Knowing the outcome of an attack before choosing to actively defend

[tbone]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

Your article in Pyramid #3/34 is great! I'm using most of it. {although I don't get Hesitation...:)}

Thank you! I think you refer the rule at http://www.gamesdiner.com/rules-nugget/gurps-whats-miss . There's not much to that; it only suggests a couple more possible outcomes of an attack TH roll, should the GM be interested in those specific effects:

1) Hesitation: No pressing need to insert this consideration into combat, but it does happen in reality, and can be interesting to game. The suggestion: On a Committed Attack or AOA, there's no chance of hesitation, period. On any other attack, a miss of 1 or 2 means hesitation. No hit, but no loss of ammo, no unready polearm, etc.

2) Wide miss: A really obvious, bad miss. Normally there'd be no reason to care about that, but it's interesting if using DECIDE. With regard to DECIDE, some people have asked "what about gunfire (or other attack) that'll obviously miss?" I don't have a good answer for what determines that condition; a detailed answer should probably involve the defender checking a combat skill, with Per mods, to judge an obvious miss that'll require no defense. For simplicity, I just suggested "a miss by 5+" as a really obvious miss. That means the Nazi is shooting off his Uzi in such a blatantly wrong direction that you don't need to jump for cover, and can calmly continue your return Aim and then fire.

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

I like and understand the idea of DECIDE. For ranged combat, I prefer a variant of the Limiting Dodges options from Martial Arts, which is similar to your tweak and DECIDE option 1.

I assume you mean Restricted Dodge Against Firearms on MA123. That's even more strict than DECIDE; it has several restrictions, and if I'm reading it right, allows you to defend against only ONE specified shooter. Yet, it's unclear whether the specified "evasive movement" is disruptive like a Dodge, or whether it has no effects unless the shooter fires and TH succeeds. In other words, it appears to still let you say "naw, that bullet won't hit me, so I won't Dodge", and continue your Aim or Concentrate without a hiccup.

I could be wrong, though. The text could be clearer on that.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by Bengt

Rolemaster is another example.

At the start of the round you transfer as much as you want of your offensive bonus (OB) to your defensive bonus (DB). There is no actual defensive roll though. An attack is d100 roll + your OB - opponents DB, and look it up on a chart. I think you have to split the OB transferred to DB if you want to parry multiple opponents but that your intrinsic DB (which is mostly how fast you are and armour quality) is full against everyone.

The combat round is 10 seconds and does not represent one strike but a series of attacks, feints, and parries.

Rolemaster, sure. Thanks reminding me, I should have remembered that! It can't have been more than...20 years since I played Rolemaster.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by RyanW

I don't necessarily think of critical hits as superbly skilled attacks. Dumb luck can just as easily explain the results, especially in a case of modest skill.

Oh absolutely but higher skilled attackers get a lot more of them, and to get a bit meta for a second advantages like lucky increase your chances of getting them. However that doesn't seem to describe DanHowards examples, which seem more predicated on his choices.

[DanHoward]

I don't know. Those are the only misjudged incidents that I remember over a ten-year period so I seemed to be pretty good at it most of the time. The trick is to evaluate an incoming attack and decide whether it needs to be countered or not. If not then I ignore it completely and accept that it will hit me and not hurt enough to bother me or that it will miss entirely. Then I have to decide whether it is a real attack that is poorly executed or just a feint. Then I decide how to react. GURPS seems to model this fairly well. IME a decent fighter has enough time to detemine how successful the attack will be and then decide how to defend against it. Attack and defense manoeuvres are not simultaneous so IMO it is reasonable to wait to see if the attack roll is successful before the defender has to declare his defense.

The Rolemaster concept of having to decide how much of your weapon skill to allocate to defense before you know how good the attack is, does not reflect reality. It is a pure gamble and there is no skill involved. It reminds me of playing blackjack and having to decide how much to bet before you see a single card. There is no skill involved at this stage of the game - it is dumb luck whether your bet is commensurate to your first card.

[jacobmuller]

Originally Posted by tbone

1) Hesitation: No hit, but no loss of ammo, no unready polearm, etc.

Doh! No hit - no wasted ammo, etc. Got it. Thank you:D

Originally Posted by tbone

I assume you mean Restricted Dodge Against Firearms on MA123. That's even more strict than DECIDE; it has several restrictions, and if I'm reading it right, allows you to defend against only ONE specified shooter. Yet, it's unclear whether the specified "evasive movement" is disruptive like a Dodge, or whether it has no effects unless the shooter fires and TH succeeds. In other words, it appears to still let you say "naw, that bullet won't hit me, so I won't Dodge", and continue your Aim or Concentrate without a hiccup.

I could be wrong, though. The text could be clearer on that.

That's the one. It limits your choice of manoeuvres, eg no concentrate or aim if you want to avoid being shot. But I treat it like the melee, -1 per additional... I figure, if you're doing your wiggly run to avoid bullets, or diving into a ditch, whether there's one shooter or ten, they should all have it harder. I could well be doing the DECIDE version and just not realising it:D

[Bengt]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The Rolemaster concept of having to decide how much of your weapon skill to allocate to defense before you know how good the attack is, does not reflect reality. It is a pure gamble and there is no skill involved. It reminds me of playing blackjack and having to decide how much to bet before you see a single card. There is no skill involved at this stage of the game - it is dumb luck whether your bet is commensurate to your first card.

The Rolemaster "parry" mechanic is the equivalent of choosing all-out-attack, all-out-defence, or something in between in GURPS. It's abstracted over a longer time (10 seconds) and it does not model defending against individual strikes.

[DanHoward]

I played Rolemaster for over a decade and enjoyed it (we played it so much that most of us had memorised all the entries in the common critical hit tables) but that doesn't mean that the combat mechanic is realistic. It is silly to have to guess how successful an attack might be before deciding on a defense. In GURPS you know that the attack is going to hit when you choose how to defend but you don't know how effective the attack will be. It is a better approximation of how I invision realistic combat.

I can't play Rolemaster now. I'm constantly thinking "GURPS does this better" and the experience is spoiled.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The Rolemaster concept of having to decide how much of your weapon skill to allocate to defense before you know how good the attack is, does not reflect reality. It is a pure gamble and there is no skill involved. It reminds me of playing blackjack and having to decide how much to bet before you see a single card. There is no skill involved at this stage of the game - it is dumb luck whether your bet is commensurate to your first card.

Under that system, wouldn't it be a smart tactic to enter the fight with your weapon skill allocated mostly to defense? Don't gamble with skill allocated to offense against an unknown foe; go in wary, and as you ward him off, conservatively shift skill from defense to offense until you can hit him.

If you can do that in Rolemaster, I'd say it actually sounds rather realistic, with a fighter "feeling out" foes to determine how aggressive he can afford to be.

Then again, I've never played RM, so I don't much know what I'm talking about. : )

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by tbone

Under that system, wouldn't it be a smart tactic to enter the fight with your weapon skill allocated mostly to defense? Don't gamble with skill allocated to offense against an unknown foe; go in wary, and as you ward him off, conservatively shift skill from defense to offense until you can hit him.

No. You have no way of telling which attack is going to be a good one or not. Using your suggestion you will have to allocate most of your skill to defense every turn ad infintum. The only alternative is to randomly pick a turn in which to reduce your defense and hope that he gets a low roll that turn. We quickly realised that it was a waste of time allocating anything to parrying and, instead, going for what GURPS would call an all-out attack every time. The only instance in which it was worth defending was when you had a buddy who could hit him while you were keeping him busy - and in that situation you may as well allocate all of your skill to defense.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I don't know. Those are the only misjudged incidents that I remember over a ten-year period so I seemed to be pretty good at it most of the time. The trick is to evaluate an incoming attack and decide whether it needs to be countered or not. If not then I ignore it completely and accept that it will hit me and not hurt enough to bother me or that it will miss entirely. Then I have to decide whether it is a real attack that is poorly executed or just a feint. Then I decide how to react. GURPS seems to model this fairly well. IME a decent fighter has enough time to detemine how successful the attack will be and then decide how to defend against it. Attack and defense manoeuvres are not simultaneous so IMO it is reasonable to wait to see if the attack roll is successful before the defender has to declare his defense.

I guess I see it more as a continuum rather than either/or. In reality I agree it's not attack/defend at the exact same time, but neither do I think it's attack and then defend either. Of course in an RPG short of both writing down your declarations of intent at the same time and rolling your dice at the same time, you have little choice but to take turns in some way. The problem with the latter (not that the former is without issues) is that it informs the player beyond what the characters would necessarily know. Take the 3 guys getting shot by nazi's, two know they will get shot so dodge behind cover, the third knowing he is safe stands there acting accordingly. Its more of an issue in gun fire than other area's. I just reckon that in combat "knowing your safe" should be a matter of opinion rather than known fact

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The Rolemaster concept of having to decide how much of your weapon skill to allocate to defense before you know how good the attack is, does not reflect reality. It is a pure gamble and there is no skill involved. It reminds me of playing blackjack and having to decide how much to bet before you see a single card. There is no skill involved at this stage of the game - it is dumb luck whether your bet is commensurate to your first card.

I don't think of it as pure gamble, because all sorts of knowledge and skill will play a factor. If you know the chap attacking is not skilled you know you can devote less skill against him to defend, if he's attacking you with a feather and his mate has an axe you allocate accordingly. If you are very skilled you might know you are skilled enough to devote enough skill to defend and still have enough left to attack with little reduction in your chance of succeeding at both.

I haven't played rolemaster (or rather MERP in my case) for a very long time so not all of the above may be applicable, but it is applicable in TroS, were you do allocate effort like this.