So, I finally let the cat slip and posted the link to my working copy of the new TSOY rules. You can find them here:

http://www.anvilwerks.com/src/tsoy2/solar_system.html

I've been playing with these rules in my local game, and it's my understanding that at least one game with them happened over the 4th of July. So, please feel free to ask questions and discuss them here.

First off, I dig it. I like the original system, and this seems to be streamlined without losing anything important. I like that it has become more generic, and the Shin Qui character example made me laugh. Since I'm starting a TSoY game soon, and just ordered a big pack of fudge dice (for use with Fate), I will probably be trying out the Solar System.


I did feel the explanation of harm and healing was rushed, and I'm not sure I understand, so I'm going to try to clarify for my sake.
Let's say the Harm boxes look like this:

Bruised [][][]
Bloodied[][][]
Broken[]

If I succeed on a roll in BDTP, let's say with 2 successes, it looks like this:

Bruised [][x][]
Bloodied[][][]
Broken[]

If I roll another +2 against the target, it looks like this:

Bruised [][x][x]
Bloodied[][][]
Broken[]

Right?

If I take three hits in BDTP, a +2, +2 and a +5, this is what my boxes look like:

Bruised [][x][x]
Bloodied[][x][]
Broken[]

However, I was able to win. So now BDTP is over. I think my boxes should look like this:

Bruised [x][x][x]
Bloodied[][][]
Broken[]

Did I get all that?


Now, to heal, someone rolls the appropriate ability, and I remove Xs equal to the the number of successes they roll. What happens if they fail? How long do I have to wait, and is there any natural recovery?

Chris,

You've pretty much got it.

dyjoots wrote:
Now, to heal, someone rolls the appropriate ability, and I remove Xs equal to the the number of successes they roll. What happens if they fail? How long do I have to wait, and is there any natural recovery?

Hey Clinton,

Have you seen Jonathan Walton's Baby's First Fudge Dice?

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: Hey Clinton,

Have you seen Jonathan Walton's Baby's First Fudge Dice?

Paul

Hi,

I really like the breakdown of perpendicular vs. parallel actions. Plus the damage track idea also works neat for me. Are you redoing the setting as well, or giving us something new with it?

Chris

Bankuei wrote: Hi,

I really like the breakdown of perpendicular vs. parallel actions. Plus the damage track idea also works neat for me. Are you redoing the setting as well, or giving us something new with it?

Chris

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
I should explain healing better. It works like the reverse of harm - roll some healing skill and you can remove a harm at the same level as your success level (or lower.) The harm re-settles.

So, if you have:
1 [x]
2 [x]
3 [x]
4 [x]
5 [ ]
6 [ ]

and someone rolls success level 2 to heal you, the harm at 2 is gone:
1 [x]
2 [ ]
3 [x]
4 [x]
5 [ ]
6 [ ]

and then everything re-settles:
1 [x]
2 [x]
3 [x]
4 [ ]
5 [ ]
6 [ ]

As for self-healing - maybe. I like the way the current version emphasizes NPC relationships.

dyjoots wrote:
Ok, I think I get it. Is there a limit to how much healing someone can get? I mean, if a surgeon heals my second box, and the Harm resettles, can he then roll again and heal more? Or do I have to wait?

Also, it seems that this means that how well skilled you are at healing doesn't matter... If you roll a +4 total, then you heal one box, and if you roll a +1 total, you heal a box. Since all of the damage shakes down to the lowest level, those two rolls have the same effect.

Just to complicate the whole harm/heal thing a bit ...

Do I need diferent heal skills for diferent kinds of harm? For example, if someone harms my reputation it would require diferent measures than physical damage.

And ... how diferent kinds of harm would be treated together? Someone may start BDTP by insulting my reputation but then change goal and try to kill me with his sword. I might end up with diferent kinds of harm.

Do they all stack up together?

Or do I keep diferent tracks for physical, mental and social harm?

This actually might be interesting ... though perhaps complicated.

Andreas

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

dyjoots wrote:
Ok, I think I get it. Is there a limit to how much healing someone can get? I mean, if a surgeon heals my second box, and the Harm resettles, can he then roll again and heal more? Or do I have to wait?

Once per scene. I think "per day" or whatever is BS, as that's so variable in games anyway.

Also, it seems that this means that how well skilled you are at healing doesn't matter... If you roll a +4 total, then you heal one box, and if you roll a +1 total, you heal a box. Since all of the damage shakes down to the lowest level, those two rolls have the same effect.

Now that is a good point. What I could do is not have damage re-settle. Then, when you heal something, you heal:

(a) the harm relating to your success level, if it exists, or
(b) the next harm below your success level, if it exists, or
(c) the next harm above your success level, if it exists

That seems way too complex, though. Maybe healing works like normal, but doesn't resettle until you do X. What's X? I dunno. Refresh a pool? Hmm.

Why is never shaking down bad? Demanding high rolls feeds the story mill as far as I can see.

Christopher Weeks wrote: Why is never shaking down bad? Demanding high rolls feeds the story mill as far as I can see.

Hi Clinton,

Maybe you can use Shaking Down as a means for either natural healing or a "second wind" mechanic. As a natural healing thing, you'd probably want it to be once a session or something not time related to in-game events("Oh, let me sleep another 43 minutes, then I'll be fully rested with 8 hours!").

Or, you could use it as a Secret: Spend X points from a Pool to Shakedown the damage. The Pool would probably be related to the kind of damage taken or at least how the character deals with problems.

Chris

A light bulb just turned on in my head. I've been trying to understand how you parry, and I'm now realizing that it's implied by taking the difference in success levels for perpendicular actions.

Innate abilities, on the other hand, feature when you lose a turn to change intention. (Kind of like Natural Defenses in BW:C.)

Re: Healing.

I think you've basically got it, Clinton.

* Don't shake down damage.
* Healing is pool specific.
* (Here's where my two cents come in ..) If there's a check in your SL's Harm Tracker box, erase it; otherwise, erase the next one down. (All pool respective to the healing, of course.)

[EDIT: cross-posted.] Shaking down as a Secret! That's pretty cool. Kind of like Sorcerer's Vitality.

Just for my benefit, let me see if I've got this whole healing thing.

I've taken damage (+2, +3, and +3, in that order), which leaves me looking like this:

1 [ ]
2 [x]
3 [x]
4 [x]
5 [ ]
6 [ ]

Now, since damage doesn't shake down, I still look like this after BDTP. I get someone to heal me, and they roll a +3. Now I look like this:

1 [x]
2 [x]
3 [ ]
4 [x]
5 [ ]
6 [ ]

And if they rolled another +3, I would look like this:

1 [x]
2 [ ]
3 [ ]
4 [x]
5 [ ]
6 [ ]

That leaves me with a penalty die until I can get some better healing, right? Did I get the general idea?

Hey all-

Yeah, I managed to run a 1 player 1 GM session (about 80-90 minutes from chargen to finish) this weekend. Sorry, it'll be a few days before I can sit down and write a lot about it.

However, a brief summary, which I will expound upon later:

1) It's Fudge! Mind you, it's not terribly bad, because I really like Fudge, but there are parts of it that are a tiny bit confusing: With the new skill names, I found myself INSTANTLY converting "Journeyman" to "1" then rolling the dice: A drawback to what some people say is "Fudge just diguising numbers with adjectives", but a little moreso.

2) I swing either way, but I know my group REALLY loves the numbers and granularity of the 1-10 ability levels.

3) Innate abilities and Athletics: Golden!

4) Parallel vs Perpendicular. I REALLY like this seperation. HOWEVER, because of it, I got a little confused: I had an evil wizard throwing fireballs and launching traps at the Bard, while the Bard retorted with Storytelling, trying to get him to change his ways, while dodging the traps.
Now, this seems like Parallel. On the first roll as written, because it was parallel and the Wizard was a Master, he slew the PC in one hit. (So I "redid" it, lowering the skill of the wizard to 1 rather than 2) Actually, now that I'm going through that in my head, I'm not sure that that adds up right... I'll have to look at our numbers again, but I rolled 5 dice, keeping three and got 3 plusses... and that instantly Broke the player.

Now, what I should have realized was that, even in this situation, the action was perpendicular: The Bard was dodging and hiding against the Wizard's attacks while retorting with Story, and the Wizard was throwing traps and making noise to distract the Bard and make noise. So it was a little deceptive, and the fact that now there are two types of combat confused us in that regard. I guess we should have thought about it more in the Free and Clear stage.

Wound levels: I dig them. However, I never had problems with a player loading up on Stay Up, so the old HP system was never a big problem for us, and in fact worked a little easier IMO.

In a word: Good. Great, even, with a little work. Again more comments later.

For me, though? It might come down to me making a hybrid of the two systems to run with my crew.

Andy Kitkowski wrote: Hey all-

Yeah, I managed to run a 1 player 1 GM session (about 80-90 minutes from chargen to finish) this weekend.

1) It's Fudge! Mind you, it's not terribly bad, because I really like Fudge, but there are parts of it that are a tiny bit confusing: With the new skill names, I found myself INSTANTLY converting "Journeyman" to "1" then rolling the dice: A drawback to what some people say is "Fudge just diguising numbers with adjectives", but a little moreso.

2) I swing either way, but I know my group REALLY loves the numbers and granularity of the 1-10 ability levels.

4) Parallel vs Perpendicular. I REALLY like this seperation. HOWEVER, because of it, I got a little confused: I had an evil wizard throwing fireballs and launching traps at the Bard, while the Bard retorted with Storytelling, trying to get him to change his ways, while dodging the traps.
Now, this seems like Parallel. On the first roll as written, because it was parallel and the Wizard was a Master, he slew the PC in one hit. (So I "redid" it, lowering the skill of the wizard to 1 rather than 2) Actually, now that I'm going through that in my head, I'm not sure that that adds up right... I'll have to look at our numbers again, but I rolled 5 dice, keeping three and got 3 plusses... and that instantly Broke the player.

Now, what I should have realized was that, even in this situation, the action was perpendicular: The Bard was dodging and hiding against the Wizard's attacks while retorting with Story, and the Wizard was throwing traps and making noise to distract the Bard and make noise. So it was a little deceptive, and the fact that now there are two types of combat confused us in that regard. I guess we should have thought about it more in the Free and Clear stage.

On a topic that ISN'T harm and healing:

Looking at the advancement chart, some things cost more than one "advancement." Are these costs additive or cumulative? For example, if I am a Master in Pray, and I want to become a Grand Master, do I need to use 6 advances or 3 advances? Does that question make sense? I'm assuming it's the former, but it wasn't clear from the text.

I'm a bit confused about the BDTP example. After Matt says:

"Crap," he mutters. "I'm changing my intention. Gael's just going to high-tail it, trying to avoid danger."

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

Andy Kitkowski wrote:
Now, what I should have realized was that, even in this situation, the action was perpendicular: The Bard was dodging and hiding against the Wizard's attacks while retorting with Story, and the Wizard was throwing traps and making noise to distract the Bard and make noise. So it was a little deceptive, and the fact that now there are two types of combat confused us in that regard. I guess we should have thought about it more in the Free and Clear stage.

I think I need to clarify this more. Actually, I'm not certain how I would have adjucated your situation. I need to think about it more. I lean toward parallel, actually, but I want situations where you might do something like this.

dyjoots wrote: On a topic that ISN'T harm and healing:

Looking at the advancement chart, some things cost more than one "advancement." Are these costs additive or cumulative? For example, if I am a Master in Pray, and I want to become a Grand Master, do I need to use 6 advances or 3 advances? Does that question make sense? I'm assuming it's the former, but it wasn't clear from the text.

Jasper Polane wrote: I'm a bit confused about the BDTP example. After Matt says:

"Crap," he mutters. "I'm changing my intention. Gael's just going to high-tail it, trying to avoid danger."

Doesn't he have to defend a turn?

--Jasper

On another note: bonus/penalty dice add dice to the roll plus then removes either the highest or lowest rolled result(s).

Is that correctly understood?

I have absolutely nothing against Fudge dice, but this particular mechanic removes the possibiliy to use adapted Fudge rolls with ordinary six-sided dice (there are a whole bunch of them, just an example: roll 4 dice, two negative and two positive and pick the lowest. Ties between neg and pos are just read as 0)

I don't know, maybe I'll just have to get/make some Fudge dice after all. Darn.

Per

pfischer wrote: I have absolutely nothing against Fudge dice, but this particular mechanic removes the possibiliy to use adapted Fudge rolls with ordinary six-sided dice (there are a whole bunch of them, just an example: roll 4 dice, two negative and two positive and pick the lowest. Ties between neg and pos are just read as 0)

Is all damage tracked on the same chart, or do you need different ones for, say, physical, social, spiritual wathever?

aplath wrote:
Since the intentions are clearly mutually exclusive, ruling the actions as perpendicular seems just about right.

dyjoots wrote:

aplath wrote:
Since the intentions are clearly mutually exclusive, ruling the actions as perpendicular seems just about right.

Cool observation. I was wondering myself what a good guideline would be. It brings me to another question though: what is a good example of parallel actions in BDTP?

aplath wrote:

dyjoots wrote:

aplath wrote:
Since the intentions are clearly mutually exclusive, ruling the actions as perpendicular seems just about right.

Cool observation. I was wondering myself what a good guideline would be. It brings me to another question though: what is a good example of parallel actions in BDTP?

...

So the actions, by my guideline, would be always perpendicular. At least in the beginning of BDTP, anyway.

This leads me to think that I may not have quite understood the concept of parallel and perpendicular actions ... Clinton? Help?

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Let me explain.

BDTP comes from a resisted Ability Check in conflict resolution. In conflict resolution, sure you can overpower a guy attacking you by cooking a meal.

BDTP, however, is task resolution. In task resolution, adding spices to the pot won't stop a sword stroke.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Hey, you made up the guideline. I never agreed with it. Personally, I think you've got it absolutely wrong. You're looking at it like the original BDTP, where I made things confusing by using conflict resolution concepts in task resolution, which makes it very hard to conceptualize.

Secret: "It's just a flesh wound"

Spend one point of Vigor to "shake down" your wound track. Move all marks for wounds so that they are collected at the bottom, with no spaces between.

You could add "water off a duck's back" for social "damage."

I'm not sure how much I like the separation of damage types. If it's an abstract measure of player control and power, and a countdown until the player can no longer affect the SIS, the separate damage tracks clash, in my mind.

dyjoots wrote: I'm not sure how much I like the separation of damage types. If it's an abstract measure of player control and power, and a countdown until the player can no longer affect the SIS, the separate damage tracks clash, in my mind.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

What's SIS? (If it's one of those terms - and you know what I mean, hundred-dollar gaming terms that mean stuff like "story" - then I don't need to know.)

dyjoots wrote:

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

What's SIS? (If it's one of those terms - and you know what I mean, hundred-dollar gaming terms that mean stuff like "story" - then I don't need to know.)

Sorry... it was in the provisional glossary here, I thought it was an accepted term.

"Shared-imagined Space" -- The fictional content of play as it is established among participants through role-playing interactions. See also Transcript (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near or total synonym).

I tested the new BDTP yesterday with a friend and noticed something funny. In some instances there was a very large amount of ties going on.

This slowed pace a lot in BDTP.

Then today I took a look at the numbers and realized that in resisted ability checks where the abilities involved differ by one (neophyte vs. greenhorn, for instance) the chance of a tie is around 50% (actually 56% if no modifier dice are used).

Maybe I've got my math wrong, but it seems consistent to what we experienced in play.

Looking further, it seems this is the worst case scenario. If ability levels are equivalent the tie chance is around 10% and if they differ by two (say, neophyte vs. journeyman) it goes down to 35% and lower as the difference in ability levels grow.

Just thought I'd report this back since the BDTPs where we had lots of ties were a bit annoying.

Andreas

You can ameliorate that by choosing an offensive stance. That way even if you tie, you do some damage... which might end up killing both sides, but there you go.

If you're staying with the Ability level names I prefer Apprentice to Greenhorn. Actualy I'd prefer just about anything to Greenhorn.

But maybe that's just me.

Cheers

Two friends and I played over the weekend, and my only comment is that characters seem a lot more competent in this version of the game than in the previous.

I see this as a good thing.

First Age wrote: If you're staying with the Ability level names I prefer Apprentice to Greenhorn. Actualy I'd prefer just about anything to Greenhorn.

You guys are correct re: Greenhorn.

However, I can't find a good term for a level between Novice and Journeyman. "Apprentice" isn't a good term - it implies a relationship to someone else. If anyone has any good ideas - including moving down Journeyman, and putting something between it and Master, let me know.

Hi Clinton,

I was fiddling around with the idea of using your mechanics for something I've got cooking and the term I preferred was "Trained". It pretty much summarized exactly what I figured a person was at that point- routinely trained, like most people in their day to day lives. They've got the basics down, but it's not like they're going to do much of anything spectacular with their abilities- they're trained.

Chris

Not to throw a kink in it, but "journeyman" carries as much of a relationship connotation as "apprentice." Which is to say, they both may or may not be defined by a relationship to a more skilled worker. So, if you're uncomfortable with one term for that reason, you might want to get rid of both. Or, just use both.

Andrew Morris wrote: Not to throw a kink in it, but "journeyman" carries as much of a relationship connotation as "apprentice." Which is to say, they both may or may not be defined by a relationship to a more skilled worker. So, if you're uncomfortable with one term for that reason, you might want to get rid of both. Or, just use both.

How about: Proficient, Competent, Capable or Experienced

Failing that: Able, Skilled, Accomplished, Adept, Good, Great, Practiced, Skillful, Versed, Adroit, Deft, Handy, Polished, Effective, Rounded or Adequate

Cheers

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: You gurdurn semantic wugnuts, you know what I meant. You are someone's apprentice. You're never someone's journeyman. That's the point of being a journeyman - it signifies you're qualified to do a task alone.

For whatever it's worth, Capable is good. Better than a novice, not quite a journeyman type.

Incidentally the trade skills progression is a good touch for a fantasy game, so I suggest Apprentice instead of Novice, to keep the metaphor going. So I'd suggest Apprentice, Capable (which doesn't fit, but... eh!), Journeyman, Master, Grand Master.

James_Nostack wrote: Incidentally the trade skills progression is a good touch for a fantasy game, so I suggest Apprentice instead of Novice, to keep the metaphor going.

Here's what's going on with "The Solar System." I thought you guys might want to know.

The system - the first half of TSOY - has been completely re-written. It might be able to use a bit more stuff, which I'm going to try to fit in there, but it's already more than the original, and much more clearly written. No one will be happy with the ability rank names. (Seriously, people, Near isn't the sort of place where you do a lot of apprenticeships. I didn't get the sort of guild-esque language that kept getting thrown around. Anyway, I ended up with Novice, Competent, Journeyman, Master, Grand Master. Competent was the adjective that sounded most like it should be a noun; i.e. "Pete is a competent." Maybe "competente?" Anyway, that's what I ended up with.)

At GenCon this year, I will have a limited number of copies of a new TSOY. I will also have a little supplement for the original that clarifies the rules and makes the games match. If you've looked, you've noticed that the two rules systems' biggest difference is the dice roll, but otherwise, they work together just fine. So, basically, TSOY is splitting into two versions of itself. Which is an interesting business decision - we'll see if it works. I will not, however, ever reprint the original. There's 70 existing unsold copies, so after they're gone, that's that. I'm updating the old one just because I know some people's violent reactions to Fudge dice.

Oh, and wait until you see the new cover. The uncolored drawing I got today was jaw-droppingly cool. Just as my little game's growing up, so are our iconic characters, Violet and Oliphant.

aplath wrote:
Then today I took a look at the numbers and realized that in resisted ability checks where the abilities involved differ by one (neophyte vs. greenhorn, for instance) the chance of a tie is around 50% (actually 56% if no modifier dice are used).
<snip>
Looking further, it seems this is the worst case scenario. If ability levels are equivalent the tie chance is around 10% and if they differ by two (say, neophyte vs. journeyman)  it goes down to 35% and lower as the difference in ability levels grow.
Andreas

Clinton wrote:

At GenCon this year, I will have a limited number of copies of a new TSOY. I will also have a little supplement for the original that clarifies the rules and makes the games match. If you've looked, you've noticed that the two rules systems' biggest difference is the dice roll, but otherwise, they work together just fine. So, basically, TSOY is splitting into two versions of itself. Which is an interesting business decision - we'll see if it works. I will not, however, ever reprint the original. There's 70 existing unsold copies, so after they're gone, that's that. I'm updating the old one just because I know some people's violent reactions to Fudge dice.

Oh, and wait until you see the new cover. The uncolored drawing I got today was jaw-droppingly cool. Just as my little game's growing up, so are our iconic characters, Violet and Oliphant.

dyjoots wrote:
Exciting!  Are the complete updated rules going to be put online?  I dig the game, and I like seeing what you are doing with it, but I can't make it to GenCon, and for the same reasons I won't be in a place to ship things easily...

Clinton wrote:
They will, but I have to work out the licensing issues with Grey Ghost before I put it under Creative Commons. Unfortunately, they aren't e-mailing me back because they're, you know, so busy selling Fudge or something.

Andy wrote:
Ouch.  I forgot about that: Fudge will be "OGL", but CC is about as restrictive as labor laws in Thailand...

If nothing else, you can just make NO REFERENCE to Fudge in the rules, and just suggest people use Fudge Dice to play your game.  That way, by not tieing TSOY into the Fudge rules, you're not stepping on toes by breaking away.  Thing is, of course, that would be kinda fucking around with Ann Dupuis and her crew.  Like big brother wiggling his fingers around at younger sister in the car "I'm not touching you!  Iiiiimmm noooot touching yeeeeeeeewwww!", etc.

There is that backdoor.  Hopefully you won't have to use it.  But even if you do, people will still end up buying Fudge Dice, so it won't hurt.

In any case, good luck.

Clinton wrote:
Anyway, it's a little frustrating to get blown off, as you can tell. I may end up putting the game under an OGL license. While I don't like it as much as Creative Commons, it's got no real problem. It's just kind of ugly in execution.

dyjoots wrote:
That's too bad.  I really like the Creative Commons License, and they way it lets people freely use the ideas from your game.  Aren't there several people already talking about writing settings for the original system?  I've thought about it myself, although that will probably be fruitless...

Anyway, returning to topic, I think it would be a shame to do something which you believe is "ugly in execution."

Clinton wrote:
If I go with the OGL, they'll still have that same ability.

dyjoots wrote:

Clinton wrote:
If I go with the OGL, they'll still have that same ability.

Ok... sorry to steer the thread off-track for a moment, but I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to this.  What would the significant differences be?

(Is this the place to post editorial nitpicks as well? "Zeitgeist" isn't the same as "gestalt").

matthijs wrote:
(Is this the place to post editorial nitpicks as well? "Zeitgeist" isn't the same as "gestalt").

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Oh, OK. I didn't know it'd been fixed; http://www.anvilwerks.com/src/tsoy2/solar_system.html still says "zeitgeist".

Clinton, is there any way to add in the species skill preferences?  I hadn't taken the time to really look at the new rules before today, and I like the use of Fudge dice a lot.  But I miss that Species X has Aptitude 1 and problems with Aptitude 2.  In the original version of SOY this is connected to the advancement mechanic, but the new version handles skill advancement very differently.