Brilliant Salamanca! Thank you very much for the in-depth reply, it clarifies a lot for me (though I'm still unsure about the 'american' v 'english' language part in Dramatic Wounds).
One question about the Dramatic Sequences:
So basically, when narrating a dramatic sequence, if a certain action would cause tension, excitement and or an opportunity, you should call for a raise?
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die..." ~ Inigo
It says (about dracheneisen weapons):
Accessing a reliquary allows access to a relic belonging to the order, typically a dracheneisen weapon [4 favour], that they will loan to their trusted agent for one mission (usually a few Scenes, but no longer than an Episode).
A dracheneisen weapon’s location costs 9 Favor. The Order does not simply hand their agent a blade—they are too valuable and rare for that. They will, however, share a blade’s location.
Why would anyone pay 9 Favour when they can gain a dracheneisen weapon for 4 favour? Is it because the 9 favour means the character keeps the weapon?
With 4 favor the hero gets to borrow the weapon for a short time, I think it should be around a 2 session story. If the hero doesn't want to return the weapon he will be expelled and chased in order to retrieve the weapon and probably gets corruption.
With 9 favor the hero gets the location of a weapon, this means the player gets a 10 step story, at the end of wich, his hero gets a drachenseinen weapon he can keep for himself.
I might be barking up the wrong tree entirely here, but I was thinking about how the GM reveals to the players the number of Wounds their Heroes will take in a certain action sequence. I think telling them how many wounds they'll receive lessens some of the tension.
So, in order to create more tension, would it be possible to not tell the players the exact number of Wounds their Heroes will take, and just tell them they’ll suffer 'some damage' as they dive into the river, run through the burning room, jump from the speeding carriage etc?
I'm not really familiar with the rules but would that work? I realise there's tension from other aspects of the game, like choosing what to spend Raises on, but I would still like to implement something similar to the above.
Part of the problem with "hiding" the number of Wounds a Risk entails is that the players need to decide how many raises they want to assign with avoiding said consequence.
Not only could it result in a PC not spending enough Raises to mitigate some or all of the Wounds, but could lead to PCs to spend more Raises than necessary, and quite possibly pass up a useful Opportunity. Could also lead to accusations (unfair or otherwise) of GM "cheating" if players find out after assigning their Raises that they still took one or more Wounds, especially if they sitll had Raises left over that could have averted some or all of that damage. Or if a player decides "yeah, I really need the Hero Point, so I'll go ahead and fail this Risk" only to find out they're going to get clobbered; it gets especially heinous when the Risk hands out 5 or more Wounds to Heroes, which means that PC just got smacked with a Dramatic Wound and zero warning.
Also, letting the PCs know what the consequences are helps them set the stage for how daunting a particular Risk is, and thus can help build tension for a scene. If you advise them that a Risk entails a consequence of 4 Wounds, that's going to get the players' attention and let them know this is a big deal.
Plus, it cuts down on the pretense of an adversarial relationship between players and the GM, who should be cooperating to tell an awesome and fun story around the table.
Dono's Gaming & Etc Bloghttp://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/
You have good points
Well, I guess there's always the scenario where they just won't have enough Raises to soak up Wounds and deal with all Complications.
@Sparky, your detailed "First Time Quick Start" questions have been moved to a new thread below:
Just in case, we may want to keep the spoilers in the GM only forum, it is easier with a new thread.
TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e
Ok thanks for the heads up.
Incidentally, I tried starting a new topic in the GM thread a few days ago but I was told I was unable to and no reason was given (at least I don't remember seeing one). I haven't tried since.
Page 207: Hexenwork
[A]ny Unguent made using hexe body parts gives twice as many doses. In addition, Unguents made using hexe body parts do not degrade at the end of an Episode.
Unguents are unstable; each Hero can only keep one unused Major Unguent or one unused Minor Unguent at the end of each Episode
First part says they don't degrade, second part implies they do.
My reading of that was, normally things you make degrade and you can only keep one Major unguent and one Minor unguent. However, things made from another Hexe don't ever degrade.
id: You get to keep one Major, one Minor and any made from a Hexe.
Any reason the rules state the GM describes the scene with Risks and Dramatic Sequences but not with Action Sequences?
Page 172: Risks
Step 1: Setting the Stage
First, the GM describes the situation. She tells you important details that may work for or against your Hero, elements she can use and elements that might hinder him.
Page 182: Dramatic Sequences
Step 1: Approach
The GM tells each player what the circumstances of the Sequence are in general terms and what they can expect. This should include the scope of the Sequence, any dangers that the Heroes are aware of, and how long the Sequence, in general, will la
Page 178: Action Sequences
Step 1: Approach
Everyone announces an Approach for the Round. The GM tells each player which Trait+Skill to use for her Risk. Just like a normal Risk, all players gather dice from their Traits, Skills and elsewhere.
It then goes straight to step 2 which is consequences and opportunities. Even if you think the consequences and opportunities more or less make up the descriptive part of the scene, it's a little odd that it comes after the approach when it comes before the approach elsewhere.
With Action Sequences (i.e. combat), by the time they come about the players already have a general idea of what the scene is and what's expected of them. The only exception would be if they get caught in an ambush, but even that's not going to take much explanation on the GM's part beyond "while you're walking down the street, a bunch of armed thugs suddenly attack from the alleys!" and the players really shouldn't need much prodding on what they should do in response to said ambush.
I thought it was something like that
Thanks for clarifying
When writing up a scenario and specifically, a particular scene within the scenario, what is the mechanical difference between a Risk, and a Consequence, how would you use them in a scene?
For example, I might write up a scene like this:
- Avoid being swept overboard every round
- Swinging yard arm 3W every round
- Bail out water from deck
Why isn't 'Avoid being swept overboard every round' a Consequence, why isn't 'Swinging yard arm' a Risk? What's the difference here?
Well, a Risk is a challenging action. Risks have consequences. So it's a simple matter of:
The heroes need to do this.
The consequences are:
Now, not all risks can (or should) be scripted out. So I like to keep a list of potential consequences that could be applied to a risk in the scene. Stuff that you could drop in in a pinch.
Looking at your example, I would say avoiding being swept out to sea feels more like a consequence. The Risk is whatever the hero is doing INSTEAD of holding on for dear life.
Thank you BluSponge
Been thinking about what you said Salamanca
You say a Risk where a player is causing the action to happen, but in the Quickstart, the Risk is getting across the burning room to the other side. In this instance, the player is not causing the action to happen, they are simply trying to avoid the flames. This action feels more like a Consequence but is listed as a Risk and this is a good example of why I'm not sure which is which.
Would it be more accurate to say that a Risk is the primary action a character attempts in the scene (break into a vault, get across the burning room, steal a carriage, pull the damsel out of the death-trap etc) whilst Consequences are events that happen to the character whilst the primary action is performed?
I wouldn't define it that way because it implies that ANY action is a Risk. Risks are actions that have significant consequences attached to them. Not every action is a Risk. Running across a room? Not a risk. Running across a room that is on fire? Risk. Seducing a woman at l'Empereur's masquarade ball? Not a risk. Seducing l'Empereur's wife? Risk!
If you can't apply more than one potential consequence to any proposed action, it's probably not a risk.
That's a great bit of advice
Still not sure about the difference between a Risk and a Consequence. I mean, I know what they mean term wise, but not game wise.
As I see it, a Risk is a dangerous/exciting action the character chooses to attempt, whereas a Consequence is a dangerous/exciting action that happens regardless of what the character chooses
Or something like that?
Ok, how about an example.
Climbing up on your roof to fix your satellite dish in a lightning storm is a Risk.
See, none of those consequences are dangerous/exciting actions. They are bad things that can happen to you for taking a risk. Fixing your dish costs 1 Raise. There. It's done. But you need three more Raises to mitigate the consequences of your action. If not, you need to choose what consequences you are willing to suffer for your action. Most people will probably choose 2 or 4, but someone will probably choose 1.
Or, you could say, "I fail" at the Risk. In which case, your dish is still broke, you have been struck by lightning, will soon be dealing with the flu AND your neighbors are talking behind your back.
Is that any clearer?
I understand what Consequences are and how they are used in the game, my issue is that I see no narrative difference between them and a Risk
In other words, I have difficulty making up Risks because they seem so similar to consequences - if that makes sense
Risk - Avoid being swept overboard
Consequence - Avoid being swept overboard
No difference between them as far as I can tell
If your character's ship is in a storm, the risk should probably be something like "reef the sails," "steer the ship away from the rocks," "man the bilge pumps," or even "save other crewmates from being swept overboard". A potential consequence of trying one of these heroic acts is being swept overboard.
I guess its also possible that the GM inflicts such a terrible storm on the ship that "hold on for dear life to avoid being swept overboard" becomes the risk. In that case, "going overboard" would not be the consequence, it would be the result if the player decides "my character fails." If the character spends a raise in this case, they do not fail and do not get swept overboard. Instead, consequences for a "hold on for dear life" risk would be things like: get bashed on the head by flying debris; lose your kit (weapons etc.) to the ocean; another crewmate falls overboard.
Perhaps that's a way to solve your problem. I think you're thinking of 'consequence' as what happenns when the PC fails. It is not that. Consequences are what happens when the PC succeeds, just not as well as they'd ideally like. So "going overboard" cannot be a consequence of spending a raise on the action "I hold on so as not to be swept overboard."
Yeah, what Easl said.
Avoid being swept overboard probably isn't a good risk. It's a better consequence. So it would be more like:
Risk: Sail your ship through a terrible storm
Be swept overboard
So your risk would be doing something the storm makes perilous.
Maybe think of it this way. Are you familiar with the Talislanta rpg? When you roll to perform an action in Talislanta, you get one of four results:
So Consequences are to Risks what Partial Success is to an Action. A player who buys off all the consequences essentially has a full success. Everything else is some degree of "partial" success. The difference is in most games, the player rolls and then the GM determines and applies consequences based on the roll. In 7th Sea, the GM provides the consequences up front and the player choose which apply based on his roll.
So no, consequences aren't actions. You're looking at it slightly wrong.
The consequence wouldn't be: avoid being swept overboard. (requires action on the players part)
The consequence would be: be swept overboard. (requires no action on the players part — it simply is)
The player negating the consequence makes it a non-issue.
Is that clearer than mud?
Viewing Consequences as things that just happen to the character does make it clearer
So my initial example of:
Risk - Avoid being swept overboard
Would be better written up as
Risk - Steer ship through storm (action required on character's part)
Consequence - Swept overboard, Swinging yard arm 3 Wounds, Sorage floods ruining food supplies (no action required, they just apply)
That more like it?
A related question
What if (using the storm and sail example) I wanted to include "Repair hole in bilge", would that be a Consequence (the ship will flounder to a crawl and possibly sink) or an Opportunity (the ship is fine if the hole is plugged)?
EDIT: It would probably be better served as a Timed Consequence but let's say Timed Consequences don't exist in the rules, how would "Repair hole in bilge", best be used, as a Consequence or an Opportunity, or does it matter, might it be used as either?
Ha! Watch the first couple of episodes of last seasons Black Sails for this one.
Risk: Repair hole in the bilge.
The hole in the bilge would be a timed event, not really a consequence. It's an additional obstacle that the players have to deal with. Just because they succeed at the risk doesn't mean bad things don't happen.
I'll have to check out Black Sails
I was looking through my own FAQ and came across this:
When performing an Action Sequence, when your turn comes up, your Action can consist of 1 or more Raises which allows you to carry out multiple subactions dependent on how many Raises you get?
Yes. For example:
Round 1: 2 RaisesAvoid the yard arm (1) Avoid being swept overboard by thewave (1)
Round 2: 3 RaisesSave a crew member (1) Climb the rigging (1) Fix the sail (1)
My question, or my observation is that the bolded example doesn't look right. Reason being, in an Action Sequence, you can only take one Action on your turn, but then it's the turn of another character? Yes if you have the same number of Raises as another player character you could act again, but my point if you can't take multiple actions on your turn during an Action Sequence. The above example seems to describe a Risk action for one character and not an Action Sequence with multiple characters.
Am I right or missing something?
The only issue I'm seeing with these is that Round 1 is missing any sort of player goal. Avoid the yard arm and Avoid being swept overboard both read like consequences of doing something.
Meanwhile, Round 2 is ALL player goals and no consequences.
So I would probably rewrite it as follows:
Round 1: 2 RaisesFix the Sail (1) Avoid the yard arm (1; consequence)
Round 2: 3 RaisesClimb the rigging (1) Avoid being swept overboard (1; consequence) Save a crew member (1)
That reads better to me.
The inevitable question for me at least is, did Heroes & Villains fix the Duellist issue?
Somewhat. It offered a middle ground (Student of Combat) that gave you some basic maneuvers (slash, parry, and ?) for 3 points. It's not going to satisfy everyone, but it's a good first step. I suppose it depends on the problem you are looking to address. Vs villains: yes. Vs brutes: no.
Yes, I was hoping it fixed vs Villains and vs Brutes
Is the issue vs Brutes that Duellists wade through them whilst non duellists just sit around and watch?
To some, yes.
Of course, in the games I've run and played in, all of the Heroes, Duelist or not, were able to participate in defeating Brute Squads when they showed up. Only difference is that Duelists can do so faster, with a simple combo of Slash+Feint+Slash allowing a Duelist with Weaponry 3 to defeat a Strength 8 Brute Squad with ease. Granted, the Reckless Takedown Advantage (2pts) allows a Hero to demolish a Brute Squad no matter how strong without spending any Raises, but instead forces the Hero to suffer a Dramatic Wound in the process.
Personally, I think the biggest hurdle is GMs needing to realize that Brute Squads were never meant to be a serious threat to the Heroes, Duelist or otherwise. They're an aspect of the scene, and shouldn't be encountered in a vacuum. If the GM wants to give the Heroes a serious challenge to overcome, that's generally what Villains are for.
I understand, but players like to mow down rows of mooks, at least that's what I believe. But one duellist deprives other players of this
Pretty broad brush to paint with, and I've been in enough gaming groups to know that's a load of bunk.
Not all players are interested in decimating their foes through strength of arms, with some being more interested in outwitting their foes on a mental level, and find that having to resort to direct violence is underwhelming. It's the uncreative GM that restricts their players to only being able to use brute force to defeat a Brute Squad.
Let your PCs use things like Staredown to get a Brute Squad to say "screw it, we're outta here!" or just arrange for Opportunities that do more than take down an extra Brute or two when another Hero activates it. Or even Rich to spend a point of Wealth to buy off a Brute Squad so that they go hassle somebody else, especially if they're cheap thugs with no real sense of personal loyalty to the Villain. Reward your players for taking unconventional methods of dealing with Brute Squads beyond the "one Raise defeats one Brute" approach.
Check out the free Quick Start rules, you may find a lot about the system there.