Grit Points

[thorgarth]

No, you were clear the first time.

I did not say everything hovers around them, but they will be central figures in the setting, and some may even feature in the drives and goals of some of the PC’s.

That's where we don't see eye to eye. In this underlined passage.

Personally as a GM I don't care if there's a Cardinal Richelieu or not until the moment a PC introduces him into play through any means available to players.

Your take on the other hand states that there is Cardinal Richelieu, who is also a central figure of the setting, and the players may or may not interact with him.

That's where we don't see eye to eye.

This however doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong, or the opposite. People disagree all the time, that's not a problem, nor should people agree on everything. Still I have to stress that the game as presented is closer to my preference than yours. Unless I misunderstood what you wrote.

Yes, in that case we have different approaches, all right. Although its a pc driven game the world still exists and revolves even if the pc´s don't o jack all day, 7 days a week. The King of the Andarra still exists wether or not the PC´s have introduced him, or even know him. Yes, unless the kings orders and politics involve, somehow, directly or indirectly , the pc´s he will stay in the background. But sometimes, wether the PC´s like it or not he may take measures that have an impact on him. e.g. Gregorius, the Casanova of the group, tries to seduce a noble he found at the opera, who unbeknownst to him was being courted by a close friend of the Kings third son, who takes a beef at it. Via his friend, the kings son, he plots to bring the PC´s down. Said strategy may even reach the king...

But yes, they are just different approaches to how a game is run.

[Benedict]

e.g. Gregorius, the Casanova of the group, tries to seduce a noble he found at the opera, who unbeknownst to him was being courted by a close friend of the Kings third son, who takes a beef at it. Via his friend, the kings son, he plots to bring the PC´s down

Rules as Written this happens only when the player rolls a MoF3 (Something goes terribly wrong). Not because the GM wishes so. That's why I said we don't see eye to eye, and your vision is something else from what the game is.

[thorgarth]

e.g. Gregorius, the Casanova of the group, tries to seduce a noble he found at the opera, who unbeknownst to him was being courted by a close friend of the Kings third son, who takes a beef at it. Via his friend, the kings son, he plots to bring the PC´s down

Rules as Written this happens only when the player rolls a MoF3 (Something goes terribly wrong). Not because the GM wishes so. That's why I said we don't see eye to eye, and your vision is something else from what the game is.

That is your opinion. Besides the game is what each GM and group makes of it.

In any case the the fact that the betrothed of that lady is X is not a matter of any failing of a task. The NPC’s are who they are, and if the character tried to find out who the gorgeous lady was before trying to seduce her he wouldn’t be in such a trouble. If it was the result of a failed test, working as a complication, it would have to be adjudicated based on how badly the failure was.

But don’t worry about my vision being different from what you think game’s is. Think the rules will serve me right anyway.

[Agamemnon]

Like Benedict I always intended to give major NPC´s a certain amount of Drama Points. No much, mind you, but proportionate to their flair, relevance in the setting and general reputation, as well as background. Major Villains should be a major driving force in any campaign, and should have resources to back that up

Any time you start talking about stories, people tend to drop the word "villain" for the word "antagonist." It's not because they are being lit snobs, but because the latter word articulates the relationship more clearly: villains do not exist in a story without the heroes.

The antagonist is defined by their relationship to the protagonist. Their existance as an antagonist is solely defined by the fact that they act in opposition to the protagonist.

Major villains are not the driving force, or even a driving force. They are foils. Reactions. The game is written explicitly in such a way that the PCs are the driving force of the campaign. Antagonists come into play because the PCs want something and it's your job as the GM to make them work to get it.

It doesn't really matter that there's a Dark Lord Sauran unless the players agreed from the outset that this campaign would be a save-the-world adventure, or unless some drive the PCs have would be triggered by a dark lord doing dark lord things. Similarly, the King and the Pope may objectively be the most important people in your campaign setting, but that means absolutely ziltch unless the PCs would make those NPCs relevant through their drives or actions.

e.g. Gregorius, the Casanova of the group, tries to seduce a noble he found at the opera, who unbeknownst to him was being courted by a close friend of the Kings third son, who takes a beef at it. Via his friend, the kings son, he plots to bring the PC´s down

Rules as Written this happens only when the player rolls a MoF3 (Something goes terribly wrong). Not because the GM wishes so. That's why I said we don't see eye to eye, and your vision is something else from what the game is.

This bit is very important. What you're describing is an escalation. The flow of the game is that the PCs want something and you put a conflict between them and their goal. The PCs roll, and if they fail or escalate, then it creates a complication -- which naturally leads to the next conflict.

For your scenario to work in-game, it means that Gregorius messed up somewhere in his wooing and you introduced a rival suitor for her attention. Getting six-degress-of-kevin-bacon to the King is going to have required a huge amount of player-action to justify. And even then, the statement is player action. You've had to escalate from:

• Attempting to woo to introduction of a rival
• Rival choosing to take actions against you, rather than just trying to beat you at wooing the girl
• Rival calling in reinforcements in the form of his friend, the youngest prince
• The youngest prince getting involved himself
• The youngest prince being so enraged and infuriated that he goes to his father
• The king himself deciding the PCs need to be "Taken down" .. presumably because one of his son's friends has trouble getting laid?

Yeah. That is not something to throw out on a whim. An entire arc took place to get from one end of that scenario to the other, and every step should have been based on the PCs making choices that would escalate the conflict.

After I wrote all that, you posted again:

That is your opinion. Besides the game is what each GM and group makes of it.

In any case the the fact that the betrothed of that lady is X is not a matter of any failing of a task. The NPC’s are who they are, and if the character tried to find out who the gorgeous lady was before trying to seduce her he wouldn’t be in such a trouble. If it was the result of a failed test, working as a complication, it would have to be adjudicated based on how badly the failure was.

But don’t worry about my vision being different from what you think game’s is. Think the rules will serve me right anyway.

It isn't his opinion. It's literally what the rules are written to do and the cycle of play the game is written to have. Even if you want to say that the betrothal between the NPC being woo'd and rival was pre-established, there is a whole mess of PC action that should be required to get from one end of your example to the other. "The King gets involved to take them down" is not an equivalent response to "he hit on some random dude's fiance."

You can do whatever you want at your table, but the feedback I'm giving you is "this is how the game is supposed to be played." Presumably, that's why you're here. That said, the more you want to stray from how the game is built to be played, the more the mechanisms will tend to work against you.

Which brings me back to the reason I started to comment:

and should have resources to back that up

I completely disagree with the notion that they do not already have the resources to back it up. In the very example you brought you decided that some random dope could Kevin Bacon the King into helping him deal with the PCs over the grave offense of hitting on his girlfriend.

As the GM, you already control everything for the NPC. You get to make their attributes what you want, their skills what you want, proficiencies what you want. You can give them any gear or equipment you decide. You control what properties they own, who their friends are. You can give them whatever minions you please, armies you please, resources you please. You control the weather, the environment, and in 95% of cases you'll control how and why the character comes on-screen at all and how that scene is framed.

You control everything except for the player's choices. You have every advantage over them except for access to drama. Giving the GM access to drama neutralizes the latter and mitigates the former. That doesn't strike me as desirable.

If the PCs can take on or take out an NPC that you don't want them to kill, chances are you made them earn the privilege. And if so, why not?

[thorgarth]

Major villains are not the driving force, or even a driving force. They are foils. Reactions. The game is written explicitly in such a way that the PCs are the driving force of the campaign. Antagonists come into play because the PCs want something and it's your job as the GM to make them work to get it.

It doesn't really matter that there's a Dark Lord Sauran unless the players agreed from the outset that this campaign would be a save-the-world adventure, or unless some drive the PCs have would be triggered by a dark lord doing dark lord things. Similarly, the King and the Pope may objectively be the most important people in your campaign setting, but that means absolutely ziltch unless the PCs would make those NPCs relevant through their drives or actions.

Rules as Written this happens only when the player rolls a MoF3 (Something goes terribly wrong). Not because the GM wishes so. That's why I said we don't see eye to eye, and your vision is something else from what the game is.

This bit is very important. What you're describing is an escalation. The flow of the game is that the PCs want something and you put a conflict between them and their goal. The PCs roll, and if they fail or escalate, then it creates a complication -- which naturally leads to the next conflict.

For your scenario to work in-game, it means that Gregorius messed up somewhere in his wooing and you introduced a rival suitor for her attention. Getting six-degress-of-kevin-bacon to the King is going to have required a huge amount of player-action to justify. And even then, the statement is player action. You've had to escalate from:

• Attempting to woo to introduction of a rival
• Rival choosing to take actions against you, rather than just trying to beat you at wooing the girl
• Rival calling in reinforcements in the form of his friend, the youngest prince
• The youngest prince getting involved himself
• The youngest prince being so enraged and infuriated that he goes to his father
• The king himself deciding the PCs need to be "Taken down" .. presumably because one of his son's friends has trouble getting laid?

Yeah. That is not something to throw out on a whim. An entire arc took place to get from one end of that scenario to the other, and every step should have been based on the PCs making choices that would escalate the conflict.

After I wrote all that, you posted again:

That is your opinion. Besides the game is what each GM and group makes of it.

In any case the the fact that the betrothed of that lady is X is not a matter of any failing of a task. The NPC’s are who they are, and if the character tried to find out who the gorgeous lady was before trying to seduce her he wouldn’t be in such a trouble. If it was the result of a failed test, working as a complication, it would have to be adjudicated based on how badly the failure was.

But don’t worry about my vision being different from what you think game’s is. Think the rules will serve me right anyway.

It isn't his opinion. It's literally what the rules are written to do and the cycle of play the game is written to have. Even if you want to say that the betrothal between the NPC being woo'd and rival was pre-established, there is a whole mess of PC action that should be required to get from one end of your example to the other. "The King gets involved to take them down" is not an equivalent response to "he hit on some random dude's fiance."

You can do whatever you want at your table, but the feedback I'm giving you is "this is how the game is supposed to be played." Presumably, that's why you're here. That said, the more you want to stray from how the game is built to be played, the more the mechanisms will tend to work against you.

Which brings me back to the reason I started to comment:

and should have resources to back that up

I completely disagree with the notion that they do not already have the resources to back it up. In the very example you brought you decided that some random dope could Kevin Bacon the King into helping him deal with the PCs over the grave offense of hitting on his girlfriend.

As the GM, you already control everything for the NPC. You get to make their attributes what you want, their skills what you want, proficiencies what you want. You can give them any gear or equipment you decide. You control what properties they own, who their friends are. You can give them whatever minions you please, armies you please, resources you please. You control the weather, the environment, and in 95% of cases you'll control how and why the character comes on-screen at all and how that scene is framed.

You control everything except for the player's choices. You have every advantage over them except for access to drama. Giving the GM access to drama neutralizes the latter and mitigates the former. That doesn't strike me as desirable.

If the PCs can take on or take out an NPC that you don't want them to kill, chances are you made them earn the privilege. And if so, why not?

I think you both are missing the point I’m trying to make (and obviously failing).

First thing is not every relevant action on the part of the pc’s need to be the result or consequence of a conflict. Dramatic, kingdom shattering consequences CAN be the result of a failed test done by a PC that tried to influence the king and epically fails the conflict BUT can also be the result of a simple and willing action of bluntly and quite rudely stating to the face of said king, where the entire court could hear “you, sir, are a bit on the the stupid side. Not much, mind you, but enough to lose a problem for the leadership of this kingdom” or ever just “ My lordship, if you could only fuck yourself!” Or just “Shut the fuck up”

Whereas in the first case it was the mechanical result of a failed conflict, which led to a complication, in the second case the lethal result was the consequence of a simple sentence. Unless the pc had a very deficient control of the language spoken in that kingdom, which could result in a conflict, there is no need whatsoever to test to see if he can make that statement, and in my opinion there it’s the domain of the GM to adjudicate the consequence of said action.

The same with the example I gave. Although it could have been a complication that was the result of a failed test, in this case it’s completely independent of the result of any conflict he made to indicate the success of his advances on that gorgeous lady. Actually, a great MoS could result in a more serious offense to the honor of the bethrothed. Hell, if the lady just ditched him and ran away to a wild night of scandalous sex with the pc , an episode half the court saw (the running away, not the sex part, though that was spread by the many patrons of the local in where the acts took place, and which the pc didn’t try to avoid, after all he had his reputation as a “Casanova” to upheld).

None of this is the result of failed conflicts, but still are the consequences of his actions. Either he just didn’t care if the lady had a bethrothed or didn’t e en bothered to try to fi d out. Either way his actions resulted in an offense to the poor bastards honor, and are not the result of a mechanical failure. Not everything comes down to mechanics, especially in narrative oriented games.

As for the resources Subject, in this case, I was actually talking about mechanical resources that can have a direct impact in a physical conflict (lato sensu), not abstract powers to adjudicate environmental/context parameters.

In any case every system out there, but especially one with a toolbox mentality, can be used in a different context or goal which presided it’s conception. True, the more one diverts from the philosophy that presided it’s design the less “efficient” the system may be. In this case, I don’t see any major mechanical handicap.

[Benedict]

I think you both are missing the point I’m trying to make (and obviously failing).

Quite the contrary, your point has been communicated perfectly so far. What we both me and Agamemnon are saying is that you base your whole reasoning on a fallacy.

The reason for this fallacy, as I pointed many times before, is that you ignore core elements of the system in order to suit your vision of the game.

While you are free to do so - it's your table after all - to ask for rules that invalidate the core of the game is going too far. Hence the whole conversation.

The rules explicitly state :

TOOLKIT MENTALITY
As you might gather from the above, the game is fairly modular in nature. All of the advanced systems can be pared down, tinkered with, or expanded upon without upsetting the core game too much. It’s built to let you change things for flavor. Hack it as you please. That being said, when you’re first getting started make sure you take some time to get familiar with the book. Learn how the bits interact and how we meant them to work before you start shifting them around. In later versions of this document, we’ll give you some advice on doing just that.

I honestly fail to grasp what is not clear in the above passage. It says you can hack in there advanced elements or ignore them to your liking. Nothing states you can alter the core rules because its modular.

The most basic element of the game is the Conflict which is governed by the following.

Again quoting RAW :

The GM will present the players with situations and the players will describe what their characters do in response. This back and forth creates an ongoing fiction. Dice only enter the equation when there is a conflict to be resolved and something is at stake.

Conflict
A conflict occurs any time you try to change the momentum of events in the fiction. This means trying to make something happen that wasn’t going to, or trying to stop something from happening that otherwise would have. Moreover, to count as a conflict there must be something at stake. The stakes are why we care about this roll, representing the possible outcomes. A success must bring a tangible benefit and a failure must create some kind of complication. Your character is assumed to be reasonably competent by default, so mundane and meaningless tasks never require a die roll. by picking up the dice, you’re breaking the status quo of the game. You’re putting something on the line and declaring yourself willing to accept the consequences. Win or lose, you’ve set something in motion.

Conflicts are resolved with Task and Intent.

TASK AND INTENT
Any given conflict has two elements: the task and the intent.
The intent is what you are actually trying to achieve. Gain entry into the castle, get the jewels from the safe, and stop the flow of blood are all examples of intent.
The task is how you’re trying to achieve your intent. Bribe the guards, pick the lock, and apply a tourniquet are all good examples of tasks.
The description you give of the task is important because it will determine what you need to roll to get what you want.

Task and Intent can lead to Success or Failure.

FAILURE
Success or failure on a roll is about the intent, not the task itself. If you fail a roll, you didn’t get what you wanted from it. This doesn’t have to mean that you botched the task itself. Instead, failure most often represents some complication that developed to stand between your character and their goals. Instead of failing to pick the lock, the guards show up before you can finish the job. Instead of failing to woo that comely courtier, your intimate moment is cut short when a rival steals their attention. Even failure pushes the story forward, introducing new obstacles for your character to overcome.

All the above are governed by this little piece of gold :

ALL SALES ARE FINAL
until the dice are rolled, everything is negotiable. once a conflict is resolved, the results are fixed. They become a hard mechanical fact of the game world. In practice, this means two things: first, success means that you accomplish your stated intent. The GM can’t ask you for repeated rolls on a task to increase your chance of failure. Second, failure is binding. You can’t repeatedly attempt the same task in order to ’fish’ for a successful result.

And finally you have the Escalation.

ESCALATION
Where finesse fails, force can be king. When you fail a check, you can try to bring about the same intent with a different task provided that the second attempt is bigger, louder, or meaner than the first. Fail to pick a lock? You break down the door. Fail to crack a safe? You blow it up. Where your charm will sometimes fail, a pistol can be very persuasive.
This second attempt is always an escalation. You are gaining a second shot at your intent, but not without a price. Escalating the roll always increases the stakes attached. Where before you were unable to get into the safe, failure might now mean destroying the goods inside of it. Where before someone might have simply declined your offer, now failure may mean that you’ve damaged your relationship with them. Worse, depending on the context you may create a significant complication regardless of the outcome. A failed seduction may create some awkward moments, but blackmail will make an enemy of your victim even if you succeed.

Breaking the above means that you created your own game, using Sword & Scoundrel™ as the blueprint. But this you could do with any game, modular or not.

First thing is not every relevant action on the part of the pc’s need to be the result or consequence of a conflict. Dramatic, kingdom shattering consequences CAN be the result of a failed test done by a PC that tried to influence the king and epically fails the conflict BUT can also be the result of a simple and willing action of bluntly and quite rudely stating to the face of said king, where the entire court could hear “you, sir, are a bit on the the stupid side. Not much, mind you, but enough to lose a problem for the leadership of this kingdom” or ever just “ My lordship, if you could only fuck yourself!” Or just “Shut the fuck up”

This passage is contradictory and misleading. For the PC to say either of the above is part of a Conflict where the PC is interacting with the King (Task) for a reason (Intent). You don't simply say anything to the king. If you want to do so, you set up a Conflict handled with the appropriate Task/Intent always with possible Escalations. Going from “you, sir, are a bit on the the stupid side. Not much, mind you, but enough to lose a problem for the leadership of this kingdom” to “My lordship, if you could only fuck yourself!" is an Escalation.

Whereas in the first case it was the mechanical result of a failed conflict, which led to a complication, in the second case the lethal result was the consequence of a simple sentence. Unless the pc had a very deficient control of the language spoken in that kingdom, which could result in a conflict, there is no need whatsoever to test to see if he can make that statement, and in my opinion there it’s the domain of the GM to adjudicate the consequence of said action.

I explained above why this is wrong. Your job as a GM is to present the players with situations and the players will describe what their characters do in response. Not adjusticate consequences based on your reasoning; rather present outcomes based on Conflict resolution.

The same with the example I gave. Although it could have been a complication that was the result of a failed test, in this case it’s completely independent of the result of any conflict he made to indicate the success of his advances on that gorgeous lady. Actually, a great MoS could result in a more serious offense to the honor of the bethrothed. Hell, if the lady just ditched him and ran away to a wild night of scandalous sex with the pc , an episode half the court saw (the running away, not the sex part, though that was spread by the many patrons of the local in where the acts took place, and which the pc didn’t try to avoid, after all he had his reputation as a “Casanova” to upheld).

None of this is the result of failed conflicts, but still are the consequences of his actions. Either he just didn’t care if the lady had a bethrothed or didn’t e en bothered to try to find out. Either way his actions resulted in an offense to the poor bastards honor, and are not the result of a mechanical failure. Not everything comes down to mechanics, especially in narrative oriented games.

Which part of the following sentence is not clear?

A success must bring a tangible benefit and a failure must create some kind of complication.

Must. Not may. You don't get to make that call as the GM. The dice do. With Margin of Success.

Compare the number of hits you rolled against the req of the task. The difference produces your margin of success (MoS) or margin of failure (MoF). If you rolled 3 hits against an r2 check, you have a margin of success of 1 or MoS1.

MoS1-2 Standard Success. You accomplish what you were after by a clear margin.

You cannot introduce Complications on a MoS1 because you are the GM. Period.

In any case every system out there, but especially one with a toolbox mentality, can be used in a different context or goal which presided it’s conception. True, the more one diverts from the philosophy that presided it’s design the less “efficient” the system may be. In this case, I don’t see any major mechanical handicap.

You could also try eating a soup with a fork. You might even succeed at that. Still you'd only be hindering yourself using a tool for a function its not designed to accomplish.

[Agamemnon]

To put a softer edge on Benedict's point, the entire conversation boils down to this:

Different games are meant to be played differently. Different games are meant to be run differently. The rules are meant to facilitate different kinds of interactions. You can't run Apocalypse World (for instance) the way you can run D&D and expect any kind of success with the mechanisms. If you look at a game like Blades in the Dark, you'll find that the structure of play is radically different than the way most games are played. Sword & Scoundrel falls into a similar category. If you try to run the system the way you would a more traditional RPG, at best you'll be missing the intent. At worst, you're going to find the mechanisms aren't working for you.

Even at the simplest, running the game requires understanding the core feedback loop of play:

• Players create drives for their characters to communicate where they want the game to go.
• The GM uses their drives as guideposts to throw obstacles in their way.
• The Players get involved with conflicts against those obstacles in the name of their drives.
• In engaging with those conflicts, they earn drama and create complications.
• In earning drama, players are able to better survive current conflicts. In spending drama, players advance their characters, allowing them to be more capable in future conflicts.
• The complications created introduce new conflicts. These both earn more drama and give players a reason to change their drives over time.
• The cycle repeats.

You're getting push back on the "NPCs as independent actors who do what they want" thing because it doesn't work very well with the cycle. If you're pushing PCs into conflicts that they didn't seek out, that aren't related to their drives or traits, then you're putting players in a position where they are taking risks without gaining anything out of it. It's going to cost them drama to deal with the conflicts, but they won't be earning any drama for conflicts that aren't keyed off of a drive or trait. The net result will wind up being that in order to come out ahead, the PCs have to change their drives to fit your plot, instead of your plots being based on their drives. Once that shift takes place, you might as well throw out the drives entirely for skyrim-styled quest markers, because Drive 1 will end up being "Follow the GM's main plot." Drive 2: "Follow the side plot." Drive 3: "follow the other side plot."

This is why it is important that everything look like the result of either the player's drives, or is a clear result of the player's actions in the scenario. NPCs can absolutely hit back, but that move should be proportionate to what the PCs are doing. You have to maintain the focus on the PCs themselves, or the drives stop working as intended.

This whole thing will be easier once I finish the fairly massive GM section I'm putting together. A lot of traditional GM habits don't work very well. As ThirtyThr33 pointed out in a discord conversation: Most RPGs are trying to create some version of the monomyth, the hero's journey. That colors the way GMs are taught to run them. Sword & Scoundrel is the exact opposite. It's far more in the model of a greek tragedy. That requires an adjustment in the way you run the thing at the table.

[Benedict]

To put a softer edge on Benedict's point, the entire conversation boils down to this:

Totally agree with Agamemnon. And a note. If I came across as overly agressive I apologize. It as not my intention. Cheers.

[Agamemnon]

Based on the number of comments about death spirals and so on, maybe the following could delay that a bit:

The first X Impact you suffer each conflict is ignored, where X is equal to your Grit.
OR
Whenever you suffer Impact, reduce it by your Grit tap value.

This does increase complexity slightly and increases the value of Brawn, but it could delay the death spiral by one or two plays. Which might be all that's needed, honestly.
Now, as a disclaimer, I have yet to actually dueling yet. Just wanted to drop the idea before I forget, in case anyone likes it. This doesn't consider the change in TN at all, which is probably the bigger issue.

The current experimental build of the combat system is trying the thing out with reduced impact across the board. It's having some interesting results. You can check it out here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3582#p12751

[dysjunct]

I guess I don’t understand what the GM can accomplish with grit points that he can’t accomplish with every other tool he has.

It seems like a mechanical redundancy. If you want a tough fighter, then make a tough fighter. No need to make a weak fighter and then layer on some “get out of trouble” points.

[thorgarth]

To put a softer edge on Benedict's point, the entire conversation boils down to this:

Totally agree with Agamemnon. And a note. If I came across as overly agressive I apologize. It as not my intention. Cheers.

Personally I take it in stride otherwise each single post exchange would end badly... and I think people are acostumed to it already.

In any case any discussion becomes completely extemporaneous and irrelevant after reading that to state a single, simple frase, in a language he is fluent in, IS and needs to be handled as a conflict.

It was not part of a ploy to make the king act in a certain way that would directly or indirectly create a diplomatic problem with a foreign power, or some elaborate strategy. No. The pc knew who he was, and intended only to offend him, period. Of course this is an exaggerated example unless the character had a death wish, or hated the king (a drive, perhaps). Nonetheless, he just behaved himself in the way he intended. Simple and concisely. If you think you need to make a test out of that there is NO reason to continue to have this or other discussion, though I intrigued as to, if this were to be treated as a conflict, what would be the tangible benefit from a success and the complication from a failure?!? Well perhaps the type of execution, no doubt...

But I aggressively with you on something. We do not see eye to eye here. Hell The gulf is so huge I could’t even see you if you ere brandishing a light saber in the dead of night.

[ChaosFarseer]

The current experimental build of the combat system is trying the thing out with reduced impact across the board. It's having some interesting results. You can check it out here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3582#p12751

It's cool to see the rapid iteration of rule builds! Can't really comment on them at all, since I've only had two test duels and need to digest the rules better. Definitely interested in the Metal property changes, and curious to see how all that turns out.

I guess I don’t understand what the GM can accomplish with grit points that he can’t accomplish with every other tool he has.

It seems like a mechanical redundancy. If you want a tough fighter, then make a tough fighter. No need to make a weak fighter and then layer on some “get out of trouble” points.

I intended it to be a thing that all characters get, not just for NPCs. The idea was that it might be good to delay the influence of impact a bit, but that may or may not be a problem. I'd need to play a bunch before making any other rule opinions; that one was just on top of my head and sounded cool. (Will Points might also be good, so Brawn isn't even more relevant, but it just doesn't sound as nice. And I can't even say whether or not this is a problem.)

[Agamemnon]

I guess I don’t understand what the GM can accomplish with grit points that he can’t accomplish with every other tool he has.

It seems like a mechanical redundancy. If you want a tough fighter, then make a tough fighter. No need to make a weak fighter and then layer on some “get out of trouble” points.

I intended it to be a thing that all characters get, not just for NPCs. The idea was that it might be good to delay the influence of impact a bit, but that may or may not be a problem. I'd need to play a bunch before making any other rule opinions; that one was just on top of my head and sounded cool. (Will Points might also be good, so Brawn isn't even more relevant, but it just doesn't sound as nice. And I can't even say whether or not this is a problem.)

I suspect Dysjunct may have mistaken your original topic (introducing something akin to grit points to slow down the death spiral of combat) for the topic that we sidetracked into (drama points for the GM's NPCs.) Or, more accurately, may not realize that the latter and the former were separate ideas being discussed. In the same thread. Because Higgins isn't paying attention and moderating the threads

[dysjunct]

Oh right.

Well, then I stand by my post as it applies to Drama for NPCs.

For Grit Points as originally suggested in the OP, it reminds me of a comment made by one of the designers at Splotter regarding a board game of theirs. Something to the effect of “if you can’t lose the game on the first turn, then why have the first turn?” And I think the same thing applies here. If you want to have the effect of an indecisive first few tempos, then this is easy enough to accomplish narratively without the need for a specific mechanic. Just describe the swordsmen circling and exchanging blows.

Of course, at your table, do what you like. But for me, it seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[ChaosFarseer]

For Grit Points as originally suggested in the OP, it reminds me of a comment made by one of the designers at Splotter regarding a board game of theirs. Something to the effect of “if you can’t lose the game on the first turn, then why have the first turn?” And I think the same thing applies here. If you want to have the effect of an indecisive first few tempos, then this is easy enough to accomplish narratively without the need for a specific mechanic. Just describe the swordsmen circling and exchanging blows.

Of course, at your table, do what you like. But for me, it seems like a solution in search of a problem.

So, I'd agree that grit points aren't really needed by any means, but I disagree with the quote. There's a lot of games where it's actually impossible to end the game within the first few turns. However, those turns still matter, since you can gain the upper hand or otherwise make it more likely that you will win. It's rarely a foregone conclusion early in a game.

Grit points were intended to increase the amount of time before taking a TN shift and suffering a downwards spiral, although it's actually pretty hard to get that TN shift before some small blows land, so they're not necessary. And full melee takes a while, so it doesn't need to be prolonged further, and it's not really trying to be a balanced game. It's a simulator and also a place for summoning drama. So, it's fine that someone could die turn one.