A question on scripting resolution...

[LordSmerf]

So we sat down and ran some combat just to get a better understanding of our options. We ran into a little problem. It is specifically stated that scripting doesn't require you to script a target, if this is the case then how do you resolve things?

Example: I've scripted "Strike" i'm fighting two Orcs one has scripted "Avoid" and one has scripted "Feint." Do i get to choose which one i strike after it is declared what actions they are taking, thus striking the one not defending?

One solution would be to have the players declare their actions against the NPCs, but what if it is a player vs. player situation?

The solution we're currently using is to require proactive actions (defined loosely as anything that is guaranteed to need a roll to resolve plus feints) to declare targets before and reactive actions are revealed. However, this doesn't quite solve the problem and i was wondering who anyone else might have addressed it...

Thomas

[Kublai]

We do come across this situation from time to time and it is usually resolved by letting the player choose which ever target he wants.

I think this is because scripting is "different" enough as it is, and making it even more strict would put more people off. But perhaps you're ready for that step? In that case, go ahead and make your players indicate their targets in their script.

This can also be avoided by making it a rule that players announce their scripts first, including their targets. Then the GM reveals his scripts. This doesn't allow for any "cheating" by the player to choose the more favorable target.

[LordSmerf]

The players will be announcing first against a GM, but that still doesn't solve the PvP issue. Of couse i'm not sure that it will actually be an issue, i was just curious as to whether anyone else had ever addressed it.

Thomas

[luke]

I run pvp stuff all the time and I have never run into a problem. In those situations, the intent of an action is usually very clear and very directed -- we all know who is attacking whom, and who is defending what.

GM is always allowed to be the player's conscience, if he thinks the player is acting drastically OOC or just plain cheating.

Lastly, in two-on-one situations, players are usually at a severe disadvantage. Allowing them to choose their best option is not a terrible crime.

-L