Rules and System Discussion

For ease of access, I'll keep a link to the most recent version of the rules here.

Also, use this thread to comment on the system itself as we play and as you think of things. Likes, dislikes, stuff you'd do differently, requests for explanations of something in the system. Whatever!

Just based on what we've done so far, I have to say that I like the system :) That's my first impression, hopefully it will continue to impress

What is the Tier for our characters? Tier 0? Am I reading it correctly that we then have a pool limit of 4 dice?

That's what I read

4 for us Archer girl is at +1 to pool due to edge.

yes Tier 0

Question 2: after we assign dice, can we use different Traits for Strike and Defense, if the description supports it?

Question 3: can I assign my "help another" bonus die to a player who has already acted on that turn (as I wrote I was doing, with Vargas), or do I have to assign it to a player who has not acted in that turn? If I can assign the help another die to a person who has acted already, how does that work? Does that player assign it to Strike or Defense and then roll it separately from the previous roll but effecting the outcome of the same stated actions?

1 ) no, just the most appropriate one overall

2 ) the bonus help die can go to anyone, and if they have already taken their turn they get it next round.

Feedback: I realize we're only a round and a half into the system, but so far I'm already liking the almost-card-game dynamic of having to choose between attack and defense. I'm enjoying it and eager to see if the choice remains tactically interesting in the long-term; I think it will, at least with a group of players. I suspect that it might not be as tactically interesting in a solo game.

You would think everyone going all strike would be a good idea and the person with the most threat going all defensive would make sense to drop the difficulty quickly but I kind of think a split is always going to work out better (always some of each if you can). Unless you have only 1 dice.

Comment: I wonder whether you might want to include some text in the Game Master's section about Difficulty and how it relates to multiple opponents/targets in one challenge. In game play, in a challenge with multiple opponents, PCs will sometimes want to "concentrate fire" on a given opponent, rather than having every opponent drop simultaneously at the end of the combat with the same Final Blow. Such a section would describe how to handle this, and whether individual elements of a challenge can be overcome in such circumstances. It could describe when a GM would assign difficulty to each combatant and when the combatants should only be considered as part of one big lump of Difficulty, and the sorts of situations (if any) where Threat decreases as Difficulty decreases.

I'm two steps ahead of you! The GM section (which is a work in progress still) has some details about handling things in the background. It's basically a collection of 'micro modules' you can use as you need to in order to ensure the Challenge mechanics accurately represent the challenge. In this one, a portion of the threat was assigned to the specific character providing the Debuff. Once that amount of Strikes were used in descriptions of attacks against that character, Threat was reduced by 1 and the Debuff was removed.

In the case of a hoard of minions (10,000 Ninjas Attack!) Threat and Difficulty are a big lump and reducing Difficulty doesn't result in threat reduction.

In other cases the GM may decide Difficulty reduction should come with an *increase* in threat (raging barbarians, perhaps). I'm working on lots of little mechanical suggestions like this so that the GM has a toolbox from which to build Challenges (that expands on the mechanics presented to the player's in the Challenge section).

A good example of what the GM Toolbox will include is Threat Intensity. Intensity specifies the 'skill rank' of the Threat, and so determines what results of the die roll produce a Condition.

Threat has a default Intensity of 2, so results in a condition on a roll of 1 or 2. But the GM could vary that. A Threat with Intensity 4 scores a condition on a roll of 1,2,3 or 4.

Had I used it in this encounter (I thought of it just after we got started), the smoke eyed man would have Intensity 4, the phasing woman Intensity 3 and the dampener Intensity 2. My thinking is that by presenting the GM 'sub mechanics' that operate below the level of the mechanics described to the players, they'll be able to control the feel and flow of Challenges without over loading players will a system that appears to be very complex (when, in fact, on the surface it is quite simple).

Looks like we have a bit of a slow down so what do people think of the system? It seems simple to understand yet complex at times to me (in a good way). Is there a difference between a combat and non combat challenge? It seems we took a non combat challenge down the combat path. XD

Abstractly there isn't a different. Conflicts are just Difficulty, Threat and Danger (I don't think you've seen Danger in action yet). Whether it's combat or not is all driven by the narrative.

Also, I took it down the combat route. What you don't see behind the scenes are the 'Changing Stakes'. I had planned that at ~ Difficulty 23 a Threat would enter the encounter, be dispatched at Difficulty 16 (and who knows what comes after that!).

I really like the system so far but yeah I'm not sure I've got my head wrapped around how to deal with a non-combat challenge. Not a fault of the system, just a case of me not quite knowing the ropes yet. :-)

I'm used to simply looking up whatever mechanic I need at the moment and winging it. However, as a more abstract system, I periodically feel that I need to reread the system again. I like abstract, I'm just a lazy as a player, heh.