BDTP: Parallel vs Perpendicular

[shadowcourt]

With the caveat that I've been a 1st edition TSOY player for my experiences with the game, I wanted to ask around about 2nd edition's "Parallel vs. Perpendicular" facet to contested rolls in Bringing Down the Pain. Like all gaming elements, I'm sure that different people interpret the strictness/rigidity of this element of TSOY very differently, but I wanted to get a sense of different Story Guides' techniques, and how they've been handling this element of the game. The same soliciation goes out to players, as well, as TSOY distributes responsibility for many decisions to everyone around the table.

Not having done it myself, and feeling a little bit of trepidation about it, do you find it difficult to adjudicate/come to consensus about whether two characters' actions are parallel or perpendicular?

If two characters had both drawn swords on each other and were using their Dueling ability to fight, how would you adjudicate those parallel (they could both hurt each other) or perpendicular (because during the clash and fray, one's sword might block the other one)? Or would it have to be an explicitly stated action for the round to block an opponent (and thereby a defensive action) before you considered those perpendicular?

If one character was trying to hide in the woods, and another character was trying to sing to lure him out, would you regard those as parallel (as their types of actions are so different) or perpendicular (because they are ultimately jostling over the same end)?

There are elements of the thinking about oppositional rolls in TSOY 2nd ed that I find appealing, because it might restrict some of the "go to my strongest ability always" thing that I've seen some players/StoryGuides express concern about (there's still the danger in a parallel conflict of being hurt, which seems cool), but I also feel baffled by knowing when to call which as which.

Any thoughts?

-shadowcourt (aka josh)

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Not having done it myself, and feeling a little bit of trepidation about it, do you find it difficult to adjudicate/come to consensus about whether two characters' actions are parallel or perpendicular?

Your examples were great, actually. It clarified it into language that maybe I should have used - that is, means vs ends. If people have different means, it's parallel. Singing vs hiding - parallel. The dueling - perpendicular.

However! I have a really good idea for this. If any player involved wants a round to be parallel, let it be. This will increase deadliness and pretty much rock.

[shadowcourt]

Wow. That's fast service for you. I think I might've reloaded this page once, and already there was a response. Thanks, Clinton.

(p.s. I'd still love to see what other groups have done, as well, faced with the same situation, but let me go on, anyhow...)

Part of my reason for asking was just what you suggested, Clinton. I was considering if it was the potential purview of a new Secret or two to turn perpendicular conflicts parallel (i.e. "There's no way you're coming out of this unscathed, my friend...") and vice versa ("Aha, but what have I to fear from your sword when my rapier wit is far sharper, you scoundrel?"). It could just be a rules caveat that the involved parties can choose, but I wonder if that ends up lopsided. Would a player with the higher skill want to permit his opponent a chance at parallelism, and thereby the risk of taking harm, when he can simply dominate the conflict?

At the very strictest, I'm considering a Secret which would allow one to turn a perpendicular contest parallel. I wonder if that's too costly, to require players to use a Secret... though you can always freely mix up what ability you're using against your opponent for garuanteed parallelism, so it doesn't seem a needless qualifying cost; it's mostly for an unusual character who always wants to be able to give as good as he gets no matter what.

Thanks,

-shadowcourt (aka josh)

[shadowcourt]

Also, here's a follow-up, that really should've been in the first post.

Based off of your response to "singing vs. hiding", what about "seeking vs. hiding"? If I'm hiding in the twisting alleyways of an old Maldorite metropolis, and someone else is looking for me (you know, just straight up gumshoe style tracking), is that parallel or perpendicular? Even the "ends vs. means" discussion of it becomes a little confusing for me-- perhaps it's simply intuitive that the natural way to oppose someone hiding is to look for them, and so it's all perpendicular? But I can envision situations where it starts to drift into the parallel, as the hiding party starts to get more tricksy...

Hmmm.

-shadowcourt (aka josh)

[Andrew Cooper]

Here's the way I've run it for the most part.  If the actions of both parties could both be sucessful, then they are parallel.  If the actions are mutually exclusive, perpendicular.  Examples:

Perpendicular:
I grab him.  vs  I keep away from her.
I find her.  vs  I hide from him.
I strike him.  vs  I dodge him.

Parrallel:
I strike him.  vs  I strike her.
I strike her  vs  I make him fall in love with me.  (I got this example from AP.)
I argue that he should take action.  vs.  I ignore her so maybe she'll go away.

It's really a judgement call for the most part.  For instance, in the book it generally treats fighting as perpendicular actions.  However, I always ask in each round whether the combatants are primarily trying to hurt their opponent or primarily trying to keep from getting hurt.  If either player says they are trying to avoid harm then it is perpendicular but if both are just trying to hurt the other player then it is parrallel.

[Mike Lucas]

If the actions of both parties could both be sucessful, then they are parallel.  If the actions are mutually exclusive, perpendicular.

Dude, that's awesome. I think that was in my head when I read the rules where it says "Perpendicular actions get in the way of each other ... Parallel actions do not necessarily get in the way of each other." It seemed straightforward, yet hard to articulate rigorously.

As for fighting, your example makes sense because real combat is almost always "I try to hurt him without getting hurt myself", so obviously perpendicular by your rule. But, someone who says "I throw caution to the wind and try to stab him without protecting myself" is asking for parallel.

Clinton, you wrote:

However! I have a really good idea for this. If any player involved wants a round to be parallel, let it be. This will increase deadliness and pretty much rock.

Cool! I think this is almost in the rules already. Since it says if the players can't resolve whether their actions are parallel or perp., the one who wants perp. must take a defensive action. So if the "caution to the wind" guy wants parallel, and the other guy wants "I parry and riposte" as perpendicular, he's going to be stuck with a defensive action and 9 times out of 10 will probably back down and go with something parallel. So your suggestion is a nifty shortcut.

-Mike