Retry penalty - and combat

DMFM: I don't own a cell phone :p

Everyone else: Quit beating up on the guy. This is the corebook's fault, not his. Neph (that rule is in Neph's chapter, right?) seems to have internalized that rule to the point where he failed to explicitly repeat it. This is a danger in using writers familiar with the previous edition to write the core rules for the new edition of any game. Now, I've never in my life until today seen someone misapply the rule that way, but that could very well just be that it never gets brought up. It's worth an errata clarification.

Alright?

deathmatchfm:

I always applied them.  Even if you parry like normal (not Charm enhanced) and they miss, it's supposed to invoke the retry penalty.  The only thing about perfects is that it's a sure way to frustrate your opponent since they don't have a chance of hitting.  Obviously, this penalty wouldn't apply to damage, but a continual defense does get harder to break because they get into a rythem and the attacker's strategy doesn't work.  Granted, the retry penalty should have a limitation.  Though you could theoretically impose a -10 penalty, I've never seen it higher than -4 successes.

"Every time a character attempts to perform an action at which she has allready failed, she generally accrues a -1 success external penalty to the attempt due to frustration, and to simulate the fact that the character has already tried the obvious solutions."  This the RAW. 

Now then according to this we know that some actions will give you this penalty, and some will not or else the use of the words 'generally accrues' would be meaningless.  Now let us go check out the section on the Attack Roll on page 148.  What is this?  The attack roll has a difficulty of 1 and DV doesn't even come into this part of the calculation?  Well then by the way it says in the book the only time you would impose a success penalty on a player for not hitting someone is if they actually literally rolled 0 successes or botched their attack roll.  Now yes the quote I used is from you earlier on but you started to pull the whole 'what it says in the book' crap.  This is what it actually says.  If you can roll a single success you have successfully performed an attack action.  It might not hit, but you haven't failed the obvious solution of 'move arm'.  Those of us arguing with you might not be completely right but if the rules in the book don't back you up don't say you were playing it how the book says you are supposed to.

Holden:

Everyone else: Quit beating up on the guy. This is the corebook's fault, not his. Neph (that rule is in Neph's chapter, right?) seems to have internalized that rule to the point where he failed to explicitly repeat it. This is a danger in using writers familiar with the previous edition to write the core rules for the new edition of any game. Now, I've never in my life until today seen someone misapply the rule that way, but that could very well just be that it never gets brought up. It's worth an errata clarification.

Alright?

This.

You're supposed to apply a measure of common sense logic to it, and the failure to include that proviso was deliberate. Given that you can perform miscellaneous actions in combat, there are absolutely times when the re-try penalty is appropriate. For example, your Twlight is trying to defuse the soulbreaker orb while his circlemates fend off the Abyssals sent to ensure it detonates.

If you attack and then the battle moves on (as it is wont to do), you're not repeating the same attack. There are a host of new variables making this one different: positioning, defense, etc. Meanwhile, the Twilight really is working on this same action (disarming), so retry penalties for failure are racking up as the countdown gets closer.

Make sense?

Holden:

It's worth an errata clarification.

Alright?

Yup ^_^

It is funny because the discussion here is (mostly) about RAW, and people are bringing RAi argument that are totally irrelevent (even if they are very good RAI arguments).
I particularly liked the "The Retry penalty obvious does not apply according to the Rules As Written, since we can reach the conclusion that they forgot to write it in this book". Yes, brilliant argument, since they forgot to write this rule, it is the Rule As (un)Written ! Quotiing other books can be a good RAI argument (especially 1E), but doesn't mean jack for RAW. In the end the interpretaion of DeathMatchfm is valid by the book, although it is not the only one that can be made. Trying the obvious solutions doesn't really apply in combat, and when both opponent's are missing there's no real reason to get frustrated (after all you're both on the starting line), so the GM can safely ignore this rule in combat without contradicting RAW.

Holden:

DMFM: I don't own a cell phone :p

I was annoyed when I wrote that.

BogMod:

Now then according to this we know that some actions will give you this penalty, and some will not or else the use of the words 'generally accrues' would be meaningless.  Now let us go check out the section on the Attack Roll on page 148.  What is this?  The attack roll has a difficulty of 1 and DV doesn't even come into this part of the calculation?  Well then by the way it says in the book the only time you would impose a success penalty on a player for not hitting someone is if they actually literally rolled 0 successes or botched their attack roll.  Now yes the quote I used is from you earlier on but you started to pull the whole 'what it says in the book' crap.  This is what it actually says.  If you can roll a single success you have successfully performed an attack action.  It might not hit, but you haven't failed the obvious solution of 'move arm'.  Those of us arguing with you might not be completely right but if the rules in the book don't back you up don't say you were playing it how the book says you are supposed to.

You've successfully twisted my words and used your Exalted-fu to take away any ground I had for why I made a mistake besides "I'm stupid."  Is that the point you were trying to prove?

Nephilpal:

Make sense?

That's why the retry penalty never got too bad in my games.  Usually people would be moving around, attacking with different weapons, attacking different people, or stunting and such.  I "reset" the penalty every time something changed.  Combat in my games usually isn't a stand still battle where one person isn't moving or stunting.  But yeah, I did put in the retry penalty for when people made the same standard attack actions over and over again.  My common sense logic said that it was fine.

Guys, seriously. 

I've had my share of tussles with DMFM, and believe you me, he and I would not be able to stand one another's games.  That said, he did exactly what the book said to do.  You can argue until your head turns blue that he "should have" interpreted that one way or another, but he followed the rules explicitly.

Technically, anyone NOT applying the retry penalty in combat is using a house rule.

Octopoid:

I've had my share of tussles with DMFM, and believe you me, he and I would not be able to stand one another's games.

I like you too.

Even if the rules support using the retry penalty during combat by RAW it is supremely easy to circumvent by describing trying something new with your attack on every stunt you make.

Incendax:

Even if the rules support using the retry penalty during combat by RAW it is supremely easy to circumvent by describing trying something new with your attack on every stunt you make.

As is what my players would do.

The retry penalty in combat could be an interesting place to go for a charm provided there's a means of resisting it.

-An MDV targeting taunt charm that leaves attackers frustrated until they spend (x) wp to resist.
-A "showing off" charm that only counts attacks as a failure if the attacker's actually rolling dice and failing to beat their DV (i.e. a step 2 perfect doesn't count)
-A dodge/parry charm that imposes the retry penalty on attacks against you, until the attacker notably changes tactics.

They'd need work of course.

Octopoid:

Technically, anyone NOT applying the retry penalty in combat is using a house rule.

Not exactly since given the description of the rule deciding it does not apply to attacks is a fair interpretation. The retry penalty should be used in combat for things other than attack though, like the defusing example.

But after reading this, I am beginning to think that used sparingly it can be a fun rule to use in combat, making the character move around and try different things, and making stunts more powerful. Since they are so many ways to get around it (fierce blow and other called shots, moving, flurrying a different number of attack ...) even for extra, it might add more fun than it creates problems.

Brain hurtzzz.....thread full of people claiming to use logic, when they sound like fox newscasters.

Death is right, logically. Logically everyone who doesn't use it is wrong.

But everyone can rest easy cause you can ignore it and act like you never noticed. Even though they's be wrong.

 The rest of the people who try to use logic in their argument failed. FAILED.
Go read a book.