Delay Delay Delay

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by tesuji

Keneton...

 

in your is it genre... you left out "and takes an action" between delaying and the abort.

 

regarding the whole issue of "is it genre to have the rules prevent abortive actions soon after an action is taken"... is IRRELEVENT.

 

The rules already have such a delay. For whatever time is left between action and end of segment, you cannot abort. PERIOD. If you act on dex 30, then you cannot abort to save the peons until next segment, some 29 dex tics later.

 

Thats in and accepted.

 

Saying that this count does not go away if you delay until the end of the segment is no more "not genre than that."

 

As for dex count and init, i am certain that in your games, you use the dex of the characters, as hero suggests, to determine the order actions occur within the segment. Do you call them init or dex count or tics? beats me, but they are there, they are used, THEY DO EXIST.

 

If all you want to do is argue glossary, go for it dude.

 

If your players will be unnecessarily burdened by having to remember this when they just took the delayed action late in the turn, then I would suggest you do not use it. Of course, if it happens that frequently, it sounds like you are already seeing it quite a bit.

 

To address your points. . .

 

1. I did not leave out take an action. I said dive to cover which is an action, please reread the post.

 

2. Regarding the rules, I was not commenting on them, I was commenting on your proposed solution to the percieved problem with the rules. I am already aware of the fact that you cannot abort and act on the ame segment. I never suggested or said otherwise. I elaborated that saying one could not abort until after Dex 15 when one has Dex 30 and aborted after Dex 15 (i think that was how your ssytem worked) was cumbersome and created a bogger problem than the original.

 

3. My games do count down Dex, but I do not anounce that. Do your characters all have Detect Villains Dex, Range, sense, Discriminatory? Mine dont. So I do not say that this character has a 30 Dex. Your way tells them the villains Dex. Characters do act in Dex order, but occasionally when they hold I do not say we are at Dex 1 or we are at Dex 12/ If you do that, great, but I dont.

 

4. I do not want to argue, I want to discuss. If you feel that I am attacking you as opposed to your ideas, I apologize. I may argue my points vehemently, but I have always been polite and cooperative on these bords. if I offended you in any way I am sorry.

 

5. My point is that aborting and acting can happen at any legal time. Differentiating between more or less than half you dex count seems cumbersome. I am not sayingmy players could not remember, but during a fight with 8 supers and 20 villains I have enough to worry about as a GM besides splitting hairs on a minor inconveniance like this. Maybe its no problem for you, but thats what discussion is for.

 

Lastly, assuming you have this all worked out, how does your system work with the hurry maneuver or snapshot?

Thanks in advance for your response.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Keneton

I think you may not have understood my post. You are actually agreeing with me. I meant (If I was unclear) that it is genre to be able to hold and react then abort at the top of the next segement. The penalty is that now you cannot abort again until after your Dex in your next phase. I do understand the mechanics.

 

No, I am disagreeing. I am pointing out what I perceive as a discrepancy in your logic.

 

You say it is genre to be able to delay unil DEX 1 in Segment 6, act, then abort at DEX 100 on segment 7. I question how it can be genre to be able to do this, but NOT be able to delay until DEX 100 on segment 7, then abort at some later time in Segment 7 (say DEX 1). The character has actually waited longer in the second instance than in the first instance, almost a full segment versus virtually no time whatsoever.

 

The only reason the two are treated diffewrently is that, for game purposes, we have differntiated between Segment 6 and Segment 7, and attributed a point where one begins and the other ends.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Keneton

2. Regarding the rules, I was not commenting on them, I was commenting on your proposed solution to the percieved problem with the rules. I am already aware of the fact that you cannot abort and act on the ame segment. I never suggested or said otherwise. I elaborated that saying one could not abort until after Dex 15 when one has Dex 30 and aborted after Dex 15 (i think that was how your ssytem worked) was cumbersome and created a bogger problem than the original.

 

Is it really that cumbersome? I don't see remembering you can next abort at half your DEX on segment 7 from Dex 12 on Phase 6 until half your DEX on phase 7 significantly more complex than remembering that you aborted at DEX 100 on phase 7 and will therefore not have an action until your DEX on phase 10 (missing your phase 8 action due to the Abort).

 

I agree it adds one more thing you may have to remember. However, I believe it can readily be tracked with whatever system one uses for keeping track of who has, and has not, aborted their next phase, who will lose their next phase recovering from being stunned, etc..

 

Whether it creates a bigger problem than the original depends on how big a problem the original was creating. If the standrad tactic is "wait until DEX 0.000001 on Phase X, use a maneuver with big penalties, then abort at DEX 1 million next segment avoiding all penalties for that ugly maneuver", then this solution may be well worthwhile. If, on the other hand, this tactic is either not abused in your campaign or does not offend your sense of reasonable use of the rules, there is no problem, and no point adding any complexity.

 

Originally posted by Keneton

3. My games do count down Dex, but I do not anounce that. Do your characters all have Detect Villains Dex, Range, sense, Discriminatory? Mine dont. So I do not say that this character has a 30 Dex. Your way tells them the villains Dex. Characters do act in Dex order, but occasionally when they hold I do not say we are at Dex 1 or we are at Dex 12/ If you do that, great, but I dont.

 

They all do - but yours don't have Analyze! When Villain 1 moves first, we know he has a better DEX than anyone in our group, don't we? If Villain 2 then moves between our DEX 26 and DEX 24 characters, we can readily surmise he has a 25 DEX. If you then ask for a dice off between Villain 3 and our 23 DEX character, his DEX also becomes very easy to determine.

 

Of course, they may have been delaying. But that will confuse the issue the same way whether one counts down or just reads the orders off the combat sheet. [ASIDE: I find people heavily reliant on combat sheets are readily thrown off by adjustment powers which change DEX]

 

Originally posted by Keneton

Lastly, assuming you have this all worked out, how does your system work with the hurry maneuver or snapshot?

Thanks in advance for your response.

 

I'll toss out my thoughts and Tesuji can tell us what he thinks.

 

Snap shot - I'm not sure why you ask. That's a maneuver on its own. If a character wants to use it on his phase, go ahead. if he delays and then uses it, he may be prevented from aborting until half his DEX next segment, but he's still back behind his cover.

 

Hurry: I would be inclined to let a character desparatelyu wanting to abort before he's otherwise able to use Hurry to add 1d6 to the DEX at which he can abort, at the penalties for Hurry. He's still losing 2 from his DCV to get that acceleration, so it's not without penalty. Since he would opnly be restricted to aborting at half DEX if he delayed the previous segment, he likely did not hurry in that segment.

[tesuji]

Kineton...

 

i did misread.. i thought the D4C was how you were saving the guy, by diving to take a shot at him, not a separate action for you. My bad.

 

But again to the point... why is it fitting to GENRE for the following sequence to be ILLEGAL

Segment 6 Dex 26 you dive for cover.

Segment 6 Dex 19 enemy shoots at innocent and you abort to save innocent.

 

Why is it GENRE for the following to be legal:

Segment 6 Dex 1 you dive for cover.

Segment 7 Dex 35 enemy shoots at innocent and you abort to save innocent.

 

If you argument is that aborting to save the innocent is fitting genre, why does this only need to be so at the very bottom of a game break we call segment and not at the other times as well.

 

Thats the flaw with your "its not genre" argument. You seem Ok with saying "well, sorry but you cannot save the innocent" as fine and dandyt unless it comes at the end-break of a segment.

 

What in the comics and supers genre says to you "but hey, at the segment break, it is OK"?

 

Again, for the tracking stuff, if enough of your dozens of guys at once are holding to end of phase to make keeping track of it problematic for you and yours, then it sounds like your guys are already milking the end of segment freebie cow fairly solidly.

 

My bet would be, once the freebie goes away and milking the speed chart no longer produces the little extra benefit, the number of actions delayed until last of segment will drop radically. This will by default lower the bookkeeping.

[tesuji]

hugh's descriptions of the init actions sounds pretty good.

[Guest Keneton]

I appreciate the clarifications. I can see how it can be quite difficult to make a logical argument about genre. It is a very subjective thing and what is comic book for one may not be comic book for another.

 

I still feel that the system you propose is too cumbersome, but does have a basis in logic. That said, it would in my mind add a level of complexity that is a bigger problem than the one it corrects (IMHO).

 

Regarding segment breaks, I have always thought of these as seperate panels in a comic book. Maybe this explains my logic in my arguments. It is also in keeping with The Official Rules, which is what I endeavor to do when proposing solutions to metagame problems. This alternate solution does not (once again IMHO) do the same. It creates new rules that do not totally interact with existing rules. Here is a brief example.

 

If Quasar and Keneton are battling a supervillan and his thugs and Keneton goes first and decides to pres the master villain, he calls out to Quasar, cover me.

 

Keneton strike the villain, but does not stun him. The villain having heard Keneton is up next and holds wanting to avoid Quasar and still have a chance of counter attacking the now vulnerable Keneton who attacked already. He holds hoping to bring his goons into the mix. Quasar then al;so holds to see if the villain plans on shooting Keneton, any nearby normals, or him. Now the agents are up and one shoots at Quasar. Afraid to have his action spoiled, Quasar In turn shoots at the villain who in turn commits to an attack on Keneton.

 

The other goon then waits until the next segemnt to rapid attack both Keneton and Quasar who have both acted. Under your system neither can abort and I would have to know, the dex count that all of the above occured in.

 

To complicate matters what if they do not want to abort in the next segment but go instead? What if this is the 6th and the hero in question has a 7 speed, going also in the 7th? Does your sytem make my dex drop to half just because I attacked in the 6th when I have a 7 speed?

 

Lets add another complcation. I used a full phase attack or an attack with the delayed phase limitation. These totally break this sytem.

 

How would you deal with roll with punch? I cant roll with punch against Giganto because it will drop my dex below his next segment!? That is silly.

 

All in all, what I propose is that the solution is a bigger problem than the original. Obviosly we disgree, but its for good reason.

 

Thanks for taking this lively discussion. It is for talks like this that I love these boards and this great hero community.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Keneton

I appreciate the clarifications. I can see how it can be quite difficult to make a logical argument about genre. It is a very subjective thing and what is comic book for one may not be comic book for another.

I agree, of course. The problem is actually the apparent inconsistency with the segment break.

Originally posted by Keneton

I still feel that the system you propose is too cumbersome, but does have a basis in logic. That said, it would in my mind add a level of complexity that is a bigger problem than the one it corrects (IMHO).

Some people don't see the hold-then-reset end of segment thing as a problem at all. They i would expect see lots of hold until end all through their games and are used to it. For them, i would not expect any change to be "worth it."

 

This proposition is of course aimed at those who do see it as a problem, as a "rulesic" not a "tactic."

Originally posted by Keneton

Regarding segment breaks, I have always thought of these as seperate panels in a comic book. Maybe this explains my logic in my arguments.

It would only if you can quantify the panel of a comic book. I have seen panels which depict the character blurring thru a variety of actions and panels where they just seemed to be standing still. I think which "panels" one choses to be your model for "what a character can do" is frankly far more subjective than anything else we have discussed here.

 

But thats just me.

 

I find keeping things in terms of actions, events and sequences helps me keep a rather consistent take on what can and cannot be done... and it also serves to help communicate, because most people will understand me when i talk about "taking a half action on dex 23 segment 8" but most people wont know what the heck i am saying when i start envisioning panales fro X-Men or Red Star.

Originally posted by Keneton

It is also in keeping with The Official Rules, which is what I endeavor to do when proposing solutions to metagame problems. This alternate solution does not (once again IMHO) do the same. It creates new rules that do not totally interact with existing rules.

Absolutely. I started with identifying the RULE that creates and feeds the problem and suggested changes to the rule. By definition, once that suggestion is made, we are discussing things that aren't "the official rules." By the "official rules" there is no problem. This is working EXACTLY as it should be.

 

If you want to keep to the OFFICIAL rules, the answer is to go find another game system that serves you better.

 

On the other hand, i know many people who feel, perhaps abbarantly so, that you should feel free to alter the official rules to better serve your game as you see fit.

 

snipping most of your example...

Originally posted by Keneton

The villain ... holds ...

He holds...

Quasar then al;so holds to see

The other goon then waits

OK, first off, and your example shows this rather beautifully as you showcase the benefits holding gives, the notion of (and here we venture into that whole genre thing) comic book action being a sequence of hold, wait, delay until the other guy does something for you to react to on everyone';s part even down to the goons and all the way up to the master villain and so forth MAY NOT BE everyone's idea of what comic books fights are like. The system makes this overly strong and it shows even more so when the end of segment comes up and the, you said it yourself, "vulnerability" from acting is removed. You refer to the guy whpo pucnhed as "now vulnerable", presumably from the fact that he has already acted and cannot abort... yet at the very bottom of that segment as the others wait for it, that vulnerability goes away. Why should the puncher who heads on in and whacks the bad guy be "vulnerable" (penalized by the system) while the droves of "hold, wait, delay" hoardes avoid this vulnerability? It definitely will not match everyone's notion of "genre" or comic book. (It mnight tho be dead on for some. If the comic is one that focuses on counter-tactics and stuff that may very well establish the flavor of those combats. However, i would expect even you to admit those are not the case in "all" comics, perhaps not in the more traditional comics, and maybe even not in the majority of superhero comics.)

 

Regardless, given the fact that some comics go ahead and make action and not "hold, wait, delay" counteraction the norm, for some games then this favoritism towards "hold, wait, delay" in the system rules would be inappropriate.

Originally posted by Keneton

Under your system neither can abort and I would have to know, the dex count that all of the above occured in.

you would need to know it for your guys and the players would need to know it for their characters.

Originally posted by Keneton

To complicate matters what if they do not want to abort in the next segment but go instead? What if this is the 6th and the hero in question has a 7 speed, going also in the 7th? Does your sytem make my dex drop to half just because I attacked in the 6th when I have a 7 speed?

If you want to go on the next action you go at your usual time. That will, by definition, still provide a period of time where you are "vulnerable" like the pucnher was. Other characters can ACT in that vulnerable time and you do not get away scott free with no "post action vulnerability" just because the play clock ticked down and we moved to a new segment.

 

I know you don't like the suggestion and are trying to ask all sorts of what ifs and make it look all confused, but its really quite simple.

After you act, there will be a short period in which you will be vulnerable and not able to abort. Whatever penalties your actions provide, you will have to endure for at least a little bit of time. "Hold, wait, delay" until the end of the segment wont be an end around for that vulnerability anymore.

True you do need, when you "hold, wait, delay" until very late in the segment, to track that init for your last action.

 

Not a biggie for me.

Originally posted by Keneton

Lets add another complcation. I used a full phase attack or an attack with the delayed phase limitation. These totally break this sytem.

How so? The implications for full phase delayed etc are easy... they work just like they do now. The same issues of "can i do this while this other is..." remain. The ONLY thing changed is "can i abort at the top of the segment" in cases where you acted at the end of the previous segment.

 

Nothing breaks.

Originally posted by Keneton

How would you deal with roll with punch? I cant roll with punch against Giganto because it will drop my dex below his next segment!? That is silly.

OK... lets see... if you struck giganto on dex 23 segment 2, and giganto swung at you on dex 19 of that same segment, would you be ablke to roll with the punch?

 

Book not in front of me so i will ASSUME that RWP does not have an exemption from the "cannot abort in same segment as you act" rule. I know it has an exception from the "declare aborts before the hit is made" rule.

 

So, lets see, if the sequence happoens on dex 26 (you punch) and giganto punches you on 26 you cannot RWP. Thats not silly.

 

But if this happens on dex1 and next phase, its silly?

 

Why the discrepancy?

Originally posted by Keneton

All in all, what I propose is that the solution is a bigger problem than the original. Obviosly we disgree, but its for good reason.

One man's "good reason" is another man's "huh?"

 

Seriously, if its easier to wrap the mind around all the permutations, think of it this way... if you delay and take action near the end of the segment, the restrictions on "what can i do in a segment after i have acted" will carry over into the next segment for a little while. Any or maybe most "well what abot this..." question can be resolved by pretending it was all one segment.

[Guest Keneton]

I understand your arguments much better now. I only want to clarify Roll with Punch. In my example I should have added, I I hold until Gigantos 11 Dex and then roll with punch if he hits me. Under your system if my dex is greater than 22. I could not abort until after 1/2 of my dex in the next segment. I do not agree with this as I have said earlier.

 

As for the interaction with delayed phase, it could in fact break. The delayed phase advantage has you do at 1/2 your Dex. If your sytenm only limits aborts, this is not so troblesome, but that was only carified (to me) in the very last post.

 

Thanks again for this lively discussion.

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Keneton

I understand your arguments much better now. I only want to clarify Roll with Punch. In my example I should have added, I I hold until Gigantos 11 Dex and then roll with punch if he hits me. Under your system if my dex is greater than 22. I could not abort until after 1/2 of my dex in the next segment. I do not agree with this as I have said earlier.

 

I'd have to work this one around to see the impact it has. I don't see Roll with the Punch as abusive, so I'm inclined to provide it some form of exception. Perhaps that exception might appropriately be for all "abort" actions. If your delayed action could have been aborted to, your ability to abort again is not delayed.

 

On the other hand, you can't abort at 8 DEX on the same segment (when Firewing, who was also delaying, delivers a rapid fire attack at that time). It's not that much of a stretch to increase the time delay to "half your DEX next segment", as you are still righting yourself after rolling with Giganto's punch and are as yet unable to gather your wits to Abort to something else.

 

Originally posted by Keneton

As for the interaction with delayed phase, it could in fact break. The delayed phase advantage has you do at 1/2 your Dex. If your system only limits aborts, this is not so troblesome, but that was only carified (to me) in the very last post.

 

As taking an action that requires a Delayed Phase forces acting at a reduced DEX, I would be inclined to treat this as the character's normal DEX for purposes of when he may next abort. If he wants to delay beyond half his DEX, then the increased time before an abort is available would apply. [i don't see very many characters with this limitation, but I am using it on a character myself. Mind you, he's "impetuous, impulsive and impatient", so he likely won't be delaying any more than he has to]

 

The system wuld only resrict aborts because that's where the problem arises. As noted elsewhere, waiting until your normal phase still leaves the penalties in place for some period of time.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Keneton

If Quasar and Keneton are battling a supervillan and his thugs and Keneton goes first and decides to pres the master villain, he calls out to Quasar, cover me.

 

Keneton strike the villain, but does not stun him. The villain having heard Keneton is up next and holds wanting to avoid Quasar and still have a chance of counter attacking the now vulnerable Keneton who attacked already. He holds hoping to bring his goons into the mix. Quasar then al;so holds to see if the villain plans on shooting Keneton, any nearby normals, or him. Now the agents are up and one shoots at Quasar. Afraid to have his action spoiled, Quasar In turn shoots at the villain who in turn commits to an attack on Keneton.

 

The other goon then waits until the next segemnt to rapid attack both Keneton and Quasar who have both acted. Under your system neither can abort and I would have to know, the dex count that all of the above occured in.

 

Why did the other goon wait until the next segment then becomes a very good question, doesn't it? Under the present system, the difference between those two segments "resets" characters to be able to abort, regardless of how long it has been since they last took an action. Is the diference between DEX 0, Phase 6 and DEX 100, Phase 7 really that significant? The proposed "fix" says it is less important, adding a mechanic. One that I would leave out in the interests of simplicity, unless needed to right the "rulesic" abuse summarized previously by tesuji.

 

I would note that the example you provide above is not, at least in my view, an abusive combination of "delay/abort". The situation described is proper use of these choices. To clarify, here's what I would perceive as a more abusive example:

 

It is Phase 2. Keneton goes first and decides to press the master villain. . He strikes the villain, but does not stun him. Later in Phase 2, the villain retaliates against Keneton, with a similar result.

 

At his DEX in Phase 3, Quasar is about to attack the villain, but then sees the villain's ally, Fast Freddy, KO his and Quasar's teammate. He'setty sure Fast Freddy has a high Speed and will get to act agan in Phase 4. He also sees a few goons, and he isn't sure whether they are delaying, or just don't have a phase yet, but he suspects they have a 3 Speed.

 

Quasar delays until the very end of the segment, the (at DEX 0) Rapid Fires the villain, hitting him several times and taking him out of the battle The villains have al moved in segment 3, and the thugs have a 3 speed, so no one else can move. Immediately after this tactic, (DEX 100, Phase 4), Quasar Aborts to a Dodge, cancelling his DCV penalty for Rapid Fire.

 

The key difference is that, in your example, the characters' choices were dependent on what was happening as the character perceived it. In my example, the tactic is driven by knowledge of gaqme mechanics.

 

This does point to another approach to resolving the problem - obscuring the speed and DEX charts. When Quasar's 23 DEX arrives, simply ask him if he wants to take any action. He wishes to delay. He cannot then ask how late in the segment we are - the player must make decisions based on the course of the action.

 

 

GM: "The thugs haven't moved, nor has Fast Freddy. Do you want to do anything, Quasar?"

 

Q: "No, I'll delay."

 

GM: "Fast Freddy rushes at Keneton."

 

Q: "Wait, I wnat to move at the end of Segment 3!!"

 

GM: "Quasar has no way of measuring when segments begin and end. No one moved, Quasar kept delaying, and Fast Freddy's DEX in Segment 4 came up. Suck it up!"

 

Thisseems like it could be a much more elegant way of dealing with the issue. Simply rule that, if you decide to delay, time moves on to the next person's action, without regard for whether a segment ends and another begins in the interim.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Keneton

I only want to clarify Roll with Punch. In my example I should have added, I I hold until Gigantos 11 Dex and then roll with punch if he hits me. Under your system if my dex is greater than 22. I could not abort until after 1/2 of my dex in the next segment. I do not agree with this as I have said

 

And this is where i dont get it.

 

If giganto pucnhed you on dex 26 and you rolled, you are unable, by the rules as they are written now, to furhter abort thru dexs 25-1 on that segment. There is an accepted notion of "after an action i cannot abort for a while" which is not a problem for you to accept now.

 

I am not "penalizing" the guy rolling in your example for giganto being slow and swinging later. He will have a period of "i cannot abort for some time after i take an action" just like he would if it happened on 26 and he had to wait for 25-1 to get counted down before he could abort again.

 

So, where you might see the guy being put upon because giganto swuing so late, I see it as him not getting advantaged with a short or perhaps even nonexistent "window of vulnerability" because giganto swung so slow.

 

Ideally, there would be a "cannot abort" timeframe following an action, where for X amount of time" after an action you were denied the ability to abort so that if you acted really early you might get to abort before the end of segment or if you act late you cannot abort for a while even overlapping the next segment,,, so that evertime you acted you had a consistent period of vulnerability. My half dex counting is intended to about even things out for those who act when their dex comes and those who delay a long while. It will sometimes produce shorter and sometimes may produce longe (but not by much.)

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Why did the other goon wait until the next segment then becomes a very good question, doesn't it? Under the present system, the difference between those two segments "resets" characters to be able to abort, regardless of how long it has been since they last took an action. Is the diference between DEX 0, Phase 6 and DEX 100, Phase 7 really that significant? The proposed "fix" says it is less important, adding a mechanic. One that I would leave out in the interests of simplicity, unless needed to right the "rulesic" abuse summarized previously by tesuji.

 

I would note that the example you provide above is not, at least in my view, an abusive combination of "delay/abort". The situation described is proper use of these choices. To clarify, here's what I would perceive as a more abusive example:

 

It is Phase 2. Keneton goes first and decides to press the master villain. . He strikes the villain, but does not stun him. Later in Phase 2, the villain retaliates against Keneton, with a similar result.

 

At his DEX in Phase 3, Quasar is about to attack the villain, but then sees the villain's ally, Fast Freddy, KO his and Quasar's teammate. He'setty sure Fast Freddy has a high Speed and will get to act agan in Phase 4. He also sees a few goons, and he isn't sure whether they are delaying, or just don't have a phase yet, but he suspects they have a 3 Speed.

 

Quasar delays until the very end of the segment, the (at DEX 0) Rapid Fires the villain, hitting him several times and taking him out of the battle The villains have al moved in segment 3, and the thugs have a 3 speed, so no one else can move. Immediately after this tactic, (DEX 100, Phase 4), Quasar Aborts to a Dodge, cancelling his DCV penalty for Rapid Fire.

 

The key difference is that, in your example, the characters' choices were dependent on what was happening as the character perceived it. In my example, the tactic is driven by knowledge of gaqme mechanics.

 

This does point to another approach to resolving the problem - obscuring the speed and DEX charts. When Quasar's 23 DEX arrives, simply ask him if he wants to take any action. He wishes to delay. He cannot then ask how late in the segment we are - the player must make decisions based on the course of the action.

 

 

GM: "The thugs haven't moved, nor has Fast Freddy. Do you want to do anything, Quasar?"

 

Q: "No, I'll delay."

 

GM: "Fast Freddy rushes at Keneton."

 

Q: "Wait, I wnat to move at the end of Segment 3!!"

 

GM: "Quasar has no way of measuring when segments begin and end. No one moved, Quasar kept delaying, and Fast Freddy's DEX in Segment 4 came up. Suck it up!"

 

Thisseems like it could be a much more elegant way of dealing with the issue. Simply rule that, if you decide to delay, time moves on to the next person's action, without regard for whether a segment ends and another begins in the interim.

 

Now you are agreeing with me again. that is what i meant by detect dex, discriminatory, range, sense etc...

 

As for the point as why did the goon hold. . . Tactically he should have gone, but that screwed my example LOL!

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by tesuji

And this is where i dont get it.

 

If giganto pucnhed you on dex 26 and you rolled, you are unable, by the rules as they are written now, to furhter abort thru dexs 25-1 on that segment. There is an accepted notion of "after an action i cannot abort for a while" which is not a problem for you to accept now.

 

I am not "penalizing" the guy rolling in your example for giganto being slow and swinging later. He will have a period of "i cannot abort for some time after i take an action" just like he would if it happened on 26 and he had to wait for 25-1 to get counted down before he could abort again.

 

So, where you might see the guy being put upon because giganto swuing so late, I see it as him not getting advantaged with a short or perhaps even nonexistent "window of vulnerability" because giganto swung so slow.

 

Ideally, there would be a "cannot abort" timeframe following an action, where for X amount of time" after an action you were denied the ability to abort so that if you acted really early you might get to abort before the end of segment or if you act late you cannot abort for a while even overlapping the next segment,,, so that evertime you acted you had a consistent period of vulnerability. My half dex counting is intended to about even things out for those who act when their dex comes and those who delay a long while. It will sometimes produce shorter and sometimes may produce longe (but not by much.)

 

Giganto has an 11 Dex and a 4 speed. It is the 3rd and Kenton is still holding his 28 dex 2nd phase. Giganto attcks me. I have my levels in defense and think he will have a hard time hitting a 14. he rols a 6 and hits so I abort to roll with punch as allowed by the rules. I get knocked into a brick wall and I am now at half DCV.

 

Normally I could in the 4th take my action and breakfall up at 28 Dex in the 4th. Say a villain attacks me prior to this at say 30 dex in the 4th. By the standard hero rules I can abort, but under your rules I cannot until after 14 Dex. here are your rules to remind you.. .

 

Change the "cannot abort on a segment he has already acted in" to add in the following:

 

"If your last action in a segment was at least half your usual dex (ie if dex 30 you acted between 30 and 15) you can abort immediately once the next segment starts.

 

If your last action was lower than half your dex (again dex 30 delays until somewhere in the 0-14 dex action) you cannot abort until the next phase at half your dex initiative."

 

Now do you get it.

 

Essentially by your sytem people cannot delay under slow dex charcters and agents who delay are vastly penalized. Unless I am still not understanding you.

 

[Quasar]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The key difference is that, in your example, the characters' choices were dependent on what was happening as the character perceived it. In my example, the tactic is driven by knowledge of gaqme mechanics.

 

I just had to jump in here, and yes...I am THAT Quasar.

 

Keneton's example is straight from dozens of examples of how we play the game. If your example comes from your own experiences then it sounds to me like you have a really bad problem with metagaming in your group. In our group we are very tactical, but we don't allow knowledge of rules mechanics to influence our decisions. It's a simple matter of just choosing not to do it. The only time I have seen this sort of thing become a problem is in a group of people who must win at all costs, where the need to win overrides the will not to metagame. I'd hazard a guess that the problem lies with your players and not the rules themselves.

 

Just my two cents worth.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[Quasar]

Originally posted by tesuji

I am not "penalizing" the guy rolling in your example for giganto being slow and swinging later. He will have a period of "i cannot abort for some time after i take an action" just like he would if it happened on 26 and he had to wait for 25-1 to get counted down before he could abort again.

 

No you're penalizing the example character for buying a high DEX, plain and simple. He spent a lot of points for that high DEX that Giganto instead put in STR. Now if you discounted the cost of DEX (because you are reducing it's effectiveness) then I might not have a problem with your rule.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Quasar

No you're penalizing the example character for buying a high DEX, plain and simple. He spent a lot of points for that high DEX that Giganto instead put in STR. Now if you discounted the cost of DEX (because you are reducing it's effectiveness) then I might not have a problem with your rule.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

 

OK, maybe i should type more slowly.

 

Under the OFFICIAL HERO SYSTEM RULES as they are in print now, taking into account all the pages on pages of FAQ and erratta and hundreds of rule question in the QnA...

 

Ralphus pays 60 points for 30 dex while Bosephus pays 15 points for 15 dex.

 

On phase 12, Ralphus acts on his dex, 30 and has to wait thru 29-1 dexes being VULNERABLE and unable to abort.

 

Bosephus, on his 15 dex, having just sat thru 14 different dex counts where bulnerable Ralphus was whammies, slammied, and bammied by all the villains exploiuting his vulnerability... acts. he is now vulnerable for only counts 14-1.

 

Ralphus spent much more for his dex and then the system goes an penalizes him for acting on it. What up 'dat?

 

What a travesty.

 

*******************

 

Seriously... the system already by dint of having an automatic cutofff produces longer "windows of vulnerability" for higher dex guys. lower dex guys acting on their dex have less time of vulnerability than high dex guys working on their dex.

 

Thats not my invention... its been there for decades.

[tesuji]

How is that different from...

 

On dex 26 giganto swings at you.

you abort your held phase and RWP and get slammed into wall half dcv yahdee yahdee..

in same segment dex 15 a villain shoots at you and now you cannot abort because you have not gone along far enough (ie we are not yet into next segment) to call up another action?

 

IE...

 

if these events happened on dex 26 (swing, hit, RWP, wall)and dex 15 (other villain followup), you would not be able to aboirt vs the second villain. So, why should merely moving you guys down to dex 11 and dex 75 of next segment suddenly remove that restriction?

 

Why does it take you LESS TIME TO RECOVER and be able to abort after the whole swing-DRWP-wall thing because giganto paid less on dex?

 

If you are arguing the proposal makes a difference at all, sure... its intended to say NO to some cases now where rapid turnaround aborts occur due to the segment break. Thats the whole point. The key to your argument is... if you want to point to not having rapid turnaround as not fair to this guy or that guy, you have to show WHY its fair for the sequence to be FINE at 26 dex & 15 Dex but not at 11 dex and -4 dex (ie 4 tics into next segment.)

 

Why is saying "you cannot abort now" fiar and balanced for 30 dex guy at 26/15 tics but unfair and unbalanced to say "no you cannot abort now" at 11/-4 tics?

 

As for my "is it fair" notion... higher dex guy will have a higher breakpoint for "the point at which my held action delay carries over" than the low dex guy will BUT when the delay does kick in he will get over the "cannot abort" carryover sooner.

 

 

Originally posted by Keneton

Giganto has an 11 Dex and a 4 speed. It is the 3rd and Kenton is still holding his 28 dex 2nd phase. Giganto attcks me. I have my levels in defense and think he will have a hard time hitting a 14. he rols a 6 and hits so I abort to roll with punch as allowed by the rules. I get knocked into a brick wall and I am now at half DCV.

 

Normally I could in the 4th take my action and breakfall up at 28 Dex in the 4th. Say a villain attacks me prior to this at say 30 dex in the 4th. By the standard hero rules I can abort, but under your rules I cannot until after 14 Dex. here are your rules to remind you.. .

 

Change the "cannot abort on a segment he has already acted in" to add in the following:

 

"If your last action in a segment was at least half your usual dex (ie if dex 30 you acted between 30 and 15) you can abort immediately once the next segment starts.

 

If your last action was lower than half your dex (again dex 30 delays until somewhere in the 0-14 dex action) you cannot abort until the next phase at half your dex initiative."

 

Now do you get it.

 

Essentially by your sytem people cannot delay under slow dex charcters and agents who delay are vastly penalized. Unless I am still not understanding you.

 

[austenandrews]

Originally posted by tesuji

Seriously... the system already by dint of having an automatic cutofff produces longer "windows of vulnerability" for higher dex guys. lower dex guys acting on their dex have less time of vulnerability than high dex guys working on their dex.

 

Which is why I prefer to say that the high-DEX character has the opportunity to act before everyone else, or to wait and see what others do. It's his prerogative to act first. Of course he gets the drawbacks as well as the advantages, but he does get to choose.

 

In other words, I believe a flexible Delay is essential to justify a high DEX (and it's also "realistic").

 

(Forgive me for not reading all the preceding posts, and for stating the obvious if that's what I've just done.)

 

-AA

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Quasar

If your example comes from your own experiences then it sounds to me like you have a really bad problem with metagaming in your group. In our group we are very tactical, but we don't allow knowledge of rules mechanics to influence our decisions. It's a simple matter of just choosing not to do it. The only time I have seen this sort of thing become a problem is in a group of people who must win at all costs, where the need to win overrides the will not to metagame. I'd hazard a guess that the problem lies with your players and not the rules themselves.

 

Actually, my example is extrapolated from another thread. My players don't play the "delay game", but after reading how Rapid Fire is overpowered because the penalties are avoided by the tactic described above, I was curious how many groups see this happen in play.

 

From the posts I'm reading, either "not many" or the groups where it does happen are too shamed by their blatant metagaming to post.

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by tesuji

How is that different from...

 

On dex 26 giganto swings at you.

you abort your held phase and RWP and get slammed into wall half dcv yahdee yahdee..

 

Why is saying "you cannot abort now" fiar and balanced for 30 dex guy at 26/15 tics but unfair and unbalanced to say "no you cannot abort now" at 11/-4 tics?

 

As for my "is it fair" notion... higher dex guy will have a higher breakpoint for "the point at which my held action delay carries over" than the low dex guy will BUT when the delay does kick in he will get over the "cannot abort" carryover sooner.

 

You are not even reading what I am writing. You are not even consitent on your own rules. I am NOT saying your system isnt fair. I say its cumbersome. So cumbersome it seems that you dont even know wht you typed earlier.

 

I do not know what tics are, I assume you mean dex counts. Once again there is no more time a segment is one second. I suppose you want to break it down into milliseconds?

 

I even went so far as to say in my example what Gigantos dex was to show you how your proposed solution was prejudiced against characters who spent point on Dex. I used YOUR SYSTEM and you said it was wrong.

 

When Hugh argues your points he uses logic and maybe he sees what I am saying. Hopefully he will respond or you will read what I wrote FIRST then respond.

 

To be very clear...

 

Under your solution initial post:

 

"If your last action in a segment was at least half your usual dex (ie if dex 30 you acted between 30 and 15) you can abort immediately once the next segment starts.

 

If your last action was lower than half your dex (again dex 30 delays until somewhere in the 0-14 dex action) you cannot abort until the next phase at half your dex initiative."

 

My point is under YOUR sytem if anyone attcks you in a phase with or at a low dex and you go or abort in response you may now not abort until half of your dex in a segment where you could act or not abort in the next segment. The point being under YOUR sytem the hiher Dex you have the more likely you cannot afford to abort at all. Your system is prejudiced agaisnt high dex characters period.

 

As for the penalties for low dex characters, well unliley to occur inactaul practice, they can now hardly hold before equating a penalty.

 

Also your sytem REQUIRES a DEX count that allows every chracter to have as a free sense group Detect Dex Score, Sense, Range, Discriminatory 360 on an 18- with no range penalties. Because under your solution you count dexes aloud and differentiate betwwen Dex count 100 and -4 (by your own words so far).

 

I will say this again and PRAY that someone else has the guts to admit that this is FAR more cumbersome than the original problem. Until then Keneton is out.

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by austenandrews

Which is why I prefer to say that the high-DEX character has the opportunity to act before everyone else, or to wait and see what others do. It's his prerogative to act first. Of course he gets the drawbacks as well as the advantages, but he does get to choose.

 

In other words, I believe a flexible Delay is essential to justify a high DEX (and it's also "realistic").

 

(Forgive me for not reading all the preceding posts, and for stating the obvious if that's what I've just done.)

 

-AA

 

Right On Brother!!!

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Keneton

You are not even reading what I am writing.

Are you?

Originally posted by Keneton

I am NOT saying your system isnt fair.

OK, lets see... it seemed to me you were saying the system unfairly punished the high dex guys and the gigantos example was your cite for that.

 

Now you say " I am NOT saying your system isnt fair."

 

thats a very strong statement.

 

But lets look just a few lines down in this very post where you equally strongly say...

"I even went so far as to say in my example what Gigantos dex was to show you how your proposed solution was prejudiced against characters who spent point on Dex. "

 

and later...

 

"Your system is prejudiced agaisnt high dex characters period."

 

So if i get your position now, you believe very storongly that my system is prejudiced against high dex characters, but you are not saying that my system isn't fair?

 

Do I have that right?

 

 

Originally posted by Keneton

I say its cumbersome. So cumbersome it seems that you dont even know wht you typed earlier.

You keep saying that. Not agreeing with you does not equate to not remembering what we are discussing. Your gigantos example is accurate in its description and i am not disagreeing with that. i am disagreeing with the conclusion you then go to that this is unfa... errr..prejudiced.... or in some way wrong.

 

In the current rules the higher dex guy by the ACTIONS HE CHOOSES can put himself in a position where he can suffer longer delays before he can abort than slower guys. Thats as is with no rule change. If dex 30 boy decides/chooses/eclects to act when his dex comes up instead of milking the hold, delay wait mechanic, he will suffer longer windows of vulnerability than a dex 15 guy making the same choice. He can reduce this extra window of vulnerability by milking the hold, delay, wait to some degree.

 

Under my system, once again the high dex boy can use hold, wait, delay to avoid SOME of the delay and he can choose/elect/decide to go below half his dex and may well give himself a longer cannot abort. The one little bit of payback he gets under my system is that if a high dex guy and a low dex guy both go into the carryover, the high dex guy will get his abort option back first.

 

But, as i stated earlier, you are absolutely correct that if a high dex guy chooses to delay until very low enough dex counts he may well be choosing/deciding/electing to put himself into a longer period than he has to of not being able to abort. (Just as would have happened had he chosen to act on his high dex.)

 

Thats the point after all.

 

Originally posted by Keneton

I do not know what tics are, I assume you mean dex counts.

not "fair", "prejudiced against"...

initiative does not exist in HERO...

dex counts fo not exist in hero...

tics...

 

guy, you have some glossary fetish :-)

 

Perhapos soon we can expand your gaming vocabulary and go for tocs!

 

Originally posted by Keneton

Once again there is no more time a segment is one second. I suppose you want to break it down into milliseconds?

No, i just want to use dex to track action flow within a segment, like HERO does.

Originally posted by Keneton

I even went so far as to say in my example what Gigantos dex was to show you how your proposed solution was prejudiced against characters who spent point on Dex. I used YOUR SYSTEM and you said it was wrong.

Your conclusion is wrong, not your example. That is an important distinction. In both the core system and my proposal, the high dex character can CHOOSE to take actions at certain times and these decisions may lead to longer delays before he can anort than a lower dex guy would suffer. (actually tho, in the carryover thing of mine, the length of penalty is less on the subsequent seg than for the lower dex.)

Originally posted by Keneton

When Hugh argues your points he uses logic and maybe he sees what I am saying. Hopefully he will respond or you will read what I wrote FIRST then respond.

I read what you wrote... i especially liked the "not say its not fair" and followup with repeated points about how prejudiced it is.

Originally posted by Keneton

My point is under YOUR sytem if anyone attcks you in a phase with or at a low dex and you go or abort in response you may now not abort until half of your dex in a segment where you could act or not abort in the next segment.

That is an accurate statement. it has not been disputed so far by me.

 

However, lets be a little more clear...

 

if you are holding the action until low in the segment, and you use that action, whether it be to abort to dodge or to shoot the bad guy or to grab the innocent... thats what triggers the abort delay. Choosing to act triggers the delay and under my system that choice wont get less serious the lower in the segment you go.

 

If you abort your next action late in the segment without having a held action (which means you did not act earlier this seg) the main delay you will be suffering for aborts will be the "get to my next action" so you can abort again (at least i think i am correct you cannot abort a second third forth time if you are under an abort lost action now. Book not in front of me.)

Originally posted by Keneton

The point being under YOUR sytem the hiher Dex you have the more likely you cannot afford to abort at all.

Uhhh... no,. See that is a conclusion or an assumption. That is incorrect. CHOICES are not made based on random clock tics but on cause-effect judgements.

 

If you choose, for whatever reason, to DELAY into the lower reaches of the segment more often, you will get that delay more often. You have the choice/opportunity to act in lots of different points and its up to you to decide which you will choose. Assuming, for simplicity, no holds from previous phases, a dex 30 guy has tics from 30-15 to CHOOSE to act with no carryover. A dex 12 guy has tics 12-6. Thats a lot more options for the high dex guy to CHOOSE that will not trigger any carryover.

Originally posted by Keneton

Your system is prejudiced agaisnt high dex characters period.

Again, that is a conclusion or an assumption and not a fact. Its not "period" iots IMO, or rather IYO.

Originally posted by Keneton

As for the penalties for low dex characters, well unliley to occur inactaul practice, they can now hardly hold before equating a penalty.

Another strong lincjpin in you argument about how unf..eerrrr..prejudiced my proposal is against high dex guys.

:-)

Originally posted by Keneton

Also your sytem REQUIRES a DEX count that allows every chracter to have as a free sense group Detect Dex Score, Sense, Range, Discriminatory 360 on an 18- with no range penalties.

Again with the hyperbole.

 

First, seeing when a character acts is NOT the same things as being able to detect his DEX. That guy who acts on 26 may be dex 26 or he may be dex 27 who delayed, right?

 

So what you are really saying is it requires Detect "Actions being taken i am aware of and when they occur"... which doesn;t seem all that unreasonable a thing to me.

 

Seriously tho, most hero games i knwo of dont just sit coyly by and try to fake the "order by dex" thing with sly looks and guesses. They tend to just use dex counts. its an easy thing to do and frankly, since you do not know if its a hold or not, it doesn't reveal any solid info.

Originally posted by Keneton

Because under your solution you count dexes aloud and differentiate betwwen Dex count 100 and -4 (by your own words so far).

Yes, although in practice we did not start dex counts at 100 and we just went to anyone with a hold and then to others in order of dex... the 100 would only come up as a flip way of saying "first thing in next segement".

Originally posted by Keneton

I will say this again and PRAY that someone else has the guts to admit that this is FAR more cumbersome than the original problem. Until then Keneton is out.

Fai..errr... unprejudiced enough.

 

thank you.

[Quasar]

Originally posted by tesuji

Ralphus spent much more for his dex and then the system goes an penalizes him for acting on it. What up 'dat?

 

What a travesty.

 

*******************

 

Seriously... the system already by dint of having an automatic cutofff produces longer "windows of vulnerability" for higher dex guys. lower dex guys acting on their dex have less time of vulnerability than high dex guys working on their dex.

 

Thats not my invention... its been there for decades.

 

Once again you fail to see the forest for the trees. The major advantage of buying a high DEX is being able to choose when you go (NOT going first!!!). If you choose to go on 30 every phase you act and end up getting clobbered in fights with large numbers of opponents then it serves you right for being an idiot. In games like D&D (which it is plainly, or painfully, obvious where you got this notion) where a character's defensive rating rarely changes, order of action makes little difference. Delaying in D&D is most often done in my experience so that a path can be cleared for the delaying character to get into a better tactical position, or something similar. In Hero not only do opponents not have threatened zones around them, but characters (especially in Champions) tend to move around the board with impunity and defensive values can vary wildly. D&D mechanics have no place transplanted into Hero.

 

It seems I was replying to the wrong person when I made the comments about metagaming. If you have such need of this mechanic in your games, it sounds like metagaming is the problem...not the Hero System rules. Tell your players that unless they can justify tactically (in the context of the fight) why they are holding, they simply will not be allowed to hold and will lose their action entirely unless they act at their DEX. That is a much more elegant system than the monstrosity you've concocted.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Quasar

Once again you fail to see the forest for the trees. The major advantage of buying a high DEX is being able to choose when you go (NOT going first!!!).

Again, let me repeat, disagreeing with you conclusion is NOT the same thing as missing the premises. In either the core rules or my proposal, you can CHOOSE/ECECT/DECIDE for whatever reasons to have your character act at this time or that time and depending on where that time is in the segment will determine the amount of time that you can be "vulnerable" due to not having to abort.

 

For every "if i choose to delay until low dex..." example you wish to support, I can tote out an "i choose to act on high dex" to give an equal length of delay for abortive.

 

The system already supports your choice of when to act being integral to how long your delay for abort is.

Originally posted by Quasar

If you choose to go on 30 every phase you act and end up getting clobbered in fights with large numbers of opponents then it serves you right for being an idiot.

 

snip...

 

Tell your players that unless they can justify tactically (in the context of the fight) why they are holding, they simply will not be allowed to hold and will lose their action entirely unless they act at their DEX.

Ok looking at these two comments in the same post... would you consider "I am not an idiot" or "my character is not an idiot" to be sufficient for this not to be metagaming? Would "in my character's combat experience he has seen that going first often gets you clobbered and so a reactive stance is more often going to produce a better result..." and so forth?

 

Or should i, in the name of disallowing the evil of metagaming, tell him he has to act like an idiot?

 

Seriously, regarding whatever you want to calll metagaming, there are a bunch of examples on can pull out of what could be considered metagaming which people will call good tactics. If your character can move to 18 meters or 16 meters and you choose to move to one of them because of the range break, is it metagaming? Does this mean you are assuming your character has "detect range to the meter 18- like your fellow keneton likes to throw in? Or does it mean that you, as a player, are making reasonable decisions based on the way the rules handle things in keeping with the notion of "he ha seen things and how they work and so makes reasonable decisions."

 

Should you, and I, when the player has his character move from 35m to 16m and stop there anf fire "flying in the air with no real terrain specific reason to stop there" and who still has move left on his half-move, tell that player to "stop metagaming" and ask him to "justify tactically in the context of the fight" why he decided to stop there, just inside the range break, instead of stopping 1m back or 4 m forward?

 

Why is it not metagaming for the character to srtop at the BY THE BOOK right ranges for milking the range break, possibly passing it off as experience with his attacks, but metagaming and bad for the player to expect the character to know the best time to delay his action so as to minimize the lag time when that amount is a constant for his character (dex 30 guy delays 29 times and has no abort delay) ?

 

 

As you observe, acting immediately and giving yourself a bigger window of vulnerability can produce palpable and very real problems. A character/player who does not learn from that could by you be called an idiot. So why should i then disallow that character the ability to reflect that experience with chosing different actions.

Originally posted by Quasar

That is a much more elegant system than the monstrosity you've concocted.

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

 

Well lets see... instead of putting in place a rule with concrete how and why and when, we start enforcing anti-netagaming rules... and thats more elegant?

 

Well, the player wants to move his character to 18m to keep the range brackets in his favor. He does not have "detect range to target 18-" so should i tell him "no" or start imposing perception rolls to gauge the range appropriately or should i decide that the map grid and knowledge of precise distance the range breaks occur at are not "metagaming" but actually reflective of combat experience, as opposed to realizing that delaying until low in the segment is going to be less idiotic?

 

As I see it, the rules set up the "how things work" in the world. The fact that things work that way, for the basic elements of move-action and sequencing, is not some rare mystery the characters do not percieve, although they would not be in character describing it in game terms.

 

The character would not see it as "delaying until the end of segment and then acting..." at all but instead would be seeing it as "delay to the point where my lag time to recover from the action is at a minimum."

 

Now, one can clearly srgue that there is no reasons in character for there to be such a point, that there would not be a reasonable "point at which my lag time is at a minimum" within character view and so it should be "bad player, bad player" to choose such, but to me thats more of a case of "bad rule, bad rule" to put such a palpable and effective a notion in with no rhyme or reason within the game and exopect players to not see it. It is akin to putting precise range breaks at specific ranges and not expect players to run their experienced characters "well" and such move them to take advantage of those range breaks.

 

If the bad guy is knocked back from 15m to 18m, is it metagaming for me to shift two CV levels to OCV from DCV to keep the same net to-hit bonus? Am i an idiot if i shoot without doing so, or am i adequately role playing the "my character does not have detect precise range 18- power" thing?

 

All in all, whipping out the metagaming ruler-whap-to-the-knuckles is not to me an elegant solution to this problem, not at all.

 

YMMV of course.

[Quasar]

Metagaming is certainly a tough beastie to pin down, but is easy enough to stop in a group of mature individuals. As I said, the group I play in simply doesn't do it.

 

What that means is that my character, though fairly intelligent and tactical (as in he bought the tactics skill) sometimes makes bad decisions or misses something he should see. It's called role-playing, not war gaming. If my GM thinks I wouldn't see an attack coming he tells me to make a PER check, or if I fail to see an especially effective attack possibility he might suggest a tactics check. However, sometimes I decide that my character has missed an opportunity that I as a player see, or I deliberately make a bad decision based on a Psych Lim. What you seem to be saying is that because you don't have players who are able to control themselves in the same way, you need to concoct a rule to keep them in line. Simply telling them that a certain behavior is unacceptable is a far more elegant a way to handle something than adding rules from other very different systems and not fully thinking out the ramifications of such a rule. Whether or not you believe it to be true, your rule devalues DEX in that although the time a character is vulnerable MAY be lessened, their choice is taken away from them in the next phase. Choice is far more powerful an advantage than ANY of the drawbacks are crippling IMO.

 

Go ahead and mix and match your systems if you want to, it's your game and the only ones you have to answer to are your players. Just don't think we're all going to "ooh and aah" your creation.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force