[TSoY] Harm outside BDTP

[Frank T]

So I'm in my "figuring out" phase for TSoY. I think the rulebook could use some more examples, that'd make it easier.

One thing I wonder about: So you can take harm outside bringing down the pain. You fail a check, fall down a cliff and take level 4 harm. Or you get poisoned. For some reason, you don't want to bring down the pain. Now, how does this level of harm "shake out"? Obviously, it doesn't shake out instantly. Does it shake out after the next time you bring down the pain? Or would you mark all check-boxes up to harm level 4?

- Frank

[Clinton R. Nixon]

So I'm in my "figuring out" phase for TSoY. I think the rulebook could use some more examples, that'd make it easier.

One thing I wonder about: So you can take harm outside bringing down the pain. You fail a check, fall down a cliff and take level 4 harm. Or you get poisoned. For some reason, you don't want to bring down the pain. Now, how does this level of harm "shake out"? Obviously, it doesn't shake out instantly. Does it shake out after the next time you bring down the pain? Or would you mark all check-boxes up to harm level 4?

It doesn't shake out, and won't until you bring down the pain at some point. This does mean that it's better to get into a BDTP conflict at some point, which is intentionally designed.

[Frank T]

Thanks for the quick response! So if I fall down the cliff and break a leg, I might feel better after getting into an argument. How would you reflect the broken leg mechanically, afterwards? Penalty dice? Or not at all?

- Frank

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Thanks for the quick response! So if I fall down the cliff and break a leg, I might feel better after getting into an argument. How would you reflect the broken leg mechanically, afterwards? Penalty dice? Or not at all?

Not at all. You're pulp fantasy heroes! You splint a broken leg, maybe limp for a day, and then you're fine!

[Frank T]

Nice! Thank you.

- Frank

[Tancred]

Related to Frank T's query, can anyone clarify a couple of points for me?

In the Secret of the Sudden Knife the description makes a point of stressing the secret's effects are irrespective of being in a Bringing Down the Pain situation. So this means should the attacker with the secret wish not to kill his target but just screw him up a lot, he can choose to inflict serious Harm instead as a result of a simple ability check? Otherwise it would be a normal Stealth vs Sense Danger resisted ability check followed by a Scrapping vs. React (or Endure?) check just to kill the target outright and if the target decides to go to BDTP, the assasin can then use his Secret of the Sudden Knife in the first exchange? With bonus dice based on the character's successes from the simple ability check?

Similarly how does Three-Corner Destruction magic work? Is it a case of the magician stating he wishes to kill his target, suceeding if he wins a simple resisted Destruction ability check, and if it goes to BDTP the Destruction success level indicates Harm inflicted each exchange? Or can the magician only ever inflict Harm equal to his success level, whether in BDTP or in a simple ability check?

Hope my questions make sense!

Cheers,

Adrian.

[James_Nostack]

Hi Tancred, I'm not an expert but I can try to answer the second question.  The first question confuses me, so I'll let wiser heads prevail.

I would think that, in general, Destruction magic is destructive.  Like, if you want to blast the hell out of a hut, then the player rolls the dice, and if successful, BANG that hut is gone.  Since the supporting cast cannot Bring Down the Pain, it would follow that whatever the player intended, succeeds.  Perhaps an NPC gets to Resist, but cannot Bring It.  Whereas a PC can use Bringing Down the Pain, and the degree of Harm begins to matter.

But maybe I'm totally off here.  It seems like that's the most consistent way to read the book, but I don't have it in front of me. 

[Tancred]

Hi Tancred, I'm not an expert but I can try to answer the second question.  The first question confuses me, so I'll let wiser heads prevail.

I would think that, in general, Destruction magic is destructive.  Like, if you want to blast the hell out of a hut, then the player rolls the dice, and if successful, BANG that hut is gone.  Since the supporting cast cannot Bring Down the Pain, it would follow that whatever the player intended, succeeds.  Perhaps an NPC gets to Resist, but cannot Bring It.  Whereas a PC can use Bringing Down the Pain, and the degree of Harm begins to matter.

But maybe I'm totally off here.  It seems like that's the most consistent way to read the book, but I don't have it in front of me. 

Makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

I unnecessarily complicated the Secret of the Sudden Knife question - basically it's the 'irrespective of being in a Bringing Down the Pain situation' line that's throwing me. Apart from that, it seems like the kind of ability that would only see use during BDTP, and I'm not sure how it's supposed to work outside of that.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I unnecessarily complicated the Secret of the Sudden Knife question - basically it's the 'irrespective of being in a Bringing Down the Pain situation' line that's throwing me. Apart from that, it seems like the kind of ability that would only see use during BDTP, and I'm not sure how it's supposed to work outside of that.

It works the same inside or outside of BDTP - the rolls and the Harm inflicted are the same.

[Tancred]

It works the same inside or outside of BDTP - the rolls and the Harm inflicted are the same.

Still don't think I get it. For example, if a player character is attacked by someone with this Secret who wishes the inflict its nasty Harm on them (rather than kill them), the NPC rolls a resisted ability check. The NPC wins and the player decides to go to BDTP instead of accepting the Harm.

So the intention of the NPC is to inflict the Secret's level of Harm on the PC. Can the NPC attempt to use the Secret again during BDTP (paying all the pool costs etc.), or not, since the stakes of the conflict are about that very thing?

Secondly, why would the NPC even use this Secret outside of BDTP anyway? He could just as easily make a normal sneak attack as a resisted ability check and just state his intentions are to inflict a Broken level of Harm on the PC (or even kill the PC outright, although the PC is almost certainly going to BDTP if the NPC wins), and this won't cost him any points from his pools or require his knowledge of the Secret. If he wins and the PC goes to BDTP, then the Secret seems really valuable.

Or have I got it all backwards?

[Tancred]

Might have got it: is the advantage of the Secret that you can inflict two levels of Harm simultaneously: automatic level 4 Harm and another level 6 Harm is the Endure roll is failed? I had read it to be level 4 Harm, bumped to 6 if the Endure roll fails.

[Twobirds]

I don't get it either.  It seems scarily useful in BDTP, but why bother with Harm levels outside of BDTP?  Can't I just say "I stab him through the eyeball!" and shoot for a success?  If the intent was to wound him for the purposes of BDTP, that seems contrary to the idea of 'rejecting the simple consequences'.  Shouldn't the Harm from the simple roll be dismissed once the BDTP starts?

George

[Bret Gillan]

Secondly, why would the NPC even use this Secret outside of BDTP anyway? He could just as easily make a normal sneak attack as a resisted ability check and just state his intentions are to inflict a Broken level of Harm on the PC (or even kill the PC outright, although the PC is almost certainly going to BDTP if the NPC wins), and this won't cost him any points from his pools or require his knowledge of the Secret. If he wins and the PC goes to BDTP, then the Secret seems really valuable.

Or have I got it all backwards?

I was under the impression that you can't kill a PC outside of BDTP.

[Tancred]

Secondly, why would the NPC even use this Secret outside of BDTP anyway? He could just as easily make a normal sneak attack as a resisted ability check and just state his intentions are to inflict a Broken level of Harm on the PC (or even kill the PC outright, although the PC is almost certainly going to BDTP if the NPC wins), and this won't cost him any points from his pools or require his knowledge of the Secret. If he wins and the PC goes to BDTP, then the Secret seems really valuable.

Or have I got it all backwards?

I was under the impression that you can't kill a PC outside of BDTP.

Not sure - I took it to mean for all practical purposes a PC won't die outside of BDTP because as soon as an ability check indicates death, it makes sense for the player to go to BDTP.

I guess if an NPC cannot have an intention to kill a PC unless the player's already called for a BDTP then an NPC can never kill a PC without the player deciding he or she is willing to stake their character's life on the conflict. Maybe this is how the text intends things?

Either way, this doesn't affect the question about the Secret - why use the Secret outside of BDTP to inflict Harm 6 if any character can state inflicting Harm 6 as their intention for the resisted ability check?

[ubergeek2012]

Not sure - I took it to mean for all practical purposes a PC won't die outside of BDTP because as soon as an ability check indicates death, it makes sense for the player to go to BDTP.

I guess if an NPC cannot have an intention to kill a PC unless the player's already called for a BDTP then an NPC can never kill a PC without the player deciding he or she is willing to stake their character's life on the conflict. Maybe this is how the text intends things?

I always took it to mean exactly that.  When stakes are set over a conflict, an NPC can't have stakes that allow the death of a PC or an important NPC.  When they come into conflict the Player (and not the GM) has to step up and say "Oh Hell No!  You're going down, and going down hard!" for death of one or the other to be at risk.

Either way, this doesn't affect the question about the Secret - why use the Secret outside of BDTP to inflict Harm 6 if any character can state inflicting Harm 6 as their intention for the resisted ability check?

I didn't think stakes could be set in that specific a way.  It was my impression that stakes would be set more along the lines of "I want to beat him in a sword duel and prove that I'm a better fencer", and the result of the roll would add harm to the loser based on the success level.