Visualising Block

[Escafarc]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Yes. Why not? I mean' date=' jeez, it's almost like players might want to toolkit this system or something. We shouldn't allow [i']that[/i]!

 

You're kidding, right? You think the basic maneuvers were designed to reflect actual fighting ability? In this system? That they are somehow pure and held separate behind a hard wall of reality so they don't play with the rest of the system? You know, the parts that allow for "legion of loyal poodles" to be the sfx for Blast, Barrier, TK, and probably hundreds of other powers usually defined otherwise?

repped

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to allow a character to make a 1 time sfx definition for maneuvers like Block and Dodge in the same way that point of origin can be defined for attack powers like Blast and RKA. If you want a character to be able to have one Block that looks like a 'dodge' and another that looks like a 'block' then it would be an incentive for them to purchase multiple versions or 'styles' of the same (martial) maneuvers. This also lines up with why a truly comprehensive version of Captain America or Batman has 50-100+ points invested in seemingly overlapping Martial Maneuvers.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Yes. Why not? I mean' date=' jeez, it's almost like players might want to toolkit this system or something. We shouldn't allow [i']that[/i]!

 

Because you should use things for what they were designed to do (there's even a meta-rule about that discussed somewhere, I believe). Staring down an opponent is a Presence Attack. The system should allow you to do just about anything you want to do, but forcing a square peg into a round hole isn't the way it was intended to do it for you.

 

You're kidding' date=' right? You think the basic maneuvers were designed to reflect actual fighting ability? In [i']this[/i] system? That they are somehow pure and held separate behind a hard wall of reality so they don't play with the rest of the system? You know, the parts that allow for "legion of loyal poodles" to be the sfx for Blast, Barrier, TK, and probably hundreds of other powers usually defined otherwise?

I never said that at all. Let's keep our arguing civil and respectful without twisting each other's words, eh? I said they fulfill different functions, not that they don't interact well. A maneuver is like a constructed 'p'ower, not a building block 'P'ower.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Visualising Block

 

So should a character that carries a Large Shield (+3 DCV) get to use their shield's DCV bonus to OCV for a block if they describe it as moving out of the way? After all, that would be limiting our imaginations if we don't allow it!

[Utech]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I never said that at all. Let's keep our arguing civil and respectful without twisting each other's words' date=' eh?[/quote']

I apologize.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Visualising Block

 

You know' date=' the parts that allow for "legion of loyal poodles" to be the sfx for Blast, Barrier, TK, and probably hundreds of other powers usually defined otherwise?[/quote']

 

Hey, I wouldn't allow that sort of stuff either. There's a difference between "limting your imagination" and allowing ridiculousness and

Absurdity. Builds which fail the sniff test take away from the game not add with our gaming style. One of HEROs biggest strengths IMO is I can use the tools to make builds that really feel right and seem to make some sense with my vision of cinematic reality. If your playstyle leans the other way more power to you but for me it kills my supension of disbelief.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Hyperman makes an interesting point that we could 'set' maneuvers as having a particular sfx. There is a part of.me that likes the idea, but I'm a sucker for consistency, so if I did.one I'd want to do all, including basic.manoeuvres: define your basic strike as a punch and you can't kick without spending points. I think, on balance, I prefer to have manoeuvres less specifically defined, but still defined within limits. Of course, technically we SHOULD define our basic strike because of point of origin.

 

Going to have to ponder this.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Hyperman makes an interesting point that we could 'set' maneuvers as having a particular sfx. There is a part of.me that likes the idea, but I'm a sucker for consistency, so if I did.one I'd want to do all, including basic.manoeuvres: define your basic strike as a punch and you can't kick without spending points. I think, on balance, I prefer to have manoeuvres less specifically defined, but still defined within limits. Of course, technically we SHOULD define our basic strike because of point of origin.

 

Going to have to ponder this.

 

You could always if you're really hung up give it a variable FX advantage. I prefer the less specifically defined, but still defined within limits myself.

[GAZZA]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Hey, I wouldn't allow that sort of stuff either. There's a difference between "limting your imagination" and allowing ridiculousness and

Absurdity. Builds which fail the sniff test take away from the game not add with our gaming style. One of HEROs biggest strengths IMO is I can use the tools to make builds that really feel right and seem to make some sense with my vision of cinematic reality. If your playstyle leans the other way more power to you but for me it kills my supension of disbelief.

I once ran a game where one of the PCs was a rock star superhero. He had Armour (it was a 5th edition game) defined as the groupies that always surrounded him throwing themselves in the way of oncoming attacks.

 

But yes, that was very silly.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Because you should use things for what they were designed to do (there's even a meta-rule about that discussed somewhere' date=' I believe). Staring down an opponent is a Presence Attack. The system should allow you to do just about anything you want to do, but forcing a square peg into a round hole isn't the way it was intended to do it for you.[/quote']

 

Staring down an opponent could also be a Mind Control ability if you want more reliability than a PRE attack. There are very few "hard defined" rules in the game.

 

If I accept a Block must always involve interposition to deflect the blow, I must also accept that an 8 STR schoolgirl can deflect a Haymaker from Grond, since the rules permit her to Block that attack. And she gets +3 to her OCV if she uses the large shield mentioned earlier, despite the fact that Grond's 90 STR can crush that shield like tinfoil.

 

I once ran a game where one of the PCs was a rock star superhero. He had Armour (it was a 5th edition game) defined as the groupies that always surrounded him throwing themselves in the way of oncoming attacks.

 

But yes, that was very silly.

 

There are layers of Silly. Combat Luck is armor derived from getting out of the way. However, if we accept that Dodge is the only acceptable "get out of the way" maneuver, then Combat Luck should be removed or, perhaps, limited to apply only if you Dodge.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Visualising Block

 

 

There are layers of Silly. Combat Luck is armor derived from getting out of the way. However, if we accept that Dodge is the only acceptable "get out of the way" maneuver, then Combat Luck should be removed or, perhaps, limited to apply only if you Dodge.

 

 

I always thought of combat luck as the "you only nicked me rule" myself. i can definately see a GM ruling it only worked when actively defending. I could easily see the other wat also.

[dmjalund]

Re: Visualising Block

 

One possibe Martial Arts variant is that if you buy a maneuver at cost, you have to define whether it is a punch or kick or elboow jab etc, but for each extra point spent, you can add an additional maneuver (It indicates more flexibility if - say - your arm was disabled during combat)

[archermoo]

Re: Visualising Block

 

As always when this discussion comes up I'm boggled as to why it matters so much to some people the language someone uses to describe the mechanical effect that someone is using. If someone is using the Block maneuver, regardless of how they describe it, that is what they are using. I can see why a Ref would want to keep things under control in their campaign so as to keep the tone where it is supposed to be, but other than that, why does it matter?

[teh bunneh]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I'm with Archermoo on this one. You fellas describe it however you like in your game. If it makes you feel better, you can even think your way is the "one true right and correct way." But I'm pretty much the same as Utech, and I'll keep doing it the way I do it in my games.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I'm less worried about players and more about GMs. I assume that a GM will know what is on the PC sheet and what manoeuvre they are using. The same is not true of players facing GM characters (or, necessarily, for PCs facing off against each other). You can simply say that it is up to the GM to be clear about what is happening, but the best way to be clear is to accurately describe it, not to do some weird convolution that only makes sense in some situations and not in others. Now you can say that different rules apply to describing GM characters, but then I'd have to ask why?

 

For my part I'm boggled by why people feel the need to use something that is clearly not a good description of what is actually happening. I mean if you are reading a comic and Spiderman gets out of the way of Electro's punch but gets shocked anyway, you'd be crying 'continuity error' because it doesn't make sense - you're not thinking "Oh, even though it is absolutely clear from the illustration that he got out of the way and didn't make any contact with Electro, what we are being shown is not what really happened. That's alright then". No, you're thinking. "Perhaps the writer and penciller ought to talk to each other occasionally". It can spoil your enjoyment of the comic.

 

This has been resurrected because 6e seems to be coming down on the side of accurate over fanciful description, and we haven't really had that kind of guidance before. I'm not dictating how people should do it in their own games, I'm just trying to establish the Hero base state: what is the right way to do it by the book?

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to allow a character to make a 1 time sfx definition for maneuvers like Block and Dodge in the same way that point of origin can be defined for attack powers like Blast and RKA. If you want a character to be able to have one Block that looks like a 'dodge' and another that looks like a 'block' then it would be an incentive for them to purchase multiple versions or 'styles' of the same (martial) maneuvers. This also lines up with why a truly comprehensive version of Captain America or Batman has 50-100+ points invested in seemingly overlapping Martial Maneuvers.

 

In a sense, doesn't the UMA (or what the title is of the 6th edition is now) already does this? If you look up block under karate it is described as a forearm block, under Jeet Kune Do, it is an eye jab. Perhaps a simple rule of thumb would be a block paid for would be how it is described when purchased, and if you what to do something else then it defaults to the free block manuever? The exception would be of course if you qualify for muliple styles then switching between them would still have the paid cost, such as Karate and JKD mentionend above

[teh bunneh]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I'm less worried about players and more about GMs. I assume that a GM will know what is on the PC sheet and what manoeuvre they are using. The same is not true of players facing GM characters (or' date=' necessarily, for PCs facing off against each other). You can simply say that it is up to the GM to be clear about what is happening, but the best way to be clear is to accurately describe it, not to do some weird convolution that only makes sense in some situations and not in others. Now you can say that different rules apply to describing GM characters, but then I'd have to ask why?[/quote']

 

I dunno about anyone else's games, but mine are never like this:

Player 1: I Strike.

GM: He Blocks. He goes before you next time. He Strikes.

etc.

 

The tend to be more like this:

GM: The ork roars in fury and thrusts his spear at your midsection!

Player: I'm going to try to avoid that by leaping right up in his face and side-stepping, so that I'm up next to him. That'll set me up for a good old fashioned kidney punch next action!

GM: Cool! Sounds like a Block to me. Go ahead and roll it!

 

I mean, if you're really, REALLY worried about it, was that Ork's attack a Strike, a Haymaker, some sort of Martial maneuver? Was he making an aimed shot at the Chest or Vitals? Was the PC's reaction a Block or a Dodge or was he allocating DCV levels, or was he not really doing anything (just counting on his DCV to keep him safe), or was he doing something else entirely? I guess if you're stopping the game to ask these questions, creative descriptions could be seen as a problem. As a GM, I want to keep the action lively and quick, so I don't worry too much about doing it the "right" way. Steve Long has never threatened to take away my books from me because I don't necessarily care to do it exactly the way he does it. :shrug:

[archermoo]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I dunno about anyone else's games, but mine are never like this:

Player 1: I Strike.

GM: He Blocks. He goes before you next time. He Strikes.

etc.

 

The tend to be more like this:

GM: The ork roars in fury and thrusts his spear at your midsection!

Player: I'm going to try to avoid that by leaping right up in his face and side-stepping, so that I'm up next to him. That'll set me up for a good old fashioned kidney punch next action!

GM: Cool! Sounds like a Block to me. Go ahead and roll it!

 

I mean, if you're really, REALLY worried about it, was that Ork's attack a Strike, a Haymaker, some sort of Martial maneuver? Was he making an aimed shot at the Chest or Vitals? Was the PC's reaction a Block or a Dodge or was he allocating DCV levels, or was he not really doing anything (just counting on his DCV to keep him safe), or was he doing something else entirely? I guess if you're stopping the game to ask these questions, creative descriptions could be seen as a problem. As a GM, I want to keep the action lively and quick, so I don't worry too much about doing it the "right" way. Steve Long has never threatened to take away my books from me because I don't necessarily care to do it exactly the way he does it. :shrug:

 

Pretty much. I've never had any problems working in both mechanical descriptions of what I'm doing as well as "flavor text". I work out what mechanical effect does what I want to do the best, and go with that. If I'm doing something to actively stop a particular attack from hitting me, that sounds like a Block to me. If I'm doing something that will make it harder for me to be hit in general, but nothing specific to particular attacks, that sounds like a Dodge to me. If there are mechanical effects that don't initially seem to make sense with the textual description the players uses, I handle it on a case by case basis.

 

For example, someone using a block to avoid an attack entirely will as noted still take damage from a damage shield. Regardless of how they describe a block, they'll still take damage from the damage shield. Part of my job as Ref is to make it make sense. I also keep in mind that the player is describing what they would like to have happen. In a game that I'm running, I'm the final arbiter of what actually does happen. So just because they describe a block with no physical contact occurring, that doesn't mean that is actually what happens, even on a successful block.

 

IMNSHO part of my job as Ref is also to make sure that, regardless of any flavor text being used to describe things, everyone knows mechanically what is happening. Unless there is a REALLY good reason that they shouldn't know.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I think we are all arguing from the same point of view, but perhaps with different perspectives (which may be a transverse tautology: who knows?). Ultimately the important thing is that everyone has fun.

 

For the record I don't have games that go:

 

Player 1: I Strike.

GM: He Blocks. He goes before you next time. He Strikes.

 

To speed things up I number all the maneouvres and make players call out just the number. Much quicker than all this talk of 'strike' and block'.