Topic: Nuts and Bolts Rules Question
Started by: Aman the Rejected
Started on: 7/11/2007
Board: CRN Games
On 7/11/2007 at 6:15pm, Aman the Rejected wrote:
Nuts and Bolts Rules Question
I have just a general question that I hope has a simple answer.
Can anyone help me speculate on what would happen if Harm was always 1? This hypothetical would also override Secrets that delivered extra Harm.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the power of an excellent strike would equal that of a barely better than yours strike. Also, it'd give a back and forth style of BDtP.
The reason I ask was I was trying to consider a new subsystem that would use the extra Harm for something else.
On 7/11/2007 at 11:36pm, Twobirds wrote:
Re: Nuts and Bolts Rules Question
I'm not sure I get it. You'd basically have 7 hit points, with wound penalties for low HP. What would you use the extra success levels for?
On 7/11/2007 at 11:39pm, Aman the Rejected wrote:
RE: Re: Nuts and Bolts Rules Question
Currently, the general idea would be to lend bonus dice out and be able to attack Secrets and Keys. It's just an idea, though. Before I went any further, I wanted to try to figure out what the ramifications would be.
On 7/12/2007 at 6:26am, oliof wrote:
RE: Re: Nuts and Bolts Rules Question
It would stretch BDtP to a minimum of 7 volleys to get a final result. Also, it makes giving early less sexy, since you can easily think "well, I can take another round or two of harm until it really gets hard for me.
As I happen to know some people who think BDtP is already constraining them because of the strict ruling regarding intent (which I think is an overreaction); they'd probably be put off by having to follow intent and only doing one level of harm each round. On the other hand, I know of people who ran TSoY dropping intent setting, and it seems to hold well.
You'd need to retool some secrets – mighty blow might be overpowered if it would be the only way to inflict more than one harm level in one round. You'd see that bought by a lot more characters with a general harm 1 limit that's only excepted by this secret.
Also, don't forget that Harm at levels 4, 5 and 6 have ramifications that run beyond the current BDtP or just the very next conflict. The penalty dice annd mandatory pool point expenditure hit quite hard, and getting secrets and keys hit *on top of that* sounds harsh. Maybe it would suffice to give people the choice between "penalty dice for everything connected to that pool" and "disable one secret until harm is undone", at arm levels 4 and 5; and "expend extra pool point for any action and get penalty dice OR disable all secrets" as an example for harm level 6. It would add a tactical dimension ('where to hit the opponent') that can back fire if you don't know wether your opponent has deep pools or many secrets…
If in your system attacking Secrets and Keys would be possible during BDtP, I'd consider adding ways to assess secrets and keys other than through the secret of assessment – at least give that out to everyone. Look at Spirit of the Century for a more generic way of handling assessments (and declarations). Assessment would drag out BDtP even more, so dropping explicit overall intent might make for a more fluent game.
Frame of Reference: Using just the existing rules, I'd see the attack on Secrets and Keys as something that needed to be done by expressing a fitting intent. For example, if I know Parthas the Vulture has a Signature Weapon, I'd go to town doing BDtP where the bad guy has the intent of 'shaming Parthas so he'd never use a bow again!' If my villain than wins BDtP, Parthas would have to work through his layers of guilt and shame to be able to shoot a straight arrow again.
On 7/12/2007 at 12:57pm, Aman the Rejected wrote:
RE: Re: Nuts and Bolts Rules Question
Well, you don't have to get to 6 Harm +1 to end BDtP. That just guarantees that BDtP is over. Either side can give at any time.
Otherwise, thanks. This does help me see what ramifications there are. I'll continue to work offline. If I come up with something more lucid, I'll post about it.
On 7/12/2007 at 3:31pm, oliof wrote:
RE: Re: Nuts and Bolts Rules Question
yeah, I meant guaranteed final result. Sorry for being unclear.
On 7/12/2007 at 5:38pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Nuts and Bolts Rules Question
Well, one ramification would be that Harm wouldn't "shake down" at the end of BDTP, since Harm would always go from lowest to highest. This would act as a disincentive to giving.
On 7/12/2007 at 5:42pm, Aman the Rejected wrote:
RE: Re: Nuts and Bolts Rules Question
Right, shake down! That's what this majorly affects. You'd have a very hard time setting it up to even shake down once.