|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-05-2022, 10:18 AM | #31 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
A perfect knowledge of where attacks will hit doesn't seem realistic. Quote:
I'm pretty confident that if I were kneeling and someone threw a high roundhouse that would fly overtop of my head, it would happen so fast that I wouldn't realize it would miss and might still waste my efforts dropping into a crouch as a dodge to be very certain it would miss. The justification for parry penalties is more "I spent effort moving my arm" than "my arm made contact" since the penalty is identical whether you succeed (contact) or fail (arm doesn't make contact) |
||
06-06-2022, 08:54 AM | #32 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
Of course, this improvement isn't free, and we have to pay for it with added complexity. There's also, as you've noted, the fact that this does disadvantage the defender, as there's the risk of wasting a defense. For some groups, it's not worth the cost - for others, it may well be. I also think you're overselling how much complexity it adds. Currently, the order of operations is as follows (P1 is the player for the attacking character, P2 is the player for the defending character; note one of these would be the GM in the case of PC vs NPC): 1) P1 decides on and declares an attack. 2) P1 rolls. 3) P1 checks the roll against skill; on a Critical Failure, go to the appropriate Critical Miss Table; on a Failure, sequence ends; on a Success, go to step 4; on a Critical Success, roll on the Critical Hit Table and skip to step 7. 4) P2 decides on and declares a defense. 5) P2 rolls. 6) P2 checks the roll against defense; on a Critical Failure, roll on the Critical Hit Table and then go to step 7; on a Failure, go to step 7; on a Success, sequence ends; on a Critical Success, P1 rolls on the Critical Miss Table. 7) P1 rolls damage. 8) Damage is assessed (subtract DR, apply WM, check for Major Wound, deduct from HP, apply Shock Penalty, check if HP passed a threshold and apply appropriate effect, etc). Sequence ends. My suggestion - going with the more lenient version where any success on the defense means no defense is needed, and Failure by P1's MoF/2 counts as a success here - would look like this: 1) P1 decides on and declares an attack. 2) P2 decides on and declares a defense. 3-4) Both roll. 5-6) Both check their rolls against skill/defense. If both had Critical Failures, it's a wash, but P2 wastes their defense; if P1 has a Critical Failure and P2 does not, roll on the Critical Miss Table. If P1 has a Failure and P2 has a Critical Failure, P2 wastes a defense and go to Step 7 (P2's error resulted in what should have been a miss actually hitting). If P1 has a Failure and P2 has a Failure, check MoF - if P1's MoF is less than P2's MoF*2, P2 wastes a defense, otherwise P2 does not; either way, end sequence. If P1 has a Success and P2 has a Critical Failure, roll on the Critical Hit Table and go to step 7. If P1 has a Success and P2 has a normal Failure, go to step 7. If P1 has a Success and P2 has a Success, end sequence. If P1 has a Success and P2 has a Critical Success, roll on the Critical Miss Table. If P1 has a Critical Success and P2 does not, roll on the Critical Hit Table and go to step 7. If both have Critical Successes, the result is a normal Success for P1 - go to step 7 without a roll on the Critical Hit Table. 7) P1 rolls damage. 8) Damage is assessed (subtract DR, apply WM, check for Major Wound, deduct from HP, apply Shock Penalty, check if HP passed a threshold and apply appropriate effect, etc). Sequence ends. So, same overall number of steps, and depending on your setup this may actually go faster by being able to do some of the steps at the same time - for example, if P1's rolls are concealed from P2, P1 can roll while P2 is deciding on what defense (if any - in all cases, "Don't Do Something - Just Stand There!" is an option for the defender) to use; if they don't have to share a rolling surface (say, each has their own dice tower) they can roll at the same time, and the results of P1's roll need not be assessed prior to P2 rolling (so P1 could determine what their roll's result - CritFail, Fail, Success, Crit - was while P2 is rolling and/or determining their roll's result). The added complexity is mostly just in step 5-6 (which replaces step 3 and step 6 above), where a few other possibilities now exist (Critical Miss getting downgraded to a miss and P2 wasting a defense; Miss causing P2 to waste a defense; Miss getting upgraded to a hit; Critical Hit getting downgraded to a hit) and the fact that the sequence will always reach step 6 rather than sometimes ending at step 3 (but outside of low-skill P1, this won't be terribly common) or skipping to step 7 (which isn't terribly common even with high-skill P1). Step 2 may sometimes take a bit longer, simply because not defending is now a more worthwhile option than in RAW, but probably not enough to make a real impact.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul Last edited by Varyon; 06-06-2022 at 09:06 AM. |
|
06-06-2022, 03:14 PM | #33 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
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. |
|
06-06-2022, 04:27 PM | #34 | ||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
Quote:
Requiring players to declare they are going to be dodging rather than making any sort of effective attack certainly is a way to handle things, but it's not the only way, and I don't think it's realistic that the only way to get out of the way of someone's aim is to abandon your aim before they even bother to point their weapon in your direction (as would be the case for someone making an attack without Aiming first). Of course, I also think it's appropriate to call for a Dodge when someone uses Aim against you, particularly if using the rules from that article (so you can "shake off" their aim, preventing them from getting you properly in their sights), but that's arguably a different discussion. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
||||
Tags |
dodge this, ghost force, gulliver, on target, tactical shooting |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|