Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8247052" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I appreciate the response.  There are a lot of interesting takeaways from the above.  A few things that strike me and some questions as well:1) When I put together my post, that felt like a massive info dump; the event itself, the backdrop of the setting for context, related infrastructure, personnel, and relevant factions potential response to such an event.  Your response to that information was the following:I am not familiar enough with this setting to really walk through the process on it (and I am quite unclear on many of the events, causes, etc to run that through the procedures and process I would use). I think you need a high degree of familiarity with the setting.That feels extremely instructive on bridging some of our divide in our conversations broadly and in this conversation specifically:* I certainly wouldn't qualify myself as possessing "a high degree of familiarity with the setting."  I know enough "to be dangerous."  Where I don't know things in a pinch I make them up or I "ask questions and use the answers."* The information that I gave you above is precisely the info I use to deploy the procedures for the game to determine "what happens now?"  No more, no less.  So when I look at the information, it feels like an information surplus to me.* However, when you look at the above info you feel like you're working from an information deficit of sufficient capacity to make it impossible for either you to (i) entirely extrapolate what comes next, (ii) deploy your procedures, or (iii) some combination of the two (from your post it seems like a combination).I wonder if some other posters look at what I typed out on the situation/setting/context and also felt like they would be working from an insurmountable information deficit if they attempted to engage with it?  I'd be curious to hear from them, if so.The above shouldn't read like "I'm right, you're wrong."  It should read like "this is interesting insight into the cognitive framing divide on the same info/circumstances."2)  For your MCS, your Combat Rating and Strength actually looks very kindred with Blades Scale, Potency, Quality, and Tier.  Do you have some procedure like this that determines the magnitude of things that are the collision of other events (not Mass Combat); eg pestilence + hysteria/panic vs a church's response + a city's physickers?In Blades Fortune Roll procedure to handle something like this, you assess the relevant parts in play and build a singular dice pool if its just a Mission Clock or multiple dice pools if its Racing Clocks (Take top result; 1-3 result = 1 Tick, 4-5 = 2 Ticks, 6 = 3 Ticks).  Here is what that this has looked like over the last weeks of the game:As is hopefully clear in the above, the process is:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Set up Racing Clocks.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Assess Factors to build opposing Dice Pools.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every Downtime Phase, roll opposing Dice Pools (take top result; 1-3 result = 1 Tick, 4-5 = 2 Ticks, 6 = 3 Ticks).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Interpret results and evolve the situation.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If situation changes between phases (as it did here), adjust opposing Dice Pools.</li> </ul>[HR][/HR]Given what I've written above here, do you think you could either:* Ask questions that would give you sufficient resolution for you to work with the depicted situation then use my answers to show us the exact procedure that you would use to evolve the situation?or* Break down a play excerpt where you did something similar (like I mentioned above - pestilence + hysteria/panic vs a prefecture's infrastructural and personnel driven response they could martial)?  I'm particularly interested in if you use competing dice pools for something like this similar to how you deploy your Mass Combat System.</blockquote>

Verification