Why defend in combat

[maov]

I have been working a lot on a combat focused rpg system http://www.itu.dk/people/maov/Rulebook.pdf and it is getting closer and closer to realization (i´ve had 3 small-medium play sessions with it so far), but one thing is still not set in stone, Defence. I always thought that a fantasy game with a certain level of combat that it should only in certain situations be a good idea to defend. Now the question is when is it logical to make it possible to defend without it being better then attacking (which would undermine the whole idea of combat): so far i´ve come up with some answers as in movie situations.

• Wear out opponent: Unburdened combatents wear out heavier burden or combatents which are bleeding etc.
• Better position: Trying to seek a better positioning (higher ground), or waiting for the opponent to make a mistake which makes him easier to hit
• Gain time: if help is arriving soon it is better to stall the opponents

Wearing out an opponent would mean that you either run a system with energy that decrease a players effectiveness a lot when tired, or have attacks which slowly kills an opponent.
Better positioning is very hard to implement in a system unless you run with many modifiers for having higher ground, more maneuvability or just plainly sickening many rules for a battlemap (i increase the opponents chance to fumble, but that is kind of a hax).
Gaining time is very situational and is hardly worth putting in a whole ruleset.

Are there other reasons for defending that you can think up, which is usefull without it being better than attacking?

[John Blaz]

I've actually never thought about that before, but now that I do, fatiguing your opponent or possibly decreasing morale would be great reasons to defend. Also, waiting for the attacker to slip up so the defending character can slip an attack in. If your system uses some sort of critical fumble rule, perhaps attacking a defending character increases the chance that an attacker will fumble.

[Roadkill]

I skimmed your rules very very briefly, I noticed this.

P11
Sidestep move.
If a player wants to sidestep they will retain change facing towards the field they came from, no matter
which facing they had to begin with.

Retain means keep the same, I know what you meant, might confuse others.
You also need to run the whole thing through a spell-checker.

Why defend in combat?

Now I didn't see anything about the size of the battle mat(number of hexes) or the scale of the hexes.
So I'm confused as to what scale this combat is, here are a couple more suggestions

-In a large battles people defend because targets are under attack, objectives are rarely *go kill these people*, then the best for of defense would be offense OR fleeing.
E.g if someone is attacking your city, you have to defend its obvious. On the medium scale this can be a bank vault, On the small scale this can be a downed player character,

-Terrain, good defensive terrain can be vital. This is a create way to add tactics to your game, just give different defensive bonuses for different terrain.
(Infact if you make defense values purely dependant on the terrain your in, you can make hex maps VERY "tangible", watch players stick to terrain like glue, its so satisfying & requires no paperwork!).

-On the really small scale defence can be a good offensive strategy. Boxers will shield them self & wait for an opening.

-Gaining time is all-ready in your rule-set, just count turns, having actions that need to "charge up uninterrupted"(spells that take time to cast are good for this) is a tactic that can be used every game. Also to defend certain characters players have to consider formations (or fail). Also if you use these moves against your players they have to consider how to break formations. It adds tons of tactical scope with 1 simple rules change, make some spells take multiple turns...

can you get back with the hex-grid size, and scale, so I can be more help.

[hoefer]

In my system, defense (whether it is taking posture, commiting to a full-turn evaision, or just parrying an attack) is extremely important because combat (especially for characters whose Archetype doesn't support greater physical attributes) is deadly.  When a group of main characters is under assault by some force, the Combatant will likely go offensive (maybe saving a sub-action for a "parry" or "step into cover"), but Scholars, Aristocrats, Gnostics and the such are going to be playing mostly defense.  Two characters in this system going all-out in offense are likely to both end up seriously wounded and possibly maimed.  Keep in mind though, that my game is less cinema and more historical-fiction...

As a wrestling coach, I would definitely agree to the point that, defense is best used to "set up" your offense and out last your opponent (at least within the areana of wrestling)...


Louis Hoefer
www.wholesumentertainment.com

[Vulpinoid]

Another option for why it might be better to defend than to attack...

Morality or social honour.

Morality would focus on the self and would typically fall under the situation where a character believes attacking is simply the wrong thing to do. If they successfully defend in these situations, a bonus to their internal morale or willpower could be gained. The attacker is showing that they are not a person of virtue, and therefor the victim gains some other benefit for the acceptance of this notion. This sort of stuff happens in plenty of novels and movies. Sometimes the victim builds up their resolve in this way then lets out a righteous strike that obliterates their opponent, sometimes the victim simply manages to hold off their opponent until reinforcements arrive.

Social honour would focus on the people around the conflict. If one person is defending in a bar-room brawl, and it looks like the other person is doing all the attacking, then the local law enforcers will tend to side with the "victim". Defend once and a couple of people might notice, defend six times in a row and everyone things the attacker is just being an aggressive barbarian.

That's just the first to ideas that come to mind.

V

[maov]

I would like to thank you all for the comments, its been inspiring to see so many different views. I have to admit that my view has been very focused on small sized battles (20 x 40 hexes) of 1 vs. 1-4 and 4 vs. 4-12, and where the only solution is running or fatality.
When i started the system i used initiative roll to kind of define if you defended or attacked, if you rolled low you would choose defense because it had a high initiative modifier and if you rolled high you chose attack because it was slow (being hit usually imposed a penalty on your actions). The problem with this system was that it was just some rolls used for stalling time with no real strategy.

I removed initiative roll and made attacks use a lot of energy and defense use almost nothing (wearing out your opponent), this had a certain degree of success but it was hopeless to balance because either you had players defending all the time to regain energy or they used to little energy and just bashed away with not regrets. I Tried to find the middle ground between on the bashing away side to make combat not stall (but still found that defense was to weak in a fatality situation).

Lastly i tried to implement that you wait for your opponent to make an error and take the hits, this was done by increasing the fumble rate when attacking a defending player. I have tried it a few times and it seems to work decently with changes between attacking/defending and faking defending (taken the fumble penalty but attacking when the opponent does not expect it).

I would like to use terrain rules also but they would have to be so extremely simple that it hurts, because i want fast combat and not table lookups. Having timers for abilities or magic is also a very good move because that puts pressure both parts and would force cooperation, and greater tactical overview. I have also been thinking in the paper, stone, scissor way which opens up a poker kind of play (this is only possible because i use hidden cards as actions), but again it forces a certain type of static resolving of actions, where you can´t react on changes.

For story telling and roleplay, using defense to show your innocents, superiority, moral or honour is an extremely good idea which to often get overlooked in my sessions because they need more commitment.

[TonyLB]

From a small-scale tactics point of view:  Defense is often laying the ground for a successful counter-attack.  First you blunt the attacker's momentum, build up advantage yourself, and then drive back onto the attack ... your target, in turn, tries to blunt your momentum and mount a counter himself.

Soccer is a good (non-warfare) example of the same thing.  Defenders aren't just trying to stop the ball from going toward their goal:  They're looking for opportunities to turn the situation around, get the momentum flowing back toward the opponent's goal, and (ideally) to make a break-away.

One way to represent this is to let the attacker over-extend himself ... in fact, to make over-extending yourself almost necessary for a successful attack.  If the attack lands, great, then maybe it doesn't matter how far you've over-extended.  But if the attack fails (e.g. because of deliberate defense) then the overextension becomes a bonus to your target on their next counter-attack.

[David Artman]

This might just be a variation on Tony above, but a common reason to defend is take the attacker's energy and use it against them--in fact, that's pretty much the entire point of "soft" Aikido and some Judo maneuvers. Likewise in many forms of Jujitsu--they not only "defend," they outright let themselves get hit (in a controlled manner) so as to grab a limb at full extension and begin attempting various bars or locks.

... Yeah... pretty much what Tony said.

(Aside: GREAT thinking, V--I wouldn't have considered "martyrdom" or "showing one's mettle" as being reason for a LONG time of brainstorming.)
Which makes me think of another, sort of obvious reason now that I put the above that way:

To train the adversary. Hey, ya didn't say the combat was serious, bloody, or to the death!

[Adam Riemenschneider]

A couple of ideas.

If you successfully Defend, your next attack on that opponent gets some kind of bonus as a Counterattack? This is the whole point of blocking (or doing a weapon attack) in fencing... to push the other guy's blade so far out of line that you can slide beyond their defense and score a hit.

And, well, if one Defends, it's less likely they're gonna be hit. So, if some huge hulking brute with an axe is swinging at my head, and I spend my action blocking it, not only will I maybe live through the next three seconds, but my mate might get a free chop at the bad guy from the side.

-adam

[Hereward The Wake]

Attacking should be preferable to defending, generally defending would be something that is forced upon you, because you have not got the initiative, or you can do anything else, think Swashbuckler manuevers.
In duelling/sportive type combat  scenarios one has the liberty choose to defend.
Socially as has been mentioned it might not be appropriate to attack as its about "self defence"
I guess its how you define "defence" in game terms
Best

[soundmasterj]

The obvious answer, I would guess, would be: you defend yourself because if you didn´t, you´d get hurt.

The easiest way to integrate some of what has been said in this thread into TACTICAL rules was propably thusly: have, as many games do, each combatant decide how to split up his ressources. If you see a big attack coming this round (maybe the enemy has some bonus dice and is throwing everything into offense), you defend if you think you woudln´t be able to take the blow; or you attack, taking the blow, but dealing one too.

Another obvious point of defense is if there are multiple roles to fill. Lets say, the knight taunts the ogre, gets hit, takes blows, while the ranger and the wizard do their stick.

In the first RPG I played, combat went like this: It´s As turn. In your turn, you attack, so A attacks. B defends. Now it´s Bs turn. B attacks, A defends.
Don´t do that though, it´s terribly boring. The important question, I think, is: how make defense an option a player might take to have fun? And that, of course, depends on what is fun in your game.

[Nath]

Faitiguing an oppenent is certainly an option, especially in Ars Magica 4th ed that had a massively harsh fatigiue sytem. (it got fixed in 5th ed, but is still a factor).

There is also the 'overbear tactic,' used if a group are fighting a single large and dangerous foe (e.g. a bear).  The group surrounds the bear. Whoever the bear faces / attacks fights purely defensively, while everyone hits it.  If the bear turns the roles switch to match.  The counter of breaking out of the surrounded position is something a wild animal might not immediately think about.  Unfortunately this doesn't actually work in many RPGs because of the way the turn sequences works / lack of defined concept of facing (e.g D&D)

[Hereward The Wake]

I guess that as always it comes down to what you want combat to be like in your game, realistic, cinematic. and why the combatants are fighting. Many fo the examples of real comabt offered here are sportive, which lends itself to defending as a way to set up an opponent, even in deadly combat, whichis in a 'duelling' type situation then defending again becomes a n option to set up things. In real combat, when suddenyl attack in a life or death situation then being defensive will get you beaten, you have to attack, though of course you must keep yourself safe as you do it, but I would define that as a counter attack.
Of course if you are making combat more cinematic/swashbuckling fiction in flavour then defending becomes a part of the system as It allows for those reasons originally mentioned, and the nature of the combat as described in game would be very different.
Best
JW

[Rauðbjørn]

I guess that as always it comes down to what you want combat to be like in your game, realistic, cinematic. and why the combatants are fighting. Many fo the examples of real comabt offered here are sportive, which lends itself to defending as a way to set up an opponent, even in deadly combat, whichis in a 'duelling' type situation then defending again becomes a n option to set up things. In real combat, when suddenyl attack in a life or death situation then being defensive will get you beaten, you have to attack, though of course you must keep yourself safe as you do it, but I would define that as a counter attack.
Of course if you are making combat more cinematic/swashbuckling fiction in flavour then defending becomes a part of the system as It allows for those reasons originally mentioned, and the nature of the combat as described in game would be very different.
Best
JW

I find that the real difference between realistic and cinematic combat is the speed (aside from stuff like Buffy the Dojo Ballerina; never turn you back on an opponent, no matter how fast you are), in real combat, things move so fast, the untrained eye sees only a blur.  Having spent some time actualy training with melee weapons, I can tell you that if you go completely offensive, you had better be very good, or else you run out of steam before you manage to "kill" your opponent.  Historicaly, vikings and huns would use these sort of tactics (usually with Axes) and while sucessful against light infantry and militia; heavy infantry, cavalry and archers tend to act as a cuisenart against that sort of action.  I've fought men who initially go totaly defensive (what we call "Turtling Up") for a few minutes, waiting, observing, wearing you out and wearing you down until you make a mistake and then BAM, they nail you when your shield drops just an inch, and then you're done for.  Real combat is more like a chess game, than most people think, and that holds true the further forward in time you go (at least until you start using friearms bigtime).

In game terms going defensive is only usefull in certain situations and with certain systems.  Prehaps you need to hold your target's attention so the specialist can make an unusualy powerful attack (D&D 4th ed), maybe you only gain your spiffy attack after a certain amount of time  of observation of the target in action (Marvel Super Heroes), could be that you lost initiative, and your opponent is more powerful than you could handle, so you turtle up for a round, weather the fury of his assault, then try to escape at the beginning of the next round (Palladium Megaverse).

It depends on how your system treats prolonged violent activity, what bonuses you get from going completely defensive, and the specifics of the combat system.  When it comes to combat questions, the mechanics are essential, as is the flavor (GNS) of your system.

[Hereward The Wake]

Agreed on the gaming aspects you mention.
When you mention Real Combat, it sounds like you are describing something like SCA? If so it isn't real combat but a combative sport
There is also a difference in reality with a duelling situation where one isn't acting offensively but moving and biding your time until your oppoenent makes a move gets rattled etc. This is different from  responding defensively against an opponents attacks and different again from attacking while making sure of your own safety. Bidding your time can work in ther right circumstances but they can exploit that with closing grappling etc. and certainly biding time probably won't work if you are in some kind of melee.
But again it come down to context and goals.
Real combat can be based as I said on many paths but is about defeating the opponent, dependant of restrictions rules etc. Cinematic is about telling an understandable story to an audience about charecters who are trying to defeat an opponent.
Best
JW