Defending against a failed roll to strike.

[Natasha]

Here's the question: if the attacker fails to strike, does the defender still "defend"?

This is how the guys I learned to play ran combat and, as a result, is how I run combat. It happens to be how I thought everybody ran combat.
Very recently, I found out that it's not the case.

Here's the scenario: a knight and an enemy soldier are in hand to hand combat. The soldier wins initiative.

Before dice are rolled, the soldier says he's going to attack with his sword and the knight says he's going to parry with his shield. Soldier rolls to strike and misses. There is no need to roll dice, but the knight has still moved his shield to react to the attack; he just looks like he's fighting a shadow warrior.

That's great, until the knight declares a dodge defense.

Same scenario. Soldier says he's going to attack with his sword and the knight says he's going to dodge the attack because he's lost his weapons or whatever. The soldier rolls to strike and misses. There is no need to roll dice, but the knight has still moved in reaction to the attack; he not only looks like he's fighting a shadow warrior but also he's just lost an attack.

A side note experience in real life. Sometimes a dodge leads to a miss becoming a hit.

Anyway. So how do you handle failures to strike/misses? Does the defender get to parry, dodge, entangle, simultaneously attack, or whatever else defenders can do even if the attack fails?

[lather]

Which furthermore lead to a discussion about what if the guy with initiative didn't act at all with a similar conclusion.

Feints were also discussed.

But one thing at a time.

And since I'm one of the guys she's learned from, I don't really have anything else to add.

Except that I don't understand why it would be handled any other way. Hopefully somebody can give an alternative and why.

[SkyeFyre]

The way I remember the rule going, (I could be wrong) and the way I play it are that the strike is declared, and rolled. Then the player chooses what they are going to do.

[lather]

I always read the steps in the combat rules as an organisational structure.

Not as actual steps.

So, does the defender declare after knowing the results of the roll to strike?

I think the defending player gets too much meta-information.

[sasha]

I have to admit a bit of surprise, too.

The only defensive action that a miss should nullify is roll with impact.

Combat is a dynamic environment in which attacker and defender ARE moving.

Looking forward to the feints and doing nothing discussion, too.

[drewkitty ~..~]

A Parry doesn't eat up a APM so doesn't really matter if the defender rolls to parry. But if they say they dodge then it still eats up thier next attack.

However, if the defender rolls a nat 1, and the GM takes it as a Crit fail, the parrier might spin about, or the dodger might end up dodging into the attack.

[drewkitty ~..~]

From the main books that was with in reach of my comp.

Parrying can be done automatically by anyone in any form of h2h combat.
....
A Parry can be performed without wasting a melee attack/action. Chars w/o h2h combat training will lose their next melee attack every time they parry.
....
Parrying a weapon bare handed is dangerous and all such attempts are without benefit of the char's parry bonus.

Parrying can be done automatically by anyone trained in any form of h2h combat. That means that the parry can be preformed w/o wasting a melee attack.

Parrying can be done automatically by anyone trained in any form of h2h combat. That means that the parry can be preformed w/o wasting a melee attack. Non-combat trained chars will lose their next melee attack every time they parry. Parries only work against relatively slow-moving hand strikes, kicks and weapons.

Parrying can be done automatically by anyone trained in any form of h2h combat. That means that the parry can be preformed w/o wasting a melee attack. Non-combat trained chars will lose their next melee attack every time they parry.

main books I had to get from the next room...

Parrying can be done automatically by anyone trained in any form of h2h combat. That means that the parry can be preformed w/o wasting a melee attack. Non-combat trained chars will lose their next melee attack every time they parry.

Parry: .... Chars trained in hand to hand combat can parry w/o losing melee attacks. ....

Parrying can be performed w/o wasting a melee attack/action. Chars with no h2h combat training will lose their next melee attack every-time they parry.

Chars trained in h2h combat can parry w/o losing melee attacks.

I think I've made my point. Thou I think ATB2 says it best.

Note: For Char trained in hand to hand combat, the parry is an automatic combat maneuver, meaning that it is performed without using up a melee round actions/attacks and can "automatic parry" an unlimited number of times.

[Dog_O_War]

Offering a "wasted action" injection is counter to fun. The game is already lacking in many aspects of "realism" (re: FIREBALL!), but with this option it now has abit less fun as well.

Making players miss actions because they attempted an action that was not needed favors those with a high number of attacks immensely (more-so than the rules already did). For instance, a Juicer with 7 attacks is fighting a Headhunter with 5 attacks. Normally the Headhunter can attempt parry, but since the Juicer is using a weapon that damages the opponent apon contact anyways, he opts for dodges instead. The Juicer misses his first attack, allowing the Headhunter atleast a chance to get in an attack with his pistol. The Juicer has only dodge, and auto-dodge available (because the Headhunter asked the GM if he could shoot from the hip at a half-bonus to avoid a parry, which the GM okay'd). The Juicer fails to auto-dodge, takes the hit, and the battle continues. This is already in heavy favor for the guy with lots of attacks.

But with your system, that Juicer can swing all day and fear no reprisal (unless the opponent chooses not to defend). Infact he can now fight two opponents and eliminate most of their attacks. And if the opponent does take a hit that would kill him, he pretty much cannot roll with it because he has no attacks left to roll with.

While it might've seemed like a good idea to insert this "realism", you must realize that you did this in a game where almost any OCC can take a .44 magnum, put it to his chest and pull the trigger, and in a short period of time it will be like it never happened. This is also a game where it takes the average soldier 15 seconds to make 4 attacks with a rifle, when I, myself can make 4 aimed shots with a rifle in that period of time (and I'm no soldier!). And finally, this is also a game where I become a better gymnast just because I am smarter than everyone else. Just seems like a half-hearted attempt to band-aid a bleeding artery.

I use the books' ruling to perform defensive actions in combat, with a different initiative system (home-brewed), and disallowing simoltaineous attacks, unless you and your opponent happen to actually be acting simoltaineously (same initiative count). It has game realism, and has increased the fun factor (indirectly) for my game because we now do not get bogged down in combat, forget who's attack it is, or have to live with the attacks gap 7 and 4 bring to the table (that is, why must the guy with 7 attacks have to play shot for shot with the guy that has 4, when he is clearly slower?).

[Natasha]

Making players miss actions because they attempted an action that was not needed favors those with a high number of attacks immensely (more-so than the rules already did).

I'd say defense is needed.

But with your system, that Juicer can swing all day and fear no reprisal (unless the opponent chooses not to defend). Infact he can now fight two opponents and eliminate most of their attacks. And if the opponent does take a hit that would kill him, he pretty much cannot roll with it because he has no attacks left to roll with.

If the headhunter has MD blade or shield he can parry the juicer's attacks.

If the headhunter is unarmoured he's wise to not attack a juicer with a vibro-blade in the first place.

And I have no problems with highly deadly games; I grew up, so to speak, playing them.

While it might've seemed like a good idea to insert this "realism", you must realize that you did this in a game

Actually this was added to PFRPG (see the example is PFRPG), not Rifts. We have used it in BtS though. I've played Rifts less than a handful of times but not with this rule, although it looks like I will this summer. We'll see how it turns out, I hope.

Just seems like a half-hearted attempt to band-aid a bleeding artery.

But it's not such an attempt.

(that is, why must the guy with 7 attacks have to play shot for shot with the guy that has 4, when he is clearly slower?).

Different conversation.

[Natasha]

Simultaneous attacks should be available to people who aren't hit by the shot anyway, yeah?

Yea.

[lather]

Offering a "wasted action" injection is counter to fun. The game is already lacking in many aspects of "realism" (re: FIREBALL!), but with this option it now has abit less fun as well.

Then why do I find it fun as hell?

Your opinion is appreciated, however.

[sasha]

(re: FIREBALL!)

I don't know what you're talking about.

(that is, why must the guy with 7 attacks have to play shot for shot with the guy that has 4, when he is clearly slower?).

If he's trained in hand to hand he can parry everything and keep up. I think of it as he's just not as good as the other guy. You get some licks in early but the better fighter eventually closes off your attack routes, putting you on defense.

No, it's not the best rationalisation, but it works for me.

[Killer Cyborg]

you must realize that you did this in a game where almost any OCC can take a .44 magnum, put it to his chest and pull the trigger, and in a short period of time it will be like it never happened.

Never read the rules about using common sense when it comes to gunshot wounds?

[Dog_O_War]

you must realize that you did this in a game where almost any OCC can take a .44 magnum, put it to his chest and pull the trigger, and in a short period of time it will be like it never happened.

Never read the rules about using common sense when it comes to gunshot wounds?

So it's okay if it happens in battle, but not when showing the weakness of the game?
Yeah, that'll hold up. "common sense" in a Rifts game. I'll put that right up there with "old tanks have SDC and an AR, which a .38 pistol can get by - so a .38 can destroy a tank!"

(re: FIREBALL!)

I don't know what you're talking about.

Fireballs are both physically impossible (currently), and magic in nature (as far as the game is concerned). They are a direct contradiction to any and all who attempt a "realistic" game, or that would decry that some other rule or gun wasn't "realistic".

(that is, why must the guy with 7 attacks have to play shot for shot with the guy that has 4, when he is clearly slower?).

If he's trained in hand to hand he can parry everything and keep up. I think of it as he's just not as good as the other guy. You get some licks in early but the better fighter eventually closes off your attack routes, putting you on defense.
No, it's not the best rationalisation, but it works for me.

Unfortunately it does not work for myself and my group.

[sasha]

(re: FIREBALL!)

I don't know what you're talking about.

Fireballs are both physically impossible (currently), and magic in nature (as far as the game is concerned). They are a direct contradiction to any and all who attempt a "realistic" game, or that would decry that some other rule or gun wasn't "realistic".

The context of the game determines the definition of "realistic".

(that is, why must the guy with 7 attacks have to play shot for shot with the guy that has 4, when he is clearly slower?).

If he's trained in hand to hand he can parry everything and keep up. I think of it as he's just not as good as the other guy. You get some licks in early but the better fighter eventually closes off your attack routes, putting you on defense.
No, it's not the best rationalisation, but it works for me.

Unfortunately it does not work for myself and my group.

Unfortunate indeed.

[Dog_O_War]

(re: FIREBALL!)

I don't know what you're talking about.

Fireballs are both physically impossible (currently), and magic in nature (as far as the game is concerned). They are a direct contradiction to any and all who attempt a "realistic" game, or that would decry that some other rule or gun wasn't "realistic".

The context of the game determines the definition of "realistic".

Right. So why do people insert their own brands of realism? Because they find some concepts of the game less "realistic" than others. That is why I spout FIREBALL! at them (because they complain about one thing not being realistic, yet they completely ignore the blatantly unrealistic).

An excellent "for instance" is burst damage, aiming while bursting, and how many times a person could actually attack with a rifle.

-Burst damage is often less than single bullet damage, even against targets that cannot be missed (re: broad side of a barn).
-Aiming is apparently impossible for bursts, despite any and all kick-back occuring after the aim and fire have occured. Really, it doesn't matter how much your gun kicks, you can still aim accurately while shooting weapons that burst.
-Automatic rifles fire once per trigger-pull. any soldier worth a damn can fire off 5 rounds accurately at a target in 5 seconds without a burst-fire weapon. As the rules stand, 4 attacks per round reminds me of every "fire-fight" that ever occured in Star Trek.

Basically I'm saying that there are far more unrealistic things than offering that you lose your action when dodging against a failed roll to strike.

[sasha]

(re: FIREBALL!)

I don't know what you're talking about.

Fireballs are both physically impossible (currently), and magic in nature (as far as the game is concerned). They are a direct contradiction to any and all who attempt a "realistic" game, or that would decry that some other rule or gun wasn't "realistic".

The context of the game determines the definition of "realistic".

Right. So why do people insert their own brands of realism? Because they find some concepts of the game less "realistic" than others. That is why I spout FIREBALL! at them (because they complain about one thing not being realistic, yet they completely ignore the blatantly unrealistic).

Perhaps I'm not getting it. In a fantasy game, fireballs are realistic.

Basically I'm saying that there are far more unrealistic things than offering that you lose your action when dodging against a failed roll to strike.

That's true, but we're talking about failed strike rolls in this thread.

[Dog_O_War]

Fireballs are both physically impossible (currently), and magic in nature (as far as the game is concerned). They are a direct contradiction to any and all who attempt a "realistic" game, or that would decry that some other rule or gun wasn't "realistic".

Personally, I feel verisimilitude (which is surely the realism we're arguing over) is important in a game, since too little verisimilitude damages one's willing suspension of disbelief. While I'm a stickler for rules until they well and truly break down in the face of examination or truly sidetrack the fun, I recognize that WSD is fragile for some, myself included, and should be prioritized.
However, sometimes there's extra fun in making efficient use of attacks; all the WSD in the world won't save a game which becomes boring because your character can't get a shot off.

You know that this is a game where the majority of aliens look like animals, plants, or minerals found on earth, and often have names to match, right?

That the pin-prick of a hole a wilks laser leaves seemingly allows all the blood in your body to exit at once, just because it was an MD attack and you are SDC.

That accidentally cutting your finger off with a vibro-blade is a death sentence because all damage listed is dealt to the main body if no SDC per location is given.

Anyways, I'm just being a rooster; I completely understand what you are saying, and what others are saying. But why start with dodging wasting an action? That's what I'm getting at, and I do wonder if this is the only rules change made.

Perhaps I'm not getting it. In a fantasy game, fireballs are realistic.

Exactly.
So why can't, "not losing an action when an opponent fails to strike, but the defender called a dodge"? What I'm saying is that if you can believe that a fireball is real in a game, a fantasy game - why then insert this jauntingly realistic ruling?

[sasha]

Anyways, I'm just being a rooster; I completely understand what you are saying, and what others are saying. But why start with dodging wasting an action? That's what I'm getting at, and I do wonder if this is the only rules change made.

I developed the rule well before MDC entered the scene. It's not the only rule change and it's not a start to fixing mega damage rules. Discussions about mega damage are welcomed, just not here.

Perhaps I'm not getting it. In a fantasy game, fireballs are realistic.

Exactly.
So why can't, "not losing an action when an opponent fails to strike, but the defender called a dodge"? What I'm saying is that if you can believe that a fireball is real in a game, a fantasy game - why then insert this jauntingly realistic ruling?

Because it makes sense to me given how I run combat. And because this is an isolated instance of realism that has nothing to do with suspension of belief or fireballs.

[Killer Cyborg]

you must realize that you did this in a game where almost any OCC can take a .44 magnum, put it to his chest and pull the trigger, and in a short period of time it will be like it never happened.

Never read the rules about using common sense when it comes to gunshot wounds?

So it's okay if it happens in battle, but not when showing the weakness of the game?

No idea what you're asking here.

Yeah, that'll hold up. "common sense" in a Rifts game. I'll put that right up there with "old tanks have SDC and an AR, which a .38 pistol can get by - so a .38 can destroy a tank!"

Never read the Penetration Value rules?

[Dog_O_War]

you must realize that you did this in a game where almost any OCC can take a .44 magnum, put it to his chest and pull the trigger, and in a short period of time it will be like it never happened.

Never read the rules about using common sense when it comes to gunshot wounds?

So it's okay if it happens in battle, but not when showing the weakness of the game?

No idea what you're asking here.

I've read the "common sense" rules, and they say to ignore the rules of the game. So which would you have me do; ignore the rules, or have the same exact effect apply to a person, whether it was intentional or not?
By telling me to follow the common sense rules, if a character shot himself in the chest, he would probably die (assuming the gun could hurt him).
By telling me to follow the rules, it shouldn't matter how that character got shot in the chest; offering that he will die because he did it himself is spiteful.

Yeah, that'll hold up. "common sense" in a Rifts game. I'll put that right up there with "old tanks have SDC and an AR, which a .38 pistol can get by - so a .38 can destroy a tank!"

Never read the Penetration Value rules?

No. Book and page please. Futher bickering or a retraction may follow.

[sasha]

And because this is an isolated instance of realism that has nothing to do with suspension of belief (...).

If it's about realism or verisimilitude, it's always about willing suspension of disbelief.

Some times it just makes sense.

I'm going to disagree with you.

[sasha]

I really must ask why. Am I misusing a term somewhere?
If it's about whether or not it makes sense, isn't the effort of conforming to good sense just a question of conforming to verisimilitude, to the resemblance to reality? And isn't the goal of conforming to verisimilitude simply to enhance the experience by not pulling people out of it?

Perhaps this is a slippery slope perception, but I feel these are equivalent all the way down the line. And, in case you're concerned, I see nothing wrong with enhancing an experience by conforming to verisimilitude or reality, so long as it remains fun.
Which, as has been pointed out, verisimilitude is often fun and some people also enjoy the tactical implications of simulating a wasted dodge, regardless of its "sense," "realism," or verisimilitude.

It is true that combatants move during a fight. It is true that a defender moves even though an attacker fails to strike. This is not verisimilitude because it is true; verisimilitude requires fiction with the facade of truth. Realism, which this rule reflects, does not require suspension of disbelief because it's real; what's to suspend disbelief in?

[sasha]

We're suspending disbelief in arbitrary decisions by dice.
We're suspending disbelief in the "reality" of a fictional game.
Even if we suppose that this is merely a reenactment by stats and bonuses of historical events*... there's still willing suspension of disbelief, regardless of the level of documentation involved.
Imagination requires willing suspension of disbelief. Are you saying there's no imagination in your games? I hope not, as it would come as a surprise from your descriptions. I mean no offense, but unless I'm misusing terms, I'm kind of right about this.

* which would be the only thing I can think of to satisfy your assertion of realism, instead of verisimilitude, as the basis for your rule

Yea but two combatants moving is reality of reality.

[sasha]

Yea but two combatants moving is reality of reality.

Whereas two combatants moving in a roleplaying game, even going so far as a historical reenactment of two combatants moving, is a semblance of realism in a fictional context. Hence, verisimilitude and willing suspension of disbelief.

If every time you look at a realistic painting you say "I'm willingly suspending disbelief these are actually brushstrokes" then that's cool.

I choose to say "that's a cool scene", however.

So no you're not misusing terms.

[sasha]

So no you're not misusing terms.

What more do you want?

[sasha]

Now where were we?

She was asking for people to explain how they handle misses in combat.

* That done, do I need to explain verisimilitude's role?

No. We fundamentally disagree on its meaning and role.

[Dog_O_War]

So why can't, "not losing an action when an opponent fails to strike, but the defender called a dodge"? What I'm saying is that if you can believe that a fireball is real in a game, a fantasy game - why then insert this jauntingly realistic ruling?

However, for purposes of this conversation, I'm not certain this is a fair comparison. There are certainly fair comparisons to be made, such as the Star Trek-style gun battles or the burst rules, but fireballs don't seem a proper parallel to the question of whether or not defensive actions (and, by extension, simultaneous attacks) should be called before the strike roll.
And before you feel ganged upon too much, I do intend to run the game such that defensive actions are called after strike rolls; it's just easier, and while others may find the opposite approach fun, my group has different priorities in that regard.

You're right that FIREBALL! is hardly fair to compare this dodge rule by. Infact, I've thrown a couple so far and this has not made Sasha or Natasha glean any leaps of logic, so it cannot be a fair comparison, as having a player dodge a failed attack roll but still lose an attack isn't outrageous by any means.
I still see this as counter to a greater amount of fun (even then not so much fun as a stripping of attacks from the player), and would probably request some type of recovery roll be allowed to reclaim the used attack when this situation did arise.

[sasha]

You could have the defender roll dodge in the event the attacker misses to see if the defender loses the attack or not. Apply dodge bonuses to the roll. A success means the attack is not lost. A failure means the attack is lost. Since attacker and defender usually roll at the same time in my games, it's all ready to go.

[Dog_O_War]

Edit:

A success means the attack is not lost. A failure means the attack is lost. Since attacker and defender usually roll at the same time in my games, it's all ready to go.

I would hate that. Adding another die roll to nearly every combat resolution, to me, is going beyond the allowable degree of complexity in the attempt to emulate reality.

He didn't say "extra die roll" though. He said that apon a successful dodge against a failed attack (since you're rolling both at the same time) would confer that no attack action is lost. Only a failed roll against a failed attack (re: a 1 or a dodge roll that is actually lower than a roll to strike that missed anyways) would confer the loss of attack.

[sasha]

You spent half a page arguing that the act of seeming realistic had nothing to do with willing suspension of disbelief or with verisimilitude. Stop making me poke around me damn books over semantic issues and let me use the words which suit the situation.

And apparently I have to spend half a page trying to stop.

First, the meaning of words. Verisimilitude is the property of seeming to be true, but isn't. Things verisimiliar are not true, they only have the facade of truth. Suspension of disbelief is believing something to be real that you would never accept in real life.

Second, the roles of these words. I don't give two shakes about verisimilitude until such time the painting, the story, the game requires me to measure verisimilitude. Until such time, I have no need for verisimilitude. Since you're using wikipedia, check out the Postmodern section.

The statement "combatants move during combat" is true. If you give it a fictional game context is it any less true? I'd say it isn't. At the very least, I'd say it makes sense. And as long as things are (a) true or (b) making sense, I don't need verisimilitude. I believe that "combatants move during combat" in a fictional game context. I have no disbelief to suspend. And as long as I have no disbelief, then I have nothing to suspend.

In this specific situation, there is no versimilitude and there is no suspension of disbelief.

If you can demonstrate that the statement is both not true and would never been accepted in the real world, then I'll take it all back.

Do you agree with the appraisal that good sense, and yes in Palladium good sense is often a house rule, may or may not contribute to a player group's fun?

Yes.

That said, I still feel this house rule runs too much of a risk of being abused by the character with the most attacks per melee to leave the opponent dancing and screaming for a round and a half.

How does an attacker abuse missing?

I can only think of the tactic of feinting, which is another discussion that hopefully she brings to the boards.

Edit:

A success means the attack is not lost. A failure means the attack is lost. Since attacker and defender usually roll at the same time in my games, it's all ready to go.

I would hate that. Adding another die roll to nearly every combat resolution, to me, is going beyond the allowable degree of complexity in the attempt to emulate reality.

Yea, it's so burdensome to have the defender roll his defense at the same time the attacker rolls to strike

[sasha]

If you can demonstrate that the statement is both not true and would never been accepted in the real world, then I'll take it all back.

I'm trying to decide whether or not to continue this in PM. I'll concede you may be right about WSD, to concede that perhaps the term isn't as intuitive as it seems and that its definition hinges more on tradition than verbage, but all the information I've been able to find on verisimilitude only requires that the premise be fictional. In this case, you're dealing with a fictional fight between fictional characters on fictional grounds, and as such it behooves you to create a believable but fictional fight scene using believable rules (granted that your players are willing to overlook the limitations of the medium so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises.) (Yes, more Wikipedia.)

Presume that the only requirement is that the premise be fictional. The question of when to measure versimilitude remains unresolved.

For me, I don't need verisimilitude for statements like "combatants move during combat" or even "d-bees exist on Rifts Earth".

Do you agree with the appraisal that good sense, and yes in Palladium good sense is often a house rule, may or may not contribute to a player group's fun?

Yes.

And as such, different strokes for different folks? (I'll be getting to my misinterpretations of your latest idea in a moment.)

Yes. That's usually the case with games.

How does an attacker abuse missing?

By taking advantage of a much higher number of attacks per round to get multiple shots off, some of which will succeed even against a dodging, moving opponent, denying the dodging opponent all but a smidgen of even wild-firing counterattack. This already happens to some degree, and I'd be afraid of making it worse.
I could be misreading how this would play out, though, so feel free to post a combat example. (Again, I misinterpreted intent below, getting to that.)

I do not see that as abuse. That's just the way the game plays.

When I originally ran games with this rule, there was not a disparity in attacks per round. I haven't had the opportunity to run a game with such disparity. The disparity doesn't bother me and neither does the fact that this rule does nothing to help the guy with fewer attacks, even without the option of "reclaiming" the attack with a successful dodge.

That's my playstyle.

[sasha]

Ah. While I'm not precisely against the idea that somebody with more attacks would dominate the field to a significant degree and be hard to fire back at, I feel this runs a risk of reducing fun.

They already dominate. This allows them to dominate more. Unless you change strategies to compensate. Which may not always be possible, but, hey, life isn't fair.

Fun for me is apparently not fun for you. That's one of the things that makes RPGs cool, in my opinion.

Here's what you're missing in a nutshell. If you do something because it "just makes sense," you're doing it because the opposite doesn't make sense. When the game doesn't make sense, it bugs you and you don't enjoy it as much, so you change it. Why do you do that?
Because you can't believe the game, and you can't enjoy it as much without believing it just a little.

Honestly, I think you're reading far too much into this. I have run games with and without this rule, both resulting in enjoyable games. I don't agree that I did it because the opposite didn't make sense. Not losing the attack does make sense, the opportunity to reclaim the attack does make sense, and losing the attack does make sense. They all make sense. Each affect the game differently; you pick the one that affects thte game you like. And that can vary from game to game.

[LostOne]

I haven't read any replies, just replying to the first post, hopefully not closely repeating something that's been said a hundred times already.

Look at it this way:

I walk up to about 10 feet away from you and slowly and deliberately point a gun at you. You and I don't know that the bullet is a bad load and the gun will explode in my hand. But you see me pulling the trigger, if you're smart you're gonna dodge.

I roll to strike, natural 1, roll on whatever house-rule table to see what happens and my gun explodes.

Meanwhile, you've still thrown yourself to the side thinking that there will be a bullet coming at where you were standing. You've still used a dodge.

If you didn't use a dodge, you're still standing there waiting to eat a bullet, and you need psychiatric help, or much better reflexes.

Dodging is a conscious act of defense, whether it turns out it was needed or not.

[Dog_O_War]

I have run games with and without this rule, both resulting in enjoyable games. I don't agree that I did it because the opposite didn't make sense. Not losing the attack does make sense, the opportunity to reclaim the attack does make sense, and losing the attack does make sense. They all make sense. Each affect the game differently; you pick the one that affects thte game you like. And that can vary from game to game.

a. Trying to understand here. If rule 1 says you don't lose an attack for dodging failed strikes because you don't declare defense until the attack has been made, and rule 2 says you do possibly lose an attack because you don't make such decisions after a successful strike but rather before, why would you argue earlier that you use rule 2 because sometimes it just makes sense? If, as you say, both make sense, why house rule? House rules exist to increase fun, right?

You're just befuddling his rules. He house-rules that you must declare your defence apon hearing that the opponent has attacked you, but before dice rolls are made. This is quite common. Then he is saying that if the opponent misses anyways but you still chose to dodge that you lose an attack.
And by his inferences, he might not have realized that he was doing two house-rules (stating that you must roll the same time as the attacker).

Also, house rules in Rifts are the exception to house rules in RPGs; they tend streamline and clarify more often than increase fun levels. That and are often used to put your foot down on heated issues, such as the GI Joe rule of armour (lost a leg because of that one).

b. Assuming this isn't what you meant by the above quote, that in fact you do consider one to make sufficiently more sense than the other to get more fun out of the game by house ruling accordingly, how is it that making sense equalling more fun doesn't qualify?

This is a futile avenue of questioning; you cannot quantify what is fun for a person. I find playing by the book fun, as well as rules that add a level of game-realism (as determined best by myself) fun. Some people on the other hand prefer to ride the SDF-1 as cyborg Pope John-Paul the IVth.

[sasha]

I have run games with and without this rule, both resulting in enjoyable games. I don't agree that I did it because the opposite didn't make sense. Not losing the attack does make sense, the opportunity to reclaim the attack does make sense, and losing the attack does make sense. They all make sense. Each affect the game differently; you pick the one that affects thte game you like. And that can vary from game to game.

a. Trying to understand here.

Here's an example.

Soldier (NPC) and knight (PC) are locked in hand to hand combat. The soldier has won initiative.

GM: The enemey soldier is swinging his sword at you.
Knight: I'm going to attempt to dodge the attack.
GM: Alright. Let's roll his attack and your defense together.
GM rolls 3 to Strike with bonuses; knight rolls 12 to Dodge with bonuses.
GM: The soldier's attack misses and you have lost an attack.
Knight: Darn it!

With the alternative rules the knight would not have lost the attack since his dodge roll beat the strike roll. If, somehow, the knight had rolled a 1 or a 2, then the attack would have been lost.

If, as you say, both make sense, why house rule? House rules exist to increase fun, right?

Because that's the style of game I want.

I have a number of house rules which are applied in variations in order to create the type of game I want to play. For example, sometimes the player has to have the Swim if he wants his character to have the ability to swim while in other games there's a list of "free skills" which includes Swim which allows players to build more skilled characters.

House rules are made to clear up confusion and create a style of play for the game (for example, no magic whatsoever exists). Fun is an element in that, of course. But fun for me and fun for you don't have to be the same thing.

b. Assuming this isn't what you meant by the above quote, that in fact you do consider one to make sufficiently more sense than the other to get more fun out of the game by house ruling accordingly, how is it that making sense equalling more fun doesn't qualify?

You're making my head spin. I honestly don't know what you're asking me.




It boils down to this: I make house rules to reflect the style of the play for each particular campaign I'm hoping to achieve.

[sasha]

Because it makes sense to me given how I run combat. And because this is an isolated instance of realism that has nothing to do with suspension of belief or fireballs.

So you amend this prior, that it isn't about "realism" or, if you will, verisimilitude?
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, s'just that this has quickly gone from a vocabulary argument to a question of the very premise on which you argued with me in the first place.

It is about realism but it is not about verisimilitude. See, we still have differing opinions on the usage of verisimilitude. Nothing has changed whatsoever. Nothing is going to change. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish now. If we need to go through this, let's do it through private message as we're no longer anywhere near the OP's topic.

[sasha]

In response, you said I was wrong because you did it this way so that it made sense.

Yea, except I never said that.

We're done.

[sasha]

Edited for brevity:

Yea, except I never said that.

And I didn't. And you still haven't provided the quote where I did.

And because this is an isolated instance of realism that has nothing to do with suspension of belief (...).

If it's about realism or verisimilitude, it's always about willing suspension of disbelief.

Some times it just makes sense.

I'm going to disagree with you.

Because that's the style of game I want.
I have a number of house rules which are applied in variations in order to create the type of game I want to play.
House rules are made to clear up confusion and create a style of play for the game (for example, no magic whatsoever exists). Fun is an element in that, of course. But fun for me and fun for you don't have to be the same thing.

Make up your gorram mind.

I have; just waiting for you to catch up.

In the meantime, consider that you have now not only put words into my mouth but also have taken what I've said out of their context.

That first quote you gave of mine is me speaking about the specific house rule of losing an attack when the defender dodges whether or not the attacker rolled successful strike.

That second quote you gave of mine is me speaking about the reasons for writing house rules; in other words, I was answering a general question about why we write house rules. You asked "House rules exist to increase fun, right?" I answered that they exist to clear up confusion and to create a playstyle.

The specific rule of losing an attack when the defender dodges whether or not the attacker rolled successful strike falls under the second category of creating a playstyle.

I'm still not sure what you're hoping to gain. I've asked you to stop. I've asked you to take it to PM if you can't stop. Yet you've done neither. You'll get no more replies from me one way or another.

[Nemo235]

Fifty dollar pancakes slathered in whisky flavored doo-doo butter!!



















...I'm waiting...