Topic: Handling "reserve" actions?

[shnar]

I've never been able to do this in Rolemaster very well, but often times a player who has initiative will want to wait to see what the enemy is doing before declaring their action. For example, they want to know if the enemy is actually going to attack before they declare their OB/Parry split. What's a good way to do this in RM?

-shnar

[yammahoper]

In RMFRP this is handled with the declaration of "react and melee".  It results in a -10 OB penalty and an action may be declared at any point in the round.  However, it is not an auto win sort of thing; init must still be rolled and attacker must win init, though I give a +4 mod for react and melee.  If the PC who declares react and melee attacks a closing foe, init is auto won.  If ranges attack is against another ranged attack, such as a bladeturn or missile, init is rolled normal.

One of my GM's has PC's players who declare react and melee roll init normally, and when their init number comes up, from there on they can attack first on any init number.  We use the three actions per round limit set forth in RMFRP, with init rolled, then any snap action is resolved at init +10, normal actions on init rolled, and deliberate actions resolved on init -10.  We normally start the count down at 40, though sometimes higher (we have changes speed and haste spells by having add an additional 10 to base init rolls in addition to +100% activity).

lynn

[Willen]

Well, we always played that you could hold off your action until a declared trigger, and so the PC could interrupt any other action or sequence of events with their pre-declared action. Like "I wait until the orc moves to shoot" or "If they attempt to go past me, I attack."

Of course this only allowed one to act "past" their initiative, not before.

Don't know if there's actually a rule about it (would have to look it up) but it makes sense, and allows for more reactive and cinematographic combats and descriptions.

After all, if both the PCs and NPCs can do it, the issue of balance is moot.

[Marc R]

RMC has two "Observation" actions, a quick look and a long look. . .you can essentially use either as a "wait" function.

BTW, in RMC if you have a weapon ready when combat starts, you are in a "Martial Stance" and must immediately declare an OB/DB split to reflect your posture when combat starts. . . .from there in you retain that split until an action changes your stance. (I think those are Attack, Drop Weapon, Draw Weapon, Stun no parry or worse or any maneuver requiring you to drop out of combat stance, like carrying a wounded friend up a ladder.)

[Balhirath]

I've never been able to do this in Rolemaster very well, but often times a player who has initiative will want to wait to see what the enemy is doing before declaring their action. For example, they want to know if the enemy is actually going to attack before they declare their OB/Parry split. What's a good way to do this in RM?

-shnar

I dont have the RM2 books with me right now, but I'm pretty sure that they covered that in Arms and Claw Law or perhaps Character & Campaign Law.
Hmm.. My memory might serve me wrong here, but as far as I remember, you don't actuallt have to declare a OB/DB split in the core-books, but could just allocate OB to DB (If you have any left) an attack was declared. Ofcause you had to allocate the OB to DB before the GM rolled the attack.

 

[Marc R]

You need to declare OB/DB split before initiative is resolved, or it's a farce. . ."I won initiative? Full OB!"

By "Reserve" actions, do you mean "Opportunity Actions"?

[shnar]

The most common request from players is as they are trying to decide how to split their OB/Parry, they want to know what their enemy is doing. If the enemy is doing a heavy attack, they want to do more parry than OB. If their enemy isn't attacking at all, then full OB, etc. It's usually like this:

GM: What are you doing this round?
Player: I want to attack the orc in front of me.
GM: Ok, before we roll for initiative, how will you split your OB/Parry?
Player: I don't know, is the orc attacking me?
GM: He looks like he's going to attack.
Player: Yeah, but how much? Is he doing a full attack? Is he parrying a lot?
GM: Can't say.
Player: So I have to tell you first what my split will be before you decide what the orc's split will be? Now you get the advantage now.
GM: That's how the cookie crumbles.

This is the situation I'm trying to solve. The player is trying to decide how best to split his/her OB so wants to wait until he knows the opponents split. So it sort of falls into Opportunity Action, but also sorta doesn't...

-shnar

[Marc R]

More like this:

Orc and human, both with broadswords, both with 100 OBs.

Human is a PC, Orc is an NPC.

Combat starts, human and orc are 20' apart, out of "Melee Range". (Short of treachery, ambush or surprise, many combats should start outside melee range.)

Both the human and the orc have weapons drawn, so at the start of the combat, they are in "Combat Stance". Both must declare OB/DB on round 1 before the initiative.

GM writes note: Orc is aggressive, but not insane, 75/25
PC says: My character is neither passive, nor aggressive, so 50/50.

This is just a default OB/DB split to begin combat. (If you play the angles more than staying in character, likely you'll choose 100% DB every time.)

Initial Declarations

Both the Orc and the Human intend to melee, if the PC wants data on the Orc, I might allow a free perception check (Or perhaps a "melee as lore" check), in a more complicated situation I might require a "Quick look" 10% action to do so. So perhaps the human knows "The Orc is looking rather aggressive, but is not going full out without concern for defense."

Of course, the moment either the PC or the NPC declare an attack, they again need to declare an OB/DB split, which takes affect immediately. (So the orc could switch to 100% OB, or 100% DB.)

Then roll initiative.

Then attacks.

It's a bit Stratego. . .the whole "I go full OB" to discover they also went "I go full OB" can suck if you loose initiative. (Kicks butt if you win).

It's supposed to simulate the fact that you can place yourself into an overly aggressive posture and get yourself killed, or not be aggressive enough an miss a golden opportunity to take out your opponant. . .short of precognition or mind reading, it's hard to predict your opponant's actions before making decisions like that. Do you really know how aggressively your opponant will attack, or are you just capable of making a guess based on their previous pattern? (And if you've never fought them before, who knows?)

OTOH if the problem is that the players FEEL like the GM is taking advantage by declaring last, you can have the GM declare first, via a hidden note to themselves, then the players declare. That should cull that ptoblem.

Frankly, if you play any roleplaying game with declare/initiative/action being the sequence, I urge you to try out this experiment for one combat:

Have everyone do hidden declarations by writing them down, including the GM.

Oooh, wow, it's amazing how people will bunch up, with half the party attacking one target. . .or how they jam up in a doorway. . .or how 4 people dive to pick up the sword the villian dropped.

Anything short of "Hidden declarations" is a mild form of the players acting via hive mind. . .each player usually will fit their actions around what's already declared. Generally, that hive mind makes the game run more smoothly and usually makes it more fun. (Though, hidden often makes it more funny).

Roping all the NPCs into the mix too, so that the GM needs to publicly declare all actions of the NPCs before the PCs declare, is extending the "Party Hivemind" out to almost "Precognitive Omnicient Party Hivemind."

I've often felt that in terms of that kind of stuff, the less you know the better. . .it makes the choices harder and the combats more tense, making victory that much more rewarding.

[Balhirath]

Hmmm Thats a very good explanation LM
Thanks!

[shnar]

I suppose just getting the players used to the rules helps. A lot of times, it is a "I want to wait to see what he does before I decide to attack, move, etc" which is an Opportunity Action (cannot remember how RM handles those). The other half the time is the whole they-want-to-know-what-baddie-is-doing-before-OB-split...

-shnar

[Marc R]

The rounds are 10 sec long, so to a degree your OB/DB is your stance for 10 seconds, involving many attack attempts, but only one roll. . .it feels like "One swing" but it really isn't. . .going "Full OB" is not making one super aggressive swing, it's Luke going after vader like a frothing madman for 10 seconds of super aggressive, looping two handed attacks with full body weight behind it and advancing every swing. . . .if you try to keep focused on the fact that it's a 10 second combo of moves and attacks, the overall makes more sense. . .if you "Pause" long enough for luke to start in on you, you're already in the middle of the attack and don't have time to consider what's going on and make a rational choice based on observation. . .

To offer a counter example, I could feint, running at you screaming with my sword over my head, then just as I reach you stop and begin full parrying. . .how the heck would you see that coming?

"Opportunity Action" is an RM2 thing. . .essentially a pre-declared action that let you go first once you passed your normal initiative. (Like, "I shoot the first guy who comes through that door"), it was dropped from RMC since actions are no longer phase limited.

[vroomfogle]

On a related note - do you allow characters (or NPCs) to know when their opponent is stunned/must parry/unable to parry ?   Personally I allow this and it has become an extremely important bit of tactical information.   While I'm considering using some sort of perception/alertness roll to determine it I like to keep things simple so it's automatic right now.   What do you all do ?

[Marc R]

I'll definitely give a cue on it, if you watch boxing you know when someone's been stunned no parry for instance . . .But i'm not going to give an explicit "The orc is stunned for 3 rounds" kind of info.

I dislike people treating it as if it's general information though, if there are 4 pairs of combatants, and one is stunned, I have little objection to their opponant noticing and taking advantage, but it would require a perception for one of the other combatants to notice.

For issues like that, I find the key is "what's good for the goose". . . .if the PCs know when an NPC is stunned and can take advantage, then the reverse should be true too.

[vroomfogle]

I agree LM - NPC's will notice too but only for direct opponents - e.g. no players leaving their current foe and leaping across the room to engage the stunned guy.    And there's no way to tell how long someone would be stunned for either.

[Skaran]

The usual description to my players of an opponant suffering from stun is that "it appears their eyes are looking in different directions". This applies only to those characters close enough to see either the eyes or the opponant wobbling on his/its feet.

[shnar]

Eh, I usually just tell them they are stunned. I won't tell them how long, but at the beginning of a round, the character can tell the opponent is still dazed from the blow, so the player aught to know the opponent is stunned.

-shnar

[Marc R]

The benefit of doing it that way, is that sometimes they're duping. . .

[mocking bird]

We use the RMSS skill Sit. Awarentess : battle or a modified observation roll to 'detect stun'.  I don't have much a problem in melee being automatic (watch UFC - it is fairly obvious when a fighter is 'stunned') but a peeve is when a player with a long bow asks who is stunned from 150' away.

The benefit of doing it that way, is that sometimes they're duping. . .

Or our evil GM gives critters & NPC's the stun maneuver skill.

[PiXeL01]

The only cases I have seen people using the "the orc is stunned" information, is when a PC is engaged　by multiple opponents at the same time. I have never seen people rush across the room, just to bash someone for the extra +20 OB while having a chance of being stabbed in the back for instance

[Marc R]

The +20 OB is a piffle compared to the shift from say 50/50 or 40/60 OB/DB stance.

The "Jump across the room" issue, used to come up with situations ala the major game villian and 5 of his henchmen are in melee with 6 PCs.

One of the PCs stuns the major villian.

"Jump across the room" is hyperbole, but generally everyone within melee range would attempt to coup de gras the recurring villian.

This was even more of a problem using the original RM2 phased round, where one tactic I often saw was:

Spell phase: PC 1 attack spell
Missile phase: PC 2 missiles
Movement phase: PCs 3 & 4 move to targets stunned by 1 & 2, doing their best to avoid other combatants.
Melee phase: PCs 3 & 4 full OB the two stunned ones down.

Loop this over and over.

A lot of the issues with jumping the stunned guy lay with the overarching issue that you can clear loads of ground in an RM round.

Since the old days, more strictly enforcing rules like:

"You're only going to casualy notice stun or other status effects on the target you're in melee with."
"Movement is resolved simultaniously, so it's much harder to radically move to a selected melee target without getting blocked."
"Disengage from melee"
"Missile/spell fire into melee"

Have fixed a lot of the overly abusive, OOC perspective tactics.