The Forge Archives

So, I finally let the cat slip and posted the link to my working copy of the new TSOY rules. You can find them here:

http://www.anvilwerks.com/src/tsoy2/solar_system.html

I've been playing with these rules in my local game, and it's my understanding that at least one game with them happened over the 4th of July. So, please feel free to ask questions and discuss them here.

First off, I dig it.  I like the original system, and this seems to be streamlined without losing anything important.  I like that it has become more generic, and the Shin Qui character example made me laugh.  Since I'm starting a TSoY game soon, and just ordered a big pack of fudge dice (for use with Fate), I will probably be trying out the Solar System.


I did feel the explanation of harm and healing was rushed, and I'm not sure I understand, so I'm going to try to clarify for my sake.
Let's say the Harm boxes look like this:

Bruised [][][]
Bloodied[][][]
Broken[]

If I succeed on a roll in BDTP, let's say with 2 successes, it looks like this:

Bruised []

• []
  Bloodied[][][]
  Broken[]
  
  If I roll another +2 against the target, it looks like this:
  
  Bruised []
• 
  Bloodied[][][]
  Broken[]
  
  Right?
  
  If I take three hits in BDTP, a +2, +2 and a +5, this is what my boxes look like:
  
  Bruised []
• 
  Bloodied[]
• []
  Broken[]
  
  However, I was able to win.  So now BDTP is over.  I think my boxes should look like this:
  
  Bruised
• 
  Bloodied[][][]
  Broken[]
  
  Did I get all that?
  
  
  Now, to heal, someone rolls the appropriate ability, and I remove Xs equal to the the number of successes they roll.  What happens if they fail?  How long do I have to wait, and is there any natural recovery?

Chris,

You've pretty much got it.

Quote from: dyjoots
Now, to heal, someone rolls the appropriate ability, and I remove Xs equal to the the number of successes they roll.  What happens if they fail?  How long do I have to wait, and is there any natural recovery?

I should explain healing better. It works like the reverse of harm - roll some healing skill and you can remove a harm at the same level as your success level (or lower.) The harm re-settles.

So, if you have:
1

• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  and someone rolls success level 2 to heal you, the harm at 2 is gone:
  1
• 
  2 [ ]
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  and then everything re-settles:
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4 [ ]
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  As for self-healing - maybe. I like the way the current version emphasizes NPC relationships.

Hey Clinton,

Have you seen Jonathan Walton's Baby's First Fudge Dice?

Paul

Quote from: Paul CzegeHey Clinton,

Have you seen Jonathan Walton's Baby's First Fudge Dice?

Paul

Awesome! Thanks, Paul.

I'm thinking, to differeniate the game from some Fudge derivative, of calling them "shift dice," but that might be ridiculous.

Hi,

I really like the breakdown of perpendicular vs. parallel actions.  Plus the damage track idea also works neat for me.  Are you redoing the setting as well, or giving us something new with it?

Chris

Quote from: BankueiHi,

I really like the breakdown of perpendicular vs. parallel actions.  Plus the damage track idea also works neat for me.  Are you redoing the setting as well, or giving us something new with it?

Chris

Chris,

I may add, but I won't substantially change anything. I will make more explicit the fundamental rules behind the design of the setting:

No gods.
No monsters.
Just people.

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon
I should explain healing better. It works like the reverse of harm - roll some healing skill and you can remove a harm at the same level as your success level (or lower.) The harm re-settles.

So, if you have:
1

• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  and someone rolls success level 2 to heal you, the harm at 2 is gone:
  1
• 
  2 [ ]
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  and then everything re-settles:
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4 [ ]
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  As for self-healing - maybe. I like the way the current version emphasizes NPC relationships.

Ok, I think I get it.  Is there a limit to how much healing someone can get?  I mean, if a surgeon heals my second box, and the Harm resettles, can he then roll again and heal more?  Or do I have to wait?

Also, it seems that this means that how well skilled you are at healing doesn't matter...  If you roll a +4 total, then you heal one box, and if you roll a +1 total, you heal a box.  Since all of the damage shakes down to the lowest level, those two rolls have the same effect.

Quote from: dyjoots
Ok, I think I get it.  Is there a limit to how much healing someone can get?  I mean, if a surgeon heals my second box, and the Harm resettles, can he then roll again and heal more?  Or do I have to wait?

Once per scene. I think "per day" or whatever is BS, as that's so variable in games anyway.

Quote
Also, it seems that this means that how well skilled you are at healing doesn't matter...  If you roll a +4 total, then you heal one box, and if you roll a +1 total, you heal a box.  Since all of the damage shakes down to the lowest level, those two rolls have the same effect.

Now that is a good point. What I could do is not have damage re-settle. Then, when you heal something, you heal:

(a) the harm relating to your success level, if it exists, or
(b) the next harm below your success level, if it exists, or
(c) the next harm above your success level, if it exists

That seems way too complex, though. Maybe healing works like normal, but doesn't resettle until you do X. What's X? I dunno. Refresh a pool? Hmm.

Just to complicate the whole harm/heal thing a bit ...

Do I need diferent heal skills for diferent kinds of harm? For example, if someone harms my reputation it would require diferent measures than physical damage.

And ... how diferent kinds of harm would be treated together? Someone may start BDTP by insulting my reputation but then change goal and try to kill me with his sword. I might end up with diferent kinds of harm.

Do they all stack up together?

Or do I keep diferent tracks for physical, mental and social harm?

This actually might be interesting ... though perhaps complicated.

Andreas

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon

Quote from: dyjoots
Ok, I think I get it.  Is there a limit to how much healing someone can get?  I mean, if a surgeon heals my second box, and the Harm resettles, can he then roll again and heal more?  Or do I have to wait?

Once per scene. I think "per day" or whatever is BS, as that's so variable in games anyway.

Quote
Also, it seems that this means that how well skilled you are at healing doesn't matter...  If you roll a +4 total, then you heal one box, and if you roll a +1 total, you heal a box.  Since all of the damage shakes down to the lowest level, those two rolls have the same effect.

Now that is a good point. What I could do is not have damage re-settle. Then, when you heal something, you heal:

(a) the harm relating to your success level, if it exists, or
(b) the next harm below your success level, if it exists, or
(c) the next harm above your success level, if it exists

That seems way too complex, though. Maybe healing works like normal, but doesn't resettle until you do X. What's X? I dunno. Refresh a pool? Hmm.

It's definitely a tough issue.  The problems stems in part from the fact that damage shakes down.  For example, if I end up like this:

1

• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  And I get pretty good healing (say, a +3).  Now I look like this:
  
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3 [ ]
  4
• 
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  If damage doesn't shake down, then I stay like that until my next fight or until I am healed again.  But if damage does shake down, I look like this:
  
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4 [ ]
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  Which is still the same as if I had only had my first box healed, and damage had shaken down.  I feel like it's problematic if the successes from a healing roll don't affect how much harm is healed.

Why is never shaking down bad?  Demanding high rolls feeds the story mill as far as I can see.

Quote from: Christopher WeeksWhy is never shaking down bad?  Demanding high rolls feeds the story mill as far as I can see.

That's the same conclusion I've come to, actually. Screw shaking down. It's complicated and doesn't make anything more interesting.

Hi Clinton,

Maybe you can use Shaking Down as a means for either natural healing or a "second wind" mechanic.  As a natural healing thing, you'd probably want it to be once a session or something not time related to in-game events("Oh, let me sleep another 43 minutes, then I'll be fully rested with 8 hours!").  

Or, you could use it as a Secret:  Spend X points from a Pool to Shakedown the damage.  The Pool would probably be related to the kind of damage taken or at least how the character deals with problems.

Chris

A light bulb just turned on in my head. I've been trying to understand how you parry, and I'm now realizing that it's implied by taking the difference in success levels for perpendicular actions.

Innate abilities, on the other hand, feature when you lose a turn to change intention. (Kind of like Natural Defenses in BW:C.)

Re: Healing.

I think you've basically got it, Clinton.

* Don't shake down damage.
* Healing is pool specific.
* (Here's where my two cents come in ..) If there's a check in your SL's Harm Tracker box, erase it; otherwise, erase the next one down. (All pool respective to the healing, of course.)

[EDIT: cross-posted.] Shaking down as a Secret! That's pretty cool. Kind of like Sorcerer's Vitality.

Just for my benefit, let me see if I've got this whole healing thing.

I've taken damage (+2, +3, and +3, in that order), which leaves me looking like this:

1 [ ]
2

• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  Now, since damage doesn't shake down, I still look like this after BDTP.  I get someone to heal me, and they roll a +3.  Now I look like this:
  
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3 [ ]
  4
• 
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  And if they rolled another +3, I would look like this:
  
  1
• 
  2 [ ]
  3 [ ]
  4
• 
  5 [ ]
  6 [ ]
  
  That leaves me with a penalty die until I can get some better healing, right?  Did I get the general idea?

Hey all-

Yeah, I managed to run a 1 player 1 GM session (about 80-90 minutes from chargen to finish) this weekend.  Sorry, it'll be a few days before I can sit down and write a lot about it.

However, a brief summary, which I will expound upon later:

1) It's Fudge!  Mind you, it's not terribly bad, because I really like Fudge, but there are parts of it that are a tiny bit confusing: With the new skill names, I found myself INSTANTLY converting "Journeyman" to "1" then rolling the dice: A drawback to what some people say is "Fudge just diguising numbers with adjectives", but a little moreso.

2) I swing either way, but I know my group REALLY loves the numbers and granularity of the 1-10 ability levels.

3) Innate abilities and Athletics: Golden!

4) Parallel vs Perpendicular.  I REALLY like this seperation.  HOWEVER, because of it, I got a little confused: I had an evil wizard throwing fireballs and launching traps at the Bard, while the Bard retorted with Storytelling, trying to get him to change his ways, while dodging the traps.
Now, this seems like Parallel.  On the first roll as written, because it was parallel and the Wizard was a Master, he slew the PC in one hit. (So I "redid" it, lowering the skill of the wizard to 1 rather than 2) Actually, now that I'm going through that in my head, I'm not sure that that adds up right... I'll have to look at our numbers again, but I rolled 5 dice, keeping three and got 3 plusses... and that instantly Broke the player.

Now, what I should have realized was that, even in this situation, the action was perpendicular: The Bard was dodging and hiding against the Wizard's attacks while retorting with Story, and the Wizard was throwing traps and making noise to distract the Bard and make noise.  So it was a little deceptive, and the fact that now there are two types of combat confused us in that regard.  I guess we should have thought about it more in the Free and Clear stage.

Wound levels: I dig them.  However, I never had problems with a player loading up on Stay Up, so the old HP system was never a big problem for us, and in fact worked a little easier IMO.

In a word: Good. Great, even, with a little work. Again more comments later.

For me, though? It might come down to me making a hybrid of the two systems to run with my crew.

Quote from: Andy KitkowskiHey all-

Yeah, I managed to run a 1 player 1 GM session (about 80-90 minutes from chargen to finish) this weekend.

Andy: cool!

Quote
1) It's Fudge!  Mind you, it's not terribly bad, because I really like Fudge, but there are parts of it that are a tiny bit confusing: With the new skill names, I found myself INSTANTLY converting "Journeyman" to "1" then rolling the dice: A drawback to what some people say is "Fudge just diguising numbers with adjectives", but a little moreso.

Ok - either you're saying that the adjective translate poorly (like Journeyman = 1 in your head) or you've just got the numbers wrong when typing. Hmm. Clarify.

And, dude, so not Fudge. Ok, maybe a little. I mean, Bringing Down the Pain is now an unholy child of the original + Fate.

Quote
2) I swing either way, but I know my group REALLY loves the numbers and granularity of the 1-10 ability levels.

Sounds dumb to ask, but: why? I don't get this, but I really want to, because I don't want to alienate my audience.

The only thing I see is that the new one is more "centered": you're less likely to get an extreme result. That's good in my opinion: in play, I noticed spending for bonus dice rarely happened. It happens all the time now.

Quote
4) Parallel vs Perpendicular.  I REALLY like this seperation.  HOWEVER, because of it, I got a little confused: I had an evil wizard throwing fireballs and launching traps at the Bard, while the Bard retorted with Storytelling, trying to get him to change his ways, while dodging the traps.
Now, this seems like Parallel.  On the first roll as written, because it was parallel and the Wizard was a Master, he slew the PC in one hit. (So I "redid" it, lowering the skill of the wizard to 1 rather than 2) Actually, now that I'm going through that in my head, I'm not sure that that adds up right... I'll have to look at our numbers again, but I rolled 5 dice, keeping three and got 3 plusses... and that instantly Broke the player.

Now, what I should have realized was that, even in this situation, the action was perpendicular: The Bard was dodging and hiding against the Wizard's attacks while retorting with Story, and the Wizard was throwing traps and making noise to distract the Bard and make noise.  So it was a little deceptive, and the fact that now there are two types of combat confused us in that regard.  I guess we should have thought about it more in the Free and Clear stage.

I think I need to clarify this more. Actually, I'm not certain how I would have adjucated your situation. I need to think about it more. I lean toward parallel, actually, but I want situations where you might do something like this.

On a topic that ISN'T harm and healing:

Looking at the advancement chart, some things cost more than one "advancement."  Are these costs additive or cumulative?  For example, if I am a Master in Pray, and I want to become a Grand Master, do I need to use 6 advances or 3 advances?  Does that question make sense?  I'm assuming it's the former, but it wasn't clear from the text.

I'm a bit confused about the BDTP example. After Matt says:

Quote"Crap," he mutters. "I'm changing my intention. Gael's just going to high-tail it, trying to avoid danger."

Doesn't he have to defend a turn?

--Jasper

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon

Quote from: Andy Kitkowski
Now, what I should have realized was that, even in this situation, the action was perpendicular: The Bard was dodging and hiding against the Wizard's attacks while retorting with Story, and the Wizard was throwing traps and making noise to distract the Bard and make noise.  So it was a little deceptive, and the fact that now there are two types of combat confused us in that regard.  I guess we should have thought about it more in the Free and Clear stage.

I think I need to clarify this more. Actually, I'm not certain how I would have adjucated your situation. I need to think about it more. I lean toward parallel, actually, but I want situations where you might do something like this.

Perhaps an easier way to adjucate this would be to look at both character's intentions and not their actions.

Looks like the sorcerer's intention was to kill the bard and the bard's intention was to change the sorcerer's mind (meaning: avoiding getting killed).

Since the intentions are clearly mutually exclusive, ruling the actions as perpendicular seems just about right.

Andreas

Quote from: dyjootsOn a topic that ISN'T harm and healing:

Looking at the advancement chart, some things cost more than one "advancement."  Are these costs additive or cumulative?  For example, if I am a Master in Pray, and I want to become a Grand Master, do I need to use 6 advances or 3 advances?  Does that question make sense?  I'm assuming it's the former, but it wasn't clear from the text.

You're right: 6 advances.

Quote from: Jasper PolaneI'm a bit confused about the BDTP example. After Matt says:

Quote"Crap," he mutters. "I'm changing my intention. Gael's just going to high-tail it, trying to avoid danger."

Doesn't he have to defend a turn?

--Jasper

You are also right. It's an alpha version of the text, and has mistakes.

On another note: bonus/penalty dice add dice to the roll plus then removes either the highest or lowest rolled result(s).

Is that correctly understood?

I have absolutely nothing against Fudge dice, but this particular mechanic removes the possibiliy to use adapted Fudge rolls with ordinary six-sided dice (there are a whole bunch of them, just an example: roll 4 dice, two negative and two positive and pick the lowest. Ties between neg and pos are just read as 0)

I don't know, maybe I'll just have to get/make some Fudge dice after all. Darn.

Per

Quote from: pfischerI have absolutely nothing against Fudge dice, but this particular mechanic removes the possibiliy to use adapted Fudge rolls with ordinary six-sided dice (there are a whole bunch of them, just an example: roll 4 dice, two negative and two positive and pick the lowest. Ties between neg and pos are just read as 0)

If you use the adopted
1-2= -
3-4 = o
5-6 = +
, then you can just remove the lowest.

If you use the chart where you compare a 3d6 or 4d6 roll to a chart, then yeah you're right.

On the Fudge zine online, there was a suggestion to make Fudge dice by drawing X over the pips on the 3 and 5 sides (for "pluss") and a square over the 4 and 6 pip sides (for "blank"), and the 1 and 2 sides just draw a single angled slash (for "minus"). That's the best homemade method I've seen.  

But Fudge Dice rock. I highly recommend picking up a pack.

Is all damage tracked on the same chart, or do you need different ones for, say, physical, social, spiritual wathever?

Quote from: aplath
Since the intentions are clearly mutually exclusive, ruling the actions as perpendicular seems just about right.

Cool observation.  I was wondering myself what a good guideline would be.  It brings me to another question though: what is a good example of parallel actions in BDTP?

Quote from: dyjoots

Quote from: aplath
Since the intentions are clearly mutually exclusive, ruling the actions as perpendicular seems just about right.

Cool observation.  I was wondering myself what a good guideline would be.  It brings me to another question though: what is a good example of parallel actions in BDTP?

Actually I'm not so sure the guideline is that good. The more I think about it, the more I find that if you follow this guideline there will be no parallel action that makes sense in a BDTP context.

Per the rules, BDTP is initiated from a resisted ability check. If it is resisted, one can assume that, in the very least, it involves one character trying to stop another character from doing something.

So the actions, by my guideline, would be always perpendicular. At least in the beginning of BDTP, anyway.

This leads me to think that I may not have quite understood the concept of parallel and perpendicular actions ... Clinton? Help?

Andreas

Quote from: aplath

Quote from: dyjoots

Quote from: aplath
Since the intentions are clearly mutually exclusive, ruling the actions as perpendicular seems just about right.

Cool observation.  I was wondering myself what a good guideline would be.  It brings me to another question though: what is a good example of parallel actions in BDTP?

...

So the actions, by my guideline, would be always perpendicular. At least in the beginning of BDTP, anyway.

This leads me to think that I may not have quite understood the concept of parallel and perpendicular actions ... Clinton? Help?

Hey, you made up the guideline. I never agreed with it. Personally, I think you've got it absolutely wrong. You're looking at it like the original BDTP, where I made things confusing by using conflict resolution concepts in task resolution, which makes it very hard to conceptualize.

Let me explain.

BDTP comes from a resisted Ability Check in conflict resolution. In conflict resolution, sure you can overpower a guy attacking you by cooking a meal.

BDTP, however, is task resolution. In task resolution, adding spices to the pot won't stop a sword stroke.

Make sense?

Now, how to make it so cooking for a master swordsman isn't a mistake in BDTP? It shouldn't be easy: the point of BDTP is so when someone overpowers you with their skill in one arena, you can respond back instead of taking it, usually in that same arena. I would note that you can chain actions and use successes from one to help another. A special version of this that could used in BDTP is the total defense. If you use only a defensive ability in one round, I'd allow the successes from it to be added to a action in the next round: i.e. dodge (using React - defensive) and then cook (Cooking - parallel).

The other idea is doing one thing until you get them beat enough to do another. If your cooking doesn't overpower them the first time, Bring Down the Pain and whip them with a sword until they're bloodied, then cook. That'd work, too.

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon
Let me explain.

BDTP comes from a resisted Ability Check in conflict resolution. In conflict resolution, sure you can overpower a guy attacking you by cooking a meal.

BDTP, however, is task resolution. In task resolution, adding spices to the pot won't stop a sword stroke.

So, parallel and perpendicular only apply to tasks.  Tasks, whatever they may be, lead to the intentions of BDTP occuring.  So, being a good cook isn't going to protect you in BDTP, but being a good swordsman isn't going to protect your opponent in the same BDTP situation.

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon
Hey, you made up the guideline. I never agreed with it. Personally, I think you've got it absolutely wrong. You're looking at it like the original BDTP, where I made things confusing by using conflict resolution concepts in task resolution, which makes it very hard to conceptualize.

I know I made the guideline ... and I did had a feeling that I had it wrong. :-)

And you are right, I was still thinking about conflict in BDTP. So it's task. Now it makes much more sense.

Thanks for explaining.

Andreas

Secret:  "It's just a flesh wound"

Spend one point of Vigor to "shake down" your wound track.  Move all marks for wounds so that they are collected at the bottom, with no spaces between.

You could add "water off a duck's back" for social "damage."

I'm not sure how much I like the separation of damage types.  If it's an abstract measure of player control and power, and a countdown until the player can no longer affect the SIS, the separate damage tracks clash, in my mind.

Quote from: dyjootsI'm not sure how much I like the separation of damage types.  If it's an abstract measure of player control and power, and a countdown until the player can no longer affect the SIS, the separate damage tracks clash, in my mind.

It's how much influence the player can have over the story in that arena, now. Which is interesting, I think.

What's SIS? (If it's one of those terms - and you know what I mean, hundred-dollar gaming terms that mean stuff like "story" - then I don't need to know.)

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon

What's SIS? (If it's one of those terms - and you know what I mean, hundred-dollar gaming terms that mean stuff like "story" - then I don't need to know.)

Sorry... it was in the provisional glossary here, I thought it was an accepted term.  

"Shared-imagined Space" -- The fictional content of play as it is established among participants through role-playing interactions. See also Transcript (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near or total synonym).

Quote from: dyjoots

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon

What's SIS? (If it's one of those terms - and you know what I mean, hundred-dollar gaming terms that mean stuff like "story" - then I don't need to know.)

Sorry... it was in the provisional glossary here, I thought it was an accepted term.  

"Shared-imagined Space" -- The fictional content of play as it is established among participants through role-playing interactions. See also Transcript (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near or total synonym).

Oh, ok. I get it, I guess. I don't read the glossary and that stuff, but it makes sense.

I tested the new BDTP yesterday with a friend and noticed something funny. In some instances there was a very large amount of ties going on.

This slowed pace a lot in BDTP.

Then today I took a look at the numbers and realized that in resisted ability checks where the abilities involved differ by one (neophyte vs. greenhorn, for instance) the chance of a tie is around 50% (actually 56% if no modifier dice are used).

Maybe I've got my math wrong, but it seems consistent to what we experienced in play.

Looking further, it seems this is the worst case scenario. If ability levels are equivalent the tie chance is around 10% and if they differ by two (say, neophyte vs. journeyman)  it goes down to 35% and lower as the difference in ability levels grow.

Just thought I'd report this back since the BDTPs where we had lots of ties were a bit annoying.

Andreas

You can ameliorate that by choosing an offensive stance.  That way even if you tie, you do some damage... which might end up killing both sides, but there you go.

If you're staying with the Ability level names I prefer Apprentice to Greenhorn. Actualy I'd prefer just about anything to Greenhorn.

But maybe that's just me.

Cheers

Two friends and I played over the weekend, and my only comment is that characters seem a lot more competent in this version of the game than in the previous.

I see this as a good thing.

Quote from: First AgeIf you're staying with the Ability level names I prefer Apprentice to Greenhorn. Actualy I'd prefer just about anything to Greenhorn.

I just have a problem distinguishing Novice and Greenhorn.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a Novice is

1. A person new to a field or activity; a beginner.
2. A person who has entered a religious order but has not yet taken final vows. Also called novitiate.[/list:u] and a Greenhorn is

1. An inexperienced or immature person, especially one who is easily deceived.
2. A newcomer, especially one who is unfamiliar with the ways of a place or group.
[/list:u]
At least according to these definitions, one does not seem any more advanced or experienced than the other.

-- James "Yasha" Cunningham

You guys are correct re: Greenhorn.

However, I can't find a good term for a level between Novice and Journeyman. "Apprentice" isn't a good term - it implies a relationship to someone else. If anyone has any good ideas - including moving down Journeyman, and putting something between it and Master, let me know.

Hi Clinton,

I was fiddling around with the idea of using your mechanics for something I've got cooking and the term I preferred was "Trained".   It pretty much summarized exactly what I figured a person was at that point- routinely trained, like most people in their day to day lives.  They've got the basics down, but it's not like they're going to do much of anything spectacular with their abilities- they're trained.

Chris

Not to throw a kink in it, but "journeyman" carries as much of a relationship connotation as "apprentice." Which is to say, they both may or may not be defined by a relationship to a more skilled worker. So, if you're uncomfortable with one term for that reason, you might want to get rid of both. Or, just use both.

Quote from: Andrew MorrisNot to throw a kink in it, but "journeyman" carries as much of a relationship connotation as "apprentice." Which is to say, they both may or may not be defined by a relationship to a more skilled worker. So, if you're uncomfortable with one term for that reason, you might want to get rid of both. Or, just use both.

You gurdurn semantic wugnuts, you know what I meant. You are someone's apprentice. You're never someone's journeyman. That's the point of being a journeyman - it signifies you're qualified to do a task alone.

Seriously, you guys are smut-bonzkers.

Oh, Chris - "Trained" is good. It's dry as mazoola, but what are you going to do, you know? I may just suck up the pyoli that's fed to me and use it.

How about: Proficient, Competent, Capable or Experienced

Failing that: Able, Skilled, Accomplished, Adept, Good, Great, Practiced, Skillful, Versed, Adroit, Deft, Handy, Polished, Effective, Rounded or Adequate

Cheers

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonYou gurdurn semantic wugnuts, you know what I meant. You are someone's apprentice. You're never someone's journeyman. That's the point of being a journeyman - it signifies you're qualified to do a task alone.

No, no. That's not it. In fact, yes, you are (usually) someone's (or some organization's) journeyman. "Apprentice" and "journeyman" both are part of the trade skills rank progression. First, you are an apprentice (usually in some form of service to a master and directed by a journeyman or master). Then, when you get the basics down, you become a journeyman and work directly for a master. Then, once you complete your master's work, you become a master yourself. It's all part of the same progression, and it's still in use in some trades today (like carpentry). The thing is, we like to muck up our language, so both apprentice and journeyman have come to have additional definitions tacked on.

For whatever it's worth, Capable is good.  Better than a novice, not quite a journeyman type.

Incidentally the trade skills progression is a good touch for a fantasy game, so I suggest Apprentice instead of Novice, to keep the metaphor going.  So I'd suggest Apprentice, Capable (which doesn't fit, but... eh!), Journeyman, Master, Grand Master.

Quote from: James_NostackIncidentally the trade skills progression is a good touch for a fantasy game, so I suggest Apprentice instead of Novice, to keep the metaphor going.

Agreed, that was very much my thought on suggesting it - it fits the rest of the scale.

I guess you could have a lot of different names for the scales depending n the genre you were playing.

Here's what's going on with "The Solar System." I thought you guys might want to know.

The system - the first half of TSOY - has been completely re-written. It might be able to use a bit more stuff, which I'm going to try to fit in there, but it's already more than the original, and much more clearly written. No one will be happy with the ability rank names. (Seriously, people, Near isn't the sort of place where you do a lot of apprenticeships. I didn't get the sort of guild-esque language that kept getting thrown around. Anyway, I ended up with Novice, Competent, Journeyman, Master, Grand Master. Competent was the adjective that sounded most like it should be a noun; i.e. "Pete is a competent." Maybe "competente?" Anyway, that's what I ended up with.)

At GenCon this year, I will have a limited number of copies of a new TSOY. I will also have a little supplement for the original that clarifies the rules and makes the games match. If you've looked, you've noticed that the two rules systems' biggest difference is the dice roll, but otherwise, they work together just fine. So, basically, TSOY is splitting into two versions of itself. Which is an interesting business decision - we'll see if it works. I will not, however, ever reprint the original. There's 70 existing unsold copies, so after they're gone, that's that. I'm updating the old one just because I know some people's violent reactions to Fudge dice.

Oh, and wait until you see the new cover. The uncolored drawing I got today was jaw-droppingly cool. Just as my little game's growing up, so are our iconic characters, Violet and Oliphant.

Quote from: aplath on July 07, 2005, 08:19:06 PM
Then today I took a look at the numbers and realized that in resisted ability checks where the abilities involved differ by one (neophyte vs. greenhorn, for instance) the chance of a tie is around 50% (actually 56% if no modifier dice are used).
<snip>
Looking further, it seems this is the worst case scenario. If ability levels are equivalent the tie chance is around 10% and if they differ by two (say, neophyte vs. journeyman)  it goes down to 35% and lower as the difference in ability levels grow.
Andreas

I've run the numbers and it can be bad (that's where bonus dice come in?). But the situation is worst when both opponents have -1 skill: then it's 72%.
Skill       Draw
-1 v -1   73%
-1 v 0    54%
-1 v 1    32%
-1 v 2    13%
Increasing skills makes quite a difference
1 v -1    32%
1 v 0     23%
1 v 1     14%
1 v 2     5.5%

If these high draw chances for low skills are worrying, the cause is this: low rolls are cannot go below 0. A solution if needed could involve changing that.

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on July 17, 2005, 11:44:17 PM

At GenCon this year, I will have a limited number of copies of a new TSOY. I will also have a little supplement for the original that clarifies the rules and makes the games match. If you've looked, you've noticed that the two rules systems' biggest difference is the dice roll, but otherwise, they work together just fine. So, basically, TSOY is splitting into two versions of itself. Which is an interesting business decision - we'll see if it works. I will not, however, ever reprint the original. There's 70 existing unsold copies, so after they're gone, that's that. I'm updating the old one just because I know some people's violent reactions to Fudge dice.

Oh, and wait until you see the new cover. The uncolored drawing I got today was jaw-droppingly cool. Just as my little game's growing up, so are our iconic characters, Violet and Oliphant.

Exciting!  Are the complete updated rules going to be put online?  I dig the game, and I like seeing what you are doing with it, but I can't make it to GenCon, and for the same reasons I won't be in a place to ship things easily...

Quote from: dyjoots on July 18, 2005, 03:00:49 AM
Exciting!  Are the complete updated rules going to be put online?  I dig the game, and I like seeing what you are doing with it, but I can't make it to GenCon, and for the same reasons I won't be in a place to ship things easily...

They will, but I have to work out the licensing issues with Grey Ghost before I put it under Creative Commons. Unfortunately, they aren't e-mailing me back because they're, you know, so busy selling Fudge or something.

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on July 18, 2005, 03:28:46 AM
They will, but I have to work out the licensing issues with Grey Ghost before I put it under Creative Commons. Unfortunately, they aren't e-mailing me back because they're, you know, so busy selling Fudge or something.

Ouch.  I forgot about that: Fuge will be "OGL", but CC is about as restrictive as labor laws in Thailand...

If nothing else, you can just make NO REFERENCE to Fudge in the rules, and just suggest people use Fudge Dice to play your game.  That way, by not tieing TSOY into the Fudge rules, you're not stepping on toes by breaking away.  Thing is, of course, that would be kinda fucking around with Ann Dupuis and her crew.  Like big brother wiggling his fingers around at younger sister in the car "I'm not touching you!  Iiiiimmm noooot touching yeeeeeeeewwww!", etc.

There is that backdoor.  Hopefully you won't have to use it.  But even if you do, people will still end up buying Fudge Dice, so it won't hurt.

In any case, good luck.

-Andy

Quote from: Andy Kitkowski on July 18, 2005, 04:05:38 AM
Ouch.  I forgot about that: Fudge will be "OGL", but CC is about as restrictive as labor laws in Thailand...

If nothing else, you can just make NO REFERENCE to Fudge in the rules, and just suggest people use Fudge Dice to play your game.  That way, by not tieing TSOY into the Fudge rules, you're not stepping on toes by breaking away.  Thing is, of course, that would be kinda fucking around with Ann Dupuis and her crew.  Like big brother wiggling his fingers around at younger sister in the car "I'm not touching you!  Iiiiimmm noooot touching yeeeeeeeewwww!", etc.

There is that backdoor.  Hopefully you won't have to use it.  But even if you do, people will still end up buying Fudge Dice, so it won't hurt.

In any case, good luck.

Right now, the only reference to Fudge is in the acknowledgements of inspirations, which it was in the first place. Honestly, it'll stay that way unless I get some other word from GG. I wrote them not because I want the word Fudge on the game - I kind of don't - but because I think it'd be good for them. With so many years of missed release dates on some sort of Fudge-based setting game, I thought it'd be good publicity for them to have TSOY aligned with Fudge. My sales figures are still pretty good: I honestly think I probably sell as many copies of TSOY a month as they get of direct Fudge sales.

Anyway, it's a little frustrating to get blown off, as you can tell. I may end up putting the game under an OGL license. While I don't like it as much as Creative Commons, it's got no real problem. It's just kind of ugly in execution.

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on July 18, 2005, 04:27:18 AM
Anyway, it's a little frustrating to get blown off, as you can tell. I may end up putting the game under an OGL license. While I don't like it as much as Creative Commons, it's got no real problem. It's just kind of ugly in execution.

That's too bad.  I really like the Creative Commons License, and they way it lets people freely use the ideas from your game.  Aren't there several people already talking about writing settings for the original system?  I've thought about it myself, although that will probably be fruitless...

Anyway, returning to topic, I think it would be a shame to do something which you believe is "ugly in execution."

Quote from: dyjoots on July 18, 2005, 04:45:25 AM
That's too bad.  I really like the Creative Commons License, and they way it lets people freely use the ideas from your game.  Aren't there several people already talking about writing settings for the original system?  I've thought about it myself, although that will probably be fruitless...

Anyway, returning to topic, I think it would be a shame to do something which you believe is "ugly in execution."

If I go with the OGL, they'll still have that same ability.

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on July 18, 2005, 04:52:03 AM
If I go with the OGL, they'll still have that same ability.

Ok... sorry to steer the thread off-track for a moment, but I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to this.  What would the significant differences be?

Quote from: dyjoots on July 18, 2005, 05:52:48 AM

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on July 18, 2005, 04:52:03 AM
If I go with the OGL, they'll still have that same ability.

Ok... sorry to steer the thread off-track for a moment, but I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to this.  What would the significant differences be?

Hiya,

I am certain there has been a discussion about the OGL vs CC license somewhere else (in the Publishing forum, if I'm not mistaking).

Btw I'm really looking forward to your updated version of TSOY, Clinton. Any dates, yet?

(Is this the place to post editorial nitpicks as well? "Zeitgeist" isn't the same as "gestalt").

Quote from: matthijs on July 23, 2005, 05:16:13 PM
(Is this the place to post editorial nitpicks as well? "Zeitgeist" isn't the same as "gestalt").

(Sure.)

(But it's already been changed.)

(Also, this:)

Quote
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Oh, OK. I didn't know it'd been fixed; http://www.anvilwerks.com/src/tsoy2/solar_system.html still says "zeitgeist".

Clinton, is there any way to add in the species skill preferences?  I hadn't taken the time to really look at the new rules before today, and I like the use of Fudge dice a lot.  But I miss that Species X has Aptitude 1 and problems with Aptitude 2.  In the original version of SOY this is connected to the advancement mechanic, but the new version handles skill advancement very differently.