How to avoid Retreating Dodge Spam

[Kromm]

Retreat has nothing at all to do with Move. The two concepts are completely unrelated. The intended means of controlling infinite retreats on the part of one fighter is the presence of obstacles. But constant back-and-forth as both fighters step and retreat is also intended – people who don't like it can make use of Deceptive Attack, Feint, grappling, you name it.

Yes, it's a common house rule to say that retreat costs a movement point, but that isn't part of the rules. Retreat amounts to "Each turn, you may focus on one attacker to get a defensive bonus against that foe." The step back doesn't even matter in basic combat without a map! At least, not unless the GM decides to make it matter. On a map, it's a full hex of movement only due to the fact that's the quantum of movement in GURPS . . . it may literally be nothing more than giving an inch, but it's more "interesting" if it has a visual. The fact that this creates other artifacts in the movement system is accepted and ignored, and has been since Man to Man in 1985.

[MrFix]

Thank you for your clarification.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by MrFix

"Unwritten implication" is the one combination of words you don't want to produce when people ask questions about rules. Remember, certain traits, equipment and movement options ALLOW you to move through a hex occupied entirely by a wall.

Correct, in which case there's a written exception of "you can walk through walls", sort of like "you can continue to change hexes despite being out of MP".

B92 mentions that retreat "relies on ground contact" but I'm sure it says (or at least implies) you can do aerial/aquatic retreats w/o touching ground as an override.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Retreat amounts to "Each turn, you may focus on one attacker to get a defensive bonus against that foe." The step back doesn't even matter in basic combat without a map!

You wouldn't need a map to keep track of distance on a 1D plane "we're fighting in a 1 yard wide hallway" which is probably what basic distance rules (ie no "facing") assume. B377 seems intended to work with distances (as would Move or Move and Attack maneuvers) even if they are not represented in a 2D plane map.

Originally Posted by Kromm

On a map, it's a full hex of movement only due to the fact that's the quantum of movement in GURPS . . . it may literally be nothing more than giving an inch, but it's more "interesting" if it has a visual.

Re B377's "at least one yard", why does there even need to be a quantum of movement rather than "this thing I can declare once per foe per second" if it's not literally meant to be that movement? Non-literal movement that changes how far you are from other foes and stuff?

If retreat is "exactly as for a step" yet not technically a step then would that mean Dodge and Drop "similar to a retreat" is mutually exclusive and in 1 turn you can Retreat vs foe A's melee attacks and Dodge and Drop vs foe B's ranged attacks?

[Dustin]

If your opponent has a reliable defense, I think you have a couple different options:
1) change the nature of the fight - as others have suggested, using terrain or grappling the enemy can make the Retreat no longer viable;
2) go big on Deceptive Attack - drop your attack down to the 10-13 range to penalize their defense as much as possible;
3) fish for critical hits - use Deceptive Attack, but only drop your attack to 16 to maximize your chance of a critical hit (9%) for which there is no defense allowed;
4) Feint if you are more skilled. Since the Feint technique can be bought up to +4 over weapon skill, this is by far the most common technique I see purchased for weapon skills, as it deals perfectly with otherwise equally skilled opponents.

Also, as others have noted, this can be regarded as a feature, not a bug. Fights between equally skilled opponents in the real world and in fiction often last longer than a few seconds. Many people have introduced house rules and systems (Last Gasp, etc) to make GURPS fights last longer, with the view that resolving in 5 seconds or less does not imitate fiction or reality well. Ultimately it's up to what your table considers the most fun.

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Dustin

If your opponent has a reliable defense, I think you have a couple different options:
1) change the nature of the fight - as others have suggested, using terrain or grappling the enemy can make the Retreat no longer viable;
2) go big on Deceptive Attack - drop your attack down to the 10-13 range to penalize their defense as much as possible;
3) fish for critical hits - use Deceptive Attack, but only drop your attack to 16 to maximize your chance of a critical hit (9%) for which there is no defense allowed;
4) Feint if you are more skilled. Since the Feint technique can be bought up to +4 over weapon skill, this is by far the most common technique I see purchased for weapon skills, as it deals perfectly with otherwise equally skilled opponents.

Also, as others have noted, this can be regarded as a feature, not a bug. Fights between equally skilled opponents in the real world and in fiction often last longer than a few seconds. Many people have introduced house rules and systems (Last Gasp, etc) to make GURPS fights last longer, with the view that resolving in 5 seconds or less does not imitate fiction or reality well. Ultimately it's up to what your table considers the most fun.

With high skill the advantage feels lessened, at least if the fighters focus on parrying. Deceptive attacks are good in general. Feints are good if you are better than your opponent, like you said.

It is when you're dealing with f.ex. a skill 13 fighter with a sword vs a skill 14 fighter with a mace that the fights tend to get less interesting I feel. I can't really figure out anything more interesting either would do other than just take turns attacking.

Usually the fights that happen are quite interesting I feel. F.ex. I had one fairly skilled knight (broadsword-16, I think) taking on a bunch of guards in a small room by dancing around a table and taking all sorts of strategic risks to avoid getting cornered. It is mostly the really even fights I want to figure out how to spice up (without too much stuff, like the enemies getting impatient and doing All-out-Attack Double, f.ex.).

[Hide]

Have you thought about area of effect attacks or even cone attacks? You can't simply dodge those (at least not easily).

You could also target the guy with different attacks; retreat dodge only works against the roll of a single attack move.

Also, as a GM you know all of the characters in advance. If characters are overpowered in a certain niche (which happens to have a broad application) and if you feel that they are abusing of it, give them niche challenges.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

I suspect I'm just not using the rules right, but how do I avoid combat getting monotonous in 1-1 fights?

By not having fights be 1v1. 1v1 fights are hugely artificial (and is basically a sport). Nearly every actual fight is fighting the terrain; Walls getting in your ways, the floor trying to trip you, elevation changes forcing you to think, uneven penalties such as darkness, etc. Not only that, but fights are rarely balanced; Each fighter is likely better than the other in some way and is pushing that strength, each side has potential allies/enemies that can and will show up, what gear they have can change midcombat, oh and the goals of each fighter since it's not common for it to simply be "kill the enemy, there is zero other victory conditions like running or giving up".

And this is all assuming the fight doesn't end in two turns. If two people fighting are trying to kill each other, the best way to survive that fight is to give your opponent less chances to do anything. Risk-reward really matters because every die roll is a possible critical that can screw you over or even is just flatly capable of downing you. A fight to the death isn't about playing fair, it's about being ruthless and exploiting every single out because you don't know if your opponent is better than you at everything.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

With high skill the advantage feels lessened, at least if the fighters focus on parrying. Deceptive attacks are good in general. Feints are good if you are better than your opponent, like you said.

It is when you're dealing with f.ex. a skill 13 fighter with a sword vs a skill 14 fighter with a mace that the fights tend to get less interesting I feel. I can't really figure out anything more interesting either would do other than just take turns attacking.

Usually the fights that happen are quite interesting I feel. F.ex. I had one fairly skilled knight (broadsword-16, I think) taking on a bunch of guards in a small room by dancing around a table and taking all sorts of strategic risks to avoid getting cornered. It is mostly the really even fights I want to figure out how to spice up (without too much stuff, like the enemies getting impatient and doing All-out-Attack Double, f.ex.).

I think you may be asking the wrong part of the situation to make things interesting.

The simple back and forth of (advancing) Attack vs. retreating defense is perfectly reasonable, in a 1-1 fight where both parties have equal reach, no advantageous options, and are both motivated to simply hang in there. With Martial Arts they could even go further and make Defensive Attacks to maximize the 'battle of attrition' approach!

The thing is that that's a fight that is dull (or at least more suspenseful than exciting) by the choice of all participants. What is motivating them to fight that way? Are they hoping their backup will show up if they last long enough? Are they understandably but a bit myopically focused on not getting hurt for as long as possible?


Using The Last Gasp (Pyramid 3/44) might change the trajectory of this sort of exchange, as the tempo of advance-attack-retreating defense is pretty rapidly draining and somebody is going to wind up running short of action points and pressured to change the game somehow. Of course, that could simply result in a mutual breather if neither fighter is motivated to try to press an advantage there, which might be even more boring!

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Hide

Have you thought about area of effect attacks or even cone attacks? You can't simply dodge those (at least not easily).

You still get retreats against those, so it doesn't really stop the problem. AE just means you hit them if the retreat isn't a long enough distance to get them out of the AE.

Never really had this problem in Whirlwhind Barbarian v. Multipleshot Amazon duels since you couldn't walk backwards and had to turn back to shoot.

Originally Posted by Hide

You could also target the guy with different attacks; retreat dodge only works against the roll of a single attack move.

You get the retreat bonus vs ALL of a single character's melee attacks during the turn.

Pretty much the only way to overcome them without changing maneuvers is to have Extra Step [25] or Move 11 (2 yard step).

3e's Compendium had an optional rule I think used to give 1 step per 4 full points of move (25%) rounding fractions down (except sub-1, rounds up to 1) under "increased step for high move" (pg 72) which was more generous than 4e (B368: only 1/10 your move) since you got 1st extra step at Move 8 instead of Move 11, 3rd step at Move 12 instead of Move 21, etc.

The wording in 3e was a bit off since it said step was INCREASED per full 4 points, but it's more like 1 step PER full 4 points unless they mean increased from 0. If it was increased from 1 then you'd expect 2 steps at move 4, 3 steps at move 8.

72 also gave ATR free per each 6 move though it was madness

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Plane

You get the retreat bonus vs ALL of a single character's melee attacks during the turn.

Pretty much the only way to overcome them without changing maneuvers is to have Extra Step [25] or Move 11 (2 yard step).

I don't think that does anything to help overcome the active defense bonus for retreating.

Its helpful if your actual problem is with positioning, not with active defense rolls, but that doesn't seem to be the subject here.