GURPS melee combat is usually fairly realistic once you get into the scrum. What it doesn't have is, outside the combat itself, if you are tracking time, the minute or two people might use to size each other up first. Apart from two skilled fighters, who know each other, occasionally getting into a parry fest, realistic battles tend to go pretty quick. The other realism aspect it doesn't fully address is that it doesn't really touch on how hot and fatigued you can get in one or two minutes of heavy combat. GURPS kind of softballs this by only addressing fatigue after the battle, and only based on encumbrance, and only assessing penalties for pretty severe fatigue depletion.

So, what's the deal? I played MERP and Rolemaster 2e back in the day. Recently, I dipped into Rolemaster Unified, and I liked some things about it, while hating the art and having some criticisms of a few subsystems here and there. So, quite a while ago, I thumbed through a copy of HARP and... well, it didn't grab me. But I see there's a second edition now.

So, the new HARP. What's good, what's bad. How does it compare to HARP 1e? Specifically, what's different, and how much of a difference does it make?

Quote from: Eric Diaz on Today at 09:10:50 AMNo 10-second fight has 20 blows. Maybe you can find a 10-second period in a 5-minute fight with such a frantic pace, or a fight that ended in 10 seconds with a single punch, but I never seem such a frantic pace of attacking in fencing, UFC, larping, or medieval fighting simulations. If you have, send me the YouTube link

10-second combats only make sense if weapons are present and armor absent, but then they'll probably be finished before 20 blows.

Other than that, a duel (not to mention a skirmish) of say, people in swords and armor, will definitely last more than 10-seconds - in fact one might take a few seconds just to find an opening before approaching.

Same for people with no weapons and no armor. - even boxing matches do not have two punches per second, and punching is faster than swinging an axe!

GURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Without armor, I agree that taking a couple of sword blows would lead to death.

You do occasionally see that kind of volume in MMA, though it is quite rare. And I agree with you that it isn't really relevant as a comparison to historical melee combat. Punches can be chained more quickly than effective sword strokes, but more importantly, one generally does not "stand and bang" when edged weapons are in play.

I could see a situation where it would occur: Say two heavily armored knights, that particularly hate each other, meet on a late medieval battlefield. Both are armed with poleaxes, and because of the surrounding mass of friendly and hostile infantry, they don't want to risk closing to grapple. In that circumstance, they might decide to just see who's tougher and has better armor, but no one would go to battle expecting to stand still and duke it out with their opponent.

Ironically, the way D&D combat plays out, it gives the impression that "stand and bang" is exactly what you do. Thinking about it, D&D combat would replicate a boxing match much better than it does a sword-fight.

I'm sure this is only a coincidence...

Quote from: Brad on Today at 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: tenbones on April 01, 2024, 12:55:32 PMLet me throw some out there:

Deathstroke vs. Captain America
man I could do this all day...

Cap never loses. Source: I am a major Cap fanboy.

I confirm the source is valid and irrefutable.

lmao

Thanks for not doing your job, mods!

So the mods don't delete spam here?

Is there some reason this had to be a video rather than a few paragraphs of text?

Quote from: SHARK on April 17, 2024, 10:09:25 PM

Quote from: Domina on April 17, 2024, 06:55:32 PMdamn that's a hell of a lot of words to say you're mad that other people's preferences aren't the same as yours

Greetings!

This directed at me?

Tell you what, it isn't about "you're being mad that other people's preferences aren't the same as yours." That is frankly, a gross oversimplification, and at the end of the day, missing the larger issue.

If the rainbow degenerates kept their mouth shut, and did their weird fucking games by themselves, that wouldn't be the problem. The problem comes when all of this weak, pussy degenerate BS is then adopted and embraced by others, who then start pumping it into books and adventures that normal people then are faced with, again, and again, and again. That degeneracy starts to corrupt the entire hobby.

If YOU like that BS, great! Knock yourself out, and dive into the cesspool deep!

Many other gamers in the hobby are sick of it, and such corrupting trends pushed by degenerate storygames does nothing but harm the hobby.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

In what way does it harm the hobby?
What does "corrupt" mean?
Why is storygaming bad?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2024, 10:21:26 PMCheck its posting history.  It's a troll (and not a particularly intelligent or entertaining one).  Just roll your eyes and move on to someone with a semblance of a coherent thought... **roll eyes**

Not a single one of my posts has trolled anyone, and you will not be able to provide an example to the contrary. Disagreeing with people is not trolling.