About the +2 Defense in Sorcerer

[Christopher Kubasik]

In another thread, Ron wrote:

This is a little bit unfair, so let me clarify. The +2 for full defense applies in the context of an orthogonal conflict in which a character "switches" to pure opposition. It's not used when the only rolls at the moment are oppositional.

As I say, it's unfair- why not get the +2 when it's just you and Peter, as opposed to everyone shooting and hollering and jumping around while you resist Peter? I'm not sure I have an easy answer for this except to say, "Enjoy the free bonus when it applies," and to leave it at that.

I have my own thoughts on why a +2 defense bonus in direct conflict shouldn't be apple, but I never thought much about it before because I never knew I was misapplying the rule (per your comment above). If you're up for it Ron, I'd love to hear more about this.

[Ron Edwards]

I really don't have any more. The rule was put in there to help characters out, the idea that fully "covering up" would be a better defense than the typical defense mixed with an offense or other proactive act.

I think that it doesn't break the game if you permit the +2 for an oppositional defensive act, given that the action strikes you as full-on, completely, and totally defensive. I am pretty sure that how you've applied the rule fits that mold. But I also think that GMs like Moreno will talk themselves into applications of that idea to the point where anyone and everyone gets a +2 "because it's defense." Whereas it was conceived as a subroutine of the orthogonal, multiple-actor situation, for a very specific action which is different from everyone else's.

Another way to look at it might be ...

i) OK, totally orthogonal - everyone is trying to hurt someone and simultaneously to avoid being hurt.
ii) Vs. totally oppositional - half the characters are trying to hurt other characters, and every one of the targets is simply and only defending themselves.

Do you see how (ii) means you don't even use the orthogonal system? You simply have a bunch of one-on-one rolls, and that's it.

I was thinking about times when most everybody is doing (i), so an orthogonal mechanics are in play, but someone is merely covering-up and trying not to be hit, to the utter exclusion of doing anything else (ii). As I wrote in the annotations, it's a little bit of opposition nested within the orthogonal stuff.

Well, compared to everyone else who is busy double-thinking (offense and defense), I figured people who were concentrating on one thing only (eek! not get hit!) deserved a little bonus for it. And that's all.

Moreno, this is why I'm squeamish about you awarding +2 all over the place, especially for things which are defensive but are not "OMG don't hit me," like resisting the possession. I can see why you'd grant the +2 in that case, but I can also see you going down a slippery slope where players convince you that anything they ever do with the word "defense" in it gets a bonus.

Christopher, it really isn't any more sophisticated than that. I hope that helps to whatever degree, but I'm afraid it probably doesn't.

Best, Ron

[Moreno R.]

Ron, stop smearing my reputation! I am known as a "killer GM"! Cruel! Merciless! See how in the other thread I didn't give even well earned bonus dice!

[glandis]

This makes me think ...

You know what I hate sometimes in RPGs? When something happens, something probably unexpected, and it seems like my character ought to be able to do something based on that new thing - but because of my "initiative", or because I already declared my action, or whatever reason, all I can do is sit there and take it. Because I hate this, I will often seek out any skills, abilities, spells, or whatever that let my character mess with it (such things are often bad design/"overpowered"/disruptive of other game elements, BTW).

In certain situations - the ones that bother me most, I think - Sorcerer lets anyone do this. It's "only" +2, so maybe it doesn't help - but that's a good[/i] thing, probably - sometimes you do have to sit there and take it. I may be adding sophistication that Ron didn't add/doesn't care about, but man - "bonus when you switch/react to pure defense mid-resolution" scratches an itch I've felt many times, over many years, in many game systems.

[Adams Tower]

"bonus when you switch/react to pure defense mid-resolution"

Wait a second, I thought you only got the Total Defense bonus when you declare a purely defensive action during the Free-and-Clear phase, not when you abort to full defense (a different thing, just getting your full Stamina score) in the middle of a round?

[glandis]

I thought you only got the Total Defense bonus when you declare a purely defensive action during the Free-and-Clear phase

Pardon my sloppy Sorcerer terminology use - I was specifically thinking about "switching" as part of ortho/opposition & Free-and-Clear, so you're probably right about the aborting. I guess there might be times when my itch still doesn't get as fully scratched by that, but the specific +2 does feel like something of a value-add to me, over what's already great in Free-and-Clear.

edited to fix quote format - RE