New rules for BDTP and Harm
oliof:
Hi Corvus,
one last question:
Quote
stealing and fighting are different types of goals, so not allowed in one BDTP.
I never interpreted the rules that way. Where did you get that from?
Eero Tuovinen:
That passage refers to his new system, Harald. It requires a conflict to have a predetermined conflict arena that determines the sort of Abilities you need to use in the conflict.
Corvus69:
this thread is most helpful to me. I will definitely play BDTP differently now.
the most enlightning thing:
Quote
because the fiction is used in full force to constrain the possible means that are used to achieve the goals. Thus you can have both stealing and fighting tasks in one conflict, but only when it makes sense in the fiction. The first round of the conflict might feature a character sneaking in to steal the king's crown, say, and when he fails the second round turns into violence. As that doesn't go so well for the thief, he tries negotiation on the third round. In each case we're resolving tasks that, when taken together and being consequence-enforced by the rules, ultimately resolve the conflict.
I considered BTDP *more abstract* than it really is. I need to focus on task resolution in each round.
I think the Solar system needs tons of examples in the rules, because there is so much behind them.
Quote
I never interpreted the rules that way. Where did you get that from?
its not in original rules. :) thats new possible rule: "Fighty Goals for Fighting Conflicts"
any ideas about Harm with simplified penalty dice rules and no shakedown?
Eero Tuovinen:
Quote from: Corvus69 on January 30, 2009, 06:17:22 AM
any ideas about Harm with simplified penalty dice rules and no shakedown?
This is a question I can get behind. I've been iddly thinking about a simplified version of the Solar System rules, and a simplified Harm system would certainly be part of that. I'd probably switch out the Fudge dice too, though, so anything I came up on that plank would be pretty different from the current rules.
My first take for simplified Harm would be to have Harm become a pool of penalty dice that increases with harmful actions. By default the Harm pool would empty as the penalty dice all go against the next action of the character in question, but the opponent could perhaps cause "modal shifts" to happen to the penalty pool in some manner. This would then translate the penalty dice currently in the pool into permanent penalty dice, stay-up checks, an outright Ability penalty and such. The character would be forced out of conflict if he failed a stay-up check.
Hmm... perhaps the Harm pool a character accrues would turn into different sorts of difficulties based on the conditions. Something like this:
Each time a character would be Harmed in the BDTP rules he instead collects the Harm as a penalty dice pool that is set aside. So the dice accrue from turn to turn.Each time a character acts against another in BDTP and the opponent has a penalty dice pool, that opposing character's player gets to choose to use the Harm pool as penalty dice on the harmed character's check. Perhaps this has to be before the check, but maybe it's even more evil to allow it afterwards. This way it's up to each opponent to decide which checks they force the Harmed character to fail.If a character has more Harm dice in his Harm pool than a current Pool value, he can only use the Passive Ability out of that Pool. If a character in this situation takes the defensive action (perhaps forced by the conditions, or because all of his Pools currently lose to his Harm), it doubles as a stay-up check: if the character fails his defensive action (which may have Harm dice inflicted if an opponent is harassing the character at the moment), he is forced out of the conflict.Perhaps the opponents can also force some sort of conversions for the accruing Harm pool and other resources. I'm considering some sort of "crippling attacks" that can be attempted when the Harm pool is high enough; it'd empty the Harm pool and cause some permanent conditions. The specific condition I have in mind is causing a one level penalty to all Ability checks. Although Ability penalties are normally not used in the system, this seems sort of necessary here, for otherwise a character with a Grandmaster Passive Ability couldn't be forced out of conflict at all by the stay-up check. Also, another reason to have crippling attacks or some similar modal shifts is that conflicts might potentially drag out otherwise.If the character still has Harm pool left after the conflict, the Pool remains with him. Likewise the SG may set Harm consequences on normal conflicts just like always. Harm pool may be healed with Pool points (1:1, I imagine) or Ability check healing (heals the check result in Harm dice) just like normal. The limitation on not being able to attempt Ability checks out of weak Pools when Harmed would stay in force outside extended conflict as well, I imagine.
Not bad, even if I say so myself. Might work with my simplified Fudge-less version of the rules, even. Have to try this out at some point when I'm playing something that would benefit from a simpler system with less special rules. Of course this system still has rules, but at least there's no need to remember the Harm tracker and associated penalties.
dindenver:
Eero,
That is a LOT of penalty dice. I don't know abuot your games, but in my games, I don't think my players could overcome the penalty dice generated by a 4 harm attack. But they could handle the penalty dice generated by a 4 harm attack in the old system. I think the creates a really powerful death spiral. If I am reading your correctly.
And it doesn't really change the record keeping burden. I mean, it is easier to track a pool of dice, then to remember that one time when you need to make a Vigor roll and you have to do a one time penalty die. But you still have to track harm and penalty dice.
There are two other possible approaches you could use to reduce actual record keeping
1) Keep the harm track, but replace the one time penalty dice with removing a point from the relevant pool. The advantage of this is, you still have "7" as a meaningful amount of harm. The disadvantage is the recordkeeping is only slightly reduced. It does directly resolve the issue of tracking when to apply one-time penalty dice.
2) Make your pool your harm track. So that when you run out of pool, you are broken. the advantage of this is, it drastically reduces recordkeeping. However, it does mean that causing 6 or 7 Harm could be meaningless and you do have a bit of a Hit Point situation going on now.
What do you guys think?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page