Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
General Discussion / Re: "Margins and Dividends" Supplement Thread.
« Last post by Freebird on September 05, 2019, 07:34:01 PM »
Cool stuff so far, LordSky! It's funny, how several people all seem to have had the idea for upgrades that increase Upkeep cost at around the same time. :)
92
General Discussion / Re: "Margins and Dividends" Supplement Thread.
« Last post by LordSkys on September 04, 2019, 11:42:35 PM »
Alrighty guys, I am looking into a few logistical things with the CC right now. Until that is figured out, I am looking at Sunday evening (Eastern Daylight Time) to be the next release of a PTD!

Sorry for the wait, but we should finally be up and running again!
If everything gets sorted a more full PTD will be released, otherwise it will have to wait.
Here is a (tentative) overview of items.

Tentative V1.2
Tough Spots
Mechanical Spots: 3 (All Revised)
Setting Spots: 1 (New)
Gear
New Qualities: 2 (2 New)
New Upgrades: 1 (1 New)
Advanced Technology: 8 (6 New, 2 Revised)
Accessories and Kits: 1 (New)
Alternative Retirements
Base of Operations Building Rules: 18 (All new)
Alternative Rules
Bust Rules: 2 (1 New, 1 Revised)

Slight problems with some mechanics have caused a delay in the release of the PTD. Luckily, it is here!

I do want to apologize for the briefness of it all, but I believe that all of the mechanics presented within are sturdy and public ready. Rest assured that V1.3 will hold all of the fixed up mechanics that are missing from the current PTD.

As I continue to create these PTDs i learn more and more about writing, and modify my writing styles.

Anyways, here is what we are looking at:

Play Test Document V1.2
Tough Spots
Quick Spots: 1 (New)
Setting Spots: 1 (New)
Gear
New Qualities: 4 (3 New, 1 Revisited)
New Upgrades: 4 (4 New)
Advanced Technology: 6 (4 New, 2 Revisited)
Accessories and Kits: 5 (5 New)
Healthcare and Drugs: 3 (3 New)
Alternative Rules
Bust Rules: 1 (1 new)

Margins and Dividends Play Test Document V1.2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XtR-tDMTnaUc_2l2LTm9fgT17uHKcU6ypi7XnZIvwBI/edit?usp=sharing
93
General Discussion / Re: Queries on Negotiations
« Last post by LordSkys on September 03, 2019, 09:18:09 PM »
+1 bounty to Freebird for explaining what I couldn't
94
General Discussion / Re: Queries on Negotiations
« Last post by Freebird on September 03, 2019, 07:26:45 PM »
1) So if black is on At Value and red is on 100% Mark-Up, and black gets 1 sway while red gets 2, then red would move down to Labor and black would stay on At Value, thus negating black's 1 sway, right?

2) Ohhhh, yeah that would make more sense. Where RAW says the client can "sacrifice a turn to learn one spot" I didn't see what could be sacrificed except the auto-sway. So a client can sacrifice the ability to play a spot he already has in order to learn an extra one, which doesn't help him out at all in the current negotiation (because you can only play one spot per round) but in the next negotiation, assuming there is one, he'll have a ready-to-use spot against the main negotiator. Right?

3) So the anti-spot Intimidation option is the equivalent for the Taker. It costs them a sway in the current negotiation but so long as there are at least two more rounds then it could prevent the client from gaining a bonus sway and also prevent the client from gaining an advantage in future negotiations. Yes?

I really don't get the notion of 'it is the extra sway that actually move the dice'. If you prevent an extra sway but it cost you a sway to do it, that's zero gain isn't it? Same result as gaining 1 sway and letting them have their extra sway.

4) Nope, sorry I still don't get it. It all seems like gain a sway now or gain it later with no ultimate difference unless the negotiations time out (so always go for the early sway) or the same-space rule (depending on the interpretation) cancels a sway one side but not the other.

5) There's no cost of opportunity in the negotiating taker using a spot. Without a spot he gets 0 or 1 sway and with a spot he gets 1 or 2. Time isn't an issue (if you're running a scam then there must be a next round) so the only difference is whether the bonus sway will be lost because of the same-space rule.

I might just have to hope my players don't analyse the crap out of it like I do with every system!

Good questions! I'll do my best to answer them, speking of my own experience with the game, not in any official capacity.

1. There are two spaces between them, and this situation is not explicitly described in the rules. The way I would do it: First the Red uses 1 Sway to move down to Hazard Pay, and then the remaining 1 Red Sway negates the 1 Black Sway. So Black would stay at At Value, and the Red would move down to Hazard Pay.

2. Yes, there are potentially long-term benefits to gaining Spots. It can be a little hard to keep track of these things, so I don't think we've ever really used that in my groups. Normally, the automatic 1 Sway is what the Client loses by choosing to gain a Spot on the Takers' negotiator. It's true that they could just push 1 every round and never change, but that would be a little boring. Having different choices available to the Client varies up the roleplaying, even if they're mechanically equivalent. And if the Taker fails some die rolls, dramatic swings in negotiation can be really exciting.

3. I think you might have misunderstood the rule here. The Taker doesn't give up their chance at gaining Sway by trying to negate the Client's use of a spot. So for example, if I'm the Taker and we're heads up, if the Client uses a spot on me, I make two rolls: a Self Control roll to try to negate their use of my spot, and then a CHA skill roll of my choice to try to gain my Sway for the round (which could be 1 or 2, if I'm also trying to use one of their spots in the same round). If I fail on both rolls, then they'll have 2 Sway and I'll have none. If I succeed on the first one and fail on the second, they'll still have 1 Sway to push me down.

It's "the extra sway that actually move the dice" in the sense that if both sides have the same amount of Sway, nobody moves from Heads Up. Both the Takers and the Client need to have more Sway than the other. If I fail my CHA check to gain my Sway, the Client will always push me downwith their automatic 1 (unless they're gaining a spot instead). I hope that makes sense.

4. It's true that it doesn't really matter when you get your Sway advantages, unless you're running out of rounds (or if you messed up your initial roll and don't know how many rounds you have!). It is in fact better to push as hard as you can as early as you can, instead of trying to save spots for later. Keep in mind that you don't have to choose between using a spot and protecting your own spots. You should always do both whenever you can.

5. As for other scams: it is possible to run out of spots before you run out of scams. If you have 5 rounds and 4 scammers, if everybody succeeds you will have more scams than spots. Generally speaking, it's true that gaining spots is the most valuable use of any scam, until you have them all.

Finally, I think the core thing to understand about Negotiations is that it's not meant to be a really deep, meticulously-designed strategy game. It's meant to prompt good roleplaying. Make sure your players understand this. That's why you can roll different CHA skills, even if there's no mechanical difference from doing so. It represents different types of approaches that you can roleplay differently. The same thing goes for different overall strategies that have basically the same mechanical outcome: you can use those choices to express your character's personality, not just to optimize the outcome.

I hope this helps!
95
Ubiq / Re: Casualty Jokes
« Last post by VB3 on August 26, 2019, 08:44:16 PM »
Yankee Meek went to town
Riding on a Dronkey
Stuck a needle in his arm
And created an Atrocity
96
General Discussion / Re: "Margins and Dividends" Supplement Thread.
« Last post by LordSkys on August 26, 2019, 08:18:20 PM »
Alrighty guys, I am looking into a few logistical things with the CC right now. Until that is figured out, I am looking at Sunday evening (Eastern Daylight Time) to be the next release of a PTD!

Sorry for the wait, but we should finally be up and running again!
If everything gets sorted a more full PTD will be released, otherwise it will have to wait.
Here is a (tentative) overview of items.

Tentative V1.2
Tough Spots
Mechanical Spots: 3 (All Revised)
Setting Spots: 1 (New)
Gear
New Qualities: 2 (2 New)
New Upgrades: 1 (1 New)
Advanced Technology: 8 (6 New, 2 Revised)
Accessories and Kits: 1 (New)
Alternative Retirements
Base of Operations Building Rules: 18 (All new)
Alternative Rules
Bust Rules: 2 (1 New, 1 Revised)
97
Ubiq / Re: Casualty Jokes
« Last post by VB3 on August 25, 2019, 07:00:25 PM »
As a Moth I know the exact time and place of my death.

.......

The DHQS told me.
98
General Discussion / Re: "Margins and Dividends" Supplement Thread.
« Last post by LordSkys on August 23, 2019, 04:23:15 AM »
Okay, a few new items I added to the list. This is just a sneak peak without telling you all the mechanics behind them

Strider: boots with blade runners that enhance movement.
Roller Skates: They are what they say.
Aquatic Drone: A drone for under the great depths.
Quadruped Combat Artillery Drone: A heavily militarized land-based drone.
Treaded Drone: A small, all terrain assist drone.
99
General Discussion / Re: Queries on Starvation and Rations
« Last post by Dadalos on August 20, 2019, 11:58:59 PM »
If you 'burn' a charge it represents food something that you've already eaten, Avoiding the whole 'I'm eating power bars' in combat issue. If it has not been burned the charge is shareable because it represents food that has not yet been consumed. if you can share it then it can be stolen.

at least this is the logical conclusion me and my fellows have followed an so your mileage may vary, but it seems like the simplest rational that satisfys all points of the discussion.

Schrodinger's snacks
100
General Discussion / Re: Queries on Starvation and Rations
« Last post by Aerospider on August 20, 2019, 11:21:28 PM »
It's the starvation combining with loss of rations that I'm struggling with. The ration charges aren't literal energy bars, which is why you can use them in combat, so it doesn't seem to square with the notion of 0 rations = 0 food. If a taker burns all their ration charges on the first leg, am I meant to ignore the abstract side and tell the player he's already scoffed all the food he brought for the trip?

Other takers can share food (I can't see how to deny it narratively) so are ration charges shareable (and therefore essentially communal)?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]