| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2272
Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:56 pm Post subject: Abuse of Declared Actions |
 |
|
I never thought I'd have problems with players 'abusing' the concept of declaring how many actions their character was going to take during a turn.
But one of my players emphatically pointed out during our last session that the RAW is ripe for abuse. During the declaration one can simply say "I'm taking two actions". Then that character can take two offensive actions (let's say firing their blaster), each at -1D.
Let's suppose, though, that late in the round an enemy fires a blaster at them and they decide to react with a Dodge. Sure, that third action is at -2D, but they still were able to take those two earlier shots at -1D instead of -2D. This despite that player knowing full well that they would likely dodge at some point in the round. In other words, there is no penalty to declaring one thing, and then changing one's mind later on in the turn.
My earlier preference was for everybody to just be honest, and if you thought your character was going to probably dodge during the round (or use Brawling Parry, or some other reaction) to just account for that during the declaration.
This player felt that it was important that one "bake that decision" into the declaration, to fairly reflect how many actions the particular character gets in any given round. Didn't declare that third action? Then you don't get to dodge the blaster fire suddenly coming at you.
I'm curious how this issue has come up in your games?
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMO, the simplest way is to require defensive actions to be declared at the beginning of the round, subsequent to the declaration of other actions. Since a Dodge roll works against all Ranged attacks that round, the player makes the decision to “evade” because he knows, or at least expects, an attack is coming, not because he can see the blaster bolt or bullet in real time and react to it.
I’d also include a window where the character that declares first can add additional reactions depending on the circumstances. Suppose, for example, that the PCs win initiative against a group of bounty hunters, declare their blaster shots and Dodges, then the bounty hunters declare their actions, but one of them throws a wrench in the works by declaring a Melee Attack against one of the characters with a Vibro-Axe. The targeted character would then be given the opportunity to add a Melee Parry roll to his declared actions before the round continues.
Or, depending on how you run Initiative, you could declare that the initiative winner declares last and goes first, while the loser declares first and goes last.
Personally, I’m strongly inclined toward a suggestion Naaman made with the effect of eliminating Dodge entirely and folding any sort of evasion bonus into a declared Move action.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: Abuse of Declared Actions |
|
|
garhkal, I love how you look up old threads. Those are cool, but in this case we also have many more recent threads about initiative/combat round. The below quote comes from a 2020 post.
| Quote: | Here is a brief history of the combat round sequences:
1e core
Decision Segment
Declaration Segment
First Action Segment
Second Action Segment
Subsequent Action Segments
1eRU
1. Declare Actions.
2. Declare Reactions Skills.
3. Roll Reactions Skills.
4. Roll Actions.
5. Calculate Damage.
1eRC
1. Declare Actions and Full Reaction Skills.
2. Declare Combat Reaction Skills.
3. Roll Actions and Reactions in Order of Haste.
4. Calculate Damage as Hits Hit.
original 2e
1. Initiative
2. Declaration
3. Rolling Defensive Skills
4. Rolling Actions
2eR&E
1. Initiative
2. Roll Actions
IAG
1. Players Take Their Actions.
2. GM Takes Actions for the Enemy. |
You can see the evolution of the combat round in this game, culminating with 2eR&E (and I through IAG on their just for the sake of completion). Back in the day, I played 1e core through 2eR&E live as each system came out. It got better with each version. I never cared for declaring reactions up front. See more below.
| DougRed4 wrote: | I never thought I'd have problems with players 'abusing' the concept of declaring how many actions their character was going to take during a turn.
But one of my players emphatically pointed out during our last session that the RAW is ripe for abuse. During the declaration one can simply say "I'm taking two actions". Then that character can take two offensive actions (let's say firing their blaster), each at -1D.
Let's suppose, though, that late in the round an enemy fires a blaster at them and they decide to react with a Dodge. Sure, that third action is at -2D, but they still were able to take those two earlier shots at -1D instead of -2D. This despite that player knowing full well that they would likely dodge at some point in the round. In other words, there is no penalty to declaring one thing, and then changing one's mind later on in the turn.
My earlier preference was for everybody to just be honest, and if you thought your character was going to probably dodge during the round (or use Brawling Parry, or some other reaction) to just account for that during the declaration.
This player felt that it was important that one "bake that decision" into the declaration, to fairly reflect how many actions the particular character gets in any given round. Didn't declare that third action? Then you don't get to dodge the blaster fire suddenly coming at you.
I'm curious how this issue has come up in your games? |
First of all, IMO this isn't abuse or a flaw in the system. The way it works is intentional by design. It's the difference between actions and reactions. Actions can only be done in one of the player's declared action slots for the round, and reactions are just that: reactions to something that happens to them during the round. Players have the choice to use one of their as-yet unused declared action slots for the reaction at no additional MAP penalty, or for it to be an additional action, further MAPing that reaction and any remaining actions that round.
Since you don't have to declare all your actions up front when you declare the number of actions and roll your first action, players (and GMs) already have no penalty to change their mind on what actions any actions after the first are, even without any reactions being involved. Having "no penalty to change your mind" with reactions was the alternative to the older clunkier combat rounds that simply didn't work as well in my experience. And remember that the NPCs can do it just the same so it is fair. Declared number of actions is the number of actions accounted for in your concentration, and reactions that end up being extra actions are penalized as such because they weren't originally accounted for, and that additional penalty affects your concentration for anything the rest of the round, which could be remaining declared actions or even additional reactions (to a different attack type). Think of the rule to decide in terms of "concentration slots."
Declared reactions (other than full reactions) wouldn't really be reactions. Even when likely, reactions are reactions because they aren't a given. If the PCs incapacitates an NPC before they shoot back at the PC, there won't always even be another attack to dodge. And declared actions aren't even a given because the PC can get wounded and fall prone, losing the rest of their declared actions that round. PCs can also get unexpectedly stunned and lose another -1D than what they accounted for that round. A lot of things can happen during a round to change the situation from what it was at the beginning of the round. A close range NPC could drop his blaster and draw his melee weapon for his first action and attack with the second action in the same round, so the PCs may not account for a melee parry that round. The R&E system was designed to be fluid to account for that.
Doug, if your PCs are often getting shot at after completing two actions, it seems like your PCs are usually winning initiative and the NPCs are at least matching with two actions. Are NPCs not shooting at the PCs with their first action, always doing something first like moving before the attack on the PCs? If they do shoot at the PCs before they do a second action, then their second action is affected by either not happening at all if they choose to make the reaction their second action, or at a further -1D MAP they didn't account for if they elect to make the dodge an extra action. And one thing you can do is mix it up. Have more enemies that may roll a higher initiative and shoot at the PCs sooner in the round, forcing them to react up front, MAPing the rest of their round before they even declare any actions. And maybe have NPCs match the number of PC actions less often.
As far as tweaking the combat round, sure you could make someone have to account for any potential reactions up front and they don't get to do it if they didn't declare it. If you did that also with the NPCs, then at least it would be fair. I think it's harsh and makes reactions more like actions but YMMV. A less harsh tweak would be to allow all reactions to not further MAP the character - They just happen at the same MAP as was calculated by their declared actions and MAPs never worsen per round. That would likewise help the NPCs the same as it would NPCs. Another option would be to have each additional reaction be MAPed as extra actions but any declared actions to still have the original MAP from the declaration at the beginning of the round, even if they occur after a reaction.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2272
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lots of good food for thought here. If I look at this more like 5E D&D, where all characters get one reaction per turn, it doesn't seem as abusive.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One option is that post-declaration added actions go into MAPS for the next round.
So, I declare two actions, and shoot two storm troopers. The third stormtrooper shoots at me, I dodge... which means I take 1 extra MAP on the next round.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:19 am Post subject: Re: Abuse of Declared Actions |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | garhkal, I love how you look up old threads. Those are cool, but in this case we also have many more recent threads about initiative/combat round. . |
Thanks. I love searching all the older threads, for stuff to either 'resurrect', or for answering someone who came up with a new(ish) question..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
