Help implementing spotting feints

[mlangsdorf]

I don't let players roll their feints until they're ready to attack, either. In my limited experience, you don't know if someone has fallen for your feint until you try to exploit it.

The fact that this also solves the information asymmetry that you pointed out it just a bonus.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

What you guys are doing with the Feints, where the roll doesn't occur until you try to attack with the Feint, is different. You don't know if you need to take another Feint because the first one was bad.

If the victim knows they were feinted, they may choose to perform a different action that doesn't suffer from Feint penalties; the extreme case is a wizard with a Blocking spell, who might have dodged or parried with his staff to save energy, but decides to use Iron Arm instead because it doesn't get penalized. A lesser case is taking an All Out Defense or retreating away to make it difficult for the foe to attack you and take advantage of his successful feint.

I'm actually quite comfortable with revealing that a feint happened, and what the margin of success was, and I don't see why it should be dealt with as "meta" knowledge either - forcing an opponent to pre-emptively waste resources (like their one Blocking spell per turn) or forcing them on to the defensive to try and ward you off (retreating, All out Defending, Defensive Attacking) is useful and a sensible response to being "set up".

In 4e, the kind of "feint" you don't see coming should be a Deceptive Attack. It's already nicely set up to avoid the whole damn problem.

I'm actually partially inclined to remove the Feint mechanic entirely in favour of only Deceptive Attacks.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Bruno

In 4e, the kind of "feint" you don't see coming should be a Deceptive Attack. It's already nicely set up to avoid the whole damn problem.

So you see your opponent setting something up and can then move out of the way?

The GURPS turn structure means there are certain things like this that are difficult to achieve.

[Last Pawn]

I actually have NPCs use Evaluate on a semi-regular basis. Because of this I can often claim that the character in question has "taken a moment to assess things" and withhold on the dice rolling. I've also used "takes a defensive posture" or in conjunction with a Step "attempts to obtain a superior position". Now, once the players discovered that this didn't always mean that their opponent was actually Evaluating, All-Out Defending, or simply Moving, a few did respond to the descriptions with an All-Out Defense of their own, which effectively meant they wasted their turn by defending against an Evaluate. Which is kind of funny as a GM. Once the NPCs turn came up again I'd actually roll for the Feint which allows a bit of narrative if the player wins ofthe "you saw through their ploy" variety.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Dammann

I suppose the idea is that a character would not defend against the attack as if they'd had complete knowledge of the feint, so keeping the player misinformed helps bring about that kind of reaction. I'd say that it is a solution to a problem that may not exist. Some players compartmentalize player knowledge pretty scrupulously.

I've always rolled feints quite openly and relied on players not to metagame. But then I've always had players make their own characters' Perception rolls, too. I understand that if you have players who don't get that metagaming is undesirable, or who want "metagaming for me, but not for thee," this is going to be a problem—but my player culture is so anti-metagaming that I don't personally have to worry about that.

Bill Stoddard

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Fez

Pg 101 of Martial Arts says that the GM should not tell the players when an npc successfully feints. He should lead them to believe the npc just missed.

Does this mean that he just missed his normal attack?

As one of the co-authors, I can tell you this with complete certainty: It means "missed his normal attack." Just do & apply the contest of skills retroactively next turn.


I implemented that in my games after we found that knowing the result of the feint skewed the actions of the feinted person. There was a temptation to over-react to a bad feint sometimes. But also a strong feeling that using player knowledge like that was bad so you'd see people stay and suck up the results of the feint even if they had a legitimate in-game reason to have done something different.

With the rule from MA instituted, we'd get fun situations like players hearing "The Black Knight Who Never Misses swings . . . and misses" - and having to decide if Peter threw a 17 behind the GM screen or if they were feinted. Since part of the enjoyment of the game for us is the "tactical skirmish game" element of it all, this really adds to it. And since the GM doesn't know if the feint was good or not, the NPCs equally need to base their next action on the uncertain results of the first action (and any odd reaction to that). Fun stuff.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

I implemented that in my games after we found that knowing the result of the feint skewed the actions of the feinted person. There was a temptation to over-react to a bad feint sometimes. But also a strong feeling that using player knowledge like that was bad so you'd see people stay and suck up the results of the feint even if they had a legitimate in-game reason to have done something different.

With the rule from MA instituted, we'd get fun situations like players hearing "The Black Knight Who Never Misses swings . . . and misses" - and having to decide if Peter threw a 17 behind the GM screen or if they were feinted. Since part of the enjoyment of the game for us is the "tactical skirmish game" element of it all, this really adds to it. And since the GM doesn't know if the feint was good or not, the NPCs equally need to base their next action on the uncertain results of the first action (and any odd reaction to that). Fun stuff.

FWIW, the RAW handling of feints, where people might react with knowledge of a feint, is still tactically sound. The notion that a feint could "force" a retreat, AoD, or some other choice is not actually bad.

It's also not always metagaming. Feints represent many things, including timing tricks, fancy footwork play, and other maneuvering, beyond just fake attacks. Combatants in real life may very know that their balance or timing has been thrown off.

I can see both sides of the argument - and really appreciate having one of the authors chime in on the ruling.

If you go with the rule as written in MA, you're assuming that the results of the feint are unknown to both the attacker and defender until the actual attack is about to be resolved. This prevents meta-gaming, and leaves the results a bit more chancy, much like real combat could be.

But if you roll the results out in the open, the defender will know that he's been feinted - perhaps it's one of those situations we see in fiction where the character does something and immediately realizes it was the wrong thing to do. So he reacts differently, perhaps precipitously, to try to correct for the situation, leaving him unable to capitalize on the actions of his opponent. Again, much like real combat could be.

It may be one of those times where there isn't a "right" answer...

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Fez

It may be one of those times where there isn't a "right" answer...

The right answer is the one you and your group find more fun. Ultimately.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I've always rolled feints quite openly and relied on players not to metagame. But then I've always had players make their own characters' Perception rolls, too. I understand that if you have players who don't get that metagaming is undesirable, or who want "metagaming for me, but not for thee," this is going to be a problem—but my player culture is so anti-metagaming that I don't personally have to worry about that.

There is a reason to roll "secretly" even if you have players that are good at firewalls. Sometimes people enjoy suspense. It's the same reason that people avoid "spoilers" after all.