Mailer33 wrote:No one is cramming anyone's concerns into any box--you're just way over thinking it.
Now that's more like it.
Mailer33 wrote:1. Hitting the heroes emotion track somehow isn't "heroic" enough because the hero is motivated by avoiding emotional damage instead of just doing it out of the goodness of thief hearts.
Answer: The players are doing it because they are heroic--damage on stress track represents just how much the heroes give a damn. Yes, the players are trying to avoid emotional damage, but the characters are doing it because they care. You are fixating on a tiny mechanical term and simply over thinking it. It will seem quite heroic during game when the heroes are busting ass to save civilians, and they will feel the heat as the emotion track fills up.
This one is a matter of preference. I own mine. The blog links (to me and Malcolm Sheppard) explain why my preferences are what they are. People can disagree, and that's cool. But it's not something I'm wrong
about, any more than the people who are cool with treating civilian harm as a hero's emotional stress are wrong. It's also not a question of "narrative" or "not narrative." It's a thing I want to accomodate within the conventions of the game, and that I think can
be accomodated. Not for your group - unless you decide to; for mine.
Mailer33 wrote:2. You want more "tactical choice". To be represented.
Answer: That is all fine and good, but the system is already loaded with THREE layers of tactical choice--dice pool tactics and narrative tactics, and the management of assets, complications and scene distinctions. These used properly can more than adequately simulate the collateral damage, endangered civilians and tough choices already--no real need to add a 4th mechanic.
Indeed! But let's be clear what I meant by tactical choice. In that bullet, I was wearing my Watcher hat. What I want is a thing to throw at players, that threatens mayhem and collateral damage, that does not take up my major villain's action for the turn and does
take up the action of some number of players. Coming up with such a thing does not mean reinventing the game entire! It just means figuring out what suite of character types and options - doom pool; doom dice triggering events; scene distinctions; FIVE DIFFERENT character types; FIVE DIFFERENT effect types - brings the most satisfying gameplay in re keeping civilians from getting themselves kilt.
Mailer33 wrote:3. You are concerned that a scene distinction just doesn't have enough oomph, and that hulk wouldn't even need to use it because he can just use his own distinctions.
Actually that was Bill.
(I'm agnostic about incorporating scene distinctions somehow.)
Mailer33 wrote:Answer: This leads me to believe you don't entirely understand distinctions. You use it for the following reasons--A: scene distinctions brings the civilians into focus, rather than just being part of description. B: When Hulk uses the endangered civilian distinction rather than just plain old Hulk Smash distinction, the dice might be the same, but again, it draws more attention to the fact that civvies ARE IN BIG DANGER. And encourages the players response to narrate around helping them. C: scene distinction is there to provide more options for narration and the plot point game. D: Scene distinction can be removed by players, thus "saving" civilians. E: all the other things scene distinctions do regardless of the context.
Now we're getting a little off track again. Also, if you're concerned about what people don't understand, do please note that Bill has repeatedly stated that he's not talking about the Hulk attacking
I do like the reminder that under certain circumstances players can remove a scene distinction. There's some usefulness there.
But lemme ask you, under your method, if Hulk makes a successful attack on a hero using "Civilians in Danger," does this mean some number of civilians are dead? Injured? How many? Who gets to say?
Mailer33 wrote:Like it or not, Jim, this IS a narrative game, but maybe you are misunderstanding what That means.
Again, please stop this.
Mailer33 wrote:It means the game doesn't try to invent a new mechanic to simulate every odd situation that will come up. Instead--it gives you a VERY flexible SINGLE mechanic that can handle ANY game situation, including endangered civilians.
The fact that it is indeed VERY flexible means that it's not at all as simple as your statement seems to imply. And it is positively bizarre
* this is a fan community where our default response to any question of the form, "But how do I do this?
" is "Why, you could do that
any of these six ways!" and follow that up with "Your table, your rules."
* but somehow, on this topic right here, I'm supposed to agree that there's exactly one appropriate way to do it, and my table can darn well get with the program.
Does. Not. Compute.