Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-29-2016, 12:58 PM   #11
Kelly Pedersen
 
Kelly Pedersen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
Also note that if you want to play in a very realistic manner, when someone attacks, it can be hard to know if he is doing a normal or an all out attack.
[...]

Thus, combatant B can never be sure that A isn't able to defend himself after his attack. That avoid this kind of situation where choosing an all out attack becomes totally safe.
That's actually not how it's supposed to be handled by default, though. Kromm has clarified that all maneuvers, except successful Feints, are obvious to everyone else. If you All-Out Attack, everyone watching you can see you've dropped your guard in favour of your offense.
Kelly Pedersen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2016, 01:03 PM   #12
Gollum
 
Gollum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen View Post
That's actually not how it's supposed to be handled by default, though. Kromm has clarified that all maneuvers, except successful Feints, are obvious to everyone else. If you All-Out Attack, everyone watching you can see you've dropped your guard in favour of your offense.
OK. I didn't know that! Thank you for the precision.

As a karateka, I can say that thinks are absolutely not so obvious during combats (except for experienced fighters who can "read" your body). But, for game balance, I perfectly do agree.
__________________
My GURPS fan's website (just a beginning at the moment):
http://gollumdeux.wix.com/gollumsgurpspages
Gollum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2016, 01:20 PM   #13
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scolop View Post
Combatant A takes his turn first and chooses the All-Out Attack maneuver. Combatant B dodges the attack. In his turn, can Combatant B also choose the All-Out Attack maneuver, considering he has used an active defense before his turn?

I'd say he can, since it wasn't his turn when he defended, but I'd just like to clear this up. It certainly favors those who act later when their opponents choose a maneuver that limits their own defenses.
Yep you are right absolutely right, and in fact one of the best time to do a AoA is in response to a previous AoA because you don't need to worry about it being defended.

Although a safer option is the Telegraphic Attack in Martial Arts which gives you a nice +4 to hit and you don't have to worry about the trade off benefit to you opponents defences (because they won't have one).


Of course you can go for the spectacular finisher of a Telegraphic AoA! (but make you hit because it's extra embarrassing to leave them in a position to come back at you after that!)
Tomsdad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2016, 11:14 PM   #14
McAllister
 
McAllister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

I'd be amenable to a rule that you have to succeed on a Tactics roll (or a roll against the same combat skill your foe is using) to know what maneuver they've employed. It's similar to some of the stuff in Tactical Shooting that limits the PCs' advantages of having perfect situational awareness and impressive cool under fire by default. Only appropriate for a campaign that's interested in that level of combat detail, buy hey, some of them are.
McAllister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2016, 11:37 PM   #15
Celti
 
Celti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA, Arizona, Phoenix
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
I'd be amenable to a rule that you have to succeed on a Tactics roll (or a roll against the same combat skill your foe is using) to know what maneuver they've employed. It's similar to some of the stuff in Tactical Shooting that limits the PCs' advantages of having perfect situational awareness and impressive cool under fire by default. Only appropriate for a campaign that's interested in that level of combat detail, buy hey, some of them are.
It's funny you mention Tactical Shooting, because if you do want to call for a roll to determine whether they recognise an All-Out Attack when they see one, the rules for Situational Awareness (page 11 of that book) specifically call out using that section for, among other things, being “able to tell what maneuvers targets are taking”. It's a Per, Observation, or Per-based Tactics or Soldier roll, with assorted modifiers.
__________________
Battle not with trolls, lest ye become a troll; and if you gaze into the Internet, the Internet gazes also into you.
Celti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 01:10 AM   #16
Gollum
 
Gollum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celti View Post
It's funny you mention Tactical Shooting, because if you do want to call for a roll to determine whether they recognise an All-Out Attack when they see one, the rules for Situational Awareness (page 11 of that book) specifically call out using that section for, among other things, being “able to tell what maneuvers targets are taking”. It's a Per, Observation, or Per-based Tactics or Soldier roll, with assorted modifiers.
For melee combat, I would use a Per based roll of your own combat skill. For several reasons ...
  • Every martial art teaches you to read your foe's body. So you don't have to know your opponent's skill to notice that he is dropping his guard, trying a telegraphic attack, and so on.
  • Your ability to do it depends on your training. More you are skilled, more it is easy to do.
  • Soldier or Tactics don't teach you to read your foe's body in close combat. Exactly as, Karate, Judo, Boxing (or any other melee combat skill) won't teach you to read what your foe is trying to do in a gunfight ...
And I fully do agree about the fact that making such rolls is adding something to the usual game, for harshly realistic games (I was speaking about a "very realistic manner" of playing). Exactly as using Tactical Shooting is adding something more complex (but so interesting) to the basic rules.
Edit
Of course, not knowing that your foe is making an all-out attack unbalances the game a bit ... But just a bit. Even if B doesn't take advantage of the fact that A chose an all-out attack to also make an all-out attack, A is still defenseless! Which means that if B succeeds a normal attack, A won't be able to avoid it. It is already a huge drawback! Suppose that B just makes a Telegraphic Attack* and A will regret his choice.
_____

* Most beginners do telegraphic attacks rather than all-out ones. They don't necessarily drop their guard. But they prepare their punch or kick so much before attacking that it becomes very obvious.
__________________
My GURPS fan's website (just a beginning at the moment):
http://gollumdeux.wix.com/gollumsgurpspages

Last edited by Gollum; 10-30-2016 at 01:29 AM.
Gollum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 01:19 AM   #17
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
I'd be amenable to a rule that you have to succeed on a Tactics roll (or a roll against the same combat skill your foe is using) to know what maneuver they've employed. It's similar to some of the stuff in Tactical Shooting that limits the PCs' advantages of having perfect situational awareness and impressive cool under fire by default. Only appropriate for a campaign that's interested in that level of combat detail, buy hey, some of them are.
That's pretty much what I do and I give bonuses for previous evaluates*. (for pretty much the same reason as the stuff in TS that you mention) The point being If someone takes the time and effort to assess their opponent noticing the difference between this sort of thing becomes easier.

But yes on a second by second time frame in an actual combat situation when your also doing your own thing, and there are so many variables in involved. There's just no way you'll automatically be able to tell the difference between such wide variety of "he's attacking me with his sword"


If nothing else if I can tell automatically tell the difference in such precise detail, how does feint work?

But as has been said the RAW rule is a game balance thing, and as you said the option to not do it is really a matter of campaign switches


*and if someone was adding a telegraphic attack option I'd let their opponent know what else was happening.
Tomsdad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 01:36 AM   #18
Gollum
 
Gollum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
That's pretty much what I do and I give bonuses for previous evaluates*.
Either would I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
But yes on a second by second time frame in an actual combat situation when your also doing your own thing, and there are so many variables in involved. There's just no way you'll automatically be able to tell the difference between such wide variety of "he's attacking me with his sword"
I fully do agree. Which is why skill is important here. It must become instinctive. Which is possible with training. A lot of training.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
If nothing else if I can tell automatically tell the difference in such precise detail, how does feint work?
Kromm precisely said that feint was the exception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
*and if someone was adding a telegraphic attack option I'd let their opponent know what else was happening.
The telegraphic rule contains its own answer: it directly gives a bonus to the defense roll. So, it is necessarily obvious. No roll required to take benefit from this bonus.
__________________
My GURPS fan's website (just a beginning at the moment):
http://gollumdeux.wix.com/gollumsgurpspages

Last edited by Gollum; 10-30-2016 at 01:43 AM.
Gollum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 02:00 AM   #19
Critical
 
Critical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scolop View Post
Combatant A takes his turn first and chooses the All-Out Attack maneuver. Combatant B dodges the attack. In his turn, can Combatant B also choose the All-Out Attack maneuver, considering he has used an active defense before his turn?

I'd say he can, since it wasn't his turn when he defended, but I'd just like to clear this up. It certainly favors those who act later when their opponents choose a maneuver that limits their own defenses.
There is a conditional here that has been ignored in concluding it is advantageous to act later; we're assuming B survives A's opening salvo by successfully dodging. If A has a powerhouse attack that is tough to ward off, it is certainly not to B's advantage to go second. A also has a chance to critically hit, denying B any opportunity to dodge. If we're going to assume B successfully defends, then of course it makes A's opening with an AoA look bad.
Critical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 02:01 AM   #20
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
Either would I.


I fully do agree. Which is why skill is important here. It must become instinctive. Which is possible with training. A lot of training.
Yep, I make it a Perception based skill roll (and like feint I'd make it highest skill in case you were fighting with an unfamiliar weapon) I;d also consider giving a bonus form various advantages that would be relevant to keeping calm in combat situations e.g. combat reflexes etc


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
Kromm precisely said that feint was the exception.
I know, my question is why is it an exception? Other then for the reason it can't exist unless you make it an exception to the system premise that everyone knows what their opponents are doing in system terms.

The entire premise of a feint is that you don't automatically know what your opponent is doing. Moreover a feint works because you don't know when they are they are feinting and when they are not* Which implies that you don't automatically know what they are doing.


Now all this is fine because all the this is a question of game balance not reality, and that's fine (it's extra work to add this stuff in, and even ignoring that it only going to be appropriate for some games styles anyway).

As I said above I see this as a game switch only, not something the system has got wrong


*if you did then any instance of suddenly not being able to recognise what they doing would mean they where feinting, you would know that and thus the feint would be foiled anyway


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
The telegraphic rule contains its own answer: it directly gives a bonus to the defense roll. So, it is necessarily obvious. No roll required to take benefit from this bonus.

Yep, alternatively you could add the same bonus to the perception roll. And expanding that thought, I'd possibly give a penailty to the perception roll for assessing a deceptive attack equal to the defence penalty it gives
Tomsdad is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
active defense, basic set, turn sequence

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.