I don't think it's a secret that I hate Retreat. I didn't always; in fact I used to love it. I still think it makes a lot of sense. But the longer I've run game the longer I've spent watch it be the be-all and end-all of tactical considerations. Mapless combat becomes "invisible map" combat as everyone wants to take a position where they can't be flanked but also can Retreat without letting anyone break their defensive line.
Ugh, ugh, ugh.
Thinking about this for my DF game, could I get rid of it?
I see two options:
Option 1: No Retreat.
In this option, it's just gone. Delete it, with the possible exception of "Dodge and Drop" for explosions. Yes, you can still dive flat to get away from an explosion. Maybe Duck Behind Cover - something I allow now, which is Retreat if you can fully move behind cover to try to avoid a missile. You could still use Acrobatics for a +2 or -2, because that's not tied to Retreat.
Otherwise, it's gone. All defenses are "flat" - as written, no bonuses, no defensive movement from your hex triggered by a potentially successful hit.
Pros: Simple. Increases the number of effective blows in combat. Speeds up defense calculations.
Cons: Likely to provoke vetos by any and all players who "need" Retreat. Might slow the game down as people claim to need more time to decide where to step or move because they're unable to count on Retreat if they need it.
Option 2: No Retreat but the bonus applies.
In this option, you don't have Retreat - with the possible exception of Dodge and Drop, which only provides the ability to dive a hex away and end prone from an attack.
However, the bonus you would get is baked in to defenses, as such:
Dodge - based on 6 + (Speed * Encumbrance).
Parry - based on 4 + (Weapon skill/2).
Fencing Parry, Karate Parry, Judo Parry - based on 6 + (Skill/2).
Block - based on 4 + (Shield skill/2).
This applies to all monsters, too. All monsters get +3 to their base, figured Dodge (to account for 6+ instead of 3+ base). So a Foul Bat would have a 12 Dodge, but 14 while in the air due to the height advantage (9 + 3, + 2), and a Dire Wolf a 12 (9 + 3). An Eye of Death would have a 15 (12 + 3), potentially a 19 with height advantage and Aerobatics. Your average 10/10/10/10 human now has Dodge 11 - Speed 5, no encumbrance (6 + 5).
You could say that anything that gets rid of Retreat also gives a -3 or -1 to the appropriate defense (say, Move and Attack), to even it out a bit and keep that steep cost for such an attack still the case.
Pros: PCs get to keep their higher defenses, and as a matter of fact routinely have higher defenses more than under the standard rules.
Cons: High whiff factor, and increased need for Deceptive Attack and Feint to hit even fodder monsters. Most foes will Dodge more than 50% of the time against an unenhanced attack. Have to modify every GCA, GCS, and Forge VTT entry for everyone and everything.
Thoughts on these?
If/when I run a future game, Option 1 is going to be the standard. Everyone will have to know that going in. But to get people on board with it for an ongoing game, option 2 might need to be considered.
Why not use option 1 but add a flat bonus for Karate and Fencing skills? Something like a plus one to defence, but you gotta deal with encumbrance penalties to your defences if you’re using Karate/a Fencing skill. You still get the fast/light dude that’s hard to hit, but with much less bookkeeping
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty good idea that probably merits some thought.
DeleteI'd probably tie it to the weapons, not the skills, but it's worth some thought. Karate already gets an anti-weapon bonus, though, which makes it a superior unarmed defense. I'm not sure it needs the buffing.
DeleteAnother reason to tie it to weapons, rather than skills - I don't really think "Fencing" should be distinct from other sword skills. Or that rapiers are really superior defensive weapons.
DeleteAs a long time martial artist I strongly agree. My original aim was to preserve the GURPS mechanics. I think tying it to weapons makes more sense. Though, a rapier isn’t really a superior defensive weapon in the way GURPS supposes (the advantages of a rapier against a long sword are non-existent against a pole arm, for example)
DeleteFencing weapons being better defensively has been baked into GURPS since the early days. Even if it's true for some fencing weapons (I'm not convinced entirely), it's sure not true for some of them that get the bonus now. Getting rid of it and making it per-weapon would go a long way towards that. People didn't switch to rapiers to parry better (or let them dance around the clumsy knight and stab through the chinks in plate armor OMG I actually read that on a gaming forum, sorry.)
DeleteI think I rather like option 1, but I'd like to keep Dodge and Drop (as a way to deal with explosions and ranged attacks) and see Extra Effort come into play (unlike Retreat, this represents a resource that needs to be managed - and gives martial types *something* to do with FP).
ReplyDeleteI don't think I'd like option 2 as a player or GM: with Joe Average having Dodge-11 and Joe Average Monster going to 12 or 13, it further widens the (already frustrating) gap between fighting-primary and fighting-secondary characters, and I'm not sure what other system assumptions might break as a result.
My players, the times when it came up as an option, shot down Extra Effort in Combat. I'd be fine with re-introducing it, but I wouldn't allow something to act as Retreat, only give a defense bonus without movement.
DeleteI think this would be a *really* good tradeoff for ditching retreat. Retreat slows the game down and forces map detail (as you indicate below) with no depletion of resources. Extra Effort in Combat (at least Feverish Defense to spend 1 FP to get +2 to defend) shouldn't slow things down much at all, and there's an actual cost to getting that bonus. I don't see people spending as much time debating about whether or not to spend 1 FP as trying to figure out what hex is best for retreating, etc.
DeleteAs a related aside, I don't know that we need or would want any of the offensive options for Extra Effort in Combat. Heroic Charge, while interesting, seems like it is basically permitting someone to spend 1 FP to get the benefits of the Run and Hit advantage (albeit without the ST bonus) without spending the 10 cp per weapon skill or needing to be a Weapon Master or Trained by a Master. Perhaps for 1 FP that's a fine tradeoff. I guess worth discussion.
Certainly worth a discussion.
DeleteA concern I have is that this means that we take away the decision of Retreat/Don't Retreat, but replace them with a (potentially smaller) decision of Extra Effort/No Extra Effort. That will also mean people spend more FP in combat, which means that using Lend Energy in combat, and probably endless "Can I use Paut to recover? There should be a Paut for FP from Extra Effort use" questions, too. If these end up adding back the time we're saving on Retreat, we end up in the same place.
DeleteWe need to discuss it, though.
You could possibly go with Option 1, and offer a power-up that allows retreats, but costs enough that its a serious commitment to that style. Getting the price right so it isn't the auto-buy that Combat Reflexes is might be tricky.
ReplyDeleteSomeone might, but I wouldn't go that route. It's not that I think Retreat is just fine, but should cost points. I think it slows down combat, forces map detail even when it shouldn't matter, and factors into too many decisions. Making it a chargen decision wouldn't help that - and then I'd need to decide which monsters should have it, too. On/Off is easier than, "Off" But You Can Buy "On."
DeleteIt's not a bad idea but it's not going to get me what I'd want, here.
A couple more options:
ReplyDelete1) Nerf the Retreat bonus by tying it to Move. Anyone can claim +1 Dodge/Parry/Block for a Retreat, but a +2 for Dodge or for Parry with special skills requires minimum Move x; a +3 requires minimum Move y.
Good: This plays up the benefits of giving up armor to be a high-Move, "agile defense" fighter.
Bad: Slower fighters might choose Retreat less often, but the idea won't actually remove Retreat from your game.
2) A Retreat is a Step. If you've used up all your Step (which is only 1 hex for most combatants), you get no Retreat.
Good: That will (often) eliminate Retreat from a combat exchange. It also encourages a fighter to wait for the foe to close the gap (if that's an effect you'd want). (It also feels sensible to me; I never cared much for the idea of Retreat as *free* movement.)
Bad: The workings are clear on a map, but what about unmapped combat? If it's not clear when fighters needed to use a Step, everyone's right back to claiming a Retreat every turn.
For mapped combat, I really like your suggestion 2. Allowing a retreat only if they haven't stepped seems like a good balancing act. I also dislike someone walking backwards away from their attacker 2 yards a second when their pursuer walking forwards can only manage 1 yard/second, and this would fix that.
DeleteI like them, conceptually, but as you say, they won't remove Retreat. They could be ways to tone it down a bit, though, if someone prefers that.
DeleteIt seems better (and simplier) to me to just allow one Retreat per turn in any mapless combat, unless there is no way to retreat whatsoever (like when fighting in 3'-to-3' closet or something like that). Sure, this makes getting the Retreat bonus tactically easier, but that is for everyone, including monsters/enemies.
ReplyDeleteThat certainly solves mapless . . . but still doesn't speed up mapped. I'm hoping to find a solution I can live with that deals with it all with one fell swoop.
Delete