P153 (Downtime Activities): “You can only attempt actions that you’re in a position to accomplish.

P153 (Downtime Activities): “You can only attempt actions that you’re in a position to accomplish.

P153 (Downtime Activities): “You can only attempt actions that you’re in a position to accomplish. If an activity is contingent on another action, resolve that action first.”

My current set of players keep an eye on their heat tracker and wanted levels, frequently wanting to reduce heat and take dangerous actions to finish projects, train, etc. The characters are often in a position (often, a risky one) to reduce heat in one way or another (which I take to mean being “contingent on another action”). Hence, I read this to be saying Resolve the action to deal with the danger first to get them into position to safely take the DTA, and the reduce heat DTA instructions to then be adding to make a downtime activity roll using an action rating (not an action roll) to determine how much heat is reduced.

Problem is: these are going to be the same action roll, and it feels weird to do that (the first result, for the action roll to get into position, could be a Critical, then the second one to determine the DTA result could be a 1-3, reducing only 1 heat). The alternative seems to be to have them be one roll, but then this directly opposes the instructions in the quoted text. This leads me to wonder: am I reading too deeply into the directions in the quoted lines, thereby placing unnecessary layers of complexity between the PCs and their goals in downtime? Maybe I am missing something? Something else?

In free play, what would you say when a player is trying to angle for a Sway roll to impersonate an NPC to get 1…

In free play, what would you say when a player is trying to angle for a Sway roll to impersonate an NPC to get 1…

In free play, what would you say when a player is trying to angle for a Sway roll to impersonate an NPC to get 1 coin from another NPC? Then, after finding out it is desperate, they note their fine disguise kit (removing tier as a factor, since it was one), and ability for Master of Disguise ability for +1 effect level, arguing that should be 3 coin on the line, not 1?

It’s not an operation. Can they even do this? Seems “weasel-y” at best to sidestep a score to gain coin – especially when the game gives several methods built for getting stuff permanently (LTPs, upgrades), getting stuff temporarily (acquire asset) or conning your way to a few silver pieces – all of which tend to require action rolls as well as other expenses. At worst, it seems “bad GMing” of me to allow a single action roll for 3 coin when the last score netted 4 coin and required a series of actions.

So I guess it’s off to Discord, eh! What with the recent announcement about G+ and all..

So I guess it’s off to Discord, eh! What with the recent announcement about G+ and all..

So I guess it’s off to Discord, eh! What with the recent announcement about G+ and all..

[PS: not that serious of a suggestion]

Huh. When did that happen? Must’ve been 8.1 or 8.2, because I remember it being 8 ticks before..

Huh. When did that happen? Must’ve been 8.1 or 8.2, because I remember it being 8 ticks before..

Huh. When did that happen? Must’ve been 8.1 or 8.2, because I remember it being 8 ticks before..

That was me just now realizing that the blank crew sheet in the v8_2 pdf has 8 XP ticks, while the other crew sheets have 10 XP ticks. I presume the one with 8 is the error (and so are all the crew XP trackers on my digital crew sheets lol).

How would you handle a PC who wants to acquire an asset during free play?

How would you handle a PC who wants to acquire an asset during free play?

How would you handle a PC who wants to acquire an asset during free play? To clarify why I am asking, despite the fact there is a downtime action designed to do this: “By default, the game is in free play. The characters talk to each other, they go places, they do things, they make rolls as needed.” [p.8]

This is actions during downtime which includes: Character Scenes, Actions & Consequences, Gather Information.

Disallowing came to mind, but felt a bit restrictive. So I have been assuming risks of:

* you upset them; lose this opportunity until the next downtime phase – but you could spend a downtime activity to acquire as usual

* you owe them a favor which will create an entanglement if you didn’t repay them from your payoff

but I am interested in opinions about these two I chose, and other ideas..

so it occurred to me that Blades in the Dark + Urban Shadows might be a lot of fun.

so it occurred to me that Blades in the Dark + Urban Shadows might be a lot of fun.

so it occurred to me that Blades in the Dark + Urban Shadows might be a lot of fun. “Web of Darkness” / “Citadel of Shadows” perhaps.

Idea is you pick a World of Darkness splat just like you would in Urban Shadows, but these are each naturally aligned with certain kinds of supernatural factions, which is the other angle advancement to pursue (and getting faction rep earns PCs who got, access to crew abilities):

* Mortal faction playbooks: HunterPsychic

* Night playbooks: VampireWerewolfSpirit

* Wild playbooks: DemonFae

* Power playbooks: MageOracle

[later I’ll work on indy/hard mode playbooks to spice it up] Mummy & Genius. IE: Mummy earns rep for their forgotten god cult. And Genius is like a (mad?) scientist, earns rep for their colleagues in some weird/high-science.

Claims for turf would be things like the location based merit stuff: locus, cursed ground, desmenses etc located in the contested portions of the city.

Would definitely try out Trust Issues option with this one.

Ex: the hunter or psychic earned +1 status with the Humanity faction (the Vigil & Gifted), so both of them earned a Patron. But the vampires would have to figure out their own way to get their crew stuff by serving the Night (probably led by elder vampires, tangible spirits, and werewolf tribe leaders)

I wrote out some playbooks in a spreadsheet. But if people are actually into this, I would write up some more complete rules to make it all woI .

Depths of Terra is a hack of Blades that I want to be about explorers of an ailing world I created.

Depths of Terra is a hack of Blades that I want to be about explorers of an ailing world I created.

Depths of Terra is a hack of Blades that I want to be about explorers of an ailing world I created. It’s still in progress in other words, and I will be writing it for you. It’s also a planetary romance riddled with misunderstood, ancient technology that is protected by a deadly weather phenomena in the lower elevations (the “graveyard” of the Old World) and outlawed by superstition and religious dogma. It is also about being a group of free agents building a legacy despite a corrupt system (or by participating in it). Inspired by works such as Nausicaa, Empire of the Petal Throne, and Skyheart.

First off: Does this sound exciting? boring? something else?

I have a couple scenarios in mind for introducing this world, but they each seem speak to very different games. One is set in a low-lying area among the poor people, and I pit two settlement leaders against one another to offer a campaign what its like to be part of a rebellion (or quelling one). This, to set up alliances for later stories of adventure. Another is about a reality-shredding superstorm looming on the horizon, and conflicting plans to understand/prevent it, and another to “batten down the hatches”; campaign would mostly be about visiting locations of interest and uncovering clues and tools to help with either plan.

If you want, also give me some input: Discuss the merits of each to help me decide which one will offer a good balance of possibilities to thematic focus.

Does anyone else find it bothersome that a heavy load can carry heavy armor (5 load), plus just 1 other load?

Does anyone else find it bothersome that a heavy load can carry heavy armor (5 load), plus just 1 other load?

Does anyone else find it bothersome that a heavy load can carry heavy armor (5 load), plus just 1 other load? I think its fine in theory, but what actually happens is my players need 1 armor (2 load) and then a couple other things, then they can’t mark the load for the heavy armor because its 3 more.. to do so would overencumber them

Is the Spider’s fine cover identity meant to be defined each time it is marked?

Is the Spider’s fine cover identity meant to be defined each time it is marked?

Is the Spider’s fine cover identity meant to be defined each time it is marked? (As opposed to one identity defined upon first time it’s marked)

Just confirming my understanding of engagement rolls and the initial position.

Just confirming my understanding of engagement rolls and the initial position.

Just confirming my understanding of engagement rolls and the initial position. So let’s say the crew rolls a 4-5 on the engagement. First thing: That sets the initial position for a standard effect related to the first obstacle in the score at Risky if I understand correctly. Right?

Also, my question is about the Discussion at that point. As usual, the player(s) can then ask for more effect, to make it Desperate- right? Or even a little less effect, to make it Controlled- right? Or is the engagement special, and effect and position set once those dice roll, and adjusted positions not up for discussion?