10-03-2019, 06:41 AM | #21 |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
I think MikMod's points emphasise how the rules are an abstraction and different groups map that abstraction to real life in slightly different ways. But contrary to some others above, I don't think the different approaches discussed so far threaten the game's integrity or anything so dramatic as that.
Let's take dodging as an example. In real life, is an archer going to know whether his potential targets are dodging or not? In my mind, yes. It's too late to start dodging a crossbow bolt after it's fired, you need to be bobbing and weaving before. On the other hand, what about a thrown weapon? Well, much less clear. In some real-life circumstances, a target could decide to take evasive action after the throw. One more -- in real life, will a swordsman know whether his potential targets will be defending or not? I'd say possibly so. To a much greater degree than dodging, defending could be in direct response to the attack. So straight away it's clear our groups' interpretation of the rules won't fit exactly to our views of reality. We allow archers to change targets freely (and targets that aren't fired on can likewise change freely). That makes Dodge map better to our ideas about "real life", but at some cost to the way we think Defend would work in "real life". It's not perfect for sure. If your group decides the other way, as some clearly do, and rule that an archer chooses his targets without knowing whether they are dodging or not, then maybe the overall effect (including how that works with defend) fits better with your ideas about "real life". But I think most would admit it's not perfect either. |
10-03-2019, 12:42 PM | #22 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
While I agree that people in combat do read each other's body language and respond to it, and that if players like the negotiation style of play described, they should play how they want, it also seems to me that:
1) If a fighter is basing their target choice on what others are doing, I don't think they're acting as soon as they could. That seems more like Delayed Actions (or the Wait maneuver in GURPS) than acting as soon as you can on your adjDX, especially if there's a multi-foe back-and-forth negotiation conversation representing it. Yes I can imagine you see someone start to dodge your attack and then switch target, but that would delay your attack. 2) I'm not convinced the attacker should win the negotiation (in fact I believe the opposite as I explained before), or that it should apply only if defenders say they defend, which seems implied. (Or can you say you attack someone, and if they DON"T say they dodge, then can you switch your target? Because that would seem to be a clever tactic too, in case your foe has a target they want you to attack (like an illusion, or something with Reverse Missiles or Iron Flesh on it). 3) It seems all rather messy and weird and in service to players who want to control and do the perfect thing. While it seems to me much cleaner to require actors to stick to their action, and then just ask if the target defends or not. 4) If one DOES accept the negotiation is how to play, and that attackers get to change their mind but defenders don't, then it seems to me a form that would save time would be that the attacker can ask which targets will dodge/defend if they attack them, and tell him all at once and let him pick. 5) But again, that seems weird, as it's sort of like then ultimately every player should technically be given that information about all their potential targets every turn, even if they're not attacking, since there would be nothing to stop a(n annoying) player from, every turn, saying they want to know whether every foe will defend or not if they happen to attack them, even though they may then claim their right to do whatever else they choose to do. |
10-03-2019, 03:10 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
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.
|
10-03-2019, 04:58 PM | #24 | |||||
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have a feeling your way is faster though, and it's tempting to try it! :) |
|||||
10-03-2019, 11:43 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Quote:
It's not that the hobgoblins are refusing to commit to an action or dragging their heels, it's that they can't. They are not allowed to until the higher DX figure, in this case the PC, has committed to and enacted theirs. If the PC Attacks one, then that Goblin can choose to Defend at that moment if it wants to, but having rolled the dice PC doesn't get to take the Attack back. Yes the PC can choose to Wait instead, that too is an option (LEITL p. 127, Waiting for an Opening -- An Optional Rule) but it is also a commitment just as picking Attack or Defend are commitments, and it also comes with constraints. If the PC picks Wait, it means he has picked a target he's waiting to attack next turn. He is allowed to Defend against that target (and only that target) should it Attack him later this turn, but otherwise PC is done, finished, and has no more choices until next turn. He isn't even allowed to move next turn, or he spoils the Wait and loses the DX bonus he was going to get, which would be the only reason to have picked Wait in the first place. Also regardless of what the PC picks, the goblins can't be shifting or changing facing now. The OP says this is the action phase we're in, so no more movement, not even Shifting, is allowed until next turn. If the OP had listed character DXs, it'd be easier to illustrate this. I'll give the PC adjDX 12 and the Hobgoblins adjDXs of 11 for A and 10 for B. adjDX round 12: Because the PC has adjDX 12 he has to pick his action now, or do nothing this turn. He may pick Wait in accordance with the rule mentioned above, but he cannot then change it this turn. Hobgoblins A & B can do nothing yet because this isn't their DX round, although if one is attacked it may elect to use the Defend option at that moment, and that ends its choices until next turn. Yeah, sure the player behind PC may ask what the Hobgoblins are planning to do. You may always ask :) And the response may be a laugh or a lie. In a teaching game being played for practice, the question wouldn't be out of line and the GM should respond with a helpful answer. adjDX round 11: Hobgoblin A (DX 11) has to pick his action now, or do nothing this turn. If he used Defend in the previous round, he can do nothing else at all. Otherwise Hobgoblin A is free to Attack PC now. Hobgoblin B can do nothing yet, this isn't his DX round. PC can't pick an option, he already had his chance to act last round. But if PC picked Wait (to attack Hobgoblin A) last round, then he is allowed to Defend if Hogoblin A now attacks PC. adjDX round 10: Hobgoblin B (DX 10) has to pick his action now, or do nothing this turn. If he used Defend in a previous round, he can do nothing else at all. Otherwise Hobgoblin B is free to Attack PC now. Hobgoblin A can do nothing, he had his chance to act last round. PC can't pick an option, he already had his chance to act two rounds ago. But if PC picked Wait (to attack Hobgoblin B) two rounds ago, then he is allowed to Defend if Hogoblin B now attacks PC. Turn over, start the next turn. You could say that the Defend and Dodge options, in their nature as reactive choices that may come out of turn on any round, are factoring in the body language of the opponents. Certainly the figure that is staring at and concentrating on a single enemy while Waiting for an opening to attack is as ready as can be to parry an attack suddenly coming from that same target. That all figures are allowed to declare Defend or Dodge at the moment they're attacked (provided they didn't move too far or already pick other options) just shows the rules already do something to take these things into account. The rationales I see to allow the PC all that latitude in the original example are all missing something: not everything has to be done in one turn. PC is perfectly entitled to do nothing, see what the enemy does, and then take an appropriate action. It's just that sequence of events (non-events?) will span the border line between one turn and the next. There's another optional rule that the OP may have been thinking about. LEITL (123) and Advanced Melee (22), Delayed Actions - An Optional Rule say that a higher DX figure may wait until a lower DX round during the same turn, to let someone else go first (as in waiting to receive an Aid spell before attempting to cast a spell). But the rule is pretty firm in stating the GM is to only allow delayed actions under special circumstances that warrant it, and should otherwise make everyone go in strict order by DX. So GMs clearly have the rules on their side should anyone try to exploit delayed actions for an unfair advantage.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
|
10-04-2019, 03:08 AM | #26 |
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
TL;DR: I'm happy to allow Delayed Actions, you're not. :)
|
10-04-2019, 05:30 AM | #27 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
If you don't want the infinite loop then what's the minimum word change to avoid it?
Mine is that players change their option when their turn to act arrives and players who have chosen dodge or defend have no turn to act.
__________________
-HJC |
10-04-2019, 07:40 AM | #28 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
This seems super simple to me: If you want to wait and watch your targets until you spot one who is not defending at your moment of attack, then you need to delay your action until later in the turn and see what, if anything, goblins A and B do when their normal turn to act comes up. If A and B both defend, then you are committed to a 4d attack roll, but at least you are safe from attack from them. If A attacks and B defends (or the other way around), then you obviously get a 3d attack roll at A, but must accept that A attacks you first. If both A and B attack you, then you get your choice of 3d attack roll targets, but at the cost of first receiving attacks from both of them (unless you choose to defend, which is always on the table). This is RAW, preserves the core concept that you can't force a person to commit to their action before their turn, and satisfies the other side's desire for attackers to get to 'read' what is going on before they pick targets for attacks. You can absolutely do that - just at the cost of no longer being able to both read everyone's actions and act before them (which strikes me as ridiculous; if you are watching them as they commit to what they are doing, then they just acted and you are playing catch-up).
|
10-04-2019, 08:19 AM | #29 | |
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Quote:
|
|
10-04-2019, 09:46 AM | #30 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Is your point that eventually someone has to 'blink' by committing to an action? If so, that is true of every combat turn of every situation (i.e., since all combatants have the option of deferring to act after an opponent). I don't believe this is a structural problem of the game simply because I don't believe it will ever happen that two or more players will insist on sitting on their hands until an opponent acts, come hell or high water. If it every happens at my table, I will simply walk away and tell them to call me when they are ready to play. Anyway, it would be a stupid decision in almost all cases; in the situation we are discussing it seems obvious to me that if the PC defers to see what his or her foes will do, then the goblins should obviously take the opportunity to attack.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|