Full defense debate (split)
Ron Edwards:
1. The original rule was as written in the book, that full defenders merely sat there throughout the round and rolled their dice in response to incoming attacks. The problem with that in practice is that in narration, it doesn't differ from "I do nothing." Anyone is free to play it as written, as Raven has carefully cited, but I'm saying it's merely OK and not as good as what later play revealed.
2. In practice (again), I found that once you narrated the actual activity of full defense as part of going into a round (and such narration turned out to be required, so others could state their actions in full knowledge of the situation), then doing it the way I've described here is more imaginatively engaged, more fun, and more mechanically advantageous especially against the first-and-worst attack coming in, if you're not the highest vs. all your attackers.
3. The mechanical difference is that in the book's way, you always get your two-dice bonus against all the attackers (plus). But if you fail against the first, you're basically screwed throughout the round from the get-go (minus). The way I'm talking about doing it, you get the same two-dice bonus (plus), but if it fails against the first or more of the attacks, you get a Hail Mary additional defense per each and every attack, granted, without the bonus, but a fine thing nevertheless.
4. There is no stutter. Jesse, I don't know where you're getting the idea that the narration for the abort-to-defense action is simply a repeat of the originally-stated full defense action. By definition, it can't be the same thing. It may be that previous games' mechanics' implication that the defense option is some kind of passive lumpish action has carried over into a Sorcerer discussion. Or it may be that someone pulled this on you when you were trying to GM and therefore you've never recovered from the frustration involved, but I decree at this time, that whoever did this (if that's the case) was full of shit.
Best, Ron
jburneko:
Ron,
The Stuttering Thing is more a social creativity fatigue thing. It's easy to think, "I'll stab her and if that doesn't work I'll grab something as a shield." It's harder, cognitively, to imagine two different forms of the same action once you're emotionally invested in one of them. I've literally seen exhaustion and frustration pass across some players faces and sometimes end up with cries of "It doesn't matter! I'm dodging or blocking the bullets SOMEHOW!" But you're right in that, that's a social thing and not necessarily a problem with the rules. But it is an "ease of use" issue.
I also think the Full Defense case is an example of something with I ALWAYS struggle with in Sorcerer where I'm not quite sure if in a complex action is considered resolved IN FULL once it has happened or if it is still somewhat in motion until the whole round is done. This happens when people announce actions which could negate each other just based on fictional positioning alone.
Alice: I drop low and sweep Bob's feet out from under him.
Bob: I leap forward and full body tackle Alice so that she is pinned.
We roll. Bob goes first. Alice decides to keep her action and roll just one die. She fails. What does it mean that Alice "kept her action"? It's pretty hard to "drop low and sweep kick his legs" when you've been full body tackled and pinned on the floor. I've always waffle between two versions of what to do.
Version 1: Bobs action is resolved in full and it sucks to be Alice. She gambled on the 1 die, lost and fictional positioning says her action is no longer valid even though she "kept her action."
Version 2: Bob's action isn't 100% resolved. We know he's got the upper hand, we know he's going to tackle her but there's still a chance Alice's sweep kick might knock him off balance too. So Bob defends against Alice's kept roll (likely rolling in his victories from his action) and if Alice succeeds then they BOTH end on the floor in sprawling tussle rather than Alice being fully pinned.
If it really is Version 1 then that jives more with Ron's description of Full Defense. If four guys are shooting at me and my action is to dive out the window and I go first and that's considered to be resolved in full then yeah, I just dove out the window. There's nothing left to shoot at. If it's more like version 2 then that's more like Solution 2 above where we still roll to see if anybody manages to hit my ass as I'm diving out.
A REALLY common example that comes up A LOT in my games is this one:
Alice I shoot Bob. Bob I take the gun away from Alice. We roll. Bob goes first. Alice keeps her action rolls one die and fails.
Version 1: Bob has the gun. Sucks to be Alice she can't shoot even though she "kept her action."
Version 2: Bob is going to get the gun but we still resolves to see if Alice shoots him in the tussle for it.
Jesse
Ron Edwards:
I play by version 2 for nearly everything I can think of or remember. Another way to look at it is, "It's not over until it's over," with time being just fluid enough to modify a given pair of orthogonal actions as "part one doesn't finish happening until part two gets its oar in," no matter how those two are ordered in terms of the other actions that may be going on.
In other words, the mechanical fact that Alice retained her action means that in the fiction, Bob's attack could not possibly achieve its full and finished state that Bob undoubtedly really wanted to do.
Total Victory can tip the scales a bit in terms of narration, as we've discussed. It depends very greatly upon what's been narrated until that point.
I don't see how the Full Defense roll is more like version 1. Since it's been designated as a defensive roll, merely rolled pre-emptively and ordered as such because it's very proactive (by definition), than by beating the incoming attacks, they're over. It's a lot like inserting an oppositional subroutine into the usual orthogonal situation, and if it fails, then its user can switch back into the ordinary orthogonal schema. But if it succeeds, then the attackers have no such option.
I hope that addresses your point. I always have to do a lot of guessing to figure out your questions about this mechanic.
Best, Ron
jburneko:
Ron, yup, that was clear regarding the proactive but conflicting actions. But this here:
"It's a lot like inserting an oppositional subroutine into the usual orthogonal situation, and if it fails, then its user can switch back into the ordinary orthogonal schema."
This is the part that bothers me. I prefer that we are in one mode or the other. Not embedding one. And I think that's because when people start declaring action it can be difficult to gauge the line between Full Defense that simply wins if it goes first vs. an action that's worthy of still going through the motions.
Alice is shooting me.
"I jump out the window."
"I pick up this tray and block the bullets."
"I grab the gun out of Alice's hand."
"I fall prone."
"I knock over the table and dive behind it."
"I pick up this tray and parry Alice's hand aside."
"I grab Carl and use him as a shield."
These are all "defensive actions" against being shot by Alice. But which ones are "Oppositional" and thus succeed simply by going sooner and which ones are "Orthogonal" and thus deserve to be resolved normally. The line is frustratingly murky.
Jesse
greyorm:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 27, 2012, 12:24:30 PM
In other words, the mechanical fact that Alice retained her action means that in the fiction, Bob's attack could not possibly achieve its full and finished state that Bob undoubtedly really wanted to do.
I've always played version 1: if someone gets the drop on you, then they get the drop on you, so if you kept an action that can't happen now...well, sucks to be you. Maybe alot. Doesn't mean I can't clearly see the point of version 2, though, which has a very nice narrative quality to it and isn't quite so brutal.
Ron, query. This:Quote
The problem with that in practice is that in narration, it doesn't differ from "I do nothing."
The mechanical difference is that in the book's way, you always get your two-dice bonus against all the attackers (plus). But if you fail against the first, you're basically screwed throughout the round from the get-go (minus). The way I'm talking about doing it, you get the same two-dice bonus (plus), but if it fails against the first or more of the attacks, you get a Hail Mary additional defense per each and every attack, granted, without the bonus, but a fine thing nevertheless.
Is not parsing for me. For the first bit, my brain is saying "yes it does differ" because you're still stating an action, you're just rolling for it later. Very different from "I just stand here." Could you clarify what you mean by this?
However, the bigger disconnect for me is the second bit. I am confused how you're "basically screwed" the book way if you fail, but get a Hail Mary for every attack with the new way. Here's my confusion, specifically:
Situation 1, book method: I'm being shot at. I defend myself with full Stamina and 2 bonus dice, and fail. Next time I defend myself, I get to roll full Stamina for defense just like always. Not sure how this means I'm "screwed"? At least any more than I would be from failing any defensive roll the first time around and taking penalties. (I get that not getting to abort that defense roll to gain another is a sort of "being screwed" because normally you can abort your action, whatever it may be, to defend.)
Situation 2, new method: I'm being shot at. I defend myself with full Stamina and 2 bonus dice, and it isn't enough to succeed. I abort to defend with full Stamina. Succeed or fail, next time I defend myself, I get to roll full Stamina for defense, like always. How do I get a Hail Mary "per each and every attack" from this?
In Situation 2 I can see you get one extra roll in a round if you fail the very first defense roll (your action), but not how you'd get one each and every time thereafter. (I'm wondering if you meant "every round" rather than "every attack".)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page