Is automatically hitting nonsensical?

[nikita]

First and foremost surprise should be highly effective because most street
fights are over in first few punches. Thus hit points are probably not an issue either in melee combat system.

I also think that hit points in general do not really work as those people I've spoken to about sword play think that one or possibly two good hits cause you go down and stop fighting.

Thus melee system should (in my view) stress degree of risk character is willing to take rather than mechanistic move-attack cycle most D&D games I participated did.

[darkmaster]

Thirdly, it is blankly ridiculous to say that blocking and dodging can't be an unconscious reaction. Anyone who has been to a modern high school can tell you when someone starts to take a swing at you you'll flinch or put your hands up, that's your body instinctively moving to defend itself without conscious input. Maybe not effectively but that's a matter of practice and not blocking as a reaction being impossible or impractical.

You can't react, conciously or unconciously, to an attack you aren't aware of.

Auto-hitting is fine, and depending on the power level, auto-takedowns might even be appropriate. King Hits kill people.

If you had actually paid attention to the context of my post, like the post my quoted text is from, or even just the stuff I had in quotes and what else I said then working from the clues available, you would know your argument here is not actually relevant to what I said.

[Laertes]

First and foremost surprise should be highly effective because most street
fights are over in first few punches. Thus hit points are probably not an issue either in melee combat system.

I also think that hit points in general do not really work as those people I've spoken to about sword play think that one or possibly two good hits cause you go down and stop fighting.

Thus melee system should (in my view) stress degree of risk character is willing to take rather than mechanistic move-attack cycle most D&D games I participated did.

It's not about simulating reality, it's about simulating genre conventions. Genre conventions say that Boromir can continue fighting to his last breath to save Merry and Pippin, even if a real-world recreation of said scene might be "dude was mobbed by Uruk-Hai and went down in seconds."

Unless you know what the stories you're telling look like, you can't write a system effectively. If you do then your stories will end up getting shaped by the system rather than vice versa.

[DEBO]

If you had actually paid attention to the context of my post, like the post my quoted text is from, or even just the stuff I had in quotes and what else I said then working from the clues available, you would know your argument here is not actually relevant to what I said.

In the part you quoted it says "You can dodge any attack you're aware of".

You have then stated "it is blankly ridiculous to say that blocking and dodging can't be an unconscious reaction". And backed this up with an example where the defender was aware of the attack.

Where exactly was the flaw in my statement?

[darkmaster]

The part where you're an idiot who didn't notice dodging is an action that you must consciously take and can't be a reaction. Possibly because you can't think critically or pay attention to things.

[Kaelik]

If you had actually paid attention to the context of my post, like the post my quoted text is from, or even just the stuff I had in quotes and what else I said then working from the clues available, you would know your argument here is not actually relevant to what I said.

Hey darkmaster, you didn't address his argument. In a debate tournament you would lose points for that.

[darkmaster]

Actually, I specifically did, but good job showing everyone what a stupid asshole you are.

[DEBO]

When attacked, a character has the option to parry (if wielding a weapon), block (if wielding a shield), or dodge (no caveat, but takes more time).

All those defensive actions can be taken in response to being attacked. Is there some other definition of reaction I'm not aware of? Possibly, I am an idiot afterall.~

EDIT:Oh, chemical reactions! They don't seem applicable though.

[Kaelik]

Actually, I specifically did, but good job showing everyone what a stupid asshole you are.

Your pretense that you didn't say the exact same thing to the exact same post is not appreciated. Be honest, and laugh at the joke about how badly you fucked up.

[Omegonthesane]

It seems to me that you want some kind of low, but non-negligible chance to not be hit if you're aware of the attack but not making special effort, as in spending actual actions, to avoid being hit. You don't just stand there and take it in an actual fight, after all.

You could then have actions which have huge benefit, but remove this basic chance, to represent moves that focus your attention elsewhere than self-preservation. For example sprinting could allow you to move 5 times faster but remove your basic defence as you're too busy pegging it to duck and weave.

[Wiseman]

As someone who knows how to fence, I just have to say, that it's frankly ridiculous that you should have to take an action to block and then miss out on attacking.

[OgreBattle]

Honestly? Not really. I like the "traditional" imagery of doing it in the apparently-not-realistic way.

Have you checked out Riddle of Steel before? The math is wonky and it can't handle anything above 1 on 1 duels, but it was written with 'realistic medieval stabbing' in mind so it goes into detail describing various combat maneuvers.

It's also kind of what you're looking for where defensive actions take action points to do, and if you got none you're f'd.

[darkmaster]

When attacked, a character has the option to parry (if wielding a weapon), block (if wielding a shield), or dodge (no caveat, but takes more time).

All those defensive actions can be taken in response to being attacked. Is there some other definition of reaction I'm not aware of? Possibly, I am an idiot afterall.~

EDIT:Oh, chemical reactions! They don't seem applicable though.

Yeah, you are an idiot, because the mechanic GnomeWorks actually fucking described is that you have to give up your action for the turn and delay your next action and focus only on defense making it impossible to block or dodge and attack because defending yourself eats up your actions and are therefore by definition not reactions.

[GnomeWorks]

i don't see how auto hit would help making combat faster at all . . .

It's an auto hit in the sense that an individual in melee attempting to hit a target that is not actively defending themselves will hit. They may only hit their target's armor, but there's no chance of the attack not connecting to something.

Here are the problems I see, first, passive armor is just plain better than dodging and blocking because you've fallen into the same sort of Trap M&M did. If dodging characters have to take an action to dodge or what have you then they have two choices, attempt to avoid an attack or don't and eat the hit because fuck them while guys in armor can attack and still have the same chance to not eat an attack which is always going to be better better unless you cripple armor but that is not really a good solution.

You missed some points on the advantages and disadvantages of each, then.

Armor's rate of progression of getting better is significantly slower than any of the others. For example, the best armor value you can get for a starting character is probably a 4 or 5 - that's being solely focused on armor. A dodge-focused character, meanwhile, can probably get away with a d8+d4, which averages to a 7. The armor guy's defense value sucks, but that armor will also always eat some amount of damage. Dodge guy, meanwhile, is turning attacks into binary propositions.

Better armor is also usually heavier armor, which means you go less frequently if you focus on armor.

The general attempt, here, is to make all of these different ways of defending yourself mechanically valid, with some amount of advantage and disadvantage so that one doesn't become the obvious choice. We want to be able to model a bunch of different approaches to defense; regardless of which one you focus on, it should be effective in its own way.

Secondly, shields are different from swords from a blocking stand point only in that they're wider...

For genre convention, I see it as worthwhile in distinguishing between the two. Whether or not that's realistic is, at this point, irrelevant: in fiction there seems to be a difference, and I want to encourage that. I want characters who are awesome at parrying, I want characters who are awesome at shielding, and those two shouldn't automatically overlap. They can in a build, but it shouldn't be inherent in the mechanics.

Thirdly, it is blankly ridiculous to say that blocking and dodging can't be an unconscious reaction.

For characters who are any good at them, the ability to block or dodge as "unconscious" reactions - that is, reacting to attacks you don't necessarily know are there - may be a thing they can do. However, I typically don't see much use in discussing what high-"level" characters are capable of, as they're supposed to get kind of ridiculous and break how things are done by your average plebe. Awesome characters should do awesome things, which usually involves breaking the "rules" of how they're normally done or what is within the bounds of realism.

Fourthly, in actual sword fights parries are not separate things from attacks.

And for more advanced fighter-types, getting an ability that allows you to make an attack after a parry is almost assuredly a thing. But a guy who is just learning how to parry or fight in general is not going to know how to do that. It's something you have to work towards; it's not intrinsic to how parrying works.

First and foremost surprise should be highly effective because most street fights are over in first few punches.

Surprise and speed are quite effective in this system. Monsters - the sort that don't use equipment - are particularly dangerous because equipment slows you down, so monsters tend to go more often than PCs. But even for humanoid opponents, whoever goes first typically has a strong advantage, if everything else is equal.

It seems to me that you want some kind of low, but non-negligible chance to not be hit if you're aware of the attack but not making special effort, as in spending actual actions, to avoid being hit. You don't just stand there and take it in an actual fight, after all.

Yep, that was the original question. However, that chance is apparently too negligible to reasonably represent on our RNG.

As someone who knows how to fence, I just have to say, that it's frankly ridiculous that you should have to take an action to block and then miss out on attacking.

You don't, unless your attacker is stupidly fast. As I mentioned upthread, making an attack is significantly slower than the reaction to block or parry; in a duel, it will almost assuredly not matter that you're spending time to take an active defense of some sort.

[GnomeWorks]

Yeah, you are an idiot, because the mechanic GnomeWorks actually fucking described is that you have to give up your action for the turn and delay your next action and focus only on defense making it impossible to block or dodge and attack because defending yourself eats up your actions and are therefore by definition not reactions.

If that's what you got out of it, my apologies, then, as I was apparently unclear.

Reactions do not take up your action on your next turn, they just delay it. So you can attack on your turn, and then if someone attacks you before your next turn, you can block or whatever, with the only effect on your next turn being that it comes a bit later.

With numbers: Bob attacks on 8, and will go again in 20. George attacks him on 12; Bob parries. Bob's next turn is pushed back to 22, while George's next turn will be in 24.

[Stahlseele]

It's an auto hit in the sense that an individual in melee attempting to hit a target that is not actively defending themselves will hit. They may only hit their target's armor, but there's no chance of the attack not connecting to something.

yeah but see, this roll can speed up combat immensely.
if the hit roll fails, you don't hit and the other guy does not have to defend and/or soak at all. it's just that nothing happens. which is faster than not having the to hit roll not be there but having to do all of the other stuff all the time because a launched attack will hit.

[Omegonthesane]

Yeah, you are an idiot, because the mechanic GnomeWorks actually fucking described is that you have to give up your action for the turn and delay your next action and focus only on defense making it impossible to block or dodge and attack because defending yourself eats up your actions and are therefore by definition not reactions.

If that's what you got out of it, my apologies, then, as I was apparently unclear.

Reactions do not take up your action on your next turn, they just delay it. So you can attack on your turn, and then if someone attacks you before your next turn, you can block or whatever, with the only effect on your next turn being that it comes a bit later.

With numbers: Bob attacks on 8, and will go again in 20. George attacks him on 12; Bob parries. Bob's next turn is pushed back to 22, while George's next turn will be in 24.

This actually seems a lot more reasonable from a simulation point of view - but that sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare, and there's a legitimate risk that people will call bullshit on your system for requiring that they spend a game action to be able to perform unconscious moves.

Better to have a less granular initiative and just say that anyone who knows they are in a fight is spending a negligibly small action to be able to dodge (and has the option to spend a non-negligible action to be able to dodge way better).

[darkmaster]

That, as to your talk about stuff that's "high level" people unconsciously defend themselves out of instinct because it is instinct, you don't need to learn it, you don't have to do a special training regimen you just will because that is how humans are programed. And parrying and going right into an attack is the very most basic tenant of sword fighting, this is not a high level advanced technique only masters my have access to it's the fundamentals, the first thing you learn after which bit you stick in the other guy there is literally nothing more basic than, "keep your guard up you stupid asshole."

[Username17]

The more you explain about this system, the more convinced I am of my earlier diagnosis: this shit is too much bookkeeping and is substantially less verisimilitudinous than just having some passive defense scores. The subsystem as described is worse than just not having it.

-Username17

[GnomeWorks]

This actually seems a lot more reasonable from a simulation point of view - but that sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare, and there's a legitimate risk that people will call bullshit on your system for requiring that they spend a game action to be able to perform unconscious moves.

I realize it probably looks that way, but in testing, it is really fast. Like ten minutes or so for a 3v3 fight; I realize that may not be fast compared to other systems, but coming from d20, that is pretty damn good in my book.

It requires an action because it takes time. Conscious or unconscious seems irrelevant to that point; if you make movements to intercept an attack, regardless of whether it's reflexive or something you have to consciously do, it takes time. That's why it pushes your next action back.

Better to have a less granular initiative and just say that anyone who knows they are in a fight is spending a negligibly small action to be able to dodge (and has the option to spend a non-negligible action to be able to dodge way better).

We have moved to this granular of an initiative system because I got tired of D&D's concept of "everybody goes once" thing, where everybody gets a turn before the first person gets another. It doesn't make sense to me that no matter how fast you go, you'll never get more actions than somebody else.

Giving actual fighter-types the ability to have some kind of passive dodge, or something, would probably not be a bad call.

Keep in mind that when I say "fighter-type," I don't mean a character that has access to dodge and parry as skills and the ability to reasonably wield weapons and armor. Becoming a fighter, comparable to what you'd expect out of a combatant in D&D, even a 1st-level one, requires a level of investment above that.

And parrying and going right into an attack is the very most basic tenant of sword fighting, this is not a high level advanced technique only masters my have access to it's the fundamentals, the first thing you learn after which bit you stick in the other guy there is literally nothing more basic than, "keep your guard up you stupid asshole."

This is not something a starting character is likely to be able to do, because my assumption for starting characters is rather low-power. No, this is probably not some advanced technique; it certainly sounds reasonable that it's something someone focused on combat would learn pretty quickly. But starting characters are not necessarily that awesome right out of the gate.

[Cyberzombie]

I've never liked active defenses, even if done right where you can simultaneously dodge and attack, like you should be able to, it's an extra action declaration everyone makes whenever they can because not trying to defend yourself is stupid.

That's why some of the better designed games make the assumption that you're always dodging, and there are specific rare times when you lose your ability to dodge. Those times when people's defenses are down are the exception, and whenever possible, you want to write extra rules for the exceptions, not the basic state. The basics should be as simple as possible. Most attack rolls aren't sucker punches, they're attacks against aware targets.

And actions required to defend are just stupid. This isn't Mortal Kombat where you push a block button for a half a second to deflect an oncoming attack. This is an RPG where a round is an abstract construct consisting of several seconds of real time. The idea of sitting there for 6 seconds doing nothing but blocking makes no sense to me.

[GnomeWorks]

The more you explain about this system, the more convinced I am of my earlier diagnosis: this shit is too much bookkeeping and is substantially less verisimilitudinous than just having some passive defense scores. The subsystem as described is worse than just not having it.

Subjective judgments, but fair enough.

I'm much more interested in your analysis when it involves concrete numbers and whether or not games achieve their ends: does something literally just break down and stop working, or does mechanic X have ramification Y that totally fucks a system. You make very salient points and have a keen grasp on game design, so I'm interested in your opinion. But I'm fairly certain I haven't presented enough here for any discussion of that kind to hold water.

From what I've seen - admittedly, not terribly much - you seem to think the vast majority of systems that you come across are shit, so I'm not losing much sleep over that conclusion on your part.

I've never liked active defenses, even if done right where you can simultaneously dodge and attack, like you should be able to, it's an extra action declaration everyone makes whenever they can because not trying to defend yourself is stupid.

You're assuming a level of competence that I'm not willing to assume. For some level of skill, yes, being able to dodge and attack simultaneously could be a thing to do; but out of the gate, no.

And I also like the idea of having characters that don't see a need to make active defenses; guys who walk around like armored tanks who just wade through people not giving a fuck, or what-have-you. Probably not realistic, but meh. It's a nifty image, and I want it to be possible.

And actions required to defend are just stupid. This isn't Mortal Kombat where you push a block button for a half a second to deflect an oncoming attack. This is an RPG where a round is an abstract construct consisting of several seconds of real time. The idea of sitting there for 6 seconds doing nothing but blocking makes no sense to me.

"Rounds" aren't a thing, here.

Blocking an attack is an instantaneous reaction, not a consistent action you take that lasts from one moment to the next.

[darkmaster]

And parrying and going right into an attack is the very most basic tenant of sword fighting, this is not a high level advanced technique only masters my have access to it's the fundamentals, the first thing you learn after which bit you stick in the other guy there is literally nothing more basic than, "keep your guard up you stupid asshole."

This is not something a starting character is likely to be able to do, because my assumption for starting characters is rather low-power. No, this is probably not some advanced technique; it certainly sounds reasonable that it's something someone focused on combat would learn pretty quickly. But starting characters are not necessarily that awesome right out of the gate.

Sliding your sword forward to stab your opponent or trying to slide it down past their guard to cut their fingers is seriously a thing that my brother and I figured out when we were six and playing with sticks. Are you really going to tell me your assumption is your PCs are worse at fighting than six year olds with sticks? Is your game set in a society that sends their retards off to die in battle with monsters as some kind of weird inefficient eugenics program? Because let me tell you, the Spartan's idea of just leaving deformed babies on a hill for the elements and wolves was as horrific, but it was quicker certainly.

I mean, it's not like it takes a genius to figure out, "hey, I could side step and still be in position to attack" or "Oh, my sword is in position to slide forward and poke his important bits" these aren't complex ideas here.

[Wiseman]

I agree, you can totally parry and attack in the same motion.

[Username17]

You're assuming a level of competence that I'm not willing to assume. For some level of skill, yes, being able to dodge and attack simultaneously could be a thing to do; but out of the gate, no.

See, it's shit like this. This right here, that I despair of your system actually being "not soul crushingly retarded." Dodging is, at its most basic level, moving. If you move, then any attack that was going to strike where you would have been had you not moved and didn't travel through your path of movement, will miss you instead of hitting you. That's all it is. Moving while attacking is not a grand master thing. It's not a super secret technique spoken of only in whispers. Fucking five year old children can and do pull this shit off all the time.

In fact, if your feet and head aren't moving while you're throwing punches, you are are god damn idiot. No one who has ever been in a fight or watched a fight on ESPN or seen a movie of any kind that had any representation of physical violence in it could read that thing you wrote and not be offended by how stupid that statement is.

Everything you've said about dodging and parrying is very, very, very stupid. It comes from a stupid place and does stupid things and implies that there is a giant glacier made entirely out of stupid just beneath the snow. By reading these narrow passages about how you think you should model combat defense, one gets the inescapable impression that if one were to do even a casual amount of digging on any side of the issue what would be revealed would go down a long, long way and it would all be very, very stupid.

Your descriptions of how people defend themselves in your system, of what the action your game is supposedly trying to emulate, is just so comically awful that it's hard for me to even encapsulate it. Seriously dude, have you ever watched a boxing match? Some competitive fencing? A fucking movie with sword fights in it? I mean, fucking ever?!

I think honestly, that I'm done here. Reading more of your pontifications of how you think sword fights work is going to give me a transient ischemic attack.

-Username17