foiled actions

[barefoottourguide]

How do gms handle it whenin extended conflicts the actions the players say theyre going to do are spoiled? Doctor says he will talk down the thugs. Mickey says hell shoot the thugs if they try to get inside the locked hotel room. The gm says the thugs will shove past the doctor and try to break down the hotel room door. Talkers first. The doctor manages to get the thugs to stop and talk. Obviously, the th6gs go also on talking and try to convince the doctor they need to get at the personnin the hotel room. The thugs are cooled off. Shooting them would not be smart now
 How do you hsndle it? Does mickey only get to decide notbto act? Can he change his action to stealthily trying to picknthe hotel rooms door while the thugs are fistracted by the doctor?  Doesnt seem fair to tell a chsracter in mickeys situation he can shoot or do nothing, because that was the action he declared at the start ofbthe round.
Garrett

[chickenpaddy]

Yes you can decide during the conflict to change your action if something happens to make you change tactics. In your example, Micky's player can decide to peek through the door, set up a barricade, and really anything else instead of shooting. As for the fairness of it all, you need to have a group of players who can take turns and let each other have the spot light every once in a while.

[barefoottourguide]

So, in the above example, would you assign a -2 penslty to micky's action if he changes it from a fighting action, to a do action, per raw.

[chickenpaddy]

No, that would not be necessary. Changing what action you're performing does not incur a penalty. Micky can decide to put up a barricade at the door instead of shooting at no cost.

However, if you perform more than one action in a round, you suffer a -2 penalty for every extra action after the first. So, if Micky decided to put up a barricade AND shoot, that would be a -2 penalty to the shooting.

I hope that's clear.

[Stormcrow]

The 10th Doctor edition, Gamemaster's Guide, p. 40, has a sidebar that suggests changing your mind during an extended conflict, or taking an action belonging to an earlier phase of the round, may incur a -2 penalty.

[misterharry]

Mar 14, 2014 2:27:16 GMT Stormcrow said:

The 10th Doctor edition, Gamemaster's Guide, p. 40, has a sidebar that suggests changing your mind during an extended conflict, or taking an action belonging to an earlier phase of the round, may incur a -2 penalty.

The new Limited Edition rulebook also confirms this in the "Changing Your Mind?" sidebar on page 84 - that the GM may apply a -2 penalty to any actions if they require a roll.

[chickenpaddy]

Mar 14, 2014 10:59:23 GMT misterharry said:

Mar 14, 2014 2:27:16 GMT Stormcrow said:

The 10th Doctor edition, Gamemaster's Guide, p. 40, has a sidebar that suggests changing your mind during an extended conflict, or taking an action belonging to an earlier phase of the round, may incur a -2 penalty.

The new Limited Edition rulebook also confirms this in the "Changing Your Mind?" sidebar on page 84 - that the GM may apply a -2 penalty to any actions if they require a roll.

I must have missed that. Personally, I don't really care for things that limit the players too much. But, if you want to, go right ahead.

[barefoottourguide]

That is a tricky one. I see both sides of the argument. I think if the whole conflict has changed to where a character who was going to fight now has no reason to fightvand opts for a doing option takes no penalty. A character running down a hall from a creature whosvasjed over the radio to stop and use the computef... and does so... should have thd penzlty. Spontaneous changd of plzns... and blood pjmping as the beast closes in.
Garrett