11-13-2017, 06:56 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
The problem with feinting
This is something that occurred to me in the 'Attack is not opposed' thread: I'm not sure a feint, as GURPS defines the term, is a real maneuver.
The essence of a feint is that you do something that looks like a particular way of attacking, hoping to bait your opponent into reacting, at which point you make a different attack before your opponent has recovered from his initial response. In GURPS, you recover from an attempted parry at the start of your turn (realistically, the time required is somewhat variable, but this isn't absurdly fast). Thus, in order to attack someone before they've recovered from your feint, you logically have to do it before the start of their next turn. Absent altered time rate, that means you need to be attacking twice during the same turn (which is not what a GURPS feint requires). Now, we could rule that attacking twice is required, but it basically never makes sense to do rapid strike (feint, attack), because you could instead use a deceptive attack. Feint/Attack as an all-out attack is only superior to all-out (precise, deceptive) with a 9 point skill difference; with rapid strike you need a 13 point skill difference to come out ahead. In reality, feints do get used between people of comparable skill; however, they don't seem to be what GURPS calls a feint. They're closer to what GURPS calls a deceptive attack, except a variable attack penalty is probably wrong; it's not really that much additional difficulty feint and attack, because at any point during the attack (including the initial feint) if the target doesn't respond appropriately you can convert whatever you're doing at the moment into the real attack. |
11-13-2017, 07:44 PM | #2 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: The problem with feinting
A lot of what would be called feints in real fighting are more sensibly treated deceptive attacks., and there is some weirdness introduced by the way GURPS turn order works (in that you could be the victim of a feint and then make an attack and three dodges, then suffer the follow up attack). However, the idea of a feint as a discrete action separate from the attack is a real thing.
The idea of just turning a feint (or the initial motion of a one-two deceptive attack) into a real attack if the opponent fails to "defend" the way you want him to probably won't work as you think it would. The footwork and timing are all based on the assumption that you'll be hitting on a particular beat. Trying to change it to a different beat will likely leave you with an off-balance, low strength attack.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
11-13-2017, 08:13 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: The problem with feinting
It works with thrusting. A standard feint in fencing is just thrust in one line, when they react, disengage and continue in another line. If they don't react at all, can just stab them in the first line.
|
11-13-2017, 09:09 PM | #4 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: The problem with feinting
This is what "Delayed Gratification" was about. You can just replace Feints with Set-Up Attack completely.
|
11-14-2017, 12:22 AM | #5 | |||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: The problem with feinting
Quote:
Generally speaking a feint tends to have to be capitalised on immediately. e.g the classic I twitch to go high you raise your arm or sword, and I in fact go low under your defence and through the gap you just made. Or fake to punch with my left but in fact punch with my right. To me the truest feint in the game that actually has the term feint is one that strings a feint and an attack in one action/turn*. But it tends not to work very will in the game unless you have a significant skill advantage (or don't mind losing your defence, or burning a FP). I think combinations which include feints are very realistic here (but come with their own trade off) But as you say this is more about a quirk of the turn sequence, and I think the system has enough options here to cover all bases in terms of what you want to model since "feints" are themselves a range of things in reality weather it's a feint as defined in RAW a deceptive attack or a set up, all done in variety of ways. *so agree with Anthony. Quote:
Quote:
If I really looked at it I might adjust this point subject to what you fighting with though, committing to an attack when you have a single weapon e.g. fencing is somewhat different to when your boxing for instance, but equally when you have say a sword you have more reach to work and strike with to do this kind of thing with. (and of course committing to an attack can itself mean a variety things here!) tl;dr "Feint" in GURPS can be a Feint in Real life, but a feint in real life can also be several other things in GURPS as well. Last edited by Tomsdad; 11-14-2017 at 12:56 AM. |
|||
11-14-2017, 01:48 AM | #6 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: The problem with feinting
The problem is that a feint in GURPS cannot be a feint in real life; the timing is wrong. The same goes for almost everything it could be, other than some things that are really closest to grappling.
|
11-14-2017, 02:03 AM | #7 | |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Meifumado
|
Re: The problem with feinting
Quote:
It's useful to have as a mechanic which other things are based off though. Do you think that Beats (i.e. a Feint, but with ST), Ruses (with IQ) or even Sex Appeal-based Feints wouldn't work by giving up an attack to penalise defense against your next attack?
__________________
Collaborative Settings: Cyberpunk: Duopoly Nation Space Opera: Behind the King's Eclipse And heaps of forum collabs, 30+ and counting! Last edited by Daigoro; 11-14-2017 at 02:09 AM. |
|
11-14-2017, 02:45 AM | #8 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: The problem with feinting
A beat has the same timing problems as a feint; it's generally part of a single attack, not a separate action (unless you're trying to solve your opponent's parry by breaking his sword). The others are using social skills.
|
11-14-2017, 02:53 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: The problem with feinting
Quote:
But as RyanW said, and I agree. This is all really a question of the turn sequence, and how it games out in the system. In real life combat is not IGO/UGO. TBF In theory the GURPS turn sequence is not actually describing an IGOUGO reality. See umpteen threads where this is gone over and various metaphors are used to describe what the system is showing regarding overlapping actions and so on. But that doesn't stop the fact that the system does game out as IGOUGO, which can I think lead to this kind of dissonance between system and expectation. For me it helps to think of defending and attacking to be separate ongoing actions rather than an alternative sequence of things I'm doing so instead of a regular back and forth sequence of "I attack, I defend, I attack, I defend" it's rather: "I make my attacks, and I defend against attacks that come at me" But I get that is on the face of it a rather semantic distinction! But ultimately this is an RPG system it is gameable interpretation of a fight, and there will be some abstraction and playability trade offs Personally I find that if you keep this in mind and interpret what's being described would actually look like it in RL it works out. Doing this also helps me interpret what some odd abstract rules combinations work out as, e.g the "wait for an attack, retreat, committed double step dance routine, while my opponent is rooted immobile to the spot". Now my favourite combat pacing system is to decouple turns entirely and have refresh rates (ideally you'd have them for attacking and defending). Last edited by Tomsdad; 11-14-2017 at 04:49 AM. |
|
11-14-2017, 04:47 AM | #10 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: The problem with feinting
Quote:
One other point to make a lot of feints and beats in are possibly done in combination with a wait* thus allowing you to feint/beat and attack in quick succession, without having to absorb a load of rapid strike penalties etc *especially considering a normal beat requires a successful defence first. Last edited by Tomsdad; 11-14-2017 at 05:19 AM. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|