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.

I appreciate the detailed response. You note:

1. GM: "He attacks you."
2. GM rolls to hit
3. Player: "I parry!"
4. Player rolls parry

Each roll nicely follows the action it describes. The fact that 3 and 4 may not be bothered with if 2 fails is an interesting artifact (discussed in a bit).

I'll note that

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.

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.)

Further, we're talking a split-second reactive decision here. Any good GM limits the time a player can take to state his action at the start of a turn. A GM should be even more ruthless in demanding that a defender instantly state a defense decision. It's not like there are many choices; Dodge, Block, or Parry are about it! You can give the defender til the count of three (and if there's no response,say "okay, you Dodge out of reflex." Fair enough.) That means the attacker loses three seconds from his available time to leave the table and scrounge for food, true. I think it's well worth it – especially because those are three seconds spent on the game's key element of fun: character interaction and decisions.

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.

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.

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??

That's my take. And to keep it all in perspective for the casual reader: I'm not saying that the current rule is nasty, evil, or even "broken". Just that it's... odd. And an improved version is, IMO, easy, free of bookkeeping, more realistic, and more fun to boot. Hard to beat that combination! :)

T Bone