Total Defense: One More Time From The Top
jburneko:
So, I'm doing what is now basically man annual cover to cover read through of Sorcerer (one of the pages is loose, damn it). And I'm STILL seeing stuff I've missed on previous reads. Anyway, a line jumped out at me that made me want to go through this whole Total Defense thing just one more time.
So this is how I've been doing it:
Alice wants to shoot Bob. Bob wants to dive for Cover. Alice and Both roll Stamina simultaneously and Bob gets a two die bonus.
If Alice goes first then Bob does the 1-die or abort choice. If he aborts he is either shoot not. If he does the 1 die thing he is also shot or not but then Alice rolls against his standing original roll (possibly with bonuses if Bob was shot). Fictionally this represents Alice jockying for position over Bob's dive for cover. One of them will likely roll those victories over into their next action.
If Bob goes first then Alice does the 1-die or abort choice. If she aborts then basically they go directly the jocky for position situation. If she goes for the single die and loses then those victories carry over onto Bob's new roll against Alice's incoming shot.
This seems like the more sophisticated way to handle it and is line with the dice diagram material in Sex & Sorcery. The "jockying for position" interpretation of the strange "defend against defense" situation makes sense especially when you have more concrete actions to work with (i.e. "I dive behind that rock!" as opposed to "I defend myself.").
However, while reading last night I saw the line that said:
"Everyone doing something proactive (not just defending) rolls..."
So it seems that once upon a time Total Defense was treated more like an oppositional conflict rather than orthogonal. That is if Alice shoots Bob and Bob dives for cover then they both roll Stamina (Bob with a two die bonus) and then it's just a straight up compare. Either Bob gets shot or he doesn't.
In a more complex situation of Alice shooting Bob and Bob diving for cover and Carl shooting Alice then Bob's defense is treated as oppositional embedded in orthogonal. That is only Alice and Carl roll simultaneously. If Carl goes first then Alice has the 1-die or abort choice. Assuming we make it to Alice's action in any permutation *then* Bob rolls with his two die bonus in defense.
Handling it that way doesn't seem like too bad of an option, especially for beginners. Otherwise, I'm confused as to how to interpret the "not just defending" clause in the sentence from the text.
Jesse
John Adams:
Too complicated, I think it's much simpler than that.
1. You never need to roll unless there's a conflict of interest. If your action is passive, you don't roll until you defend against someone attacking you. You would always use Stamina + modifiers, never the "Suck it up" 1 die.
2. If your action was totally defensive (not merely passive) you get +2 dice when you make defense rolls this round.
EX:
"Shoot him" = roll for your action
"Pull the lever" = active = roll for your action, because the timing clearly matters
"I'll wait and see what happens" = passive = no roll for your action
"Dive for cover!" = Total defense = no roll for your action, +2 on defense rolls this round
jburneko:
Hey John,
This topic has a bit of history to it going way back. Here's an example:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=11127.0
From that thread this is the relevant bit:
"Rolling Full Defense gains you +2 dice, which are mainly Initiative dice, in the sense that if your Defense "goes off" first, you get the full Roll+2, BUT if the attack you are defending against goes off first, you still have to suck it up, or abort and re-roll your NORMAL defense with no bonuses."
Ron confirms that this statement is correct and my first example conforms to this statement.
However, I'm curious about the "not just defending" clause in the text. Is that a historical artifact? Is that a more "basic" way to play perhaps suitable to beginners? I'm curious as the intention behind the clause since the above quote has been repeatedly confirmed as the "correct" way.
Jesse
Alan:
Quote from: jburneko on March 10, 2009, 12:58:21 PM
"Rolling Full Defense gains you +2 dice, which are mainly Initiative dice, in the sense that if your Defense "goes off" first, you get the full Roll+2, BUT if the attack you are defending against goes off first, you still have to suck it up, or abort and re-roll your NORMAL defense with no bonuses."
I'm confused about why the option to "suck it up" even exists here. "Suck it up" allows you to roll one die and keep your original roll for your original declared action. Since the original declared action is defense and it failed, why would you not abort and roll?
Oh! I finally got it. In the rare case where you are being attacked by more than one person your existing roll may have failed against one but succeed against the other. In this case, would you have the option of sucking up the one to guarantee success on the other?
jburneko:
Alan,
Even in the case of one attacker I've used it in that "jockeying for position" sense. It can be clearer with a melee example.
Alice: "I stab Bob"
Bob: "I step to the side."
Roll dice.
Alice goes first. Bob goes with the one die (does or does not get stabbed). Assuming Bob isn't stunned by the blow Bob now "side steps" Alice rolls to "defend" against Bob's tactical positioning. She fails and Bob scores two victories.
Bob: "Now that I'm beside her I bring my hand down on her neck and force her to the ground."
Alice: "I punch him."
Alice rolls Stamina. Bob rolls Stamina plus his two victories because he's in the superior position of "to her side" to pull off his maneuver.
I've done this many times. It works well and adds a lot of physical detailing about side steps, and rolling around, ducking for cover and all kinds of "maneuvering". Which is why my question is really about the clause in the text.
Jesse
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page