Conflict Resolution, questions and confirmations

[Nev the Deranged]

Alrighty. I'm going through the Combat section of the book (which as Ron mentioned somewhere might be better labeled "conflict resolution"), and before asking any questions I ran a search and went back over some of the relevant threads on the subject.

Thus, much of this will represent more "double checking" to make sure I have understood things correctly than "I don't get this" style questions. I know I do this a lot and it probably gets irritating, but I really believe in the strength of the game and want it to shine when I introduce it to my players, so I feel it behooves me to get as much of it right the first time as possible and spare them at least some of the "GM growing pains" that always come with learning a new system.

So.

1) Sorcerer uses fixed initiative. Once you've declared your action, you are stuck with it wherever it ends up in the turn stack, unless you abort. Any declarations of "I wait until X..." or "When X happens..." or "Eddie and I...", etc. are invalid. Anyone who declares they are waiting in any way, shape, or form, is not accomplishing anything that round, period.

1a) That accepted, what about the concept of a "biding" roll, made to represent that the character is sort of "assessing the situation" so to speak, that has no effect at all on the current round, but provides potential bonuses to an action during the next round. Naturally any damage or other penalties taken by the "biding" character during the current round may negate these bonuses, but one can easily see how a player might hang back from a brawl, waiting for the right moment- then acting decisively when an opening arrives. This acts as a sort of bridge between players wanting to do this kind of thing, without breaking the concrete rules of Sorcerer turn structure, and equally importantly, maintaining the Narrative agenda by tying the story-action directly to the timing rules. If the character hangs back to assess the situation, there's no guarantee that it will do them any good, but at least the option is there for the players, so they don't feel like they are being forced to do something important every single round of a conflict situation.

If this suggestion is "wrong" on any level, mechanically or thematically, just say the word and it can vanish like it never existed. But I'd like to think I've come up with a clever way to appease players used to this kind of planning without breaking, or even bending, the rules structure of the game.

2) Rolling Full Defense gains you +2 dice, which are mainly Initiative dice, in the sense that if your Defense "goes off" first, you get the full Roll+2, BUT if the attack you are defending against goes off first, you still have to suck it up, or abort and re-roll your NORMAL defense with no bonuses.

2a) Since not all conflict resolution is combat, and even when it is, I've noticed some folks get confused with "attacking" and "defending" roles and such, would it make sense to refer to "aborting to react" rather than "aborting to defend"? No mechanical difference, but perhaps less confusing?

2b) Specifically I'm referring to examples in past threads (I don't know how to do links, I'm sorry!) where Alice attacks Bob and Bob goes Full Defense (+2 dice). These dice end up mostly counting for Initiative purposes, since they give Bob a better chance of beating Alice's attack roll. The ways this could resolve are:
I. Alice wins Initiative.
 A. Bob sucks it up. Alice's attack is vs. 1 die. Bob keeps his Full Defense dice.
  1. Alice's attack hits Bob. Bob's Full Defense is impaired by damage from Alice's attack. Then whatever is left of Bob's Full Defense goes off. Alice gets a full "reaction" (rather than defense) roll representing her shifting to a better stance or whatever to get the drop on Bob next round.
   a. Alice's reaction roll beats what's left of Bob's Full Defense. Alice's victories are rolled over into her action for the next round (if appropriate), representing that she reacted to Bob's defense in an advantageous way. End of Round.
   b. Bob's leftover Full Defense beats Alice's reaction roll. Bob's victories are rolled over into his next action if approptiate. This represents Bob defending in such a way that he is in an advantageous position for next round. End of Round.
B. Bob aborts his Full Defense and rerolls normal defense (no +2) against Alice's attack.
 1. Alice's attack beats Bob's new defense roll. Bob is hit for appropriate damage. Alice's victories may roll over to her next action if appropriate. End of Round.
 2. Bob's new defense roll beats Alice's attack roll. Alice's attack fails. Bob's victories are rolled over to his next action if appropriate. End of Round.
II. Bob wins Initiative.
 A. Alice (foolishly) chooses not to abort, allowing her attack againt Bob to fail. Bob's victories roll over into his next action if appropriate. End of Round. *this one I'm not exactly sure about. I will present an alternative resolution below*
 B. Alice aborts her attack and makes a full "reaction" (rather than defense) roll to Bob's Full Defense, representing her realizing Bob was too fast for her and shifting into a better position.
  1. Alice's new reaction roll beats Bob's Full Defense roll. Alice's victories roll over into her next action if appropriate. This represents her reacting advantageously to Bob's Full Defense. End of Round.
  2. Bob's Full Defense roll beats Alice's reaction roll. Bob's victories roll over into his next action if appropriate. This represents Bob's Full Defense putting him in an advantageous position relative to Alice. End of Round.

Alternative II.A. Resolution:
 A. Alice chooses not to abort. Bob's Full Defense is opposed by 1 die.
  1. Bob's Full Defense fails. Alice's attack goes off next, for which Bob gets to roll normal defense.
   a. resolve as I.B. above
  2. Bob's Full Defense succeeds. Bob's victories roll over into his next action (which is going to be defending against Alice's attack). Alice's attack goes off next, for which Bob gets to roll normal defense plus any bonuses from his Full Defense.
   a. resolve as I.B. above.
* This version seems unnecessarily complicated to me, but I could see the rules going either way with it.

All of which likely sounds way more complicated than it probably is. I'm sure in practice it's very intuitive once you've done it a bit.

Moving on.

3) If Chuck attacks Di, and succeeds with 3 victories. Di takes temporary penalties equal to Chuck's victories (3), plus one Lasting, which stacks with the temps for a total of 4 penalties next round. Now, if Chuck's victories also roll over into his next attack on Di, that puts Chuck at +3 dice and Di at -4 dice, for a total of 7 dice of difference on top of whatever the normal scores are, correct? Wow, is that heinously brutal or what? Does this ever lead to a sort of "downward spiral" during combat where once you take a hit you're just screwed? (asking GMs for experiences here, not for the Official Word).

4) Dialogue that will affect the outcome of any conflict or action counts as your action for the round, whether it be commanding a demon with Will or appealing to a fellow sorcerer with Humanity or just screaming to distract the security guard. Any other speech-while-acting or banter is just considered flavor. If it affects something, it's the action. If it's not the action, it doesn't affect anything. Period.

5) When using Will to override damage penalties, success means you get the full amount you were rolling against, not just the number of victories scored on the Will roll. So a roll of Will 3 vs Stamina 5 that scores 1 victory, still gets to use the full 5 Stamina for the action.

6) Bonus dice are not simulating anything specific. They are for anything that jazzes up the players (includin the GM), whether by being cool, advancing the plot, being especially clever, etc. Not for "I have a bigger gun" or any mechanical or Simulationist concern.

7) When rolling 1 die for defense, it is not a "suck it up" die. It is an "easiest opposed action" die put in place by the system to give the attacker something to roll against, not by the defender to defend with.

8) In reference to #2 above,  rule #3 for combat resolution on p.103 states:
"Everyone who's doing something proactive (not just defending) rolls at once."
In at least one of the threads here, Ron has replied that everybody always rolls, if only to determine where they place in the resolution-stack. I assume this later ruling is the correct one, otherwise the entire set of examples in #2 above, which I more or less rephrased directly from other folks' examples in prior threads, falls apart. Or, perhaps it's not really a "later ruling" and I am just misinterpreting the original rules. Either way, just confirm for me that the "Everyone Always Rolls" model is correct (or explain why it isn't) and I'll be happy.

Hokeydokey... I think that's it. My butt has grown to match the shape of my chair, I've been typing, rereading, typing some more, etc. for so long.

Thanks for your patience ^_^

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Cheese and rice, Jesse, are you a demon with the Spawn ability? I think Nev is one of yours.

By the numbers ...

1) Sorcerer uses fixed initiative. Once you've declared your action, you are stuck with it wherever it ends up in the turn stack, unless you abort. Any declarations of "I wait until X..." or "When X happens..." or "Eddie and I...", etc. are invalid. Anyone who declares they are waiting in any way, shape, or form, is not accomplishing anything that round, period.

Check.

1a) That accepted, what about the concept of a "biding" roll, made to represent that the character is sort of "assessing the situation" so to speak, that has no effect at all on the current round, but provides potential bonuses to an action during the next round.

Dude, that's not "biding," that's an action! "I suss out the weakness in his fighting style," "I try to get a lock on a really good target," etc. Make the normal roll on the relevant score vs. the other guy's relevant score, and then apply any bonuses on a successful roll to whatever action (if relevant) is taken next time. It's just the rules in action. Of course it's not bending them, it's just using them.

2) Rolling Full Defense gains you +2 dice, which are mainly Initiative dice, in the sense that if your Defense "goes off" first, you get the full Roll+2, BUT if the attack you are defending against goes off first, you still have to suck it up, or abort and re-roll your NORMAL defense with no bonuses.

Check.

2a) Since not all conflict resolution is combat, and even when it is, I've noticed some folks get confused with "attacking" and "defending" roles and such, would it make sense to refer to "aborting to react" rather than "aborting to defend"? No mechanical difference, but perhaps less confusing?

No. "Aborting to react" will instantly translate in any gamer's mind to "hold my action and decide when I get there." So never say that.

I am so waiting until later to deal with all your Alice-Bob stuff. You do realize how much of a horse-pill that is to swallow and digest, merely to begin to answer, right? Embedded in all this other stuff? Later. Confirm your understanding of all this stuff in this post first, then we'll do Alice and Bob, or see which one does the other, and so forth.

3) If Chuck attacks Di, and succeeds with 3 victories. Di takes temporary penalties equal to Chuck's victories (3), plus one Lasting, which stacks with the temps for a total of 4 penalties next round. Now, if Chuck's victories also roll over into his next attack on Di, that puts Chuck at +3 dice and Di at -4 dice, for a total of 7 dice of difference on top of whatever the normal scores are, correct? Wow, is that heinously brutal or what? Does this ever lead to a sort of "downward spiral" during combat where once you take a hit you're just screwed? (asking GMs for experiences here, not for the Official Word).

It doesn't necessarily lead to a downward spiral because of the incredible diversity of possibilities, e.g. demon intervention or rebellion, others' actions, role-playing bonuses, and plenty more things. Many a Sorcerer character has been heinously brutalized in just the way you describe, only to use his or her Will successfully and turn the whole situation around with appalling effectiveness.

And if it does "downward spiral" on you, that's the equivalent in this game of what other games call "critical hits" - i.e., you get punched into next week. That's merely how it happens in Sorcerer, and frankly (in my view) it makes far more sense both thematically and in terms of in-game plausibility.

4) Dialogue that will affect the outcome of any conflict or action counts as your action for the round, whether it be commanding a demon with Will or appealing to a fellow sorcerer with Humanity or just screaming to distract the security guard. Any other speech-while-acting or banter is just considered flavor. If it affects something, it's the action. If it's not the action, it doesn't affect anything. Period.

Check.

5) When using Will to override damage penalties, success means you get the full amount you were rolling against, not just the number of victories scored on the Will roll. So a roll of Will 3 vs Stamina 5 that scores 1 victory, still gets to use the full 5 Stamina for the action.

Check.

6) Bonus dice are not simulating anything specific. They are for anything that jazzes up the players (includin the GM), whether by being cool, advancing the plot, being especially clever, etc. Not for "I have a bigger gun" or any mechanical or Simulationist concern.

Right. Although the in-game imaginative "weight" of the thing might be the in-play expression of the jazz-up. If a character pulls a bigger weapon than the other guy, then a +1 die to start off with is nifty: the "No, this is a knife" effect. From a Sim standpoint, the machete gets an extra die for its bigger heft and longer edge in the "reality" of the game-world. From a Narr standpoint, it gets an extra die because our guts churn to look at it, especially when it's revealed and when its wielder is unperturbed by the assailant's (now-revealed-to-be) littler weapon.

Now: it is perfectly OK for the Narr approach to rely heavily on the in-game-world plausibility factor. In that sense, the effectiveness of the imaginary/fictional weapon if it were real is definitely a good justification for the guts-churning. That's why weapons have different damage effects in the damage charts in the first place. But! This is a matter of relying heavily on, not not not being defined by. The minute anyone goes all Sim on you and says, "But my gun would do more damage because ..." then fuck'em. Believe me, you'll see the difference in a red second, during play.

7) When rolling 1 die for defense, it is not a "suck it up" die. It is an "easiest opposed action" die put in place by the system to give the attacker something to roll against, not by the defender to defend with.

Um, OK. This is definitely a "state it how you feel most comfortable" thing. If the words "suck it up" imply to you that the defender must be hit, then just flense that bit of mentalese from your mind and call it "easiest opposed action." Works for you? All good.

8) In reference to #2 above, rule #3 for combat resolution on p.103 states:
"Everyone who's doing something proactive (not just defending) rolls at once."
In at least one of the threads here, Ron has replied that everybody always rolls, if only to determine where they place in the resolution-stack. I assume this later ruling is the correct one, otherwise the entire set of examples in #2 above, which I more or less rephrased directly from other folks' examples in prior threads, falls apart. Or, perhaps it's not really a "later ruling" and I am just misinterpreting the original rules. Either way, just confirm for me that the "Everyone Always Rolls" model is correct (or explain why it isn't) and I'll be happy.

Confirmed that the "everyone always rolls" model is correct. The prose you're referring to is vestigial, from an author who couldn't quite believe that his system (or the one he managed to Summon anyway) did what it did.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

On to the adventures and tribulations of Alice and Bob!

Alice attacks Bob and Bob goes Full Defense (+2 dice). These dice end up mostly counting for Initiative purposes, since they give Bob a better chance of beating Alice's attack roll. The ways this could resolve are:

Some of this is OK and some isn't.

I. Alice wins Initiative.
A. Bob sucks it up. Alice's attack is vs. 1 die. Bob keeps his Full Defense dice.
1. Alice's attack hits Bob. Bob's Full Defense is impaired by damage from Alice's attack. Then whatever is left of Bob's Full Defense goes off. Alice gets a full "reaction" (rather than defense) roll representing her shifting to a better stance or whatever to get the drop on Bob next round.

Danger, Will Robinson! This is not correct. If Bob sucks it up, then his full defense dice are gone, vanished like smoke. He rolls his one die and that is that, as far as Alice's attack and the entire round is concerned. If Bob is dealing with other assailants whose attacks come after his, then that's another story (his Full Defense applies, although any damage from Alice's attack are now added as bonuses to their rolls). But if it's all just Bob and Alice, then no, Alice doesn't have to roll anything against the "Full Defense dice attack." Those dice are poof-gone.

a. Alice's reaction roll beats what's left of Bob's Full Defense. Alice's victories are rolled over into her action for the next round (if appropriate), representing that she reacted to Bob's defense in an advantageous way. End of Round.
b. Bob's leftover Full Defense beats Alice's reaction roll. Bob's victories are rolled over into his next action if approptiate. This represents Bob defending in such a way that he is in an advantageous position for next round. End of Round.

As stated, none of the above applies. Alice's roll against Bob's single die are the entire round. (Again, Bob's "obvious" tactic of aborting to a re-rolled defense without the +2 is obvious only because we're talking about a gray void with no one and nothing in it except Alice and Bob.)

B. Bob aborts his Full Defense and rerolls normal defense (no +2) against Alice's attack.
1. Alice's attack beats Bob's new defense roll. Bob is hit for appropriate damage. Alice's victories may roll over to her next action if appropriate. End of Round.
2. Bob's new defense roll beats Alice's attack roll. Alice's attack fails. Bob's victories are rolled over to his next action if appropriate. End of Round.

All good and correct.

II. Bob wins Initiative.
A. Alice (foolishly) chooses not to abort, allowing her attack againt Bob to fail. Bob's victories roll over into his next action if appropriate. End of Round. *this one I'm not exactly sure about. I will present an alternative resolution below*

Actually, this is fully correct. It's also very simple: Bob preps for the incoming attack, and his prep pays off. Imagine the highly unrealistic but enjoyable "whssssh!" noise in bad (but wonderfully bad!) martial arts movies which indicates a clean defensive dodge and the attack's ineffective noise (telling you how nasty it would have been.

B. Alice aborts her attack and makes a full "reaction" (rather than defense) roll to Bob's Full Defense, representing her realizing Bob was too fast for her and shifting into a better position.
1. Alice's new reaction roll beats Bob's Full Defense roll. Alice's victories roll over into her next action if appropriate. This represents her reacting advantageously to Bob's Full Defense. End of Round.
2. Bob's Full Defense roll beats Alice's reaction roll. Bob's victories roll over into his next action if appropriate. This represents Bob's Full Defense putting him in an advantageous position relative to Alice. End of Round.

All correct if we're talking about interesting circumstances and role-playing tactical stuff. However, if desired (and as typically happens), as soon as Bob's Full Defense beats the attack, everyone just hops to a new Free & Clear phase, treating the outcome essentially the same as A above.

Alternative II.A. Resolution:
A. Alice chooses not to abort. Bob's Full Defense is opposed by 1 die.
1. Bob's Full Defense fails. Alice's attack goes off next, for which Bob gets to roll normal defense.
a. resolve as I.B. above
2. Bob's Full Defense succeeds. Bob's victories roll over into his next action (which is going to be defending against Alice's attack). Alice's attack goes off next, for which Bob gets to roll normal defense plus any bonuses from his Full Defense.
a. resolve as I.B. above.
* This version seems unnecessarily complicated to me, but I could see the rules going either way with it.

Nope. The Full Defense roll is indeed a defense; it doesn't "get opposed" by a defensive roll (one die or otherwise) on Alice's part, and she is certainly not going to be able to "abort to a new attack" in any way. Go with your correct interpretation above.

Best,
Ron

[Nev the Deranged]

Hello,

Cheese and rice, Jesse, are you a demon with the Spawn ability? I think Nev is one of yours.

By the numbers ...

1) Sorcerer uses ...

Check.

Good so far.

1a) That accepted, what about the concept of a "biding" roll, made to represent that the character is sort of "assessing the situation" so to speak, that has no effect at all on the current round, but provides potential bonuses to an action during the next round.

Dude, that's not "biding," that's an action! "I suss out the weakness in his fighting style," "I try to get a lock on a really good target," etc. Make the normal roll on the relevant score vs. the other guy's relevant score, and then apply any bonuses on a successful roll to whatever action (if relevant) is taken next time. It's just the rules in action. Of course it's not bending them, it's just using them.

Okay, so it does work the way I'd expected. I've never seen it explained that way before, and it seemed to me that if that was the "standard" way to do it, it would have come up sometime in the discussions I read.

2) Rolling ...

Check.

2a) Since not all conflict resolution is combat, and even when it is, I've noticed some folks get confused with "attacking" and "defending" roles and such, would it make sense to refer to "aborting to react" rather than "aborting to defend"? No mechanical difference, but perhaps less confusing?

No. "Aborting to react" will instantly translate in any gamer's mind to "hold my action and decide when I get there." So never say that.

Hmm. Duly noted.

I am so waiting until later to deal with all your Alice-Bob stuff. You do realize how much of a horse-pill that is to swallow and digest, merely to begin to answer, right? Embedded in all this other stuff? Later. Confirm your understanding of all this stuff in this post first, then we'll do Alice and Bob, or see which one does the other, and so forth.

Yes, I realize it was a lot to parse. But it was the only way I know to make sure I have the the crunchy bits all working the way they're supposed to.

3) If Chuck ...

It doesn't necessarily lead to a downward spiral because of the incredible diversity of possibilities, e.g. demon intervention or rebellion, others' actions, role-playing bonuses, and plenty more things. Many a Sorcerer character has been heinously brutalized in just the way you describe, only to use his or her Will successfully and turn the whole situation around with appalling effectiveness.

And if it does "downward spiral" on you, that's the equivalent in this game of what other games call "critical hits" - i.e., you get punched into next week. That's merely how it happens in Sorcerer, and frankly (in my view) it makes far more sense both thematically and in terms of in-game plausibility.

Fair enough.

4) Dialogue ...

Check.

5) When ...

Check.

6) Bonus dice are not simulating anything specific. They are for anything that jazzes up the players (includin the GM), whether by being cool, advancing the plot, being especially clever, etc. Not for "I have a bigger gun" or any mechanical or Simulationist concern.

Right. Although the in-game imaginative "weight" of the thing might be the in-play expression of the jazz-up. If a character pulls a bigger weapon than the other guy, then a +1 die to start off with is nifty: the "No, this is a knife" effect. From a Sim standpoint, the machete gets an extra die for its bigger heft and longer edge in the "reality" of the game-world. From a Narr standpoint, it gets an extra die because our guts churn to look at it, especially when it's revealed and when its wielder is unperturbed by the assailant's (now-revealed-to-be) littler weapon.

Now: it is perfectly OK for the Narr approach to rely heavily on the in-game-world plausibility factor. In that sense, the effectiveness of the imaginary/fictional weapon if it were real is definitely a good justification for the guts-churning. That's why weapons have different damage effects in the damage charts in the first place. But! This is a matter of relying heavily on, not not not being defined by. The minute anyone goes all Sim on you and says, "But my gun would do more damage because ..." then fuck'em. Believe me, you'll see the difference in a red second, during play.

*nods* Gotcha. I think I kind of knew this but wasn't sure how to articulate it, so I boiled it down a little too far. I don't think I'll have any problem meting out bonus dice appropriately.

7) When rolling 1 die for defense, it is not a "suck it up" die. It is an "easiest opposed action" die put in place by the system to give the attacker something to roll against, not by the defender to defend with.

Um, OK. This is definitely a "state it how you feel most comfortable" thing. If the words "suck it up" imply to you that the defender must be hit, then just flense that bit of mentalese from your mind and call it "easiest opposed action." Works for you? All good.

It's less about whether the defender must be hit. The important distinction of that passage is that the 1 die is not extrapolated from the target of the attack, but rather generated by the opposed action rules.

8) In reference ...

Confirmed that the "everyone always rolls" model is correct. The prose you're referring to is vestigial, from an author who couldn't quite believe that his system (or the one he managed to Summon anyway) did what it did.

Excellent. And no, I am not in any way derivative of this Jesse of whom you speak. Before long, he too shall kneel before me just as all of you will in time.

[Nev the Deranged]

Hi there,

On to the adventures and tribulations of Alice and Bob!

Alice attacks Bob and Bob goes Full Defense (+2 dice). These dice end up mostly counting for Initiative purposes, since they give Bob a better chance of beating Alice's attack roll. The ways this could resolve are:

Some of this is OK and some isn't.

I. Alice wins Initiative.
A. Bob sucks it up. Alice's attack is vs. 1 die. Bob keeps his Full Defense dice.
1. Alice's attack hits Bob. Bob's Full Defense is impaired by damage from Alice's attack. Then whatever is left of Bob's Full Defense goes off. Alice gets a full "reaction" (rather than defense) roll representing her shifting to a better stance or whatever to get the drop on Bob next round.

Danger, Will Robinson! This is not correct. If Bob sucks it up, then his full defense dice are gone, vanished like smoke. He rolls his one die and that is that, as far as Alice's attack and the entire round is concerned. If Bob is dealing with other assailants whose attacks come after his, then that's another story (his Full Defense applies, although any damage from Alice's attack are now added as bonuses to their rolls). But if it's all just Bob and Alice, then no, Alice doesn't have to roll anything against the "Full Defense dice attack." Those dice are poof-gone.

a. Alice's reaction roll beats what's left of Bob's Full Defense. Alice's victories are rolled over into her action for the next round (if appropriate), representing that she reacted to Bob's defense in an advantageous way. End of Round.
b. Bob's leftover Full Defense beats Alice's reaction roll. Bob's victories are rolled over into his next action if approptiate. This represents Bob defending in such a way that he is in an advantageous position for next round. End of Round.

As stated, none of the above applies. Alice's roll against Bob's single die are the entire round. (Again, Bob's "obvious" tactic of aborting to a re-rolled defense without the +2 is obvious only because we're talking about a gray void with no one and nothing in it except Alice and Bob.)

B. Bob aborts his Full Defense and rerolls normal defense (no +2) against Alice's attack.
1. Alice's attack beats Bob's new defense roll. Bob is hit for appropriate damage. Alice's victories may roll over to her next action if appropriate. End of Round.
2. Bob's new defense roll beats Alice's attack roll. Alice's attack fails. Bob's victories are rolled over to his next action if appropriate. End of Round.

All good and correct.

II. Bob wins Initiative.
A. Alice (foolishly) chooses not to abort, allowing her attack againt Bob to fail. Bob's victories roll over into his next action if appropriate. End of Round. *this one I'm not exactly sure about. I will present an alternative resolution below*

Actually, this is fully correct. It's also very simple: Bob preps for the incoming attack, and his prep pays off. Imagine the highly unrealistic but enjoyable "whssssh!" noise in bad (but wonderfully bad!) martial arts movies which indicates a clean defensive dodge and the attack's ineffective noise (telling you how nasty it would have been.

B. Alice aborts her attack and makes a full "reaction" (rather than defense) roll to Bob's Full Defense, representing her realizing Bob was too fast for her and shifting into a better position.
1. Alice's new reaction roll beats Bob's Full Defense roll. Alice's victories roll over into her next action if appropriate. This represents her reacting advantageously to Bob's Full Defense. End of Round.
2. Bob's Full Defense roll beats Alice's reaction roll. Bob's victories roll over into his next action if appropriate. This represents Bob's Full Defense putting him in an advantageous position relative to Alice. End of Round.

All correct if we're talking about interesting circumstances and role-playing tactical stuff. However, if desired (and as typically happens), as soon as Bob's Full Defense beats the attack, everyone just hops to a new Free & Clear phase, treating the outcome essentially the same as A above.

Alternative II.A. Resolution:
A. Alice chooses not to abort. Bob's Full Defense is opposed by 1 die.
1. Bob's Full Defense fails. Alice's attack goes off next, for which Bob gets to roll normal defense.
a. resolve as I.B. above
2. Bob's Full Defense succeeds. Bob's victories roll over into his next action (which is going to be defending against Alice's attack). Alice's attack goes off next, for which Bob gets to roll normal defense plus any bonuses from his Full Defense.
a. resolve as I.B. above.
* This version seems unnecessarily complicated to me, but I could see the rules going either way with it.

Nope. The Full Defense roll is indeed a defense; it doesn't "get opposed" by a defensive roll (one die or otherwise) on Alice's part, and she is certainly not going to be able to "abort to a new attack" in any way. Go with your correct interpretation above.

Best,
Ron

F*ck.

F*ck. F*ck. F*ck. F*ck.

I am sooooo so tired of banging my head against this game. If I was some newbie or buffoon who always had to have thing explained to him, I wouldn't sweat it. But I'm the guy who always explains games to other people. I'm the guy with an intuitive grasp of mechanics and applications of concepts. I'm freakin' SMART for f*ck's sake.

I don't understand why I'm having such a bleeding hard time with this. It can't be this complicated. I KNOW it's not this complicated. It's a frickin' GAME. Figuring out games is my THING. It's what I DO, it's what I ENJOY. I buy games I KNOW I'm not going to play just because I like reading them and figuring out how they work. I read game manuals on the john, or on lunch breaks, just to pass time. I write my OWN games, for crying out loud. This should NOT be giving me this much grief!!

*deep breaths*

I'm okay. I'm okay.

Well, apparently I spent another couple hours going back over old threads on conflict resolution for nothing, because 90% of the information I gleaned from them I've apparently tragically misinterpreted. Again.

I'm going to go take a shower and calm down. Then, when I'm ready, I'm going to come back and do this once more, with feeling.

I'm am nothing if not stubborn.

[Nev the Deranged]

Okay. I'm better now. A nice hot shower and some munchies have put me back in chew-the-bindings-off-this-mothafacko mode.

Heeeeere we go!

Hi there,

On to the adventures and tribulations of Alice and Bob!

Alice attacks Bob and Bob goes Full Defense (+2 dice). These dice end up mostly counting for Initiative purposes, since they give Bob a better chance of beating Alice's attack roll. The ways this could resolve are:

Some of this is OK and some isn't.

I. Alice wins Initiative.
A. Bob sucks it up. Alice's attack is vs. 1 die. Bob keeps his Full Defense dice.
1. Alice's attack hits Bob. Bob's Full Defense is impaired by damage from Alice's attack. Then whatever is left of Bob's Full Defense goes off. Alice gets a full "reaction" (rather than defense) roll representing her shifting to a better stance or whatever to get the drop on Bob next round.

Danger, Will Robinson! This is not correct. If Bob sucks it up, then his full defense dice are gone, vanished like smoke. He rolls his one die and that is that, as far as Alice's attack and the entire round is concerned. If Bob is dealing with other assailants whose attacks come after his, then that's another story (his Full Defense applies, although any damage from Alice's attack are now added as bonuses to their rolls). But if it's all just Bob and Alice, then no, Alice doesn't have to roll anything against the "Full Defense dice attack." Those dice are poof-gone.

Okay. The dice aren't "poof-gone" because if there were more going on they would still come into play. They just don't come into play in this situation because once Alice has attacked Bob has nothing left to defend against, so his Full Defense doesn't "do" anything and is ignored. I guess if you want to call that "poof-gone" since they have no effect, fine. I grudgingly understand your explanation of this, but it seems to lack depth for some reason... maybe the discussions on the other threads led me to overanalyze... Anyway. On to the next chunk.

a. Alice's reaction roll beats what's left of Bob's Full Defense. Alice's victories are rolled over into her action for the next round (if appropriate), representing that she reacted to Bob's defense in an advantageous way. End of Round.
b. Bob's leftover Full Defense beats Alice's reaction roll. Bob's victories are rolled over into his next action if approptiate. This represents Bob defending in such a way that he is in an advantageous position for next round. End of Round.

As stated, none of the above applies. Alice's roll against Bob's single die are the entire round. (Again, Bob's "obvious" tactic of aborting to a re-rolled defense without the +2 is obvious only because we're talking about a gray void with no one and nothing in it except Alice and Bob.)

Okay. In light of your above explanation, this makes sense. Bob would be a fool NOT to abort for re-rolled defense, UNLESS he expected another attack to hold on to his original defense for. Mi comprende, mon capitan.

B. Bob aborts his Full Defense and rerolls normal defense (no +2) against Alice's attack.
1. Alice's attack beats Bob's new defense roll. Bob is hit for appropriate damage. Alice's victories may roll over to her next action if appropriate. End of Round.
2. Bob's new defense roll beats Alice's attack roll. Alice's attack fails. Bob's victories are rolled over to his next action if appropriate. End of Round.

All good and correct.

Thank gawd. I don't think I could have handled a 100% failure of comprehension. So, in the one-on-one situation of this example, this is really the only sensible option for Bob.

II. Bob wins Initiative.
A. Alice (foolishly) chooses not to abort, allowing her attack againt Bob to fail. Bob's victories roll over into his next action if appropriate. End of Round. *this one I'm not exactly sure about. I will present an alternative resolution below*

Actually, this is fully correct. It's also very simple: Bob preps for the incoming attack, and his prep pays off. Imagine the highly unrealistic but enjoyable "whssssh!" noise in bad (but wonderfully bad!) martial arts movies which indicates a clean defensive dodge and the attack's ineffective noise (telling you how nasty it would have been.

Good. The other explanation seemed excessively crunchy. Which, I guess, now that you've explained it, so does I.A.1. above, and for similar reasons.

B. Alice aborts her attack and makes a full "reaction" (rather than defense) roll to Bob's Full Defense, representing her realizing Bob was too fast for her and shifting into a better position.
1. Alice's new reaction roll beats Bob's Full Defense roll. Alice's victories roll over into her next action if appropriate. This represents her reacting advantageously to Bob's Full Defense. End of Round.
2. Bob's Full Defense roll beats Alice's reaction roll. Bob's victories roll over into his next action if appropriate. This represents Bob's Full Defense putting him in an advantageous position relative to Alice. End of Round.

All correct if we're talking about interesting circumstances and role-playing tactical stuff. However, if desired (and as typically happens), as soon as Bob's Full Defense beats the attack, everyone just hops to a new Free & Clear phase, treating the outcome essentially the same as A above.

Okay. I think I'm beginning to see where my concept of how this is supposed to work is diverging from yours. To me, this seems like not giving the system its full due. But... It's starting to become clear that "not giving the system its full due" is a thoroughly Gamist concern which doesn't really have a place in Sorcerer. Since I'm one of the rare(?) breed of gamers who enjoys all three points of the GNS spectrum and (foolishly) expects them ALL to coexist and reinforce one another, it's tending to lead me astray in my efforts to grok Sorcerer. To me, accurately (not necessarily realistically, mind you, but accurately) simulating game-world events in order to react to narratively in-character with the goal of winning and succeeding both on and off the table are all tied together inextricably. They ALL get me psyched, and any one of them I get involved in I tend to try to apply the other two to it. Most of my recent RP experience has been in MMOSG (social gaming) environments, rather than face-to-face, so that experience has reinforced this dysfunctional expectation of fulfilment.

So, now that we understand my issues.

Alternative II.A. Resolution:
A. Alice chooses not to abort. Bob's Full Defense is opposed by 1 die.
1. Bob's Full Defense fails. Alice's attack goes off next, for which Bob gets to roll normal defense.
a. resolve as I.B. above
2. Bob's Full Defense succeeds. Bob's victories roll over into his next action (which is going to be defending against Alice's attack). Alice's attack goes off next, for which Bob gets to roll normal defense plus any bonuses from his Full Defense.
a. resolve as I.B. above.
* This version seems unnecessarily complicated to me, but I could see the rules going either way with it.

Nope. The Full Defense roll is indeed a defense; it doesn't "get opposed" by a defensive roll (one die or otherwise) on Alice's part, and she is certainly not going to be able to "abort to a new attack" in any way. Go with your correct interpretation above.

Good. I didn't like this version. It can go away and I will not miss it.

*sigh* whew. I apologize for melting down there last post. I've been having a hard time dealing with being that frustrated over something I typically grasp intuitively and with little effort. I realize Sorcerer is "different" from what I'm used to, but crikey, it's still paper and dice, it can't be THAT different. The rules are in English (really good English, even), it should be this hard[/h]. I almost was starting to feel like I was married again, for cripes sake.

Still, I think I get it now. Or at least some more of it than I did yesterday. And as long as I'm making progress, however slowly, I shall not flag.

Thanks again, Ron. You da man.

Even if I did want to tear your arms off for a good five minutes or so there.

^_^

[Valamir]

Thats ok Nev.  A few more like you and we may see that 2nd edition Sorcerer yet...

Yessss...yessss my precious.....

[Doyce]

3) If Chuck attacks Di, and succeeds with 3 victories. Di takes temporary penalties equal to Chuck's victories (3), plus one Lasting, which stacks with the temps for a total of 4 penalties next round. Now, if Chuck's victories also roll over into his next attack on Di, that puts Chuck at +3 dice and Di at -4 dice, for a total of 7 dice of difference on top of whatever the normal scores are, correct?

Umm, I know Ron said "check" and all, but is this right?  My understanding was that the 3 dice of temporary penalties were, in effect, Chuck's successes rolling over to the next round, and that if Chuck also gave himself 3 bonus dice, he would be double-dipping.

(The exception to this (which I'd picked up from threads) being if Chuck attacks Di, hits her as stated her, then uses his momentum not to go after Di some more but to swing unexpectedly into another part of the fight... in that case, he'd roll over his successes to this new attack, but not if he continued against Di, who already has his successes stacked against her, in effect.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Doyce,

Good eye for details. The answer is that the penalties will indeed apply, 'cause the character got hit, but that the roll-over depends wholly on whatever the next action is.

So yeah, it is possible to double-dip certain dice - if you hit and if your next action is well-integrated with the previous action.

Unsurprisingly, I don't do this much; action B better be incredibly and distinctively integrated with action A to get the roll-over benefit, especially if they both represent attacks on the same guy. "I follow up and hit him again" is definitely not good enough.

Best,
Ron

[Nev the Deranged]

Okay, now that I get the gist of this, I've been doing little example Conflict Maps (like in Sex&) and playing out scenarios, rolling dice, etc. to get the hang of doing it before introducing players into the mix.

I'm in the middle of the following situation:

The Scenario
Amber has a pistol and wants to shoot Bruce for double crossing her earlier. She's rolling 3 dice.
Bruce isn't paying attention to Amber, he's too busy trying to get an important book from Cassie. He's rolling 4 dice.
Cassie isn't giving up the book without a fight, and she's willing to fight dirty (called shot to the junk, anybody?) She's rolling 4 dice.
Darren has just shown up and doesn't know what's going on, but he sees Amber levelling that gun at the other two and figures stopping her is the first step to sorting things out. He's rolling 3 dice.
Ella has been hanging back waiting for Amber to pare down the competition, so she doesn't want Darren interfering. She's flinging a chair into his path. She's rolling 4 dice.

The Results
Amber: 10, 8, 3
Bruce: 9, 9, 6, 4
Cassie: 10, 6, 6, 5
Darren: 10, 10, 4
Ella: 12, 9, 3, 1

Ella's chair goes flying into Darren's path. He still thinks he can reach Amber in time, so he maintains- Ella wins with 2 victories against an 8 on the difficulty die. Darren stumbles over the chair but is still trying to stop Amber. She sees him coming but wants to get that shot off, so she maintains. Darren's results fail against the 11, 9, 3 rolled on the difficulty dice (1+2 penalties) and he goes down in a heap just out of reach of Amber. She squeezes the shot off. Bruce wants the book, but he can't read if he's dead, so he aborts to fling himself out of the way. He succeeds with an 11, 6, 1, 1 and dodges the bullet.

Now, here's where I have a question.

If I, as the GM, decide that because Bruce and Cassie were tangled up struggling over the book, that Cassie is also at risk from Amber's shot- how do I handle it?

I could hack any number of solutions to this and any of them would suffice for an off the cuff reading, but I wondered about the official word.

Also, would this situation be handled differently if Cassie was an NPC? In the sense that a PC you pretty much have to give a fair chance to survive something like that, while an NPC you could conceivably just kill for dramatic effect or whatever. Or would that be frowned upon?

What if I wanted to say there's a chance the book itself might be damaged by the bullet?

Like I said, I could just fudge a mechanically and aesthetically satisfying method, and if I was sitting at the table I would, rather than hold up play. But that's why I playtest, to clear things up before they come up at the table.

Thanks in advance... =>

[Ron Edwards]

Whoa! Before I answer any of those questions, I want to check on one thing:

You're not applying rolled-over victories as added pips to the next roll, are you? They are new dice, to be rolled on their own.

In other words, if you have two victories coming to you, then roll two more dice with your next roll. Do not add "2" to the roll.

Best,
Ron

[Nev the Deranged]

Whoa! Before I answer any of those questions, I want to check on one thing:

You're not applying rolled-over victories as added pips to the next roll, are you? They are new dice, to be rolled on their own.

In other words, if you have two victories coming to you, then roll two more dice with your next roll. Do not add "2" to the roll.

Uh... nope. Not sure why I would do such a thing... or for that matter, what in my post would lead you to think that. I don't recall "pips" being part of the Currency...

The 2 victories Ella scored on Darren I applied as bonus dice to the "basic difficulty" roll in Amber's favor, which is why his tackle was matched against 3 dice instead of one, when Amber opted to keep her gun-firing action.

This *is* how the Currency is meant to be used, yes? Please say yes...

**EDIT**
Okay, I think I see, you're referring to Amber's 10, 8, 3 and the 11, 9, 3 that got rolled against Darren's action. No, that's just a coincidence of the dice, because I was using real dice rolls ISO made up ones. Sorry for the confusion.
***/EDIT***

[Doyce]

Okay, I think I see, you're referring to Amber's 10, 8, 3 and the 11, 9, 3 that got rolled against Darren's action. No, that's just a coincidence of the dice, because I was using real dice rolls ISO made up ones. Sorry for the confusion.

Actually, I think he's just wondering how you got an 11.

What size dice were you rolling.  Obviously, the rules state you can roll whatever you want, but I've gathered that most people roll d10's most of the time, and that example is, then, odd :)

[ScottM]

What size dice were you rolling?  Obviously, the rules state you can roll whatever you want, but I've gathered that most people roll d10's most of the time, and that example is, then, odd :)

It looks like d12 since Ella rolled 12, 9, 3, 1 initially. I also remember him mentioning d12s previously, which is the only reason I didn't get thrown.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Actually, here's the phrase that threw me:

Darren's results fail against the 11, 9, 3 rolled on the difficulty dice (1+2 penalties)

But I figured it out - the three dice Darren rolled came up 11, 9, and 3. So all is well.

Now for the actual question & answer part.

Here's the deal for all of these questions, which essentially are about the same thing: set it up during the announcement phase. The GM suddenly saying, following the rolls, "And roll to defend against the bullet, Cassie!" is just as illegal as the player saying "I change my action to hit Bob instead!" Get those cards on the table, dammit, before any dice are rolled. The GM is just another member of the group as far as that announcement phase is concerned.

If I, as the GM, decide that because Bruce and Cassie were tangled up struggling over the book, that Cassie is also at risk from Amber's shot- how do I handle it?

Given that you, as the GM, made this clear during the announcement phase, then Cassie's player is under the same decision-set as usual: hoping to roll high enough for her groin-kicking that she'll subsequently have all her dice to avoid the bullet. In other words, it's the same old system as usual.

[]Also, would this situation be handled differently if Cassie was an NPC? In the sense that a PC you pretty much have to give a fair chance to survive something like that, while an NPC you could conceivably just kill for dramatic effect or whatever. Or would that be frowned upon? [/quote]

Nope. Handle it just the same for Cassie as an NPC. Bluntly, I think that "well, I want her to die so I'll say the bullet kills her" is missing most of the fun of the game: working within meaningful and powerful constraints.

What if I wanted to say there's a chance the book itself might be damaged by the bullet?

Then say it - during the announcement phase. Then everyone else alters or doesn't alter their announcements. It's so easy.

Best,
Ron

P.S. You, uh, do realize that this is how I played every single scene in our necromancy game, right? That absolutely no outcomes were diddled with or handled through any kind of fiat by me? I mean, we did play six sessions of Sorcerer together ...