[TSoY] Harm outside BDTP

[Tancred]

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.

I think I like it the way you've interpreted things, where death is only ever a possibility if the player agrees to it. Definitely revising how I thought it worked.

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.

I took it that stakes had to be quite specific. If your intention is "I want to beat him in a sword duel and prove that I'm a better fencer" you get exactly that if you win: you beat the guy and prove to all witnesses you're the better swordsman, but the rules don't seem to imply you get additional side victories like inflicting Harm on the loser.

Take Frank T's example of the cliff: presumably the stakes up front are succeed = climb the cliff; fail = fall and take Harm 4, since there's no way of determining degree of failure since it's either degree of success = 0 (fail) or degree of success = 1+ (success, with increasing degrees of narrative flourish). How would you determine whether the character suffers 1 Harm or 4 Harm without it being set up front? Unless, in this example, the cliff is being treated as an NPC and it's a resisted roll...

So I'm still confused - the text doesn't give any examples where Harm is inflicted outside of BDTP that I'm aware of, except for the Secret of the Sudden Knife and references to getting into BDTP to shake out Harm afterwards, so this is guesswork based on what I've seen posted elsewhere on the forum. If, like you say, Harm is sometimes inflicted in addition to achieving the set stakes, then the Secret does make a lot of sense.

[ubergeek2012]

I think I like it the way you've interpreted things, where death is only ever a possibility if the player agrees to it. Definitely revising how I thought it worked.

In my opinion this is one of the key points of the system that allows for more freedom in the group's storytelling.  I've been in a lot of D&D games where Players take no chances in combat and with villains.  They do everything in their power to make sure that they don't get away, and they die, die, DIE!  And really, there's a good reason for it.  If they don't, it's way too easy for the dice to kill a PC in the fight, or in the next one if they don't take care of the guy now.

With PC death only possible if the players BDTP, then they don't have to worry about it.  They can relax and have scenes and conflicts with antagonists that are dramatic without having to worry about a critical hit causing them to lose their character.  It also means that a GM won't lose an important NPC casually.  The players really have to want him dead to risk their own character's lives.  And when they BDTP, it's a huge signal flare to the GM saying "It's on!"

I took it that stakes had to be quite specific. If your intention is "I want to beat him in a sword duel and prove that I'm a better fencer" you get exactly that if you win: you beat the guy and prove to all witnesses you're the better swordsman, but the rules don't seem to imply you get additional side victories like inflicting Harm on the loser.

Take Frank T's example of the cliff: presumably the stakes up front are succeed = climb the cliff; fail = fall and take Harm 4, since there's no way of determining degree of failure since it's either degree of success = 0 (fail) or degree of success = 1+ (success, with increasing degrees of narrative flourish). How would you determine whether the character suffers 1 Harm or 4 Harm without it being set up front? Unless, in this example, the cliff is being treated as an NPC and it's a resisted roll...

So I'm still confused - the text doesn't give any examples where Harm is inflicted outside of BDTP that I'm aware of, except for the Secret of the Sudden Knife and references to getting into BDTP to shake out Harm afterwards, so this is guesswork based on what I've seen posted elsewhere on the forum. If, like you say, Harm is sometimes inflicted in addition to achieving the set stakes, then the Secret does make a lot of sense.

Ok, I don't think it actually says what I was saying anywhere in the book.  It just made sense to me, and was the best thing I could think of for conflicts inflicting harm outside of BDTP.

[Tancred]

I took it that stakes had to be quite specific. If your intention is "I want to beat him in a sword duel and prove that I'm a better fencer" you get exactly that if you win: you beat the guy and prove to all witnesses you're the better swordsman, but the rules don't seem to imply you get additional side victories like inflicting Harm on the loser.

Take Frank T's example of the cliff: presumably the stakes up front are succeed = climb the cliff; fail = fall and take Harm 4, since there's no way of determining degree of failure since it's either degree of success = 0 (fail) or degree of success = 1+ (success, with increasing degrees of narrative flourish). How would you determine whether the character suffers 1 Harm or 4 Harm without it being set up front? Unless, in this example, the cliff is being treated as an NPC and it's a resisted roll...

So I'm still confused - the text doesn't give any examples where Harm is inflicted outside of BDTP that I'm aware of, except for the Secret of the Sudden Knife and references to getting into BDTP to shake out Harm afterwards, so this is guesswork based on what I've seen posted elsewhere on the forum. If, like you say, Harm is sometimes inflicted in addition to achieving the set stakes, then the Secret does make a lot of sense.

Ok, I don't think it actually says what I was saying anywhere in the book.  It just made sense to me, and was the best thing I could think of for conflicts inflicting harm outside of BDTP.

The more I think about it, the more I like your idea - the nature of any incidental Harm inflicted could be worked out in the stakes before hand or chosen by the victor. Taking your sword duel example, Harm could be either Vigor from wounds or Instinct from the loss of face at being defeated.

And as I understand it, you only calculate the difference in success levels when figuring outcome during BGTP, so if the conflict is a resisted ability roll without BDTP and the winner gets a success level of 5 and the loser 2, then the Harm inflicted will be 5 - which gives the loser a nice incentive to Bring Down the Pain.

Taking the cliff example, you could look at introducing failure levels: every point of failure equals a level of Harm incurred.

Thanks!