Approaches to assigning Traits

[komradebob]

For game purposes regarding complications, are these two following things the same?:

1) Werewolf Pack [groupx3]

and
2) Werewolf Pack
     Enraged[1], Eco-Terrorist[1], Lycanthropes[1]

I'm assuming there are no Master Components involved in the examples.
Does anyone have a suggestions why one or the other of these might be preferable overall?
Robert

[Christopher Weeks]

The first example is, in my opinion, more power and less flex.  The way the dice would get called on would be someone different.  In the first instance, there's nothing that really gives the component the ability to change shape...I mean, sure, the name "werewolf" kind of suggests that, but I'd Challenge shapechange without a supporting trait.  The first example would certainly get three dice in a vanillla fight, but the second would likely not.

Is that what you were looking for?

If I were defining such a thing and had only three Coins to spend, I'd shoot for:

Werewolf pack [1]
- numbers [1]
- lycanthropy [1]

or something.

Chris

[Valamir]

I split this from Universalis Drinking Game

An excellent question Bob.

The answer really is "depends".  

First, let me clean up your Component a little bit.  Every Component needs to have a Role, and that Role serves as a Trait itself and costs 1 Coin.  In your examples then, I'd say both of these Components cost 4 Coins.  1 for the Role Trait of "Werewolf Pack".


The Traits serve 4 purposes in the game:

1) Each Trait also provides Importance.  Importance is how many Coins a player would need to spend to eliminate the Component.  In this case, both are 4 Importance, so they are the same in this regard.

2) Traits provide extra dice in Complications where the Trait is justified.  The biggest mechanical difference you have between these approaches is what the Traits could be used to justify.

First of all the first trait is that you have a "werewolf pack". Does the Complication involve something for which being a  pack of werewolves would be useful?  Hand to hand combat with a gang of vamipires...I'd say yes.  Trying to refinance the home mortgage...that one will require a bit more justification.

Same for each of the rest of the Traits.  Would being enraged help fight vampires?...probably.  Would being an Eco-Terrorist help fight Vampires?...it might if the fight was in the Rain Forest or something.  Would being a Lycanthrope help fight Vampires?...I'd certainly take the the die for it and let some one Challenge if they wanted to argue against it.

So if we assume that all 4 of the Traits in the second option apply and the numbers from the first option apply, then both components would add 4 dice to the complication.  If, however, you can conceive of a situation where being an Eco-Terrorist would help, but having lots of numbers (Groupx3) wouldn't (or vice versa) than they wouldn't necessarily get the same 4 dice.


3) After Coins are earned following the die roll in a Complication, the players narrative should include elements of the Traits.  In the first option, the player's narrative should entail descriptions of the shear numbers of the pack overwhelming the handful of vampires.  In the second option the narrative should touch on their rage induced ferocity, advantages gained by shapechanging, etc.

4) Challenges.  Traits give added weight to Challenges.  The only thing you've established in the first option is that there are alot of these werewolves.  I then add "pacifists", "well groomed", and "used as exotic pets by rich hollywood celebreties looking for something 'differen'".  You can Challenge me if you like, but your Coins carry no added weight.

The second option establishes that these werewolves are enraged, eco-terrorists.  This accomplishes a couple of things.  First you are most likely going to be able to convince the group that these Traits should serve as a Fact that the werewolves are not "pacifistic pets".  You've thus gained more story power over what werewolves are by using individual descriptive traits.  Also, you've selected traits that tap into a common image of werewolves (the WoD variety) which will help align all players into having the same shared imaginary space about the nature of werewolves in the game.


Does that help, or did my rambling miss your question entirely?

[komradebob]

Ralph:
Actually, your ramblings very much confirm some things I'd suspected about how to work traits, but it is nice to hear someone with expereience say so.

You've also correctly identified my source of werewolf characterization (WoD).

Thanks,
Robert

[kwill]

okay, now *I've* got a question again; say we have individuals based on a MC rather than a pack...

Master Component [1]
Role: Werewolf [1]
Big Sharp Teeth [1]
Fierce Claws [1]

Role: Werewolf A [1]
Good lookin' [1]

Role: Werewolf B [1]
Hairier than you'd imagine even a werewolf could be [1]

Role: Werewolf C [1]
Likes to drink [1]

Name: Rolf [1]
Role: Werewolf Hunter [1]
Big ass shotgun [1]

with Rolf vs the werewolves in a Complication (I dunno, maybe they're playing cards? ;), for the werewolves do we draw:

Big Sharp Teeth [1] + Fierce Claws [1] + Outnumber [1, free because they do outnumber Rolf?] = 3 (basically treating them as a group)

Teeth [1] + Claws [1] = 2 (because it is not a bought fact that they outnumber Rolf)

Teeth x 3, Claws x 3 = 6 (because they're individuals, not a group)

if they had names I would consider an elegant solution to be:
Teeth [1] + Claws [1] + Anne [1] + Bob [1] + Chris [1] = 5

which one is right, if any?

[Valamir]

with Rolf vs the werewolves in a Complication (I dunno, maybe they're playing cards? ;), for the werewolves do we draw:

I'd be inclined to challenge the use of "big sharp teeth" in a card game ;-)

Big Sharp Teeth [1] + Fierce Claws [1] + Outnumber [1, free because they do outnumber Rolf?] = 3 (basically treating them as a group)

Teeth [1] + Claws [1] = 2 (because it is not a bought fact that they outnumber Rolf)

There's no such thing in the base rules as "outnumber".  You can have a trait that represents additional numbers as a way of creating a quicky mob without creating each individual character.  But that is not a game rule quality that automatically comes into play every time there are a large number of components involved.

There is no "take a die for outnumbering your opponent" rule.  (Although you could gimmick that in if you wanted)

Teeth x 3, Claws x 3 = 6 (because they're individuals, not a group)

.  

Assuming they're in a conflict where Teeth and Claws are relevant.  This is correct.  Each sub component is a distinct individual (Importance 2 in this example) and each can draw upon the Traits of the Master Component.

Each also has the Role "Werewolf" which I would imagine would almost certainly also apply in any conflict where Teeth and Claws are relevant. So you could easily add another 3 to that for 9 dice.

Poor Rolf gets only 3.  His name, being a werewolf hunter against werewolves, and the shot gun.

Rolf is in a bit of trouble.  But then the players have only spent 3 Coins on Rolf, where as they've spent 10 Coins on the Werewolves so this is to be expected.

Spend 7 more Coins on Rolf and the odds will be a little closer.  Make "Werewolf Hunter" a Master Component as well, and you can crank out an army of Rolfs just as easily as an army of werewolves.

if they had names I would consider an elegant solution to be:
Teeth [1] + Claws [1] + Anne [1] + Bob [1] + Chris [1] = 5

If they each had names they'd each get another die making them roll 12 dice.



If managing the size of the dice pools is a desire for the group its relatively easy to do.  

In this example, if that were my motivation, I'd have Challenged / Negotiated the necessity of defining Teeth and Claws as seperate Traits.  That's perfectly fine to do, but if I wanted to limit the number of dice, the way to do that is enforce broader Traits.  I'd also probably make "Try to define Components in fewer broader Traits where possible" as a Tenet and try to use that to boost my challenge if necessary.


Another thing I'd challenge / attempt to gimmick is creating these 3 werewolves as seperate Components.  (if controling the dice pool size was my motivation, it rarely is, I like rolling 35d10s)

If the werewolves were actually intended to be individual characters with their own parts in the story, then fine.  If their purpose is to be mass produced generic wolves, I'd encourage using the Group Trait.

Either approach is completely valid and legal in the rules.  Its just up to the individual groups to determine how they want to approach it.  

Its entirely appropriate to simply gimmick Master/Sub Components away all together.  The only thing you lose is the ability to quickly and cheaply assign common Traits across a class of components.  For a dice minimalist game, however, one may be perfectly happy with the majority of Components in the game having nothing more than a Role and a name.

[Mike Holmes]

If the werewolves were actually intended to be individual characters with their own parts in the story, then fine. If their purpose is to be mass produced generic wolves, I'd encourage using the Group Trait.

Yeah, my rule of thumb when I play is that if you can't be bothered to name the individual, or otherwise really have them stand out, then they're just part of a group.

Now, in your example, you did make them individuals by giving them unique traits. I'd say that probably counts. To an extent it depends on whether you intend to see these in action. That is, if "longer haired than you'd imagine" never comes into a complication, or is never intended to, then it's color, and shouldn't have been purchased in the first place. I suppose you could argue that you're spending thes points specifically to make the individuals - in that way it'd be much like a name (the one could just be called "Longhair" or something for the same effect).

Mike

[Christopher Weeks]

Spend 7 more Coins on Rolf and the odds will be a little closer.  Make "Werewolf Hunter" a Master Component as well, and you can crank out an army of Rolfs just as easily as an army of werewolves.

It would be even cheaper to (ab)use the werewolf MC that already exists by having Rolf's pet werewolves come to the rescue.

Chris

[Valamir]

Cheaper?

Maybe.  Depends on whether or not anyone else is inclined to challenge the idea of Rolf having pet werewolves.

In this example, it wouldn't be any cheaper really, since it would take 1 Coin to create the Werewolf, and a 2nd Coin to assign it the Ownership Trait of (Pet of Rolf).  In exchange it would get to draw on the 2 relevant Traits (Teeth and Claws) and so is essentially a wash (for a single complication).

If the werewolves had more than 2 applicable Traits then yes, it would be cheaper.


Another easy Gimmick to help with Trait inflation (if that's a concern) is to make Subcomponent Roles cost more based on the number of Traits in the Master.  

Werewolf (as a Subcomponent Trait to the Master Werewolf Component) might cost 1 as normal, but 2 if the Master Werewolf Component had 5 or more Traits, 3 if 10 or more, 4 if 15 or more, etc.  This would help slow the multiplicative effect of Master Components (if desired).