Andy Kitkowski wrote: Now, what if the Player really fucking wants to jump that chasm. I mean, they REALLY want it. Bad. They want to succeed, or die trying. But this isn't a resisted action. Can they still bring down the pain?

WARNING - I hate discussing alternate rules, because it ends up with everyone in a dogpile to say, "No, that's against the text, and why would you want to do that anyway?" which isn't very helpful.

With that caveat in mind: No, that's against the text, and why would you want to do that anyway? :)

But seriously: as you've described it, this would mean that inanimate objects get stay-up scores, and abilities to retaliate with, and intentions and whatnot. It would also probably do weird things with the "psychology" of the design. I'm not sure I could say what the psychology of the design is--but it sounds like the only conflicts that are dramatically interesting and therefore worth studying in depth are conflicts between people.

What you could do, however, is introduce a living thing to oppose. Say the character is being chased by goblin archers: their goal is to capture him, his goal is to escape: this is, perhaps, the goblins' Battle score vs. his Athletics. He fails; so he Brings Down the Pain and jumping over the gorge is one tactic he might use to accomplish his larger goal of escaping.

But hey, maybe it works for you!

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Do it this way - which doesn't violate the rules at all, by the way.

Treat the inanimate object as a character, in game terms, and use all the relevant scores and so on. Period.

Looks like I got here a day late, but Ron's way is a valid way to do it. It's not the way I would, though. I can't imagine having a conflict like "Can you leap the chasm?" Chasms are leapable or unleapable, given enough time. Now a conflict like "Goblin archers are chasing you, and oh yeah, there's a chasm in the way," well, that works for me. But do it your own way.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: I can't imagine having a conflict like "Can you leap the chasm?" Chasms are leapable or unleapable, given enough time. Now a conflict like "Goblin archers are chasing you, and oh yeah, there's a chasm in the way," well, that works for me. But do it your own way.

I see. In the above situation, though, what would you do then? I mean, Goblins are chasing you, you're running away... Let's assume that BDTP has already begun: The GM rolled for the Goblin Tribe "Intention: They kill and eat you", and you roll for the hero: "Intention: I run the fuck away".

Hero loses. He's killed and ea...no, he Brings Down the PAIN!

So, would the Cliff just be the parsley/description of the result of a particularly successful Athletics roll when trying to get away from the Goblins? "You succeed, with an SL of 5. You "bloody" the Goblins. Oh, I got it, how's this: As you're running through the jungle, Goblins in pursuit, you hear the sound of rushing water to the left. You book it over there, find a chasm, and leap over it, barely making it to the other side."

Or would you personally do something else? Like, make it a difficulty challenge that must be overcome somehow ("You are running alongside a chasm. Oh, you want to jump over it? OK... Get a 9 or better"). What do you do then, when failure implies death?

-------------

Example Two:

Sorry, in the game I ran about 6 weeks ago with Ben there was a great example of a non-resisted conflict where the player failed, yet wanted to BDTP to succeed. In the game 3 weeks ago, there was another decent example. But I can't friggin remember them now. :-( Next session, I'll jot down such an event if one comes up, but for now, allow me to toss out another example, see some feedback on it, and come to my own conclusion:

Now that I'm writing this out, this may come down to a fundamental question about how the game (or RPGs in general) are run/played. Lessee:

Your character is Tom Hanks. You are on a desert island (with the other adventurers, or not. Either way.). The GM wants to emphasize the harsh situation you're in. You're gonna have to make a survival/woodscraft check or two to do things like "build a fire, find shelter, find food, and survive" (maybe roll them into one roll, maybe space each one over a day, whatever).

There is a conflict here: Will the character live, or die. The conflict isn't with anyone buy his own abilities. I can see three ways of resolving this conflict:

1) The GM thinks, deep down, "Well, shit, in the end I really don't want this guy to die, and neither does the player". So he just doesn't make the dice be rolled. Between him and the other players, they come up with some cool fluff to describe the montage scene of this guy fighting against nature and himself.

2) The GM can go either way, and wants to let fate (the dice) decide. The player rolls snakeeyes. He fails to produce shelter, water, etc. If the intentions were stated as "Survive", then obviously he dies.

If the survival check were against another being, then the Player can BDTP. Sure, in the end he STILL might lose, and die, but that's something that a player could live with (probably cause he knows there's a good chance his buddies will fatten him up with Gift Dice, and if he totally strikes out then, then it was Meant to Be).

3) Ron's suggestion. In the Tom Hanks scenario, the character is opposing... HIMSELF (oooooooooohhhhhh*). The GM has him fight a clone of himself. He BDTP against himself to show how he uses his Woodsman skill to build fires and find food, while the GM attacks him with his own Apathy, Fear, Lonliness, and Self-Doubt. Actually, that sounds pretty fucking cool now that I mention it.

HOWEVER, at the end of the day, the fact that there are rules for characters resolving non-opposed challenges and conflicts (roll Ability, beat 9), it looks like the book's inclination is to have you engage in something like scenario 2, above. Which again brings the question: Do you bet it all on that one roll? Or is it possible to BDTP in that situation?

I like the answers sofar.

-Andy

* It's not all "ooooooohhhh" when you realize that that's what you do all the time in Sorcerer, but still... :-)