Rules Changes

I'm not sure what to do with this information, but since we're playtesting, I thought I'd post some of it here so that you know that your concerns and questions are being heard and addressed. Some of the suggestions I've made to Trent based on your comments have been incorporated into the final version of the main rulebook, which we're currently working on. I don't want to have to ask you to spend another $10 on a second version of the book, particularly when I really really want the book-book to be published in the next year (I'm pushing rather hard for it, in fact). So. Some of the changes that will most likely be coming down the pipe:

1. Techniques - simplification: Focus is now gone, as is Contention. All Techniques will require a challenge (compare your Prowess and roll a die) to use. You may still spend a Devotion to lower that contention to "Compare". But, by default, all Techniques use the same type of challenge to activate. There may still be some changes to Duration (making it simply 0 Actions, 1 Action, or 3 Actions for the Technique to be deployed, rather than "Slow, Instantaneous", etc..), and there may be some changes to Manifestation, but these are still in discussion (the discussion is whether to remove "Recognisable" and just have Manifestation be binary: "Conspicuous/Inconspicuous". I rather like "Recognisable", and think if *other* aspects of Techniques are simplified, this could stay. Thoughts?
   
2. Trauma - simplification: I will get you more information on this when it's available. I suggested getting rid of Infected Trauma and making Lingering Trauma easier to heal.
   
3. Predomination - simplification: More details as they are available.
   
4. Opposed Rolls: I've suggested getting rid of Opposed Rolls for any action that is not directly affecting someone (Predomination is excluded for the moment because it is a separate category): ie) only Investigate, Hunt, Persecute, Sabotage will be Opposed Rolls.
   
5. Sovereignty - tightening it up and providing clarification and simplifying it.
   
6. Transgressions/Preeminences(Vices) - being more clear about what makes something one and not the other, providing a clear delineation between how each is used and/or activated, and the genesis of each.
   
7. Devotion/Cinematic Points - being more clear about the differences between them and how each are used.
   
8. Cinematic Points - Giving them a more concrete purpose, and removing ambiguity. Personally, I'd like to see the entire "Cinematic Points" section downsized to a couple of paragraphs in the character creation section.
   

This is why I was asking you for suggestions as to *one thing* you would like to see addressed by way of rules/mechanics. So. For now, what would you like to do? Would you like to playtest the new Techniques rules? I think it streamlines things and makes things quite a lot snappier. We'd leave Execution and Manifestation as is for now, but we'd lose Focus (heh) and all Contentions would be a challenge unless a Devotion was spent to lower the Contention to comparable.Thoughts? Questions?

I would like to playtest the new Technique rules.

A comment: I find a Devotion turning a Contention into a Comparable to be a little bit confusing, as Cinematic Points already have that ability. Is this going to be one of those changes - the 'Contention->Comparable' becoming a Devotion ability?

I believe that the point is that Cinematic Points will *only* be used for things like Transgressions and editing scenes, and Devotion will *only* be used for things like Techniques and prowesses. More to the point, Cinematic Points will be removed from Combat Use and Techniques modificatin. So yes, the suggestion is changing the Contention of a Technique will be done by using Devotion.And it looks like the ability to used CPs in/during/for combat *at all* is probably going away.

I don't want to test the new technique rules until all the technique changes have been made and are as finalised as they can be without having a group run through their use. At that point I wouldn't hate testing them, but I don't want to test partial changes.

Then again, I don't see the need to change the aspects of the techniques you mentioned and I really, really, really dislike the change of the three manifestations to two.

I also strongly dislike doing away with Infected Trauma. I think it serves a purpose and is an interesting way of tracking techniques that build up side effects when used against a person.

I understand your reticence, Alan, but here's the conundrum - we're playtesting, technically, and if we don't playtest suggested changes, then the next time you get to try them out, the book will be published. 

Trent and I have been talking about changes to Techniques, and Manifestation is the one that we're both a bit stuck on...which is why I think changing the Contention and simplifying Execution (and doing away with Focus, which few people really make use of anyway) might just simplify things enough. The need to make changes rests in having 24 Techniques, each of which has five variables. That is, IMO, too much. Contention is easy enough to simplify, and Focus is already gone. It's my feeling that with these two changes, Manifestation/Execution doesn't have to change much.

I have always liked the *idea* of Infected Trauma, but again, there is a potential for it to be incredibly confusing, particularly when you're tracking five..no wait...twelve different Trauma tracks *at minimum*. Trauma is a big part of the game, and it tends to be confusing (at least, it has been my experience as Storyguide that of the two things I have to explain in detail many times to each player, Trauma is number one. The other is the downtime system). BUT. Please continue to discuss why you think it should be included.

cenobyte wrote:I understand your reticence, Alan, but here's the conundrum - we're playtesting, technically, and if we don't playtest suggested changes, then the next time you get to try them out, the book will be published.

What I meant by my comment is that I would hate to test partial changes but have no problem testing completed changes, even if I don't see the need for them. Part of agreeing to play in a game is making a commitment to play by the rules of that system so that everyone is on the same page.

I guess what I am taking exception to is only wanting to test some of the changes, i.e., excluding execution and manifestation. I prefer to get it all done with at once.

As for the elimination of Focus, how does that affect being able to resist Compelling Techniques as there are no longer Compelling Techniques. Will the resistance rules be put into the description for those techniques or are they now fait accompli?

Alan wrote:What I meant by my comment is that I would hate to test partial changes but have no problem testing completed changes, even if I don't see the need for them. Part of agreeing to play in a game is making a commitment to play by the rules of that system so that everyone is on the same page.

Fair enough.I think I was suggesting going with testing out the changes to Contention and doing away with Focus (those two have already been decided, more or less). Since the other two are still in discussion, I don't think I'd be comfortable testing them since I don't know what we're talking about yet. I'm not sure when we'll get to making a decision about the other two...which is why I'm in a Conundrum. Do we test what we *know* has changed to see how it's going to work? Do we keep playing with the status quo for now?

Alan wrote:As for the elimination of Focus, how does that affect being able to resist Compelling Techniques as there are no longer Compelling Techniques. Will the resistance rules be put into the description for those techniques or are they now fait accompli?

 I suspect that in the description of each Technique it will be clear as to how it can be resisted. Spending Devotion, taking a Traumatic wound, and using the Rebel Profession should all still apply. Compelling Techniques, for those unfamiliar with the term, are those techniques that compel you to do something, if the Technique is successfully used on you. You know when you're under the effect of a Compelling Technique.I'll double check on the particulars before we playtest anything, of course.

cenobyte wrote:Compelling Techniques, for those unfamiliar with the term, are those techniques that compel you to do something, if the Technique is successfully used on you. You know when you're under the effect of a Compelling Technique.

Unless the manifestation is Recognisable or Inconspicuous.

Hrm. The book I have says "Characters affected by Compelling Techniques know they are affected by a Technique" (p. 162).It also says (mere lines above) that each Rank of the Technique affects the perceivable effects of the Technique. (Meek = Conspicuous; Moderate = Recognisable; Pure = Inconspicuous). **sigh**Anyway, I think the same remains: you can resist a technique that would compel you to do something or which would have an effect on your thoughts, actions, and behaviour, by spending Devotion, taking Trauma, or using the Rebel Profession Expertise). Also, resisting causes the Manifestation to drop a rank, so any Inconspicuous Technique would automatically become Recognisable if successfully resisted.

cenobyte wrote:I have always liked the *idea* of Infected Trauma, but again, there is a potential for it to be incredibly confusing, particularly when you're tracking five..no wait...twelve different Trauma tracks *at minimum*.

I think my counting is broken. Twelve?

Minimum = 3
Physical
Psychological
Emotional

Possible Infecting Techniques
Approbation (Pride)
Covet (Avarice)
Despoil (Envy)
Enslave (Lust)
Indulge (Gluttony)

Nothing says that a Lust has to take Enslave or a Gluttony Indulge, but let's assume everyone in our game did and you they all decide to target one person for some reason. If I think about how many of each we have in the game... Pride x2, Avarice x2, Envy x2, Lust x1, Gluttony x2 = 9? Plus the 3 base. Is this where you got twelve?

I would like to point out that it isn't likely that everyone will have to track Infected Trauma from all these sources -- if the characters even took these techniques. Oh, I know that I've started Infected Covet tracks for a few people already but not everyone by any means, nor do I plan on doing so. I also made sure that as the user of the technique I explained how to track it on the back of their character sheet. I think that understanding and explaining how Infected Trauma works is as much knowing how your technique works as what affect it causes.

Maybe I can't see the problem because I don't find it confusing. Jill, if you are getting a lot of questions about how to track Infected Trauma in particular, that would be a better indicator. I do feel that the *other trauma* needs to clarification but Infected Trauma always seemed very straight forward.

I think the resistance should be pretty straight-forward, Alan. Except maybe now you can spend to resist Techniques like Bless, if you REALLY don't want them to affect you. Which I'm totally fine with.

I agree, I really want to keep Recognizable. I think it adds a lot.

I'm ok with Execution being tightened up a bit. I think 'Scene' or something similar is more descriptive than 'Slow Action', and 'Trivial Action' and 'Passive' can just be combined as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm honestly ok with Infected Trauma. I agree, it can add a lot to the game, and it shouldn't be affected by how much other Trauma the target has - in theory that could be cool, but I like different tracks better.

The primary reason I don't like Infected Trauma is twofold: One - for new players, there is *already* an awful lot to digest as far as Trauma goes. Adding a separate track for every person in the game who uses Enslave on you seems overly intensive. And two - *we* don't have a whole lot of characters in the game with those particular Techniques, but in a game where there is a cult, say, of people who use Enslave, say, to recruit new members, you could conceivably have three or more tracks in Enslave *alone*, not to mention your regular trauma, not to mention any Gluttony or what have you. 
As a Storyguide, I find it unwieldy. I've had comments from three to five people "agin'" Infected Trauma, so I do like to hear the other side.

**Sigh**

"Primary reason ...is twofold."

Jill should stop talking/typing now.

cenobyte wrote:As a Storyguide, I find it unwieldy. I've had comments from three to five people "agin'" Infected Trauma, so I do like to hear the other side.

How can I know what to address if I don't know all the objections or where people are having difficulties?

No matter what it is called, there has to be a way to track the uses of these techniques on a character.

If people don't want to use a form of trauma, what do *they* want? What are the proposed alternatives that are better?

Would it help if we just call it Infection and don't call it Trauma?

Is it really a matter of people not liking the Techniques and speaking against them via speaking against Infected Trauma?

I would be against the changes for Techniques at this point. For such a major part of the game the fixes only raise more questions as to how they will interact with the rest of the system. For example:

cenobyte wrote:Techniques - simplification: Focus is now gone

Right now Focus is the only means of distinguishing a Combat Technique clearly from other Techniques that can be used in combat. There are Pre-Eminences and Vices that require this distinction to be in place, notably the Envy Pre-Eminence/Vice.

cenobyte wrote: as is Contention. All Techniques will require a challenge (compare your Prowess and roll a die) to use.

Does this then mean that those Comparable Techniques now require an action just like the compelling Techniques that require rolls? Why or why not?

What of those Techniques that have a Comparable contest because of what seem to be ways of balancing certain effects of the technique i.e. Ravage where you must attack friend and foe alike but only have to make a comparable and instantaneous challenge to use the power.

cenobyte wrote: You may still spend a Devotion to lower that contention to "Compare".

I don't think this has ever been a use of Devotion.

cenobyte wrote:There may still be some changes to Duration (making it simply 0 Actions, 1 Action, or 3 Actions for the Technique to be deployed, rather than "Slow, Instantaneous", etc..),

I suppose you mean Execution and not Duration?

If so, does this mean every Technique becomes a combat technique? What happens if someone interrupts you part way through? Will the level of the technique lower the time it takes?

cenobyte wrote: and there may be some changes to Manifestation, but these are still in discussion (the discussion is whether to remove "Recognisable" and just have Manifestation be binary: "Conspicuous/Inconspicuous". I rather like "Recognisable", and think if *other* aspects of Techniques are simplified, this could stay. Thoughts?

Don't change Manifestation at all. Simply add or delete sections in order to make very clear what the actual rules are.

--------

My point here is that the changes of this degree have impacts in more ways that one would anticipate on the game. Removing Infected Trauma would drastically change the effects of how many of the Techniques are balanced, perhaps even more disruptive than the changes proposed for Focus, Contention, Execution and Manifestation. A change of this magnitude is best saved for another edition not for play soon before publication.

Good points, Johnathan.
I can only say that Focus is already gone (I just only found out about it today). It was a change I asked about (which is to say, I asked if there was a way to pare down the five variables on twenty-four Techniques).

Techniques are identified as Combat Techniques in their description; this distinction is made clear, which also addresses the Preeminence/Vice question.

Yes, it would mean that Techniques that currently have a Comparable Contention now would require a Challenge. Why? Primarily to simplify the process. I'm not sure how many Techniques used their Contention as a form of balance; in fact, this has never come up in our discussions (Trent and I) about why things are the way they are. I would say that a minor change of going to a die roll rather than making a raw comparison makes very little difference, particularly if you have the option of changing that Contention to Comparable by spending a Devotion. In fact, it sounds *more* balancing to me, but others may disagree.

It may have been a use of Cinematic Points in the past, however, I'd mentioned that Cinematic Points will *only* be used for things like Transgressions and scene editing, and not for altering Techniques, which will be done by using Devotion instead.

Yes, I meant Execution.

No, that does not mean that every Technique becomes a combat Technique. It means that Techniques that currently have "slow action" listed take *at least* three "actions" for full deployment; Techniques that have "action" listed take one Action for full deployment, and Techniques that are listed as instantaneous require 0 Actions for full deployment. In other words, nothing is changing except making the terminology more concrete. What happens now if someone interrupts you part way through? I'd rule that in many cases, you'd have to start over again, depending on the situation and the Technique involved.

Add or delete sections of what to make it very clear what the actual rules are?

And I should be clear: "Focus" was only really ever used as a descriptor. It makes more sense to me to include that information in the description of the Technique itself rather than having a separate column for it, and a separate section to explain what it means. It makes more sense to say "Smite is a combat Technique that allows the user to...."

cenobyte wrote:
No, that does not mean that every Technique becomes a combat Technique. It means that Techniques that currently have "slow action" listed take *at least* three "actions" for full deployment; Techniques that have "action" listed take one Action for full deployment, and Techniques that are listed as instantaneous require 0 Actions for full deployment. In other words, nothing is changing except making the terminology more concrete. What happens now if someone interrupts you part way through? I'd rule that in many cases, you'd have to start over again, depending on the situation and the Technique involved.

Add or delete sections of what to make it very clear what the actual rules are?

If I'm reading you right though, then every Technique will be usable in combat just longer to fire off, which would be a change, a big one from what has gone on before.

I was referencing that certain sections of the book just need to be rewritten for clarity, and as mentioned in the other thread, edited for contradiction.

The change to Devotion, if it will still do what it does now, will make it somewhat unbalanced, in my never-so-humble opinion. But if that's the way Trent wants to go, that's the way he'll go.

Making Cinematic Points only usable for editing (ie. as listed in the Editing part of the Cinematic Points section, which may not be the case but I'm not assuming anything new at this point) and activation for Transgressions will seriously undermine any desire to have Vices. Vices I feel help characterization and story and so this would be a serious impediment to the system as a whole, especially from a setting/feel perspective.

No, you're not reading me right.
Techniques that are currently classed under "Focus" as Combat, will be defined in their writeups as Combat Techniques, and only those with that description will be useable in combat.

Many sections of the book need to be revised for clarity. Do you have specific suggestions? I've found that sometimes it's difficult to find all the sections that need clarification.

Would you please elaborate on your objections to using Devotion for modifications of Techniques and for getting Advantages? It seems to me to be streamlining things. You can still use CPs for things like Transgressions and editing; the only change is that instead of using CPs to modify the use of Techniques, you'll use Devotion. I don't see how removing CPs from combat will dissuade people from taking Vices. I think most people take Vices for flavour, not for the CPs. But I could be wrong on that.

Even if I'm not, though, the only change to CPs is that they won't be used to modify Techniques, and they won't be usable in combat. The other applications, such as editing, will most likely still be available.

Devotion is already really, really good, Jill. I think Jon is commenting from a power-balance perspective, and I happen to agree with him..

I know that I would have been inclined not to take quite as many Vices as I ended up with if CPs could not be used in combat or to make Contentions Comparable. I mean, I like the flavour, but I also like the goodies.

Well, I'm just not sure I understand; there aren't a whole lot of changes being suggested; just a simplification (with the exception of not using CPs in combat). I don't understand how these suggested changes would have any effect on power balances at all.

cenobyte wrote:No, you're not reading me right.
Techniques that are currently classed under "Focus" as Combat, will be defined in their writeups as Combat Techniques, and only those with that description will be useable in combat.

What is the point then of determining whether something takes longer than one action? Non-combat time is not measured in rounds and if these can't be used in combat why is Slow Action any less descriptive or harder than 3 rounds of combat?

cenobyte wrote:Many sections of the book need to be revised for clarity. Do you have specific suggestions? I've found that sometimes it's difficult to find all the sections that need clarification.

Not knowing what has already been changed, I cannot address this question. The one suggestion I have is that all the rules for a particular thing should appear in one heading and then consistently re-iterated as needed in the different sections. ie. Devotion does x,y,z,a,b,c...then in the combat section the Devotion section references y and z, character creation section references a,c, etc., etc. The biggest beef I have with book is that it is difficult to determine whether all the uses of a particular thing (including Trauma) are accounted for in the section or if there is some other rule that it affects elsewhere in the book.

cenobyte wrote:Would you please elaborate on your objections to using Devotion for modifications of Techniques and for getting Advantages?

Because in addition to providing Advantages (a very large benefit given caps on Dynamic and Reactive stats), Devotion also affects how many Affections you can have, how long you can prolong a technique, it allows you to resist techniques instead of taking Trauma. Allowing it a further use to affect how Techniques work will seriously affect balance.

cenobyte wrote:It seems to me to be streamlining things. You can still use CPs for things like Transgressions and editing; the only change is that instead of using CPs to modify the use of Techniques, you'll use Devotion. I don't see how removing CPs from combat will dissuade people from taking Vices. I think most people take Vices for flavour, not for the CPs. But I could be wrong on that.

Removing what CPs can affect and transferring it to Devotion isn't just "streamlining" it's changing the WHY someone should take one over the other. Many of the vices include additional and very common instances in which a person must take or test for Trauma. I'm sure you all know by now my stance on how much that affects and should affect a character. If the character does not receive the same ability to occasionally affect the environment there is no balance to taking any vices at all. Given how often something is important enough to "edit" has of occurring and the frequency of how often a Vice comes up, a ratio of at least 1:3 if not larger; I think there is no real reason a player should be excited about taking a Vice except as a Necessary Evil of wanting a Transgression.

Trent wanted Transgressions to be common in the game, he would be removing much of the desire for a player to be taking them when loaded down with a vice that only allows them a minor effect on environment while forcing a huge effect on their character. In terms of a game, I think the characters should be able to have a reasonably comparable effect on the story compared to the effect the setting gives to them. Trent didn't want flaws that gave points, he wanted them to give players a chance to significantly effect story. I find his use of the words "spotlight is on the character" quite telling in this regard. But these are just my opinions on how the game should be balanced based on my observations of the system.

cenobyte wrote:Even if I'm not, though, the only change to CPs is that they won't be used to modify Techniques, and they won't be usable in combat. The other applications, such as editing, will most likely still be available.

When you remove an ability from one stat in a game (CPs) and give it to another stat (Devotion) you have to consider the effects it has on the players and their choices for doing things in the game. What is on a player's character sheet defines the reality of things in the game. If you don't have the Pacifist Pre-eminence on your character sheet, you can say you're a Pacifist but that would be like saying that I'm a "lesbian in a man's body" because I like to have sex with women. It's a transient illusion unless your Pacifism has an effect on the mechanics. I don't think transient illusions are very helpful or story affecting in any dramatic setting.

~Because you asked for it,

Johnathan

Reason for editing - pure awesome doesn't translate into English comparatives well.

cenobyte wrote:...the only change to CPs is that they won't be used to modify Techniques, and they won't be usable in combat. The other applications, such as editing, will most likely still be available.

Again, I would like to point out that this eliminates many "editing" and "burning" options given as examples which clearly have a combat effect, such as spending a CP to survive death, and also would disallow the activation of any transgressions in said circumstances.

Alan wrote:Again, I would like to point out that this eliminates many
"editing" and "burning" options given as examples which clearly have a
combat effect, such as spending a CP to survive death, and also would
disallow the activation of any transgressions in said circumstances.

Having a combat effect is not the same as using in combat. Using in combat goes back to the discussion of warfare challenges and activating Techniques other than combat-specific Techniques in combat. Burning a CP to avoid death/survive a killing blow would still be permissible. It's even possible that spending a CP to block the use of Transgressions might be okay.

Also: For EFF'S sake. I had a reply to Johnathan crafted, and in posting it, the Intarwebs broke. I'll see if I can recapture the gist of it.

Johnathan wrote:What is the point then of determining whether something takes
longer than one action? Non-combat time is not measured in rounds and
if these can't be used in combat why is Slow Action any less
descriptive or harder than 3 rounds of combat?

I believe the intent is to provide a concrete, measurable time frame for those who require/prefer that sort of information. A "round" is considered X amount of time, and if this Technique takes 3 Rounds, it is immediately clear that it cannot be done in Z time frame.

Johnathan wrote:Not knowing what has already been changed, I cannot address this
question. The one suggestion I have is that all the rules for a
particular thing should appear in one heading and then consistently
re-iterated as needed in the different sections. ie. Devotion does
x,y,z,a,b,c...then in the combat section the Devotion section
references y and z, character creation section references a,c, etc.,
etc. The biggest beef I have with book is that it is difficult to
determine whether all the uses of a particular thing (including Trauma)
are accounted for in the section or if there is some other rule that it
affects elsewhere in the book.

Thank you. I concur completely, and this is among my top three goals.

Johnathan wrote:Because in addition to providing Advantages (a very large benefit
given caps on Dynamic and Reactive stats), Devotion also affects how
many Affections you can have, how long you can prolong a technique, it
allows you to resist techniques instead of taking Trauma. Allowing it a further use to affect how Techniques work will seriously affect balance.

How is providing an Advantage a very large benefit, considering the caps on Dynamic and Reactive stats are the same regardless of whether you use a Devotion or not? You can only have 9 in any one Dynamic or Reactive stat, and you can only *raise* it to 9 using Devotion.

Given that Devotion = Willpower, and the suggested uses for Devotion all seem to have to do with exerting your will (either upon another person, upon yourself, or upon the Symphony), and considering the relationship Will has to the Fallen in general, it makes sense *to me* to have all Technique applications be 'fuelled' by Devotion, and save Cinematic Points for the really *cool* stuff (including editing, burning, etc.).

Your points are good ones, and ones I'm not sure have come up in the discussions of rules changes before.