TSOY: Bringing Down the Pain Question

[James_Nostack]

Every second my boss is away, I've been reading my way through the HTML rulebook.  It's so cool, and I can't wait to play!

But I have a question about the Bringing Down the Pain section.  Do I have this right?

1.  A player wants to really get into it, and Brings Down the Pain.
2.  Damage is applied to whoever lost that initial contest.
3.  Participants state their goals for the conflict.
4.  Actions are declared.
5.  A resisted ability check takes place.  
6.  Loser suffers damage, makes damage check, etc.
7.  Participants may opt to end the struggle here.
8.  If the struggle continues, go through steps 4-7 again.

Here's the passage that confuses me (in the HTML doc, it's the paragraph right above "Damage and defeat")

The trick to Bringing Down the Pain lies in this rule: in any free-and-clear stage, a player can announce that he is changing his character's intention completely... He does not have to state the new intention until the next free-and-clear stage.

Why is this noteworthy?  Though it's described as a "trick," it sounds like  games such as D&D: you simply come up with a new action when it's your turn again.  But maybe I'm not seeing something?

Other than that, and some minor confusion with the "magic powers" stuff, it looks like an awesomely cool game.  But I felt that way about Paladin and Donjon too!

[rafial]

Let me take a stab...

Your intention is the thing that will come to pass should you win the pain-bringing.  Winning means that the other guy gives up, or has a success scored against him when broken.

Actions are color, that in combination with your intention determine which ability you'll roll for as your part of the pain-bringing for that round.  Let me state that the other way around.  The use of an ability for a given round of pain-bringing must be justified in terms of the action you describe, and the intention you expect to achieve.

Changing intention allows you to move back to step 3 of your list.  You get to pick a new goal.  This allows you to either escalate the stakes or back off.  Changing your intention may also allow you to justify using a different set of abilities in future rounds.

Let's say you are a noble sworn to a certain king, and you've just gotten in a shouting matching with another one of his nobles in court over who truly supports the king.  You may start with an intention to "have the enemy noble banned from the kingdom".

Later, depending on how the contest goes, you may announce that you are changing intention.  That new intention could be "run the traitor through with my sword right in front of the king", or it might be "my rival retreats from the room with singed ears".  But your opponent doesn't know what it's going to be.  If he suspects his life may suddenly be on the line, he may give up before your new intention is announced, and accept banishment.  Conversely, if you lower the stakes while you are slightly ahead, you may convince your opponent to give and accept a lesser loss instead of risking being bloodied or broken.

I think of it being like the doubling cube in backgammon.  You are telling your opponent the stakes are about to change.  It's up to the opponent then to decide if they are willing to carry on with new stakes, or accept a loss with the current set of stakes.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Rafial is on the mark! And he used a metaphor I hadn't thought of - the doubling cube.

One of my favorite examples, if a bit lurid, is two lovers competing in bed to see who can drive the other to the point of ecstacy. When one gets close, she changes intention to murder the other.

Damage is damage. It's a measure of how close you are to having zero story input. Bringing Down the Pain wagers that story input to see who will have the most influence.

[James_Nostack]

Okay, so let me see if I understand.  What you're talking about is three rounds, going something like this:

Round One
Player A: I am the best.  I intend to win the cook-off.
Player B: I am competitive, so I'll cook stuff too.
(rolls are made as the players compete to gather herbs and spices)

Round Two
Player A: Man, I'm definitely gonna win this cook off now!
Player B: I'm gonna change my action!  Ha ha, you don't know what's coming next!  
(rolls are made, but since B's action is indeterminate he can only defend.)

Round Three
Player A: Yessir, gonna win that cook-off!
Player B: I sleep with A's girlfriend.

In other words, the "trick" occurs in the second round, where B has given notice that things are going to change, but holds his cards close to his chest.  This hampers B, because he can't make an "attack" that round, but it also means that A ought to reconsider the narrative consequences of  the rounds to come.

Is that right?

PS.  I think throughout this section of the rules, the word damage should be replaced by harm.  Harm covers physical injury, social embarrassment, and a host of other things, and feels a little more natural when reading.   (Just my opinion.)

[rafial]

I think you've got it.  Let me expand your script to make the differences between intention and action a little clearer.

Player A has challenged Player B to a cook off.

Opposed Test
Roll.
Player A: My roll + complex crafts is higher than yours.  My omelet is the tastiest!  Taste defeat!
Player B: Not so fast bucko! let the pain be brought!

Start of Pain-Bringing
Player B takes damage equals to Player A's success level

Declaration of Intention
Player A: I will cook an omelet so tasty that more people say mine is best
Player B: No! more people will like my omelet

Round One
Player A: I'm going to add special herbs I gathered in the woods to make my omelet better so I can use my Woodscraft skill.
Player B: I'm going to talk about how tasty my omelet is going to be so that everybody watching will get excited.  I'll use my Sway.

Player A's intention is to cook an omelet more people like
Player B's intention is to cook an omelet more people like

Roll: Player A wins again

Round Two
Player A: I'm simmering over a low heat -- complex crafts
Player B: I'm changing intention -- defending w/complex crafts

Player A's intention is to cook an omelet more people like
Player B's intention is in flux

Roll: Player B wins with a great roll, but does no damage

Route Three
Player A: Now I'm tossing my omelet skillfully in the pan -- complex crafts
Player B: Hah, I've added hassa flowers to my omelet, which I know your girlfriend is crazy for.  When she eats this, she'll be putty in my hands.  My intention is now to seduce your girlfriend.  I'm rolling my seduce skill of 8!

Player A's intention is to cook an omelet more people like
Player B's intention is to seduce Player A's girlfriend

Roll: Player B wins again, and this time does damage

... and so on.  If A gives or is defeated, player B gets the girl.  If B gives or is defeated, A is acclaimed the better cook.  Unless of course intentions are changed again before either of those outcomes happen.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

James,

I just sprayed coffee from my mouth in classic movie-style reading that. Awesome.

And, yes, you got it. As for "Harm" - good idea, although I won't change it anytime soon.

[James_Nostack]

I just sprayed coffee from my mouth in classic movie-style reading that. Awesome.

Cool, that's 5 experience points for me!  Gotta earn that boost to Freeloadin'!

Thanks for confirming that reading... and thanks for the cool game, too.  We're attempting to get a one-shot together in case you feel like experimenting on guinea pigs.