Tony: Why'd you do it that way?

[TonyLB]

When folks are working their way through the rules they generally hit two distinct types of questions.  First:  How does it work?  Second:  Why does it work that way?  It's real helpful to understand Why in order to trick out How (and also to trick out what sort of house rules will do what).  But it's awful hard to discuss How at the same time as discussing Why.  I, at least, lose track of where I am in the conversation.  So, with Sindyr's permission, I've split one of his questions out so that we can examine the "Why?"

And, yeah, I recognize that this is opening myself up to lots of people asking "Why" about a lot of different things.  That's cool.  I'll always have an answer, but the answer may be "Because that's how I felt like doing it."  I know that's not all that satisfying to people looking for a perfect masterpiece hidden in Capes.  But it's the truth.  Ah well.

1) When creating a hero using the freeform method, can you create a character with 3 Attitudes, 5 Styles, and 3 Skills and 1 Power?  Must a character have either Powers or Skills, but not both? Why?

Because I've found, in playtest before and in play later (though obviously that's just my hindsight justification) that people can get themselves into an unfun place when they start mixing powers and skills with wild abandon.  They end up (usually) with not enough powers to make a good superhero and too many powers for a normal character.

As for why that's the case, it has to do with controlling the flow rate of debt through the character.  Basically, the super powers are calibrated (through playtesting, not brilliant before-hand analysis) to give you just about the right amount of debt to let you invest morally in some issues, but not force you to invest morally in all issues.

Sydney played a character with one more power than normal, and found that he could never quite get out of overdraw.  He was always so close to getting out, but then got hammered, and was forced to use his powers more to try to get out of the hole (which, of course, just dug the hole deeper).

Does that make any sense?  A lot of it is sorta "We tried this, and then we tried that, then we tried the other thing, and 'that' worked best ... don't know why ... so we stuck with 'that'!"

[Sindyr]

Hmmm....

Well, if I could mix and match, I would conisder taking 5 PowerzNSkillz, 4 Styles, and 3 Attitudes.  Of my 5 PowerzNSkillz I would have one Power at level 5 and the other 11 abililities non-powered.  This way I would have a single power I could use repetitively when needed, but all my other 11 abillities while being one use would not be able to generate debt.

I figured you made the limit of Powers *or* Skills to prevent this kind of exploitation.

[Zamiel]

When folks are working their way through the rules they generally hit two distinct types of questions.  First:  How does it work?  Second:  Why does it work that way?  It's real helpful to understand Why in order to trick out How (and also to trick out what sort of house rules will do what).  But it's awful hard to discuss How at the same time as discussing Why.  I, at least, lose track of where I am in the conversation.  So, with Sindyr's permission, I've split one of his questions out so that we can examine the "Why?"

Its also useful to know "why?" so that one can then proceed to violate the precepts without feeling like you're breaking things without forethought.

In this case, its the fact that in my This Present Darkness game, I allow the Secret Identities of Heroic Personas to take up to half their Abilities as Powers (with the rest being Skills). In effect, this allows them to actually mark out things that they really, really care about in the context of their Secret Identities separate from their Heroic Personas. So, yes, they gain Debt much more slowly when that face is on the table (and may not be being played by the creating Player), but the accrual and expenditure of such Debt is then more meaningful in that context.

Example: I have Alex Voynich in a Scene, whose only Power is Mythos Occultism[4]. Its a fair piece of leverage, but it costs me to to use, and I use the Debt that I accrue (typically explained by slow psychic insanity and plopped into the Fear Drive) to spend on things that the character would be fixated on. Thus, the limited supply of Debt becomes a meaningful choice and expression.

Limiting the SIs to less than half their Abilities in Powers makes them not quite able to take on a full bore Heroic Persona / Villain / Nemesis, but more influence on the ongoing story than just a standard normal. Which captures just what I want. :)

[TonyLB]

Of my 5 PowerzNSkillz I would have one Power at level 5 and the other 11 abililities non-powered.  This way I would have a single power I could use repetitively when needed, but all my other 11 abillities while being one use would not be able to generate debt.

I figured you made the limit of Powers *or* Skills to prevent this kind of exploitation.

Yep, it does that too!

[Hans]

Ok, Tony, here is a question for you.  Why did you decide to allow people who have never rolled on either side of a conflict to claim either side?  In my experience, so far, this has been the single most problematic rule in the game.  It tends to keep people from doing anything of interest on the first page of a scene, for fear that someone will claim a side they have rolled on out from under them.  It often means that people end up using their first action to play a series of conflicts (one for each player) that may not be very coherent, instead of jumping on a previously laid conflict that interests them.  What would be the down side, in your opinion, to limiting people to claim only sides they have allied with (i.e. rolled for)?

[TonyLB]

It would mean that you can't claim sides that you clearly have an interest in, but which you haven't yet rolled on.  Particularly, if you just created "Goal:  Escape with my Life!" with a Story Token, nobody could claim it.  That means that the whole benefit of creating a conflict with a story token (faster resolution of the conflict and of scenes generally) vanishes.

I certainly agree that it can get dicey though, in terms of people "stealing" rolls from other players through the claiming mechanics.  I wish I'd figured a way to get the benefits without the problems.

[Hans]

It would mean that you can't claim sides that you clearly have an interest in, but which you haven't yet rolled on.  Particularly, if you just created "Goal:  Escape with my Life!" with a Story Token, nobody could claim it.  That means that the whole benefit of creating a conflict with a story token (faster resolution of the conflict and of scenes generally) vanishes.

I certainly agree that it can get dicey though, in terms of people "stealing" rolls from other players through the claiming mechanics.  I wish I'd figured a way to get the benefits without the problems.

There you go, a situation I hadn't thought of that makes sense.  Thanks.

What would be the downside to limiting claims to having rolled OR having made the conflict in the first place?  This would seemingly help out in the exact circumstance you describe above, since if you play it as the last action of one page, you are the ONLY person who could claim it.

[TonyLB]

But what I'd like, particularly if I want to add a conflict in to what I hope will be the last page, is for somebody to claim the side opposite me (hopefully so that they plow debt into it, and I earn story tokens).

This particularly comes up when, for instance, I've just pummelled a bad guy, he's loaded on debt, and I want to make "Goal:  Herr Malevolent escapes to fight another day," in order to farm some of that debt as story tokens for myself.  I want him to immediately be able to claim a side of that.

[Hans]

But what I'd like, particularly if I want to add a conflict in to what I hope will be the last page, is for somebody to claim the side opposite me (hopefully so that they plow debt into it, and I earn story tokens).

This particularly comes up when, for instance, I've just pummelled a bad guy, he's loaded on debt, and I want to make "Goal:  Herr Malevolent escapes to fight another day," in order to farm some of that debt as story tokens for myself.  I want him to immediately be able to claim a side of that.

Aha!  Again, a thought that hadn't occurred to me...hmmmm....

I think in the Capes game I'm starting up this week I'm going to suggest that we limit in claims in the 2nd Page of a scene to only those who have rolled, but go back to the normal rules for every other page.  This removes the biggest problem I have seen actual play (people afraid to roll on conflicts in the first page for fear of being claim stolen) but preserves the kind of thing you are describing.  In fact, we might try it both ways; first with the rules as written, then with the house rule, and see how it works.

[TonyLB]

Cool!  I'd be interested to hear how that works out for you.