After a few decades of playing with the current GURPS iteration of Dodge (1 hex away from a foe, +1 Parry and Block, +3 to Dodge or specific Parry types), I know one thing:
If I was designing a hex-based combat system from scratch, I wouldn't include Retreat.
My reasoning has come up on this blog a lot. Suffice it to say that I don't like that it:
- imposes multiple calculations on your best defense choice (a decision-based pause)
- imposes a decision based on movement on the map
- forces map-based combat even when it is inappopriate to the game as a whole for fear of losing that bonus
- encourages people to design characters around a specific situational bonus and then play based on making that bonus come up
And there are other reasons as well.
What if Retreat was gone? What would happen?
Setting aside, here, the lamentations of the players, whose paper men will absolutely unfairly die if this is removed. That's the first thing that would happen, followed by the second - "I wouldn't have gotten hit here if we were using Retreat."
- All defenses would be base defenses. PCs and NPCs alike would lose out on a +1 to +3 (or more, in some special cases) on defenses. This would make Dodge-based defenders a little more vulnerable, and Block-and-Parry based defenders a little less vulnerable than that.
- You'd lose out on "attack and fly out" as the standard attack method. You wouldn't have Step and Attack, followed a Retreat before your turn. This would make two-hex-reach fighting still viable but not trivial. You'd have to back up, not assume you can move up and then move back.
- You'd have to consciously maneuver to keep out of close combat. You couldn't depend on a Retreat to take you out of it, followed by an Attack and Step on your own turn to open up space. You could still keep out of close combat, but not assume that if someone steps into CC as part of a Step and Attack that you could easily establish the need for 2 steps to get into close combat with you again.
- Keeping formation would be easier, because no one will be falling back for a transitory defensive benefit.
- You'd need to do something to allow for Dodge & Drop / Diving for Cover to deal with explosions. This could be as simple as just saying you can do that as part of a Dodge, but it doesn't give an additional bonus.
- It would make a spell like Blink have special extra effects - it lets you move as part of your defense!
- It would clear up questions like, if I've been Feinted, can I Retreat because I thought it was an attack? (This is usually done because the step, not the bonus, is what someone seeks.)
- It would make Theatre of the Mind/mapless combat an option because suddenly "I can fight safely at Reach 2 on a map" or "I need to know if I can Retreat" or "I move to where I can Retreat" aren't an issue.
Optionally, you could allow for a retreat as a FP-costing Extra Effort in Combat option, if you play with those.
Overal, I think this would be a big change but that the net positives would outweight the negatives. I know I'd never even have close to a majority agreeing to do it in DF Felltower, but if I was designing a combat system from scratch, this wouldn't be in it as written. Even the old-school 1st edition GURPS +1 to any defense opens up more decision-making and counting once you have multiple defenses and/or want to have mapless combat.
My own sword-fighting experience has taught me that moving backwards is about the worst thing you can do. The changes you outline here would make GURPS combat even more realistic.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting. I've trained with unarmed styles which are all about circling away from attacks. Or slipping forward and to the side. Straight backwards works in GURPS but in real life it's a railway to hell in most situations.
DeleteI think GURPS just overestimates the value of a retreat and underestimates the difficulty.
I don't know that it's overvalued exactly, simply moving out of the way (some combination of Dodge and Retreat Options) often results in not getting hit for me (in real and mock combat)... and I disagree with the word 'difficult". Risky, yes (often very risky). I think GURPS way undervalues the risk to moving backwards, or even sideways... heck movement in general, in a combat. But most especially backwards and sideways.
DeleteAlmost† every fall or stumble I've seen in mock‡ combat has been due to "didn't see the terrain" and it's very difficult to maintain //complete// situational awareness in a mock fight, let alone a real fight.
Now, am I willing to change things overmuch for my games with respect to movement, not really. I run more cinematic games, so while I will toss Difficult Terrain* modifiers in, and have PCs make DX/Hiking/Running/Acrobatics checks to maintain footing, I'm not likely to ramp up the difficulty for moving backwards or sideways, too much. But again I run cinematic. For a more 'realism' centered game, it might be a consideration.
.† Sure I've seen ye olde "trip and fall while running forward". But it's a lot rarer, and usually they were "combat clumsy" and far, far, far more likely to trip over their feet backpeddling than advancing.
.‡ While mock combat is mock, it's still full on movement, running, sidling, step in and step out, etc. And trying to keep situational awareness active on a swirling melee. Some of these were Field Battles in the SCA, but most were boffer LARPs... which get a lot more 'confused' than SCA Field battles - most field battles in the SCA are mock 'war' battles, so the fighters try to maintian formations. LARPers, at least in the LARPs I ran and played in, rarely even bother. And whne they have bothered, the line almost always breaks in the face of skirmishers flanking, at which point it's a pitched free-for-all.
* Which GURPS doesn't ever really do. There is an offerred -2 on rolls vs 'trips and falls' in Move and Attack and that's basically it in Basic and DFRGP Exploits. And I get it, having to roll DX/Hiking/Running/Acrobatics just to cross a room in a fight would be tedious and no fun. However, I use Difficult Terrain in my more "realism" centered games, and even in some situations in my cinematic games to represent really gnarly terrain:
Difficult Terrain, any terrain where Bad Footing rules applies, this rule also applies. Make a DX/Hiking/Running check any time the PC uses more than half their Move points, or when moving backwards or sideways. A failure results in them falling prone, and only having moved half as far as they wanted to** (if it was a Step, they fall into the hex they were moving into). They may make an Acrobatics check, on a success they regain their footing but Movement stops, on a critical success they finish their move in some suitably cinematic fashion (combat roll, spring to their feet into the final hex, whatever). On a critical failure of either roll, make a HT roll to avoid physical stun.
.** I've also used a random roll to see how far they got before loosing their footing, just roll the number of hexes -1 on dice and apply the random result, minimum 1 hex of movement.
Now, I've only used these rules in Forum Games, so a few extra rolls in combat really don't slow things down apprecably, I've yet to use them in a face-to-face game to see if it's slows combat too much.
And of course, like all things, the Players cheer when an NPC losses their footing and curse and declare it unfair when they loose theirs.
The magically accurate situational awareness + the lack of any issues with footing issues are the difficulties of which I speak. :)
DeleteI like it for all the reasons you list, but especially for:
ReplyDelete"Optionally, you could allow for a retreat as a FP-costing Extra Effort in Combat option, if you play with those."
I like having reasons for PCs to have to weigh spending FP, and having more FP sinks is always good.
I think for FP-costing abilities you have to make sure that complete post-fight FP recovery is a nice thing to have, but not a given. Wandering monsters in a megadungeon, say, or time-staggered reinforcements for fights.
DeleteMy Players often come to the conclusion that "resting where we just fought" is a very bad idea. Either due to reinforcements, opportunity predators, or just due it not being a defensible position while they are weakened (low HP, low FP, etc). They will retreat to a more 'defensible' location to rest... if it's close enough.
DeleteOtherwise, yeah, a few rest while the others do a fast search of their foes, or finish putting them down (there's always one who has to make sure //all// the enemies are finished).
If retreat forced you to all out defend then it might be more interesting.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good idea. Based on my experience with Fast-Draw, though, I prefer to not dictate next turn based on this turn. So I'd be more inclined to say Retreat only with AOD or possibly Defensive Attack.
DeleteSure, but it's not really realistic. Now I'm not really sure how much I've ever really "Retreated" as GURPS would put it, but as dueling polearm/staff fighter, I used to step backwards on the occasion, to maintain or regain distance when I lost control of my foe's weapon. And it was often paired with an attack as I regained the proper distance between us to (in GURPS terms) use my weapon's Reach (usually because it was a competition where the close-in attacks I was taught were illegal).
DeleteWe're talking getting rid of Retreat as a between-turns movement and defense bonus, not removing the ability to Step backward. Most of what you describe can *also* be explained by taking a Step and Attack.
Delete"We're talking getting rid of Retreat"
DeleteI get that, I was responding mostly to "If retreat forced you to all out defend" (or even a "Can only Retreat on an AOD").
Though, I suppose AOD (Retreat) might be an interesting option (thus "Can only Retreat on an AOD (Retreat)"). Far more valuable to those using the "fencing" skills than anyone else.
I like retreat (and acrobatic defense) as gives players more things to think about and strategize with on their turn
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to do, of course. I want to give them less to think about and strategize. A single second of combat with ~6 players and about ~12 combatants takes roughly 20-30 minutes, sometimes longer. Getting rid of the pause when a turn comes up and then someone has to think and strategize and plan and decide would go a long way towards speeding that up IMO.
DeleteFair! I definitely sometimes end up with 1 hour of real time to 1 second of game time issue
DeleteMy houserule was simple: any retreat was treated as a dodge and drop. So, you will always end up prone and the retreat is treated as "diving out of the way." This keeps the choice but makes it more niche. I do think your solution is better still, however (Less choices is often a good thing in my book, hence why I prefer The Fantasy Trip these days)
ReplyDelete