> IIRC most RPGs (other than a few which have simultaneous attacks e.g.
> Pendragon) have a structure in which the defendant's actions are at
> best simply a response to the attacking action (RQ, Harn); as often
> as not you get the opportunity to stand there and take it (Earthdawn,
> MERP, AD&D). At least HW allows you to describe a response to the
> attacker's move though they determine the level of threat.
That's why HW is now my favorite game system, while PD is only second! ;)
As for MERP (and RM* in general), I fell I have to quibble a bit: after all you split your offensive bonus between attack and defense, so the game system actually considers how risky (and how possibly rewarding) your tactic is, albeit in RM's extremely abstract manner.
> In this case of setting a spear against a charging horseman, it
> doesn't seem off IMHO that the horseman determines whether they
> charge in recklessly or pull up and procrastinate. Either way the
> spearman is not leaping into action, just directing the head of a
> grounded spear (if they've got any sense). The AP bid should lie with
> the horseman.
As I have zero experience in anti-cavalry tactics, I'll pass on this example. But I practiced martial arts, and I know that the way I choose to defend had considerable impact on the result of an exchange of blows. And after all combat is usually not made of a single blow every few seconds. Rather, when a combatant attacks, he usually has a strategy on his mind, and this strategy consists in a series of blows, feints, defenses and movements around his foe.
> Aren't the modifiers/edges the crux of the matter.
I would say that AP are the crux of the matter, wouldn't you?
> They should be a
> direct reflection of the action taken by the defender and should have
> enormous weight where the response to the attack is concerned.
So instead of allowing the defender to bid, too, you'd assign a modifier/edge based on the defender's tactics? But how can you know if a tactic is the right one before seeing if it works? I like the AP system because it leaves this kind of suspense, whereas your method relies on the narrator's picture of the situation and his sense of appropriateness. Of course, what doesn't in a RPG?
> I'm sorry but I can't agree that the descriptions don't matter. At
> the MOST basic level the players must declare a parry (or whatever),
> or the exchange would be in effect an Ability test (this is no
> different from RQ). The players also have a chance however to
> describe a host of other action though yes, they will still be a
> response to the attacker's action.
But what weight has this host of other described actions on the story's development? It's up the attacker to determine how much either will win or lose, while it seems to me that the opponent should have his say on the matter.
Let's take an example. The actor declares to swing at his foe with his broadsword. The opponent declares that he is going to parry with his shield (elaborate at your leisure, my English isn't good enough to improvise colorful descriptions). The same actor declares the same swing. The same opponent declares that he will lunge at his foe while he is opening his guard to attack. The two situations seem to me very different, but since the APs that are going to be lost/transferred are the same, the game system does not tell the difference.
> All IMHO of course.
All IMVHO, of course! ;)
-- Regards, Alexandre "Cinq milliards de races d'hommes sur Terre Est-ce assez pour croiser le fer...?"
Powered by hypermail