Well . . . I'm up early and posting. I don't know if I'll do this for Felltower or not, but if I did, here is what I might do.
My issues with retreat are largely gamist and meta, not based on realism.
Retreat causes a few issues in a game, especially a tactical map-based game with a large number of combatants:
- it adds to the D in the OODA loop of each turm. That's Observe-Orient-Decide-Act. It's just one more part of "Decide." It comes up when people move - they want to ensure they can retreat. They ask about which hexes are clear to retreat to. People choose where to move to give their friends room to retreat. The additional layer of "Where do I move so I can Retreat?" comes up every turn on everyone's turn, and people consider the past and future moves of their allies when they do so.
- it adds a weird gamist element where people want to get hit, because they want to Retreat to get an additional hex of movement.
- it adds to the whiff factor, as an additional percentage of attacks just flat-out fail to connect due to better defenses.
- it adds to calculation, as people stop to decide if they need the +1 or +3 to defend before they defend.
And this is with a group of players who have played in the same 4e campaign, with the same rules, for over 10 years. The more people know, actually, the longer they spend thinking about Retreat.
Here are some options to deal with it.
Option 1: Remove it.
Just get rid of it. No one gets to take an extra hex of movement to avoid an attack, and no one gets a +1 or +3.
Pros: Easy! Speeds up play. Increases lethality so fights will end more quickly.
Cons: Lethal! Players will hate it, because no one likes losing something they "need" for fights to be "fair" because "we need it more than the NPCs do."
Option 2: Restrict it.
Limit when it can be used. For example, allow Retreat only to Dodge and Drop against explosions, and/or only when using All-Out Defense and then only on the selected defense(s).
Pros: Easy, and comes up way less often as you can only use it when you aren't attacking.
Cons: As above, except when using All-Out Defense.
Option 3: Limit it - Step.
Another option is to only allow it if you haven't take a Step. You need to reserve a Step in order to pull off a Retreat with a full bonus. If you've already taken a Step, you Retreat but at a -1 to the effective defense - a +0, in most cases, and a +2 for Dodge or Fencing parries. (This matches the cost of an extra step in Committed Attack, GURPS Martial Arts).
You can also impost a direct penalty if you use Retreat - your next turn's DX-based actions are at -2.
Pros: Limits Retreat in a useful way, but doesn't nerf it, regardless of the options you choose. Players will like this. Very much rules consistent.
Cons: Doesn't limit Retreat much. Probably adds more decision-making to the process and a cross-turn penalty to rememeber.
Option 3: Limit it - Effect.
I'd consider making all Retreats +1, no exceptions for Fencing or Dodge.
Pros: Very easy to implement. Limits Retreat without totally limiting it.
Cons: Doesn't limit it very much.
Those are the broad options as I see it. A fifth option would be "Costs 1 FP to Retreat" if you did Extra Effort in Combat, but for some reason my players always vetoed that so I don't use it.
That summarises my problems with the rules perfectly. But I always was too scared to mess with one of the core combat mechanics, as PD-less 4E needed to change the defense mechanics a bit.
ReplyDeleteOne option I was thinking about was restricting your next action, so a retreat had to be followed up by an All-Out Defense. So still a very good defensive option, but definitely puts you on the passive side of things. Not really a precedent for this kind of mechanic in GURPS, though, looked a bit like the "aborting actions" mechanic from HERO.
I do like the general +1 rule, as I find the decision paralysis applying mostly to the people who could get a +3 out of it (fencers, good dodge ). Maybe with a footwork combat perk that gets you another +1 for some special combat styles. Assuming perks are somewhat restricted in the campaign, of course.
"- it adds to the D in the OODA loop of each turm."
ReplyDeleteI deal with that at teh table with a firm "You get one minute to figure your shit out or your Character takes A Do Nothing Maneuver." I only actually have to enforce that 1 minute time limit if someone is seriously hemming and hawing.
"we need it more than the NPCs do."
Ahah! Do your Players really say this? I can guarantee in my games the Players know the mooks don't bother //because I'm speeding up the game// and if I cared to make it "more old school" even the mooks would bust out tactically thought out actions... and they do, when it's appropriate to the group of NPCs. But most mooks do not use 'advanced' combat options: Retreat, clever maneuvering, Extra Effort.
I can see the issues with decision-making, but I've been working on setting firm time limits so that's less of a problem. I do think that I would like to limit it by requiring the use of a Step, though I'd allow either a saved one from your last Turn or using up any potential Step from your upcoming Turn. Slightly more bookkeeping, but not ridiculously so.
ReplyDelete