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 05-26-2022, 07:51 AM   #21
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenclary View Post
You're misreading me. Trained fighters, reflexively (and often not consciously, in a "can not make real-time risk assessments about it" sense) can tell where an attack is going. The most common "implementation" of a Deceptive Attack is something that looks like it's going one place (dead air, in your example) but changes up at the last moment, thus giving them less (and less) reaction time to adjust (thus, a harder defense).
Consciously or otherwise, I am disinclined to believe a trained fighter will make the correct call between "defend" and "don't defend" 100% of the time, or that any failure to successfully defend must represent their body not responding quickly enough. The fighter could misread the trajectory of the attack and basically protect the wrong location. They might misidentify an attack as a miss (they may catch on and try to defend too late, maybe even attempt a defense after being hit, to justify them "wasting" a defense roll in GURPS terms). Or they may indeed simply react too slowly. Given that, is it really so odd a fighter might err in the other direction, attempting a defense against an attack that wouldn't have hit anyway? I certainly do not think so, and my suggestion allows that as an option. Of course, it's entirely possible my suggestion is overly harsh on the defender - perhaps, rather than needing to succeed by a certain amount, the defender simply needs to succeed at all, and high MoF on the attacker's part can result in even a failed defense allowing the character to abort (maybe something like the defender can have MoF up to the attacker's MoF/2 and still have the option to not use up the defense).

That said, let me be absolutely clear that I do not think the GURPS authors made the wrong call in not having characters defend against attacks that are missing anyway, nor do I think everyone should implement rules to that effect. Doing so results in extra rolling, and any system that determines from said roll if the defender has the option to not defend after all is going to add complexity. It's rather akin to situational awareness - just letting the characters be aware of what's happening around them in a fight is a much simpler way to do things. But some GM's/players want such added complexity - for immersion, to replicate the sort of things that happen in various stories (like the linked video clip), etc - so it's not a bad thing to offer it, just like Tactical Shooting introduced some optional rules for situational awareness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Maybe use B388's arc map? Even for ranged weapons, even though B389 lets them attach through a wider arc than melee.
I think the smallest arc represented in the books is the 60-degree arc for Tunnel Vision, and that seems too wide to me (that would basically represent attacking into the wrong front hex). Perhaps a 30-degree arc might work? That's still pretty wide (1800 MoA), so narrower may be better. I don't really know enough about the typical error of ranged attacks to say, honestly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Sufficient MoF on attacker might reflect being more hexes off-target with ranged weapons (like with the scatter rules) per your suggestion of Hitting the Wrong Target being an arc.
Yeah, ideally you'd base the width (by which I mean angle - cones always get wider the further you go) of the arc for Hitting the Wrong Target on MoF, but in practice I suspect that would get a little too complicated. If you don't mind, however, you'd basically use an area wide enough the attack roll would have hit it. I'd say this means at ranges up to where MoF would be 0 if targeting the hex (basically targeting SM+4), it's a straight line with a width of 1 hex, for MoF 1 or 2, it has a width of 2 hexes (MoF 1 should be 1.5 hexes, but that doesn't really work); for MoF 3 it has a width of 3 hexes; for MoF 4, it has a width of 5 hexes; and so forth, following the Size and Speed/Range Table. Personally I don't think it should be able to exceed a 60 degree arc (which basically means you may have attacked into the wrong front hex); MoF 3 at 2 yards gives you that, so I'd say treat any higher MoF as going down to that (that is, MoF when treated as targeting a hex cannot exceed 3 + range penalty). Optionally, you could instead limit this to a 30 degree arc (MoF 1 at 2 yards), but if the character missed by worse than that, roll 1d3 to determine which of the character's front hexes he/she actually shoots into.

Combining this with the idea of needing to make a defense roll anytime you're within the arc that could be attacked, I'd probably set this to 30 degrees, but if you're in the threatened area calculated above, you also need to make a defense (if the area is wider than 30 degrees, that means the other person is basically attacking into the wrong Front hex, and that will be clear to you). Also, with a projectile (rather than thrown) weapon, I'd probably call for a Dodge if the foe is simply attempting to Aim - you can't really tell when the foe will actually attack, and keeping out of his sights is a good idea anyway).

But... that is likely too complicated for most tables (I suspect I would ultimately abandon such a system).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Yeah I always wondered about adapting the 'return strike' for chain weapons to kicks.
I think an issue with using that Technique for a kick is that you need to be close enough that, if the foe opts to Block or Parry, he or she can simply do so to your thigh (which is in their hex, rather than coming in from the Side or Rear), which means they shouldn't be penalized for those. But I could see something similar, although I'm not quite sure the exact mechanics; personally, I'm inclined to just say this sort of hook kick is a Deceptive Attack rather than a distinct Technique.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Yeah I just figured to have it a separate roll (based on Per not DX) to perceive, it could either be your highest combat skill, or maybe something like "your skill in whichever weapon is attacking you". Although at some point I don't think whether you're a rifleman or pistoleer would matter much in figuring out where a barrel is aimed.
It's simpler to just use a defense roll for it all - and DX seems to include a certain degree of perception with it, so I'd be comfortable letting it remain DX based. The idea of using your highest combat skill isn't a bad one, however - maybe if you don't roll well enough with your actual chosen defense (which could be a Dodge), you can check that same roll against (Highest Combat Skill)/2+3 (plus any relevant bonuses for Combat Reflexes and/or Improved Defense - any Improved Defense, honestly) to see if you get the option to abort. That would also have the interesting effect that a skilled rifleman has a better idea of when to spoil his aim and duck, and when to ignore incoming fire - while high Guns (Rifle) doesn't improve your abilities to avoid bullets (you've got to rely on Dodge), it does make you less likely to "waste" a defense on a bullet that never would have hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
If I wasn't watching someone's hand closely I probably wouldn't even notice if they were punching me or stabbing me with a concealed dagger just "arm is moving toward me" if they were moving fast enough.
I believe watching someone's hand (or weapon) is a quick way to get hit - better to watch the shoulders, with the rest of the arm (including the hand) being peripheral. Once the hand/weapon starts moving, it's usually too fast to react to in any meaningful way - you need to see the quick buildup that precedes the attack in the shoulders/upper arms.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 08:05 AM   #22
Lovewyrm
 
Lovewyrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
This seems like panic with a purpose though, because it probably is of some benefit to cover your face w/ limbs when you can't dodge or deflect an incoming energy blast.
Yes, but during play the other player would probably go: I am using a sacrifical dodge to help you!

Thus, the player who is getting saved could just mechanically keep on firing/aiming.
In this case panicking, I'd say, is roleplay.
Player: "My character is giving up her aim because she did not expect this. She flinches as the sudden ice shield pops up before her."

GM:"Ohh, putting in some humanity, nice."

Something like that.
Lovewyrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 08:14 AM   #23
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovewyrm View Post
Yes, but during play the other player would probably go: I am using a sacrifical dodge to help you!

Thus, the player who is getting saved could just mechanically keep on firing/aiming.
In this case panicking, I'd say, is roleplay.
Player: "My character is giving up her aim because she did not expect this. She flinches as the sudden ice shield pops up before her."

GM:"Ohh, putting in some humanity, nice."

Something like that.
Yeah, that can also work - behaving suboptimally in order to stay more in character. I've done that myself as a player, but the temptation to simply be maximally effective is a strong one; having mechanics to represent situations like this can honestly help with immersion.

Of course, given she just had a massive explosion of ice go off right in front of her, there's another option (apologies if it's already been mentioned) - what we're seeing isn't the result of any sort of defensive option, but rather the result of a failed Fright Check.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 09:56 AM   #24
TGLS
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Yeah, that can also work - behaving suboptimally in order to stay more in character. I've done that myself as a player, but the temptation to simply be maximally effective is a strong one; having mechanics to represent situations like this can honestly help with immersion.
Trivial option: if a potential hit is scored against a character while they are aiming, roll Will. On a failure, they must attempt an active defense and their aim spoiled. On a success, the character may choose whether to defend or not.
TGLS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 06:19 PM   #25
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovewyrm View Post
Yes, but during play the other player would probably go: I am using a sacrifical dodge to help you!

Thus, the player who is getting saved could just mechanically keep on firing/aiming.
In this case panicking, I'd say, is roleplay.
Player: "My character is giving up her aim because she did not expect this. She flinches as the sudden ice shield pops up before her."

GM:"Ohh, putting in some humanity, nice."

Something like that.
Well yeah, otherwise you're meta-gaming unless the character in-game shouts out "I'll shield you, don't bother to dodge, archer"
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 11:29 PM   #26
Lovewyrm
 
Lovewyrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Well yeah, otherwise you're meta-gaming unless the character in-game shouts out "I'll shield you, don't bother to dodge, archer"
True, but I think this is something I can see easily slipping past.
Especially since it's usually advised for players to think of their turns while others are making them to speed up play.

As in, if you're the last one to move out of five people, and they set up something that messes with your character, you might adjust your plan on the fly.

Plus, it's kind of in the rules, isn't it? Declare a sacrifical dodge before the player whose character you're protecting makes a defense, and is allowed to roll a defense if your sacrficial dodge failed.

Thus, it could be noteworthy if a player sometimes foregoes this for the sake of being less machine like.
Lovewyrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2022, 07:34 PM   #27
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovewyrm View Post
Plus, it's kind of in the rules, isn't it? Declare a sacrifical dodge before the player whose character you're protecting makes a defense, and is allowed to roll a defense if your sacrficial dodge failed.
Probably works better in real-time play where someone can shout out or hold up a hand to say they want to pre-defend for the ally, otherwise if it's like a chatroom or play by post you'd have to do something like "does any ally want to sacrifice" any time one is in range to do so and give adequate time for that
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2022, 11:58 AM   #28
kenclary
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

(Apologies for the mild thread necro.)
(Also, responding out-of-order for convenience)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
That said, let me be absolutely clear that I do not think the GURPS authors made the wrong call in not having characters defend against attacks that are missing anyway, nor do I think everyone should implement rules to that effect. Doing so results in extra rolling, and any system that determines from said roll if the defender has the option to not defend after all is going to add complexity. It's rather akin to situational awareness - just letting the characters be aware of what's happening around them in a fight is a much simpler way to do things. But some GM's/players want such added complexity - for immersion, to replicate the sort of things that happen in various stories (like the linked video clip), etc - so it's not a bad thing to offer it, just like Tactical Shooting introduced some optional rules for situational awareness.
Overall, that's a decent assessment. But it's not just an "immersion" thing. It directly changes the game balance, by hosing defenders more (due to increasing multiple parry penalties and the like), by turning every attack into a feint and every defense into a gamble.

(Also, from a play perspective, in addition to potential extra rolls, it's also extra control switching --- instead of "attacker attacks, rolls -> defender defends, rolls" it becomes something like "attacker attacks -> defender chooses to defend -> attacker rolls -> defender rolls." That slows down play even more. It's bad design.)

Narratively, viewing combat like this basically treats everyone like they have Enhanced Time Sense (or even Altered Time Rate), yet somehow turns this into a disadvantage (because they now risk wasting defenses). I can understand how cartoons (especially anime) buoy this mindset, and even how a little bit of martial arts training can, too. (The number of people I've had to train out of the idea that they have time to think about how to respond to an attack under real stress...)

Quote:
Consciously or otherwise, I am disinclined to believe a trained fighter will make the correct call between "defend" and "don't defend" 100% of the time, or that any failure to successfully defend must represent their body not responding quickly enough.
Technically, I'm saying that, realistically, a trained fighter wouldn't be making a call at all; instead they'd be relying on reflex and muscle memory. Higher cognitive functions just aren't that fast. In game terms, the differences between "didn't respond quickly enough" and "didn't move fast enough" and "didn't move correctly" are immaterial.

In a ludonarrative sense, the decisions are made via maneuver selections. Between those, the character is ~always moving, shifting weight, changing stance, twitching, flinching, probing, and reacting --- they're not just stock still whenever they're not making a roll. (Unless, of course, they chose a maneuver that forces them to hold still, like the TS modification of the Aim maneuver.)

A miss doesn't mean the defender doesn't react; it means the defender doesn't need to react. A successful defense just means they were successful in defending; choosing to defend is the consequence of not being able to ignore the dice. (Narratively, if you want to justify multiple parry penalties, pretend that they are the result of making contentious contact with the attack, not the "choice" to try in the first place.) Why add more complexity and math when a) defender maneuver choice, b) attacker maneuver choice, c) attack options, d) attack roll, e) defense options, f) defense roll, g) damage roll, and existing interplay between those, more than covers all the bases.

Last edited by kenclary; 06-04-2022 at 12:05 PM.
kenclary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2022, 12:18 PM   #29
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenclary View Post
(Apologies for the mild thread necro.)
(Also, from a play perspective, in addition to potential extra rolls, it's also extra control switching --- instead of "attacker attacks, rolls -> defender defends, rolls" it becomes something like "attacker attacks -> defender chooses to defend -> attacker rolls -> defender rolls." That slows down play even more. It's bad design.)
Added levels of crunch/complexity add variety at the cost of time, this is always a tradeoff.

GURPS Ultra-Lite are even simpler than usual GURPS and take even less time to play - this doesn't make normal GURPS a 'bad design' just because it slows down play (relative to Ultra-Lite) it's just an understood trade of time for detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenclary View Post
Narratively, viewing combat like this basically treats everyone like they have Enhanced Time Sense (or even Altered Time Rate), yet somehow turns this into a disadvantage (because they now risk wasting defenses).
Knowing that an attack will definitely hit or miss (absolutely knowing the necessity of a defense) seems a lot more like ETS to me.

The idea is for complexity (at the cost of time+crunch obviously, much like things like rolling on critical tables) and realism, making it not a guarantee and instead something a character may or may not think (how necessary defending is) based on perception of trajectory.

It's a lot easier to understand why this would be important when you think about dodging ranged attacks from hundreds of yards away.

You and an ally may be standing in adjacent hexes. You both may see the shooter aiming in your general direction, but not actually know which one of you the shooter is aiming at, because while the difference of 1 hex would be very apparent if the shooter was 1-2 yards away, it's much less apparent where his rifle is pointing if he's 100+ yards away, because you're talking a very small degree of variance in his firing angle.

This makes stuff like "I know he's firing at me, I do a normal dodge" vs "I know he's firing at my ally, I sacrificial dodge in front of my ally" pretty weird, because without ETS and very good perception someone isn't realistically going to know which of those defenses would be appropriate for the situation, because that would assume knowing which of the two adjacent hexes the 500-yard-sniper has his bead on.

Stuff like laser sights (seeing red dot on your own or ally's chest) of course could provide exceptions to that, since that gives a clearer indication of what's being aimed at, since you need to perceive something at range 0 instead of range 500

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenclary View Post
A miss doesn't mean the defender doesn't react; it means the defender doesn't need to react.
A successful defense just means they were successful in defending;
choosing to defend is the consequence of not being able to ignore the dice.
(Narratively, if you want to justify multiple parry penalties, pretend that they are the result of making contentious contact with the attack, not the "choice" to try in the first place.)
what about the optional cumulative -1 dodge penalty?

Or cases where you expend more significant measurable resources on a defense, like pumping FP into a panicked Warp Dodge or Feverish Defense ?

Failed parries AFAIK don't result in contentious contact with the attack, that would be a big deal if there was stuff like Burning Attack (Aura)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenclary View Post
Why add more complexity and math when a) defender maneuver choice, b) attacker maneuver choice, c) attack options, d) attack roll, e) defense options, f) defense roll, g) damage roll, and existing interplay between those, more than covers all the bases.
See above example of the 500yard sniper and if/how to dodge the sniper re your adjacent ally.
This is one base I don't think is covered without the (admittedly crunchy/bloaty) perception roll/outcome idea.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2022, 02:19 PM   #30
kenclary
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
GURPS Ultra-Lite are even simpler than usual GURPS and take even less time to play - this doesn't make normal GURPS a 'bad design' just because it slows down play (relative to Ultra-Lite) it's just an understood trade of time for detail.
Declared defenses, as usually implemented, isn't "bad design" because it's more complicated. It's bad design because the extra complexity is unnecessary. The same level of realism can be achieved without it.

Quote:
It's a lot easier to understand why this would be important when you think about dodging ranged attacks from hundreds of yards away.
Which is why GURPS only addresses it in TS, by folding it into maneuver choice / actions during your turn. For example, both Dodge and Drop or Acrobatic Dodge require actions/rolling on your turn, instead of as part of the defense. And it would be trivial to extend the same to Sacrificial Dodge (though technically a houserule, since TS didn't address Sacrificial Dodge at all).

Quote:
what about the optional cumulative -1 dodge penalty?
That's essentially the same thing as the multiple parries penalty, just applied to dodges. (Though the usual narrative interpretation is different.)

Quote:
Failed parries AFAIK don't result in contentious contact with the attack, that would be a big deal if there was stuff like Burning Attack (Aura)
Successful parries do, just justifying successive parry penalties (apologies if I wasn't clear about that). Fully missed parries, in addition to getting hit, would just create openings...

Last edited by kenclary; 06-04-2022 at 02:26 PM.
kenclary is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dodge this, ghost force, gulliver, on target, tactical shooting

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 01:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.