Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Official Error Thread

[Agamemnon]

Errors, typos, etc go here.

[thorgarth]

So I will be using this thread not only to identify errors but to raise points that I think should be clarified.

So, and to open the "hostilities":

Page 14 - Regarding Proficiencies, second point (in Combat Pools) : at the end of the paragraph where we read "(...) then your Combat Pool is based on your proficiency alone.", should read "(...) then you're Combat Pool is based on your Attribute alone.".

Also regarding "untrained ability checks" its not clear IF you use Attributes to Sub in Skills, since in the case of Proficiencies that is clearer. In fact, in the first paragraph of this title we can read "The substitute must be another skill or proficiency directly related to the task at hand." Must be either a skill or proficiency, but then a phrase a couple of lines bellow "If you don’t have Larceny to pick the lock, maybe you can use Cunning to figure it out anyway or Brawn and a crowbar to pry it open.", clearly opens the possibility to use an Attribute to Sub in a Skill.

In fact, in the second paragraph the term used is ability. "For substituting skills, this can be any other ability you possess that would make sense in the circumstance.

To make things cristal clear I would advise to change the first quoted phrase, that should read "The substitute must be another ability, either a skill, a proficiency or an attribute, directly related to the task at hand."

[thorgarth]

Regarding Advancement (burning Drama) in conjunction with the Untrained Ability Checks, namely substituting abilities, in my opinion it should be made clearer which Ability can be advanced, if either the substituted skill or the Sub in skill, or only one, OR both options depending the specific mechanic, because:

Page 34, under Advancement "If you spent drama directly on the roll (Dig Deep, Scoundrel’s Luck) then the mark is applied to either the ability being tested, an ability or trait that was tapped into the roll, or any trait that counted as a penalty towards it." which leads to believe that the player can, in the case of using a sub in skill, opt to advance either the substituted or the sub in,

BUT in at least a specific case that option is not available to the player. The rule dictates that only the substituted skill can be advanced, as read on page 14, Voluntary Substitutions, "You can always choose to do this, but whenever you do any drama spent on that check (see Drama pg XX) must apply to the ability being subbed for. If you need Lore (Church) and use Education as a substitute, drama spent automatically applies to advancing your Lore (Church)."

Is this the ONLY case regarding Substituting Skills (regarding Untrained Ability Checks) where the Drama burned can only be used to advance the Skill being substituted (Subbed for), meaning, in all other cases its the prerogative of the player to use the burned Drama points to be able to advance either the subbed for or for the subbed in skills?

If its not the case the text on page 34 needs to be changed to make this clear, and in any case, if the voluntary substitutions is in fact the only exception it should be so noted here, reading something like this:

Page 34, "f you spent drama directly on the roll (Dig Deep, Scoundrel’s Luck) then the mark is applied to either the ability being tested, an ability or trait that was tapped into the roll (see page 14, "Voluntary Substitutions" for exception), or any trait that counted as a penalty towards it."

[thorgarth]

Karma´s a bitch... Ohhh, that's not it.

Karma, Page 37.

"In addition to providing marks for advancement, every point of drama burnt adds towards your character’s karma. " which seems to indicate that burnt drama points, and only burnt drama points, adds towards Karma...

But then the following phrase ... a new term, Total Karma, and further bellow a new term, "accumulated" Karma, may raise some doubts.

"The character’s total karma provides a bonus to your next character in that same campaign." and "The filled boxes show your accumulated karma." respectively...

This terminology seems a bit ambiguous. Perhaps if the terms "total Karma" and "accumulated karma" were substituted by the original designation it would make this clearer, which should read as "The character’s burnt karma provides a bonus to your next character in that same campaign." and "The filled boxes shown your burnt karma."

[thorgarth]

Characters, characters, Bonds and Characters...

The use of the term "character" is very ambiguous in the context of the "Bonds", starting on page 79, in that it treats the subject of a bond, which should be a NPC as a characters, which should be the player's fictional personas, which even raises the question if the subject of a bond can be a Character (in the true sense of the word and not just a NPC).

In this context the term "character" (when referring to the subject of a bond) should be replaced with "NPC" or "Non Player Character".

[Agamemnon]

Characters, characters, Bonds and Characters...

The use of the term "character" is very ambiguous in the context of the "Bonds", starting on page 79, in that it treats the subject of a bond, which should be a NPC as a characters, which should be the player's fictional personas, which even raises the question if the subject of a bond can be a Character (in the true sense of the word and not just a NPC).

In this context the term "character" (when referring to the subject of a bond) should be replaced with "NPC" or "Non Player Character".

1. It says under the description of the trait "Bonds represent NPCs that."
2. The rules for bonds in play also apply to player characters who are taken as bonds as discussed in character creation.

[thorgarth]

1. It says under the description of the trait "Bonds represent NPCs that."
2. The rules for bonds in play also apply to player characters who are taken as bonds as discussed in character creation.

Does this mean then that apart from the mechanics introduced in page 46, regarding the players offering their character as a bond to other character during the creation of a character history, supposing said character accepts that, there is no other situation in which a character can be bonded to another character?