I’m curious why coin and hold gained from a successful score  are rolled as a single move/action

I’m curious why coin and hold gained from a successful score  are rolled as a single move/action

I’m curious why coin and hold gained from a successful score  are rolled as a single move/action

My other two recent questions about PC crew hold and NPC faction downtime actions circles back to the long thread by Duamn Figueroa (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DuamnFigueroa/posts/9NSHAivGdH1) about rewarding PCs for what they earn in terms of more chance for coin for particularly profitable scores.

These issues cause me to wonder if the coin + hold gained from development rolls are linked set values for design or balance reasons. Or, what if players could choose either to specifically pursue coin or hold at the expense of the other.

For instance, if we pull a score that was mainly intended to fill our coffers, why can’t we have a full success give us 4 coin and 0 hold (or 3 coin and 1 hold) rather than 2 coin and 2 hold? Meanwhile, at other times your crew may choose scores that are almost completely meant to solidify your hold (such as whenever you raise your tier and reset to 1 hold): why couldn’t the development roll grant extra hold in place of the coin you might also have earned?

While pg 5 of the QS (under “Gaining Hold”) says that 1 hold is generally worth 1 coin, it looks like the development roll assumes hold may be more valuable than coin, or else perhaps gaining more than 2 hold from a single successful score would let the PCs’ faction grow stable too quickly. While I expect asymmetry since PCs are cooler than NPCs, PCs could much more quickly grow their hold than NPC factions (elaborated in my NPC downtime action question on a separate thread).

Question part B) So then I wonder: Why are coin and hold linked in a single development roll (other than for simplicity, elegance)? I can see plenty of legitimate reasons why hold could be gained dependent on crew effects other than Resources. Sure Resources elegantly explains how much of our coin we retain after all our expenses etc, but why can’t we leverage our gangs or our morale help strengthen our hold? Even transport could work if you spend time establishing vigilant and well-supplied patrols of your turf or invest in smuggling fleets, or investing in a better lair could believably enhance hold.

Since getting 1 entanglement always happens no matter what, why not separate coin and hold gained into 2 similar but separate development moves,  perhaps called Profit (coin) and Development (hold)?

Question about NPC Faction Downtime Actions (pacing and targeting the PC crew)

Question about NPC Faction Downtime Actions (pacing and targeting the PC crew)

Question about NPC Faction Downtime Actions (pacing and targeting the PC crew)

Pg 20 of the QS says that for each downtime phase, NPC factions both advance their agenda clocks, and can do their own downtime action. What is the difference between planning an operation and executing it? By which I mean, do factions have to spend a downtime action to plan an operation first before they execute it? If so, then in order for Faction A to reduce Faction B’s hold by -1, they would need to invest 4 downtime actions: plan to make B vulnerable; execute operation; plan to reduce hold of that now-vulnerable B; execute operation. Am I reading that correctly?

Question Part b) Is there any reason NPC factions can’t execute operations similarly against the PC crew to reduce their hold or make them vulnerable? Does executing operations against the PC’s work differently? I would guess the PCs can and would resist and play out such operations, rather than just returning to their turf to see trouble has befallen them and thus their hold is reduced. With regard to the PC crew, the concept of “vulnerable” as used in the Faction Downtime action list is maybe too vague. If another faction has succeeded on an operation to make the PC crew vulnerable, what would it take in play to end that vulnerable condition? Does the answer to that question always depend solely on narrative context?

The following thread of questions by Chris Boyd raised the issue of the value of a downtime phase in terms of coin, but if NPC factions can pull off operations that easily reduce the PC crew’s hold, then each phase of downtime becomes much more valuable, and therefore spending hold for another downtime phase may be sufficient (but spending coin is still rather cheap): https://plus.google.com/u/0/114451952512667903737/posts/idLkBSdb2EA

I had 3 semi-connected questions about PCs’ hold, NPC faction downtime actions (pacing and targeting the PCs’ crew),…

I had 3 semi-connected questions about PCs’ hold, NPC faction downtime actions (pacing and targeting the PCs’ crew),…

I had 3 semi-connected questions about PCs’ hold, NPC faction downtime actions (pacing and targeting the PCs’ crew), and why development rolls combine profit and hold together, but I’ll divide them into separate threads for more clarity of discussion.

PC Crew Losing Hold

Other than occasionally on entanglements, and optionally to gain additional downtime phases, how else does the PC crew lose hold? Could losing hold result from a nasty Devil’s Bargain (the QS suggests stress or heat, but not hold)? Could the PC crew lose hold as a result of NPC faction downtime actions?

Its from Dishonoured, but given current events, I’ll be using these guys as the undertaker faction in our game.

Its from Dishonoured, but given current events, I’ll be using these guys as the undertaker faction in our game.

Its from Dishonoured, but given current events, I’ll be using these guys as the undertaker faction in our game.

http://th02.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2012/315/4/e/the_bitterleaf_crematorium_by_joelatlas-d5k0ojk.jpg

Hey John Harper, will there be any guidelines for playing ghosts in the rulebook?

Hey John Harper, will there be any guidelines for playing ghosts in the rulebook?

Hey John Harper, will there be any guidelines for playing ghosts in the rulebook?

I only ask, because in last night’s tumultuous game, Miss Vanessa the Whisper confronted the Master  in an attempt to sway the Red Sashes to the troupe’s chicanery. It all went horribly wrong and I offered Barbara (who was playing Vanessa) the danger of her grisly death at the hands of her nemesis (she has a project to trap the master’s spirit essence).

She rolled poorly on her effect save, had limited stress reserves and asked if she could become a ghost instead? I said sure! Because that sounds awesome, but she now has other issues, since she will be hunted by the spirit wardens, needs a vessel to house her soul, craves vengeance on the Master and has limited means of (physically) interacting with the world.

I’m sorta winging it. Any advice would be welcome!

Three questions from my first AP one-shot with 5 players: First: I ended up playing Blades more AW-style.

Three questions from my first AP one-shot with 5 players: First: I ended up playing Blades more AW-style.

Three questions from my first AP one-shot with 5 players: First: I ended up playing Blades more AW-style. Instead staying fixed on a “who’s on point”, as a GM, I’ve cut scenes and shifted spotlights quickly between characters (“ok, while A is dealing with the vault, a ghost seems to want to hug you, B, what do you do?”). Given the compressed one-shot framework, people enjoyed that. Still, what am I missing? What could I approach differently?

Second: As a GM, do you really lay out all obstacles (clocks) in the beginning of the mission openly (assuming they have researched thoroughly) or do you have “hidden clocks”? Do you go through them step-by-step or leave a couple ticks open for surprises later?

Third: In a devil’s bargain, how much stress is considered fair? It seemed people got away too easily with offering couple stress ticks.

Looking at making a “classless version” and the same problem popped out for me.

Looking at making a “classless version” and the same problem popped out for me.

Looking at making a “classless version” and the same problem popped out for me. You can already pick up the special abilities and items from other playbooks; I don’t think anything breaks with completely going with make-your-own-lists. Friends and advancement can’t be acquired, but similarly I think opening it up doesn’t wreck anything.

And then there’s the Cutter’s heavier loads. It’s the one completely mechanical edge that one playbook has and no one else can possibly get. I still think either it should become a regular special ability or a built-in perk with equal built-in perks for other playbooks. Or something. It bugs me that Cutters get this unique thing that no one else does.

And gear lists still have something leaving me scratching my head. Everyone has everything on their playbook’s item list, but they’re not going to carry everything. Fair enough! But let’s say the crew’s going up against ghosts. The Whisper has ways to deal with those, so he’s happy to hand his lightning-hook off to the Cutter. The Cutter eagerly distributes rage essence vials to everyone. (Or, if they’re limited, to the Slide, who intends to use it as poison.) The Lurk and the Hound trade spyglass and goggles. Everyone dumps gear on the Cutter to be their beat of burden.

I get the feeling this isn’t intended. Is it? What’s the justification for not having it happen? Some things could reasonably require training, but it seems like a spyglass or rage essence vial or a better weapon should be easily transferred from one character to another.