What does it mean when you miss?

[islan]

If both an attacker and a defender miss, what does that mean? Does it mean that the defender actually succeeded in dodging/parrying?

If so, then does that imply that you automatically hit someone who isn't allowed a defensive action? The spot-rule for Backstabbing seems to imply differently, making the attack only Easy (which could still warrant a miss, if the attack skill being used is <50%).

[RMS]

If the attacker fails to hit, that means that the attacker failed to find an opening to exploit. A failed defense in such a case simply means that the defender failed to intercept any incoming attack. Since there was no incoming attack it's just lucky that it didn't happen.

Regardless of the active defense roll, the attack roll is completely about finding a spot to hit in the chaos of battle. It's not about the ability to wind up and hit something static, or nearly static.

[islan]

I can't really imagine what that would look like outside of medieval skirmish combat (where everyone is clunked together and moving)

[RMS]

Give me an example of what you're thinking about because I'm not sure I follow you. I'm picturing it working the same regardless of situation.

[islan]

Well, for example, I was recently running a survival horror game with BRP. Players would keep on making shots at enemy monsters who did not take much interest in defending, but their offensive skills were kept low in order to highlight "survival" part of it. Or, a character charges forward with a melee weapon to go one-on-one with a monster. With other games that have static rather than active defenses, I normally just say that the monster dodged or the attack only winged it. But with active defenses, I find the act of imagining the battle more difficult when an attacker just "misses".

[vagabond]

Well, for example, I was recently running a survival horror game with BRP. Players would keep on making shots at enemy monsters who did not take much interest in defending, but their offensive skills were kept low in order to highlight "survival" part of it. Or, a character charges forward with a melee weapon to go one-on-one with a monster. With other games that have static rather than active defenses, I normally just say that the monster dodged or the attack only winged it. But with active defenses, I find the act of imagining the battle more difficult when an attacker just "misses".

There is no need to defend yourself if someone misses.

That said, there is no need to roll for defense of the other side misses.

So, in practice, the attacker and defender both failing their rolls should

not be an issue.

Now, what you can do is if the attacker fumbles, and you choose to make

the defender roll for defense as well, and they fumble, both trip over each

other. Or, if the attacker fumbles and the defender misses, the attacker

falls into the defender, and the defender cannot get out of the way

quickly enough. The attacker suffers the fumble, the defender is in a

neutral state after shrugging off the attacker. For both attacker and defender

failing their rolls, they bump into each other but easily recover, or the

attackers failed swing and the defenders failed parry put them both out of

position harmlessly.

-V

[islan]

Well it seems like in the BRP book, attack and defense seem to be considered to be rolled at the same time, because a failed attack with a fumbled defense results in the defender still being hit (see parry fumble table).

[RMS]

Well, for example, I was recently running a survival horror game with BRP. Players would keep on making shots at enemy monsters who did not take much interest in defending, but their offensive skills were kept low in order to highlight "survival" part of it.

I'm afraid I'm still not seeing the problem here. The players are failing to hit the monsters because their skills are too low? For missile weapons that's basically what's going on. It takes some pretty good skill to hit a static target in a safe situation with a missile weapon, at any kind of distance. Add all the factors that make it "battle" and there should be multiple misses.

Maybe I'm still not getting you...

Or, a character charges forward with a melee weapon to go one-on-one with a monster. With other games that have static rather than active defenses, I normally just say that the monster dodged or the attack only winged it. But with active defenses, I find the act of imagining the battle more difficult when an attacker just "misses".

The issue is that the attacker, in melee, doesn't "just miss". They fail to find an opening to hit. Think of the failure to hit by the attacker as those times when the two circle each other looking for an opening, but one hasn't presented itself yet. There are several light (below granularity of system) hits, feints, etc. going on and the single roll determines whether in that given time a real opening for injury is available and is taken advantage of. If it is, then it comes back to the whether the defender's skill is sufficient to actually cover that opportunity.

I suspect you'll find that most that "grew up" with BRP games (GURPS or similar systems) with active defenses find that moving to passive defenses are jarring because it feels like the defender is just sitting there waiting to be attacked. I suppose it's just what you're used to and overcoming (assuming you want to) that mindset enough to make the game fun. (For the record, the two styles both work perfect fine and I'm happy with either.)

[RMS]

Well it seems like in the BRP book, attack and defense seem to be considered to be rolled at the same time, because a failed attack with a fumbled defense results in the defender still being hit (see parry fumble table).

Older versions of BRP have done it both ways, and they both work perfectly fine. I'd say to do whichever you find the most satisfying. In the older versions, you declared who you were defending against at the beginning of the round and rolled against that attack regardless of it's success. Of course a fumble could result in being worse off than not actively attacking...but it usually wasn't. However, a successful parry against a failed attack (or better yet, a special or critical defense against a failed attack) could result in disarming the attacker, damaging the attacker's weapon, or getting a free attack against the attacker.

Newer versions dropped the declaration and dropped the need to decide whether to roll defense until after the attack was made. It's there to speed up the game, but sacrifices some of the tactics in the earlier games and some of the combat options.

I suspect one slipped through on the rules there....or is there an optional rule somewhere that brings this out? (I'll look when I head upstairs after typing there! )

[AikiGhost]

Why would a defender dodge or parry an attack that was going to miss anyway?

[frogspawner]

Players would keep on making shots at enemy monsters who did not take much interest in defending... With other games that have static rather than active defenses, I normally just say that the monster dodged or the attack only winged it. But with active defenses, I find the act of imagining the battle more difficult when an attacker just "misses".

There's a built-in assumption that the target is defending themselves. If these enemy monster really were not trying to defend themselves at all, I'd say that shots/attacks against them should be Easy (x2), at least. If they were just standing there, it'd probably be Automatic (though personally, I use a "Very Easy" category, which gives x10).

Well it seems like in the BRP book, attack and defense seem to be considered to be rolled at the same time, because a failed attack with a fumbled defense results in the defender still being hit (see parry fumble table).

Another downside of 'opposed rolls'. Personally, again, I don't use 'em - and I don't require unnecessary rolls (i.e. parrying/dodging missed attacks), nor do I give fumbles for parry/dodge either - that's too harsh!

[Al.]

A successful (or Special or Critical) Parry against a failed attack gives a chance to damage the weapon.

So (my reading) failed Attack = didn't find an oppening

failed Parry = didn't manage to take advantage and damage/bind/disarm the attacking weapon

Al

[rust]

Why would a defender dodge or parry an attack that was going to miss anyway?

It happens in real world fencing, too.

Sometimes one cannot be certain that an attack will miss, and therefore pre-

fers to dodge or parry instead of just waiting to see whether one will be hit.

Besides, many feints work that way, by drawing the opponent into a dodge

or parry with a fake attack in order to create an opening in the opponent's

defense.

[Harshax]

I've always interpreted combat thusly:

An aware defender is always dodging, parrying, or blocking. The roll only becomes significant if the attacker 'hit'.

A 'missed' attack can mean several things: did not find an exploit; did not deliver a blow with suitable power to cause damage; a total failure to strike the opponent; failure to act because of distraction.

[islan]

The issue is that the attacker, in melee, doesn't "just miss". They fail to find an opening to hit.

Without much experience with real-world fighting, I think I'm getting rather hung up on this "fail to find an opening" thing. I would think that successful dodges or parries would be "fail to find an opening" since, if they failed, then it would leave an opening.

It happens in real world fencing, too.

Sometimes one cannot be certain that an attack will miss, and therefore pre-

fers to dodge or parry instead of just waiting to see whether one will be hit.

Besides, many feints work that way, by drawing the opponent into a dodge

or parry with a fake attack in order to create an opening in the opponent's

defense.

I was actually thinking about adding a Feint maneuver to BRP that would allow an attacker to make a defender waste one of their defensive rolls (thus giving them a -30) on their next one. The defender would probably have to make a Sense roll in order to see if something is in fact a feint and thus not fall for it.

Edited November 14, 2008 by islan

[rust]

The defender would probably have to make a Sense roll in order to see if something is in fact a feint and thus not fall for it.

In a campaign where fencing was an important part of the action, we used

the house rule that the defender had to make a successful roll in the weapon

skill of the weapon type used by the attacker to discover a feint.

So, if the attacker used a weapon the defender was not sufficiently familiar

with, the defender was unable to see in time whether the attacker was fein-

ting. And the better the defender knew the weapon type in question, the bet-

ter was his chance to avoid being surprised or tricked.

As the result, a true master of the rapier almost never fell to a feint by some-

one using a rapier, but someone with a sabre might well have some surprises

for him up his sleeve.

[islan]

Oo! Not Sense, but Insight. I think that would be the way to go for me.

[AikiGhost]

It happens in real world fencing, too.

Sometimes one cannot be certain that an attack will miss, and therefore pre-

fers to dodge or parry instead of just waiting to see whether one will be hit.

Besides, many feints work that way, by drawing the opponent into a dodge

or parry with a fake attack in order to create an opening in the opponent's

defense.

I'm not talking about real life, I'm talking game mechanics. Basic attack roll assumes the defender is not standing dead still anyway otherwise attack base would be 100%

[vagabond]

Well it seems like in the BRP book, attack and defense seem to be considered to be rolled at the same time, because a failed attack with a fumbled defense results in the defender still being hit (see parry fumble table).

I believe that only applies if the Attacker is successful.

IIRC, the Attack/Parry Matrix, if the Attacker misses/fumbles, the Defender

does not roll.

-V

[RMS]

Why would a defender dodge or parry an attack that was going to miss anyway?

Because the defender doesn't know ahead of time whether the attacker will hit or miss. If you wait until you know if the attack was successful or not, then it should be too late to decide to actively defend yourself. In a real fight you parry a lot of attacks that you aren't positive will hit or not, but you don't want to take a chance: same in the game, if "realism" is your goal.

[AikiGhost]

Because the defender doesn't know ahead of time whether the attacker will hit or miss. If you wait until you know if the attack was successful or not, then it should be too late to decide to actively defend yourself. In a real fight you parry a lot of attacks that you aren't positive will hit or not, but you don't want to take a chance: same in the game, if "realism" is your goal.

But surely a bad attack requires next to no effort to avoid (IE: no defence roll needed), whereas a decent attack requires a strong effort to avoid (IE: YOu must make a defense roll). Certainly I've never made people roll defenses against failed attacks, it seems unnecessary and also to slow things down for no good reason.

[rust]

Certainly I've never made people roll defenses against failed attacks, it seems unnecessary and also to slow things down for no good reason.

As RMS mentioned, it depends on the degree of "realism" you want to use in

your campaign.

If you want to use the rules to model real fencing, defenses against failed

attacks are a good way to mirror the uncertainty of a fight, where one can-

not lean back and study calmly whether an attack will hit or fail, and whe-

ther it really was an attack or a clever feint.

If you prefer a faster and simpler combat system, defenses against failed at-

tacks are unnecessary and only slow down the game.

[AikiGhost]

As RMS mentioned, it depends on the degree of "realism" you want to use in

your campaign.

If you want to use the rules to model real fencing, defenses against failed

attacks are a good way to mirror the uncertainty of a fight, where one can-

not lean back and study calmly whether an attack will hit or fail, and whe-

ther it really was an attack or a clever feint.

If you prefer a faster and simpler combat system, defenses against failed at-

tacks are unnecessary and only slow down the game.

Well if fencing is anything like boxing you dont actually make any decisions at all. You basically do what you do in training, not time for actual thinking of any kind. This becomes more and more the case the better you get.

For me a more realistic way to handle it would be to have a static defense skill of say between 0 and 50% which is taken from an attackers skill before he rolls. No need for a parry roll at all.

[rust]

Well if fencing is anything like boxing you dont actually make any decisions at all. You basically do what you do in training, not time for actual thinking of any kind. This becomes more and more the case the better you get.

This is true for any fight that follows certain agreed upon rules, because in

this case one can train the responses to an opponent's allowed attacks.

However, in a free style fight without such rules one indeed has to study

and analyze the opponent in order to find out what his strong and weak

points are, and what he may be up to.

This is one reason for the typical slow and seemingly inactive circling move-

ments of free style fighters who watch and judge each other before they

make a decision, compared to the usually far more quick and decisive actions

of sport fighters.

Edit.: A few examples of what you might have to expect in a free style

sword fight ...

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=9G_d98ewZmM&feature=related

For me a more realistic way to handle it would be to have a static defense skill of say between 0 and 50% which is taken from an attackers skill before he rolls. No need for a parry roll at all.

Yes, this would be another good way to handle it, I think.

In this case I would probably give different values of the static defense skill

depending on the weapon used by the opponent and the defenders familiarity

with this kind of weapon, but this would be of course just for "colour", and in

no way necessary.

Edited November 15, 2008 by rust

[sladethesniper]

This is true for any fight that follows certain agreed upon rules, because in

this case one can train the responses to an opponent's allowed attacks.

However, in a free style fight without such rules one indeed has to study

and analyze the opponent in order to find out what his strong and weak

points are, and what he may be up to.

This is one reason for the typical slow and seemingly inactive circling move-

ments of free style fighters who watch and judge each other before they

make a decision, compared to the usually far more quick and decisive actions

of sport fighters.

Edit.: A few examples of what you might have to expect in a free style

sword fight ...

YouTube - Longsword techniques/Hosszúkard technikák

Excellent points.

I love the link :thumb:

It's almost like those pointy things are dangerous!

-STS