General SotC questions thread

[Hudson Shock]

Ah, okay, I see now.  Well, like I said, I was considering your intention "official" anyway. 

I guess that's a (minor) pitfall of having so many examples in the book; as you go through revisions of rules, that's all the more things you have to check with a fine tooth comb to make sure there's no contradictions.  Unless you wait until the rules are all done and set in stone before writing any examples, and that's totally impractical, I'd imagine.

[iago]

Ah, okay, I see now.  Well, like I said, I was considering your intention "official" anyway. 

I guess that's a (minor) pitfall of having so many examples in the book; as you go through revisions of rules, that's all the more things you have to check with a fine tooth comb to make sure there's no contradictions.  Unless you wait until the rules are all done and set in stone before writing any examples, and that's totally impractical, I'd imagine.

It turned out to be with this particular bit of the rules.  It was one of the last changes we made, so the examples didn't all catch up.

[Mel White]

Hi,
I have a couple of Chase questions:

1.  Does the Pursuer in a chase have to match the maneuver difficulty of the Pursued in order to maintain the chase?
The write–up in the rules (pp 240-241) indicates the following process:
Step 1.  Pursued declares a maneuver, sets a difficulty, and rolls against it.
Step 2.  Pursuer can either:
A.   Match the maneuver, rolling against the same difficulty; or
B.   Roll for a different maneuver (implicitly declaring his own difficulty)
My interpretation of these rules is that a Pursuer could choose to make his maneuver as easy as possible and would be able to maintain the chase forever. 

This leads to my second, related question…

2.   Do the Pursued and Pursuer have to declare maneuvers of Average or better difficulty?

Thanks much!
Mel 

[iago]

1.  Does the Pursuer in a chase have to match the maneuver difficulty of the Pursued in order to maintain the chase?
The write–up in the rules (pp 240-241) indicates the following process:
Step 1.  Pursued declares a maneuver, sets a difficulty, and rolls against it.
Step 2.  Pursuer can either:
A.   Match the maneuver, rolling against the same difficulty; or
B.   Roll for a different maneuver (implicitly declaring his own difficulty)
My interpretation of these rules is that a Pursuer could choose to make his maneuver as easy as possible and would be able to maintain the chase forever.

I didn't write that section, but I'm going to call that an error in the presentation of the rules.  The way I'd run it, the pursuing vehicle should never have the option to roll against something different from what the lead car did.

I *think* the intention was to give each member of a chase a chance to "get some intentions into the game", but you're absolutely right in pointing out that, as written, it doesn't make sense.

I could be wrong.  I'll flag the original author to step in and take a look.

This leads to my second, related question…

2.   Do the Pursued and Pursuer have to declare maneuvers of Average or better difficulty?

Nope.

[Rob Donoghue]

Ok, here's the thinking, and you can put it through the filter you like.

Theoretically, the lead person will always set the difficulty, and will descriptively do this with more an dmore harrowing stunts, in the hopes of doing something their pursuit will fail out.  Most of the time, that's all there is too it, but sometimes, there are exceptions.  Specifically, these come in two specific cases:

1) All or nothing stunts.  The train is coming and the lead car needs to cross the tracks in time to avoid getting cut off.  If he succeeds, it's awesome, but there's no logical way to say that the pursuing car does the same thing.  The train is already there, and if it hadn't been a close thing the first time, it wouldn't have been much of a stunt.  As such, the pursuing driver is put in a position where they need to do _something else_ to overcome the obstacle.  If the system were _purely_ abstracted, then the difficulty for, say, Driving up into a nearby parking garage and *jumping* over the train would be identical to the original person's difficulty, but I consider there to be some flex to account for creativity and cunning problem solving.

2) Mismatched capabilities.  Sometimes you have a chase where the capabilites of the two participants are very different.  As examples, consider what happens when a helicopter chases a car, when James Bond chases a parkour guy, or when sports car chases a jeep.  Sometimes the stunt that is goign to be hard for one party is going to be trivial for another party, which is why a helicopter is such a pain in the ass to get rid of when you're in a car.

The flexibility in the difficulties primarily exist to handle those two situations, though I suspect that could definately have been more clearly laid out.  I'm pleased as hell with the chase rules as an escalation game, and feel they're much closer to what we see in cinema, but at the same time, as a fairly young idea, they probably have some room for refinement.

-Rob D.

PS - And technically, no, there's no reason difficulties need to be above average, but excepting a golf cart chase, I admit I would address attempts to do that with Mockery.  The only reason i would not erratta this right htis second is that I would, instead, probably do something like allow the pursuer tot ake a benefit from spin on these rolls, so that the pursued has incentive to keep things rough.

[Mel White]

Theoretically, the lead person will always set the difficulty, and will descriptively do this with more an dmore harrowing stunts, in the hopes of doing something their pursuit will fail out. 

Rob,
Thanks--I see it better now in my head.  The pursuer has to match the difficulty in order to do the same thing as the pursued, like driving the wrong way down I-5.  Or, if the pursuer tries something different in order to make up ground or because of different capabilities (pursuing Nazis in a truck while on horseback), then that maneuver gets its own difficulty rating.  Fun!  Gotta go chase something!
Mel

[Hudson Shock]

New question.  I've been playing with created Red Pollard and Seabiscuit, America's Horse! as a character.  (In between winning races, Red and 'Biscuit travel around fighting crime.  "Oh no!  We just found out that Professor Vyle has hidden the kidnapped orphans in the old mine, and there's only 20 minutes to save them!  We'll never make it in time!"  "Don't worry, Seabiscuit and I can make it!  C'mon, Biscuit!  Yaw!")

I'm pretty confused on how to do it, though.  I don't want to do something weird like make Biscuit the main character and Pollard be a Companion.  I want Red to be the character, and Biscuit an animal companion.  But Companions top out at Great quality, and Seabiscuit obviously has Superb Athletics when it comes to running (even for a horse).  I'm also not sure how to handle Might for 'Biscuit, since it'll probably be important from time to time when pushing or pulling something.  And if you take more than one skill with the Skilled advance, you lower the rank of all the skills, and I already can't seem to get Biscuit's Athletics or Might up high enough.  Finally, it's been stated flat-out that Companions can't have Stunts, but Seabiscuit seems a cinch for some of the speed-based Athletics stunts.

Even if I do make Biscuit the main character, how do I handle his "horse-ness" when it comes to his speed and strength?  You just can't put a horse's speed and strength on the same scale as people.  Strength I could maybe see - Doc Sampson in a tug of war with a horse could almost make sense, but no person, and I mean NO person, should be able to outrun or even keep up with Seabiscuit.

Despite the oddness, this is a serious question.  I'm realy digging this concept, and I'd love to run it if anyone besides me in my area runs a game of SotC.

[Michael Brazier]

I'd make Seabiscuit an Animal Companion, Great quality and Skilled in Athletics, and give Pollard the Hell Bent for Leather stunt (+2 for sprint actions, use either your Survival or your mount's Athletics.)  With that stunt combination, Pollard on Seabiscuit has a base skill of Fantastic for any test of pure speed, and Great for all other feats of horsemanship (jumping high fences and going up steep slopes come to mind ...)

Pollard's talent as a jockey should be as relevant to winning races as Seabiscuit's native speed; sure, Seabiscuit can run at fantastic speeds, but he won't want to unless a rider who knows him well persuades him.

[iago]

Mike nails it.  I got nothin' to add, really. ;)

[Darren Hill]

What about Seabiscuit's Might?

[iago]

What about Seabiscuit's Might?

How much does it matter -- how much does it matter *really*?

[Hudson Shock]

Well, what if it the answer is "it matters a fair bit"? 

I'm talking about the horse as an integral part of the team, not just a rarely-seen walk-on whenever Red needs to get somewhere fast.  " 'Biscuit, kick in that door!"  "Seabiscuit, we've got to pull this boulder to clear the trapped miners!  Heave!"  "We can't hold that dern crazy horse!  He's kicking the damn walls down!"

[iago]

Well, what if it the answer is "it matters a fair bit"? 

If *that's* the answer, I'm going to say, "Hey, wait a second... I thought this was Spirit of the Century, not Seabiscuit of the Century."

Where is it writ that SotC is the right tool for this job?

That said...

I'm talking about the horse as an integral part of the team, not just a rarely-seen walk-on whenever Red needs to get somewhere fast.  " 'Biscuit, kick in that door!"  "Seabiscuit, we've got to pull this boulder to clear the trapped miners!  Heave!"  "We can't hold that dern crazy horse!  He's kicking the damn walls down!"

Those all sound like *great* aspects for Seabiscuit's attached player to put on his character.  If he's interested in the horse being *that* cool, he should say so, with his aspects.

Dig?

[Hudson Shock]

Where is it writ that SotC is the right tool for this job?

Well, when I think of a crazy, two-fisted (and four-hooved) action team running across 1920s/30s America fighting the good fight, SotC *is* what comes to mind!  One of the biggest strengths I've been seeing of SotC is its flexibility in handling almost any genre-appropriate character concept at all.  Want to be Indy Jones?  Fine.  The Shadow?  Sure.  Super-rich billionaire adventurer?  Go ahead.  Emperor of Mars, slumming it on Earth?  No problem.  Iron-fisted Hobo of Justice?  Swell.  It just so happened that my idea is "Seabiscuit, America's Favorite Horse!  And, oh yeah, his jockey, Red Pollard."

I'm talking about the horse as an integral part of the team, not just a rarely-seen walk-on whenever Red needs to get somewhere fast.  " 'Biscuit, kick in that door!"  "Seabiscuit, we've got to pull this boulder to clear the trapped miners!  Heave!"  "We can't hold that dern crazy horse!  He's kicking the damn walls down!"

Those all sound like *great* aspects for Seabiscuit's attached player to put on his character.  If he's interested in the horse being *that* cool, he should say so, with his aspects.

Dig?

Oh, of course, duh.  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  Thanks.

[Joshua Patterson]

Quick question regarding NPCs (specifically Villains) and tagging aspects for the mechanical effect.  Are the NPC's under the same rule for not knowing aspects of the PCs as the PCs are for NPCs?  If so, does this mean the GM needs to keep a separate list of what each villain "knows"?