[TSOY] Finnish multi-participant BDtP rules, some questions

[Hans]

Eero placed a brief summary of his Finnish version of the multi-participant pain rules in this thread.  Multi-party BDtP is a regular and consistently troubling feature for the game I am currently story guiding.  Eero, or someone else familiar with the Finnish rules, could you please answer the following:

* "the goals of the participants are compared: if several characters have the same exact goals, they are considered to be of one party."  Is "goal" the same thing as "intent" in the English rules?  How broadly do you define the goal, here?

* "Defensive actions for the whole group" - I assume this is instead of an action that assists the main actor with bonus dice?  I assume this is one defensive action per person?  Can you give more detail on this?

* "Sometimes a character cannot defend against all opponents at once" - Could you expand on this statement?  Under what circumstances will a character/group simply be unable to roll dice to either compare with the attack to reduce harm, or deal harm back.

I ask for this because in my experience, using the basic non-Zeitgeist rules for BDtP, a lot of the conflict simply comes down to number of participants on each side, since the affect of an unopposed roll is so devastating.  I find myself juggling the number of participants on the Story Guide side to try to measure the strength of the opposition ("Should I have three Jaguar Warriors as one 'character' with a higher Vigor pool, or one 'Jaguar Warrior Troop' character?").  But I also find the players are rarely interested in the Zeitgeist method, as the benefits are not that great.  Your method described here seems like it adds enough of a benefit to the Zeitgeist (i.e. allowing defensive actions) to make it worth taking only one combined main action, but I'd like more details.

[Eero Tuovinen]

* "the goals of the participants are compared: if several characters have the same exact goals, they are considered to be of one party."  Is "goal" the same thing as "intent" in the English rules?  How broadly do you define the goal, here?

Yeah, it's "intent". I hardly ever remember the English terminology anymore, one of the drawbacks of having a Finnish version.

In my play "intent" is usually described conscisely with one sentence. Usually everybody understands what the character wants, so anything more is not necessary.

* "Defensive actions for the whole group" - I assume this is instead of an action that assists the main actor with bonus dice?  I assume this is one defensive action per person?  Can you give more detail on this?

Each non-active member of the group can make one of two rolls, should they wish: either they boost the active character with a supportive Ability check, or they can use one of their Passive Abilities to defend the group against something the enemy is doing, as a Defensive Action. (Is that even what it's called? The perpendicular action for bonus dice?) (They can also, of course, support another character's Defensive Action.) If the group has lots of members or the enemy is not doing anything much, the extras are still stuck providing Pools and soaking Harm, though.

Ah, actually, there's three options, for there is one option that is always open for characters dwiddling their thumbs with nothing to do: a character can take on an Unrelated task that does not pertain to the BDtP. This is often the case in complex situations, or when a single character is somehow imbeded from participating; for example, if the enemy should have split your group with a diabolical trap that closed a door between you, as is often the case in comic books, members of the group on the safer side of the divide might make checks to break down the door and join their fellows in the trap.

* "Sometimes a character cannot defend against all opponents at once" - Could you expand on this statement?  Under what circumstances will a character/group simply be unable to roll dice to either compare with the attack to reduce harm, or deal harm back.

This is totally up to the "local imaginary conditions" that define what the characters can do in the first place. For example, if a character is fighting for his life in a swordfight against one opponent at the same time as another opponent is trying to drop a large rock on him from above, this might be the case. It depends on what the player declares: if he declares that his character tries to leap down the cliffside to evade both dangers, then his React roll will be used against both. But should he declare that he is intent on besting the swordsman arrayed against him, he is by his own admission concentrating on his own goals to the exclusion of defense, leaving himself open to the rockfall.

My basic rule of thumb is always that a Passive Ability will always resist, moment-to-moment, all enemy action that falls into its purview. So if you roll React, you're reacting to everything that is reactable. Meanwhile, all other Abilities are used for well-defined actions in the imaginary space, and whether they are perpendicular or parallel to enemy actions is determined on a case-by-case basis.

What the above means is that a group with four members may well have one character doing something active, while the three others run defense for each of the three Pools. That makes them pretty safe from most hazards.

I ask for this because in my experience, using the basic non-Zeitgeist rules for BDtP, a lot of the conflict simply comes down to number of participants on each side, since the affect of an unopposed roll is so devastating.  I find myself juggling the number of participants on the Story Guide side to try to measure the strength of the opposition ("Should I have three Jaguar Warriors as one 'character' with a higher Vigor pool, or one 'Jaguar Warrior Troop' character?").  But I also find the players are rarely interested in the Zeitgeist method, as the benefits are not that great.  Your method described here seems like it adds enough of a benefit to the Zeitgeist (i.e. allowing defensive actions) to make it worth taking only one combined main action, but I'd like more details.

An important point to consider is that Zeitgeist shouldn't be a matter of interest, it's a matter of evaluating the fiction. If two characters have identical goals, they are, by definition, in Zeitgeist. That's in my games, that is. If two players want to act independently, they have to expressly decide to act in disconcert.

[oliof]

just a terminology issue, folks: If you say 'Zeitgeist', do you mean 'Gestalt'?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Eh, yes. I used to distinguish those words, but f**** Clinton never did. After reading his text too much, I seem to have the same problem now. I remember wondering yesterday why ever the group resolution system would be called "zeitgeist".

Luckily I removed the lousy term altogether from the Finnish version, and now I don't have to think about it routinely.

[Hans]

What do I know from Zeitgeist?   

Thanks for posting this clarification, Eero.  It was very helpful to me.