Eero made the following remark on the Vulfen Species design thread:

On the other hand, what if the wizard's goal was to get past this other character, and he just happened to use a spell to achieve that? Or he wanted to hide the other character, or make it so his mother wouldn't recognize him? In these cases the success of the spell is not one of the stakes, which makes it really insidious: if such a spell is cast in BDtP and it succeeds, it takes effect immediately!

Eero answered in the other thread:

(As if this wouldn't be a topic for another thread...)

It's notable that, technically speaking, a spell is not any easier to get through in BDtP if the opposition opts to resist it and the group indeed allows changing intents in BDtP to stop new actions (perhaps allowing the original action to get through). I find it wise to do this, for otherwise players could sneak their real intent through in a more assured manner by starting a fake BDtP about something else and then doing what they really intented. To clarify: the armsman to be spelled into a toad does not need to change intents to roll his initial Resist check against the spell; he only needs to change intents if he wants to contest the spell further, to bring its effects into BDtP as stakes. In that case we'd have a basic change of intent situation.

As for the toad-transformed character, our position on this has been that the toad acts in BDtP just like any toad with the stats of this particular toad would, whether he's been changed into the toad from the beginning or not. It's the same principle as a character who drops down a well (an example I was troubled by a couple of years ago, as it seemed that dropping in a well would prevent a character from continuing in conflict) or really any situation where the conflict narration changes the environment. Thus, I'd say that the toad could try to still continue in the conflict, but he'd probably suffer from penalty dice for most strategies available to him. If, after the transformation, he had a high "Croaking" Ability (perhaps the toad-equivalent to Savoir-Faire?), he'd most likely have to not use it solely because it is not relevant to stopping armed, violent men. So yeah, in practice the toad is screwed is my position, which is why the character might wish to resist the toad spell as mightily as he can - it's an instant conflict ender for most situations.

I'm not sure I follow this, but it sounds really puzzling. I have the same question as oilof, really. It seems like, in order to make a spell easier to happen, you can BDTP, because if you fail the Resist check inside the BDtP, you can't contest the effects... I'm sure we're missing something really obvious here

Obviously the rules are not crystal clear, but BDTP i a fairly important part of the game, and it can very easily be short-cirquited by magic. Now if we were simulating a fantasy world, I might say: "Cool. Magic does that." But that's kind of not what we do. Instead I'd say that the magic maybe doesn't completely take hold all at once, it does mechanical damage that reduces and will eventually eliminate your ability to stay in the conflict. When you go past broken (or give), you are toadified all the way and cannot resist. Formulated in general terms:

Effects that would effectively eliminate you from BDTP cannot be narrated as accomplished facts until you have been well and properly whupped.

My tuppence, anyway.

The way Troels does it is pretty common in many indie games. I don't personally brook it for TSoY, mainly because I don't want to imbalance the complex subsystems that do not account for BDtP. Three-corner magic is one of those, but I've managed to create such myself as well. I also like to have things happen "for real" in the fiction with all of their consequences intact, instead of doing creative leg-work to have the newly ensorcelled toad continue using his sword-fighting skill or whatever (unless he's Yoda; in that case it's totally OK).

This is an explicit drift on the rules, but it's also the only sensible way to handle it, I think: characters need to be able to declare change of intent reactively to delay and draw into BDtP events that happen during its execution. Specifically, if a character is involved in BDtP when something untowards happens, the player needs to be able to immediately engage the new event in BDtP. Any other interpretation goes into some paradoxical situations I'd rather not encounter, like what happens when a BDtP happens on a much longer time-scale than some other events played in tandem. An interesting question is whether the change of intent should be declared in the free-and-clear, before the actual event happens (or is rolled for, anyway) but after it is declared; I'm leaning towards having the declaration only happen if the initial action succeeds, to parallel how BDtP is initiated to begin with. Of course, not allowing that is a much smaller drift on the rules, as the rules as they stand already allow players to negotiate character action in the free-and-clear, so it's entirely reasonable to have one player say that he's going to cast a spell, while another declares a change of intent to stop that spell. Allowing reactive change of intent (which would, effectively, happen during the next round) after a BDtP action succeeds would be a much more drastic change to the rules, although one that comes up only rarely in practice.

The above of course gets into a ream of follow-up questions: characters should certainly suffer the penalty for restating intent, but should they have to also forfeit their original intent? Does the new intent mean that the opposition automatically succeeds in overcoming the original intent? If so, should players be able to push their original intent in BDtP through by forcing the opposition to switch intents by introducing unacceptable actions? If not, should characters be able to run several intents simultaneously? Several BDtP conflicts, if their scales do not overlap?

My own solution for those follow-up questions lies in careful analysis of intent in BDtP: characters can have any intent they can reasonably work to achieve, so in many situations we can avoid any problems just fine by changing intents from "guarding this hall-way from intruders" to "stopping this particular character / group of characters from getting their way". This method means that it is still possible for a guard guarding a hallway to stop somebody from getting in the hallway while simultaneously resisting the toad transformation (both are activities of the same character, a character which he just declared he was trying to stop), but he's leaving the way open for unacknowledged third parties (which used to fall within "guard the hallway against all comers" but are not included in "stop this spellcaster"), which is not entirely unreasonable.

The above solution is still incomplete for BDtP situations that run in such different domains that a singular intent can't be relevant for both, while forfeiting one because of the other makes no sense either. An example would be a BDtP with stakes of "make you fall in love with me", played over months of in-game time. If another character then came along to murderize the paramour during those months, could the paramour declare BDtP? He's already involved in one, after all. What about if the murderer is involved in the same BDtP, perhaps as a co-suitor? I'm perfectly willing to run separate and simultaneous BDtP conflicts in complex situations myself, provided that acting in one BDtP does not impede acting in the other one; other SGs might have different opinions.

The most important part of this problem is the principle of character rights: TSoY presumes that all characters have a right to systematic defence via a certain procedure insofar as they are unimpeded and able to work towards resolving their current goals. All the specific situations above should therefore be resolved in a manner that allows the character his defence, which usually means having any incoming events go through BDtP should the player desire it. The only exception to this is the case where the character is impeded from trying to resist by some in-fiction cause. The typical reasons, and the ways they are utilized, are as follows:

• The character has an intent that is not achievable with his leverage, like flying to the moon without any means of propulsion; the intent automatically fails.
• The character is unaware of his intent, like when he is surprised or the event he'd like to affect happens in the next room; the intent automatically fails.
• The character chooses to pursue other interests instead of his intent, like when a character chooses to go to the Qek jungles to search for his father instead of going to Maldor to stop a revolution; the intent not pursued automatically fails.

But presuming that none of the above holds sway, I'd say that the spirit of the rules is that the character should be allowed to contest the incoming fictional event, whether doing so means reworking statement of intent in an ongoing BDtP, starting a new one on the side or allowing a character to have "two intents" at once (with the understanding that this is one a case-by-case basis and only when the character can work towards both simultaneously in the fiction). The key idea here is that unless one of the above reasons says otherwise, a character is justified in requiring a conflict resolution procedure for resolving his intents; a part of this procedure is the player's right to call for BDtP, which right is paramount to most other considerations involved in these situations.

Ultimately we run into a soft spot in the TSoY rules here, caused by the mix of qualitative and quantitive resolution systems involved. It would be entirely reasonable for a given group to rework the rules to translate all qualitative results (like magic, say) into quantitative Harm results; so instead of having a spell that changes another character into a toad you have a spell that turns another character into a toad, but only if it manages to cause an appropriate level of Harm, where "Harm" is completely abstracted to only mean character ability to resist things in conflict. Something like this could be easily enough implemented to eradicate the paradoxes involved here. Myself, I prefer to keep the mix of quantitative and qualitative mechanics, as that gives the game edges that lack in totally point-based ones like Universalis; I like how things can just simply happen instead of being monetarized and compared to other forces before allowing them legitimacy.

Also, to answer Harald's original question: the way I interpret Three-corner magic in BDtP is that the several Ability checks needed to get a multi-focus working going are all sequential, separate support checks. Therefore a working with two focuses actually takes two BDtP volleys to resolve as per the basic rules for unrelated actions in BDtP, with the first check only preparing the grounds for the second (with special effects, of course, when the character taps into the Destruction mainline or whatever). This makes magic in BDtP rather... interesting, to say the least. Also, I have Spells overrun this limitation just to give them a bit of added punch, and to give accomplished magicians a motivation to build spells out of stuff they already know.

So that helps a bit when it comes to the specific problem of powerful magic getting through easier in BDtP. Combine that with my above, very abstract musings, and you get a pretty good balance for most practical situations; it still improves your chances then if you can hit the opposition with several hostile intents at the same time in the same venue, but nothing gets through "automatically".

Eero wrote:
The way Troels does it is pretty common in many indie games. I don't personally brook it for TSoY, mainly because I don't want to imbalance the complex subsystems that do not account for BDtP. Three-corner magic is one of those, but I've managed to create such myself as well. I also like to have things happen "for real" in the fiction with all of their consequences intact, instead of doing creative leg-work to have the newly ensorcelled toad continue using his sword-fighting skill or whatever (unless he's Yoda; in that case it's totally OK).

Ok, let's say I'm a magician/assasin and I attack the Duke (a PC) with the intent of "removing him from the negotiations". The first roll is a plain Knifes vs. Resist. The Duke loses and so he BtDP. Some exchanges latter, it's clear to me that the knife is not going to cut it (so to speak) and I say that for my action I'm going to turn him into a toad. I have the Spell payed for and everything. The action is still within my intent (I don't want him dead, just of the negotiations). What does the Duke needs to do, if he doesn't want to get turned into a toad?

Also, let's assume he fails the defensive check. My intent stays the same, right? But if the character fails, he's removed from the BtDP because he can no longer carry out his intent. The only way he can stay in conflict is if he changes his intent to "avoid being transformed into a toad, at which point... I have no idea what happens:

In Troels idea, you change the pace of the BtDP to acknowledge the new conditions, but you keep going the same way, and you're not a toad unless you give or lose. In Eero's proposition, you do become a toad, unless you launch a second, parallel, BtDP. Am I right?

BTW, Eero, that was some fine dissection of the core principles of the game, and will be very helpful for my upcoming games.

Troels: I won't dispute that your method of interpreting the relationship of conflict rules to fiction (which I call "formalistic" in Finnish theory discussions) works just fine; I use it myself extensively in other games, such as The Mountain Witch. I don't know what to make of your straw-men, though.

Sabbat: you're right that I could have been less obtuse in my musings, above. Let's see... yes, your example is an interesting one in that you could look at it from two viewpoints:

• Resisting the toadifying spell is probably within the Duke's intent (something like "participate in the negotiations safely"), and therefore any action that would directly make him fail cannot conclude as long as the BDtP is on-going. The principle is the same as if the assassin had declared an action to "remove the Duke's head with one swing" or some such; that kind of action is automatically interpreted as an attack intent on harm, not a direct success. The only reason an action is delayed in this way in TSoY is character interest in the form of conflict intent; if a character wants to resist something, his resistance may continue as long as the player is willing to take Harm, up to Harm level 7, at which point the character is unable to continue resisting. This is the procedure by which character intent is overridden in TSoY.
• As the spell itself is not the intent of the assassin, the resolution of the spell is not directly tied to the results of the BDtP. The spell could fail, and the assassin could still achieve his goal. What determines whether the Duke is a toad at the end of the BDtP? The result is pretty interesting, but it seems to me that if the spell is delayed as part of the BDtP as per the above point, then whether it concludes or not depends not only on whether the casting character wins the BDtP, but also on whether he's continued the spell narratively until the end of the BDtP! So if the assassin's last action, so to speak, were related to the spell, the Duke would become a toad, but if he abandoned the casting effort mid-way through the BDtP in favor of some other method (perhaps the knife, again), then the Duke would stay human, even while the assassin wins the BDtP with his knife.

Those are not opposed points, so it seems to me that the situation can be judged pretty clearly: the spell allows the assassin to bring a slew of magical Abilities into the conflict, and it makes it possible for the conflict to end with the Duke as a toad (which wouldn't be possible without the spell), but it doesn't actually give any hard benefits in the middle of the BDtP, apart from the possible tactical benefit of using the Transformation ability against the Duke's resistance. However, if the Duke had formulated his intent in the conflict in a way that failed to account for his potential transformation ("Imprison the assassin", for example, which might still be feasible as a toad), then the spell would force him to either become a toad and continue the BDtP as one (with the assassin's intent pretty much resolved, note; the rest of the BDtP would be pretty much about the Duke's intent to catch the assassin, if the assassing wouldn't just give up after succeeding in the spell), or reassess the situation and change his intent now that his own ability to participate in the negotiations is threatened... not entirely unreasonable, but a bit confusing, perhaps.

Ultimately, it seems to me from what I've written that I equate spells that accomplish special effects with any other ability checks made to cause events in the fiction. The confusion engendered by BDtP is not specific to spells, but it's a general question: how can actions taken in BDtP be challenged to BDtP? Harald intimated the hard-line option at the beginning of the thread, stating that BDtP volleys cannot be challenged, that they take force automatically. I hope to have demonstrated some of the problems of this approach. Instead, I'm actually much closer in opinion to Troels, who stated that BDtP actions cannot threaten the character intent in force during the BDtP; I'd take one step further and say that actions in BDtP, just as elsewhere, shouldn't be allowed to bypass the BDtP challenge themselves if there is a character who wants to contest them and has the means to do so. Any such action, any such contest, is immediately taken to BDtP (understood more as a state than a procedure here, I confess) and hashed out as long as one side gives up or is overcome by Harm. The only potential confusion in this position concerns the possibility of simultaneous BDtP conflicts (in the case of differing scales of conflict) and whether a character contesting another's actions has to change intent, and whether he has to relinquish his old intent to do so. All three of these considerations are, for me, purely case-by-case: if the group sees no fictional problem with a character who simultaneously defends his friend, say, and tries to get out of a falling cave, then it's a valid intent to "protect my friend and get out". I see nothing in the rules of TSoY to suggest that the breadth of intents in BDtP should be limited or equalized somehow, as long as the character is physically up to the task of fulfilling all separate parts of his ambition.

So yes, my short answer is that whether the toadifying spell is an instant win for another character depends on whether the group's conception of Three-corner transformation magic involves a simple D&D-like "spell fizzles" SFX sequence, or whether resisting the spell is a painful and grotesque struggle of molding flesh and knitting bone. In the former case it's quite reasonable for a character to keep up an intent like "guard my friends and keep myself safe from evil magics", while in the latter case an argument could be made that a character devoted to resisting the transformation spell is fully occupied during the process, and cannot address other concerns simultaneously.

Hmm... too much theory and too little crunch here, I fear. Here's a spell that just popped to mind, crafted to end almost any conceivable conflict.

Spell: Fall to the sky
One man-sized target touched by the caster starts falling upwards on a successful Transformation (I) check. The spell lasts for an hour, so presumably the target will fall down in two hours or so.
Cost: 1 Instinct

• Transformation: Gravity: 2 Instinct.
• -1 Instinct for being a spell.

Much more stylish than transforming somebody into a toad. Cheaper, too. Actually, that's probably the cheapest possible way of ending any conflict under the sky (as opposed to in-doors). I certainly would want to resist that in BDtP in almost any situation...

Transformation Secret: Gravity
You can negate gravity affecting one man-sized target with a Transformation (I) check. You can spend extra Instinct points to:

• Double the mass of the allowed target.
• Cause extra pull equal to target's weight in one particular direction.

Cost: 1+ Instinct

Perhaps the most play-pertinent problem with spells is that some of these Three-corner Secrets are just a bit too cheap for their effect. I'm mainly looking at Living Morph here, on which Gravity, above, is based. Both of them could stand upping the base cost to 3 points in my opinion, the effects are so powerful.

Eero wrote:
Troels: I won't dispute that your method of interpreting the relationship of conflict rules to fiction (which I call "formalistic" in Finnish theory discussions) works just fine; I use it myself extensively in other games, such as The Mountain Witch. I don't know what to make of your straw-men, though.

Those suggestions about nestling BDtP weren't intended as a practical solution for basic situations - my position is that several concurrent BDtP resolutions are pertinent only when they do not interact in any way. My example of a conflict over romance played over several months overlapping with a conflict over immediate, violent death was intented to demonstrate that such situations are quite possible, and it would be silly to let the combat encounter affect the longer term situation in any manner. Of course, long-term BDtP is for the most part a theoretical proposition fully supported by the rules, but only demonstrated in action rarely, if at all. I for one remember only two or three such from my own actual play. The actual way the game is played usually strongly favors handling long-term situations in terms of development scenes and sudden break-points, where after gaining all necessary leverage in previous scenes the hero finds an opportunity to succeed or fail in one, immediate conflict that usually resolves in a social, violent or magical manner. It would be entirely possible to play TSoY with an explicit ban on long-term conflicts, only allowing conflicts that span over one explicit scene at most.

(On the other hand, I'm waiting expectantly for somebody to take Birthright's premise and run a Solar System game focused on rulership and large-scale social matters. I'm sure that long-term BDtP would come up in a game where a war could be fought in a single conflict...)

As for the wizard duel, for the most part I'd run it the same you do, I just express the reasoning behind the technical rulings in a different manner. I would also allow and require characters to make the necessary changes of intent if the opposition redefined the situation substantially - for example, if the opposition was at a disadvantage and suddenly threatened to cast "Fall to the Sky" on the loved one of your wizard, it would be entirely reasonable to require you to let go (perhaps temporarily) of trying to win the duel if you want to protect her as well to a degree where you want to BDtP over her safety. But if the spells cast in a wizard duel BDtP were all just variations of trying to overcome the opponent's intent, then I'd probably work it the same way you would: the characters pay the costs of each spell once, but the spell only takes effect if the check causes Harm 7 - otherwise the spell is narrated to be blocked partially or fully, perhaps with great exertion on the part of the defender. On the next round the caster has the option of "continuing to cast" the same spell, rolling suitable Abilities, or he can abandon that spell and try something else... hm... The way Three-corner magic works, I'd say that just about any wizard-duel will be an issue of constructing a spell that the opposition can't ignore, casting it once and then pushing it through with successive Ability checks while the opponent either casts countermagic or resists with Passive checks. Casting several duel-ending spells in BDtP wouldn't be useful at all, and if both wizards opt to cast their own offensive spells, they'd most likely be parallel - my specific judgement as SG would be that barring any details, two Three-corner spells are perpendicular only if their foci overlap (not because of any fine rules nuance, but because I like the tactical and narrative implications of how wizard spells "clash" only when they both try to draw on the same focus).

Where I differ from your position is solely in the reasoning and, perhaps to some little degree, in narrating the events. So while we both rule that the toadifying or sky-falling spell doesn't get through without the target accepting it, I don't rule this way because it's somehow unfair when magic short-circuits BDtP, but because the system allows all characters the right to resist with their Harm tracker pretty much anything they can manage to resist, fictionally speaking. Perhaps the above example of a situation where a character is forced to let go of one BDtP in order to initiate a new one is the greatest practical difference - as I understood you, you consider any such diversionary tactics to be automatically part of the same BDtP situation, so they only take place after the BDtP is over, if at all.

Also, in case it's not clear: when a hostile wizard breaks wizard duel to cast a spell at an innocent bystander, he's doing it under the rules for unrelated actions in BDtP - and the same holds true for somebody who decides to try to stop the action. My interpretation here is that both unrelated actions are resolved as if they were outside BDtP (as that is what an action unrelated to an ongoing BDtP is), which includes the right to announce BDtP over the outcome of the action in question. The question I've been struggling with in this thread is whether declaring BDtP when you're already involved in one is cause for the first BDtP to be forsaken, or should the new declaration be handled as a change of intent within the existing BDtP - I would only consider a "nested", simultaneous BDtP when the scale of one of the BDtP progressions was such that the other BDtP would fit entirely within the larger one - as would be the case when one BDtP lasts only a couple of minutes and the other takes months to conclude. In all other situations I'd say that the character declaring a "new" BDtP is either changing intent or giving up on the first BDtP to start a new one; which one is the case seems to my mind to depend entirely on whether the character can act in a manner that defends both intents at once, which is a judgement on the fictional occasion solely.

To finish: I note that Three-corner magic has no countermagic to use in those all-important wizard-duels. I also don't remember writing my version of that in English. Unforgivable, I say!

Counter-magic
You can resist Three-corner magic - that does not need to have you as the target - with an Enhancement (I) check. Success level is converted into penalty dice for the caster of the spell for their next Three-corner check in the same scene. The target of this Secret is either the caster or a target of the magic to be countered. Cost: 2 Instinct.

Eero wrote:
Where I differ from your position is solely in the reasoning and, perhaps to some little degree, in narrating the events. So while we both rule that the toadifying or sky-falling spell doesn't get through without the target accepting it, I don't rule this way because it's somehow unfair when magic short-circuits BDtP, but because the system allows all characters the right to resist with their Harm tracker pretty much anything they can manage to resist, fictionally speaking. Perhaps the above example of a situation where a character is forced to let go of one BDtP in order to initiate a new one is the greatest practical difference - as I understood you, you consider any such diversionary tactics to be automatically part of the same BDtP situation, so they only take place after the BDtP is over, if at all.

Eero, your Secret reminds me of this other one:

Secret of Knock-back
    Your character's blows send people flying. Knock back a stricken character one yard per success level. This immediately ends Bringing Down the Pain if you're involved in that, with no resolution as to intentions.
    Cost: 2 Vigor.

They do sort of the same thing, I guess, since they end BtDP prematurely. I like the spell's idea a lot, since sending your opponet flying into the air is a very archvillany thing to do. The secret cost 2 Vigor and your costs 2 Instinct, so its seems the price is right.

Thanks for the clarification on the toad thing, it's a discussion that is bound to arise somewhere else later, so your explanation will be very valuable.

(On the other hand, I'm waiting expectantly for somebody to take Birthright's premise and run a Solar System game focused on rulership and large-scale social matters. I'm sure that long-term BDtP would come up in a game where a war could be fought in a single conflict...)

Eero wrote:

To finish: I note that Three-corner magic has no countermagic to use in those all-important wizard-duels. I also don't remember writing my version of that in English. Unforgivable, I say!

Counter-magic
You can resist Three-corner magic - that does not need to have you as the target - with an Enhancement (I) check. Success level is converted into penalty dice for the caster of the spell for their next Three-corner check in the same scene. The target of this Secret is either the caster or a target of the magic to be countered. Cost: 2 Instinct.

Would creation and destruction which allow you to ratchet up the harm levels then be particularly useful when you are in BDtP?

Destruction also allows you to enter the BDtP with the harm done from the destruction spell, correct?

Third question in BDtP (sorry they all came at once).  Say if your intent was "to remove the guard from play" and you used your "toad" spell, it fails, and you enter  BDtP. Your next spell is say a destruction spell that has the secret of massive damage (classic fireball or whatever). The intent was to remove the guard from play, which happens 1) he is turned into a toad (the action that brought you into BDtP) or 2) is he burned to cinders (the spell that reduced his harm to 7). The intent was to remove the guard from play not necessarily to turn him into a toad.

This last question was pretty trivial as it really doesn't impact the end result of the narrative much but the answer might impact other related scenarios.

Didn't mean to derail the thread. But had some questions that popped up.

Actually, I was quoting a statement from Eeero out of another thread that spells within BDtP are insidious because you can't out-BDtP them. Also, I brought this up being incredulous that a subsystem like 3 corner magic might break the holistic approach of BDtP as I understand it, so I seem to be in the same court as Eero and Troels.

I must say that I can't really follow most of the discussion anymore. I am somehow not seeing the good paragraph or two on how you'd (you = Eero, Troels) handle a situation like this that isn't obscured by the stuff I don't get.

(On the other hand, I'm waiting expectantly for somebody to take Birthright's premise and run a Solar System game focused on rulership and large-scale social matters. I'm sure that long-term BDtP would come up in a game where a war could be fought in a single conflict...)

Apoptis: no reason to do Counter-magic specifically from Enhancement (I), it's just what made sense to me at the time. I would expect and consider fully compatible for there to be several, slightly different ways of countering magic within the Three-corner community; it's such an important function for a school of wizardry that I'd expect all three foci-pairs to ultimately have something along those lines.... hm... might as well make six of these, although I wouldn't use so many in any single campaign... something like this...

Damp Counter-magic
You can smother Three-corner magic with an Enhancement (I) check. Success level is converted into penalty dice for the caster of the working for their next Three-corner check, unless they refresh the Pool appropriate to the focus of the smothered magic. The target of this Secret is either the caster of the magic to be countered or a target of the same. Cost: 2 Instinct.

Narrow Counter-magic
You can deconstruct Three-corner magic with a Transformation (I) check. The magical working in question is dismantled and you gain the Success level in Pool points appropriate to the dismantled magic. The target of this Secret is either the caster of the magic to be countered or a target of the same. Cost: 2 Instinct.

Fiery Counter-magic
You can destroy Three-corner magic with a Destruction (V) check. Success level is converted into Harm for the caster of the spell, as their spell backlashes. The target of this Secret is either the caster of the magic to be countered or a target of the same. Cost: 2 Vigor.

Passive Counter-magic
You can guard against Three-corner magic with an (usually) unresisted Creation (V) check, the result of which is marked down for reference. The degree of success determines how many magical Ability checks are dispelled; the Passive Counter-magic stays active until expended or until the magic ends. The target of this Secret is either the caster of the magic to be countered or a target of the same. Cost: 2 Vigor.

Wide Counter-magic
You can counter any magic that requires Pool expenditure with a Divination (R) check. The degree of success determines whether your counter-magic recognizes the target working as "magic" and is able to counter it; Use the following table, which presents some examples and guidelines based on how "far" a given magical tradition is from core Three-corner dogma:

• 1 success: Any disguised Three-corner magics and generic (culture-independent) folk-magics or magical items.
• 2 success: Zu magic, Perfect notes, other blatant reality-manipulations.
• 3 success: Shamanistic practice and other primitive magics. (Walozi, Dream-walkers, etc.)
• 4 success: Cult magics, religious magics. (Green World, Sun/Moon cults, etc.)
• 5 success: Racial extraordinary Abilities. (Elven auras, goblin Adaptation, Ratkin telepathy, Vampiric powers, etc.)
• 6 success: Other esoteric practices. (Alchemy, supernatural martial arts, Moon-metal manipulation, etc.)
• 7 success: Any Secret requiring Pool expenditure.

The target of this Secret is either the caster of the magic to be countered or a target of the same. Cost: 2 Reason.

Active Counter-magic
You can deflect Three-corner magic with a Enthrallment (R) check. You may assign a new target for the magic, but it only acts at your margin of victory and you have to succeed in further checks of appropriate foci to gain any further control of the magic. The target of this Secret is either the caster of the magic to be countered or a target of the same. Cost: 2 Reason.

As for Invisible hand, yes, you'd need it to use any of those counter-magics from a distance, if you wanted to do that. An actual, powerful and ludicrous counter-magic spell that could be the center-piece of a pretty interesting adventure might look like this:

Parma Trismegistus
The target is engulfed by a shimmering globe of magical force that counters any magical effects within its radius, set at the time of the casting. Air inside the globe is thick and smoggy. The Parma is Damp and Fiery, Active and Passive, Narrow and Wide: in other words, it catches non-Tricorner magic as well, turns it against the caster, persists for several activations and causes both penalty dice for further casting and Harm for any mages foolish enough to go against it. The Parma replenishes its Passive persistence with the Pool points absorbed from incoming magic, with each Pool point equaling one extra spell countered. Should the spell duration run out at a Solstice, the spell recasts itself with the original success rating, paying the Pool costs from the Passive persistence pool. If it has not leached enough Pool points to recast itself, the Parma shuts down partially in an effort to preserve itself until enough Pool points are again available. (The shutdown sequence priorizes ability to leech Pool and longevity over range and offensive functions.) It is unknown how the spell is able to perform these crude independent functions; an advanced Three-corner Secret is probably involved. This cumbersome, gothic Three-corner masterpiece is known to have been cast only once, when Absolon's Tomb was sealed in its unknown location. The unresisted success rating apparently was around 2-4 or so, as the casting was performed by a large group of apprentices led by the last Academy masters.
Cost: 14 Instinct, Vigor and Reason each.

• Magical Contagion: 10 Instinct
• Magical Persistence: 10 Vigor
• Living Spell: 10 Reason
• Enhancement: Damp Counter-magic: 2 Instinct
• Destruction: Fiery Counter-magic: 2 Vigor
• Enthrallment: Active Counter-magic: 2 Reason
• Creation: Passive Counter-magic: 2 Vigor
• Transformation: Narrow Counter-magic: 2 Instinct
• Divination: Wide Counter-magic: 2 Reason

Hmm... clearly I should start a Three-corner campaign at some point, It would certainly be interesting!

--

As for Apoptosis's questions:

First question: Destruction is only useful in BDtP because it can cause Harm by default. Any of the other Foci can cause Harm as well, though, if the conditions of the BDtP conflict are suitable. Harm is not only damage, for any Ability check that goes against a character's intent "erodes" the Harm tracker of the target by causing Harm. For example, the following are all situations where another focus might cause Harm:

• Destruction, by definition, causes bodily Harm. Usable any time like any good fighting Ability. I never forget to apply the Three-corner laws on Destruction when a character uses it as a generic fighting Ability, though; I also tend to assign a SG penalty die for doing unspecified "Three-corner magic" in a fight, on the presumption that the magic still requires some ingredients, hand-waving or whatever, all a bit unsuited to going against a swordman.
• Creation can easily cause bodily Harm by, say, creating a lot of some material and suffocating the opponent. Reading the rules carefully also reveals that Creation can create fire, which would certainly hurt you. Therefore the cheapest method for causing Harm in BDtP with Creation is to get next to your target and "create a small amount (handful or so) of fire out of nothing". I would as SG assign two penalty dice for this even against weak and sluggish opponents; against armed and armored opponents, or animals with a thick hide, I'd disallow it altogether, as fire in small quantities isn't such a great weapon.
• Transformation by itself cannot cause Harm, but combine it with Living Morph for that Toad spell, and you certainly can; if the opponent does not want to become a toad, they have to resist the spell in BDtP, potentially suffering Harm.
• Enhancement is a tricky one to use for Harm alone, but if the target had a lethal disease and the enchanter had a suitable Secret that allowed him to increase the efficacy of disease (an entirely reasonable application), Harm could be caused with a direct Enhancement check. Of course, increasing the efficacy of other checks with an Enhancement check is trivial, so Enhancement can certainly participate in Harm-causing that way.
• Divination can cause Harm in BDtP when the opposition has secrets that they want to hide. For example, having a Secret for reading minds (again, rather reasonable) would allow the diviner direct access, leaving the opponent no other choice but to risk Harm in BDtP.
• Enthrallment is easy; if the opposition does not want to do as the Enthrallment says, he needs to resist and potentially suffer Harm. If he doesn't, nothing prevents the wizard from having the victim walk off a cliff.

As you can see, Destruction is the only one that does not need specific conditions, Secrets and Pool points to cause Harm. It's also the only one that causes Harm outside BDtP by default. (Any Ability check may do so, but the SG needs to specifically include the Harm in the stakes.) Apart from that, it's rather equal with the others.

Second question: If a Destruction check were made against a living target and was successful, and the target then declared BDtP, the Destruction check wouldn't cause Harm, as the Harm was part of the stakes. Instead, the destructor would gain bonus dice to their first check in BDtP equal to their success rating.

Third question: The toad spell would not take effect after BDtP, because the character abandoned that course of action and chose another spell in the middle of BDtP. Note that he wouldn't have needed to; he could have continued rolling Transformation checks to get the toad spell through, instead. He also wouldn't need to pay for the toad spell several times, as the spell didn't actually fail (BDtP replaces the original result, which does not count at all) before the wizard abandoned trying to get it through and opted for the fire-spell instead.

--

Finally, Harald: here's my position in a nut-shell, I hope it's more clear. Part of why we're not being clear is that we're working through the potential problems related to the issue, while simultaneously discussing how we rule on the examples in real life. Makes for a messy discourse.

My nut-shell:

• All characters have the right to resist anything that they can, fictionally speaking, resist. So a character can't resist something that happens without their knowledge, out of their reach or is otherwise out of their hands, but if the group thinks that a character can do something about a matter, then he can resist it and the conflict system may be invoked. A part of the conflict procedure is that a player may, on behalf of his own PC, invoke BDtP in important conflicts. This right to resist events is bounded and metered by the character's Harm track; an event can only happen against a character's will when (a) the player surrenders the issue (the character does not need to; BDtP ends when the player wants it, not when the character wants it), (b) events conspire to take it away from their hands or (c) an enemy agent rolls Harm 7 against the opposing character. In the first two cases the event in question happens, while in the last case it happens, and the winner of the conflict has power of life and death over the losing side, as well.
• The above principles, I think, are paramount to the core idea of TSoY. The game's conflict resolution system assumes and guarantees the right of characters to resist with all their power, mechanically speaking, but only up to their mechanical robustness. The Harm track is, in many ways, a thematic and dramatic issue: it represents a character's capability in hogging game-time and pinpointing it on any particular issue the player wants. BDtP conflicts are, mechanically speaking, largely about bidding Harm against the opposition and seeing who is willing to pay more of their stored influence to get their way.
• The rules of the game are rather clear in disallowing BDtP declarations in response to BDtP actions; I think, however, that the rules are wrong in this place, as that particular rule may potentially disagree with the above outlined principal rights to resistance. This is the basis for my rules-drift where I allow characters to reactively change intent to stop events even while they are in BDtP; as long as the character has the Harm track to make his decisions stick, I think that it's just fine and dandy if the players have lots of stakes and things on their plate.
• Based on the above points, I always allow characters to restate their intent to include any new conditions that may come up in the conflict. The only issue in these cases is whether conditions are shifting in a manner that also forces the character to choose between separate goals they cannot hope to fulfill at the same time. In other words, can the character incorporate both the old and the new issues within their intent statement. This decision is based solely on the fictive properties of the situation: a character only has so many hands and feet, he's only so fast and can only look in that many directions at once... can he really guard his interests in both of these issues simultaneously? If he can't, then he automatically loses one of them, as per the initial condition for challenging a fictional event which I outline above.

To condense that further: yes, spells should not be any more fatal in BDtP than they are outside it. They shouldn't also be any more expensive, either. The workable practical solution in achieving both of these is to require the caster to pay for the spell once, after which he can continue trying to make it stick in BDtP as long as he wants without having to repay the cost of the spell. The spell only sticks when the opponent allows it (by not restating their intent to stop it, or restating their intent to allow it) or the wizard wins the BDtP, at which point whatever spell they were pushing at the time actually goes through.

The rest of this discussion is just theory about why we as Story Guides might end up going with the above interpretation of the rules, and whether there is any principal support for this position in the rules-text. Not very important for practice.

Thanks, you answered my question perfectly and it makes sense.

The only reason I brought up destruction (or creation) in BDtP was that because of the massive damage secret  (or for creation to create a large volume as it states that you get xX harm for every point of vigor that you spend with create volume) allows destruction a better chance to succeed (obtain 7 harm easily, though at a pretty expensive cost). The other foci dont have secrets that allow a participant to  get to Harm 7 as quickly.

BTW...Great ideas for the countermagic for each foci.

I just mentioned destruction for countermagic (actually don't require an additional secret for it to work outside of the invisible hand) as I use destruction as a catch-all for anytime a spell that has the purpose of  "ending" or deconstructing something that is physical (i am considering other magic as physical).  I also use it for destroying certain 'properties' like time, space, gravity, light, heat, etc.  Not sure it was meant that way but it has a certain logic for me for 3-corner magic (wizardry in my homebrew world). Probably borrowed some of this idea from Ars Magica's ideas.

Back to the BDtP...in general it seems that the intent should be pretty broad and not action-specific so that it can handle many sorts of actions.

The intent should be to say "kill the guard" vs "stab the guard dead"  or "embarrass the king" vs "embarrass the king by pulling his pants down" (sorry couldnt think of something better off of the top of my head)

Thanks for the insight, Eero. This makes it very clear. I guess I could use some more info about reactively changing intent, as this is something a lot of my peers don't get - they see the intent of something you have to adhere to as strict as possible; a position I don't hold. Do you think the rules would benefit from a paragraph or two that describes how lenience on intent definition and handling helps moving the game?

Ultimately, I have a feeling that stating intent is as much subject to practice and group aesthetics as stakes setting is in Dogs.

Eero wrote:
My nut-shell:
Snip 2 bullets

• The rules of the game are rather clear in disallowing BDtP declarations in response to BDtP actions; I think, however, that the rules are wrong in this place, as that particular rule may potentially disagree with the above outlined principal rights to resistance. This is the basis for my rules-drift where I allow characters to reactively change intent to stop events even while they are in BDtP; as long as the character has the Harm track to make his decisions stick, I think that it's just fine and dandy if the players have lots of stakes and things on their plate.
• Based on the above points, I always allow characters to restate their intent to include any new conditions that may come up in the conflict. The only issue in these cases is whether conditions are shifting in a manner that also forces the character to choose between separate goals they cannot hope to fulfill at the same time. In other words, can the character incorporate both the old and the new issues within their intent statement. This decision is based solely on the fictive properties of the situation: a character only has so many hands and feet, he's only so fast and can only look in that many directions at once... can he really guard his interests in both of these issues simultaneously? If he can't, then he automatically loses one of them, as per the initial condition for challenging a fictional event which I outline above.

To condense that further: yes, spells should not be any more fatal in BDtP than they are outside it. They shouldn't also be any more expensive, either. The workable practical solution in achieving both of these is to require the caster to pay for the spell once, after which he can continue trying to make it stick in BDtP as long as he wants without having to repay the cost of the spell. The spell only sticks when the opponent allows it (by not restating their intent to stop it, or restating their intent to allow it) or the wizard wins the BDtP, at which point whatever spell they were pushing at the time actually goes through.

Troels: you're right that a toad spell could be pre-empted in the free-and-clear by declaring a change of intent to prevent it from happening. I'm just not sure if I like the dynamic this causes. Consider: instead of getting to see if the spell actually succeeds in the initial casting check, you need to declare your intent to oppose it before such a check is made. If you fail to do so and the check miraculously succeeds anyway, you're screwed if reactive changing of intent is not allowed. This also makes it unclear how the players should handle complex initial check requirements. Spells are a good example here: if your Three-corner working requires you to check Destruction and Transformation in sequence to make it happen, how do you play it if another player draws it into BDtP before you've even made these checks? Do you have to do those checks in BDtP, one per round? Or do you do them both in one round? What if the BDtP ends before you've made the checks, does the spell still go off? Lots of vagueness is caused by removing the initial Ability check from the procedure.

The initial Ability check in conflict is a pretty important balancing feature, so I'm not certain if it's ideal to remove it for event statements that happen in BDtP. It certainly removes the need for a "backtracking" reactive intent statement where a character changes intents right after an event has already happened, but it also makes it significantly easier to get events to happen in BDtP, as opposed to outside it. I can see playing it either way, frankly.

Harald: in my experience the rules on intent restatement can be played very loosely - it's not an immediate loss or necessarily even a drawback in BDtP to have to do a defensive action, so usually it's not a very big deal if somebody changes intents, does one defensive action and continues with a new intent. In my play the principle has generally been that if somebody at the table thinks that a character has to reorient himself due to the situation changing (this is what the intent change represents; it's not so much a stakes-related thing than a nice little emulation of those "WTF!" moments action adventure heroes encounter now and then), then he needs to do it. So you might say that anybody at my table may request another character to take a defensive action now and then when they feel that the character needs it, and it's not a big deal or anything. We don't even often say the intent aloud when everybody is clear on why the characters are in the BDtP. The defensive action can be interpreted as a "slow beat", even, usable when something described in the fiction takes more or less time than something else and it's reasonable for one character to "wait" on another one for one reason or another. Might as well generate some bonus dice at that point for the next real action, after all.

The key message here is that an action should only get to happen when a character cannot stop it due to his Harm track being overcome or because he is not in position to stop it. Something getting to happen because a rules-techinicality prevented a BDtP declaration just seems lame and against the spirit of the rules.

Eero wrote:
Troels: you're right that a toad spell could be pre-empted in the free-and-clear by declaring a change of intent to prevent it from happening. I'm just not sure if I like the dynamic this causes. Consider: instead of getting to see if the spell actually succeeds in the initial casting check, you need to declare your intent to oppose it before such a check is made. If you fail to do so and the check miraculously succeeds anyway, you're screwed if reactive changing of intent is not allowed.

This also makes it unclear how the players should handle complex initial check requirements. Spells are a good example here: if your Three-corner working requires you to check Destruction and Transformation in sequence to make it happen, how do you play it if another player draws it into BDtP before you've even made these checks? Do you have to do those checks in BDtP, one per round? Or do you do them both in one round? What if the BDtP ends before you've made the checks, does the spell still go off? Lots of vagueness is caused by removing the initial Ability check from the procedure.

The initial Ability check in conflict is a pretty important balancing feature, so I'm not certain if it's ideal to remove it for event statements that happen in BDtP. It certainly removes the need for a "backtracking" reactive intent statement where a character changes intents right after an event has already happened, but it also makes it significantly easier to get events to happen in BDtP, as opposed to outside it. I can see playing it either way, frankly.

Troels wrote:
[
BTW Apoptosis, you are right that Destruction is formidable in BDtP based on crude violence. But then, unlike the other arts, it is good for nothing else. Imagine if Destruction was no better in a fight than Enthrallment, which is good for so much else.

Eero wrote:

The key message here is that an action should only get to happen when a character cannot stop it due to his Harm track being overcome or because he is not in position to stop it. Something getting to happen because a rules-techinicality prevented a BDtP declaration just seems lame and against the spirit of the rules.

Well, if I was the SG, I'd interpret that particular situation in terms of intent restatement: the party that wants to stop the guard from shouting for help needs to restate their intent (or not so much restate as note that their intent shifts; I'm quite happy with not trying to fit the intent into a tidy sentence if that gets in the way of action) and then act towards stopping the guard from summoning help. Effectively, your new intent is to "overcome this guard without him getting to call for help", while earlier you hadn't considered the possibility of him calling for help.

So in my play it's really as I say: nothing gets to happen without going through BDtP if the complaining party is capable of resisting. In practice I implement this principle by having characters elaborate their intent as necessary; BDtP is not so much about resolving specific stakes as going on as long as the players agree to a solution to the situation, as representatives of their characters. In this manner the current character intent is really more of a checklist of fictional events that need to be achieved before the player allows BDtP to end; as we know, BDtP continues until all participants left allow each other's intents to happen. In other words, a fight only lasts until everybody has achieved their objectives.

Troels: yeah, we probably do disagree about some fundamentals. For one, I don't agree that characters are automatically protected from incapacitating violence or other such events when in BDtP; resisting such action just is nearly always an implied part of their intent. If a character went into war and ended up in BDtP on the battlefield, I'd be a stupid SG if I ruled that the character's intent didn't include "also: I stay healthy and in one piece". The situations where characters do not intent to protect themselves are pretty rare, and outside those situations the BDtP rules prevent lethal actions from carrying through. But that's just because BDtP works that way with all actions, not because characters are specifically protected from lethal things. For example, if a character was arguing with their child about sleep-time (BDtP) when the child suddenly drew a wicked knife and tried to kill the character (demonic possession or whatever, no idea), then I'd definitely rule that the character would need to declare a change of intent if he wanted to continue in the conflict. (The possessed child would possibly need to do this as well, depending on what he was trying to achieve with the initial argument.) The character came into the conflict with the intent of getting the difficult child to go to bed, so he wasn't prepared to fight for his life; he either needs to accept the action that kills him, or he needs to change intents to secure the child, protect himself or whatever he wants to do when the situation abruptly changes. The point is: the protection from death is not automatic, it's a property of characters struggling to get their way in conflict.

(Remember that single checks can kill in TSoY and death is just a matter of declaration if the player is not willing to resist it; conflicts are only invoked when an actual character conflict is present.)

Eero wrote:
Well, if I was the SG, I'd interpret that particular situation in terms of intent restatement: the party that wants to stop the guard from shouting for help needs to restate their intent (or not so much restate as note that their intent shifts; I'm quite happy with not trying to fit the intent into a tidy sentence if that gets in the way of action) and then act towards stopping the guard from summoning help. Effectively, your new intent is to "overcome this guard without him getting to call for help", while earlier you hadn't considered the possibility of him calling for help.

Eero wrote:
TrFor example, if a character was arguing with their child about sleep-time (BDtP) when the child suddenly drew a wicked knife and tried to kill the character (demonic possession or whatever, no idea), then I'd definitely rule that the character would need to declare a change of intent if he wanted to continue in the conflict. (The possessed child would possibly need to do this as well, depending on what he was trying to achieve with the initial argument.) The character came into the conflict with the intent of getting the difficult child to go to bed, so he wasn't prepared to fight for his life; he either needs to accept the action that kills him, or he needs to change intents to secure the child, protect himself or whatever he wants to do when the situation abruptly changes. The point is: the protection from death is not automatic, it's a property of characters struggling to get their way in conflict.

(Remember that single checks can kill in TSoY and death is just a matter of declaration if the player is not willing to resist it; conflicts are only invoked when an actual character conflict is present.)

Action is definitely parallel if the opponent's action does not interact with it. So if the guard wasn't trying to stop an adventurer from getting past him, say, but instead was scrambling for his whistle, while the adventurer was intent about running past, then the action is clearly parallel. Likewise, if the adventurer was trying to kill the guard and the guard was trying to blow his whistle. The interesting thing is, however, that while the guard is ready to die, he won't die before he's managed to get his own intent fulfilled or his Harm gauge is overcome: killing him prematurely and without allowing his intent to happen would trample on his right to resist as long as his Harm gauge allows. Thus the guard might get fatally wounded, but would stay in the conflict until the opposition allows his whistle-blow to succeed. (Of course, the players might agree that the guard's ghost continues in the conflict, in which case he might get killed and still succeed in his own goal post-mortem.)

As for the demon child situation, yes. If the character restates his intent to match with the new, unexpected situation, then the demon child does not get to freely and without resistance kill him. In general, I don't think I've ever met a situation where a character is killed without resistance in BDtP (although I have encountered situations where a character is killed outside BDtP without conflict). The situation would have to be one where the character in question does not defend himself from death and has a goal that is not resisted by the opposition. This would be rather exceptional in BDtP, as usually a character is out of BDtP the moment their intent does not cross with another character's in any way.

So yes, in short I'd say that we're just fiddling with details at this point. In real practice, while my logic might differ from Troels', the practical differences in our judgment seem rather trivial to me.

Speaking with you guys is worth about 10x the amount of time it takes me to figure these things out.

Now in the guard example what happens if the guards intent is to alert the guard and the PCs wish to kill the guard. If the guard say wins the BDtP...then the guard is still alive and has alerted the guards correct and the PCs coulds then just kill the guard as the next action (if it succeeds it doesn't go into BDtP as the guard is an unimportant NPC and he is just dead).

All this does lead into something.

Say wizard and warrior (NPC) are in a fight. Wizard cast flaming spell of horrible death and the warrior is trying to stab the wizard dead. The wizard fails and enacts BDtP.
The wizards intent (kill the warrior) with action of flaming spell of horrible death. The warrior still wants to stab wizard dead. Can the wizard and/or warrior state the action as-- I cast spell to kill warrior before he stabs me or can the warrior state his action/intent to kill the wizard before he casts the spell. Basically they are trying to force what would be a parallel action into a perpendicular one.

My feeling was that if they both wanted this (to strike the other before the other one strikes them) then it would be perpendicular, otherwise it is parallel (they are just both trying to strike each other).

I am pretty sure this is how it should work (a similar situation came up in game) but wanted verification.

Indeed, you're right that it's mostly about what the players want! The parallelism and perpendicularity of actions belongs in the large class of things that should be judged according to group understanding on a case-by-case basis. There are no wrong answers as both choices are equally balanced, it's just an issue of making sense for the players. I would definitely allow a wizard and a warrior to take either parallel or perpendicular actions in combat on a case-by-case basis, solely based on how things are described, unless some specific crunch dictated otherwise. Consider:

• The wizard player says: "My fire-magic bursts forth from the ground with such pressure that it forces the swordsman to turn aside. Then the long tongue of flame turns towards him, seeking prey and forcing him to avoid it." This could well be a perpendicular action, as the magic is described as preventing the swordsman from hurting the wizard.
• The wizard player says: "A huge pillar of fire bursts from the floor behind me, casting my shadow over the room. I stand hands upraised, intent on controlling the magical fire that swirls, filling the ceiling completely. Then it rains down on my enemies!" This is clearly a parallel action: the wizard focuses on controlling his magics, having no concern for the immediate danger of steel to the gut.

The point is, both of the above are well within the description of a flame spell that allows a character to draw magma from the ground. It might not be Three-corner magic (or it might!) as it would be pretty unefficient to do something like that in Three-corner, but it is certainly some kind of magic. And the pure Destruction focus could well be used in a similar way, I wouldn't disallow a player from narrating how the destructive forces his character conjures are so wide and inconveniently positioned from the swordman's point of view that he just can't get past.

And the same holds true for the swordsman as well: he could narrate how his shied protects him from the magics as he struggles to reach the arcane nexus of the wizard's work, clearly in a perpendicular struggle against the arcane might. Or he might narrate how he strides directly at the wizard and gives an unobstructed blow, all the while oblivious to the magics that at the same moment gather above him to tear him from limb to limb.

As a rule of thumb, if both players want parallelism, they should get it, while the SG acts more as a chairman of the discussion than a judge. If there is disagreement, usually perpendicularity can be defended in almost all situations, so I tend to favor that for unclear situations. All players at the table should have enough attachment to the fiction to be able to have an opinion on whether some action is more appropriate as perpendicular or parallel.

Euro thank you very much for all you replies. They have helped tremendously.

I do have one other which we talked about earlier.

If you do something that costs points (used a secret that initiated a BDtP). Since the resolution did not happen (which is why you are in bringing down the pain) do you still pay the costs in pool points for that action.

Example.

PC#1 wizard casts Toad spell..cost the wizard 5 pool points against other PC. IT was not successfully resisted and PC#2 initiates BDtP as he doesnt want to be a toad.

Does the wizard pay the costs for the spell since the resolution didnt happen. If he does he then has less points during the BDtP.

My feeling now is that he doesn't pay the costs because the action never really occurred and that he would only pay for it if it then occurred during BDtP.

This seem to be of particular importance when using secrets that cost a lot of pool points, I wouldn't want my players to feel that they lost pool points and got nothing for their expenditure.

Apoptosis.

BTW..what about a secret that allows a swordfighter to force a perpendicular action in a martial combat during BDtP.

This is to emulate that he is fast enough to defend/strike an antagonist who is just trying to kill the swordfighter. Allows the swordfighter to protect himself from a kamikaze attacker, or possibly interrupt a wizard who is trying to blast him with a spell or an archer who is trying to turn him into a pin cushion (all parallel actions)

Secret of the swift strike.
When in a swordfight he can spend X points to declare a parallel challenge a perpendicular challenge.

I just thought of it and havent thought of the particulars yet (like the cost)

Is this too powerful, against the spirit of the system etc.

The way I play it is that the wizard will have to still pay for the toad spell, even if it didn't happen immediately. On the other hand, the spell still sticks around, and if the character doesn't stop casting it in BDtP (that is, he mostly rolls magical abilities and describes how, through the BDtP, he's still working to get the spell to work) it will take effect at the end of the BDtP. The character has, effectively, bought a right to having an intent that is rather out of the ordinary; most characters in most situations cannot hope to take on an intent like "I change my opponent into a frog." The spell is what allows the character to do this. If, during the BDtP, the character opts to try something else and redefines their intent ("Screw this, I'll draw my dagger!"), then the spell won't take effect at the end of the BDtP, as the character abandoned trying to execute it. What happens at the end of the BDtP depends on what was narrated immediately prior to the end and what the characters were trying to do.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be very unbalanced to have the spell not happen and not have the character pay for it, either. If I wanted to play it this way I'd have the character pay a small cost for it, though, so as to not have characters cast a lot of unacceptable spells to force opponents to BDtP for free. Most characters would insist on BDtP when an opponent cast Fall to the Sky on them, after all! Thus I'd probably have the character pay one point from each Pool involved in the cost of the Secret that was countered by the BDtP declaration - a small cost, but still something to pay for dredging out such a big hammer.

As for the Secret of the Swift Strike, entirely within the rules, although I'd make it a bit more powerful:

Secret of Steel
The swordfighting character may choose whether any actions against him in BDtP are perpendicular or parallel as long as his own action uses his sword. Such is the focus of the master swordsman. If another character has similar pregoratives, resolve perpendicularity normally. Cost: 1 Instinct per forced action.

I like the Secret of steel...will add it to my game.

I understand about the idea of people forcing the BDtP with the fall to the sky spell. I guess i was coming at it from the other perspective.

My feeling was that then most people wouldn't use spells (or any secrets) that have much cost until they were actually in BDtP as they wouldn't want to lose all the points for basically little effect (basically potential bonus dice, an effect they could have done much more cheaply).

Of course if I think through this, if they still stuck with the spell then it probably wouldn't matter that much which order they did it in and they would'nt have to pay any points for this spell during the BDtP anyways (makes them really try to stay true to their original intent/action). 

Hmmm your original way does make more sense the more I think about it.

I would think that the Toad spell is active during BDtP up until the end of the BDtP...he could switch to the dagger (as he is keeping the warrior away for time to spell to work) as long as his last action was rengaging the Toad spell (he kept him away long enough for the spell to work..using his dagger and he then switches his action back to the getting the the toad spell through)