Pulling your punches and delaying your turn

[ArchonShiva]

A. Is it allowed in DFRPG, to intentionally inflict less damage than you normally could, such as in order to capture a prisoner (but still defeat his DR)?

B. Same general concept, can a PC set his spot in the sequence lower than what his Basic Speed indicates?

C. Can you decide, during a turn, to act later than when you're supposed to? Maybe you want to Move and Attack, but you're waiting until your friend gets out of the way.

D. Suppose you're fighting a Watcher at the End of Time (to make the example extreme, but most battles involving high defenses can create a similar situation). The battle started with the sequence:

1. Watcher (ETS)
2. Scout
3. Cleric

The party quickly realizes that the watcher will teleport away from the scout's attack every turn, and the cleric's move and attack isn't going to accomplish much - it would be much better if the cleric could take his turn *before* the scout, shield rushing the demon to make it teleport, and then the scout could shoot it. As sequence is "set at the start of the fight and doesn’t change", is this in any way possible?

E. This is probably just a nitpick on wording, but if two monsters have the same Basic Speed, the GM decides who goes first, whereas for two PCs with the same Basic Speed and DX, the rules say "roll randomly" - can't they just agree to let someone go first, or is that an exclusive monster ability?

(Note that C and D use a Move and Attack maneuver in the examples, so Wait is not an option. It could be Concentrate, etc. It could also be waiting for the caster to buff you.)

[mlangsdorf]

The scout should Wait on the Cleric's attack. That's a pretty straightforward use of Wait.

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

A. Is it allowed in DFRPG, to intentionally inflict less damage than you normally could, such as in order to capture a prisoner (but still defeat his DR)?

B. Same general concept, can a PC set his spot in the sequence lower than what his Basic Speed indicates?

C. Can you decide, during a turn, to act later than when you're supposed to? Maybe you want to Move and Attack, but you're waiting until your friend gets out of the way.

D. Suppose you're fighting a Watcher at the End of Time (to make the example extreme, but most battles involving high defenses can create a similar situation). The battle started with the sequence:

1. Watcher (ETS)
2. Scout
3. Cleric

The party quickly realizes that the watcher will teleport away from the scout's attack every turn, and the cleric's move and attack isn't going to accomplish much - it would be much better if the cleric could take his turn *before* the scout, shield rushing the demon to make it teleport, and then the scout could shoot it. As sequence is "set at the start of the fight and doesn’t change", is this in any way possible?

E. This is probably just a nitpick on wording, but if two monsters have the same Basic Speed, the GM decides who goes first, whereas for two PCs with the same Basic Speed and DX, the rules say "roll randomly" - can't they just agree to let someone go first, or is that an exclusive monster ability?

(Note that C and D use a Move and Attack maneuver in the examples, so Wait is not an option. It could be Concentrate, etc. It could also be waiting for the caster to buff you.)

A

You can choose to roll less dice for damage

B, C and D

There are clear rules for Wait.

You cannot Move and Attack after a Wait.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

B. Same general concept, can a PC set his spot in the sequence lower than what his Basic Speed indicates?

C. Can you decide, during a turn, to act later than when you're supposed to? Maybe you want to Move and Attack, but you're waiting until your friend gets out of the way.

D. Suppose you're fighting a Watcher at the End of Time (to make the example extreme, but most battles involving high defenses can create a similar situation). The battle started with the sequence:

1. Watcher (ETS)
2. Scout
3. Cleric

The party quickly realizes that the watcher will teleport away from the scout's attack every turn, and the cleric's move and attack isn't going to accomplish much - it would be much better if the cleric could take his turn *before* the scout, shield rushing the demon to make it teleport, and then the scout could shoot it. As sequence is "set at the start of the fight and doesn’t change", is this in any way possible?

E. This is probably just a nitpick on wording, but if two monsters have the same Basic Speed, the GM decides who goes first, whereas for two PCs with the same Basic Speed and DX, the rules say "roll randomly" - can't they just agree to let someone go first, or is that an exclusive monster ability?

I haven't experimented much with the order rules. With a large group, I've usually had people sit around the table in their speed order so we can always just go clockwise. If someone sits in the wrong spot (or their speed changes for some reason) we don't pay much attention to it. But, if I were faced with this question at the game table, this is how I would handle it off-the-cuff:

In the first turn of combat, you can choose to fall back in the sequence. So you can choose to go slower than your "tied" companion or you could choose to go last if you wanted to. Later in combat, if you wanted to change your spot (i.e., not just take a Wait), I might make you sacrifice a turn (i.e., take the spiffy "Do Nothing but Change My Spot in the Combat Sequence" maneuver). In your Watcher example, above, this might be worth the sacrifice (assuming the need for Move and Attack).

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Dalin

In the first turn of combat, you can choose to fall back in the sequence. So you can choose to go slower than your "tied" companion or you could choose to go last if you wanted to. Later in combat, if you wanted to change your spot (i.e., not just take a Wait), I might make you sacrifice a turn (i.e., take the spiffy "Do Nothing but Change My Spot in the Combat Sequence" maneuver). In your Watcher example, above, this might be worth the sacrifice (assuming the need for Move and Attack).

I'd probably let you move later in the sequence any time you wanted (possibly making you move your chair). Despite GURPS tying it to Basic Speed, turn order doesn't actually represent anything "real", it's just a convention to allow mere mortals to resolve stuff sequentially that is really overlapping.

Still, when you start messing with the turn sequence it is very important to remember that GURPS doesn't have game mechanically significant rounds. A lot of the time people who want to change turn ordering assume there is a universal round and expect it to do stuff that it will not. One key effect that may fool people here is if you move yourself to later in the sequence, this *does not reset* on later rounds, because there *are* no later rounds. If you wanted to move back to your old spot you'd need to delay your action again until then - effectively you'd get your second turn at the time somebody originally moving simultaneously with you got his third.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Still, when you start messing with the turn sequence it is very important to remember that GURPS doesn't have game mechanically significant rounds.

Yes! This is essential!

It simply isn't true that there's a "round" during which everybody acts, and that you can reorder within rounds. If there are four people – A, B, C, and D – who act in that order, this list is the combat sequence but not a "round":

A
B
C
D

A can't just decide "This round, I'll wait until C goes, and then next round, I'll act at my usual place." That is, A can't change things to:

B
C
A
D
—
A
B
C
D

That's because the "—" up there doesn't exist. The combat sequence flows constantly, like so:

A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D

The best A can do is take a Wait, which still happens at the usual place in the sequence but lets A possibly interrupt B, C, or D. And if A doesn't interrupt someone, the Wait is wasted. That is, the sequence is:

A chooses Wait
B chooses a maneuver (A may interrupt)
C chooses a maneuver (A may interrupt)
D chooses a maneuver (A may interrupt)
A chooses a maneuver and may not first "use up" the previous Wait if it wasn't used to interrupt B, C, or D, in order to get two maneuvers in a row

If A wants to act slowly for the entire battle, I'd allow it. Then the sequence would be:

B
C
A
D
B
C
A
D
B
C
A
D

If A wanted to switch back to the old place in the sequence, I'd insist on A missing a turn and remaining inactive until the next time A would act in the revised sequence:

B takes a standard maneuver
C takes a standard maneuver
A takes a standard maneuver
D takes a standard maneuver
B takes a standard maneuver
C takes a standard maneuver
A misses a turn
D takes a standard maneuver
A takes a standard maneuver
B takes a standard maneuver
C takes a standard maneuver
D takes a standard maneuver

Notice how B, C, and D each got three maneuvers while A got only two. One notable effect would be A being subject to possible attacks by D, B, C, and D again before getting a turn, choosing a maneuver, and resetting active defenses. That is, D might get two cracks at A. So it goes. It's the price A pays for giving up the initiative.

Which is to say, if you want to let people re-sequence to act more slowly than usual and/or return to their default location in the sequence, it should cost them a turn. It will never give them two turns in a row. It may well give an enemy two turns in a row, though!

The easy way to visualize this is to take the old sequence and the new one, set them one above the other, and insert a third one in between that completely omits the person changing speed. Thus, A could drop from first to third place by missing a turn:

A
B
C
D

B
C
D

B
C
A
D

and then return to first place, also by missing a turn:

B
C
A
D

B
C
D

A
B
C
D

[Tom H.]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Which is to say, if you want to let people re-sequence to act more slowly than usual and/or return to their default location in the sequence, it should cost them a turn. It will never give them two turns in a row. It may well give an enemy two turns in a row, though!

The easy way to visualize this is to take the old sequence and the new one, set them one above the other, and insert a third one in between that completely omits the person changing speed. Thus, A could drop from first to third place by missing a turn:

A
B
C
D

B
C
D

B
C
A
D

and then return to first place, also by missing a turn:

B
C
A
D

B
C
D

A
B
C
D

I'm not complaining, especially with how short one second can be, but it is interesting that A needs to lose a turn to become slower than a lower turn order.

Of course, losing a turn for speeding up is definitely warranted.

P.S. This was a very helpful official clarification.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

I'm not complaining, especially with how short one second can be, but it is interesting that A needs to lose a turn to become slower than a lower turn order.

Only if he wants to return to his original turn order. Otherwise he only loses the fraction of a turn between his old turn order and his new.

[ArchonShiva]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Only if he wants to return to his original turn order. Otherwise he only loses the fraction of a turn between his old turn order and his new.

While I agree with you that this would be sufficient, I don’t think Kromm does — look at his chart carefully.

I think that since turns don’t exist, you should be able to act at any Basic Speed number after your “expected” turn, but that becomes your Basic Speed for all future turns until you delay again. That includes delaying from 5.75 until 15.25 of “next turn”, because who cares?

Note that it makes tracking durations a tiny bit more difficult, but if the GM feels like you’re abusing that aspect, they should err on the side of screwing you.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

delaying from 5.75 until 15.25 of “next turn”, because who cares?

The phrase "lose a turn" only makes sense if you assume there's an extra round clock counting away, and that those round boundaries are important. When you delay, you might delay to a later spot in the same round -- in which case you didn't "lose" a turn, you just "delayed" it -- or you might delay to a spot after the arbitrary round boundary, in which case you "lost" your turn in the previous round to gain the opportunity to act "earlier".

But that notion of "earlier" is also a round-based artifact. Your "early" action still comes later than it would have. It's really a later action, not an earlier one. You can only call it "early" if you add another marker to measure against. That is, everyone else got a turn, you wait, and the table started going down the sequence again, and at least the first character took a turn. If that character hasn't acted, there's no way to tell the difference between "really late at the end of the previous turn" and "really early before anyone has acted in the current turn". That's just two different points of view of the same place in the sliding sequence.

In actuality, you're always acting later than you could have. And you always get your next turn, whenever that happens to come up. That next action is never "lost". There's no new Lose a Turn Maneuver that you have to take. You just wait. If you wait, people that aren't waiting might get to do more things. That's not an undesirable artifact or loophole in an quirk of a rules system. It's an entirely natural consequence of waiting. Wait long enough, events pass you by.