Topic: SPAR Feedback Wanted

[johnkzin]

johnkzin, I think the whole idea of the spar rules was that you could decide how much to parry according to how much dmg you would receive,

I understand that.  I'm just saying: I don't agree with that being a desirable facet of game play.  I can think of four mindsets about how I'd see this idea (players being able to pick their parry DB based upon the result of the attack roll):

1) simulation -- IMO, this doesn't satisfy the simulation mindset -- you don't get to decide how hard to parry/block, in real life, so as to determine your degree of damage.  You get trained to parry/block to stop the attack, and your judgement is how hard it'll be to make that happen.  This idea is basically adjusting that from "I'm blocking to prevent being punched in the face" to "I'm blocking to make sure I only get a fat lip instead of a broken nose".  That's not plausible to me, so IMO, this idea fails a simulation mindset.

2) Story -- I don't see how it helps nor hurts a story focused mindset.

3) Playability -- The amount of time spent by players trying to figure out where on the chart they can get themselves based on the attack result, their OB, how many foes have left to attack, etc.  Will surely slow down play to a drag.  I predict, therefore, that the idea will also fail a playability mindset.

4) Min/Max or System -- I'm sure min/max oriented players, who are focused on the game system (as opposed to simulation, playability, or story) will love it.  I just don't put any weight behind things that benefit that mindset.


As for "The whole point of SPAR is that Parry is a combat reflex rather than a tactical decision," I think the Parry concept presented here completely misses that statement.  If anything, it is exactly the opposite.  A reflex is something that you don't think about, analyze, etc.  The idea that you would pick how much to shift from OB to parrying based on what specific result you might get it is more of an analytical and tactical type decision.  It is definitely not capturing something reflexive.

[jurasketu]

johnkzin-

Thanks for your thoughts but I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

I have over 5000+ hours (not making that up) playing RMC. So I'm very accustomed to traditional RM combat both as a player and GM.

I've been running the SPAR system for nearly two years now (100+ combat sessions) with my players. It is blazing fast for the simple reason its OBVIOUS what to select for DB based on the attack roll - almost no thought required. The relative range between non-stun/non-minus and complete miss is narrow. Taking damage is BAD - so players typically reduce the attack to nothing if they can. Players decide to take damage when they could take nothing only when they are desperate to make sure they have something left to attack with - usually an attack with OB 5 or 10 is worthless - its just an open-end chance. Better off forking over a fate point if you're in that much trouble.

In traditional RM/HARP, players decide their OB/DB balance in advance - this can take a lot of time (trying to think how much the GM will parry). In fact, a player knows from experience how their GM typically divides OB/DB and will inform their choices accordingly. Even a non-Munchkin would be a fool not to take that into account. I've seen GMs try to defeat that by using a 'random' combat attitude roll so the players can't 'guess' the GM's thinking.

Sure. The GM can say "You only have 5 seconds to make your OB/DB" - but that only punishes the GM and the last player to have been attacked. The rest of the players will be thinking up their OB/DB break during the five minutes it took to make all the combat rolls and adjudicate the results. So as players and GM we gave ourselves 1 minute between rounds to decide the OB/DB. I'm a math major - I could rapidly figure out what OB/DB break would force my opponent to open end or double open end to actually cause an injury and I would allocate accordingly. So being a Mathlete was almost an unfair advantage over 'regular' players.

Simulation? Do you mean realism? What's realistic about having anywhere from 10s of seconds to minutes to decide what action to take for a 2 second round? The answer. Nothing.

For me, SPAR produces more realistic looking results if anything. But what does realism have to do role playing games? Magic spells, fire breathing dragons and vampires are not realistic in any sense of the word. I just want it to feel realistic.

And I respectively but strongly disagree. Combatants DO adjust their defensive effort based on the perceived effectiveness of the attack and do so instinctively. From years of practice and experience, a combatant easily recognizes the speed, angle and strength of an attack and automatically moves to parry by dropping back, moving shield or weapon into proper position to deflect/block. Combatants don't "plan" how much to block - they just block with whatever effort is necessary (unless they've just used that effort to make an attack). And so in a typical fight unless the combatant wants to press the action - the combatant lays back, defends as necessary and looks for an opportunity to counterattack. Under 'planned' OB/DB rounds, that opportunity will never come unless one of the combatants manages to stun himself with a fumble.

Robin


 

[johnkzin]

johnkzin-

Thanks for your thoughts but I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

I have over 5000+ hours (not making that up) playing RMC. So I'm very accustomed to traditional RM combat both as a player and GM.

And, before I became a minimalist gamer, I played RM and SM's  first editions (and the re-prints that changed the art and printing, but not really the content) for years, as well.

In traditional RM/HARP, players decide their OB/DB balance in advance - this can take a lot of time (trying to think how much the GM will parry).

In my experience, it never took that much time.  Players quickly settled into a balance.

Simulation? Do you mean realism? What's realistic about having anywhere from 10s of seconds to minutes to decide what action to take for a 2 second round? The answer. Nothing.

For me, SPAR produces more realistic looking results if anything. But what does realism have to do role playing games? Magic spells, fire breathing dragons and vampires are not realistic in any sense of the word. I just want it to feel realistic.

You answered your own question in the last sentence.   Simulationism and Realism are only vaguely related, in exactly the way you relate at the end.  Realism oriented gamers have this crazy idea that the mechanics must all match reality ... that lead to games like "Living Steel" where you could take several hours to figure out that in your first attack you shot the bear in the paw and he didn't go into shock.

Simulationism just wants something that has results that have a feeling like, and an analogy to, reality.  A good example are the first edition of the Cyberpunk RPG combat rules.  The mechanics themselves were very abstract and light, but they were designed to produce results which were statistically comparable to FBI firefight statistics.  Simulationism, but not realism.

And I respectively but strongly disagree. Combatants DO adjust their defensive effort based on the perceived effectiveness of the attack and do so instinctively.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

From years of practice and experience, a combatant easily recognizes the speed, angle and strength of an attack and automatically moves to parry by dropping back, moving shield or weapon into proper position to deflect/block. Combatants don't "plan" how much to block - they just block with whatever effort is necessary (unless they've just used that effort to make an attack).

Aside from changing that to "whatever effort they perceive to be necessary", that's pretty much exactly what I was saying.  They don't plan their block, nor analyze it.  They don't say "I will block enough to get a fat lip instead of a broken nose".  They block with what they think it will take to deflect or stop the attack completely.  They don't know how effective the attack ACTUALLY is until after their reflexes have acted (they might guestimate based upon their sizing up the opponent, and even a slight momentary "he LOOKS like he's punching hard" factoring into their reflexes.  But, in analogy, they don't get to select their DB after the attack roll, but in the space of time before the effectiveness of the attack has been determined.  To select DB after the attack roll has been announced would be the same as deciding how hard to block after the punch has landed.

And saying that I don't believe SPAR captures that reflexive nature at all.  It is specifically changing something reflexive into something analytical, and giving the players fore-knowledge of the effectiveness of the attack ... fore-knowledge that lets them make decisions that the character would never be able to make.  The exact opposite of capturing the feel of the real.

[jurasketu]

Okay. We'll just have to disagree. I've played it the SPAR way long enough to find that it works faster and better without the analysis you claim would occur.

But, in analogy, they don't get to select their DB after the attack roll, but in the space of time before the effectiveness of the attack has been determined.  To select DB after the attack roll has been announced would be the same as deciding how hard to block after the punch has landed.

That's a misinterpretation of the mechanic both as described, justified and implied. The description of the mechanic is that the defender can tell HOW strong and accurate the attack is and thus how much effort is going to be required to stop the attack instinctively.  And so the mechanic allows for that by subtracting/allocating the defensive effort required. That's what RPG rules are all about.

In 'real' life, a competent combatant will see/know/feel whether an attack is weak or strong and apply effort according to need. If the attack is weak - the defender can apply minimal effort to the defense and instead devote maximum effort to counterattack. That's the way it works in fencing, Judo, knife fighting, Iaido, Aikido, Jo, karate, gunfighting, wrestling, boxing, etc. I'm sure an SCA guy will tell you the same thing: Are you telling me that a combatant thinks this way: let's put 35% effort into attack and 65% into defense? Nan-unh.

Thanks!

Robin

[johnkzin]

But, in analogy, they don't get to select their DB after the attack roll, but in the space of time before the effectiveness of the attack has been determined.  To select DB after the attack roll has been announced would be the same as deciding how hard to block after the punch has landed.

That's a misinterpretation of the mechanic both as described, justified and implied.

I'm not looking at the description/justification/implication of the mechanic, I'm looking at it's ultimate effect.  What you say the mechanic is about, how you justified it, aren't as important as what the mechanic is actually doing.

In 'real' life, a competent combatant will see/know/feel whether an attack is weak or strong and apply effort according to need.

No.  a competent combatant will be able to _GUESTIMATE_ the effectiveness of an attack.  They not know how effective it is until it lands.  They will not feel how effective it is until it lands.  And, as for seeing, what you see can be deceptive -- there's a whole part of fight training and experience that goes into how to throw feint punches and such in a way so as to force an over-reaction from the defender.  That's part of what I'm talking about -- in real life, the defender doesn't ACTUALLY know how effective the attack is until it's too late to change their defenses.

Before that, during the time where they can still change their reaction, they don't KNOW how effective the attack is, they're estimating it, guessing it, based upon training, observation, and experience.

In analogy, they don't know the final result of the attack roll at the point in time where they have to decide how hard to defend.

If the attack is weak - the defender can apply minimal effort to the defense and instead devote maximum effort to counterattack. That's the way it works in fencing, Judo, knife fighting, Iaido, Aikido, Jo, karate, gunfighting, wrestling, boxing, etc. I'm sure an SCA guy will tell you the same thing: Are you telling me that a combatant thinks this way: let's put 35% effort into attack and 65% into defense? Nan-unh.

I never said any such thing about a real life defender.

What I said was that they don't KNOW how effective the attack is before it lands, so they have to decide how hard to defend before they know the full effectiveness of the attack.  You, in contrast, are implying that these combatants have true precognition -- not "experience that gives them a better estimation of attack effectiveness", but "actual sense of the future which tells them that this is a bone breaking bunch".  And to that I say "if that was the case, then there'd be some martial artists out there who had gotten a million dollars from the Amazing Randy, for having proven ESP to be a scientific reality".

The difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is this:

By giving the defender the total result of the attack roll, before they have to commit a defense, you are telling with absolute certainty how effective the punch will be before the punch lands.  You say this type of ESP combat precognition is realistic and part of every martial art.  I say "no, it's not".

Having studied four of the fighting styles you listed, I am quite confident in saying that none of them, not even the most spiritual and touchy-feely of them, gave me ESP.  They gave me different ways to try to anticipate the effectiveness of an attack, but they didn't give me true, concrete, absolutely certain, foreknowledge of the outcome of the attack before I had to react to the attack.

I say that this is the case because the defender must commit to their level of defense (in real life, in the game) before the punch lands (otherwise it would be too late).

I am saying that the defender doesn't know how effective the attack _ACTUALLY_ is, with certainty, until the attack lands.  But, you're asserting that a combatant knows this information with certainty before the attack lands.  I'm saying that's absolutely not true.  They can guess it and estimate it based upon observing their opponent, based upon experience in fights, and based upon their training.  But it's a guesstimate.  It is not absolutely certain information.

The attacker might pull their punch at the last possible second.  They might not be putting full strength/effort into the attack.  They might be throwing a feint so that they can follow up with a sucker punch.  These are all things that the defender can guess, but doesn't actually know.  The defender can be _wrong_ in their guess or in their estimate of the attackers intentions.

By giving them the actual outcome of the attack result BEFORE they decide how they will defend, you are telling them whether or not it is GOING TO BE a faint, whether or not it was a full strength attack, whether or not the attacker is GOING TO pull his punch.... before the defender actually decides how hard to block.  You are giving them this information with certainty (because they know the final result), not as their estimate, not as their guess ... with _CERTAINTY_.

Further, you've eliminated any capacity for the defender to be _WRONG_ about their defenses.  What about when a head bob ends up putting you right into the path of a punch that wasn't quite going where you thought it would?  It happens.  People get knocked out that way.  Defenders, even highly experienced and trained ones, are not always right.   Yet, by giving them the final result of the attack, before they decide upon their defenses, there is no room for their defensive judgment to be wrong.  What are they going to be wrong about?  You've already told them the result of the attack roll.

What you are creating is a situation where every defender has combat precognition -- the full and absolute knowledge of the outcome of the attack should they decide not to act, and what amount of action they are required to take to cause specific different outcomes.  Not just "highly experienced reflexes", but actual ESP like foreknowledge of the outcome of the attack.  That's fine in a mystical hong-kong type martial arts story where a fighter might have been trained to predict the future... or similar settings with that type of element.  But even then, it's only appropriate for fighters with that training/ability.  But if you apply to SPAR across the board, you're giving ALL combatants that ability -- clueless newbies, incompetent pencil neck geeks, green recruits, mundane bystanders, arthritic grandmothers ... all of them.  You've suddenly given all of them ESP level combat precognition.

I assert that that's what you're doing because:

1) at the time where they choose their level of defense, they already know the outcome of the attack.  There is no more opportunity for the attacker to faint, pull their punch, etc.  With the exception of the defender's reaction, it is a "done deal".  Yet, as explained above, the punch has not actually landed yet - therefore they have fore-knowledge.

2) they can choose the damage level of the attack by picking an amount of DB that causes outcome A instead of outcome B.  In effect, they have enough combat precognition that they are able to not just avoid an attack, but choose the specific outcome of an attack.  Their absolute foreknowledge is allowing them to absolutely determine the future result of this event that hasn't happened yet.

And let me re-iterate: it is foreknowledge because a defender MUST choose their level of defense before an attack lands (why parry a stab that has already finished gutting you?), the point at which the DB is chosen is before the attack has landed.   Yet, it is impossible for them to know, with absolute certainty, the full effect of the attack before it has landed.  So, by giving them the latter at the point where they are deciding upon their DB, you are giving them foreknowledge.  Not a guess, not an estimate, but ESP like foreknowledge.

[ondoheer]

Hi, I have tried SPAR a little more and my players have come to one consideration, actually it has something to do with what we were discussing before.

We have agreed that we don't like that the character is able to decide how much OB to apply to parry for each foe ALL the time, since we had this really slow (in initiative terms) fighter which was able to keep at hold 4 enemies for over 10 rounds just dividing his OB into the right amount to let his plate and chain armor to keep him alive. Since he mas loosing the initiative trhows by over 10, we really thought this wasnt right.

On the other had there was a lvl 15 fighter who managed to do just the same but offensively with that maneuver (i forgot the name) that is a single swing against all oponents with a penalty for each one, and that requires 40 ranks to perform.

Thus we decided that the character will only be able to choose how much he wants to allocate IF he has Yielded or won the initiative.

We are also using the rule I talked you about, players require 5 ranks in the weapon skill per opponent they want to parry in the same round.

and we are thinking on giving higher initiative penalties for the larger shields like wall shield.

We just want it to feel right all the time, and we have deffinetly adopted it as our main combat system.

[jurasketu]

Ondoheer-

Since your slow fighter would never have Initiative - his opponents should all be able to Force the Action - with four foes unless he retreats that's 100 OB that would need to be expended to cover the deficit. But holding four inferior foes at bay seems like good epic gaming to me and if he can get in a token attack at the end - all to the good.

To me that's one of 'features' of SPAR. In regular HARP - even with the Multiple Parry option - fighting more than one foe is nearly nigh impossible without magical assistance or armor. Some would argue that is 'realistic'. But is it? If the foes are equal or superior - the defender won't have much of a chance - in SPAR, standard RM/HARP or in reality. But if the attackers are inferior, the defender should be able to keep them at bay for at least a while. And if they are really inferior, the defender should be able to work in a deadly attack or two at some point and then the rest will be history (and should run in terror at earliest opportunity).

I would definitely assign a higher Initiative penalty (and Encumbrance) for a Wall Shield. Shield weight should be counted against encumbrance (and hence movement rates, initiative, etc) in my opinion.

I could have included more restrictions on multiple parry. And considered them. But I cringe at rules that have too many "clauses", addendums and special rules - so instead I just try to 'game through' funky circumstances. Compared to magic spell effect problems/outcomes/issues - combat related 'problems' always seem trivial by comparison.

Robin

[RandalThor]

I think the answer to the discrepancy here (how much OB to divy up and when - before attacks or after) is a combat perception type skill/check. A new fighter would not be able to size up an opponent as well as an experienced one.........right?

That means that the new fighter might misread the opponent (without said opponent having to try to trick them). Which is why I like the idea of a combat perception check instead of an initiative check. Everyone has a base reaction speed which can be determined by a base characteristic (quickness, intuition, whatever) combined with the skill they have in the weapon they are using (being more skilled equals more familiarity which breeds more intuitive weapon reactions/use) and maybe some special talent or magical power, or whatever. (I mean we are talking about a fantasy game here.  )

Now a roll using the combat perception/reaction skill would generate a bonus to the character's base initiative to garner a total initiative. Now combatants act in total initiative order, but declare their actions by the worst total combat perception/reaction skill check to the highest. This means that usually, the most skilled/experienced fighter will know what the others are doing even though they may not be fast enough to act before them. So, a slower but more experienced fighter can plan tactics that help them defeat faster, less experienced opponents (sorry, faster and more experienced opponents may still prove difficult  ).

This still keeps it to a single initiative roll, but allows for two aspects to be determined: how well you perceive the combat situation and when you are able to act within the situation.

I do think that with this method you would still have to determine how much OB you are commiting to what aspect (attack or defense) when you declare your action, but at least you will be doing so with some information about the situation at hand (hopefully).

[jurasketu]

johnkzin-

Thanks for taking the time to further clarify your thoughts for me. I really appreciate good discussions and do appreciate when someone makes an effort to argue effectively.

I believe I now understand your fundamental objection.

As a side note, I am minimalist gamer as well - from the start. It would seem that being a long-time RMC player runs counter to that but we liked the combat system. The skill and spell systems were 'orderly' rather than ad hoc like many systems (many that I happily played for years) and so we always found it easy to extrapolate for a given situation and just game through it. That countered the complexity especially since we would just 'common sense' or maneuver roll our way through ignoring any complex rule mechanics.

Let's see what I agree with you on...

I do agree that a combatant is only estimating the potential effectiveness of an attack. I also agree combatants make mistakes in their estimates because their foe disguised the attack, feinted, was faster that could be imagined, etc. I certainly agree that deception, including feints, are a critical component of fighting in any martial art (and most competitive sports as well).

I'll digress to deception for a moment. Often, the first task of any combatant is to estimate the ability level of their opponent(s). Less capable opponents are susceptible to the standard tricks and often disposed of easily that way. Those same tricks would be useless or even dangerous or fatal against a more capable opponent. More interestingly, deceptions that work against capable opponents can fail dangerously against a rookie. A very advanced but great deception is for a combatant to 'convince' an opponent that the combatant is a rookie or is otherwise lacking. This is effective because the opponent will often become overconfident and resort to aggression or try a standard trick and stumble into a disaster.

And so, your criticism is that I've taken away that mistake prone estimate and replaced it with perfect combat perception - particularly by an inexperienced combatant. And so your criticism is that I have grossly exaggerated combat perception to the level of ESP. On the surface, without complete context, you make a compelling case.

But let me try to turn it around...

I think we both agree that RPG is very much an abstraction and only loosely based on studies of reality (especially given magic and whatnot). And I think we both just want our characters decision making, skill application and results to seem reasonable. Agreed?

For me, Weapon Skill Bonus encompasses not just speed, accuracy and effectiveness with a weapon but also the knowledge and skill to exercise deceptions with that weapon and also understand the various potential tricks that an opponent might use with a variety of weapon skills that might be encountered. In the past, I used to impose a minor penalty (-10) for someone fighting against an unfamiliar weapon or fighting style or unusual monster attack style (tail strike for example). If both combatants were using unfamiliar styles - they would both get the penalty. But it ran counter to my minimalist instincts due to the 'paperwork' involved of keeping track of what was counted as familiar for a player or not and so I discarded the idea even though it did encourage the very realistic tactic of learning unusual weapons as a combat advantage.

Furthermore, it should be noted that deception can be subtle or very elaborate. The more elaborate forms of deception probably fall outside the weapon skill bonus and instead would be resolved using a combat action or even a non-combat skill. For example, feigning an injury (Acting) or a verbal distraction (Duping).

The argument would be that the various possible deceptions and feints are 'factored' into the Offensive Bonus. Then the random roll determines the effectiveness of such tactics to gain an opportunity either by trickery, defensive misjudgment or just dumb luck.

Now, let's take up combat perception which you argue I have grossly exaggerated to the point of ESP. In a planned OB/DB procedure, since allocations are done in secret, they are essentially total guesses which removes combat perception entirely except between the real life GM and player which isn't really a test of the character's combat perception in a given encounter. I don't think of the GM and player as competitors and don't like to encourage that by making the players guess the Gamemaster's mind.

This leaves us with apparently opposite outcomes. ESP combat perception or no combat perception. Neither seem particularly valid. Sure. One could argue that Weapon Skill and that the random roll encompasses 'combat perception'. But no real perception seems to be happening if you ask me - at least not any that can be acted upon by the players.

What are actual decision choices made under SPAR?

Let's say we have characters A and B.

Secretly decide to Melee or Yield. Equivalent to being aggressive/passive.

This produces effectively seven combinations from character A's point of view.

1. A Yield, B Yield (Initiative matters not)
2. A Melee with Inititaive, B Yield
3. A Melee with Initiative, B Melee
4. A Melee, B Yield with Initiative
5. A Yield with Initiative, B Melee
6. A Yield, B Melee with Initiative
7. A Melee, B Melee with Initiative

1. Nothing happens although external events may change the tactical dynamic next round.

2/3. Character A can be aggressive and use Force the Action (at slight risk for a fumble) to press character B almost ensuring that character B has to expend all Weapon Skill to defense to avoid an injury and possibly force a Retreat to create a good situation for next round.

4. Character A will probably hold up not being able to benefit from Force the Action. If Character A makes a poor roll - Character B will likely have a good attack chance.

5/6/7 Reverse of 2/3/4

In situations 2/3, character A does not have perfect combat perception at all - only a vague sense of valued Initiative and so character A should probably be very aggressive.

Situation 4, character A was looking to be aggressive but unable to Force the Action, the character perceives that holding up would probably be best. Again combat perception in effect - but imperfect.

In situation 5, character A is laying back and appears to have gotten an opportunity, character B can hold up and make a weak or no attack - but character A will be able to use full Weapon Skill on the riposte/counter. Good situation for A - only an open end by character B [ie very lucky attack] is likely to draw blood. If character B, decides to be aggressive anyway, A was looking to defense first, offense second - so should be able perceive the level of aggression.

Situation 6/7, character A is probably going to have to expend all effort in defense and can feel it coming.

Only situations 4/5 allow the defender to have any real benefit from 'perfect' combat perception and in both cases - the defender was LOOKING to defense first.
Shouldn't their combat perception be much better in such circumstances? If not closer to perfect rather than say 50% or more if no combat perception is allowed?

The point is that the characters still have to make allocation choices with unknowns in play - and hence imperfect combat perception. The aggressive attacker will be left with considerably less resources to apply - regardless of perfect perception - and they could guess wrong. So a perception mistake occurs at Offensive Bonus allocation moment - when the character potentially overestimates the opportunity to score an injury and leaves themselves open.

Now, one could complain that I am changing the argument over 'defensive combat perception' to 'general combat perception'. But that was my argument all along - if you are looking to be defensive and haven't taken yourself off balance by making an attack - your defensive combat perception should be pretty darned good - certainly better than guessing.

Consider the following rule that I tried first...

Rule: Defender can allocate DB after the attacker's OB is revealed but before dice are thrown.

I playtested that way a few times but the dang players would spend too much time thinking and it really slowed things down (although there might be a way to improve such a mechanic).

Thanks!

Robin

[janpmueller]

I only skimmed the messages about choosing criticals by choosing DB, and in our group (we use and like the SPAR-system), the idea is blocking as well as you can.

So, my conception of allocating DB to an incoming attack was not the character choosing BEFORE his parry, but rather parrying all they can, then realizing that the blow was weak enough to allow them a counterattack.
Likewise, I felt that not parrying all that comes in reflected a decision to attack rather than a decision to parry weaker. More like the parrying fighter already decided to attack, then has to block his foe, ending up with a weak or not so weak counter. This is also what makes "Yield" such a cool maneuver. I know I want to hit that guy, but I want to see what he sends at me.

After all, I imagine things happening quite quickly, so my decisions can only be rough ones. What I like about the system is the spontaneity of assigning DB afterwards. Even with the rule of thumb to block all you can, the flow of combat feels way more intuitive, glimpsing chances to counterattack (what, a 34 only? Great, I can attack with 48!).

The critical referencing never happened in our group, probably because we use weapon specific critical tables, so you would have to ask the GM to hand over the appropriate chart (players only have the ones for their own weapons), which never crossed our mind.