Alternate Dodge Test Mechanic, allocating CP like Spell Defense... Options

[Method]

I did a cursory search of the forums, but I'll just come out and say it: I'm lazy. So if this has been mentioned before please ignore my ramblings and throw me a link.

So, as I have argued before, I hate the idea of a "Dodge" Test. Really this is mostly a semantic problem in my head because to me the word "dodge" implies some kind of conscious response to a known attack, which is just silly when you're talking about bullets. People just cannot dodge bullets effectively so the whole idea just doesn't sit well in my mind.

Now, I fully realize that I'm applying reason to a wholly artificial game mechanic and that one needs to suspend their disbelief in a lot of ways to make SRs combat system palatable. I also realize that presenting the target's dodge test AFTER the shooter's success test is done for continuity and easy of game play. My problem with the mechanic is that it allows meta-gaming. A player can assess what is happening to his character and adjust in real time to whatever might pose a threat to him- which in effect allows the kind of conscious bullet-dodging that pisses me off.

Blah blah blah... this has all been said before.

But my new idea is this: Have players allocate CP dice for "tactical defense" at the start of a turn in the same way a spell caster allocates Sorcery dice to spell defense. That way a player must decide in advance of the action weather he wants his character to play it safe (move using cover, etc. etc.) or go all out on the offensive.

You could even allow a character to extend his "tactical defense" to another character within a short distance (maybe 1 meter) in the same way that a spell slinger can defend others within a certain range. This would allow body guards and other close protection type characters to directly protect their charge against attacks, but in so doing they make themselves more vulnerable to subsequent attacks.

Anyway, this is just a basic idea that’s been rattling around in my skull for a few days and I wanted to see what people thought. What am I missing here that might make this mechanic broken or unbalancing? Any comments?

This post has been edited by Method: Jul 8 2005, 10:11 PM

[Method]

I guess I should clarify a little (to be honest I haven't fully thought this through):

- CP dice allocated to tactical defense cannot be used for other stuff
- when an attack hits the character can chose to use tac-def ala dodge test
- if they roll more successes that the attacker the attack has been avoided or otherwise rendered powerless (by improvised cover or what have you...)
- dice used for this purpose are lost until the CP refreshes at the start of the next turn.

Really the only difference here is that the player must chose how many dice he will use BEFORE he knows weather or not he's going to get hit.

[Herald of Verjig...]

If you want to make it like spell defense, then I must remind you that spell defense can be allocated and de-allocated as a free action. I will also mention that you get free actions on other people's turns. The sum effect is minimally different because any competant player will assign all dice to "tactical defense" as soon as possible, and restore them to combat pool dice on a free action at the end of the turn for whoever rolled slightly better on initiative.

In short, just rename it if you can't stand the term "dodge" when talking about bullets and lasers.

[Method]

Good points all.

I was just rereading the rules for spell defense and noted that there was no rule disallowing a player to deallocate dice. I had never noticed that before. None of my players have ever caught that either. Gives me a new perspective on SD

Anyway I could also just rule that players aren't allowed to deallocate dice from tactical defense. The real idea here is to lock them into some course of action before the bullets start flying as opposed to leting them shift back and forth between offense and deffense with some kind of unrealistic omniciance about weather or not they will be shot.

[lollerskates]

you don't have to see the bullet coming to know whether or not you will be shot at.

[weblife]

Its not a conscient reaction to a specific attack. Its a mechanic to allow a player, who is aware of the enemy, to move and dodge in a way that makes it harder for the opponent to target him.

Its not Matrix style bullet-time.

[Shockwave_IIc]

You seen lethal weapon 4? Jet lee doesn't dodge the bullet he see's danny glovers character pointing a gun at him, and jet lee moves.

[Method]

Yeah yeah yeah....

Been through all this before. I fully understand how dodge tests work and what its supposed to represent. Thats not the point of this thread.

[lollerskates]

it does, however, make the entire reasoning behind the point of this thread null.

[Stumps]

Actually, I like Method's idea.

Nothing is really wrong with it.

It's a basic question.
How assertive, or reserved is your character going to be this round?

Offensive vs. Defensive.

I like the idea. It makes a fully offensive character more powerful than a Defensive character, but less resiliant than the Defensive character.

It's not even that much extra clutter at all.

In my game, personally, I would use this concept and further it by stating that if they wish to engage in defensive melee, that they would have to roll their melee skill using dice from this pool.

Once they run out of dice from this pool, their defensive melee, and general dodging would lack comparably.

Which fixes my personal annoyance of people on defensive melee basically getting extra chances to attack.

[Method]

Stumps- interesting addition. I'll have to do some reading on that.

lollerskates- I think you are missing the point then. I understand that the dodge test is an abstract rules mechanic designed to simulate how a person moves in combat so as not to get hit. Did you read the thread I linked to in my original post?

The point here is that the current mechanic allows a kind of meta-gaming that I don't particularly like and want to put an end to in my game. I want my players to think like thier character who is experiencing the very real danger of combat. I want them to think and move tactically. If they can say:

"sweet, my opponents don't have any more actions left so I can roll all my remaining combat pool into this next attack and I don't have to worry about dodging anymore..."

or

"...crap i just got hit i'd better get ready to roll more dice so I can't get hurt..."

that is unrealist and allows the player to disconect from the danger/stress/fear his character is experiencing. You might as well have Matrix-style bullet dodging, because the player doesn't feel the effects of being shot either way.

[Modesitt]

First, I can state with absolute certainty that what players will do in 90% of situations is allocate everything to defense. The other 10% will be times when they win init and think they can resolve the thread in front of them in one pass or are in some way invulnerable(Snipers, invisibility, riggers, etc). PCs are typically better equipped and better trained than whoever or whatever they are up against, so it's just a matter of time before the opposition loses.

The method I use is I give to alleviate this is to players a choice. They can either spend combat pool as usual, or they can allocate it to shooting, soak, or dodge at the beginning of initiative. If you allocate it, you get two dice for every one you allocate.

So a char might roll init, then declare "Allocating three to dodge" and he could at any point in the turn use 6 dice for dodging.

[Method]

Hmmm thats another interesting mechnic. Have you ever found it to be over-powered?

Also I don't see either situation you mentioned being bad. Thats the kind of thing I want. On one hand you have cautious tactical movement as the default mode of operation, and on the other you have over whelming use of force in a kind of "violence of action". Those are both real approaches to combat used by operators in RL.

[lollerskates]

[Stumps]

loller...dude. He just doesn't like Dodging, in it's presentation of mechanics, as they are in SR.

There isn't anything really wrong with that, just as there isn't really anything wrong with you liking it just fine.

Many people on DSF dislike a great mutitude of rules in SR...hell, that's what 80 to 90% of the posts on the forum are all about.

Me personally, I tend to agree with not really liking the dodge for ranged combat.

Here's my personal reason.

Most people reason something along the lines of dodging bullets...
Well, that's not my reasoning.

My reasoning is really quite simple. It's much similar to my dislike of automatic melee defense (but that's another issue).

When guy #1 has an Initiative Pass of 14 and he's shooting or casting, or whatever, at guy #2 who's Initiative Pass is on 12, I see no rationality to how guy #2 can make a Perception Success and a Reaction Success (automatically, none-the-less) in the nearly miliseconds that it takes guy #1 to perform their action.

Remember...Combat is 3 seconds long.

Also, back to the issue of Initiative.
If guy #1 has a higher Initiative in SR, it means that he's faster at that moment than guy #2.
How guy #2 can suddenly move faster than or equal to guy #1 a number of Initiative Passes before guy #2 has the ability to move is an oddity to me.

See the problem that I have?

Where does the extra Reaction and Perception ability come from??
It doesn't add up in my mind.

Just like I was saying that the melee actions in defense don't add up to me either...it's for the same line of reason...where and how do they get the extra energy in time to act??

To me...they simply shouldn't.
---

In Science, there is no such thing as new energy.
There is only the displacement of energy.

If you have a given amount of things that you can do in a certain amount of time, and most active actions presented carry a certain given cost, where we end up with characters being given new energy that hasn't existed before is faulty.

To say that they displace that dodging energy from another pool makes more sense to me because now there isn't any new energy, but the same energy allocated differently.

That's how I see it.

[lollerskates]

[Stumps]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but it came acrossed that way from the constant statement of the rule set.

[lollerskates]

i was arguing against his reasoning, not his opinion. ironically, i actually agree with him on the point that combat pool is completely fucked up.

[BitBasher]

[Method]

[lollerskates]

[Method]

[lollerskates]

[mfb]

malarky, lollerskates. combat pool allows for finer granulation of those things you mentioned. it lets you aim a bit, but not long enough to count as a Take Aim action. it lets you duck, without actually taking movement modifiers to get behind cover. it's not out-of-game, it's anti-aliasing.

[lollerskates]

if you can use it to aim, then why does it not consume an action, even a free action, when everything else you do in combat does? why does a character who is remaining stationary, or hell, even one who is completely immobile have the same range of dodge options available to him as one who is moving?

why does it run out?

in any case, i'll be surprised if you can point me to a page number that supports the interpretation of combat pool that you've outlined. while you're free to come up with your own manifestation of the mechanic in game, the fact still remains that by default, it has none.