Combat Paralysis vs Confused

[Xplo]

Okay. IIRC, Confusion is like this.

GM: "People are screaming! Stuff is blowing up! There's something on fire falling down! There are wounded all around and in the distance you can hear sirens and gunshots! What do you do?"

Indecisive guy: "Is anything going to fall on us? Or maybe we need guns to fight off the enemy? Wait, did you say wounded? Maybe we should wait for the sirens.. argh, I dunno!"
Confused guy: (Looks around uncomprehendingly.) "I.. I, uh.. uhhh..."
Combat Paralysis guy: (Normal, until attacking troops show up, or something threatens to fall on him, and then he freezes up like a rabbit on the highway.)
Combat Reflexes guy: (Grimacing.) "I get the wounded to shelter while yelling for aid. You and you, help me. You, go over there and search that area. You, go up there and stand watch."

GM: "Great. Roll Leadership, CR guy."

[Kromm]

What's being missed, mostly, are the subtleties of these traits.

Confused kicks in when confusing stuff is going on around you. A couple of guards talking across a room don't count . . . nothing is going on around you, and their words don't magically cast a Daze spell on you. If the guards were shouting back and forth across your hiding place, or shooting their guns off in your general direction because they were bored, then Confused would become important. An assassin would not suffer from his disad at all if he worked alone, snuck up on his target from afar, and had to look through a scope from a quiet rooftop. This wouldn't change if there were three other people visible in his scope, clearly talking. It would change if some watchmen started talking on the roof he was using as a sniper perch. The point is, you're completely decisive -- you just can't have distractions aimed at you.

Indecisive affects choices of paths, not tiny actions and subcomponents of actions. An indecisive warrior basically needs a CO. As long as somebody tells him what to do, he'll do it as well as he can. It's when he isn't sure about the general tactical plan that he'll get in trouble: rush or hold? Flank or frontal charge? Run for his wounded ally or continue to shoot at the foe? Things like having four targets or two possible weapons or three potential defenses wouldn't be relevant. The point is, your reflexes work fine, and you can always use the most sensible attack or defense -- you just can't have multiple broad course of action open to you.

[Xplo]

On a further note, I would suggest that if you can't figure out what these traits mean, you should consider disallowing them just to prevent misunderstandings later...

[LemmingLord]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Indecisive affects choices of paths, not tiny actions and subcomponents of actions. An indecisive warrior basically needs a CO. As long as somebody tells him what to do, he'll do it as well as he can. It's when he isn't sure about the general tactical plan that he'll get in trouble: rush or hold? Flank or frontal charge? Run for his wounded ally or continue to shoot at the foe? Things like having four targets or two possible weapons or three potential defenses wouldn't be relevant. The point is, your reflexes work fine, and you can always use the most sensible attack or defense -- you just can't have multiple broad course of action open to you.

Your interpritation of the disad is much more in keeping with the disad cost than my understanding. Maybe I didn't read it as thoroughly as I thought.. I don't remember seing anything in there about needing to make a role only for a "general course of action." I thought it was something like "whenever you must make a choice where there are several obvious courses of action..."

If my recall is correct, certainly the course of action of shooting soldier 1 is a different course of action then shooting soldier 2...

I do agree that in either case, if you want your character to be indecisive, better have a CO... And have a character ready to follow orders... Then again, following orders or not following orders sounds like a choice between obvious courses of action.. Maybe it would just confuse them more. :)

[GhengisRexx]

I like the idea of confused for a warrior who doesnt start fights, and who is trying to not fight until he has figured out exactly what is going on. A bit slow on the uptake, but not stupid.

[Dr. Rictus]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

If my recall is correct, certainly the course of action of shooting soldier 1 is a different course of action then shooting soldier 2...

See, to me both of those seem like the same "course of action." Assuming that both soldier 1 and soldier 2 are on the same side and serving basically the same tactical role in the battle.

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by Dr. Rictus

See, to me both of those seem like the same "course of action." Assuming that both soldier 1 and soldier 2 are on the same side and serving basically the same tactical role in the battle.

Infantryman Bob Vs. Infantryman Jim : No problem, for practical purposes they're the same soldier, just start shooting.

Infantryman Bob Vs Cavalryman Ian: Indecision time. Would it be better to aim at the cavalry attack, or should I shoot at the infantry line. Orwait, maybe I should return fire against the enemy archers. But that would let the cavalry get too close! What do I do?