Total Defense: One More Time From The Top
greyorm:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 28, 2009, 10:49:32 AM
A stated full defense means that the character is really going for full evasion or blocking or whatever as his or her primary action, and it must be an action, something they do. An abort-to-defense, on the other hand, is desperate and by definition means that the character is dropping whatever was initially launched; the defense in question is best understood as utterly simple (whether a freeze, a sprawl, a wild flurry, whatever)...none-bonus, Stamina-only defense roll.
Ah! I knew I screwed that up during Tuesday's game. I kept handing out the Total Defense bonus on abortive defense, and then when I caught myself on that, I was still allowing Stamina + relevant Cover for abortive defense; I had completely forgotten the Stamina-only rule. That would have made that fight much more vicious.
Ron Edwards:
Two things.
1. Note that Alice, in the shooting-Bob example, has no "abort my shot" option. This should be clear from the pre-roll phase, in which once it's established that Bob is only defending, her shot is happening and that's that.
I bring this up because sometimes "abort to defend" is used as a subtle means actually to cancel one's stated attack for any number of non-tactical reasons. However, bear in mind that this is only available to those who face incoming attacks with their action still on the table. So that doesn't apply to Alice in this case, because in this particular case (with one other person, who's only defending), her shot is set in stone.
2. Raven, I think we've run into this before - this "add Cover and Stamina" business. I may be misremembering a line of text from somewhere, and if so remind me, but my memory is telling me that, by the rules, the scores are not added. One may roll Cover as a modifying device (against a fixed number of dice, usually 1, 3, or 5 in my games) to generate possible bonuses for the primary Stamina roll.
Best, Ron
greyorm:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 29, 2009, 07:49:11 AM
1. Note that Alice, in the shooting-Bob example, has no "abort my shot" option. This should be clear from the pre-roll phase, in which once it's established that Bob is only defending, her shot is happening and that's that.
Yep.
Quote
Raven, I think we've run into this before - this "add Cover and Stamina" business. I may be misremembering a line of text from somewhere, and if so remind me, but my memory is telling me that, by the rules, the scores are not added. One may roll Cover as a modifying device (against a fixed number of dice, usually 1, 3, or 5 in my games) to generate possible bonuses for the primary Stamina roll.
We may have, I don't recall. But I do recall the exact page on and example with which that rule is mentioned (ie: the Swashbuckler example) and I still did +Cover all night--hrm, I see page 32 also clarifies the "roll one, then add victories over into the other". So, yeah, you're recalling correctly, I'm not. I think, maybe, I was recalling the Sorcery chart with its Power+Will and the example with Yzor resisting a Binding at 26 dice and applying the same principle.
jburneko:
Ron,
I see where you're coming from. There's something that still doesn't sit well with me about the whole thing. Christopher Kubasik and I had a face-to-face meeting about this. He said he was going to to email you about that meeting.
Here's what bugs me about your response. Let's stick to the simple Alice is shooting Bob and Bob is diving for cover.
By your answer if Bob goes first then the roll becomes a straight up comparison and Alice misses. However, if Bob goes second then Bob gets the abort choice. What bugs me about this is that it's non-uniform. That is, why isn't it a straight up comparison period? Either Bob gets hit or he doesn't depending on if Alice's roll is better.
Doing it as a straight comparison also avoids a lot of weirdness that is ALWAYS a headache in my games. For example, let's say Bob goes second and he rolls one die to keep his action and he beats Alice so he doesn't get hit. Now he still has his original roll sitting in front of him representing his in-fiction dive for cover. But what do those dice MEAN?
I get that he kept his action and so in the shared imagined space he goes flying for cover which might inform latter decisions but what I like about Sorcerer is that there's almost always a way to give your actions mechanical weight. But to get that mechanical weight you need victories which means those dice representing Bob's dive for cover have to be measured AGAINST something.
Going with what you've said in that past that would likely be just one die (or some other GM chosen number of dice). But that seems odd since we have, in the fiction, a very convenient opponent to roll against: Alice. After all that's who Bob is maneuvering against. But if that's how we're playing things then there's no reason not to give Alice the abort choice if Bob goes first since we've just ruled that Bob's action is opposed by Alice.
Following the rules as written including that little clause I quoted seems to make the whole thing much, much simpler. Consider now that Alice is shooting Bob, Bob is diving for cover and Carl is whacking Alice with a pipe. Going with the text only Alice and Carl roll because Bob's action is wholly defensive. And then if and only if Alice's shot happens does Bob roll and he either gets hit or doesn't based on a straight up comparison.
Things get even crazier when we enter into the realm of non-physical actions. This example really happened in my play. A PC military officer with some of his men had an enemy NPC military officer corner. The PC ordered his inconspicuous demon to appear. Upon doing so I said that the PC's men freak out and start to run away. The PC said he was ordering them to stay. I said the NPC enemy officer was taking advantage of the situation to take a swing at the PC. Awesome, we roll.
To keep things simple I treated the fleeing subordinate men as a unit (never mind that aspect since what I'm about to say would be the same if it was just one guy). So they rolled Stamina because they were fleeing.
The PC rolled Will because he was ordering the men to come back.
The NPC officer rolled Stamina because he was taking a swing at the PC.
The order that came up was: PC, Fleeing Men, NPC.
So here we go. Fleeing Men have a choice abort or roll one die. I decided they were really scared out of their minds and were really committed to running away. So I rolled just one die, and LOST.
What the hell does that mean? They just LOST the Will conflict with their superior officer but they KEPT their flee action and so they run away anyway. The way I played it was that later in the fiction I role-played those subordinates totally afraid of their commanding officer because they just disobeyed a direct order. But that just felt wonky.
I suppose I could have taken the victories from the failed Will contest and rolled them against the dice representing the fleeing action. That also feels wonky. It feels like double-dipping the Will contest.
When I ran this example by Christopher Kubasik he pointed out that the Fleeing Men shouldn't have rolled their Stamina in the first place because nothing is opposing their physical act of fleeing. In other words there is no Stamina-based CONFLICT in the fiction regarding those men. Instead their action is totally defensive against the PC's act of Will.
Which would then, going by the text, make the whole thing so much simpler. Only the PC giving the order and the NPC swinging the punch roll dice. If the PC's order action happens THEN the Fleeing Men simply roll Will to resist and they either run away or they don't.
Do you see where I'm coming from? I realize that the system can handle some pretty robust situations as you say but there are enough weird edge conditions that going by the LITERAL text in the core book just seems to clear them all up (if at the cost of some cool little sub-scenarios).
Jesse
greyorm:
By my understanding, Jesse, you can't "abort to defend" when you're already defending (ie: diving for cover). I had a situation exactly like the "being shot at" versus "diving for cover" in my last Sorc session, and I ruled there was no abort-to-defend option. But maybe I've got it wrong, so I'm really interested in the answer here, too.
Only way I can think of parsing this out otherwise is (and this is free-wheeling speculation. Feel free to tell me "No, bad Raven", Ron):
-Bob is diving for cover. Alice is shooting him. This roll firstly determines whose action occurs first.
-If Bob wins, Bob dives away just before Alice can shoot. Bob's dice give him roll-over bonuses for his next-if-related action.
-If Alice wins, Alice shoots just before Bob can dive away.
-Bob can abort his dive and roll full Stamina to avoid being shot, not ending up behind cover (per his action) in any case. Or he can roll 1-die for defense to avoid being shot and still continue his dive for cover.
-If he rolls 1-die defense and loses, he gets shot and doesn't dive behind cover. Take penalties equal to Alice's successes against the 1-die roll. His original "dive" roll also still fails, describe as necessary in the fiction.
-If he rolls 1-die defense and wins, he isn't shot and dives behind cover. (And, um, what? I admit, I don't know what the dice now mean or what to compare them to for successes or anything [1].) Though he would be "behind cover" and likely have a two-dice bonus against being shot at per the usual narrative-terrain rules.
[1] maybe: even though Bob is behind cover and Alice's shot missed, Alice still won the roll and so gets her rollover bonuses for her next action (it ended up being a kind of flailing, last minute dive and so Bob's leg is sticking out), even though she didn't successfully shoot him. But that's kind of head-spin wonky.
I admit, all of that is really funky. And doesn't seem very elegant, though it kind of is in a weird way. And likely isn't it at all, as I mentioned, I seem to recall the statement being that you only get the choice to abort or defend on a non-defensive action.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page