Thanks for taking the time to post a new comment or a reply to one! First scan these quick notes, if you please:
General
* Currently, previewing a post is optional; you're welcome to preview or post immediately.
* You should see plain text input by default; click "enable rich text" for fancy formatting tools. (Some people love that and some don't. Be aware that formatting tool performance may vary by browser.)
* With apologies to all, I have to use a simple "captcha" question for unregistered posters. Otherwise, the spam flow will dwarf the Nile.
Registration and login
* Registration is available! Sign up here. Chief benefits at present include the ability to edit your own comments and manage subscriptions (newsletter, threads, etc.).
* If you'd prefer to post as an unregistered visitor, that's welcome too. Just leave "Your name" as the default "Esteemed Visitor", or type in some other name. (But if you happen to type in a name used by a registered user – say, "tbone" – you'll get an error telling you so when you hit "post comment". And while your post text should still be there, waiting for a revised user name, there's a chance it could disappear.)
* If you're a registered user but haven't logged in and want to post a quick comment as Esteemed Visitor, that's fine; see above.
* If you're a registered user but haven't logged in, and enter your user name under "Your name" when posting, you'll get an error saying that's the name of a registered user. That's a good thing; it means strangers can't make posts under your user name! But as above, there's a chance of losing your post text. It's best to log in first here, and then start your posting.
Final
All the above is standard stuff for community web sites, but reminders are good; I hate post-related glitches, and hate to see people run into them on this site. On this or any site, it's a good practice to do a quick "Select All" and "Copy" on your post text before hitting "Preview comment" or "Post comment" – just in case.
For more on the whole topic of interaction with the site, please see User Interaction (opens in new window).
Is this your first visit? Consider subscribing to this site's RSS feed to get updates, or to the newsletter for the occasional mailbox surprise.
(Were you, by chance, searching for "diner games"?)
This site is full of original material for players of table-top role-playing games. Input and collaboration is welcomed! Please read more about the site here. Or just dive in to whatever looks interesting.
A couple of recommendations: GURPS players, check out what's at The GURPS Diner. The house special is GULLIVER, an easy rules expansion for creating and playing odd-sized creatures. To see the lunch, dinner, wine, and kids' menus all at once, peek at the site map. Take your time; the busboy will be along shortly to clear you a place.
This site – like wide swaths of the Web – may not display properly with Internet Explorer 6.0 or lower. For your own sake, please upgrade to 7.0 or higher! Or even better, to fully enjoy the Web, try Safari or Firefox.
GURPS is too generous here, methinks
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.