Awhile back I brought up some vague notions in this thread...
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12009&highlight=
where a bunch of you helped me sort through my ideas. I found it very helpful.

I've been doing some more thinking about the whole idea, and started trying to refine it a little bit more to figure out what I actually want to do, and I thought I'd throw the thing out again to see what kind of thoughts people have.

Here's my thoughts so far:

Shadow is the essence of magic.

Shadow leaves a stain upon your heart and soul.

The more you use magic, the more your heart darkens. Use too much magic, and you'll loose yourself to the Shadow, becoming something other than human. You'll become something dark, something evil. Only by resisting the Shadow, and embracing the goodness in yourself, your humanity, can you redeem yourself from the darkness in your heart.

But magic is power, and power is a very addictive drug. And the more Shadow you possess, the darker your heart, the better you are able to access magic and the more powerful you are. If you wish to work in the ways of magic, you must give up some of the Light. To use magic, you must welcome the darkness into your soul.

Even if you avoid magic, if you want to survive, sometimes you're going to get your hands dirty. Sometimes you're going to have to do things that are violent, cruel, or even evil. These acts also call to the Shadow, and darken your heart.

You know the touch of the Shadow already, you've felt the darkness wrap around your heart. You've felt the power it brought with it. You know the thrill, and the danger. Now the question is, how long will you be able to hold off the Shadow, how long will it be till the darkness in your heart expands and swallows up the person you are, making you something else.

(Everyone must create a background story explaining the circumstances when they were first driven to embrace the Shadow. Often this will be a free choice, but sometimes it may be done accidentally. In a time of great stress or fear, the desperate person will grasp at anything to save themselves. And the Shadow always waits.)

Use of magic... increases Shadow.
Acts of evil, violence, or harm to others... increases Shadow.
Acts of kindness, good deeds, or heroic sacrifice for the sake of others... reduces Shadow.
If you want to lift the darkness from your heart, you need to be a hero. If you want to save your soul, you need to save the world.

(For tracking this, I'm thinking of something akin to the Karma system from the original Marvel Superheroes Game, establishing a guide for what sorts of actions increase or lower Shadow, but applying it as an instant modifier rather than as an advancement mechanic)

If an "evil" act is performed for "good" reason (killing someone to defend an innocent, for instance) then there should be method for possibly resisting the Shadow taint. An act of outright, self-serving evil does not allow resistance. The taint is automatic.

Acts of evil are easy. Anyone can be evil, anytime.
Good can be a little tougher. If you have a dark heart (your Shadow score exceeds your Wisdom score or some such thing), good can be very difficult indeed. You must overcome your dark nature if you wish to do good. This means rolling over your Shadow score. Naturally, the darker your heart and the higher your Shadow score, the harder it becomes to do good, and the harder it gets to redeem yourself. And the easier it gets to do evil.

Failing your Shadow resistance:
A player may intend to perform an act of good, but when the scene plays out he might discover that his character has instead acted in an evil manner due to the strength of the darkness in his soul. The character has become evil and even his best intentions may have disastrous consequences. Yet his only hope for redemption is to keep trying.

Each time a character fails his resistance to the Shadow and performs an evil act, he is changed by that act. He begins to take on otherworldly traits which mark him physically. At this point he becomes what is known as a Changeling. The darkness in his soul has begun to show its mark on his physical form as well. Changeling traits may sometimes be beneficial, and sometimes detrimental, but they will always set him apart from humanity. Unlike the metaphysical taint of Shadow, which can be reduced, the physical traits of a Changeling are permanent.


Comments?

Wouldn't this be fairly easy to model with Sorcerer? I'm not saying that it's a bad idea or something, but can you explain why you don't want to use that system, or what it doesn't do for you, or something? I'm just not seeing the difference, which probably means I'm missing something in your scheme.

clehrich wrote: Wouldn't this be fairly easy to model with Sorcerer? I'm not saying that it's a bad idea or something, but can you explain why you don't want to use that system, or what it doesn't do for you, or something? I'm just not seeing the difference, which probably means I'm missing something in your scheme.

Hello,

Let's get away from the whole Sorcerer topic, because it's too specific. What I'm seeing is a very general description of a class of game design which includes many representatives.

The idea = dwindling resources based on personal actions, risking dire consequences at the bottom.

Call of Cthulhu doesn't count because it doesn't matter what the character does, it's what he sees. Cyberpunk, Vampire, Kult, and Obsidian do count. Sorcerer counts too. Tons of other games include the same idea in a kind of ape-Vampire way.

Here's my question, Calvin: do higher values of Shadow do either or both of the following?

1. Higher Shadow = more likelihood of performing Shadow-increasing acts. By "more likelihood" I mean game rules, not expected player-tendencies. In Cyberpunk, for instance, low Humanity means the person must be played differently, just as with Sanity in Call of Cthulhu.

2. Higher Shadow = lowered chance of resisting Taint in later checks. Does a high-Shadow character roll differently from a low-Shadow one in this situation?

Both of these are the case for most of the games which utilize this idea, although neither applies to Sorcerer. I mention it here only to clarify the options within this idea.

My real question is this: Calvin, what kind of feedback are you looking for? I read over the old thread, and bluntly, you are not suggesting anything that hasn't been done by a ton of other games. If all you need is a system for that, then my two points above are the top priority for consideration, I think.

Best,
Ron

madelf wrote: Failing your Shadow resistance:
A player may intend to perform an act of good, but when the scene plays out he might discover that his character has instead acted in an evil manner due to the strength of the darkness in his soul. The character has become evil and even his best intentions may have disastrous consequences. Yet his only hope for redemption is to keep trying.

I don't doubt you could do something like this with Sorceror.
Maybe it even is re-inventing Sorceror, but I doubt it. I've read a good number of the discussions about Sorcerer and I don't think I'm looking for the same thing. As I outlined in the first thread, there are a number of elements in that game which I don't think are what I'm looking for.
Actually from what I've read in discussions (though I haven't ordered the game yet to check it out) what I'm looking for sounds more like Dust Devils than sorceror. Except for the escalating of the "Devil" which I'm looking for.

I'm not sure of the other games suggested, but Vampire definitely does not model what I'm trying to do here. Or if it does, it doesn't work.

Ron,

To respond to your specific questions:
1) Higher shadow definitely does mean greater likelyhood of doing shadow-increasing acts. As outlined, the higher your shadow, the harder it is to overcome your natural inclination to do bad things, you must actually resist your shadow to do good. Otherwise you do evil, and any evil act increases your shadow. It's a vicious circle, or whirlpool, sucking you into darkness.

2)All characters are tainted, to some extent. A character with greater taint doesn't roll differently, per se, but they might have to reach a higher target number based on the amount of taint they have. This isn't something I've got pinned down yet, but that's the way I'm leaning, I think.

As to what feedback I'm seeking... any I can get, I guess. This is still in an embryonic state and I'm still just trying to get an outside perspective to help me wrap my head around this whole idea. I think I've narrowed it down a good bit from the previous thread & I'm looking to narrow it down a bit more. Recommendations for games that are similar are good, likes and dislikes are good. Points that I need to focus on are good.

It's all good.
:)

Vaxalon,

I'm kind of surprised at your reaction to "Failing your Shadow resistance."
It didn't seem a great deal different to me than failing a willpower save or such, a mechanic in any number of games that can make a character's precise action different than it's intent.

I'm not talking about walking the character through the adventure entirely against the player's will. I'm talking about the little things. You meant to just subdue an opponent, but somehow the gun went off. You were trying to heal someone and harmed them instead. You wanted to knock that guy out, but you suddenly realise you beat him to a bloody pulp. It's meant to model a person losing control, going a little too far when they didn't mean to, allow the character to be shocked at what he's capable of doing without realizing he had such darkness in him.

Your point about doing good for evil motives is a good one. But I'm not sure I see trying to redeem oneself as an evil motive.
And to look at it another way, does the "cosmic balance" care about motive? A good act, an evil act, they cancel each other out. If you do good, you make the world a better place, reducing the grip of shadow on our world by that tiny little bit. Does it matter what motivated you to do it?


I'll think on your comments though.

Thanks all!

Instead of talking about what ACTUALLY happens, why not talk about what INWARDLY happens?

Don't be surprised at my reaction. I'm VERY big into player independence. I absolutely ABHORRED Pendragon for the way it robbed players of it constantly.

There's only one circumstance under which I would allow it; and that's if the player got to choose what his alternative was. "Okay, so I couldn't heal the princess... hm, need to do something evil instead. Alright, he takes the opportunity to cop a feel, and says, "Now hold still while I connect to your karmic centers. What? No, really, this is all part of the spell. Fine, then, I won't heal you... and on your head be it."

madelf wrote: As an extreme example, I think the first time they "snap out of it" to find a knife in their hand and a room full of dead bodies...

Vaxalon,

Okay, I'll try not to be surprised in the future.

I could see allowing the player to choose how the character's action went wrong.
It wouldn't need to be about taking all control away from the player, so much as forcing them to acknowledge that (from the character's perspective) , I am not the person I thought I was. Then the player can react to that as they see fit.

I think exactly how it goes wrong is not all that important. Maybe some sliding guideline for severity (how evil an act must be taken), dependant on the level of Shadow, might be in order. But leaving the final choice of how to play it out up to the player would be fine. (Actually it would save the GM from having to think up all the altered outcomes himself, so it's doubly a good idea)

The ultimate robbery...
Hmm. I can see your point.
But what if the game is not about what happened in those moments when the player was not in control, but more about his reaction to the situation afterwards? What if the game is all about the "Oh my god, what have I done" reaction that takes place afterwards? What if the whole premis of the game is, "Shit... I'm evil. What the hell do I do now? And will it get worse? And.... do I like it?"

Because that is what the game is about.

Again, I don't see any problem with the player choosing the precise actions of the character, but I believe the nature of those events need to be beyond the control of the character and controlled by the mechanics of the game.

Think of it this way...

In a game combat situation, your character draws a bow & shoots off an arrow. He has a target, a specific intention in mind. The game mechanics provide the mechanism that decides whether that arrow hits its mark or goes wide of the target.

What I'm talking about (at the root) isn't really any different. The character has a specific intention in mind, but it's up to the mechanics to determine whether he carries through on that intention as he wished to, or if something goes wrong. It's just moving the mechanism from the character's physical actions to his mental functions. Is your hand steady and your eye true? Will you hit the target or miss? Is your will strong and heart pure? Will you do the right thing, or are you a little insane today?

Hi there,

Fred (Vaxalon), please bear in mind that this thread isn't about whether you would like or play the game. It's not an opinion poll. The question is whether you can help Calvin with his stated goals. If your preferences suggest that you can't, then it's best to recognize that this thread isn't for you, and to let it proceed on its own.

Calvin, since you're leaning toward a "yes" on my two points, then I strongly suggest becoming very familiar with Vampire in all of its editions and revisions, Aberrant, Kult (both editions if possible), and Obsidian. You'll see the following issues.

1. How inevitable is increasing (in your terms) Shadow.

2. How rapid is it. Furthermore, how exponential is the increase.

3. Rate of Shadow gain relative to "cleansing," which as you describe, would be a matter of slowing the rate of gaining Shadow rather than reversing the trend entirely.

4. The severity of the character-play restrictions or characterizations imposed by higher Shadow. Bear in mind that many people find over-severe to be de-protagonizing and ignore them during play. (If the character's no fun at halfway to 0, then why bother playing him all the way there?)

For instance, if a character does an action, and that action isn't especially characteristic of his high Shadow score, can the GM or anyone say "Hey, you have high Shadow, you have to do this other thing instead"? And if so, does the character have to make Taint-resistance roll for doing this other thing?

5. Authority over gaining Shadow. Is it a GM thing to say when the resistance roll happens? Can the GM or anyone impose penalties to resistance attempts?

Again, I think this set of techniques or procedures is very, very common since Cyberpunk transformed Sanity (response to fear/horror) into Humanity (character actions). You can find nearly any combination of degrees for my #1-5 above.

I suggest, however, that answering "yes" to my two previous questions puts the game into a category that will play exactly the same as any of those pre-existing games, and considering that one of them is Vampire, you might be planting in an already well-claimed field.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Fred (Vaxalon), please bear in mind that this thread isn't about whether you would like or play the game. It's not an opinion poll. The question is whether you can help Calvin with his stated goals. If your preferences suggest that you can't, then it's best to recognize that this thread isn't for you, and to let it proceed on its own.

madelf wrote: ... I thought I'd throw the thing out again to see what kind of thoughts people have. ...

madelf wrote: ... What if the whole premis of the game is, "Shit... I'm evil. What the hell do I do now? And will it get worse? And.... do I like it?"

Fred,

This is a moderator warning. I'm telling you publicly as well as privately - do not post in defiance. That was a flame.

Now, is the rest of your post acceptable? Yes, it is - it's based on helping Calvin think about his design. That's wonderful. It's the only reason why your post isn't going into the Inactive File.

Please continue this discussion.

Best,
Ron

Pendragon had no consolation for failing a virtue/vice roll. If you failed a roll, the GM described what happened, and the player was pretty much cut out of the loop. I began thinking, "Hey, what am I here for, anyways? The gamemaster could do all this stuff by himself." It was pretty frustrating.

Use of magic... increases Shadow.
Acts of evil, violence, or harm to others... increases Shadow.
Acts of kindness, good deeds, or heroic sacrifice for the sake of others... reduces Shadow.

Acts of evil are easy. Anyone can be evil, anytime.
Good can be a little tougher. If you have a dark heart (your Shadow score exceeds your Wisdom score or some such thing), good can be very difficult indeed. You must overcome your dark nature if you wish to do good. This means rolling over your Shadow score.

Failing your Shadow resistance:
A player may intend to perform an act of good, but when the scene plays out he might discover that his character has instead acted in an evil manner due to the strength of the darkness in his soul. The character has become evil and even his best intentions may have disastrous consequences. Yet his only hope for redemption is to keep trying.

Each time a character fails his resistance to the Shadow and performs an evil act, he is changed by that act. He begins to take on otherworldly traits which mark him physically. At this point he becomes what is known as a Changeling. The darkness in his soul has begun to show its mark on his physical form as well. Changeling traits may sometimes be beneficial, and sometimes detrimental, but they will always set him apart from humanity. Unlike the metaphysical taint of Shadow, which can be reduced, the physical traits of a Changeling are permanent.

You might also want to look at Wraith: The Oblivion.

Incidentally, putting together some ideas that Vaxalon was talking about - if the game is all about the 'Oh, crap, what have I done? Am I evil?' reaction, then whenever their character is 'taken' by some Shadow impulse and they lose control, you could give them some sort of bonus currency that represents their reflection on their situation.

Then let them use that token to resist a later Shadow roll (in which case it represents them acknowledging and actively fighting against the darkness in their heart). They can also use the token to add to the result of an action which _they_ initiated, but which could be considered Shadowy (in which case it represents them accepting and deliberately using the power that the Shadow has given them).

Jinx, that's exactly how I do it in Robots & Rapiers.

The GM is responsible for roleplaying your characters programming...which means taking over your character and running it accordingly. But every time he does this he has to give you Inspiration which, among other things, is used to purchase resistance to the GM's attempts to do this in the form of increasing your robot's free will and decreasing its reliance on programming.

I think there's a few good points that have cropped up.

Consolation for loss of control:
It could probably be argued that Shadow (though a curse) is also a reward since it makes you more powerful. But I doubt that some other reward that was a little less two-edged would hurt anything. Perhaps a fortune (or whatever) point system could be included (I've always rather liked those anyway). That way, when you loose control of your character's nature you get something that you could use to alter the outcome of some other event.

Assigning control of Shadow to another player:
This is actually not a bad idea at all. Although I haven't gotten to how I might address it yet, I've been thinking that a means of sharing narration might be in order for this game anyway. I'm not sure it would lend itself entirely well to traditional “adventuring party” style play, but more to spotlighting a character for a time and then moving on to another, while having the actions of all the characters impact each others world. I was thinking that some sort of shared narration would help to keep all the players involved while only one character was in the spotlight.
Unfortunately I have zero experience with playing games using these sorts of “multiple GM” tricks, so I've got some studying to do there as well.

Voluntary application of penalty:
(From the Pendragon example of keeping your vice score low enough that you don't have to worry about losing control). This could be easily added in. Say (just for example) you have to roll 3d6 for resisting Shadow. If your target number is a 3, you automatically succeed. On the other hand, if your target number is twenty, you may be in trouble (even with modifiers or an exploding dice pool, high enough scores could be bad). I would expect that most characters would end up hovering around the lower end, hanging on to enough Shadow to power the magic they need, but keeping it low enough to still function normally most of the time. But, there's the power thing too. I think half the fun of this game, if I can pull it off, is going to be seeing how people decide to play it. Will they stay good, and stay in control, fighting the good fight the hard way... or will they take the dark road to redemption, selling out to the Shadow and hoping the power they gain will let them do great deeds and redeem themselves that way?

Breaking down the Shadow:
I've thought about this too. Letting each person pick their own “bad thing.” Or maybe have multiple bad things. Each time you gain another point of Shadow, you either make an existing vice worse, or gain a new vice. Right now I'm leaning more toward simply “bad stuff” and letting it go at that. And then whoever does the choosing can pick what evil we'll be doing today (or maybe randomize it?). It allows for more flexibility and the character doesn't have to stick to a single vice unless they want to.

Resist now for complications later:
This is interesting. It would give back some more player control. Maybe you could choose to succeed now, but you'll automatically fail the next time. Or maybe you can choose to be good against your nature whenever you wish, but if you override your failed resistance it drives you to specifically do an evil act to “make up for it”. Or holding off the madness makes the madness worse when it does come out, temporarily cranking up your Shadow so you do something worse the next time than you might have otherwise?
This one will take some thought, but I think there's good stuff there.

Vices grant powers:
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm going for I think. I want the characters walking that tightrope between - bad enough to be effective - and - good enough to not be worse than the bad guys.

Ron,

I saved you for last because you're vexing me.
Or perplexing me, something like that.
;)

I'll freely admit I'm not intimately familiar with Vampire, but I have played it a few times (and Werewolf a few more) .
In the games I played, there was nothing like what I'm going for here. Now I honestly don't know if that's the fault of the game or the GMs. But there was never more than a hand wave to the “lost humanity” concept in the Vampire games and it was too far in the background to really impact play. I don't recall even that much in Werewolf.

Actually the closest thing I can recall to what I'm trying to do from those systems was the Vampire “frenzy” and Werewolf “rage”. Although those are not entirely unlike what I want to do (and honestly probably are similar), they were far too one-sided. The stuff never came into play unless it was a combat situation, and then it was nothing but a huge bonus. There was never any concern over long term disadvantages. Sure going into a frenzy seemed to be mildly embarrassing to the more social Vampires, but in Werewolf rage seemed like something you couldn't get enough of. Particularly in Vampire I got a lot more “Evil and loving it” vibe than any worries over being an insane killing machine. At least the Werewolves were tree-huggers when they weren't killing things.

So this is why I'm a little confused when you say that I'm planting a well-claimed field. My experiences (though limited) say otherwise. Even if I ended up using the exact same mechanic (which I'll have to doubt until I can borrow a Vampire book), they would certainly have to be applied differently.

As to your list of issues:

1) Increasing Shadow is not necessarily inevitable, though certainly possible. Fluctuating Shadow certainly is inevitable, and going back to snowy-white goodness is going to be all but impossible.

2)It should be quite rapid. If they're not being careful, a character should notice significant changes over a session or two, if not over a single session. I'm not sure what you're getting at by “exponential increase”

3)rate of Shadow gain: It's not a matter of only being able to slow the gain in Shadow. The taint can't be completely clensed (maybe by a heroic death or something), but the accumulation of Shadow can definitely be reversed. Shadow can be reduced. It just gets harder the more you have.

4)severity of restrictions is something I'll probably have to work out in play testing. How far it could, or should, be pushed... I'm not sure yet. I also think a method where the player can choose to reduce the restriction within the mechanism of the game is important, and (I think) has been established in these noted already.
Really the whole thing is kind of about experimentation and finding the edges of the character's (and by extension the player's) comfort zone.

Your example is interesting though. And leads me into number

5)Maybe some sort of bidding system where a player can spend points to “force” another player's Shadow to come into play if they think the situation warrants it, or it would make things interesting? Might be fun.

As far as it falling into the category of an existing game, I'm certainly not worried about that.
I'm not all that interested in innovation just to be innovative. I've always thought “If it ain't broke, don't fix it” to be excellent advice. I'm just trying to pull together something that works well with this idea that's coalescing from my head. If that means I end up using a mechanic that has come before, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time. (I got sick of counting coins in my games once and -with a little help- invented a wealth system, only to find almost the same thing in d20Modern. That annoyed me for all of about a nanosecond) I'm not losing any sleep over that sort of thing. As long as it works the way I want it to, great.

Hiya,

Whoa - Calvin, I totally agree with your assessment that Vampire was lacking in the Humanity "teeth" department. I'm given to understand that this feature varied a lot among different editions, which is why I suggested looking over the whole range (1st, 2nd, Revised, and now Requiem, I think, unless I'm missing something).

Cyberpunk had two distinct phases: the original edition, in which Humanity loss was constantly present as a risk and nigh-crippling, and 2020, in which a kind of minor nod was thrown in that direction while people got down to the business of blowing things up.

Anyway, don't let me rain on the parade. Do check out Kult and Cyberpunk (especially 1st ed) if you haven't seen them, because they were hard-core Humanity loss games with all sorts of physical effects in the former, a lot like what you were talking about. And if you can come up with a better way of doing it, especially given all the great feedback so far, then count me as a cheerleader, not a gloomer.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

I hope I wasn't sounding too defensive there (although looking back it's probably hopeless). I do appreciate the input, I think I just got the idea you were saying Vampire, etc was doing the exact same thing and that was confusing me a good bit.

I will take a look at it. Well, (to be honest) I'll probably twist the arms of some friends that are more heavily into WoD first to see what they can tell me. Maybe they can direct me to the most appropriate version(s).

Cyberpunk and Kult might be harder to track down (They are both out of print, right?), but I'll ask around and see if anyone has them tucked away somewhere.

BTW: Anyone know if the Cyberpunk humanity loss is anything like the essence loss & cyber-psychosis in Shadowrun? 'Cause I know some folks with boxes of Shadowrun books.

madelf wrote: Assigning control of Shadow to another player:
This is actually not a bad idea at all. Although I haven't gotten to how I might address it yet, I've been thinking that a means of sharing narration might be in order for this game anyway. I'm not sure it would lend itself entirely well to traditional “adventuring party” style play, but more to spotlighting a character for a time and then moving on to another, while having the actions of all the characters impact each others world. I was thinking that some sort of shared narration would help to keep all the players involved while only one character was in the spotlight.
Unfortunately I have zero experience with playing games using these sorts of “multiple GM” tricks, so I've got some studying to do there as well.

Chris,

Now you're worrying me.
:)

Seriously though, you're right. It could be cause for trouble. This is not a funny game, and anything your buddy is going to do to "hose you" is going to be evil and unpleasant. Keeping things friendly under those circumstances might well be asking a lot out of the average gaming group. I'm sure the folks I generally game with could handle it, but I've known a few that probably couldn't.

Something else to think about.

Thanks.

Here's the glimmering of an idea...

To get the other players involved when a single character is in the spotlight (but not have them directly narrate the outcome of the situation and get the other player annoyed at them), how about a system where the players could spend points on putting pressure on one another? Pressure to help resist the Shadow, pressure to make it harder to resist...

The other players could be like the little angels and devils sitting on the shoulders of the spot-lighted character. "Do this". "No, do this instead." They can use the points in their meddling pool (until I think of a better term) to "up the ante" and make life more difficult (or easier if they choose) for the current character.

The current character might also have a pool of points (maybe these are the points one gets as compensation for failing a prior resistence check) to use against the "meddlers" or reduce the severity of their influence.

If the character fails the resistance check (due to the meddling or otherwise), he has to act out an evil outcome of whatever severity is determined (or postpone for future consequences), but that player can still choose the specifics of the action himself.

Or... maybe any of the other players can come up with outcomes of their choosing, and the current player must bid against them somehow to determine which outcome he gets stuck with. Maybe he can outbid the highest bidder to choose his own action, or he can use his points to buy off the highest points from the top bid to choose a lower bid outcome he likes better. And if all the outcomes are intolerable, he can tough it out and postpone his evil act until a later time when he (maybe) has more points to bid with.

Just kind of thinking with the keyboard here.

I guess what I'm talking about is a way for the players to influence the outcome, without actually narrating it.

Does this half-assed outline of a method make any sense, or are there other methods of doing this sort of thing that I should be looking at?

madelf wrote: They can use the points in their meddling pool (until I think of a better term) to "up the ante" and make life more difficult (or easier if they choose) for the current character.

TonyLB wrote:
If you fail this roll you must eviscerate the puppy