More issues--

In fallout, you are given a choice from a list of options. This is Cool and Good, and needs to stay around. However, given that d4 traits only increase character effectiveness (also Cool and Good), including the addition of d4 traits on the fallout table raises some serious potential problems, as in I don't believe that most players will ever select any other option.

Let me give an example with the 8+ table:
Reduce one of your stats (lose effectiveness)
Take a new trait at 1d4 (gain effectiveness)
Take a new relationship at 1d4 (gain effectiveness)
Add one to an existing d4 trait (gain effectiveness)
Change the dice of an existing d6+ trait or relationship to d4 (lose effectiveness)

Now, why would any player ever choose option 1 or 5 (except out of a drive to prove that he is hard-core sim and thus unconcerned with system)? Given that the only drive to choose 1 or 5 is social pressure, it is likely that players will strive to find justification to increase their effectiveness with fallout, and thus we might as well eliminate the reduced effectiveness options altogether and call things as they are.

I submit that this constitutes a major problem in the fallout rules. As per my normal criticism, I don't have a solution to propose, although ideally all fallout options will be of roughly equal advantage or disadvantage to a player's effectiveness.

yrs--
--Ben

It's because you choose what's appropriate coming out of the conflict. In play, you don't see people choosing one and casting about for justification, you see them look at the list and something jumps out at them as just the thing. If nobody ever chooses to reduce a Stat, that's okay with me - but it needs to be there as an option just in case.

I've seen players choose to change a Relationship to d4s with their eyes lit up, just because of the nonmechanical content of the conflict. I haven't seen anybody reduce a Stat yet - but my sense is that it's more likely in a long-running game than in the single sessions I've seen to date, because of the way the "experience Fallout" works. We'll find out I guess.

If nothing else justifies it, NPCs use the same list, and I do love to reduce NPCs' Heart!

-Vincent

Ben Lehman wrote: More issues--

Let me give an example with the 8+ table:
Reduce one of your stats (lose effectiveness)
Take a new trait at 1d4 (gain effectiveness)
Take a new relationship at 1d4 (gain effectiveness)
Add one to an existing d4 trait (gain effectiveness)
Change the dice of an existing d6+ trait or relationship to d4 (lose effectiveness)

Now, why would any player ever choose option 1 or 5 (except out of a drive to prove that he is hard-core sim and thus unconcerned with system)?

bluegargantua wrote:
Because d4's are teh suck.

Your average die pool in any contest will be built on a solid base of d6's (from your Stats) and most relevant Traits will sit on d6's as well. When contesting the GM, remember that there will also be a few d10's in there from Demonic Influence.

So, first off, the average roll on a single d6 is 3, the average roll on a single d4 is 2, so probability favors you getting higher results on every single die roll.

But it's when you put 2 dice together that things get really interesting. For d6s, this means an average of 7 compared to an Average Raise of 5 for d4s.

Adding d4s to your dice pool forces you to make harder decisions. If you want easy decisions, win or lose, don't have d4 Traits. If you want hard decisions, win or lose, do have d4 Traits.

Before you write about character creation, Ben, look past how d4s affect character effectiveness to how d4s affect player behavior!

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Adding d4s to your dice pool forces you to make harder decisions. If you want easy decisions, win or lose, don't have d4 Traits. If you want hard decisions, win or lose, do have d4 Traits.

Before you write about character creation, Ben, look past how d4s affect character effectiveness to how d4s affect player behavior!

It's like Tom says, d4s are teh suck. You want them because they help you win, but when they're on the table with their numbers showing, you see at once that they help you win at a cost.

The first hard question in Dogs' resolution is:

Is this worth Taking the Blow for?

It's not as simple as "is this worth taking Fallout for?" (we all know that it always is). Taking the Blow also means that your opponent is setting the terms of the conflict. The mechanical significance is that your opponent is going to drive the conflict toward circumstances where he or she gets to roll more dice, and toward follow-up conflicts that are in his or her favor.

Here's an example. What's at stake is: does the would-be assassin escape? I'm the would-be assassin, I've failed to assassinate you, and we're both in your room in the middle of the night. I raise you: I jump out the window.

If you Take the Blow, then indeed I've jumped out the window. I haven't escaped because I haven't won the conflict, but I'm choosing the ground, and if I have a horse waiting below, that will be more dice on my side and a better chance I'll win. If I lose anyway, you can bet that I'll launch a follow-up conflict where being outside is to my advantage. (Like, do I manage to signal my co-conspirators that I've failed?)

So you have to choose whether to use your high dice to See me, keeping me in your room, but at cost to your future Raises, or to use your low dice, saving your high dice to kick my butt when you Raise but letting me choose the ground.

Here's an example from the game we played this weekend:

Meg's the GM. Carrie's character is trying to exorcise the demon from a possessed person. They've been going back and forth, and Carrie outdices Meg substantially. It's the demon's Raise and Meg's down to her last two dice, but they're high - Carrie has won the conflict for sure but will have to Take this Blow first.

Meg has the demon kill its host.

And we're all like, dude. Fierce.

Carrie's character can't Block or Dodge, she has to Take the Blow, and that means that the possessed person dies just as the demon's forced out. (The poor npc isn't a for sure goner - it's very reasonable for Carrie to launch a follow-up conflict where what's at stake is: can I save this person's life? But the demon has forced her to do that, now, and maybe she can but a big ol' maybe she can't.)

Not only d4s but any dice you roll low on create these dilemmas. It's just that d4s, you tend to roll low on.

Is rolling 8d6+2d4 worse than rolling 8d6 in any way? No. But consider these three cases:

a) You can win on the strength of the 8d6 alone, and leave the 2d4 unused, without ever Taking a Blow. You've outclassed me.

b) You can't win, even with the 2d4, no matter how many Blows you Take. I've outclassed you.

c) You can win, if you maybe use the 2d4 and maybe Take a Blow or three, depending on who's more cunning and/or bold and how the conflict escalates. (That's the second hard question: is this worth Escalating for?)

Case c is obviously the only one where the d4s matter. Fortunately, it's by far the most common. Rolling 8d6+2d4 means you're more likely to win on my terms, and that's a fun but not easy decision to make.

All of which sets the stage for:

BL> How do d4s, in your experience, effect player behavior?

I take lots of d4s because then I can take fallout. Remember, I'm the guy who's calling for missing ears and eyes.

So far, my feeling about d4s in conflict is, it gives me a tiny leg up. I probably won't run out of dice first if I have a lot of them, so I have a better chance of winning the conflict. But boy, can I take it on the chin in the process. Remember the fallout I took last weeked? 6 frickin' d4 fallout. That was during character creation, so I really wanted to push for some stuff that would help my wishy-washy character concept gain some definition.

Now that I thin about it, rolling, what, 20 dice or something, I got 6 1s. That was some bad luck. Fortunately, I wanted to "lose" that conflict, so it didn't really damage my long-term goal.

To answer the top of the thread, I reduced my "I can't help hearing the Voice of God all the time" Trait by one die. That means it will have less of an effect on future events, which was the character's goal in character creation.

In summary, I want my dude to be a mass of scar by the time God's done with him, and that's how I see the Dogs winding up on the whole if they survive. It's usually very clear which Fallout option you take. "I was embarrassed by Brother Filbert? I'll take 1d4 in 'I think Brother Filbert's a little shit.'" or "I got shot in my right hand? I'll reduce my 'I shoot real good' by 1d10'." Since it comes up all the time, it's not like you have to sweat it about getting reductions all the time; all sorts of stuff will come up, and it will add texture.

You know what I like about this? It ignores the Muchkin arguments that a player will keep dumping dice into "I never miss with my twin Gattling guns" because, you know what? I don't want to play with those people anyway.

nikola wrote: I take lots of d4s because then I can take fallout. Remember, I'm the guy who's calling for missing ears and eyes.

To answer the top of the thread, I reduced my "I can't help hearing the Voice of God all the time" Trait by one die. That means it will have less of an effect on future events, which was the character's goal in character creation.

"I got shot in my right hand? I'll reduce my 'I shoot real good' by 1d10'."

You know what I like about this? It ignores the Muchkin arguments that a player will keep dumping dice into "I never miss with my twin Gattling guns" because, you know what? I don't want to play with those people anyway.

And you were aware that, mechanically speaking, you could get the same effect, in terms of using system to address theme, by taking a "I don't like to hear the voice of God all the time" d4 trait and simply *not throwing* one of your d10s in conflicts?

Why not take "I have a maimed right hand 1d4?" Which, I reckon, allows you to make a more powerful statement about how you have been crippled (further fallout).

See, I do. Or, rather, I play with people who dump all their dice into "I constantly lose faith in my mission as a dog 7d4," or some such trait.
By which I mean that they are playing a in a narrativist style, and using their mathematical sophistication in systems analysis to enhance their ability to address premises.

nikola wrote:

Ben Lehman wrote: See, I do. Or, rather, I play with people who dump all their dice into "I constantly lose faith in my mission as a dog 7d4," or some such trait.
By which I mean that they are playing a in a narrativist style, and using their mathematical sophistication in systems analysis to enhance their ability to address premises.

That makes for a pretty flat character. It seems like a big frickin' waste.