Attack is not opposed?

[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.

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?

[sir_pudding]

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.

The expert can, for example, afford to take a larger Deceptive Attack penalty to lower your defenses (or make Rapid Strikes to overwhelm your parry).

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

I feel like I have read a system like this, but I don't recall which one it is.

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?

Sure you could say that NPCs always roll 10 or 14 or whatever. I think this will certainly make combat less exciting, since the players will know exactly what the NPCs are able to do, and never have to worry about their opponents rolling critical successes. They will always know exactly how much they need to lower their foes defenses by in order to hit as well, which likely will result in very constrained choices.

[Canuck Lad]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The expert can, for example, afford to take a larger Deceptive Attack penalty to lower your defenses (or make Rapid Strikes to overwhelm your parry).

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.

[Ulzgoroth]

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.

No, because placing the attack cleverly and well is an additional effort over just placing the attack, and understanding the motion of the blade makes it easier regardless of the level of artistry desired.

Deceptive Attack can include things that you might not consider 'deceptive' as such, like a strike that's especially quick or directed so as to be difficult to counter. (Though it should be remembered that it works against all defenses, not only parries.)

[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?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

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?

I didn't say anything about conscious thought, and I don't see any reason for you to either.

What I was getting at was that when the expert swordsman performs a no-deceptive, random-target-location attack they're performing the same attack as when the novice does (so long as neither of them fails, or crits, of course). Not a better version. They can perform a better version if they want to, and unlike the novice they probably do want to.

EDIT: The expert might be exerting less conscious thought to for the same attack, which might be part of why they're (much) less likely to fail at it. Maybe. 'conscious effort' isn't really a core consideration.

[zoncxs]

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.

As someone who practice longsword, your assumption is wrong. I don't claim to be a master of the sword, but I am well enough that a beginner wouldn't even land a strike on me. Most people who have been practicing for a little while won't be able to land much of anything less than me messing up.

If someone with a skill level of 12 fights someone with a skill level of 16, the parry scores are 9 and 11, the skill 16 person could take -4 to skill, dropping it to 12, when they attack which lowers the opponents defense from 9 to 7. That is technique in real life. Its harder to defend against the expert swordsmith because they can take bigger penalties and still land strikes.

[Canuck Lad]

Originally Posted by zoncxs

As someone who practice longsword, your assumption is wrong. I don't claim to be a master of the sword, but I am well enough that a beginner wouldn't even land a strike on me. Most people who have been practicing for a little while won't be able to land much of anything less than me messing up.

I never said anything in opposition to this.

Originally Posted by zoncxs

If someone with a skill level of 12 fights someone with a skill level of 16, the parry scores are 9 and 11, the skill 16 person could take -4 to skill, dropping it to 12, when they attack which lowers the opponents defense from 9 to 7. That is technique in real life. Its harder to defend against the expert swordsmith because they can take bigger penalties and still land strikes.

So you fight a novice. Let's say you choose to put in no more mental exertion than he does. You're saying your attacks are no less difficult to defend than his? I don't believe that is correct.

[zoncxs]

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.

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

I never said anything in opposition to this.

Sorry, meant the reverse, its easier to land hits when you know what to do. (but what I said before is also true). Its also easier to make your attacks more difficult to avoid, in GURPS this is represented with high skill level and penalties.

Originally Posted by Canuck Lad

So you fight a novice. Let's say you choose to put in no more mental exertion than he does. You're saying your attacks are no less difficult to defend than his? I don't believe that is correct.

But it is correct, you are fighting at their level, of course you will also be able to defend against them more easy than them to you, and you will be landing more hits. but they will have a better time trying to parry and avoid because of that, if you decided to make it harder, in GURPS you do that by taking penalties.

Someone with skill level 18 vs 12. that is a parry of 12 vs 9.

the 18 person can target arms or legs and still roll against 16, the 12 person would barely land those hits without taking a few seconds to evaluate.

the 18 person would also defend against the 12 person more easily and without needing to step back as much, the 12 person would be stepping back.

if the 18 person wants to land hits more easly, they can make their attacks more difficult to defend against, GURPS treats that as the -2/-1. the 18 person could take -4 to give -2 making it more harder for the 12 person to defend.


I train with people who are still learning the basics of longsword, I don't go all out (by that I mean using techniques that would land on them because they don't know how to defend), I fight at their level (or a little more) so they can learn, this is true for all fighting.

[Varyon]

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.

An expert swordsman is going to strike where - and when - you are most vulnerable. Striking where you are most vulnerable requires difficult positioning, while striking when you are most vulnerable means timing things just so. In either case, an attack penalty is appropriate - for the former, this is due to constraining how the character can attack, while for the latter it's a case where a miss could be interpreted as the character not attacking, as no opening presented itself.

Having Deceptive Attacks be retroactive - that is, imposing a -1 to defense for every 2 points by which you were under your target number - could do some of what you're looking for, but isn't very realistic and can make combat a bit more boring, as it removes some of the gambling nature from the contest.

As for only having the players roll, treating NPC's as always rolling a 12 might not be horrible. A foe with Broadsword-12 could instead be interpreted as one who imposes a +0 to defense and a +4 to attack (he never makes deceptive attacks, and the characters can get away with giving him up to a +2 to Parry), while one with Broadsword-18 would impose a -3 to defense and -2 to attack (he always makes -6 deceptive attacks, and the characters must always impose a -1 to his Parry to hit him).