New Material to Oogle...

[Pertwee]

I'm currently writing a bit on creating and running Adventures for DWAITAS (lots of luverly random tables for creating adventures on the fly) and I thought I'd run a new Trait past some of you who like Gasmask Zombies, Kitlings and Giant Infectious Prawns...

INFECTION (Minor/Major/Special)
The creature is either a carrier of some sort of infection but largely immune to its effects, like Typhoid Mary, or is a virus or parasite all on its own.

Effects: The creature can infect another being by beating it in an opposed Strength + Survival roll. If it scores a success, the infection has gained a foothold in the victim and does its Strength in damage. After a number of scenes have passed equal to the characters current Strength, they must test again, taking more damage if they fail, or holding their ground until they get a Fantastic Success, at which point the infection has run its course.

The Minor version of Infection won't kill the victim, though it can incapacitate them for a time. The Major version can be lethal if it causes enough damage. The Special version will have some other effect, like possessing the host or transforming them into some sort of monster, that takes effect as soon as they 'die' from the infection.

A person with the proper drugs and knowledge can substitute their Ingenuity + Medicine for the victims Strength + Survival roll at the GM's discretion.

So what do you think...?

[olegrand]

I've got a couple (triad? ) of questions / suggestions.

a) The use of the Survival skill by the victim. Is it really appropriate here? Of course, the goal of the roll is "to survive", but like all other skills, the Survival skill seems to represent a mix of knowledge, experience and training, as opposed to the "raw ability" reflected by attributes. The DWAITAS rules seem to work under the assumption that what we might call "instinctive reaction" rolls ("saving throw"-type rolls, if you will) almost always use the sum of two Attributes, whereas Skills are normally used for "conscious efforts", active attempts to complete tasks etc. If we follow this reasoning, a victim's resistance to infection (which does not reflect something you actively, consciously "do", but rather a test of one's health and constitution) should be reflected by the sum of two Attributes, rather than by a Skill. Strength+Resolve, perhaps? That way, a victim's willpower and spirit would play a major part in such situations; in real life, of course, fighting infection has little to do with willpower, but in TV series, adventure stories etc., a hero's mettle or 'inner strength' is often credited in such situations.

b) The use of the Survival skill by the carrier. Now this does remind me a bit of some of the less probable (attribute + skill) associations used for some Disciplines and other similar powers in White Wolf WoD games; it feels a bit like Survival being used because (a) we MUST use a Skill in the formula and (b) it is the "only Skill available". And indeed, it's quite difficult to estimate which "skill" should reflect the ability to infect victims - especially since there obviously are several different methods to do so. But should there really be a roll here? Is "infecting someone" really an active task, conscious action etc. ? Wouldn't it be more logical to forget about the Conflict roll and have the victim make his resistance roll against a passive dificulty representing the potency of the infection (just like you would handle poisons, disease etc.) ? IMHO, this would seem more logical in "game logic" terms and would also convey the ideas that fighting infection is about "fighting something" rather than "fighting someone" (which is what would be conveyed or implied by the use of the carrier's Strength and Survival skill as some form of "attack roll").

c) The possibility of using somebody's Ingenuity+Medicine. Rather than using this roll INSTEAD of the victim's own resistance roll, shouldn't medical attention provide an extra opportunity of defeating infection? A patient receiving such attention would still have to make his normal resistance roll, but the skill roll of the medical character would simply act as an extra chance to resolve the situation.

(Just my two cents - or is that two pence? ;D)

[misterharry]

Interesting, though I may rename it to avoid confusion with the existing Infection trait from Aliens & Creaures - or is this one a replacement for it?

I assume this is a Good trait, but how much does the Special version cost?

[misterharry]

Jan 29, 2013 7:40:54 GMT olegrand said:

I've got a couple (triad? ) of questions / suggestions.

a) The use of the Survival skill by the victim. Is it really appropriate here? Of course, the goal of the roll is "to survive", but like all other skills, the Survival skill seems to represent a mix of knowledge, experience and training, as opposed to the "raw ability" reflected by attributes. The DWAITAS rules seem to work under the assumption that what we might call "instinctive reaction" rolls ("saving throw"-type rolls, if you will) almost always use the sum of two Attributes, whereas Skills are normally used for "conscious efforts", active attempts to complete tasks etc. If we follow this reasoning, a victim's resistance to infection (which does not reflect something you actively, consciously "do", but rather a test of one's health and constitution) should be reflected by the sum of two Attributes, rather than by a Skill. Strength+Resolve, perhaps? That way, a victim's willpower and spirit would play a major part in such situations; in real life, of course, fighting infection has little to do with willpower, but in TV series, adventure stories etc., a hero's mettle or 'inner strength' is often credited in such situations.

b) The use of the Survival skill by the carrier. Now this does remind me a bit of some of the less probable (attribute + skill) associations used for some Disciplines and other similar powers in White Wolf WoD games; it feels a bit like Survival being used because (a) we MUST use a Skill in the formula and (b) it is the "only Skill available". And indeed, it's quite difficult to estimate which "skill" should reflect the ability to infect victims - especially since there obviously are several different methods to do so. But should there really be a roll here? Is "infecting someone" really an active task, conscious action etc. ? Wouldn't it be more logical to forget about the Conflict roll and have the victim make his resistance roll against a passive dificulty representing the potency of the infection (just like you would handle poisons, disease etc.) ? IMHO, this would seem more logical in "game logic" terms and would also convey the ideas that fighting infection is about "fighting something" rather than "fighting someone" (which is what would be conveyed or implied by the use of the carrier's Strength and Survival skill as some form of "attack roll").

c) The possibility of using somebody's Ingenuity+Medicine. Rather than using this roll INSTEAD of the victim's own resistance roll, shouldn't medical attention provide an extra opportunity of defeating infection? A patient receiving such attention would still have to make his normal resistance roll, but the skill roll of the medical character would simply act as an extra chance to resolve the situation.

(Just my two cents - or is that two pence? ;D)

You make a good point about the use of Survival here. Personally, I'd use Strength + Resolve instead.

EDIT: Having re-read your post, I see that's one of your suggestions - so it must be right! ;D

[Escher]

The original idea is good and Olegrand also makes good points.

Brainstorming...

A victim uses Strength + Resolve. This is a medically sound pairing.

Don't knock resolve. Medically, willpower can pull a victim through trauma and has a huge effect on recovery and the body's defense systems - ask any Doctor. Levels of white blood cells are directly affected by mental attitude. This is fact. The Will To Survive is a mighty thing.
Also, the human mind is pre-programmed on a primal level to instinctively react to and avoid anything nasty, so perhaps Survival in these cases is less of a trained or knowledge thing and more instinct, so can possibly be discarded.

I also see the relevance of the Medicine Skill or other appropropriate skills, specifically to instruct others to avoid infection and to contain the spread etc. and I can see “Is that how it works, Doctor?” use of a Story Point to get character's through infected areas or past contagious creatures being a good dramatic use of this mechanic (p 67 GM's Guide) to highten tension and burn points.

Practically speaking, I can see a character with Medicine 3 creeping through a fungus-infected room using Coordination + Medicine avoiding growths of spore-laden fungus having a better chance than someone using Coordination + Survival 3.
The exception to this is if that fungus was native to an environment that the Survival skill was applicable to.

You also have to consider if the infection is spread through touch, is airborne or must be ingested. Another nice way is through injection via stinger, bite etc.
Alien Pregnancy anyone?

Also: Virus, Bacteria, Nanogenes? Biological or Mechanical/Technological infection? Psionic/Psychic infection even?

Important questions about it can also the basis of dramatic play: How does it spread? (in this case, the creature) What does the infection need to survive? How can it be contained? How long does it last/live? How can it be destroyed? What are it's weaknesses?

I think I've gone into another area here but just just my two pennies worth of brainstorming ideas.

[Pertwee]

Wow, completely forgot about the A&C version of that, but as A&C is unlikely to be updated any time in the near future and mine is specifically designed to be used with the 'Infection' Adventure Theme, I think I'll go ahead and work it out to completion.

As for the rest of your comments:

1. Strength and Resolve. Point taken, change made.

2. The medical roll could be in addition to the normal one to represent medical attention augmenting the body's defense, I suppose. That gives another player something to spend SPs on as well, so I'll go with that.

Escher, all that stuff is important, but would needlessly complicate the Trait, so I'm leaving that up to the GM when they design the disease, but I will try to fit a mention in there.

[Pertwee]

Try this one on...

INFECT (Minor/Major/Special)
The creature is either a carrier of some sort of infection but largely immune to its effects, like Typhoid Mary, or is a virus or parasite all on its own.

Effects: The creature can infect another being by beating it in an opposed Strength + Resolve roll. If it scores a success, the infection has gained a foothold in the victim and does its Strength in damage. After a number of scenes have passed equal to the characters current Strength, they must test again, taking more damage if the fail, or holding their ground until they get a Fantastic Success, at which point the infection has run its course.

The Minor version of Infection won't kill the victim, though it can incapacitate them for a time. The Major version can be lethal if it causes enough damage. The Special version costs 4 points and will have some other effect, like possessing the host or transforming them into some sort of monster, that takes effect as soon as they 'die' from the infection.

A person with the proper knowledge and the right drugs can treat the victim, using their Ingenuity + Medicine to oppose the infection once every 24 hours. For every Level of Success, the victim gains a +2 on rolls to fight off the infection.

[Escher]

Jan 30, 2013 0:08:08 GMT Pertwee said:

Escher, all that stuff is important, but would needlessly complicate the Trait

Yes, sorry about my spirited GM enthusiasm there.

Jan 30, 2013 0:13:50 GMT Pertwee said:

Try this one on...

INFECT (Minor/Major/Special)

Looks great to me. Water-tight and serviceable.

[olegrand]

Once more unto the breach, dear friends...

I think I've found a pretty solid argument in favor of my straight resistance roll approach (as opposed to the "conflict roll" approach).

If you base the infecting creature's effectiveness on its Strength, it will mean that microscopic organisms (who obviously have a Strength of 0) will always have a relatively weak power of infection - which does seem illogical, since a power like Infection will most often be associated with microscopic organisms, very small creatures (like rats carrying plague etc) or even some entities with no physical body per se. In stories, powers like Infection are almost always attributed to tiny or even invisible menaces - so the "bigger is deadlier" principle should not apply here.

Removing Strength from the equation would not only avoid such a logical pitfall: it would also help in making Infection really different from natural, Strength-based damage.

[Pertwee]

Jan 30, 2013 11:49:12 GMT olegrand said:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends...

I think I've found a pretty solid argument in favor of my straight resistance roll approach (as opposed to the "conflict roll" approach).

If you base the infecting creature's effectiveness on its Strength, it will mean that microscopic organisms (who obviously have a Strength of 0) will always have a relatively weak power of infection - which does seem illogical, since a power like Infection will most often be associated with microscopic organisms, very small creatures (like rats carrying plague etc) or even some entities with no physical body per se. In stories, powers like Infection are almost always attributed to tiny or even invisible menaces - so the "bigger is deadlier" principle should not apply here.

Removing Strength from the equation would not only avoid such a logical pitfall: it would also help in making Infection really different from natural, Strength-based damage.

What I was thinking was that viruses and such would have the Immaterial Trait, but what you're suggesting could work if there was a way to variate damage. The thing about Strength is it can be used to designate a stronger or weaker virus or parasite and has a direct damage connection. I'm open to suggestions on how to fix this without over-complicating the Trait too much.

[olegrand]

Jan 30, 2013 17:54:39 GMT Pertwee said:

I'm open to suggestions on how to fix this without over-complicating the Trait too much.

The simplest way to do it IMHO is to assign it a fixed difficulty level, (such as, say, 18, making it Hard) which may vary if the trait exists in Minor / Major versions.

[fermisparadox]

Shouldn't it work like a poison? There are rules covering this in the Primeval rpg p205.
e.g.

Poison Damage: 2 / 4 / 6; Check Difficulty: 15

[Pertwee]

Ok, so I see that I've been taking the wrong tack with this Trait. The problem is treating it as a 'side ability' of a creature as opposed to making it a defining feature of the creature, like the Alien Trait.

Behold, the new Trait (which works really great if you use it in conjunction with the Flora and Fauna rules on pg. 134 of the Core Box Gamemaster's Guide)...

VIRUS (Minor/Major/Special)
The creature is a virus or parasite, microscopic in size, but capable of bringing down the mightiest of beasts.

Effects: The creature is too small to be seen by the naked eye and, in the case of viruses, may even require electron microscopes or other high-tech equipment to observe. As a result, the Strength of the virus or parasite is not a measure of muscular power, but its power to infect and endure.

The creature can infect another being by beating it in an opposed Strength + Resolve roll. If it scores a success, the infection has gained a foothold in the victim and does its Strength in damage. After a number of scenes have passed equal to the characters current Strength, they must test again, taking more damage if they fail, or holding their ground until they get a Fantastic Success, at which point the infection has run its course.

The Minor version of Infection won't kill the victim, though it can incapacitate them for a time. The Major version can be lethal if it causes enough damage. The Special version costs 4 points and will have some other effect, like possessing the host or transforming them into some sort of monster, that takes effect as soon as they 'die' from the infection.

A person with the proper knowledge and the right drugs can treat the victim, using their Ingenuity + Medicine to oppose the infection once every 24 hours. For every Level of Success, the victim gains a +2 on rolls to fight off the infection.

[olegrand]

Yes, this version seems far more satisfying / logical in game terms. Well done! The idea of keeping the Strength score but giving it an alternate definition is a very clever idea - and a neat way of having viruses of varying virulences. Kudos!

[da professor]

Excellent idea. I think I have a use for it. If any of my players are reading this, I totally did not just say that. ;D

[Doctor X]

It looks like it might be covered under Natural Weapon, however, since I had to go look for it, might be worthwhile to make the lethal touch that so many aliens seem to have into a separate entry. Or would it better be served as a Virus/Infection with L damage level?

[Escher]

Feb 2, 2013 18:23:37 GMT Pertwee said:

Ok, so I see that I've been taking the wrong tack with this Trait. The problem is treating it as a 'side ability' of a creature as opposed to making it a defining feature of the creature, like the Alien Trait.

Behold, the new Trait (which works really great if you use it in conjunction with the Flora and Fauna rules on pg. 134 of the Core Box Gamemaster's Guide)...

Looks super tasty.

[The Master]

It appears most effective. In fact, one could say, dangerously effective.

I shall enjoy using this one.