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 ^_^

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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.

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 ...

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.

Ron Edwards wrote: 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

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!

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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

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

Nev the Deranged wrote: 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?

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

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... =>

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

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

Nev the Deranged wrote: 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.

Doyce wrote: 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 :)

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)

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?

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

Yes, d12s. Just for variety's sake, and because I had a jones to buy more dice recently. And I prefer lots of dramatic rolls and bonuses rather than a bunch of tied up results.

Set it up during the announcement phase, eh?

Gosh, that's so simple, why didn't I think of that?

So, when everyone's announcing stuff, I would just pipe up:
"Hey, Cassie, if you guys are struggling over the book, Amber's shot stands a chance of hitting you too... and maybe even the book."

Okay. Makes good sense. I'm down.

Now how to handle it mechanically? Is it legal for Amber's single roll to target both Bruce and Cassie, or should there be two rolls, or what? And what about the book, since it has nothing to roll? Should I just set a "likelihood" score, (obviously it wouldn't be a "difficulty" score, as Amber wasn't TRYING to hit the book)... ?

And to be honest, man, I had a really hard time following our game. I had hoped that one game would be enough to pretty much savvify me Sorcerer-wise, but for some reason that didn't happen. I never really was sure what was going on. I guess I'm just to used to D&D style conflict resolution, I couldn't quite grasp what the dice results "meant" when we were tossing them around. I mean, intellectually it makes fine sense, and even when I test roll for my own scenarios it doesn't confuse me... I dunno. My perpetual inability to really get my teeth around this game is a source of consistent and intense consternation to me. I think I have more unlearning to do before I can really let it sink in. Or something. Doesn't seem like it should be this big a deal, does it?

So, when everyone's announcing stuff, I would just pipe up:
"Hey, Cassie, if you guys are struggling over the book, Amber's shot stands a chance of hitting you too... and maybe even the book."

Okay. Makes good sense. I'm down.

Now how to handle it mechanically? Is it legal for Amber's single roll to target both Bruce and Cassie, or should there be two rolls, or what? And what about the book, since it has nothing to roll? Should I just set a "likelihood" score, (obviously it wouldn't be a "difficulty" score, as Amber wasn't TRYING to hit the book)... ?

Hello,

The first thing to do is get rid of this "difficulty" you keep talking about. The dice rolled by the GM are oppositional dice; they may or may not include "difficulty" as conceived by many RPG sections. You keep stumbling over that, and it ain't in the book. Difficulty is only mentioned as a potential component of opposition (I just checked).

Once we settle that, then what? The dice diagrams in Sex & Sorcery are all about this. I really gotta say, I did my best to explain it there, and I dread the prospect of walking you through them step by step.

Regardless of dissecting out their every detail, are you comfy with the very idea of what those diagrams are about? Or should we start with that?

Best,
Ron

Okay.

"opposition", "difficulty", whatever. I'm not really seeing a difference except semantically. I mean, I get that the opposition dice don't always mean "how hard" or "chance to fail" or whatever, but you have to call it something.

So, fine, call it "opposition". Okay.

What is "opposing" Amber's chances of shooting A) Cassie or B) the Book, neither of which she is actually TRYING to hit, and therefore is not being directly OPPOSED by anything.

Any other game, I could figure it out, or make it up. Sorcerer doesn't like being fiddled with, except for the parts that are designed to be fiddled with. And I, personally, not speaking for anyone else here, can't always tell the fuggin' difference. Shame on me.

I don't need a philosophical answer, or a narrative answer, or whatever. I need the Sim answer. How do I figure out what dice to roll and what do they mean. The links between Nar. principles and Sim. mechanics aren't always immediately apparent to me.

Or Narrative mechanics. Or whatever it's called. Ignore my ignorant GNS-speak if that's an obstacle to explaining the actual answer to my actual question.

I just want to know WHAT to do.

*sigh* apologies all around for general tiredness and any ill effects it may have on my posting.

Oh yeah. Yes, I more or less get the diagram thing. I did a diagram for this. When I get to the diagrams, I'm sure I'll have more questions about it, but I'm still on the first book.

And like I said, I get what you're saying about dice not meaning "difficulty", I really do. That was never really a concern of mine, I just used the word "difficulty" out of habit or convenience. I'm pretty sure I'm tight with the currency thing now.

The problem I'm having with this example is that there's nothing "opposing" the action. I know the GM is free to assign "opposition" dice to represent the... "difficulty+whatever+etc." of an action, but I'm unclear how to make that judgement call based on the three individual potential results of a single action.

ACTION: Amber fires her gun at Bruce.

POTENTIAL 1: Bruce does or does not get shot. ACTION BY AMBER OPPOSED BY BRUCE.
POTENTIAL 2: Cassie the PC, whom Amber is not actively aiming at, does or does not get shot. ACTION BY... AMBER??? OPPOSE BY... CASSIE???
POTENTIAL 3: The Book (non-Character with no stats), whom Amber is also not actively aiming at, does or does not get shot. ACTION BY... AMBER?? OPPOSED BY... GM FIAT???

Does my question make more sense now, I hope?

Hiya,

I've got the diagram of all the basic actions drawn out in front of me. Five characters are rolling.

Amber is shooting Bruce
Bruce is taking the book from Cassie
Cassie is kicking Bruce in the nads
Darren is stopping Amber from shooting
Ella is stopping Darren from stopping Amber

Note that "protect book from Bruce" is Cassie's goal, and kicking Bruce is considered to count toward that goal regardless of the damage done. This is subtle and important, because that roll is distinct from her defensive roll (of however many dice) vs. Bruce's grab.

We'll say that the GM points out that both Cassie and the book are potentially at risk from Amber's bullet.

Anyway, make all the above rolls. Do not roll any other dice at this time. The book has no dice; it has no scores. Leave all the dice on the table.

Next: in order, discover whether each character's roll succeeds, factoring in damage and aborted actions as necessary. Here's where things get tricky, because the process I'm about to describe may come in the middle or at the end of this process, depending on when Amber's shot actually comes in the sequence.

Now for the part that answers your question. If Amber's bullet hit Bruce, then it's no big deal. But if it didn't, then who is currently at risk?

Well, that's going to depend heavily on the immediate, in-game context of what actions were taken to defend, if any. Perhaps Cassie has staggered back from Bruce, and Bruce has the book. Or perhaps Bruce is doubled up, clutching his groin, and Cassie is yelling "My precious" and dancing about. Or perhaps they are still doing the "no it's mine" waltz.

If it's obvious who (book or Cassie) is nearest the line of fire, as in "where Bruce was," then we know who's at risk. You don't need a hex map to figure that out - the degree of movement each character has made has already been made explicit during the rolling/comparison stage. You can't play this system without that happening.

If it's not obvious (case 3 above, in which Cassie and the book are in close proximity and still in the potential line-of-fire), then go with whoever failed by the most or succeeded by the least. How do we know what the book rolled? Because now is the time to roll the book's "defense" against the bullet (Amber's roll, as it still stands on the table). Since the book is not a character, these are plain old GM oppositional dice, which express how much risk he or she thinks the book stands in. I'd put it at three dice given my current mental image, which is far less detailed than it would be in actual play.

Now for the part that

If Cassie is at risk, does she get a new defense roll? Sure. Full dice, presuming (a) she has already had her action and (b) she took no damage.

If (a) is not correct, in that Amber's shot misses Bruce before Cassie defends against him, then Cassie has a difficult decision to make about aborting her kick in order to avoid being shot. If (b) is not correct, no big deal; she's just penalized.

If both Cassie and the book are at risk, they both make defense rolls, and the outcomes are easy to figure out: (1) both succeed, neither damaged; (2) one fails, so she or it is damaged and the other isn't; (3) both fail, in which case the one who failed by the most is damaged. (Some forms of attack, e.g. a demonic flame-breath, would simply affect both in this case.)

How about any roll-overs? Let's assume that Cassie goes first, kicks Bruce successfully, then defends against his grab easily (as the kick-damage adds to her roll), and then Amber's shot arrives. I see every reason for Cassie to get her victories from the grab-defense as a bonus to her full Stamina to avoid the shot, as she is fully on top of the situation. In other words, assign any roll-overs from the original rolls into any and all of these secondary rolls as seems appropriate.

Tellin' ya, this is the easiest system in the world to use in this way. You can factor in many different secondary and add-on conflicts into the existing dice diagram, as long as they do not involve new actions on anyone's part. And the existing rolls and their opposition rolls provide all kinds of potential bonuses and penalties into the secondary ones.

Best,
Ron

P.S. That was not a Sim question. It was a System question. This has been a message by the GNS pedant, who doesn't care whether anyone actually wanted that clarified.

YAAAAAYY!!!
*dancing around, clapping and cheering*

That's exactly the post I wanted to see, thank you ^_^

And, for the record, that's pretty much how I would have handled it "fudgewise", anyway. Which I hope means my gaming instincts haven't completely abandoned me.

THANKIES!!