Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon
Having players choose to defend without knowing if an attack hit honestly adds a lot to the game. <snip> Of course, this improvement isn't free, and we have to pay for it with added complexity.
|
Look, houserules like that are fine if you want them, but I would prefer you at least understand my point.
The situation in which all of this matters is dodging gunfire, especially spoiling aim by doing so. The TS rules cover that, completely and well, without adding any new rolls, contests, margin-evaluation, crit rules... Wherein if you chose the Aim maneuver, you are essentially committing to not dodging, and you need to pre-commit to diving for cover, "erratic" movement, etc., in order to use them. (They also provide plenty of clarity on what Dodge actually means and represents.)
Trying to model melee attacks like gunfire (where you can't even know if you're being shot at, just that you might be getting shot) is, imo, silly and absurd. Definitely not realistic, and absolutely not worth any added complexity. Feints, deceptive attacks, basic maneuver choice (especially with MA options), etc. all cover all these cases, in part because GURPS does not micromanage movement, limb positioning, combat stance...
The rules you're talking about will have only 2 gameplay impacts (over the TS rules, to be clear): reward attack-spamming even more, by making every melee attack into a "is it a miss?" gamble for the defender. Why hose defenders more? (Maybe you want that, so cool. Maybe you want to have a little minigame for every attack; also fine, if that's what you're into.) I wouldn't use such an option, nor would I ever recommend it --- it's bad design, based on a flawed model of violent action. But you don't need my agreement.