Questions about "Dodge This!" article

[Erling]

With all due respect to math and reasoning provided in this article, I'm not sure if I understand concluding optional rule suggestions right.

If I get it right, in regard to dodging (as an active defense) firearm attacks article can be boiled down to as follows:

GM may apply penalty (about -3) to Dodge every time defender tries to avoid being hit by a fast-moving projectile (such as a bullet). This one applies regardless of distance. This one applies regardless of whether defender can see the projectile, since Perception roll for seeing the projectile is replaced by a (optional, depending on which rules gaming group uses) Perception roll for seeing the shooter. Ultimate penalty value already takes "predictability" factor into account. Other rules (like All-out Defense, Dodge and Drop, Cover, Visibility) remain unchanged.

Did I get it right?

Also I think that in most sci-fi/space opera games it would make sense to apply the same -3 Dodge penalty to dodging laser small arms, since at usual ranges defender doesn't dodge the "projectile" anyway, he dodges the line of fire. "Projectile's" velocity can hinder defenses (thus the penalty), but doesn't eliminate them completely.

[DouglasCole]

[QUOTE=Erling;2256648]
GM may apply penalty (about -3) to Dodge every time defender tries to avoid being hit by a fast-moving projectile (such as a bullet). This one applies regardless of distance. This one applies regardless of whether defender can see the projectile, since Perception roll for seeing the projectile is replaced by a (optional, depending on which rules gaming group uses) Perception roll for seeing the shooter. Ultimate penalty value already takes "predictability" factor into account. Other rules (like All-out Defense, Dodge and Drop, Cover, Visibility) remain unchanged.

Did I get it right?[]/quote]

Seems about right.

Also I think that in most sci-fi/space opera games it would make sense to apply the same -3 Dodge penalty to dodging laser small arms, since at usual ranges defender doesn't dodge the "projectile" anyway, he dodges the line of fire. "Projectile's" velocity can hinder defenses (thus the penalty), but doesn't eliminate them completely.

That's a GM call, not stated in the article. The penalty for dodging a light speed attack retroactively is something on the order of -12. I've never been wild about the "you dodge the line of fire" argument, though "if you try to dodge the line of fire, Prediction Shots apply because while you're actively trying to get out of the way, the shooter is actively trying to guess where you go" seems quite legit.

But if you were looking for a simple rule to apply, "if you can see the shooter and want dodging bullets and lasers to be harder than dodging axes and arrows, -3 or -4 blanket penalty covers all the bases."

The other thing you can do is implement the "see the shooter, declare and resolve defense, then resolve attack" methodology. That would look something like

1. Decide (via fiat or die roll) if the defender can see the shooter pointing a weapon in his direction

2a. If not, resolve the attack normally; no defense is possible without Danger Sense or some other metagame ability. This will otherwise be a "bolt from the blue." Attack ends here in this case.

2b. If so, the attacker declares the nature of the attack: "I'm shooting three times, aiming for the torso, yadda^3."

3. Declare defense (parry/block/dodge) and resolve it.

4a. Apply double the margin of success as a penalty to hit. Then resolve the shot normally.

4b. If the defense succeeds, the shooter misses, but the nature of the attack is important for suppression fire, hitting the wrong target, etc.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

That's a GM call, not stated in the article. The penalty for dodging a light speed attack retroactively is something on the order of -12. I've never been wild about the "you dodge the line of fire" argument, though "if you try to dodge the line of fire, Prediction Shots apply because while you're actively trying to get out of the way, the shooter is actively trying to guess where you go" seems quite legit.

...Should we then assume that Dodge This is about getting out of the way of bullets strictly within their flight time?

Because that's not a position I'd have wanted to put myself on...

[Plane]

https://gamingballistic.com/tag/dodge-this/ has some background stuff to the pyramid article.

https://gamingballistic.com/2013/02/...ss-of-dodging/ references T-Bone's DECIDE rules. GamesDiner appears to be down ATM but the background article from 2007 can be read here.

That in turn might be based on http://www.gamesdiner.com/GULLIVER/B...laringDefenses (strangely THIS part of GamesDiner seems to work, just not the homepage or blog articles...) from 2004.

The "panic defense" appears to be taking the full speed-based penalties (wait, it's not all over yet. You played wait-and-see – and are now thinking "oh, @#%!!" as that mace screams toward your head after all.)

throw up a last-second defense at a penalty. Call it -1 for a melee attack, -2 for a thrown weapon, -4 for a missile like an arrow, -8 for a bullet, or -16 for a hypervelocity round.

Seems to be pretty in line with using the speed-range table which is the approach Douglas Cole used. I like the idea of even applying it to melee attacks, albeit obviously at a smaller penalty since it's easier to post-react than pre-react to them than bullets.

this 14 july 2007 remnant also has an interesting MoS-based proposal...

If you elect NOT to dodge point of aim, you take (say) a penalty for attack speed and skill, equal to half the margin of success of the attack (max -5) plus a penalty based on the Parry Missile Weapons penalties.

The PMW penalties I think pretty closely resembling the Speed/Range penalties might've been referenced in the Dodge This! article? So the idea of a penalty based on attack speed was carried over, but I don't think a penalty for attack skill was incorporated.

The idea of penalties on active defenses based on attack MoS was proposed in 3e compendium I think (for Trained by a Master?) but I think was ultimately replaced by predetermining them based on penalties on the roll (Deceptive Attack) which is a lot harsher on the attacker, so I expect that wasn't incorporated since by that point either GURPS Martial Arts or GURPS High-Tech had introduced the ranged equivalents

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

...Should we then assume that Dodge This is about getting out of the way of bullets strictly within their flight time?

Because that's not a position I'd have wanted to put myself on...

Not exactly. The "issue," such as it is, is that while the results for the central cases of most combat scenarios (which many RPG situations do NOT fit into) actually tend to work out according to reality pretty well (I go into this in the article), that the usual form of the die rolls:

Shooter attacks
Hit roll resolved
Oh, noes! It might hit me!
Defender declares and resolves defense

causes cognitive dissonance and (more importantly) breaks the willing suspension of disbelief at the table when you ONLY react to shots that MIGHT hit you.

If you want to call that "within the flight time" you can, but the article is trying to take a game-mechanical approach that extends the thrown or hand-powered ranged weapon table to faster things.

I view Dodge This as a game mechanical approach, consistent with ranged melee weapons, rather than a prescriptive simulationist one. The goal was "don't make folks say WTF?! at the gaming table," not "the results occurring are unrealistic."

[Anthony]

As a side note, in situations where time of flight is negligible and visibility isn't an issue, in order to hit you must be able to reliably correct your aim to be on the target in less time than it takes for the target to move.

If we consider hitscan weapons in FPS games, that suggests using Fitt's law, but Fitt's law isn't really designed for moving targets. If we're instead looking at holding aim on a target, the steering law actually seems pretty applicable, implying that hit probability is almost totally dependent on unpredictable transverse velocity divided by target size.