[TSoY] Ability Check Stakes and Harm outside of Combat

[colin roald]

There was a thread on this a while ago, but some questions never got resolved.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18188.0

(1) The rules say that BDTP is "the only way to permanently injure or get rid of a major named character controlled by the Story Guide."   Does this mean "I kill Gandalf" is illegal as the stakes of a simple Ability Check (not BDTP), resisted or otherwise?

(2) Presumably PCs must have at least as much protection as major NPCs, so "I kill that obnoxious player character" is also illegal as the stakes of a simple Ability Check.

(3) Can you specify Harm as the consequence of an Ability Check?  "I humiliate Gandalf in front of the king, doing level six harm in Instinct and making him give me a pony."

(4) If so, is there any point to using Secret of the Sudden Knife outside of BDTP?  You could specify the same effect for free.

(5) If the victim of Sudden Knife fails her Endure check, does she take only level 6 harm, or is it *both* level 4 and level 6?

So this is how it goes?

Strella (NPC), waiting in the shadows, sees Gerard (PC) walk by.  They roll Strella's Stealth vs Gerard's Sense Danger, with Stakes "does Gerard notice the waiting figure or not?"   Strella wins SL3 to SL2, so Gerard has no idea.
Strella gets to make a surprise attack, and Gerard cannot defend.  Strella declares the stakes are, if she wins, Gerard gets a knife in the kidneys and is Broken and helpless.  She gets to roll three bonus dice from her successful Stealth check into her Bravo check for the attack, and gets SL 4.  So the action is successful, and her stakes take place....
Except Gerard's player says no way, we're Bringing Down the Pain.
First round of BDTP, Strella's intention is to knife Gerard in the kidneys, steal the message from the Duke, and leave Gerard bleeding in the alley.  Gerard's is to defend himself and defeat the assassin.
Strella's action is to roll Bravo and try to invoke Secret of the Sudden Knife.  She gets 4 bonus dice rolled over from her successful pre-BDTP action.
Gerard's action is to roll Scrapping and try to bullrush Strella and bash her head into the wall.
I think these actions are Opposed, so only one can succeed.

Suppose Strella wins.  Then Gerard takes harm 4, and has to roll an immediate Endure check to avoid additionally harm 6.  Strella pays 3 V + 1 I + 1 R.

Suppose Gerard wins.  Then Strella takes harm = difference in SLs, but pays nothing for Sudden Knife.

Either way, BDTP continues.  Surprise is over, so Strella doesn't get another chance with Sudden Knife.

Does that sound right?

[Eero Tuovinen]

(1) The rules say that BDTP is "the only way to permanently injure or get rid of a major named character controlled by the Story Guide."   Does this mean "I kill Gandalf" is illegal as the stakes of a simple Ability Check (not BDTP), resisted or otherwise?

That's what Clinton says. Myself, I've not bothered with that rule, especially as I refuse to make the distinction between important and unimportant NPCs. Also makes little sense when PCs don't have that kind of immunity. I guess it's a vestigial rule intented to encourage calling BDTP?

(2) Presumably PCs must have at least as much protection as major NPCs, so "I kill that obnoxious player character" is also illegal as the stakes of a simple Ability Check.

No, death is a valid choice for stakes. I wouldn't choose it in most situations, though, because that makes the choice of BDTP rather easy.But if a player was reticient about committing in conflict, I'd certainly up the stakes even this far.

(3) Can you specify Harm as the consequence of an Ability Check?  "I humiliate Gandalf in front of the king, doing level six harm in Instinct and making him give me a pony."

Indeed, you can!

(4) If so, is there any point to using Secret of the Sudden Knife outside of BDTP?  You could specify the same effect for free.

No, you cannot, unless you're the GM. The GM specifies any Harm included in the stakes, and if he doesn't, then you aren't causing any harm. Most GMs only use Harm in exceptional situations, so in practice you're better off causing ithe harm with a secret.

(5) If the victim of Sudden Knife fails her Endure check, does she take only level 6 harm, or is it *both* level 4 and level 6?

Can't remember the wording. I suggest playing it exactly as it reads, whatever that is.

[colin roald]

No, you cannot, unless you're the GM. The GM specifies any Harm included in the stakes, and if he doesn't, then you aren't causing any harm.

Interesting.  I mean, that seems sensible and I expect we'd play that way by default thanks to conditioning from non-Forge games, but is that specified anywhere in the TSoY rules?  I haven't seen that one.

Can't remember the wording. I suggest playing it exactly as it reads, whatever that is.

Revised edition wording is: "In a surprise attack, the victim automatically takes harm level 4 (bloodied) if your character successfully hits. She should make an Endure ability check resisting your roll. If she fails, she automatically takes harm level 6." 

I would indeed rule that the potential is for both harm 4 and harm 6.

[Doyce]

Strella (NPC), waiting in the shadows, sees Gerard (PC) walk by.  They roll Strella's Stealth vs Gerard's Sense Danger, with Stakes "does Gerard notice the waiting figure or not?"   Strella wins SL3 to SL2, so Gerard has no idea.
Strella gets to make a surprise attack, and Gerard cannot defend.  Strella declares the stakes are, if she wins, Gerard gets a knife in the kidneys and is Broken and helpless.  She gets to roll three bonus dice from her successful Stealth check into her Bravo check for the attack, and gets SL 4. 

This actually raises another question for me: Strella gets to roll in three bonus dice?

Now, yes: the rules for using additional skills say "The secondary ability is used first and the success levels are used as bonus dice on the second ability check."  By that reading... sure, Strella gets all 3 dice as a bonus.

The problem I have with this is that both of the examples given in the rules text are uncontested checks, and the example you give above is an opposed roll.  My gut instinct in that example is to only roll over one SL as a bonus die -- the difference between Strella and Gerard's roll -- not because of a rules interpretation, but just because it feels right.  I can see the argument whereby any success level at means you get the full benefit, but at the same time (as a Heroquest and Sorcerer GM) I see a good argument for levels of success partially cancelling each other out.

[Eero Tuovinen]

No, you cannot, unless you're the GM. The GM specifies any Harm included in the stakes, and if he doesn't, then you aren't causing any harm.

Interesting.  I mean, that seems sensible and I expect we'd play that way by default thanks to conditioning from non-Forge games, but is that specified anywhere in the TSoY rules?  I haven't seen that one.

Not really, but Clinton has explained that that's his intent. I included it in the Finnish edition explicitly, works for me.

[Miedvied]

There was a thread on this a while ago, but some questions never got resolved.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18188.0

(1) The rules say that BDTP is "the only way to permanently injure or get rid of a major named character controlled by the Story Guide."   Does this mean "I kill Gandalf" is illegal as the stakes of a simple Ability Check (not BDTP), resisted or otherwise?

As I understand it, the stakes "I Kill Gandalf" are valid, but since you can't get rid of him without BDTP... you get Gandalf the White popping up in the near future. That is, you can only get rid of a major NPC by BDTP - and if killing is permanent in your game (no Gandalf the White), then that means no killing without BDTP. So, yeah, you got it - no "I kill him" stakes without BDTP. And for the record, I agree with the rule; mooks are just mooks, but anyone that is worth more screen time than a mop-up mook deserves a more satisfying death than that of a mop-up mook (by "deserves" I mean the players "deserve"; if this guy has impacted play more than just as an extra, then the players deserve to see him go down with something more than one roll). This is a means of protecting the player's interests in the game: they don't lose something important to them without (a) deciding to lose it, and (b) recieving closure. Part of Eero's point is that it makes little sense if players don't have that sort of immunity, but they do.

(2) Presumably PCs must have at least as much protection as major NPCs, so "I kill that obnoxious player character" is also illegal as the stakes of a simple Ability Check.

Quite right. Moreover, as I've come to understand it, the GM can not BDTP - that is the province of the players only, to allow them to decide when they feel something is important enough for them to risk their lives over; much like choosing how far to escalate in DITV. The very first line of page 36 of the book is "The Story Guide cannot Bring Down the Pain".

(3) Can you specify Harm as the consequence of an Ability Check?  "I humiliate Gandalf in front of the king, doing level six harm in Instinct and making him give me a pony."

I've no earthly idea, but if Eero says that you can, it's a safe bet you can.

(4) If so, is there any point to using Secret of the Sudden Knife outside of BDTP?  You could specify the same effect for free.

Seriously, Eero's quoting stuff he must've gleaned off the boards, conversations with Clinton, or houserules or something. I honestly don't think I saw anything in the book re: Harm in rolls outside of BDTP, and this just builds on that. For instance, the GM being able to specify whether or not harm occurs on a roll and the player not being able to - this is one of those double-standards that seems rather ... well, completely at odds with the entire tone of the TSoY mechanics. I just don't think you can get harm in a non-BDTP roll, with some rare exceptions (like using SotSK). Hell, even SotSK *notes* it's an exception; it says "irrespective of a Bringing Down The Pain situation." That is, it stipulates that it allows you to cause harm outside of BDTP - and if it's something that is a particular benefit of a special power, then it's not a default ability. Moreover, it's important to point out that Harm is "...a count-down of when a player loses control over his character..."; that is, it's a serious issue, and page 35 states that BDTP is "the only way to permanently injure or get rid of...". It seems that permanent injury/getting rid of is, well, a direct reference to Harm, and as such, is limited to BDTP.

(5) If the victim of Sudden Knife fails her Endure check, does she take only level 6 harm, or is it *both* level 4 and level 6?

She takes level four harm if she passes the Endure check, level six harm if she fails. The rules aren't totally explicit on this, but you'll note that SotSK is basically an assassins' version of the secret of the mighty blow - down to pool costs and all. Giving two levels of harm would make it (a) an exception to pretty much every other rule in the game, and (b) twice as powerful as another combat ability. Definitely either or, not both.

So this is how it goes?
Strella (NPC), waiting in the shadows, sees Gerard (PC) walk by.  They roll Strella's Stealth vs Gerard's Sense Danger, with Stakes "does Gerard notice the waiting figure or not?"   Strella wins SL3 to SL2, so Gerard has no idea.

Strella gets to make a surprise attack, and Gerard cannot defend.  Strella declares the stakes are, if she wins, Gerard gets a knife in the kidneys and is Broken and helpless.

She gets to roll three bonus dice from her successful Stealth check into her Bravo check for the attack, and gets SL 4.

She only got one bonus die - two were cancelled out by Gerard's successes. I'm with Eero on this one.  I've also gotta say, "no." Seriously, if this exact move is a Secret, then I think it's pretty blatantly obvious that it's not a move allowed by default. Because then it wouldn't be a special ability. If there's a particular Secret to let you make Area Effect spells, then it's clear you don't get to make Area Effect spells by default. There's nothing vague here.

So the action is successful, and her stakes take place....
Except Gerard's player says no way, we're Bringing Down the Pain.
First round of BDTP, Strella's intention is to knife Gerard in the kidneys, steal the message from the Duke, and leave Gerard bleeding in the alley.  Gerard's is to defend himself and defeat the assassin.

These seem like multiple stakes to me. This game uses a blend of conflict and task resolution, sorta, but let's be clear: if Stella's goal is to steal the message from the Duke, then knifing Gerard seems to me to be a task utilized to accomplish the goals of the conflict.  Having stakes to (a) get the letter, (b) knife gerard, and (c) leave him bleeding in the alley... well, it's three stakes. Maybe two if you want to say (b) and (c) are really the same thing, where (c) describes the degree of (b).  Likewise, Gerard looks like he's using two stakes, too. Defeating the assassin might still get him knifed, for instance; defending himself might still lose him the letter. I can't quite put my finger on where this doesn't mesh with the rules, but something's wrong here. Seems the actual stakes here are something like "Stella: Steal the Duke's message, Gerard: Defend himself", with "Killing Gerard" and "Defeating Assassin" being their methods. As stated in the book, pg 36 again, "Both sies of the conflict must make certain their intention - their goal - is clarified and well stated,  for it's very important here. This intention must be clear, but can allow room for differing actions to achieve the goal..."

Strella's action is to roll Bravo and try to invoke Secret of the Sudden Knife.  She gets 4 bonus dice rolled over from her successful pre-BDTP action.
Gerard's action is to roll Scrapping and try to bullrush Strella and bash her head into the wall.
I think these actions are Opposed, so only one can succeed.

I don't believe you can oppose a surprise attack. He'd have to detect her first; like, immediately following the attack. Thus he can attack her afterwards, giving him a parallel action in round one, but not an opposed action. ...Also, I think hitting her is a parallel action anyway; it's not in anyway preventing her from stabbing him, and therefore is not parallel.

Suppose Strella wins.  Then Gerard takes harm 4, and has to roll an immediate Endure check to avoid additionally harm 6.  Strella pays 3 V + 1 I + 1 R.

As above, he takes H4 if he passes the Endure check; H6 otherwise. Double Harm just doesn't seem to go right here.

Suppose Gerard wins.  Then Strella takes harm = difference in SLs, but pays nothing for Sudden Knife.

It's not an opposed conflict; it's parallel. If it were opposed, you'd be correct. As it is, Gerard takes Harm 4/6 as appropriate, *and* Strella takes harm according to his Scrapping successes.


Anyway, hope I was helpful at all.

[colin roald]

Anyway, hope I was helpful at all.

Well, since most of your interpretations were the opposite of mine, you've at least proved we have some confusion here.  :-)

[Eero Tuovinen]

Indeed, there's not much in the book about harm caused by a simple conflict (there's about one sentence that implies the possibility, if I remember correctly), it was a surprise to me too when Clinton explained his stance on it. And the game runs rather well without that particular rule, so I can't say that it's particularly important to have the option. On the other hand, one could view it as a particularly interesting interpretation of the stakes mechanics: if you can have matters of fiction as stakes, why not matters of player resources?

On the other hand, Miedvied: where are you getting the idea that PCs can't be killed with simple conflict? I don't remember that in the rules. There's one sentence there about important NPCs, and that's it.

Also, double standards: there's no double standard involved in the GM deciding whether the stakes include Harm! Read the conflict chapter again, I think it says pretty clearly that it's the GM's job to define any conflicts whatsoever, including stake-setting. The order is:
1) the player declares intent.
2) the GM offers stakes.
3) the player either agrees to the stakes, or refuses to roll.
In this regard TSOY is a rather traditional game, with the GM wielding control over an important pacing device in choosing what stakes to accept. How much the GM uses this power is completely up to the local group conditions, but the buck stops with the GM on this issue.

SotHK as exception: I recommend not trying to interpret the secrets too closely, part of the game's style is that the crunchy bits are written pretty informally and come with no guarantees. You're assumed to make up your own mind about the details. If somebody disagrees, I want him to explain the Secret of Constant Motion to me ;) That said, I think "irrespective of a Bringing Down The Pain situation" just means that the secrets works the same whether in BDTP or not, not that it's ability to cause harm is particularly exceptional. The closest counter-example is probably the threecorner Destruction ability, which makes no fuzz about causing Harm outside BDTP.

[colin roald]

The rules aren't totally explicit on this, but you'll note that SotSK is basically an assassins' version of the secret of the mighty blow - down to pool costs and all. Giving two levels of harm would make it (a) an exception to pretty much every other rule in the game, and (b) twice as powerful as another combat ability. Definitely either or, not both.

Well, except that Sudden Knife has that "only in surprise attack" limitation.  If it didn't have the possibility of doing   effectively a double hit, it might arguably be strictly inferior to Mighty Blow.

[Tancred]

The rules aren't totally explicit on this, but you'll note that SotSK is basically an assassins' version of the secret of the mighty blow - down to pool costs and all. Giving two levels of harm would make it (a) an exception to pretty much every other rule in the game, and (b) twice as powerful as another combat ability. Definitely either or, not both.

Well, except that Sudden Knife has that "only in surprise attack" limitation.  If it didn't have the possibility of doing   effectively a double hit, it might arguably be strictly inferior to Mighty Blow.

And it isn't variable, like Mighty Blow. If you don't have the requisite pool points available, you can't do it at all, whereas you can chuck in as many Vigor as you have spare to boost Mighty Blow.

[Miedvied]

You should note that MB is variable and does not require stealth; SotSK gives you *level 4/6 harm*. That is, the balance is that for the cost of getting +3 harm with MB, you can get a possibly +6 harm with SotSK. That's pretty much where the balance lies. If MB gave you +6 harm, it'd cost on the order of 6 pool points; SotSK gives you that possibility with 3 points. Now, toss in the bonus of doing two harm levels at once (which nothing else in the game can do, at all)...

Nah. That's just a bit too out there to fit right.

The "harm outside of BDTP" thing, though, can go one way or the other. Without a specific word from Clinton on it (has he offered a specific word, Eero?) I'd venture against it, but I don't think there's anything conclusive one way or the other in the book proper. I lean towards not, but I can hardly back that up with much.

And, as for stake-setting... I looked over to page 28, and the GM definitely doesn't set the stakes. The "player announces the intended action for the character. THe intention and its consequences may be discussed among the Story Guide and players and changed. Stakes must be stated for the check: what stands to be lost and gained?"  And, under the last step of resolution, Effect, "THe players and Story Guide decide what the effect of the task is, whether successfully completed or not." This looks to me to be explicitly round-table discussion what's going on, with stakes and all else being more-or-less jointly formulated.

[colin roald]

You should note that MB is variable and does not require stealth; SotSK gives you *level 4/6 harm*. That is, the balance is that for the cost of getting +3 harm with MB, you can get a possibly +6 harm with SotSK. That's pretty much where the balance lies. If MB gave you +6 harm, it'd cost on the order of 6 pool points; SotSK gives you that possibility with 3 points. Now, toss in the bonus of doing two harm levels at once (which nothing else in the game can do, at all)...

You're misreading the cost of Sudden Knife.  It's 5, "3 points from whatever pool is associated with the ability you're using, plus 1 from each other the other pools."  And that's for best case +5 harm, not +6 -- you have to have a successful hit in the first place.  It still costs 5 pool even if you have a base SL 3 or SL 4 hit;  Mighty Blow is proportional.   And you need not merely Stealth, but Surprise, which means you can use it at most once during a conflict, and often not at all.

I don't see the problem with having a Secret that has an effect you can't get any other way, especially when there isn't even an actual rule to break.   Secret of the Bodhisattva gives you the right to do something you can't do any other way, and so does Fading the Illusion.

And, as for stake-setting... I looked over to page 28, and the GM definitely doesn't set the stakes.

On the other hand, under "Types of ability checks and how they work" it says explicitly "First, the player states the character's intention and the Story Guide sets the stakes."

[Miedvied]

You should note that MB is variable and does not require stealth; SotSK gives you *level 4/6 harm*. That is, the balance is that for the cost of getting +3 harm with MB, you can get a possibly +6 harm with SotSK. That's pretty much where the balance lies. If MB gave you +6 harm, it'd cost on the order of 6 pool points; SotSK gives you that possibility with 3 points. Now, toss in the bonus of doing two harm levels at once (which nothing else in the game can do, at all)...

You're misreading the cost of Sudden Knife.  It's 5, "3 points from whatever pool is associated with the ability you're using, plus 1 from each other the other pools."  And that's for best case +5 harm, not +6 -- you have to have a successful hit in the first place.  It still costs 5 pool even if you have a base SL 3 or SL 4 hit;  Mighty Blow is proportional.   And you need not merely Stealth, but Surprise, which means you can use it at most once during a conflict, and often not at all.

Look at that; you're right. Shit, 4 *and* 6 it is.

I don't see the problem with having a Secret that has an effect you can't get any other way, especially when there isn't even an actual rule to break.   Secret of the Bodhisattva gives you the right to do something you can't do any other way, and so does Fading the Illusion.

And, as for stake-setting... I looked over to page 28, and the GM definitely doesn't set the stakes.

On the other hand, under "Types of ability checks and how they work" it says explicitly "First, the player states the character's intention and the Story Guide sets the stakes."

That's likely a hold-over from a previous edition, or a clumsy turn of phrase. It really can't be expected to contradict the previous two pages of explanation regarding ability checks, which repeatedly make reference to the group working out the stakes, results, etc. together. At best, this - like player intention - might finally come under the purview of the SG (relative to player intention coming under purview of the player), but he's not the first and last authority (unlike the player). It's a case of group negotiation; it was explicitly stated on the previous page, and is in fact repeatedly made light of in various points in the resolution mechanics passages. TSoY is a group-negotiation-oriented game; any rule found that explicitly negates that ought to be reconsidered as a mis-interpretation just as a matter of course; when a system repeatedly stipulates a particular style of play and a particular set of mechanics, any interpretation that goes against the grain ought to be reconsidered.

For a less mechanics-heavy way of looking at it: if John says he wants his character to try and humiliate another character, that's his intention. The current mode of accomplishing that is, who knows, winning a formal sword duel. The GM might offer as stakes: "If you win, he's humiliated; you beat him at the fight. If you lose, he humiliates you; you lose." If you take page 30 alone, then the player either has to accept the stakes or not bring up the conflict. If you take page 30, and don't disregard the two pages before it, then another player gets to interject (or John himself): "No, how about, if he loses the roll, he *wins* the fight, but does so in a weird stroke of luck - the NPC's not humiliated at all." Sure, the SG's setting the stakes - but as an explicit portion of the rules, he has to take into account the group suggestions. Any SG that didn't wouldn't just be an asshat, he'd be breaking the rules; despite the fact that he is, after all, the one setting the stakes.

[Andrew Cooper]

I'd like to ring in on the Stakes setting issue.  From reading Clinton's comments in other threads, reading Actual Play a lot and from the general trends I see in the rules, I consider Stakes setting a group activity but with the Story Guide retaining "the buck stops here" power.  Sure, it's negotiated between the players and the SG but the SG has to rubber stamp the final product before continuing.  Does that sound reasonable?  I think I'm in agreement with Miedvied's final paragraph above.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Hey all,

The actual decisions about who sets stakes and who narrates what are intentionally vague in TSOY. Here's the deal:

When I started playing RPGs, this stuff didn't vary by game: it varied by group. In some groups, you said what your character did if you won the dice roll. In some groups, the GM did that. In some groups, you could say whatever for what your character was going to do, and the GM would tell you what to roll. In others, they'd say you couldn't do something.

Anyway, I feel this is a healthy way to look at this stuff. For the people who don't realize that these duties can be shared, I mention it, because I think it's good to see options. But I'm not going to say, "the player should always set the stakes and narrate when he wins" because I think that's too constrictive.

As a general rule of thumb, all input in TSOY should be done as a group, and the Guide's job is to synthesize that group input, and definitely, to shape it. If agreement can't be found, the Guide's job is to help find it.