[Solar System] Quick Questions Thread
Paul T:
Eero,
Thanks again for answering--you're laying it all out very clearly. And your points about the nature of the conflict and the Abilities are taken.
However, I was thinking about two situations in particular:
1. Two characters are BOTH seeking the high ground in a duel. For instance, there's a table in the room and they're both trying to climb onto it. It wouldn't really make sense for them both to get it, now would it?
2. A character encounters two characters fighting and wants to prevent one from hurting the other. So, yeah, he's opposing the action of one of those characters. But maybe both are his friends, and he's not sure yet who is in the right, and he doesn't want to Harm anyone, since he wants to keep the conflict from carrying on.
Those kind of sound like opposed actions that don't cause harm or defensive actions based on Abilities other than passive Abilities.
Is this a case of, "well, if it comes up in your game, and it makes sense, go for it", or would doing this be undermining the system somehow? In that case, what's a better way to handle it?
Eero Tuovinen:
Quote from: Paul T on October 03, 2008, 07:26:29 AM
1. Two characters are BOTH seeking the high ground in a duel. For instance, there's a table in the room and they're both trying to climb onto it. It wouldn't really make sense for them both to get it, now would it?
Generally speaking, when two characters act to overcome each other in an extended conflict, such a check is made for Harm - so as strange as it might seem, two characters wrestling for the table actually cause Harm to each other in the process; either they literally wrestle for it, or the Harm is just representational, the same way you'd get Harm in a running competition from being outran. In a running competition nobody is actually ever going to throw a punch at the other guy, and still Harm will accumulate all the same, representing whatever makes sense in the context. Exhaustion, probably.
Quote
2. A character encounters two characters fighting and wants to prevent one from hurting the other. So, yeah, he's opposing the action of one of those characters. But maybe both are his friends, and he's not sure yet who is in the right, and he doesn't want to Harm anyone, since he wants to keep the conflict from carrying on.
Interestingly enough, you can't actually prevent people from Harming one another without Harming them yourself. This is typical of this sort of rules-set (Vincent Baker even discusses this explicitly in Poison'd, I note), so nothing special there. If your opponent is hell-bent on his course, the only way to get him to stop is to force him out of the conflict with level 7 Harm.
In the actual situation, if you were trying to stop two people from fighting by throwing yourself between them or whatever, you'd be making an opposed check against them both, for Harm. The Harm would represent their humiliation or internal struggle or whatever the group find sensible. From then on the conflict would run its own way - you make checks to try to prevent the fighters from fighting, they perhaps turn against you or continue trying to fight against each other. Each round you try to stop them and they try to fight you'd all have to oppose each of the other two with your own checks, potentially suffering or causing Harm to both of the other parties. Ultimately the conflict could end with a great amount of Harm but no actual punches thrown, assuming that you win it - mechanically it's the same whether you're trying to prevent damage or cause it, it's all about causing Harm to force the other party to accede to your solution.
Quote
Those kind of sound like opposed actions that don't cause harm or defensive actions based on Abilities other than passive Abilities.
Is this a case of, "well, if it comes up in your game, and it makes sense, go for it", or would doing this be undermining the system somehow? In that case, what's a better way to handle it?
This is certainly a case where I would play it the way that makes sense to me. There is no major balance-based reason to not allow opposed actions for bonus dice. As I intimated earlier, the reason for why I like the rule about Defensive Actions is that it works for me, aesthetically, and thus it doesn't feel like a burden or annoyment to me. I imagine that if a given group doesn't share this aesthetic, they'll not only question the validity of the rule, but also tend to forget to utilize it at all - that's what happens to me with some of Clinton's rules!
Note, though, that even if you decide to allow opposed-for-bonus dice, I recommend not allowing the sort of action you imply with the example about a character going between fighting friends. The notion that you can't really force anybody to do or not do anything without going through the Harm mechanics is kinda important for preserving the protagonistic freedom of the player characters. Saying that my character "just stops the fight and makes sure nobody gets hurt" without actually matching my resources against the other player's, his Harm tracker included, is just bypassing the mechanics. Consider the Harm tracker not necessarily as violence in the fiction, but as a resource and a right possessed by the player of the character - as long as the other player has not actually exhausted my Harm tracker, I have the right to insist on this course of action my character is trying to undertake.
(Another way to say the same thing is that actions in extended conflict can't actually resolve the intents of the participating characters - you can't take a number of actions for bonus dice that necessarily lead into your own goal happening; as long as the other guy has his Harm track and wants to continue, he can push for the conflict to continue. In this sense any action that is made for bonus dice can't resolve anything about the intents of the characters.)
Paul T:
Great! Thanks again!
Simon JB:
Okay, a new question!
Effect pools, do they need to be assigned to one specific character pool and locked to it? When I want to put some more weight between my Negotiation (R) attempt, should I not be able to put my gun to my counterpart's head and use my Officer's Gear pool? If so, why would that be better?
Yours,
S
oliof:
Simon,
I don't understand your question correctly. Do you want to know if the pool of an effect has to line up with the pool of the ability you want it to use it to get bonus dice for?
I would say no; as was established earlier, Effect-for-Bonus-Dice is just a delayed supportive action, where this isn't needed either. An Effect's Pool is important for a) the initial Pool it's paid from; b) maintenance cost during refreshes; c) Secrets that may be limited by the Pool they affect.
Your example seems to be a standard supportive action case, maybe that is what confused me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page