Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop

[larsdangly]

I think the OP's reading of the passage in LEITL 102 is, like a lot of these sorts of discussions, an extrapolation that can't be logically 'disproven', but I think violates the intent of the rules and my intuitions about how one should run the game. TFT invites this sort of issue because its game play has the concrete specificity of a moderately complex board game, but the rules are written with a looseness and openness to interpretation typical of old school roleplaying games. As a result it is inevitable that you will have to exercise judgement. I would say the most useful approach is to search for judgements that keep the action flowing smoothly and retain the basic balance and fairness that make the game work as a competitive combat game (i.e., any ruling that results in a decision paralysis or a 'trick' that can be gamed for advantage is probably a poor ruling).

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by RobW

A very passionate defense, but I still disagree. I don't believe the rules spell out such an explicit sequence on this point. I don't mind being proven wrong.

As I said above, I see nothing wrong with the attacker changing his target if his original target says they will defend if attacked. And then if not attacked, that original target is not obliged to defend. Fine. I don't see the rule claimed to be violated by playing this way. I can say with confidence that we've played that way for decades and never had an issue. There certainly is no infinite loop -- all our games finished. :)

Ok, yes, it is quite possible to play that way without problems (as long as you don't have a player doing what hcobb suggested), and clearly you prefer that reading.

I think it is not 100% clear, but personally I find it the more natural interpretation that when your adjDX comes up and a figure claims their right to act as soon as they can, before others can act, that what they say they do at that point is what they do - it's too late to change what they are doing because they're already doing it. Other figures can react "to meet changing conditions" as the original rules put it in the clarifying Changing Options section so many of us lament being removed in the Legacy edition. The changing condition being that the attacker is actually acting so their attack is already starting to happen because they are doing it. So to my mind, them taking that action has to exist at that point to be reacted to, it's not just a pre-declared likely intention.

And of course, it removes any back-and-forth of "if A does X, B and C say they will do Y, so then A reconsiders... and finds out in a moment that if A does Z, B and C say they will do Q", potentially etc etc.

Since I tend to run large battles and like players to say what they do when it's their turn so the action can flow, and since I don't think a back and forth discussion of who does what in what case matches the supposed situation of someone taking action before others take action, I prefer this reading both logically and for the effect on play.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by Skarg

O..I find it the more natural interpretation that when your adjDX comes up and a figure claims their right to act as soon as they can, before others can act, that what they say they do at that point is what they do - it's too late to change what they are doing because they're already doing it. ...

I completely agree with this; I think any other ruling just creates needless chaos. If you want to see how later-acting figures will act, then defer your turn and act after them. I really dislike the notion that you get to play both sides of the street: acting first yet responding to your opponent's action on that turn. This strikes me as both unfair and contrary to the intent of the initiative rules.

[kjamma4]

Originally Posted by RobW

Sure they can, anything otherwise is a house rule.

There is no infinite loop.
PC: I attack Hobgoblin A.
GM: If attacked, Hobgoblin A will Defend.
PC: Well then I attack Hobgoblin B.
GM: If attacked, Hobgoblin B will Defend.
PC: Hmm, this means I'm going to have to choose A or B and accept that the one I choose will Defend and the other won't. I can do that and it is no big deal.

Why would they have to choose A or B? If your interpretation is correct, they could choose Option C (D/E/F) as well.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by RobW

A very passionate defense, but I still disagree. I don't believe the rules spell out such an explicit sequence on this point. I don't mind being proven wrong.

As I said above, I see nothing wrong with the attacker changing his target if his original target says they will defend if attacked. And then if not attacked, that original target is not obliged to defend.

But RobW, I don't agree that we disagree! :) I honestly see it your way.

Yeah, I defended the sanctity of the turn sequence in very rigorous terms, for purposes of refuting the infinite loop suggestion here and now. In play, I can't imagine being so hard-ass as to castigate anyone for talking about changing options or having a little back-and-forth over "if I do this and you do that, then maybe I should do this thing instead". When players are interacting with each other, and with the rules to that extent, that's gold. That's what I want to see. I'm not going to forbid anything unless it's clearly an exploit to circumvent the spirit of the game. And maybe if it takes over 5 minutes, then I'll say "Okay guys, make your decision!"

The example of a PC acting so obstreperously as in hcobb's original example probably would get me testy, but then it would never really get that far.

I wouldn't have told the PC anything about what Hobgoblin B was going to do. When the PC said "I'm attacking A" the first time, I'd have said okee dokee, pick up 4 dice and roll, because A is Defending." I'd say nothing about what B is planning to do afterwards, and if the PC asked me what B would do, I'd have said roll that attack on A and then you'll find out.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I really dislike the notion that you get to play both sides of the street: acting first yet responding to your opponent's action on that turn. This strikes me as both unfair and contrary to the intent of the initiative rules.

I'm not sure if you're referring to any specific proposal here, but.. yes, that is obviously unfair, but also not at all what I (or anyone else AFAIK) discussed above.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Yeah, I defended the sanctity of the turn sequence in very rigorous terms, for purposes of refuting the infinite loop suggestion here and now. In play, I can't imagine being so hard-ass as to castigate anyone for talking about changing options or having a little back-and-forth over "if I do this and you do that, then maybe I should do this thing instead". When players are interacting with each other, and with the rules to that extent, that's gold. That's what I want to see. I'm not going to forbid anything unless it's clearly an exploit to circumvent the spirit of the game.

We agree on that for sure!

And sounds like we agree on the nothing-is-locked-in-until-the-dice-are-rolled approach, although the groups I play in are evidently more extreme/commited on that than others here.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by RobW

I'm not sure if you're referring to any specific proposal here, but.. yes, that is obviously unfair, but also not at all what I (or anyone else AFAIK) discussed above.

My understanding is that this is exactly what is being proposed in the OP and discussed in the rest of the thread: In short, the idea is that you get to pick your option based on knowledge of the option taken by someone who acts later in the turn. That amounts to forcing the later acting person to commit to an action before you act, which violates the principle that you are free to chose your action up to the moment when you act. For this reason I think that the OP's idea is explicitly against the meaning of the rules (though I acknowledge that the wording is ambiguous enough that it isn't crazy to read it the other way).

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

My understanding is that this is exactly what is being proposed in the OP and discussed in the rest of the thread: In short, the idea is that you get to pick your option based on knowledge of the option taken by someone who acts later in the turn. That amounts to forcing the later acting person to commit to an action before you act, which violates the principle that you are free to chose your action up to the moment when you act. For this reason I think that the OP's idea is explicitly against the meaning of the rules (though I acknowledge that the wording is ambiguous enough that it isn't crazy to read it the other way).

Yes, this is another line of reasoning (in addition to the ones I mentioned before) that have me convinced that the intention of the rules is the figure taking an action can't change their mind after others react to their action.

Otherwise there can be a kind of "negotiation" which doesn't seem to me to match the situation supposedly happening. (At least, my imagination has a hard time visualizing it that way . . . I suppose one might think fighters are in a kind of negotiation with their body language and foodwork which could be thought to be abstractly represented by these negotiations.)

In the end it's a matter of play style preference. Some players may want to be able to do that sort of negotiation (especially when learning, or in a tense situation with a beloved PC who wants to change their mind after learning what the enemy reaction to their move is), but others may be annoyed by other players doing that during the action.

[MikMod]

This situation seems pretty straightforward. The PC has higher DX which I interpret as being quicker or having a bit more initiative in this local situation, I.e. They can act first or wait, while the goblins cannot decide to act first. Clearly the goblins don't want to get hit and that would be obvious from their body language. So if the player asks 'what are they doing?' - which is kinda their right as the fastest actor - it will be clear the goblins are primarily in defensive mode, cautious but ready to strike if the opportunity presents. In game terms, they've both defaulted to the defend option, but if they don't need to defend, obviously they could take an opportunity strike and switch option to attack.

Direct combat options for the PC would be to defend themselves getting ready to overcome a defend with the look-for-an-opening bonus, attack one goblin knowing they're defending and risking a counter attack from the other, or step back and try to manoeuvre a one-on-one situation.

Or they could say they're waiting for the goblins to act first, in which case I'd say they're defending and looking for an opening and its back to the player, or maybe one could shift round to his side. If the player doesnt decide then we don't go round and round, the turn expires without the player acting. Time marches on and all that... :). Remember the goblins would have achieved their primary goal of not being attacked, so they're happy. The GM doesn't need to try and game the situation on their behalf to get them some attack on the basis that the player 'has to choose an option' - the PC should be allowed to run down the clock on the turn if they're faster and the goblins refuse to commit to an action.

Visualizing this is easy. It's a standoff. Some footwork and feints but nobody committing to an actual attack.

If the stalemate continued over more than one turn, I'd be checking the rest of the combat to see what the goblins would do. If their mates are winning then they'd be very happy in a standoff situation, they'd just wait until reinforcements came. If it's going badly then either they'd both go for it and attack, or they'd disengage and run. In any case they would be trying to get into side or rear hexes.

Like RobW all my games have actually finished, so I think we're ok!