Skill blocks vs spell blocks

[Taran]

I was under the impression that, unlike spell blocks, blocks created via skills do not automatically go away if they are bypassed - they last the entire exchange.

Eg: In this example just ignore dodge attempts:

I use my weapons skill to Block all incoming attacks (block str 5):
3 enemies attack me in this order.
enemy 1: attack 4 (fails to hit);
enemy 2: attack 6 (hits with one shift of success) - block is still active for the next attacker
Enemy 3. attack 5 (hits with no shifts of success)

Am I crazy?  I can't find where I read it in the book except YS 210:

Typically, a block action lasts until the player
who initiated the block takes his next turn. At
that point, he must choose whether he wants to
take another action or if he wants to maintain
the block.

[GryMor]

There are at least 5 block mechanics:
Evocation block, fragile: Full effect power as block, first breach destroys
Evocation block, durable: Half effect power as armor/block
Ward: Full effect power as block, breaches reduce effect power if directed against the ward
Threshold: Full effect power as block, Full effect power as suppression, takes sticky aspects to modify effect power
Active Skill Block: Takes action to sustain

And this doesn't include the creation of zone borders/barriers that can have block like effects.

[Tedronai]

Don't forget grapples.

[Haru]

I'm pretty sure, that vanishing when being overcome by a skill roll is a feature of any block, magical or not. Couldn't give you a quote right now. If I find it, I will hand it in later.

[Mr. Death]

Not so. Even a grapple says that the block only ends if the action taken makes sense to break the block, so it makes sense if that applies to other blocks.

I mean, put it this way. If you're trying to block a handful of people from getting into a room, and one uses Athletics to get through without knocking you down, are you just going to give up and let the others through? "Well, he jumped over me, I guess the rest of you lot can come in too."

[Haru]

That's sort of where we are at in the other threat. IF a roll bypasses a block, the block stays. If it overcomes the block, the block is gone.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say anything that can be blocked by the block can overcome the block.

[Mr. Death]

That rule of thumb doesn't stand up to practice, though. If the action doesn't make sense for removing the block, why should the block be gone?

If I set up a block as a barricade, and someone vaults over it, that overcomes the block--the block was against movement (Athletics) and the action to get past it was movement (Athletics). The Barricade doesn't stop hampering other people just because someone managed to jump over it.

If I set up a block against perception (hiding someone behind me, for example) and one character is good enough to see through it with Awareness, that doesn't mean others did.

If I grapple someone, that's a block against everything. But if they roll, say, Guns to hit someone else, that does nothing to break my grip on them. Why shouldn't the block persist?

[Haru]

If I set up a block as a barricade, and someone vaults over it, that overcomes the block--the block was against movement (Athletics) and the action to get past it was movement (Athletics). The Barricade doesn't stop hampering other people just because someone managed to jump over it.

If one of my enemies jumps behind me, I am pretty sure I am going to turn around and position myself, so he is not standing in my back. At least that's how I would interpret it. The block could also just be a might block against someone else pushing against you with might. Athletics could bypass it, and mean that the blocker does not see the Athletics user, while someone else is still pushing against the block.

If I set up a block against perception (hiding someone behind me, for example) and one character is good enough to see through it with Awareness, that doesn't mean others did.

If I grapple someone, that's a block against everything. But if they roll, say, Guns to hit someone else, that does nothing to break my grip on them. Why shouldn't the block persist?

Sure, but I guess that's a story thing to me. You tried to keep something from happening, it happened anyway, you failed. I would find it less interesting to keep pounding on the block. You'd also have to keep track of who has passed which block and everything. It's something I don't really like, you can do that, of course, but I find it much more interesting to have the block break and continue the story in another way.

[Mr. Death]

If one of my enemies jumps behind me, I am pretty sure I am going to turn around and position myself, so he is not standing in my back. At least that's how I would interpret it. The block could also just be a might block against someone else pushing against you with might. Athletics could bypass it, and mean that the blocker does not see the Athletics user, while someone else is still pushing against the block.

What if it's more important to keep his other six buddies out than it is to deal with the one who got through? That's a player choice to remove the block, not an automatic thing.

Sure, but I guess that's a story thing to me. You tried to keep something from happening, it happened anyway, you failed. I would find it less interesting to keep pounding on the block. You'd also have to keep track of who has passed which block and everything. It's something I don't really like, you can do that, of course, but I find it much more interesting to have the block break and continue the story in another way.

Again, there's failure in degrees--one person getting through the block rarely means you've completely failed. In one of my games, for example, two characters were being swarmed by zombies. One of them held up a shotgun lengthwise to hold them back with a block. One of them slipped through and had to be dealt with, should that mean the blocker automatically gives up and lets the other half-dozen go by?

[Taran]

So my interpretation, as you know from my first post, is along the lines of what Mr. Death says. 

Here's my reasoning besides what it says in YS:

A skill block only persists for one round and it has to be put up again the following round with a new check.  This gives it variability from round to round and uses up the players action each round.  Just because something overcomes the block, it shouldn't completely negate the characters whole action for the round.

A spell block can be sustained via extra shifts and therefore doesn't require the wizard to use up an action.  This is a powerful advantage of a spell.  Something has to be able to negate the block otherwise it messes with the action economy.  Otherwise a wizard would put up an extended block first-thing at the beginning of every conflict.

This is why I think there's a difference in the types of blocks.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't know of anything in the rules that even implies that mundane blocks end when overcome.

And yet people who read the rules keep coming out with the idea that they do. (People includes me. I once thought that all blocks ended when beaten.)

It's like some kind of subliminal rule, telepathically encoded between the lines of Your Story.

[Taran]

I don't know of anything in the rules that even implies that mundane blocks end when overcome.

And yet people who read the rules keep coming out with the idea that they do. (People includes me. I once thought that all blocks ended when beaten.)

It's like some kind of subliminal rule, telepathically encoded between the lines of Your Story.

It's because it specifically stated under spell blocks and therfore it's probably assumed that that's how it works everywhere.

O.k, I'm happy with my interpretation.  Some people agree with me so it means I'm not that crazy.

Thanks for the help!

[JDK002]

I always figured skill blocks were narrative in nature.  Therefor stay active until they don't make narrative sense.  Like knocking over a bookcase, someone nimbly leaping over the case doesn't make it any easier for someone else to get over.  Someone with inhuman strength smashing it to splinters however does.

[GryMor]

I don't know of anything in the rules that even implies that mundane blocks end when overcome.

And yet people who read the rules keep coming out with the idea that they do. (People includes me. I once thought that all blocks ended when beaten.)

It's like some kind of subliminal rule, telepathically encoded between the lines of Your Story.

It's an issue with the way the rules are written/organized. There isn't a section that clearly defines the basic mechanics and then the augmented mechanics, so in the case of blocks, bits and pieces of the special mechanics are taken as general.

[Mr. Ghostbuster]

I was under the impression that, unlike spell blocks, blocks created via skills do not automatically go away if they are bypassed - they last the entire exchange.

Eg: In this example just ignore dodge attempts:

I use my weapons skill to Block all incoming attacks (block str 5):
3 enemies attack me in this order.
enemy 1: attack 4 (fails to hit);
enemy 2: attack 6 (hits with one shift of success) - block is still active for the next attacker
Enemy 3. attack 5 (hits with no shifts of success)

Am I crazy?  I can't find where I read it in the book except YS 210:

Typically, a block action lasts until the player
who initiated the block takes his next turn. At
that point, he must choose whether he wants to
take another action or if he wants to maintain
the block.

In that type of situation my GM usually just has us roll a defense for each attacker.