*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 23, 2019, 08:47:19 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 158 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Author Topic: Covering Your Bases  (Read 6560 times)
hix
Member

Posts: 531

Steve Hickey


« on: August 26, 2003, 11:41:28 AM »

Complications played a big part in our second session of Uni last night. However, at one point, one of the players controlled both a component that was building a dice pool for the Originator and a component that was building a dice pool because it was 'aligned' with the Target.

In effect, he received coins no matter which side won the complication.

Because the pace of the game was so fast last night, we agreed that although it didn't seem right, we'd let it slide just for that session (and take advantage of it ourselves). Does anybody have any thoughts on this loophole?

Cheers,
Steve
Logged

Cheers,
Steve

Gametime: a New Zealand blog about RPGs
Valamir
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 5574


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2003, 09:31:39 AM »

Hmmm, well i was hoping some of good forum folks would jump in and help hix out with this.  

Generally in Universalis I tried to be very explicit about what and how things happen and when, leaving plenty of room for groups to alter to their liking but having a "default" answer for everything.

This issue however, I did not succeed in doing that.  Complications probably underwent the most evolution and revolution of any of the rules during development.  It certainly was the part we banged our heads against the most.  

The way its "supposed" to work is that each complication has identifiable sides, and every players die pool can support only 1 of those sides.  The side may be just a single players pool, or many players may combine their successes for determining the winner of a particular Complication, but count them seperately for purposes of spending the Coins.

Where it gets a little squirly is when there are numerous Components present involved in the Complication and the same player owns Components which would naturally seem to be on opposing sides.

There are a couple of tricks one can use at this point.

1) don't let this happen.  Since Control can be taken for a Coin during any player's turn, make sure that if its your intention to represent a "side" in a soon to be started Complication, that you take Control of the "allied" Components first.  

2) What happens if some of the Components you need wind up still in the Control of another player?  Chances are they'll activate the Traits for free bonus dice and declare the Component to have joined your side.  If they have the Component join the enemy side, you can always Challenge this per the normal rules.

3) What happens if the player controls Components that would be on two different sides and has already activated 1 of them and declared for the enemy?...your situation above.  This causes a bit of a problem.  I don't like the solution of playing both sides (although I applaud you for just winging the ruling during the game in order to keep playing) because that essentially turns Complications into a guarenteed payoff.  

Well, assuming #1 isn't an option any longer I see three possibilities.

a) let it go.  Whatever Traits that Component had just don't get used in the current Complication for whatever reason.  

b) that player gives up Control voluntarily.  Believe it or not its a fairly common occurance *before* a Complication starts to ask someone else to take control of a Component from you so as to enable a Complicaton to occur.  Doing that at the beginning of a Complication to avoid the above problem would seem acceptable.  From a "gamey" perspective it might not be a completely desireable solution, since you'd be essentially giving additional dice to your opponent.

c) a rules gimmick solution.  For instance.  "I pay one Coin and take Control of that Component away from you because it should rightly be helping my side".  This technically breaks the rules which say Control doesn't change hands during a Complication, but then that's what Gimmicks are for.  If no one Challenges your Gimmick, boom.  Its yours.  If someone (such as the current owner) does Challenge your Gimmick and has the Coins to make it stick, a little creative negotiation may be in order.  Such as "Give me control of the Component so that I can use the Traits for additional successes, and I'll give you half of the bonus Coins those dice generate"  I get the benefit of rolling the extra successes to help me win, and the other party gets some of the free dice from the Traits that otherwise they wouldn't get.

This section is not one of the most clear sections in the rules unfortuneatly.

Anyone else have any solutions you've found.

Anyone found that they like the idea of players being able to play both sides in the same Complication?
Logged

Mike Holmes
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 10459


« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2003, 01:44:44 PM »

Quote
In effect, he received coins no matter which side won the complication.
The way I feel about this is that, if a player Originates a complication, then he ought to stay on his side. It's not legit to create a Complication and then activate Components on both sides. "Control" for purposes of Challenges, really only pertains to what side you can be on if you are the player with the originating component, or the player with the target. Everyone else is free to jump in however they want, IMO.

All players participating are going to get Coins anyhow. It's just a matter of how many. So there's no problem being on both sides. I call it hedging your bets. Yes, you'll be more certain to get some more Coins than you would if you lost, but less than if you'd spent them all on just one side and won. So I have no problem with it.

Look at it this way. If I go against you, and you help the Target resist, but also spend some Coins on my side, well, you're just making me more likely to get more Coins. So, it's all good by me. Control, as I see it, is only important in making sure that each "side" has an advocate. Beyond that, it's open season.

Another case that happens, is that a player will decide not to "defend" his controlled Target (or, more rarely, the Originator decides not to fuel the conflict on his side). Still, not really an issue. The other side wins, and gets Coins to resolve. The side not participating just loses out on his chance at some free Coins.

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
hix
Member

Posts: 531

Steve Hickey


« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2003, 03:53:12 PM »

Thanks for the feedback. I think I can see three options now. All of them rely on the essential point that the Originator and the Target of the Complication have to dedicate themselves to their own side.

So the first option is to follow Mike's idea and let everybody else hedge their bets. Cool, but it led me to wonder what happens to components the Originator controls that should naturally be supporting the Target in the story (or vice versa)? Are they frozen, unable to participate?

Ralph suggested:

Quote
c) a rules gimmick solution. For instance. "I pay one Coin and take Control of that Component away from you because it should rightly be helping my side". This technically breaks the rules which say Control doesn't change hands during a Complication, but then that's what Gimmicks are for. If no one Challenges your Gimmick, boom. Its yours.


After long thought, a third (and probably more 'gamey') option occured to me. As soon as you declare for either the Target or the Originator of the complication, the components you own (that would naturally support the other side) become uncontrolled and go into the centre of the table. That means anyone who wants those components to support their dice pool in the Complication can pay them.

I suspect this creates a more tactical, less story oriented version of Complications. We'd be weighing up which side will give us more benefits - and the costs involved in letting powerful Components that support the other side of a complication get bought for one coin.

Does the idea of letting Components go uncontrolled like this violate something fundamental in Universalis?

Steve
Logged

Cheers,
Steve

Gametime: a New Zealand blog about RPGs
Tony Irwin
Member

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2003, 12:48:31 AM »

Quote from: Steve
After long thought, a third (and probably more 'gamey') option occured to me. As soon as you declare for either the Target or the Originator of the complication, the components you own (that would naturally support the other side) become uncontrolled and go into the centre of the table. That means anyone who wants those components to support their dice pool in the Complication can pay them.

I suspect this creates a more tactical, less story oriented version of Complications. We'd be weighing up which side will give us more benefits - and the costs involved in letting powerful Components that support the other side of a complication get bought for one coin.

Does the idea of letting Components go uncontrolled like this violate something fundamental in Universalis?

Steve


Hey Steve, my understanding is that every component (regardless of whether its controlled or not) still is up for grabs until the person controlling it uses one of its traits to buy a dice (or negate someone else's dice) in the conflict.

So if someone hasn't commited a component to the conflict in this way then you can try and take control of it as normal. Also this means that the other players can still spend coins to take em back immeadiately. So there's already an interesting kind of tactical element in terms of "How many potential dice is this component worth to me, compared to the number of coins I'll need to spend to get control of it" When you factor in also the question of whether you're cheaper creating some new components that have really powerful master components attatched to them, then you have several tactical choices to make at many different points during the conflict.
Logged
Mike Holmes
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 10459


« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2003, 05:27:17 AM »

Quote from: hix
Thanks for the feedback. I think I can see three options now. All of them rely on the essential point that the Originator and the Target of the Complication have to dedicate themselves to their own side.

So the first option is to follow Mike's idea and let everybody else hedge their bets. Cool, but it led me to wonder what happens to components the Originator controls that should naturally be supporting the Target in the story (or vice versa)? Are they frozen, unable to participate?
No, their traits are activated by people on the "right" side of the conflict. If I'm on the Target side, and the Originator controls Bob, who is sympathetic to the Target, I can activate Bob's traits to help.

That's key. Traits don't belong to anyone. Anyone can activate anyone else's Traits on their side of the Complication. Be it a wound on the opponent, or the Strength Trait of an ally. The only limit on this is that if you activate something unbelievable, it ought to be Challenged. But that's just the normal rule, not an exception.

Quote
After long thought, a third (and probably more 'gamey') option occured to me. As soon as you declare for either the Target or the Originator of the complication, the components you own (that would naturally support the other side) become uncontrolled and go into the centre of the table. That means anyone who wants those components to support their dice pool in the Complication can pay them.
Do you see how this is unneccessary? They are all in the center of the table. The only thing that the Complication does is to lock ownbership so that pools can't shift (the logic being that if I took the Target, that I might get the pool, or the results of the roll or something), and that two players are on opposing sides of the conflict in question. Control does not mean that only you can Activate the Traits on that Component. Only that you may be "stuck" on a side if you have Control of a Target (or, of course, the Component that's the source of the Complication).

So, Tony, no, all Components are always in somebody's Control, and locked when in a Complication (try it without this rule sometime if you want to risk spraining your brain). You can create new Components that, of course, start under your Control, and this happens all the time. But you can't Take Over any Components. But that really doesn't matter, because, as I've pointed out, anyone can activate any Trait, as long as it hasn't already been activated (and I've seen Gimmicks allow Traits to be activated for both sides, actually).

As a "tactical" note, since people don't like to get into Challenges unless things are abusive, try to steal all of your opponents Traits for your pool. If there's a fight, and your character is Clever, and the opponent Smart, then activate your Clever, and say that your character is using a ploy to turn the opponent's intelligence against him. As long as you state it plausibly, you'll "capture" your opponent's die without Challenge. The more you do this the less free Traits your opponent will have to come back at you with.

So, yes, there is a sort of "tactical" element. But as long as players are able to Challenge to keep things story oriented, it doesn't get out of hand. It just becomes very interesting. I've seen people activate all sorts of what would be thought of as "positive" Traits in most games in pools that are Targeting the characters who have these Traits. Which just means that each Trait is that much more interesting and multi-faceted. It's a great part of the game. Using it makes for better stories, IME, so don't feel guilty about it seeming "tactical".

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Valamir
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 5574


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2003, 06:24:12 AM »

Quote
No, their traits are activated by people on the "right" side of the conflict. If I'm on the Target side, and the Originator controls Bob, who is sympathetic to the Target, I can activate Bob's traits to help.

That's key. Traits don't belong to anyone. Anyone can activate anyone else's Traits on their side of the Complication. Be it a wound on the opponent, or the Strength Trait of an ally. The only limit on this is that if you activate something unbelievable, it ought to be Challenged. But that's just the normal rule, not an exception.


That is the key.  I see if I can find a page reference for it tonight.

A simple example.  You control "big Bruiser", I control "little scared guy".
You round up all the dice that would help you kick my butt.  I round up all the dice that would help me avoid getting my butt kicked in whatever fashion I'm opposing the complication with.  Say in this case BB is trying to kick my butt and I want to run away.

I remember that earlier in the story BB was shot in the leg by "rival gangster guy" and now has a "Shot in Leg x2" Trait.  I activate BB's "Shot in the Leg x2" Trait...even though you control BB...because that Trait would clearly help LSG run away successfully.
Logged

Tony Irwin
Member

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2003, 06:47:51 AM »

Quote
So, Tony, no, all Components are always in somebody's Control, and locked when in a Complication (try it without this rule sometime if you want to risk spraining your brain). You can create new Components that, of course, start under your Control, and this happens all the time. But you can't Take Over any Components. But that really doesn't matter, because, as I've pointed out, anyone can activate any Trait, as long as it hasn't already been activated (and I've seen Gimmicks allow Traits to be activated for both sides, actually).


Eeeps! We thought that anyone can take control of a component that hasn't been committed yet? (either by having a trait activated, or also if its one of the two key components that started it). The stuff you wrote about using traits to capture opponent's traits is really smart - something I haven't thought about before. Want to try it out in our next game (hopefully a week on saturday).

The reason I've found the control during a conflict to be a big tactical issue is that we tend to have lots of different characters in each story with no clear sense of "sides" until near the end. The more complicated the better ;-) So unless all the characters are really fleshed out with relationship facts its often not immeadiately clear which side some of them would take in some of our conflicts.

For example the mysterious man in black suit and shades, who seems to be working for the town council, but also seems to be working against them. If he has a lot dice-buying traits then we'll all fight for control of him in a conflict.

The other reason we've played it like that is that you need control of a component in order to give it traits (without causing a complication - and a complication within a complication is nightmarish) so we'll scramble to control "sitting on the fence" type components that we can pump up with new traits during the conflict.

Quote
As a "tactical" note, since people don't like to get into Challenges unless things are abusive, try to steal all of your opponents Traits for your pool. If there's a fight, and your character is Clever, and the opponent Smart, then activate your Clever, and say that your character is using a ploy to turn the opponent's intelligence against him. As long as you state it plausibly, you'll "capture" your opponent's die without Challenge. The more you do this the less free Traits your opponent will have to come back at you with.


This is really impressive, I want to start trying it. Can you clarify it a bit for me though? Does it work with you activating your own component's trait, saying that your "Clever" component is using the opponent's component's intelligence against them, and then later when the opponent tries to activate "Smart" you can now challenge them? Is that what you mean? So rather than just cancelling one of their dice with your trait (which is how I've played it up till now), you're buying a dice and simultaneously ensuring they can't activate their trait for a dice in the future?
Logged
Valamir
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 5574


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2003, 08:52:08 AM »

There's no reason not to continue to do it that way, Tony.  Technically speaking its a Rules Gimmick / House Rule.  But if it works, certainly don't stop doing it.  As I said in the first post, the section on what actually goes on around the table during a Complication is the least tightly written part in the book.
Logged

Mike Holmes
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 10459


« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2003, 09:10:20 AM »

I'm not being clear somehow, but I'm not sure the source of the confusion. It seems so simple to me... :-)

Hmmm. I'll try to make some points.

First, when a Component is introduced to a Scene whether it was just created, or it was already extant and just put into the Scene, the player who introduced it has Control. This remains constant until:

a. The Scene ends, or
b. Another player takes control.

so all Components are always in Control by somebody. When a Complication begins, the only thing that changes in terms of Control, is that players can't perform Take Overs. Whoever Controls a Component does so til the end of the Complication. One can bring Components into being during a Complication, but then they have Control of that until the end of the Complication. So there are never Uncontrolled Components available for taking.

Second, Control doesn't matter in terms of what Traits you can activate. Not at all. If you have Control of a Guy named Bud, with a Trait of Strong, and I have Control of a Guy named Jeb and he's shooting at Bud, I can activate Guy's Quick Trait to get a die for Jeb's pool. Now, if I can't explain why that makes sense, you'll likely Challenge it. But there's nothing besides the threat of a Challenge that prevents me from activating any of the Traits of a character that you control.

So, to answer your questions, all my "technique" is saying is that I'm using my character's Trait activation to explain why it makes sense for me to activate your Trait. So, in the above example, if Guy has Clever as a Trait, and I say, "I activate Guy's Clever for a die. He's trying to trick Jeb into coming out from behind his cover by playing on the fact that he knows that Jeb is Quick and will come out therefore if goaded. So I take a die for Quick as well."

That's a thin example, but it shows what I mean. At this point you look at what I've done, taking a die for the Clever Trait, and another for the Quick Trait, and you ask yourself if it sounds kosher. If it does, you'll let me get away with it. If not, then you'll Challenge. Ralph would Challenge.

The point is that I can use any excuse that I can manufacture to come up with why the opponent's Traits should count for my pool. Some are obvious, like wounds. But a creative player can use all sorts of ways to get the opponents's Traits. As another example, I could have paid for a die saying that there was a lot of slippery mud, making your Quick a liability. So I can capture your dice thusly.

Lastly, any Trait can only be activated once per Complication. So if I activate the Trait of a character that you Control, then you can't then use it yourself. So by turning Quick against you, I not only get a die, but prevent you from saying "My character is Quick, so he'll probably be able to dodge well."

This is why it's so effective. What I'm saying is that if you get to a Trait before your opponent does, then you prevent him from figuring out a use for it himself. Against more experienced players, I often Interrupt during Complications just so that I can get some obvious Traits on my side. Some players will Interrupt back, but this quickly becomes inefficient as it costs the same just to add a die without a Trait. But it can get really interesting and tense waiting for your turn to see what's left to pick over.

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Valamir
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 5574


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2003, 10:21:12 AM »

Quote
Ralph would Challenge


Yes he would :-)
But the principle is sound.  

It actually flows quite well into the game's self balancing mechanic.

consider:
1) I spend all my Coins in a flurry of activity
2) I then begin a Complication for the primary purpose of using a bunch of Traits for free dice to generate a bunch of bonus Coins which I intend to pocket.
3) But, someone like Mike, who still has enough Coins to interrupt me, does so and activates most of my Traits against me in the Complication leaves me likely losing the Complication and not generating nearly enough free dice to make up for what I spent.
4) So given that I've now discovered that Complications are not always automatic Coin refreshers, I now must be more cautious about when and how I spend them.
Logged

Mike Holmes
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 10459


« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2003, 10:43:08 AM »

Quote
But, someone like Mike, who still has enough Coins to interrupt me, does so and activates most of my Traits against me in the Complication leaves me likely losing the Complication and not generating nearly enough free dice to make up for what I spent.


Heh, heh, heh. Who, me?

The really bastard move is to just wait like a vulture until the thing has been really built up, and then do a Take Over of it just before the obvious Complication (especially easy if the player blows all their Coins on their new purchase, and can't spend to buy it back) and do the Complication yourself. This leads to smart players making Components, starting Complications, and then adding Traits to them in the Complication. If this seems like it's being abused, then go with the Bob McNamee Trait Gimmick that says that Traits added during Complications cost double. :-)

OTOH, some people like the idea of Traits only showing up during conflict.

BTW, another reason to get all your free activations done ASAP in a Complication is that, even if your opponent can't activate them against you reasonably, third parties will bogart them for themselves. Nothing worse than forgetting a very applicable Trait, and then having the player on your left activate it on your side for free. Missed opportunities.

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Tony Irwin
Member

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2003, 05:11:28 AM »

Quote
This is why it's so effective. What I'm saying is that if you get to a Trait before your opponent does, then you prevent him from figuring out a use for it himself. Against more experienced players, I often Interrupt during Complications just so that I can get some obvious Traits on my side. Some players will Interrupt back, but this quickly becomes inefficient as it costs the same just to add a die without a Trait. But it can get really interesting and tense waiting for your turn to see what's left to pick over.

Mike


Geez I want to try that out! This has been really useful to me - it dawned on me yesterday that the only people I've every played Universalis with, are people who I taught how to play. Hope I haven't been passing on my misconceptions. I'm getting a lot of insight from this thread.

Quote
so all Components are always in Control by somebody. When a Complication begins, the only thing that changes in terms of Control, is that players can't perform Take Overs. Whoever Controls a Component does so til the end of the Complication. One can bring Components into being during a Complication, but then they have Control of that until the end of the Complication. So there are never Uncontrolled Components available for taking.


Sorry, I should have explained what I meant better: any components in the Scene that aren't targeting or being targeted in the Complication are uncommitted yeah? And any uncommitted Component can be taken over by anyone at any point (it becomes committed the minute the player activates a trait to add/deplete a dice to a dice pool). That gets a lot of play in our games as we tend to have big jumbles of relationships so its never clear which side any component would take. All players can usually justify a Take Over for their side of the Complication.

Am I on the right track with this?

Whole fellowship is in the scene, Tony controls them all. Tony pays for an event saying Frodo drops the ring and Boromir picks it up. Mike immeadiately pays a coin to take over Boromir which creates a complication. Frodo and Boromir are committed already, but the rest of the Fellowship are currently uncommitted (not targets in the complication and haven't yet activated any traits for dice pools) and so available for Take Overs from out of Tony's control.


--------------------
Edited for spelling
Logged
Mike Holmes
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 10459


« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2003, 10:56:56 AM »

Quote from: Tony Irwin
Geez I want to try that out! This has been really useful to me - it dawned on me yesterday that the only people I've every played Universalis with, are people who I taught how to play. Hope I haven't been passing on my misconceptions.
Hey, thats RPGs. I wouldn't sweat it if you're having fun. :-)

That said, I think you've got Complications sorta mixed up. When a Complication starts, Control of all Components, not just those that are the the source of the Complication and the Target (though these are the only ones that really matter), are locked in place. No Take Overs can occur once a Comlication starts until it ends.

That said, there's nothing functionally different about what you're doing in terms of Control (the rule is only to make things simpler). But what's important is that Control doesn't mean anything in terms of who can activate a Trait. So changing Control is very much not neccessary.

Quote
Whole fellowship is in the scene, Tony controls them all. Tony pays for an event saying Frodo drops the ring and Boromir picks it up. Mike immeadiately pays a coin to take over Boromir which creates a complication. Frodo and Boromir are committed already, but the rest of the Fellowship are currently uncommitted (not targets in the complication and haven't yet activated any traits for dice pools) and so available for Take Overs from out of Tony's control.
In the example, I Control Boromir, and you Control everyone else. This is locked at the start of th e Complication, and cannot change until it's over. But that's just for determining who "owns" what pool, etc. It doesn't matter in terms of Traits. I can activate Aragorn's "Destiny to be King" Trait, despite your Control, and if unchallenged, it ends up in my pool for my side of the Complication.

There is no such thing as an "Uncontrolled" Component in a Scene. Never happens (well, I recenly started to use a Gimmick that does exactly this for very different reasons; but speaking in terms of the default rules). Complications do not cause Components to become uncontrolled or uncommitted, or any such thing.

But, again, that matters not in terms of Traits. This is very important. Let's say that I then want to Activate Frodo's "Morgul Woundx2" Trait to add to my side's pool. That doesn't "commit" Frodo to my side, it only means that his Trait is working in my favor. You can then subsequently activate his "Loyal to the Questx4" Trait to add to your pool. Control doesn't matter in these terms, and, in fact, doesn't really matter for purposes of the Complication.

The one effect is that I can't add a new Trait to Frodo, and then activate it, as this would require Control. But that's not really important. If I had really wanted Frodo in my Control in order to add Traits, I would have done a Take Over before the Complication began. Your method allows this on the fly, but

The reason for the locking rule is so that I don't take Control of Frodo, and then have a philosphical question about what should happen to your pool, and what you represent. Leaving Frodo "on the table" in front of you indicates what side your pool represents. That's the only reason for the rule. Other than that Control really doesn't matter, and so it wouldn't make a difference if you swapped characters. The dice would still go to the "appropriate" pool anyhow. So why allow it at that point with all the attendant confusion?

OK, does that finally explain it?

Your method works fine, actually. But it's just likely to become confusing trying to keep track of who owns what. And it's unneccessary, because the important part, who has the dice, doesn't depend on Control.

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Tony Irwin
Member

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2003, 08:11:40 AM »

Sorry to drag this one out again! Many thanks for such detailed replies. I was rooting through the rule book trying to locate the passage where I'm getting all this from:

Chapter 6 Complications, page 64

Committed Components and Takeovers
Take Overs work essentially the same as described in Chapter 3, with the following restriction. During a Complication, Components that have been committed to the Complication are not available to be Taken Over. This rule is there to avoid the bizarre effects that could result from Components changing hands in the middle of a complication.

Committed Components include: Any Componet that is an identified Target of the Complication, any Component that has been identified as the source of the Complication, and any Component that has already had at least 1 Trait Drawn from it to add dice to a Dice Pool.


So from the way I read that if my event is only targetting Frodo and Boromir then they are the only ones committed to the complication. The rest of the fellowship is up for grabs, and player can pay to Take them Over from me, until they become committed through activating Traits?

---------
edit: it must seem like I'm ignoring everything you write and just typing out the same question again regardless. I guess my question for this post is have I interpreted this text wrongly, and if not should I regard it as errated?

... in which case expect a truckload of more questions about how you folks are running complications! I think I can see the point you're making - if anyone can activate any trait it doesn't really matter who controls the components, but I'm stumbling when I try to visualise this in my games.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!