Forums of the Megaverse®

Aequitas wrote:Has anyone ran a game where the characters or NPC's had a more real-world reaction to combat? IE where they freak out at the idea of shooting someone or being shot at? I just realized, in every game I run, the characters are completely comfortable with the idea of taking life and being shot at; most people in the real world would probably run the other direction if faced with gunfire. Granted characters are never "joe average" but still, not everybody is going to be ready to pull out their gun and fire at something...especially something humanoid. This context sounds like the sort of thing implemented in a Heroes Unlimited game or maybe a chaos earth game right at the time of the cataclysm.

I've seen it most often in games where being shot at is deadly.
If you know your character can be shot several times before dying, you're not going to really worry until he's actually been shot at least once.

Depends on the character(s), I guess.

I have run games with all sorts of players, including the sorts which freak out at the idea of violence whatsoever.

Let the players have fun. That means they are a part of playstyle, too. GM is not there to impose a way of thinking on the players. If he is, he should reconsider being GM.

nameneeded wrote:2) Not all combats are meant to be winnable.

3) Not all combats are meant to have a known ending. That includes the GM not knowing the ending.

Noon wrote:

nameneeded wrote:2) Not all combats are meant to be winnable.

3) Not all combats are meant to have a known ending. That includes the GM not knowing the ending.

Sounds good to me.

lather wrote:

Noon wrote:

nameneeded wrote:2) Not all combats are meant to be winnable.

3) Not all combats are meant to have a known ending. That includes the GM not knowing the ending.

Sounds good to me.

I add that the game itself is not meant to have a known ending.

I agree, but someone who hasn't asked to hear something like that has no place for it in their mind. So I just mention the small fry stuff first, like perhaps some combats could have an unknown ending.

Noon wrote:I agree, but someone who hasn't asked to hear something like that has no place for it in their mind. So I just mention the small fry stuff first, like perhaps some combats could have an unknown ending.

Still sounds good to me

If you want to know how real people react to and think about killing I can sugest a few titles.

"Into the Kill Zone: A Cop's Eye Veiw of Deadly Force." By David Klinger.

"On Killing:The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society." By Lietenant Colonel Dave Grossman.

Website

"Why they Kill: The discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist." By Richard Rhodes.

I personally have friends with Combat related PTSD. I also have friends with combat experience who are fine. It depends on the person involved in said combat. The loving father of three, Joe Q. Suburbia will most likely panic and Die. While Dave Jones, 22nd SAS Officer will most likely kill the other guy and go off for a spot of tea. Also people like Machinegunners are more likely to "shoot to kill" than regular infantry. Sort of like how SWAT are more likely to have to "Shoot to Stop".

Palladium's games penalize you for reacting like real people do and using common sense. Dodging takes an action, and choosing to deliberately take an attack on the chin and counterattack means your opponent can't parry or dodge. So while in real world if a bunch of guys came up the street firing assault rifles you'd run for cover because you don't want to die, in a Palladium game you'll stand there and fire nice controlled short bursts while the bullets are ripping into you because you don't want to die

I'd run for cover in a Palladium game.

I must be missing your point somehow.

lather wrote:I'd run for cover in a Palladium game.

I must be missing your point somehow.

Dodging costs an action, which means one less attack that round. If you fire while running for cover you're a little harder to hit, but you don't get a dodge roll and your own attack counts as shooting wild. If you choose not to parry or dodge and just launch a counterattack of your own, your attacker is not allowed to parry or dodge at al. And finally, as per everyone's favourite rule, dodging guns is at -10 with no bonuses.

In any Palladium game with guns (ie pretty much all of them except PFRPG), it all adds up to a system where characters who tough it out, ditch evasive action, and focus entirely on inflicting as much damage as possible will be rewarded, and characters who behave like real people will be penalised.

Rallan wrote:

lather wrote:I'd run for cover in a Palladium game.

I must be missing your point somehow.

Dodging costs an action, which means one less attack that round. If you fire while running for cover you're a little harder to hit, but you don't get a dodge roll and your own attack counts as shooting wild. If you choose not to parry or dodge and just launch a counterattack of your own, your attacker is not allowed to parry or dodge at al. And finally, as per everyone's favourite rule, dodging guns is at -10 with no bonuses.

In any Palladium game with guns (ie pretty much all of them except PFRPG), it all adds up to a system where characters who tough it out, ditch evasive action, and focus entirely on inflicting as much damage as possible will be rewarded, and characters who behave like real people will be penalised.

Uh, not really.
Because the guys who decide to tough it out are still more likely to be shot up than the guys who run for cover.

Rallan wrote:

lather wrote:I'd run for cover in a Palladium game.

I must be missing your point somehow.

Dodging costs an action, which means one less attack that round. If you fire while running for cover you're a little harder to hit, but you don't get a dodge roll and your own attack counts as shooting wild. If you choose not to parry or dodge and just launch a counterattack of your own, your attacker is not allowed to parry or dodge at al. And finally, as per everyone's favourite rule, dodging guns is at -10 with no bonuses.

In any Palladium game with guns (ie pretty much all of them except PFRPG), it all adds up to a system where characters who tough it out, ditch evasive action, and focus entirely on inflicting as much damage as possible will be rewarded, and characters who behave like real people will be penalised.

This is especially true with firearms, since you magically know upon being attacked, if you're being hit with an aimed shot or a burst (It's totally silly when you think about it, in that 0.1 second between when the guy shoots at you and you dodge, you can automatically know roughly how many shots he's fired at you so you can 'decide' whether dodging is appropriate).

-Dodge the aimed shot, all that happens is the bad guy gets to shoot at you again.

-Take the aimed shot (which will probably not kill you), and respond with a simo-attack that is a burst, you take some damage, but your attacker dies. This is because while he is shooting at you, you have your single best chance to hit him back.

In the final analysis, combat is not about who gets the first shot or who dodges whom, the winner is the one who fires the *last* shot. And the simo attack is the ultimate opportunity to get the *last* shot!

If folks want a 'realistic' combat action, then they should get some sort of 'horror factor' check on combat, but this check would be easy for characters who are combat trained..... unfortunately many rifts characters are combat trained from the get-go (for example, all of the Men-at arms classes), and even those who may not be initially, will be seasoned to combat after a few sessions or so (unless the GM is running a very very low-danger Rifts campaign).

This would also require determining a skill or something that represents 'combat training'. As the only candidates in Rifts are weapon proficiencies and the Hand-Hand Combat skills... and the vast majority of Rifts characters have both weapon proficiencies and a H-H combat skill.... it's very easily argued that the vast majority of characters are combat trained.

However, if folks want a 'realistic' combat reaction, they should also choose a system with a more 'realistic' combat mechanic.

On a sidenote, am I the only one who noticed that characters don't get a level bonus to horror factor? Seems kinda silly that a 15th level cyberknight has has much chance of being freaked out by a ghosty as a 1st level one.

Focusing on the part of your post that I agree with:

DocS wrote:If folks want a 'realistic' combat action, then they should get some sort of 'horror factor' check on combat, but this check would be easy for characters who are combat trained..... unfortunately many rifts characters are combat trained from the get-go (for example, all of the Men-at arms classes), and even those who may not be initially, will be seasoned to combat after a few sessions or so (unless the GM is running a very very low-danger Rifts campaign).

This would also require determining a skill or something that represents 'combat training'. As the only candidates in Rifts are weapon proficiencies and the Hand-Hand Combat skills... and the vast majority of Rifts characters have both weapon proficiencies and a H-H combat skill.... it's very easily argued that the vast majority of characters are combat trained.

The thing is, even people who have seen combat aren't resistant to the "horror factor" effect of it, not in real life.
Some of them are, but others aren't.

I would be interested in coming up with a system that would somewhat represent the human horror at violence.

On a sidenote, am I the only one who noticed that characters don't get a level bonus to horror factor? Seems kinda silly that a 15th level cyberknight has has much chance of being freaked out by a ghosty as a 1st level one.

Originally, the Horror Factor was as much of a supernatural effect of the creatures as anything else, so I didn't mind.
But as more books were written, everything from dinosaurs to handguns started getting Horror Factors, as the writers decided that anything scary should have a horror factor, supernatural or not.
Like many parts of the game, it made sense (to an extent) in the beginning, but lost any logic along the way.

DocS wrote:This is especially true with firearms, since you magically know upon being attacked, if you're being hit with an aimed shot or a burst (It's totally silly when you think about it, in that 0.1 second between when the guy shoots at you and you dodge, you can automatically know roughly how many shots he's fired at you so you can 'decide' whether dodging is appropriate).

How do you know unless the GM tells you?

lather wrote:

DocS wrote:This is especially true with firearms, since you magically know upon being attacked, if you're being hit with an aimed shot or a burst (It's totally silly when you think about it, in that 0.1 second between when the guy shoots at you and you dodge, you can automatically know roughly how many shots he's fired at you so you can 'decide' whether dodging is appropriate).

How do you know unless the GM tells you?

Because in every Rifts game I've ever seen, the GM says whether the bad guy is shooting one shot or a burst at you. I think this is true of most games because if it wasn't then there would be a lot of duscussion of the 'tension' in a bad guy shooting at you and you not knowing if its one shot (where you will probably survive if hit) or a burst (where a hit can do hundreds of MD and be fatal).

If there are GM's who do it otherwise, there are few enough of them that they don't post here nor do their players post in discussions of weapon bursting.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The thing is, even people who have seen combat aren't resistant to the "horror factor" effect of it, not in real life.
Some of them are, but others aren't.
.

And the thing is that that resistance can be increased through training and experience. If it was a function of neither training nor experience, there would be almost no point to training soldiers. And not much point to differentiating 'Elite' vs 'Green' units (since both are equally likely to freak out under fire anyway). Any system to replicate combat 'horror factor' would also have to replicate the idea that training and experience would result in people who would keep their heads under combat conditions.

Which, given the amount of combat many rifts characters see, would render most characters pretty immune to it pretty quickly (either immune or irrevokably shell-shocked, in both cases the problem is solved quickly). At the very least, all Men-at-arms classes would be either highly resistant or whole-ly immune.

Innate 'talent' for this would be simulated by giving an ME bonus to whatever check.... but it would have to also be a function of training/experience for any realism to be seen. A skill or something similar would be needed.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Originally, the Horror Factor was as much of a supernatural effect of the creatures as anything else, so I didn't mind.
But as more books were written, everything from dinosaurs to handguns started getting Horror Factors, as the writers decided that anything scary should have a horror factor, supernatural or not.
Like many parts of the game, it made sense (to an extent) in the beginning, but lost any logic along the way.

Makes perfect sense, in that way actually, if you jump out at someone, you can very easily see them lose an attack, cringe, and have effects very consistent with the HF... despite a lack of supernatural nature on your part. If a supernatural horror was needed, one would think the HF effect would be much greater than one approximated by a 'startle'. A Splugorth appears, and the horror of it all literally costs you about 3 seconds, after which you're fine and dandy for the rest of the day..... lamest supernatural effect 'EVER'. But if it's just a reaction to a scary situation, the effects are logical, whether supernatural or not.

However, it really breaks the tone to go off with juicers about being 'fearless' and then it becomes "fearless... that is unless something scary happens, at which point, even a 15th level juicer cowers in fear for a couple seconds". Like many things in Palladium... looks good... until you actually use it in the game at which point it begins to make no sense.

It's not a magic thing (you get PE bonus against that), it's not a Psychic thing (you get ME bonus against that), again it falls into this grey-stupid area of 'you can tell what it 'isn't', but not what it 'is'. (Do robots roll HF checks? I'm looking through SB-1, I can find that robots are immune to magic or psychic mind control.... but if HF was either of those you'd get a ME or PE bonus. So, do they roll HF? Can you defend it with any sort of rules interp? How about Skelebots vs Transferred intelligences? Or was HF mentioned in the main book and promptly forgotten? That borg +3... works vs Magic AND Psionics... does it work vs HF too?) Whatever it 'is', shifters get a +7.... but it's not a magic thing. One becomes a shifter through years or study and training.... but study and training is not where that +7 comes from.........

The whole mechanic reeks of sloppy half-measures rather than a fundamental asking of what *is* this and how do we use it? It was interesting in the original BTS... but Rifts simply cut and pastes those pages. And as something that in theory is rolled every time the party fights a supernatural beastie.... it deserved a lot more thought than it got. Like so many things, RUE was a prime opportunity to re-evaluate it.... but they missed it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Rallan wrote:

lather wrote:I'd run for cover in a Palladium game.

I must be missing your point somehow.

Dodging costs an action, which means one less attack that round. If you fire while running for cover you're a little harder to hit, but you don't get a dodge roll and your own attack counts as shooting wild. If you choose not to parry or dodge and just launch a counterattack of your own, your attacker is not allowed to parry or dodge at al. And finally, as per everyone's favourite rule, dodging guns is at -10 with no bonuses.

In any Palladium game with guns (ie pretty much all of them except PFRPG), it all adds up to a system where characters who tough it out, ditch evasive action, and focus entirely on inflicting as much damage as possible will be rewarded, and characters who behave like real people will be penalised.

Uh, not really.
Because the guys who decide to tough it out are still more likely to be shot up than the guys who run for cover.

The guys who run for cover are basically giving free attacks to the guys who tough it out, so by the time they start making their counter-attack they're already that bit closer to dead. Throw in the fact that Palladium's rather vague on the benefits of cover (and that in MDC games, almost everyone can shoot right through cover so it's only good for temporary concealment), and there's really not much of an advantage to taking evasive action unless you plan on trying to get away from the fight altogether.

EDIT: and I should point out that this isn't a Palladium-specific beef, it's a problem with combat in an awful lot of RPGs. They either make parrying/dodging/whatever cost a turn, or there's modifiers to make your attacks less effective while you're taking defensive action. And since the benefits of not getting hit generally don't give as much of an advantage as the benefits of opening a can of whoop-ass, you see a general trend across the board for players who understand the rules to cop it on the chin and duke it out without trying to take cover, because there's no point trying to run and hide except in fights you can't win.

Rallan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Uh, not really.
Because the guys who decide to tough it out are still more likely to be shot up than the guys who run for cover.

The guys who run for cover are basically giving free attacks to the guys who tough it out, so by the time they start making their counter-attack they're already that bit closer to dead.

You take one hit in order to avoid getting hit a lot more.
Not that bad a plan.

Throw in the fact that Palladium's rather vague on the benefits of cover

Any attack hits the main body unless a specific called shot is made.
Which means that if your main body is behind cover, they have to make a called shot to hit you.

(and that in MDC games, almost everyone can shoot right through cover so it's only good for temporary concealment),

That depends on what you're using for cover.

and there's really not much of an advantage to taking evasive action unless you plan on trying to get away from the fight altogether.

Obviously I disagree.

DocS wrote:Because in every Rifts game I've ever seen, the GM says whether the bad guy is shooting one shot or a burst at you.

That's the GM's problem.
I only ever tell the players, "X looks like he's about to shoot at you."
It's not like the player can see the bullets/energy blasts coming at him and count them before he decides to move out of the way or not.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The thing is, even people who have seen combat aren't resistant to the "horror factor" effect of it, not in real life.
Some of them are, but others aren't.

And the thing is that that resistance can be increased through training and experience. If it was a function of neither training nor experience, there would be almost no point to training soldiers. And not much point to differentiating 'Elite' vs 'Green' units (since both are equally likely to freak out under fire anyway). Any system to replicate combat 'horror factor' would also have to replicate the idea that training and experience would result in people who would keep their heads under combat conditions.

I'm close enough to agreement with you that I'm not going to pick any more nits on this.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Originally, the Horror Factor was as much of a supernatural effect of the creatures as anything else, so I didn't mind.
But as more books were written, everything from dinosaurs to handguns started getting Horror Factors, as the writers decided that anything scary should have a horror factor, supernatural or not.
Like many parts of the game, it made sense (to an extent) in the beginning, but lost any logic along the way.

Makes perfect sense, in that way actually, if you jump out at someone, you can very easily see them lose an attack, cringe, and have effects very consistent with the HF... despite a lack of supernatural nature on your part.

That's not horror factor; that's a surprise attack.
(Which they need rules for)

If a supernatural horror was needed, one would think the HF effect would be much greater than one approximated by a 'startle'. A Splugorth appears, and the horror of it all literally costs you about 3 seconds, after which you're fine and dandy for the rest of the day..... lamest supernatural effect 'EVER'. But if it's just a reaction to a scary situation, the effects are logical, whether supernatural or not.

"The Horror Factor represents either the hideous appearance or its overwhelming aura of evil and power, or a combination of the two."

However, it really breaks the tone to go off with juicers about being 'fearless' and then it becomes "fearless... that is unless something scary happens, at which point, even a 15th level juicer cowers in fear for a couple seconds". Like many things in Palladium... looks good... until you actually use it in the game at which point it begins to make no sense.

I think it's pretty common for GMs to simply ignore horror factor in a lot of situations. I know I have, although I do use it from time to time.

The whole mechanic reeks of sloppy half-measures rather than a fundamental asking of what *is* this and how do we use it? It was interesting in the original BTS... but Rifts simply cut and pastes those pages. And as something that in theory is rolled every time the party fights a supernatural beastie.... it deserved a lot more thought than it got. Like so many things, RUE was a prime opportunity to re-evaluate it.... but they missed it.

I can agree to that.

Killer Cyborg wrote:"The Horror Factor represents either the hideous appearance or its overwhelming aura of evil and power, or a combination of the two."

So, I guess there goes the 'Supernatural is a requirement for Horror factor' idea huh? All you need is something with a hideous appearance, and WHAM-O, the Juicer cringes! Oh NO! HE's got a Freddy Krueger mask!

The words 'either' and 'or' are kind of important there.

Which again, makes the lack of a level bonus to it really really stupid. Years of fighting hideous creatures, and yet, you still get scared like you did the first time.

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's the GM's problem.
I only ever tell the players, "X looks like he's about to shoot at you."
It's not like the player can see the bullets/energy blasts coming at him and count them before he decides to move out of the way or not.

Doesn't this then dominate the entire tenor of the game? (combat becomes a different thing when that guy points a wilks rifle at you and the possibility of taking 100 MD is in the air).

Or do you do what most GM's I've seen do (including myself) and have your bad guys use a predominance of single-shots (I do it for the simple reason that the burst rules make one-hit kills too possible, and if there's one thing a player in fully repaired armor hates, it's being killed in one hit).

Rallan wrote:The guys who run for cover are basically giving free attacks to the guys who tough it out, so by the time they start making their counter-attack they're already that bit closer to dead.

I certainly agree here. It's basic tactics 101, If someone attacks you, and all you do is 'defend', you're giving them an attack for free. As much as the game is written that 'dodge' should be the default response to an attack, in reality, you should Simo-attack a lot more often than you dodge.

That is if you want to be the last man standing in short combats, rather than being killed in long combats.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Any attack hits the main body unless a specific called shot is made.
Which means that if your main body is behind cover, they have to make a called shot to hit you.

No.

DocS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Any attack hits the main body unless a specific called shot is made.
Which means that if your main body is behind cover, they have to make a called shot to hit you.

No.

Yes.

DocS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's the GM's problem.
I only ever tell the players, "X looks like he's about to shoot at you."
It's not like the player can see the bullets/energy blasts coming at him and count them before he decides to move out of the way or not.

Doesn't this then dominate the entire tenor of the game? (combat becomes a different thing when that guy points a wilks rifle at you and the possibility of taking 100 MD is in the air).

Does the possibility of getting killed when shot dominate the entire tenor of a combat-oriented game?
Gee, let me think....
Yes.

[qutoe]Or do you do what most GM's I've seen do (including myself) and have your bad guys use a predominance of single-shots (I do it for the simple reason that the burst rules make one-hit kills too possible, and if there's one thing a player in fully repaired armor hates, it's being killed in one hit).[/quote]

It all depends on what the bad guys are shooting at, and whether they have to conserve ammo or not.

I avoid getting my PCs one-shotted by not putting them up against enemies that can kill them in one shot.
At least, not without letting them know what they're getting into ahead of time.

But none of that is as much of an issue anymore, under RUE, because the old burst rules are gone, and the GI Joe rule is in place.

DocS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:"The Horror Factor represents either the hideous appearance or its overwhelming aura of evil and power, or a combination of the two."

So, I guess there goes the 'Supernatural is a requirement for Horror factor' idea huh? All you need is something with a hideous appearance, and WHAM-O, the Juicer cringes!

OR something that doesn't look that scary, but that has a supernatural aura around it.
Hence my original statement:
"Originally, the Horror Factor was as much of a supernatural effect of the creatures as anything else..."

Or a combination of the two factors.

Oh NO! HE's got a Freddy Krueger mask!

Hey, if you think that's scary enough, then give it a HF.
Personally, halloween masks aren't enough to freak me out.

The words 'either' and 'or' are kind of important there.

Agreed.

Which again, makes the lack of a level bonus to it really really stupid. Years of fighting hideous creatures, and yet, you still get scared like you did the first time.

Again, it originally wasn't just the creature's appearance. Not in a lot of cases.

Hi Rallan,

I agree in terms of dodge being a broken move in MDC environments - I've made the same points in the past, but alot of people see short term ("I dodged!") and not long term ("I kept dodging and...just took longer to die!").

Noon wrote:Hi Rallan,

I agree in terms of dodge being a broken move in MDC environments - I've made the same points in the past, but alot of people see short term ("I dodged!") and not long term ("I kept dodging and...just took longer to die!").

In the long term, everybody dies.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Noon wrote:Hi Rallan,

I agree in terms of dodge being a broken move in MDC environments - I've made the same points in the past, but alot of people see short term ("I dodged!") and not long term ("I kept dodging and...just took longer to die!").

In the long term, everybody dies.

In the short term, people who try and dodge die first. God bless the -10 to dodge guns rule

Rallan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Noon wrote:Hi Rallan,

I agree in terms of dodge being a broken move in MDC environments - I've made the same points in the past, but alot of people see short term ("I dodged!") and not long term ("I kept dodging and...just took longer to die!").

In the long term, everybody dies.

In the short term, people who try and dodge die first. God bless the -10 to dodge guns rule

Not really.
Dodging is a lot less effective now, stupidly so, but that doesn't mean that you're going to die any sooner than if you don't dodge.
It just isn't very likely to buy you much extra time.
Which is why it's a good idea to dodge behind something and use it for cover.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Not really.
Dodging is a lot less effective now, stupidly so, but that doesn't mean that you're going to die any sooner than if you don't dodge.
It just isn't very likely to buy you much extra time.

Since dodging is not free, you in essence will die 'sooner' if you don't dodge, since the resource you spend on the dodge (the attack) could be better spent on a simo-attack.

Mr Dodgeman, Dies after 2 rounds of dodge'em

Mr Simo, wins ths combat in 1 round. Survives well into the next combat.

Does Mr Dodgeman die 'sooner' than Mr Simo? Yes he does.

Even the 'auto dodge' isn't 'free' as it were, since the autododge means giving up the simo-attack opportunity (which is the single best time to get your return hit in). In essence, there are very few situations where a dodge is advantageous over a Simo attack, if 'Winnning the battle' is your goal. They exist, but are rare, and with the -10 (A silly rule), they are rarer still.

Don't think of it as a 'Dodge', think of it as "Dodge Vs Simo attack... which is the more effective way to *win* fights".

DocS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Not really.
Dodging is a lot less effective now, stupidly so, but that doesn't mean that you're going to die any sooner than if you don't dodge.
It just isn't very likely to buy you much extra time.

Since dodging is not free, you in essence will die 'sooner' if you don't dodge, since the resource you spend on the dodge (the attack) could be better spent on a simo-attack.

Only if:
a) You have a good chance of killing the enemy before he kills you
b) Killing an enemy or two will actually matter, which isn't always the case (as with large swarms of attackers).

Even the 'auto dodge' isn't 'free' as it were, since the autododge means giving up the simo-attack opportunity (which is the single best time to get your return hit in). In essence, there are very few situations where a dodge is advantageous over a Simo attack, if 'Winnning the battle' is your goal. They exist, but are rare, and with the -10 (A silly rule), they are rarer still.

Don't think of it as a 'Dodge', think of it as "Dodge Vs Simo attack... which is the more effective way to *win* fights".

The chief advantage of a simo-attack is that it cannot be dodged.
If dodging is not a viable option, then how is that an advantage?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

DocS wrote:s of attackers).

Even the 'auto dodge' isn't 'free' as it were, since the autododge means giving up the simo-attack opportunity (which is the single best time to get your return hit in). In essence, there are very few situations where a dodge is advantageous over a Simo attack, if 'Winnning the battle' is your goal. They exist, but are rare, and with the -10 (A silly rule), they are rarer still.

Don't think of it as a 'Dodge', think of it as "Dodge Vs Simo attack... which is the more effective way to *win* fights".

The chief advantage of a simo-attack is that it cannot be dodged.
If dodging is not a viable option, then how is that an advantage?

I'm with KC on this one. If your character has auto-dodge, then you're the only guy in the fight who'd be stupid _not_ to try and dodge. I mean sure, you'll probably get hit anyway, but it's not like it costs you much. You still get to use all your attacks actually attacking the other guy, and all you've given him is the worthless option of wasting actions dodging if he feels that way inclined.

I honestly just don't share the same opinion. In my game my players have been in situations where dodging was necessary.

Two of my players were in a Big Boss ATV when they were attacked by one of Archie's A-63s armed with an Arch-22 laser rifle. Neither of them had any Mega-Damage protection (All gone from previous encounters, and they didn't bother getting repairs for some stupid reason). I thought they were dead, but they dodged their way around shots, returned fire, and amazingly enough, they beat it. I was so impressed that when the other bots showed up I went easy on them and decided to give them a task for Archie rather than kill them outright.