To all the other "simulationists" out there...

[Ashrem Bayle]

It's theoretically possible to kill him with one attack in reality. There are certainly cases where it has happened, and probably cases where the attacker has botched his try and merely maimed the target. But let's not kid ourselves. Driving a blade up into the base of the skull is harder than it sounds and it's virtually impossible to stab a sentry through the heart if he's conscious and wearing some kind of torso armor. There's a reason that various special forces soldiers are taught about going for the throat. But even those methods aren't foolproof.

But why not give the guard a break (as you would a PC in that situation)? Perhaps he instinctively felt the rogue's presence without necessarily hearing him and moved enough that the possible killing blow was just an injury. The danger of going with too many possibilities to perform instant kills is that they become weapons to be turned on the PCs as well. You have to be sure that's the kind of game you want, both as a player and as a DM.

But that is the kind of game I want.

I’m not using GURPS like D&D. This isn’t a hack-n-slash, kick-down-the-door, kill the monster, take the loot kind of game. What can be used on NPCs can be used on PCs. Violence becomes a scary thing, only used as a last resort.

Like real life.


And yes, one hit assassinations are not easy. But in real life, they are possible.
In D&D, they are not. (Against an opponent of similar level.)

 

[Remathilis]

Being hide-bound by the rules, no matter the system, is a bad thing.

While no game is perfect, do not think it is unreasonable to have a rule-set that is fully functional out the door, not some assembly required. House rules should be to flavor the game to the groups wishes, not finish the game we all played money to play...

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

While no game is perfect, do not think it is unreasonable to have a rule-set that is fully functional out the door, not some assembly required. House rules should be to flavor the game to the groups wishes, not finish the game we all played money to play...

Well said.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

It's funny..

I say that D&D's rules do not work for the kind of game I want to play, and I get an avalanche of "just house rule it".

Is it really so wrong to seek a system that DOES work for the kind of game I want to play?

That was my point with the OP. I'm tired of house ruling. At some point, it isn't even the same game anymore. So why bother?

I want to play a more realistic game using a more realistic system. Why should I chain myself to D&D and house rule it beyond recognition?

 

[Azgulor]

Thanks!

Unfortunatly, the other I did aren't on this computer. You might be able to do a search for them over on the SJG official GURPS board. I did a big post of them over there about a year or so ago. Should still be there.

I'd find it for you, but my work filter blocks it.

I've got several versions of magic used by different people througout the world:

The Sorcerous Art - Uses magic as it is described in the Basic Set and GURPS: Magic.

Divine Miracles - Uses the Modular Ability (Cosmic) advantage (with a series of modifiers) to simulate divine intervention. Priests do not know spells. They jsut pray for aid and they may or may not get it.

Magic in the Veins - Purchase a special Unusual Background and you can purchase and build powers as you see fit (within reason).

Communal Magic - See GURPS: Powers. You may buy various powers from the Animal, Plant, Elemental, etc groups.

Psionics - As the Basic Set describes.


With the D&D iconics, I used the Sorcerous Art style for "wizards" and Magic in the Veins for "sorcerers".

I didn't do direct conversions. I more or less built the characters in GURPS based on what their theme instead of converting from D&D, which was itself a way of building the characters based on a theme.

Thanks, I'll give that a shot.

I like your approach to the variations in magic styles. It's along the lines of what I was shooting for but I never could get it to where I like it. Granted, this was before the release of Powers, so I suspect I'd have an easier time of it now. What appealed to me was that you could truly have differences in magic beyond the more cosmetic differences in D&D.

And I hear you about direct conversions. I dropped that concept pretty quickly.

Thanks for sharing, though. I've been re-reading my GURPS books of late so it might be time to revisit the grittier side of fantasy again. My players still revel in the groin shot from a crossbow shot that took out a guard. Ah, good times, good times...

On a completely unrelated note, if you're looking for a good middle-ground game, check out the Conan OGL RPG. It's grittiness tends to fall somewhere between GURPS and D&D (closer to GURPS, though) and you're initial scenario could be pulled off without house rules. (Lower MDT, higher damage per weapon, use of fate points, etc.)

 

[Azgulor]

It's funny..

I say that D&D's rules do not work for the kind of game I want to play, and I get an avalanche of "just house rule it".

Is it really so wrong to seek a system that DOES work for the kind of game I want to play?

That was my point with the OP. I'm tired of house ruling. At some point, it isn't even the same game anymore. So why bother?

I want to play a more realistic game using a more realistic system. Why should I chain myself to D&D and house rule it beyond recognition?

If you're really feeling like dumping gasoline on a fire, start posting how house-rules can "fix" most or all of what's "broken" in 3.x. All of sudden, house rules aren't as cool as they were higher up-thread. A strange, puzzling, and ironic phenomena...

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Thanks for sharing, though. I've been re-reading my GURPS books of late so it might be time to revisit the grittier side of fantasy again. My players still revel in the groin shot from a crossbow shot that took out a guard. Ah, good times, good times...

The scene that convinced us was when a hobgoblin tried to charge by the fighter to get to the spellcaster.

In D&D, the hobgoblin would have just probvoked an AoO. If he lived, the spellcaster would be screwed.

In GURPS, as he ran by, the "fighter" slashed the back of the hobgoblin's knee. It didn't kill him, but he hit the ground screaming. The spellcaster, safe for now, began charging a fireball spell.

By the time the hobgoblin was able to crawl to the spellcaster, he had charged the fireball enough to blow his head clean of his shoulders.

The abstract nature of D&D combat, to me, isn't as fun as the concrete maneuvers in GURPS. The players seem to feel more like they do cool stuff instead of the DM "letting" them do something cool. They have more control over the details, and the details are more important.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

If you're really feeling like dumping gasoline on a fire, start posting how house-rules can "fix" most or all of what's "broken" in 3.x. All of sudden, house rules aren't as cool as they were higher up-thread. A strange, puzzling, and ironic phenomena...

People are reacting like I'm attacking D&D when I say it doesn't fit my preffered gaming style.

And oddly enough, I really like D&D. I'm really looking forward to 4e. I just see it as a secondary system choice better suited for less serious campaigns. There isn't anything wrong with it. It does what it set out to do very well.

D&D cannot be all things for all people, at least, not without extensive house ruling. But then, why play D&D if that's the only way you can enjoy it?

 

[delericho]

We had come upon an enemy encampment. There was a guard tower, at the top of which was a guard on watch. He had a bell which he would ring if he saw anything.

You mentioned that this was "Red Hand of Doom". Which encounter was it? If you refer to the "Bell Tower" encounter (p.59), then the encounter is supposed to be with three hobgoblin veterans with 20 hit points each. Not exactly a description I would associate with 'mook'.

The guard stood there, unaware of the rogue, looking out over the surrounding area. But what could the rogue do? His only option was a sneak attack. So he did it, inflicting a nice chunk of damage. But the guard wasn't killed, and on his next action, he rang the bell.

Well, normally he should have struck in the surpise round, and then won initiative and struck again. A 6th level Rogue should do approx 4d6 damage with each attack, which will kill the hobgoblin with decent rolls. Without decent rolls, all bets are off.

Incidentally, there are more options than just a sneak attack - poison was always available.

The player became very frustrated, and rightfully so. The guard was a mook. A nobody. A "red shirt".

In "Return of the Jedi", Han Solo tries to sneak up on a Scout Trooper to eliminate him silently. The trooper is a mook, a nobody, a "red shirt". At the crucial moment, he rolls badly and alerts the guard, provoking the Speeder Bike Chase. Just because the opponent is a non-entity in the plot doesn't mean that success should be assured.

But as we looked over his stats, there was no way the rogue could have eliminated him silently. He was a few levels lower than the rogue, but a "one-shot-kill" was still quiet simply impossible. All that preparation and cleverness, by the rules as written, meant nothing.

If we're looking at the same encounter, the Rogue can absolutely one-shot the hobgoblin (4d6 damage maxes at 24, vs 20 hit points). The Rogue can even take out the Bladebearer cited before he gets to act, but only with really good rolls (he must win initiative, hit with two sneak attacks, and do plenty of damage with both). But then, that Bladebearer is even less a 'mook' than the veteran.

If the Rogue fails to roll sufficiently well, then of course he's not going to succeed. But that's not a flaw in the system - the ability to succeed doesn't imply the certainty of success.

On to another of your examples:

The scene that convinced us was when a hobgoblin tried to charge by the fighter to get to the spellcaster.

In D&D, the hobgoblin would have just probvoked an AoO. If he lived, the spellcaster would be screwed.

In GURPS, as he ran by, the "fighter" slashed the back of the hobgoblin's knee. It didn't kill him, but he hit the ground screaming. The spellcaster, safe for now, began charging a fireball spell.

Alternately, in D&D the Fighter uses his AoO to Trip the hobgoblin, and the Wizard casts his spell. How is that any different?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

People are reacting like I'm attacking D&D when I say it doesn't fit my preffered gaming style.

You are my enemy or my friend. You cannot love both simulation and Mearls.