Should Evaluate be worth +2?

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by philosophyguy

In particular, I'm wondering about the Action Point system because I'm looking for ways to simplify my games, and that sounds like it would be another detail to keep track of.

It won't simplify them. It is another detail to track.

It also runs somewhat counter to an ACTION! playstyle, though I do keep poking at it to see if I can figure out how to force it to work for me (I tend to run ACTION!).

[Railstar]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

This is my impression from watching the sorts of things people cite as a need for Evaluate -- boxers dancing around in the ring instead of punching away. I'm ignorant of martial arts, but this looks to me as much as not wanting to give the opponent an opening as anything else. You might model that by having defenses lowered when you attack.

And in a way, they already are. If those boxers are skipping around All-out Defending, then if one of them switches to Move and Attack, he has relatively less defense. (The defender's AoD is still in place from the previous turn; he defends, then on his turn also changes to Attack, but this counter-attack is against the attacker's regular defense.)

Holding back instead of constantly attacking isn't because you're building up a better attack; it's because most people are naturally risk-averse, even combatants.

The bulk of my martial arts training is extremely aggressive, with such teachings as "strike and then rush upon him whether you hit or miss" and "all wisdom loathe the one forced to defend" - so I would be pretty strongly against having defences lowered by an attack, since the idea is to move behind your weapon so it creates a path of safety by attacking.

On the other hand, actually trying to hit someone who is ready for you on the first try is very difficult. And once you've committed to the attack, they are in a position to attack you.

Building up a better attack is perhaps not something consciously done, but if you have a few seconds before striking you get to do subtle things like have your balance adjusted to the attack you wish to make, be in the guard position you want to throw your strike from, and even just have picked out your target. In the moment when blows are being struck it can be difficult to manage all those at once. So the attack bonus is definitely appropriate.

Being risk-averse is a very good point though. I remember a lot of swordfights that involved trying to bind or beat aside the opponent's weapon from too far away to attack their body (something kind of criticised a lot in HEMA circles but still a tempting option when the alternative is stepping into striking distance) - something probably simulated by a Disarm attempt at fairly low skills, in the hopes of making their weapon unready when you step in to attack.

Or you get lots of Feint and Step (back), where they throw the feint and since it doesn't work (failed to win the quick contest), the attacker steps back out of range of his opponent (especially if the opponent also Retreated in response to the Feint). The idea being nobody wants to engage without doing at least something first to reduce the risk of being hit back.

GURPS tends to treat Attack as the 'default' option in combat, but real-life certainly doesn't, I think Martial Arts emphasises in several styles relying on Defensive Attacks until a foe is down or otherwise vulnerable, then a Committed or All-Out Attack.