AbstractThe seismic response assessment of rocking systems via Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) is investigated, focusing on the issues that arise in the analysis and postprocessing stages. Rocking IDA curves generally differ from those of hysteretic structural systems due to (i) the frequent appearance of resurrections; (ii) their highly weaving non‐monotonic behavior; and (iii) their overall high variability. Hence, including or ignoring analysis results above the first resurrection level, deriving statistics given a response level versus an intensity measure level, as well as selecting an adequate number of ground motion records and runs per record, become challenging issues with non‐trivial impact on the probabilistic characterization of rocking response. This necessitates a fresh view on analysis choices and post‐processing techniques, aiming to assure the accuracy and fidelity of rocking IDA results. As an example, the effect of different choices and techniques are showcased on two‐dimensional rigid blocks that are assumed to represent simplified models of monolithic ancient columns of different slenderness.