> Ken, first an apology: I didn't see your comment on my post until
> just recently, when moving things over to the new site. That's the
> fault of my inattention to the old site. The new site will make it
> much easier for me to keep tabs on comments, and I promise to do so.

No need to apologize. I've taken long enough to reply, as it is.
Additionally, I hope I haven't mangled the formatting too much. :)

> 1. GM: "He attacks you."
> 2. Player: "I parry!"
> 3. GM rolls to hit
> 4. Player rolls parry
>
> is also a nice flow, with each reaction nicely following the
> triggering action. And as I mention, it's also the way everything
> except defense rolls already works in the game.

I think you're oversimplifying a bit (and I'm only bringing this up
since it seems to be the theme of your post). Any system, including
GURPS, uses all sorts of different sequences of dice rolls. GURPS
basically says the underlying basics are success rolls, damage rolls,
and contests (quick and regular). How those rolls are used in
sequence can vary wildly.

Secondly, combat (with all these active defense rolls) already occurs
in a completely different context from the rest of the roleplaying:
there is combat time, with an explicit turn sequence, where pretty
much everything is micromanaged. Of course there is going to be
dice-rolling that would feel out of place outside of combat.

> As for the bulk of your post, the points are taken. I agree
> completely that the insertion of "defender response" between
> "attacker declaration" and "attacker roll" is what leads some folks
> to talk of "extra bookkeeping" and "wargaming" and what not. But
> what I'm saying is that those folks are misunderstanding
> something. There's zero extra bookkeeping, or other funny
> business. At least in the way I define bookkeeping. I define it as
> having to keep track of a state from one point through to another,
> where other significant actions/tasks come in between the two
> points. GURPS combat does have bookkeeping. For example, your choice
> of action on your turn affects your defenses, so you have to keep
> track of what your action was, through the start of other players'
> turns, up until your defenses come around. Or a Feint: you have to
> keep track of the defense penalty you generated, through other
> characters' turns, up until your next turn comes around.
>
> That doesn't happen with the defense order I'm discussing. The
> attacker states his intent,the defender states his response, and the
> attacker rolls dice. Nobody starts a new turn between the start of
> the attack and the dice roll. It all happens right there, at the
> start of the attacker's turn. There's nothing to remember, jot down,
> or otherwise carry over through someone else's turn. To me, that's
> zero bookkeeping. (Maybe the order carries some special difficulty
> in LARP, as you mention; sorry, I don't have any experience there.)

There may be no new state to remember, but there is a new period
(between attacker's declaration and attacker's roll) during which the
existing state (that there is a roll pending, and the roll's target
number) needs to be tracked. Mathematically, this isn't very much to
consider, though I still hold fast to "every little bit counts."

Psychologically, it's probably a bigger deal, since the attacker is
now spending this extra bit of time wanting to make their roll. Now,
you might say this adds dramatic suspense (which I think is also part
of your overall point). However, I'm going to go out on a personal
limb and say that combat is sufficiently long, repetative, and
methodical to drown out the suspense behind most any single die roll.
That's generally my experience.

(I'll get to this more below.)

>> That aside, I don't think the "interesting artifact" from above
>> cause any real problem to GURPS melee combat. Actually, I think
>> it's a bit more realistic, concerning how fighters react to
>> stressful stimulus. Sure, it misses out on an innate mechanic for
>> accidentally feinting with a missed hit, but I don't really care
>> for that. Every time someone misses a shot, I don't roll the dice
>> to see if accidentally knocked a pigeon out of the air.
>
> I also avoid the word "problem"; I think the GURPS order here is
> really odd, but I didn't even notice it for years! It can't be too
> awful a problem. : )
>
> That said, I don't follow the point about the GURPS order being
> _more_ realistic, or follow the pigeon point. Please explain further
> if you like.

Ignore the pigeon point. :) I was distracted, and mis-remembering a
point you make in GULLIVER. I'll address the realism point below.

> Finally, you note that you _do_ change the order of things where
> ranged combat and defenses are concerned, so you would seem to agree
> with the "declaring defenses" idea in at least some cases. But I
> haven't seen your house rules, so I don't know how they create
> bookkeeping here.

In short, you get the option to dodge when you notice (by a perception
roll or GM fiat) someone pointing a gun at you. You could even hide
whether it's an Aim or an Attack, but if dodging an Aim turn has
benefits, then you can get away with not hiding what maneuver the
shooter is using.

The extra bookkeeping is mostly as described above: more points in the
course of combat where you need to remember what you're about to do,
like that you're about to roll against Guns (Rifle) at -3.

I understand that this may be splitting hairs over the definition of
bookkeeping. However, it definitely slows combat down somewhat.

> I'll add a final thought on my preferred combat order. I think the
> current GURPS attack-defense order devalues the most fun element of
> table-top RPGing --- character decision --- in favor of
> dice-rolling. In the GURPS order, attackers do make decisions
> (good!), but defenders don't necessarily have to; the game jumps
> right to mechanical stuff, and then only asks the defender to make a
> decision if the mechanics call for it. Yet, it's the defender that's
> facing a life-or-death instant! There's a halberd screaming down
> toward your character's head. He's a split-second away from
> death. It's as 'cliffhanger' a moment as you'll ever find. If that's
> not a time for the GM to ask "WHAT DO YOU DO?", then when the heck
> is??

To address the realism point:

If a halberd is screaming down towards your head, and you think about
what you're going to do, you get hit by the halberd. People in real
combat don't have time to think; they simply react. The lower
portions of the brain take over (and often, the combatants don't
really remember afterwards what they did in the combat). Thinking
"WHAT DO I DO?" is an excellent example of Combat Paralysis or just
the surprise rules.

When someone takes a swing at an you, you tend to "know" if it's going
to miss without consciously thinking about it, in the same way you
tend to "know" if you're about to step in a puddle or not. Feints and
Deceptive Attacks are good ways for an attacker to actively try to
subvert these reactions, but they usually don't happen "by accident."
The fact that you might flinch from a missed hit is rarely if ever
worth paying attention to (and in GURPS 4e, is probably covered by the
default situational stress of combat). Yes, very inexperienced
combatants are going to have all sorts of wildly bad reactions.

(The above doesn't quite apply to bullets, as they move too fast to
see. But when you notice someone pointing a gun at you, you _do_
react, except for when you freeze.)

Some GMs or players will want to take dramatic license and give combat
a more suspensful, cinematic, slow-motion feel. This is fine, but a
different issue entirely :)