Wait conditions and Maneuvers

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

My current line of thought is to strike 'after his first Maneuver'. For ATR >1, try to have additional friends so that someone else can do 'after his second Maneuver' and so forth.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If not sure if I'd allow that, as "a Maneuver" isn't actually something the character can perceive or that even really exists as a discrete entity outside of game mechanics.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you can perceive what maneuver someone took (and you can), you necessarily can perceive that they took a maneuver.

It may be defining it in meta-game terminology, but the same goes for 'when they AoA', so I don't feel any guilt there.


I expected someone would object to that Wait condition, though.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Except that you really can't perceive what maneuver they took. You can perceive that they stabbed you with their sword and they aren't going to be able to recover in time to defend effectively, or something.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

This seems to be an argument about phrasing, not about informational content.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Sure is. I don't like "When they take a manuever" as phrasing. I'd ask a player to rephrase in a less meta way.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I doubt you'd really appreciate having every possible Maneuver summarized at you in the trigger condition, so how would you like it to be done? Or do you really think this wording issue is a good basis for major effects on the mechanics?

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

In my opinion the problem with the trigger of 'after the enemy's first maneuver' isn't the wording, but that it's too broad and definitely too vague. The enemy could concentrate, or do nothing, does that trigger the wait? How do you know when they start or are done with doing nothing?

If anything the enemy does (or doesn't do) can trigger a wait, the potential downside of the wait is removed, which is that you might be waiting for something that never happens and lose your opportunity to act. I'm all for allowing a character to use "move within my range", "any attack" or "only All Out Attack" maybe even "if he stops attacking and looks like he's thinking about casting a spell" from another character to trigger a wait, but not "some arbitrary fraction of a second, as defined by a the game concept of a maneuver, into the enemy's turn"

There is nothing vague about the trigger. Vague would mean that it was possible to be uncertain as to when it applied. There is no way anyone at the table can be uncertain about when that trigger applies.

It is broad. It is certainly broad. I would contest that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with a broad Wait condition.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I like wait conditions to be described in terms of what the character is able to perceive. "When any of them come within reach of my halberd", "When the tiger is under the cage", "When I'm attacked", "When he starts casting a spell" and so on.

What maneuver your opponent took has been repeatedly characterized as public information that it's appropriate to act on. That is, it is something the character is able to perceive. PCs may have more information than what maneuver was taken, but unless they've got severe sensory limitations they don't have less.

Given that maneuvers are visible, you could have a page-long Wait condition composed primarily of in-character descriptions of every possible maneuver coupled together with 'or's. Or we could replace all of that with a single word.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'm not sure. Is "no metagame triggers" a major effect on the mechanics?

I do not believe there is anything metagame about this except for the phrasing.

I would be slightly apologetic about the phrasing if not for the involvement of ATR, which does things to the Maneuver sequence and its (already strained) relation to the hypothetical in-game timeline that are almost impossible to interface with in non-technical language.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It is broad. It is certainly broad. I would contest that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with a broad Wait condition.

Even "Whenever anything whatsoever happens that I want to react to"? In which case why would you ever do anything else? "When he takes a maneuver" is the same as "When he does anything at all" which I wouldn't allow either.

In a real fight, it's reasonable to try to do something specific to counter some anticipated move by your opponent. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt anything in response to anything your opponent does, in anything like a reactive sense, other than what doing it on your own turn already represents. At least in my experience of fisticuffs, armed sparring, and firefights.

What maneuver your opponent took has been repeatedly characterized as public information that it's appropriate to act on. That is, it is something the character is able to perceive. PCs may have more information than what maneuver was taken, but unless they've got severe sensory limitations they don't have less.

Yes, the PC perceives something that corresponds to a specific maneuver in GURPS but not the specific GURPS maneuver itself. If they did, then every martial art would teach "When your opponent All-Out-Attacks respond with a Telegraphic Attack!" in the real world.

Given that maneuvers are visible, you could have a page-long Wait condition composed primarily of in-character descriptions of every possible maneuver coupled together with 'or's. Or we could replace all of that with a single word.

I don't allow recursive if/then waits either. I'm willing to accommodate a single if/then/or at most. "If the tiger comes under the cage, I pull the lever. If it comes the other way, I run like hell!" is fine anything else is too complex generally.

I do not believe there is anything metagame about this except for the phrasing.

"A maneuver" seems metagame because maneuvers and turns are a game mechanical abstraction of continuous time and simultaneous action.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Even "Whenever anything whatsoever happens that I want to react to"? In which case why would you ever do anything else? "When he takes a maneuver" is the same as "When he does anything at all" which I wouldn't allow either.

In a real fight, it's reasonable to try to do something specific to counter some anticipated move by your opponent. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt anything in response to anything your opponent does, in anything like a reactive sense, other than what doing it on your own turn already represents. At least in my experience of fisticuffs, armed sparring, and firefights.

That would be a vague condition, not a broad one. Vague conditions are absolutely out. Vague reactions are also absolutely out, though there is a little bit of flex allowed there (like choosing exactly where you step to and what attack options you use). There is nothing vague about the condition I propose.

Broad conditions are ones that apply to a lot of different potential phenomena. Say, 'if I see anything move'. Perfectly good Wait condition. Quite likely to go off if anything even vaguely interesting happens. Of course, by taking it you commit to action when it is fulfilled, even if your action is 'I shoot it' and the trigger turns out to be your friend. (Yes, there's a special rule for waiting to shoot stuff that would add a massive penalty to this, for some reason. Not the point.)

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yes, the PC perceives something that corresponds to a specific maneuver in GURPS but not the specific GURPS maneuver itself. If they did, then every martial art would teach "When your opponent All-Out-Attacks respond with a Telegraphic Attack!" in the real world.

Terminology is fungible. A different selection of words with the same meaning...has the same meaning.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't allow recursive if/then waits either. I'm willing to accommodate a single if/then/or at most. "If the tiger comes under the cage, I pull the lever. If it comes the other way, I run like hell!" is fine anything else is too complex generally.

I wouldn't either. There was no recursion or if/then there. Just a single (hypothetical) very long statement defining the condition. Equivalent to, "when the enemy takes a Maneuver", but decompressing 'Maneuver' into a comprehensive in-character description.

EDIT: In fact, I wouldn't allow the two ifs, probably. I don't think Wait authorizes even that much flexibility.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

"A maneuver" seems metagame because maneuvers and turns are a game mechanical abstraction of continuous time and simultaneous action.

Well, that's where I get extra unapologetic on account of ATR being involved, because turns with ATR are hilariously unlike any reasonable abstraction of continuous time and simultaneous action.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That would be a vague condition, not a broad one. Vague conditions are absolutely out. Vague reactions are also absolutely out, though there is a little bit of flex allowed there (like choosing exactly where you step to and what attack options you use). There is nothing vague about the condition I propose.

"If he takes a maneuver" is equivalent to "if he does anything or nothing" since he has to take a maneuver (even Do Nothing is a maneuver in GURPS).

Terminology is fungible. A different selection of words with the same meaning...has the same meaning.

Nobody trains to respond to anything as general as a GURPS All-Out-Attack, whatever you call it. They train to respond to a whole host of cues that GURPS abstracts into letting you know what Maneuvers are chosen.

Equivalent to, "when the enemy takes a Maneuver", but decompressing 'Maneuver' into a comprehensive in-character description.

"If he does anything or nothing" doesn't require a page. It's only six words, yet it is the same as "If he takes a Maneuver".

Well, that's where I get extra unapologetic on account of ATR being involved, because turns with ATR are hilariously unlike any reasonable abstraction of continuous time and simultaneous action.

I don't really understand what's wrong with "If he attacks".

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

"If he takes a maneuver" is equivalent to "if he does anything or nothing" since he has to take a maneuver (even Do Nothing is a maneuver in GURPS).

It is nonetheless not even slightly vague. If I tell you, as GM, that I want to attack when the enemy takes a Maneuver, you know exactly what that means. Don't you?

Obviously, the point of the exercise in the 'when' rather than the 'if'. But then, that's the purpose of Wait in general. If you weren't trying to hit a particular point in the sequence, you'd either act immediately or act next turn.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Nobody trains to respond to anything as general as a GURPS All-Out-Attack, whatever you call it. They train to respond to a whole host of cues that GURPS abstracts into letting you know what Maneuvers are chosen.

I'm not really sure what you point here is.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

"If he does anything or nothing" doesn't require a page. It's only six words, yet it is the same as "If he takes a Maneuver".

It isn't really. I'm not sure it means anything, but if it does it certainly could be construed to include any free action, and arguably also to include not taking a free action at any given moment.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't really understand what's wrong with "If he attacks".

Well, that's somewhat beside the point of this thread, to my view, but what's wrong with "If he attacks" is that it doesn't go off if he does something other than attack.

Let me give you a out-of-game-sequence view of what I see going on here, by the way...
A character with ATR gets through actions in slices of a second that take normal people the full second, or close to it. So you have to keep the pressure on at a higher frequency than you do regular people to keep them honest. To that end, you have a bunch of people engaging in staggered attacks such that the ATR-user never has too much of a break.
I'm pretty sure the approach I outlined is literally the only way the rules permit doing this, thanks to ATR bunching up all your maneuvers into one lump.

That said, I also think 'X takes a Maneuver' is a perfectly reasonable Wait trigger in general.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It is nonetheless not even slightly vague. If I tell you, as GM, that I want to attack when the enemy takes a Maneuver, you know exactly what that means. Don't you?

Yes, I'm not saying it's vague. I'm saying it is both too broad and too meta.

I'm not really sure what you point here is.

The character really can't tell what GURPS manuever the opponent is taking. The character can tell how the opponent shifts their hips or extends their elbows, or looks at a target. The player can't do anything with this information because it's below the resolution of the abstraction, so the player gets to know what maneuver is chosen, but this is only a abstraction of the much more fungible sensory information that the character is getting. The character can be wrong, and fail their attack role or active defense because they read these cues incorrectly. The player never gets incorrect information about the opponent's maneuver choices though and instead simulates the possibility of wrong-guessing by randomizing the attack or defense (along of course with other factors that we abstract by randomizing in games).

It isn't really. I'm not sure it means anything, but if it does it certainly could be construed to include any free action, and arguably also to include not taking a free action at any given moment.

Manuevers are mandatory in GURPS, free actions aren't. Free actions aren't relevant, because they are optional and don't replace the requirement to choose a Maneuver.

Well, that's somewhat beside the point of this thread, to my view, but what's wrong with "If he attacks" is that it doesn't go off if he does something other than attack.

That's the risk you take when you choose to Wait! "If anything at all happens" doesn't risk not being able to act at all.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yes, I'm not saying it's vague. I'm saying it is both too broad and too meta.

I do not think 'too broad' is in any way possible.

I also don't think it's meta at all.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The character really can't tell what GURPS manuever the opponent is taking. The character can tell how the opponent shifts their hips or extends their elbows, or looks at a target. The player can't do anything with this information because it's below the resolution of the abstraction, so the player gets to know what maneuver is chosen, but this is only a abstraction of the much more fungible sensory information that the character is getting. The character can be wrong, and fail their attack role or active defense because they read these cues incorrectly. The player never gets incorrect information about the opponent's maneuver choices though and instead simulates the possibility of wrong-guessing by randomizing the attack or defense (along of course with other factors that we abstract by randomizing in games).

Okay, so do you insist that Wait conditions be phrased in terms of things which the players cannot know about or interpret?

...Or what, again, is your point here?

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Manuevers are mandatory in GURPS, free actions aren't. Free actions aren't relevant, because they are optional and don't replace the requirement to choose a Maneuver.

Relevant to what? Free actions certainly can trigger Waits, so they're very relevant to the question of whether the trigger condition you put forth does what I want.

It's not relevant if your point is to establish that there's no chance the Wait will not trigger. There actually is, because the trigger actually needs to be in terms of perceptible things...so if for some reason the PC can't perceive the ATR character, they won't be able to trigger. But generally speaking, yes, that Wait is going to trigger.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

That's the risk you take when you choose to Wait! "If anything at all happens" doesn't risk not being able to act at all.

Meh. Not an important factor at all.

Wait gives you the incredible privilege of acting later than you otherwise would. In a way that you have to specify pretty narrowly ahead of time. And you're not allowed some of the actions you'd normally be able to take besides. This is supposed to be so powerful that you're also required to make sure there's a risk of your action not coming up at all? I don't see it, and the rules don't say anything of the sort either.

In fact, the rules rather suggest that you don't have to pick speculative Wait conditions. Basic mentions using Wait to coordinate with slower friends. And Tactical Shooting talks about Wait "allowing faster teammembers to move after slower ones when that would be convenient". When enhanced with the Battle Drills perk to permit Move or Move and Attack maneuvers, but Battle Drills doesn't change permitted Wait triggers at all.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Then why ever use any other Wait triggers? "When somebody takes a Maneuver that I don't like" is the all time everyday, evergreen trigger for anything. Accept no substitutes.

But now you've made it vague again!

"When somebody takes a Maneuver" is not a trigger for all purposes. In fact, it's nearly useless, since it goes off as soon as the next character in sequence starts their maneuver.

"When somebody takes a Maneuver that I don't like" would be awesome, sure, since you get to decide on the spot whether or not you like any given Maneuver someone takes. However, it's blatantly illegal and totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Before they can take a free action, they've already chosen a Maneuver, which triggers the wait, either way.

Are you only allowed to do any free actions on your own turn?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I do not think 'too broad' is in any way possible.

I also don't think it's meta at all.

Then why ever use any other Wait triggers? "When somebody takes a Maneuver that I don't like" is the all time everyday, evergreen trigger for anything. Accept no substitutes.

Okay, so do you insist that Wait conditions be phrased in terms of things which the players cannot know about or interpret?

No, I think they should be in terms that the player knows that the character can perceive that are also meaningful to the player. Like "When somebody comes within reach of my halberd".

...Or what, again, is your point here?

Again, in a real fight, you can try to take advantage of specific anticipated move, by responding in particular way. You can't be meaningfully anticipating everything that might happen, at least not in a way that isn't better simulated by acting on your next turn.

Relevant to what?

Relevant to whether "Chooses any Maneuver" is equivalent to "Does something, or nothing".

Free actions certainly can trigger Waits, so they're very relevant to the question of whether the trigger condition you put forth does what I want.

Before they can take a free action, they've already chosen a Maneuver, which triggers the wait, either way.

It's not relevant if your point is to establish that there's no chance the Wait will not trigger. There actually is, because the trigger actually needs to be in terms of perceptible things...so if for some reason the PC can't perceive the ATR character, they won't be able to trigger. But generally speaking, yes, that Wait is going to trigger.

Even if the opponent chooses Do Nothing.

Meh. Not an important factor at all.

I think it is.

Wait gives you the incredible privilege of acting later than you otherwise would. In a way that you have to specify pretty narrowly ahead of time. And you're not allowed some of the actions you'd normally be able to take besides. This is supposed to be so powerful that you're also required to make sure there's a risk of your action not coming up at all? I don't see it, and the rules don't say anything of the sort either.

Originally Posted by B366

Do nothing unless a particular
event you specified in advance
occurs before your next turn;

If "any Maneuver" is an allowed trigger than it will always occur before your next turn. You will never have to Do Nothing instead. Choosing a Maneuver is mandatory.

Originally Posted by B366

You must specify exactly what your
action will be when you take the Wait
maneuver, and what will trigger it. For
instance, “I’ll make an All-Out Attack
(Determined) with my sword on the
first orc to move toward me.”

Not: "I'll make an All-Out Attack (Determined) with my sword on the first orc who takes any Maneuver at all"

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

But now you've made it vague again!

"When somebody takes a Maneuver" is not a trigger for all purposes. In fact, it's nearly useless, since it goes off as soon as the next character in sequence starts their maneuver.

"When somebody takes a Maneuver that I don't like" would be awesome, sure, since you get to decide on the spot whether or not you like any given Maneuver someone takes. However, it's blatantly illegal and totally irrelevant.

Okay. "Whenever anybody I don't like chooses a Maneuver" or "Whenever that one guy I want to fight chooses his Maneuver".

Are you only allowed to do any free actions on your own turn?

As far as I know.

Originally Posted by B363

“Free actions” are things you
can do during any maneuver.