*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 23, 2021, 07:20:26 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
46709 Posts in 5588 Topics by 13299 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 64 - most online ever: 843 (October 22, 2020, 11:18:00 PM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: [Solar System] Digressions from TSoY  (Read 10490 times)
Paul T
Member

Posts: 383


« on: September 22, 2008, 10:46:38 AM »

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?
Logged
Eero Tuovinen
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 2775


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2008, 11:16:18 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 11:18:52 AM by Eero Tuovinen » Logged

Blogging at Game Design is about Structure.
Publishing Zombie Cinema and Solar System at Arkenstone Publishing.
oliof
Member

Posts: 449

Harald Wagener - Zurich, Switzerland


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2008, 02:50:11 PM »

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?
Logged

Eero Tuovinen
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 2775


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2008, 10:29:18 PM »

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.
Logged

Blogging at Game Design is about Structure.
Publishing Zombie Cinema and Solar System at Arkenstone Publishing.
Paul T
Member

Posts: 383


« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2008, 04:43:57 PM »

Excellent!

Thank you.
Logged
Corvus69
Member

Posts: 23


« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2008, 11:37:25 PM »

this idea sounds generally nice to me...but what about opponents made on fly, that dont have any pool points? does it mean that they always lose conflict on tie?
sorry if it is a stupid question, but I have not read Solar System yet.
Logged
Eero Tuovinen
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 2775


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2008, 11:44:53 PM »

The way I do Story Guiding (this is explained in the booklet) is that nearly all NPCs are made on the fly anyway with a simplified system. So I don't do the Pool-halving and that stuff from TSoY at all, but rather have some simple rules that allow me to create NPCs very quickly. One of these rules of thumb is that NPCs always have only one Pool that is used for all purposes, and that Pool's size depends on the depth of the NPCs psychology - so characters who have a name and little else just have a couple of Pool points, while the really important proto-PCs that have protagonist potential end up with ten points or so. Basically depends on whether I'm interested in the NPC or not.

So all NPCs have Pools to spend, or if they don't, then they're so disinteresting that I say good riddance to them when they tie in extended conflict.
Logged

Blogging at Game Design is about Structure.
Publishing Zombie Cinema and Solar System at Arkenstone Publishing.
Corvus69
Member

Posts: 23


« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2008, 12:12:00 AM »

dammit I have to find someone with paypal (I have no means of international paying), cant wait for wiki version!
Logged
Paul T
Member

Posts: 383


« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2009, 12:55:49 PM »

Another difference:

In TSoY, you may not spend two advances in a row on the same thing--you cannot buy two Keys in a row, and so on.

In Solar System, there is no such restriction.

I'm curious about the reasoning behind the removal of this restriction. Is it simply unnecessary?

Thanks!
Logged
oliof
Member

Posts: 449

Harald Wagener - Zurich, Switzerland


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2009, 01:31:07 PM »

I've never seen it become an issue. Since Pool points became more important in Solar System (I had a couple instances in my colonization of Qek game, where you couldn't just save your bacon by spending one pool point to get to a draw in the conflict results during BdtP, but would have needed a second one. That was pretty brutal).
Logged

Eero Tuovinen
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 2775


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2009, 05:51:20 PM »

Yeah, that's another rule I never actually used myself in actual play. I tried hard to remove rules that had proved sort of difficult to remember or hard to use, and that one was definitely in there. I imagine that Clinton was originally uncertain about how attractive the different character development options were and wanted to force players to balance their characters, but I think we can all say that this particular method doesn't really solve that problem too well.
Logged

Blogging at Game Design is about Structure.
Publishing Zombie Cinema and Solar System at Arkenstone Publishing.
oliof
Member

Posts: 449

Harald Wagener - Zurich, Switzerland


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2009, 11:15:18 PM »

I just realized I never finished my sentence: Since Pool points became more important in Solar Systems due to draws in extended conflicts and effects, there is more inclination by the players to actually increase their characters' Pools now and then.
Logged

Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!