Topic: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Started by: jburneko
Started on: 3/4/2004
Board: Adept Press
On 3/4/2004 at 10:06pm, jburneko wrote:
[Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
I don't know what it is about this Asylum game I'm running but I'm really beginning to see that for all my intellectual understanding I really suck at this whole complex conflict resolution thing. I think it's because the characters in this game are far more chaotic in their behavior than in any of the previous games I've run. So...
Okay, imagine this set up. We have Guard A and Guard B standing around and are approached by an escaping Patient (a PC).
Guard A declares that he is going to try to grapple the Patient. Guard B declares that he is going for the alarm. The Patient declares that he is going to try and knock Guard A out.
We roll.
Guard B goes before Patient goes before Guard A.
1) Assuming nothing else happens does Guard B meet any opposition at all? A single die perhaprs? Or was the whole purpose of the roll just to determine when the alarm gets sounded.
2) Can the Patient abort his action to try and defend the alarm from Guard B? If the Patient had gone before Guard B could he defend the alarm with full dice?
What I'm trying to figure out is can characters defend other characters or objects during a battle either by aborting their action if they haven't gone yet or simply as a normal type of defense.
I imagine this situation. Characters A and B are facing off against Villains X and Y. Character A declares that he's attacked Villian X and Character B declares that he is attacking Villain Y. Roll dice.
Character B goes before Villain X goes Before Character A goes before Villain Y.
So Character B does whatever to Villain Y. Can Character B then defend Character A from Villain X's attack so that A doesn't have to abort his action?
Back to the guards.
Here's a situation I've suddenly realized I have no idea how to run: Guard A declares that he is grappling the Patient. Guard B delcares that he is running for the alarm. The Patient declares that his stopping Guard B.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret the dice in this case since the Patients declared action is a direct defense against Guard B's declared action rather than an action all on its own.
How do we compare dice rolls with the following orderings?
The Patient goes before Guard B goes before Guard A
Guard B goes before The Patient goes before Guard A
Guard A goes before The Patient goes before Guard B AND Guard A's action succeeds (The Patient doesn't want to abort his action).
Guard A goes before Guard B goes before The Patient AND Guard A's action succeeds (The Patient doesn't want to abort his action).
I think this has A LOT to do with those dice diagrams in Sex and Sorcery which I admit is the section I understood the least.
Jesse
On 3/4/2004 at 10:59pm, Valamir wrote:
Re: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
It seems to me that most all of these issues are settled in the Free and Clear stage.
jburneko wrote:
Guard B goes before Patient goes before Guard A.
1) Assuming nothing else happens does Guard B meet any opposition at all? A single die perhaprs? Or was the whole purpose of the roll just to determine when the alarm gets sounded.
What opposition is there to pushing a button? The Guard's roll is solely to determine initiative order.
2) Can the Patient abort his action to try and defend the alarm from Guard B? If the Patient had gone before Guard B could he defend the alarm with full dice?
I wouldn't allow either. If the player wanted to stop Guard B, then the player should have changed his knockout Guard A action into a Stop Guard B action during the Free and Clear. Sounds to me like you're imagining players trying to be shifty and get extra actions they're not entitled to.
A defense roll is what you get when someone is trying to effect you. Not just because someone is trying to do something you don't like. To stop that you need to declare stopping that as your action.
I imagine this situation. Characters A and B are facing off against Villains X and Y. Character A declares that he's attacked Villian X and Character B declares that he is attacking Villain Y. Roll dice.
Character B goes before Villain X goes Before Character A goes before Villain Y.
So Character B does whatever to Villain Y. Can Character B then defend Character A from Villain X's attack so that A doesn't have to abort his action?
Player B can protect player A if player B had declared he was protecting player A during the Free and Clear. If not...tough. He doesn't get two actions in a round just for rolling good.
Here's a situation I've suddenly realized I have no idea how to run: Guard A declares that he is grappling the Patient. Guard B delcares that he is running for the alarm. The Patient declares that his stopping Guard B.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret the dice in this case since the Patients declared action is a direct defense against Guard B's declared action rather than an action all on its own.
Forget this defense stuff, you're just confusing yourself needlessly.
Is anyone trying to harm the patient? Yes, Guard A. The term defense applies to the patients efforts to avoid being harmed by Guard A. It has nothing to do with Guard B.
Guard B is going for the alarm, the patient is trying to stop him. Boom, period. Done.
How do we compare dice rolls with the following orderings?
The Patient goes before Guard B goes before Guard A
Patient Stops Guard B, the alarm doesn't sound, Patient gets full defense against Guard A.
Guard B goes before The Patient goes before Guard A[/qupte]
Guard B sounds the alarm, the patients roll becomes meaningless except as a turn order determinate, patient gets full defense against Guard A
Guard A goes before The Patient goes before Guard B AND Guard A's action succeeds (The Patient doesn't want to abort his action).
Patient rolls 1 die against Guard A, any damage suffered gets added to Guard Bs roll. Guard B would fail to get the alarm, unless the bonus dice from patient's injuries bumps his roll to better than patients.
Guard A goes before Guard B goes before The Patient AND Guard A's action succeeds (The Patient doesn't want to abort his action).
The patient's action has failed. He can't stop Guard B. He'd be stupid not to abort for defense.
Hopefully I didn't get any of those wrong, I will admit to it being somewhat off the cuff, but it doesn't seem all that confusing to me. Maybe that's just after years of playing Diplomacy these kinds of if than order things are easier to conceptualize.
On 3/4/2004 at 11:16pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Hi Jesse,
Well, well, well ... Yes, we are in dice-diagram land.
We have Guard A and Guard B standing around and are approached by an escaping Patient (a PC).
Guard A declares that he is going to try to grapple the Patient. Guard B declares that he is going for the alarm. The Patient declares that he is going to try and knock Guard A out.
We roll.
Guard B goes before Patient goes before Guard A.
1) Assuming nothing else happens does Guard B meet any opposition at all? A single die perhaprs? Or was the whole purpose of the roll just to determine when the alarm gets sounded.
What I'm trying to figure out is can characters defend other characters or objects during a battle either by aborting their action if they haven't gone yet or simply as a normal type of defense.
Remember, right now, all those rolls are still sitting on the table.
Guard B goes for the alarm and is opposed by a single die. If he succeeds, just hang onto the victories for a second. Patient attacks Guard A. Guard A must decide whether to abort his grapple or to eat the fist in his face and continue to try to grapple. If he aborts, then he rolls full Stamina to defend and all is over. If he eats the punch, he rolls a single die to defend, and then carries on with the grapple if he's able. In that case, the Patient rolls full Stamina (perhaps increased by damage "penalties" in his favor) against the grapple.
Now! Look at all the successful rolls, whether defensive or offensive. You've got three. Use the differences between the number of victories represented in each to determine any unknowns about their effectiveness or interactions for the next round. Let's say the alarm got tripped, but only by one victory. Let's also say the patient decked the guard with four victories.
Yeah, the alarm got tripped (success is success). But I could see the Patient getting three bonus dice for his next action if it's relative to the alarm's effects in some way. Perhaps he runs to escape, and yup, that's three more dice. Why? Because he decked Guard B so fast and effectively that he realized he couldn't stop the alarm, and was able to turn on a dime and book out of there.
Whereas if the numbers of victories were reversed, I see no problem giving the guards who pursue him through the halls the three bonus dice.
2) Can the Patient abort his action to try and defend the alarm from Guard B? If the Patient had gone before Guard B could he defend the alarm with full dice?
NO. This is your players trying to double-dip again. "I want to hit the guard but I also want to reserve the right to stop the alarm from being tripped." NO NO NO. That was what the announcement phase was about, and the patient's player had to choose then.
I imagine this situation. Characters A and B are facing off against Villains X and Y. Character A declares that he's attacked Villian X and Character B declares that he is attacking Villain Y. Roll dice.
Character B goes before Villain X goes Before Character A goes before Villain Y.
So Character B does whatever to Villain Y. Can Character B then defend Character A from Villain X's attack so that A doesn't have to abort his action?
NO! Eeesh, Jesse! Go back to that first sentence about declaring. A attacks Y, B attacks X. That's what they can do. Either that, or fling themselves aside in a dodge or fling up their hands in a block. That's it. No double-dipping!
Here's a situation I've suddenly realized I have no idea how to run: Guard A declares that he is grappling the Patient. Guard B delcares that he is running for the alarm. The Patient declares that his stopping Guard B.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret the dice in this case since the Patients declared action is a direct defense against Guard B's declared action rather than an action all on its own.
Nope, it's not. The Patient's act is an "attack" on the Guard. Just follow the rules. It works, really.
How do we compare dice rolls with the following orderings?
The Patient goes before Guard B goes before Guard A
Guard B must decide whether to abort his roll vs. the alarm, or not. Start there. Everything flows easily from that.
Guard B goes before The Patient goes before Guard A
Roll the alarm's "defense" against Guard B. If it fails, the Patient is hosed. Even if his roll is successful (the Guard gets full defense), all he does is succeed in "would have stopped the guard if I was faster."
Guard A goes before The Patient goes before Guard B AND Guard A's action succeeds (The Patient doesn't want to abort his action).
The Patient can still try to stop Guard B. Guard B's defense is boosted by Guard A's victories. Just imagine the Patient lurching along with Guard A attached to him in a big tussle.
Guard A goes before Guard B goes before The Patient AND Guard A's action succeeds (The Patient doesn't want to abort his action).
Now the Patient is really hosed. Not only is he grabbed, but Guard B gets to the alarm even if the Patient hadn't been grabbed. So even if he lurches over to Guard B and "stops" him successfully (even with Guard B aided by A's victory dice), then it was too late.
Best,
Ron
On 3/5/2004 at 12:20am, jburneko wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Okay, I'm clear on the double-dipping thing. It hasn't really been a problem yet but it's been something I've been thinking about. The real problem was what I was describing in the second half with players declaring DEFENSIVE actions. What does it means when their action happens before or after the action they were defending against.
A few more clearifications:
Back to this situation: Guard A is grappling the Patient. Guard B is going for the alarm. The Patient is trying to stop Guard B.
The Patient goes before Guard B goes before Guard A.
You said:
Guard B must decide whether to abort his roll vs. the alarm, or not. Start there. Everything flows easily from that.
But what does that mean? If Guard B doesn't abort the situation is straight forward the guard does or does not trip the alarm based on a single die roll. BUT if Guard B aborts his action what does it mean if he succeeds? I've successfully prevented the patient from trying to stop me but I stopped my action in the process? What?
Roll the alarm's "defense" against Guard B. If it fails, the Patient is hosed. Even if his roll is successful (the Guard gets full defense), all he does is succeed in "would have stopped the guard if I was faster."
That's BRUTAL! And I think this statement is making things a little clearer. I think my brain has been getting confused by making a distinction between an agressive action and a defensive action. And I didn't know what it meant when one uses ones defensive dice as their agressive dice for determining action order and success.
Basically, I've been asking myself, "If durring the 'Free and Clear' stage a player declares what appears to be a reactive defensive action to one of the other declared actions when do they roll and what do those dice mean?"
Now I see that with such declarations you're risking "failing even if you succeed" because of bad timing. That's the part I was confused about. What happens if you Succeed but AFTER the action you were trying to defend against/prevent goes?
Jesse
On 3/5/2004 at 1:51am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Hi Jesse,
with such declarations you're risking "failing even if you succeed" because of bad timing.
Yes, that is it. That is Sorcerer.
There are no defensive actions except for full defense (the +2 bonus). And do you see that if someone goes before you, even when you do that, that you'll have to abort it?
The best way to see it is that there are no defensive actions (in game terms), even when they are defensive actions from the character's point of view.
Best,
Ron
On 3/5/2004 at 2:05am, jburneko wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Whoa! Okay, time to go to a dualing situation. Character A is fighting Character B. Character A declares attacking Character B. Character B just wants to defend themselves. I need numbers for this one and let's say Character A and B both have a stamina of 3.
Character A roll three dice and gets 10 9 8. Character B rolls 5 dice (the +2 bonus) and gets 9 8 7 6 5.
What happens.
Option 1) Character A succeeds with 1 victory.
Option 2) Because Character A went first character B has to either abort or roll 1 die. Character B aborts and rolls 3 defense dice losing the two die bonus for defense. Is that correct? Otherwise, they roll one die. If they succeed then what of their full defense dice?
Now suppose the rolls are: 10 9 8 7 6 for Character B and 9 8 7 for Character A.
What happens?
Option 1) Character B succeeds at defending off Character A.
Option 2) Character A can either follow through with the attack or abort to defend. What the hell does defending against defending mean? So, assuming Character A doesn't abort and rolls just one die and gets a 7. Does that mean when Character A finally DOES attack Character B must roll ANOTHER Defense roll but with 3 bonus dice from this failed defense of defense? What does it mean if Character A aborts their action and succeeds?
Or does this just mean that sometimes aborting ones action is meaningless?
Jesse
On 3/5/2004 at 2:59am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Hi Jesse,
Character A is fighting Character B. Character A declares attacking Character B. Character B just wants to defend themselves. I need numbers for this one and let's say Character A and B both have a stamina of 3.
Character A roll three dice and gets 10 9 8. Character B rolls 5 dice (the +2 bonus) and gets 9 8 7 6 5.
What happens.
Option 1) Character A succeeds with 1 victory.
Option 2) Because Character A went first character B has to either abort or roll 1 die. Character B aborts and rolls 3 defense dice losing the two die bonus for defense. Is that correct? Otherwise, they roll one die.
Correct.
If they succeed then what of their full defense dice?
Correct. What about them? They aborted, remember? All gone: the whole 9 8 7 6 5. Whenever you abort, your rolled dice just vanish.
Now suppose the rolls are: 10 9 8 7 6 for Character B and 9 8 7 for Character A.
What happens?
Before I answer, I'd like to say I really wish you wouldn't fire a barrage of questions that represent a linear sequence of affirmative or negative answers to the preceding ones. Often, a good half of them are meaningless because of the answer to the first one. So trying to deal with a question that's three "if" layers into the concept is pretty aggravating.
Option 1) Character B succeeds at defending off Character A.
Yup. By rolling higher, his defense gets up in time.
Option 2) Character A can either follow through with the attack or abort to defend. What the hell does defending against defending mean? So, assuming Character A doesn't abort and rolls just one die and gets a 7. Does that mean when Character A finally DOES attack Character B must roll ANOTHER Defense roll but with 3 bonus dice from this failed defense of defense? What does it mean if Character A aborts their action and succeeds?
Or does this just mean that sometimes aborting ones action is meaningless?
Character A can abort. Why are you confused about what that might mean? It's the easiest thing in the world. It's not "defending vs. defending," it's aborting the attack. A strikes, but B is too quick for him, so A pulls the blow and shifts to some defensive motion. Happens all the time. Players are perfectly OK with the idea - it's gamers who have a hard time with it, because other game mechanics don't permit it.
"Why would he do that?" you ask, "He has his defensive dice now, 'cause his action's over, and so there's no point." Oh, Jesse, Jesse. Do you not see the value of a better standing roll in figuring out the larger implications of the situation? Especially if he had a really crappy roll (like 3 3 2 instead of 9 8 7), he'll want a better set of dice on the table. And what if that action ("Damn! He's quick!") led to a moment's cool role-playing and a shared appreciative grunt around the table? Bonuses. And what about the physical details of that particular confrontation? Aborting might give him the chance to play that extra defensive roll as grabbing the swaying stanchion with both hands, or whatever. That stuff is huge in Sorcerer.
Best,
Ron
On 3/5/2004 at 5:31pm, jburneko wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Okay, I think I'm clearing it up. Sorry about the if/then chains, that's the computer scientist in me parsing out all known cases.
My main mistake was that if players were declaring defensive actions I wasn't having them roll. I just had them roll to defend when the person whose action they were defending against came around. I think I've also been screwing up the whole ordering people/demons around thing because that lead to a lot of these "defending against defense" type situation where the demon was aborting its stated action to atempt resisiting being ordered not to take the action and that just made no sense to me.
Jesse
On 3/5/2004 at 6:02pm, Michael S. Miller wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
jburneko wrote: I think I've also been screwing up the whole ordering people/demons around thing because that lead to a lot of these "defending against defense" type situation where the demon was aborting its stated action to atempt resisiting being ordered not to take the action and that just made no sense to me.\
Now you've got me confused, but I think I've worked it out. Just to double check, in example-land, we've got:
Polly, an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time
Graymalkin, Miles' hungry, snarling demon with a Need to consume folks like Polly
Miles, a Sorcerer faced with a nasty Bang
Polly is going full defense (curling into a ball, actually). She rolls Stamina +2
Graymalkin is attacking Polly. It rolls Stamina.
Miles is ordering Graymalkin not to attack Polly. He rolls Will + Binding Strength (assuming it's in his favor).
If Graymalkin goes first, Polly can defend with one die, saving her dice already on the table (which weren't good enough anyway) or abort to defend with just Stamina. In either case, Miles' command would go off later. Graymalkin could defend against it with full Will. The outcome of that roll would determine whether Graymalkin responded with "Sorry, sir. I had already swallowed her by the time you told me to stop. Won't happen again." or "Yeah. I ate her. So what? Am I supposed to go vegetarian or something?" Even the unsuccessful attempt to stop Graymalkin from fulfilling its Need would be noted by the demon regarding its level of rebelliousness.
Now, if Miles goes first, Graymalkin has the choice of defending with 1 die (plus Binding Strength, if it's in its favor) or aborting its attack to defend with full Will (plus Binding, if applicable). Miles is, of course, hoping it aborts so that even if he loses the Will v. Will roll, he gains his objective. Sneaky sorcerer, that Miles. However, if Graymalkin doesn't abort, then it defends with 1 die. If it wins the roll, so much the better. It chows down. However, if it loses the roll, those Victories are added as extra dice Polly gets to roll right now to potentially enhance her defense. This represents Graymalkin's hesitation at the order interfering with his hunger.
I think I've got it. Seriously cool
On 3/5/2004 at 6:05pm, jburneko wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
No wait... I just thought of something else that confuses me. It's an issue of time and scale. Okay, imagine Character A and Character B are trying to rescue the Princess who is tied down to an altar. The Evil Sorcerer is trying to Summon a Possessor demon into her body and his Henchman is here to make sure no one stops him.
The idea here is that the Evil Sorcerer is not doing "snap shot" sorcerery. The goal is for the Henchman to defend the alter long enough to for the Evil Sorcerer to complete the full ritual.
So the declared actions are: Character A declares that he is going to cut the bonds from the Princess. Character B declares he is attacking the Evil Sorcerer. The Evil Sorcerer declares that he is trying to summon the demon (I guess). The Henchman declares that he is preventing anyone from approaching the alter.
My questions:
1) Is the time scale of the ritual relative to the rescue actions completely irrelivant mechanics wise?
2) Is the henchman's declared action an attempt at double-dipping since he's basically trying to claim at least a defensive action against all characters attempting to approach the alter?
Jesse
On 3/5/2004 at 7:00pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Hello,
No wait... I just thought of something else that confuses me.
Fuck!! Ahem. Just kidding.
So the declared actions are: Character A declares that he is going to cut the bonds from the Princess. Character B declares he is attacking the Evil Sorcerer. The Evil Sorcerer declares that he is trying to summon the demon (I guess). The Henchman declares that he is preventing anyone from approaching the alter.
Nope. Buzzzzzz. All done, no need to suffer. Jesus, you really did it to yourself this time.
The point is that the long-term action (Summoning the demon) is put on hold. Right now, you have a short-term conflict, and everyone's involved. Perhaps the Evil Sorcerer's actions during this conflict are all about keeping the ritual going; that's fine. And maybe stuff that happens in this conflict will affect his ritual roll, later, and that's fine too.
But the Evil Sorcerer's roll for the ritual is not involved in the conflicts of the moment, in terms of action and order. Any announcements and rolls he makes are part of that conflict, even if all they are is, "I continue the ritual." He does roll - it tells us (e.g.) whether he got part of the ritual done before the arrow strikes him in the back at one point or another.
Another point is that the Henchman's announced action as you've described it is totally meaningless. I mean, it's nice to know that he's there, but his real announcement comes during the same phase as the characters' does.
Is the henchman's declared action an attempt at double-dipping since he's basically trying to claim at least a defensive action against all characters attempting to approach the alter?
It would be if my second point up there were misunderstood. But since it's understood, then this question evaporates.
Best,
Ron
On 3/5/2004 at 7:04pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Hello,
Got my post-answers out of order.
My main mistake was that if players were declaring defensive actions I wasn't having them roll. I just had them roll to defend when the person whose action they were defending against came around.
This is very bad and should be stopped. Everyone always rolls. Period.
I think I've also been screwing up the whole ordering people/demons around thing because that lead to a lot of these "defending against defense" type situation where the demon was aborting its stated action to atempt resisiting being ordered not to take the action and that just made no sense to me.
Arrghhh ... if you could just get away from "defend against defend" as a source of confusion ...
When the demon aborts its action in order to defend against an order (to stop that action), what's the trouble with that? It certainly means that no matter what, it can't take that action this round, but if it defends successfully, then it can try to do it again next round. Whereas if it fails with the one-die defense as it keeps trying to do the action, then it's really hosed.
Best,
Ron
On 3/5/2004 at 7:20pm, jburneko wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Okay, all clear now. It's just that my players are very fond of reactive, pre-emptive, defensive, or otherwise well timed actions. You wouldn't believe how many of player's stated actions begin with the phrases, "I wait until...", or "Just after he..." or "When I notice..." or "Now that..." and so forth. Now, I see I just can't allow such statements to begin with.
Jesse
On 3/5/2004 at 7:33pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Hello,
These two threads should get some reviewing, I think, in light of this one:
Sorcerer combat
[Sorcerer] Dialogue and combat
Best,
Ron
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 688
Topic 8753
On 3/5/2004 at 8:40pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
jburneko wrote: Okay, all clear now. It's just that my players are very fond of reactive, pre-emptive, defensive, or otherwise well timed actions. You wouldn't believe how many of player's stated actions begin with the phrases, "I wait until...", or "Just after he..." or "When I notice..." or "Now that..." and so forth. Now, I see I just can't allow such statements to begin with.
Jesse
I thought that was probably the case. That's why I said this sounds like Free and Clear stuff is the bulk of your problem. Pretty much all of this should be taken care of before the dice hit the table.
GM: What are you doing.
Player A: I'm watching Gizmo and if he goes for the gem of power I'm going to shoot him.
Player B: I order Gizmo to go for the gem of power
GM: Ok, so player A, you're going to shoot Gizmo?
Player A: Yup.
Player B: crap, ok. I'm going to order Chitin to stop Player A
GM: You can only give 1 order, are you not going to order Gizmo?
Player B: crap, will Chitin figure out on his own to go after Player A
GM: I don't know, you haven't met his need in a while.
Player B: crap, ok, I'll order Chitin after Player A
Player A: Ok, I'll shoot Chitin
Player B: I thought you were shooting Gizmo?
Player A: only if he was going for the Gem
Player B: Will Gizmo go for the Gem on his own?
Player A: yeah will he?
GM: I don't know, you've fulfilled Gizmo's need recently and it was his idea to go for the Gem, so there's a good chance.
Player A: crap, ok I'll shoot Gizmo and hope I roll high enough to get full defense on Chitin.
So all of the if than buts should be worked out in F&C.
When the dice hit the table everyone should have a single decisive action that they are doing..."wait and see" in my book mean "wait and do nothing this round, plan to act next round".
On 3/7/2004 at 7:40pm, jburneko wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Hello Again,
I just thought of one more question. When I abort my action or if my action has already gone and I make a new defensive roll with full dice is that a single roll that stands for all subsequent attacks or do I make a new defensive roll against each subsequent attack individually?
Thanks.
Jesse
On 3/8/2004 at 4:23am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] More On Complex Conflict
Gahhhhh!
shovels dirt into grave, on top of feebly protesting Sorcerer customer, pounds stake into grave, thunk thunk thunk, jumps up and down on grave, with arms waving wildly, then runs into the night
Ahem! You were saying?
When I abort my action or if my action has already gone and I make a new defensive roll with full dice is that a single roll that stands for all subsequent attacks or do I make a new defensive roll against each subsequent attack individually?
Oh, is that all? That's easy. You make a new defensive roll against each subsequent attack individually.
Best,
Ron