[Solar System] Digressions from TSoY
Paul T:
Eero,
Sorry to bug you with all the questions, but the answers are so good, it's hard to stop.
Here's a thread for differences between Solar System and TSoY.
First question:
In TSoY, a tie during an extended conflict/BDtP means both parties get to change their intention. In Solar System, a tie means both have to spend a Pool point or give up the conflict.
Why did you make this change? And would it make sense to use both at the same time--spend a Pool point and change intentions?
Eero Tuovinen:
The positive reason - why I changed to this rule - is that I wanted to have more built-in Pool spends in the system, and I wanted ties to matter more mechanically, and not just in the fiction. There is a bit of whiff factor in how the dice mechanics work, especially when they're stressed with extreme conditions (very low Ability levels, high incidence of equipment ratings, etc.), and nothing helps that like putting in a solid mechanical impact when the characters tie. I could have gone with a level 1 Harm easily enough, too, but the Pool economy could use some tightening up, too, as I said, and extra sources of Harm are not needed in the circles I usually play in - players get plenty of Harm out of stuff, especially when I remember to apply it as conflict stakes.
The negative reason - why I changed the rule at all - is far simpler: I just used the old rule so rarely in practice that I considered it proven unnecessary. (I can say that because the booklet is supposed to represent how I play today, not any sort of universal truth.) There are a few other details like that in there where I simply switched to a more interesting rule because I never ended up using the old one. Taking a stab at a reason for why we never used the rule, I think it's just because changing intents is most of the time irrelevant, but mandatory when you need it - so nobody is going to need a "free" change of intent when they can pay the small opportunity cost of getting one whenever they actually need it.
--
As for using both rules at the same time, I wouldn't, but that's just because I like the opportunity cost involved in changing intents. There is no mechanical reason not to use the rules both at the same time if you find it apt and aesthetically pleasing.
oliof:
Wow. And I thought the whole discussion how ties also stand for unexpected turns of events were in line with the old rule, even encouraging the GM to provide reason and the players to act accordingly … although intent never is mentioned at all since that simply wanders off into negotiation-land.
Or am I mixing things up?
Eero Tuovinen:
No, that is relevant. The idea is that I find it good SGing practice to change the conditions when a tie occurs - it's such a good idea that I've made Secrets that trigger effects on ties, even.
"Changing conditions" is code-speak for encouraging changing intentions; the SG provokes conditions that might or might not require players to switch either goals or Abilities their characters use to reach those goals, shaking up the conflict.
But this is not a rules-issue, but rather SGing advice. A matter of technique.
Paul T:
Excellent!
Thank you.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page