Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Delayed Actions
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
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. frown.gif
Fortune
QUOTE (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?

Think of it this way. You are looking for a specific type of thing, a slight movement of the fingers, a twitch of the eye, something that tips you to what the dude is about to do (because you were expecting him to do it), and therefore manage to react 'before' he does, as you are ready for his actions before he is consciously aware of them.

QUOTE
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.


It depends on the situation. Firstly the person has to actually get the drop on you. Even if that is the case, they then have to pay attention to you every single second because if they let their guard down you'll probably do something Badâ„¢. After a certain amount of time (professional rating in rounds as a house rule sound reasonable?), there should be some kind of Surprise test, whereby if you win it would be possible for you to take the opportunity to disarm your captor without his shooting your balls off, and if you lose then he still has his eyes firmly planted on your every move.
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 smile.gif
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 smile.gif).

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
QUOTE (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?

again, that's not an issue with held actions, it's an issue with the rate of combat and the ridiculously precise economy of thought and motion that a 3-second combat turn allows. trying to 'fix' held actions to account for this would just throw the entire system out of whack. you'd have to sit down and 'fix' the entire initiative system, adding rules for how long it takes to perceive, assimilate, and react to minute details.
deek
DTFarstar...the only issue with your example is that you are comparing combat reaction to just normal everyday stuff...apples and oranges.

A closer example might be that you are driving down an alley in an unfamiliar neighborhood and you think to yourself, if someone jumps out in front of me, I'm gonna slam on the gas. So, IMO, that is the held action...granted, its only effective for a few tenths of a second, then you are in the next IP and you lost your ability to trigger that action. You can carry it over though, so you are just sitting there not doing anything, but if someone jumps out in front of you, you will hit the gas.

Irian...he's automatically faster because A won initiative and held his action. If B won, he would be faster to act...that is what initiative is there for.
Irian
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
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.

No, Initiative is "Who acts first". Simply. But if one character decides NOT to act, but to wait for someone else, he obviously loses this advantage.

If you want to race against someone, but then decide NOT to start as early as possible, but wait for the other racer to start, how can you expect to still start first?

But I can understand mfb, it would probably much more effort to make the system better. Perhaps I'll simply introduce opposed tests for such situations (with a big bonus for the one who already has the gun in his hands, etc.).
Ol' Scratch
See, that's the perspective problem I was talking about. You're assuming that Delayed Action is the character giving up his action. It's not. It's simply a term used to describe the character focusing on reacting rather than acting. It's pure, unadulterated metagaming. The character is still acting first; the player is simply choosing to describe his character's increased reaction time as a response to what someone else is doing rather than doing his own thing.
Lagomorph
yeah, I guess I don't really get what the issue is either. If you've won init (15 vs 13) what difference does it make if you go on 15, 14 or 13.1 or what ever is just immediately before 13.

Edit:
If you want to make a house rule, say that you can't act in partial phase, so you can only act simultaneously with others. But in simultaneous actions, remember that the person with the higher init goes first. In the previous example of 15 vs 13, 15 can't go on 13.1, but can go on 13, if his init attribute is higher than his opponents, then he can still shoot first, but if not, then he'll shoot after 13 has taken his action.
TheDrake
I recall playing in some role-playing game back in the day where everyone rolled init, then the person with the lowest init announced his actions, then the next lowest, then the next lowest, with the highest one declaring last. The highest would then act first. It was designed so the highest person had a better idea of what was going on and as such knew the best way to act.
deek
QUOTE (TheDrake)
I recall playing in some role-playing game back in the day where everyone rolled init, then the person with the lowest init announced his actions, then the next lowest, then the next lowest, with the highest one declaring last. The highest would then act first. It was designed so the highest person had a better idea of what was going on and as such knew the best way to act.

Hmmm...that is a very interesting method to declare actions. I like it quite a bit, actually...I think I am going to try that out in my next session and see how it works.
DTFarstar
The thing is deek, it's not apples and oranges. It activates the same nerves in the brain, just different ones in the body, not to mention I chose a mundane example that uses a lot of the same peripheral nerves as well.


I've almost been in car wrecks, been in 2, and I've been in some fairly serious fights both with and without weapons. Never guns, thankfully. It's basically the same feeling, though honestly while fighting I got to think more.


Chris
Tarantula
TheDrake, I've heard of that, but no one ever can seem to remember the name of the system. I do like that method though, and I've always toyed with using it in my games.
DTFarstar
Old White Wolf did it, but it took FOREVER to accomplish combat that way with everyone essentially going twice a turn.


Chris
mfb
i think Cain or somebody used that system for SR.
FriendoftheDork
As Funk, I don't see the problem here. The only potential problem would be if the one who loses initative wants to make a delayed action just to be able to act before the one that delayed against him.

In theory, that would mean they could both act at the same time. Luckily, we have rules for what happens when characters want to act at the same time: Initative. And since you've already rolled there's no need to roll again. Winning initative means you can pretty much control a combat by being sure you act first even though you're not sure you want to shoot right away. It means that should for some reason a Star beat cop act before a sammie he can say "freeze" and threaten him with a gun without being ultimately doomed to not being able to shoot until the sammie quickdraws, fire a long burst and then fires a short burst at him before he can act!

And yeah the reverse order thing... don't bother I hated that in Vampire as well and it never worked as well as paper as in practice at is was counterintuitive.
Sma
I think that game had elves in it, and dragons.
Argonnite
Was the game Deathstalkers?
Sma
It was actually used in SR 2 for initiative ties. Since I'm AFoldB I'm not sure about SR1.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012