Get updates!

Roll vs Search

Reply to comment

tbone's picture

Re: Revised Defense Flow in GURPS

Rev. Pee Kitty wrote:

I don't see where this is coming from. Are you saying that all of the rules you just wrote should only apply to PCs, and that the NPCs should use the old rules? That would seem to make the NPCs into precogs -- it isn't very balanced to force the PCs to defend first but then let the NPCs defend after the fact. PK

Quite likely, I didn't explain it clearly, but fear not: the same rules are being applied to both sides, 100% balanced.

Let me simplify the combat process even more: instead of dice and hits, you and I are flipping coins for candy. We take turns, one person attacking and one defending. Heads is "success" on either attack or defense. The attacker only takes a piece of candy if he get heads and the defender get tails.

So on my turn, we're both going to flip. I only take a piece of your candy if I get heads and you get tails. I can go first, and if I get heads, you need to flip and try to "defend". But if I get tails, I know I lost, and there's no point in your flipping; it'd be a waste of time.

That's no different from the current TH/defense in GURPS. The difference is here:

If you jump ahead and flip before me, that's fine. If you get a head, then you "defended", and we know I don't get the candy. There's no need for me to flip; it'd be a waste of time.

The point: it doesn't matter who flips first. Me first, you first, or simultaneously; there's absolutely no difference in outcome. The same holds true when we switch to your turn: you'll only get the candy if you get heads and I get tails, and it won't matter who flips first.

So if I'm "GM" and you're the "player", we can agree – if we want – to always let you flip first, with me flipping second only when required. (That's not forcing you to go first, it's letting you, as RPGs are typically more fun when players, not GMs, are busy doing things.)

I don't know whether the coin toss version makes things any clearer or not; let me jump back to normal TH/defense:

Why can't we freely choose who rolls first, under the current rules? Because by RAW, it's not a given that both sides will roll; rather, the defender only rolls if the attacker's result requires it. So the attacker always needs to roll first.

The difference is in commitment to defend. Under RAW, say I attack you and you check your Parry before I check TH. You succeed... but did you actually use up the Parry or not? We don't know, as there's no commitment required on your part. I still have to roll my TH. If I miss, then RAW says you didn't use up the Parry after all. So there's no point in your checking your defense before I check my TH; we still require two rolls.

Under the revised flow proposed here, it won't matter who rolls first. Whatever happens, you're committed to using that Parry. So feel free to check your Parry first if you want; if you succeed, there's no need for me to check TH. We're finished at only one roll.

I hope that clarifies. Probably more explanation than you needed, but may be of use to other passing readers.

Reply

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options


Build a site!

Make your own gaming home online!

THE TAKEOUT MENU

For collaborators, contributors, or the curious. Notice of site updates; project announcements; calls for playtesting; etc.

Syndicate content