GURPS Conversions

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I have to say that this Bruce Baugh seems to overestimate his own abilities as game designer.

Bruce Baugh is a good designer... dunno what if anything he has against BRP and doubt I'd back him up on it, but he is (supposedly) writing the new version of Whispering Vault... that will come out, maybe, someday.
I've liked most of what I've seen him post on other forums...

EDIT: Now that I've read the linked article... it seems to me that Baugh is more of the RPG.net ilk who seem to like more cinematic games and lots of mechanics to support 'genre'. It should be left as a matter of taste but some people seem to have to make it an imperative. It also sounds like Baugh hasn't done a very close reading of COC or really explored the variety of supplements it has spawned.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

...Well I think that the problem of this BTRC. I read the blog you posted and I have to say that this Bruce Baugh seems to overestimate his own abilities as game designer. How can he dare to criticize BRP and CoC if his only questionable contributions to the hobby are some vampire (yuck) books, a D20 gamma world conversion (yuck) and Feng Shui (yuckyuck). Alone this unimpressive list of "rpg"-books he wrote is showing that the opinion about BRP of this guy should be not more interesting to a BRP player than that of Mary Poppins.

I think you are right but it is the guy writing the rebuttal i.e. supporting CoC, that points out the combat system problems. Even as fans we should not be blind to things that don't work right in our games.

Joseph Paul

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

I think you are right but it is the guy writing the rebuttal i.e. supporting CoC, that points out the combat system problems. Even as fans we should not be blind to things that don't work right in our games.l

But is the gun-combat system really all that broken?
Most of the complaints against it seem to come from guys who want it to figure in all sorts of detailed ballistics minutia... arguments which seem to break down into lots of competing opinions over itty-bitty factors are the most important... and in the end it comes out sounding like the COC gun ratings are not so out of wack after all (and I don't necessarily disagree that certain martial arts attacks SHOULD potentially do more damage than some gun attacks).

Even if BTRC thought the ratings in COC were wrong I'm not sure I understand why they wouldn't do new ratings using the G3 rules... wouldn't that supposedly yield a new set of 'accurate' ratings?

[badcat]

Well, here is an interesting bit. There have been studies done to determine the chance of one shot stops (not fatal, fight ending), and the ratio of average damage from the CoC damage ratings vs. average hit points is actually very close to the real life statistics. Average hit points in CoC, call it eleven, so a major wound is about six, a .45 does 1D10+2 or average seven-eight, with a 'stopping' percentage on a failed CON save of around seventy-ninety per cent...which is about the range of one shot stops for the .45 ACP in real life shooting incidents. It is a fair simulation of the results of real life gun combat, in other words. And it is playable, although it does not take everything into account your average gun hobbyist might like, like ballistics and recoil, etc. The hallmark of BRP, reasonable and playable without going into bean-counting mode. Oh, a rifle will most likely kill a human on a solid hit, and sure enough, a .308 does 2D6+4, or eleven average. So an average human is at zero hit points if he takes an average damage hit with a high powered rifle. That real life study shows 98-100% one shot stops with a high powered rifle cartridge, by the way.

[Simlasa]

Originally Posted by badcat

It is a fair simulation of the results of real life gun combat, in other words. And it is playable, although it does not take everything into account your average gun hobbyist might like, like ballistics and recoil, etc. The hallmark of BRP, reasonable and playable without going into bean-counting mode.

So why all the grumbliness over COC's gun stats/rules from Mr. Baugh and others?
I've never had any big issues with them... accept, maybe, the automatic weapons rules... and that's just a maybe...

[badcat]

I couldn't say. But another tidbit that may be part of the puzzle...one of my players, a real life 'gun nut' and hell of a pistol shot, used to say one of the reasons he disliked CoC was that the firearms rules were TOO deadly. Take that as you may. Myself, I thought it enhanced the feeling of desparation and made the players somewhat hesitant to resort to their guns, so I was happy with the firearms rules for that reason alone.

[Joseph Paul]

Well I am not all that concerned with the minutia. What I am concerned with, and if that blog is correct it supports this, is that there is no rational system for the firearm damage figures in CoC. Which is a concern for me because I would like to see firearms expanded in scope in future supplements. I don't want to see future supplements making changes that contradict the core rules for something as ubiquitous as firearms. Or worse more than one supplement giving different views on it.


In 3G3 Greg Porter lays out a method for creating a conversion rule for any system. You need three data points, preferably of firearms that have large differences in their damage. You compare them to the same weapons in 3G3 or its big sister More 3G3. Do some math and you should start seeing some glimmering of a formula such as every doubling of 3G3 damage value equates to another D6 of damage in your system. Well it looks like CoC doesn't do that. Damage is all over the place and CoC may be one of those systems where the designers assigned values on a 'looks good' basis.


Badcat's example is a good one in that it shows that guns in CoC are lethal enough for humans. But there are things that don't make sense in CoC- the elephant rifle and the Barret .50 do the same avg damage. Other systems have the Barret at nearly double the damage of the elephant gun. In Superworld an M2 .50 cal machine gun does 5d6. In CoC a 75mm shell does 10d6. Is a 75 really only twice as powerful as a machine gun round?

If, as has been asserted, there is no rationale for the damages assigned to firearms in CoC then now would have been a good time to make a change, pick a base line, and bite the bullet on this.

Joseph Paul

[badcat]

The rationale is, simply, what effect does a firearm have? The original author of CoC did a very good job assigning those effects to various calibers, IMO.
In most cases. Nothing is perfect, but the numbers stack up better than some games in which guns are one of the primary elements. Check out Dark Conspiracy. I love the game, and the firearms rules are good overall, but the damages seem waaay off. As in, you could certainly kill an elephant with a Barrett .50, but not a hefty human with one shot.

Speaking of elephants, I agree that that does not make much sense. CoC elephants have 60-70 hit points as I remember, and an elephant gun with 3d6+4 or whatever just is unlikely to put one down, even with an impale. This is something I houseruled, but I don't consider it a deal breaker. I use an aiming rule of some sort. It still models OK, though, because elephant hunters usually went for brain shots and many successful elephant hunters used calibers such as the 7mm Mauser. Which no one in his right mind would use on an elephant, you'd think. Oh, and I find the same average damage from a .50 or an elephant cartridge like a modern .416 to .458 or an older elephant gun like a .600 or .700 to be about right...

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Racial maximums for some of the BRP games was highest roll plus the # of dice rolled I believe, which would take a 3d6 human to 21. That makes a 2d6+6 trait top out at 20 then.

RQ2 had 7 for every D6, with additions of 3 or more having + 1. So, 2D6+6 and 3D6 gave a max of 21, 3D6+3 gave a maximum of 25.

RQ3 made it even easier with max rollable + min rollable. So, 3D6 has a max of 21, 2D6+6 a max of 26, 3D6+3 a max of 27 and so on.

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

In Superworld weight over SIZ 20 is found by wt(kilos)=2^(SIZ/8)*25. This does not work below SIZ 20, does anyone know what was used for that? Anyone want to take a stab at rearanging that formula so that you can input SIZ and it will spit out mass?

I always thought that SIZ = weight in stones worked fairly well for most humans. Also, SIZ=dress size (UK) for females gives a rough idea of how big a woman is.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by badcat

Speaking of elephants, I agree that that does not make much sense. CoC elephants have 60-70 hit points as I remember, and an elephant gun with 3d6+4 or whatever just is unlikely to put one down, even with an impale. This is something I houseruled, but I don't consider it a deal breaker. I use an aiming rule of some sort. It still models OK, though, because elephant hunters usually went for brain shots and many successful elephant hunters used calibers such as the 7mm Mauser. Which no one in his right mind would use on an elephant, you'd think. Oh, and I find the same average damage from a .50 or an elephant cartridge like a modern .416 to .458 or an older elephant gun like a .600 or .700 to be about right...

CoC has no hit locations, as I recall, so you have to kill an elephant on total hits.

RQ has hit locations and an elephant would have 1/3 of its hit points in its head, so a 60HP elephant has 20HP in the head. Add 6 point skin, or whatever, and an impale with 3D6+4 would do 3D6+26, which is more than enough to take an elephant down.

I play RQ and don't like CoC, so I am biased, but having hit locations makes combat more reasonable to me.