The Forge Archives

RE: Forfeiting Actions (pp. 75-6)
Q: Is forfeiture limited to the next volley?

Q: If other players have declared actions but the player in question has not, may he forfeit?

Q: Is it true that forfeiting a subsequent action allows a new first action and a new movement?

** ** **

The following reflects my understanding of the procedure to process an exchange. Please confirm:

[list=1]
[*]Test for surprise attack.
[*]Bid for initiative.
[*]Write scripts.
[*]Resolve quick draw.
[*]For each volley ..
[list=a]
[*]Allow forfeiture.
[*]For each action ..
[list=1]
[*]Announce.
[*]Resolve tests.
[/list:o]
[/list:o]
[/list:o]

** ** **

Q: Are action test results applied immediately or at the end of each volley?

Q: Can a surprised player bid for initiative?

Q: How is the order of announcement determined?

Q: For many-to-one targeting, will defensive actions oppose opponents beyond the first? Specifically, how does Avoid compare to Block/Parry in this regard?

** ** **

This is starting to sink in a little better. Character traits and beliefs in particular stood out a bit more on this pass.

I noticed that you've got a fat forum on BW's homesite. Between that and the Forge, where do you prefer to receive questions?

Quote from: bcook1971Q: Is forfeiture limited to the next volley?

No. You can't forfiet an action in the same Volley as you are resolving - so that removes Volley one as an option. After Volley 1 is resolved you can forfeit and action in Volley 2 or 3 before the declaration of Volley 2 begins.

QuoteQ: If other players have declared actions but the player in question has not, may he forfeit?

No. You must make your forfeit before the declaration phase. So that means you have to change your action after the resolution phase but before the declaration phase.

QuoteQ: Is it true that forfeiting a subsequent action allows a new first action and a new movement?

I would think forfeiting would allow you to change one action (not necessarily the 1st, mind you) and your movement for that Volley. I am not 100% sure, though.

QuoteQ: Are action test results applied immediately or at the end of each volley?

The results of any tests are applied immediately after the dice are rolled.

QuoteQ: Can a surprised player bid for initiative?

Surprised players can't do anything until their Hesitation wears off. If for example a player with a Reflexes of 5 hesitates 2 actions at the beginning of an exchange, I suppose he could make a script as follows:

Volley 1 - Hesitate 2 actions
Volley 2 - Bid one action to go first with one action remaining
Vollet 3 - One action

QuoteQ: How is the order of announcement determined?

Announcement order doesn't matter as all actions will be resolved simultaneously. I often switch up my players' announcement order just to keep it interesting and reflect the drama of the battle.

QuoteQ: For many-to-one targeting, will defensive actions oppose opponents beyond the first? Specifically, how does Avoid compare to Block/Parry in this regard?

Block will only block one strike - which one of the many strikes it works against is up to the player. Avoid will work against them all. There has been occassion where I've allowed Block dice to be split among several strikes, but this should really be only because of a special manouver the player has learned.

QuoteI noticed that you've got a fat forum on BW's homesite. Between that and the Forge, where do you prefer to receive questions?

Either is cool and will be answered, but posting on BW is preferred.

Quote from: bcook1971
** ** **

The following reflects my understanding of the procedure to process an exchange. Please confirm:

[list=1]
[*]Test for surprise attack.
[*]Bid for initiative.
[*]Write scripts.
[*]Resolve quick draw.
[*]For each volley ..
[list=a]
[*]Allow forfeiture.
[*]For each action ..
[list=1]
[*]Announce.
[*]Resolve tests.
[/list:o]
[/list:o]
[/list:o]

** ** **

Close, but a little off. Volleys are announced as a whole, not before each action. So if you have two actions in a Volley, you announce them both, even though one will be resolved before the other. Forfeits for following Volleys are allowed only after the current Volley is resolved.

QuoteQ: Is it true that forfeiting a subsequent action allows a new first action and a new movement?

Yes, when you forfeit an action to change an action, the new one may include new movement as well. (Essentially changing the movement for all actions in the volley.)

Otherwise: Yeah, what Pete said.

-L

Quote from: taepoongNo. You can't forfiet an action in the same Volley as you are resolving - so that removes Volley one as an option.

I thought a bit about forfeiture with respect to the first volley. We agree on this point for different reasons. I see it as legal, just not beneficial.

Quote from: taepoongAfter Volley 1 is resolved you can forfeit and action in Volley 2 or 3 before the declaration of Volley 2 begins.

It's hard to ask the right question. Here's my attempt: can you forfeit an action from one volley to change an action in another? Also, are forfeited actions redeemable through additional forfeitures?

Quote from: taepoongNo. You must make your forfeit before the declaration phase. So that means you have to change your action after the resolution phase but before the declaration phase.

I agree with your statement. My question is particular to a situation where either (1) another player begins announcing, without GM prompting, possibly leading to additional, other player announcements or (2) the GM prompts for announcements and one or more other players have announced. Specifically, I want to know if the GM is obligated to allow the opportunity for forfeiture, how this opportunity is considered offered and what recourse a player who has not announced, but wishes to forfeit, may exercise. Most critically, is the GM required to backtrack to meet the assumed obligation?

I'm not really looking for guidance as to role-playing practice; I seek clarification as to what the text supports and what is design intent.

Quote from: taepoong..forfeiting would allow you to change one action (not necessarily the 1st, mind you) ..

This interest me. What are the stipulations for forfeiting actions with regard to sequence within a volley?

Quote from: taepoongThe results of any tests are applied immediately after the dice are rolled.

I doubt that. Where two fall on swords, does the fastest roll prevail? Where A Strikes B, B Blocks A and C Strikes A, if both A and C deal killing blows, can precedence (with any satisfaction) be settled by a contest of speed?

I see breaks by test, action collection and volley. I interpret your view as resolution per test. That certainly adds weight to their ordering; given the citing of simultaneous occurence per action collection, I don't read support for this. Personally, I favor per action collection or per volley.

Quote from: taepoongSurprised players can't do anything until their Hesitation wears off. If for example a player with a Reflexes of 5 hesitates 2 actions at the beginning of an exchange, I suppose he could make a script as follows:

Volley 1 - Hesitate 2 actions
Volley 2 - Bid one action to go first with one action remaining
Vollet 3 - One action

I'm pretty sure a bid is not an action; also, it's my understanding that a quick draw occurs once per exhange.

Quote from: taepoongAnnouncement order doesn't matter as all actions will be resolved simultaneously.

That can work if you resolve per action collection or greater. Curiously, that is not your position. My above scenarios speak strongly to this point.

Quote from: taepoongBlock will only block one strike - which one of the many strikes it works against is up to the player. Avoid will work against them all.

That's how I see it, too. Is that what the design intends? Also, assuming we're correct, do the Avoid dice stand or are they re-rolled per opposing action?

Hi Bill,

All of Pete's interpretations are correct. But to help you clear things up, I'll go over it again:

You can change an action in any unannounced, upcoming volley. In practice, what this means that after V1 is resolved, you can declare you are forfeiting an action in V3 to change your first action in V2.

So, it you can't forfeit an action in the volley that is in play. (So there is no forfeiting allowed for V1. You shouldn't need that anyway, you've just finished scripting your actions to the best of your knowledge. There's no uncertainty in V1 like in V2 and V3.)

As far as declaring a forfeiture, the GM should ask for forfeitures before asking for declarations. Any misfires should be handled in the most fair and sporting way possible. Scripting is really just a method of privately declaring intent, keep this in mind when going through the process.

In regard to actions in play, all first actions in a volley happen at the same time -- they are rolled for and resolved -- it doesn't matter who announces first. Then second actions are rolled for and resolved. This is strict canon.

Lastly, Avoid is the only action that defends from multiple attacks.

hope that helps,
-L

Cool. I can wing the details on some of this. Overall, it sounds like there's flexibility in applying the mechanic for forfeiture, provided that you're spending and changing actions in future volleys.

I read you saying that every character's announced first action (for example) resolves at once. I take you to mean that even if one character's action resolves to slay/disrupt another, his victim's action still occurs. And in the case of slay, second and following actions for that character are not processed since he is now dead.

(I would descibe this as no striking, resolve per action collection.)

Thx Pete. Thx Luke.

Quote from: bcook1971I take you to mean that even if one character's action resolves to slay/disrupt another, his victim's action still occurs. And in the case of slay, second and following actions for that character are not processed since he is now dead.

Yes, this is correct. If two characters have Strike script on the 1st Action, Volley 2, then they both hit each other simultaneously. The individual character's skill determines the success/result of the action. If one of the character is killed or incapacitated, he obviously doesn't get to act further in the conflict.

-L

Ok. I've got a couple more questions. I'm starting to get into basic martial actions a bit, also.

Q: A Strikes B. B Avoids A. A rolls his weapon skill for 2 successes, exceeding Ob 1. B rolls his Sp 4 for 3 successes.

To complete B's vs. test, should A roll his weapon skill again or apply his standard test results?

Q: I describe a portion of the volley as an action segment. (Up to three per volley.) It holds a collection of actions that all resolve simultaneously. It is my understanding that though actions may oppose one another, potentially preventing the other's desired effect, they may not resolve to prevent the other's attempt.

Even so, in the case of sequential and continuous action sequences, I assert that resolution of opposition in the prior action segment may disqualify the script.

What is design position in handling this issue?

** ** **

Compliment: kudos on the Add melee weapon attribute. I think it's a clever way to scale your damage multiples.

Quote from: bcook1971Q: A Strikes B. B Avoids A. A rolls his weapon skill for 2 successes, exceeding Ob 1. B rolls his Sp 4 for 3 successes.

To complete B's vs. test, should A roll his weapon skill again or apply his standard test results?

B's Avoid successes add to A's strike obstacle.  So if B got 3 success on his  Avoid, A needs Ob4 (1 + 3) to Strike successfully.  The 2 success rolled don't cut it.  A misses.

Quote
Even so, in the case of sequential and continuous action sequences, I assert that resolution of opposition in the prior action segment may disqualify the script.

Yes.  If an earlier action in a volley causes one of your later actions to become invalid, you hesitate.

Ok. You're saying modify A's test by B's results; but harvest results of targets of each other, in any case.

Secondly, thx for the clean answer. Action segment resolution can invalidate the script, converting actions to Hesitate, a la forfeiture.

** ** **

This next bit examines movement.

I'm thinking that, in conventional melee, movements are scripted principally to advance into striking distance. ( A Physical Action version of this would be "1st action: p/u lamp; mvmt: walk to the table.")

Opponents of matching reach have no advantage outside or inside striking distance.

An opponent with superior reach outside striking distance may lunge to Strike at +1 Ob, while his opponent may not Strike. (Technically, his combat distance of greater than outside striking would invalidate the Strike he scripted, converting it to Hesitate.) Superior reach opponents may script movement to maintain this advantage. (There is an issue of precedence here, where obstacle penalties to Strikes are determined by resolution of movement.)

After advancing into striking distance, an opponent of lesser reach may Get Inside for (1) obstacle penalties across the match to his overall favor and (2) unrestricted called shots.  This combat distance persists until one Gets Outside or Throws/Pushes the other. Movement above none is resolved to match (via Being Inside invalidating scripted movement that would allow physical drift).

As a secondary issue, movement above walking trades for defense by levying obstacle penalties.  Significantly, scripting for movement does not expense actions alloted by Sp, and, being a tandem action, movement does not crowd Sp actions out of the volley.

In general, does movement resolve prior to other actions? What effect do opposing directions have? Can there be movement that maintains combat distance, (cf. Character Burner: Skills: Sword: Sample Obstacles, p. 164), whose only purpose is to effect defense?

In any case, I feel that pace counts are bunk for other than rules illustration or in estimation to determine obstacle modifiers. I read agreement on this point.

Quote from: bcook1971Ok. You're saying modify A's test by B's results; but harvest results of targets of each other, in any case.

Er, maybe ;)

For me there are two easy ways to think about it.  Either roll the Avoid/Block first, and use that to calculate the obstacle for the Strike, or roll the Strike first, and then use the successes on the Avoid to "cancel" success from the Strike.

QuoteIn any case, I feel that pace counts are bunk for other than rules illustration or in estimation to determine obstacle modifiers. I read agreement on this point.

Well, the first principle I learned is that actions can be considered to be carried out at any point during the movement in a volley.  So when calculating modifiers related to movement, I would give each actor their best combination of modifiers based on the movement that occured in that volley.  (i.e. if you are closing to get rid of a lunge penalty, and would be at optimum striking distance by the end of the volley, then no lunge penalty)

As for opposed movements, I think it comes down to looking at intent.  Each actor is typically wanting to open, close, or hold the current range.  Look at how the intents combine, and then who is moving faster, and the result is typically obvious.  Hmm, that might be something that should be added to the new scripting checklist (close, open, hold range).  Luke, what do you think?

Pace counts typically matter most when engaging (how long does it take me to move to engage my opponent) and then once the battle is engaged, you can just have it be all relative.

Quote from: rafialEach actor is typically wanting to open, close, or hold the current range. Look at how the intents combine, and then who is moving faster, and the result is typically obvious.

Well, that's one interpretation: paces moved per volley/exchange resolve opposition. Close and open want to have a greater PMpV/E; hold wants one equal. I think it's reasonable to interpret hold's move category (i.e. walking, jogging, sprinting) as being up to a rate vs. equal to it; otherwise, they would overshoot undesirably.

I recommend not casting these directions as script verbs. Then they would enter the economy of Sp actions, and that would spoil something beautiful.

** ** **

So ..

Quote from: BillIn general, does movement resolve prior to other actions?

Resolve actions, movement or other, in the most favorable order.

Quote from: BillWhat effect do opposing directions have?

[*]Evaluate movement according to category (none, walking, jogging, sprinting) and direction (close, open, hold).
[*]Compare PMpV/E (BW, pp. 70-1). Close and open want a greater rate; hold wants an equal one. (Interpret rates for hold as [/i]up to to avoid undesirable overshot.)
[*]Resolution of combat distance is a precedent to martial action.
[/list:u]

Quote from: BillCan there be movement that maintains combat distance, .. whose only purpose is to effect defense?

Yes. This may be accomplished through any category with a direction of hold.

..

Please confirm.

Quote from: Bill
Please confirm.

That all pretty much seems to jive with my understanding, except...

QuoteResolution of combat distance is a precedent to martial action.

...depending on what you mean by that.  Since other actions can be assumed to happen anywhere along the movement path during the volley, if someone is running away from combat, and has the movement to do it, but their oppenent is striking at them, then the opponent will get the strike.

Similarly, if you are closing, and by the end of your movement you are close enough to strike, then you can take your strike.

Quote from: rafialSince other actions can be assumed to happen anywhere along the movement path during the volley, if someone is running away from combat, and has the movement to do it, but their oppenent is striking at them, then the opponent will get the strike.

Similarly, if you are closing, and by the end of your movement you are close enough to strike, then you can take your strike.

Wtih the former, you're talking about a constraint of defensive engagement. I include this exact rule in my own game. We've kind of opened a black box. I understand the restriction and share your instinct, but it reflects non-textual assumptions and reveals a bias toward favorable validation of Strikes. So it become a question of standards.

The principle that guides your interpretations is that movement is a continuum along which non-movement actions occur. In itself, this does not speak to the issue of precedence. I recognize that resolving movement separate of other deconstructs a whole, but it does facilitate establishing combat distance and movement-based obstacle penalties as validation and modification, in particular, of martial actions.

By establishing a procedure to resolve movement, a fuller range of outcomes is supported, irrespective of bias.

(e.g. #1: She runs beyond outside striking distance; her opponent's Strike is invalidated. Her opponent keeps pace; he strikes. #2: (Assumes opposition.) Her opponent successfully opens, preventing her from advancing to outside striking distance or better; her Strike is invalidated. She successfully closes and is now in outside striking distance or better; she Strikes.)