Delay Delay Delay

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Keneton

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.

 

OK, first off, I don't agree that this approach is extremely cumbersome. It does add one more thing to keep track of. In games where the DEX count is visible, the players must track this. In games where the GM tracks next move, the GM needs to advise the player when he has recovered his bearings enough that he could abort.

 

That's one more thing to track, but I really don't see it as a huge thing. Your comments do highlight the reason many games do count down DEX, however. A list of characters in DEX/SPD order can be thrown off easily by changes in DEX (or effective DEX). A list of all combatants (let's say 5 PC's and 5 NPC villains) is pretty easy. But that order can change due to:

 

- a character aborting (no action next phase)

- DEX (or Speed) drains, transfers, AID's, absorption

- "extra time - delayed phase"

- using EGO instead of DEX for mental powers

- maneuvers like Hurry

 

Just off the top of my head. If the GM tracks everyone's moves, that's twice as much work for the GM. And I have seen a GM with such a scan sheet just about lose his mind to DEX drains.

 

A compromise would be to say "what's the next DEX at which any of you move"? The GM tracks the NPC's. "Delay" is taken to mean "You can move whenever you want, but once someone else starts to move, you can't get the drop on them automatically". So this system does not automatically require DEX to be verbally counted down.

 

This certainly provides some ability for characters to estimate DEX of opponents, but we already have that - if he moves before I could have, his DEX is better than mine. If he moves more often than I could have, his Speed is better. Count his moves in the turn, and that's probably within 1 of his speed.

 

Is it fair based on relative DEX scores? Yes, I would say it is. As tesuji notes, if the higher DEX character chooses to act on his Dex, there is a much longer window during which he is unable to abort than would be the case for for a lower DEX character. Let's assume two characters. Speedy Gonzales ("SG") has DEX 42 (at or above top of the range for standard supers, IMO). Giganto has DEX 11 (agents are faster - many DNPC's are as well). Assume both get an action in Phase 8.

 

CURRENT RULES: If SG atacks at his normal DEX, he will be prohibited from aborting until after the segment ends. In other words, he effectively cannot abort at any time in phase 8 (no one will have a better DEX unless he delayed himself). If Giganto attacks at his normal DEX, he can abort in Phase 9. There might as well be no delay, again unless someone delayed their action - who has an 11 or less DEX?

 

If SG delays until DEX 10, he can act against Giganto, assuming he survived Giganto's move, and Giganto can't abort. But that means he has to forego the advantage of the first move - is the advantage of his DEX. Even if he had EX 1, when Giganto attacks, he could abort to a defensive action or, if he prefers, let Giganto act and then fire on him before Gigantoi can abort. A 42 DEX has lots of other advantages (not the least of which is the inability of Giganto to hit SG, and the ease with which SG can connect with Giganto), but the present system doesn't make "first move" a big one.

 

CHANGED SYSTEM: If SG moves at DEX 42, no change. If he waits for Giganto, then moves, he will not be able to abort until DEX 21 in phase 10. No biggie in this case - Giganto won't be moving again for a while, so abort at DEX 42 or DEX 21 makes no real difference. However, SG is exposed for a brief period of time. If Giganto acts at DEX 11, he can abort at DEX infinity next segment. If he acts at DEX 5, he can't abort until DEX 6 next segment - a bigger delay than SG would suffer.

 

I can see where Giganto has something of an advantage - when would he delay (other than "delay to DEX 1, then Sweep, then abort next segment, which was the original problem - catch is, Giganto is unilikely to pursue this tactic - it's much more useful to the high OCV SG).

 

A potential amendment which may satisfy matters would be to rule that, once you act on any segment, the earliest you can abort is that same DEX in the next segment. So if SG could move in phase 6, and delays to DEX 20, he canot abort until DEX 20 in segment 7 (if he has a phase in 7, he could move at 42, or any time thereafter). Once Giganto takes his move in DEX 11, he would not be able to abort until DEX 11 the following segment. This is, of course, even more tracking. However, your speed/DEX chart already has these dexterities so it may be easier to track.

 

The bottom line is that SG should not be able to delay to the very end of the phase, use a maneuver which imposes significant penalties to offset its advantages, then eliminate any exposure to those penalties so they can't be capitalized on. tesuji has suggested a mechanic which would ensure these penalties remain in effect for some rational period of time, providing a window of opportunity for those penalties to be exploited.

 

Giganto actually provides an opportunity to exploit the rules in this fashion, even if DEX countdowns are not maintained. He's very slow, and he's not overly bright, so won't think to delay. I have only to watch Giganto. When he swings, I can immediately rapid fire, secure in the knowledge that only someone who was also delaying will be able to act in this segment. Next segment, I can abort - I can even say "I'll apply all levels to OCV and rapid fire Scorpia (who I saw move shortly before Giganto) using my delayed phase. As soon as possible after I will abort to Dodge and move all my levels to DCV" Under the rules as they stand, I can abort at DEX 100, next segment. Under the alternate system, I cannot abort until 1/2 my dex (or DEX 10 when I acted) in that next segment, so there is an opportunity for the opposition to take advantage of the fact that Rapid Fire makes me easier to counterattack.

 

This is not to say this added complexity is essential - that depends on whether the "delay/quick abort" tactic is abused. While this takes away a benefit available to extremely high DEX/SPeed combinations, I believe it is a benefit which is neither appropriate nor within the spirit of the game, and have no problem removing that benefit. Of course, if the tactic isn't being abused, that "benefit" does not actually exist, so no problem.

 

I think the better solution would be a timing rule where a character delaying can choose to act immediately after any other action. If not, he delays until something else happens. For example, if I have delayed, and Giganto swings and misses, I have the option of moving now. If I don't, time moves on to the highest dex in the next segment. In other words, the character does not have the ability to divine the precise end of the segment prior to his next phase, and take his delayed action at that time. Unless he moves in response to something happening before the start of his next phase, he has delayed his phase away. I'm probably not to clear on this. Perhaps it is better phrased as "Once you say "delay", your character continues to delay until you say he is doing something."

 

Finally, you note that this proposal breaks the one second segment down into smaller components. That is already the case, however. My DEX 26 character gets to see what the DEX 27+ characters did, and what the results were, before deciding what he will do on his phase. The only way around that wuld be to require every character, at the start of the segment, to state what he will do this segment. This would require Quasar and Keneton to decide what they will do before Quasar can say "Cover me" (and saying "cover me" does take about 1 second, by the way). The actions would then be resolved in DEX order, but you either take the action you committed to or, if it's no longer possible, get no action. The villain you were planning to attack may have been KO'd at DEX 30, but it's to late for you to switch to aiming at someone else in 4 DEX points.

 

That approach, however "realistic", is a major change to the rules, and is also highly inconsistent with the genre. As such, I wuld not implement such a change, at least not in a supers campaign.

[Quasar]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The bottom line is that SG should not be able to delay to the very end of the phase, use a maneuver which imposes significant penalties to offset its advantages, then eliminate any exposure to those penalties so they can't be capitalized on. tesuji has suggested a mechanic which would ensure these penalties remain in effect for some rational period of time, providing a window of opportunity for those penalties to be exploited.

 

First off let me say I appreciate your posts because they seem well thought out and not terribly confrontational.

 

To respond to the quote above...

 

Sure he should be able to, except that the usage of the term "end of phase" should not be used by the player or GM. Instead the player should be allowed to hold until he wishes to act. Like it or not beginning a combat on phase 12 adds a metagame tag to the end of the first phase, known as the post-12 recovery. From there on GM's should give no indication that phases have ended other than starting at the top of the DEX order again (at which time it should be too late for a character to say, "Wait, I was holding to the end of the X!"). The problem only comes when this becomes a consistently used tactic to avoid being vulnerable. When I put points in DEX one of my thoughts (if the concepts is a fast, agile, tactically experienced guy) is that he should be able to do just that if the situation is dire enough to warrant it. However, the ability to do something should not always translate into doing that very thing whenever the opportunity arises. Doing so is immature from a gaming standpoint, and wouldn't be tolerated in my group.

 

The common reaction to such a maneuver in a comic (and I can hear Bob saying this as if he were here) would be a surprised look on the villains face an a dialog bubble saying, "I have you now Quasar...What?...h-how?!?"

 

This kind of surprise would never happen in tesuji's games, because he has created a mechanic to entirely prevent it rather than just counting on his players to not act immaturely.

 

IMO the Hero System is complex enough and can bog down dreadfully in large combats without the addition of more rules. I just think tesuji is adding complication that doesn't need to be there (I am assuming) because he can't control his players/friends and count on them not to act immaturely.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

OK, first off, I don't agree that this approach is extremely cumbersome. It does add one more thing to keep track of. In games where the DEX count is visible,

 

FWIW i still dont get the cumbersome thing...

 

taking the example mentioned above where three different hero/villains and several batches of mooks were all holding and triggering a diasy chain of held actions one prompting tha other (and ignoring the missed dex offs to see which goes first) then its not really adding anything ADDITIONAL to track.

 

See, this thing will hit you for most cases when your character is DELAYING. if you go on your dex, no problem. if you abort without holding, yourr next asbort will be later on and you will almost never hit this.

 

if you are delaying like the entire cast was in the example, then you have ALREADY given yourself an additional thing... is the character holding an action and is it a half action. That is tracked for every hero, villain and goon who held in that wonderfully complex, and later expressed as good example of it in play, example.

 

Now imagine if you will a box on the character sheet, or a similar mental box in memory, or a box on the master scenario cast list or combat control sheet where you note, recall, keep track of "is this character holding and how much action does he have."

 

Thats already being used heavily in that example described.

 

When each character acts, that box is updated, physically or mentally to change it from full/half/ to none. OK, so instead of changing it to"none" you change it to 3.08.

 

When you need to abort, you have to check back to that box, again physically or mentally, to see if it has a held action or not to see whether you lose your next phase. At the same time you check for that, you can see if there is a delay issue.

 

and so forth.

 

not more cumberson, not more things to track, just more information stored in the same places and accessed no more times than before.

[Silbeg]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

A similar issue arises with combat starting on phase 12 - may as well spend END since I get a recovery anyway.

 

Interesting you say this, because it has been my experience that quite the opposite is true... "Why attack now? They'll just recover the damage" seems to be more prevelant for my group...

 

Silbeg...

[Quasar]

Originally posted by Silbeg

Interesting you say this, because it has been my experience that quite the opposite is true... "Why attack now? They'll just recover the damage" seems to be more prevelant for my group...

 

Silbeg...

 

Exactly! It makes more sense to maneuver around setting up attack combos, finding weakness, targeting, or powering up full phase powers than blowing all sorts of END for little return. It seems to me that opposing groups would spend this time assessing their enemies rather than blasting away with all they have.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[Silbeg]

Originally posted by Quasar

Exactly! It makes more sense to maneuver around setting up attack combos, finding weakness, targeting, or powering up full phase powers than blowing all sorts of END for little return. It seems to me that opposing groups would spend this time assessing their enemies rather than blasting away with all they have.

 

More often that, though, I see players holding until segment 1 or 2 (depending on their speed), to guarantee their first shots have some lasting effect. Of course, I have seen very few of the heroes in my game buy the "Teamwork" skill, so they cannot coordinate attacks (which, if done, definately gives some advantage to a phase-12 attack!).

As for the villains in my game, I usually have them make a seg-12 attack, unless they are the "master tactician" type, or cannot perceive an enemy (presumably one of the heroes) to attack. However, all bets are off when dealing with very experienced opponents!

 

Silbeg...

[austenandrews]

I tend to have lots of low-powered opponents in my games, so blasting away on Segment 12 gives the PCs a chance to whittle down the bad guys.

 

Time to bust out the big guns.

 

-AA

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Quasar

Exactly! It makes more sense to maneuver around setting up attack combos, finding weakness, targeting, or powering up full phase powers than blowing all sorts of END for little return. It seems to me that opposing groups would spend this time assessing their enemies rather than blasting away with all they have.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

 

A lot depends on the characters. Most have choices of attacks. Many can choose attacks which cost more END (or can push - IMC, however, pushing is reserved for truly unusual efforts, and is not used as a standard tactical choice). Theseattacks carry a cost if you use them phase after phase. However, that first Phase 12, I can use a whole REC worth of END and get it all back anyway.

 

Consider a character with a Multi (or VPP) with 75 AP available. Should I use the 10d6 0 END blast, or hit him with the 15d6 full END blast. Or maybe I should use the full END Entangle - he'll lose a phase or two getting out of that!

 

It's another one with potential for abuse that's easily fixed if the potential is realized - just roll the starting phase.

 

The "start on 12" mechanic was originally developed to deal with surprise situations anyway. Before that, everyone started on 1. [Funny...I don't hear anyone complaining about how starting on 12 "punishes" high speed characters because they don't get several moves before the low speed mook can even react. Of course, this is only once in the entire combat, so it doesn't have a pervasive effect.]

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Silbeg

More often that, though, I see players holding until segment 1 or 2 (depending on their speed), to guarantee their first shots have some lasting effect.

 

How do they know when phase 1 or 2 is about to end so they can avoid losing their phase 2/3 move? I'm inclined to follow the same "delay" rules set out above. If "Speed 8 Guy" delays, and the next guy to move acts at DEX 20, phase 3, it's now DEX 20, phase 3.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by 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.

I would say that perhaps it is more precise to say your group doesn't do things you define as metagaming. I think you and i could agree that, since metagaming is difficult to pin down, other groups may well find some of your groups accepted practices as metagaming.

 

Originally posted by Quasar

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.

Right and sometimes the player needs to pay attention and discriminate between what he knows and what his player knows. That is part and parcel to roleplaying.

 

Sometimes the player must discriminate between what he would do and what his character should do, based on the fact that they are not the same people with the same personality. That is called roleplaying.

 

What we are discussing here is the player choosing not to have his character not do things NOT BECAUSE his character lacks the knowledge he has and not because the character has different values/personalities than the player and not for any "within the game world character based" reason at all, but because at some point the Gm leaned over and with a nod and a wink said "these are the rules which tell you what you can and cannot do but you should not use this particular thing too often."

 

Thats a wholly different thing than role playing. Its not role playing when the "why you dont do this" comes about as an outside-the-rules, outside the game world request from the GM.

Originally posted by Quasar

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.

Both are great examples of character personality "role playing" or "character knowledge limits role playing" and are just fine.

 

Gm telling the players outside-the-rules to limit their end-of-turn delays because he sees it as metagaming falls into neither of those camps. In order for the decision (to delay-to-end here in this case to be OK but for the delay-to-end there in that case or to be Ok if done once per session or once per month but not three times a session or whatever your scale is) to be role playing the reasons it is made have to be a part of the in game world or the conflict in question.

 

So, to have this be a case of GM asking players to limit it (as metagaming) takes it right outside that "role playing" notion at all.

Originally posted by Quasar

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.

Far from the truth.

 

I want my players to make their decisions based on their character and the role-playing issues.

 

What i am saying is i do not want to step outside the roleplaying and outside the rules in order to tell my players to limit their actions or base their decisions on factors beyond role playing.

 

Its not roleplaying for Bob to know as a player he has to have Blasto not choose to delay because i asked him as GM with a nod and a wink to not do so too often and he has done it once so far. Thats metagaming, just from the GM.

 

I would much rather have the rules in play WORK FOR and WORK WITH the game i am running so that the good IN CHARACTER decisions dont contradict the genre or game feel.

 

IMO if the rules run into conflict with the flavor, style, genre so that the Gm has to step outside the setting and outside the rules and start putting in his own "do not decide to make this decision for your character... too much" type of thing, then the rules-to-game match is poor. Make the rules fit your game and you dont need to ask the players to limit their character's decisions based on orders given outside the character and outside the setting.

Originally posted by Quasar

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.

My response to the implied "house rule will be poorly implemented" thing is just to yawn.

 

And again, i do not see forcing my players to based the decisions of the character they are asked to roleplay on instructions that are nbot IN CHARACTER based and are even outside the rules themselves as anything i would call elegant.

Originally posted by Quasar

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.

We disagree in the degree to which my rule devalues dex.

 

Originally posted by Quasar

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.

Which of course, I never asked for. I posted my suggestion as an option for those who have a problem and you began criticising it. I believe early on i said that those for whom the delay thing was not a problem would not even need to consider it.

 

You, however, seem set on convincing me or others that even if they see the delay thing as problem they should not be using or considering my suggestion.

 

again, YMMV.

[austenandrews]

My only further comment is that no matter how hard you try, you can't separate game mechanics from roleplaying. It's nearly impossible to make a combat decision based entirely on roleplaying. At some point you have to at least decide what combat maneuver you're going to use, where your levels will go, etc. You can't design a system that maps to reality in all instances.

 

In other words, you can't eliminate metagaming. So it's just a decision about what your tolerance level is, and how much effort you're willing to go through to reach it. Obviously different people have different tolerance levels.

 

Anyway, this discussion seems to have run its course. I humbly suggest everyone agree to disagree.

 

-AA

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Quasar

The problem only comes when this becomes a consistently used tactic to avoid being vulnerable. When I put points in DEX one of my thoughts (if the concepts is a fast, agile, tactically experienced guy) is that he should be able to do just that if the situation is dire enough to warrant it.

However, the ability to do something should not always translate into doing that very thing whenever the opportunity arises. Doing so is immature from a gaming standpoint, and wouldn't be tolerated in my group.

Well, while not wanting to get into characterizing styles as immature or tossing around unneded perjoratives, you and i definitely have a different view of gaming and what roleplaying is.

 

I don't want my ruleset and game to hinge on character CAPABILITIES (whether i can decide to take this action and have it succeed) to be based on outside of character and even outside the rules issues such as "is it dire enough."

 

If i want "is it dire enough to do this" issues the whatever the action we are discussing should have DOWNSIDES, a problem that makes using it willy nilly at the drop of a hat a BAD IDEA. IThere needs to be a reason IN CHARACTER for the decision to not do this helpful thing, otherwise, its not roleplaying... its metagaming.

 

"I don't delay-to-end because my Gm asks us not to too much" not roleplaying, its metagaming, not an issue of IN CHARACTER decision or judgement, but an issue of outside the rules GM orders being followed..

 

"I dont go intoa rage now because after a rage I am weakened and tired and have to rest" is a roleplaying issue, a matter of IN CHARACTER reasoning and judgement.

 

There is a serious difference between those two.

 

Originally posted by Quasar

The common reaction to such a maneuver in a comic (and I can hear Bob saying this as if he were here) would be a surprised look on the villains face an a dialog bubble saying, "I have you now Quasar...What?...h-how?!?"

 

This kind of surprise would never happen in tesuji's games, because he has created a mechanic to entirely prevent it rather than just counting on his players to not act immaturely.

Again, the characterization of this difference in play style and different expectations of what rules are for and what is roleplaying and such using perjoratives like immature is IMO uncalled for and quite explicative of your own perspective.

 

As for, in tesuji's games, the difference is this. There are plenty of surprise this and surpirise that. What does not happen is the decision by the player on whether or not his character can TRY something is not deteermined by whether or not he think it will be a surprise.

 

Even if it wont be a surprise, he can take any IN CHARACTER action that is reasonable IN CHARACTER. Whether or not that action has penalties or not, suich bas say a delay before aborting, is not going to ***change*** based on whether or not the other guy would be surprised.

 

If his character does not have lock picking skill or some other appropriate ability, he wont be able to pick the cell lock and escape just because his enemy would not be expecting that. No matter how dire the situation, lock picking wont just jump into his character's skill set.

 

In other words, the methodolgy used to determnine whether a character can try something and the odds of success are based on character ability and difficulty and not on outside of character, outside of rules, outside of effect issues.

 

So, whether or not your action CAN BE TRIED by you, whether you are permitted by me to say "thats what my character does" or not, is not dependent on how dire the situation is or how unexpected it is.

 

EXCEPTIONS: Sometimes within genre the rules need to allow for some of these considerations. Examples in HERo include pushing where you can improve your effect with extra effort. In other games this can also be represented with action points or heroic dice and such, where you the players have a built in mechanic for "i fudge" in a limited sense as a part of keeping the mechanics from inhibiting appropriate dramatics. If your PC reaches to grab the falling tot to prevent her demise and you roll 18 and fail, spending a hero point to reroll is very dramatically appropriate. I really dont play any games without such mechanics anymore.

 

However, taking the basis for these "exceptions" outside the character, the rules and the game to become just metagame instructions from the GM is not by any stretch my cup of tea.

 

Some games have done this and some still do. I think it was maybe theatrix or was it noblis which used the "dramatic impact" as as valid a measure determining success/fail as character ability of challenge difficulty. Some games make dramatic impact the sole or at least primary determing element for success fail and go even more abstract.

 

TOON may have been the first to go down this path many years ago, cuz IIRC, in TOON the funnier your action was to the players at the table the better a chance of success you got.

 

To me thats great for TOON. Its not what i would look for necessarily in other games.

Originally posted by Quasar

IMO the Hero System is complex enough and can bog down dreadfully in large combats without the addition of more rules. I just think tesuji is adding complication that doesn't need to be there (I am assuming) because he can't control his players/friends and count on them not to act immaturely.

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

 

Again, the fall back on insulkting the players seems to be very illustrative, but somewhat inappropriate.

 

The difference we are having is not about mature players or immature players, but about a fundamental difference of opinion on what the rules need to do for the game.

 

You are fine with the rules not covering the bases and you needing to ask your player to choose character decisions based at times on your out-of-character, out-of-rules instructions. (Thats what i call matagaming, not roleplaying.)

 

I much prefer having the rules sybc up and work with the genre/game/campaign so that the players don't need to step outside their character and make decisions based on a list of exceptions to their understanding of the rules and their character's understanding of the situation. I am VERY WILLING to alter the "official rules" to make it so that I don't need to nod, nod, wink, wink tell them we "are playing by the official rules" and then add in "but dont use that rule too often, that would be metagaming" and pretend that what i have not just done is a rules change... just a rather amorphous one.

 

My preference... make the rules work right for me and my game, instead of making me and my player work around the rules. In the two games i currently GM and the one i play in, there is not a single "nod nod wink wink GM asks the players to not have their characters do this thing too much even though its in the rules and allowed" metagame "dont" in effect. There hasn't been in any game i have been in for three years.

 

We haven't seen the need, being so immature and all. :-)

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Quasar, I just have to ask this:

 

If the tactic is one which is highly effective, and the character knows this, how "in character" can it be for the character not to do it very often? I know the most efficient route to travel from my hom,e to work, and numerous less efficient routes. I take the most efficient route when going to work every time because it works.

 

If my character can delay to end of phase, raoid fire, then abort at the start of the next phase, and this is the character's most efficient tactic, I suggest to you that it is generally poor role playing NOT to use it. The character has the goal of victory before the villain can escape or do any more harm. Why would he not use the most efficient means of accomplishing that goal every time?

 

The reason he will not rapid fire every time is that there is a drawback - reeduced DCV and the need for a full phase action (plus OCV penalties). However, if he can eliminate the DCV penalty without taking an attack against his reduced DCV, and has a full phase available, what would possess him NOT to delay to DEX 1, fire, then abort? Assume he has a zero END attack for this purpose, and will hit, on average, three times with 5 rapid fire shots. He's getting 3 hits every 2 phases, rather than (at most) two hits every two phases.

 

Now, ensure his reduced DCV is, in fact, a drawback, and suddenly this tactic is less desirable and it is better role playing to decide the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, so he will select another tactic.

 

In other words, I agree with tesuji that "we reserve this maneuver for really dire situations" is just another form of metagaming, not role playing.

 

[iLLUSTRATIVE ASIDE: In a D&D game I played in many years ago, we decided we would search the heart of a nearby forest - I forget why. The DM tried to dissuade us - we didn't know why. Finally, he said "Look, guys, there's a very old green dragon in the middle of the woods and you wouldn't stand a chance against it." OUT OF GAME REASON - METAGAMING APPROACH

 

One player said "We've decided to go there. Unless we have an in-game reason not to, that is where we are going." That night, our cleric had a dream about the dragon at the center of the woods. He awoke convinced he had received a warning from his patron deity. We decided to go elsewhere. IN-GAME REASON: ROLE PLAYING APPROACH.

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Quasar, I just have to ask this:

 

If my character can delay to end of phase, raoid fire, then abort at the start of the next phase, and this is the character's most efficient tactic, I suggest to you that it is generally poor role playing NOT to use it.

 

Well I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I am not responding for Quasar, but would like to ewspond to this (quote above) as I never touched on this in the discussion part of the thread before going off on the tangent with the other sytem.

 

Quasar rarely rapid attacks in game, but is aware of how efficient it is to do so. The tactic you describe is not efficient tactically. Here is why.

 

True it is best to hold then sweep and or rapid attack. In our campaign such maneuvers have a cumualtive -2/targetl when making fast draws of dex rols against holding opponents. (whole other thread!). Besides this aborting at the top of the next phase is simply dumb.

 

Why abort until you have to? Quasar, if he did swep would stay at his penalty until the last opportunity. He might even choose not to abort against weaker attacks as these are likely to do knockback and drive him out of his penalties without stunning him. True Quasar would abort vs anything over say 60 active points, but that assumes he knows the strength of the attcker. Quasar as a characetr has a good con and decent enough stun.

 

What every has talked about being abusive simply isnt. So what if a guy dodges at the start of the next phase. Hit his hex or crucsh him with a car! Aborting early is frankly UNTATICAL. Better to make someone commit and waste an attack then abort. The DEX 100 thing just frankly only happens with people who dont know how to play.

 

BTW: I appreciate your response to my rant earlier. I also want you to know that I frequently shre your opinions on these boards. What noone noticed on my example is that Keneton had held from the 2nd all the way through until 11 dex in the third. Under T's sytem ho long would he have to wait to abort if he had held a whole segment (in 2) and aborted say at Dex 56 (double Ken's Dex) in the 3rd. Under T's sytem he would have no penalty to abort in the 4th but still held LONGER than the example wher he was forced to wait until Dex 14 to abort.

 

Please see the logic in this!

[Quasar]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Quasar, I just have to ask this:

 

If the tactic is one which is highly effective, and the character knows this, how "in character" can it be for the character not to do it very often? I know the most efficient route to travel from my home to work, and numerous less efficient routes. I take the most efficient route when going to work every time because it works.

 

Bad analogy. Beating someone's head in does not equate to driving to work. One word for you...restraint. In our campaign the law comes down hard on the use of excessive force. If Stalker (a vampire/ninja "Blade" type character) starts splitting Viper agent skulls with his katana (his most effective attack, but downright deadly to agents), he will go to jail. Although Quasar has a 14D6 EB, he wouldn't necessarily use all 14D against an opponent unless he thought it wouldn't be excessive. Pulling punches is fairly common in our campaign and not terribly effective, but still in character.

 

Now remember that I do not think the "hang myself out to dry then abort" combo is abusive in any way. My stance is that simple GM fiat should be enough to stop the perceived abuse, without some additional rule from another game system.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

If my character can delay to end of phase, raoid fire, then abort at the start of the next phase, and this is the character's most efficient tactic, I suggest to you that it is generally poor role playing NOT to use it. The character has the goal of victory before the villain can escape or do any more harm. Why would he not use the most efficient means of accomplishing that goal every time?

 

I think your use of the term "end of phase" is where the problem comes in. In my campaign we simply say "holding," and when we want to act interject our wish to do so. If we end up acting way before the end of the phase or right at the end we have no way of knowing until the GM starts at the top of the DEX order again. If someone at the table actually said, "I'm holding until the end of the phase," I think we'd all stare at them dumbfounded and/or laugh at them. When a hero and villain are both holding waiting for the other to act, they would probably both hold through the end of the phase and into the next if neither flinched.

 

Once again remember that I don't think your example is abusive, but if the whole table of players is using the same tactic then I doubt they put much thought into a real character concept, but instead made cookie cutter combat efficient characters. Not my idea of role-playing at all. In fact I am so against making any decisions in character design that are based solely on efficiency that I frequently get in arguments with members of my own group. To me concept isn't just everything, it's the only thing.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

In other words, I agree with tesuji that "we reserve this maneuver for really dire situations" is just another form of metagaming, not role playing.

 

I totally disagree. Why can't a character (not a player) determine when they are in dire straights? The hero might be thinking, "I feel like I've been hit by a truck, I just did that thing that leaves my back all exposed, and here comes Doc D with that killer attack of his again...this is gonna hurt...unless I try to dodge it." I don't see any metagaming there. I think you are assuming (unless I typed the word player by mistake in a previous example) that a character cannot assess his own physical and tactical situation. I assume they can.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Keneton

Quasar rarely rapid attacks in game, but is aware of how efficient it is to do so. The tactic you describe is not efficient tactically. Here is why.

 

True it is best to hold then sweep and or rapid attack. In our campaign such maneuvers have a cumualtive -2/targetl when making fast draws of dex rols against holding opponents. (whole other thread!). Besides this aborting at the top of the next phase is simply dumb.

 

Why abort until you have to? Quasar, if he did swep would stay at his penalty until the last opportunity. He might even choose not to abort against weaker attacks as these are likely to do knockback and drive him out of his penalties without stunning him. True Quasar would abort vs anything over say 60 active points, but that assumes he knows the strength of the attcker. Quasar as a characetr has a good con and decent enough stun.

 

Simply replace "at DEX 100" with "at whatever point someone attacks him", or "at whatever point someone he believes is a threat attacks him". The same logic applies - the cyaracter has avoided the penalty of halved DCV. Umm...not sure why Knockback would eliminate the penalties - now you're prone.

 

Originally posted by Keneton

BTW: I appreciate your response to my rant earlier. I also want you to know that I frequently shre your opinions on these boards. What noone noticed on my example is that Keneton had held from the 2nd all the way through until 11 dex in the third. Under T's sytem ho long would he have to wait to abort if he had held a whole segment (in 2) and aborted say at Dex 56 (double Ken's Dex) in the 3rd. Under T's sytem he would have no penalty to abort in the 4th but still held LONGER than the example wher he was forced to wait until Dex 14 to abort.

 

I think tesuyji's mechanic has a certain simplicity, but it would be just as easy to implement a rule that you can never act any earlier than 1 segment later, same DEX at which you acted. Then everyone has the same delay of exactly one segment. Want to move sooner? Take the "hurry" penalty. Perhaps one might allow "cumulative Hurry" - ie I can't move until 7 more DEX, so I "hurry" - roll d6 until they total 7. Multiply the dice by 2. That's your OCV and DCV penalty for hurrying, and the rapid fire penalty is ended.

 

I don't think tesuji has implemented his suggestion - it was a suggested rules fix if "delay delay delay" is a problem in your campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Quasar

Bad analogy. Beating someone's head in does not equate to driving to work. One word for you...restraint. In our campaign the law comes down hard on the use of excessive force. If Stalker (a vampire/ninja "Blade" type character) starts splitting Viper agent skulls with his katana (his most effective attack, but downright deadly to agents), he will go to jail. Although Quasar has a 14D6 EB, he wouldn't necessarily use all 14D against an opponent unless he thought it wouldn't be excessive. Pulling punches is fairly common in our campaign and not terribly effective, but still in character.

 

The example should be restricted to situations where the character's objective is to put his opponent down as fast as possible. No question that Rapid Firing your 15d6 EB against some poor VIPER agent (or an unknown villain) is excessive, and a "Superheroic Character" (as opposed to any character with superheroic point values) would not be taking that approach. However, if your objective is to put that dangerous adersary down as quickly as possible, and you can avoid the rapid fire penalties, it would seem the character would generally choose to do so, not say "well, this villain seems like one we can beat without rapid fire, so I won't use it".

 

Originally posted by Quasar

Now remember that I do not think the "hang myself out to dry then abort" combo is abusive in any way. My stance is that simple GM fiat should be enough to stop the perceived abuse, without some additional rule from another game system.

 

And here we differ. I believe the rules should ensure the penalties for powerful tactical moves available at no point cost are, in fact PENALTIES. Simply saying "oh, Rapid Fire only works on GM say-so" doesn;t do it for me. "Oh, I could rapid fire, and it would be in character to do so" (ie no "Overconfident" or other psych this violates, no concern this will seriously injure the unknown oppoent, etc.) "but I won't because the GM frowns on regular use of rapid fire" indicates to me a campaign where the maneuver has been semi-banned. That's certainly another solution, but I'd rather not have a "power/tactic forgotten except when the writer needs it as a plot device" structure to my campaign. I would prefer a structure where the choice of rapid fire carries risk (ie 1/2 DCV), and enforcing a period of time between rapid fire and availability of Abort seems an effective way of ensuring that risk exists.

 

Originally posted by Quasar

I think your use of the term "end of phase" is where the problem comes in. In my campaign we simply say "holding," and when we want to act interject our wish to do so. If we end up acting way before the end of the phase or right at the end we have no way of knowing until the GM starts at the top of the DEX order again. If someone at the table actually said, "I'm holding until the end of the phase," I think we'd all stare at them dumbfounded and/or laugh at them. When a hero and villain are both holding waiting for the other to act, they would probably both hold through the end of the phase and into the next if neither flinched.

 

And I like this approach. Still, it remains limited. Replace "end of phase" with "after Giganto/the thug/the agent moves" and you still have a fairly reliable "end of phase, I will be able to abort by the time anyone not also delaying gets a move" measurement. It is, howeber, limited to segments on which these slow characters get a phase.

 

Originally posted by Quasar

Once again remember that I don't think your example is abusive, but if the whole table of players is using the same tactic then I doubt they put much thought into a real character concept, but instead made cookie cutter combat efficient characters. Not my idea of role-playing at all. In fact I am so against making any decisions in character design that are based solely on efficiency that I frequently get in arguments with members of my own group. To me concept isn't just everything, it's the only thing.

 

ummm...Rapid Fure and Sweep are combat maneuvers available to virtually everyone. Now if they all had Rapid Attack and levels to offset the OCV/DCV penalties, I might agree with your cookie cutter analogy. Perhaps your group is so dedicated to role playing that a couple of members of your team have extremely limited attack capabilities, for example (eg. Kitty Pryde in the X-Men), but that's not a length to which many players go. Once we accept that each character has a reasonably effective attack, Sweep/Rapid Fire become valid options.

 

Originally posted by Quasar

I totally disagree. Why can't a character (not a player) determine when they are in dire straights? The hero might be thinking, "I feel like I've been hit by a truck, I just did that thing that leaves my back all exposed, and here comes Doc D with that killer attack of his again...this is gonna hurt...unless I try to dodge it." I don't see any metagaming there. I think you are assuming (unless I typed the word player by mistake in a previous example) that a character cannot assess his own physical and tactical situation. I assume they can.

 

Where I see metagaming is where the same character thinks "Hey, I've got the drop on him - should I risk an all out attack and hope to take him down before he clocks my teammate? No, that will leave me exposed, unable to dodge, to all the other guys who move this segment. I know I can dodge again at exactly the same time, no matter when I make my attack, so I'll wait to attack and leave a lesser window of opportunity by minimizing the time it takes to recover my bearings. Good thing Sensei drilled me on that Speed Chart so intensively!"

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Simply replace "at DEX 100" with "at whatever point someone attacks him", or "at whatever point someone he believes is a threat attacks him". The same logic applies - the cyaracter has avoided the penalty of halved DCV. Umm...not sure why Knockback would eliminate the penalties - now you're prone.

 

If you replace at Dex 100 with when attacked, it does make sense, but tht is not what was said before. I was making a point about the whole tactics thing, but true enough this is just nit picking. Knockback does drive people out of maneuvers. I mentioned specifically a low poweerd attack and in this case I should have included that Quasar (the example Character) usually fights flying and has breakfall. In this case his DCV would improve when knocked out of the sweep if and when he made his breakfall rll and did not impact soemthing. Even if he went prone he could make his acro by half and have full dcv which is not the case with sweep or rapid fire.

 

Speaking of sweeps, in old 4th edition Keneton had Use art with Humanoids. He would pick up an opposing brick and gain control. On the next phase he would sweep each hex surrounding him thereby pounding the opponent 6 times. This was a horrible abuse (I admit), but at the time completely legal. I think wht everyone will agree here is that just because a system allows you to do something does not mean you have to. Lets have a group hug!

 

TO ALL: Quasar and I will be GM'ing at Origins and Gen Con and would welcome tactical players to Battle beside us in The Phazor's Prize Tournament. The gladiators there will demonstrate true tactical wizardry!

[Quasar]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The example should be restricted to situations where the character's objective is to put his opponent down as fast as possible. No question that Rapid Firing your 15d6 EB against some poor VIPER agent (or an unknown villain) is excessive, and a "Superheroic Character" (as opposed to any character with superheroic point values) would not be taking that approach. However, if your objective is to put that dangerous adersary down as quickly as possible, and you can avoid the rapid fire penalties, it would seem the character would generally choose to do so, not say "well, this villain seems like one we can beat without rapid fire, so I won't use it".

 

I guess I have trouble seeing your point because Quasar does just fine without resorting to those types of maneuvers. Since 5E came out Quasar has never used the rapid fire maneuver. As a player I know it is there, and I know it's effects, but it simply isn't part of Quasar's fighting style, so therefore he doesn't use it.

 

Now if Quasar were in a one on one fight with a very tough villain and about to get trashed, he might resort to that maneuver to save his butt (but it would be an in character decision). Aftwards I would make a role-playing decision as to whether or not he made that maneuver a part of his fighting style. My gut reaction after playing Quasar for 20 years is that it really isn't his style, so he would only pull it out again if in a similar situation.

 

Another example to illustrate how I role-play regarding efficiency...

Almost all the heroes in Millenium Force have martial arts maneuvers. The combat value of maneuvers can be immense depending on what you do with them and at a base 9 CV Quasar is one of the most vulnerable members of Millennium Force. I toyed with the idea of buying him martial arts with experience, but rejected it almost immediately because it isn't in his concept, and such a decision would be pure metagaming.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

And here we differ. I believe the rules should ensure the penalties for powerful tactical moves available at no point cost are, in fact PENALTIES. Simply saying "oh, Rapid Fire only works on GM say-so" doesn;t do it for me. "Oh, I could rapid fire, and it would be in character to do so" (ie no "Overconfident" or other psych this violates, no concern this will seriously injure the unknown oppoent, etc.) "but I won't because the GM frowns on regular use of rapid fire" indicates to me a campaign where the maneuver has been semi-banned. That's certainly another solution, but I'd rather not have a "power/tactic forgotten except when the writer needs it as a plot device" structure to my campaign. I would prefer a structure where the choice of rapid fire carries risk (ie 1/2 DCV), and enforcing a period of time between rapid fire and availability of Abort seems an effective way of ensuring that risk exists.

 

I'm not saying my solution is the best way to handle it, I just think it is better than bringing d20 mechanics into Hero.

 

Look, paying for a high DEX is essentially paying off the maneuver disadvantage. I don't see the problem. You allow campaign disadvantages to be bought off with experience, right?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

And I like this approach. Still, it remains limited. Replace "end of phase" with "after Giganto/the thug/the agent moves" and you still have a fairly reliable "end of phase, I will be able to abort by the time anyone not also delaying gets a move" measurement. It is, howeber, limited to segments on which these slow characters get a phase.

 

Unless some other villain is holding, and jumps in after you. It is rare that I think about villain DEX and SPD scores in game. I might have a vague sense that Goth hasn't gone yet and I think she has the same SPD as Quasar, but I try very hard to focus only on what the character can percieve...what currently has grabbed his attention.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

ummm...Rapid Fure and Sweep are combat maneuvers available to virtually everyone. Now if they all had Rapid Attack and levels to offset the OCV/DCV penalties, I might agree with your cookie cutter analogy. Perhaps your group is so dedicated to role playing that a couple of members of your team have extremely limited attack capabilities, for example (eg. Kitty Pryde in the X-Men), but that's not a length to which many players go. Once we accept that each character has a reasonably effective attack, Sweep/Rapid Fire become valid options.

 

Actually we do have characters who would be considered junior members of Millenium Force. My second character The Shade (BTW, both he and Quasar are available for review in Storn's Art & Characters thread) would get killed in a lot of situations where Quasar could hang well enough, but he adventures with the main characters from time to time. His tactic in those fights is invariably to hold and see what happens before committing. It is cautious and frankly the only thing that keeps him alive sometimes.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Where I see metagaming is where the same character thinks "Hey, I've got the drop on him - should I risk an all out attack and hope to take him down before he clocks my teammate? No, that will leave me exposed, unable to dodge, to all the other guys who move this segment. I know I can dodge again at exactly the same time, no matter when I make my attack, so I'll wait to attack and leave a lesser window of opportunity by minimizing the time it takes to recover my bearings. Good thing Sensei drilled me on that Speed Chart so intensively!"

 

Which is why I agreed with tesuji that metagaming is hard to pin down. Metagaming takes place mainly in the mind of a player, and who among us can actually read minds? I think though that mature gamers, who are less interested in WINNING at all costs and more interested in telling an engaging and exciting group story will avoid metagaming like the plague. From my point of view, I can think of nothing more boring than delay, delay, delay...and that is enough reason for me not to do it.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[Tech]

(read read read. nod. read more. nod. read)

 

Interesting. I think any points I may have wanted to say have already been covered. Still...

 

1) I rarely have it come up in a game.

 

2) No, it doesn't cause problems when it does come up.

 

I'd say the most common situation somewhat releveant to this I run into is when a hero delays because a villain is delaying. They both continue to delay to the point where neither one does anything that phase, effectively negating both of their attacks.

 

Otherwise, yeah, I don't really have anything else to add.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Quasar

Another example to illustrate how I role-play regarding efficiency...

Almost all the heroes in Millenium Force have martial arts maneuvers. The combat value of maneuvers can be immense depending on what you do with them and at a base 9 CV Quasar is one of the most vulnerable members of Millennium Force. I toyed with the idea of buying him martial arts with experience, but rejected it almost immediately because it isn't in his concept, and such a decision would be pure metagaming.

 

This is way out of what we're discussing, in my view. This is "character creation metagaming". Yeah, TigerMan would be more combat effective with a flamethrower, but it doesn't fit his tiger concept, so I, the player, don't spend points on a flamethrower for TigerMan.

 

The rapid fire issue differs because I don't need to spend points to have access to the maneuver - it is available to every character. Now, I could take "cannot be rapid fired" for -1/4, but I need to have a character concept for why this attack is incapable of rapid firing, and that doesn't fit too many characters. So knowing the character can do this, and knowing the most effective way to do so, why, logically, would the character restruct this to only the most dire of situations? I can think of a few reasons:

 

- it takes a full phase, so I won't use it if I need the other half phase.

- it halves my DCV (but if I can eliminate that drawback simply by delaying, that drawback should only enter the equation when there is a reason not to delay)

- it sucks up a lot of END, and I don't want to risk exhausting myself with this all out burst, then being unable to act if it doesn't succeed (which is why mjy example posits a zero END attack)

- it reduces my OCV, so I need to consider my odds of hitting

 

But assuming the situation is such that the drawbacks are minimized (eg. I have a superior OCV, or can spread and make up the penalties and get more damage from likely multiple hits than a single full power hit, it's a zero END attack, I can abort to eliminate the DCV issue, and I don't have any pressiung use for a half phase action), why would the character not use the maneuver? Maybe a psych lim.

 

Originally posted by Quasar

I'm not saying my solution is the best way to handle it, I just think it is better than bringing d20 mechanics into Hero.

 

I was going to challenge this being d20, but now that I think of it, there is a resemblance. Of course, d20 modified much of D&D to be more similar with Hero, so maybe we should look at the differences with an open mind. That's another issue, however. Whether a solution is cut from whole cloth or cribbed from another system isn't really the issue. Is it a good solution? If so, why should it matter who thought of it first?

 

Originally posted by Quasar

Look, paying for a high DEX is essentially paying off the maneuver disadvantage. I don't see the problem. You allow campaign disadvantages to be bought off with experience, right?

 

I dispute your claim that high DEX offsets the drawbacks of rapid fire. The issue here is not the rapid fire maneuver, it is the combination of a late Rapid Fire and an early Abort to avoid the drawbacks. Absent the ability to avoid the DCV penalty, high DEX offsets the OCV penalt (I'm more likely to still hit) but exacerbates the DCV penalty (I lose a lot more DCV than Giganto, for example). Allowing the character to elimninate the DCV penalties for rapid fire does, in my opinion, mandate/encourage its more frequent use. The optiosn for correcting this are "the unwritten rule" (we don't rapid fire in this campaign unless it's truly a dire situation") or a mechanic that ensures the drawbacks of the maneuver must be faced.

 

To take another example, assume the character making the choice is a villain, rather than a hero. He does not care about excessiove force, or the risk of seriously injuring, or killing, his opponent. He can abort next phase and eliminate the DCV penalty, and he has the OCV and END to make it work. Is it reasonable that he rarely, if ever, uses Rapid Fire, or is this just a fiat that "well, he could, but then he'd hit to hard so he won't"? Our villain is now making out of character choices. If it's "He would, but then he's a much easier target for a significant window of time, and he doesn't want to take that risk", the villain is now being role played.

 

Originally posted by Quasar

Unless some other villain is holding, and jumps in after you. It is rare that I think about villain DEX and SPD scores in game. I might have a vague sense that Goth hasn't gone yet and I think she has the same SPD as Quasar, but I try very hard to focus only on what the character can percieve...what currently has grabbed his attention.

 

"Boy, he sure is fast for such a big guy" is a very common comic quote. It is certainly in genre for characters to think about DEX and SPEED - albeit in their terms, not those of game mechanics. If Spider Man didn't, he would never have beaten Firelord!

 

Originally posted by Quasar

Actually we do have characters who would be considered junior members of Millenium Force. My second character The Shade (BTW, both he and Quasar are available for review in Storn's Art & Characters thread) would get killed in a lot of situations where Quasar could hang well enough, but he adventures with the main characters from time to time. His tactic in those fights is invariably to hold and see what happens before committing. It is cautious and frankly the only thing that keeps him alive sometimes.

 

Delay itself is not the problem, in my view. The problem is the ability to shorten the timeframe (potentially to elimination) in which penalties for certain maneuvers apply. Why should anyone move at a high DEX? And knowing that moving at a high DEX is rarely, if ever, advantageous, why not have a low DEX and make it up in OCV levels and defenses, take all offensive powers with Delayed Phase, etc.? For 27 points, I can buy three 5 point skill level (+1 OCV) and +4/+4 resistant defenses. If I can cover my attacks with 3 point skill levels, I can get +6/+6 resistant defenses (or +9/+9 non-resistant, if I already have enough DEF that KA's don't scare me). If there is no advantage to moving first, I haven't lost much by making this choice, have I? Viewed in this light, it is the ability to abort regardless of DEX or time of last move cheapens the value of DEX.

 

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force [/b]

Which is why I agreed with tesuji that metagaming is hard to pin down. Metagaming takes place mainly in the mind of a player, and who among us can actually read minds? I think though that mature gamers, who are less interested in WINNING at all costs and more interested in telling an engaging and exciting group story will avoid metagaming like the plague. From my point of view, I can think of nothing more boring than delay, delay, delay...and that is enough reason for me not to do it.[/b]

 

Metagaming is when the PLAYER is thinking "win at al costs" and prepared to ignore his character's personality in doing so. However, when I ignore my character's personality by not attempting the most valid and effective maneuver he would perceive, in a situation where victory is important to him, because "we don't use that maneuver in our game", I am poorly role playing my character, and just as guilty of metagaming. And that includes saying "this maneuver is the most effective, but it's boring me, the player, so I won't do it." [i'm playing Batman], just as much as it includes saying "this maneuver is the most effective, so I'll use it despite the fact it requires my impatient and impulsive character to delay, which he finds boring" [i'm playing Impulse].

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Keneton

[bKnockback does drive people out of maneuvers. [/b]

 

Can you provide a page or FAQ reference for this? It's something I'd never considered, frankly.

[Quasar]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I dispute your claim that high DEX offsets the drawbacks of rapid fire. The issue here is not the rapid fire maneuver, it is the combination of a late Rapid Fire and an early Abort to avoid the drawbacks. Absent the ability to avoid the DCV penalty, high DEX offsets the OCV penalt (I'm more likely to still hit) but exacerbates the DCV penalty (I lose a lot more DCV than Giganto, for example). Allowing the character to elimninate the DCV penalties for rapid fire does, in my opinion, mandate/encourage its more frequent use. The optiosn for correcting this are "the unwritten rule" (we don't rapid fire in this campaign unless it's truly a dire situation") or a mechanic that ensures the drawbacks of the maneuver must be faced.

 

My claim is that buying a high DEX offsets (or buys down) the drawbacks of such a maneuver by allowing you to abort earlier in the next phase.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

"Boy, he sure is fast for such a big guy" is a very common comic quote. It is certainly in genre for characters to think about DEX and SPEED - albeit in their terms, not those of game mechanics. If Spider Man didn't, he would never have beaten Firelord!

 

I said "DEX and SPD scores" for a reason. I do think about their dexterity and speed (notice the lack of system terminology and the word "scores").

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Delay itself is not the problem, in my view. The problem is the ability to shorten the timeframe (potentially to elimination) in which penalties for certain maneuvers apply. Why should anyone move at a high DEX? And knowing that moving at a high DEX is rarely, if ever, advantageous, why not have a low DEX and make it up in OCV levels and defenses, take all offensive powers with Delayed Phase, etc.? For 27 points, I can buy three 5 point skill level (+1 OCV) and +4/+4 resistant defenses. If I can cover my attacks with 3 point skill levels, I can get +6/+6 resistant defenses (or +9/+9 non-resistant, if I already have enough DEF that KA's don't scare me). If there is no advantage to moving first, I haven't lost much by making this choice, have I? Viewed in this light, it is the ability to abort regardless of DEX or time of last move cheapens the value of DEX.

 

Quasar frequently moves on his DEX when he isn't particularly afraid of taking a hit or two. The difference is "brash" and "cautious" fighting. The whole paragraph above is pure metagaming. My character's concept is high DEX, not low DEX and levels.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Metagaming is when the PLAYER is thinking "win at al costs" and prepared to ignore his character's personality in doing so. However, when I ignore my character's personality by not attempting the most valid and effective maneuver he would perceive, in a situation where victory is important to him, because "we don't use that maneuver in our game", I am poorly role playing my character, and just as guilty of metagaming. And that includes saying "this maneuver is the most effective, but it's boring me, the player, so I won't do it." [i'm playing Batman], just as much as it includes saying "this maneuver is the most effective, so I'll use it despite the fact it requires my impatient and impulsive character to delay, which he finds boring" [i'm playing Impulse].

 

I think another area where we differ is in basic role-playing definition. In comics I have never seen a hero in the same attack mode and pose frame after frame. That would be boring so comic artists don't do it (but it would be extremly efficient). Champions attempts to simulate comic books, so doing the same thing all the time regardless of your reasoning is not comic book, and is therefore not role-playing the genre. I think these considerations are prime to good, "in character" role-playing...apparently you do not. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I think tesuyji's mechanic has a certain simplicity, but it would be just as easy to implement a rule that you can never act any earlier than 1 segment later, same DEX at which you acted.

I agree, and had considered that and rejected it. My reasons for rejecting it might not be applicable to everyone tho.

 

Irejected it for SCOPE issues. By "scope issues" I mean that it affects a lot more circumstances than the defined problem.

 

Whenever i decide to house rule something, I want its scope, the range of things it affects, to be as limited as possible to get the job done.

 

The problem as defined here was not just "people delay too much" but more specifically people delaying until near the end and short circuiting the penalties for maneuvers with instant aborts.

 

A house rule fix to this problem which changed the dynamic on EVERY case of delay (of which IMX the last tic delay-abort are a small minority) sweeps across too much "wasn't part of the problem" territory to meet my usual "limit scope of fic to the problem" mindset.

 

It is SIMPLER, no argument there. But i really do not see it as that complex or cumbersome and the "only if delayed so far as half dex" approach would cut out a lot of "normal" delays from being affected.

 

You could also define a cutoff point and leave it at that. "If you delay below dex-10..." would be possible but you do still need a "when do i recover next segment." Some people might prefer something like "if you take a delayed action in the last 10 dex counts/tics of a segment, you may not abort until half your dex in the next segment or whenever you gain your next regular action, whichever comes first."

 

But for me, making a guy who delays from 26 dex to 23 dex to coordinate an attack with his buddy wo is a smidgen slower take the abort hit change because we don't want people dodging the maneuver penalties by delaying to 1 is too broad a sweep.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I don't think tesuji has implemented his suggestion - it was a suggested rules fix if "delay delay delay" is a problem in your campaign.

 

Exactly! i think I have said that several times.

 

BTW, do you really think they did not see the difference between "my character chooses not to use his most potent attack in order to not kill the guy" and "My Gm asked me as a player not to have my character do this effective tactic too often so I only have him decide its Ok to use it in special circumstances" when they used one to frex the other?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Quasar

My claim is that buying a high DEX offsets (or buys down) the drawbacks of such a maneuver by allowing you to abort earlier in the next phase.

 

Sorry, but your claim is spurious. Regardless of whether your DEX is one or 100, you can abort at any time in the next phase.

 

Originally posted by Quasar

I think another area where we differ is in basic role-playing definition. In comics I have never seen a hero in the same attack mode and pose frame after frame. That would be boring so comic artists don't do it (but it would be extremly efficient). Champions attempts to simulate comic books, so doing the same thing all the time regardless of your reasoning is not comic book, and is therefore not role-playing the genre. I think these considerations are prime to good, "in character" role-playing...apparently you do not.

 

I think a good game provides an in-game reason for heroes to follow the genre, such as penalties for all out attacks which discourage their constant use. For example, why don't supers carry weapons and wear bullet proof vests? The rules could say "Equipment is purchased with money. But superheroes shouldn't wear bulletproof vests and carry flamethrowers because that's not the way the comics do it." This would, of course, be a load of crap. Instead, the bok says "Superheroes must pay character points if they want to carry equipment around. This is why few supers in the comics carry large amounts of gear, even though it would seem sensible for them to do so." Thus, there is an in-game reason why Tiger-Man does not carry a flamethrower, despite the advantages it would give him in combat.