| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Only the latter skills get penalized with maps though. All skills should. I feel if you hold off declairing reactions till needed, then maps should acrue higher than normal to offset calling for them ahead of time. |
A valid argument and not one I would dispute on a personal level, but not one that the official rules support. If you wish to house rule an additional MAP or two, that's up to you, I would suggest that you run it un-house ruled at least one game session to get a feel for the change in balance before implementing your house rules though.
The more I think about this the more it reminds me of a game system, I don't remember the name, where you went last when you won Initiative. The logic was that you got to see your opponents actions and could act accordingly. Star Wars gives you the choice, but it would seem that the default choice should be going last, unless you wish to prevent the opponents from doing something or beat them to something, the mechanics just seem to be set up that way.
One other note, that I don't know if people reading this have thought of, characters will most likely only be using a single reaction skill during any given round, sometimes two, but I can't think of a single reason for there ever to be three under the official rules. I mention this because all of my examples above always show two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: |
Example 1
A PC wins initiative and decides to go first. He declares 1 action, which he uses to attack (0 MAP's), latter in the round a bad guy shoots at him and he decides to dodge (-1D MAP), even latter in that round another bad guy moves close enough to melee/brawl and does so, so the character decides to Melee/Brawl Parry (-2D MAP's).
Example 2
A PC wins initiative and decides to go last. A bad guy shoots at him, so he dodges (0 MAP's). A second bad guy moves in and Melee/Brawl attacks, so he decides to Melee/Brawl Parry (-1D MAP). His turn comes up in the initiative order and he declares 1 action, which he uses to attack (-2D MAP's).
The MAP's in the above examples are exactly the same, that is: 0 MAP's for the first action, 1 MAP for the second action, and 2 MAP's for the third action. All that changes is which rolls are suffering from which penalties. In Example 1, the characters normal skill use gets the benefit of the least penalty and his second reaction skill suffers the most. In Example 2 the character first reaction skill gets the benefit of the least and his normal skill use suffers the most. To make a generalization out of it, if a character goes first in the round his normal skills will suffer the least penalties, if he acts last then his reaction skills will suffer the least penalties and his normal skills will suffer the most. All that declaring more than one action does is change whether you start with MAP's and gradually escalate or start with no MAP's and rapidly escalate, at the end of the round the number of MAP's it the same.
Example 1-2
A PC wins initiative and decides to go first. He declares 3 actions, which he uses the first to attack (-2D MAP), latter in the round a bad guy shoots at him and he decides to dodge (-3D MAP's, provided he doesn't use one of his declared actions), when initiative comes around to him again he uses 1 action to move (-3D MAP's), even latter in that round another bad guy (free action)moves close enough to melee/brawl and does so, so the character decides to Melee/Brawl Parry (-4D MAP's), when his last action comes up he uses it to attack (-4D MAP's).
Example 2-2
A PC wins initiative and decides to go last. A bad guy shoots at him, so he dodges (0 MAP's). When his turn comes up in the initiative order and he declares 3 actions, and uses his first to attack(-3D MAP's) A second bad guy (free action)moves into Melee/Brawl attack range and does, so he decides to Melee/Brawl Parry (-4D MAP, provided he doesn't use one of his declared actions). During the next 2 initiative passes he uses 1 action to move and 1 to attack (both at -4D MAP's).
As you can see the total MAP's remain the same it's just the progression that changes. Now because defending characters will be using their full dodge dice (a lot of the time), attacking characters with not be inclined to declare a lot of actions, a character with 6D Blaster when declaring 2 actions would get his first shot of 5D at say a stormtrooper with 4D in dodge, declaring a 3rd action would mean it would be dead even in dice. Characters that were defensive and dodged would be declaring actions at a rate of 1 action=1 MAP rate. So a character with 6D Blaster that dodged, declaring 2 actions would take their first shot at 4D. |
This isn't entirely correct.
In example 2, you have the character responding seperately to each attack. That shouldn't be. If PC wins initiative and decides to go last, he listens to actions of bad guys: 1 bad guy shoots at PC, 1 bad guy moves and attempts to brawl with PC. Then PC should announce his actions: 1 Dodge, 1 Brawling Parry, 1 attack. Three actions is -2D for MAP. That's -2D for the dodge, -2D for the brawling parry, and -2D for the attack.
That is substantially different than gradually escelating the MAPs as you described in example 1.
Plus, you could say in example 1-2, since PC wins initiave and declares 3 attacks (-2D to each one for MAP) and didn't declare he was going to dodge, he wouldn't be ABLE to dodge when bad guy shoots at him. PC is spending his time plinking bad guys. He has to hope he plinks the bad guy that was going to shoot at him. He shouldn't be able to dodge as he didn't declare it.
And in example 2-2, you've got the situation where you're assuming the actions are declared and then immediately carried out before anyone else gets to declare actions. So bad guy wouldn't declare to shoot, then resolve the shot, before PC could even declare actions. How it would work is: bad guy declares shot. PC declares a dodge AND his attack. PC suffers -1D MAP for declaring 2 actions.
Overall I think some people are taking this "reaction" dodge and parry to the extreme. Simply work on declared actions. If they didn't declare the action, they don't get to do it. How can you justify "I can dodge all day long as a reaction" but you can't snap off a blaster shot at someone as a reaction? Roll initiative, declare actions (everyone does), resolve actions. If an action wasn't called for, such as a dodge because you didn't know you were going to get shot at, then you don't get to do it that round. That way a person who wants to be careful will be declaring dodge whether they know they're going to get shot at or not. And a person who wants to stand and fight and blast away can't then suddenly turn around in the same round and dodge out of the way of incoming shots. He's too busy blasting other people. By allowing the lessened MAP declared actions followed by the "reaction" dodges and parries at only 1 more MAP you're artificially giving skill boosts to crafty players who buffer themselves with 2 shots (-1D MAP) and then declaring dodges and parries for all incoming attacks and only suffering 1 additional MAP per roll. Make them all suffer the same MAPs for taking the same amount of actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: |
This isn't entirely correct.
In example 2, you have the character responding seperately to each attack. That shouldn't be. If PC wins initiative and decides to go last, he listens to actions of bad guys: 1 bad guy shoots at PC, 1 bad guy moves and attempts to brawl with PC. Then PC should announce his actions: 1 Dodge, 1 Brawling Parry, 1 attack. Three actions is -2D for MAP. That's -2D for the dodge, -2D for the brawling parry, and -2D for the attack.
That is substantially different than gradually escelating the MAPs as you described in example 1.
Plus, you could say in example 1-2, since PC wins initiave and declares 3 attacks (-2D to each one for MAP) and didn't declare he was going to dodge, he wouldn't be ABLE to dodge when bad guy shoots at him. PC is spending his time plinking bad guys. He has to hope he plinks the bad guy that was going to shoot at him. He shouldn't be able to dodge as he didn't declare it.
And in example 2-2, you've got the situation where you're assuming the actions are declared and then immediately carried out before anyone else gets to declare actions. So bad guy wouldn't declare to shoot, then resolve the shot, before PC could even declare actions. How it would work is: bad guy declares shot. PC declares a dodge AND his attack. PC suffers -1D MAP for declaring 2 actions. |
Grimace, if I remember correctly from reading your posts in other threads, you use modified 2 ed rules in your games. What we have been discussing is 2 ed R&E rules. What I have been saying here is not how I run my games, it is an interpretation, to the best of my ability, of the rules as they are written in 2 ed R&E. Though I am considering implementing the concept into my own custom rules.
Here is a partial quote of the Roll Actions rule:
| Quote: |
2. Roll Actions
The first side acts now. The character with the highest Perception goes first. the player tells you how many actions he's making this round and you assign the multiple actions penalty. then, the player rolls his character's first action.
Acting in Perception order (highest to lowest), every player tells you how many actions his character is making and rolls his first action.
(If the gamemaster characters go first, you just have to know how many actions each character is taking, assign the multiple actions penalties, and have the characters take their first actions.) |
I bolded the part I would like to draw your attention to, it states that the player declares the number of actions, not what the actions are, and then rolls his first action. So the characters in my examples would indeed be responding to the attacks individually, as they would have no idea what the actions of the following characters would be yet, at least according to the rules as written in 2 ed R&E.
The rules also say that reaction skills may be taken at any time and that they may use a remaining declared action or be an extra action. What they do not say, is how to handle MAP's when the character using the reaction skill has not declared actions yet, because his turn has not come up in the initiative order. This oversight, if you will, by WEG is what prompted Orphues to start this thread. My solution was to stretch an example in the book to fit the question. That is, I took what was implied by the example and applied it.
| Grimace wrote: |
Overall I think some people are taking this "reaction" dodge and parry to the extreme. Simply work on declared actions. If they didn't declare the action, they don't get to do it. How can you justify "I can dodge all day long as a reaction" but you can't snap off a blaster shot at someone as a reaction? Roll initiative, declare actions (everyone does), resolve actions. If an action wasn't called for, such as a dodge because you didn't know you were going to get shot at, then you don't get to do it that round. That way a person who wants to be careful will be declaring dodge whether they know they're going to get shot at or not. And a person who wants to stand and fight and blast away can't then suddenly turn around in the same round and dodge out of the way of incoming shots. He's too busy blasting other people. By allowing the lessened MAP declared actions followed by the "reaction" dodges and parries at only 1 more MAP you're artificially giving skill boosts to crafty players who buffer themselves with 2 shots (-1D MAP) and then declaring dodges and parries for all incoming attacks and only suffering 1 additional MAP per roll. Make them all suffer the same MAPs for taking the same amount of actions. |
How can I justify it? Simple, it's what is written in the rules of 2 ed R&E. As I said in my disclaimer a few posts back, I am not advocating that people should/must run their games this way, I am just trying to interpret the rules as written. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14354
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orion, i have ran it unhouse ruled since i have been playing, but going last seems to allow for better dodging and no maps regardless of how many shots they wish.. though it does work that way for the npcs too. i just wish it was simpler like white wolf where you declared how many actions inc reactions.
And teh one which you were on about where you went last if you won is battle tech. You win init, and your opponent(s) move their first mech/vehicle/group of mechs first, then you reply.. eg if you had a full 4 mech lance and so did he, he would move one, then you all the way down.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if that's the 2nd R&E method, I'm really glad I stick with 2nd edition. Less confusion.
Thank you for clarifying...I must have missed the R&E part of the discussion.
Carry on.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | Orion, i have ran it unhouse ruled since i have been playing, but going last seems to allow for better dodging and no maps regardless of how many shots they wish.. though it does work that way for the npcs too. i just wish it was simpler like white wolf where you declared how many actions inc reactions.
And teh one which you were on about where you went last if you won is battle tech. You win init, and your opponent(s) move their first mech/vehicle/group of mechs first, then you reply.. eg if you had a full 4 mech lance and so did he, he would move one, then you all the way down. |
Earlier you stated:
| garhkal wrote: |
I have seen it that they always declare how many actions before any are even resolved. So they should have made it known how many they were taking before the enemy made their first shot. |
As I have said this is how I ran it to begin with, because I had mis-read/understood the rules. Which means I had unintentionally house ruled them. If this is the method by which you run your games, you have also. Yes, going last does allow for dodging with no MAP's, but this gives the GM a mechanic to control the number of actions a player makes, something I've seen people complain about on this forum, without creating an arbitrary limit, simply by changing the dodge skill of their opponents. If the bad guys have higher dodge skills then the player won't declare as many actions, because their skills will become ineffective. I have never played White Wolf, so I can't comment on it directly, but I do wish that WEG had clearly defined the situation in question.
I actually know battle tech very well, but I was refering to a vague memory I have of once playing an RPG years and years ago. It's possible that I somehow confused the CBT rules with that memory, but which game it was, wasn't really important, I only mentioned it because of the concept, which these rules seem to support.
A. The Roll Actions rule, allows characters that act later to base their declarations on the events that have already occurred in the round, giving them an advantage in declarations.
B. If you accept my interpretation of how Reaction Skills work before declaration, then they get the benefit of an un-MAPed Dodge roll, giving them a defensive advantage, provided someone shoots at them before their declaration.
| Grimace wrote: |
Well, if that's the 2nd R&E method, I'm really glad I stick with 2nd edition. Less confusion.
Thank you for clarifying...I must have missed the R&E part of the discussion.
Carry on. |
While I agree that there is less confusion in applying MAP's, there is also less flexibility. The arguments for flexibility have validity, from a certain point of view. Now, whether the flexibility, makes up for the less clear approach to MAP's, is something we each have to answer for ourselves, but I do think you shouldn't knock it, until you've tried it.  and your welcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh I've tried it. Just like I tried the scales method in R&E. Didn't like either method. For the most part, I avoid many of the "system" changes in R&E because I feel they don't work. But, like has been mentioned, everyone has their own opinions as to what works for their groups. So I "knock it" from experience, not just a snap decision.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14354
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | garhkal wrote:
Orion, i have ran it unhouse ruled since i have been playing, but going last seems to allow for better dodging and no maps regardless of how many shots they wish.. though it does work that way for the npcs too. i just wish it was simpler like white wolf where you declared how many actions inc reactions.
And teh one which you were on about where you went last if you won is battle tech. You win init, and your opponent(s) move their first mech/vehicle/group of mechs first, then you reply.. eg if you had a full 4 mech lance and so did he, he would move one, then you all the way down.
Earlier you stated:
garhkal wrote:
I have seen it that they always declare how many actions before any are even resolved. So they should have made it known how many they were taking before the enemy made their first shot. |
As i said in the latter post.. AS I HAVE SEEN IT. Not as i run it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: | Oh I've tried it. Just like I tried the scales method in R&E. Didn't like either method. For the most part, I avoid many of the "system" changes in R&E because I feel they don't work. But, like has been mentioned, everyone has their own opinions as to what works for their groups. So I "knock it" from experience, not just a snap decision.
|
Do you happen to remember how you dealt with the ambiguity, or was it, perhaps, the reason that you felt it didn't work? As for Scale Dice vs Die Caps, well, I'll just say they both have problems.
| garhkal wrote: | | As i said in the latter post.. AS I HAVE SEEN IT. Not as i run it. |
And I said, "IF THIS IS the method by which you run your games". I did not definitively state that it was the method you used. I was trying to politely encourage you to share your method, but since an indirect approach didn't work, that only leaves the direct approach.
| garhkal wrote: | | Orion, i have ran it unhouse ruled since i have been playing |
Making a statement like this in a thread that is discussing an ambiguity in the rules, bares some explanation. So I ask you, how do you run it? I would also ask that you cite the rulebook in support of your method, as I would like to know what I have missed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: |
Do you happen to remember how you dealt with the ambiguity, or was it, perhaps, the reason that you felt it didn't work? As for Scale Dice vs Die Caps, well, I'll just say they both have problems.
|
Let's just say I found it too ambiguous and moved back to the straight 2nd edition version. I've, of course, house ruled beyond that to get to something I like even better, but 2nd edition was a lot closer to what I wanted than R&E was.
As for the scale methods....yeah, they both have some issues, but I prefer the "Roll what your character sheet shows" rather than the "roll what your sheet shows plus even more dice". I think the latter contributed to the feel of the 'buckets o' dice' complaint so many got of D6. But that's another thread.
As far as reaction declarations go, without referencing the R&E book for clarification, I think what you've listed is pretty close to what I remember of the method. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: | | Let's just say I found it too ambiguous and moved back to the straight 2nd edition version. I've, of course, house ruled beyond that to get to something I like even better, but 2nd edition was a lot closer to what I wanted than R&E was. |
I thought that might be the case. I came across something written by Peter Schweighofer, one of the writers of R&E, though he refers to it as "Super-Mondo", because that was a common term used in the office for it, that for me explains why there are some ambiguities in it. Here is an excerpt.
| Quote: | | The planned "super-mondo" edition of the roleplaying game initially hit some snags. With a more varied development team than second edition, the editorial staff had to adjudicate everyone's opinions on the "best" changes, choose the best approach to game design and presentation, and fine-tune previously problematic rules (particularly those pesky scale mechanics). As a book written by committee, everyone had their own opinion what the game should include, delete, or change. Other staff difficulties caused a delay in the initial summer 1996 release (after the entire West End staff jumped in to do a last-minute fill-in writing job on much of the book, it finally released in the summer of 1997). |
| Grimace wrote: | As for the scale methods....yeah, they both have some issues, but I prefer the "Roll what your character sheet shows" rather than the "roll what your sheet shows plus even more dice". I think the latter contributed to the feel of the 'buckets o' dice' complaint so many got of D6. But that's another thread.
As far as reaction declarations go, without referencing the R&E book for clarification, I think what you've listed is pretty close to what I remember of the method. |
I understand your preference and agree with your belief about the complaint. I started with scales, so I have adapted them to my needs. My problem with die caps is they scew the averages, a die capped at 4 ends up with three 4's and a 50% chance of achievement by the revised method and by the old method only a 16.67% chance of getting a 4 and a 33% of having the die be nothing. Of the two I think the latter is the better but understand that it would leave some players feeling cheated out of some of their dice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14354
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: |
Making a statement like this in a thread that is discussing an ambiguity in the rules, bares some explanation. So I ask you, how do you run it? I would also ask that you cite the rulebook in support of your method, as I would like to know what I have missed. |
For now, it is by the book, where you roll initiave, declare intentions/number of actions then roll for the first ones. So if you lose and decide to only shoot twice, then get shot at on their first action, your dodge is a reaction and adds another -1d to the roll..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | For now, it is by the book, where you roll initiave, declare intentions/number of actions then roll for the first ones. So if you lose and decide to only shoot twice, then get shot at on their first action, your dodge is a reaction and adds another -1d to the roll.. |
Let me break this down, as your wording, leaves things open to interpretation. The following is what I believe you are doing and in the order that you do them:
First you Roll Initiative and decide which side goes first.
Second you have Everyone on both sides declare the number of actions they will take. (You do not specify, what order you do this in so I will not speculate.)
Third, you begin resolving actions. (Again you don't specify the order, but I will assume that it is by Side in Perception order.)
If I am correct, about how you do things then you have housed ruled the Roll Actions rule. I will re-quote it from my post to Grimace above and will leave the bolding in place as it pertains to what you have housed.
| Orion wrote: | 2. Roll Actions
The first side acts now. The character with the highest Perception goes first. the player tells you how many actions he's making this round and you assign the multiple actions penalty. Then, the player rolls his character's first action.
Acting in Perception order (highest to lowest), every player tells you how many actions his character is making and rolls his first action.
(If the gamemaster characters go first, you just have to know how many actions each character is taking, assign the multiple actions penalties, and have the characters take their first actions.) |
According to the rule the first player, not players, declares the number of actions and then preforms his first action, prior to the next player on the first side even declaring. Now if the way you do it works for you, Great, but it isn't what is written in the rules and because I suspected that you might be doing it this way, I suggested that you try it un-housed, before you housed any extra MAP's into my interpretation of the Reaction Rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14354
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have always understood it that it applied to everyone on the side, not one person aty at time. if that is the case then i guess i have house ruled it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think they could have been a bit more concise with their wording of it, but let me paraphrase it, in order attempt to bring about a bit more clarity. First they explain the exact process that you use to resolve the first action of the first character of the side going first, then they tell you the order in which you use that process for the rest of the characters of that side.
The change from having everyone declare before actions, means that characters going later have more flexibility in their declarations. For example, a character going absolutely last, gains the knowledge of everything done prior to his Initiative turn, to use in deciding his number of actions. So if at the beginning of the round the player is thinking that he can afford 3 actions and still have his blaster skill be effective, when he elects to dodge a shot taken at him, he is now thinking he will declare 2 actions, but before his turn a teammate shoots at his only visible target causing him to dodge and that dodge turn out to be extraordinary and he now wishes he didn't have to dodge earlier because he would prefer to use his whole Blaster skill, but since he did, he declares 1 action and shoots (1D MAP instead of his original thought of 2D MAP's) at the dodging target and hopes it will be enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
