Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAh!  I hadn't considered the implications of the fact that the penalties for being either Heavily Injured or Dying applies to the recovery rolls.  Okay, so this deals with this issue quite nicely -- as a character becomes healthier, after succeeding at some distinctly difficult recovery rolls, the successive rolls become easier.

Got it.

!i!

It's probably something that i need to make more obvious. There are a few things in my 'working copy' of the game that need a lot of clarification in the next draft. As is, the document at the moment is my thoughts > onto the page.

I've just had a thought about possible problems that the game set-up can create. Just creating characters generates shit loads of problems and potential friends and enemies for the player characters. Some of the choices of affilialtions, rivalries and goals made by the players at the table could clash with each other a lot during play. I'm not aiming for a competitive game model to be the default - by all means go for that if you want to, but i don't want it hard-wired into the rules. So, for inter-party harmony during play, should the characters have an affiliation with each other? I'm sure that they won't use their Status on each other in most games and they can talk problems out without resorting to dice rolls anyhow, but i would like something more concrete to tie the characters together than good faith. Or am i barking up the wrong tree?

Quote from: One Horse TownI've just had a thought about possible problems that the game set-up can create. Just creating characters generates shit loads of problems and potential friends and enemies for the player characters. Some of the choices of affilialtions, rivalries and goals made by the players at the table could clash with each other a lot during play. I'm not aiming for a competitive game model to be the default - by all means go for that if you want to, but i don't want it hard-wired into the rules. So, for inter-party harmony during play, should the characters have an affiliation with each other? I'm sure that they won't use their Status on each other in most games and they can talk problems out without resorting to dice rolls anyhow, but i would like something more concrete to tie the characters together than good faith. Or am i barking up the wrong tree?

I'd make that a strongly recommended option, Dan, and discuss why it's important and the consequences of doing without. I say it should be  an option because some GMs may want an adversarial situation, while others may prefer their social contract to take precedence.

-clash

Maybe an option would be to have one or two things(affiliation, rivalry, or goal) determined for everyone instead of indiviudally.  It would reduce the total number of such things amongst the party and give them something to bind them together.  If they all hate Mr. Mortar, that might be what brought them together in the first place.

Quote from: flyingmiceI'd make that a strongly recommended option, Dan, and discuss why it's important and the consequences of doing without. I say it should be  an option because some GMs may want an adversarial situation, while others may prefer their social contract to take precedence.

-clash

Yeah, that's what i was thinking of. A few paragraphs spelling out potential problems and ways to overcome or mitigate them, if you choose to do so. I'll add it to the View From the Horizon section and add a reminder to the chargen section too. Cheers!

Quote from: NicephorusMaybe an option would be to have one or two things(affiliation, rivalry, or goal) determined for everyone instead of indiviudally.  It would reduce the total number of such things amongst the party and give them something to bind them together.  If they all hate Mr. Mortar, that might be what brought them together in the first place.

I've mentioned this idea briefly in the 'View From the Horizon' section. I need to spell it out a bit more and give a list of options.

I'm working on my character for the test game, and came across something that strongly feels like an oversight to me.

So, starting region gives the character a set of skills, which cannot be increased by discretionary skill points at creation in order to avoid starting characters who are immediately very powerful. So far, so good... however, many region-dependent skills are provided at the minimal level of 1, meaning that the character - at least the creation - is forced to be worse than someone who doesn't even get the skill from his region but decides to put discretionary point in it.

An example: a character from a Duelists' Guildhouse has a starting skill of 1 in Underworld, to represent that duelists are, on average, somewhat shadier fellows than ordinary folks. Cool. However, another player can create a character from some absolutely non-shady region, like a Noble's House or  Tower-top Observatory, and have up to 3 points in Underworld, since he can spend all three of his starting discretionary points in any single non-region skill. So we can have starting characters who are noblemen, teddy bear-makers or little girls and yet are considerably shadier and better connected to the criminal underground than your standard shady duelists, who, despite the generally shady nature of their profession, are explicitly forbidden from being any more then only very slighty shady.

This just doesn't seem right. I suggest that region skills should be made improvable by discretionary points on character creation up to a maximum value - say, 3. Or alternatively, the three starting discretionary skills points should be only spendable on three different skills to to make sure that the "amateur" characters don't end up overshadowing the professionals in their respective skills.

Quote from: PremierThis just doesn't seem right. I suggest that region skills should be made improvable by discretionary points on character creation up to a maximum value - say, 3. Or alternatively, the three starting discretionary skills points should be only spendable on three different skills to to make sure that the "amateur" characters don't end up overshadowing the professionals in their respective skills.

I had noticed the same thing whilst making Mistress Roundheels, and was waiting for others to make their characters before discussing it.

-clash

Quote from: PremierHowever, another player can create a character from some absolutely non-shady region, like a Noble's House or  Tower-top Observatory, and have up to 3 points in Underworld, since he can spend all three of his starting discretionary points in any single non-region skill.

I was following you up to this point.  To my understanding, each character has three discretionary points to be spent on a specific list of General Skills, not simply any non-region skill.  For reference, the list of General Skills is:
   Athletics
Gossip
Hygiene
Fists
Drinking
Haggle
Spot
Scavenger
Portage
Prepare Food
Am I missing some reference elsewhere in the rules?

Now, this said, I was a little disappointed that I couldn't raise Miss Mooncalf's Spot skill to 4, seeing how it was one of her regional skills and all, but that was in the interest of game balance, and I'm okay with that.  If anything, I would have liked to have seen a handful more feminine skills from which to choose.  But, otherwise, I didn't have a significant problem.  Are there any cases where a regional skill that is also a General skill might start out at 1 or 2?  If so, perhaps there should simply be a stipulation that General Skills are capped at 3 for starting characters, and not a prohibition against spending one's discretionary point on them.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAm I missing some reference elsewhere in the rules?

*snip*

 Are there any cases where a regional skill that is also a General skill might start out at 1 or 2?  

That's exactly the problem. ALL of the general skills on this list are region skills for one or several regions, and most of them definitely have a starting value of 1 or 2 for certain regions.

QuoteIf so, perhaps there should simply be a stipulation that General Skills are capped at 3 for starting characters, and not a prohibition against spending one's discretionary point on them.

I guess that would work, too.

Good stuff folks. I've been umming and arring over this one for a while, i admit. I think that the best solution is to allow improvement of region skills that also fall into the General bracket up to the starting maximum of 3 points. I might also consider the possibilty of allowing these allocated skill points raising a corresponding region skill to 4 points to reflect greater training over folks simply picking stuff up. Then the choice is the players.

Shields

Shields are much more effective at blocking blows than parrying with a weapon or trying to dodge alone.

You can use a shield against a single foe during each round. If you use the shield as a Free action, then it adds a number of bonus dice to a Reflexive parry or dodge attempt (see table below). If you use the shield alone to take a blow, it counts as a Reflexive action, but automatically intercepts an attack. The shield takes all of the damage of the blow that you would have taken. Any damage absorbed by the shield is subtracted from its Protection Rating. Once damage taken by the shield has overcome its Protection Rating, the shield is useless and you take any remaining damage. Your opponents can choose to target your shield specifically, if they so choose. Round/Kite shields and assault shields can be used to absorb missile attacks that you see coming, whilst bucklers cannot. Example: Roisterlot is confronted with 2 Gargoyles who attack him mercilessly. Both creatures hit and he uses his round shield to aid him in his parry of one attack. This adds 2 bonus dice to his parry attempt, meaning that he rolls 7 dice in total (5 for his parry skill + 2). He manages to turn 2 points of damage inflicted, but still ends up taking 1 point of damage from that blow and 3 from the other. A couple of rounds later, he’s in more trouble and as his friends are not far away, he decides to use his shield to absorb damage. His Reflexive action for this round is not a parry, but a shield use. It absorbs all 3 points of damage inflicted by 1 of the creatures and although he takes damage from the second creature, he survives until his friends reach him. Until he gets his shield fixed, it is only capable of absorbing another 3 points of damage before it becomes useless.  

Shield Type Bonus Dice Protection Rating Spaces

Arm Buckler 1 3 None
Round/Kite Shield 2 6 1
Assault Shield 3 9 2

Sorry for the silence folks. Double shifts, the holiday season, writing an article for Green Ronin and in the tradition of clash et al, starting another project, have eaten up my time recently. I don't have an update at this moment in time, but just to reassure those folks who have taken the time to take part in the SH playtest that i'll be posting final details there soon.

I'm starting a new thread for the new project also, although there's no substance at present, it sets the scene a bit.

OK. I've got a question for folks. With the announcement that there will be no fee to use the True20 OGL, i've been thinking about SH & True20. I'm thinking of making the game a True20 one. What do you reckon? Should i go True20 only, my own system only, or do a version of both?

It depends on how much you like True20.  I would see that as a fairly sizable change in the mechanics and you'd have to rework the backgrounds to work with True20.  I'm not sure if True20 has enough of a draw still to make it worth it unless you already like the system.