Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

A Energy Blast can be used against PD' date=' it has to be defined that when the chacter is made, along with KA.[/quote']

Yes, of course, but that isn't the question.

It comes down to why there are two defenses PD/ED instead of just one?

If there is no embedded SFX in them, then how are they different?

If one is selected as the defence against an attack, then why can't the other defense be used against it, if they truely have no SFX associated with them?

 

As for SFX' date=' that is determined when the chacter is made and the Gm aproves it, I can see a hand attack being energy, but the main reason they have it listed that way is because it is a adder to STR a physical attack. If you want it to effect ED the GM may say ok to change your str damage to a energy attack, but you would have to state it does that all the time, you can't change the attack type after the chacter is made unless you totally rehach the chacter, (As in remake, between games)[/quote']

Actually the rule I was referring to was for 4th Edition. If I am not mistaken, 5th Edition allows HA to be defined vs PD or vs ED like the others. However, STR by default only goes against PD. You need to add an advantage to STR to make it go against another defence, such as AVLD.

 

Glad you are enjoying the show! (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Kristopher]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

It's still a double standard on your part. You can easily look past the name of Energy Blast' date=' but can't see past the names of Block and Dodge.[/quote']

 

The mechanics of Block and Dodge are as indicative of their purpose as their names are. Block is interposition, Dodge is avoidance, as indicated both by the nomenclature and the mechanics.

 

Despite the name, the mechanics of Energy Blast make it quite clear that it can be used to represent either an "energy attack" or a "physical attack" -- tying in to schir's comments regarding PD and ED, and how they represent a certain level of SFX distinction being hardcoded into the HERO system.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Yet I'm absolutely certain you have no problem with buying an Energy Blast that's versus PD.

 

I utterly reject and oppose double standards.

 

 

So do I for myself, but I don't mind if they apply to everyone else.

 

Anyway...

 

Blocking a move through.

 

First off I'm pretty sure that the system itself supports the idea that a block can be an avoidance, a deflection or a confrontation.

 

Second, whilst GMs can rule on individual instances, or have campaign rules, there is nothing that prevents Joe Normal blocking Grond's Haymayer with a deflect/confront type block. I mean, common sense says he'd be smeared, the rules don't care though.

 

Third (and I am only numbering my paragraphs to lend a spurious gravitas tot he proceedings) I can see three possible outcomes here (and bear in mind that, by and large, problems are only going to arise when you are doing move attacks - standard hth attacks are much less problematic):

 

1: Avoidance - this would count as a miss in my book, and so the blockee would NOT stop - they'd travel on to the end of their move.

 

2. Deflection - this would involve changing the direction of travel of the attacker. I don't think that you should really be able to do this with a block, and I'd probably require a held action and a throw type manouvre. You could, of course, define your block as a deflection that did not substantially change the direction of the attacker and is, in effect, an avoidance.

 

3. Confrontation - this is the problem really to my mind, especially if it id defined as an impact taking place. OK your block sfx could be in inertial dampening field - fine - but for almost ANYTHING else, where that amount of momentum is being bought suddenly to rest there should be some sort of impact consequence for both the attacker and defender. Note that you can already abort to resisting KB, and this would probably be my preferred solution here - that way the impact is almost bound to happen, and the defender has a very good chance of hurting the attacker quite badly (and, of course, himself).

 

I do not like the 'tough it out' mechanic at all: it makes no sense. An example - Brick has missile deflection and block. He decides to tough out a swung rock doing 20d6, and successfully blocks. Same phase a rock is thrown at him and causes 10d6, which he takes, then he continues blocking and toughs out a sword doing a 5d6 penetrating killing attack, even though he has no hardened defences. All attacks came from the same basic direction and he was equally aware of each...

 

OK that is a problem of the interaction of MD and block. Personally I'd like the ability to BUY block as a power, possibly as an option in the MD power.

 

More to the point if you are faced with a 30d6 punch you can tough it out, even though that would normally cause considerable damage. I can see some logic in being able to tense up a bit to increase your PD a bit, but not to double or triple it. Moreover, block applies to energy hth attacks as well, and I can't see how most characters can tense up their energy resistance, and block enables you to avoid damage from attacks for which you have NO appropriate defence.

 

One final thought in passing: if you do block, and define it as confrontation or deflection, and the attacker has a damage shield, so you've deliberately come into contact with it, presumably, do you take the damage shield's effect?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Okay, let's make this discussion very simple then.

 

I'll pose this as questions so as allow freedom of expression from everyone.

 

1) Do the Primary/Figured Characteristics have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?

2) Does PD/ED have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?

3) Can Pysical Defense protect a character from an Energy SFX Based Attack? Why/Why Not?

 

The answers to these questions might clear some things up.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

OK

 

1. Yes, up to a point. I would not so much think of most characteristics in terms of sfx as in terms of base game mechanics. We're not defining something in the real world so much as setting out our stall in terms that can be used to play the game. Now of course strength, for example, has various sfx properties, but I still see most characteristics in terms of a mechanical base rather than an sfx one. This is demonstarted to an extent in terms if you look at the figured characteristics: why should a better strength mean a better recovery? That's a game convention not a sfx-driven one. So there are embedded sfx: there have to be or the whole thing is meaningless, but these don't bother me much. This is not a problem.

 

2. With PD/ED being the exception: perhaps we could have a defence value at 2 points per point and then limit it to apply to certain sorts of attack, like, for instance, physical and energy attacks. In an ideal world. Mind you only ideal for some: I dare say many or most cherish the fact that almost every character would have to have a limitation applied to the characteristic, which is just messy. So yes, there are sfx embedded here, but for a nice solid, practical reason. Convenience. The assumption is that the game, in 99% of instances, will require both, so it makes great sense to seperate them early on. This is a gameplay problem.

 

3. Physical defence can not protect from energy attacks because that is not how the system works. A properly constructed character with a rocky skin sfx should probably have a quite high ED as well as a quite high PD but that's just construction etiquette. Similarly whilst you COULD build a laser that worked against PD, construction etiquette would frown on it, and tend to ignore you at parties. Just because you CAN do it does not mean that it is appropriate to do so. Now an energy attack CAN be defined as working against PD, in which case, of course, PD does protect, but you have to explain why it is more appropriate to go against PD than ED. This is an application problem.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

The mechanics of Block and Dodge are as indicative of their purpose as their names are. Block is interposition, Dodge is avoidance, as indicated both by the nomenclature and the mechanics.

 

Despite the name, the mechanics of Energy Blast make it quite clear that it can be used to represent either an "energy attack" or a "physical attack" -- tying in to schir's comments regarding PD and ED, and how they represent a certain level of SFX distinction being hardcoded into the HERO system.

 

 

What a block allows you to do that a dodge does not is get in the first attack next time assuming that you and the attacker go on the same phase. What a dodge allows you to do that a block does not is continue to gain protection after you have been hit.

 

They are mechanically quite different even though their basic purpose - the avoidance of damage - is the same, so I have no problem with a block being defined as ducking to one side as the punch thunders in, and I have no problem with a dodge being defined as using a forearm to slightly deflect an incoming attack. The difference is that the ducking tot he side in this instance will put you in a better position to attack next time and the forearm deflection does not make you any less likely to succeed with your defence if you are attacked again.

 

Next phase you could use the same manouvre and an entirely different explanation as to how you accomplish it: I don't see that it matters.

 

As to PD/ED I think what Schir1964 is getting at is this: EB or HA can, of course, be defined as working against pd or ED. If you define your HtH attack punch as 'flaming fists' can you say that they still work against PD? Well yes you can, but it would not make much sense to do so. If you define your EB as 'rubber bullets' can it also be defined as working against ED? Well yes, mechanically - but again it makes no sense to do so.

[Kristopher]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

What a block allows you to do that a dodge does not is get in the first attack next time assuming that you and the attacker go on the same phase. What a dodge allows you to do that a block does not is continue to gain protection after you have been hit.

 

They are mechanically quite different even though their basic purpose - the avoidance of damage - is the same, so I have no problem with a block being defined as ducking to one side as the punch thunders in, and I have no problem with a dodge being defined as using a forearm to slightly deflect an incoming attack. The difference is that the ducking tot he side in this instance will put you in a better position to attack next time and the forearm deflection does not make you any less likely to succeed with your defence if you are attacked again.

 

Next phase you could use the same manouvre and an entirely different explanation as to how you accomplish it: I don't see that it matters.

 

The critical mechanical difference between a Block and a Dodge, which reflects their inherent SFX, is that the Block uses OCV vs OCV to intercept the attack, whereas a Dodge is a general bonus to DCV as one avoids the attacks.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

The critical mechanical difference between a Block and a Dodge' date=' which reflects their inherent SFX, is that the Block uses OCV vs OCV to intercept the attack, whereas a Dodge is a general bonus to DCV as one avoids the attacks.[/quote']

 

 

Quite right but I don't see how that dictates the in-game appearance of the manouvre: well, when I say quite right...I don't think that the book mentions blocks 'intercepting' attacks. I'd say that both block and dodge allow you to avoid damage and other effects from an attack: that is the mechanical result.

 

I've done a bit of martial arts...poorly and with no real discipline...but I've watched people who do know what they are doing and it seems to me that you don't usually block or dodge in most martial arts - you do a bit of each. Usually you move out of the line of attack and at athe same time try to protect yourself by moving your arm or leg into a protective position. Some of the most successful 'blocks' may involve no physical contact at all.

 

Now the system is set up to have them work off different mechanical bases, but that does not indicate to me that they need to LOOK substantially different, necessarily, and it does not mean they have to look the same. I can see no problem, especially with a martial block, in having the player define how it looks and works, and assuming that a non-martial block IS trying to knock the blow aside with a forearm. I also don't think that the system requires you to do that.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I'm answering these before reading any other responses to give an unbiased response as possible.

 

1) Do the Primary/Figured Characteristics have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?

No. Each Characteristic can represent the mechanical effect of any SFX. I can certainly understand how someone would simply assume that a Characteristic like STR must represent muscle mass, brawn, hyrdolic cybernetics or something similar, but it really isn't limited. It can represent a mystical endowment of ancient spirits lifting and pushing for the character, using his radion-blast beams to augment is lifting and punching and lifting, etc. There is no SFX that can't apply.

 

Granted though, there are some very specific SFX that are so commonly associated with each Characteristic it is rare to see something different. But that doesn't mean that something different is wrong, disallowed, innapropriate or discouraged by the rules.

2) Does PD/ED have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?

Same answer as above with the same reasons.

 

3) Can Pysical Defense protect a character from an Energy SFX Based Attack? Why/Why Not?

Absolutely, so long as the energy SFX attack is bought versus PD. Scoff if you will, but if the mechanics say an attack is versus PD, it doesn't matter what it looks like.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

How familiar are you with quantum mechanics?

I'd rep you for this, but I'm out of rep for the day.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

The mechanics of Block and Dodge are as indicative of their purpose as their names are. Block is interposition' date=' Dodge is avoidance, as indicated both by the nomenclature and the mechanics.[/quote']

I could then ask you if Armor represents interposition or avoidance. I'm wondering which you'd say it is, or if you'd agree it can be either.

Despite the name, the mechanics of Energy Blast make it quite clear that it can be used to represent either an "energy attack" or a "physical attack" -- tying in to schir's comments regarding PD and ED, and how they represent a certain level of SFX distinction being hardcoded into the HERO system.

Energy Blast if often used as the quintessential "any SFX" game mechanic. Just because it's used as the most common example doesn't mean it's the only game mechanic any SFX can apply to.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Quite right but I don't see how that dictates the in-game appearance of the manouvre: well, when I say quite right...I don't think that the book mentions blocks 'intercepting' attacks. I'd say that both block and dodge allow you to avoid damage and other effects from an attack: that is the mechanical result.

 

I've done a bit of martial arts...poorly and with no real discipline...but I've watched people who do know what they are doing and it seems to me that you don't usually block or dodge in most martial arts - you do a bit of each. Usually you move out of the line of attack and at athe same time try to protect yourself by moving your arm or leg into a protective position. Some of the most successful 'blocks' may involve no physical contact at all.

 

Now the system is set up to have them work off different mechanical bases, but that does not indicate to me that they need to LOOK substantially different, necessarily, and it does not mean they have to look the same. I can see no problem, especially with a martial block, in having the player define how it looks and works, and assuming that a non-martial block IS trying to knock the blow aside with a forearm. I also don't think that the system requires you to do that.

Mechanically, I've been known to use the terms "Active Defence" for a blaock and "Passive Defence" for Dodge, but usually when I do it, I suddenly get accused to trying to inflict GURPS on Hero.

Which is a LIE, I tell you!

I've never even READ the GURPS Rulebook.

(I looked at the 1st edition and thought "Wow, they're trying to turn TFT into

the Hero System. I'll stick with Hero")

 

It is a more accurate way of explaining the difference between the two maneuvers, IMO.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

So do I for myself, but I don't mind if they apply to everyone else.

 

Anyway...

 

Blocking a move through.

 

Excellent post and great points made about interpretation of the rules during game play.

 

I would only add that it's only during game play where the interaction of SFX become an issue, and only there where it should be resolved. Because of the flexibility of the Hero System it is unavoidable that there will eventually be some illogical conflict in this regard. This has nothing to do with the rules and game mechanics though, except how the GM may change how they work during game play. If something doesn't make sense, SFX wise, the GM should fix it.

 

In one of the examples you give, Joe Normal usng the Block mechanic to tough out a Haymake from Grond, most people would agree the idea is ridiculous and wouldn't allow it. I wouldn't at least. I'd just look at the player of Joe Normal and say "yeah, right!" and continue with the Haymaker. In no way does this mean the mechanic for Block is flawed, only the interacting of the SFX of the attack and defense.

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

As to PD/ED I think what Schir1964 is getting at is this: EB or HA can' date=' of course, be defined as working against pd or ED. If you define your HtH attack punch as 'flaming fists' can you say that they still work against PD? Well yes you can, but it would not make much sense to do so. If you define your EB as 'rubber bullets' can it also be defined as working against ED? Well yes, mechanically - but again it makes no sense to do so.[/quote']

Yep. Absolutely. 100% Correct. (8^D)

 

I won't be discussing this further here, since it really is a derailment of the original threads topic.

 

I think I've made my point well enough that at least you got it. (8^D)

I might start another thread if anyone wants to discuss it further. But I doubt it.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I won't be discussing this further here, since it really is a derailment of the original threads topic.

Well, I started the thread, and the derailment, so I don't mind.

 

I think I've made my point well enough that at least you got it. (8^D)

I might start another thread if anyone wants to discuss it further. But I doubt it.

 

- Christopher Mullins

I'll look for it if you do. It's a stimulating discussion.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I would only add that it's only during game play where the interaction of SFX become an issue' date=' and only there where it should be resolved. [/quote']

 

But this is the point! Game play IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS! This is a system designed to produce game play, so the game play is all that is important. Everything else is pure hot air. SFX are critical to game play, thus the fact that they are divorced from the mechanics is truly a structural fallacy of the system... not a benefit.

 

System matters. The system is there to create a certain kind of game play... and by claiming it divorces SFX from mechanics... while leaving an enormous spread of SFX imbedded in the assumptions of the system... there are many, many ways in which game play becomes quite conflicted and jarring and breaks down.

 

You should not wait until "game play" to suddenly have to wrestle with confilcting interpretations... an effectively designed system minimizes conflicting interpretations and Hero does not do this.

 

I think it CAN do this, with clear discussion of design intent and play intent. This includes (as Christopher stated before) more in depth discussion of SFX and their intended use.

 

No game is created from theoretical mechanics that are then mapped to an SFX, any more than someone will design a tool out of thin air and then figure out what to do with it.

 

Need drives creation. You need to represent a human like character in an action adventure/supers setting... so characteristics are created to represent that human like template. STR is therefore created to represent the push/pull/jump/strike/etc. that a human template character would perform in a recognizable human template like imaginary world.

 

Now... you can then take the mechanical concept of STR and stretch it to apply in other areas like vehicles or such, but it needs to be recognized that the farther you move from it's design origin, the more likely inconsistencies and jarring game play will result.

 

You can use STR for anything you want... but they are not all equally effective.

 

All mechanics are created equal, but all uses of the mechanics are not.

 

Ex: OCV is mechanical representation of your template human's ability to attack (in some way) a target. DCV is a mechanical representation of the template human's ability to avoid be struck by the attack.

 

A maneuver which adds to OCV helps attack... a maneuver with adds to the DCV helps avoid. While you can say a block is "getting out of the way" it doesn't mean that such an interpretation is as valid as deflecting the attack.

 

Hero implies that every possible interpretation is equally valid, which simply isn't the case, and we should recognize this.

 

Hero clearly defines three ways of not taking damage. Avoid, deflect or stop.

 

Avoid - dodge

Deflect - block or Missile deflect

Stop - armor/defense

 

Each one of these is built as a mechanic to simulate the human template ability for these things to happen.

 

Each one of these has imbedded SFX as to how they play out in the game.

 

While you can argue something like "armor can be bought to represent being missed by the attack" (read Combat Luck) this deviates enough from it's design intent (steeped in the human template SFX) that it quickly creates head-scratching game play like "Uh... bullet didn't do any body because of my combat luck... but I did take stun from it... so how do I take stun from an attack that the SFX says missed?"

 

Deviation from SFX design intent created jarring play that requires convoluted work around to explain.

 

Poor design.

 

The fact is, Hero doesn't have to go this route. You can have the same system... just back up a step and make the design note that "Not all SFX interpretations are created equal..." and we are in a much better place.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Wow.

 

I'm impressed. Well argued and well thought through and even though I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying I'm closer to your interpretation having read your post. Kudos.

 

My relationship with sfx is, well, a bit all over the place.

 

1. I like the idea of being able to create a mechanic then clothe it in whatever appearance you fancy without changing what it does. No problem there.

 

2. I like being able to define the same thing in different ways to fit the situation and explain what is happening on a case by case basis to prevent discontinuity and jarring occuring in-game.

 

3. I don't like some of the uses sfx are put to.

 

Now 3. is a personal thing really BUT if sfx are to have an in-game effect other than being just that - special effects - and the system is clear that it advocates that sfx should have in-game effects both on application and rule interpretation, i would like to see the whole question of sfx addressed in an awful lot more detail than it is at present.

 

I'd like to see some rules, or at least guidelines, for sfx interaction, and I'd like to see something delimiting the nature and quantity of benefit and limtiation that a particular sfx is worth.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Wow.

 

I'm impressed. Well argued and well thought through and even though I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying I'm closer to your interpretation having read your post. Kudos.

 

My relationship with sfx is, well, a bit all over the place.

 

1. I like the idea of being able to create a mechanic then clothe it in whatever appearance you fancy without changing what it does. No problem there.

 

2. I like being able to define the same thing in different ways to fit the situation and explain what is happening on a case by case basis to prevent discontinuity and jarring occuring in-game.

 

3. I don't like some of the uses sfx are put to.

 

Now 3. is a personal thing really BUT if sfx are to have an in-game effect other than being just that - special effects - and the system is clear that it advocates that sfx should have in-game effects both on application and rule interpretation, i would like to see the whole question of sfx addressed in an awful lot more detail than it is at present.

 

I'd like to see some rules, or at least guidelines, for sfx interaction, and I'd like to see something delimiting the nature and quantity of benefit and limtiation that a particular sfx is worth.

 

 

What is interesting is that I think both of us are on the same page on number 3 (see above) but where we break is on...

 

being able to create a mechanic then clothe it in whatever appearance you fancy

 

This I just can't fathom. How can you create a mechanic without knowing what it will be used for (what clothing it is designed to wear)? I totally understand the ability to take a mechanic designed for one thing (Ex Energy Blast... designed to wear the clothing of Super heat vision or similar) and then dress it differently (to now be Cyclo-impact vision that does P damage and not E damage). What I can't fathom is creating some "pure mechanic" (I don't even know how you would represent such) without any clothing whatsoever (thus no purpose or meaning) and then retroactively give it meaning.

 

A hammer isn't created... then the concept of hammering invented so you have something to do with this meaningless object. You need to have to pound something, and the create the hammer to fulfill that need.

 

You can't even strip Hero down to "Move, Attack, Defend, Perceive" without recognizing imbedded SFX that the game play will require entities that do these things... and that need (supers, ninjas, babies with rattles in the play pen) is what drives the creation of mechanics.

 

SFX are not the icing on the cake... they are the whole reason to bake the cake in the first place.

 

The idea of mechanics completely divorced from SFX is a retroactive intellectual appellation. It is a theoretical pipe dream expanded from a very smart concept of EB can be energy or physical into some kind of Platonic ideal of mechanics that simply don't exist. Mechanics without SFX are without context and thus without meaning. Having SFX context for mechanics HELPS the game, because then GMs and players can make meaningful decisions on how to interpret or reinterpret game play.

[Kristopher]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

1. I like the idea of being able to create a mechanic then clothe it in whatever appearance you fancy without changing what it does. No problem there.

 

Whereas 98% of the time, I start with a power and its SFX --the "appearance" -- and then work from there to get a mechnical construct which best reflects the nature and feel of that power and its SFX.

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Oooooooh. RDU is using his De'ja Vu power again! (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[CBikle]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Re: SFX vs. Mechanics.

 

You should not wait until "game play" to suddenly have to wrestle with confilcting interpretations...

 

For me, the only time this is really an issue is when it occurs in the middle of combat and if it involves:

 

1 an NPC's sfx or:

2 the GM looking critically at a PCs sfx in relation to some aspect of the environment.

 

Generally speaking, ill-defined or fictitious sfx tend to work better in game than well-defined or mundane sfx.

 

Even if they are built the same mechanically, my "bat-rope" entangle is going to run into more problems in game than the player who bought his entangle as "bands of cosmic energy". Let's face it, the "Power Cosmic" will trump a "utility belt" every time.

 

When PCs go "SFX fishing", it's not really an issue because most GMs will tend to adjudicate in the PCs favor granting them some minimal bonus or one-time effect; there's no real "debate" (When I'm GMing, I'm more generous if the player suggests how to do it mechanically).