ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: cgodfrey7 on February 20, 2011, 02:57:42 AM
-
I have come across a problem in my game, looking for insights, maybe something that I am missing.
Combat is occurring several zones away and has been going on for 3 combat rounds. A bodyguard is protecting her charge, Queen Melody. One of the combatants runs towards QM, and the bodyguard steps between the combatant and her charge. According to the rules of initiative on YS199, "You may opt to delay your actions until a future point in the exchange, allowing you to interrupt someone else's action later in the initiative order. Once this happens, your initiative is set at that point for the rest of the conflict, unless you delay again."
I am having problems with this statement. Because the bodyguard has been waiting, should the bodyguard automatically get to go before the combatant, or do you go strictly off the Alertness skills and in case of ties, Athletics second?
Thanks.
-
By the RAW, the bodyguard's move may well have been impossible. But I think that allowing someone to delay their action until the next turn is totally reasonable, so I'd allow it anyway. The bodyguard is SOL if he acted last turn, though.
PS: Queen Melody sounds kinda familiar...
-
Because the bodyguard has been waiting, should the bodyguard automatically get to go before the combatant, or do you go strictly off the Alertness skills and in case of ties, Athletics second?
If one combatant is waiting, he has sacrificed his action for the chance to interrupt. Presumably he's preparing himself to move in case of a specific situation. So yes, I think the bodyguard on hold should get to interrupt. If the queen isn't attacked, the bodyguard doesn't act at all that exchange - seems a fair trade.
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that waiting to interrupt probably isn't the optimal choice. The same bodyguard could have been using her 'waiting' actions to set up defensive declarations, maneuvers, and blocks. She's more likely to succeed in stopping the attacker...
-
Two cases:
1) The charger is in a zone he can move and attack: The bodyguard can act just before the attack versus QM blocking, attacking or maneuvering versus the charger.
2) The charger is sprinting : the charger cannot do any attack and the bodyguard can act just when he wants.
The keyword here is can. If he is delaying he can act whenever he wants, resetting his initiative to the point he has acted.
As Sanctaphrax said , there's no problem if you delay for one exchange, just cause you miss voluntarily one action.
However if the initiative is quite high, the bodyguard should use a block to defend QM. It's very effective and don't pose any kind of problem
Edit: crossposting with Umbralux
-
If one combatant is waiting, he has sacrificed his action for the chance to interrupt. Presumably he's preparing himself to move in case of a specific situation. So yes, I think the bodyguard on hold should get to interrupt. If the queen isn't attacked, the bodyguard doesn't act at all that exchange - seems a fair trade.
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that waiting to interrupt probably isn't the optimal choice. The same bodyguard could have been using her 'waiting' actions to set up defensive declarations, maneuvers, and blocks. She's more likely to succeed in stopping the attacker...
Yeah, I'd say you maneuver "protecting the queen" (could be any of a number of skills). Invoke for Effect to interrupt a bad guy seems about right. I'd say having to wait around and do nothing is definitely a bad way to do it on many levels.
-
I think the question might have to do with delaying your action on multiple turns. If one delays one's action (and doesn't interrupt anyone) then where does one's initiative start next turn? Because if one did so and the initiative order changed, then one would be at the bottom, and unable to delay one's action effectively a second time. Is that the question cgodfrey7? If so, my inclination is that the initiative order does not change unless the delayed action is used.
Otherwise I think the rules are fairly clear.
-
I think the question might have to do with delaying your action on multiple turns. If one delays one's action (and doesn't interrupt anyone) then where does one's initiative start next turn? Because if one did so and the initiative order changed, then one would be at the bottom, and unable to delay one's action effectively a second time. Is that the question cgodfrey7? If so, my inclination is that the initiative order does not change unless the delayed action is used.
Otherwise I think the rules are fairly clear.
I just don't think delaying is the right way to go here. It's a mess trying to use that rule here. Better to use Invoking for Effect on Maneuvers or other aspects (and yeah, that should change your initiative order when that is done). It handles the OP's situation very elegantly. Arguably this could be done as a compel ("I will be your opponent") or as just something to shift your initiative so you can make a block (which would not be a compel).
Edit: In general, my opinion of the FATE system is that if there's not a direct way built into the game to do some fairly basic action, then you do it with an Invoke for Effect on an aspect.
-
I am still learning this system, thanks for your responses. What does Invoke for Effect mean? Is there a page I can read that explains it?
I think sinker got the gist of my question: "If one delays one's action (and doesn't interrupt anyone) then where does one's initiative start next turn? Because if one did so and the initiative order changed, then one would be at the bottom, and unable to delay one's action effectively a second time."
-
I am still learning this system, thanks for your responses. What does Invoke for Effect mean? Is there a page I can read that explains it?
See YS99 and YS106. But Fred's explanation here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.30.html) is probably easier to understand.
-
Yeah, sinker's got the gist of it. I'd let the guy who delayed through the entire round go first in the next round, but it's not not because I think that the rules say that. It's because I think it's reasonable.
-
I always worry a bit about that kind of response, because it encourages mild exploiting. If someone is at the very bottom of the initiative order then they could "delay" their action and suddenly they're going before all the supernaturally fast baddies. I just wouldn't change the order at all. On the next round they have the same initiative as they started with.
-
After the initial round, I don't see it making much difference when in an exchange you act, the various actors are simply going in turns.
-
Exactly, it's like Improved Initiative in D&D. It's great on the first round but after that it's cyclical and doesn't provide any real advantage.
-
Exactly, it's like Improved Initiative in D&D. It's great on the first round but after that it's cyclical and doesn't provide any real advantage.
Makes a difference for evocation blocks unless you run them like D&D. You can divert energy from a evo-block only if it hasn't been used in the current exchange. Like 2nd edition, a round/exchange is a discrete, absolute object, and you don't base it off whatever character you are focused on at the moment.
Actually, the artificial exchange rules apply to delaying too:
You may opt to delay your action until a future point in the exchange, allowing you to interrupt someone else’s action later in the initiative order. Once this happens, your initiative is set at that point for the rest of the conflict, unless you delay again.
Consider the Harry, Mouse, Ghoul example.
1. Mouse
2. Ghouls
3. Harry
Mouse can delay to interrupt the ghouls OR Harry. If he interrupts Harry, then the initiative order is like this:
1. Ghouls
2. Mouse
3. Harry
At this point, Mouse CANNOT interrupt the ghouls in this combat anymore since he goes after they do each exchange. It isn't possible to delay until the next exchange.
Good point with the system as written: Super-fast guys can't be interrupted. If something has mythic speed, Mr. Slowpants can't interrupt their action. That's realistic.
Bad point: If Mythic Speedman delays to interrupt someone, say Mr. SuperSlowPants, then Mr. Slowpants can now interrupt Mythic Speedman in the future. That's not realistic.
Bad point2: Not necessarily a lot of fun if you can't potentially interrupt the superfast guy, though perhaps an invoke for effect should be the way to handle that. Also, it makes some things regarding the initiative order, spell duration, and the like seem rather arbitrary. If you go first in a conflict and cast a spell that last X exchanges, it essentially lasts longer than if you go last and do the same spell. There's a similar problem with diverting spell energy from a block...it's just weird.
-
Perhaps I am viewing this at a strange angle, but let's try the following setup: R# is the beginning of a round. We have 3 people's original initiative order is A goes before B goes before C. If everyone stays with their original initiative, combat order would be:
R1 A B C R2 A B C R3 A B C ...
Suppose that C wants to delay his action in round 2, he effectively would lose his turn in round 2, but get to go first in round 3, still maintaining the order
R1 A B C R2 A B R3 C A B R4 C A B
Suppose in round 5 C wants to interrupt B, then we would have
R5 A C B R6 A C B
I am sure I am missing something basic, but each person gets to go in each round, except when C lost a round holding initiative in round 2 to possibly prevent A from doing something in round 3.
-
I see nothing wrong with that summary.
-
Perhaps I am viewing this at a strange angle, but let's try the following setup: R# is the beginning of a round. We have 3 people's original initiative order is A goes before B goes before C. If everyone stays with their original initiative, combat order would be:
R1 A B C R2 A B C R3 A B C ...
Suppose that C wants to delay his action in round 2, he effectively would lose his turn in round 2, but get to go first in round 3, still maintaining the order
R1 A B C R2 A B R3 C A B R4 C A B
Suppose in round 5 C wants to interrupt B, then we would have
R5 A C B R6 A C B
I am sure I am missing something basic, but each person gets to go in each round, except when C lost a round holding initiative in round 2 to possibly prevent A from doing something in round 3.
By RAW, you can't hold until the next exchange. That was my point. You can only delay until later in the current exchange.
-
Correct. However, irrelevant. The RAW isn't that important, as I said earlier.
The above is my opinion and may well not be the same as yours. It is not a personal attack or challenge.
-
Correct. However, irrelevant. The RAW isn't that important, as I said earlier
It's important to understand what the RAW is before you deviate from it. I was making clear what RAW states so people could understand exchanges aren't like 3rd Edition D&D rounds by default.
-
FATE is designed to allow a lot of flexibility...which means rules questions.
I generally give people who are preparing to take an action a +2 free tag Aspect appropriate to the situation. (In the original example, 'Looking for Trouble' might work.) That lets even slow people a chance, if they plan, to interupt speedsters. Which isn't strictly realistic; but is more fun.
-
It's important to understand what the RAW is before you deviate from it.
It's less important in DFRPG than it may be in other games. Or, perhaps more correctly, one RAW comment makes the rest of the book...fuzzier: "...intent precedes mechanics." (YS308 under Adjudicating the Rules)
As Bruce mentioned, flexibility is expected. Not allowing the mechanics to limit options is also codified. :)
-
It's less important in DFRPG than it may be in other games. Or, perhaps more correctly, one RAW comment makes the rest of the book...fuzzier: "...intent precedes mechanics." (YS308 under Adjudicating the Rules)
As Bruce mentioned, flexibility is expected. Not allowing the mechanics to limit options is also codified. :)
Yes, but it is always important, imho, for players to have a good idea about how reality in a game works. Hence them understanding the rules (including any house rules or GM interpretations) is important. It helps them make better decisions for their characters and prevents those horrible moments of conflict when there's a huge disagreement over how game reality works -- one can't entirely eliminate such problems, but one can reduce how often they come up.
The adjudicating the rules bit is, in itself, an important rule. However, consider the many ways one can handle initiative. Some of them might allow a slow character to interrupt a faster/supernatural/mythic speed NPC and others might not. Which one you are using can indeed matter a great deal if a player decides to delay under one understanding of the rules only to feel that he got screwed over because the GM has another. The "intent matters more than mechanics" doesn't help here if the GM thinks the player intended to do something they feel is impossible. Problems here are best avoided by the GM having a careful understanding of the rules, being forgiving of player misconceptions, and the group working to make sure everyone has a fairly good consensus on how game reality works, imho.
-
The adjudicating the rules bit is, in itself, an important rule. However, consider the many ways one can handle initiative. Some of them might allow a slow character to interrupt a faster/supernatural/mythic speed NPC and others might not. Which one you are using can indeed matter a great deal if a player decides to delay under one understanding of the rules only to feel that he got screwed over because the GM has another. The "intent matters more than mechanics" doesn't help here if the GM thinks the player intended to do something they feel is impossible. Problems here are best avoided by the GM having a careful understanding of the rules, being forgiving of player misconceptions, and the group working to make sure everyone has a fairly good consensus on how game reality works, imho.
Agreed. That's another piece of GM advice in DFRPG - it specifically states the GM is not a dictator. Over all, I'm reasonably impressed with the quality of GM advice in the book.
One thing I'll add to consensus as an additional goal is consistency. That may just be me though...bugs me sometimes when my cheese gets moved unexpectedly. :-[