch mounted on it's
backplate, he can pilot the ship from anywhere inside, or even
immediately outside the hull (dubious use, but inside the range of the
transmitter), all he needs to do is find someplace comfortable to sit
down at and slip into his VR trance. His combat display gives him full
ship sensor perception, as if he is the ship. He glances in any
direction to see what is going on, has full tactical read outs and can
fire all ships weapons from VR. Fighting the ship while maneuvering is a
high complexity task for him, but with a piloting skill of 19, he can
handle a lot more complexity than most. This is clearly a mental skill.
If the VR system breaks down, for some reason. The bridge has
semi-manual controls under the protective table covers which customarily
display chess boards and such.
Of course GMs can run piloting any way they choose, perhaps pilots will
never choose to give over that feeling of flying by stick and rudder,
even when other technologies become available, and spacecraft are still
flown that way. It is up to the GM to determine what flavor his or her
world will have.
Andrew
(who will be reverting to his trailname (Iceman) to avoid confusion with
another "Andrew" on this newsgroup.
Andrew Priestley
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> But IMHO, normal run-of-the-mill cannonfodder starfleet
> 'professionals'
> should never have a piloting skill of 15. Skill 15 is something what
> you
> do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so
> skilled
> in the whole world. Yep, 32 points should correspond to 16 years of
> training in only the Piloting skill..
Once again I have to disagree with pauli's dramatic underestimation of
the skills of military professionals. While the average Star Fleet
non-com is not a 150 point character, the average "red-shirt" isn't even
worth rolling up, the average Star Fleet officer is at least that many
points. Star Fleet officers include science officers (Lt. Commander
Spock and Data), communications officers (Lt. Uhura), helmsmen (Lts'
Checkov and Sulu), command officers (Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Lt.
Commander Ryker), engineering officers (Lt. Cmdr. Scot, Geordi) and
medical officers (Drs. McCoy and Crusher). These people have gone
through the Star Fleet Academy, whose curriculum is at least as hard as
any military academy today. Selection (as demonstrated on STTNG), is
extremely rigorous and competitive and even Captain Picard claims to
have failed to make it in his first try. Officers who come out of the
Academy are extremely well trained in their particular area, and have
broad knowledge across the spectrum of ship's specialities.
Now enlisted crew and non-commissioned officers are essentially
analogous to ship and air force crew in today's military. They are well
trained in a particular specialty and have very little knowledge beyond
that unless they choose to pursue further cross training. There are
probably some specialties rarely, if ever, hinted at in the Star Trek
universe, that are roughly analogous to our special operations forces,
and they fall into another category of exceptional people trained
exceptionally well in a broad range of skills, but we have already
argued that to death elsewhere.
> Skill 15 is the level you can use to fly amidst the skyscrapers at
> almost
> mach one speed whilst dodging missiles with a modern jetfighter. Sulu
> had a pilot skill of perhaps a bit over 15, but then again, he is
> clearly the most skilled pilot ever seen in the Star Trek universe..
>
Again, there has been a misinterpretation of the rules made here. The
unmodified skill level refers to the chances of succeeding at a normal
maneuver, in this case, a maneuver made under normal flying conditions
(open sky, no obstructions, normal cruising speed, no stress or
opponents firing at your, etc.) This skill would be heavily modified for
speed, obstructions, and active opposition. A skill of 15 would get a
pilot killed quickly in a dog-fight, probably the first missile would
take him out.
There is something being forgotten here. The military doesn't put a Dex
10, IQ 10, HT 10 person behind the stick, they put an exceptionally
smart, agile, and enduring man behind the stick because that person can
interpret changing situations and react to them faster, no matter what
the level of training (better reflexes, control and faster, more precise
decision making). The higher might reflect the ability to handle Gs,
or high G tolerance could be substituted instead. The military doesn't
take any Joe Shmoe who says he wants to be a pilot into its piloting
programs, they have to pass selection first. This means high scores in
classroom subjects, fast reflexes, good judgement and tactical sense,
and the ability to make correct decisions quickly.
These men and women are IQ and DEX of around 13 or more, with prior
records of excellence in academics, specifically in subjects dependent
upon formal analysis (math, logic, sciences), and a great dealo of
personal discipline and motivation. Officer material in any any
service, but specifically suited to be pilots by personality and the
luck of genetics that gives them very high G-tolerance (if you can't
pass the G-testing, the best you can get is cargo transports or
helicopters regardless of how much DEX and IQ you have.)
> No, that would be a major hero to boot - A player character material.
> Standard cannon fodder officer would be glad to be a 50 point
> character on
> the average. Especially high ranking officers of starfleet are
> 'paper-pushers' who do not have many points.
In a Star Trek universe, just as in the real military, becoming "cannon
fodder" is as much a matter of bad luck as poor skill. The average
officer who gets killed, dies because the enemy had a good man manning a
weapon in the right place, at the right time, or because that officer
was forced to do something risky at the wrong place at the wrong time.
And of course, there are just some bad decisions made in panic, or out
of poor information or in the "fog of war," that happens, and will
always happen. In the Star Trek movies and TV shows, they kill off
officers and enlisteds as elements of the plot. They are competent
people killed off to advance the story. They are not "lucky to be 50
point characters" they are plot devices provided to show that combat is
risky and that people die (just not the heroes).
A 150 point character is not a major hero in the Star Trek universe.
Spock has probably 75-90 points spent on ST alone, plus the point cost
for his genius quality, fully compartmentalized brain. His psionic
talents and skills, his multiple PhD.s in the sciences, his first level
Eidetic Memory, combat reflexes, martial arts, extended lifespan,
redundant organs, etc. Kirk, whatever you might think about William
Shatner's portrayal, has high attributes in the 13+ range, handsome
appearance (or so he was written) Charisma coming out the ying yang,
Reputation, Rank, high skills in all sorts of different areas from
starship piloting, tactics, systems and operations skills to personal
combat skills, to a whole load of diplomatic and leadership skills. He
is also a student of history and literature, speaks a bunch of different
languages, and possesses high degrees of personal courage and collness
under fire. These are very high-level, cinematic characters in the 300
point range.
"High-ranking Strafleet paper-pushers" reached their high ranks by going
through the lower ranks. Unlike in 18th century armies where people
could buy high ranking commissions without proving their personal merit,
most modern armies require an officer to prove competence to advance.
Star Fleet would certainly follow that mold. An Admiral would have had
to work his way up to Captain first, serving in both staff positions and
in command positions in his chosen branch of service. While many of
their skills would have undergone skill atrophy from lack of use over
the years, they are still competent officers capable of performing the
jobs they once performed to reach their exalted levels, albeit with less
confidence than once they did, but the knowledge is still there. Their
bodies also will have weakened and slowed (reducing their point levels),
but they still know how to do the job. They have also developed other
skills to replace what was lost, skills in diplomacy, strategy,
administration; they have multiple and powerful contacts that help them
get things done, they have enormous reputations, status and rank, boxes
full of medals, advanced academic degrees, and multitudes of other
honors. They are not low-point characters, they are just high point
characters who are not very playable because their specialties don't
translate well to the high-action and adventure life in the forward edge
of the fleet.
It is important to remember. The military, in any time, selects people
for jobs "the job selects the man" not the other way around. They
choose people who are suited to the job based on criteria, that
experience has show, make the best candidates for that job. These are
not "normal" people, they are extraordinary people who perform above and
beyond their peers in certain areas. For certain elite services and
positions (fighter pilots, SEALs, Special Forces, Rangers, submariners,
etc.) these people are selected out of a body of already select people
because for reasons of physiology, personality or raw abilities, they
are better suited to the even more demanding environments of those
jobs. To base them on a "normal" person template is to ignore certain
facts.
Andrew a.k.a. Iceman (AT'95 GA>ME)
Jeff Rahn
Hmmm...sort of like a neural interface. Which brings up an excellent
point. Should piloting a vehicle via neural interface be Mental? Perhaps a
sort of blanket Electronics Ops (Neural interface) should be used for any
neural interface control roll? Curious to see what other people have done on
this...although it is admittedly getting rather far from the original
subject.
John L. Freiler
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> Pauli Hakala wrote:
> > Skill 15 is something what you
> > do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so
> > skilled
> > in the whole world.
> Once again I have to disagree with pauli's dramatic underestimation of
> the skills of military professionals.
I have to agree with you, Andrew. Pauli has to be the most pessimistic
Evaluator of skill levels I have ever encountered.
> > Skill 15 is the level you can use to fly amidst the skyscrapers at
> > almost
> > mach one speed whilst dodging missiles with a modern jetfighter. Sulu
So, Pauli, the modifier for flying through skyscrapers at mach one while
dodging is what, -1? -2?
John
Pauli Hakala
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Gregory Deych wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:27:27 +0200, Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >But IMHO, normal run-of-the-mill cannonfodder starfleet 'professionals'
> >should never have a piloting skill of 15. Skill 15 is something what you
> >do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so skilled
> >in the whole world. Yep, 32 points should correspond to 16 years of
> >training in only the Piloting skill..
> >
> Really? GURPS defines skill 15 as being posessed by somebody who is
> "Veteran" in his profession. So yes, an experienced pilot with a more
> then a few years under his belt, but hardly a world-class ace.
Most fighter pilots of today are not 'veterans'. Formal training can never
compensate for real battle experience. Only after ten or so real combat
situations, does one have some real experience (but mostly one is dead
after ten aerial battles, unless ones side is winning already). I guess
that not all aspects of GURPS skills have been sufficiently reality
checked for modern or futuristic realistic settings.
Skill of 15 would require at least 10 or so years of practice, even from a
talented learner.
Most of the 'astounding agility' displayed by fighter pilots is really due
to the great maneuverability of their planes not their skill, try seating
the same guy into a jumbojet and suddenly he is not so agile nor
accurate.. (Even if we ignore familiarity penalties)
Are you trying to tell me that realistic todays fighter aces would have
skills near the 20 mark?
(Better than Han Solo.. Right. Cinematic stunts made in the movie Top Gun
would be piece of cake with skill of 15+. Fighter pilot in the movie ID4
propably has piloting skill of about 16-18, or is just damn lucky.)
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> > But IMHO, normal run-of-the-mill cannonfodder starfleet
> > 'professionals'
> > should never have a piloting skill of 15. Skill 15 is something what
> > you
> > do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so
> > skilled
> > in the whole world. Yep, 32 points should correspond to 16 years of
> > training in only the Piloting skill..
>
> Once again I have to disagree with pauli's dramatic underestimation of
> the skills of military professionals. While the average Star Fleet
> non-com is not a 150 point character, the average "red-shirt" isn't even
> worth rolling up, the average Star Fleet officer is at least that many
> points. Star Fleet officers include science officers (Lt. Commander
> Spock and Data), communications officers (Lt. Uhura), helmsmen (Lts'
> Checkov and Sulu), command officers (Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Lt.
> Commander Ryker), engineering officers (Lt. Cmdr. Scot, Geordi) and
> medical officers (Drs. McCoy and Crusher).
Yeah, these were the heroes, not the run of the mill masses. These were
the larger than life people, the ones who made a difference when universe
itself was threatened.
> These people have gone
> through the Star Fleet Academy, whose curriculum is at least as hard as
> any military academy today.
Yeah. Even so, one does get the smooth and physically easy picture of the
training. If one has a little bit of brains and no major physical
problems, it is not so tough.
> Selection (as demonstrated on STTNG), is
> extremely rigorous and competitive and even Captain Picard claims to
> have failed to make it in his first try.
Not surprising. Experience is really the only thing, aside the strong
will, which makes him a tough player. Not raw natural talents.
> Officers who come out of the
> Academy are extremely well trained in their particular area, and have
> broad knowledge across the spectrum of ship's specialities.
Broad, but not very deep. They cannot perform at every station of their
ship very well. (Which tells us that the skills have to be way below the
professional level of 12.)
> Now enlisted crew and non-commissioned officers are essentially
> analogous to ship and air force crew in today's military. They are well
> trained in a particular specialty and have very little knowledge beyond
> that unless they choose to pursue further cross training.
Yes. Definition of 'well trained' is what we cannot agree on here. I say
that anyone who can do it for living, is well-trained.
Skill level of 12 is more often than not sufficient for that, depending
on how hard the skill is.
> There are
> probably some specialties rarely, if ever, hinted at in the Star Trek
> universe, that are roughly analogous to our special operations forces,
> and they fall into another category of exceptional people trained
> exceptionally well in a broad range of skills, but we have already
> argued that to death elsewhere.
Klingons have far better military training than humans, at least on the
physical level. Humans do not seem to have specops forces anymore -
Instead they use command crews of their starships.
> > Skill 15 is the level you can use to fly amidst the skyscrapers at
> > almost
> > mach one speed whilst dodging missiles with a modern jetfighter. Sulu
> > had a pilot skill of perhaps a bit over 15, but then again, he is
> > clearly the most skilled pilot ever seen in the Star Trek universe..
>
> Again, there has been a misinterpretation of the rules made here. The
> unmodified skill level refers to the chances of succeeding at a normal
> maneuver, in this case, a maneuver made under normal flying conditions
> (open sky, no obstructions, normal cruising speed, no stress or
> opponents firing at your, etc.)
No. See page B86, Success Rolls chapter. Example given is for lockpicking.
If there really is no challenge, i.e. the lock is really primitive, there
is +10 bonus to open it. Likewise, on these grounds, I would give a flight
maneuver made in ideal conditions at least a +4 to succeed, depending on
the complexity and challenge of the maneuver.
Even so, pilots with military background die at air shows, crashing into
the ground. (Either a critfail, poor plane or poor skill.)
> This skill would be heavily modified for
> speed, obstructions, and active opposition. A skill of 15 would get a
> pilot killed quickly in a dog-fight, probably the first missile would
> take him out.
Not so. Pilots dodge would equal skill/4 plus one for combat reflexes,
plus MR.
For a common fighter, like F/A-18 this would translate as dodge of 3.75
for skill, plus one for combat reflexes and plus eight for the MR.
Total Dodge score of 12.75 (With -4 to piloting roll, this could be risen
into 13 by pulling a 8.25G maneuver.)
Only less than 40% of missiles would hit an ace this tough, even if he did
never fire off any chaffs or flares.. With chaff and flares you would need
to fire off at least five missiles to get him..
> There is something being forgotten here. The military doesn't put a Dex
> 10, IQ 10, HT 10 person behind the stick, they put an exceptionally
> smart, agile, and enduring man behind the stick because that person can
> interpret changing situations and react to them faster, no matter what
> the level of training (better reflexes, control and faster, more precise
> decision making).
Low ST (Small size is common. Size is ST often), high HT or more likely
only the Acceleration Tolerance advantage, above average DX is not all
that important, but common. (I am talking about DX 11-12 here. Ever heard
of a flyboy who could beat a rattler in reaction speed?)
No eyeglasses.
> The higher might reflect the ability to handle Gs,
> or high G tolerance could be substituted instead. The military doesn't
> take any Joe Shmoe who says he wants to be a pilot into its piloting
> programs, they have to pass selection first. This means high scores in
> classroom subjects, fast reflexes, good judgement and tactical sense,
> and the ability to make correct decisions quickly.
Even so, this does not mean the stuff seen in movies.
> These men and women are IQ and DEX of around 13 or more, with prior
So they can grab a rattler without getting bitten?
So they are socially suave, good at maths, imaginative and strong willed
enough to face zombies without flinching 84% of the time?
Frankly, I don't think so.
> records of excellence in academics, specifically in subjects dependent
> upon formal analysis (math, logic, sciences), and a great dealo of
> personal discipline and motivation. Officer material in any any
> service, but specifically suited to be pilots by personality and the
Personality?
Because of personality, some fighter jocks die when they land on aircraft
carriers under ideal weather conditions.. They think they are too tough,
ultimate badasses in fact.. ;)
It does not take very exceptional personality to rain bombs on
civilians, OTOH. It is quite commonly accepted practice among pilots.
> luck of genetics that gives them very high G-tolerance (if you can't
> pass the G-testing, the best you can get is cargo transports or
> helicopters regardless of how much DEX and IQ you have.)
Acceleration Tolerance is a given, sure. It is a +10 point advantage and
still does not make them 150 pointers.
> > No, that would be a major hero to boot - A player character material.
> > Standard cannon fodder officer would be glad to be a 50 point
> > character on
> > the average. Especially high ranking officers of starfleet are
> > 'paper-pushers' who do not have many points.
>
> In a Star Trek universe, just as in the real military, becoming "cannon
> fodder" is as much a matter of bad luck as poor skill. The average
> officer who gets killed, dies because the enemy had a good man manning a
> weapon in the right place, at the right time, or because that officer
> was forced to do something risky at the wrong place at the wrong time.
> And of course, there are just some bad decisions made in panic, or out
> of poor information or in the "fog of war," that happens, and will
> always happen. In the Star Trek movies and TV shows, they kill off
> officers and enlisteds as elements of the plot. They are competent
> people killed off to advance the story. They are not "lucky to be 50
> point characters" they are plot devices provided to show that combat is
> risky and that people die (just not the heroes).
But in real life people do not die, if they are so tough?
> A 150 point character is not a major hero in the Star Trek universe.
> Spock has probably 75-90 points spent on ST alone, plus the point cost
> for his genius quality, fully compartmentalized brain. His psionic
> talents and skills, his multiple PhD.s in the sciences, his first level
> Eidetic Memory, combat reflexes, martial arts, extended lifespan,
> redundant organs, etc.
I agree that Spock is propably the one with the highest GURPS style point
total in any Star Trek series, except possibly Data.
Even so, I do not believe that Spock had an ST of 16. No way he could
have opened locked car doors with only his brawn as a matter of course.
(ST-5 roll rips open the door of an average automobile of todays world.)
> Kirk, whatever you might think about William
> Shatner's portrayal, has high attributes in the 13+ range, handsome
Not necessarily. I guess he would not be more dextrous than a black mamba
snake under warm conditions. DX 13 would be very sufficient.
As for IQ, he was not really too smart, and got played for a sucker at
times. Spock was of immense help when the shit really started to hit the
fan.
> appearance (or so he was written) Charisma coming out the ying yang,
> Reputation, Rank, high skills in all sorts of different areas from
> starship piloting, tactics, systems and operations skills to personal
> combat skills, to a whole load of diplomatic and leadership skills. He
Kirk was not a real diplomat, but he was a leader without peer in any
scifi literature..
> is also a student of history and literature, speaks a bunch of different
> languages, and possesses high degrees of personal courage and collness
> under fire. These are very high-level, cinematic characters in the 300
> point range.
Hmm.. Not too sure about Scotty or Sulu. Spock and Kirk are the
real heavyweights in terms of GURPS points.
> "High-ranking Strafleet paper-pushers" reached their high ranks by going
> through the lower ranks. Unlike in 18th century armies where people
> could buy high ranking commissions without proving their personal merit,
> most modern armies require an officer to prove competence to advance.
Not really. The veteran who has spent five years in fields of battle will
kick paper-pushers ass anyday, unless that paper-pusher happens to be
James T. Kirk.
> Star Fleet would certainly follow that mold. An Admiral would have had
> to work his way up to Captain first, serving in both staff positions and
> in command positions in his chosen branch of service. While many of
> their skills would have undergone skill atrophy from lack of use over
> the years, they are still competent officers capable of performing the
> jobs they once performed to reach their exalted levels, albeit with less
> confidence than once they did, but the knowledge is still there.
Not that the average officer would be too skilled. NCOs get by just
yelling and showing off.
> Their
> bodies also will have weakened and slowed (reducing their point levels),
> but they still know how to do the job.
Lets put the average gray haired admiral against the 2 years on the front
lines veteran, and see which one wins hands down in close combat, shooting
and running.
Some civilians are a lot tougher than the paper-pushers.
> They have also developed other
> skills to replace what was lost, skills in diplomacy, strategy,
> administration; they have multiple and powerful contacts that help them
> get things done, they have enormous reputations, status and rank, boxes
Never heard of them. Guess the rep is military only.
> full of medals, advanced academic degrees, and multitudes of other
> honors. They are not low-point characters, they are just high point
> characters who are not very playable because their specialties don't
> translate well to the high-action and adventure life in the forward
edge
> of the fleet.
It does not take lots of points to command people. To fly a fighter
against four opposing equal ones and win takes lots of points.
> It is important to remember. The military, in any time, selects people
> for jobs "the job selects the man" not the other way around. They
> choose people who are suited to the job based on criteria, that
> experience has show, make the best candidates for that job.
Even still, most people with truly extraordinary talents find better jobs
and live stabler life..
> These are
> not "normal" people, they are extraordinary people who perform above and
> beyond their peers in certain areas. For certain elite services and
> positions (fighter pilots, SEALs, Special Forces, Rangers, submariners,
> etc.) these people are selected out of a body of already select people
> because for reasons of physiology, personality or raw abilities, they
> are better suited to the even more demanding environments of those
> jobs. To base them on a "normal" person template is to ignore certain
> facts.
Yes, I agree. Specops training requires HT roll of 12, Fighter pilots need
Acceleration Tolerance and divers require swimming skill 12+.
Starfleet pilots must learn piloting skill of 12 before they can fly real
missions. Those who achieve smaller skills, fly the freighters.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Jeff Rahn wrote:
<snickt>
> Hmmm...sort of like a neural interface. Which brings up an excellent
> point. Should piloting a vehicle via neural interface be Mental? Perhaps a
> sort of blanket Electronics Ops (Neural interface) should be used for any
> neural interface control roll? Curious to see what other people have done on
> this...although it is admittedly getting rather far from the original
> subject.
No. Piloting or controlling a physical object is not mental, no matter how
you do it, no matter if you use a Neural Interface. This is my opinion and
is also canon in GURPS.
DX itself stands for reaction speed and coordination, among other things.
IQ is for thinking, the theoretical side only. IQ can be used to think how
one _should_ move a spaceship in order to get it from point A into point
B, or to plot a course.
DX is used to succesfully employ that plan. In most scifi settings
computer may provide either DX or IQ part with simple user orders.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On 25 Feb 1998, John L. Freiler wrote:
> Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> > Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> > > Skill 15 is something what you
> > > do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so
> > > skilled
> > > in the whole world.
>
> > Once again I have to disagree with pauli's dramatic underestimation of
> > the skills of military professionals.
>
> I have to agree with you, Andrew. Pauli has to be the most pessimistic
> Evaluator of skill levels I have ever encountered.
>
> > > Skill 15 is the level you can use to fly amidst the skyscrapers at
> > > almost
> > > mach one speed whilst dodging missiles with a modern jetfighter. Sulu
>
> So, Pauli, the modifier for flying through skyscrapers at mach one while
> dodging is what, -1? -2?
Maybe even a -4, depending on how tight turns one makes. Fighters can make
about 8 or so G turns without minuses to piloting rolls. With 8 G turns no
penalty besides the one from speed (somewhere in V2nd ed, which I do not
have right now at hand), unless the pilot gets scared or weather is bad.
Dodging does not necessarily mean turning the whole speed vector, though.
-Pauli
Sean O'Flaherty
In article <6d2hr6$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
gde...@worldnet.att.net.rve wrote:
>I would suggest that a pilot with skill of 12-13 would get killed
>remarkably quickly in combat environment. Barring incomepentence,
>most AFs train their pilots to a higher standard.
>
>For example, consider what the rules say: A pilot must make a Piloting
>roll at takeoff and landing and at any hazardous situation. Unless
>the pilot has expert levels of skill (15+) any critical failure woudl
>cause a crash, and a failure by more then 1 indicates damage to the
>aircraft. So, a pilot with skill 13 would have effective skill of 14
>for avoiding damage. After 6 take-offs and landing (i.e, 3 flights)
>he would have only 50% chance of avoiding damage to his aircraft.
>I don't have time right now, but somebody else can calculate the
>chance of a Skill 13 pilot crashing vs Skill 15 pilot crashing, and
>fit it to the current crash rates.
>
>I think you just have a problem with the skill mechanic in general.
You would not need 150 point to have a 15 skill in piloting.
Sean Rodden
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Robert Kelk wrote:
>
> > Rolock <rol...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> But IMHO, normal run-of-the-mill cannonfodder starfleet 'professionals'
> should never have a piloting skill of 15. Skill 15 is something what you
> do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so skilled
> in the whole world. Yep, 32 points should correspond to 16 years of
> training in only the Piloting skill..
>
I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at the Vehicles (1st ed) sample pilot, take a
look at his bombing skill, 21! This is because (I'm told) any bombing run has an
automatic -15 to skill (supposedly a seriously difficult task). GURPS sample characters
have me confused, they're extremely high sometimes and extremely low other time (at
least judging by the way my dice roll).
> Skill 15 is the level you can use to fly amidst the skyscrapers at almost
> mach one speed whilst dodging missiles with a modern jetfighter. Sulu
Oh yeah?
> had a pilot skill of perhaps a bit over 15, but then again, he is
> clearly the most skilled pilot ever seen in the Star Trek universe..
Tom Paris and Voyager fans might disagree with you there.
> > When I ran my GURPS Trek game, the PCs started with 200 points each
> > since they were all first-shift bridge crew (Captain, First Officer,
> > Chief Tactical Officer, etc.) This gives sufficient room to play with
> > stats and skill levels, while still ensuring competent PCs. The major
> > NPCs were 175 point characters.
>
> Yeah, you can get pretty close to the original Classic Trek main
> characters with 200 points.
Our group took the original Star Trek(tm) RPG rules and calculated the number of hours
spent at the academy, figured out curricula blah blah blah and came out with 200-250
point GURPS characters.
<RANT>
Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that office-bound admirals etc could be
built on 50 point. What a load of crud! If you were to build them as a character
capable of doing the work they do now (eg, IQ 12-14, diplomacy, admin etc) then you
MIGHT get it in under that cost. Consider for a moment however how long it took this
particular officer to spend at least 20 years in the fleet working his/her way up from
recruit to Ensign, Lt.(JG), Lt., yadda yadda yadda finally to admiral, how much
experience and skills they developed, before getting shunted to a plumb sit-on-yer-bum
billet at Starbase 1.
These guys have BEEN THERE, DONE THAT! Don't call 'em REMF's because they've got more
light years under their belt than Tom Paris has had synthohol.
Of course these guys are mostly NPC's anyway so their point cost doesn't really matter.
</RANT>
Slainte,
Sean
--
.sig v6.51
For more information, dial http://www.rodden.net
Reply to Oh-Big-O...@rodden.net
Obligatory Quote:
"Sometimes you wake up. Sometimes the fall kills you. And sometimes,
when you fall, you fly." - Neil Gaiman
Gregory Deych
I would suggest that a pilot with skill of 12-13 would get killed
remarkably quickly in combat environment. Barring incomepentence,
most AFs train their pilots to a higher standard.
For example, consider what the rules say: A pilot must make a Piloting
roll at takeoff and landing and at any hazardous situation. Unless
the pilot has expert levels of skill (15+) any critical failure woudl
cause a crash, and a failure by more then 1 indicates damage to the
aircraft. So, a pilot with skill 13 would have effective skill of 14
for avoiding damage. After 6 take-offs and landing (i.e, 3 flights)
he would have only 50% chance of avoiding damage to his aircraft.
I don't have time right now, but somebody else can calculate the
chance of a Skill 13 pilot crashing vs Skill 15 pilot crashing, and
fit it to the current crash rates.
I think you just have a problem with the skill mechanic in general.
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:38:52 +0200, Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi>
wrote:
>Skill of 15 would require at least 10 or so years of practice, even from a
>talented learner.
>
>Most of the 'astounding agility' displayed by fighter pilots is really due
>to the great maneuverability of their planes not their skill, try seating
>the same guy into a jumbojet and suddenly he is not so agile nor
>accurate.. (Even if we ignore familiarity penalties)
>
>Are you trying to tell me that realistic todays fighter aces would have
>skills near the 20 mark?
>
>(Better than Han Solo.. Right. Cinematic stunts made in the movie Top Gun
>would be piece of cake with skill of 15+. Fighter pilot in the movie ID4
>propably has piloting skill of about 16-18, or is just damn lucky.)
>
>
>-Pauli
-
Pauli Hakala
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Sean O'Flaherty wrote:
> In article <6d2hr6$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> gde...@worldnet.att.net.rve wrote:
>
> >I would suggest that a pilot with skill of 12-13 would get killed
> >remarkably quickly in combat environment. Barring incomepentence,
> >most AFs train their pilots to a higher standard.
I guess that you are thinking on a wrong scale. In ideal conditions one
gets bonuses to skill rolls. And yes, skill 12-13 pilots do get shot down,
in real life too. It is simply impossible to train ace quality pilots en
masse, they are mostly natural talents or results of almighty long
(decades) flying experience in warzones.
The average skill 13 pilot has had about two to four years of training.
(Assuming a rather good DX of 12).
> >For example, consider what the rules say: A pilot must make a Piloting
> >roll at takeoff and landing and at any hazardous situation. Unless
> >the pilot has expert levels of skill (15+) any critical failure woudl
> >cause a crash, and a failure by more then 1 indicates damage to the
> >aircraft. So, a pilot with skill 13 would have effective skill of 14
> >for avoiding damage. After 6 take-offs and landing (i.e, 3 flights)
> >he would have only 50% chance of avoiding damage to his aircraft.
> >I don't have time right now, but somebody else can calculate the
> >chance of a Skill 13 pilot crashing vs Skill 15 pilot crashing, and
> >fit it to the current crash rates.
For routine and easy circumstances, you apply favorable bonuses. See page
B86, success rolls. Also, ILS systems and flight control will certainly
make it a lot more easier. With ILS, flight control, calm winds, clear
weather, no stress, and plane in optimal shape, I would give about +10
skill bonus to land or take off..
Furthermore, to be consistent with the crash-rates, I would make the
catastrophe _verified_ with one more roll unless conditions are bad.
This would fit well into current crash rates.
However, for Top Gun hotshots pulling tricks on landings, I would give no
bonus to skill rolls - Showing off and overconfidence do not mix really
well with flying.
> >I think you just have a problem with the skill mechanic in general.
>
> You would not need 150 point to have a 15 skill in piloting.
No, but the DX 12 fighter pilot would need 16 points in the pilot skill.
This would equal 8 years of formal training. I guess that no country will
train its pilots _that_ long. Sure, a hardened veteran might get the
equivalent of eight years under his wings, but I do not think this level
of skill likely within ranks of _average_ fighter pilots.
And do not get me started with the 'intensive training'.. No, my guess is
that in real world there is nothing as effective as GURPS CI style
intensive training.
-Pauli
Þorkell Sigvaldason
Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.980225214055.2086B-100000@rhea-atm>...
soldier is required to have HT of at least 13.
--
Thorkell Sigvaldason
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are
headed.
Pauli Hakala
On 26 Feb 1998, Þorkell Sigvaldason wrote:
> Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi> wrote in article
> <Pine.GSO.3.96.980225214055.2086B-100000@rhea-atm>...
> >
> >
> Just a minor nitpick here. According to the Special Ops book a specops
> soldier is required to have HT of at least 13.
Compared to the realworld spec forces soldier endurances, HT 13 is
perhaps slightly too high for average specops endurance. Individuals could
have that good HT _roll_ for running and fatigue purposes - Not
necessarily for taking bullets or surviving brain damage.
HT 13, DX 12, Running 12 -person can on the average run 14800 yards in
56 minutes. Then he rests for two hours and runs 14800 yards again in 56
minutes..
As a result, he can complete the 20 miles run in only 7 hours, propably in
bit less time if he runs slower and walks once in a while and keeps on
moving all the time. (8 hours is more usual time for special forces)
Really, my guess is that the Fit or Very Fit advantage along with HT of
10-11 better represents special forces soldiers, because they are not
really very damage resistant towards bullets and knives. (Many a special
op soldier has died from a leg or arm wound.) Raw HT 13 person can
routinely survive torso shots from dum-dum bullets without any hospital
care.
-Pauli
Andrew Priestley
Sean O'Flaherty wrote:
> You would not need 150 point to have a 15 skill in piloting.
Ah, but skill in handling the aircraft is not the only thing you need
to know; you need to know how to navigate that airplane by both the
plane's navigational systems, and by the mark 1 eyeball. You need to
know aerial combat tactics, you need to have a solid understanding of
ship's systems, sensors and radar, communications systems, weapons
systems, defensive systems, meteorology, and scads of other things.
Also recall that most US pilots are also educated in the military
academies, and those who come into the program from ROTC classes in
other schools tend to follow similar academic tracks. The academic
tracks that military people follow tend to focus on engineering. So
most US pilots are engineers of one type or another, granted, they are
probably not as well trained as they might have been had they received
an engineering degree from MIT, but that is where their education is
focused. Marine pilots are also fully qualified infantrymen (all
Marines are) Many Navy pilots are also qualified in shipboard
operations, and most pilots of whatever service are fully qualified in
air operations and planning.
Military pilots are not the same as civilian pilots, their training and
operational tempo are much more demanding. They need to understand a
lot more about their aircraft and its capabilities than Joe who flies a
Cesna for the tourists out of the local airstrip.
Again, remember that the military flight services don't take any schmuck
who comes along and wan't to be a pilot; they choose their people based
on raw talent, physiology, and overall capability. We are talking about
folks with high Stats, some solid advantages and few disads that are not
favorable to the service. So you are not working the character's skill
up to 15 based on a DEX or IQ of 10, you are working it up from a stat
of 13 or so.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> Most fighter pilots of today are not 'veterans'. Formal training can
> never
> compensate for real battle experience. Only after ten or so real
> combat
> situations, does one have some real experience (but mostly one is dead
>
> after ten aerial battles, unless ones side is winning already). I
> guess
> that not all aspects of GURPS skills have been sufficiently reality
> checked for modern or futuristic realistic settings.
Actually modern battle simulation technologies such as are used by the
Navy and Airforce, allow pilots to dogfight against each other with a
great degree of realism, giving them, in effect, very realistic
training, minus the bowel loosening fear of knowing that the bullets and
missiles are real. They are tested and pushed and required to perform
under pressure until they learn to concentrate on the job at hand so
well that they don't have time to worry too much about the fear. And
yes, it takes a few of the real deal to fully understand what aerial
combat is about, but that doesn't take away from the technical ability
of the fliers who are very highly trained indeed.
> Skill of 15 would require at least 10 or so years of practice, even
> from a
> talented learner.
How do you figure? Military combat pilots are picked men with base
stats in the 13-15 range in Dex and IQ. With a Dex of 13, it would
require 8 points to develop a skill of 15 in piloting, The average
person operating on a lazy, modern academic or work schedule can accrue
that many points in only a few years. Most military pilots begin flight
training on simulators and in light fixed wing aircraft during college
and in the academies, they have four years to develop reasonable
competence before even starting their intensive military flight
training.
> Most of the 'astounding agility' displayed by fighter pilots is really
> due
> to the great maneuverability of their planes not their skill, try
> seating
> the same guy into a jumbojet and suddenly he is not so agile nor
> accurate.. (Even if we ignore familiarity penalties)
The maneuverability of the airplane is a significant part of what makes
modern jet pilots effective, but extreme maneuverability is the result
of aerodynamic instability, tightly controlled by aeronautical control
systems, and the high skill of the pilot. Another factor to consider is
inherent physiology. The average person can't stay conscious through a
four or five positive G turn. Fighter pilots possess the ability,
through physiology and training, to remain conscious, though not
comfortably so, through as much as an 8 or 9 positive G turn. There are
character points required there.
> Are you trying to tell me that realistic todays fighter aces would
> have
> skills near the 20 mark?
I would say in the high teens to the low twenties would be about right
for an experienced Naval or Air Force aviator with ten years behind the
stick, combat experience and a rotation or two through the Naval Fighter
Weapons School, or the Air Force equivalent, as both student and
teacher. They are martial artists, and this is their art. They are not
allowed to fly combat until they are at least a senior brown belt,
combat experience will turn them into a black belt. Ten years of
operational flying will give them a couple of Dan or two into the
instructors ranks, and a full career of twenty or thirty years will make
them a grandmaster of their art (albeit their reflexes and physical
ability to handle G might erode over time.) Eyesight, however, is what
usually takes a man out of the fighter jet cockpit.
> (Better than Han Solo.. Right. Cinematic stunts made in the movie Top
> Gun
> would be piece of cake with skill of 15+. Fighter pilot in the movie
> ID4
> propably has piloting skill of about 16-18, or is just damn lucky.)
>
> -Pauli
Not even close. Han Solo has a piloting skill in the twenties, he is
acknowledged, by his enemies even, as one of the best pilots in the
galaxy. Will Smith's character in ID4 was amazingly lucky and a good
pilot with skill in the 16-18 range, but the only thing that kept him
alive was home field advantage and the plotline.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> Big snip for brevity
Pauli, you need to watch fewer movies and read more books. You should
also try talking to some real operators, or better yet, watch them
operate. I have seen Special Operators who could move so fast you
couldn't keep track of them. I have seen stop-action photos of an SAS
operator demonstrating a prison guard take-down where you couldn't
really see the operator at all, just a transparent smear of motion. And
by the way, there is a place at Ft. Benning called the snake pit. It is
full of Cottonmouths Rattlesnakes and Copperheads. Rangers in the
Ranger school go in there to catch and kill dinner, no knives, no guns,
just their hands and feet and brains.
The military and civilian worlds have a completely different idea of
what a professional standard is. In the military world, you have to be
good enough at your job that you won't get yourself, or those around you
killed or captured. Operating conditions in the civilian world include
moderate 6-8 hour work days which, in Germany at least, include beer
breaks throughout the day. In the military, a normal work day begins at
5:30 in the morning and continues until 5:00 in the afternoon, or until
the job is done, and that is in garrison. A field training day begins
before first light and continues until the training mission is over with
occasional naps through the day and night to take the edge off. I used
to sleep a grand total of perhaps twelve to fifteen hours per week
during field exercises, maybe three or four hours a night, not at all
during the day. I would lose as much as five pounds during a week of
FTX, despite cramming two or three MREs into my gut every day, because
we never stopped moving.
When you are required to perform a task in the military, you are never
trying to perform it under perfect conditions. You are often being
required to perform your job in the dark, in a cramped and dirty
environment, with tight time limits, tossing decks, rain, extreme heat
and humidity, dust blowing around, insects chewing on you, enemies
shooting at you, etc. You don't have an unlimited supply of parts
available to you, you are often improvising tools, and making things do
jobs they were never intended to do. And still, you are expected to get
the job done and get it done fast and correctly. While your average
motor pool mechanic isn't a skill 18, he probably is a 14 to 16 within
the range of vehicles he commonly sees, HMMWVs, 5 ton trucks, M2/3
Bradley Vehicles, Etc. Your average submarine engine room crewman is
probably in the same range.
These guys can't afford to be "merely competent" they must be good at
their jobs, really good at them, because peoples lives depend upon
them. While a man may come out of training with skill levels of 12 in
his primary skills, he will have at least 13s by the end of his first
year of actual duty, a 14s, the year after that, and so on. The
operational tempo and the critical nature of the job requires it.
Iceman
Pauli Hakala
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Sean O'Flaherty wrote:
>
> > You would not need 150 point to have a 15 skill in piloting.
>
> Ah, but skill in handling the aircraft is not the only thing you need
> to know; you need to know how to navigate that airplane by both the
> plane's navigational systems, and by the mark 1 eyeball.
Good vision. Perhaps even 12. Costs +4 points. Navigation skill 8-9 is
quite sufficient with all those nifty gadgets onboard (Which give a
sizable bonus to all navigation rolls, if not granting outright Absolute
Direction like I would suspect many INS systems would.).. Hand a sextant
or solar watch to a pilot and ask them to tell their position, I guess
that they would not be very accurate..
> You need to
> know aerial combat tactics,
Average quality troop tactics level would suffice, unless the pilot has
seen some real action. From CII page 116 we can see that it is a 6. Costs
0.5 points for IQ 9, less for higher IQs.
> you need to have a solid understanding of
> ship's systems, sensors and radar,
ElOp: Sensors. Throw in a half point, unless pilots get more than half
year with the electronics theory.
> communications systems,
ElOp skill also, as above. I wonder how many pilots could really repair
fix their electronics or increase the radar range..
> weapons
> systems,
Fixed cannons are fired with Pilot skill. Gunner: Missiles is used for
other stuff.
> defensive systems,
Do not really require separate skill. Only understanding.
> meteorology,
No, they are not comparable to professional weather forecasters.
> and scads of other things.
Yep. Defaults mostly. Perhaps a half point thrown in somewhere.
> Also recall that most US pilots are also educated in the military
> academies, and those who come into the program from ROTC classes in
> other schools tend to follow similar academic tracks. The academic
> tracks that military people follow tend to focus on engineering.
Can they really design their own planes?
(If they cannot, they do have skills below 10 or so)
> So
> most US pilots are engineers of one type or another, granted, they are
> probably not as well trained as they might have been had they received
> an engineering degree from MIT, but that is where their education is
> focused.
Instead of the physical piloting skill, right?
> Marine pilots are also fully qualified infantrymen (all
> Marines are)
Yet, I do not believe that average Marine would be 75+ pts. More like 25
to 50 pts..
> Many Navy pilots are also qualified in shipboard
> operations, and most pilots of whatever service are fully qualified in
> air operations and planning.
Which does not mean even a Tactics skill of 11 - That is reserved for
Elite quality troops. Skill 6+ is 'fully qualified' in most instances for
everyone but the commanding officers.
> Military pilots are not the same as civilian pilots, their training and
> operational tempo are much more demanding. They need to understand a
> lot more about their aircraft and its capabilities than Joe who flies a
> Cesna for the tourists out of the local airstrip.
Yes, but this does not necessarily mean many skill levels of difference.
Civilian pilots and amateurs often fly with a skill of 10 or even less. It
does not take too much to get civilian pilots license.
Frankly, I do not believe that fighter pilots are trained as intensively
as Kung Fu monks (Even that training does not qualify for what GURPS uses
for intensive training rules, in respect to points gained), not in USA or
anywhere else. How many years does the actual Pilot: Fighter Jet -skill
training take?
> Again, remember that the military flight services don't take any schmuck
> who comes along and wan't to be a pilot; they choose their people based
> on raw talent, physiology, and overall capability.
These choices are made from masses who _want_ to join. These masses do not
necessarily include the best there are - They often find something more
profitable to do.
> We are talking about
> folks with high Stats, some solid advantages and few disads that are not
> favorable to the service. So you are not working the character's skill
> up to 15 based on a DEX or IQ of 10, you are working it up from a stat
> of 13 or so.
13 sounds a bit too high, especially if it is both IQ and DX. IQ 13+
people would not propably even bother to be fighter pilots, of the all
choices available because of it.
DX 13 is as high as panthers. I really doubt that the average fighter jock
could win a panther with brass knuckles in real life. I could believe
that some real talents would have so high DX, but not thousands of people
on the average.
And now, if both IQ and DX were 13, I think we would be talking about a
one-in-a-million person. Not very likely that US could have hundreds of
people like this as fighter pilots.
I think that an attribute of 12 would be far more common (It is still
exceptional, and having two 12s is even more exceptional. Say, one in ten
thousands). I could believe it, maybe.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Actually modern battle simulation technologies such as are used by the
> Navy and Airforce, allow pilots to dogfight against each other with a
> great degree of realism, giving them, in effect, very realistic
> training, minus the bowel loosening fear of knowing that the bullets and
> missiles are real.
Exactly. Also, missing are the high G-forces and sudden wind drafts and
stuff, AFAIK.
Real flight hours are so costly that most militaries spare them.
Unfortunately, this is the only real way to build up the skill.
> They are tested and pushed and required to perform
> under pressure until they learn to concentrate on the job at hand so
> well that they don't have time to worry too much about the fear. And
> yes, it takes a few of the real deal to fully understand what aerial
> combat is about, but that doesn't take away from the technical ability
> of the fliers who are very highly trained indeed.
They are not professionaly quality engineers?
> > Skill of 15 would require at least 10 or so years of practice, even
> > from a
> > talented learner.
>
> How do you figure? Military combat pilots are picked men with base
> stats in the 13-15 range in Dex and IQ.
I do not think so. If you claim that US military has half-a-dozen of
people who have such attributes, I _might_ believe you.
But if you claim that there are hundreds or even thousands of them, I will
not believe it just like that, without being shown some proof.
> With a Dex of 13, it would
> require 8 points to develop a skill of 15 in piloting, The average
> person operating on a lazy, modern academic or work schedule can accrue
> that many points in only a few years.
On what is this fact about lazy academic study giving 8 points in three
years based?
> Most military pilots begin flight
> training on simulators and in light fixed wing aircraft during college
> and in the academies, they have four years to develop reasonable
> competence before even starting their intensive military flight
> training.
Sailplanes or prop planes are not comparable to Jet Fighters. There is a
-4 penalty switch from one to another.
> > Most of the 'astounding agility' displayed by fighter pilots is really
> > due
> > to the great maneuverability of their planes not their skill, try
> > seating
> > the same guy into a jumbojet and suddenly he is not so agile nor
> > accurate.. (Even if we ignore familiarity penalties)
>
> The maneuverability of the airplane is a significant part of what makes
> modern jet pilots effective, but extreme maneuverability is the result
> of aerodynamic instability, tightly controlled by aeronautical control
> systems, and the high skill of the pilot.
Why is the 'high' skill absolutely needed?
(In GURPS terms, dodge score goes up by one if skill goes up by 4.)
> Another factor to consider is
> inherent physiology. The average person can't stay conscious through a
> four or five positive G turn. Fighter pilots possess the ability,
> through physiology and training, to remain conscious, though not
> comfortably so, through as much as an 8 or 9 positive G turn. There are
> character points required there.
Yep. +10 pts Acceleration Tolerance. Perhaps even HT 11 for effective HT
roll of 19 with the G-seat.
> > Are you trying to tell me that realistic todays fighter aces would
> > have
> > skills near the 20 mark?
>
> I would say in the high teens to the low twenties would be about right
> for an experienced Naval or Air Force aviator with ten years behind the
> stick, combat experience and a rotation or two through the Naval Fighter
> Weapons School, or the Air Force equivalent, as both student and
> teacher. They are martial artists, and this is their art.
I do not sincerely believe that Westerner black belt martial artists would
have skill of 15. 12-13 would be closer to the truth, IMHO.
All in all, I feel that the belt-skill grading system is flawed in GURPS
Martial Arts. No black belt of third dan or lower can take on a tiger or
bear barehanded and win. (Yeah, animals are good way of reality checking
GURPS stats and skills..)
> They are not
> allowed to fly combat until they are at least a senior brown belt,
Skill 11-12, IMO. Average troops (maximum which can be achieved by
training in the Mass Combat system) would have skill like this.
> combat experience will turn them into a black belt. Ten years of
> operational flying will give them a couple of Dan or two into the
> instructors ranks, and a full career of twenty or thirty years will make
> them a grandmaster of their art (albeit their reflexes and physical
> ability to handle G might erode over time.) Eyesight, however, is what
> usually takes a man out of the fighter jet cockpit.
>
> > (Better than Han Solo.. Right. Cinematic stunts made in the movie Top
> > Gun
> > would be piece of cake with skill of 15+. Fighter pilot in the movie
> > ID4
> > propably has piloting skill of about 16-18, or is just damn lucky.)
> >
> > -Pauli
>
> Not even close. Han Solo has a piloting skill in the twenties, he is
> acknowledged, by his enemies even, as one of the best pilots in the
> galaxy. Will Smith's character in ID4 was amazingly lucky and a good
> pilot with skill in the 16-18 range, but the only thing that kept him
> alive was home field advantage and the plotline.
You really do believe that US fighter pilot veterans could pull off same
kind of flying stuff as Will Smith's character in ID4?
-Pauli
Gregory Deych
O.K..forget modern pilots. Take a pilot circa WWII, without the fancy
G-seats, instruments, landing aids etc. Can this man survive with
skills at 12-13?
Now, if the above is true, have training standards actually declined
in the past 50 years? Before you answer, consider the training time
involved in both cases.
>
>All in all, I feel that the belt-skill grading system is flawed in GURPS
>Martial Arts. No black belt of third dan or lower can take on a tiger or
>bear barehanded and win. (Yeah, animals are good way of reality checking
>GURPS stats and skills..)
>
You have got to be kidding. Animals (given the proverbial kitten
killing a bear X % of the time), are not realistically represented in
GURPS. Good enough for what they are used, but certainly not for the
"Can Rambo kill 2 tigers with his bare hands." comparisons.
Oh..and something in the snipped above:
How usefull is the level of 6+ in Tactics? You'd be failing damn near
every roll, which in the furball will mean your life. Situational
awareness is extremely important. Even if you're god behind the
controls, it doesn't mean jack if you can't track a bogie getting on
your six (which is not covered by Awareness modifiers, by the way.
It's a question of seeing vs interpretation).
>> They are not
>> allowed to fly combat until they are at least a senior brown belt,
>
>Skill 11-12, IMO. Average troops (maximum which can be achieved by
>training in the Mass Combat system) would have skill like this.
>
>> combat experience will turn them into a black belt. Ten years of
>> operational flying will give them a couple of Dan or two into the
>> instructors ranks, and a full career of twenty or thirty years will make
>> them a grandmaster of their art (albeit their reflexes and physical
>> ability to handle G might erode over time.) Eyesight, however, is what
>> usually takes a man out of the fighter jet cockpit.
>>
>> > (Better than Han Solo.. Right. Cinematic stunts made in the movie Top
>> > Gun
>> > would be piece of cake with skill of 15+. Fighter pilot in the movie
>> > ID4
>> > propably has piloting skill of about 16-18, or is just damn lucky.)
>> >
>> > -Pauli
>>
>> Not even close. Han Solo has a piloting skill in the twenties, he is
>> acknowledged, by his enemies even, as one of the best pilots in the
>> galaxy. Will Smith's character in ID4 was amazingly lucky and a good
>> pilot with skill in the 16-18 range, but the only thing that kept him
>> alive was home field advantage and the plotline.
>
>You really do believe that US fighter pilot veterans could pull off same
>kind of flying stuff as Will Smith's character in ID4?
>
>
>-Pauli
-
Vegard Valberg
To Pauli (and any other interested party)
On the subject of Stats and Skills
ST of 14= Professionall Athlete
IQ of 14= Near genius
Now I would say that it is quite likely that a Air Force pilot would
have a DX of 14 and a skill in the 20's range, why? Because the airforce picks
only the best, now even if you say that DX of 14 is one in 10000, that still
gives the USAF 22000 candidates.
Now the GURPS Compendium states that a stat of 15 will most likely be
the characters most noteworthy feature, now I would say that a Air Force Pilot
or a Commando would have a few "Note Worthy" features.
Now the regular Police and Corp Secs in my current campaign has a DX and
ST stats of at least 12, and a gun skill that is usally around 15, SWAT Teams
and elite Corp Secs (like the ones guarding the Executives of a corporation) will
have at least 14 in DX, and 12 in all other stats (which means combat skills in
the 17-18 range). And that is not all that unrealistical, since I base the normal
Corp Secs and Police of regular combat soldiers, and the SWAT and elite Corp-Sec
as elite commandoes.
Now you might point out that a Panther has a DX of only 13, well a panther
suffers no problems for a uneven surface, it has perfect balance, it has a lot of
nifty senses. This is what makes a panther so lethal (that and it's claws and
fangs and ST).
Heck in my campaign even the average Street Ganger in my campaign has a
DX or ST stats of around 12, and combat skills of 12 and up.
--
- Vegard Valberg
John L. Freiler
Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi> wrote:
> No, but the DX 12 fighter pilot would need 16 points in the pilot skill.
> This would equal 8 years of formal training. I guess that no country will
> train its pilots _that_ long. Sure, a hardened veteran might get the
> equivalent of eight years under his wings, but I do not think this level
> of skill likely within ranks of _average_ fighter pilots.
Of course, This get's substantially lower if you don't hold by the "no
normal person has a stat over 13" school. The idea that they screen out
anyone with a DX under 12 and keep the average around a DX 14 just gives
you the heebie jeebies. That average DX 14 fighter pilot only needs 4
points or two years of training to get to the 15 level.
But since such stats are an anathama to you, you rely heavilly on positive
modifiers for average uses of the skill. +10 for a landing? come on...
The thing that really bugs me is this attitude "I Know the One and Only
True Way" that you cop. It's a game system: If you get realisic result by
giving huge positive mods while decrying high stats, while others use
almost entirely negative mods along with high stats, what's the big deal?
Affraid that you wouldn't be able to flame someone who wrote themselves
using the other method, or that you won't be the Keeper of The True Way of
GURPS?
FWIW, I have a bigger problem with someone having 16 points in any single
skill being a realistic portrayal than I do with someone having a stat 15.
John
Pauli Hakala
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Vegard Valberg wrote:
> To Pauli (and any other interested party)
>
> On the subject of Stats and Skills
>
> ST of 14= Professionall Athlete
> IQ of 14= Near genius
>
> Now I would say that it is quite likely that a Air Force pilot would
> have a DX of 14 and a skill in the 20's range, why? Because the airforce picks
> only the best, now even if you say that DX of 14 is one in 10000, that still
> gives the USAF 22000 candidates.
More like one in 100,000 or 1,000,000. Of those candidates most would go
for professional sports, or other jobs which pay better than the military.
Also, in real world high DX often correlates with low ST, and vice versa.
Larger people (with more ST) tend to be clumsier than the smaller people
(with less ST). Of course there are exceptions to this rule.
I would not be surprised if the average fighter pilot would have ST 9.
Even still, I can not bring myself to believe that all fighter pilots
would be as high with their DX as real life circus performers.
> Now the GURPS Compendium states that a stat of 15 will most likely be
> the characters most noteworthy feature, now I would say that a Air Force Pilot
> or a Commando would have a few "Note Worthy" features.
Only the real worlds best would have anything approaching 16 in even one
attribute. It is even rarer than one in a million, IMO. (and no, I would
not consider special forces consisting of 1000+ members to all be worlds
'best' in this regard and have 15+ attributes on the average.)
> Now the regular Police and Corp Secs in my current campaign has a DX and
> ST stats of at least 12, and a gun skill that is usally around 15, SWAT Teams
> and elite Corp Secs (like the ones guarding the Executives of a corporation) will
> have at least 14 in DX, and 12 in all other stats (which means combat skills in
> the 17-18 range). And that is not all that unrealistical, since I base the normal
> Corp Secs and Police of regular combat soldiers, and the SWAT and elite Corp-Sec
> as elite commandoes.
CII pge 116 has quite realistic average skill values for troops of
differing qualities, modern or not. Weapon skill 15+ is Elite there, and
allows one to shoot a walking man into the _eye_ from 300 yards away with
60% hit accuracy using a modern rifle with scope.. Not something which
average competition shooter could do?
> Now you might point out that a Panther has a DX of only 13, well a panther
> suffers no problems for a uneven surface, it has perfect balance, it has a lot of
> nifty senses. This is what makes a panther so lethal (that and it's claws and
> fangs and ST).
13 is not 'only', IMO it is exceptional. Try evading an angry panther
with contest of DX..
> Heck in my campaign even the average Street Ganger in my campaign has a
> DX or ST stats of around 12, and combat skills of 12 and up.
Yeah, but your campaign is definitely cinematic, IMHO. (At least with
points and skill levels, if not with rules.)
(Warsaw-Krakow sprawl is such a hellhole that there hardly is tougher
place on earth to live, and no place like it in real world.. No wonder
that local SWATs could toast earlier marines with ease.)
Yes, I realize that my perception of GURPS Real World differs from the
perceptions of most GURPS-users I have heard in the net by at least 5-3
attribute levels.
So far, nobody has been able to turn up with reliable enough evidence to
make me change my mind. As soon as someone can show me hard facts which
clearly state that the average fighter pilot has skill 15 and DX 14, I
will believe it.
As I see it, there has been significant 'point escalation' within GURPS
players and GMs alike taking place in the last four or so years. There
have been even those who consider Black Ops 'realistic' with their 800
points.. Also note that I am not saying that unrealistic would be bad -
Most of the fiction is unrealistic, and so are most campaigns, but they
can still be very enjoyable, just be careful what you call 'real world
level'.
Heroes of real life mostly die. In RPGs/books/movies, they go through hell
three times a day almost routinely.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On 26 Feb 1998, John L. Freiler wrote:
> Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi> wrote:
>
> > No, but the DX 12 fighter pilot would need 16 points in the pilot skill.
> > This would equal 8 years of formal training. I guess that no country will
> > train its pilots _that_ long. Sure, a hardened veteran might get the
> > equivalent of eight years under his wings, but I do not think this level
> > of skill likely within ranks of _average_ fighter pilots.
>
> Of course, This get's substantially lower if you don't hold by the "no
> normal person has a stat over 13" school. The idea that they screen out
> anyone with a DX under 12 and keep the average around a DX 14 just gives
> you the heebie jeebies. That average DX 14 fighter pilot only needs 4
> points or two years of training to get to the 15 level.
>
> But since such stats are an anathama to you, you rely heavilly on positive
> modifiers for average uses of the skill. +10 for a landing? come on...
+10 for a primitive lock to pick, come on.. Have you ever picked a lock?
It is not all that easy.
No, I have never had the fortune to fly or land a plane, but I do have a
clear idea of what to do. I might succeed in it if conditions were
excellent and someone was there to give instructions (air control).
I could well have a chance of 12+ to bring a plane safely down if I was
given instructions and did not panic.
Without any instructions I would be using a default of 5 or so, with
perhaps +4 for good weather conditions. If the weather was bad, I would
rather jump out (even without a parachute) and hope for the best.. ;)
> The thing that really bugs me is this attitude "I Know the One and Only
> True Way" that you cop. It's a game system: If you get realisic result by
> giving huge positive mods while decrying high stats, while others use
> almost entirely negative mods along with high stats, what's the big deal?
I have not meant to offend anyone. I thought it would be clear that these
are only my opinions, based on the arguments I have given and sometimes
on GURPS rules.
Meaning of a debate like this, IMHO, is to bring new viewpoints, details
and facts out into the open. For me it is not a question about 'winning'
or 'losing' the debate - It is about learning as well as teaching.
I feel like that a GURPS Real World would need publishing. Something which
would clear any misunderstandings between attributes, skills and real
world equivalencies. It would not be too easy to do, though.
> Affraid that you wouldn't be able to flame someone who wrote themselves
> using the other method, or that you won't be the Keeper of The True Way of
> GURPS?
I never flame, sometimes I may be misunderstood but never will my
intention be to flame. Some of us Finns are cold people, and I never get
angry over few lines of text on computer screen, regardless of the
contents. It takes quite much more to get me angry.
> FWIW, I have a bigger problem with someone having 16 points in any single
> skill being a realistic portrayal than I do with someone having a stat 15.
I have no problem with that, although I would call 8 year training in
single matter somewhat rare. Professional olympic level sports people
could IMO have 16 or even more points in single skill, in addition to
better than average attribute.
Yeah, a real world hardened fighter ace could have 16+ points in the pilot
skill. So would Baron von Richthoffen.
Even so, I would think that no ace of todays world could duplicate the
stunts pulled off in ID4 canyon chase.
-Pauli
Nana Yaw Ofori
> Maybe a better distinction would be Piloting
> (high-performance) and Piloting (low performance), with any ship having an
> sAccel of...oh, say 1.5-2G's or better being considered high performance. For
> slower ships, reaction time is rarely a big factor (at least as far as
> piloting goes) so make it a mental skill. Or maybe the control panel is big
> enough that you have to have a lot of agility to hit all those buttons, and
> it's still physical...:-)
Aren't the specializations in GURPS Vehicles 2nd Edition already
represented Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft) and
Piloting(Low-Performance Spacecraft)?
--
= http://www.io.com/~beholder =========== nof...@pop3.utoled.edu ===
Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori,Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving
Legion, Party of six thousand. Smoking or Non?
=== ><{{"> ==== "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< =====
Sean O'Flaherty
In article <6d4b57$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
gde...@worldnet.att.net.rve wrote:
>O.K..forget modern pilots. Take a pilot circa WWII, without the fancy
>G-seats, instruments, landing aids etc. Can this man survive with
>skills at 12-13?
Yes. Remember fighter planes where much cheaper then and air fores number
in the tens of thousands. There would not be enough skill 18-20 people in
the would to fly all those planes. If some of them crashed, well it's not
like they cost tens of millions of dollars each.
I don't believe the planes themselves could take 8 or 9 g's.
Qstor
I think the Final Frontier book is a bit better but the Starship Combat rules
definalty need some work .....Constitution size ships can take a lot more
damage...Look at Star Trek VI....
Mike
Douglas Kilpatrick
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> +10 for a primitive lock to pick, come on.. Have you ever picked a lock?
> It is not all that easy.
I've picked the lock on some filing cabinets. With improvised tools.
Off of default even.
Did take me about 3 tries though... What's my skill?
> > FWIW, I have a bigger problem with someone having 16 points in any single
> > skill being a realistic portrayal than I do with someone having a stat 15.
>
> I have no problem with that, although I would call 8 year training in
> single matter somewhat rare. Professional olympic level sports people
> could IMO have 16 or even more points in single skill, in addition to
> better than average attribute.
IMHO, using the rules and modifiers as published and back-calculating
skills reinforces the viewpoint that skills of 16 or so are common
professional level skills.
Your viewpoint that 16 is "Best of the Best" is not supported by the
modifers as published. As published, I have a pistol skill of 22 or
so. As published, I have a lockpicking skill of 10, which means I have
an IQ of 15.
IMHO, trying to renorm skill levels such that 12 is a standard skill
level for a professional will be fustrating. More-so, it won't be the
GURPS that most other people on the group think that they play.
(Before I get flamed, I don't have a pistol skill of 22, or an IQ of 15,
in as much as you can convert GURPS ratings to real life.)
Doug
-- kilp...@xyzzy.com
To email, replace xyzzy with:
Echo Romeo Oscar Lima Sierra.
Thin Lines
Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> I could well have a chance of 12+ to bring a plane safely down if I was
> given instructions and did not panic.
>
> Without any instructions I would be using a default of 5 or so, with
> perhaps +4 for good weather conditions. If the weather was bad, I would
> rather jump out (even without a parachute) and hope for the best.. ;)
> -Pauli
I think this is the main difference between your interpretation of skill
levels and the other people on this thread. From my understanding, you
see skill levels as representing the level of skill in a difficult
situation, and you add positive modifiers when the conditions are ideal.
I, and many others, do it the opposite way. We see skill levels as
representing the level of skill in ideal conditions, and add negative
modifiers when then conditions are less than ideal.
In my campaigns, good weather conditions would net you a +0 bonus to
land the plane - those are the conditions you were trained under, and
you shouldn't get a bonus for using your skill in these circumstances.
What it comes down to is that your conception of a skill level 12-13
pilot is equivalent to my conception of a skill level 15-16 pilot, it's
just that we use different sets of modifiers. We've got to realize this
when we discuss skill levels - what you mean and what I mean by a
particular number are not the same thing.
As far as your example above, I don't think it's very useful to add
positive modifiers for ideal conditions; I would think it could be
rather cumbersome. I mean, in my fantasy campaign, should I give the
player's knight a +4 bonus for good weather conditions when he charges
across the jousting field? (no wind, good visibility, etc... do these
really help him hit more accurately?) I would rather him roll his
straight skill. But if the conditions were worse (windy, rainy, dark,
etc.), then I would assign a penalty.
So in my campaign, a weapon skill or riding skill of 10-12 is *not*
going to be professional quality. A knight with lance and riding skills
of 10-12 is probably going to miss at least half the time. Most knights
are better trained than this. The same reasoning can be applied to more
modern examples.
The skill and attribute inflation you mentioned really isn't as big of a
problem as you feel it is - if my intuition is correct, most of the
people who play with these higher levels add significant penalties for
difficult tasks, but do not add positive modifiers for easy tasks. So
the final roll comes out to be the same as your system, just with
different starting numbers.
I hope this alleviates some of the confusion.
-T.L.(ME)
Thin Lines
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> Compared to the realworld spec forces soldier endurances, HT 13 is
> perhaps slightly too high for average specops endurance. Individuals could
> have that good HT _roll_ for running and fatigue purposes - Not
> necessarily for taking bullets or surviving brain damage.
>
> HT 13, DX 12, Running 12 -person can on the average run 14800 yards in
> 56 minutes. Then he rests for two hours and runs 14800 yards again in 56
> minutes..
> -Pauli
Are you sure those numbers are correct? They sound awful slow...
14800 yards is a little under 3 miles. When I was in the army we
*walked* 4 miles in an hour with 55-lb rucksacks...
Most soldiers can keep that pace up for *at least* 12 miles. The longest
road march I did was a 25-miler, which we finished in about 7 1/2 hours.
What does that make my HT and DX? I had always assumed they were in the
10-11 range. Maybe a good level with the Hiking skill?
-T.L.(ME)
Pauli Hakala
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Sean O'Flaherty wrote:
> In article <6d4b57$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> gde...@worldnet.att.net.rve wrote:
>
> >O.K..forget modern pilots. Take a pilot circa WWII, without the fancy
> >G-seats, instruments, landing aids etc. Can this man survive with
> >skills at 12-13?
>
> Yes. Remember fighter planes where much cheaper then and air fores number
> in the tens of thousands. There would not be enough skill 18-20 people in
> the would to fly all those planes. If some of them crashed, well it's not
> like they cost tens of millions of dollars each.
At any rate, I do not think that modern _real world_ fighter pilots would
on the average have skills of 18-20. Real world is not like Top Gun the
movie or ID4.
Even still, WWII pilots did get more flight hours, IIRC. Props were
cheaper to fly as well.
Also, WWII pilots had to make do without sophisticated electronics or
navigation systems which are in use today. I would daresay that if we
plopped a modern fighter pilot into the controls of a spitfire and told
him to go on a night raid, we propably would not see him coming back alive
- For multitude of reasons, including the poor instruments and lousier
handling.
> I don't believe the planes themselves could take 8 or 9 g's.
No, they propably could not. Also, G-seats and such were not as good as
today. Even still, G-forces were well in excess of 3 Gs and required good
acceleration tolerance to stay conscious through worst maneuvers.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Sean O'Flaherty wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980226221101.13064A-100000@rhea-atm>, Pauli
> Hakala <fear...@otol.fi> wrote:
>
> >More like one in 100,000 or 1,000,000. Of those candidates most would go
> >for professional sports, or other jobs which pay better than the military.
>
> Not mention women, people not in the right age brackets ect.. I'd say the
> base population the military selects from is about 1% of the US
> population.
Yes, that would seem likely. In my opinion it would prettymuch rule out
mass recruitment of Elite quality troops (as in CII pge 116). Most of the
recruited folks would be of raw or green quality, and formal training
would be good for average quality at most.
Fighter pilots could become Seasoned if they saw much action. Of course an
occasional ace could be seen among them, perhaps even of Elite quality,
but not many.
We no longer have places of such repute as the ancient Sparta. If half of
the stories are true, they were really something on the average level, no
matter to whom you compare them.. With few hundred warriors (Can't
remember exact numbers, though), they held the pass of Thermopylai against
largest army in human history ever, 1,500,000 Persian soldiers.. I would
consider that 'Elite' quality, if anything.
> >Even still, I can not bring myself to believe that all fighter pilots
> >would be as high with their DX as real life circus performers.
>
> I guess it depends on you point of view. One person told me he considered
> 100 points to be an average person!
Yeah, I guess there is a little bit of Mad Max in all of us. (An
archetypal 100 point player character, IMO.)
No, really, it is truly amazing how widely the 'average' human is
represented by various GMs and players. Points vary from 0 to over a 100.
I agree with GURPS Basic Set and say that an average human adult is 25
points. Even most ones with professional skills. This is my opinion, of
course everyone is free to use their GURPS as they wish.. From my POV,
someone who claims that 100 points is average, is suffering from the
symptoms of serious point-inflation, if not outright Hollywoodism.
My POV is that skills can and should get positive modifiers for routine
situations. Basic set also states this, although is not completely strict
about it. Example given for lockpicking gives a +10 bonus for a primitive
lock, which is IMO perfectly reasonable.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thin Lines wrote:
> Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> > Compared to the realworld spec forces soldier endurances, HT 13 is
> > perhaps slightly too high for average specops endurance. Individuals could
> > have that good HT _roll_ for running and fatigue purposes - Not
> > necessarily for taking bullets or surviving brain damage.
> >
> > HT 13, DX 12, Running 12 -person can on the average run 14800 yards in
> > 56 minutes. Then he rests for two hours and runs 14800 yards again in 56
> > minutes..
>
> > -Pauli
>
> Are you sure those numbers are correct? They sound awful slow...
>
> 14800 yards is a little under 3 miles.
I guess not. 14800 yards equals 13533 meters. One mile is 1609 meters.
From these numbers we get 13533 / 1609 = 8.4 miles.
> When I was in the army we
> *walked* 4 miles in an hour with 55-lb rucksacks...
Yeah, not surprising. Try to go even a little bit faster (+2 mph) and it
starts to get fatiguing.
> Most soldiers can keep that pace up for *at least* 12 miles. The longest
> road march I did was a 25-miler, which we finished in about 7 1/2 hours.
Aha. Well, it would seem like GURPS rules do not work particularly well
for long distance travel, at least not with 'running' - It is faster to
walk. I guess that times go up significantly if you do the same distance
cross-country.
The individual I was postulating above, could walk 6 mph on the road. (If
walking speed is 1/3 of running speed, which I suppose would be correct).
This would mean that the 25 miler would be done in 4 hours and 18 minutes
without more than 20 lbs gear. Adding 25 lbs would raise Enc by two levels
and take almost one fourth off the speed, increasing the time into five
and half hours - Still very good, I would say even exceptional..
> What does that make my HT and DX? I had always assumed they were in the
> 10-11 range. Maybe a good level with the Hiking skill?
You may well have the Fit advantage. A 5 pointer which gives +1 to HT
rolls and halves fatigue taken from excercise. Most who succeed well in
the army would have it.
We could say that your walking move while on the road march is about 1.65
yards per second. From this we could surmise that your running speed
should be about 6 (7 with the sprint bonus.). Would this be close?
Move of 6 would implicate that you have total HT and DX of 24, or more
likely just 22 of those attributes plus a running skill of 8 or so.
You are clearly above an untrained civilian average. My guess would be HT
11, DX 11.
If you were notably tired after the 25 miler, and would not have been able
to for example _effectively_ fight close combat after it, you would not
have the Fit advantage.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Douglas Kilpatrick wrote:
> Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> > +10 for a primitive lock to pick, come on.. Have you ever picked a lock?
> > It is not all that easy.
>
> I've picked the lock on some filing cabinets. With improvised tools.
> Off of default even.
>
> Did take me about 3 tries though... What's my skill?
Hard to say, as I am no expert on lockpicking myself. Propably something
like 6 or perhaps even 7. I do not know if a cabinet lock would equate
with the 'primitive lock' in Basic Set. IMO, it would give at least +4
bonus, if not +8 or so. -3 for improvised tools and you would have a
success chance of 11.
I would suppose that you could not pick an Abloy lock or equivalent?
Could you pick a door of sportscar?
> > > FWIW, I have a bigger problem with someone having 16 points in any single
> > > skill being a realistic portrayal than I do with someone having a stat 15.
> >
> > I have no problem with that, although I would call 8 year training in
> > single matter somewhat rare. Professional olympic level sports people
> > could IMO have 16 or even more points in single skill, in addition to
> > better than average attribute.
>
> IMHO, using the rules and modifiers as published and back-calculating
> skills reinforces the viewpoint that skills of 16 or so are common
> professional level skills.
>
> Your viewpoint that 16 is "Best of the Best" is not supported by the
> modifers as published. As published, I have a pistol skill of 22 or
> so. As published, I have a lockpicking skill of 10, which means I have
> an IQ of 15.
See Basic Set, pge 86, Success Rolls. Read the first texts carefully.
> IMHO, trying to renorm skill levels such that 12 is a standard skill
> level for a professional will be fustrating. More-so, it won't be the
> GURPS that most other people on the group think that they play.
Yeah. This era of Hollywood flicks has affected also GURPS. (On the
sidenote: The last Hollywood movie I ever enjoyed was the Braveheart.
After that, no movies worth their budgets.)
> (Before I get flamed, I don't have a pistol skill of 22, or an IQ of 15,
> in as much as you can convert GURPS ratings to real life.)
I do believe that GURPS can convert to real life. Of course the accuracy
can never be perfect, but GURPS simulates real life _a lot_ better than
AD&D and converts more easily.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thin Lines wrote:
> Pauli Hakala wrote:
> >
> > I could well have a chance of 12+ to bring a plane safely down if I was
> > given instructions and did not panic.
> >
> > Without any instructions I would be using a default of 5 or so, with
> > perhaps +4 for good weather conditions. If the weather was bad, I would
> > rather jump out (even without a parachute) and hope for the best.. ;)
>
> > -Pauli
>
> I think this is the main difference between your interpretation of skill
> levels and the other people on this thread. From my understanding, you
> see skill levels as representing the level of skill in a difficult
> situation, and you add positive modifiers when the conditions are ideal.
Exactly. In my opinion that is what the skill rolls are for, not for
finding your corner store or for only passing time on a gaming session.
I have players make skill rolls only when it is necessary, only when it
really makes a difference.
> I, and many others, do it the opposite way. We see skill levels as
> representing the level of skill in ideal conditions, and add negative
> modifiers when then conditions are less than ideal.
Basic Set does not see it that way (pge 86, Success Rolls), but you are of
course free to have your GURPS anyway you want it.
> In my campaigns, good weather conditions would net you a +0 bonus to
> land the plane - those are the conditions you were trained under, and
> you shouldn't get a bonus for using your skill in these circumstances.
Yes, and with my half-point in Driving(Truck) skill and a level of 9, I
would be crashing into something over 50% of the time I drove it in clear
weather conditions in a city, or had to make a sudden braking maneuver.
(Needless to say, it was not at all like this. I had zero accidents.) I
also managed to turn and back up the truck into a marked space equal to a
standard car garage.
Either I am a 100 point character or I have had phenomenal luck so far.
> What it comes down to is that your conception of a skill level 12-13
> pilot is equivalent to my conception of a skill level 15-16 pilot, it's
> just that we use different sets of modifiers. We've got to realize this
> when we discuss skill levels - what you mean and what I mean by a
> particular number are not the same thing.
Agreed.
> As far as your example above, I don't think it's very useful to add
> positive modifiers for ideal conditions; I would think it could be
> rather cumbersome. I mean, in my fantasy campaign, should I give the
> player's knight a +4 bonus for good weather conditions when he charges
> across the jousting field? (no wind, good visibility, etc... do these
> really help him hit more accurately?) I would rather him roll his
> straight skill. But if the conditions were worse (windy, rainy, dark,
> etc.), then I would assign a penalty.
My Interpretation;
Knight would not have to make a riding roll in order to have his warhorse
go straight in familiar situation.
However, I would give no 'weather bonuses' to the lance hit roll. That is
challenging, and done under some stress - There is clearly a possibility
of critical failure or success, and no inexperienced dimwit could do it
effectively. Likewise, no bonus to the shield block.
> So in my campaign, a weapon skill or riding skill of 10-12 is *not*
> going to be professional quality. A knight with lance and riding skills
> of 10-12 is probably going to miss at least half the time. Most knights
> are better trained than this. The same reasoning can be applied to more
> modern examples.
>
> The skill and attribute inflation you mentioned really isn't as big of a
> problem as you feel it is - if my intuition is correct, most of the
> people who play with these higher levels add significant penalties for
> difficult tasks, but do not add positive modifiers for easy tasks. So
> the final roll comes out to be the same as your system, just with
> different starting numbers.
But this tends to break the integrity of the system, IMO. Stats from one
GMs adventures are no longer compatible with another GMs.
Also, certain realism problems come with alltogether too high shooting
skills and such. No ordinary grunt will drop people from 1000+ yards away
without a scope on his rifle..
> I hope this alleviates some of the confusion.
Yes, I think that now both POVs are more clearly explained.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Sean Rodden wrote:
> Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Robert Kelk wrote:
> >
> > > Rolock <rol...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> >
> > But IMHO, normal run-of-the-mill cannonfodder starfleet 'professionals'
> > should never have a piloting skill of 15. Skill 15 is something what you
> > do not see today in fighter pilots, except perhaps a few aces so skilled
> > in the whole world. Yep, 32 points should correspond to 16 years of
> > training in only the Piloting skill..
> >
>
> I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at the Vehicles (1st ed) sample pilot, take a
> look at his bombing skill, 21! This is because (I'm told) any bombing run has an
> automatic -15 to skill (supposedly a seriously difficult task). GURPS sample characters
> have me confused, they're extremely high sometimes and extremely low other time (at
> least judging by the way my dice roll).
Guess how often WWII bombs hit their exact target hexes?
Almost never. Mostly it is a matter of how much you will miss and into
which direction. No, bombs are not good for taking out infantry or
vehicles without large blast radius.
I would consider bombing skill of 21 cinematic.
> > Skill 15 is the level you can use to fly amidst the skyscrapers at almost
> > mach one speed whilst dodging missiles with a modern jetfighter. Sulu
>
> Oh yeah?
Yeah. Dodge chance of 12 on the average, 15 if the fighter can get behind
a skyscraper with the dodge maneuver.
My guess would be that no more than -4 to skill roll would be necessary to
avoid collisions, without stunts.
> > had a pilot skill of perhaps a bit over 15, but then again, he is
> > clearly the most skilled pilot ever seen in the Star Trek universe..
>
> Tom Paris and Voyager fans might disagree with you there.
Voyager has been never shown here in Finland, so I know nothing about it.
> > > When I ran my GURPS Trek game, the PCs started with 200 points each
> > > since they were all first-shift bridge crew (Captain, First Officer,
> > > Chief Tactical Officer, etc.) This gives sufficient room to play with
> > > stats and skill levels, while still ensuring competent PCs. The major
> > > NPCs were 175 point characters.
> >
> > Yeah, you can get pretty close to the original Classic Trek main
> > characters with 200 points.
>
> Our group took the original Star Trek(tm) RPG rules and calculated the number of hours
> spent at the academy, figured out curricula blah blah blah and came out with 200-250
> point GURPS characters.
I do not feel that hours to points formula in GURPS is okay at all. 30
points in skills in one year is abusive, IMO.
> <RANT>
> Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that office-bound admirals etc could be
> built on 50 point. What a load of crud! If you were to build them as a character
> capable of doing the work they do now (eg, IQ 12-14, diplomacy, admin etc) then you
> MIGHT get it in under that cost. Consider for a moment however how long it took this
> particular officer to spend at least 20 years in the fleet working his/her way up from
> recruit to Ensign, Lt.(JG), Lt., yadda yadda yadda finally to admiral, how much
> experience and skills they developed, before getting shunted to a plumb sit-on-yer-bum
> billet at Starbase 1.
>
> These guys have BEEN THERE, DONE THAT! Don't call 'em REMF's because they've got more
> light years under their belt than Tom Paris has had synthohol.
Even still, they regularly fail their Strategy or especially Tactics rolls
often. (Sometimes at least once per episode they appear in..) Without
James T. Kirk to tell them what to do (or going in and also _doing_ it,
against their orders), they would not stand a chance.
> Of course these guys are mostly NPC's anyway so their point cost doesn't really matter.
I do consider NPCs important part of the game, especially those who the
player characters will be interacting with. I have never GMed a Trek game,
but I may consider doing it in the future.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> > Big snip for brevity
>
> Pauli, you need to watch fewer movies and read more books.
Exactly the same thing I might say to some of the 'high pointers'.
> You should
> also try talking to some real operators, or better yet, watch them
> operate.
I have never had the opportunity.
> I have seen Special Operators who could move so fast you
> couldn't keep track of them. I have seen stop-action photos of an SAS
> operator demonstrating a prison guard take-down where you couldn't
> really see the operator at all, just a transparent smear of motion.
That would not require DX 14, AFAIK.
> And
> by the way, there is a place at Ft. Benning called the snake pit. It is
> full of Cottonmouths Rattlesnakes and Copperheads. Rangers in the
> Ranger school go in there to catch and kill dinner, no knives, no guns,
> just their hands and feet and brains.
And heavy boots, I would surmise.
Throw your jacket on a snake and stomp its head flat, should do the trick
and not require obscene amount of attributes.. Then it is just a matter of
starting a campfire and cooking skills.
> The military and civilian worlds have a completely different idea of
> what a professional standard is.
Really?
Okay, GURPS requirements for some civilian professions may be a bit too
high.
> In the military world, you have to be
> good enough at your job that you won't get yourself, or those around you
> killed or captured.
Or you will get killed or captured, which does happen.
The getting killed part is very possible even without enemies around.
US army had 200 casualties due to friendly fire in the Gulf War, IIRC.
That is about two trucks _filled_ with dead bodies. Bodies of
professionals.
> Operating conditions in the civilian world include
> moderate 6-8 hour work days which, in Germany at least, include beer
> breaks throughout the day.
8-9 hours here in Finland. With couple of 12 minute coffee breaks and half
hour lunchbreak.
> In the military, a normal work day begins at
> 5:30 in the morning and continues until 5:00 in the afternoon, or until
> the job is done, and that is in garrison. A field training day begins
> before first light and continues until the training mission is over with
> occasional naps through the day and night to take the edge off. I used
> to sleep a grand total of perhaps twelve to fifteen hours per week
> during field exercises, maybe three or four hours a night, not at all
> during the day. I would lose as much as five pounds during a week of
> FTX, despite cramming two or three MREs into my gut every day, because
> we never stopped moving.
Yes, but the point is that you are not learning effectively every minute,
or even hour of that time. It may be a drag but it will not be all too
useful in GURPS terms.
> When you are required to perform a task in the military, you are never
> trying to perform it under perfect conditions. You are often being
> required to perform your job in the dark, in a cramped and dirty
> environment, with tight time limits, tossing decks, rain, extreme heat
> and humidity, dust blowing around, insects chewing on you, enemies
> shooting at you, etc. You don't have an unlimited supply of parts
> available to you, you are often improvising tools, and making things do
> jobs they were never intended to do. And still, you are expected to get
> the job done and get it done fast and correctly.
Yes. I know. My friend was in the combat engineering corps here in Finland
and wasted $10,000 worth of comm equipment due rough conditions and
handling overnight. He did not even get a reprimand of any kind. Taxpayers
pay.. They even made jokes about using scrambler units for target
practice, although never got carried that far..
Mostly the things military demands only require guts. They even forgive
Navy SEALS who fail to last through the hellweek and allow them to
continue the service as SEALS.
> While your average
> motor pool mechanic isn't a skill 18, he probably is a 14 to 16 within
> the range of vehicles he commonly sees, HMMWVs, 5 ton trucks, M2/3
> Bradley Vehicles, Etc. Your average submarine engine room crewman is
> probably in the same range.
I cannot know for sure how fast they can put together the engine from
parts. This could be used to see what their GURPS skill level would be.
> These guys can't afford to be "merely competent" they must be good at
> their jobs, really good at them, because peoples lives depend upon
> them.
And sometimes, people die. IFF systems fail, fuel injection systems go
boom and so on.
It takes lots of time to maintain a fighter properly, as well as many
mechanics.
> While a man may come out of training with skill levels of 12 in
> his primary skills, he will have at least 13s by the end of his first
> year of actual duty, a 14s, the year after that, and so on. The
> operational tempo and the critical nature of the job requires it.
Physical skills become increasingly harder to improve with time. I would
suppose that over 95% of troops consist of skills of 13 or less, but that
is just my opinion.
Airborne rangers have Guns Rifle skill of 13 usually, based on their
shooting range accuracies with M16.
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Gregory Deych wrote:
> O.K..forget modern pilots. Take a pilot circa WWII, without the fancy
> G-seats, instruments, landing aids etc. Can this man survive with
> skills at 12-13?
>
> Now, if the above is true, have training standards actually declined
> in the past 50 years? Before you answer, consider the training time
> involved in both cases.
I am not absolutely certain, but I would be inclined to think that WWII
pilots flew more (real flight) than todays pilots.
> >All in all, I feel that the belt-skill grading system is flawed in GURPS
> >Martial Arts. No black belt of third dan or lower can take on a tiger or
> >bear barehanded and win. (Yeah, animals are good way of reality checking
> >GURPS stats and skills..)
> >
> You have got to be kidding. Animals (given the proverbial kitten
> killing a bear X % of the time),
Really? Can a kitten kill a bear in GURPS terms?
I do not think so. Bear has toughness, and the kitten will do one damage
point at most - No damage will go through the fur.
First claw swipe of the bear will finish off the cat. (Bears can catch
fish from a stream this way. Not to mention a kitten attacking them..)
Now, if you said that a bobcat would have some marginal chance..
Also, bear could easily force the cat to experience fear. Default
intimidation skill of 15, modified favorably for greater size..
Cat would run away, fast..
> are not realistically represented in
> GURPS. Good enough for what they are used, but certainly not for the
> "Can Rambo kill 2 tigers with his bare hands." comparisons.
I have not been using Rambo for comparison. Rambo is a cinematic
character.
> Oh..and something in the snipped above:
> How usefull is the level of 6+ in Tactics? You'd be failing damn near
> every roll, which in the furball will mean your life.
Tactics skill is mostly used in contests. Enemy is not likely to have
higher skill, unless the pilot insists on taking a match with von
Richthoffen.
Average grunt without real tactics classes has a skill of 4-5.
(Movie comparison: The starship troopers had incompetency in tactics and
strategy, so they had skills closer the 1 mark. I guess we can all agree
on that ;)
> Situational
> awareness is extremely important. Even if you're god behind the
> controls, it doesn't mean jack if you can't track a bogie getting on
> your six (which is not covered by Awareness modifiers, by the way.
> It's a question of seeing vs interpretation).
Dog tailing is solved by a contest of pilot skills, unless terrain is used
to get close from outside the 'furball'. Even if the opponent gets behind,
it is possible to shake him off by sudden sharp turns and perhaps
eventually even tailing him - No tactics involved really, only piloting
skill and resisting G-forces.
Tactics is clever use of environment, terrain and to lesser degree the
equipment (mostly knowing its perceived and real limitations) in order to
get upper hand in a conflict. It is a hard skill, of which just about
nobody (including me) has got any real understanding.
-Pauli
Thin Lines
Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thin Lines wrote:
>
> > Pauli Hakala wrote:
> > > 56 minutes. Then he rests for two hours and runs 14800 yards again in 56
> > > minutes..
> >
> > > -Pauli
> >
> > Are you sure those numbers are correct? They sound awful slow...
> >
> > 14800 yards is a little under 3 miles.
>
> I guess not. 14800 yards equals 13533 meters. One mile is 1609 meters.
> From these numbers we get 13533 / 1609 = 8.4 miles.
My mistake! 14800 FEET is a little under 3 miles. (hangs his head in
shame)
> > Most soldiers can keep that pace up for *at least* 12 miles. The longest
> > road march I did was a 25-miler, which we finished in about 7 1/2 hours.
>
> Aha. Well, it would seem like GURPS rules do not work particularly well
> for long distance travel, at least not with 'running' - It is faster to
> walk. I guess that times go up significantly if you do the same distance
> cross-country.
Actually, road marches are cross-country, not on paved surfaces (we just
call them road marches anyway). The 25-miler I did was half on a gravel
road, and the other half across open fields and through light woods.
> The individual I was postulating above, could walk 6 mph on the road. (If
> walking speed is 1/3 of running speed, which I suppose would be correct).
> This would mean that the 25 miler would be done in 4 hours and 18 minutes
> without more than 20 lbs gear. Adding 25 lbs would raise Enc by two levels
> and take almost one fourth off the speed, increasing the time into five
> and half hours - Still very good, I would say even exceptional..
Yes, that would be an exceptional time, but that would agree with HT 13,
DX 12 - stats well above average.
>
> > What does that make my HT and DX? I had always assumed they were in the
> > 10-11 range. Maybe a good level with the Hiking skill?
>
> You may well have the Fit advantage. A 5 pointer which gives +1 to HT
> rolls and halves fatigue taken from excercise. Most who succeed well in
> the army would have it.
Actually, there's no way I have the Fit advantage. I have a mild form of
asthma... :)
> If you were notably tired after the 25 miler, and would not have been able
> to for example _effectively_ fight close combat after it, you would not
> have the Fit advantage.
Not so much tired as sore - blisters and bloody feet... not fun...
-T.L.(ME)
Pauli Hakala
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thin Lines wrote:
> > > Most soldiers can keep that pace up for *at least* 12 miles. The longest
> > > road march I did was a 25-miler, which we finished in about 7 1/2 hours.
> >
> > Aha. Well, it would seem like GURPS rules do not work particularly well
> > for long distance travel, at least not with 'running' - It is faster to
> > walk. I guess that times go up significantly if you do the same distance
> > cross-country.
>
> Actually, road marches are cross-country, not on paved surfaces (we just
> call them road marches anyway). The 25-miler I did was half on a gravel
> road, and the other half across open fields and through light woods.
>
> > The individual I was postulating above, could walk 6 mph on the road. (If
> > walking speed is 1/3 of running speed, which I suppose would be correct).
> > This would mean that the 25 miler would be done in 4 hours and 18 minutes
> > without more than 20 lbs gear. Adding 25 lbs would raise Enc by two levels
> > and take almost one fourth off the speed, increasing the time into five
> > and half hours - Still very good, I would say even exceptional..
>
> Yes, that would be an exceptional time, but that would agree with HT 13,
> DX 12 - stats well above average.
Yes, but even still, I would consider HT 10-11 and Fit or Very Fit
advantage better choice for representing specops soldiers in GURPS terms.
They do not survive bullet hits any better than regular soldiers. HT 13
man could take two shots into torso from 9mm parabellum pistol and still
continue to move and stay conscious for long time. I doubt that specops
routinely survive 9mm bullets.
> > > What does that make my HT and DX? I had always assumed they were in the
> > > 10-11 range. Maybe a good level with the Hiking skill?
> >
> > You may well have the Fit advantage. A 5 pointer which gives +1 to HT
> > rolls and halves fatigue taken from excercise. Most who succeed well in
> > the army would have it.
>
> Actually, there's no way I have the Fit advantage. I have a mild form of
> asthma... :)
Well, I have a bit less mild asthma. But really, it does not hinder my
walking or bicycling in the slightest, even over long distances (although
I have never walked even near 25 miles non-stop). But running over one
kilometer gets me pretty fatigued, because I cannot get enough oxygen
into the bloodstream rapidly enough.
> > If you were notably tired after the 25 miler, and would not have been able
> > to for example _effectively_ fight close combat after it, you would not
> > have the Fit advantage.
>
> Not so much tired as sore - blisters and bloody feet... not fun...
Hmm.. Basic Set would assess 30 miles as the daily travel rate for medium
encumbrance, I guess that it is about right.
But I just discovered that each hour of marching costs 3 fatigue points
with medium encumbrance. I think that this rule is broken. You would have
taken 22 points of fatigue from your march, which I prettymuch doubt. I
have never heard of an asthmatician who would have over twice the
endurance of average human.. ;) This rule is clearly outrigh, clearly,
wrong.
From your description, the three fatigue points would have been lost
perhaps during the whole days march, not during one hour of it.
-Pauli
Andrew Priestley
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> No, I have never had the fortune to fly or land a plane, but I do have
> a
> clear idea of what to do. I might succeed in it if conditions were
> excellent and someone was there to give instructions (air control).
>
> I could well have a chance of 12+ to bring a plane safely down if I
> was
> given instructions and did not panic.
>
> Without any instructions I would be using a default of 5 or so, with
> perhaps +4 for good weather conditions. If the weather was bad, I
> would
> rather jump out (even without a parachute) and hope for the best.. ;)
I would suggest that you, like most people unfortunate enough to get
into such a situation, would lose control of the aircraft and crash it
into the ground. I probably would as well, despite having watched a
small plane fly from the co-pilot's seat a number of times and having a
fairly good understanding of what needs to be done. Landing an airplane
isn't easy, that's why a lot of accidents occure during take-off and
landings.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> We no longer have places of such repute as the ancient Sparta. If half
> of
> the stories are true, they were really something on the average level,
> no
> matter to whom you compare them.. With few hundred warriors (Can't
> remember exact numbers, though), they held the pass of Thermopylai
> against
> largest army in human history ever, 1,500,000 Persian soldiers.. I
> would
> consider that 'Elite' quality, if anything.
Ancient sources are a notoriously bad source of information. The lines
between myth and reality were so thin that you could break them with the
brush of a feather. The sizes of armies in classical and even medieval
times, were relatively small compared to armies used during the 18th and
19th centuries, but their sizes were exagerated for dramatic effect.
While there may have been a few hundred Spartans holding that pass,
there were probably only a few thousand Persians, and with good ground,
discipline and some rudimentary fortifications, even a small force can
hold against vastly superior numbers, but not 1.5 million. Most likely
what happened is that the Spartan force, like most Classical Greek
warriors, prone to boasting and tale telling, told some classic war
stories about what happened in the pass, inflating the numbers to
inflate their glory. The numbers of their warriors might have even
omited the several hundred who died in the defense, and having died,
failed to do their duty and were not counted among the honored victors.
As the story was told by succeeding layers of people trying to inflate
the glory of Sparta, the numbers also increased. by the time this tale
was written down in official form, it probably had passed through the
lips of hundreds of people and bore little resemblance to what really
happened.
The battle of Agincourt is another example of this. The popular story
has it that some 60,000 or more French knights and soldiers met a force
of some 10,000 or so English, and most of them archers. By the end of
the battle, some tens of thousands of French knights were dead or
capitve and only 25 or so English had been killed including the boys in
the baggage train. These numbers are far off the mark, but that was the
popular conception of what happened. Fortunately other sources survived
to tell the real story and a more reasonable, but still astounding story
of victory is told.
The Spartans were definitely fine troops, probably better trained than
their neighbors and possessing a tremendous psychological advantage
because of their reputation for brutality (Alexander routinely
slaughtered or enslaved every man, woman and child that opposed him,
levelling villages to the ground (Thebes) and hosting mass executions of
prisoners, often doing the execution hismelf). Their culture was only
moderately civilized, lacking a lot of the refinement of other
Hellenistic cultures since they put all of their efforts into war, and
in the end, they couldn't stand against Rome.
Any source taken from the ancient world must be taken with a grain of
salt since there is no way to corroborate the evidence (if there is any)
and since the ancients had little understanding of the differences
between myth and reality. The Spartan example cited above is a bad
example.
Andrew Priestley
Thin Lines wrote:
> Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> Are you sure those numbers are correct? They sound awful slow...
>
> 14800 yards is a little under 3 miles. When I was in the army we
> *walked* 4 miles in an hour with 55-lb rucksacks...
Actually its close to 8.5 miles, but yes, when I was in the Army we
completed a 17 mile road march in just under 4 hours with 50+ pound
rucksakcs and weapons in our hands. That was a serious undertaking.
That's 28,333 yards in four hours, or 7083 yards per hour, or a 4.2 MPH
walking pace, under load, un broken ground, in the dark.
What this argument really works out to is that Pauli uses GURPS figures
to argue real-world issues, GURPS rules were written by game designers,
and like it or not, are written based on other games systems and
someone's conception of "reality." Real world experts on most of these
issues are hard to come by among game designers because real warriors
are out being warriors, real scientists are out being scientists. There
are no real magicians or psi's (that can be objectively proven at
least), and anything in the sci-fi realms is speculative to say the
least. What ends up happening because of this, is that inaccuracies
creep into the system due to the false assumptions used by the designers
in formulating their information. The idea that Pauli cites, that an
infantryman with a military rifle could intentionally hit a walking man
in the eye with his field weapon is ridiculous, not necessarily because
of the limitations of the shooter, but because of the limitations of the
weapon and sighting system; neither were built to produce that degree of
accuracy, even from an exceptional marksman. At 300 yards, the rounds
from an M16A2 rifle are randomly distributed over a 6-9 inch circle, and
that is given an absolutely rigid firing position and absolutely still
air, as well as perfectly consistent ammunition. What's more, the
M-16A2 sighting system front post four times broader, in the relative
sight picture, to the width of the target/soldier at 300 yards distance;
the sighting system is incapable of designating that person's eye.
For the purposes of reality, GURPS has some very serious problems, some
of which I am trying to correct (armor system). Some of the base
assumptions made by GURPS are wrong, although they seemed right when the
system first came out. The fact that GURPS is dramatically MORE
realistic than other games is immaterial when discussing if it is
realistic in a broader sense. Which direction GURPS errs in on any
given topic (either too conservative, or too liberal) varies from topic
to topic. Some things are unrealistically low, others are way too high
(firearms accuracy for instance).
One thing we can be certain of however, is that Pauli is operating on a
different scale than the rest of us. As another poster above points
out, Pauli operates under a different interpretation of the rules that
provides bonuses for "normal conditions" rather than penalties for bad
conditions. This is counterintuitive to say the least, and does not
reflect how things really work in the real world, but that is the way
pauli chooses to operate. I don't really have a major beef with that.
What I do have a beef with is Pauli's stubborn refusal to accept the
evidence and experience of those of us who have operated in the military
world and are students of it; who have been through actual military
training, and in some cases, elite military training, and know something
about it. Against our experienced arguments, he present GURPS rules
which is like arguing against apples using oranges as evidence.
>
Iceman
Pauli Hakala
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> > No, I have never had the fortune to fly or land a plane, but I do have
> > a
> > clear idea of what to do. I might succeed in it if conditions were
> > excellent and someone was there to give instructions (air control).
> >
> > I could well have a chance of 12+ to bring a plane safely down if I
> > was
> > given instructions and did not panic.
> >
> > Without any instructions I would be using a default of 5 or so, with
> > perhaps +4 for good weather conditions. If the weather was bad, I
> > would
> > rather jump out (even without a parachute) and hope for the best.. ;)
>
> I would suggest that you, like most people unfortunate enough to get
> into such a situation, would lose control of the aircraft and crash it
> into the ground.
Could be. Especially if it was dark, windy and raining.
Jumping out in midair would hurt 'less' than the exploding plane,
propably..
> I probably would as well, despite having watched a
> small plane fly from the co-pilot's seat a number of times and having a
> fairly good understanding of what needs to be done. Landing an airplane
> isn't easy, that's why a lot of accidents occure during take-off and
> landings.
They are not too common, however. Worldwide, about one in a million
landings results in a crash.
I would say that it depends on a plane. Landing a sailplane ought to be
rather easy. Especially with instructions.
-Pauli
Andrew Priestley
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
>
>
> > What this argument really works out to is that Pauli uses GURPS
> figures
> > to argue real-world issues, GURPS rules were written by game
> designers,
> > and like it or not, are written based on other games systems and
> > someone's conception of "reality."
>
> No, rather I try to do it the other way around, to explain GURPS terms
>
> with the real world, i.e. reality checking.
I am not certain I have ever seen an example of this; usually you seem
to provide a GURPS rule, then you project it on a real-world situation.
If you use GURPS rules as a measuring stick you are going at things a
bit bassackwards since GURPS is the construct and reality is, well,
reality.
> > Real world experts on most of these
> > issues are hard to come by among game designers because real
> warriors
> > are out being warriors, real scientists are out being scientists.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > There
> > are no real magicians or psi's (that can be objectively proven at
> > least), and anything in the sci-fi realms is speculative to say the
> > least. What ends up happening because of this, is that inaccuracies
>
> > creep into the system due to the false assumptions used by the
> designers
> > in formulating their information.
>
> Possibly. GURPS gives off an impression of being more comprehensively
> thought out than many other systems.
Whether GURPS is better thought out than another system is not an
absolute measurement of reality, it just says that GURPS is closer to
the mark on most things than other systems. However, GURPS is a
tremendously simplified game mechanic trying to reflect reality as
closely as it can without getting too complicated to play. In this
simplification lies the difficulty, since the world is a tremendously
complex place.
> > The idea that Pauli cites, that an
> > infantryman with a military rifle could intentionally hit a walking
> man
> > in the eye with his field weapon is ridiculous, not necessarily
> because
> > of the limitations of the shooter, but because of the limitations of
> the
> > weapon and sighting system; neither were built to produce that
> degree of
> > accuracy, even from an exceptional marksman. At 300 yards, the
> rounds
> > from an M16A2 rifle are randomly distributed over a 6-9 inch circle,
> and
> > that is given an absolutely rigid firing position and absolutely
> still
> > air, as well as perfectly consistent ammunition. What's more, the
> > M-16A2 sighting system front post four times broader, in the
> relative
> > sight picture, to the width of the target/soldier at 300 yards
> distance;
> > the sighting system is incapable of designating that person's eye.
>
> Yes, also agreed, this is real world. How about using a scope?
> Perhaps TL7 guns would need maximum skill values.
What firearms need is a maximum effective range stat, reflecting the
maximum distance that the weapon is designed to work at effectively.
For most pistols that is around 50 yards; for most SMGs, its about
100-150; assault rifles, about 300-400; battle rifles 400-500; sniper
rifles, 800-1200 yards. Long range sniper rifles are in the 1500-2000
yard max range. Beyond that is artillery and that's beyond my scope.
Beyond the max effective range of the weapon, the acc bonuses should
erode as the capability of the sighting system loses its ability to
designate the target and as the mechanical dispersal of rounds gets
great enough that you cannot guarantee a hit. The scope rules in
High-Tech are pretty good, I just wish I thought they matched up right
with the weapon ACC scores. I don't even want to talk about where the
range/speed tables are wrong as regards firearms.
> > For the purposes of reality, GURPS has some very serious problems,
> some
> > of which I am trying to correct (armor system).
>
> What is wrong with the armor system? Ablative armor?
The medieval armor rules are apparently based on other RPGs rather than
real-world research. I am working on fixing that right now using
primary sources, hands-on experiences, and a couple of research
libraries and museums. Modern armor rules could use some tweaks too,
but it isn't as bad.
> > Some of the base
> > assumptions made by GURPS are wrong, although they seemed right when
> the
> > system first came out. The fact that GURPS is dramatically MORE
> > realistic than other games is immaterial when discussing if it is
> > realistic in a broader sense.
>
> Of course.
>
> > Which direction GURPS errs in on any
> > given topic (either too conservative, or too liberal) varies from
> topic
> > to topic. Some things are unrealistically low, others are way too
> high
> > (firearms accuracy for instance).
>
> This depends also largely on the scale of skill levels one uses as
> real
> world equivalencies.
More on how you interpret the rules as they stand, in my opinion.
> > One thing we can be certain of however, is that Pauli is operating
> on a
> > different scale than the rest of us.
>
> Some of 'you', not all. Apparently the one who wrote the mass combat
> system agrees with me on the skill levels issue.
I am not all that familiar with the mass combat rules, but, like all
mass combat rules, they are a dramatic simplification of a very complex
thing in which there are a multitude of battles taking place in the
context of a larger battle. You have two armies fighting each other,
but each army is made up of several components (infantry, armor,
artillery, cavalry, etc. each of these units fights its own battles and
many of these are broken into even smaller units who are fighting their
own private versions of the battle, and when it really gets down to it,
each tank, each soldier is fighting his or her own private battle. the
mass combat rules try to synthesize this down into a couple of dice
rolls so it doesn;t take all month to fight the battle of Waterloo,
which came damn near being won and lost at least six or seven times due
to the actions of a few subcommanders. The mass comabt system is, in my
opinion, a very poor measure of reality, precisely because of that
simplification. I will have to take a closer look at them though when I
get a chance.
> > As another poster above points
> > out, Pauli operates under a different interpretation of the rules
> that
> > provides bonuses for "normal conditions" rather than penalties for
> bad
> > conditions.
>
> I also do use penalties, and give no bonuses if there is some
> challenge
> involved.
>
Actually, you do give bonuses for "challenging" situations by casing
your skill rolls on a non-normal conditions use. If your players only
have to roll against their skill in an emergency or in a difficult
situation, then they are receiving a defacto bonus to skill. At least as
far as the book rules are concerned and as far as most of us seem to
interpret those rules.
> Difference is that I use bonuses, whereas some others do not.
We all use bonuses when something is simple; like vaulting a low rail on
a sunny day, or shooting an unmoving target in still air, or changing a
tire, but for normal uses of a skill, you roll against your normal
skill.
> > This is counterintuitive to say the least, and does not
> > reflect how things really work in the real world, but that is the
> way
> > pauli chooses to operate. I don't really have a major beef with
> that.
>
> How do things operate in real world then, in this context?
>
> Why should skill levels represent the easiest possible application of
> the
> skill?
They represent a baseline measure of competence in something. In the
real world, when you are graded in performance it is under "normal"
conditions. You don't go for a driver's test in the middle of an ice
storm, and no instructor would allow a student to take a pilot's license
flight exam on a stormy day. Military shooting instructors don't tend
to test marksmanship in the rain or in high wind, because it skews the
results. So you test under normal conditions so you can test a student
against baseline conditions; if you do anything else, you don't provide
a consistent standard that is applied universally. Sometime this gets
hard to do well. Ski-course conditions change as successive skiers make
their way down the mountain, but on the other hand, the judges try to
take as much of that out of the mix as they can by attempting to select
days where conditions are likely to be more stable and less subject to
this. This is how things work in the real world; the competence of
people is tested against a "normal" and therefore predictable standard.
That is why I say that it is counterintuitive to base a score against an
exceptional condition.
The rules: basic book, 3rd edition, chapter 12, pg. 86. 1st paragraph
say:
"When your character attempts to use a skill, perform an action, attack
a foe, etc., 3 dice are rolled to determine whether you succeed. This
is a success roll."
Now it goes on to say that often modifiers will be applied to the basic
skill to arrive at the target number, both positive and negative. It
also goves some examples. In the example cited there, and which Pauli
cites above. There is a "very primitive lock" for which the lockpicker
is given a +10 bonus to open. I suspect this is something on the order
of a latch as much as a lock, or some other single tumbler device. But
the example itself proves nothing since it doesn't reflect the TL
difference between the locks the lockpick was trained to open and the
lock itself. All of this is immaterial, because if you don't use a
"normal" baseline for determining skill level, then how can you really
know how good someone is at it? How bad are the bad conditions that you
use to determine when to make a roll, how good are the good conditions
that don't require a roll? It is more workable to say every time you
use a skill, you roll and the GM determines how many mods to put against
it, but on a narmal day you will need this to succeed. It is simple and
universal, and much less subject to GM whim, though everything is
ultimately subject to GM whim.
> > What I do have a beef with is Pauli's stubborn refusal to accept the
>
> > evidence and experience of those of us who have operated in the
> military
> > world and are students of it; who have been through actual military
> > training, and in some cases, elite military training, and know
> something
> > about it. Against our experienced arguments, he present GURPS rules
>
> > which is like arguing against apples using oranges as evidence.
>
> I have not seen too many numbers, yet. Impressions like 'highly
> trained'
> or 'Elite' seem to give rather different skill values from different
> people.
What numbers are there? The real world is not measured on the GURPS
scale and the GURPS scale, in some cases has some problems. The numbers
that the real world is measured in are not the same as are used in the
game mechanics of GURPS either. Comparing the real world to GURPS is a
very inexact art, nowhere near a science; and at some point, you have
got to step back and be willing to accept the judgement of the majority,
based both on the rules and worldbooks, and on the experiences of other
players and GMs, both in the real world, and in comparing the real world
to the rules.
> Also, different people seem to have different ideas about GURPS
> attributes
> and their equivalencies with the real world.
>
> -Pauli
I can at least solve this one by quoting the rules:
The attribute scale in GURPS is spread across a scale of 18 levels
reflecting everything from a child at the lowest levels to an adult at
the peak of his or her powers. According to the GURPS rules, Basic Set
, 3rd edition, Chapter 1, page 13:
"The scores below range from 1-20. 1 is the lowest score permitted for
a human.
There is NO upper limit to any score - however, very high scores are
impossible for
beginning characters. For each attribute, a score of 10 represents the
human average;
anything from 8-12 is considered "normal." Scores above 16 are
definitely unusual;
scores above 20 are superhuman!"
This does not say that 90 percent of people are attribute level 10. it
says that is the
human average, meaning that approximately 50 percent of the population
will have
scores above that and 50% will have scores below that, with the vast
majority of them
clustered around the middle range of 8-12, and very few in the <4 or >16
ranges. This
is a far shot from the interpretation you use which states that 11 is a
better than normal
person and a 12 is truly exceptional. These scores are perfectly normal
among the
population of humans, not exceptional at all and perfectly attainable
with a modicum of
exercise and training as well as a smidge of genetics. Higher scores in
the 13-16 range are exceptional, but not impossible or even improbable,
and scores over that are at the highest levesl of human achievement.
This reflects reality rather nicely
actually since all men are not created equal, some are stronger and
faster, some are
significantly smarter, and there are some who are exceptional in all
ways.
I don't agree with some of the basic assumptions Pauli makes in his
rules interpretations, and I don't agree with some of the rules that he
is using for standards, because they conflict with my personal
experiences. He is perfectly entitled to hold those opinions though,
even if I, and apparently a lot of other people on this NG believe he is
wrong, and as long as his players don't complain, it's not a big deal.
I do wish to publicly apologize to Pauli if I occasionally got a little
hot under the keyboard here, and I suspect some of my comments edged a
bit too close to insults for good netiquette. I was a soldier and I
have a lot of friends who are or were soldiers, some of whom were SF,
Rangers, Recon Marines and SEALs; I have even made the pleasant
acquaintance of one gentleman who served in the Royal Marine Commandos
Arctic and Mountain Cadre in the Falklands War. I respect these men a
great deal, and value their contributions to their country(ies) and am a
little in awe of their capabilities. They do a miserably difficult,
dangerous and thankless job that requires more dedication and commitment
than most people can even dream about, and most of the time, they can't
tell anyone much about it other than the most basic explanations. There
is nothing run of the mill about these people, even though, off duty,
they pretty much act like everyone else, so when I perceive them being
slighted in an estimation of their skills and capabilities, I get a
little concerned that people aren't properly appreciating what they do
and get a little insulted for their sake. Now they don't need my
support, they are more than proof against the opinions of others, but I
still feel obligated to try to set the record straight.
Iceman (aka Andrew Priestley)
Thin Lines
Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thin Lines wrote:
> > I think this is the main difference between your interpretation of skill
> > levels and the other people on this thread. From my understanding, you
> > see skill levels as representing the level of skill in a difficult
> > situation, and you add positive modifiers when the conditions are ideal.
>
> Exactly. In my opinion that is what the skill rolls are for, not for
> finding your corner store or for only passing time on a gaming session.
>
> I have players make skill rolls only when it is necessary, only when it
> really makes a difference.
I feel the same way. This is why I don't give positive modifiers for
easy tasks. If the task is easy, I don't even require a roll.
> > I, and many others, do it the opposite way. We see skill levels as
> > representing the level of skill in ideal conditions, and add negative
> > modifiers when then conditions are less than ideal.
>
> Basic Set does not see it that way (pge 86, Success Rolls), but you are of
> course free to have your GURPS anyway you want it.
Actually, "official" GURPS falls somewhere in the middle of our two
interpretations. Basic Set pg. 45: "These figures give the probability
of succeeding on the first try at a task of *average* difficulty --
whatever that is."
According to the skill charts on that page, it describes a skill of 12
as "rather skilled", a 14 as "well-trained", and a 16 as "expert." You
mentioned previously that you thought Star Trek helmsmen and modern
fighter pilots would only have skills around 12 in piloting. Why do you
think they are not "well-trained" for their jobs?
Also on the same page, is a table for describing weapon skill levels. A
weapon skill of 12 is "novice; the average man after a little study, or
a talented beginner." So according to "official" GURPS, a weapon skill
of 12 is not a professional quality soldier. The table describes a 15 as
"veteran; a good, experienced fighter," and one doesn't reach mastery
until level 20.
These numbers tell me that skills in the 12-13 range are rather low for
someone who is trained in that task and uses it regularly as part of
their profession.
> > In my campaigns, good weather conditions would net you a +0 bonus to
> > land the plane - those are the conditions you were trained under, and
> > you shouldn't get a bonus for using your skill in these circumstances.
>
> Yes, and with my half-point in Driving(Truck) skill and a level of 9, I
> would be crashing into something over 50% of the time I drove it in clear
> weather conditions in a city, or had to make a sudden braking maneuver.
> (Needless to say, it was not at all like this. I had zero accidents.) I
> also managed to turn and back up the truck into a marked space equal to a
> standard car garage.
No, you wouldn't be crashing in my campaign for two reasons. One, I
would probably give you more than 1/2 point in the skill if it was one
you used professionally, and for a long time (which it sounds like you
did). Also, for trivial tasks, I wouldn't require a roll at all.
> Either I am a 100 point character or I have had phenomenal luck so far.
Yes, I would probably give you more points in skills than you would.
> > The skill and attribute inflation you mentioned really isn't as big of a
> > problem as you feel it is - if my intuition is correct, most of the
> > people who play with these higher levels add significant penalties for
> > difficult tasks, but do not add positive modifiers for easy tasks. So
> > the final roll comes out to be the same as your system, just with
> > different starting numbers.
>
> But this tends to break the integrity of the system, IMO. Stats from one
> GMs adventures are no longer compatible with another GMs.
This is always going to be the case. Different GMs have different
styles. Cinematic characters have no place in a realistic campaign,
magic characters have no place in a modern campaign, etc. When adapting
from one source to another, take a look at the character first and see
what modifications need to be made to fit it in. If you were to use one
of my characters in your campaign, simply take off 2 to 3 levels in
skills. The conversion is trivial.
> Also, certain realism problems come with alltogether too high shooting
> skills and such. No ordinary grunt will drop people from 1000+ yards away
> without a scope on his rifle..
I wouldn't know about this - I only GM GURPS in a fantasy setting. I
don't use any of the modern or high-tech rules. In a medieval setting,
my skill levels work.
> > I hope this alleviates some of the confusion.
>
> Yes, I think that now both POVs are more clearly explained.
>
> -Pauli
-T.L.(ME)
Andrew Priestley
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thin Lines wrote:
>
On the other hand, what it might reflect is that the average soldier is
a hell of a lot tougher than you are maintaining in your arguments. You
see, that cuts both ways.
In my hiking career so far, I have covered about 3000 miles or so
between multiple hikes over the past three years. Most of those miles
being walked in my 2000 mile Appalachian Trail thru-hike in 1995. From
what I have observed, the average person can walk about 8-10 miles a day
carrying a normal backpacking load of 45-60 pounds over rough trail. A
thru-hiker (defined as a person who hikes the entire Appalachian Trail
in one continuous trip of between 4 and 6 months duration) can hike
almost twice that distance in a day and do that day in and day out.with
roughly weekly rests in towns, or short days on the trail to recover.
My longest individual day on the AT under a full load was about 27
miles. I know people who did as much as 50 miles in a 24 hour period,
but they ended up sleeping for about 2 days after that.
Now the normal thru-hiker does not start out at this performance level,
most of us started out with little hiking experience at all and in
relatively poor condition. We generally covered around 8-10 miles per
day for the first few weeks and gradually worked up to 15-17 miles after
about 6 weeks or so. On average, following about 6-10 weeks of breaking
in and allowing the body to adjust its red blood cell count, lung
capacity and bone density to the heavier load, a thru-hiker who is
moving steady and not taking too much time to stop and smell the roses,
will cover about 100 to 120 miles a week or even a bit more. Most of us
covered around 100, and took a few easy days per week. About 3000
people attempt a thru-hike every year, ranging in ages from around 17 to
72, and of those, roughly 10-15 percent succeed.
Most, normal people who are occaisional hikers can cover about 1 MPH
sustained hiking speed in the mountain terrain with a moderate 45-60
pound load, that is the speed I and most other thru-hikers began our
hikes in Georgia at. By the time the average successful thru-hiker
reaches Maine, he or she is capable of marching about the same pace
regardless of the trail grade, roughness, or weather, we skip over rocks
and stumps and fallen logs like they aren't even there. I averaged
about 3MPH and passed the average, non-thru-hiker like they were
standing still. This is a three-fold increase in performance in just
4-6 months, which in GURPS terms would require massive point
expenditures in either stats (DX and HT), or skills (Hiking P(HT)/A).
And since it obviously takes a whole year of 8 hour per day study to
earn a two CP increase in any given skill, then this really is
impossible to do. Therefore, I must not have been able to improve
myself that much in that timeframe, and in fact, I could not have
finished the Appalachian Trail at all starting from a physical condition
and hiking skill level that only allowed me to travel 1 MPH and about
8-10 miles per day. But I did improve that much, and I did hike the
2160 miles of that trail, plus hundreds of miles of side trails into and
out of towns, to water sources, scenic overlooks etc. And I did it in
six months, even with a week off to heal an infection in my foot and the
equivalent of several more weeks off in days taken off in towns along
the way. In that six months, I probably only hiked 4.5 to 5 months of
actual hiking days with the balance spent in sightseeing and errands in
towns. Gurps rules, however, would not allow that scale of performance
improvement.
By the way, the premise that a normal person could walk 30 miles in a
day, every day and still be walking at the end of a week is ridiculous,
unless you lived in a walking society.
Iceman
John L. Freiler
Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi> wrote:
> Really? Can a kitten kill a bear in GURPS terms?
Kitten allout attacks for +2 damage to the eye, or head. Bear fails
defence and health rolls and falls unconcious, where upon the kitten
continues allouting for +2 dam to the eye untill she has klimbed into the
grizzlys brain cavity and killed it. Immprobable? you betcha, but not
impossible in GURPS Terms.
Focousing on some of the areas where GURPS has troubles and forcing the
rest of the system to keep to that level seems to be where you
interpretation of GURPS diverges from amny other folks's. For Example:
You see the default system gives too much advatage for High Stats: Most
people choose to limit what can be done with only default skill levels
while you choose to limit stat level. Same thing with sense rolls.
John
John L. Freiler
Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi> wrote:
> I have not meant to offend anyone. I thought it would be clear that these
> are only my opinions, based on the arguments I have given and sometimes
> on GURPS rules.
Well, then let me appologize now for the somewhat snippy tone of my
previous post. I've been misreading your meaning.
> I feel like that a GURPS Real World would need publishing. Something which
> would clear any misunderstandings between attributes, skills and real
> world equivalencies. It would not be too easy to do, though.
Yes, but given the rather great disparity between viewpoints, I find itr
hard to belive that SJG could pull off such a feat with out alienating a
significant portion of thier following.
> Even so, I would think that no ace of todays world could duplicate the
> stunts pulled off in ID4 canyon chase.
Well, naturally: ID4 was Cinema, The stunts pulled off were Cinematic. I
mean really; who could buy the bad guy's mothership being taken out by a
terran computer virus? It's all about suspension of disbelief.
As for the Star Trek skill requrements, I find it silly that the
requirements for a navigator are given in tems of DX and not a flat level:
"No Mr. Sulu, While I know you have a skill of 17, that's only two points
over your DX. We'll have to give the helm over to Ensign Snod. He has a
skill 12 which is six whole points over his DX. He's clearly more
qualified." No, the only thing I could see is that you want, say a minimum
skill of 15 rather than DX+5, then let the PCs get that skill however they
want.
John
Pauli Hakala
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Thin Lines wrote:
>
> > Pauli Hakala wrote:
> >
> > Are you sure those numbers are correct? They sound awful slow...
> >
> > 14800 yards is a little under 3 miles. When I was in the army we
> > *walked* 4 miles in an hour with 55-lb rucksacks...
>
> Actually its close to 8.5 miles, but yes, when I was in the Army we
> completed a 17 mile road march in just under 4 hours with 50+ pound
> rucksakcs and weapons in our hands. That was a serious undertaking.
> That's 28,333 yards in four hours, or 7083 yards per hour, or a 4.2 MPH
> walking pace, under load, un broken ground, in the dark.
>
> What this argument really works out to is that Pauli uses GURPS figures
> to argue real-world issues, GURPS rules were written by game designers,
> and like it or not, are written based on other games systems and
> someone's conception of "reality."
No, rather I try to do it the other way around, to explain GURPS terms
with the real world, i.e. reality checking.
> Real world experts on most of these
> issues are hard to come by among game designers because real warriors
> are out being warriors, real scientists are out being scientists.
Agreed.
> There
> are no real magicians or psi's (that can be objectively proven at
> least), and anything in the sci-fi realms is speculative to say the
> least. What ends up happening because of this, is that inaccuracies
> creep into the system due to the false assumptions used by the designers
> in formulating their information.
Possibly. GURPS gives off an impression of being more comprehensively
thought out than many other systems.
> The idea that Pauli cites, that an
> infantryman with a military rifle could intentionally hit a walking man
> in the eye with his field weapon is ridiculous, not necessarily because
> of the limitations of the shooter, but because of the limitations of the
> weapon and sighting system; neither were built to produce that degree of
> accuracy, even from an exceptional marksman. At 300 yards, the rounds
> from an M16A2 rifle are randomly distributed over a 6-9 inch circle, and
> that is given an absolutely rigid firing position and absolutely still
> air, as well as perfectly consistent ammunition. What's more, the
> M-16A2 sighting system front post four times broader, in the relative
> sight picture, to the width of the target/soldier at 300 yards distance;
> the sighting system is incapable of designating that person's eye.
Yes, also agreed, this is real world. How about using a scope?
Perhaps TL7 guns would need maximum skill values.
> For the purposes of reality, GURPS has some very serious problems, some
> of which I am trying to correct (armor system).
What is wrong with the armor system? Ablative armor?
> Some of the base
> assumptions made by GURPS are wrong, although they seemed right when the
> system first came out. The fact that GURPS is dramatically MORE
> realistic than other games is immaterial when discussing if it is
> realistic in a broader sense.
Of course.
> Which direction GURPS errs in on any
> given topic (either too conservative, or too liberal) varies from topic
> to topic. Some things are unrealistically low, others are way too high
> (firearms accuracy for instance).
This depends also largely on the scale of skill levels one uses as real
world equivalencies.
> One thing we can be certain of however, is that Pauli is operating on a
> different scale than the rest of us.
Some of 'you', not all. Apparently the one who wrote the mass combat
system agrees with me on the skill levels issue.
> As another poster above points
> out, Pauli operates under a different interpretation of the rules that
> provides bonuses for "normal conditions" rather than penalties for bad
> conditions.
I also do use penalties, and give no bonuses if there is some challenge
involved.
Difference is that I use bonuses, whereas some others do not.
> This is counterintuitive to say the least, and does not
> reflect how things really work in the real world, but that is the way
> pauli chooses to operate. I don't really have a major beef with that.
How do things operate in real world then, in this context?
Why should skill levels represent the easiest possible application of the
skill?
> What I do have a beef with is Pauli's stubborn refusal to accept the
> evidence and experience of those of us who have operated in the military
> world and are students of it; who have been through actual military
> training, and in some cases, elite military training, and know something
> about it. Against our experienced arguments, he present GURPS rules
> which is like arguing against apples using oranges as evidence.
I have not seen too many numbers, yet. Impressions like 'highly trained'
or 'Elite' seem to give rather different skill values from different
people.
Also, different people seem to have different ideas about GURPS attributes
Þorkell Sigvaldason
Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.980227112232.24369C-100000@rhea-atm>...
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Sean O'Flaherty wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980226221101.13064A-100000@rhea-atm>, Pauli
>
> We no longer have places of such repute as the ancient Sparta. If half of
> the stories are true, they were really something on the average level, no
> matter to whom you compare them.. With few hundred warriors (Can't
> remember exact numbers, though), they held the pass of Thermopylai
against
> largest army in human history ever, 1,500,000 Persian soldiers.. I would
> consider that 'Elite' quality, if anything.
>
victorious so to make their achievement greater the ancient writers tended
to exaggerate the number of the opposition. I, personally would very much
doubt there were 1,500,000 Persian soldiers at Thermopylae.
--
Thorkell Sigvaldason
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are
headed.
Pee Kitty
John L. Freiler (temp...@io.com) spewed forth:
> Pauli Hakala <fear...@otol.fi> wrote:
>
> > Really? Can a kitten kill a bear in GURPS terms?
>
> Kitten allout attacks for +2 damage to the eye, or head. Bear fails
> defence and health rolls and falls unconcious, where upon the kitten
> continues allouting for +2 dam to the eye untill she has klimbed into the
> grizzlys brain cavity and killed it. Immprobable? you betcha, but not
> impossible in GURPS Terms.
(A) Animals attack in close combat, and you can't all out attack in close
combat. (B) A little kitten would do 1d-5 damage (a full-sized adult cat
does 1d-4). (C) A kitten wouldn't attack for the eye unless intellectually
enhanced or mind-controlled...it's not an instinct in cats and would
require an IQ roll at the very least. (D) A bear has DR 1.
So the bear would have to be lying down, the kitten would have to be
acting completely insane, roll hit location of the eye randomly, and
then, after all that, roll a 6 to do 1 point of damage... or hit the head
and roll a 5 or 6 to do 0 or 1 points of damage and have a teeny chance of
knocking the bear out.
It's about as likely to happen in GURPS as it is to happen in real life,
so I can live with that...no prob.
--
Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian
Meow!
And finally, a special message to \|/ ____ \|/
anyone who thinks I give a damn... ~@-/ oO \-@~
/_( \__/ )_\
\__U_/
Paul Reitsma
> > > But IMHO, normal run-of-the-mill cannonfodder starfleet
> > > 'professionals' should never have a piloting skill of 15.
> > > Skill 15 is something what you do not see today in fighter pilots,
> > > except perhaps a few aces so skilled in the whole world. Yep, 32
> > > points should correspond to 16 years of training in only the Piloting skill..
I'm surprised nobody seems to have mentioned attempts by the authors to
peg skill levels.
Basic Set p. 45 gives a real-world comparison to skill levels, using
weapon skills as an example.
Skill 12 is a _novice_: an _average_ man after a _little_ study.
Skill 15 is experienced (not even expert level).
Above that is a general listing, with 14 as "Well-trained" and 16+ as
"Expert".
It seems pretty clear that all military pilots are at _least_
"Well-trained" (better training is hard to find), making one suspect
that even those who _haven't_ seen combat would have a 14+ skill.
One would merely have to be considered an expert pilot to qualify for
16+ skill; compared to most civilians, I'd suspect military pilots with
a little experience would be experts with their machines.
Certainly, suggesting only a few people in the world having Pilot 15 is
being rather conservative.
> Yes. Definition of 'well trained' is what we cannot agree on here. I say
> that anyone who can do it for living, is well-trained.
According to, well, Steve Jackson, that'd be 14+.
> > > Skill 15 is the level you can use to fly amidst the skyscrapers at
> > > almost mach one speed whilst dodging missiles with a modern jetfighter.
Actually, strictly by the rules, that'd be a skill check at around -8.
Mach 1 ~ 750 mph
To dodge, must make 2 Drifts or a 15 degree turn = 0.0125*720 = 9
G's
TL7 VTOL fighter is listed as aMR 7, meaning can do 7 G's of
maneuvers w/o penalty.
9-7=2 => 2/0.25=8 points of penalties to required roll. (p. 147
V2ed)
Also, flying between close objects is a Stunt, requiring a roll if the
skyscrapers are within 45 yards of each other (size +8 vs size +4 winged
craft, p. 158 V2ed)
If you'd do that with a 15 skill, you must have much better luck with
dice than I do...
> > Again, there has been a misinterpretation of the rules made here. The
> > unmodified skill level refers to the chances of succeeding at a normal
> > maneuver, in this case, a maneuver made under normal flying conditions
> > (open sky, no obstructions, normal cruising speed, no stress or
> > opponents firing at your, etc.)
>
> Even so, pilots with military background die at air shows, crashing into
> the ground. (Either a critfail, poor plane or poor skill.)
Probably a couple critfails together. Still, those _aren't_ normal
conditions. Accidents usually happen with something like a low-altitude
B-52 doing a vertical loop, not when the planes are just flying
normally. In GURPS, that'd be a Stunt roll with minuses (for exceeding
the plane's maneuverability and perhaps for dangerously low altitude).
> > This skill would be heavily modified for
> > speed, obstructions, and active opposition. A skill of 15 would get a
> > pilot killed quickly in a dog-fight, probably the first missile would
> > take him out.
>
> Not so. Pilots dodge would equal skill/4 plus one for combat reflexes,
> plus MR.
<plink> Plus MR???
Aerial Dodge = skill/3 + PD + Combat Reflexes (p. 178, V2ed).
Even in the example on that page, the pilot with 19 skill and Combat
Reflexes in an F-16 only has a 10 Dodge score...
> For a common fighter, like F/A-18 this would translate as dodge of 3.75
> for skill, plus one for combat reflexes and plus eight for the MR.
>
> Total Dodge score of 12.75 (With -4 to piloting roll, this could be risen
> into 13 by pulling a 8.25G maneuver.)
I'd be way curious as to where this is coming from...
> Low ST (Small size is common. Size is ST often), high HT or more likely
> only the Acceleration Tolerance advantage, above average DX is not all
> that important, but common. (I am talking about DX 11-12 here. Ever heard
> of a flyboy who could beat a rattler in reaction speed?)
Dex need not equal reaction speed. The examples given are things like
"graceful", "athlete", or "gymnast".
As a check on what the rules were _meant_ to mean, Compendium I lists
more conservative analogies for stat levels than the Basic book, with
things like "St 15: Football tackle", "Ht 14: Athlete", "Dex 12:
Agile", or "IQ 15: Genius". It might be enlightening to note that in
reality, "genius" is defined as an IQ in the top 2% (IIRC).
> > personal discipline and motivation. Officer material in any any
> > service, but specifically suited to be pilots by personality and the
>
> It does not take very exceptional personality to rain bombs on
> civilians, OTOH. It is quite commonly accepted practice among pilots.
Which has, one wonders, what to do with anything?
Besides, maybe this shows points in Strong Will that they can force
themselves to do it...
> > Their
> > bodies also will have weakened and slowed (reducing their point levels),
> > but they still know how to do the job.
>
> Lets put the average gray haired admiral against the 2 years on the front
> lines veteran, and see which one wins hands down in close combat, shooting
> and running.
You might just as well say "let's put the Nobel-winning scientist
against the military veteran and see which one's better at military
things." The grey-haired admiral is no longer a young man or an active
combatant, but doubtless has high skills in his field (Politics,
Strategy, Admin, etc.).
> > skills to replace what was lost, skills in diplomacy, strategy,
> > administration; they have multiple and powerful contacts that help them
> > get things done, they have enormous reputations, status and rank, boxes
>
> Never heard of them. Guess the rep is military only.
Sure, -1/2 to cost "only in the military"... ;)
> It does not take lots of points to command people. To fly a fighter
> against four opposing equal ones and win takes lots of points.
Sure it doesn't take many points to command people. Neither does it
take many points to fly a jet.
To do either _well_, however...
Points are meant to represent skill and ability. If someone has skill
in something, no matter how trivial (like Checkers at IQ+8), it still
counts. Considering only combat-relevant abilities is overly
restrictive.
> > jobs. To base them on a "normal" person template is to ignore certain
> > facts.
>
> Yes, I agree. Specops training requires HT roll of 12, Fighter pilots need
> Acceleration Tolerance and divers require swimming skill 12+.
Skill 12 just isn't enough to represent a competent person. Divers (as
in the sport), for example, pull off complicated dives almost every
single time they try, and there's a lot of these people around. 12 or
even 14 skill isn't enough for a competent diver, because that'd fail
too often.
<shrug> From what's in the rules, it seems pros have skills of 15+.
Begin a pro means you don't fail very often.
-P
Pauli Hakala
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Thin Lines wrote:
> Actually, "official" GURPS falls somewhere in the middle of our two
> interpretations. Basic Set pg. 45: "These figures give the probability
> of succeeding on the first try at a task of *average* difficulty --
> whatever that is."
Yep, it is here that our opinions differ. We understand the *average*
difficulty task differently. IMO the average difficulty has to involve
some actual challenge.
> According to the skill charts on that page, it describes a skill of 12
> as "rather skilled", a 14 as "well-trained", and a 16 as "expert." You
> mentioned previously that you thought Star Trek helmsmen and modern
> fighter pilots would only have skills around 12 in piloting. Why do you
> think they are not "well-trained" for their jobs?
This works well for mental skills, not too well for physical ones. Mental
skills are a lot easier to learn than physical ones.
> Also on the same page, is a table for describing weapon skill levels. A
> weapon skill of 12 is "novice; the average man after a little study, or
> a talented beginner." So according to "official" GURPS, a weapon skill
> of 12 is not a professional quality soldier. The table describes a 15 as
> "veteran; a good, experienced fighter," and one doesn't reach mastery
> until level 20.
>
> These numbers tell me that skills in the 12-13 range are rather low for
> someone who is trained in that task and uses it regularly as part of
> their profession.
Still, those levels in Guns skill really give the same accuracies which
real world professional soldiers have (Airborne Rangers, skill 13). For
realism, you either use the 'low' skills or make shooting harder by
changing the rules.
> > Yes, and with my half-point in Driving(Truck) skill and a level of 9, I
> > would be crashing into something over 50% of the time I drove it in clear
> > weather conditions in a city, or had to make a sudden braking maneuver.
> > (Needless to say, it was not at all like this. I had zero accidents.) I
> > also managed to turn and back up the truck into a marked space equal to a
> > standard car garage.
>
> No, you wouldn't be crashing in my campaign for two reasons. One, I
> would probably give you more than 1/2 point in the skill if it was one
> you used professionally, and for a long time (which it sounds like you
> did). Also, for trivial tasks, I wouldn't require a roll at all.
No. I have about a total of 50 or so hours on the subject, of which about
20-30 were actual driving. I only drove the truck driving license,
alongside with car and motorcycle licenses. Not even single
close-to-accident situation with 40 or so total driving hours in
different vehicles.
After that, driving a car, I have only once gotten into a minor accident
during four years of driving car a few trips a week, which actually was
not skill-related. (Sun coming suddenly from behind a building can blind
anyone for a few seconds)
> > Either I am a 100 point character or I have had phenomenal luck so far.
>
> Yes, I would probably give you more points in skills than you would.
Intensive training? (Frankly, nothing in the driving school was
'intensive'. Teacher used to tell good jokes, btw.)
> > But this tends to break the integrity of the system, IMO. Stats from one
> > GMs adventures are no longer compatible with another GMs.
>
> This is always going to be the case. Different GMs have different
> styles. Cinematic characters have no place in a realistic campaign,
> magic characters have no place in a modern campaign, etc. When adapting
> from one source to another, take a look at the character first and see
> what modifications need to be made to fit it in. If you were to use one
> of my characters in your campaign, simply take off 2 to 3 levels in
> skills. The conversion is trivial.
Yes. With attributes, I just drop everything into 7-13 range.
> > Also, certain realism problems come with alltogether too high shooting
> > skills and such. No ordinary grunt will drop people from 1000+ yards away
> > without a scope on his rifle..
>
> I wouldn't know about this - I only GM GURPS in a fantasy setting. I
> don't use any of the modern or high-tech rules. In a medieval setting,
> my skill levels work.
Yes, definitely. But I warn you that letting point totals go beyond 500
points can wreck a fantasy campaign - Been there, done that.. ;)
-Pauli
Pauli Hakala
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
> I am not certain I have ever seen an example of this; usually you seem
> to provide a GURPS rule, then you project it on a real-world situation.
> If you use GURPS rules as a measuring stick you are going at things a
> bit bassackwards since GURPS is the construct and reality is, well,
> reality.
I try to compare GURPS rules to reality. Order in which the arguments are
made is not significant, IMO.
> Whether GURPS is better thought out than another system is not an
> absolute measurement of reality, it just says that GURPS is closer to
> the mark on most things than other systems. However, GURPS is a
> tremendously simplified game mechanic trying to reflect reality as
> closely as it can without getting too complicated to play. In this
> simplification lies the difficulty, since the world is a tremendously
> complex place.
Agreed.
> What firearms need is a maximum effective range stat, reflecting the
> maximum distance that the weapon is designed to work at effectively.
> For most pistols that is around 50 yards; for most SMGs, its about
> 100-150; assault rifles, about 300-400; battle rifles 400-500; sniper
> rifles, 800-1200 yards. Long range sniper rifles are in the 1500-2000
> yard max range. Beyond that is artillery and that's beyond my scope.
Artillery is not very accurate, at least not with indirect fire. (-10 hit
in GURPS terms should take care of this quite nicely with the deviation
rules.)
> Beyond the max effective range of the weapon, the acc bonuses should
> erode as the capability of the sighting system loses its ability to
> designate the target and as the mechanical dispersal of rounds gets
> great enough that you cannot guarantee a hit. The scope rules in
> High-Tech are pretty good, I just wish I thought they matched up right
> with the weapon ACC scores. I don't even want to talk about where the
> range/speed tables are wrong as regards firearms.
Then we will just have to live with it and use the tables as they are.
> The medieval armor rules are apparently based on other RPGs rather than
> real-world research. I am working on fixing that right now using
> primary sources, hands-on experiences, and a couple of research
> libraries and museums. Modern armor rules could use some tweaks too,
> but it isn't as bad.
I would be interested if you get anything done. I use a system which gives
weight values for different types of armor per DR point per square feet of
surface.
System would be easy to change if you find out, that, for example an iron
plate armor weighs 30% less than in basic set.
> The mass comabt system is, in my
> opinion, a very poor measure of reality, precisely because of that
> simplification. I will have to take a closer look at them though when I
> get a chance.
Do so. The skill values and such were there only to evaluate troop quality
through skill values and such.
> Actually, you do give bonuses for "challenging" situations by casing
> your skill rolls on a non-normal conditions use. If your players only
> have to roll against their skill in an emergency or in a difficult
> situation, then they are receiving a defacto bonus to skill. At least as
> far as the book rules are concerned and as far as most of us seem to
> interpret those rules.
Science is not democracy, likewise IMO not RPGs either. Good arguments and
facts will hold more value than 'voting' when designing or reality
checking an RPG system, IMO.
Otherwise we would all be using MTG and AD&D. ;)
> We all use bonuses when something is simple; like vaulting a low rail on
> a sunny day, or shooting an unmoving target in still air, or changing a
> tire, but for normal uses of a skill, you roll against your normal
> skill.
Yes. It is what constitutes *average* difficulty which we disagree here.
> They represent a baseline measure of competence in something. In the
> real world, when you are graded in performance it is under "normal"
> conditions.
> Ski-course conditions change as successive skiers make
> their way down the mountain, but on the other hand, the judges try to
> take as much of that out of the mix as they can by attempting to select
> days where conditions are likely to be more stable and less subject to
> this. This is how things work in the real world; the competence of
> people is tested against a "normal" and therefore predictable standard.
> That is why I say that it is counterintuitive to base a score against an
> exceptional condition.
But this really does not say for certain that GURPS skills should not get
a bonus for very routine conditions.
> The rules: basic book, 3rd edition, chapter 12, pg. 86. 1st paragraph
> say:
>
> "When your character attempts to use a skill, perform an action, attack
> a foe, etc., 3 dice are rolled to determine whether you succeed. This
> is a success roll."
>
> Now it goes on to say that often modifiers will be applied to the basic
> skill to arrive at the target number, both positive and negative. It
> also goves some examples. In the example cited there, and which Pauli
> cites above. There is a "very primitive lock" for which the lockpicker
> is given a +10 bonus to open. I suspect this is something on the order
> of a latch as much as a lock, or some other single tumbler device. But
> the example itself proves nothing since it doesn't reflect the TL
> difference between the locks the lockpick was trained to open and the
> lock itself. All of this is immaterial, because if you don't use a
> "normal" baseline for determining skill level, then how can you really
> know how good someone is at it?
Make them do something and observe the results. Actually, it may differ
from skill to skill what constitutes 'professional' level for example.
> How bad are the bad conditions that you
> use to determine when to make a roll, how good are the good conditions
> that don't require a roll? It is more workable to say every time you
> use a skill, you roll and the GM determines how many mods to put against
> it, but on a narmal day you will need this to succeed. It is simple and
> universal, and much less subject to GM whim, though everything is
> ultimately subject to GM whim.
So, would you say that _all_ commercial pilots in the whole _world_ have
skills of 16+?
They will need it unless you give any bonuses for landing in ideal weather
conditions with no stress.
One in a _million_ commercial landings worldwide results in a crash. (Real
life fact.)
> What numbers are there?
Guns: Hit accuracies, often in percentiles given for different ranges.
Commercial Airplanes: Crash rates for landings.
Jet Fighters: Fixed cannon hit accuracies, also in percentiles given for
ranges. Missile hit frequencies and numbers of ECM flares and chaff used.
Typists: Errors and wpm rates.
and the list goes on...
> The real world is not measured on the GURPS
> scale and the GURPS scale, in some cases has some problems. The numbers
> that the real world is measured in are not the same as are used in the
> game mechanics of GURPS either. Comparing the real world to GURPS is a
> very inexact art, nowhere near a science;
Not necessarily. Three six sided dice do give a nice parabolic curve of
propabilities, which can also be measured in percentiles, which the real
world so often uses.
One cannot be perfect, but one can get close.
> and at some point, you have
> got to step back and be willing to accept the judgement of the majority,
> based both on the rules and worldbooks, and on the experiences of other
> players and GMs, both in the real world, and in comparing the real world
> to the rules.
If I accepted the judgement of majority, I would be AD&D and MTG player. I
will consider each argument individually, if it is about a game system I
use for my games.
No-one will get to vote how I use my GURPS. ;)
Compendium I changes this, and is official over the Basic Set. ST 16, for
example, is actually equivalent to a brown bear. Needless to say, it is
very, very, rare.. (You may see them in the Worlds Strongest Man contest,
though.. These guys can literally throw cars upside down and pull trucks
which have a gear on..)
> I don't agree with some of the basic assumptions Pauli makes in his
> rules interpretations, and I don't agree with some of the rules that he
> is using for standards, because they conflict with my personal
> experiences. He is perfectly entitled to hold those opinions though,
> even if I, and apparently a lot of other people on this NG believe he is
> wrong, and as long as his players don't complain, it's not a big deal.
Actually, my players agree with my conception of the real world values,
and also use them in their games which are down to earth.
> I do wish to publicly apologize to Pauli if I occasionally got a little
> hot under the keyboard here, and I suspect some of my comments edged a
> bit too close to insults for good netiquette.
Nah, you did not insult me in the slightest. Takes more than mere words on
a computer screen. Sending nasty e-mails to unappropriate people using my
name would be considered an insult. Generally, we Finns are cool people,
hard to really anger. But if we get angry, we really do..
> I was a soldier and I
> have a lot of friends who are or were soldiers, some of whom were SF,
> Rangers, Recon Marines and SEALs; I have even made the pleasant
> acquaintance of one gentleman who served in the Royal Marine Commandos
> Arctic and Mountain Cadre in the Falklands War. I respect these men a
> great deal, and value their contributions to their country(ies) and am a
> little in awe of their capabilities. They do a miserably difficult,
> dangerous and thankless job that requires more dedication and commitment
> than most people can even dream about, and most of the time, they can't
> tell anyone much about it other than the most basic explanations. There
> is nothing run of the mill about these people, even though, off duty,
> they pretty much act like everyone else, so when I perceive them being
> slighted in an estimation of their skills and capabilities, I get a
> little concerned that people aren't properly appreciating what they do
> and get a little insulted for their sake. Now they don't need my
> support, they are more than proof against the opinions of others, but I
> still feel obligated to try to set the record straight.
Problem is, the more 'special' the corps, the harder it is to get any real
info. Internet is of about zero worth if one attempts to find out anything
about modern special forces, especially Russian. (Who have even tougher
'selection' than Americans.) Special forces pages are more like
'commercials'.
The movie version of special forces also does not strike my fancy for a
realistic info source.. ;)
Perhaps I could find something in the town library, but I would not be too
certain about that.
-Pauli
Andrew Priestley
Pauli Hakala wrote:
> Still, those levels in Guns skill really give the same accuracies
> which
> real world professional soldiers have (Airborne Rangers, skill 13).
> For
> realism, you either use the 'low' skills or make shooting harder by
> changing the rules.
Official GURPS gives Rangers a 14 with their assault rifle (Minimum
skill level). As I have explained before, I suspect a certain amount of
the accuracy capability of military marksmen today is a mechanical
limitation of the weapon rather than an actual inability of the marksman
to shoot straight. As a flip side from Pauli, instead of lowering the
guns skills of my players, I tend to accurately depict combat by
allowing the opponents to seek cover. The minuses start to pile up when
you can only see a person's head and shoulders, or one side of their
head and shoulders; your target goes from a 2 hex area to a 1.5 foot
diameter area, and you've just added an additional -5 to skill
(approximately).
I am extremely skeptical of allowing nearly any campaign to go beyond
250 points or so, and that is in extreme cases on high-tech worlds or
modern worlds. Even my Special Ops and spy stuff is pretty firmly in
the 200 point range rather than the 300 point range. Black Ops is pure
cinematic gaming; I am not even sure why they bother to calculate points
for that. I would tend to keep the players good deal more "normal" and
downgrade the monsters a bit to compensate. It would still be cinematic
though.
Iceman
John Post
>Official GURPS gives Rangers a 14 with their assault rifle (Minimum
>skill level). As I have explained before, I suspect a certain amount of
>the accuracy capability of military marksmen today is a mechanical
>limitation of the weapon rather than an actual inability of the marksman
>to shoot straight. As a flip side from Pauli, instead of lowering the
>guns skills of my players, I tend to accurately depict combat by
>allowing the opponents to seek cover. The minuses start to pile up when
>you can only see a person's head and shoulders, or one side of their
>head and shoulders; your target goes from a 2 hex area to a 1.5 foot
>diameter area, and you've just added an additional -5 to skill
I think that the problem with GURPS ranged weapons skill levels is directly
attributable to the size and range modifier table. It may be applicable for
muscle powered weapons, but it is grossly inaccurate for modern rifled weapons.
I was in the Army for four years and qualified with the M-16 dozens of times. I
also acted as a range NCO on several occasions. In other words I have fired or
seen fired thousands of rounds on the range.
The US Army requires that each soldier fire twenty rounds at targets from 50m
to 300m in the prone, unsupported position. Twenty rounds are also fired from
the standing, supported (braced) position.
According to the GURPS ranged and size modifiers:
50m -09 Head and shoulders only -4 = -13
100m -10 Body half exposed (torso only) -3 = -13
150m -11 Body half exposed (torso only) -3 = -14
200m -12 Body half exposed (torso only) -3 = -15
250m -13 Body half exposed (torso only) -3 = -16
300m -13 Body half exposed (torso only) -3 = -16
The M-16 has an ACC of 11. Generally you are allowed two seconds of aiming for
each target. There are approxiamtely five seconds to locate, aim and fire at
two seperate targets, usually at different ranges. So if you are braced and
aim, your bonus will be your ACC +2.
So if you are joe average private (DX 10, IQ 10, Rifle P/E 10 [1]), your chance
to hit that first target is an awful 9!
(Skill10, ACC 10, Aim and Brace +2, range/size -13 = 9) You will only hit 38%
of the time. With odds like that it is surprising anyone hits the 26 targets
required to graduate basic training.
I don't know maybe I am just a natural born killer, but I have only missed a
50m target once. I had a double feed, cleared my weapon and the target had
dropped before I could hit it.
Now, if you are a somewhat above average soldier, Rifle 12.
50m = -13 Acc (11) + 2 = effective skill 12 74% 4 targets
100m = -13 Acc (11) + 2 = effective skill 12 74% 4 targets
150m = -14 Acc (11) + 2 = effective skill 11 63% 4 targets
200m = -15 Acc (11) + 2 = effective skill 10 50% 4 targets
250m = -16 Acc (11) + 2 = effective skill 09 38% 2 targets
300m = -16 Acc (11) + 2 = effective skill 08 26% 2 targets
Your odds improve quite a bit, but you are still more likely to fail than you
are to pass.
So does this mean that the average private has a skill of 13+? I doubt it. If
you take the old +4 bonus to hit a stationary target, it makes the percentages
closer to those observed, but I think that it is still artificial. A soldier
with skill 12 using the +4 bonus for stationary targets would hit the 300m
target 74% of the time. S/he would be hitting about 36/40 of the targets. And
would qualify as an Expert with the M-16.
Now this is feasible, but if you extend the example to the 400m range it
quickly falls apart. The idea that you could quickly locate, target and hit a
torso-sized target 400m away is ridiculous, let alone hit it 63% of the time.
If you extend the range to 500m, this "well-trained soldier" with skill level
12 will be able to hit it 50% of the time. Anyone who has been on a rifle
range or hunted without a scope will know that this is impossible.
My question is, can this be fixed in a simple manner? The idea that a target 3m
away is -1 to hit seems laughable to me. If you give me a pistol, the
difference in shot dispersion between a 1m target and a 3m target will be
negligible. The modifiers for short range targets need to be reduced and those
of long range need to be greatly increased, especially when a scope is not
used.
***********************************************************
John Post, Graduate Student, Middle Eastern Studies Center,
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor
john...@umich.edu john...@aol.com
Russ Massey
In article <34F70312...@ziplink.net>, Andrew Priestley
<and...@ziplink.net> writes
>Pauli Hakala wrote:
>
>> We no longer have places of such repute as the ancient Sparta. If half
>> of
>> the stories are true, they were really something on the average level,
>> no
>> matter to whom you compare them.. With few hundred warriors (Can't
>> remember exact numbers, though), they held the pass of Thermopylai
>> against
>> largest army in human history ever, 1,500,000 Persian soldiers.. I
>> would
>> consider that 'Elite' quality, if anything.
>
>Ancient sources are a notoriously bad source of information. The lines
>between myth and reality were so thin that you could break them with the
>brush of a feather.
But Herodotus' 'The Histories', where he describes the events of the
battle of Thermopylai is more and more recognised as being quite
reliable, as modern archeology confirms details that were regarded
with scepticism even a couple of decades ago.
> The sizes of armies in classical and even medieval
>times, were relatively small compared to armies used during the 18th and
>19th centuries, but their sizes were exagerated for dramatic effect.
Agreed.
>While there may have been a few hundred Spartans holding that pass,
There were roughly 300 Spartans. It was the picked bodyguard
(hippeis) of Leonidas, one of the two Spartan kings (the only unit
exempt from the religious prohibition preventing the rest of the
Spartan army from marching) and its size is known accurately. They
were supported by 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans. In addition 1,000
Phocians were used to defend the mountain routes above the actual
pass.
>there were probably only a few thousand Persians, and with good ground,
>discipline and some rudimentary fortifications, even a small force can
>hold against vastly superior numbers, but not 1.5 million.
One and a half million is probably guesswork. Suffice it to say that
the Immortals, the elite unit of the Persian army, were 10,000 strong,
(there is no doubt on this number) and that these men were greatly
outnumbered by other warriors accompanying them. It is not
plausible that the Persian army was less than 200,000 strong, though
unlikely that they would all be gathered in the same place except to
fight a battle due to logistic problems.
> Most likely
>what happened is that the Spartan force, like most Classical Greek
>warriors, prone to boasting and tale telling, told some classic war
>stories about what happened in the pass, inflating the numbers to
>inflate their glory.
After two days of fighting the Greeks had taken few losses, but a
traitor guided a Persian contingent over the mountains, and they were
able to bypass the Phocians when they moved to more defensible
ground. Lookouts warned the Greeks in the pass of the outflank, and
after some argument Leonidas of Sparta allowed (or perhaps ordered)
the other allied contingents to leave while honour compelled him and
his bodyguard to remain. The Thespians and Thebans also refused to
leave him. There was only one survivor of the Spartan forces. Two
Spartans were blinded by opthalmia (the region was marshy) at the
time of the engagement. One, on learning that the Persians had
crossed the mountains, ordered that his armour be brought and that
his servant lead him into the battle. The other returned to Sparta,
where no man would speak to him or give him fire and he was known
as 'The Trembler'.
> The numbers of their warriors might have even
>omited the several hundred who died in the defense, and having died,
>failed to do their duty and were not counted among the honored victors.
>As the story was told by succeeding layers of people trying to inflate
>the glory of Sparta, the numbers also increased. by the time this tale
>was written down in official form, it probably had passed through the
>lips of hundreds of people and bore little resemblance to what really
>happened.
>
The story of the battle was gathered by Herodotus, who was born
only one generation afterward and was able to speak with
eyewitnesses.
<agincourt snipped>
>
>The Spartans were definitely fine troops, probably better trained than
>their neighbors
They were the only full time professional army in Greece, by virtue of
the fact that all Spartans were *full-time* soldiers supported by
slave-worked land holdings. Other Greek states were the equivalent
of city militias, with just a few days training in arms each year.
>and possessing a tremendous psychological advantage
>because of their reputation for brutality (Alexander routinely
>slaughtered or enslaved every man, woman and child that opposed him,
>levelling villages to the ground (Thebes) and hosting mass executions of
>prisoners, often doing the execution hismelf).
I'm not sure of the relevence of you mentioning Alexander, but no
Greeks were above massacres and atrocities.
> Their culture was only
>moderately civilized, lacking a lot of the refinement of other
>Hellenistic cultures since they put all of their efforts into war, and
>in the end, they couldn't stand against Rome.
>
Well in the end they couldn't stand against Thebes, but that was due
to population decline rather than military insufficiency.
>Any source taken from the ancient world must be taken with a grain of
>salt since there is no way to corroborate the evidence (if there is any)
>and since the ancients had little understanding of the differences
>between myth and reality.
This is a heinous generalisation, and most certainly untrue with
regard to the Greeks, and most especially Herodotus.
--
Russ Massey
Nana Yaw Ofori
In article <6daqk8$5...@examiner.concentric.net>, Pki...@cris.com (Pee
Kitty) wrote:
>
> (A) Animals attack in close combat, and you can't all out attack in close
> combat.
Actually, according to GURPS Bestiary, 2nd Edition, Animals can AOA in
close combat.
--
= http://www.io.com/~beholder =========== nof...@pop3.utoled.edu ===
Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori,Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving
Legion, Party of six thousand. Smoking or Non?
=== ><{{"> ==== "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< =====
Pee Kitty
Nana Yaw Ofori (nof...@pop3.utoledo.edu) spewed forth:
> In article <6daqk8$5...@examiner.concentric.net>, Pki...@cris.com (Pee
> Kitty) wrote:
>
> >
> > (A) Animals attack in close combat, and you can't all out attack in close
> > combat.
>
> Actually, according to GURPS Bestiary, 2nd Edition, Animals can AOA in
> close combat.
Really? Hrm...I hate when they save in important rule like that for a
seperate book. I haven't read through Bestiary in a while, or I probably
would've remembered that rule...
John L. Freiler
John Post <john...@aol.com> wrote:
<snippage>
> So does this mean that the average private has a skill of 13+? I doubt it. If
> you take the old +4 bonus to hit a stationary target, it makes the percentages
> closer to those observed, but I think that it is still artificial. A soldier
> with skill 12 using the +4 bonus for stationary targets would hit the 300m
> target 74% of the time. S/he would be hitting about 36/40 of the targets. And
> would qualify as an Expert with the M-16.
> Now this is feasible, but if you extend the example to the 400m range it
> quickly falls apart. The idea that you could quickly locate, target and hit a
> torso-sized target 400m away is ridiculous, let alone hit it 63% of the time.
Keep the +4, but realize that as the range getts further out vision rolls
should be required to acquire the target in the one second or less
required. Failure means that no aim can be taken. Also what's the 1/2
dam for the M-16? Beyond that point, the ACC bonus doesn't count. This
means that if the 1/2 dam is 500m then the skill drops from an adjusted 10
to -1 (i.e. impossible) Other than the +4 for a stock still target, the
rules as writen seem to work very well, just make sure you apply ALL of
them.
John
Forever Man
On 4 Mar 1998 20:21:36 GMT, Pki...@cris.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
>
>Nana Yaw Ofori (nof...@pop3.utoledo.edu) spewed forth:
>> In article <6daqk8$5...@examiner.concentric.net>, Pki...@cris.com (Pee
>> Kitty) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > (A) Animals attack in close combat, and you can't all out attack in close
>> > combat.
>>
>> Actually, according to GURPS Bestiary, 2nd Edition, Animals can AOA in
>> close combat.
>
>Really? Hrm...I hate when they save in important rule like that for a
>seperate book. I haven't read through Bestiary in a while, or I probably
>would've remembered that rule...
Also on CII57. Probably an oversite when B came out and added later.
My problem is their "bare handed' attacks always get parried, thus
causing damage.
Forever Man
Paul Reitsma
> My problem is their "bare handed' attacks always get parried, thus
> causing damage.
Which actually makes a lot of sense, IMHO. Predator animals generally
attack from ambush (like big cats) or using wolf-pack tactics (like,
well, wolves).
Lone animals like cougars will go immediately into close combat, where
they can't be parried (and have a huge advantage), and wolves do the
equivalent of "Dodge and Retreat" for the ones in front plus "Step and
Attack" for the ones darting in from behind.
"Flying Tackle" would be another popular one (cat leaps from the tree
onto prey).
To be honest, it seems like these tactics would work rather well,
although I haven't tried them out.
It is nice to see the results I consider intuitive, like animals being
wounded by parrying in a straight-up fight and so not engaging in
frontal fights, appearing naturally from the system, though.
-P