Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:31:23 +0000
> The only gripe is, why does the delayer always go first? WhatifBOTH
> sides delay- I popo us after delaying, but youv'e delayed to shoot me?
> Similar situations arrise often using FOF's delay + move rule.

That gripe has made delaying fairly unpopular with me, but I'm
thinking of using it more after reading this thread. But delaying has
to be made less powerful first. (Dalying's the reason why, in all the
western movies, the hero waits for the other guy to make his draw,
you know. That way he can automatically win initiative.;).

There's other situations - someone's waiting in a hallway, waiting
for someone to round the corner. Around that corner's a guy with an
assault rifle. He knows there's someone down the hall (or is just
fairly certain). He comes around the corner firing. What happens?

How specific or general can you do delaying? ('I wait for something
or other to happen' ?).

This is just off the top of my hat, but...
I'm thinkng of making delay declared from action to action. (Delays
are until one's next action or whatever happens). If you delay, how
specific you are determines the TN for successfully reacting.
(Something or other=very high, while 'I wait for that guard around
the corner to pop up to shoot' would be low.). It should be based on
perception, not reaction. If the test fails completely you fail to
react on the delayed contingency. One success means the action is
tied, as in an initiative tie. Two successes works as standard
delaying.

I see no immediate problem with the above, except that it leads to
more die rolling.

Suggestions or opinions, anyone?

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 2
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:59:50 -0700
Fade wrote:
/
/ There's other situations - someone's waiting in a hallway, waiting
/ for someone to round the corner. Around that corner's a guy with an
/ assault rifle. He knows there's someone down the hall (or is just
/ fairly certain). He comes around the corner firing. What happens?

I would rule that the guy that comes around the corner firing is
using supressive fire (see FoF). The guy waiting gets to shoot
normally using his delayed action. Both events would take place
simultaneously. Odds are (all things being equal) that the guy waiting
would have higher odds of hitting his target.

As a side note, using the suppressive fire rule is great if the shit
hits the fan, and you have a lot of ammo. Since you're allready
screwed stick you automatic weapon around every corner and spray the
hallway with a couple of burst before sticking your head around the
corner.

/ How specific or general can you do delaying? ('I wait for something
/ or other to happen' ?).

You don't have to declare an "if then" statement. If a character is
delaying their action they can decide what they want to do when they
decide to act. As long as they are using their free actions previous
to their action to keep track of what's going on I let them decide
what they want to do. If they've been using their free actions for
other things (changing smartgun settings, activating cyberware, etc)
or are looking in the wrong direction when an event occurs, I make em
use a simple action to gather in their surroundings before acting,
otherwise their looking at some negative modifiers depending on their
action.

-David
--
"Belief is a truth held in the mind.
Faith is a fire in the heart."
- Joseph F. Newton
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 3
From: Jacob Engstrom <sabredanz@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 02:53:00 EST
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:31:23 +0000 Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO> writes:
>This is just off the top of my hat, but...I'm thinkng of >making delay
declared from action to action. (Delays
>are until one's next action or whatever happens). If you >delay, how
specific you are determines the TN for >successfully reacting. (Something
or other=very high, >while 'I wait for that guard around the corner to
pop up >to shoot' would be low.). It should be based on >perception, not
reaction. If the test fails completely >you fail to react on the delayed
contingency. One >success means the action is tied, as in an initiative
>tie. Two successes works as standard
>delaying.

>I see no immediate problem with the above, except that >it leads to more
die rolling.

Other than Reaction already takes Perception into account
(Intelligence+Quickness/2) besides the definition of reaction (Psycholgy
wise minde you) is the speed at wich you can respond to preieved events.
Hand-Eye coordination, you know?

However, your Idea goes a long way to correcting a problem that can be
very problematic. I usually ask for the players to delay for some
specific event to react to and how they are going to react to it. I mean
the Assult Rifle toting gaurd situation you had is much better handled by
the AMBUSH AND SUPRISE RULES.

Just my 2Y,
J.T. Engstrom

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 12:56:05 +0100
Fade said on 15:31/27 Mar 98...

> How specific or general can you do delaying? ('I wait for something
> or other to happen' ?).

My interpretation is that you delay your action, and can then pick it up
at (almost) any time you like. A bit unrealistic, IMHO, so perhaps a
solution is to ask the player what the character is waiting for, and the
char can only pick up the action once the condition is met or wants to
stop delaying. The latter situation should give some kind of extra
initiative penalty, for example having to wait an extra 5 phases before
your action.

For example, a security guard delays his action "until someone comes
around the corner of building A." He can't pick up his action immediately
when someone bursts through a window of building B, because that's not the
condition he set. If he does want to pick up his action at the time
someone comes through that window, he'll have to wait 5 extra phases.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Oost west, asbest.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 5
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:04:49 +0000
The fun part first:

A little example of the basic rule taken to an extreme.
You have a huge circle of mafioso. Each has a PAC pointed at the
unarmored head of a guy on his right. The delaying condition for
each is that the person you have a gun pointed at fires. (In which
case you get to react first and shoot him before he fires). In that
circle, somewhere, Joe Blogg squeezes the trigger. What happens?

*snip delay optional rule*
Engstrom wrote:
> Other than Reaction already takes Perception into account
> (Intelligence+Quickness/2) besides the definition of reaction (Psycholgy
> wise minde you) is the speed at wich you can respond to preieved events.
> Hand-Eye coordination, you know?

You're basically saying "I think it should be a reaction test rather
than a perception test, because that takes speed into account as
well." - is that about right?

At first I thought reaction would give an unfair advantage to
chromelords, which easily has (with wired-2) twice the
reaction of an unaugmented runner. (Assuming average of 4 base
reaction. Not everyone has A on attributes.;). Unaugmented runners,
in this case, includes physads. (But with combat sense, it's suddenly
their game again.). But then again, chromelords are supposed to be
fast and react effectively in combat, so I agree.


> However, your Idea goes a long way to correcting a problem that can be
> very problematic.
Thank you. Especially for agreeing it can be a problem.

> I usually ask for the players to delay for some
> specific event to react to and how they are going to react to it.

That is a method I've used as well, but it'll lead to a few
discussions on how general you can get, and what happens if it's
something 'close but not quite' that happens. Considering that every
other person on this list that I know of allows people to
delay their action to act first in unspecified events of their
choosing, while the other half allows delaying on fairly specific
incidents only, there's some uncertainty on the subject, it appears
there's some uncertainty on the subject. A middle ground, and making
delaying less a certain thing would be good, IMO. Not all delayed
actions are opposed situations, though - it'd be nice with a general
rule that would cover both contingencies.

(Reaction test, TN of the speed at whatever happens? If it's a person
trying to shoot you it's his reaction, if it's someone walking past a
window it's easy+quickness, whatever..? hm.. I like that 'TN of
target's reaction' bit. It would be very hard to go effectively delay
to outrdraw someone with reaction 12+, which is quite reasonable.


> I mean
> the Assult Rifle toting gaurd situation you had is much better handled by
> the ambush and surprise rules.

Yes and no. I think I'd hear objections from goon B if that was a
player. ("But I had delayed on him entering! How can he surprise
me?!?"). Other than that I might well use something like that too...
wouldn't call it surprise, of course, but similar mechanics.
(Doesn't that look better without caps, though?)
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 6
From: Wafflemiesters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:20:53 -0600
> Fri 9:31, Fade sez-
>
> > The only gripe is, why does the delayer always go first? What if BOTH
> > sides delay- I pop up after delaying, but youv'e delayed to shoot me?
> > Similar situations arrise often using FOF's delay + move rule.
>
> That gripe has made delaying fairly unpopular with me, but I'm
> thinking of using it more after reading this thread. But delaying has
> to be made less powerful first.

I agree. It can be done with the rules as is, but requires careful GM
control- make them use free actions topercieve, maybe limit range of
view, aply perception and reaction tests, and allow intentional
distractions (for those situations where Our Hero (tm), captured again,
says "Look, it's Elvis" and grabs theguards gun as he (spends a free
action to) turn his head.

A good option would be that you can't use any pool while delaying an
action, and loose the action if injured. This would allow room-
clearing grenades to actually do some good. Although, FLASH grenades do
a LOT of good- throw one where you want to go, and anybody looking that
way isn't anymore!

> There's other situations - someone's waiting in a hallway, waiting
> for someone to round the corner. Around that corner's a guy with an
> assault rifle. He knows there's someone down the hall (or is just
> fairly certain). He comes around the corner firing. What happens?

Thats a VERY common situation. A related one is "room clearing"- my
death on legs speed samurai has a severe phobia of going through doors,
because chump guards in the next room (who he KNOW'S are there, 'cause
the teammage pin pointed them with detect enemies) can still waste him
with a held action, regardless of relative speed.
I'd say, in the above cases, you are ambushing them as much as them
you, and a rection test is called for- they might get a lower TN,
because they are not moving and aiming at the same time, but they
shouldn't get the drop for free. OTOH, loosing a reaction test means
you can't act againstthe victor for 10 phases- that is to harsh in this
case. I'd just saythe winner acts first.

>
> How specific or general can you do delaying? ('I wait for something
> or other to happen' ?).

Totally general, in the basic rules at least. :(

>
> This is just off the top of my hat, but...
> I'm thinkng of making delay declared from action to action. (Delays
> are until one's next action or whatever happens). If you delay, how
> specific you are determines the TN for successfully reacting.
> (Something or other=very high, while 'I wait for that guard around
> the corner to pop up to shoot' would be low.). It should be based on
> perception, not reaction. If the test fails completely you fail to
> react on the delayed contingency. One success means the action is
> tied, as in an initiative tie. Two successes works as standard
> delaying.
>


> I see no immediate problem with the above, except that it leads to
> more die rolling.
>
> Suggestions or opinions, anyone?

That sounds like an acceptable mechanic, but depends totally on GM
arbitration (which bugs me more than the die rolling). Simpler would be
just a +2 to actions taken as delayed actions, unless the specific
action to be performed is declared when the delayed action is
intiated. It may not be tactically acurate, but "feels" right to me- it
would mostly work against speed samurai holding actions "just to see
what happens", and require more fore thought. It would also allow
unconventional tactics to get around a held action, and add +2 to the
doing things like defending from unexpected melee attacks while delaying
an action.


Declaring a specific held action would be something like: shoot a person
apeering in a specific location, charge into melee with anybody who
comes in a room, cast a specific spell at a specific target, quick draw
and shoot the guy down the steet when he goes for his gun.... :)

Mongoose
Message no. 7
From: Spider Murphy <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:39:34 -0600
> > There's other situations - someone's waiting in a hallway, waiting
> > for someone to round the corner. Around that corner's a guy with an
> > assault rifle. He knows there's someone down the hall (or is just
> > fairly certain). He comes around the corner firing. What happens?
>
> Thats a VERY common situation. A related one is "room clearing"- my
> death on legs speed samurai has a severe phobia of going through doors,
> because chump guards in the next room (who he KNOW'S are there, 'cause
> the teammage pin pointed them with detect enemies) can still waste him
> with a held action, regardless of relative speed.

I shall quote from something I learned long ago:

Don't go through doors. People watch doors. People shoot people who go through
doors. Blow a hole in the wall with a handgrenade, and go through that
instead.

A lot of walls are of relatively low barrier rating. Plaster, whiteboard, etc.
Doing this is fun, too.

Speaking of which, how many games out there don't ignore how much property
damage a typical runner causes when things go to hell? Doesn't severely
damaging a corp facility tend to make the corp mad?

Spider Murphy
Message no. 8
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 07:10:32 -0500
At 03:04 PM 3/28/98 +0000, Fade wrote:

>> I mean
>> the Assult Rifle toting gaurd situation you had is much better handled by
>> the ambush and surprise rules.
>
>Yes and no. I think I'd hear objections from goon B if that was a
>player. ("But I had delayed on him entering! How can he surprise
>me?!?"). Other than that I might well use something like that too...
>wouldn't call it surprise, of course, but similar mechanics.
>(Doesn't that look better without caps, though?)

This is mentioned in the suprise rules also. In a suprise test, if one
party has a delayed action, they get a -2 (bonus) to their reaction TN.
The interesting result is that it is possible to suprise someone who has a
delayed action and is ambushing, but you've got to me tons faster, which I
guess is realistic enough.

--DT
Message no. 9
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 07:20:01 -0500
At 04:20 PM 3/28/98 -0600, Wafflemiesters wrote:

>> Suggestions or opinions, anyone?
>
>That sounds like an acceptable mechanic, but depends totally on GM
>arbitration (which bugs me more than the die rolling). Simpler would be
>just a +2 to actions taken as delayed actions, unless the specific
>action to be performed is declared when the delayed action is
>intiated. It may not be tactically acurate, but "feels" right to me- it
>would mostly work against speed samurai holding actions "just to see
>what happens", and require more fore thought. It would also allow
>unconventional tactics to get around a held action, and add +2 to the
>doing things like defending from unexpected melee attacks while delaying
>an action.

I really like this one, but I think I would add that a perception test
could reduce the penalty, perhaps by 1 per every 2 successes. The TN for
the perception test would then depend on how weird the actual event as
opposed to what was expected. If the sam entered from a nearby window
instead of a door, that would be TN 2 - 3. If suddenly an elemental
manifested in front of the door, that would be more like a 5 or 6.

How does that sound?

--DT
Message no. 10
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:34:45 +0100
In article <351D73C4.1CBB@**********.net>, Wafflemiesters
<evamarie@**********.NET> writes
>> Fri 9:31, Fade sez-
>> There's other situations - someone's waiting in a hallway, waiting
>> for someone to round the corner. Around that corner's a guy with an
>> assault rifle. He knows there's someone down the hall (or is just
>> fairly certain). He comes around the corner firing. What happens?
>
> Thats a VERY common situation. A related one is "room clearing"- my
>death on legs speed samurai has a severe phobia of going through doors,
>because chump guards in the next room (who he KNOW'S are there, 'cause
>the teammage pin pointed them with detect enemies) can still waste him
>with a held action, regardless of relative speed.

The correct solution is to precede your entry with a grenade. Flash
and/or concussion if you're concerned about collateral casualties, frag
if you're not. Flash is especially nasty because they're looking at the
door at close range anyway.

I'd rule that a grenade exploding a few feet from your face would lose
you your held action.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 11
From: Wafflemiesters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:02:23 -0600
> Sez David Thompson , 3/30/97 6:20)
>
> At 04:20 PM 3/28/98 -0600, Wafflemiesters wrote:
>
> >> Suggestions or opinions, anyone?
> >
> >That sounds like an acceptable mechanic, but depends totally on GM
> >arbitration (which bugs me more than the die rolling). Simpler would be
> >just a +2 to actions taken as delayed actions, unless the specific
> >action to be performed is declared when the delayed action is
> >intiated. It may not be tactically acurate, but "feels" right to me-
it
> >would mostly work against speed samurai holding actions "just to see
> >what happens", and require more fore thought. It would also allow
> >unconventional tactics to get around a held action, and add +2 to the
> >doing things like defending from unexpected melee attacks while delaying
> >an action.
>
> I really like this one, but I think I would add that a perception test
> could reduce the penalty, perhaps by 1 per every 2 successes. The TN for
> the perception test would then depend on how weird the actual event as
> opposed to what was expected. If the sam entered from a nearby window
> instead of a door, that would be TN 2 - 3. If suddenly an elemental
> manifested in front of the door, that would be more like a 5 or 6.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> --DT

That brings back the arbitrary test TN, part of what I was trying to
avoid. A peception test while delaying is useful- you don't respond to
what you don't notice, and getting only 1 or 2 succeses gives only vauge
information, not usually enough to decide on a proper response with (a
common option then is- DUCK!).
We use perception tests while delaying that way.
The TN penalty I proposed is an actual change to the delayed action
mechanic (you don't currently declare an intended action), and I got the
idea from Earth Dawn, where all declare a general action / target before
anybody actually acts- changing your action reduces your chance of
succes on the new action. It simulates having to react hastily to
rapidly developing situations, which you would be doing if you delayed
expecting one set of events, then responded to another. I wouldn't
reduce the penalty (+2 is not much,just suggests distraction), even with
good perception- your still acting in haste, and still distracted.
Better awareness of the situation should allow the player to come up
with a better response, anyhow.

Mongoose

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Delaying (was: more on lethatlity problems), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!