Hey! I've just read through the book briefly and I've got a couple of questions regarding conflicts.
1 - When are individual actions in a conflict round announced? I suspect they're announced during the reveal, but doesn't that make defensive actions very hard to anticipate for?
2 - Are committed action tokens recovered at the end of a conflict or a conflict round?
Regards,
Daniel
Quote from: coffeestain on July 25, 2006, 01:43:53 PM1 - When are individual actions in a conflict round announced? I suspect they're announced during the reveal, but doesn't that make defensive actions very hard to anticipate for?
They are announced during the reveal. It can be tricky to guess what an opponent is going to do, but that's part of the uncertainty of the bidding system.
Quote from: coffeestain on July 25, 2006, 01:43:53 PM2 - Are committed action tokens recovered at the end of a conflict or a conflict round??
Action tokens are recovered at the end of each conflict round.
Awesome, thanks.
I'm just now trying to figure out the best way for everyone to declare actions prior to the reveal. It seems, if they're taking multiple actions, writing them down on paper might be the best way to go.
Regards,
Daniel
That's what the character sheet is for! Use the aptitude space on the sheet for this.
Sure, I get that. But there's not enough space to write in what I want the actual action to be, narratively. How did you handle this during your games, Brennan?
Regards,
Daniel
I just have everyone orally describe what each action is at the reveal. Using a sticky note would work pretty well, I think, if you wanted these all written down.
Hi,
So I picked up Mortal Coil this weekend and breezed through it. Looks very slick, but I think I'd like to see a real example of a conflict broken out round-by-round so that I get a better feel for how it works.
Here are my main sticking points:
1.) I'm not clear on why you would take multiple actions when it's only 1-on-1.
2.) I'm unsure what happens when you have "parallel" actions (to borrow from Shadow of Yesterday) and both sides win against the default defense.
In the "get out the door" example used in the book. If one person uses Dancing to skip out the door and the other person uses Fast Talk to get them to stay, do those directly oppose one another? I wouldn't think they would. So one person skips out and the other person convinces them to stay. Does that mean we go another round?
An extended example of play is the only thing the book seems to be missing and I'd really appreciate one. Perhaps there's something in Actual Play/Playtesting?
later
Tom
Hi Tom,
In response to your #1, above - say you have, like, 7 action tokens, and you're in a fistfight, right? Well, you could put all 7 into Force, and punch the other guy real good. But he could also put all his tokens into Force, and you both punch each other real good. Or, you could take multiple actions, and put 4 onto Force to punch him and 3 onto Grace to dodge whatever he's gonna do. Then, if he puts all his tokens into punching, he'll punch you less good, and you'll still get a lick in.
It's a tactical option that I agree isn't really apparent upon a first read. But, if you have more than 3 or 4 Action tokens, taking multiple actions in a conflict is usually to your advantage, especially if you can think of doing something that is totally off-the-wall while still fulfilling your goals, because you're opponent probably won't be defending against it.
For #2 - good question. Personally, I would either go another round, or see if one person has a higher margin of success than the other.
Quote from: Nathan P. on July 31, 2006, 10:56:26 AM
In response to your #1, above - say you have, like, 7 action tokens, and you're in a fistfight, right? Well, you could put all 7 into Force, and punch the other guy real good. But he could also put all his tokens into Force, and you both punch each other real good. Or, you could take multiple actions, and put 4 onto Force to punch him and 3 onto Grace to dodge whatever he's gonna do. Then, if he puts all his tokens into punching, he'll punch you less good, and you'll still get a lick in.
It's a tactical option that I agree isn't really apparent upon a first read. But, if you have more than 3 or 4 Action tokens, taking multiple actions in a conflict is usually to your advantage, especially if you can think of doing something that is totally off-the-wall while still fulfilling your goals, because you're opponent probably won't be defending against it.
So, perhaps it might be useful to say:
A conflict has stakes. Individual actions within a conflict round have an explicit (and narrow) intent. So I can use my Fists o' Fury to harm another player, or I can use them defensively to protect myself from his Boot to the Head skill or I can use them to back up someone else. But I can only do one specific thing (generally offensive or defensive) and it doesn't have to have anything to do with the stakes (which, perhaps in this case could be, "Sneak into the Bank/Get caught sneaking into the Bank").
Does that sound about right?
But now I wonder about escalation. Let's say you're in a courtroom. The stakes are soemthing like "Do you convince the jury that you're innocent". You get into a debate with the lawyer on cross-examination. But then you blow some action points and just punch the guy's lights out. Well, the lawyer is no longer in the contest, but there's no reasonable way you've won over the jury . At the very least you'll go to jail for contempt of court or somesuch. I dunno...it seems that if you've got tokens, you can shotgun a raft of actions and win so many minor victories that your opponent is forced out of the fight.
later
Tom
I don't see how knocking out the prosecutor can possibly achieve the stakes in this situation. This is an area where common sense should rule.
I've been thinking about the bluegargantua's problem No. 2 as well, and I think I've come to the conclusion that those actions are directly opposed: the Fast Talk seeks to prevent the Dancing. Therefore they should be matched against one another to see who succeeds. The rule book contains the example of someone trying to talk down someone who's trying to shoot them, and it implies that those actions are directly opposed, though it doesn't explicitly say that the numbers are matched against each other. Could you confirm one way or the other, Brennan?
Contemplating it more, I agree. They are directly opposed, and whoever wins the conflict can successfully perform their action.