[House rules] Changing up defense rolls?

[knarf]

I ran a GURPS game for some friends a while ago and my players ran into something they didn't particularly like.

In the campaign opening test fight, the bad guys kept making their Dodge rolls, to the point that one player told me "Roll his Dodge first, just so I know whether my attack roll will mean anything." A couple of the other players simply didn't like that a successful defense roll could "take away" a successful attack roll and received no modifiers based on the degree of success on the attack. (The main complainer has seen fit to disregard the whole "Deceptive Attack" argument on the basis that it must be chosen deliberately rather than providing a benefit based on the value of the roll)

What I'm contemplating for the next time I run GURPS is either running attack/defense as a Quick Contest, or dropping the +3 to defenses and making them far less likely.

Anyone else tried this? Any other solutions to this problem? Is it even a problem?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by knarf

Anyone else tried this? Any other solutions to this problem? Is it even a problem?

Making it a contest completely disincentivizes combatants from deliberately taking any penalties. No hit locations, rapid strikes, ripostes, and so on.

Really I think the problem is your whiny players. :) Have some high skill adversary show them what can be done with Deceptive Attack, and Riposte.

[Diomedes]

While my first instinct is to agree with sir_pudding, you might try reversing the attack and defense rolls and see if they find that more amenable.

[Gef]

Originally Posted by knarf

Anyone else tried this? Any other solutions to this problem? Is it even a problem?

Yes, tried it, and it has potential but looked to need more fine-tuning than I was up for.

I don't have a big problem with it when I remind myself that turns are only ONE SECOND long. Even with lots of successful defenses, fights are over in less than 10 seconds.

Also, now that I've taken the time to really put the tactical combat system through its paces, I have new respect for it. There are lots of ways to get those defenses down, and through the 8-14 part of the curve, a -2 penalty (from a run-around attack) makes a big difference.

There is a player skill to successful combat, in addition to the characters' combat skills, and it requires just a bit of patience to learn and use. For instance, Feint is a great way to bring down defenses. Even with matched skill, you have a 50% chance to gain a benefit from it. However, you have to Feint this turn, and get the benefit next turn. I find that I rarely see players use the tactic, because they are impatient. The same is true of Wait, which is what you need to do to get the advantage out of superior reach.

That said, a 10-second combat can take an hour to game out, so players have some reason to be impatient. I frequently use "narrative combat" when checking the result of an individual attack is not really necessary. Here's how it might work:

Players disturbed a bunch of giant spiders in a forest, fled to open ground to face them.

I gamed through a couple of seconds turn-by-turn, until it was clear to all involved that 1) the PCs could easily kill any spider, and 2) they couldn't hope to kill them all.

Then I asked what they intended to use as tactics, and called for a few relavant die rolls to determine how cleanly they implemented the plan. Make a combat skill roll to see if you can clear enough spiders out of your path to get into position. Make a combat skill roll to see if you can defend the wizard while he casts a large area spell.

In this case, the press of spiders sent the holy knight of Malos over a cliff. He prayed like Hell on the way down, and was next seen coming back up over the cliff edge on a fiery steed, scattering spiders before him.

In order to run narrative combat without players crying foul, you and they need enough practice running tactical combat that you can make plausible judgments that they can accept.

GEF

[Gef]

Originally Posted by me

Yes, tried it, and it has potential but looked to need more fine-tuning than I was up for.

Quick contest, winner avoids being hit and scores one on the other guy. On a tie, both hit, but this becomes far less likely. How do you account for reach, for hit location, for all-out attacks? How do you translate the sundry modifers which were designed for the two-roll system? I'm not saying the Quick Contest system can't work, but you'll be re-inventing more than just the wheel.

As for "half skill" defenses, that's an overstatement. Suppose I'm a knight with Broadsword 16, Combat Reflexes, and a medium-sized shield, a pretty reasonable starting character. My attack target is 16 or less, and my defense target is 15 or less with a retreat, rising to 16 if I fight defensively. That's pretty comparable. Two of these guys could have an epic battle, and spectators with a trained eye could tell that they're both quite proficient, as they thrust and parry but rarely connect. The key to winning the duel would be to find tactics to either lower the other guy's defense, or to maximize the advantage gained if you get a lucky shot. These tactics involve some risk for the payoff. That drives tension, which makes for drama, which is why we do this hobby. But hey, not everyone enjoys the tactical element, as a player, so you have a couple of choices: Encourage them to play bricks, or run a game that de-emphasizes combat and run it narratively when it happens.

GEF

[Harald387]

Originally Posted by knarf

I ran a GURPS game for some friends a while ago and my players ran into something they didn't particularly like.

In the campaign opening test fight, the bad guys kept making their Dodge rolls, to the point that one player told me "Roll his Dodge first, just so I know whether my attack roll will mean anything." A couple of the other players simply didn't like that a successful defense roll could "take away" a successful attack roll and received no modifiers based on the degree of success on the attack. (The main complainer has seen fit to disregard the whole "Deceptive Attack" argument on the basis that it must be chosen deliberately rather than providing a benefit based on the value of the roll)

What I'm contemplating for the next time I run GURPS is either running attack/defense as a Quick Contest, or dropping the +3 to defenses and making them far less likely.

Anyone else tried this? Any other solutions to this problem? Is it even a problem?

I think two important questions need to be asked:

First, how high were the enemies' Dodge scores? Second, what were your players doing to penalize them?

An opponent with a base Dodge of 7 (Speed 6, +3, -2 for encumbrance) isn't going to be dodging that often, even with room to retreat. An opponent with a base Dodge of 11, however (Speed 6, +3, +3 more for a large shield, +1 for Combat Reflexes, -2 for encumbrance) is going to be seriously hard to hit if he's given room. An opponent with a base Dodge of 14 is going to be damn near unhittable; it's important for the GM to know where on the 'hard to hit' scale his NPCs are going to be.

It's just as important, though, for the players to try to find ways around a high Dodge. Is your target using a shield for +3 DB? Find a way to get to his off-shield side, possibly by taking an Extra Step (if that extra effort option is allowed) or by flanking him with your friends. Is he retreating constantly? Unless combat's taking place on an infinite, featureless plain, force him up against something. Do you have enough weapon skill to make a Deceptive Attack? Dropping your chance to hit from a 16- to a 12- is a pretty good risk to take, especially if it drops your target's dodge from 11 to 9.

The short version: High Dodge can be counteracted by high skill; if dodge is too high for skill, enemies will be left unhurt.

[Engurrand]

Your players probably aren't used to the idea that their opponent's defenses are what they need to defeat, not his HP. In D&D and so many other systems, you're chipping away at your opponent's HP bank until they go down. In GURPS, you're maneuvering for position and advantage until you get past their defenses. It only takes a couple of hits from a deadly weapon to out a bad guy (or a PC for that matter).

That said, there is definitely something satisfying about having drawn blood at the end of an attack, and my players complain when the periods between successful attacks are too long extended. I usually answer those complaints by throwing in a few mooks.

[Nymdok]

Harald has the general right of it.

Becuase there are at least 2 axis for combat results to fit on, Attack v Defense and Damge vs DR, then you have the lattitude to construct bad guys that your players will enjoy killing.

High Defense - High DR : Tough to deal with, normally reserved fro 'boss' type enemies. As you build these, make sure you consider the HP. Too high and the fight can last quite a while.

High Defense - Low DR : tough to hit but when you do, its likely to create an advantage. Bad guys like this are often vulnerble against multiple opponents, susceptible to environmental movment conditions and Critical HIts. Normally high penalty hit locations are not useful as any spare skill must be used for Deceptive attack. Also, High damage just ends up being overkill.

Low Defense - High DR : Beat on these guys like pinatas and they keep coming back for more! They will be hit frequently, but it must be a solid blow to merit consideration. Monsters like this are less subject to the conditions listed for the High Skill low DR case, but are suseptible to High Damage Attacks and Attacks that target hit locations.

Low Defense - Low DR : These are generally 'mooks' as hits will often time incapacitate them. In extreme cases, consider using the mook rules that indicate that a single hit takes them out of combat. Often, creatures like this are 'horde' type creatures that will attempt to compensate for thier disposability by attacking in larger numbers.

These conditions are by no means exhaustive, theres a lot that goes into combat (Terrain, lighting, movement, Criticals.....), but these ideas can get you closer.

I dont recomend modifying the combat system drastically. Its a many nuanced thing and not terribly friendly to fiddling.

Nymdok

[knarf]

Originally Posted by Harald387

I think two important questions need to be asked:

First, how high were the enemies' Dodge scores? Second, what were your players doing to penalize them?
.

For the first question: The mooks had a Dodge score of 9 at most (Move 5-6, +3). All they did was Dodge, as they had no shields, and some of the PCs were unarmed and I didn't want to bring in an extra layer of potentially un-fun rules (parrying bare hands with a weapon) for what was some players' first session with GURPS. They just got in a few lucky rolls, really.

Second question: Nothing. It was a lot of D&D-style "stand there and whack at them."

[Anaraxes]

Maybe make the "auto deceptive attack" either -1 per 3 or 4 margin of success

Our group had independently evolved the Deceptive Attack mechanic back in the day. We found an automatic -1/2 to be too powerful. (Remember, you always get the maximum benefit from your roll.) We adjusted it to -1/3, and that worked ok.

But we then changed it back to -1/2 and made it a "called" option, exactly like the 4e mechanic. It's simply more fun that way. It gives the player a choice to make in combat, which is more interesting than just chopping down HP. You have to feel out your opponent, make some guesses as to how good you think he is, see how the early attacks play out, and adjust.

Point out to your players that they chose to have their characters make only basic, novice-level attacks, the same way every time. Why should the defense take any penalty from that? If they want to try a fancy attack they learned in France, which involves a beat, a feint in quarte, a feint in sixte, and a lunge veering off into an attack on his wrist, then they just pick a level of DA that suits how complex they want to get, and benefit accordingly.