[Circle of Hands] Unnamed NPCs

[John W]

I meant to ask:

• Does intent (Q allocation) apply to Q vs.12 rolls?  I'm guessing not.
• How persistent is the "you get 1 die vs. unnamed people on their turf" rule?  Unless/until you do something "indisputably effective" to gain (relative) advantage?  Or does the disadvantage wear off after a few rounds?...

[Ron Edwards]

Does intent (Q allocation) apply to Q vs.12 rolls?  I'm guessing not.
How persistent is the "you get 1 die vs. unnamed people on their turf" rule?  Unless/until you do something "indisputably effective" to gain (relative) advantage?  Or does the disadvantage wear off after a few rounds?...

Sorry John, I forgot about these!

Q allocation, which I'm OK with calling intent at this point, does not apply to Q vs. 12 rolls.

The single die situation (a really awful place to be) can be solved a few ways. The best is to play nice early on, have your character get to know the area, work with the people there, fit in, demonstrate that being in the Circle doesn't mean "alien," learn the terrain, and similar. Doing so gives your C vs. 12 rolls two dice, and success in those leads to more access to the area, resulting in a soft, contextual shift in later rolls that give many of them two dice as well. If you've been staying at the local gentry's hall for a couple of weeks, then it's not unfamiliar terrain to you when something blows up and you're fighting a guy in it.

Other ways rely on other rolls, especially Wits – the core to orienting oneself for both social situations and immediate geography, as long as your professions and social rank permit.

When all else fails, go for magic. True Way is awesome, especially against unnamed characters – you simply escape or place yourself in a position of advantage – and even against named characters it solves the two-dice problem easily. The generic bonus spells like Bless help plenty (it's under revision now, but you can get the idea from the current text), and there are more to discover for specific situations if you go through the whole list.

Your question seems focused on being in a fight that begins at a disadvantage, and in that situation, in addition to magic, I suggest that the very immediate circumstances of the fight take precedence. If you nail someone with your spear (a roll which is not penalized), then your rush with shield and axe is an awesome thing, and the local advantage is left behind in the prior moments of the encounter.

[John W]

Thanks Ron, that makes sense.

So the one-die penalty for being on unfamiliar terrain and/or opposing someone on their home turf is situational and it depends on the action.  I'm thinking of an example from our first playtest, in which the Circle knights had a dust-up with some locals in a hay barn.  When a knight stabs at a local unnamed NPC, it's combat, no die penalty, the knight gets 2 dice on the Q vs.12 roll.  When the local bolts from the engagement, takes evasive action around the posts and ladders, and attempts to climb up to the hay loft, his familiarity with the building is key, so the knight gets only one die on the Q vs.12 roll to catch the NPC before he's out of reach. 

We had another good playtest last night.  It might be 24hrs before I get time to write it up though.

Cheers,
-J

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John,

That's not quite where my mind was at – let's see if I can explain it a little differently.

I was thinking that if and when an outsider fought with a guy in a barn he's worked in all his life, all those things you described are happening already, and the single-die penalty situation applies at the outset. There isn't any "when a knight stabs at ..." without this context.

But if the outsider gets in a good one and successfully hits the guy, then things change. Or evades an attack and simply gets face-to-face with him. Or even better, has the sense to make some other kind of roll, probably Wits, to orient himself (farmers obviously will do best with this), and then attack and defend with two dice.

The best bet for the outsider is to be more savvy long before any kind of fight situation begins, if possible.

Let me know if that makes sense.

[Nyhteg]

Hi Ron

Hm. Reading this makes me think that there's a whole load of stuff I'm not getting or haven't picked up on.

Perhaps it's one of those things which are so obvious to you that it's hard to know how to convey them but, speaking for myself, interactions with unnamed NPCs and the way in which 12 rolls function and occur (particularly in the context of combat and clashes) suddenly looks like an area I don't understand as well as I thought I did...

Maybe it's a "next draft will clear it up" sort of a thing.

G 

[Ron Edwards]

I'm not sure what I'm (we're) up against. The unnamed rules are there to make things easier, not harder, so I better find out what it is. I'll try some way of saying it, and you tell me whether it makes sense. This isn't rhetoric: I'm seeking a good explanation, not telling you you "better" understand it like I'm saying it. If I can't find a way to make sense about it here, then there's no point in struggling with the manuscript in isolation. So help me out ...

Part of the trouble is that the group rules and the unnamed rules are related, although not the same.

The overall idea is that the mass of people one sees and classifies through simple signals is relatively impenetrable. You can observe stuff about them as a group, but as a group, they can do stuff you can't do anything about, at least not by acting as a single individual. The group cannot be talked to, or fought.

So in moving among them and interacting, you're dealing with "pieces" of the group. That's what unnamed individuals are. Unlike the group as a whole, you can do stuff to or with them, but only in crude ways which aren't subject to much nuance, or in fictional terms, worthy of much detailed in-fiction influences.

The "pieces" of the group operate in two capacities, relative to a single player-character. They can be really hard to deal with when in their own spheres. Perhaps thinking  of these spheres as actually a group or collective unnamed power is a good idea. When you stride all armored into that barn and a single freeman and a peasant is waiting in there to kill you ... as I see it, you are in a lot of trouble.

This is completely antithetical to a hundred assumptions made in RPGs and more generally, among geeks of violence. To them, all fights occur on a level featureless plain, and they fetishize weapon choice and training (which they incorrectly assume is military-grade at all times). To me, however, that armored guy walking into the barn can trip over an implement, get poked in the back by some projection, get straw-dust in his eyes, not know where the cow-stall is, suddenly step off a three-foot ledge, and not know not only where the other guy is, but where he could be.

Player-characters in this game are plot-armored against a lot of plausible in-fiction things like maiming, but not against this – that's why it's antithetical to many other designs, which are the opposite.

So, being up against an unnamed individual in his sphere of activity is like dealing with a detached piece of the group. Unlike against the group, you have a chance, but it's not a good one, and I recommend favoring your highest attribute as much as possible. Characters with scores of 8 or higher in something really show their ability in these situations. (Clarity attempt: I am talking about any interaction, not just fighting.)

Staying with this situation, the chance can be improved either beforehand or right in the moment.

Beforehand is better because it doesn't necessarily involve rolling – go places and observe them, interact with people and behave in ways which don't upset them, and become, as much as you can, involved with the places and people before you start doing things like striding into barns in a combat mode.

This isn't investigation. It's merely ordinary life and actions. If the character has been in the barn before and looked it over with farmer or martial (low) eyes, maybe another profession or two depending on what it is, then everything I was talking about doesn't apply and he has two dice, not one. I'd even allow this if such a character had been in any of the local barns, not necessarily this specific one.

In the moment is the worse case, because your initial actions are limited to just one die, period. I mean, I'm taking as a given that by being there at all, you were either unlucky or simply stupid.

One way to improve things is to try something which, if successful, negates the advantage pretty well. It's hard to give examples because they are so situational. Since you have only one die, this tactic is best suited to high-attribute characters, 8 or higher in something. The most general application would be a Wits roll, simply to orient oneself. Anything of this sort will restore you to two happy dice.

For John: let's say your character is fighting two guys in there. By hook or crook and luck, you kill one of them with just your single die. I'm saying that's a game-changer, and you can get two dice from that point forward. Imagine it in pure fictional terms and I think you can see how that would be.

The other way to improve things is simply to cheat: magic, magic, magic.

So ... any thoughts at this point? Brilliant light of day? Sinking from neck-deep to nose-deep in the swamp?

[Nyhteg]

Ron, thanks, this is very helpful and gives a much fuller appreciation of where you're coming from.
Not at all apparent form the text for me, but definitely good to be seeing now.

I think the first point of confusion stems from a sense that unnamed folks can be almost swatted away - "killed with merely a Q vs 12 roll". I don't have the draft to hand to give examples (so, in particular, I don't know if this was implied by the text in some way or simply a mis-reading on my own part) but I came away with the impression that unnamed guys are either a group/mob who will demolish you out of hand, or are singletons and effectively cannon fodder.
This is clearly far, far from the vision you have.

The main principle throughout seems to be "fools rush in".
Someone, anyone, operating in their areas of experience can be formidable.
Anyone acting en masse in their own sphere of power is unstoppable.

So procedurally, unnamed NPCs could be harder to deal with than named ones..?
Trying to fight a dude by rolling vs 12 with one die could be impossible to pull off.
Trying to fight a dude rolling two dice in a clash against an advantage die is dangerous, but nowhere near as undoable.
Is that a correct assessment? Is that intentional?

G

[Ron Edwards]

So procedurally, unnamed NPCs could be harder to deal with than named ones..?
Trying to fight a dude by rolling vs 12 with one die could be impossible to pull off.
Trying to fight a dude rolling two dice in a clash against an advantage die is dangerous, but nowhere near as undoable.
Is that a correct assessment? Is that intentional?

No generalization between the two situations is possible. Against the unnamed guy, it's easy or hard depending on one-die or two-dice, and also affected by your character's score values, and which are plausibly usable in the exact situation; it's also changeable depending on what happens. Against the named guy, it's easy or hard depending on the values of the scores, on how offense/defense are assigned, on whatever is deemed to affect the advantage die most, and on events as they proceed (e.g. injury).

Again: no way to generalize, they are simply different situations with different variables in play.

[Nyhteg]

OK, fair enough and clear enough.
"It depends" is a perfectly good answer, given that the rest of it is far clearer now.

So can you go into the dynamics of action in groups?
My only touch point for this is a sense of "groups will kill your PC if they choose to and there's nothing you can do about it short of disrupting the group status, changing the circumstances or using magic".
I'm assuming there's nuance and detail involved here too...

G

[Ron Edwards]

One more thing relevant to the previous post. There is a difference in that simply-conceived intentions such as "I kill him" can indeed be accomplished with a single roll against the unnamed guy. Although it's possible to kill a named guy with one clash, it's not something you can front-load as the outcome through announcing it in the same way. That's the difference in the text that you're citing: a stated one-roll purpose rather than the outcome of one or more clashes.

One quick note for everyone before I go on with the questions.

My own process needs to get clarified too. I need playtest feedback, and dialogue-based feedback like we're doing right here. Text critique needs to wait until the very, very end - I'm not in a space where it helps.

I ask this because the dialogue really helps me work out what I want to write, but receiving text commentary in an "it says here" way spikes my stress levels as I'm trying to write. I've actually put aside perfectly good game designs in frustration over this in the past, so I know it's something I have to be up-front about here.

A lot of people here are very good at this sort of critique but I really, really need all of you to restrict yourself to private notes about the specific text points, and save them for that later stage.

[Ron Edwards]

So can you go into the dynamics of action in groups?
My only touch point for this is a sense of "groups will kill your PC if they choose to and there's nothing you can do about it short of disrupting the group status, changing the circumstances or using magic".
I'm assuming there's nuance and detail involved here too...

Nope. You've summarized it just fine, as far as I can tell.

Well, wait. I just realized that the "killing" is red-flagging everyone. So another thing we should tease apart is killing vs. other goals. Killing is only one thing a group might do to your character, and the other things are positive as well as negative. Capturing. Imprisoning. Rescuing. Transporting. Feeding. Sheltering. Basically, a group can do anything that's professionally in its capacity, given the right environment and resources, with no roll needed. Killing happens to be one of those things for any sizeable group.

So maybe it's helpful to think of group or mob action as a general rule, not merely a matter of combat rules.

[Nyhteg]

OK. Excellent...getting it...

Stream of random questions now:

So a group acting within to its strengths can do whatever it likes to a PC.
How do you manage the timing of such things?
If one PC is racing to the aid of another who's got in trouble with a group, say, is it a matter of make a vs12 roll to get there in time or how do you handle that?

Do you have a rule of thumb for what constitutes 'a group' of UNPCs?

Remind me how UNPCs damage PCs in a fight...
It's all about the PC making a Q vs 12 roll to avoid harm, is it?
And damage delivered is...the margin of failure...? Plus...something...?
And is that the same for ranged/thrown whatevers too..?

G

[Ron Edwards]

Let me see ...

So a group acting within to its strengths can do whatever it likes to a PC.
How do you manage the timing of such things?
If one PC is racing to the aid of another who's got in trouble with a group, say, is it a matter of make a vs12 roll to get there in time or how do you handle that?

Q vs. 12 or anything similar seems about right. I mean, given that it's possible to get there at all. (H'm, maybe a "speedy travel" white spell is called for)

I don't want to give the impression that groups' actions are instantaneous. Maybe all these years of role-playing have made "they succeed automatically" and "they act before you can do anything" synonymous for us ... I can see how that would be, 'cause my mind tips that way when I read the former. But that's not what I mean to be saying here.

Do you have a rule of thumb for what constitutes 'a group' of UNPCs?

A dozen. Or maybe a little more. Or maybe a little less. The location and physical circumstances matter. In that barn example, as few as six guys would be really dangerous. In the open, maybe it would take twelve or fifteen to surround a player-character effectively.

Remind me how UNPCs damage PCs in a fight...
It's all about the PC making a Q vs 12 roll to avoid harm, is it?

Yeah. I'm up in the air about when – and I think such a character is included in a bigger fight with named people involved, there's no choice but to ascend him or her to real-NPC status.

And damage delivered is...the margin of failure...? Plus...something...?

Margin of failure + B, which we can set at 4 I guess. I'll review the threads to be sure that's what I said. Again, when in doubt (specifically because the rules are in flux), ascend.

If anyone has it summarized from the threads, let me know.

And is that the same for ranged/thrown whatevers too..?

+6 for arrows or bolts, +B for thrown stuff.

[Nyhteg]

Splendid.

I don't want to give the impression that groups' actions are instantaneous.

On the contrary, it's precisely because it seems very clear that these things take some time that I asked the question. My impression is that when faced with an angry mob, PCs will become very active trying to get "out from under" - trying any and all those various tactics of escape and disruption to postpone the end.

That given, I imagine there could well be opportunity during that process for help to arrive...or not, depending...

(I can also easily imagine a series of one die Q or W rolls as a PC tries to escape, perhaps desperately spending B every time they fail to have another shot at it before the baying mob closes in.)

G