2006-06-13 : A duh moment for that game

That still title-wanting game.

So Ben tells me that in his game the other night they had some conflicts go on too long too. I expect he was playing by all the current rules, so, I guess it's a thing. I'm musing and duh!

If you win the advantage die a third time in a row, stop. It's a technical win, like a technical knockout. Negotiate an outcome; your stick is the usual exhaustion or injury.


A question though: should a natural win by doubling be mechanically different than a technical win? If so, the answer that comes to mind is: on a natural win, negotiate an outcome and your stick is exhaustion or injury + 1! Reduce your opponent's stat by 3 die sizes instead of 2.

Time to play this game again.

1. On 2006-06-13, Clinton R. Nixon said:

Oh, man - making the stick worse is a pretty mean move. I might make a TKO a smaller stick, instead, but that's just based off two sessions of play.


2. On 2006-06-13, Vincent said:

I might make the stick the same either way. Any thoughts that they should be different?


direct link

This makes...
Chris go "of course, you might reverse it..."*

*click in for more

3. On 2006-06-13, Piers said:

This as opposed to say, when you win get a d6; if you win again, get another; if you lose, lose them all?


4. On 2006-06-14, anon. said:

They should be different.  It's a different kind of win.  The doubling always feels crushing and final.  Maybe a TKO is "they lose 2 but you lose 1"?  Do that and people would try hard to avoid it.


5. On 2006-06-14, Vincent said:

The most serious outcome has to be available on the opening roll. Thus, doubling has to be either more serious than or as serious as the technical win.


RSS feed: new comments to this thread