Reply to comment

Thanks for more thoughts. A few in return:

>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.

Sure, combat will have to play by its own rules. I only don't see a need for combat to vary with the rest of the game on this particular point.

On the extra time caused by asking the defender for his action:

>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."

The period in question is only as long as it takes for the defender to say "I duck!" or whatever the action is. I guess I can't see the bad in that. (And of course, the attacker could roll right away, hiding the dice for that extra moment.)

>you might say this adds dramatic suspense (which I think is also part
>of your overall point).

Yes, it is!

>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.

Mmm, I'd say that combat certainly shouldn't be that way! Sounds to me like some bigger problem... Maybe it's time to rev up the description? Or just move to more basic, abstract combat? Flurries of life-and-death moments should be the fun part of the game, not a chore... But, yeah, I know what you're saying overall: big combats are work. I don't see important player defense decisions as part of the problem, but other than that difference of opinion, I know the feeling. : )

>> 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.

Isn't that the normal GURPS rule? You get a Dodge vs gunfire, which is explained as ducking out of the "path" of the gun pointed at you. Or are you saying that you use perception (or fiat) to limit that ability?

>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.

And that's my beef with the GURPS rule. I say you need to state a response right away. GURPS says you can first wait and judge whether the attack will hit or not, and after having determined that to complete precision, then take your choice of response. You're saying that defenses need to happen quickly, but the GURPS method that you're arguing for gives fighters more time to leisurely plan responses (including the response option, "Ah, it looks like I can just stay put"). I find that far too generous of GURPS. (As a way to model some sort of supernatural battlefield precognition, it sounds just perfect!)

>When someone takes a swing at an you, you tend to "know" if it's going to miss
>without consciously thinking about it...

That I can't go along with. Even setting aside missle weapons, where "knowing" TH starts to get pretty silly (and I think you may agree there), it doesn't make sense to me for melee weapons either. An experienced defender should be able to "read" a miss early in the blow, sure, but remember that GURPS grants the most inexperienced, never-even-seen-a-bar-fight pacifist the exact same 100%, unerring ability to predict incoming misses that it gives Conan.

FYI, my house rules do allow the option to wait and "read" the blow, through the mechanism of placing a defense penalty (a small -1, where melee attacks are concerned) on those who waited. It's the same absolute penalty for experienced and newbie fighters, but under the nature of GURPS rolls I see the effect as working fine: the veteran can "afford" the penalty on his good defense roll, while the newbie's already-poor chance of success plummets sharply.

Anyway, lest I sound like a "revise the rules!" crusader here, let me note:

It is a minor issue, and the choice of official vs my way doesn't change the game drastically. After all, under my house rules the only difference for a defender who waits and "checks" for melee misses before committing to defense is only a -1. A fair-sized difference in concept, I think, but not a huge difference in final numbers.

And, as always, "play how you like" is king. So while I think "declaring defenses" is a rock-solid improvement, it's nothing earth-shattering, and I have no issue with folks who are happy with the current rules.