[Circle of Hands] Rules questions

[Moreno R.]

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!

[Ron Edwards]

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)

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.

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)

Correct.

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)

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.

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

The second interpretation is correct.

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!

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.

[John W]

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!

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

[Ron Edwards]

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.

[Nyhteg]

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

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gethyn,

Your opening descriptions are all correct.

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)?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

[John W]

I 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

[Ron Edwards]

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.)

[Moreno R.]

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?

[Nyhteg]

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

[Ron Edwards]

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.

[John W]

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

[Ron Edwards]

Moreno's question:

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 .... 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.

What 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.

[John W]

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

[John W]

Thinking about this some more:

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