"Sticky" Blocks

[ducere1315]

I ran my first DF session a couple weeks back with my usual gaming group. The feedback was positive, but they came up with a couple good questions. Since we're usually using game systems with lots of situational modifiers like 'hiding in cover' and such, it took a little bit for them to catch on. The one question that popped that I didn't have a good answer to immediately was based on this situation: character is fighting in an alley, makes an appropriate assessment to find good cover (behind a car), goes to cover and stays there while bad guy unloads assault rifle for 3 turns. The first turn they tag the aspect and use it for free defense bonus, after that they need to use fate points to get the defense bonus... seemed a little strange since the cover didn't change, the guy with the gun didn't move, and they just cowered in fear.

So the question was why do I have to spend all those fate points if the situation didn't change and they didn't hit me the first time. I thought about it afterwards and came to the conclusion that the first tag could have gone into a block against the guy with the gun. And I thought since the block isn't dependent on anything except the car being there, then it shouldn't go away until the bad guy manuevers around it, gets some good shots through it, or the character rabbits for someplace new or does something to lose his 'in cover'.

That way they get the block as a freebie after initially putting it up until they do something that negates it. Like shooting back.

[devonapple]

The block has to be maintained each round, IIRC, so it's not a candidate for being Sticky.

[Ryan_Singer]

Hiding behind the car is a great way to dodge at first; but continuing to cower for 3 exchanges isn't very cinematic. The system rewards trying new things every exchange.

[noclue]

... seemed a little strange since the cover didn't change, the guy with the gun didn't move, and they just cowered in fear.

Actually, that's a flawed assumption. The game isn't simulating physical people behind cover. The game is creating a story where people dove under cover. So, if you don't spend the Fate point, then something DID change. Obviously something changed because the cover is no longer effective. How do you justify that? That's where the players and their powers of description come into play. Mabye the GM says his dude flattens himself against the wall and is able to line up a shot. Maybe he says that the bullets find a weak spot and punch through. Who knows? Something made that cover worthless, and it's everyone's job to decide what that something is.

Another way to say this is that the only thing keeping the situation from changing is the player spending that Fate point.

Edit: and if you can't come up with a good reason that the cover isn't working, that's really fine too. In the story, they're still under cover and it's good cover. But it's not perfect cover. If the players want a +2 on a roll they have to spend a Fate point. Fate points don't exist in the story. So, it just means that the roll isn't helped by the fact that their under cover. It doesn't mean that the character's aren't cowering behind a car or whatnot.

[sinker]

Something to think about is that (unless he's not really trying) the bad guy isn't going to stand in one place and shoot at the cover that the PC is cowering behind. He's going to be doing everything in his power to negate that cover, by moving around or trying to find holes in the cover. Maintaining the block is your PC making sure that his cover is solid and that it stays between him and the villain. Of course as noclue said, if the bad guy really isn't trying to kill them or the PC has acquired some really solid cover then you can grant them an extended block provided that no one does anything to break it.

[devonapple]

Something to think about is that (unless he's not really trying) the bad guy isn't going to stand in one place and shoot at the cover that the PC is cowering behind. He's going to be doing everything in his power to negate that cover, by moving around or trying to find holes in the cover.

Further, when a PC uses a maneuver to place an Aspect on a Scene, an NPC can use another Skill check to remove it.

[Belial666]

The PC should not have used an assessment to find cover behind the car and treat it as an aspect.
The PC should have made an assessment or declaration to find a car and treat it as an object.


In the first case, the car is treated as something the PC can use to duck behind as he is being shot and better avoid the bullets.
In the second case, the car is treated as an object or zone border the PC could move behind before he is shot so that if someone sprays the area with bullets the car gets hit but not him.


In any case, do note that while rules-wise an attacker does not move any zones while shooting, story-wise combatants are maneuvering within the same zone while they fight. If you maneuver casually behind an object during combat, nothing stops an attacker from following if he is attacking you. Tagging or invoking an aspect for cover means that you are putting extra effort to stay ahead of your attacker and thus benefit in your defense.

On the other hand, if someone is not attacking you but is shooting blindly or if someone is attacking you but the nature of the cover or zone border prevents them from following, two things can happen; first, you treat the thing you're hiding behind as an object, with its own stress track and defenses. That happens when you are taking cover in such a way that the object blocks the attacker no matter what he does - i.e entering a vehicle or building or jumping behind a wall while the attacker cannot. Secondly, you treat the cover as a block against the attacker's skill. That happens if the obstacle does not cover you entirely and a shot is possible but much harder.

Example:

In a battlefield, the engineers build a pillbox from within which soldiers can shoot out at the enemy while the enemy cannot shoot back. The engineer rolls craftmanship to see how well he builds the thing. During the battle, someone inside the pillbox that is shooting back is very hard to hit - the pillbox is a block equal to that engineer's roll to oncoming shots, though someone could still shoot through a hole with a high enough roll. On the other hand, if some soldier is cowering inside the pillbox and is not even visible from outside, enemies have to attack the pillbox itself before they attack him; use the table for wall strength in the books to see how much damage the walls can take before collapsing.

[ducere1315]

"In a battlefield, the engineers build a pillbox from within which soldiers can shoot out at the enemy while the enemy cannot shoot back. The engineer rolls craftmanship to see how well he builds the thing."

This is the kind of example I'm actually talking about.

"During the battle, someone inside the pillbox that is shooting back is very hard to hit - the pillbox is a block equal to that engineer's roll to oncoming shots,"

In this example the engineer would create the block, but not need to maintain it every exchange. It is just a continuous part of the scene. That is more to what my question was directed. In effect a block that doesn't require constant maintenance as a main action.

And if someone is hiding inside it, the attackers would need to manuever to get around the block ("got a good angle on the defenders" or something) or attack the pillbox directly to "make a hole" or "put the satchel charge in the opening". Essentially attacking anything IN the pillbox, or attacking the pillbox directly. If the structure is attacked and is destroyed it will collapse with the appropriate collateral damage.

Given the initial responses I'm thinking that the point is that the character "dove for cover" behind the car that he assessed would be best, to establish the block they use in the exchange, and he would just be in cover in further exchanges (can't be hit) until he moves or the attacker changes position to get a shot. Unless there is some circumstance that would negate the ability of the cover or has enough punch to get through it. ie weapon that punches through the cover and still hits the character.

[Belial666]

A block can be the following;

a) An action performed by the character via the use of a skill as an additional defence or to prevent a specific action. I.e. actively going into a defensive stance in addition to reactively dodging or laying covering fire to make attacks more difficult. This needs to be maintained.

b) A magical barrier that prevents some type of action (inlcuding attacks, if it is for defense). Unless additional power is put into duration, this needs to be maitained. If a block is penetrated it fails, and prevents no further attacks.

c) A physical barrier or object. Those already exist in the scene (i.e. the walls of a building for those covering inside or around the corner), can be found or declared to exist via an assessment or declaration (i.e. a thick tree or car you can hide behind) or can be created (i.e. a sandbag wall, a pillbox or a wall of earth raised with magic or conjured). Those do not need to be maintained because they are objects instead of actions or events themselves and have their own set stress track and defense (see the appropriate chapter). They may or may not be aspects, depending in whether they can be tagged to modify actions.

d) A situation or event. Those can already exist in the scene (i.e. heavy rainfall or a whiteout blocking perception), may happen for various reasons during the scene (i.e. high winds and rapid movement if you're fighting on top of a speeding train blocking several actions), and can be created (i.e. putting the building on fire or causing a mass stampede by shooting in a crowded place which also block various actions). Situations or events, in addition to being blocks to some actions, are also aspects (like objects) and/or natural hazards (which means they can deal stress themselves - see the appropriate chapter)