From: jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: Multi-Actions
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:00:15 GMT

Andrew writes:

> How closely?  Does the (good) success of one guarantee the success of
> the other?  Does the failure of one mean the second will automatically
> fail?  Because that's what MUST happen using the "one round=one roll"
> rule.

All depends on the difficulty values, doesn't it?  If you need a +7 to
succeed on the first action but only a +2 on the second (based on
skill values and the OoM modifiers) then it is entirely possible to
fail the first badly (say by five) but still succeed on the second.

> How about the following, two specifications of my original example;
> (1) I've got one round left in my weapon and am facing multiple
> low-defense savages.  I fire into the crowd and then stride forward,
> sword swinging.
>
> (2) While I'm fighting one opponent, another enters the room and moves
> toward my scholarly companion.  I shout at the first, daring him to face
> me, while I continue the battle with my original opponent.
> 
> Why are the success of these two actions necessarily related.  Since
> they aren't, are they not allowable in one round?

First you ask why they are related and then you immediately tell us
that they aren't.  I'm glad you are so open to new ideas. 

You obviously have a different viewpoint on multiple actions in one
round than Dave and I do, and its also obvious that none of us are
willing to budge on our opinions.  So why don't we just stop repeating
the SAME THINGS over and over again and let it drop?

Look, one thing we all seem to be forgetting is that the rulesbook
says the Many-on-One and One-on-Many tables are just shortcuts for
doing multiple rolls.  If you don't want the shortcuts then use some
other method, like rolling for every single action.

> >you rush up the rocky hillside, narrowly avoiding the loose rocks.
> >reaching the top, you whip out your pistol, BUT THE WIZARD HAS >NOTICED YOU!
> >suprised by this, you step back to aim, and hit the loose rocks you had
> >just avoided, tumbling down the hill. 
> >(ouch. maybe you should have stealthed instead)
> 
> Awfully bad cinema, if you ask me.  And what if he didn't notice me?

If he doesn't notice you then he probably didn't spend a Possibility
to negate yours.  Unless of course, you ascribe to the theory that
people can negate Possibilities spent on actions that they are not
aware of.  

And what would be your idea of good cinema?  Dave's example sounds
perfectly reasonable to me.

> I'm saying that, using the one round=one roll rule, it's possible for a
> p-rated villan to disrupt non-interactive actions that are normally
> safe.  This can get awfully cheap when the player doesn't KNOW which
> villans are p-rated.

Well, maybe you could just say that the spent Possibility negates the
portion of the multi-action that affects the person negating the P-
Point.  Of course, that complicates bookkeeping, but not any more than
rolling for each action would.

> (Not that any GM would do something so sleazy as to make the scrawniest
> looking villan p-rated, and have him annoy the players to the point of
> taking multi-actions against him.  No GM is that low.)

I hope you are being sarcastic.  

Kansas Jim (jogle@nrao.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg