Delayed Actions, Really powerfull? Options

[Irian]

Hi,

just wanted to know if I got this right: If you delay your action, you can act after anyone declared his actions, but before anyone acts.

Let's imagine a shoot-out at high noon. "A" delays his action, "B" declares to quickdraw - "A" uses his delayed action and always shoots first. The only chance for B is to also delay his action and then use it instantly, because then they act at the same time.

Sounds a little bit strange for me that you can wait until someone WANTS to do something (but didn't start it yet).

Or did I get something wrong here?

[Ol' Scratch]

From what I understand, you have to set a condition for that delay. And if that condition doesn't occur, you've wasted your action that pass. So yes, it can be powerful, but no more than acting first; it's just a reactive use of your better initiative rather than an active one.

[Irian]

I just thought of this situation: An old granny points a gun at the cyberzombie with a delayed action. He can't do anything to disarm her, because she'll always shoot first, because the reaction/initiative of both is not counted. The only chance for the cyberzombie is also to take a delayed action - then they will at least act both equally fast, which is not enough to stop granny from shooting.

[Fortune]

So he bounces the shot and takes her head off with his spurs.

[Ol' Scratch]

See, you're having a perspective problem here (and even then, it's not a problem). Assuming Granny did somehow win the initiative over the cyberzombie, she could have just as easily shot him first. How is her holding her action so that she shoots him if he goes for his gun changing that? She's still shooting him first...

[Irian]

I know that, but still, I see two "problems", but perhaps they can't be solved (or aren't problems at all):

a) You can react on something that doesn't have happend yet - it would happen, if you don't interfere, but how do you know that?

b) It's impossible to stop anyone pointing a gun at you, even if he's really slow and you're really fast. No chance to disarm him, etc.

[Ol' Scratch]

Eh?

A) That's the point of having enhanced Reactions, isn't it? And waiting for a situation to come up that you might suspect is around the corner? (And if it's not, you've just wasted that pass.)

B) If you do that, you just initiated combat and are attempting a Surprise Test or a normal Initiative Test. Either way, the more enhanced guys are going to be all over you unless you get some phenomenal rolls/blow Edge.

Still not seeing your issue. :(

[Fortune]

[psychophipps]

The fact remains that a simple finger twitch is faster than a gross motor action, but that's not the issue at hand. The real issue at hand is how quickly a person perceives a threat and can process a response like pulling a trigger. This is largely a factor of psychology and training. A well trained, psychologically capable to shoot another person will react much more effectively than some random, scared homeowner without any training shakily checking out their house after the sound of breaking glass.
Perhaps an initiative dice roll vs. skill roll with additional dice based on the mindset of the person with the gun on the character?
Also, I agree with the above point. A held action should only be reactive in nature and should never, ever be used to actually change the initiative order.

Just my two cents...
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

[Irian]

Perhaps adding a Perception Test (3)*, with a +3 for the char with the delayed action, because he actively looks for it? If he succeds, he can act first, otherwise something like an opposed Reaction or Initiative test, of course with a bonus to the one with the gun pointed at the other (depening on the situation).

*3 is for small details, something like "Indication that the wants to attack", other triggers would perhaps be easier.

[Ol' Scratch]

Despite having mentioned it a few times, I think the part you're missing is the really important part of delayed reactions: You're specifically setting a condition for that delay. If that condition never comes up, the entire thing is wasted at the end of that Initiative Pass. It doesn't carry over at all, and if that was your last Pass, you're totally SOL if they have more.

Here's an example. Say you win Initiative and are delaying your action until your opponent pulls out a weapon. Uhoh! Looks like your opponent is actually a mage and instead chooses to cast a spell at you. Or turn tail and run. Or drop kick you IN THE FACE. None of those entail pulling out a weapon, so your entire action is wasted that pass and he gets to act normally.

Not all that powerful. Just nice for specific situations, which is why it's an option rather than the norm.

[psychophipps]

In other words, make the situation as general as possible to reduce getting hosed. "If they make a potentially threatening movement" or "I'm gonna put the cap to the first person through that doorway". No point is getting screwed over because you were too specific...

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

[Ol' Scratch]

Your first example is pretty much not even worth making as you could have done that without delaying your action. The second is totally reasonable, but will still likely include a Surprise Test.

[Irian]

There are some problems with your interpretation, Doc:

1. It's wrong. The rules say, that you simply declare to delay your action and then you can intervene whenever you want. Nothing there about a condition or anything else, sorry.

2. Even if you set a condition, the question is still: Why do you always react first, without any test? Imagine two guys with holstered weapons. One delays to wait for the other. (Yes, he could have shot now, ok) But why does he automatically know, that the other will draw his gun in the next second? And why is he automatically earlier than him, even if he has to start later?
Yes, technically, he simply still shoots first, but that's not the point. He decides not to shoot, but to risk something - except that it is no risk :-)

[Ol' Scratch]

1. Oops, you're right. Old house rule from previous editions getting confused with the current rules. Sorry.

2. There was a test. You won it earlier. This is just an abstraction of you taking a REaction rather than an action which, honestly, is the entire point of having better REactions.

[Irian]

You didn't win an opposed reaction test, just the test for initiative. By waiting for something, you loose initiative (at least if you take it literally :-)).

But no problem, I'll probably suggest making the perception/opposed reaction test, mentioned above.

[Ol' Scratch]

It's all an opposed test. It's just not called that...

[mfb]

i don't think it's too powerful. i mean, you get to go first--that's what happens when you roll initiative higher than your opponent.

if i were going to make a complaint about held actions, it's that they're unrealistically precise. i mean, the amount of time you're delaying can be measured in tenths of a second. nobody thinks that fast. by the time you finish deciding "okay, i'm gonna wait until he goes for his gun to shoot", the other guy will have drawn his gun and shot you. that's really more an issue with the timeframe combat works in, though, not a specific problem with the delayed action rules.

[Draconis]

Damn, I was going to say something but I forgot what it was. I guess I'll just delay.

Oh ya, I remember now. When I think delayed actions I think of that scene in house of 1000 corpses when the crazy guy has the gun to the cop's head and he doesn't pull the trigger for like 20 seconds.

This of course has little to do with the conversation but seeing as there is no real issue with delayed actions it shouldn't be a problem.

You'll notice that most games use a similar mechanic, the only difference in implementation is does the delaying character interrupt the action of the person triggering it or do they go right after the trigger condition. I've seen it done both ways. Active or reactive.

[Moon-Hawk]

If someone's holding an action in combat, the system works fine as it is.

If you have a situation like above where someone is holding an action for 20+ seconds, combat has basically stopped, people are negotiating, and finally someone dramatically goes for their gun, I say resolve it as a surprise test giving the guy (or granny) with the held action the +6 bonus for ambushing. If the person drawing the gun is capitalizing on a distraction opportunity, or does something suitably clever, then I'd give them the same +3 you get for being aware of an ambush.
It's still damn risky, 'cause even if your cybered monster can beat granny and her +6 bonus, she can still invoke the dead-man's trigger and maybe still get her shot off. But the important thing is, now there's a chance. Edge can be used, and much fun will be had. Much more fun, IMO, than saying, no, granny held her action so there's no possible chance for anyone to stop her.

[deek]

Yeah, in the normal scheme of things, we are talking initiative passes, which break down to tenths of a second...so we are really getting to a very fine detail and missing the big picture of combat...it goes so fast that sometimes the rules seem a bit odd until you factor it in that the 4 IPs are only taking up a total of 3 seconds...

[DTFarstar]

The way I look at it, we'll use the two guys standing there guns holstered example.

Ok, Gunner A rolls and gets an initiative of 15, Gunner B rolls and gets an initiative of 14, Gunner A goes and can't decide what he wants to do, he doesn't hate Gunner B, but he also doesn't want to get shot so he delays. So, Gunner A is very tense and has had about 1/10th or so of a second to think this through so basically moving off instinct. Gunner B goes and DECIDES to draw his pistol. As he processes that thought and says to himself "Bang BANG!" or whatever he's thinking when he decides to shoot Gunner A his hand drifts down to the gun slightly. Gunner A who is tense and knew this was a possibility immediately REacts to Gunner B's action and draws his gun and shoots him.


Keep in mind all Gunner A knew is Gunner B's hand was going towards his weapon. He could have been reaching for it to drop it, shoot Gunner A, or grab the cell on the backside of the holster.

In general, most actions dictated in these situation will be reactions and humans react faster than we act. In general, when you are driving and something runs out in front of you, you don't think "Oh, hmm, a child... I should probably swerve and/or brake to avoid them". It just happens and then you are sitting there in your car going "Oh, god, oh bloody freaking hell what just happened?" as your bodies parasympathetic nervous system does it's level best to take back over from the incredibly swift and reactive actions of your sympathetic nervous system and sub-conscious reflexes. Same situation with these reactive actions- FOR THE MOST PART. Obviously this is a game, with rules that are meant to be understood by the average person and as such it will not cover all eventualities. But in most usable situations it's a relatively representative set of rules.


Chris

[Irian]

But the Hand of B is already in motion. Why is A (whose hand was NOT in motion) automatically faster? Shouldn't that be an opposed quick draw test, for example?

If A acts first, everything is clear: He is a fragment of a second earlier, so he shoots first. No problem here. But if he delays, he isn't faster any more...

[Ol' Scratch]

Reactions have little to do with speed, so much as speed and awareness. That's why Initiative is Reaction + Intuition... and you already won the contest.

Can you explain to me why you have a problem with this? I really can't puzzle it out. The character has already won the "speed" contest; the only difference is a flavor one; he's reacting to the situation instead of merely acting.

[mfb]