This is why I love GURPS. Solid enough to FEEL right, but without the complexity to make in unplayable. IHMO.

All this reality debate however is one of the reasons I don't have much to add on the GURPS forums...  :-)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;857861Science.  Namely physics.  There's a reason that bullets have a range, and the average .9mm bullet fires out at 35,000 pounds per square inch of force, which also fires at multiple MACH speeds, but even the best range is about a hundred yards out.  And it's not just gravity that stops a round from keep going.

A throwing axe simply doesn't have the power to keep pushing it through the air.

And if you still can't believe that, I can't help you.  Because this would require a lot of science to explain.

A 9mm chamber pressure is 35,000psi.  Standard 115 pill is going to go about 1200 feet per second, or almost 820 mph and have about 400 pounds of energy at the muzzle.

Quote from: RunningLaser;858073A 9mm chamber pressure is 35,000psi.  Standard 115 pill is going to go about 1200 feet per second, or almost 820 mph and have about 400 pounds of energy at the muzzle.

I knew a bit of my info was off.  Thanks.

Oh as per the title, I've done some thinking and I realized that if I'm using a battle mat, I want abstract, how many inches/cm, squares, hexes can I hit, whereas in a RPG without a map, I want exact ranges.

Not entirely sure why.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;858246Oh as per the title, I've done some thinking and I realized that if I'm using a battle mat, I want abstract, how many inches/cm, squares, hexes can I hit, whereas in a RPG without a map, I want exact ranges.

I would call both of those exact, concrete ranges, assuming that an inch/cm/square/hex on the map represents a consistent distance.  The battlemap ranges may be measured in real-world distance units rather than in-game distance units, but they're still specific numbers/distances and are probably equivalent to specific in-game numbers/distances.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;858246Not entirely sure why.

You want the measurements to be presented in the form which is most readily usable in the context where you'll be applying the measurement.  Makes perfect sense.

For me, distinct distances are important.  Entire campaigns can hinge on factors like range penalties, and having a hard and fast rule in place can preempt SOOO many arguments at the game table.

precise ranges for me.

the interesting issue to me is the actual statistics and how they get assigned.  for example, i've noticed that slings routinely get lousy ranges, whereas according to everything i understand about them, they are superior to archaic bow technology.  the reason bows were used was that slings required much more training and you could pack archers together in a much smaller area.  all kinds of examples of weapons that i think are usually misrepresented in terms of range stats.

also, the definition of a range depends on what you're talking about.  "extreme" range...do you means how far a projectile can travel or do you mean the farthest distance that a character can effectively hit someone at because they are two different things and this type of thing applies at all range categories with all weapons.  the stats often do not take this into consideration.  short range really is pretty short if you're talking about practical ability to use a weapon reliably when adrenaline hits the blood.

Yeah, I'm on the page with Torque and Ghost. Also for realism and detail in general, I like them because they allow actually gaming the situation we are saying exists in the game world. If the game system doesn't interact with the detail of the game in a consistent way, then I find the game system to be letting down the game world.

If supposedly we're at a castle with towers and battlements and there's a map and we know their size and height and layout, and it's at night during a storm, but then in play we're just all at "moderate range" and there are no adjustments for where we're standing, who can see whom, for cover, for height advantage, for lighting or wind or differences between weapons in different circumstances, and so we just have to roll dice against the same numbers we would have if we'd met in an open field at "moderate range", then effectively none of the description has any effect unless the GM tries to make up effects, which a GM playing that sort of system often won't, or will do so inconsistently, or in ways they players either can't interact with, or that require them to interact with the GM in metagaming or social ways, say by convincing the GM or getting his attention before other players or before he makes a choice, etc. As a wargamer and RPG player, I'm disappointed by anything that I'm asked to believe exists in a fictional setting, yet that seems to have no effect, especially when I know it would have some effect, from having played detailed game systems.

My ranges for thrown melee weapons are 10/20/30, because I said so.

Quote from: RPGPundit;859479My ranges for thrown melee weapons are 10/20/30, because I said so.

My throwing axe hits the right horn* of your GM Viking hat, knocking the hat from your head.


* Unusually for faux Viking head gear, your Viking hat only has one horn, the left horn having been lost in some earlier battle.

I prefer distinct. As someone else pointed out, you can always ignore distinct distances and go abstract easily. In my experience there will always be a situation where a distinct distance is required during play. best to have that at hand than have to write the rules on the fly. But than I am of the mind that it is better to have a rule and not need it than need a rule and not have it.