Agamemnon wrote:One of the things we learned in running Band of Bastards for a while was that the way the complications system was implemented it became a bit of a slog to GM. specifically, the requirements around "major complications" and "minor complications" became difficult to structure into the scene on the fly. The complications mechanic in this edition got a bit more structured, but also significantly easier to use in play. The trouble, of course, is that without the major/minor structure, Yes, But... is redundant. You already get a complication for failure, and you can already escalate in most situations anyway.
In all honesty, I'm a little confused now.
RAW Failure in itself carries a Complication.
If the Major/Minor Complication structure is axed, making "Yes, But..."
redundant, doesn't that make the MoF table redundant as well?
I ask because the Margin of Success/Failure Table is exactly the same as in Bastards, sans the mention of Major/Minor/Compromise. If MoF1 means that "The character fails at their desired goal and introduces a complication for their troubles"
, what is the measurable difference between that and a MoF3 where "Something goes terribly wrong"
if there is no Major/Minor Complication?
You could Resort to Violence in Bastards too. Which means the Complication for failing stayed, and even if you do succeed when escalating, you also introduce more Complications.
The idea with "Yes, But..."
is that you already failed at the task, still you don't want to escalate, either because you'll fail again or you can't escalate, correct? The choice to count the task as successful but then "something going terribly wrong"
(Major Complication) is a wonderful story promoter. At least for me.
In truth the whole Major Complication/Minor Complication/Compromise, Failure, All Sales are Final, Resort to Violence, and Tie Favors Aggressor structure and the way each piece interacts with the rest is one of the best concepts I've encountered in a game for ages.
Agamemnon wrote:I think it would wind up taking significantly longer to make a character that way, though.
If we are talking about a character with lotsa Karma, then yes. Still I believe not that long as to cripple game flow.
Agamemnon wrote:As an amusing side effect, such a character will then almost always been objectively better than the character that died in terms of mechanical capability. Where the original character might have spent 75% of their points on advancement and the remaining 25% on effects, temptations, etc, the new character will always spend 100% of that karma on advancement.
True. That's why I suggested to either cut down Karma to 50% or enforce caps on what you buy with Karma based on Priorities. Or even both. Still I think that 50% Karma to be used as Drive for advancement is the easiest method to tackle and the most fair solution to everyone involved.EDIT: Bear with me, this is going to be a bit on the longish side, and maybe a bit confusing too.
To get +1 Priority from Karma you must get anywhere between 25 and 49.
The actual benefits per Tier when raising by 1.
- T1 +1 Karma = +2 Atr points
- T2 +1 Karma = +2 Atr points
- T3 +1 Karma = +2 Atr points
- T4 +1 Karma = +3 Atr points; Cap 10
- T1 +1 Karma = +5 Points
- T2 +1 Karma = +5 Points
- T3 +1 Karma = +5 Points
- T4 +1 Karma = +10 Points; Cap 10
- T1 +1 Karma = +6 Points
- T2 +1 Karma = +6 Points; Cap 7
- T3 +1 Karma = +6 Points; Cap 9
- T4 +1 Karma = +10 Points; Cap 11
How do these points translate if you bought said Karma increases through play?
Assuming average spread for Attributes:
- Tier 1 (15pts) = A3 B3 C3 P3 W3
- Tier 2 (17pts) = A4 B4 C3 P3 W3 = 16 Drive
- Tier 3 (19pts) = A4 B4 C4 P4 W3 = 16 Drive
- Tier 4 (21pts) = A5 B4 C4 P4 W4 = 18 Drive
- Tier 5 (24pts) = A5 B5 C5 P5 W4 = 30 Drive
Assuming average spread on 5 Skills:
- Tier 1 (20pts) = 5 Skills @ 4
- Tier 2 (25pts) = 5 Skills @ 5 = 25 Drive
- Tier 3 (30pts) = 5 Skills @ 6 = 30 Drive
- Tier 4 (35pts) = 5 Skills @ 7 = 35 Drive
- Tier 5 (45pts) = 1 Skill @ 10; 4 Skill @ 8; 1 Skill @ 3 = 61 Drive
Assuming average spread on Melee/Ranged to reach cap
*takes into account the Tap3 discount for 2nd Melee and 2nd Ranged respectively
- Tier 1 (0pts)
- Tier 2 (6pts) = 1st Melee3; 1st Ranged3 = 20 Drive
- Tier 3 (12pts) = 1st Melee6; 1st Ranged6 = 30 Drive
- Tier 4 (18pts) = 1st Melee9; 1st Ranged9 = 48 Drive
- Tier 5 (28pts) = 1st Melee11; 1st Ranged11; 2nd Melee3; 2nd Ranged3 = 58 Drive*
I might be wrong and over-analyzing things. Still I conclude that a Tier Increase from 4 to 5 for Skill and Proficiency through Karma could equal an amount of Drive points that would get you into the +2 Priority Bonus range.
It's also worth noting that a character who had 25 Karma at the point of death would gain an equivalent of:
- +5 Drive points if he took Attributes from 4 to 5.
- +36 Drive points if he took Skills from 4 to 5.
- +33 Drive points if he took Proficiencies from 4 to 5.
If he had 49 Karma at the point of death his bonuses would be the equivalent of:
- -19 Drive if he took Attributes 4 to 5. (actually a "penalty")
- +12 Drive if he took Skills from 4 to 5.
- +9 Drive if he took Proficiency 4 to 5.
With the proposed tweak (use 50% Karma)
- the 25 Karma guy would have 12 pseudo drive to increase Abilities after Character creation
- the 49 Karma guy would have 24 pseudo drive to increase Abilities after Character creation
As shown very roughly below. X represents Karma and Y represents bonus.
I won't argue that it doesn't take more time - it does. Still I believe its a better and more fair solution not only for the dead guy, but for his teammates too. Isn't it kinda unfair for the rest of the team when someone that dies at 25 Karma to get a boost in Skill or Proficiency equal to 30ish Drive points on top of what he spent?