Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Delay, Simultaneity, and Clash (from: Exalted Arena)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Blackwell View Post
    So the thing I'd focus on from the simultaneous action sidebar's example isn't that they're allies, it's that both characters still get to take their intended action as planned. There's no question about invalidating or changing actions, as you say the only thing being rolled for is who gets the Initiative Break bonus. This may be a logical leap, but I'd infer that the spirit is that simultaneous actions don't interfere with one another's execution, they can only interfere with each other's ultimate resolution.
    My problem with this interpretation is that to me, being able to interrupt another character's action is a significant part of the whole point of Delay. What you propose would basically mean it's only purpose would be to set up for a clash, and I don't think that's the intent. To use your A, B, and Z example, say someone on A and B's side of the fight has been trying to influence Z to retreat or surrender. A doesn't know if that effort has been successful, so she delays, hoping to find out what Z is doing. On Z's turn, he attacks B, so A declares she will try to shoot the weapon out of his hand before his attack can complete (a ranged disarm gambit). I would give them a roll-off to see whose action completed first, and if A won, Z would be unable to complete his attack since he lost his weapon.

    In your interpretation, this would be an impossible situation, as would every attempt to wait and see what an opponent was doing. A's only good choice in the situation above would be to not delay at all, but to immediately launch her disarm gambit on her turn, preemptively preventing Z's attack, but possibly screwing up the diplomacy her teammate had attempted by using an attack on someone who was actually going to surrender. I think it's more narratively interesting, if the heroes can try these kind of down-to-the-wire plays, racing against time to prevent their enemies from taking dangerous actions that will tilt the battle in their favor.

    Originally posted by Blackwell
    Upon reflection and in consideration of the above (granted, with the kind of thinking time I wouldn't have in the moment at the table!) I would just let the Gambit be "knock B down to the ground", and "shoot the rope" is a good contextual stunt. But both actions get rolled and happen as planned.
    I guess I didn't make it clear in the original example, but the whole point of the scenario was that the bridge was over some kind of dangerous hazard, whether a pool of lava, a pit of spikes, or simply a bottomless drop. The whole dramatic point of the setup was whether A could cut the bridge and send B plummeting to doom (or at least significant discomfort, much more than just "knocked prone") before B could cross it. Allowing B to complete their movement automatically would make the whole scenario impossible, which is, again, counter to the sort of narrative Exalted wants to tell, I think.


    Interested in chatting with other Exalted fans online? Join us on the Exalted Discord server!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post
      Sure you can't force someone to attack you. But if the question is one about timing, then it seems pretty clear that the intent around delay is that you can declare you're acting once you know what the other fighters are doing.
      Does it? I don't think I agree. Delay lets you act on a later tick but it doesn't say anything about giving you any more information than anyone 'naturally' acting on that tick have about who is going to do what. I would say that it's somewhat reasonable for the delayer to know who else is acting in the tick (as in Kelly Pedersen's example, they opt in last) before deciding if they want to act; delaying an action is not itself described as an action so clearly it has to exist outside the "turn" proper. But once people start deciding what they are doing, that feels too late to opt in. This does still sets you up for Clashes if you think someone going to attack you, so the text you quoted still applies. But I think if the intent was that you could wait to see who was attacking you before Clashing in response, that should have been mentioned in the Clash rules themselves, not the Delay? Because it could happen any time two people act on the same tick, not just when one delays into it. I don't see an indication that a Clash achieved by delay should be meaningfully different from a natural Clash. "You activated my trap card!" seems to be against the spirit of the rules.

      (If it were the case it would result in something like Elkovash mentions where Clashes effectively get declared like defenses, which would be interesting, but would have been really easy to present that way instead if it was the intent)
      Last edited by Blackwell; 01-04-2021, 03:09 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Vance has noted that this falls into a grey area, to which every resolution is a house rule.

        So what you do at your table comes down to the sorts of arguments being made in this thread: how flexible do you want people to be at adapting to the unexpected? Is it more dramatic to let people do what they want as often as possible, or is it more dramatic for errors in judgement to be a little more swingy?

        (In practice, I might be tempted to just make the ruling which benefits the PCs most when this first comes up, make a note of it, and let be the law of the land unless it ever causes problems. Lots of people have wildly differing intuitions on how delaying in RPGs ought to work.)


        "For me, there's no fundamental conflict between really loving something and also seeing it as very profoundly flawed." -- Jay Eddidin

        Comment


        • #34
          OK, this thread is yet another that's convincing me that Clashes detract from the game far more than they add to it.

          Even so, I think even if you take Clashes off the table, there's still an issue that's beyond the "do what they want as often as possible," vs. "errors in judgement being more swingy," taste one. You can still have a player/ST face off of neither side wanted to commit with imperfect information.

          It feels like the game needs a more solid way of resolving, "A wants to oppose B if B takes X action, and B refuses to take X action while A is waiting for them but would if they didn't know what A was up to." This sort of standoff isn't particularly fun as a gameplay experience. Basically, you can't have both sides do whatever they want, because one side is going to get want they want and the other isn't; even if neither is making a true error in judgement.

          Comment


          • #35
            I think, I’m almost all cases this would crop up it’s NPC vs PC in which case I’d say the best blanket rule is, favour the PC with information. Given the transparency of the system, it seems both suitable and fair.


            (10chars)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Blackwell View Post
              Does it?
              Are you talking about the rule as written or the intent?

              We don't have to guess the intent because the authors explicitly tell us "this is an excellent way to force clashes" and we have developer opinions. And this one.

              If your arguing what the rule in print is, I can't help you. I have the same book you do. I agree, it's ambiguous.

              But the intent of the rule is... well it's right there on the page. If you can interpret the rule one way which makes the text true and another way that makes the text false, I'm going to go with the one that supports the intent.

              And your right, that's not the rule as written. As written there's no confirmation that you get extra information by delaying.

              But if we're talking about intent then I'm going to quote your own words back at you:

              Originally posted by Blackwell View Post
              Clearly the intent is that they can
              Yes. Clearly the intent is that they can.
              Last edited by JohnDoe244; 01-04-2021, 06:17 PM.


              Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

              Comment


              • #37
                I'm not sure it's really a transparency issue.

                If the ST constantly has the NPCs picking tactically suboptimal choices to favor the PCs, it can diminish the experience. "We're only winning because the enemies are idiots," isn't the feel a lot of Exalted players are looking for.

                So, if I'm the ST, and I want to make my NPC feel smart and tactical, I don't want them to commit to obviously bad choices. This leads right back to the standoff issue. If the PCs are all delaying to try to fend off whatever my BBEG NPC is about to do, and my NPC can see this, and I don't want my NPC to come off as stupid... what do I do? Cheese the delay so they all lose out on 2i and don't get anything to interrupt or oppose making them feel like they just wasted a round? Let them punk the NPC and risk the feeling of a tough challenging fight?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                  If the PCs are all delaying to try to fend off whatever my BBEG NPC is about to do, and my NPC can see this, and I don't want my NPC to come off as stupid... what do I do?
                  Have them make social influence rolls to talk the PCs down.


                  Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    That would fall under cheesing their delay because they just spent 2i for nothing. If they wanted to use violence to avoid social influence they didn't need to delay. Delaying doesn't help them resist social influence directly.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It didn't do "nothing," however.

                      If the Butcher Baron of the Eleven Glaives was going to attack, but because Pernicious Clarity took a delay action, BBEG is now making a choice other than what would have been optimal as a direct result of PC's actions. It's no different than if PC had Disengaged, and BBEG opted to attempt a Rush rather than attacking empty air (and wasting your action attacking nothingness is usually a better choice than attempting a Clash unprepared), or if they changed targets because someone took a Full Defense. The same logic applies if BBEG Aims, uses a Form Charm, or what have you.

                      It's also worth remembering that Delay doesn't use up your action - in the example above, once BBEG has taken their turn, PC gets a full round worth of actions. They're only out the 2i for Delaying.


                      "For me, there's no fundamental conflict between really loving something and also seeing it as very profoundly flawed." -- Jay Eddidin

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I've also seen use of Delay setting up for double turns- You were already high enough in initiative that you delay, take the last turn, and are top of the list next round, so you can set up the onslaught penalty for yourself. As the target, there is probably a sweet spot where things are more likely to work in your favor on a clash.


                        Raksha are my fae-vorite.

                        Reincarnation of magnificentmomo.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by MoroseMorgan View Post
                          I've also seen use of Delay setting up for double turns- You were already high enough in initiative that you delay, take the last turn, and are top of the list next round, so you can set up the onslaught penalty for yourself. As the target, there is probably a sweet spot where things are more likely to work in your favor on a clash.
                          Among Mortals and perhaps DBs, sure.

                          If you're fighting Celestial PCs and can't even ignore Onslaught, you would probably do well to spend that action killing yourself, to save everyone's time.

                          (I'm kidding. If an enemy NPC commits suicide for no apparent reason mid-battle, the group would still spend 1-3 hours trying to figure out why, so it wouldn't really save any time.)


                          "For me, there's no fundamental conflict between really loving something and also seeing it as very profoundly flawed." -- Jay Eddidin

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Chejop Kejak View Post
                            Among Mortals and perhaps DBs, sure.

                            If you're fighting Celestial PCs and can't even ignore Onslaught, you would probably do well to spend that action killing yourself, to save everyone's time.

                            (I'm kidding. If an enemy NPC commits suicide for no apparent reason mid-battle, the group would still spend 1-3 hours trying to figure out why, so it wouldn't really save any time.)

                            Too true. Probably a decent situational ploy to get back to back uninterrupted actions. They don't attack you so as to avoid a clash, but now you can reap initiative without it being stolen before you strike again.


                            Raksha are my fae-vorite.

                            Reincarnation of magnificentmomo.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Chejop Kejak View Post
                              It's also worth noting that our experiences with groups of PCs are somewhat different: you often talk about the challenges of running games for a group where everyone understands optimization, but I think more about the challenges when some players do, and others do not. Mostly, that makes me wish that Exalted had a consistent minimums of PC ability as well as maximums, but it also makes me think there are PCs who think nothing wading into half a dozen non-trivial combatants, and PCs unsure of whether they want to face one. More fluid battle lines make it matter whether the former can get where they're needed, or whether the latter can escape.
                              I'm actually pretty okay with this, as long as it's spread around evenly.

                              For example, a broken soulbreaker orb is about to go off, it will kill everyone in its radius, BUT, the Twilight is there, and he introduces a fact about this kind of Soulbreaker orb's failsafe triggers, which require a special orichalcum key to use, which he then uses Craft to whip up in seconds, and activates Supernal Control Method to hammer down that difficulty 8 Occult roll, saving everyone.

                              Then the fey enchantress attempts to cloud the hearts of the circle to make them apathetic and just sit by while she sends her armies to collect tasty slaves from the nearby city. The Zenith though? He's not buying it. He says NO. Then he proceeds to turn around and convince the enchantress that this isn't something she's going to do again.

                              The spell making the group lazy fades, but one guy points out that her army is just going to do it again somewhere else, and that's unacceptable. Unfortunately it's an army of Cataphracts. Fortunately the Dawn is badass as hell, and can fight as hard as the entire rest of the group put together. Of course if it wasn't for the Twilight he'd be dead, or the Zenith he'd still be twiddling his thumbs in the arms of a fairy queen, but still this is his time to outshine the rest of the group.




                              It also makes sense to me that the person who delayed first can force a clash if they're attacked. You have higher initiative, you're currently controlling the tempo of battle, and if it's join battle you won the Wits + Awareness roll which "measures a character's responsiveness and readiness". That feels to me like a position where you can wait for somebody to attack and then clash into their attack as a response to it. You're poised and ready, just waiting for that trigger to move, while they're still sluggishly recovering from the last assault on them, or just getting battle-ready.

                              So the person who delayed last, if it gets to a point where everyone is delaying, must declare first, they had the least control of the battle and were the least ready. If you don't want to attack you can aim, or full defense, or use a simple charm, or Rush for no reason in particular. I don't know if that's good for the game mechanic wise, like if that just means whoever is going first will always clash, that could be bad.

                              It would also be bad to have turns where largely nothing happens, especially because of the mote economy, but if the enemy is currently not in a position where relentlessly attacking the PCs is dangerous, then the fight should just be over and called there in the first place. But that just goes back to my biggest problem with running Exalted which is that with overtuned PCs getting into a position where the players go "Oh shit, we'd better turn up the heat and start burning essence here" is extremely difficult.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X