Attack is not opposed?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

Wouldn't that be inherent in their attack without a penalty?

ie: It's harder to defend against the expert swordsmith because his attack is so clever and well placed, and because he understands the motion of the blade so well. What you describe I don't consider the same thing.

GURPS allows a highly skilled fighter to leverage their high skill in different ways here.

Specifically to your point above GURPS does this by allowing a highly skilled fighter choose to penalise their own attack in order to penalise their target's defence.

The nature of the 3d6 probability curve means that a highly skilled fighter (e.g. skill 22) has a lot of scope to do this without meaningfully reducing their chance of hitting in the first place.

For example at skill 22 they have a 98% chance of successfully hitting their target, so pretty likely! However as you say they then rely on the target not successfully defending.

But they could make that skill 22 attack into a -8 "deceptive*" attack taking a -8 penalty (dropping their target number from 22 to 14). But 14 or less on 3d6 is still a 91% chance of succeeding, so still pretty damn likely. But now their target's defence is penalised by -4 which given the way defence works is likely a significant reduction.



Now you might ask why bother with working that out? Why not just have high skill attacks in the system automatically give penalties to defend against as that's the net result of all that?

Well because that high skill attacker might want or need to leverage that high skill in a different way.

For instance a successful attack is nominally an attack that lands on the torso. Well maybe the target has thick armour on their torso rendering your highly skilled attack ineffective. But instead you could take a penalty to stab your opponent in their unarmoured face (-5), skull (-7) or eye (-9), or a chink in their torso armour (-8). An attack to the face, skull and eye all have extra positive effects for winning a fight as well.

Or maybe they want to get two attacks in at -6 to each attack, ...or maybe they want to do something else. There is a lot of different things they could do here in the system if you wanted!


Maybe mix them together, a skill 22 fighter can stack a -4 deceptive attack to their opponent's face -5, and still have a high probability of success even with a combined -9 in penalties.

Basically that high skill allows the attacker to absorb a bunch of penalties and still hit. It's those penalties that give the high skill attacker lots of options to do stuff that will help them win faster than just trading basic attacks. A lower skilled fighter can't do so and maintain their ability to successfully hit as well.

But ultimately what it gives the highly skilled here is options and the freedom to leverage their high skill in different ways to fit different situations. That is a huge advantage over the less skilled. High skill also translates into a better defence, and there are ways to leverage that as well!



One very important point though, all these options are optional! If all or any of these options don't fit your game, you don't include them!
It's worth saying that even if you removed all these options from the game and only allowed basic attack off skill and basic defence, a highly skilled fighter will still likely beat a less skilled one. It just might take a bit longer.




*which in this context covers a whole range of things that = an attack that is harder to defend against. Weather it's actually a tricky hard to defend against attack, a blindingly fast one, one that used their skill and knowledge to take advantage of a gap left open by the other fighter's lesser skill, etc, etc.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

...

Ideally I'd like a game system where the PCs make all the rolls. For example for the enemy I could assume some reasonable default, and not roll the enemy's attack. Instead the PC would roll his defence skill against the static attacker's roll. For the sake of helping combat resolution to be quicker and thus combat more exciting. Has GURPS anything like that?

As Sir Pudding said you could just assume all NPC's roll a 10 or 11 on their attacks and defences leaving just the PCs to roll. Your results will be somewhat predictable and binary. But it will be quick so if you like the sound of it go for it.

Another option is have attacks and defences be a "quick contest"* based on effective skill levels where a successful attack would need more successes than the defence to land. This will mean the highly skilled will get past and hit through the less skilled defence

You could combine the two. Here a quick contest and assumed results on one side combine into being just a skill test with a required margin of success for the side you want to roll. So say an opponent is defending with a skill of 11 and your assuming they always roll a 10 giving them 2 successes, meaning your PC's will need to land an attack with 3 or more successes to hit. Fights between those close in skill may well drag though so you may want to keep the current defence stat calculation (i.e skill or stat/2+3).

With the "assume a roll of 10" idea you can stack the decks to help the game go the way you want. Maybe assume all NPCs roll 11 or cannon fodder opponents roll 12 for instance and your PC's will find it easier to get past their defences or defend against them.

Now these options will give different results and a different feel to combat than the rules currently do, but that's fine if they give you what you want!



*in GURPS a quick contest is both sides making a skill test (subject to mods) and comparing the number of successes. The number of successes on a test also known as "margin of success" (these are pretty widely used systems in RPGs).

[khorboth]

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

I was reading about GURPS online. I've never played before, but I've experience in D&D, Vampire the Masquerade, Star Wars by West End Games, etc. I see that if an attack roll is made, and succeeds, the defender rolls his (for example) parry skill independent of the attackers roll. Is this realistic?

If I was sword fighting, I suspect it would be much harder to defend against an expert swordsman than it would against someone of average skill.

To phrase things a little differently, it's harder to defend against a more advanced attack routine successfully executed regardless of the skill of the individual who launched it. Skilled individuals are more likely to successfully execute an advanced attack routine, but they still have the choice of using a basic routine.

Unskilled fighters pretty much have the choice of "poke at the guy" or "you're gunna miss" where skilled fighters can balance options for mitigating defenses, aiming for unprotected areas, and scoring more damage while pushing their skills to the limit. To me, this is one of GURPS greatest strengths when compared particularly to D&D. Playing a fighter in combat is interesting rather than round after round of "swing, hit, damage, swing, miss, swing, hit damage, swing, hit, damage....."

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

Ideally I'd like a game system where the PCs make all the rolls. For example for the enemy I could assume some reasonable default, and not roll the enemy's attack. Instead the PC would roll his defence skill against the static attacker's roll. For the sake of helping combat resolution to be quicker and thus combat more exciting. Has GURPS anything like that?

GURPS really tends toward simulation over game in philosophy and thus treats NPC and PC the same, so what they roll you roll. If you find players getting bored while you roll things, I've seen two ways around this without major compromise:

1) Roll Sheets: I have had excel roll up full sheets of d6 and 3d6 prior to a game that I knew was going to be roll-heavy. every time I needed a roll, I just crossed one (or more) off the sheet. It was surprisingly smooth and took very little time.

2) Designated opponent: the player to your right rolls for your enemies. They handle the dice and any tactical decisions that the GM wants to offload onto the players. This requires some trust and makes the PCs do the extra rolling. It doesn't really speed anything up, but keeps the players more engaged and gives them something to do when it's not "their turn"

Neither one of these is really what you were looking for, but they may be a means to your end nonetheless.

[sir_pudding]

Note that Counterattack is generally only competitive with Deceptive Attack if you bought it up.

You forgot:

• Dual Weapon Attack has a built-in defense penalty.
• Multiple attacks from any source, be it: AoA:Double, Rapid Strike, Extra Attack, Altered Time Rate, or just superior numbers, can overwhelm Parry and Block (but not Dodge).
• Attacking from the sides or rear can inflict penalties or even make defenses unavailable.
• Invisibility (or if you are able to blind your opponent).
• Beats and Ruses are alternatives to Feint.
• Set-up Attacks (from "Delayed Gratification").

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by khorboth

To phrase things a little differently, it's harder to defend against a more advanced attack routine successfully executed regardless of the skill of the individual who launched it. Skilled individuals are more likely to successfully execute an advanced attack routine, but they still have the choice of using a basic routine.

The problem is that it's possible to shift from a basic routine to something more sophisticated within the timeframe of a single attack -- you launch a basic attack, your opponent parries, you adjust your attack to avoid the parry.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

Ideally I'd like a game system where the PCs make all the rolls. ...

One idea for this that is out there is that you could just let your players roll the NPC's defense rolls. If you use two color-coded or differently sized dice sets, players could roll both sets at once to resolve "aim the attack" and "overcome the defense". That way, it is more of a player's character doing something than an NPC doing it. None of the mechanics change, but the perspective does. Add a third set of dice and they can roll damage at the same time.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

One thing I like about Counterattack is you don't have the skill 10 minimum so you could do it with a Move+Attack (ie someone whips you from 4 yards, you dodge the whip and then run and slam him) or make low-odds targeted attacks.

I think it is probably debatable whether Counterattack works with Move and Attack at all, but even if it does, there are few situations where it would even be possible, and less where it is a good idea. Note that whips already have -2U parry.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

Ideally I'd like a game system where the PCs make all the rolls. For example for the enemy I could assume some reasonable default, and not roll the enemy's attack. Instead the PC would roll his defence skill against the static attacker's roll. For the sake of helping combat resolution to be quicker and thus combat more exciting. Has GURPS anything like that?

What you are describing is called, "player facing." The games I can think of off the top of my head that are player facing are:
Numenera
Apocalypse World and Apocalypse World systems (like Dungeon World)
The GUMSHOE gams (Trail of Cthulhu, Night's Black Agents, etc)
Lady Blackbird
Lasers and Feelings (this is free and the entire rules fit on one page--micro rules light)

They are all Narrativist sorts of games that are rules light. They might be interesting for you?

I personally really like the equality between NPCs and PCs mechanically. I love the back and forth between attack and defense. I love that if a PC decides to attack another PC I don't have to worry about how to handle that mechanically. I think GURPS is a really solid system and I highly recommend it. But if you want a player facing game maybe check out one of the ones I mentioned above?

[Maz]

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

Ideally I'd like a game system where the PCs make all the rolls. For example for the enemy I could assume some reasonable default, and not roll the enemy's attack. Instead the PC would roll his defence skill against the static attacker's roll. For the sake of helping combat resolution to be quicker and thus combat more exciting. Has GURPS anything like that?

GURPS is a toolbox, where you can pick and choose which optional rules to use, or even make up yourself.
It is not a strict set of rules that you must use all of. This is important to know when coming from many other games (especially D&D).


So, to answer you question. "No GURPS does not have anything like that in a published book". But that doesn't mean you couldn't just do it anyway. I have done it myself before. At least for the NPC's defense-rolls.
I made some rough calculation and came to a rule that say that instead of an active defense roll. An enemy simply gave a flat penalty to attacks against them of "active defense -6".

So an average swordsman with skill:10 would have a parry of 8. (8-6 = 2 -> so he gives attackers a -2 penalty to all attacks against him).
An expert swordsman with Skill:16 and Combat Reflexes, would have a parry of 12 (12-6 = 6 -> so he gives a penalty of -6).

This works fine for random "mooks/minions" but less so for "big bosses". As, in GURPS if you get hit, you are down. And even giving the players a -6 penalty to hit, they will hit at least every other attack. So it actually makes "boss battles" a lot more boring.


So I suggest, if you want to use such a rule. Keep it to all the faceless mooks. But allow the important enemies an active defense. This will also allow them to stand out as more important.


-------

I have never done the reversed and let attacks against the player be automatic. If i were to do so. I would again assign a penalty based on the skill of the attacker. I would say a equal to "(Skill-10)/2" (round down). So it would look like this:
Attacker skill = penalty
Skill: 8 = +1
Skill: 9 = +1
Skill: 10 = +0
Skill: 11 = +0
Skill: 12-13 = -1
Skill: 14-15 = -2
Skill: 16-17 = -3
And so on. (you will recognize this progression from D&D, only in reverse this time, as GURPS is about rolling low, not high).

[Canuck Lad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

No, because placing the attack cleverly and well is an additional effort

I don't agree. You're saying the expert swordsman exerting no more conscious thought than the novice produces an attach which is no more efficient?