[TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

However, this solution still retains the following issue: (Skill trumps Wait)

I thought about that, and I think this is a good case for a special case.

If the Waiter on the receiving end of slicing the pie knows exactly what's going on and what to expect - and more importantly exactly when to expect it - it's possible he should get a larger advantage on that initial QC.

But if he just knows someone might come around the corner at some random time in the future, then the slicer and he are in the same boat - looking at a partially revealed target skirting the corner, back from the wall, both looking for trouble. I think a cascading contest of Per is the right thing here.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

The thing that surprised me most in going through it again - and I'd forgotten how old this thread was - is that Step and Wait wasn't mentioned explicitly. Mostly, the TS description seems to be written around Step and All-Out Attack (Determined), but there's enough wiggle in it that it's not clear.

TS pretty explicitly references Opportunity Fire when describing what the 'ambusher' can do to the 'assaulter':

Originally Posted by Opportunity Fire

If you have a ranged weapon, you
may watch a specified area and attack
as soon as a target presents itself. This
is called “opportunity fire.”
To use opportunity fire, you must
take the Wait maneuver. You must
stand still and watch for a target in a
specified area. You must face the area
you are “covering.” You may do noth-
ing else.
If a target appears in the specified
area, you must attack it (you can try to
discriminate, but this will give a penal-
ty to hit – see below). Your attack takes
place immediately.

That seems to very clearly forbid movement of any sort for the opportunist; if the opportunist can't do it, surely the assaulter can't either.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

TS pretty explicitly references Opportunity Fire when describing what the 'ambusher' can do to the 'assaulter':
That seems to very clearly forbid movement of any sort for the opportunist; if the opportunist can't do it, surely the assaulter can't either.

Now you're going in circles.

You need to accept something: the rule was written with the option for Step and Wait allowed. We vetted with with Sean - or rather, HANS vetted this with Sean in the draft process and gave him permission to add the step. The unfortunate thing for clarity and framing the debate is that (as I mention in my blog post) the allowance of this seems to be implicit rather than explicit.

Second, the -2 (or higher if you like; I considered -2 for movement AND -2 for a sort of pop-up attack for -4 to the QC , but that seemed overly harsh) provides for the movement.

I'd suggest walking through this scanario on a tactical map and looking for just how little exposed extra map there is on each step as the pie is sliced.

As to the "but steppenwait is the only thing that will ever be used!" question: well, that's fine with me. There are turn-order artifacts that step and wait fixes that exist in the RAW, so it's really a matter of taste.

One thing that wouuld be interesting, but I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea, would be to allow the Wait-and-Aim guy to add his Acc to the Perception roll, or maybe Acc-2, min 0. That gives a mechanical advantage to the guy who chooses the frozen Wait. Thing is, I'm not sure if that works in reality-ville.Does using an Acc 5 rifle give you an advatage over a PPQ with Acc 2 or 3 in your ability to detect a target coming around a corner? I'd think not.

Alternately, frozen Wait couuld perhaps claim a bonus to the Per contest of up to +3 for repeated Evaluates, which would make the net QC delta 5ve points - enough that you will really need/want to be a truly expert room-clearing guy to win that.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Now you're going in circles.

You need to accept something: the rule was written with the option for Step and Wait allowed. We vetted with with Sean - or rather, HANS vetted this with Sean in the draft process and gave him permission to add the step. The unfortunate thing for clarity and framing the debate is that (as I mention in my blog post) the allowance of this seems to be implicit rather than explicit.

Hmm. This is something that sounds extremely unlike what the text says (i.e. the reference to being hit by Opportunity Fire, which is pretty explicitly non-steppable etc.). Of course, I haven't been in the playtest, nor am I Sean, so I don't know what is written between the lines (yet).

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hmm. This is something that sounds extremely unlike what the text says (i.e. the reference to being hit by Opportunity Fire, which is pretty explicitly non-steppable etc.). Of course, I haven't been in the playtest, nor am I Sean, so I don't know what is written between the lines (yet).

Just go back and read the two posts by Sean around post 9 of this thread, and he confirms it. I do note in my blog post that the lack of explicit mention (there's a drive-by in the form of "if neither of you took Waits" ) and almost narrativeish descrtiption rather than a step-by-step mechanical guide makes discussions like this one regrettably unavoidable.

The second part of this is that Sean and the other authors do not write rules for mindless automatons and in a way where every case is always explicitly covered, consistent with ever other book ever written regardless of scenrario, and accounting for all possible contrived edge cases.

Step and Wait allows for movign slowly and deliberately through an area, covering a line or arc. It prevents artifacts like another combatant being able to sneak through your line because your "turn" happened to end at a particular arbitrary moment in time, allowing a rules exploit. It allows an extra couple of Quick Contests that might currently be a bit too much in favor of the attacker, which there are now two suggestions on how to fix: a blanket -2 penalty to the stepper, and up to +3 Evaluate bonus for the stationary participant.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Just go back and read the two posts by Sean around post 9 of this thread, and he confirms it. I do note in my blog post that the lack of explicit mention (there's a drive-by in the form of "if neither of you took Waits" ) and almost narrativeish descrtiption rather than a step-by-step mechanical guide makes discussions like this one regrettably unavoidable.

The second part of this is that Sean and the other authors do not write rules for mindless automatons and in a way where every case is always explicitly covered, consistent with ever other book ever written regardless of scenrario, and accounting for all possible contrived edge cases.

Hey now. The thing with RPGs is that we can do anything. I could give people who use Wait +2 to Sex Appeal rolls. The question is what's legitimate. Information in the source material is assumed legitimate unless it stinks to high heaven, and so we want it to be sufficient for play. In this case, the explicit material in the book is not sufficient. We are united in our regret that TS didn't make steppenwait explicit, but we are where we are. Neither my desire to use legitimate rules in my games nor my instinct to question rules that are found outside the books, and the broader implications thereof if they're incorporated, make me a mindless automaton. Consider it a compliment to SJGames' editorial staff that we prefer material that they've taken a look at to other ideas, even from the same author.

Regarding pie-slicing, if it's a contrived edge case, then it's an edge case that Hans devoted over 400 words to contriving. If you're referring to the non-slicing implications of steppenwait, Vicky quoted some design logic about the shift from 3e to 4e that make clear that, in fact, the potential of steppenwait to privilege skill over preparation had been judged and found undesirable.

[Dwarf99]

I always just let my players spend Wildcard points on a failure if they engaged a bad target while forgoing a wait.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by McAllister

Hey now. The thing with RPGs is that we can do anything. I could give people who use Wait +2 to Sex Appeal rolls. The question is what's legitimate. Information in the source material is assumed legitimate unless it stinks to high heaven, and so we want it to be sufficient for play. In this case, the explicit material in the book is not sufficient. We are united in our regret that TS didn't make steppenwait explicit, but we are where we are. Neither my desire to use legitimate rules in my games nor my instinct to question rules that are found outside the books, and the broader implications thereof if they're incorporated, make me a mindless automaton. Consider it a compliment to SJGames' editorial staff that we prefer material that they've taken a look at to other ideas, even from the same author.

My point is that the rules are guidelines to be used or discarded as is appropriate for genre, play style, and what's right at the moment. What Vicky often seems to be looking for is a black-and-white answer, no assumptions, no cases where a rule is not applicable, and despite the artificial nature of a turn-based game with discretized skills and actions, no artifacts.

What seems to be missing is simply a notion that the attacker steps and if a target presents itself, he shoots. If not, he stands ready in case a target does present itself before his next artificially descretized action. In game terms, you take a Step and Attack, which turns into a Wait if there ain't no one to shoot...or a Step and Wait, which instantly transitions to an attack if there's a target to hand. Either would work with a little GM elbow grease, and Kromm noted that the Step and Wait is the solution discussed with Hans.

The fact that you're revealing so little of the room at a time, and that both parties in the Step-and-Wait vs. Wait will more or less at the same time see each other coming in about the same slice of vision means that even though normally a Wait is privileged over the incoming action, both mechanics and verisimilitude suggest that a contest of Per-based skills (including Per-based Per) is a good way to execute this.

The mindless automaton comment is directed at a way of looking at rules as if they're the whole of everything, and if any interpretation or fuzziness is encountered, that's a problem with the rules as always being not explicit enough. GURPS is always stated to have a strong Rule Zero leaning, despite the mountains of guidelines written (and I've written my share), one must always remember that rules are guidelines, and also that different solutions appeal to different people. Langy and Ulzgoroth, for example, shrugged this off a while back and said "it's fine as-is, or take a -2, who cares?" more or less.

Since I devoted four hours and 3,500 words to the issue, I think we're in agreement that more clarity is useful in this case, and I tried to provide it - at least according to my own sensibilties.

The contrived edge case is that the assumption for the Waiting character is a degree of assumed omniscience and focus on his part that doesn't comport with how these pie-slicing events go down. Especially when they go down as conducted by experts.

Vicky quoted some design logic about the shift from 3e to 4e that make clear that, in fact, the potential of steppenwait to privilege skill over preparation had been judged and found undesirable.

In a face-to-face melee confrontation where both combatants have full view of each other, I agree with Peter's assessment (picking on Peter because I believe it was he who was quoted). In the case of stepping around a corner where both combatants are being revealed at the same time to each other, I feel that a Quick Contest is appropriate in this case, and (as I've mentioned) have provided several options to slant the contest in favor of the stationary waiting person.

Finally, we have now spent over 60 posts on a 2-year-old thread because a quibble was brought up that despite every other case in GURPS where the maneuver is what it is, and movement is just an integral and analog part of it, an arbitrary assumption was made in the necro itself that the Step and the Wait are distinct and sequential only in this case. So yeah, if I seem a bit exasperated that many solutions have been offered by willing interlocutors and the only feedback is "yeah, well THIS other rule on p. XX is a problem, what are YOU going to do to fix it for me?" I plead guilty.

So I'm out, having offered a solution to the problem.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, normally, when you Wait, something external has to happen for it to be triggered. If it doesn't happen, you don't get to use your conditional action. If you say you want to chop the enemy when the enemy starts swinging his sword, and the enemy just freezes, you wasted a Wait. That's the price of being pre-emptive, among other things. And normally, you can't do anything while Waiting that would set the trigger condition to 'true'. But with a Step that can be used while the trigger-checker is already primed, you can set up a condition that you yourself can fulfill, e.g. become in Reach 1 from an enemy (which suddenly brings back the ability to trump an enemy Wait that existed in 3e).

BTW, ability to arbitrarily trigger one's Waits is also something that was done away with. Here's a quote from 3e so that you see for yourself what I'm comparing to:

You also force Waiters to take the extremely situational and optional gamble offered in Martial Arts (for 4e):

Still not sure how any of that truly limits wait then step attack over wait and step then attack.

However as I said before I think Wait is one of those rules we all see a bit differently because of the it's inbuilt (and necessary) ambiguity.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The tradeoffs betwen Step-while-Waiting, Step-then-Wait, and normal Wait do not compare to the tradeoffs between a normal Wait and a normal Attack.

I agree but I'm not sure why they'd be required to, they are different things and there will be different reasons to chose them at different times.

To be honest I think you looking for the platonic ideal of balanced in abstract, but ignoring how all this works in play where contest is king.

Neither do I see how your point is relevant to my point that yes you might end up swapping some Attack and wait, for Step & wait and Wait, but that doesn't remove tactical choice. I agree with you point that adding another compromise manoeuvre will mean basic attack will probably be less widely used, but that's like saying MA adding defensive attack and committed attacks made normal attack less widely used. I.e I'm sure it's true, but I'm not sure it's a problem.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If the bullet connects. You can also risk having one's head chopped off in a TL3 mêlée. If the ax connects.

Yes, but you have to be standing within 1-2 yard for that to happen, you can parry it, the axe is what doing what 1d+3 - 2d+2, I can get DR 7+ on the head (plus the skull) petty easily etc.

It's rather different for main battle rifles in TL5+ vs. standard helmets and armour. Have you played much WW2 era stuff?

or put it this way no one's going to bother slicing the pie for a guy standing in the middle of the room with an axe, well not unless it's a very, very, small room anyway

[Erling]

I somewhat digress from Slicing the Pie, but I'd like to bring an EXAMPLE in favour of Step-and-Wait.

Cyberpunk Julie Electrica's turn has begun. She's absolutely sure (possibly one of her mates told her via radio and then passed out) that her enemy, Ripperjack, is going to rush inside the room unless she will shoot him (it doesn't matter why it's so important for her - any GM can invent hundred reasons). She has Move 6, so she can't reach Ripperjack on her turn with Move and Attack. If she takes any other maneuver, Rippejack, who's Move is 7, will run into the room unharmed. She can't "cover" the doorway from her current position, so she needs to move 1 yard in order to assume shooting position.

Sure, a player who plays Julie Electrica could announce "I step and Attack after I hear that Ripperjack gets near the doorway", but it's doesn't look very sensible - overwatching implies vision, not hearing. Julie Electrica will use her eyes to shoot after all. Also hearing can fail more easily, while having the enemy in a plain sight is a better option.
So, what she's gonna do? Of course, Step and Wait! Because if Julie can hear Ripperjack (*triggered*), step and shoot him, why on earth she shouldn't be able to step, see Ripperjack (*triggered*) and shoot him?

Also Aim allows a step, but realistically stepping and aiming isn't that different from stepping and waiting - generally, you just step and point your gun in a designated direction. If one can Aim and Wait (B390), why shouldn't there be a Step? Sure, Aim won't bring benefits anyway if shooter won't be aiming for at least one full second, but that doesn't change the matter.

Here Kromm spoke well about using movement portion of declared reaction during Wait maneuver (before reaction is triggered - if it will ever be triggered). And not only Step, but also Move/2 for AoA.

There is no problem if characters use Step and Wait (or even Move and Wait) all the time - that is what gunfighters do when they move in a hostile environment. This matter has been discussed in the aforementioned thread as well.