Total Defense: One More Time From The Top
greyorm:
Thanks, John. It's looking more right to me now.
I'm beginning to wonder if part of the issue is trying to move from the D&D/CoC mindset back to Sorcerer, after having not played Sorcerer for...well, years now. Though, honestly, I'm still really, really iffy on the whole double-dipping on defense. Which isn't to say I don't get what you're saying--I do! I just share Jesse's above concerns/observations.
To me, "Oh, I clearly failed to defend myself, so I'll roll a different defense now" is wrong and non-intuitive, because "I failed to defend myself, so I'm going to try to defend myself again"? You don't see that "I failed so I get to try again" anywhere else in the rules. "Aborting my roll to defend, in order to defend" doesn't seem in-line with the system's intentions, no more than changing your action to take a different-but-similar action would be (ie: Bob ducks behind the dresser, so Alice decides to shoot Carl instead). Rather, it would seem to me "I tried to defend myself, and this is how, and I failed" is just it. Just like "I tried to shoot him, and this is how, and failed," is just it.
I also say that because the text on pages 103 and 105 made it very clear that, at least at the time the book was written, everyone does not roll all at once: only those making proactive, non-defense actions roll. Though I realize, in contrast, the wiki states that everyone does indeed roll at the same time, even defenders; and after some more digging around tonight, Ron states in a thread where he and Nev went through some of the same details exactly what you are stating above about "yep, you can abort your Total Defense action for a Full Defense roll" (ah! I see now that is also quoted on a page on the wiki).
I could buy into the idea that "dive behind cover to avoid being shot" is considered a proactive move and thus covered by the abortive defensive or suck it up rules, or that choosing Total Defense entails the benefit of getting to roll Full Defense if you fail at Total Defense because you were so focused on defense. But, man!, it still seems completely illogical to be able to defend against the same action twice.
And thinking back, I have always run it the way I read the book, which (as mentioned) is the same way I judged it for our last game: you try to defend and fail, you fail, and defenders don't roll until they defend. Even wrote eXpendable's combat rules up along those lines. I guess I was looking at not having the option to abort your action if/when attacked as one of the prices of choosing a wholly defensive action (you get two bonus dice, but if you lose, you lose), as a straight-up Oppositional conflict.
Yay(?) for subsequent rule clarifications superseding the text.
But, er, I think I am just rambling/thinking out loud at this point.
Thanks for the help and clarifications, sir!
jburneko:
Raven,
You indeed have puzzled out everything I've been puzzling. And yes, treating "diving for cover" as a proactive action works as Ron's described even in some odd ways but I can still see it.
My next point of confusion is that trying to follow that SAME logic in situations with mixed Will/Stamina conflicts leads to some oddness as in my second example involving the lieutenant and his fleeing men.
Frankly, I think going with the text makes things cleaner. It removes SOME interesting dynamics but I'm not sure it's that great a cost given the confusion it can lead to in less cut-and-dried situations.
Jesse
The Dragon Master:
I want to thank everyone who posted here. I had just gone through a one-shot with a member of my gaming group and he was having trouble with the combat system (he just couldn't get his head around having "two defenses") I had tried explaining it to him in terms of his stated intent (do you still do x, or do you abandon that intent for the new intent of "don't get shot" as one example). This still didn't quite make sense to him. Last night I spoke with him about it again, but he didn't quite get it till I told him what I'd realized from this thread. The first roll isn't a defense. Even if the action is a defensive action, it isn't a defense against the opponents action. It is a separate conflict (either "can I get the gun out of your hand" or "can I get behind the dresser"). When you abandon that conflict to defend fully against this one you no longer are capable (this round) of achieving that intent (and wouldn't the multiple failed attempts rule kick in here?). Once I explained it like that I saw the lightbulb go off.
So thank you all for posting here, it has really helped clear the cobwebs for me, and helped him see how this works (by extension).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page