Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by RobW

I'm not following why you say this. An attacker can't force multiple targets to dodge (or defend) just by asking. A target hasn't dodged until the attacker rolls 4 dice to try and hit them.

True, the attacker can't make people dodge who he isn't attacking.

What I meant was, there are at least three ways to play:

A) When someone acts on their adjDX, they have to do what they choose, even if someone chooses to Dodge or Defend or whatever in response.

B) When someone acts on their adjDX, if their target chooses to Dodge or Defend, the attacker can change their mind.

C) When someone acts on their adjDX, the attacker can ask if any of their targets will Defend or Dodge, and then choose whom they attack. (i.e. They could even say, "I attack Q? Not dodging? Ok, then I attack X." which method B) above would not permit.

I play A), which I think is both the intended way, more logical, and the cleanest/fastest way. One way to describe it is that "Defenders get to change their option, but attackers don't" because when it's your turn to act, you have to do what you say you do. Others can react by changing to another legal option such as Defend.

B) and C) I was describing as ways to play where the Attacker can change his mind but Defenders can't. Because the Attacker is allowed to change his mind about what he's doing, based on what Defenders say they will do if he attacks them, but they can't then change their mind too (the way they and only they can in method A)).

i.e. No one is suggesting that play would ever go:

Y: I attack Q.
Q: I defend.
Y: Oh then I attack Z.
Z: I defend.
Y: Ok, I'm really attacking...
Z: I was just kidding I don't defend.
GM: Ok Y, you have to attack.

i.e. Another way to think about the difference between method A and B/C is that A lets the defenders choose based on A's action, while B/C let the attacker choose based on the defenders option if he attacks any/all of them.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

If you don't want the infinite loop then what's the minimum word change to avoid it?

Minimum is no word change but just interpret the rules as I think they were meant to be played.

Minimum way to clarify that reading? I don't know but something like:

"When a figure acts on their adjDX, they do it."

Or to elaborate:

"They can't change their action in response to other figures responding to their action."

[kjamma4]

Probably would have to be my own house rule but my minimum would be "Apply Wheaton's Law."

:)

[MikMod]

Originally Posted by Skarg

A) When someone acts on their adjDX, they have to do what they choose, even if someone chooses to Dodge or Defend or whatever in response.

By 'acts' I think you mean: says out loud what they will do. I think myself and some others feel you haven't definitely acted until you roll the dice. A small difference but with large consequences here.

B) When someone acts on their adjDX, if their target chooses to Dodge or Defend, the attacker can change their mind.

See how this is hard for you but easy for me to accept in play?

C) When someone acts on their adjDX, the attacker can ask if any of their targets will Defend or Dodge, and then choose whom they attack. (i.e. They could even say, "I attack Q? Not dodging? Ok, then I attack X." which method B) above would not permit.

This is fairly common for archers, and reasonable, surely. You point your drawn bow around the field and it's gonna be pretty clear who is dodging and who isn't, so you then choose a target - any of them - and fire. Again it's the problem of them saying 'I attack X' being a final decision in your games that makes this seem unreasonable to you, I think?

I play A), which I think is both the intended way, more logical, and the cleanest/fastest way.

Well, I don't feel I'm breaking RAW by saying you ain't acted til the dice roll :)

And it does say delayed actions add realism, so there's that.

No one is suggesting that play would ever go:

Y: I attack Q.
Q: I defend.
Y: Oh then I attack Z.
Z: I defend.
Y: Ok, I'm really attacking...
Z: I was just kidding I don't defend.
GM: Ok Y, you have to attack.

Well, this seems to be a combat between player characters, so that's not the most common scenario - usually the GM wouldn't act so unhelpfully as Z does there. Also Y wants to attack Z don't they? They wouldn't have to be ordered to do that? Anyway, if the dice haven't rolled they've still got a choice, at my table anyway :)

I just want to say that yet again this has been really interesting and has made me re-examine how we play. Your analysis is superb. I also want to reassure you that in play, this approach really doesn't come up as often as you might think. As you pointed out, acting first is usually the very best thing you can do.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by MikMod

By 'acts' I think you mean: says out loud what they will do. I think myself and some others feel you haven't definitely acted until you roll the dice. A small difference but with large consequences here.

Yes, well I mean it's their adjDX time to act, and they say what they do. They haven't done it yet, and perhaps could change their mind, or ask questions of the GM about reminding him who's Dodging or who's acted, or even whether it looks like X will dodge if fired on. The difference as I see it is that they can't oblige their targets to tell them whether they will Defend/Dodge in response to an attack or not.

As I mentioned originally, the changing options rules talk about changing options in response to a changing situation. Actually being attacked is a changing situation that allows figures to react with Dodge or Defend. But I don't think a Dodge or Defense is committed to until/unless someone actually attacks them and is made to roll an extra die.

Originally Posted by MikMod

See how this is hard for you but easy for me to accept in play?

Yes, I do.

Originally Posted by MikMod

This is fairly common for archers, and reasonable, surely. You point your drawn bow around the field and it's gonna be pretty clear who is dodging and who isn't, so you then choose a target - any of them - and fire. Again it's the problem of them saying 'I attack X' being a final decision in your games that makes this seem unreasonable to you, I think?

Well yes but it's also because:

1) It greatly speeds play compared to the alternative of having figures negotiate with each other and consider various options on their move. I often run combats with quite a few figures in play, and if every figure can waffle and negotiate about what they're doing, it could take a whole lot longer to play a turn. Also if I have a lot of NPCs in a combat, it would give me a dilemma about whether to play them quickly the way I usually do, or whether to let them indulge in these same sort of controlling tactics where they want to know who's going to change their options if they attack them and consider alternate moves or whatever.

2) Figures can change option to react to changing situations, and taking an action is a situation, but what someone says they do in reaction to an action does not seem to me like a situation, especially since if you take back your initial action, then you're also taking back the reason for the reaction you're supposedly changing your mind about. That doesn't make sense and feels wrong to me and doesn't fit any examples or rules text I know of.

3) I don't see why a target can't wait until an attacker actually commits to attacking them to choose whether to defend or dodge or not.

4) I also don't think it works well in certain cases, given the attacker could presumably change their mind to ANY action after polling all their foes for whether they'd dodge or not. A wizard could theoretically troll targets to see if they're concerned about fireballs, to try to gain intel about whether they might have protection spells on them, or be illusions, before changing their mind and instead choosing any other spell or action, disbelieving, etc. I suppose that could be seen as clever and interesting, but to me it seems gamey and like a way for one player's turn to take minutes rather than seconds.

5) I find the negotiation idea both gamey and like something that doesn't fit my imagination of someone acting on their adjDX to act before others.

While I do get the idea of having a weapon at foes and choosing a target based on what they do, I think that would take some time and not fit acting at your highest possible adjDX. I'd tend to want it represented by someone using Delayed Action to actually see what people do. Because then there is a logical trade-off consequence, where the archer surveying the field for the best target and feigning shots at them might need to weigh that tactic against being able to shoot before others act.

Originally Posted by MikMod

Well, this seems to be a combat between player characters, so that's not the most common scenario - usually the GM wouldn't act so unhelpfully as Z does there. Also Y wants to attack Z don't they? They wouldn't have to be ordered to do that? Anyway, if the dice haven't rolled they've still got a choice, at my table anyway :)

It's not necessarily just a PC situation, if the GM is roleplaying NPCs who are in the same league of tactical competence as the PCs. I could see it coming up even in resolving NPC vs. NPC combat, if it's supposed to be how combat works.

As for Y wanting to attack Z, not necessarily. I think there are reasons both for preferring to attack figures who defend/dodge, and for preferring to attack those who don't, based on adjDX and other considerations in the situation. The point being that if using mode C), then in theory some players might want to get every potential target to commit to whether they would defend or not if attacked, before making a choice of whom to attack.

Originally Posted by MikMod

I just want to say that yet again this has been really interesting and has made me re-examine how we play. Your analysis is superb. I also want to reassure you that in play, this approach really doesn't come up as often as you might think. As you pointed out, acting first is usually the very best thing you can do.

Yes, it is interesting to me too to discuss and see others' thinking, experiences and preferences.

I agree that in all three modes of play, it probably does not come up very often, though I imagine it could with some perfectionist players, and I can imagine having one player who wants to do it nearly every round and starts to annoy others, for example.

[MikMod]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I can imagine having one player who wants to do it nearly every round and starts to annoy others.

:) In my experience players like that usually find their characters suffering an escalating series of misfortunes, usually arranged by the other PCs.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by MikMod

This is fairly common for archers, and reasonable, surely. You point your drawn bow around the field and it's gonna be pretty clear who is dodging and who isn't, so you then choose a target - any of them - and fire.

I get this. This is the one part of what you're saying where I can follow the logic and say that's all reasonable.

But Defend is not the same thing as Dodge at closer range. Defend requires a ready weapon, and that the defender be facing their adversary, whereas Dodge doesn't. The rules are clear that to Defend is to parry the attack.

You cannot parry a blow that never comes. If there is no incoming blow, you have not parried nor attempted to parry anything yet. You cannot commit to Defend, even if you want to say you do, until after you've been attacked. As the attacker, you cannot find out in advance if there is or isn't a parry, you have to swing your weapon at a target to find out what happens. The reaction cannot precede the action. Picking Attack figure X means you've swung on figure X, and realistically it's now too late to change your mind depending on anything X does (or doesn't) do.

It's why I would hold that even though you haven't touched or rolled the dice yet to see what the effect your attack on X has had, you have committed the action when you say you have.

Now if you wanted to change your mind after the player for X says that X Defends in response, I'd entertain the request on a case by case basis, but I wouldn't say letting anyone do that automatically is within the rules.

If X were an NPC and I was the GM, I'd be more likely to allow the exception than if X were another player's character. In the latter case I'd likely let the player for X decide it. But I'd remind everyone afterwards that combat is not a negotiation, and they should all sheath their weapons and sit down for a talk at the pub if negotiation is what they want.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by MikMod

This is fairly common for archers, and reasonable, surely. You point your drawn bow around the field and it's gonna be pretty clear who is dodging and who isn't, so you then choose a target - any of them - and fire.

The rules from the beginning to now say that to Dodge is to "move up to 1/2 MA while dodging". The operative word here is "while"! This casts dodging as an "action during movement". It seems to make it your default action, provided you moved, before your turn to act comes up later.

And there actually is no option in original Melee or LEITL to just move 1/2 your MA while doing nothing. If you move 1/2 your MA and do not end up engaged, you must therefore be dodging by default. But it's clearly not pinned down unless you're fired on or have a weapon thrown at you before your turn to act.

Just wondering how this matters in light of the part where you say "You point your drawn bow around the field and it's gonna be pretty clear who is dodging and who isn't." Well, yes and no.

Actually every non-engaged figure is dodging, unless their turn to act already came and they changed options to something else -- you already know those figures can't Dodge if you fire on them because they already acted. You also know the engaged figures can't pick Dodge either.

But what about everyone else? They are already dodging by default. What would let the archer distinguish them from each other?

To open a shiny new can of worms (and I'm only playing devil's advocate here!) I contend by strict interpretation of the rules as written, any figure that was dodging by default, and whose turn to act by adjDX comes after that of the archer, cannot do anything except Dodge if the archer fires on them. They cannot elect to stop dodging because it's not their turn to act -- their chance to change options hasn't come up yet. The archer by firing on them (hit or miss) has pinned the default option of Dodge on them for the rest of the turn, taking away any chance to change their minds when their adjDX round finally comes up. This allows the archer to strategically prohibit one target of choice from doing anything else (casting a spell, downing a potion, picking up or changing a weapon) when their turn to act comes this turn. And the archer doesn't even have to hit the target to do this, just take the shot rolling on 4 dice.

And under this strict interpretation, there'd never be any reason for the archer to ask the potential targets what they intend to do if fired upon. It's already determined by default, and the targets can't change it at this point in the turn.

[larsdangly]

Re. Dodge, I think the best move here is to stick to the core structure of the rules and stay consistent with what I think is the consensus view of the Defend action: Anyone who thinks they might want to Dodge should make sure not to move more than 1/2 MA during movement phase, but is free to say nothing or whatever they wish about planned actions (as nothing anyone says at this point is binding). Then, during the action phase, they may declare Dodge as their action any time they are attacked with a missile or thrown weapon, prior to or at their turn in the DX order. The end. If someone wants to fire a missile at them and feels the world is being unfair by not making their target commit, then he or she can defer the shot till later in the DX order (and suffer the consequences if that leads to some unwanted opportunity cost).

[larsdangly]

Also, I suggest a simple way to force people to make a decision if you get stuck with two players who want to play 'chicken' about the attack vs. Defend/Dodge issue: as soon as an endless loop is threatened, bypass those combatants until everyone else has acted, and then tell them you are going to count 5-Mississippi and anyone who hasn't said what they are doing after that loses their action for the turn.