Mechanics of "No, You Idiot!" Situations

[blaster219]

You might consider it the "boring" option, but it does use the rules as is without modification or alteration. And if a situation can be handled by the rules already, why change them or introduce house rules?

Edit: That might have come off as more confrontational than originally intended.

[Rick Danger]

Isn't this situation already covered by the mob rules? The two enemies are the same character.

[Supplanter]

Isn't this situation already covered by the mob rules? The two enemies are the same character.

No. They're not. If they were the same character this wouldn't be an issue. Also, I wouldn't have said, explicitly, I'm not talking about Mobs.


Jim

[Supplanter]

You might consider it the "boring" option, but it does use the rules as is without modification or alteration. And if a situation can be handled by the rules already, why change them or introduce house rules?

Edit: That might have come off as more confrontational than originally intended.

No worries.

Needless to say I find my own gaming preferences well worth lengthy discussion! But in the Rules Q&A sub-forum I try to keep to a fairly narrow purpose. This includes setting up ground rules in the initial post to avoid wasting everyone's time. It doesn't always work, but that's the idea.

Now that I've gotten useful responses, though, I'm happy to open the thread up a little. I'm actually okay with using the boring option to handle some variations on "No, You Idiot." I think for that approach it's best if you do it as a two-effect attack in which both villains get to react. To the extent you succeed do physical stress on the Hapless Third Party (HTP) and mental or emotional stress on the shooter.

But that's not a complete solution, because of the thing people are always saying in this community about "the mechanics (should) follow the fiction." The boring option is the reverse of that: it's jamming the fiction into the shape of the mechanics.

In the trope, in the stories, the trickster hero faces two foes. The first foe attacks the trickster hero. This is a purposive action on the part of the first foe, using his capacity for violence. The trickster hero successfully reacts to the first foe, using her capacity for avoiding harm. She does this in a way that the first foe's action redounds to the harm of the second foe, who is caught flat-footed and unable to react. The harm to the second foe is an effect of the trickster's successful reaction to the first foe.

THAT IS THE FICTION*. It's obvious, I think, whether the elements of the fiction map more neatly to the elements of an action or reaction roll. The existing reaction-roll rules, with their brilliant counter-attack option+, get us so close to a perfect implementation of the "No, You Idiot!" trope I can freaking taste it. I was just trying to get the rest of the way there.


Jim

* Obviously I used (and highlighted) some loaded language in the description. I maintain, though, that if you removed the highlights and posted that excerpt on TVTropes or Wikipedia people would find it a perfectly sensible explanation.
+ The traditional apology to user DarkDungeons.

[blaster219]

But that's not a complete solution, because of the thing people are always saying in this community about "the mechanics (should) follow the fiction." The boring option is the reverse of that: it's jamming the fiction into the shape of the mechanics.

I don't quite agree. On the mechanics directing the fiction part that is.

I see it as player identifying what he want to achieves as a result (the enemy accidentally shooting his ally) and then making a roll to make it happen. This way, it is the player actively directing the narrative, rather than reacting to the Watcher.

The reason I see it this way is at the end of the day, the accidental target is being affected due to the actions of the hero not the shooter. The hero is Actively making it happen. Which to me, thematically suits an Action on the part of the hero rather than a Reaction. Narratively, yes, its a reaction to the shooter. But mechanically it just feels right to me that it be an Action instead.

You can still do the physical on accidental target and emotional on shooter by spending a PP for an extra effect die. And the watcher can turn a successful reaction test on his part into a counter attack by spending a doom die and saying the attempt to "redirect the attack" (for want of a better phrase) failed an instead hit the hero)

[Supplanter]

I don't quite agree. On the mechanics directing the fiction part that is.

I don't QUITE agree either, in the sense that I think it's a much more vexing relationship than people sometimes seem to imply. (Ever notice how some people around here forever admonish the players to act out of nobler motives than "just building a big dice pool" on the one hand while constantly, gleefully encouraging Watchers toward doom-pool maximization strategies on the other? DOES NOT COMPUTE!)

I think it's inevitably a two-way street, and the question is when it's most satisfying for traffic to run one way or the other. Hence:

But mechanically it just feels right to me that it be an Action instead.

And to me it just feels wrong, for the reasons I've stated. We're well across the border of Opinionland at this point. But to the extent you were curious why I rejected "the boring option" out of hand from the get-go, now you know.


Jim

[Cam]

Mechanically, you want your effect die on a reaction roll to apply to another opponent, with the narrative being "he shot the other guy" or "it bounced off me and hit the other guy" or some such thing. Perfectly reasonable thing. So there are two possible ways to handle this.

1. Have your reaction roll and effect die flip to become an action roll and effect die for the other opponent. Use the same total and effect die, but call it an action total instead. The original action is no longer relevant; you already defeated it by rolling higher with your dice. So now the other opponent has to beat your action total with his reaction total or get nailed.
2. If your attacker rolled an opportunity, activate the opportunity with 1 PP and apply his effect die to the other opponent. If your reaction effect die was larger, step back the attack action effect die by 1 step as you usually would before you apply it to your other opponent. If you'd rather use your larger effect die, spend another PP to switch them out. Total PP spent would be either 1 (redirect attack effect die because of opportunity) or 2 PP (redirect and use larger effect die). No redirect option would be available without an opportunity to activate.

Note that either of these could become an SFX, too.

Cheers,
Cam

[Supplanter]

Cam: Thanks. Those are both cool options. Also, for the second, one thing I thought of is making the effect delivered the smaller of your reaction-effect die or the original attacker's effect die.


Jim

[EldritchFire]

I'm re-reading the OM, and they way the section on using a reaction die is worded, I don't think you need to change anything to do what you're asking to do. it says that, "If your action fails, your opponent may spend a Plot Point (if a player) or a d6 or larger from the doom pool (if the Watcher) to create an effect, just as you would have had you succeeded on your action," OM50.

So you create an effect. It doesn't say create an effect against the one who acted against you. If a player wants to "create an effect" that says "enemy A blasts enemy B" and their reaction roll allows for it, cool. For example, if Spider-Man used his reflexes to dodge the attack I'd allow it, but if he created a web shield (durability) I would say no.

Also, I wouldn't allow for an extraordinary success to step up the effect die. It's the price you pay to affect a different target.

-EF

[Battlechimp]

I'm re-reading the OM, and they way the section on using a reaction die is worded, I don't think you need to change anything to do what you're asking to do. it says that, "If your action fails, your opponent may spend a Plot Point (if a player) or a d6 or larger from the doom pool (if the Watcher) to create an effect, just as you would have had you succeeded on your action," OM50.

So you create an effect. It doesn't say create an effect against the one who acted against you. If a player wants to "create an effect" that says "enemy A blasts enemy B" and their reaction roll allows for it, cool. For example, if Spider-Man used his reflexes to dodge the attack I'd allow it, but if he created a web shield (durability) I would say no.

FWIW, OM53 also somewhat backs this up as a failed support action can result in a complication for the person you were trying to support. Granted an attack is not a support action, but it does fit the model of a third party getting whammied without a lot of input into the situation.

Personally, I'd let someone redirect an effect on a counter reaction, though I'd still give the target a reaction roll.

Though I'd also probably do it as an action as well if it fit the situation. Both seem to get me to the same destination, with their own pro's and con's.