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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-07-2017, 10:34 PM   #21
trooper6
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck Lad View Post
Ideally I'd like a game system where the PCs make all the rolls. For example for the enemy I could assume some reasonable default, and not roll the enemy's attack. Instead the PC would roll his defence skill against the static attacker's roll. For the sake of helping combat resolution to be quicker and thus combat more exciting. Has GURPS anything like that?
What you are describing is called, "player facing." The games I can think of off the top of my head that are player facing are:
Numenera
Apocalypse World and Apocalypse World systems (like Dungeon World)
The GUMSHOE gams (Trail of Cthulhu, Night's Black Agents, etc)
Lady Blackbird
Lasers and Feelings (this is free and the entire rules fit on one page--micro rules light)

They are all Narrativist sorts of games that are rules light. They might be interesting for you?

I personally really like the equality between NPCs and PCs mechanically. I love the back and forth between attack and defense. I love that if a PC decides to attack another PC I don't have to worry about how to handle that mechanically. I think GURPS is a really solid system and I highly recommend it. But if you want a player facing game maybe check out one of the ones I mentioned above?
trooper6 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2017, 03:47 AM   #22
Maz
 
Maz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denmark
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck Lad View Post
Ideally I'd like a game system where the PCs make all the rolls. For example for the enemy I could assume some reasonable default, and not roll the enemy's attack. Instead the PC would roll his defence skill against the static attacker's roll. For the sake of helping combat resolution to be quicker and thus combat more exciting. Has GURPS anything like that?
GURPS is a toolbox, where you can pick and choose which optional rules to use, or even make up yourself.
It is not a strict set of rules that you must use all of. This is important to know when coming from many other games (especially D&D).


So, to answer you question. "No GURPS does not have anything like that in a published book". But that doesn't mean you couldn't just do it anyway. I have done it myself before. At least for the NPC's defense-rolls.
I made some rough calculation and came to a rule that say that instead of an active defense roll. An enemy simply gave a flat penalty to attacks against them of "active defense -6".

So an average swordsman with skill:10 would have a parry of 8. (8-6 = 2 -> so he gives attackers a -2 penalty to all attacks against him).
An expert swordsman with Skill:16 and Combat Reflexes, would have a parry of 12 (12-6 = 6 -> so he gives a penalty of -6).

This works fine for random "mooks/minions" but less so for "big bosses". As, in GURPS if you get hit, you are down. And even giving the players a -6 penalty to hit, they will hit at least every other attack. So it actually makes "boss battles" a lot more boring.


So I suggest, if you want to use such a rule. Keep it to all the faceless mooks. But allow the important enemies an active defense. This will also allow them to stand out as more important.


-------

I have never done the reversed and let attacks against the player be automatic. If i were to do so. I would again assign a penalty based on the skill of the attacker. I would say a equal to "(Skill-10)/2" (round down). So it would look like this:
Attacker skill = penalty
Skill: 8 = +1
Skill: 9 = +1
Skill: 10 = +0
Skill: 11 = +0
Skill: 12-13 = -1
Skill: 14-15 = -2
Skill: 16-17 = -3
And so on. (you will recognize this progression from D&D, only in reverse this time, as GURPS is about rolling low, not high).

Last edited by Maz; 11-08-2017 at 03:51 AM.
Maz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2017, 08:28 AM   #23
Canuck Lad
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
No, because placing the attack cleverly and well is an additional effort
I don't agree. You're saying the expert swordsman exerting no more conscious thought than the novice produces an attach which is no more efficient?
Canuck Lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2017, 08:30 AM   #24
Canuck Lad
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoncxs View Post
As someone who practice longsword, your assumption is wrong. I don't claim to be a master of the sword, but I am well enough that a beginner wouldn't even land a strike on me. Most people who have been practicing for a little while won't be able to land much of anything less than me messing up.
I never said anything in opposition to this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zoncxs View Post
If someone with a skill level of 12 fights someone with a skill level of 16, the parry scores are 9 and 11, the skill 16 person could take -4 to skill, dropping it to 12, when they attack which lowers the opponents defense from 9 to 7. That is technique in real life. Its harder to defend against the expert swordsmith because they can take bigger penalties and still land strikes.
So you fight a novice. Let's say you choose to put in no more mental exertion than he does. You're saying your attacks are no less difficult to defend than his? I don't believe that is correct.
Canuck Lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2017, 08:38 AM   #25
Canuck Lad
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
As Sir Pudding said you could just assume all NPC's roll a 10 or 11 on their attacks and defences leaving just the PCs to roll. Your results will be somewhat predictable and binary.
Most rolls on 3D6 are 10 or 11 anyway. And you still get randomness from the players rolling...
Canuck Lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2017, 08:59 AM   #26
Dalin
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck Lad View Post
Most rolls on 3D6 are 10 or 11 anyway. And you still get randomness from the players rolling...
Try it out and report back. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to hear about your experience. There are many, many ways to make use of the GURPS rules. Most of the fine folks on these forums are not-at-all interested in a singular Best Way to Play.

For myself, I get bored of rolling back and forth if there aren't any meaningful choices to be made based on those rolls. For example, I don't like just wearing down an opponent's pool of hit points. If, however, I can make tactical choices to improve my odds of ending a fight quickly, then I'm happy to roll buckets of dice.
Dalin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2017, 09:12 AM   #27
zoncxs
 
zoncxs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: earth....I think.
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck Lad View Post
Wouldn't that be inherent in their attack without a penalty?

ie: It's harder to defend against the expert swordsmith because his attack is so clever and well placed, and because he understands the motion of the blade so well. What you describe I don't consider the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck Lad View Post
I never said anything in opposition to this.
Sorry, meant the reverse, its easier to land hits when you know what to do. (but what I said before is also true). Its also easier to make your attacks more difficult to avoid, in GURPS this is represented with high skill level and penalties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck Lad View Post
So you fight a novice. Let's say you choose to put in no more mental exertion than he does. You're saying your attacks are no less difficult to defend than his? I don't believe that is correct.
But it is correct, you are fighting at their level, of course you will also be able to defend against them more easy than them to you, and you will be landing more hits. but they will have a better time trying to parry and avoid because of that, if you decided to make it harder, in GURPS you do that by taking penalties.

Someone with skill level 18 vs 12. that is a parry of 12 vs 9.

the 18 person can target arms or legs and still roll against 16, the 12 person would barely land those hits without taking a few seconds to evaluate.

the 18 person would also defend against the 12 person more easily and without needing to step back as much, the 12 person would be stepping back.

if the 18 person wants to land hits more easly, they can make their attacks more difficult to defend against, GURPS treats that as the -2/-1. the 18 person could take -4 to give -2 making it more harder for the 12 person to defend.


I train with people who are still learning the basics of longsword, I don't go all out (by that I mean using techniques that would land on them because they don't know how to defend), I fight at their level (or a little more) so they can learn, this is true for all fighting.
zoncxs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2017, 09:32 AM   #28
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck Lad View Post
...
So you fight a novice. Let's say you choose to put in no more mental exertion than he does. You're saying your attacks are no less difficult to defend than his? I don't believe that is correct.
I'm not quite sure how mental exertion would be expressed or quantified here?

If you mean put as much effort into it = both just going off basic skill and not trying anything tricky like making an attack that is particularly hard to defend against. Then the result your looking for is the one you get in the system. In GURPS the end result is the net effect of both an attack roll and a defence roll*. And the net result is a novice will indeed avoid being hit less often against a high skill opponent. Also if we're just looking at attacking then both putting the same effort as defined above will mean a higher skilled fighter will have a higher chance of success than a lower skilled one.

So an example of this:

High skill fighter Skill 20 (parry 13)
Novice Skill 10 (parry 8)


Ignoring all mods and just going on basic skill:

High skill fighter will make a successful attack 98% of the time and successfully parry 84% of the time

Novice will make a successful attack 50% of the time and successfully parry 26% of the time

So they fight, not doing anything fancy just attacking and parrying. Each time one attacks it will be:

High skill fighter will be on target and the novice will fail to defend 73%
Novice fighter will be on target and the high skill fighter will fail to defend 8% of the time.


The thing is both fighter's ability to attack and defend against attacks factor into this result.

The novice is worse at defending in abstract, but because the high skill fighter is also better at attacking the novice's weakness in defence will mean they'll get hit more often than if they were fighting someone less skilled. For instance if the novice was fighting another skill 10 novice they will only be hit 37% of the time

But the end result is if by equal mental effort you mean both are just rolling against their basic skill, then yes the novice will have a far harder time avoiding getting hit than the high skill fighter will.

This all leaves aside the rest of the stuff I mentioned earlier about the various options the high skilled fighter can use to further leverage their advantage in skill to get better or quicker result

However you might consider this as more exertion. But the novice can also mentally exert themselves in this way. However because they are less skilled they are less able to do so and still be on target in the first place! Moreover even if they are on target against the high skill fighter, a lot of these tricks will be less effective because the high skill fighter also has a significant advantage in being able to defend!

You could view how much exertion they are putting is could be expressed as what's needed for both to be as likely achieve their goal. So the novice at basic skill has 50% of being on target, Mr high skill can also decide to be on target 50% of the time, (effective skill 10) and leverage that -10 penalty in some other way e.g penalising the novices defence by -5.

Another way of putting that is Mr high skill can put a lot less effort into hitting 98% of time than the novice, who would need to find +6 in bonuses to get the same chance of 98%!.



*or in situations where there's no defence roll it's just the attack roll (which is more likely to end in successful hit than if there is defence roll)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck Lad View Post
Most rolls on 3D6 are 10 or 11 anyway. And you still get randomness from the players rolling...
You do, but you get a reduced spread of results when you have one roll vs. a set result than one roll vs. another.

The problem is the defence roll is binary in result (you either successfully make it or you don't). So assuming a roll of 10 that will mean that all defences that are made against defence "skill" of 10 or higher will be successful and all those that are against a 9 or lower will fail. No matter what.

However as I suggested there are a couple of ways of doing this. if you allow those who have set results to still adjust their defence by the various mods and options in the rules they can at least adjust when and where they successfully defend.

But you will still have known end results.

So for instance say you have a mook who has a broadsword skill 12 that will mean they parry at 9

If we assume they always roll 10, then they will never successfully parry.

But if they retreat while parrying (+1 to parry with a broadsword) their parry score increases to 10, and they will always successfully parry if we assume that always roll 10. Well unless those attacking them lower their parry again in some way, or some other factor does.


Thing is if you do allow for all the usual options to adjust defence then you are still tracking all these variables that may effect defence, and IMO doing the bulk of the detailed work anyway. So why not just roll the dice to model both side attempting to do something that directly contests with each other?

If of course you decide not to bother with options for adjusting defence and have automatic rolls, than you end up with people who never successfully defend or always successfully defend.

Or you can go for the Quick contest option I out lined as well

Don't get me wrong you want to have a fixed result to remove a dice roll go for it, what ever your view on spreads of results or any of the above it will be quicker!

Last edited by Tomsdad; 11-11-2017 at 04:06 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2017, 03:18 PM   #29
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck Lad View Post
I don't agree. You're saying the expert swordsman exerting no more conscious thought than the novice produces an attach which is no more efficient?
I didn't say anything about conscious thought, and I don't see any reason for you to either.

What I was getting at was that when the expert swordsman performs a no-deceptive, random-target-location attack they're performing the same attack as when the novice does (so long as neither of them fails, or crits, of course). Not a better version. They can perform a better version if they want to, and unlike the novice they probably do want to.

EDIT: The expert might be exerting less conscious thought to for the same attack, which might be part of why they're (much) less likely to fail at it. Maybe. 'conscious effort' isn't really a core consideration.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.

Last edited by Ulzgoroth; 11-10-2017 at 03:22 PM.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2017, 03:31 PM   #30
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Attack is not opposed?

Obviously, other than, sort of, hit location, nothing in a real fight (or sparring) has the granularity of GURPS maneuvers and attack options. If that's a problem, then GURPS probably isn't the right system, but honestly I don't know what system would be.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.