• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

[GURPS] New Damage System

randlathor66

Registered User
Validated User
I was wondering if anyone has tried to put together a non-dice rolling damage system for GURPS. Sort of like the quick & dirty space combat rules where you do a base amount of damage, then add a specified amount for each point under your target number. I like GURPS, but I do not like rolling again to determine damage. (Reminds me too much of D&D, where you can get an awesome roll, then whiff the damage roll. What was the awesome roll for then?) I much prefer that the skill roll/attack roll determine how well you do, to reflect your greater skill (higher skill usually means greater success possibilities) and attempt.

I was thinking something like: 1d6 = 3 pts. +1 per 2 success levels (1 point under TN = 1 success level)

This would mean that someone doing 4d6 damage would have a damage rating of:

12 + 2 pts per success level. Is that enough to kill the average person without armor on the average hit? Yes. But isn't a 4d6 damage generally able to do that anyway?

If you like the whole, "barely hit" concept (and I do), then perhaps an exact hit (attack roll = TN) would be 1/2 damage. This would mean that either you have to -1 from the success levels to get your total success levels, or just assume that you will aways have at least 1 success level (like Shadowrun 4e). Either is fine with me, though the first option would allow a slightly greater variation in results.

Of course, this is just quick and dirty, all the other stuff like armor penetration, high armor, etc... hasn't been fully explored yet. (I have only been playing GURPS for a few months now. :eek:)
 

Felius

Retired User
The random results generally represent better the variability of real life I think.

Plus, the barely hit concept is quite limited. Your chances of exactly hitting the TN are quite low, even in the case of a TN of 10 or 11 is 1/8 (considering 3d6), so I don't think it be quite good representative.

Maybe if you want to reduce the number of rolls, you could use that hitting the TN is the base (and relatively low) damage, with the margin of success giving pluses to the damage. So basically what you have, but with lower basic damage.

For reference, the chance of rolling less than 12 damage in 4d6 is around 24%
 
Last edited:

falstaffe

Registered User
Validated User
Funny that you're not keen on rolling damage. In our system, FAST, you don't, and it kinda throws newbies off at first. Anyhow, what we do is give you a damage bonus of HALF of what you made your roll by, then slap on a static damage bonus based on the character's strength and weapon. Goes pretty quickly. (Oh, and we round up on damage because we award combat roll ties to the defender, just to be fair.)

It evolved out of an attempt to do a "one-roll-determines-all" that didn't quite pan out.
 

randlathor66

Registered User
Validated User
The random results generally represent better the variability of real life I think.
Actually, that ideology is what I disagree with. I believe that when I do something well.....I do something well. How well (accurately, timely, etc..) I swing a baseball bat determines how well I am going to hit the ball - ask a coach (Yes, how strong matters too, which why I am ok with a strength bonus/base for damage). The same goes for an attack. If my attack roll for shooting someone with an arrow is excellent, then the damage I do should reflect that. Just like going for a bullseye on a target, it is the skill roll that matters. (Or at least it should... :)) Having a second roll just seems uneccessary and down right weird to me - like its just an excuse to be rolling more dice.

falstaffe: I have done a "one-roll determines all" mechanic using % dice. The roll was interpreted 2 ways: First) as a percentile which told you how well you did - including damage, then 2) the two 10-siders were added to determine where you hit.
 

Mr Adventurer

More Daring Than That
Validated User
Doesn't skill have a BIG effect on damage already by letting you go for vital areas more easily? If you're just making basic attacks with your Skill 18, you're not really putting it to use - you should be going for vitals, neck or head shots.
 

cthulhu

Registered User
Validated User
Surely, just using an average value per dice of damage to determine a base/static damage value is the way to go ??

Then define degrees of success modify the damage accordingly.

So, for example, 4d6 becomes a base of 12 damage
Get exactly the result you wanted = 1/2 damage
For every 'x' points you succeed by add +1 dice worth of damage [3 pts]


I use something similar for my own system, and it works well.
 

Felius

Retired User
cthullu, I don't have the numbers crunched, but my feeling for both yours and the OP proposed system is that it will have averages far above the normal average of the system. If you want numbers that are similar to the original game you'd need to start with an under average damage and go up from there.

Actually, that ideology is what I disagree with. I believe that when I do something well.....I do something well. How well (accurately, timely, etc..) I swing a baseball bat determines how well I am going to hit the ball - ask a coach (Yes, how strong matters too, which why I am ok with a strength bonus/base for damage). The same goes for an attack. If my attack roll for shooting someone with an arrow is excellent, then the damage I do should reflect that. Just like going for a bullseye on a target, it is the skill roll that matters. (Or at least it should... :)) Having a second roll just seems uneccessary and down right weird to me - like its just an excuse to be rolling more dice.
But for example, can you determine the precise location the ball is going go to? The point is that combat and damage have a ridiculous amount of variables that can't be just determined by taking an average and by skill.

At one extreme you have the woman who was stabbed randomly in the street with a knife at the back of the neck, but only discovered it when she entered a shop (she thought the guy had simply punched her). At the other you have people that die or suffer crippling injuries from what one would believe should have been a minor accident.
 

falstaffe

Registered User
Validated User
falstaffe: I have done a "one-roll determines all" mechanic using % dice. The roll was interpreted 2 ways: First) as a percentile which told you how well you did - including damage, then 2) the two 10-siders were added to determine where you hit.[/QUOTE]

Clevah!
 

cthulhu

Registered User
Validated User
cthullu, I don't have the numbers crunched, but my feeling for both yours and the OP proposed system is that it will have averages far above the normal average of the system. If you want numbers that are similar to the original game you'd need to start with an under average damage and go up from there.



But for example, can you determine the precise location the ball is going go to? The point is that combat and damage have a ridiculous amount of variables that can't be just determined by taking an average and by skill.

At one extreme you have the woman who was stabbed randomly in the street with a knife at the back of the neck, but only discovered it when she entered a shop (she thought the guy had simply punched her). At the other you have people that die or suffer crippling injuries from what one would believe should have been a minor accident.
Well, I did say it was an example - and 3 per d6 is actually lower than the 3.5 per d6 that is that actual average.

A single roll to determine success and result is never going to be very realistic, so if you want to take into account the variability of people and the variability of attacks and the variability of circumstance, then it's not really the right mechanic.

I use it in my system, because it's not meant to be very realistic - it's meant to be tv/film/book/comic real, and it works fine for that.
 

cthulhu

Registered User
Validated User
Actually, that ideology is what I disagree with. I believe that when I do something well.....I do something well. How well (accurately, timely, etc..) I swing a baseball bat determines how well I am going to hit the ball - ask a coach (Yes, how strong matters too, which why I am ok with a strength bonus/base for damage). The same goes for an attack. If my attack roll for shooting someone with an arrow is excellent, then the damage I do should reflect that. Just like going for a bullseye on a target, it is the skill roll that matters. (Or at least it should... :)) Having a second roll just seems uneccessary and down right weird to me - like its just an excuse to be rolling more dice.
That's actually at the heart of the system I put together - when you barely succeed, you get reduced results, when you succeed well you get better than expected results.

The whole concept of 'you succeed really well at the attack, but then actually do minimal damage' seems ridiculous - if I succeed really well, I expect to have a result that reflects that.
 
Top Bottom