Defense (sorry post is long)

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Kieddicus

I don't fully understand what you are getting at... RAW DX adjustments already persist to the next turn. ITL states that the -DX last till your next action, not your next action during that turn.

Let's say you are playing with RAW and the first attack knocks someone to the ground. On that same turn, others figures could choose to change their attack to get a +4 bonus to hit the downed figure. Removing one figure from the fight could radically change the subsequent flow of combat. But, if I understand your house rule correctly, all attacks are declared and rolled pretty much simultaneously, with no chance for figures to change their actions to adapt to rapidly changing conditions, such as choosing to defend instead of to attack if hit for 5+ damage.

[Kieddicus]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Let's say you are playing with RAW and the first attack knocks someone to the ground. On that same turn, others figures could choose to change their attack to get a +4 bonus to hit the downed figure. Removing one figure from the fight could radically change the subsequent flow of combat. But, if I understand your house rule correctly, all attacks are declared and rolled pretty much simultaneously, with no chance for figures to change their actions to adapt to rapidly changing conditions, such as choosing to defend instead of to attack if hit for 5+ damage.

Yes, that would be correct.

[larsdangly]

I think the most important thing about an active defense system in a melee combat game is that it is only worth while if it goes beyond merely striving for versimilitude and actually adds to game play.

A good negative example, in my opinion, is the attack+parry rules in Runequest. There is an element of versimilitude involved that seems satisfying on first glance, but the end result is significantly slowed game play with no contribution to the side of the game that involves decision making or strategy or 'rock/paper/scissors' competition. You simply have a chance of negating an attack that is not effectively different from just reducing your foe's attack roll. That is, a 'passive' effect on a foe's attack roll would accomplish the same thing, would involve the same basic decision making, but remove a sub-routine from the combat resolution mechanics, speeding it all up.

A good positive example is Flashing Blades, where your choices regarding small movements (side stepping, ducking, etc.) have effects that depend on your foe's attack choice (cut vs. thrust vs. lunge), and so they promote game play rather than just sucking up time.

[Kieddicus]

Finally got to test the system out. Obviously I'll need to test it much more, but the first test run did go well.

We did realize that charging with a spear has to be modified as well since melee combat is simultaneous. So we decided to give +2 DX to pole weapons in place of getting to attack first.

[TippetsTX]

To someone's earlier point, I think enforcing simultaneous attacks rolls removes a key (and enjoyable) tactical element from TFT. It also serves to de-value DX by removing one of its core aspects, namely the determination of who gets to act first.

[larsdangly]

The best simultaneous-attack system I've seen is Pendragon, and there is an obvious way to do something like this in TFT by having attacks be resolved as DX contests. But I agree it isn't a great idea. Honestly, I think this issue is mostly a case of a solution in search of a problem: if you just play TFT as written, you won't miss the lack of elaborate active defense rules except for the specific case of a 1 on 1 melee duel.

[Kieddicus]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

To someone's earlier point, I think enforcing simultaneous attacks rolls removes a key (and enjoyable) tactical element from TFT. It also serves to de-value DX by removing one of its core aspects, namely the determination of who gets to act first.

I never found higher DX figures going first to be a core aspect of the game, sure it was still a perk of high DX but I wouldn't call it CORE. And even though removing this does de-value DXthe added value of defense more than makes up for it.

Originally Posted by larsdangly

The best simultaneous-attack system I've seen is Pendragon, and there is an obvious way to do something like this in TFT by having attacks be resolved as DX contests. But I agree it isn't a great idea. Honestly, I think this issue is mostly a case of a solution in search of a problem: if you just play TFT as written, you won't miss the lack of elaborate active defense rules except for the specific case of a 1 on 1 melee duel.

I've never heard of Pendragon, but this is pretty much what I did. Melee combat is just a DX contest with the exception that it is possible for both parties to fail. I also agree that TFT doesn't need to be changed to add defense but I still enjoy it more with a defense stat.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Kieddicus

And even though removing this does de-value DX the added value of defense more than makes up for it.

But it doesn't. They system you have proposed isn't defensive, it is more like 'anti-offence'. True defense requires the actor to DO something to prevent getting hit. Your system would negate a character's attack based on their opponent's attack roll. Nobody is 'defending' here.

Of more concern, however, is the fact that the die roll itself seems more important than either combatant's actual DX score. When a DX 13 figure rolls a 12, they hit, unless their DX 8 opponent rolls a 6 on their own attack. Clearly the DX 13 guy is more skilled so how does that make sense? As a player, I would hate to see my advantage from a DX score that I have worked so hard to build up over many game sessions be stolen away like that.

It is an interesting idea, but at the end of the day, I think it would make combat more frustrating rather than more fun.

[Kieddicus]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

But it doesn't. They system you have proposed isn't defensive, it is more like 'anti-offence'. True defense requires the actor to DO something to prevent getting hit. Your system would negate a character's attack based on their opponent's attack roll. Nobody is 'defending' here.

You and I probably just think of defense differently. I'd say a characters AC in D&D is a defensive stat AC doesn't require the actor to do anything it is a value assigned based on your Dex and what armor you are wearing. The point of my system is to simulate that a better fighter doesn't get hit as often, not to add an active blocking option.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Of more concern, however, is the fact that the die roll itself seems more important than either combatant's actual DX score. When a DX 13 figure rolls a 12, they hit, unless their DX 8 opponent rolls a 6 on their own attack. Clearly the DX 13 guy is more skilled so how does that make sense? As a player, I would hate to see my advantage from a DX score that I have worked so hard to build up over many game sessions be stolen away like that.

But this same situation can happen in RAW TFT, what if your DX 13 fight rolls a 14 and your DX 8 opponent rolls a 7? You miss and he hits. Yes in my system you will hit a little less often, but you will get hit much less often! And this is what are testing has shown, actually when the DX difference is 5 or greater the guy with lower DX pretty much only ever hit if they rolled a crit.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

It is an interesting idea, but at the end of the day, I think it would make combat more frustrating rather than more fun.

This system might not be for you and that is alright. We didn't find it to be frustrating though.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Kieddicus

We did realize that charging with a spear has to be modified as well since melee combat is simultaneous. So we decided to give +2 DX to pole weapons in place of getting to attack first.

So one figure charges at another with a spear or longer pole arm, successfully impales the target to death as they close the distance, and yet gets wounded or potentially killed at the same time by the defender's short sword, or dagger, or even a punch? Physics seems to have flown out the window.

Speaking more generally, I like a game with simultaneous attacks and simultaneous damage, and I like a game where nothing happens simultaneously and every event affects the next one. TFT obviously falls in the second category. What I think really doesn't work is any game the vacillates between the two systems -- it has to be one or the other, or things start to get very messed up, as if you're playing on two different time scales at once. When some things are simultaneous but others are not, for purely mechanistic rules reasons, the sense of believability suffers.

The granular nature of person-to-person combat, resolved from second to second, cries out for the "nothing happens simultaneously" system exemplified by TFT. Everything happens at once better serves starship armada's launching attacks from lightyears away that will take hours, days or months to land their blows.