Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2021, 05:31 PM   #11
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Defend and changing options

--- Warning wall of text and rambling, it is late at night for me. :-D ---

So what most of you are saying is that defending is a reaction to the attack, but the attacker can't react to the defender defending? Aren't both reactions? Declaring an attack isn't an action if declaring a defend isn't really an action.

There is nothing that says that defending should be able to interrupt another action but that player can't interrupt the defender's action?

I can't see the difference. Every argument for priority can be used both ways.

Otherwise, it just means that everyone will declare that they are defending at the start of the DX count down. But it doesn't really mean anything because if you react to it, and attack someone else, they will just change their action anyway, and then you can't change back?

This also means that there will never be a defend action without an actual attack. Which is strange to me. There will never be a defend action that scares the attacker off, because then the defend action will never have happened in the first place.

It also means that you have to ask every time you make an attack roll if they defend. Or you will have people call out, "wait roll again I was defending". With the counter-argument of; I already rolled the attack dice vs. you never asked me if I was defending...

The only priority logic I can see is that the person that actually starts doing his action has priority. You can use the defend action before it is your turn to act, but not in response to anything. No interruptions whatsoever. When Karl says, "DX 12 that is me I am going to act" and the GM asks if there is anyone else at 12, that is where you as a DX 10 character have your last chance to say you defend and you will be first among the DX 12 people to do so, or the last to act among the DX 13 characters or at any time before that. And if you do choose to defend, that is your action for that turn. And when Karl gets his action he will know who is defending (because they took their actions before he did in the DX count) and who isn't and chose accordingly.

Clear cut. No do-overs. No infinite back and forth interrupts. No priority needs to be given and a person who knows they will be defending might as well declare it at the start of the DX count down, just to be sure he doesn't miss it, and that makes it easier for everyone.

And most important, fighting two people is not a death sentence. With defend priority, the lonely guy will always attack into a defender, no matter who he wants to attack, which to me, sounds unfair. Especially since two vs. one is dangerous enough in TFT.

This also means less defending, which probably is a good thing, since the fights will be shorter. It also means that low DX characters are viable, which they pretty much aren't if half of your attacks will be against defending enemies. Maybe more than half if you have a large weapon to go with that low DX.

What are the advantages of giving priority to defending actions? I can't really see any.

I think the change option rule came about in response to the classic "state your intent for the round and carry that order out in order of initiative"-rules that were common way back when. If you decide to attack a guy and that guy gets killed before your turn to act comes around, it is boring to have your action wasted. So they gave you the option of choosing something else instead, not a free license to interrupt others in the middle of their turn. If that were the case I am pretty sure they would have stated so more explicitly in the rules and wouldn't have it as a general rule.

And as a side note, if you give priority to the defender, can he decide to defend after your first attack when he got hit and realize that he can't take another hit from your left-hand dagger. And in so doing only go defensive for half of someone's turn? Maybe strange fringe cases but they will come up. So not even starting to roll the dice is a way of deciding when you can interrupt someone.

TL;DR Still not convinced, what are the advantages of giving one or the other a priority and what support are there in the rules for that interpretation?
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2021, 07:41 PM   #12
hcobb
 
hcobb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
Default Re: Defend and changing options

ITL 102 option c) "Move up to half its MA while dodging" I.e. the dodge option applies during movement and the action is spent at that time.

The obvious workaround is to throw your javelin at somebody you've engaged so he can't dodge.
__________________
-HJC
hcobb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2021, 08:31 PM   #13
TippetsTX
 
TippetsTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
Default Re: Defend and changing options

Quote:
Originally Posted by hcobb View Post
The obvious workaround is to throw your javelin at somebody you've engaged so he can't dodge.
Heh, that's a WHOLE 'nother issue.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos
TippetsTX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2021, 09:28 PM   #14
Shostak
 
Shostak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
Default Re: Defend and changing options

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg View Post
This also means that there will never be a defend action without an actual attack.
That isn't my experience. Even in a white box, one might easily understandably decide to defend against against an attack they expect will be coming. Let's say you really don't want to get hit with that battleaxe wielded by a DX 9 heavy. Your DX is 13. You commit to defending, and the Battleaxe dude attacks the guy who also has battleaxe and who lost initiative. You defended, your opponent took advantage of your commitment and attacked someone who he was pretty sure he didn't want to take a chance getting hit by.
__________________
* * * *
Anthony Shostak
myriangia.wordpress.com
Shostak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 11:04 AM   #15
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Defend and changing options

Quote:
Originally Posted by hcobb View Post
ITL 102 option c) "Move up to half its MA while dodging" I.e. the dodge option applies during movement and the action is spent at that time.

The obvious workaround is to throw your javelin at somebody you've engaged so he can't dodge.
That is covered by the Defend action that will let you defend against Throwing attacks.

Last shot missile attacks are another matter though.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 11:09 AM   #16
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Defend and changing options

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shostak View Post
That isn't my experience. Even in a white box, one might easily understandably decide to defend against against an attack they expect will be coming. Let's say you really don't want to get hit with that battleaxe wielded by a DX 9 heavy. Your DX is 13. You commit to defending, and the Battleaxe dude attacks the guy who also has battleaxe and who lost initiative. You defended, your opponent took advantage of your commitment and attacked someone who he was pretty sure he didn't want to take a chance getting hit by.
That is how it would work with my suggestion. With Noah's suggestion, that guy wouldn't defend until he got targeted specifically by the Heavy, and then he would defend. Knowing this the Heavy will target the other guy, and the DX 13 guy, NOT having defended can now safely attack. Best of two worlds.

So there would never be a defend without an actual attack on that person. There would be no reason to. And even if you said you defend you could still change your option, so everyone would just ignore your feint.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 09:00 PM   #17
Peter von Kleinsmid
The Fantasy Trip Line Editor
 
Join Date: May 2021
Default Re: Defend and changing options

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg View Post
...
So there would never be a defend without an actual attack on that person. There would be no reason to.
Well, there would be in cases where someone Defends in anticipation of an attack from an unseen (e.g. invisible) attacker, or someone who announces defend because they expect to be attacked, and/or to help their friends understand what's going on, and then circumstances leave them with no other action they have any reason to take that turn.

The general observation is right, though, and I see it as a positive feature. Defending, being ignored by foes, and so losing a turn doing nothing, when there is something else they'd rather switch to, is something many players might prefer not to do.
Peter von Kleinsmid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 05:20 AM   #18
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Defend and changing options

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter von Kleinsmid View Post
...The general observation is right, though, and I see it as a positive feature. Defending, being ignored by foes, and so losing a turn doing nothing, when there is something else they'd rather switch to, is something many players might prefer not to do.
This is a good point, it is not fun to defend. Especially if it scared the attacker off, so it feels like the defend was for nothing, even though it really wasn't. But a round without a die roll or excitement is boring.

But compared to the fact that two or three against one, even if that one is a better fighter, is still a death sentence more or less in TfT. And even more so with Noah's defend suggestion. That lonely and outnumbered guy would attack into a defensive guy, while all the other opponents would safely attack him. With my suggestion that battle-ax wielder could at least scare some of his opponents into extra defending actions, and if they don't scare easily, he would at least be able to attack someone that wasn't defending and have a chance to win. And more defensive actions, slows down the game. So I prefer it if people take a chance and attack instead of defending. And that is more likely if they don't even know if that defend action is going to help.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 02:17 PM   #19
Peter von Kleinsmid
The Fantasy Trip Line Editor
 
Join Date: May 2021
Default Re: Defend and changing options

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg View Post
...
But compared to the fact that two or three against one, even if that one is a better fighter, is still a death sentence more or less in TfT. And even more so with Noah's defend suggestion. That lonely and outnumbered guy would attack into a defensive guy, while all the other opponents would safely attack him. With my suggestion that battle-ax wielder could at least scare some of his opponents into extra defending actions, and if they don't scare easily, he would at least be able to attack someone that wasn't defending and have a chance to win. And more defensive actions, slows down the game. So I prefer it if people take a chance and attack instead of defending. And that is more likely if they don't even know if that defend action is going to help.
I think that while this is a valid perspective, that there are also other perspectives, such as:

1) When facing two or three foes but allies may arrive, the outnumbered figure may often want to be the one who Defends, meaning this doesn't come up.

2) When facing two or three foes and you have no allies, if they're smart enough to have the one you attack Defend, then they're also probably smart enough to engage you from multiple directions, in which case this doesn't come up either, because the ones to your side and rear can attack you while the ones in front defend, if that's what they want to do.

3) Overall, in my experience, Defend isn't used particularly much anyway, and being attacked by 2-3 foes in one turn tends to be about as likely to defeat most people (and faster) than being attacked by one while the other defends.

4) In a situation with multiple fighters on each side, if one side gets 2 or 3 figures facing one foe, it's often better for that side if they all attack rather than have one of them defend, because it tends to take faster advantage of that situation, before the enemy can correct the position.
Peter von Kleinsmid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 02:42 PM   #20
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Defend and changing options

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter von Kleinsmid View Post
I think that while this is a valid perspective, that there are also other perspectives, such as:

1) When facing two or three foes but allies may arrive, the outnumbered figure may often want to be the one who Defends, meaning this doesn't come up.

2) When facing two or three foes and you have no allies, if they're smart enough to have the one you attack Defend, then they're also probably smart enough to engage you from multiple directions, in which case this doesn't come up either, because the ones to your side and rear can attack you while the ones in front defend, if that's what they want to do.

3) Overall, in my experience, Defend isn't used particularly much anyway, and being attacked by 2-3 foes in one turn tends to be about as likely to defeat most people (and faster) than being attacked by one while the other defends.

4) In a situation with multiple fighters on each side, if one side gets 2 or 3 figures facing one foe, it's often better for that side if they all attack rather than have one of them defend, because it tends to take faster advantage of that situation, before the enemy can correct the position.
None of those situations makes a difference for the argument either way.

It is like saying that one melee weapon isn't more OP than another, because you probably will be shot with a crossbow.

Of course, a guy might want to defend if he is up against three enemies if he can survive one more round and then get help. But if he is fighting for his life and there won't be any reinforcements for 3 turns, he is doomed if he just defends. We are discussing that case when the others can choose to defend or not, based on his action. Not if he decides to use a spell or disengages in order to run away. It is what happens when he decides to strike back against multiple opponents that matter in this argument.

If your opponent surrounds you, and the one in front defends, then again, it is a non-issue. No matter the option order, it will work out the same way. But if you have a wall you can avoid that situation. But again, our different suggestions for handling the defend option won't matter if you only have one enemy in front of you.

Just because an action doesn't happen often doesn't mean it shouldn't be ruled upon. And when your choice to defend is 5 or even 6 dice vs. DX, then it really matters. Or when you gang up on a giant that might smash either one of you into pulp, but he also has a low basic DX, then it matters. If your character is not just an arena fighter, but an RPG character that you have played for a long time, then what is optimal in one fight, might not be optimal over the course of a campaign. Risk-taking tends to add up and careful play might see more defends. And of course, the defend action is boring, so many players go with the attack because it is more fun.

And again, what is correct for the whole team, might not be correct from the point of view of the attacked person. Normal historical battles could last for hours. Units could be locked in melee for many minutes before one side broke. If we used TFT rules the whole battle would basically be over in less than a minute after the first melee strike. So, one has to assume that a lot of defending is the norm, from both sides. With one guy now and then taking a chance hoping the enemy is defending the tenth turn in a row. And then he opens up for a potential counterblow and tries to hit his enemy at 4 vs. DX, and then immediately goes back to defending for ten turns praying for his own survival. I can see how well-trained gladiators, duelists, and daredevil PC heroes go for the jugular nine times out of ten. But realistically, I think there should be a whole lot more defending. Especially if you think your side is stronger. You wait for your side to win, while you survive. But that would make for a boring game.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.