Quote from: Skarg;1119062In GURPS, a generic attack with no preparation can be defended with the usual active defense skill level, unless the attacker manages a critical hit, the odds of which go up with high skill (i.e. either a very low 3d6 roll, or make your skill roll by 10, up to a point).

However, there are several ways to make a more skillful attack that can reduce enemy defenses. One is to do a Deceptive attack, where you use some of your skill to reduce your opponent's defense all in one attack move. Another is to spend one or more turns Evaluating, waiting for a good opening, which increases your effective skill for your next attack the more you do it, up to a point. Another is to Feint, which is a contest of skills which if you win, reduces your foe's defense by the amount you made it. Rapid Attack, if you can pull it off (or allies helping you out by attacking the same foe) can also reduce/consume the foe's defenses. There are various other techniques as well in GURPS Martial Arts, for people who want more detail.

But players who are new to the game or who don't think about it much may end up just doing simple Step and Attack repeatedly, which against a skilled foe can tend to mean they're likely to have their attacks avoided a lot, and some players may decide GURPS is just like that before they learn otherwise.

I think that estar already covered a lot of this in the replies to my post, and as I mentioned, almost every other game also has most of those options. But none of these really addresses my points about statistic defense based on your own skill not addressing opponent skill, and how well that truly simulates real life.

Quote from: trechriron;1119068Also, in practice I find my players are not super tactical, nor do they maneuver around much. Games like Mythras or AGE my players often don't choose stunts, etc. I personally love these kinds of options, but I think most players don't invest the time to learn a system at that depth. So generally speed/ease-of-play tends to win out in the majority of the people I play with.

Part of the problem, in my experience, is that even when players are familiar with the rules such options tend to be punishing in most systems (imposing significant penalties to attack and/or requiring you to spend/waste an entire action round to maybe gain some minor bonus the next round) and provide only minor benefits that don't always outweigh the risks even when successful. Feint in D&D 3e, for example, requires you to spend one standard action (which takes up your action that round) and succeed on a Bluff check only to deny your opponent their DEX bonus to AC (assuming they even have one) to your next attack against them, which would take place the following round. So you basically have to sacrifice one ENTIRE action to MAYBE impose a minor penalty on your opponent, assuming you don't get killed the round you spent doing nothing but "bluffing" and not even actively defending yourself.

Meanwhile, in real life a feint is just this minor action that must be followed immediately by an attack--not one full round later, but mere fractions of a second after your feint or your opponent will recover and you'll lose any advantage. And, if successful, your opponent would be penalized (or alternatively you would get a bonus) regardless of how agile (high DEX) they are. I would probably handle Feints as a standard action at allows you to immediately attack as a free action at a +4 bonus if successful, but looses you an action if the feint attempt fails.

In GURPS a round is a second and to take advantage of a feint one has to make an attack the next second.

As for not taking into account relative skills, general principle of GURPS that each manuevuer represents a single thing with very little in the way of abstraction.

The standard attack in GURP is similar to what fencing calls a simple attack, with a corresponding straight forward defense. It winds up being a basic test of skill on both sides.

Similar to the tactical wheel for fencing, GURPS combat is comprised a variety of manueveurs that have different uses at different time. All corresponding on a one for one basis with their real life counterparts.

Thus on second one, the higher skiller combatant executes a feint, wins the contest of skills which results in a negative defense modifier because the defender is now out of position. Then followed up with an attack on second two.

But if you are concerned with subsecond timing GURPS does take that into account with specific tactics like riposte from Martials Arts page 125

QuoteTo set up a Riposte, declare that you wish to do so before you parry. Choose a penalty to your Parry score – the larger the penalty, the greater your focus on the counterattack. This cannot reduce your Parry, before all other modifiers except Enhanced Parry, below 8.

Then add the remaining modifiers and try to parry the attack. You can retreat – but if your foe steps back after attacking, you might end up too far away for a Riposte. Success means you parry and set up a Riposte. If your first attack next turn uses your parrying weapon against the foe you parried, one of his active defenses against it suffers the penalty you accepted on your parry. If you parried his hand or weapon, reduce his Parry with that hand (with either hand, if his attack used two hands). If you parried his shield, lower his Block. If you parried an unarmed attack other than a hand strike (bite, kick, slam, etc.), reduce his Dodge. Apply half this penalty (drop fractions) to any other defense he attempts against your attack – including rolls to resist grappling moves that use Quick Contests instead of active defenses (e.g., takedowns).

Failure means you're hit, as for any failed parry. Your attempt gives you no special benefits – although you can still attack your foe on your next turn, if his attack leaves you in any shape to do so.

Quote from: tenbones;1118831I've always liked this idea - but we dropped it for a reason. Do you use it in any of the systems you run? None of the systems I currently use differentiate between weapons v. armor unless it's "hard armor" vs. "soft armor" against specific kinds of attacks - so they're outliers. How granular do you like it? And does it make it to your table?

Back in the day, I liked a fair degree of complexity and granularity and back then I used the D&D weapons table a bit. Now that would be more complexity than I want to manage as the GM and at least one order of magnitude more complexity than my regular players ever want to see.

Quote from: Skarg;1118907My perspective is that I really want a game that represents the situation to some degree. If I know I can survive 7 rounds versus Conan before I run away and take a "short rest" or have "the Cleric lay hands" and be unhurt, that is NOT the experience of facing someone who could kill me if they hit me with their weapon.

I kept looking for something that you said with which I could strongly disagree. Still looking.

I think the only real point of difference is that you seem to have a greater tolerance for system complexity. I say seems, because I get the sense that you have spent more time with GURPS (and GURPS-like systems, e.g. Melee-Wizard and TFT) than I have spent with any one system (or family of systems) and you therefore have internalized so much of the system complexity that it is effectively less complex for you to play or run GURPS than it would be for me to run any system that even approaches that degree of granularity and complexity.

Quote from: trechriron;1119068To contribute...

I find opposed rolls to be tedious. It just makes combat take too long. I really like the AC/TN approach to streamline things. Also, in practice I find my players are not super tactical, nor do they maneuver around much. Games like Mythras or AGE my players often don't choose stunts, etc. I personally love these kinds of options, but I think most players don't invest the time to learn a system at that depth. So generally speed/ease-of-play tends to win out in the majority of the people I play with.

Ever played Exalted? There you get opposed rolls, rerolls, dice adders, (rarely) target number modifiers, not to mention rolling soak and a variety of other shit all jammed into one attack. 2e even had a multistep process expanded out for resolving each attack indicating which step any particular fiddly bit of skill, magic, or gear applied. Fun died every time the dice were picked up.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119087I think that estar already covered a lot of this in the replies to my post, and as I mentioned, almost every other game also has most of those options. But none of these really addresses my points about statistic defense based on your own skill not addressing opponent skill, and how well that truly simulates real life.

I'm confused why you'd say those things don't address opponent skill, since they're all examples of ways the attacker uses their own skill to reduce the defender's defense ability.

So I'm guessing you saying "almost every other game has most of those options" is that I didn't communicate fully what I was trying to say about them.

(There's also a simpler optional rule where you can just do what is essentially a contest as a standard attack.)

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119048IDK, I guess it depends on how much damage attacks do or armor mitigates. It just seems to me that if an attack does triple damage it would be able to overcome armor even if that armor is 50% higher against that type of attack, since the extra damage would be higher than the extra armor. But again, that would depend on how much damage we' talking about beyond just percentages.

You roll damage and then subtract 1.5 the armor. Then, and only then, do you triple the damage.

So, a sword edge that does 4D8 attacking mail and gambeson (19 DA against most weapons but 10 DA against AP weapons and 28 DA against cutting) would have to do nearly maximum to do any damage at all. Against high-quality plate, you can't do squat.
Meanwhile, a mace against mail and gambeson is attacking ten points of armor.

Quote from: Bren;1119106I think the only real point of difference is that you seem to have a greater tolerance for system complexity. I say seems, because I get the sense that you have spent more time with GURPS (and GURPS-like systems, e.g. Melee-Wizard and TFT) than I have spent with any one system (or family of systems) and you therefore have internalized so much of the system complexity that it is effectively less complex for you to play or run GURPS than it would be for me to run any system that even approaches that degree of granularity and complexity.

Yeah, I have lots of tolerance for system complexity (especially if I see value in it). And yes I have played TFT and GURPS so much that it's second nature and fast.

I also have a much easier time learning and applying complex rules when they make sense to me. The reasons for the rules are my mnemonic device for remembering them and knowing I'm right about what they are. (And if they don't seem right, I tend to house rule them.)

Quote from: Skarg;1119157I also have a much easier time learning and applying complex rules when they make sense to me.

I hear you. I'm finding D&D 5E unexpectedly challenging since many of the rules as written work contrary to my expectations.

Quote from: Bren;1119173I hear you. I'm finding D&D 5E unexpectedly challenging since many of the rules as written work contrary to my expectations.

What are you having trouble with?

Quote from: trechriron;1119066What version is this? (just curious)



I personally consider it #3 (basically a roll vs. an opponents TN) but it could be #1 because DCV/DMCV are essentially AC with different names...

1 and 3 suggest largely static values to me. OCV and DCV are dynamic values changing based on the use of skill levels or maneuvers used. I can see how an opinion could differ though, just the way I was looking at the options.

Quote from: estar;1119236What are you having trouble with?

Oh where to start? One problem is it feels much more gamey than any other RPG I've read or played. I feel more like I'm playing a card game like Illuminati than I am playing a character in an imaginary world. The rules and rule effects seem far more front and center than they do in other games I've played e.g. OD&D, AD&D, and related class & level based games, Boothill, Traveller, The Fantasy Trip, Runequest, Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu and multiple versions of BRP-based games, FASA Star Trek, WEG Star Wars D6, James Bond 007, Honor + Intrigue, and Barbarians of Lemuria.

The action economy is a bit weird. The spell descriptions seem rather finicky. People using spell cards in play exacerbates the playing a card game feel. And it seems to require at least a moderate system understanding to avoid running afoul of some rule or other. Of course some of this will be based on group and DM style so it's likely that a different DM might smooth over some of the rough spots and its fair to say that class and level based games where hit points are a single, amorphous bucket is fairly low on my list of preferred system designs. But I have to say that DM aside, even just reading the rules makes me tired and a bit cranky in a way that no other rules have done.

And it doesn't help that so far everything I've played is set in the Forgotten Realms which I am finding is not a setting I find appealing.

Quote from: estar;1119090In GURPS a round is a second and to take advantage of a feint one has to make an attack the next second.

As for not taking into account relative skills, general principle of GURPS that each manuevuer represents a single thing with very little in the way of abstraction.

The standard attack in GURP is similar to what fencing calls a simple attack, with a corresponding straight forward defense. It winds up being a basic test of skill on both sides.

Similar to the tactical wheel for fencing, GURPS combat is comprised a variety of manueveurs that have different uses at different time. All corresponding on a one for one basis with their real life counterparts.

Thus on second one, the higher skiller combatant executes a feint, wins the contest of skills which results in a negative defense modifier because the defender is now out of position. Then followed up with an attack on second two.

But if you are concerned with subsecond timing GURPS does take that into account with specific tactics like riposte from Martials Arts page 125

IDK, this still sounds like kind of a roundabout way of making attacker skill affect defender skill, which is already effectively covered by a simple opposed roll or an Attack Skill vs Passive Defense Skill roll. This seems like adding extra steps to get to that point and I'm still not convinced that you can just make an attack or block up in the air that's completely unaffected by opponent skill. At least it doesn't seem to me like that's what's actually going on in a real fight or that this is the most effective way to emulate that.

I'd rather just abstract things to a simple "Attack Skill vs Defense Skill" roll (preferably using passive defense to minimize rolls) in a 6 second round and use stuff like feints as extra tricks that you can do, but don't have to rely upon and consistently take extra actions to use, extending the process of resolving combat.

At least GURP's feint doesn't suck as much as D&D, cuz it takes attacker's skill into account when determining the penalty imposed, which would probably make it more effective.

Quote from: Skarg;1119154I'm confused why you'd say those things don't address opponent skill, since they're all examples of ways the attacker uses their own skill to reduce the defender's defense ability.

So I'm guessing you saying "almost every other game has most of those options" is that I didn't communicate fully what I was trying to say about them.

(There's also a simpler optional rule where you can just do what is essentially a contest as a standard attack.)

I think my reply to estar also applies to this. It seems like an indirect way of affecting opponent skill that requires extra steps.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1119155You roll damage and then subtract 1.5 the armor. Then, and only then, do you triple the damage.

So, a sword edge that does 4D8 attacking mail and gambeson (19 DA against most weapons but 10 DA against AP weapons and 28 DA against cutting) would have to do nearly maximum to do any damage at all. Against high-quality plate, you can't do squat.
Meanwhile, a mace against mail and gambeson is attacking ten points of armor.

That's probably the part I was missing. If DR is subtracted first armor would be much more effective.

It's a bit meta - but how *many* calculations are you wanting to have in a combat exchange to determine the act of simply hitting a target?

Cooking in the abstractions into the task resolution is what we're really discussing here. And I'm interested in finding the sweet spot(s).

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119243... I'd rather just abstract things to a simple "Attack Skill vs Defense Skill" roll (preferably using passive defense to minimize rolls) in a 6 second round and use stuff like feints as extra tricks that you can do, but don't have to rely upon and consistently take extra actions to use, extending the process of resolving combat.

I have been working on developing a version of this that I like for a TFT house rule. TFT RAW is 3d6 roll-under DX to hit, usually with no effect of defender's skill. The base new house rule is to adjust both figure's DX so their average is about 10 (50% chance to hit). Then add an option to fight offensively or defensively to nudge both figure's skills up or down.

This way, if both figures have the same DX, they both have a 10 (50%) to hit each other, whether the DX level is 8 or 18.

And if for example the DX levels were 16 and 12, one attack would be at 12 (74%) and the other would be at 8 (26%). Which feels really good to me.

And it's just one roll.

The "hard" part is adjusting the skill, but I find it's pretty simple and I'm memorizing it the more I use it.

The tricky development part though is getting the details right about figuring out how much adjustment should be allowed for fighting offensively or defensively, and what should happen in more complex fights where there are multiple people fighting multiple people in the same spot, when people have to declare their fighting style setting, etc. Of course most of that can be ignored if you choose not to use or allow the "fighting offensive/defensively" option at all.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119243At least GURP's feint doesn't suck as much as D&D, cuz it takes attacker's skill into account when determining the penalty imposed, which would probably make it more effective.

Yes, feint in GURPS can be quite effective, especially if you're patient enough to wait for it to work well. Since it is two opposed 3d6 rolls, there can sometimes be a pretty wide random swing on top of the difference in skills, which means even people of the same skill, or even someone of a somewhat lower skill, can get a good effect out of a feint... but you can't count on it. It ends up mainly being used for situations like "ok what I'm doing isn't working, so I'm going to go for a good feint to be able to get him" or "I'm a lot better than this guy but he has a strong defence. I'll feint so I can probably really nail him next turn." And it can also get people to flee or surrender because you just totally out-did them in a feint. (Or get them to try a desperate all-out-attack.)

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119243I think my reply to estar also applies to this. It seems like an indirect way of affecting opponent skill that requires extra steps.

Well, the difference is I was mentioning an alternate method that's been offered as an option since earlier editions of GURPS, where the standard attack becomes a contest of skill. A GM who knows both the attacker and defender's values can roll that all at once (3 dice of one color and 3 dice of another), which can get almost as easy as a single roll, and doesn't involve choices on either side.

It's only slightly more complex than the house rule method I mentioned after the first quote above. (Also less complex than using the "fighting offensively or defensively" part of that house rule.)