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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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! ;)

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

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

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.

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)

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

Hereward wrote:
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

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

Agree with Hereward here.  If you want to see cinematic combat that is also realistic, I recommend watching a Kirosawa Samurai flick like Yojimbo or the Seven Samurai.  Real fights are very fast, usually real one sided, a fight between unarmored men armed with relatively lethal weapons like swords rarely lasts more than a few exchanges, even between skilled fencers most are ended by a single cut.  But if as you can see in this famous scene from Seven Samurai, because a fight is fast doesn't necessarily make it undramatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NHrGc36Hu8&feature=related

In a real fight people can't really spend a lot of time on defense, even with shields though a shield makes the fight more defensive there is no doubt about that.  Normally the person with the initiative is usually most likely to win the fight.  That said if you have room to move (i.e. keep backing away and sidestepping) or if you have a shield and / or armor, a spirited dedicated defense is plausible and definitely ads drama to a fight.  There are many real historical anecdotes of knights and soldiers holding off enemies at passes and bridges like the famous (though semi-mythical) story of Roland.

Armor makes things different but in a one on one fight it will quickly go to the ground, (armored combat manuals, of which we have plenty from Europe, heavily emphasize judo-like wrestling and take-downs) which is one of the reasons knights preferred to fight on horseback and do hit and run attacks.

Hereward knows what he is talking about he's had a chance to handle more of the real period kit than most of us have even seen on TV.

G.

You misunderstand me, the SCA (while fun) is merely a very Narrativist LARP experience (or a truly simulationist one).  I mean learning to use melee weapons for offensive and defensive purposes.  To strike with intent, and the understanding that if you connect, you could very well kill a man.  And if you think dueling involves a lot of standing around waiting for the other fellow to lose his nerve, I think you might be mistaking dueling with Epee.

While dueling is a form of combat, I suspect you are attempting to refer to a Grand Melee; a fight in which one faces multiple opponents, not allways immediately in your field of view, such as the mass combat scenes found in Braveheart.  Most RPG fights are basicaly impromptu duels (at least for the PC's), only ocassionaly will the GM throw hordes of gebas at the players, usually I think because by the time the players could handle a hundred kobolds, a hundred kobolds really couldn't handle the party.

Most RPGs don't make allowances for realistic combat anyways, and I understand, it bogs down a lot.  The only system I know of that handles anything nearly like realistic (and use the word realistic with reservations) combat is the palladium megaverse, especialy Rifts and TMNT.  Even then, there are problems.  Notably that a man shot four times with a .357 or slashed two or three times with a katana is not going to shrug it off and decide to fight or flee.  Most likely he'll be all "Excuse me, I think I'll just have a bit of a lie-down now and bleed out, thanks."  Hell, I can throw four or five accurate shots in six seconds with a gladius, and two or three with a broadsword.  All of which would either be lethal or debilitating unless parried ar dodged, and I'm nowhere near what D&D would call a 12th to 20th level fighter.  And having built, worn and fought in my own Harness for a while, I figured I've handeled more "kit" than most.

As for cinematic vs realistic combat, try reading some of Joel Rosenberg's work, notably The Keepers of the Hidden Ways series for narative dueling (it makes sense of the blur you see during the olympic fencing matches) and The Guardians of the Flame series for descriptions of what an earnest grand melee is like (especialy with combined arms tactics).

This may be overly simplistic, but a defense maneuver with a shield could be used to switch weapons or to replace a dropped one. 

In the games I've designed, Defense is just another combat skill intended to prevent getting hit - either as a action on it's own, or in conjuntion with a weapon proficiency.  For example, if you are highly proficient with a short sword, you would have the freedom to use a shield effectively at the same time. 

It may not be all that realistic, but I like the way it works in game mechanics.

THe way I've done it (since grasping the physics of melee combat) is that armor soaks damage, shields allow you one "extra" action that can be used to block an attack, attacks can be used to parry a blow and a move action (or equivilant) can be used to "dodge" (useing tumbling skill, acrobatics skill,  etc...) any attack that occurs after the dodge, setting the minnimum threshold for hitting higher than "normal".  "Normal" being the equvilant of striking an unarmored, unmoving (but not restrained), aware person with no cover or handicaps.

Using D&D 3.5 as an example:  Bob the barb wats to hit Ronnie the rogue with his great-axe.  Ronnie is wearing studded leather and is armed with a short sword. 

Ronnie loses initiative and decides to go totaly defensive (+4 AC, +5 with a tumbling skill of 5+ ranks), using his attack as a parry and declaring his "Dodge" Feat against Ronnie.  Bob normally would need a total of 10 or better to hit Ronnie, but Ronnie gains a +6 bonus, so a total roll of 16 is neeeded.  Bob gains a +4 from levels, a +3 from strength and a +1 from weapon focus, resulting in a total to hit bonus of +8.  He rolls... an 8!, That's 16, but wait, Ronnie rolls to parry (+3 from levels, a +1 from Weapon Focus and a +4 from Weapon Finesse; total +8) He rolls... a 13, total of 21, the attack fails. 

Ronnie attempts to tumble (dodge) out of range, rolls ... a 15 (+9 Tumble) for a total of 24.  Bob rolls... 18, total of  26 a hit!  The great axe inflicts (rolls) 9 damage (-3 from the Studded Leather Armor) for a total of 6 points of damage, and Ronnie is now clear of melee and can flee (good thing too, he only had 20 HP to start with). 

This drift only slightly increases combat time and makes for more realistic and (IMHO) exciting combat sequences.

Maov .. was just reading your rulebook.

Where the HECK did "Stamina" come from??? (page 6, first paragraph) It is mentioned nowhere earlier in the manual. I have yet to read the rest, but a stat shouldn't suddenly appear like that.

Rauðbjørn wrote:
You misunderstand me, the SCA (while fun) is merely a very Narrativist LARP experience (or a truly simulationist one).  I mean learning to use melee weapons for offensive and defensive purposes.  To strike with intent, and the understanding that if you connect, you could very well kill a man.  And if you think dueling involves a lot of standing around waiting for the other fellow to lose his nerve, I think you might be mistaking dueling with Epee.

Yes as BD said. my referances are from Historical European Martial Arts andc research and practice of them, not modern combat sports or live role play or re-enactment. My point about being defensive, "turtleing up" I think was mentioned, is that if one did that against someone who knows what they are doing your opponent will close and grapple with you and you are going to be sent to the ground. Numerous historical masters state that the peson who defends will loose.

My referance to a Duel was in the context of any one on one encounter where there is little/no chance of outside interferance, as opposed to a group fight/melee/skirmish/battle etc. The options of how one would/could fight in these two situations would be different.

I should of referanced that there are movies with more realistic combat in them Kurosawa movies be a good example, but I was refereing to two broad ranges of combat types, one where "defending" is more likely to occur than the other.

Regarding games that have "Realistic" combat, TROS would be one. Swashbuckler would be a good example of "real" cinematic rules especially based in their era, 17th/18th Century Europe. Burning Wheel, would seem to be a system that falls so that it could be used for either.
There is of course now the system that BD has brought out! 8')
Again it comes down to what we want to tell in the story and what we mean be various terms.
Best
JW

ShallowThoughts wrote:
Maov .. was just reading your rulebook.

Where the HECK did "Stamina" come from??? (page 6, first paragraph) It is mentioned nowhere earlier in the manual. I have yet to read the rest, but a stat shouldn't suddenly appear like that.