Adept Press

Ron, hi

QuoteNo reason not, but every time I found myself about to write it, my hand rebelled.

That's interesting.

I find it curious that you're happy to say "Knights! But not the sort of knights you're thinking of - these sort of knights...!" but you're uncomfortable saying "Anglo Saxon vibe! But not the Anglo Saxon vibe you're thinking of - this sort of Anglo Saxon vibe..!"

Perhaps I just don't have the same associations with 'Anglo Saxon' as you do; I am British so that possibly makes a difference, although I definitely go straight to Germanic and absolutely not Disney-Arthurian in any way whatsoever.

For what it's worth, I actually find I have no associations with the term 'Iron Age' at all; in fact I immediately skip in my brain to 'Stone Age' which is just weird and unhelpful. 'Anglo Saxon', on the other hand, gets me exactly where the text is aiming.

In any event, I suspect that a selection of cool pictures of PCs in action in the final text will help clear everything up enormously.

So...rules questions...let me see what I have so far...

1. Is it your intention that the two-characters-per-player rolled up at the start are the sum total of all PCs for the entire the duration of the game (ie if things get bloody there could come a point where there are not enough PCs to go round)? I get that when a PC dies they remain as a spirit until the end of the adventure in hand but does their 'slot' in the Circle get filled by a new character for subsequent missions, keeping the roster constant at 2-PCs-per-player? I couldn't decide from the text one way or the other.

2. Small thing, but in the Feature section of character generation, what is a "Blaze" when it's at home..?

3. I really like the mission creation process and the advice you give on running an adventure, but I'm not clear at all on how to know when a mission is done (and I appreciate you make a nod to that in the introductory notes). My suspicion is that it will be obvious in play, by a sense of "Yeah, that felt climactic...let's wrap up..." or what have you, but...maybe not. In particular, could you explain what this bit means: "One marker [of the end of an adventure] is the adventure component with the highest numerical value, using the numbers from when they were rolled. If the events of play effectively finish off that component as a crisis, then it's time to wrap up."

Is this talking about an NPC's stats, or the rolls to determine which elements went into a mission, or..?

4. Regarding clashes, I just want to make sure I'm getting the rules straight (particularly because the 'Example' sections just say the word 'Example').

So if your guy attacks my guy, we roll 2d6 with one of us typically getting an extra die for an advantage. Then we add Q twice? Once when applying our single roll for defence and again for attack? But we will also shuffle that 2xQ 'pool' around between attack and defence before we roll if we want to be more aggressive or cagey?
Assuming that's on track:

- Do you do that allocation of 2xQ in the open or secretly?
Is that a thing which (named?) NPCs will do also or just a PC thing?

- If you allocate 0Q to offence, your character doesn't attack.
Is the converse true?
Does 0Q allocated to defence mean the opponent's attacking roll is not opposed at all and simply lands at full strength?

- If I choose to 'only defend' because, say, I want to toss a spell at that other dude when you've finished trying to hit me in the head, does this mean I only add one lot of Q to my defensive roll?
(It would make a lot of cool sense to me if that was the case; I can imagine that the best way to defend yourself is to fully engage in the fight but concentrate on defending not attacking.)

5. Regarding injury and healing from injury:

- Is the number in the B column of the weapons table to be added to BQ when dealing damage or is it something else?

- When healing from damage, the text says "recovery occurs at 1 BQ per day per missing Brawn".
Which seemed to make sense to me, but then it doesn't when I try to apply it.
Does 'BQ' here mean "1 point of B and one point of Q", for instance?
Say I've been injured for 3BQ. So my B has been reduced by 1 and Q reduced by 2, right? My B has dropped by 1, so after the first day I've healed '1BQ'. So what are my B and Q totals now..? B at full, Q still at 1 lower? Both at full? Am I missing something?

6. Finally, I wanted to ask about narrating the effects of damage.

Let's say my dude clashes with someone and they score a hit with their spear.
It's clear that 1BQ of damage is very different from 3BQ and from 8BQ or 15BQ, but what do these numbers mean in terms of "[conveying] content through naturalistic descriptions of what is happening"..?

I can imagine that this might be one of those things that is obvious to you during your own games.
It's perhaps just common sense to you that a character receives wound type X from BQ result Y in context Z, maybe?
From the text I think I can sense you trying to convey important aspects of this in your qualitative descriptions of various weapons, and in the details you go into about physical combat tactics but, for me at least, I needed it to be more explicitly laid out.

What's the fictional difference for my character between taking 1BQ of injury and taking 9BQ?
What's the difference between 6BQ from a knife and 6BQ (or 1, or 3 or 18) from a spear?
Is my guy's nose or finger broken; is he bleeding from a nasty flesh wound or a severed artery?
Has he had his ribs cracked or lost a tooth...or a finger...or an eye...or hand...?
I can see all this being vivid and essential aspects of play, but how to calibrate it consistently and fairly?

Or do we not really care blow by blow in that sense. During a fight it's all oof, hack, wallop until a death blow or two lands, then the survivors look at their scores when the dust has settled and decide what's been chopped off? I feel that must go against the moment-to-moment visceral horror of combat, so I'm assuming not...

Again, is this simply more obvious in play than I think it is?

Oh, and:

7. Just a data point as much as anything, I found the section on recording and balancing white and black colour points just plain confusing and hard to figure out. With the Anglo Saxon thing in mind, however, I appreciate that might just be me again. ;)

Best

G

I bet that Anglo Saxon thing is pure U.S. I assure you it is a very big deal here, and I'll have to resolve it in the text in one of the ways I described. Some of the nuances include anti-Irish, anti-Ulster Scot, and slave-owning in areas like coastal Virgina and the Carolinas; more recently, associations with upper-middle class privilege in New England, and especially in the interesting border cutting right through the middle of Long Island.

Quote1. Is it your intention that the two-characters-per-player rolled up at the start are the sum total of all PCs for the entire the duration of the game (ie if things get bloody there could come a point where there are not enough PCs to go round)? I get that when a PC dies they remain as a spirit until the end of the adventure in hand but does their 'slot' in the Circle get filled by a new character for subsequent missions, keeping the roster constant at 2-PCs-per-player? I couldn't decide from the text one way or the other.

The intention is not to make up new characters, but that's based only on my playtesting. I've seen a couple of deaths and one TPK (with just two characters), and my current estimate is that we'd be done with the game as a whole before running out of characters. That's also based on my observation of the learning curve ... it's a bit hard on the first-chosen characters, but people get better at keeping their characters alive as they go along. Since my concept of ending play as a whole is nebulous, I'd like to see what happens in other groups for a while.

Quote2. Small thing, but in the Feature section of character generation, what is a "Blaze" when it's at home..?

Oh shoot, I forgot to explain that. I meant to. It's a streak of a second hair color, what makeup people call a skunk stripe. Not cosmetic, but pigmented.

Quote3. .... In particular, could you explain what this bit means: "One marker [of the end of an adventure] is the adventure component with the highest numerical value, using the numbers from when they were rolled. If the events of play effectively finish off that component as a crisis, then it's time to wrap up."

Is this talking about an NPC's stats, or the rolls to determine which elements went into a mission, or..?

It's talking about the rolls to determine the elements. So in the example adventure, if the various people and problems centered on "monster" reach resolution, then it's time to wind down the adventure even if the "hidden knowledge" isn't all that done yet.

Another way to look at it is to kick the rest of it strictly to player-proactivity at that point - so if they're really into the action and are stating actions and interactions a mile a minute, then keep going, but if not, then it's time to let the wyrm-fight (or whatever it turned into) be the closer.

Quote4. Regarding clashes, I just want to make sure I'm getting the rules straight (particularly because the 'Example' sections just say the word 'Example').

So if your guy attacks my guy, we roll 2d6 with one of us typically getting an extra die for an advantage. Then we add Q twice? Once when applying our single roll for defence and again for attack? But we will also shuffle that 2xQ 'pool' around between attack and defence before we roll if we want to be more aggressive or cagey?

You got it!

QuoteAssuming that's on track:

- Do you do that allocation of 2xQ in the open or secretly?
Is that a thing which (named?) NPCs will do also or just a PC thing?

I like secretly, or at least in the understanding that you're not basing your choice on what the other guy does. They should be juxtaposed, not one optimzed against the other. In practice, the people I've played with have been honest about it and said, "this is what I'm doing" without being cagey, even if we didn't go so far as to write it down and reveal.

Named NPCs do it too. For sure. Beware the wizard character who throws all his or her Q into defense, because casting spells is not dice-based task. Those fights get quite horrible fast.

Quote- If you allocate 0Q to offence, your character doesn't attack.
Is the converse true?
Does 0Q allocated to defence mean the opponent's attacking roll is not opposed at all and simply lands at full strength?

Nope. You'll still get the "naked" rolled value as defense.

Quote- If I choose to 'only defend' because, say, I want to toss a spell at that other dude when you've finished trying to hit me in the head, does this mean I only add one lot of Q to my defensive roll?
(It would make a lot of cool sense to me if that was the case; I can imagine that the best way to defend yourself is to fully engage in the fight but concentrate on defending not attacking.)

Nope, you'll get full value, twice Q. I might be misunderstanding, but I think my answer is consistent with your point in the parenthesis.

Quote5. Regarding injury and healing from injury:

- Is the number in the B column of the weapons table to be added to BQ when dealing damage or is it something else?

You add the attacking character's current B. I suddenly realized I didn't explain the number in the column, which is a minimum B for wielding the weapon. The idea is that if your B gets reduced to a level below that for your weapon, then it's another possible factor to consider regarding the advantage die.

Quote- When healing from damage, the text says "recovery occurs at 1 BQ per day per missing Brawn".
Which seemed to make sense to me, but then it doesn't when I try to apply it.
Does 'BQ' here mean "1 point of B and one point of Q", for instance?
Say I've been injured for 3BQ. So my B has been reduced by 1 and Q reduced by 2, right? My B has dropped by 1, so after the first day I've healed '1BQ'. So what are my B and Q totals now..? B at full, Q still at 1 lower? Both at full? Am I missing something?

Shoot, now I'm all mixed up. Let me think about it. I know it makes sense, dammit, but hold on a bit.

Quote6. Finally, I wanted to ask about narrating the effects of damage.

Let's say my dude clashes with someone and they score a hit with their spear.
It's clear that 1BQ of damage is very different from 3BQ and from 8BQ or 15BQ, but what do these numbers mean in terms of "[conveying] content through naturalistic descriptions of what is happening"..?

This is a really good question which matters a lot. Here is the answer.

i) Consider where the inflicted damage places the character. If B and Q are both still above 0, the hit looks horrible and feels horrible, but doesn't necessarily do permanent damage. Another, softer boundary would be the thing mentioned above about B and the weapon, again, mainly for Color and a little bit of mechanics effect material.

ii) Player-characters are plot-armored against instant maiming. If your character takes a bad hit, then narrate what it seeems like in the absence of permanent fixation. So, "Your shoulder feels dislocated," not, "Your shoulder is dislocated." The trick here is that if the player-character makes it through the fight mechanically speaking, then all those hits turn out to be "not so bad." But being taken down to 0 in either B or Q makes the narrated effect more real, and being killed lets us know that holy shit, that spear-thrust back in the start of the fight was a clincher from the very beginning.

This concept is taken from the first version of Hero Wars and I consider it to be very, very good game design. It resolves all the hassles about "well shit, he rolled a crit so my foot's cut off," Rolemaster style, vs. "hit hit hit hit hit no narration what's going on hit hit, oh now I'm dead, how did that happen."

Just as you say, all the details should be inspired by that wad of color text about the weapons and fighting. The trick is in exactly how it's said in the moment. You will discover the effect is astonishingly vivid in play, to the point of adrenalin-fueled nausea. Um, maybe not my best selling-point phrasing, but true.

Quote7. Just a data point as much as anything, I found the section on recording and balancing white and black colour points just plain confusing and hard to figure out.

It'll help if you make a little chart just as shown in the video. If you want, do that and then bring a sequence of spells, just any spells you think would be fun to cast in sequence, I'll show you how that works.

Best, Ron

OK, I remember now. The guy in the example was taken down by 4 BQ. So that meant he was at -2 B and -2 Q. He gets one attribute point back after four days, so is now at -1 B and -2 Q. Then three days later, he gets one point back, so is at -1 B and -1 Q. Two days later, he's at -1 Q, and one day after that, he's fully recovered.

So the core concept is that the recovery alternates between B and Q, point by point.

I usually start with B so that the final point recovered is Q, or if it was an odd-numbered total BQ, the final two points recovered are Q. I base that idea on the fact that one is still achey for a while after the basic tissue damage is healed.

Let me know if that makes sense!

Hi Ron,

I found out about Circle of Hands from the March thread "Stuff To Watch" at Story Games. I read the playtest document today and I'm dying to test it. I can't promise anything, as my two current groups already have games planned, but I'll try. I should at least be able to start a thread here in the next couple of days going through the GM situation prep, so that you can see if I get it right by using the text.

A couple of short observations after my first read, then the questions:

- I love the "angelic" vs demon war (even though "angel" is a Rbaja creature), especially that it's not a fight between good and evil from humanity's point of view. Both sides have a detrimental effect on normal human activities.

- The Knights being pragmatic and utilizing powers from both sides is nice. I thought of the classical Yin and Yang symbol, with a circle of light in the dark part and vice versa. I think it's easy for players to go in thinking they will play a PC that will always choose one side over the other (either a "good" PC or an "evil" PC), but if you look at the list of spell lists there are useful spells for all PCs in both lists. Non-wizard PCs can pick a 1 point spell of the "opposing" color and just ignore it, but a wizard PC will most likely be tempted to use spells from both lists.

- The spider-hags are hilarious! Talk about that one-night-stand coming back to haunt you.

- I didn't know the word scramasax, but Wikipedia helped me out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seax). I'm from Sweden, so both parts of the word still mean something today ("scrama" is "skråma", that is, "a scratch; a flesh-wound" and "sax" is "scissors"). I also learned about the connection of the weapon to Saxons and Essex. Another English word I learned was "gravid" (from the pode monster). This is the common word for "pregnant" in Swedish, but I hadn't seen it used in English before. I guess that, same as "gratis", it's been so completely imported into Swedish from Latin that we don't even think of them as imports.

- The situation generator looks very usable. I also think your general observations on prep in the text, for example not putting all eggs in one basket by tying everything to a single NPC, are very valuable.

- I like the limited amount of armor and weapons presented, compared to most other fantasy games I've played. Instead of picking armor and weapons from any age and culture, it feels like a snapshot of the current state of the art of those lands. I like how different social classes learn different weapons and that the different lands have different weapons they are famous for.

Now, the questions:

1. The white tallies list "Shape-shift into small silver dragon once per adventure, +1 to both B and Q". The silver dragon is also described in the Eidolon section, where they both have a specific behavior and special attacking options. There are a couple of questions here:

a) I think a PC wouldn't be forced to automatically attack people with black tallies, right? But they get the attack options, for example Dazzle breath and fighting groups as individuals?

b) What does "if anyone with current black color points requests, it does not kill him or her but rather removes the points from existence" mean? If you have a PC with 7 white points and 2 black, would it mean they now have 7 white and 2 neutral, or 9 white, or a new maximum of 7 points? It's the "removes from existence" part that confuses me.

2. In the situation prep on page 31 I think there's an error in the example following the list with 7 items. The third bullet says "2 3 2 yields 2 5 7, for humanitarian crisis, monster, and Amboriyon interference (in Tamaryon)", but the first "2" should be "Ordinary local-power tensions", not "Humanitarian crisis". I know you don't want feedback on stuff that will be fixed during editing, but I think the examples are important also when playtesting.

3. On timing in fights, if two PCs want to attack each other and have the same Q, we would go to alternative "If both are player-characters, the respective players decide". But what if neither player want to let the other go first? We would surely manage to resolve it at the table, perhaps through a dice roll, but perhaps you want the text to handle that case as well?

Again, I was hooked by the bullet list of details in the Kickstarter page, but I'm even more enthusiastic after reading the text.

Hi Jonas!

Re: silver dragon transformation:

Quotea) I think a PC wouldn't be forced to automatically attack people with black tallies, right? But they get the attack options, for example Dazzle breath and fighting groups as individuals?

Correct on both points.

Quoteb) What does "if anyone with current black color points requests, it does not kill him or her but rather removes the points from existence" mean? If you have a PC with 7 white points and 2 black, would it mean they now have 7 white and 2 neutral, or 9 white, or a new maximum of 7 points? It's the "removes from existence" part that confuses me.

Ah. I wanted it to mean "with no effect on white color points." So the character in your example now has 7 white points and that's all.

Quote2. In the situation prep on page 31 I think there's an error in the example following the list with 7 items. The third bullet says "2 3 2 yields 2 5 7, for humanitarian crisis, monster, and Amboriyon interference (in Tamaryon)", but the first "2" should be "Ordinary local-power tensions", not "Humanitarian crisis". I know you don't want feedback on stuff that will be fixed during editing, but I think the examples are important also when playtesting.

Thanks! That is legacy from a recent change switching the order of 1 and 2.

Quote3. On timing in fights, if two PCs want to attack each other and have the same Q, we would go to alternative "If both are player-characters, the respective players decide". But what if neither player want to let the other go first? We would surely manage to resolve it at the table, perhaps through a dice roll, but perhaps you want the text to handle that case as well?

Well, wait – if they are attacking each other, it doesn't really matter, does it? They're in a clash. It's going on one of their turns, nominally, but really, it's run as one clash after another (presuming both are able after the first), and if no one else is going in between, then no change-over of the advantage die based on the order seems possible. As written, I don't see any need to break the tie.

If somehow the order matters to the advantage die (but I can't see how), then it would matter. And if there were three player-characters all at the same Q, and the third is doing something that matters to these two fighting, then it would matter.

So I guess a roll-off is necessary ... or maybe I can come up with some other way. Because the whole point here is to avoid two layers of tie-breaking, I find that inelegant and annoying.

Best, Ron

P.S. The plan for tomorrow is to consolidate the rules Q&A to date into an update.

Thanks for the answers, Ron, all most helpful.

Quoteyou'll get full value, twice Q. I might be misunderstanding, but I think my answer is consistent with your point in the parenthesis.

My question was about the situation where A wants to attack B (or some other action, whatever it is) but C is able to get in and attack A first due to the Quickness order.
So if A decides to stick with the intended action vs B, the trade-off being made is not about it being harder for A to defend (because A can still apply a full 2Q to the defence roll) but is simply about not being able to harm C in the clash. C gets a free shot, basically.

Is that the correct gist of it?

G

Hi Gethyn,

That's correct, although "free shot" is against quite a bit of defense. I see what you mean in terms of C, because he doesn't have to worry about taking damage ... well, unless A does decide to abandon the planned action and counterstrike after all ... which C doesn't know one way or the other, going in ...

Getting ready to teach and run this.  Ron, a couple of rules questions that I want to get in before you write up that FAQ:

1. When a fight breaks out, we pause as the GM describes the terrain, movement, immediate circumstances and relative positions of all involved.  "From that point forward, the actions of a fight will indeed be mechanically affected by circumstances, strictly as consequences of successful and unsuccessful actions along the way, and the nuances of the immediate terrain will matter too. But all of these are already embedded in the resolution mechanics and cannot be influenced by extraneous narration." 

Affected how?  Just through allocation of the advantage die, or are there other mechanics that achieve this?  Okay, successful attacks reduce the Braun and Quickness of their victims, that's mechanical, consequential and immediate. 

Anything else that I can imagine depends upon narration of tactics.  E.g. there's a tree stump in the clearing, I stand on it to attack my foe from height.  That's advantage... but it came from narrating tactics, so we shouldn't allow it?  Does a character get a chance to seize an advantage after a successful attack?  How do characters use the terrain etc. except by narrating tactics?

2. There are no rounds.  I'm having trouble picturing how this would work.  I'm familiar with Sorcerer's round structure, of which this is an evolution.  And I understand what you said: the initiative order doesn't change, we just keep going around.  But after the initial fair-and-clear phase and everyone's first action, are there no subsequent fair-and-clear phases?  So, after the first "round," characters don't have to declare their actions before their subsequent turns in the order?

3. Unarmed combat.  The first time you reduce someone to B 0 Q 0... that damage heals as normal injuries?  Really?  Like, if I've lost 4 Braun, it takes 10 days to heal from the beating, just like as if I'd lost those points through being stabbed?  Okay, I guess the difference is: if you're reduced to zero by weapon attacks, then healing time is doubled.  Did I just answer my own question?

4. Recovery: in the example on pg.60, I think you're using "Braun" and "BQ" interchangeably.  If I read this right, then for example someone who has lost 4 Braun needs 4 days to heal 2 BQ (1 B and 1 Q).  3 days later, he heals another 2 BQ, etc.  Am I right?

Thanks!
-J

Quote[paragraph snipped] Affected how?  Just through allocation of the advantage die, or are there other mechanics that achieve this?  Okay, successful attacks reduce the Braun and Quickness of their victims, that's mechanical, consequential and immediate. 

Yes, advantage die + reductions in scores. That's what I'm referring to in the paragraph.

QuoteAnything else that I can imagine depends upon narration of tactics.  E.g. there's a tree stump in the clearing, I stand on it to attack my foe from height.  That's advantage... but it came from narrating tactics, so we shouldn't allow it?  Does a character get a chance to seize an advantage after a successful attack?  How do characters use the terrain etc. except by narrating tactics?

A couple things.

i) Some successful attacks are very much game-changers. First on the list is a shoulder-strike with a shield, which I was planning to explain (but I think I forgot) is a serious "advantage die grab" move. Another I recall from play is the guy armed with a staff facing a charging spearman, who made it through the clash barely scathed and landed a solid blow as well – I can't see any way to interpret that except as having totally bollixed the horseman and negated the advantage of the previous round (i.e. seized it). So weapon comparison + effects of just-prior action.

ii) Sucking a guy into a clash is a good way to get the advantage too, if the weapons and stuff are pretty much alike. This is a reason to care about the order, so I'll add it to the justification for addressing Jonas' concern about the ties too.

iii) Terrain does matter, but not as mere announcement. This is another situation where Wits matter, I think – if you can defend successfully and use your action for a W vs. 12 roll, I think that can count for grabbing the advantage on the following move. In fact, as a fight-opener against a foe with a better position and/or weapon, I might make it a habit to do that the very first thing (defending if necessary along the way), then if successful, instantly spending 1 B to go again immediately.

I'm all about people getting the advantage die, but not gabbling away to control the imagined space.

Quote2. There are no rounds.  I'm having trouble picturing how this would work.  I'm familiar with Sorcerer's round structure, of which this is an evolution.  And I understand what you said: the initiative order doesn't change, we just keep going around.  But after the initial fair-and-clear phase and everyone's first action, are there no subsequent fair-and-clear phases?  So, after the first "round," characters don't have to declare their actions before their subsequent turns in the order?

Right. The initial fair-and-clear is there pretty much to get everyone at the table on the same page. After that, it's say-and-go on your turn, subject to tricks like the above.

Full disclosure: most of my playtesting has been running this with a Sorcerer round-like structure, but in practice, I found that stopping for the new fair-and-clear turned out to be sort of bogus. It's very useful for the initial picture in everyone's mind to be clear, and from there, not so much.

Quote3. Unarmed combat.  The first time you reduce someone to B 0 Q 0... that damage heals as normal injuries?  Really?  Like, if I've lost 4 Braun, it takes 10 days to heal from the beating, just like as if I'd lost those points through being stabbed?  Okay, I guess the difference is: if you're reduced to zero by weapon attacks, then healing time is doubled.  Did I just answer my own question?

Pretty much. Having had to recover from a beating or two, I am here to say that bruising is a wound, differing from a stab or a slash only in that it happens not to include opening the skin. Or as an example with less internal bleeding, taking a heavy blow to the throat – not so good for the breathing and therefore for any major action, for at least a week. Been there too.

Quote4. Recovery: in the example on pg.60, I think you're using "Braun" and "BQ" interchangeably.  If I read this right, then for example someone who has lost 4 Braun needs 4 days to heal 2 BQ (1 B and 1 Q).  3 days later, he heals another 2 BQ, etc.  Am I right?

Damn it, you're right, and I talked myself out of it somehow in answering Gethyn's question above. This is the way I originally intended it. Brawn sets the pace, and Q comes back with the B, but if total BQ taken was odd, then you have one more day to go after that to get your final Q back.

Best, Ron
edited to fix a person's name - RE

Ron

When a character 'spends 1B' to jump into first place in the combat order, do you treat that exactly like a wizard spending B to cast spells?
ie The spent B returns rapidly after a decent rest to get one's breath back.

G

QuoteWhen a character 'spends 1B' to jump into first place in the combat order, do you treat that exactly like a wizard spending B to cast spells?
ie The spent B returns rapidly after a decent rest to get one's breath back.

Yes! Good question, that's important.

Thanks Ron, that clears up a lot of things for me - your previous reply, too.  The flow of the game is taking shape in my head.

Outside of combat, I'm getting the idea that personal dynamics (the C vs.12 roll) and acting within social norms (or not) are very important in this setting.

Thanks,
-J

QuoteWhen a character 'spends 1B' to jump into first place in the combat order, do you treat that exactly like a wizard spending B to cast spells?
ie The spent B returns rapidly after a decent rest to get one's breath back.

QuoteYes! Good question, that's important.

Cool. So does this potentially open up into an instantaneous 'bidding war' situation like pumping B in spell casting?
Character X spends 1B to jump ahead of Y, who immediately spends 1B to claim the top slot back again, but X spends a second point...etc?

Couple of other questions:

1. Ranged attacks (spear throwing, bows, franciscas, etc). Are they treated as clashes?
I had assumed they would be, but there's a sentence at the end of the 'Ranged Attacks & Clashes' section which muddies the water for me.
If the person using the ranged attack is not targeted, and is aiming at someone who is not able to strike back, then the action becomes a simple Q vs. 12.

2. If a character wanted to do something to gain advantage in a fight (throwing sand in someone's eyes, say, trying to trip them up with a bundle of rope or whatever) which is physical but not really in-fighting, is that a W vs 12 situation or a clash?  I'm thinking it would be quite important for a high W, low Q/B sort of character to pull off those sort of dirty tricks.

3. Tallies. I'm looking at the list of indexed powers gained when a character acquires a Tally. The text mentions that NPCs always have their Tallies determined randomly. Nothing is mentioned - except to say that a Tally is a tactical choice for Circle members - but does this imply that player characters select the Tally power freely rather than rolling?

4. What does it mean for a White spell to be cast by an Rbaja wizard "using Warp"? Does the white spell cost 2 extra points or does the Warp Spell need to be cast first, then the white spell on the next action, or..? Not sure if there are mechanics involved or if it's effectively just a textual justification because the caster is an NPC anyway or what.

Cheers

Gethyn

Hi G!

QuoteSo does this potentially open up into an instantaneous 'bidding war' situation like pumping B in spell casting?
Character X spends 1B to jump ahead of Y, who immediately spends 1B to claim the top slot back again, but X spends a second point...etc?

Hypothetically yes, but B is precious. The same goes for the various opposed spells – there's no limit to whipping up the bidding war, but everything bid is spent, and you do not want to push yourself down to the basement this way, not when that bastard has a chained mace.

Quote1. Ranged attacks (spear throwing, bows, franciscas, etc). Are they treated as clashes?
I had assumed they would be, but there's a sentence at the end of the 'Ranged Attacks & Clashes' section which muddies the water for me.
If the person using the ranged attack is not targeted, and is aiming at someone who is not able to strike back, then the action becomes a simple Q vs. 12.

It's easy in practice. You have to make an archer's life hard or he or she can sit pretty and base the shots strictly on personal skill.

The difference is, basically, that attacking someone with a ranged weapon doesn't suck them into a clash unless they can strike back right at that moment. So shooting an arrow at someone who also has a bow of some kind means they can shoot back – i.e., be "sucked in" – but shooting it at someone on the opposite hill armed only with a sword is a turkey shoot.

No one likes an archer.

Shoot, I think I forgot to explain that in the "turkey shoot" situation, BQ delivered = 6 + the difference above 12.

Quote2. If a character wanted to do something to gain advantage in a fight (throwing sand in someone's eyes, say, trying to trip them up with a bundle of rope or whatever) which is physical but not really in-fighting, is that a W vs 12 situation or a clash?  I'm thinking it would be quite important for a high W, low Q/B sort of character to pull off those sort of dirty tricks.

All of those are mere narration unless they are full actions, delivered as such. Since they're W vs. 12, it's clear to see why high-Q characters hate this stuff so much.

Quote3. Tallies. I'm looking at the list of indexed powers gained when a character acquires a Tally. The text mentions that NPCs always have their Tallies determined randomly. Nothing is mentioned - except to say that a Tally is a tactical choice for Circle members - but does this imply that player characters select the Tally power freely rather than rolling?

Yes, player characters choose.

Quote4. What does it mean for a White spell to be cast by an Rbaja wizard "using Warp"? Does the white spell cost 2 extra points or does the Warp Spell need to be cast first, then the white spell on the next action, or..? Not sure if there are mechanics involved or if it's effectively just a textual justification because the caster is an NPC anyway or what.

Effectively, it's just adding 2 points to the cost of the White spell, and turning the black color point gain into 2 + whatever the white spell was. So if you were to cast Beacon with Warp, you'd spend 3 B and gain 3 black color points.

QuoteThe same goes for the various opposed spells – there's no limit to whipping up the bidding war, but everything bid is spent, and you do not want to push yourself down to the basement this way, not when that bastard has a chained mace.

Heh. I can see it's not necessarily a wise way to go most of the time, but if it's a situation of do-or-die regardless then it's an interesting possibility to have available I guess.

QuoteShoot, I think I forgot to explain that in the "turkey shoot" situation, BQ delivered = 6 + the difference above 12.

:) That was going to be my next question.
So, unless an opponent is getting in your face (in which case you're sucked into a Clash) all ranged attacks are Q vs 12? And the target can do not a thing to avoid damage except hope the roll goes badly?
And all damage is 6 + difference, whether it's a spear, a crossbow bolt or a lobbed rock?

Does the target of a ranged attack include all armour - shields, helms and everything - as per hand to hand fighting? (with exceptions for spears ignoring chainmail and so on)

QuoteAll of those are mere narration unless they are full actions, delivered as such.

OK, that's lost me slightly.
By 'mere narration' you mean, what...descriptions made to explain already-rolled results?
So if a character says "Right, I'm going to hurl my shield at his legs to try to trip him up", that's a full action and a W vs 12 roll is attempted? Compared with a situation where...no, I'm definitely not sure what would count as 'mere narration' here... Describing the results of a successful clash involving a chained mace maybe?

G

Seeing that Ron created this thread for rules questions, I am posting the question he answered in my thread, with his answer:

Quote from: Moreno R.OK, now about the profession...  I checked to see how many spell a non-wizard would have,m and I found contradictory answers...
Page 22: Non-wizards are trained by the wizards of the Circle, so they begin with points of spells equal to Wits
Page 64: Player-characters without the wizard Profession begin play with five points of spells
What is the right rule?

Quote from: Ron EdwardsPoints of starting spells = W. That was a late-stage change, and it looks like I didn't find every instance of "five."

QuoteSo, unless an opponent is getting in your face (in which case you're sucked into a Clash) all ranged attacks are Q vs 12? And the target can do not a thing to avoid damage except hope the roll goes badly?

Right. Fuckin' guys with bows and stuff ...

QuoteAnd all damage is 6 + difference, whether it's a spear, a crossbow bolt or a lobbed rock?

Yes, but spears and bolts go right through mail, and I'd count the lobbed rock as an unarmed attack (that final stage of stoning someone to death is really horrible).

Oh yeah, and spears, axes, other thrown weapons get +B, not +6.

QuoteDoes the target of a ranged attack include all armour - shields, helms and everything - as per hand to hand fighting? (with exceptions for spears ignoring chainmail and so on)

Yes. I consider that to be a function of abstracting armor a bit. Hit-location seems to me to do better as a function of calculating BQ.

Regarding narration, your paraphrase is fine, but I was thinking about narrations that go into strikes during clashes, prior to the roll. They're plenty of fun, like "I scream and strike overhand," in a moment of passion, but that's the one window I want to close regarding affecting the mechanics with how we talk.

edited to add some bits - RE

Hi Ron,

Thanks for taking questions!

A couple of my own:

Character Creation: Is there any mechanical benefit to playing a non-wizard? As it stands I can create a character, select a few favoured spells as I would for a regular knight, call them a wizard and reap all the versatility of the system without any drawbacks.

Task Resolution: The playtest seems to imply two methods of resolving non-clash tasks - binary yes/no based on profession and vs. 12 based on abilities. Which is it, and under what circumstances would one apply and the other not?

Combat: Just to clarify, Brawn is added to all successful melee attacks? If so, that's pretty brutal.


Thanks!

QuoteCharacter Creation: Is there any mechanical benefit to playing a non-wizard? As it stands I can create a character, select a few favoured spells as I would for a regular knight, call them a wizard and reap all the versatility of the system without any drawbacks.

I get this a lot. The difference shows up in play. Wizards always run really close to burnout in the action. It's a powerful way to play, but also volatile. The B cost is a major limitation, very much counteracting the ostensible "OMG no downside" impression. It's also for players who like the idea of knowing all that stuff (the person, not the character) and enjoy having a whole constellation of options. People who get analysis-paralyzed don't enjoy it as much, although I think some might once past the not-very-high learning curve. So the choice is emphatically not a strategic one the way it is in almost every fantasy RPG I can think of. It's merely tactical and therefore a matter of preference.

QuoteTask Resolution: The playtest seems to imply two methods of resolving non-clash tasks - binary yes/no based on profession and vs. 12 based on abilities. Which is it, and under what circumstances would one apply and the other not?

Binary yes/no occurs when you're looking at a vs. 12 situation and either (i) no particular adversity seems involved or (ii) the character is in an advantaged circumstance. Rather than adding a third die to roll, I say give it to'em.

Remember that a lot of such rolls do not start out at the base 2d6, especially C rolls, when encountering people at the outset of an adventure. Care and courtesy matter. For example, it's a good idea to stay very cultural and not start sayin' crazy shit like "I am gentry of Rolke" when to this person you're just some peasant yotz sitting on a horse for some reason. And then to do something decent like help them tend their hearth fire or something.

QuoteCombat: Just to clarify, Brawn is added to all successful melee attacks? If so, that's pretty brutal.

Brutal indeed. Mail helps a lot. I always enjoy the point when the player-characters look at one another and say, "That's it, we're putting on our mail now."

Quote from: Andrew S on March 17, 2014, 12:36:04 PM
Character Creation: Is there any mechanical benefit to playing a non-wizard? As it stands I can create a character, select a few favoured spells as I would for a regular knight, call them a wizard and reap all the versatility of the system without any drawbacks.

You have to have wits enough for at least two professions and then spend one on wizardry.  That's not nothing. My first character didn't even have the option.

I have a related question about 'key event' was my character able to use both magics before joining the circle, or would she necessarily have been a monochrome wizard like another NPC?

Thanks for the clarifications!

On the topic of chainmail, I'm a little unclear on starting armour. Non-gentry are trained in the use of mail, shields and helms, but are they available to them prior to play?

Quotewas my character able to use both magics before joining the circle, or would she necessarily have been a monochrome wizard like another NPC?

I've been playing that pretty fast and loose. My example character Krimhilde strongly implies she'd managed both types of magic prior to the Key Event, and it seems OK to assume that discovering this is possible may be a major step on the path to deciding to join the Circle. In other words, it's not a secret of the Circle to use both kinds of magic - which strikes me as a very important point. However, in the setting to date, no one has done it without joining the Circle next - or perhaps, without joining the Circle, they have not yet managed to survive.

QuoteOn the topic of chainmail, I'm a little unclear on starting armour. Non-gentry are trained in the use of mail, shields and helms, but are they available to them prior to play?

Pedantic point: I just say "mail." There isn't any other kind of heavy armor to compare it with, so no need to distinguish it from plate or whatever.

You're talking about Circle members, right? If so, then yes - they have all that equipment at the outset of play.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 17, 2014, 01:02:46 PM

QuoteOn the topic of chainmail, I'm a little unclear on starting armour. Non-gentry are trained in the use of mail, shields and helms, but are they available to them prior to play?

Pedantic point: I just say "mail." There isn't any other kind of heavy armor to compare it with, so no need to distinguish it from plate or whatever.

You're talking about Circle members, right? If so, then yes - they have all that equipment at the outset of play.

Excellent, and thanks again.

QuoteYou have to have wits enough for at least two professions and then spend one on wizardry.  That's not nothing.

That's a good point too. So much competence and flexibility depends on the professions.

On Anglo-Saxon - familiarity with the term "WASP" (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) and its usage in the US would probably cover a lot of the issues. Circle of Hands gains no benefit from association with, say, Abercrombie & Fitch fashion (which, yeah, could happen).

Tangent: we need a better name than "Allocation" for the mechanic of shifting some Q to be more offensive or more defensive.  The word is clunky and undescriptive of how we're using it.  Sorry if this is a writing-and-editing thing, but it keeps coming up in my notes and I can see how "Allocation" is going to be confusing when I go to teach this game.  "What's your Allocation?"

I'm calling it "Animus."  "Rancor" was a close second.  Also liked "Abandon" and "Spleen."  "Belligerence" is spot-on but too long.

I'm hoping "Animus" catches on.  Clash: determine Advantage, decide your Animus, and roll the dice!

-J

I think the game still needs rounds.  Sorry to keep coming back to this.

If you are attacked before you have acted, then you have a choice: you can defend only, and still take an action on your turn, or you can attack and defend when attacked, but give up your action for when your turn comes around.
At the start of the fight, "if you haven't acted yet" is pretty clear.  But what about after you have acted?  We still need to have a sense of whether it's "later in the same round, and you've already acted," or "early in the next round, and you haven't acted yet."

So we still need rounds.  The only difference is, there's not free-and-clear at the top of every round; only before the first round.

/pedantic

-J

Ranged attacks.  Just to be clear:

If the target can shoot back, it's a Clash.
It's opposed attack rolls.

Damage:
BQ = (offence - defense) + B if it's a thrown weapon
BQ = (offence - defense) + 6 if it's a crossbow or shortbow

If the target of a ranged attack can't shoot back, then it's turkey-shoot rules.
The roll is Q vs.12 to hit.

Damage:
BQ = (roll - 12) + B if it's a thrown weapon
BQ = (roll - 12) + 6 if it's a crossbow or shortbow

Right?

-J

QuoteIf the target can shoot back, it's a Clash.
It's opposed attack rolls.

Damage:
BQ = (offence - defense) + B if it's a thrown weapon
BQ = (offence - defense) + 6 if it's a crossbow or shortbow

If the target of a ranged attack can't shoot back, then it's turkey-shoot rules.
The roll is Q vs.12 to hit.

Damage:
BQ = (roll - 12) + B if it's a thrown weapon
BQ = (roll - 12) + 6 if it's a crossbow or shortbow

I think you got it. Although I just say "bow" for the older version of the weapon because there's basically one kind.

For the rounds ... perhaps it will help to think of it merely as a list, written vertically. Initially it goes from highest Q at the top to lowest Q at the bottom. When the top guy goes, his name goes to the bottom. That continues until look, he's at the top again.

So after the start, there isn't any "first" any more, it's just "next" in the sense of a rotating conveyor belt or something like that.

You change position by popping to the top (or "next") by spending 1 B, or by getting your Q reduced in which case you bump down in the Q order - this actually might bump you up on the physical list but it means you are going later than you otherwise would be.

The way I've been playing it, once you pop to the top by spending B, that's your new position, you don't revert nor do you have to keep spending B to maintain that ordinal position.

Try it that way, just once, and see how it goes.

Hi Ron

A question about to approach in-the-moment oppositional magic.

Text says:

QuoteAbsorb Spell, Reflect Spell, Warp Spell, and Bless/Curse may be cast either:
- toward a currently-active prolonged spell
- toward any spell in the moment of its casting

In the latter case, the caster must be acting earlier than or tied with the targeted action in the ordering sequence.
Re-do all this: in fair and clear, you see that the other guy is casting a spell, so say "vs. spell," or "vs. [color] spell" if you're a wizard; a spell is only named when it goes off, but Reflect Spell (which needs a new target) can specify at that moment.

...so that looks like a bit of legacy text and a rewrite addition I suppose..?
Could you untangle it a bit for me please?

Best,

Gethyn

Yes indeed. Fortunately, the corrections were all made. So the only thing that needs to be done is to delete the leftover "re-do all this" paragraph of sentence fragments.

Talking about it some more ... to target another person's spell with Absorb, Reflect, Warp, or the various paired examples, you're either acting in the same Q-moment as the other guy, or you have to bump to get there by spending 1 B. I think that's pretty much all there is to it.

Best, Ron

Quick questions while I work up a character sheet:

1. What are the (r)s for after some spell names?  I get i,p and c, those are the duration.

2. Have anything to suggest for tracking injury and heal rate?  I'm thinking of putting a little "days since last 1BQ recovery" box on the sheet somewhere.  When days = lost B, heal 1BQ and erase the number in the box.

3a. There are no situations in which Wits or Charm will be injured, right?
3b. There are no opportunities to spend Q, W or C, right?

Thanks!
-J

1. Ritual. These take hours to cast.

2. The "days since" box sounds like a great idea.

3. Any score can be penalized to a one-die roll through a variety of circumstances and magical effects. See the drugs for some specific instances regarding W and C. Other than that, none I can think of. But they should have "damage" sections for that reason.

4. Correct: no spending of Q, W, or C.

Hi Ron! Do you prefer having all the rules questions in this thread, or in separate threads?

I am using this for now, seeing that you linked this thread in an update and you are not splitting specific questions...

1st question) Page 39: "Circle knights who survived the adventure have a chance to improving their attributes. For each one, roll 2d6. If the result is higher than its current value, improve its value by 1."

So, any attribute can go to 12. But when this happen, a "vs 12" roll is always successful (even a 11 is enough for this to happen if you roll two dice). It is correct?

2nd question) Page 39: When you choose the new character, if he or she is not a wizard, you may trade out the spells as you like, maintaining points equal to Wits, always both white and black.

This bit surprised me: doesn't it make a part of the character creation (the choice of spells) meaningless, if you can choose the spell case by case when you know where you will go and to do what? (at least regarding the lesser component)

(and it makes it a little too similar to the "spell memorization" of D&D for my tastes...)

All rules questions here, please.

QuoteSo, any attribute can go to 12. But when this happen, a "vs 12" roll is always successful (even a 11 is enough for this to happen if you roll two dice). It is correct?

I suppose. It seems wrong to keep it that way, so I'll think about it. A fix could be as simple as "maximum of 10," which is the very highest that three of the four attributes can reach in character creation anyway.

Quote2nd question) Page 39: When you choose the new character, if he or she is not a wizard, you may trade out the spells as you like, maintaining points equal to Wits, always both white and black.

This bit surprised me: doesn't it make a part of the character creation (the choice of spells) meaningless, if you can choose the spell case by case when you know where you will go and to do what? (at least regarding the lesser component)

(and it makes it a little too similar to the "spell memorization" of D&D for my tastes...)

The players have very little idea of what they'll face prior to the adventure, so strategizing on that basis is not an issue. They do have an idea of what did or didn't work in past play, and I see no problem with strategizing on that basis. I suppose I could limit it to a single spell or a limited set of points, but I'd prefer to see whether it's a problem in play first, whether tactically or in terms of devaluing the character's initial concept.

I should point out that neither of these are rules questions, but rather design questions. I'm OK with design questions, and they should be in this thread too, but they are literally infinite in number, and discussions can go way down a rabbit hole. Let's keep them to a minimum until real play gets under way.

Best, Ron

I kind of noticed that as well, it's 2d6 + attribute to equal or beat 12 in the info dump.  So a 10 attribute is also an automatic success as long as the character isnt disadvantaged in some way.  It's possible but difficult to get a 10 in a stat in character creation, possibly even 11 but you'd have to be really good at your one thing and poor at most everything else.   

Well, let's take a look. A character can have 10 in an attribute at the beginning only if he or she rolled 6 and chose the precise traits that can give +3 to Q, W, or C. (the highest that B can be at the start is 9) It could hit 11 only if that person also fell into the lower half of the player-characters' ranked attribute sums, and if the player wanted to maxi-max instead of helping out either of the other two scores - which given the situation, would probably be low.

Let's see what happens if attributes were capped at 10, always. That means the +1 to 11 isn't allowed (sorry Nigel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc)), and neither is the 2d6 improvement roll.

Is 10 an automatic success? Not if you roll 1 on a 1d6 penalized roll. Nor does the awesome ability give you competence outside your professions, nor does it confer the ability to take on groups.

Consider how Gunnar Hamundarson dies in Njal's Saga. Does Gunnar ever lose a fight, or even miss? No, but alone in the wrong place and with the wrong people near him, die he will.

I think I like that. A 10 really is a formidable thing, certainly enough to make a character legendary in his or her sphere of activity - almost but not quite game-breaking.

Another thing to consider, possibly related, is permitting only one roll for improvement after an adventure, player's choice of attribute. The attribute goes up by 1 if it succeeds, but if it fails, nothing does.

By the other hand, a 5 or less would mean automatic failure when you roll a single d6...

This would leave a little range, between 6 and 9, for stats that would avoid these problems...

I don't know, maybe the solution is simply to say "a roll of 1 + 1 is always a failure", and if you have less than 6 and you have a disadvantage that would cost you a die you simply fail, no need to roll.  (a "when you roll a 6 on the single die you succeed" rule would have too many successes, at 2 with a single die you would have more chances than with two dice...)

[edit: ninjed by Ron, but this solution is different]

Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 19, 2014, 02:39:27 PM
(the highest that B can be at the start is 9)

This was probably in a previous draft, with the current rules the only trait that can raise B is "Brutal" and it raise B only by a + 1 (for an automatic 7). If the character has a sum of attributes in the lower half B can be raised to 8, but not more.

Nothing to do with drafts, merely a mistake. "7" is the correct number for my sentence.

Yeah I think it's something to keep in mind for playtesting.  I like the idea of badasses who are really tough to kill when they are in their element but I think there is enough limitations in the game to throw the game off balance, i.e you cant even roll to try some things if you dont have a suitable profession.  Likewise if you dont have at least a 6 in an ability you dont want to get caught in a situation where you are at a disadvantage and it gets called on. 

I think it's one of those things where you can get all bent out of shape if you start to bring in "real world consideration" like a peasant with a spear trying to charge a circle member behind a wall of spikes will have no chance to do any harm even though he's waving a dangerous long pointy stick.  If however you think of it in terms beyond looking at the single mechanic and the "realism" of the dangers of combat.  You think about the fact this is a game where we've already given our hero's plot immunity from realistic things like disease or maimings, you detail the situation fully before the combat actually breaks out and realize this battle hardened veteran is waiting from a place of safety for an untrained guy who's probably rarely grabbed a spear before and might not even be holding it properly then it can fully make sense.

Ron, hi

Couple of questions about Spells...

1. Where a spell adds a bonus - Shimmer's d6 to defensinve Q, or Grow's bonus to B and B rolls, for instance - is that a fixed bonus decided when the spell is cast, or a new roll whenever the spell is used/tested? If a character had Shimmer active, for example, would they include an extra d6 in their rolls specifically to add to the defensive total or would they have rolled d6 once for a fixed bonus for the duration of the spell?

2. Oppositional/counter-spell situations aside, can all spells be pumped for extra effect or only when indicated in the spell description? Can, say, Store Power store additional pumped Brawn or is it limited to 2 points only? Would pumping B for the Die spell be purely for the purposes of resistance to countering or for extra damage?

3. Pure curiosity: Some characters can begin with a Tally. Is there a reason why starting characters (who will all know at two spells depending on W), don't begin with starting colour points? I don't know, d6 minus 1 in each colour, or their total spell points in each colour minus d6 or something like that?

Best,

Gethyn

Quote1. Where a spell adds a bonus - Shimmer's d6 to defensinve Q, or Grow's bonus to B and B rolls, for instance - is that a fixed bonus decided when the spell is cast, or a new roll whenever the spell is used/tested?

New roll, each time it's cast.

If a character had Shimmer active, for example, would they include an extra d6 in their rolls specifically to add to the defensive total or would they have rolled d6 once for a fixed bonus for the duration of the spell?

Not so sure about that, I've been going back and forth. As written I intended it to be rolled at casting, and that value would persist through the spell's duration. However, the spread between 1 and 6 is really savage for this game. I've been considering re-roll because getting screwed by a 1 is really bad, or setting that effect and any other like it throughout the spells at 3.

Playtesting would be great.

Quote2. Oppositional/counter-spell situations aside, can all spells be pumped for extra effect or only when indicated in the spell description? Can, say, Store Power store additional pumped Brawn or is it limited to 2 points only? Would pumping B for the Die spell be purely for the purposes of resistance to countering or for extra damage?

Pumping doesn't apply to non-oppositional situations except where indicated. Which is one of those must get into text rules features - thanks!

Quote3. Pure curiosity: Some characters can begin with a Tally. Is there a reason why starting characters (who will all know at two spells depending on W), don't begin with starting colour points? I don't know, d6 minus 1 in each colour, or their total spell points in each colour minus d6 or something like that?

The color point system is there to bring consequences into the decisions of play, not to simulate the metaphysics of the imaginary world. Or rather, the latter exists in the fiction solely for the purpose of the former.

Best, Ron

Hi Ron!

I was checking the differences between "Gray Magick" and Circle of Hands, and I found this in the former about the tallies:
When a character gains a [...] Tally, roll 2d6 and consult the following list

In Circle of Hands the list of tallies results remains, but the parts I quoted is missing. So I assume that now the characters can choose freely. But the items are still numbered from 2-12, and that seems to imply that they are still to be rolled... so, what is the procedure when someone gets a tally?

It's in there and unambiguous as long as you're not looking at Gray Magick at the same time. You don't have to assume, it says that players choose the tally items.

Rolling for NPCs is the best way to go, though, which is why the numbers are still there, but I need to say that explicitly in Chapter 2.

Hi Ron

Question about the spell Itch:

QuoteItch (p). The target person or beast sustains 1 injury to Q, beginning with and accumulating per physical action he or she takes throughout the duration of the spell.

So is that 'accumulating damage' 1 per action for the duration (1Q, 1Q, 1Q, 1Q...) or is it 1 for the first action, two for the second etc (1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q...)?

Cheers

G

Itch: one per action - which is bad enough!! I'm beginning to think this spell is a killer. It's supposed to be pretty bad, as the damage is injury and doesn't dry up and blow away with scene transitions, but throw an Itch on somebody in a fight and it's almost a death sentence. Maybe it needs a cap.

Spend B to cancel?

B vs 12 roll each round to act without taking damage?

Muscling through the discomfort, as it were. Cast an Itch on a human and they're going to be inconvenienced at least but could still cause trouble. Cast it on a bear or worse and it'll most likely not even notice.

Do you count the damage from Itch as unarmed/non-lethal or as a full on wound?

G

Good suggestions, going into the bin of options. I'd like to reduce the necessary mechanics management as much as possible, so that's a factor too.

As in the spell description and as mentioned above, Itch does real injurious damage. As with Mind Rip, I want to avoid writing these spells as open for comedy.

I like that the  damage is to Q...viciously incapacitating.

Is it right to assume that once Q hits 0, the subject is rendered unconscious or otherwise helpless and therefore no longer taking physical action, thus no further damage?

I see your concern on mechanical overhead. That said, if it's made the 'casting player's' responsibility to track when Itch is causing damage to an opponent, the difference between calling for a point of damage and calling for a B roll is possibly slight. It's still an extra roll to be made though. The idea of having to choose to take a hit to B to cancel the spell or trust to luck to try to shrug off the effects each round seems a pleasing tactical aspect to me; both as a caster and as a target.

G

Page 54: "If either B or Q is brought to 0, but the other is positive, then the character is visibly fatigued and battered, and unless some remarkable other circumstance is at work, is considered to be at a disadvantage.

So, Itch alone can't stop a character. The victim is slowed down (if he/she doesn't spend B to jump to the top of the actions order) and is at a disadvantage, but he/she still can do what he/she wants.

Itch associated with other attacks, though...  B drops fast, in these conditions...

By the way, what happen when Q is reduced to zero? All the damage is subtracted from B, or it's still halved?

Hi Moreno,

If either B or Q is reduced to zero while the other is still positive, then damage received is still halved. The part that goes to the attribute at zero is "lost."

Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 22, 2014, 06:42:23 PM
It's in there and unambiguous as long as you're not looking at Gray Magick at the same time. You don't have to assume, it says that players choose the tally items.

No it doesn't. I checked again.

The draft says that the one single tally item that one PG gets is chosen (page 28):The single character with the lowest total scores gets a Tally item of the player's choice (see Magic).

Nothing is said about this on page 62-63

On page 64, talking about NPC wizards: For perspective and contrast, non-player-character wizards, i.e. "normal" magic, are limited to all spells of one color (Rbaja wizards also know white spells with points equal to W, which they cast with Warp.) Their Tally results are always determined randomly

Nothing is said about PCs

-----------------
Other questions:

Oaths (page 64): To end the oath during the adventure, either fulfill it or formally renounce it. Unfulfilled oaths
remaining at the adventure's end result in permanent -1 to an attribute of the player's choice.

1) If the character formally renounce it, does it lose the attribute point or not?
2) How do they formally renounce it? They can just say "I formally renounce my oath" or something like that ot it's more complicated?

---
Page 28: Divide the characters into the half with higher total scores and the half with lower total scores.
Each of the latter gets +1 to any score the player chooses (this doesn't affect homeland, professions, details, or anything else).

3) Let's say that one player choose a +1 in Wits. The text says that it doesn't affect "anything else", so it should not affect the number of spells. But at the start of a new adventure, the players must choose a new character, and When you choose the new character, if he or she is not a wizard, you may trade out the spells as you like, maintaining points equal to Wits, always both white and black.. So, does it affect the number of spells or not?

--
Action order after the first round:
4) The players only declare actions in the beginning of a fight, then they follow always the same order (if nobody spend B to jump to the top of the list), no matter what they do, right? So you don't need to have a free and clear phase for the rest of the conflict, and you can declare your action when it's your turn, and not before?

So, when at page 66 it's written:
Absorb Spell, Reflect Spell, Warp Spell, and Bless/Curse may be cast either:
toward a currently-active prolonged spell
toward any spell in the moment of its casting
In the latter case, the caster must be acting earlier than or tied with the targeted action in the
ordering sequence.
Re-do all this: in fair and clear, you see that the other guy is casting a spell, so say "vs. spell," or
"vs. [color] spell" if you're a wizard; a spell is only named when it goes off, but Reflect Spell
(which needs a new target) can specify at that moment.

5) this means that in the first round if you want to cast a spell or a counter-spell you have to declare it beforehand, but not the next time you act in the same conflict? So how can you declare a counter-spell acting before an instant spell, if the caster of rthe spell has already acted (launching the spell)? Even if you spend B, you are too late...

6) If I spend a B point right after doing an action, and nobody other do, can I do two consecutive actions? (like, casting two spells one right after the other). If I spend another B right after that and nobody else does, can I add a third consecutive action? (like casting a third spell right after the first two)

You've misunderstood me about the tallies and I'm too tired to argue about it. Just do what the rules say, all right?

Oaths

Quote1) If the character formally renounce it, does it lose the attribute point or not?

No.

Quote2) How do they formally renounce it? They can just say "I formally renounce my oath" or something like that ot it's more complicated?

The simple announcement is enough.

Quote3) Let's say that one player choose a +1 in Wits. The text says that it doesn't affect "anything else", so it should not affect the number of spells. But at the start of a new adventure, the players must choose a new character, and When you choose the new character, if he or she is not a wizard, you may trade out the spells as you like, maintaining points equal to Wits, always both white and black. So, does it affect the number of spells or not?

Good question. It seems inelegant to force the player to remember how many points were in spells as a different variable from Wits. And the whole point of providing the +1 in Wits is to benefit from it ... my main concern was not to add professions in case Wits went to 5 or 9. I think I'll specify that professsions don't change but you do get the added spell point.

QuoteAction order after the first round:
4) The players only declare actions in the beginning of a fight, then they follow always the same order (if nobody spend B to jump to the top of the list), no matter what they do, right? So you don't need to have a free and clear phase for the rest of the conflict, and you can declare your action when it's your turn, and not before?

Right. I'll address your #5 later, I'm too tired at the moment.

Quote6) If I spend a B point right after doing an action, and nobody other do, can I do two consecutive actions? (like, casting two spells one right after the other). If I spend another B right after that and nobody else does, can I add a third consecutive action? (like casting a third spell right after the first two)

Yes. You'll find out in play how risky that is.

QuoteSo, when at page 66 it's written:
Absorb Spell, Reflect Spell, Warp Spell, and Bless/Curse may be cast either:
toward a currently-active prolonged spell
toward any spell in the moment of its casting
In the latter case, the caster must be acting earlier than or tied with the targeted action in the
ordering sequence.
Re-do all this: in fair and clear, you see that the other guy is casting a spell, so say "vs. spell," or
"vs. [color] spell" if you're a wizard; a spell is only named when it goes off, but Reflect Spell
(which needs a new target) can specify at that moment.

5) this means that in the first round if you want to cast a spell or a counter-spell you have to declare it beforehand, but not the next time you act in the same conflict? So how can you declare a counter-spell acting before an instant spell, if the caster of rthe spell has already acted (launching the spell)? Even if you spend B, you are too late...

All that text escaped editing. Ignore the whole part that says "re-do all this," those were the notes that resulted in the text above it and were supposed to be deleted.

The text refers to the first bit of action, during fair-and-clear.

Later, which is what you're asking about, is more simple than you're imagining. Let's say your character knows Counterspell. Some other character is casting a spell and you think it's going to be a bad one, so you pump B to get your action concurrent with his or her spell, and cast Counterspell – both spells are being cast.

This is a little bit different from weapons, because in that case, you are pumping B to get in front of someone's action, whereas here, you're pumping B to get right there with his or her action. But you will find that distinction very easy to manage in play.

Yes, you can pump B to get in front of a spellcaster too, for a different (non-oppositional) spell or for any other action. Right now we're only talking about oppositional magic.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 27, 2014, 09:31:11 AM
Later, which is what you're asking about, is more simple than you're imagining. Let's say your character knows Counterspell. Some other character is casting a spell and you think it's going to be a bad one, so you pump B to get your action concurrent with his or her spell, and cast Counterspell – both spells are being cast.

1) You can do that (pump B to get the action concurrent with the spell) after the opponent specify the spell cast (or if he say "I cast hitch" instead of "I cast a spell"), or at that time it's too late?

2) The opponent can change his action at that time (after you have pumped B) as in the "fair and clear" phase?

3) The opponent can pump B too, to cast his spell before your counter-spell could stop it?

More in general, I am having some difficulty visualizing how the declarations works and who can act before what:

4) For the first actions, there is the free and clear phase, everybody commit to an action: does this mean that you can't pump B in that phase without declaring it in the Free and clear?

5) After the last character has acted following the free and clear declarations, the "spotlight" return to the first character who acted (if nobody pumps B to act before him) that declare what he is doing now: The question is: when it's too late to pump B to act before him?

Quote1) You can do that (pump B to get the action concurrent with the spell) after the opponent specify the spell cast (or if he say "I cast hitch" instead of "I cast a spell"), or at that time it's too late?

This doesn't make much sense to me. I can wrap it into a form that does make sense to me, and answer "no it's not too late," but I don't think that's safe because it may be answering a question you're not asking.

Perhaps the text and my thinking are not quite aligned at the moment. As I currently see it, spells are named at the moment of being cast, and that would include the initial fair-and-clear announcement as well. I remember there was some text to the contrary at some point, but if that's still in there, then delete it.

2) The opponent can change his action at that time (after you have pumped B) as in the "fair and clear" phase?[/quote]

No.

Quote3) The opponent can pump B too, to cast his spell before your counter-spell could stop it?

No. You pumped B to get into that person's action, not to pre-empt it, so that action is still at the top of the list. The opponent may only pump B into the spell to strengthen it.

QuoteMore in general, I am having some difficulty visualizing how the declarations works and who can act before what:

4) For the first actions, there is the free and clear phase, everybody commit to an action: does this mean that you can't pump B in that phase without declaring it in the Free and clear?

There's no pumping until the sequence begins. You can pump yourself to the front of the line after all the announcements are finished.

Quote5) After the last character has acted following the free and clear declarations, the "spotlight" return to the first character who acted (if nobody pumps B to act before him) that declare what he is doing now: The question is: when it's too late to pump B to act before him?

The rule is, once the dice are being rolled, then it's too late to pump yourself ahead of them. Until then, pumping puts you in front of that person's action.

This is list of question from my first playtest, HERE (http://indie-rpgs.com/adept/index.php?topic=318.0)

1) what happen if you cast "Stimulant" (2,b) two times in a row? Do the effects add to each other, do the second one take the place of the first, or what?  (what I decided provisionally: you can't add "stimulants" spells, only the first one count, if you are unsatisfied with the results, you can't simply cancel the spell and cast it again, you have to cast a counter-spell to cancel the first one)

2) One player said that his character would cast "Righteousness" every morning on both his armor and his sword. I decided provisionally that this was allowable, but only the color points from the casting in effects at the start of the adventure would be counted. Is this correct?

3) One player noticed that it's impossible by the game's rules to have a non-wizard gentry with Wits greater than 4: is this correct?  (we agreed that we all liked this intrinsic comment in the game rules about the intelligence of the ruling classes)

4) By the rules, it's possible to choose as combinations of professions something like "Farmer + Martial Arts (High)", or any other "peasant+Martial (High)" or "freeman+Martial arts (high)" combination, but in these cases there is nothing about the weapons and armor used.

5) One of the character had Wits=10. I didn't even made him roll when it was time for a Wits roll with 2 dice against 12. It's correct?

Quote1) what happen if you cast "Stimulant" (2,b) two times in a row? Do the effects add to each other, do the second one take the place of the first, or what?  (what I decided provisionally: you can't add "stimulants" spells, only the first one count, if you are unsatisfied with the results, you can't simply cancel the spell and cast it again, you have to cast a counter-spell to cancel the first one)

That's a question I'll have to think about. My initial response would be to permit the second spell and have everything about each casting apply - e.g. lose 4 BQ at the end of the duration. Note that one has spent 4 B on casting the spell. I assume the player was gaming the system and attempting to rest after the casting, so that the spent B would return. Or something like that, right?

As I said, I'll think about it a bit more, but I have given thought already to the more general question of gaming the dusk/dawn cycle and the "B comes back per scene" rule. That hasn't made it into the text yet.

Quote2) One player said that his character would cast "Righteousness" every morning on both his armor and his sword. I decided provisionally that this was allowable, but only the color points from the casting in effects at the start of the adventure would be counted. Is this correct?

Yes! Good anticipation of the planned rule.

Also, in this, the player is doing nothing wrong. Setting up a nice stable of prolonged spells each day is the obvious life-style choice for the thinking wizard.

However - the B spent for such casting must be spent all at once - you can't string it out in alleged 15-minute steps and claim the B came back between each one.

Quote3) One player noticed that it's impossible by the game's rules to have a non-wizard gentry with Wits greater than 4: is this correct?  (we agreed that we all liked this intrinsic comment in the game rules about the intelligence of the ruling classes)

Yes. A little nasty classism on my part, there, but it has nothing to do with genetics in case anyone was wondering. The social rank system is more fluid than it looks, as pointed out in the text. My comment is more about how being raised in the gentry doesn't teach anything else, and the W result is emergent rather than inherent.

(I hate nature/nurture thinking and defy it in all of my game designs.)

Quote4) By the rules, it's possible to choose as combinations of professions something like "Farmer + Martial Arts (High)", or any other "peasant+Martial (High)" or "freeman+Martial arts (high)" combination, but in these cases there is nothing about the weapons and armor used.

The arms and armor are set by social rank, not profession, so the farmer + martial high character must have some interesting reason for his or her skills ... either a former gentry or professional who's turned to the peasant life, or a peasant who gained such training in interesting circumstances. I think that a player who chooses professions so far apart from one another can be relied upon to come up with a cool (brief!) back-story for it.

Quote5) One of the character had Wits=10. I didn't even made him roll when it was time for a Wits roll with 2 dice against 12. It's correct?

Correct. It's awesome to roll a 6. But do be a real dick of a GM regarding one-die rolls when they apply.

Other questions from the playtest (I am writing the description of the session right now and I am compiling the various questions asked during the game in these lists)

6) The draft talks some pages about the "hand axe" and some pages about the "great axe", and only the latter's stats are listed. Are them the same weapon? (my initial inclination was to say that they were indeed the same weapon, but Mauro suggested to consider the hand axe a weapon with 3 as minimum Q to use and no modifiers to the roll at all, and we agreed to that)

7) When a PC creates a Spirit Warrior when he is under the effect of a "stimulant" spell, are the Spirit Warrior stats based on the "natural" PC stats, or on the stats increased by Stimulant? (I provisionally decided that it was based on the natural unmodified stats)

8) Imagine 4 characters: A (Q=9), B(Q=8), C(Q=7), D(Q=5). After the free and clear declarations, B pumps Brawn to act first, so the order is B, A, C, D.
In the first actions they are not harmed, so at the end of the first "round" it's again B's turn. B engage A in a clash, and gets wounded for 5BQ, losing 3 points of Q and going to Q=6
If Q had not pumped Brawn and moved up in the succession, he would have gone into the "slot" for people with Q=6, so in this case the order would have been:
B (gets wounded), A, C, D, A, C, B(with Q=9-3=6), D
But with B having jumped to the top of the list before...  where does it go after being wounded?
(my provisional answer: exactly in the same place. Not only he has a lower Q than before, but he loses the benefit from the previous Brawn pumping, and return to the place in the list that his new Q warrant)

-------
9) a question about the combat rules: the previous questions were ones where we all had doubts, but in the case of this questions, we simply had read the manual and we had two wholly different interpretations about what they means.

Imagine 2 PCs against 1 NPC. The PC1 goes first, engaging the NPC in a clash. The NPC abort his declared action and get into the clash attacking PC1. Next, it's PC2's turn, and he engages NPC in a clash, too.

Alessandro's interpretation of the rules: NPC has lost his action for the turn, so he can only defend in the clash, not attack
Moreno and Mauro's interpretation of the rules: NPC can't act in the sense of "he can't engage anybody in a clash and he can do nothing else either", but if is another character that engage him in a clash, the clash rules take over and NPC can attack his attacker in the clash

We debated a little and at the end we agreed to use the second interpretation. But we want the designer's stamp of approval over this.
-----------------

10). During the first turn after the freee and clear phase, if you get sucked into a clash before is your turn to act and you don't limit yourself to defense, you lose yopur action for the turn, OK.
But after the first turn, when there are no more turns and we simply go by order one character after another... how does this work? How can we decide if the character sucked into the clash was "before" or "after" his turn? He is both!

Quote6) The draft talks some pages about the "hand axe" and some pages about the "great axe", and only the latter's stats are listed. Are them the same weapon? (my initial inclination was to say that they were indeed the same weapon, but Mauro suggested to consider the hand axe a weapon with 3 as minimum Q to use and no modifiers to the roll at all, and we agreed to that)

The great-axe is its own thing, and only ever called by that name.

I haven't gone carefully through the text to distinguish the small axes, which are pretty much the same in mechanical terms. One is the hatchet, known to farmers and outdoorsmen everywhere, and the other is the francisca, a standard freeman's armament in Tamaryon. The main difference is in cultural use, because people outside of Tamaryon don't typically carry their hatchets to a fight, and the people in Tamaryon do. That latter habit has led to a more distinctive-looking weapon there, although again, the mechanics are the same. An outdoorsman from anywhere can nail you with a hatchet.

Quote7) When a PC creates a Spirit Warrior when he is under the effect of a "stimulant" spell, are the Spirit Warrior stats based on the "natural" PC stats, or on the stats increased by Stimulant? (I provisionally decided that it was based on the natural unmodified stats)

Correct.

QuoteImagine 4 characters: A (Q=9), B(Q=8), C(Q=7), D(Q=5). After the free and clear declarations, B pumps Brawn to act first, so the order is B, A, C, D.
In the first actions they are not harmed, so at the end of the first "round" it's again B's turn. B engage A in a clash, and gets wounded for 5BQ, losing 3 points of Q and going to Q=6
If Q had not pumped Brawn and moved up in the succession, he would have gone into the "slot" for people with Q=6, so in this case the order would have been:
B (gets wounded), A, C, D, A, C, B(with Q=9-3=6), D
But with B having jumped to the top of the list before...  where does it go after being wounded?
(my provisional answer: exactly in the same place. Not only he has a lower Q than before, but he loses the benefit from the previous Brawn pumping, and return to the place in the list that his new Q warrant)

Correct. He goes to the ... wait, you say 9 minus 3, but I see B with Q 8, so 8 minus 3 is 5, not 6. That aside, he goes wherever that math puts him. The prior bump to the top plays no role in his new position whatsoever.

QuoteImagine 2 PCs against 1 NPC. The PC1 goes first, engaging the NPC in a clash. The NPC abort his declared action and get into the clash attacking PC1. Next, it's PC2's turn, and he engages NPC in a clash, too.

Alessandro's interpretation of the rules: NPC has lost his action for the turn, so he can only defend in the clash, not attack
Moreno and Mauro's interpretation of the rules: NPC can't act in the sense of "he can't engage anybody in a clash and he can do nothing else either", but if is another character that engage him in a clash, the clash rules take over and NPC can attack his attacker in the clash

The second interpretation is correct.

Quote10). During the first turn after the freee and clear phase, if you get sucked into a clash before is your turn to act and you don't limit yourself to defense, you lose yopur action for the turn, OK.
But after the first turn, when there are no more turns and we simply go by order one character after another... how does this work? How can we decide if the character sucked into the clash was "before" or "after" his turn? He is both!

The best way to think of this is always forward. If you get sucked into a clash and fight back, your next, upcoming action is canceled. It works pretty well, you'll see. As observed in the other playtest session, the full-defense action is a very dramatic, very consequential part of play – the player-character sucked the other guy into a clash and then went full-defense, effectively tying him up and ruining his chance to act. More typically, people fight defensively like the devil, even when they have the advantage, in order to keep from losing a planned action. Lots of "get out of my way, dammit" dialogue. I really like the way that the game subverts the classic fantasy-RPG model of trusting to established, fixed defenses and hammering away in full offense all the time.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 27, 2014, 11:28:27 PM

Quote10). During the first turn after the freee and clear phase, if you get sucked into a clash before is your turn to act and you don't limit yourself to defense, you lose yopur action for the turn, OK.
But after the first turn, when there are no more turns and we simply go by order one character after another... how does this work? How can we decide if the character sucked into the clash was "before" or "after" his turn? He is both!

The best way to think of this is always forward. If you get sucked into a clash and fight back, your next, upcoming action is canceled. It works pretty well, you'll see. As observed in the other playtest session, the full-defense action is a very dramatic, very consequential part of play – the player-character sucked the other guy into a clash and then went full-defense, effectively tying him up and ruining his chance to act. More typically, people fight defensively like the devil, even when they have the advantage, in order to keep from losing a planned action. Lots of "get out of my way, dammit" dialogue. I really like the way that the game subverts the classic fantasy-RPG model of trusting to established, fixed defenses and hammering away in full offense all the time.

So, if during the first round I get sucked into a clash after I take my own action, then I'm free to attack during the clash and I don't lose my next action.
But, after the first whole round if I get sucked into a clash, and if I attack in the clash, I will lose my next action.
Is that right?

I know I should just shut up and playtest this and see how it works before commenting, but: it's confusing to have different mechanics for the first round of combat vs. subsequent rounds.  That's why I keep thinking I've misunderstood something, or that you keep contradicting yourself as you explain this to people on the forum.

Anyway, please let me know if I've re-stated the mechanics correctly.  No need to respond to my game design comment for now.  I'll watch out for how this works in playtest.

Thanks,
-John

Hi John, I don't want the first round to work differently. So I'll review it and make sure that's not the case, and try to explain it here. One of the problems of playtesting is that the author is always one step ahead of the manuscript, so people using the manuscript continually get to be told, Oh that, that's old, forget it, after they just spent an hour committing it to memory. Plus the author simply explaining something wrong because he's not used to explaining it. I appreciate your patience.

Hi Ron

Looking for a clarification on the way you see the Rbaja and Amboriyon setup.
So, as I understand it at the moment:

There's Amboriyon itself - the White power manifested in the world as gleaming cloud citadels.
There's Rbaja itself - the Black power manifested in the world as an area of blackened, blighted wasteland.
Neither of these places may be entered in the game.
You cannot ascend to an Amboriyon cloud citadel; you cannot approach, let alone set foot upon, an Rbaja wasteland.

Then there's the effects those areas have on their immediate neighbourhood.
In the 'shadow' and vicinity of an Amboriyon cloud, there's all the healing, silvery light, clarity stuff.
At the periphery of an Rbaja wasteland, the dead rise, the water turns foul, the air is thick and sickly and so on.
(There are magical effects too, free spells, tally stuff, etc)

I think that's basically correct so far?

Question: When a character casts a spell which creates a 'zone' of the relevant colour...what is created?
The effects (zombies rise; air shines with healing light) or the thing itself (blighted wasteland, all die, none may enter; bright clouds descend, gleaming citadel forms in the sky above)?

Another Question: Can manifestations of Rbaja or Amboriyon be cancelled out and reversed by the other colour? If the local Black Wizard has whisked up an Rbaja zone, say, can the local White Wizard roll up and call in an Amboriyon zone to set things back to normal?
In physical terms, is the magical war fought by holding and protecting territory (creating 'zones') or about claiming territory before the other side gets in on it?

Best,

Gethyn

Hi Gethyn,

Your opening descriptions are all correct.

QuoteQuestion: When a character casts a spell which creates a 'zone' of the relevant colour...what is created?
The effects (zombies rise; air shines with healing light) or the thing itself (blighted wasteland, all die, none may enter; bright clouds descend, gleaming citadel forms in the sky above)?

A limited creation of the thing itself and a more extensive area of the effects. I think of Amboriyon as a cloud-spewing point of light high above, with the weird effects happening in the spell's area of effect. I think of Rbaja as a chasm or horrible spot on the landscape, with its effects happening in the spell's area of effect. The "thing itself" is present just enough for you to know it's present.

QuoteAnother Question: Can manifestations of Rbaja or Amboriyon be cancelled out and reversed by the other colour? If the local Black Wizard has whisked up an Rbaja zone, say, can the local White Wizard roll up and call in an Amboriyon zone to set things back to normal?

No – if that were the case, the best thing for the setting would be for both to be brought to maximum conflict as soon as possible. Instead, what happens is that some portion of the immediate setting becomes claimed by one and some by the other, depending on the relative strength of each manifestation. These "claims" occur much faster in one another's presence than when alone, and a fair amount of reality is made into metaphysical space – i.e., it's destroyed. Casting Distort or Wrath into a zone of the other color is effectively aiding the magical war, not defying it.

QuoteIn physical terms, is the magical war fought by holding and protecting territory (creating 'zones') or about claiming territory before the other side gets in on it?

The magical war is ultimately fought by there being nothing left of reality, just essentialized Rbaja and essentialized Amboriyon – a metaverse of pure abstraction. Winning that war would be a matter of getting more than the other side, and ultimately destroying the other side entirely. But as I mention in the text, no one knows if there's even a real "war" at all, in terms of metaphysical entities with goals. For all we know, the effect I just described is not a goal, but merely the long-term effect of human wizards seeking advantage and ideological triumphs over one another, without regard for the ultimate result.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 28, 2014, 04:48:16 PMI appreciate your patience.

Thanks for yours.  I hope my preceding post didn't sound like a complaint. Tequila rules, right?

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in game design, however peripherally, so we'll call it even.  :)

-John

I think what's happening is that I keep simplifying it.

1. Fair-and-clear. This happens once, so everyone's oriented before we move into the action.

2. Go in order. If you get sucked into a clash and do anything but full defense, you lose your upcoming action. This may be no big deal to someone who just wants to fight, but it's a little risky concerning the advantage die, all else being equal.

3. The order changes in two ways:

i) if your Q drops due to injury or anything else, moving you further from the "go next" point.

ii) if you pump B to get immediately to the "go next" point, which can be done at any moment unless someone is already rolling dice. You'll stay in that position relative to the other characters unless (i) happens.

5. Spellcasting includes a slight variant to 4(ii) in that one can pump B to get "into" a spellcaster's move rather than precede it, for the purpose of oppositional magic only. Your character stays in the position ahead of the character who was casting the spell, just like normal "pump to go next" actions.

6. Modifications like the +1 to allocate for a sword don't do anything to the order.

If anything I wrote anywhere is different from the above, ignore it. In particular, I think the jabber about announcing which spell you're casting in fair-and-clear is unnecessary.

(John, there isn't any time when you can fight back upon getting sucked in and still keep your next action. There's a post somewhere in one of these threads - I think Joshua's playtest - where I say otherwise but I was wrong.)

A(q=9), B(q=7), C(q=5) and D(q=3) are fighting with each other.

A act first and suck B into a clash. B doesn't limit himself to full defense (we need a shorter way of saying "doesn't limit himself to full defense". Avoiding pornographic double-meanings about getting sucked, possibly). B gets wounded and lose 3 Q, going to 4

So, the new order should be:

C, D, A, C, D, A, C, and only at this point it's B's turn again (he missed an action and dropped behind C in the order)

What if B pump Brawn right after the clash with A? When will be able to act?

How do you track all this on the table, Ron?

I know you use labelled piles of dice for Sorcerer conflicts so I'm guessing at something physical.
Is it index cards..? Playing cards..? Lists on a piece of paper..?

G

So far I've been doing it in my head, without obvious problems, which is very strange because ordinarily I am definitely not that GM. I think the game needs an instrument.

Strangely, I think the best shape to use is a circle, with the "go" position marked at 3:00. Counters are set up on its edge, going clockwise, so they start between approximately 12:00 and 3:00, with the highest Q at right at 3:00. When that guy goes, that counter zips clockwise all the way around to the end of the line, roughly at 12:00.

So at any time, you can see the order, and if anyone changes position, it's obvious exactly where the counter goes. Fortunately there are no temporary changes of Q in the context of a fight (I think), so you don't have to say something like "OK, two turns here, and then I go back where I belong," or whatever.

Thanks Ron, this version looks quite workable and self-consistent.

Moreno: so I think what you're asking is "can B lose his next TWO actions?", right?

Gethyn: I was wondering the same thing, how to track all this at the table.  I was going to buy a wipe-off board before Tuesday's playtest.

-J

Moreno's question:

QuoteA(q=9), B(q=7), C(q=5) and D(q=3) are fighting with each other.

A act first and suck B into a clash. B doesn't limit himself to full defense .... B gets wounded and lose 3 Q, going to 4

So, the new order should be:

C, D, A, C, D, A, C, and only at this point it's B's turn again (he missed an action and dropped behind C in the order)

I think that's right. I also think "misses next action" is adding a necessary visual element, like a tag or something - it's better to leave the counter on the diagram, so maybe flip it over ... yeah, that would work. If your counter gets flipped, then when it reaches the "go" spot, then it just zips around with no action.

Yes, B is screwed. He or she should have done full defense.

Hey John, B doesn't lose two actions in the sense of having two less. One of those is not lost, merely shifted in the order due to the injury. Moreno is double-teaming the character, so it's a pretty severe outcome.

QuoteWhat if B pump Brawn right after the clash with A? When will be able to act?

B will then pop straight to the "go" position, with freedom to act. Doing this cancels the "misses next action" status.

If pumping B like this seems very powerful to you - for example, permitting a spellcaster to fight then then cast his spell anyway - you're right! But I hope you can also see that spending B freely is a wicked trap. Playtesting showed me that people quickly got arrogant with their magic and their B-to-act spending.

I like the idea of the circle diagram to track initiative/priority.  It's elegant and fits the theme of the game.

But I just realized that it doesn't track Q score.  So, when someone loses Q and has to go to a new position, they have to auction a bit: "I'm now Q=4, who has Q of 4, anyone?  How about 5?..."  Can we think of an evolution of the priority circle that encodes Q as well?

Brainstorming here: Maybe, like a clock, the circle has numbers around it.  Characters' tokens go on the number corresponding to their Q.  A token only moves when a character's Q changes.  In the middle of the clock is a hand that points to where we are in the order, it points to the character who is currently taking a turn.  As we play through the order, the hand rotates.

Except I'm hesitating to introduce clock symbolism to the game's circle theme.  Well, the "hand" can be a little spear, and we only need numbers up to 10, not 12...

-J

Thinking about this some more:

Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 28, 2014, 11:30:47 PM

1. Fair-and-clear. This happens once, so everyone's oriented before we move into the action.

2. Go in order. If you get sucked into a clash and do anything but full defense, you lose your upcoming action.

If anything I wrote anywhere is different from the above, ignore it.

So, is it no longer a rule that a character can't change his first action that he declared during fair-and-clear?  And that, if the target of the declared first action is no longer available, that action is lost?

Thanks,
-J

Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 27, 2014, 12:01:58 AM
Oaths

Quote1) If the character formally renounce it, does it lose the attribute point or not?

No.

What's to stop players from swearing oaths whenever they want a bonus, and then renouncing right afterwards, or at least before the end of the adventure?  I'm sure you've thought of that - what's your thinking here, about how oaths affect play?  I thought it made more sense to say that an oath, once sworn, must either be carried out or it results in the permanent loss of the attribute point. 

-J

How commonly known are facts about monsters and creatures of Amboriyon and Rjaba?  Examples: that there's such a thing as an Amboriyon Guide; that if you kill a Guide, it comes back with its wounds streaming the Insire Throng effect; that the only way to get rid one is to kill it in or near an Rbaja zone, or with black magic.

Common knowledge?  Commonly known amongst wizards?  Knowledge unavailable at the start of play?

Thanks,
-J

About the way to track the order at the table: there are two kind of situations for the character:
1) the character is in "his own place" in the Q progression, in the place for "characters with Q equal to this" (it's not enough to put the tokens in order, you need to be able to track ties too)
2) the character pumped B to jump to the top and at the moment is outside his own "Q slot"

The most clear way to track this that i can think of at this moment is:
A) A straight track (not a circular one) with slots numbered from 0 to the top amount of Q possible in the game. The characters in the situation (1) are all in this track, in the slot numbered as their Q.
B) A strip UNDER this track (or above, the important thing it's that it side by side, as if it was another lane in a street). It isn't divided into slots, because the posizion of character in the situation (2) is not tied to their Q at all, they are simply "before" or "after" or "in the same place" of tokens in the numbered lane.
C) A special-colored  token that simply represent "the Now", the precise instant we are playing now.

At the start of the fight, everybody put their token on the numbered track. If someone if pumped up by spells or wounded he moves the token accordingly on the numbered track.  The GM moves the "now" token down on the track, from the highest numbers to the lowest one, and when it "meet" a character token, that character gets to act.
If someone pump Brawn, his token is moved to the unnumbered strip, BEFORE the next character that would have acted, but after the last one who acted before. And stay there until (1) he pumps Brawn again - moving to another place still in the unnumbered strip, or (2) he is wounded, and return to his place in the numbered strip.

The token has two sides, and when they lose the next action they are simply turned upside down

The advantage of this system are:
1) You always see at a glance how much quickness has everybody,  apart from the pumped ones, that will not use that value until it will change anyway.
2) You move ONLY one token, the "now", if nobody pumps Brawn or it's wounded. And you could even do without that token, all you need is to remember who acted last.

And, for playing by hangout...

3) It's really simple to drawn something like this in a spreadsheet, print it as a flat image, and then add and move the tokens (the character names in this case) from a slot to another with the mouse, and simply changing their color when they lose the next action. Doing that with a circular diagram would be much more complicated.

P.S.: if you want to use a single track, no matter how long, you can simply add a not numbered slot between each couple of numbered slot, and move pumped characters here. This add a little complication because in some occasions having to move the token in a numbered slot could cause the movement of a pumped one to get the order right, but I don't think it will be a problem.

Can the Raise Lich spell be cast usefully by a PC?  Do I get to continue playing my character as a Lich?  Or is it perhaps best used as a sacrifice: my Lich-self can go distract the Silver Dragon; while my Haunt (since I am now dead) goes and interacts usefully with people?

What happens if you roll a tally result you already have, or a physical manifestation result you already have?

Is there any restriction against having both white and black tallies/manifestations?

Does anything bad happen when you get too many tallies?  Is there such a thing?

How many tallies do NPC wizards start with?  Since they only ever cast spells of one color, is there any reason they haven't accumulated all the tallies for their color already?

Is there any compelling mechanical reason why I should not pick some cheap, easy to use 1 or 2  point spells and then cast them repeatedly and rest until I fill up my color gauge and get repeated tallies in the associated color?

Page 67 says "Wrath... is typically cast as an enchantment."  As a Circle Knight, why would I cast Wrath as an Enchantment?  Amboryion zones are bad; I just want to cast this spell to slay the horde of unwashed peasants the GM sends after my archmage.

Hi Willow! Some of your questions were already answered (or at least I think so), I will leave the rest to Ron.

Quote from: willow on March 29, 2014, 11:19:16 PM
What happens if you roll a tally result you already have, or a physical manifestation result you already have?

I don't know the answer to this, but the tally results for Player Characters are chosen, not rolled, so at least for them it would be a issue only with NPCs.

QuoteIs there any restriction against having both white and black tallies/manifestations?

None by the rules, none in the Circle for the knights (that are "heretics" anyway), a lot of cultural restrictions instead outside of Rolke for not-circle Wizards, that must be aligned with white or black magic, and anybody who would show both kind of tallies would be quickly killed if discovered.

Quote
How many tallies do NPC wizards start with?

The number of Circle Knights in the Venture (the number of players in the session excluding the GM)

Quote
Is there any compelling mechanical reason why I should not pick some cheap, easy to use 1 or 2  point spells and then cast them repeatedly and rest until I fill up my color gauge and get repeated tallies in the associated color?

This is what the players almost did in my playtest, "the wyrm in the mountain", Ron talked in that thread about rules to address this.

"A thrown spear ignore mail".

Does this mean that the entire damage pass though (no armor) or that ONLY the mail is not counted, but the helm, the shield and the gambeson are?

JOHN
What's to stop players from swearing oaths whenever they want a bonus, and then renouncing right afterwards, or at least before the end of the adventure?  I'm sure you've thought of that - what's your thinking here, about how oaths affect play?  I thought it made more sense to say that an oath, once sworn, must either be carried out or it results in the permanent loss of the attribute point. 

I've gone back and forth in thinking about this. My first priority is that I really want to avoid purely punitive, "I want you to play like thus-and-such"  mechanics.

I think the real question is what kind of rolls get the oath-bonus in the first place. People are used to milking this kind of thing very thoroughly, along the lines of "I got myself into this bar brawl, but since I can't rescue the princess if I'm dead, then I better get that bonus about rescuing the princess to win this brawl." Which is total donkey balls. I want oath bonuses to be really direct things. If I can manage that, then your concern drops down really far, because you then basically can't swear an oath to "get a bonus" in a generic way.

WILLOW

QuoteCan the Raise Lich spell be cast usefully by a PC?  Do I get to continue playing my character as a Lich?  Or is it perhaps best used as a sacrifice: my Lich-self can go distract the Silver Dragon; while my Haunt (since I am now dead) goes and interacts usefully with people?

The intention is for player-characters to be able to cast Raise Lich, which goes all the way back to Gray Magick. I instituted the wraith rules much more recently, so exactly how those rules interact is ... difficult to say. At present, I'm inclined to think that becoming undead removes your character from your control, which obviates the original intention of the spell.

Still, it seems sort of lame to have a spell that player-characters effectively cannot use, and it goes against the point of play which is that black/white are merely weapons, without genuine moral content. So maybe I should open it up for suggestions. The doubled self seems like an interesting if rather bent parallel to Spirit Warrior, for example.

QuoteIs there any restriction against having both white and black tallies/manifestations?

Nope! I see two paths for a Circle member – either try to stay as gray as possible, avoiding tallies, or tally up like a beast on both sides.

QuoteDoes anything bad happen when you get too many tallies?  Is there such a thing?

I really want to develop the downside of tallies in terms of Rbaja and Amoriyon zones, though – the point is that near such things, having tallies becomes a liability.

QuoteHow many tallies do NPC wizards start with?  Since they only ever cast spells of one color, is there any reason they haven't accumulated all the tallies for their color already?

Moreno answered the first part, so I'll address the second– that tally accumulation isn't physics. It's an in-play phenomenon that's heightened for dramatic effect. Don't try to imagine every spell a wizard has ever, ever cast and then add up the points on your fingers. Think of a tally, for a non-player-character, as being a life-changing, long-sought, spiritually transcendent event.

QuoteIs there any compelling mechanical reason why I should not pick some cheap, easy to use 1 or 2  point spells and then cast them repeatedly and rest until I fill up my color gauge and get repeated tallies in the associated color?

Discussion to follow soon, before Thursday if possible.

QuotePage 67 says "Wrath... is typically cast as an enchantment."  As a Circle Knight, why would I cast Wrath as an Enchantment?  Amboryion zones are bad; I just want to cast this spell to slay the horde of unwashed peasants the GM sends after my archmage.

"Typically" refers to how it's done throughout the setting, not as a recommendation to players. I am discovering a lot about how this language is read in game texts, and the re-write is going to be extremely, even simplistically clear about what is a setting description and what is a recommendation or directive for play.

MORENO

QuoteA thrown spear ignore mail.

Does this mean that the entire damage pass though (no armor) or that ONLY the mail is not counted, but the helm, the shield and the gambeson are?

It means the mail only.

Hey John,

QuoteHow commonly known are facts about monsters and creatures of Amboriyon and Rjaba?  Examples: that there's such a thing as an Amboriyon Guide; that if you kill a Guide, it comes back with its wounds streaming the Insire Throng effect; that the only way to get rid one is to kill it in or near an Rbaja zone, or with black magic.

Common knowledge?  Commonly known amongst wizards?  Knowledge unavailable at the start of play?

Very good questions. It might be best to split the information into smaller categories.

1. Beast and monster knowledge is a matter of home region and profession. If you're from the mountains of Rolke (most of Rolke), you know about the panther. If you're a farmer or outdoorsman, you also know about the local panthers if any, and how to deal with creatures of this kind, for self-defense and for defense of one's resources.

2. Magical knowledge can be broken into general setting knowledge, regional tweaks of that, profession-specific knowledge, and personal/experiential knowledge.

i) General setting knowledge is basically that Rbaja and Amboriyon exist, they are opposed, the former is horrible and blighted, and the latter is pretty nice. Wizards are most people's common reference. For areas with strong religious leanings, magic in general is considered dangerous. Or another way to put it is that most people are mildly religious, in practice straying to favor white magic instead of shunning it because it is so helpful (at the moment).

ii) Regional tweaks in both magic and religion can be inferred from the text, I think. People from Tamaryon have a better general understanding of avatars and eidolons than others; people from Spurr have a better general understanding of undead and demons; people from Rolke are at least aware that "gray" magic can be practiced, whether they like or hate the idea.

iii) Profession-specific knowledge applies most obviously to priests and scholars, both of whom understand the long-term implications of both kinds of magic. How a person chooses to act on that knowledge is definitely an individual decision.

iv) People who are dealing directly with the two forms of magic (components 6 and 7) have definite understanding and opinion, but how well-informed they are, or how sensible the opinions may be, varies greatly.

Ron, congratz on your 1000th post.  ;-)

Thanks, that makes sense.  I can use it as a guideline... and I can see how I'm going to have to modify one of my adventures to align with this.

-J

What about other people's spells? If a PC hear a spell being cast, can he identity the spell before the casting is finished? Does he need to make a roll? What if the PC is a wizard?

Quote

QuoteHow many tallies do NPC wizards start with?

The number of Circle Knights in the Venture (the number of players in the session excluding the GM)

Can you tell me where this comes from? I can't for the life of me find anything about it in the play test rulebook.
Is it from a conversation here or am I going rules-blind? :)

G

Quote from: Nyhteg on March 31, 2014, 06:19:38 AM

Quote

QuoteHow many tallies do NPC wizards start with?

The number of Circle Knights in the Venture (the number of players in the session excluding the GM)

Can you tell me where this comes from? I can't for the life of me find anything about it in the play test rulebook.
Is it from a conversation here or am I going rules-blind? :)

Page 32, just under the bulleted list:
If the people in the preparation include a wizard, then he or she has tallies equal to the number of knights in the adventure (see Magic).

Well goodness me, there it is. :)
Thanks, Moreno. Missed that completely.

G

Quote... If a PC hear a spell being cast, can he identity the spell before the casting is finished? Does he need to make a roll? What if the PC is a wizard?

Anyone can perceive the color of the spell due to the actions involved (black smoke, et cetera).

If a wizard is present when another spell is being cast, he or she absolutely and instantly knows what spell it is. No roll is required, nor is this based only on normal senses.

Another character is limited by normal senses, but if sight or hearing permits, then the character can recognize any spell being cast which he or she knows. Arguably, if the character has seen this spell in action before, he or she can recognize it too.

My fix for the gentry, Wits, and professions issue: that you don't have to pick professions maximally for your Wits. You could have Wits 9 or 10, giving you room for three professions, but if you wanted the character to be non-wizard gentry, that's OK - just take Martial (high) by itself and no more professions, and there you are.

Ron, last-minute rule question for this evening's game:

In another thread you said:

Quote(although note that you can only use one point at a time with Link!).

Link's description from the draft:

Link (p, r). The caster and one designated person, avatar, demon, or beast may use one another's
character points as bonuses at will; a given characteristic point may only be used by one
character during a round.

From the description, it seems like you can use all the character points of the other, if he/she/it doesn't use the same points during the same round.

Example: link to my horse, I am fighting, the horse is not. I can use how many points of quickness from the horse...  to do what? ("bonuses" with no qualifications seems a residue from a previous draft, and your note about the 1-point make me think that you changed the spell)

I've changed the spell. Its final, exact form is still in progress.