[DITV] Negative traits and how to use them

[anonynos]

So after looking at this game  for awhile, I picked up a copy at this last Origins and last night got a couple of friends together and tried out char gen.  We got to traits and while talking over things, I was asked how negative traits come into play and... I don't know.  I'm really not sure how they get rolled.  It seems that any trait, good or bad, is ultimately a bonus to you because it's extra dicve to be rolling in a conflict.  And somehow that seem wrong...

"I have poor eyesight without my glasses 2d10". 
Does this mean that anytime the trait comes up, you get to roll more dice?  "Oh no I don't have my glasses and I need to make this shot... I get 2d10 to my roll" Or does your opponent get those dice?   Or is it more that in a situation that /could/ be affected but isn't it would come up. "It's a good thing I have my glasses on, or else I'd never have seen that.  I get to roll 2d10."

It's soemthign that jsut eluded me and how it should be attributed.  Any advice here would be helpful.

[David Artman]

This is sort of a retooling of the "what keeps dogs from power-gaming traits, making ones that are always usable in every conflict?"

Two brief answers, from two camps: nothing; or the GM (or group in general) calling bullshit. [FWIW, I'm in the second camp--your example would be BS, to me; though I kinda like the invocation by exception, your third possible interpretation, the second "Or".]

The nut of the question comes down to a simpler thing: Dogs ALWAYS can win, if they want to badly enough (possible exception being a Sorcerer-backed mob with 5d10 of Demonic Influence). The GAME is about pushing the players NOT to want to win, because of the cost. That's the gist of the "Oh, really? How about NOW?" questioning series, as I understand it.

Official reply will come--Vincent is tops for support!

[dindenver]

Ano,
  Basically, its the dice that determine if its a positive or negative trait, not the words.
Bad eyesight: 2d4 - does not generate the numbers needed to call and raise
Bad eyesight: 2d10 - does
  Does that make sense?

  There is no point where you roll dice and give it to the other player or whatever.

  You are always rolling and adding the dice to your pool. good or bad.

  I think the closest thing that ditv gets to disadvantages is, relationships. Where playing it is going to cost more than the dice give back.

[David Artman]

Bad eyesight: 2d4 - does not generate the numbers needed to call and raise

For example: Bjorks' character in Dancing in the Dark (**sob**).

Bad eyesight: 2d10 - does

For example: Mr. Magoo

[lumpley]

Anonynos, my advice is to go ahead and make a house rule that when you create d4 traits they should be negative, text-wise, and d6+ traits should be positive.

Rolling a d4 trait helps you win, yes, but it makes for weak raises and taking blows. It helps you win by letting you choose to take more damage in order to stay in the fight, essentially. Tactically speaking, you never want to avoid d4 traits - a d4 is better than no die - but they still mess things up for you.

If you watch a movie where the hero's eyeglasses get broken, you'll see exactly what I mean. His broken glasses won't keep him from winning, not at all. Instead, on the way to winning, they're going to cost him opportunities (weak raises) and expose him to harm (taking the blow).

Once you've played the game enough to be confident that the dice work like this, THEN you can play around with giving text-wise negative traits good dice, and positive traits d4s, if you want to. "I'm an excellent shot 3d4," like. It's fun and interesting, but it's not essential to the game.

-Vincent

[David Artman]

I think I'm an excellent shot 3d4

fixed ;^)

[anonynos]

So, basically... if you have a trait, you roll it.  It's pretty much irrelevant as to if it's a positive or negative trait they are dice you roll because it's more important that it helps the RP of the action, than in is specifically is it a positive or negative thing.  Is that the jist?



(and for the record, that 2d10 eyeglass thing is in the book which is why I was using it as an example... if you ever update the book I'd recomend clarifyign that a little for simple folk like me)

[dindenver]

Ano,
  I think the dice are supposed to correspond to narrative authority, not power or prowess.
  I could be wrong, Vincent is the expert, lol
  But, that is how I interpret it.
  Like if I raise with a 20, I have a lot more narrative authority to narrate over the top action.
  While, if I raise with a 2, I will "feel" like I have less authority to narrate my character making any bold moves. Does that make sense?

[David Artman]

Sure, Dave... in the sense that your Sees will be done with fewer dice (less/no Fallout) and your Raises will be harder to Reverse or even Block, forcing more Take The Blow (Fallout). Regarding the former, you pretty much have "unlimited" narrative authority on a Raise (say what you like); it's how much pressure you put on the opponent, forcing escalation or Fallout (or both) that introduces any notion of "control"... and they STILL can say anything, within the bounds of their See.

So, in short, it's a bit more of a tactical maneuvering, random resource than a simply narrative resource used "to narrate over the top action." Aws I understand it.

Check this, next time you're thinking efficacy: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dogsinthevineyard/strategy.html

[LordAsteroth]

The way I look at it is that you do not have to use the dice you rolled from a trait on the raise it's invoked on. So lets say you have a pair of crummy dice in your pool, and you want to justify using them. You say your bad eyesight caused you to miss your shot, and roll your Bad Eyesight trait. You don't have to use the dice rolled on this raise, but if you get high rolls, the momentary disadvantage gives you an advantage later on.

Think of high value disadvantage traits as the thing that lets an action hero take a beating at the start of a fight and turn around to win at the last moment.

[Axhead]

I think I'm an excellent shot 3d4

fixed ;^)

First off sorry if this is unacceptable threadromancy, but I think I just had an epiphony here (hopefully it wont stain).

I believe that the statement "I am an excellent shot 3d4" is totally valid.  In this case the character IS an excellent shot but due to quirky nature of the universe he (I presume) will never benefit from it, in fact he will probably suffer if he tries too. This doesn't mean that he is a bad shot it just means that shoot isn't how he should try to resolve problems unless he is looking to enact some kind of tragedy.

If the above statement is prefaced by the "I think.." then the player is implying that he wants the trait to lead to comic fallout instead of tragic.  Is that right or does it at least make sense?

The Mr.Magoo comment about "I need glasses 2d10" is perfect.  This would just require some creative narration and possibly non-linear sees and raises.

[Paul T]

I'd say that makes sense, with the proviso mentioned above:

* You don't have to use the dice from that Trait for that particular Raise.

So, you could narrate how great a shot you are, roll your d4s, then Raise with some high dice, making a brilliant shot.

But that Trait is saying that, whether directly or indirectly, conflicts in which you use your great shooting skills are likely to involve your character stumbling, suffering, and/or learning something (through Experience). It might be directly linked to the shot you make... or it might just take place in the same conflict, because of other actions, Raises, or Sees.

At least, that's how I'm understanding it.