Full defense debate (split)
jburneko:
A Note For Erik: What I'm about to say will likely muddy the waters a bit. Feel free to ignore everything in this post for purposes of "how it works". If you feel this off topic I can move it to another thread.
Frankly, I've never liked how full defense works as Ron describes above. It creates a weird exception case to the flow of the mechanic and in one instance it contradicts the Sorcerer core rule book. (I can't site a page number because I don't have the book on me but there is a place where it states that people taking only defensive actions do not roll).
Part I: The Problems
Let me break that out a bit. First it creates an asymmetrical resolution process where if the defensive action goes first then it's treated as a raw comparison as if it were a basic opposed roll. But if the defensive action goes later then it's treated like a complex action with the whole abort option. On top of that it's silly abort option because what does it mean if you roll just the one die and "keep" your action? In other words, it's really just a re-roll not an actual choice.
Example:
Alice and Bob are shooting at Carl. Carl wants to pick up a small metal table and use it as shield. Okay. We roll.
Case 1:
If Carl goes first then it's assumed he just picks up the table and blocks both incoming bullets. We basically just ignore the normal procedure. Even stranger we're comparing Carl's ONE roll against TWO other rolls. This is the only case in the game I can think of where ONE roll acts as opposition to many rolls.
Case 2:
Alice goes first then Carl then Bob. This is extra weird. If Carl defends with just one die against Alice does he then automatically not get shot by Bob because he kept his action? So we have one action resolved like a complex sequence and another action resolved like a basic one.
Case 3:
Carl goes last. The notion of Carl "keeping his action" has lost all meaning. So he's basically just re-rolling defenses.
Another bit of weirdness is something I think of as "action stuttering". This happens when you basically lose your ability to narrate a possible defensive course of action because you made it your action, rather than trying to do something else and only resorting to that action if you need to.
Example:
Case 1:
Alice: I shoot Bob.
Bob: I stab Alice!
Alice goes first!
Bob: "I abort and defend!"
GM: "What does your defense look like?"
Bob: "Oh! I pick up that small metal table and block her bullets!"
Case 2: (Action Stuttering)
Alice: I shoot Bob!
Bob: I pick up that small metal table and block her bullets!
Alice goes first!
Bob: "Crap. I'll abort and defend."
GM: "What does your defense look like?"
Bob: "Uh... um.... I pick up that small metal table and block her bullets?" (The action "stuttered")
GM: "Hmmm... Well, we just determined you can't do that... so... do something else."
See, the action flows smoothly in Case 1 but gets all weird in Case 2.
Part II Solutions
As you can see from my examples above the problems can be resolved with a bit of concentration and creativity but I personally find them cognitively disruptive because of their lack of uniformity and narrative dissonance. So there's generally two solutions I use. Consider these "house rules" if you will.
Solution 1.
Go with what the text says where defensive actions are not rolled. You only roll non-defensive actions. Then when your purely defending target gets attacked he rolls in two dice on the FIRST defense meaning it's more likely that he can snowball victories into any further defenses.
Example:
Alice and Bob are shooting Carl. Carl is grabbing a small metal table to deflect their bullets. ONLY Alice and Bob roll. Now it doesn't really matter which one goes first. Carl rolls against the first one with two dice and then depending on the outcome may be in a better or worse position to defend against the second one. In any event Carl rolls twice once against Alice and once against Bob.
Solution 2.
If you like the fictional positioning element of deciding whether Carl made it to his table or not (and I admit that's a pretty cool piece of fictional information) then treat his going for the table as an action period. Don't do the weird thing where if it goes sooner it somehow automatically trumps the other rolls just because it's a defensive action.
Example:
Alice and Bob are shooting Carl. Carl is grabbing a small metal table to deflect their bullets.
Case 1:
Carl goes first! Sweet. The GM rolls just 1 die. Carl succeeds with 4 victories (or whatever)! Okay now he snowballs THAT into his defensive roll against Alice or Bob and if that succeeds he snowballs that into the defense roll against whichever one comes second. So you see, we resolve Carls action and then every subsequent action just as we would in any other complex conflict without any strange exceptions.
Case 2:
Carl goes last! Bummer. Well now the "abort to defend" still has meaning. How badly does Carl want that table and its possible victories for the NEXT round. Because we resolve the table grab as its own thing against just 1 die, it still matters and means something.
Yeah, so there are my thoughts on Full Defense action and the confusion is causes.
Jesse
[edited to change thread title - RE]
Also, might as well put this here: The first few posts in this thread were split from Back to Basics: Relationship of Commitment to Initial Intent and Defections
greyorm:
Quote from: jburneko on April 26, 2012, 10:52:10 AM
Frankly, I've never liked how full defense works as Ron describes above. It creates a weird exception case to the flow of the mechanic and in one instance it contradicts the Sorcerer core rule book. (I can't site a page number because I don't have the book on me but there is a place where it states that people taking only defensive actions do not roll).
Page 103, under the heading Combat, bullet point #3: "Everyone who's doing something proactive (not just defending) rolls at once."
Page 105, mid-page: "This part of the round brings in the characters who were only defending...At this point they roll dice in response to others' proactive rolls."
Page 112, bottom above the example: "If all the character's actions in one round are completely defensive, add a two-dice bonus to his or her roll."
From the text in the book, I never would have guessed at doing it the way Ron runs it in the above example, which indicates a different handling procedure. I think we've had the proactive/defense when-to-roll discussion before on the forums and am assuming the above is "the proper way" for the forthcoming edition.
I can see why it might be important to determine whether the character's chosen defensive action is successful -- it may affect the narrative elements and later options in the scene! ("You aren't able to reach the table!" or "The table explodes into junk under the gunfire!") -- but I agree that there is a bit of cognitive weirdness involved in processing it that way.
I like Solution #2, Jesse, but I think it's still off. Since Alice and Bob are still shooting at Carl BEFORE he gets to resolve his action (grabbing the table to defend himself), once their actions are resolved there's nothing to defend himself from with the Full Defense roll + 2 dice...because the attacks have already been resolved. He succeeds, but won't get any successes from the action. At best the table might provide some bonus dice next round (improvised cover), but it won't do him any good in terms of bonus dice rolling-over from grabbing the table.
greyorm:
Quote from: greyorm on April 26, 2012, 03:12:27 PM
and am assuming the above is "the proper way"
By which I mean, "Ron's explanation above", not "what I quoted from the text".
jburneko:
Thanks Raven,
p. 103 is what I was thinking of. I didn't even know about p. 105 which just reinforces it.
Jesse
Frank Tarcikowski:
He might actually still want to grab the table because odds are, when re-rolling with two dice less, he might suffer more victories against him. It doesn't seem so counter-intuitive to me. So Carl is moving towards the table when he realizes he won't make it there before Alice shoots him. So he looks at his options, represented by the dice on the table.
If his dice are quite good but just not good enough for Alice, he may still pull through. Alice will get moderate success against him and Bob won't hit him at all. He might be worse off with the re-roll. Plus, he might get bonus dice rolled over for next turn.
If his dice are crap and he'll get shoot badly by Alice and Bob before he reaches the table, he might abort and just drop flat to the ground.
The example might be a bit confusing because in reality shooting happens so fast that you cannot really react to it. Try the example again with clubbing and see if it feels better.
Although I admit Raven's quote sounds like a different rule entirely.
- Frank
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page