Two Posts
(Just so you know, I'm laughing right now)
Scott, you're about to really hate me, but here's another monkey for you. You said that the expert with the annoying weapon would deal 2-11 intensities of damage. However, if the shooter's intention was simply to harass their opponent and not injure them, the expert could pull that off much more easily than the amateur could. However, you just said that the minimum damage the expert could deal is 2 intensities. If all you wanted to do was piss the guy off, but every shot deals 2 intensities, you're going to kill them instead of just making them mad. In that instance, the amateur would be more likely to cause injury than the expert, because they wouldn't be able to hit someone just to piss them off.
I know, I know, "Where does John come up with this stuff???" but I find it fascinating.
In the Roots Miniseries, on the DVD special features, there's a commentary about the scene where Levar Burton is being whipped. It said that the actor throwing the whip was an expert with the whip. He was throwing it at over 120 MPH, but it would only wrap around Levar Burton's body and not cause very much actual pain. ONLY an expert could pull off something like that.
A better way to put it is that the top expert will deal a minimum of 2 intensities on a successful shot if he's trying. (And only the 3@10 expert, because at 3@1 you're doing Dangerous +1pt, not +10, so your minimum roll is 2, not 11).
The damage system assumes that the shooter is attempting to kill the target. However, as your example from Roots demonstrates, there are other ways to use weapon skill beyond attempting to cause damage. If the player states that he's trying to harass and annoy someone with his 3@10 Pellet Gun (Betsy) skill, and then I resolve his skill rolls using a system designed for lethal combat, then I as a referee have made a grievous error. I should instead have assessed the difficulty of his task and interpreted his RS in that light (and probably done a GE roll for how annoying the target actually found the harassment and/or how the target expresses his annoyance).
Does that make sense?
And actually you've come fairly close to an area that I do feel is problematic - I've been meaning to start a thread, but I have trouble getting around to things - and that is a dearth of rules for non-lethal combat, or even for non-lethal results from otherwise normal combat. (And let me say up front that if I had a ready solution to that problem, I'd be posting that instead of chewing my nails over it.)
Does that make sense?
Sure does.
Wodium - Does Multiverser not have the equivalent of D&D's Nonlethal Damage? No equivalent for GURPS rolling health VS unconsciousness? I thought we had rules like that somewhere - some way to beat someone unconscious or pepper them with rubber shot until they collapse in pain.
some way to beat someone unconscious or pepper them with rubber shot until they collapse in pain.
Oh, we do have that. (You can do anything.) It's just not done with damage points of any kind. Unconsciousness of your opponent is (to date) achieved strictly through the use of specific and dedicated skills. Pain skills, martial arts maneuvers, sleep spells, drugs, you name it.
What we don't have is "I beat him with my fists until he falls unconscious." The closest we have to that is reducing someone to exactly 0 intensities - essentially half-dead - but even then, the rules regarding near-death states are anything but hard and fast, existing mostly in the seats of the creators' collective pants.
Scott has answered the primary questions very well. As to the non-lethal combat issues, I agree that they deserve another thread--and I don't have time to initiate one, particularly with so many active threads in such a busy week. So I'll wait for someone to start a thread with a solid question about it, and I'll try to provide answers then.
--M. J. Young
Ya know, I just realized, the 1@1 could duplicate the 11 intensities of damage shot of the 3@10, except in the case of the 1@1, it would be a botch. I guess anything really is possible.
(Doing Therapy)
Hey Osevens, just a thought on if you're actually thinking about buying a home-defense weapon. One big advantage that revolvers have for home defense is that they are ready to go when you pick them up. An automatic, you have to worry about whether or not there is a round in the chamber. Personally, I never keep a round in the chamber of an automatic, for safety reasons. If the intruder has gotten into your house when you're asleep, or God forbid, already gotten the drop on you, you certainly don't want to be worrying about whether or not the gun is ready to go when you're half asleep. Just something to think about.
(Doing Therapy)