Question from a newbie

[dastari]

I'm incredibly new to the game but I have a couple of questions from having just read the Player's Guide.

On page 67 in the example it states that when Amy uses Presence and Convince the guard counters with Ingenuity and Resolve. Yet when I turn back to page 65 it states that a convince check is countered by Resolve and Convince. This makes more sense to me as your own ability to convince others would help you read when others were doing it to you, but I am confused by the conflict. Which is correct?

I'm a little confused about how cover works specifically with regard to destruction. Let's take the simplest example as wood. I understand that if you're hiding behind wood it will take one point of damage off of any attacks coming to you. The wood itself can take a damage of 5. Now does that mean that the wood will take 5 shots for you since its absorbing one point of damage each time? Does it mean that the sum total of damage that attacks you has to equal 5? So by that latter case I mean that if:

You take 2 hits of 1/2/3 damage while you're behind wood at a good result to the enemy. Even though you've only taken 2 points of damage due to the subtraction from the wood, the wood itself has taken 4 points. Then if you were to take another blast at a good result for the enemy you are up to 3 points of damage but the wood is destroyed?

I was amused by the assertion on page 88 that since there are no winners or losers in RPG's everyone works together and there's no competitive streaks getting in the way of a good time. While I have not yet played DWAITAS, that is not true of any gaming group I have ever been part of before. I think maybe they're just not trying to scare away the newbies. :-)

[da professor]

Jun 10, 2013 6:38:08 GMT dastari said:

I was amused by the assertion on page 88 that since there are no winners or losers in RPG's everyone works together and there's no competitive streaks getting in the way of a good time. While I have not yet played DWAITAS, that is not true of any gaming group I have ever been part of before. I think maybe they're just not trying to scare away the newbies. :-)

Perhaps you are gaming with the wrong people.

[Rel Fexive]

Jun 10, 2013 6:38:08 GMT dastari said:

I was amused by the assertion on page 88 that since there are no winners or losers in RPG's everyone works together and there's no competitive streaks getting in the way of a good time. While I have not yet played DWAITAS, that is not true of any gaming group I have ever been part of before. I think maybe they're just not trying to scare away the newbies. :-)

More likely they are trying to educate said newbies against that behaviour from the beginning

In the real world, sadly, there are always players who are trying to "win" or at least "win" more than the others do, in whatever way they define such "winning".

[Siskoid]

I always thank my stars my players aren't like that at all. I cultivate a completely different atmosphere at the table.

As for your questions, I think you're understanding cover all right. As for the page 67 thing, I'll have to check my 10th Doc basic set to see what's said there. Perhaps there's an error that cropped up only in the Doc11 book.

[Escher]

Jun 10, 2013 12:30:30 GMT Rel Fexive said:

In the real world, sadly, there are always players who are trying to "win" or at least "win" more than the others do, in whatever way they define such "winning".

There is a way to control super-competitive players if they get out of hand, although you need to be aware of how much they can take before they change their spots or throw a glass over you.

Read 'Play Dirty' by John Wick.

I'd highly recommend it for any GM, at least for discussion or entertainment. Every GM must read it.


The first article is available here for free: 
gamingoutpost.com/article/hit_em_where_it_hurts/

[Stormcrow]

Jun 10, 2013 6:38:08 GMT dastari said:

On page 67 in the example it states that when Amy uses Presence and Convince the guard counters with Ingenuity and Resolve. Yet when I turn back to page 65 it states that a convince check is countered by Resolve and Convince. This makes more sense to me as your own ability to convince others would help you read when others were doing it to you, but I am confused by the conflict. Which is correct?

I have the first edition of the game. On page 60 there is an example of Donna trying to convince a security guard to let her into her old workplace. Donna uses Presence and Convince to simply ask a reasonable request; the guard reacts with Ingenuity and Resolve "to see if he remembers her or thinks she's pulling a fast one." I don't see any references to resisting a "Convince check."

(I probably wouldn't have turned such a small encounter into an extended conflict, but the example is useful for illustration.)

Exactly which combination of attribute and skill you use depends on the situation. Unless the target is actively trying to argue a point, I wouldn't use Convince, but if you think having the skill really would help in the situation, by all means use it. There's no one-size-fits-all answer here.

I'm a little confused about how cover works specifically with regard to destruction. Let's take the simplest example as wood. I understand that if you're hiding behind wood it will take one point of damage off of any attacks coming to you. The wood itself can take a damage of 5. Now does that mean that the wood will take 5 shots for you since its absorbing one point of damage each time? Does it mean that the sum total of damage that attacks you has to equal 5? So by that latter case I mean that if:

You take 2 hits of 1/2/3 damage while you're behind wood at a good result to the enemy. Even though you've only taken 2 points of damage due to the subtraction from the wood, the wood itself has taken 4 points. Then if you were to take another blast at a good result for the enemy you are up to 3 points of damage but the wood is destroyed?

Cover takes as much damage as its armor value provides. If you are hit for 2 points of damage, a wood barrier (armor 1, hit points 5) will absorb 1 point, lowering the barrier's hit points to 4 and lowering your attributes by 1. If you are hit a second time, this time for 5 points, the barrier will again absorb 1 point, lowering its hit points to 3, and lowering your attributes by 4.

When the barrier reaches 0 hit points, it will no longer protect you.

I was amused by the assertion on page 88 that since there are no winners or losers in RPG's everyone works together and there's no competitive streaks getting in the way of a good time. While I have not yet played DWAITAS, that is not true of any gaming group I have ever been part of before. I think maybe they're just not trying to scare away the newbies. :-)

I think they're pandering to newbies to explain that a role-playing game is not like a typical board game, where the object is to beat everybody else. They're just being very touchy-feely about it.

[Corone]

How do your lot define winning?
It would make sense if they consider beating the bad guys a win, but the idea one of them can beat the other PCs or the GM is just plain weird.

I must admit that in many years of gaming I've never met a group who insisted they could 'win'.
It's certainly not 'pandering' or 'touchy feely' just stating what I'd take as one of the fundamental parts of RPGs.
But I'd agree its worth saying for those used to board games (not that there is anything wrong with board games)

[Stormcrow]

I don't think it's fundamental to role-playing games, though it is certainly dominant. There are a number of games that have included inter-player competition. The Rune role-playing game was specifically designed to be a competitive RPG, with a clear winner after every game. Some of the earliest campaigns by Gygax and Arneson included player competition: players sometimes played the bad guys against other players' good guys. And then there's Paranoia...

Besides, if players have fun competing against each other, who's to say that's wrong?

[Siskoid]

You're naming exceptions rather than the rule, however. And while not "wrong" in certain cases, can you say it's the best way to approach DWAITAS and Doctor Who gaming in general? I don't think you can. RPGs are first and foremost collaborative games where you can win or lose, but as a group and to varying degrees. DWAITAS in particular is very New School and doesn't promote competition between players. Not only does it say so explicitly (as above), but there's no Experience point system (a common source of competition in older and more traditional RPGs).

"If players have fun competing against each other", there's nothing wrong with that (though I'm not sure what healthy form it can take in Doctor Who role-playing), but it better be true that they ALL have fun doing that because it leads to the kind of behavior that WILL have an effect on others at the table. It's not like saying "if a player has fun doing voices" because that doesn't force anyone who doesn't like doing voices to do them. If you're competing, you're forcing everyone else to compete as well, because if they don't, they'll be in some sort of "losing" position where someone is hogging all the action, rewards, etc.

[dastari]

I should have been more clear, it's not winning per se but there's always at least one player who has their own agenda and wants to make sure that he achieves it even if it causes trouble for everyone else. It was more the part of the assertion that everyone cooperates in an RPG that I had more amusement over rather than having something called "winning". I do think that the writeup in DWAITAS is a little bit of a straight jacket. No weapons? Everyone has to be good? I don't see why. Even the Doctor took Turlough with him who was initially a very selfish jerk. To me the wonderful thing about playing a Doctor Who RPG would be playing its vast universe. You don't have to have the Doctor involves. What if you want a party of companions for the Master? What if you don't want to do any time travelling at all and set a campaign on a single world or single time? To me as long as someone is playing their character that's the important thing and I'd reward it with story points. Sometimes characters aren't going to get along. That's life. To me these conflicts can be fun because they're more intersting than the players having conflicts with NPC's and can lead to great things. Of course sometimes it leads to really bad things. Still, I always find that if you don't straightjacket your players by telling them they have to cooperate and be good that this normally happens by itself which is why I was amused.

[Siskoid]

Once you've learned the rules, you can break the rules, I always say. That text really is for role-playing newbies, because licensed games tend to attract them (fans of Doctor Who who've never role-played). Veterans can ignore, add, tweak, as they would with any other game.

[ninjaconor]

I think a bit of competition and conflict between players can be a really good thing for a campaign. It keeps the players paying attention to what's going on. They're not going to get bored and drift off if they think they'll get stabbed in the back.

My favourite relationship between two characters in any of my campaigns was between Jonathan the Time Agent and Bob the Silent. It started with petty pranks on each other because Jonathan figured out a way to half-remember that Bob existed. Then it escalated a little bit every session until eventually Bob had cut out Jonathan's eyes, Jonathan had shot off Bob's hands and they were locked in a Mexican stand-off in an operating theatre pointing scalpels at each other. Then, at that point, they suddenly decided to throw their differences aside and team up to try and kill Orture (their Time Lord friend) because they managed to convince themselves that it had been her fault they'd started fighting to begin with. Their little feud was often more entertaining than the actual adventures I was running

[Siskoid]

That sounds like competing characters though, not players. Which I agree is fine, even great.

[dastari]

Player and character sometimes blur a bit when running an RPG. I've seen some long buried animosities between people who are normally friends surface during a gaming session and see expression through their characters. The risk is that those rivalries can then sour the players' relationship but if done well it can be almost therapeutic.