So, this came up the other evening; when a character gets Trauma, they clear all stress, and drop out of the score, to show up later.
With the new vice rules though, if they come back in time for downtime actions, if the don’t indulge their vice (which would automatically be an overindulgence), they immediately get stress. This seems like adding insult to injury, since they just got hit with trauma, and their choices, as written, seem to be:
Overindulge
Gain stress (at least two, depending on what trauma level this is)
Miss downtime actions entirety
Is this intended? Because it seems like a mean one-two punch.
Rules as written I’d probably say that #1 and #2 are the most likely. That being said, you’re well within your rights to make a different call as the GM. While I tend to agree with you that it’s a little on the harsh side for a character who just received a trauma, fictionally it makes perfect sense. Going through a traumatic experience and then getting lost in your vice to the point of overindulgence is very believable.
Mark Griffin yeah, but it seems weird that trauma clears all your stress and then you are basically forced to get some back.
Mike Pureka Well, you aren’t forced since you can overindulge, but it does add insult to injury either way. From a fiction first standpoint I totally agree with those rules, but I probably still wouldn’t use them to avoid appearing to doubly punish a traumatized PC
.
Well, it’s not a one-two punch. Getting Trauma is a good thing. It clears all your stress and gives you greater opportunity to get xp. Mechanically, Trauma is a positive. Personally, I had not thought of that rule but now that I do think of it, I like it. If someone just experienced Trauma, I would definitely expect them to immediately bury themselves in their Vice to the point of overindulgence.
Dylan Durrant I disagree that trauma is a mechanical positive since a) you just missed out on a chunk of play, and any XP opportunities that were in there and b) it moves you closer to being mechanically forced to retire that character.
Mike Pureka Well, what you’ve actually just said there are two downsides to Trauma, just like I mentioned two upsides. Trauma is a mixed bag, but certainly not a bad thing. For example, I have never had a player get Trauma in the middle of a Score, they’ve always had it toward the end because Trauma is caused by Stress, which increases over the course of the Score.
Additionally, when a character gets Trauma, their other option was probably getting an injury that would essentially put them out of the fight anyway, so Trauma is the much superior option.
Finally, you’re never forced to retire your character by Trauma. Getting Trauma is a choice, taking Stress is a choice. Retiring your character is a choice. The game only includes one compulsory character elimination mechanic and that is suffering Severe Harm while already having Severe Harm.
No, my point is that you can’t look at trauma as a positive. And don’t make assumptions about why a character got trauma, either – anytime a character has more than 3 stress, it becomes a possibility on any resistance roll. And with the change to whether you are allowed to see how much stress resisting will actually cause, it’s easier than ever to roll badly and get caught up in it.
Also, no, you are absolutely forced to retire by trauma. Sure, technically you could choose to never resist anything, but if you get the trauma, you are forced to retire; that is not a choice. Page 7, “When you mark your fourth trauma condition, your character cannot continue as a daring scoundrel.” is pretty clear. This is not optional. And to assert that trauma is a choice but severe harm is not strikes me as a double standard. As you yourself point out, sometimes the choice is between one and the other.
Well, yes, you can’t be forced to retire by Trauma because Trauma is optional, that’s what I meant. With regard to Severe Harm, resisting harm can sometimes only reduce the degree of the harm. Therefore, if you were to suffer Fatal Harm when you had Severe Harm, yes, you would have no choice but to die.
But it sounds like we agree on everything, we’ve just come to different conclusions, and that’s alright.
This isn’t intentional. It’s a bit too mean as written. I’ll see about modifying it so there’s no extra punishment for taking trauma.
Here’s the change I just made:
When you suffer trauma, you’re taken out of action. You’re “left for dead” or otherwise dropped out of the current conflict, only to come back later, shaken and drained. When you return, you have zero stress and your vice has been satisfied for the next downtime (see Vice on page 19).
Cool, thanks for the clarification!