Velocity of incoming attack?
 

This was probably discussed to death years ago, but why isn't it harder to dodge a bullet than a punch? I get that imposing a -19 penalty to dodge a bullet is basically the same as not allowing a dodge and as a result not very fun but surely there ought to be some difference.
Just something that's been bothering me lately since we've move from our DF game into a monster hunter one and bullet ballet is becoming a thing.

Re: Velocity of incoming attack?
 

Look up Dodge This, Pyramid #3/57 - Gunplay.

Re: Velocity of incoming attack?
 

The official explanation is that you aren't dodging the bullet in its flight. Rather, you're moving evasively, to make it hard to aim at you. In effect, you're dodging the shooter's line of aim.

Re: Velocity of incoming attack?
 

This has actually been debated and there is wide agreement that is not realistic.
Then you can choose if you are fine with a more cinematic/schematic/whatever approach, or if you want to improve realism with optional/home rules.

Re: Velocity of incoming attack?
 

100% this. It's actually really hard to shoot a moving target that is aware they're being shot at and is doing their damnedest not to be shot.

I think part of problem here is that when most people hear the word dodging they're thinking of something along the lines of a boxer juking out of the way of a punch. In GURPS you're only dodging like that if you do a dodge and step, acrobatic dodge or a dodge and drop, otherwise it's just you basically flinching at just the right moment to be a hard target to line up with.

Re: Velocity of incoming attack?
 

As I note in the intro to the article, official explanations aside, in play it feels like you're dodging each bullet (or in my case, lasers).

My blog has a few related articles on Dodge This, including my own review of my article (recursive, I know), as well as Jake B.'s play report.

But the feel of the rules is what I think the OP was referring to, and they can rip suspension of disbelief right off the table. I wrote the article with that in mind.

Re: Velocity of incoming attack?
 

There's super-realistic and then there's what gamers who don't hack rules on forums are willing to tolerate at the table. :) If I were simply Making Stuff Up without a single thought to complexity (as for a computer game), I'd probably do something like this:

Active defenses could affect melee (striking or grappling) attacks and thrown weapons only. All would benefit from shield Defense Bonus (DB) in some way. There would be three choices:

Blocks would be stops attempted with bare hands, weapons, shields, etc. They would get a bonus for the size of whatever you're blocking with – larger than current shield DB (maybe DB+2) for shields, and equal to something like maximum Reach+1 for fists, weapons, etc. If successful, the attack would hit and damage whatever you blocked with: your forearm (which might be protected by armor DR), blade, buckler, etc. Obviously, weapon and shield tables would need to show plausible DR, HP, and HT scores!

Parries would be deflections attempted with bare hands, weapons, shields, etc. They would work a lot like they do now. The differences would be that they would be harder than blocks (only regular shield DB, if any) but wouldn't damage what you're parrying with. Disparities in weapon size and power should make a difference, but the current weapon-breakage rules wouldn't be used. Instead, a successful parry would be treated as reducing the incoming attack by dice and adds in some way based on the user's ST and the mass of what he's parrying with. Tables would have to show this "parrying power" (e.g., "2×swing + 1d").

Dodges would be deliberate attempts to ensure a complete miss – no damage to anyone, no limit on damage avoided. They would work much as now, but would be limited in number, not infinitely repeatable. Some skills, probably including all unarmed skills and Acrobatics (this would be instead of the current Acrobatic Dodge!), would allow a dodge at 3 + skill/2; otherwise, you'd be working from Basic Speed+3.

Successive blocks or parries with the same hand would incur a cumulative penalty (for the sake of argument, -4), but would not affect defenses with other hands or dodges. Successive dodges would incur such a cumulative penalty as well (same -4), and would add a smaller cumulative penalty (say, -1) to all future blocks and parries.

Defensive action would be an option you could choose to take or not take on any given turn in order to avoid ranged attacks – including thrown weapons, muscle-powered missiles, firearms, and beams. It would not count as an active defense. There would be two choices:

Evasive movement would automatically give you a penalty to attack that turn (-4, -6, who knows . . .). It would involve a roll, probably against DX or a mobility such as Acrobatics. Success would reduce your attack penalty by the margin and give anybody attacking you with a ranged weapon a penalty to hit equal to half your margin, but always at least -1. If hit, you could still try an active defense against anything that allows that.

Taking cover would require a shield, automatically reduce your shield's effective DB by 2 for active defenses, and prohibit using that shield to block or parry at all. It would involve a roll against Shield + full DB. Success would give anybody attacking you from the front with a ranged weapon a penalty to hit equal to half your margin, but always at least -1. Attacks that miss due to this penalty would hit and damage the shield, per a block. To avoid shield damage, you could try a dodge if the attack allows such a defense.

Hack and tinker to taste.

Re: Velocity of incoming attack?
 

The word "dodge" is overloaded. It can mean tracking one specific object and getting out of its way. It can also mean general movement intended to be evasive without regard to any specific threat, as in "dodging about". If you're running "serpentine", you're "dodging" if someone shoots at you.

Clearly, there are things you can do to be harder to hit than if you're just standing still or running normally.

The GURPS assumption is that people are always moving in combat, even if they're not changing hexes or position (Crouch, Prone, etc) on the tactical map. You're not just standing still until your turn, when you suddenly spring into action. Thus, you rate some sort of defense even without doing anything specific. That's "Dodge". The error may be as much in calling that an "Active Defense" as it is in calling it "Dodge", as it implies that it's something extra special that you do in reaction to a specific event (which is only one sense of "dodge"). Since 3e did away with the term "Passive Defense", you could perhaps repurpose that term for "Dodge".

Re: Velocity of incoming attack?
 

I actually like those rules.

Re: Velocity of incoming attack?
 

Thanks, Kromm!

Hmm having said that now I want to go pillage something.