Fluffing misses

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Nexahs

In D&D 3.5, it's really easy to fluff a missed attack because all defenses are rolled into AC. If you don't hit, the DM can just say "He deftly dodges your attack!" "Your dagger bounces off his shield to no effect!" etc. But in GURPS, I struggle to fluff a failed Sword or Axe/Mace or Whatever roll, because the opponent explicitly didn't dodge or block - the player just missed. So, how do my fellow GMs fluff these unopposed misses?

Just fluff up your miss description, just as you fluff up your parry description, your block description, dodge description and your "didn't get past DR" description.

The only difference is GURPS tells you exactly which one is relevant. FWIW don't forget that dodge is not the only time a target moves around in combat (in in fact you both move relative to each other) so you can incorporate some movement in your non dodge descriptions.


It does raise the question of defences only being activated once an attack is successful, but depending where you stand on that you could include some defensive fluff in your miss descriptions. The players will know the difference in game terms as they will have rolled their attack.
Although that will depend if you've told them all the mods, or if you have kept some and them and are telling them the result of their roll, (in which case I tend to stress the defence aspect when describing an attack that was only stopped by an defence)

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

I have to really agree with that. I've trained as well and watched tons of skilled fighters fighting, and even very skilled fighters sometimes just miss. It's really easy to miss a non-stationary target when you're trying not to telegraph your attack.

And yes this, missing is easy in combat! Plenty of ways it can happen.

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by Tinman

Also, as Humabout mentioned, fighting lefties. Every thing IS backwards.

Heh, I took all of those from my experiences in my college's fencing club. And seriously, it cant be overatated that sometimes you just plain miss. It isnt as easy to effectively hit someone as you might think. Come to think of it, another fluff is that you make contact but not squarely and the blade just doesnt bite (get a good bend in terms of foil fencing). Lots of sratches, bruises, and nicks are far below the HP level game reaolution.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Nexahs

In D&D 3.5, it's really easy to fluff a missed attack because all defenses are rolled into AC. If you don't hit, the DM can just say "He deftly dodges your attack!" "Your dagger bounces off his shield to no effect!" etc. But in GURPS, I struggle to fluff a failed Sword or Axe/Mace or Whatever roll, because the opponent explicitly didn't dodge or block - the player just missed. So, how do my fellow GMs fluff these unopposed misses?

A different approach:
It sounds as if you're taking it upon yourself to describe everyone's attacks for them. That's a lot of work - no wonder you're having trouble coming up with fresh descriptions!

Have you considered having the players describe their own attacks? In my group, everyone describes their own hits, misses, active defenses etc. It's fun for everyone, and it also takes a bit of pressure off the GM.

Side note: I've never heard the word "fluff" used in this way - in my group, to "fluff" your attack means to stuff it up by rolling badly. For what you're talking about, we would just say "describe." Not that it matters much - but I'm always interested to see these different usages.

[mook]

Huh, I've never noticed this as a potential issue, but now I see it. If a player attacks and the dice betray him, though, sometimes it's "Your blow cleaves the air just inches from his shoulder;" sometimes it's "His weapon knocks yours aside with a loud clanging;" sometimes it's "He grabs a heavy wooden serving tray and blocks the brunt of your attack."

To me, the only important part of the missed dice roll is, "The player's attack did no damage." How it did no damage isn't really important, I just describe something and move on. The players can see I didn't actually, mechanically, make a Dodge/Block/Parry roll for the NPC, that I'm just weaving the dice results into the tale, and no one has ever seemed to care.
I don't feel like we'd gain anything by restricting the blow-by-blow narrative to the maneuvers table for misses.*

* Hits are a little different as, yes, it would feel weird to me if a player succeeded at a Telegraphic Attack but it was described as a successful Rapid Strike... but I think that's a very different issue anyway.

EDIT: Having players describe their own stuff is a great suggestion! This still doesn't feel 100% "natural" to me lol, but playing in so many indie, fluffy games the past few years has led me to try it when I remember. I have discovered, though, that some players actually don't like it (presumably for the same reason as me, because they're so used to doing things a certain way), but making it an available option for those who do can be a lot of fun.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by mook

Having players describe their own stuff is a great suggestion! This still doesn't feel 100% "natural" to me lol, but playing in so many indie, fluffy games the past few years has led me to try it when I remember.

Thanks!

I must admit I'm always surprised when I hear about groups in which the GM describes the players' combat actions for them. In every group I've ever played, the players have described their own actions - and I think this has seemed pretty natural to everyone; the other way would feel odd.

It just goes to show that there are a lot of groups out there, with many, many different styles of play - just because two groups are playing the same game doesn't mean they share the same assumptions about what actually ought to go on at the table!

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Joe

Thanks!

I must admit I'm always surprised when I hear about groups in which the GM describes the players' combat actions for them. In every group I've ever played, the players have described their own actions - and I think this has seemed pretty natural to everyone; the other way would feel odd.

It just goes to show that there are a lot of groups out there, with many, many different styles of play - just because two groups are playing the same game doesn't mean they share the same assumptions about what actually ought to go on at the table!

I'd have thought the general rule of thumb is the player describe their action, the GM described the results? (that seems standard IME but that could just be POV)

[GodBeastX]

Originally Posted by Nexahs

In D&D 3.5, it's really easy to fluff a missed attack because all defenses are rolled into AC. If you don't hit, the DM can just say "He deftly dodges your attack!" "Your dagger bounces off his shield to no effect!" etc. But in GURPS, I struggle to fluff a failed Sword or Axe/Mace or Whatever roll, because the opponent explicitly didn't dodge or block - the player just missed. So, how do my fellow GMs fluff these unopposed misses?

In GURPS it was said many times, that a miss can still be a dodge even if you didn't dodge. According to other posts from writers (Namely Kromm) people aren't "Standing still" in combat, so a missed swing can easily be the fact the target IS moving in combat, not that you suck at swinging your sword.

Unless somebody is sleeping, or utterly unaware, that's basically what you get. Since unaware enemies you can telegraph against for +4 pretty much for free, you can treat anyone without any awareness as a +4 to hit.

There is also optional rules for things like missing by 1 as a near miss that might require a fright check on someone who doesn't have combat reflexes or similar. I forgot which book that was in that I read that and can't look it up right now.

[weby]

Most of the time I do not describe things like that, but I try to get in descriptions of any and all things every now and then, so every now and then I try to describe something in more detail.

A simple missed attack roll can range anything from:
"You do not see and opening to attack"
"Something causes the ballance of your attack to be off"
"The enemy sidestepped your attack"

To more complex things like

"Your grip of your weapon slides a bit so you have to readjust"
"Enemy's last attack left you a bit out of balance so you cannot turn your weapon to proper attack"

To something silly like
"Just as you line in a perfect attack to go though enemy defenses, a seagull manages to divebomb your face"
"For a second you are sure that the enemy switched place with one of your allies so you hesitate to attack, but on closer look it is just a reflection of your friends face from the enemy visor that has been polished to mirror like gleam"

[jacobmuller]

Never thought about it before but I've only ever described/ heard described critical success/ fail.
Admittedly, I did describe combat for first-timers in a D&D game but it seemed to fit that game - I mean, their only decision is roll or not roll, and the result is either good or bad. Certain other games add hit location choices and defender actions.
GURPS has so many options that description is detailed enough already.