Started by Arturo G., July 24, 2008, 03:03:10 PM
QuoteHugh McMinn has seized the Dagger and is charging His Majesty's Ship the Resolute. "The Resolute is firing at us, right?" his player says. "I want to fight at broadsides not at range. So I can endure duress on behalf of the Dagger for sucking up all those cannonballs, right, to close?"Right, absolutely. Enduring duress instead of fighting back will let the Dagger close to broadsides, sure. But first you'll be going into danger, as you come into range of the Resolute's guns."Oh," says Hugh McMinn's player. "That's not great. My devil vs ambition isn't good."This is always going to end in a fight - he's charging the fucking Resolute, after all. If the players win all their success rolls, that doesn't mean that they can keep making success rolls until they fail one - keep charging the resolute never reaching it. No, it just means that the fight gets to develop naturally within the fiction, and that means that the players get a full hand in setting its terms. It's not a failed success roll that calls for you to use the fighting rules, it's the fact of a fight.But let's say that, in fact, she blows the roll.A failed success roll means that you get to bring the fight now. You get to elide or preempt whatever other opportunities the players' pirates might have expected or hoped for. So, fantastic! Poor Hugh McMinn just cares too much about his own hide and his own future. He flinches where the sailing master can see, and the sailing master turns the ship, and the gunnery crew opens up, and now they're fighting at range, where it's the Resolute's fight instead of their own.
Quote from: Arturo G. on July 24, 2008, 03:47:04 PMQuestion: The Dagger's captain looked for the enemy dying captain and offered him a bargain to save his life. I never thought on that. Is it possible for the pirates to save NPCs from their deadly wounds bargaining? I suppose it is.
QuoteQuestion: I decided this was murderous enough for a new sin. But all characters had previous murder sins, one of them even two times. When you say in the rules that Devil goes up one point when they commit a "new" sin, does this kind of repetition count? I said yes, so they increased their devils.
QuoteI decided that the plunder was equivalent to plundering a merchant, and it worth 2 dice, the first two Leisure points obtained were provisions and fresh water enough to eliminate the cruel fortune.
Quote from: lumpley on July 25, 2008, 12:07:59 PMQuoteI decided that the plunder was equivalent to plundering a merchant, and it worth 2 dice, the first two Leisure points obtained were provisions and fresh water enough to eliminate the cruel fortune.Making the Resolute be worth 2 dice' plunder makes sense to me. I think you may have counted and spent leisure wrong - sum the two dice (don't count successes), and it costs 3 leisure to eliminate want, 3 leisure to eliminate wear & breakage, and so on - but for a single session's play I'm sure it didn't matter.
Quote from: lumpley on July 25, 2008, 12:07:59 PMI'm also sure I missed some of your questions. Point them out to me?
QuoteYour ship pursuing anotherFor your ship escaping another's pursuit, turn these around.1. Falling behind, vs engaging your quarry at its captain's choice of range; to2. Foundering and losing your quarry, vs engaging your quarry at a range chosen randomly; to3. Foundering your ship to wear & breakage, vs engaging your quarry at your choice of range.
Quote from: Arturo G. on July 25, 2008, 06:07:44 PMThis also reminds me another thing that I did not know how to solve during the play. When they finally killed the enemy captain, Ponzoña failed again the "hurt helpless" roll. At that moment I didn't know what to do. It was too stupid to bring another fight again, or to ask for a reroll. Thus, I decided to transform it (with all the players approval) in an automatic action. But now I think it was a mistake. The rules work perfectly for this case. If he fails, he is not brutal enough to kill the helpless captain. Thus, he can not do it (hesitates, looks for an excuse to avoid doing it himself, whatever). What do you think? Does it makes sense?
Quote from: Arturo G. on July 24, 2008, 03:47:04 PMWe were discussing after playing about the no-fight scenes. We think that there is some disconnection from the sins,ambitions,sufferings and the fiction. There are two layers in between: They are transformed in scores, then the scores are transformed in opposed rolls for the four types of conflicts.
QuoteIt happen also with the ship and crew descriptors. Their impact on the fiction can be recreated retroactively. The mechanics are easy and cute, but at the end a little disconnected from the nice descriptors. I was using them in the fiction during and after the fight, but there is no help in the rules about how to use them.
QuoteAnother somehow related question. We were having troubles to remember which stats to roll for each of the four types of conflicts to get Xs. I don't know why, but during play they were not so obvious. We think that it would be much easier to derive some kind of single score for each of the four types of conflicts, which may be used directly. It will also help the new players to remember what can they do (e.g. the four types of things for which you have a score in this part of the sheet).
QuoteThe escalation mechanism seem a little confusing at certain points. Sometimes the outcomes you want from a fight are not exactly what the fight seems to provide in the escalation levels. Like in The Dagger's flight. The winning side should have the opportunity to give-up if the other side is escalating to a level they don't like.
QuoteI was also surprised that during the play there was no deadly wounds for player characters. Thus, no bargains.
Quote from: lumpley on July 26, 2008, 01:06:26 PMIf it's the disconnect I think you mean, it's on purpose - essential to the design, in fact. It's quite possible that committing more sins, suffering more violence, fulfilling or abandoning your ambitions, will have absolutely no effect on the game's fiction. It's also quite possible that those will be the only thing that really matters. The disconnect allows the rules to leave it up to the game in play, a product of both randomness and the group's human creativity, to determine which. This is intimately related to the rules for leaving play, by the way, and follows Sorcerer's lead very closely.
QuoteThis one though, yeah, it's kind of too bad. I just couldn't figure out a way for the size of a crew (for instance) to matter differently than its relatively bloodthirstiness (for instance).
QuoteThat's why it's called Brinksmanship! Winning is the more dangerous position. I love that effect with all my little heart.
Quote from: Arturo G. on July 28, 2008, 05:10:05 AMA minor observation. In the escalation sidebars: Sword and gun fights say that the loser is under the power (or submitted to the will) of the winner. Is it not also true for Fist and Knife fights? Or does the loser of fist/knife fights have the possibility to draw a sword or get a pistol and "escalated" to the really dangerous kind of fights?I mention it because I would say it is an important rule of the fight. You always fight for something. At least one of my players was worry about not finding the consequences of the different levels of escalation really relevant for many possible situations, because he was missing the "submitted to the winner will" point.
Quote from: lumpley on July 28, 2008, 09:52:01 AMThe solution is bargains. Use fighting as a threat and a punishment, and use bargains to get what you want.The sword-at-their-throat or gun-to-their-head is really just a strong bargaining position anyway.