|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-26-2022, 07:51 AM | #21 | |||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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 |
|||||
05-26-2022, 08:05 AM | #22 | |
Join Date: Apr 2022
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
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. |
|
05-26-2022, 08:14 AM | #23 | |
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, 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 |
|
05-26-2022, 09:56 AM | #24 | |
Join Date: Jan 2014
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
|
|
05-26-2022, 06:19 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
|
|
05-26-2022, 11:29 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Apr 2022
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
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. |
|
05-27-2022, 07:34 PM | #27 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
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
|
06-04-2022, 11:58 AM | #28 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
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:
(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:
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. |
||
06-04-2022, 12:18 PM | #29 | ||||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
This is one base I don't think is covered without the (admittedly crunchy/bloaty) perception roll/outcome idea. |
||||
06-04-2022, 02:19 PM | #30 | ||||
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: should it be possible for an attack on you that your ally parries to spoil your A
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by kenclary; 06-04-2022 at 02:26 PM. |
||||
Tags |
dodge this, ghost force, gulliver, on target, tactical shooting |
|
|