Action Reaction: Stump the Experts

[rafial]

I understand the restriction and share your instinct, but it reflects non-textual assumptions and reveals a bias toward favorable validation of Strikes. So it become a question of standards.

Pardon me, have we descended into parody?

[Luke]

Hi Bill,

Until one character has completely and utterly left Striking Distance, movement and distance simply act as obstacle modifiers.

All movement/action combinations are considered to operate on an as[/i] basis.

P1: "I'm dashing away and blocking."

P2: "I'm striking."

What's happening here is P1 is moving away and defending as P2 is striking. P1's actions have raised P2's obstacle but have not denied him the chance to strike at this moment.

Should P1's movement end with her 3-4 paces away from P2, then P2's character  is going to have to move in order to bring himself into strking distance. If P2 dashes toward P1, we can assume that he's in striking distance and suffers at least a +1 Ob penalty for moving quickly and striking.

It's important to reduce all these elements down to the fact that are merely penalties to act, not complex conditionals. The only conditional to action is whether or not the characters are actually within striking distance. Otherwise, just add on obstacle penalties.


Wilhelm: I like your movement actions. They'd stay as tandems, be resolved with Speed tests if there was any conflict.


-L

[Bill Cook]

Pardon me, have we descended into parody?

It was my intent to be constructive. I apologize for any offense.

I think you're saying that it's inappropriate for me to pose expert questions and evaluate the answers as though they were questions to me, the would-be expert. I can see how that would read like a self-serving gimmick.

It's my habit to restate what people explain to me in my own words. I do it so they get an idea of what I took from what they said, but some find the handshake irritating, like I'm explaining their thoughts to them.

I will make an effort to leave out such filler and refrain from qualifying follow-up questions with explanations.

It's important to reduce all these elements down to the fact that are merely penalties to act, not complex conditionals. The only conditional to action is whether or not the characters are actually within striking distance. Otherwise, just add on obstacle penalties.

This is useful guidance for my concerns. Thx.

[rafial]

It was my intent to be constructive. I apologize for any offense.

No offense, just puzzlement...

I'm glad if you've found any of my responses useful, and I don't pretend to put myself forward as an expert on BW, I was only coming from the position have having struggled through similar questions about the system myself over on burningwheel.org.

[Mulciber]

Hello,

I don't believe anyone replied to Bill's specific query re: whether the Avoid test results are global or action-particular; I understand Avoid results to stand against all opposing actions within an action collection.

I understand ppv to be useful in tracking time-to-engage only, as my dash is your dash within striking distance.


Cordially,
Will

[Thor Olavsrud]

Hello,

I don't believe anyone replied to Bill's specific query re: whether the Avoid test results are global or action-particular; I understand Avoid results to stand against all opposing actions within an action collection.

I understand ppv to be useful in tracking time-to-engage only, as my dash is your dash within striking distance.

Not certain this is correct, but I can tell you how it's been done when I've played with Luke or Taepoong: The Avoid is rolled against all attacks on a particular action. So you could Avoid all attacks in Volley 2 Action 1, but it wouldn't help you in Volley 2 Action 2.