Should Boon/Bane be moved to the Companion?

[TrippyHippy]

Now, our group playtested Boon/Bane and enjoyed it's implementation and we appreciate that they weight rolls without affecting the range of effect.

However, the question arose as to why we couldn't escalate boon/bane to using more than one dice. I asked the question on a thread below, but the response was negative. Noting, also, that a number of the various boon/bane examples in the first draft have now reverted back to the old +2/-2 DM adjustments (which I thought the game was moving away from), my feeling on them has shifted.

While I think that they have a place in the game, I think there specific implementation in the core rules is not really clear to me at this point and I think they need time to be thought out. I'd rather see the rule being shifted to the Companion book, therefore and keep the Core game with simple target numbers and DMs alone.

Thoughts?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Two sets of MgT2 rules then? One with +/- DMs and one with Bane/Boon? It's hard enough keeping any examples updated every time a rule gets changed in just one book.

 

[grauenwolf]

I think Boon/Bane should be fairly rare. If you find yourself wanting to stack them, you are probably giving them out too generously and should instead modify the DMs.

 

[grauenwolf]

To continue my though, a Boon should be given in part for role-playing.

For example, having the exact right part to fix a faulty M-drive is a difficulty reduction. Relating how this is the exact same type of ship you worked on during your career as a Merchant/Free Trader is a Boon.

Conversely, Banes should come from suggests from the players. "Oh hey, isn't that the gun you went swimming with last week when were chasing that bounty? I hope the circuitry wasn't damaged."

 

[-Daniel-]

From day one I have felt that the Bane/Boon mechanic felt like a "bolted on after thought" mechanic. It didn't integrate smoothly into the existing game, I do not mean 1st ed either I mean the beta rule as they stood. The struggle that people seem to be having does not shock me. The mechanic feels out of sync with the core game mechanic.

I do love the idea of a bonus or negative that does not impact the "Effect" number, but at this point I still see Boon/Bane struggling to find it's place within the rules. I think the best thing to do is either be crystal clear in the write up how it is expected to be used or shift it to an optional tool or offer some detailed examples, maybe in an overall game play example.

And to be fair Shawn, you have changed your stance on when and how we should use Boon/Bane over the course of this beta, so I feel even though you may not want to admit it, I think even you have been unsure at times as well. 8)

 

[Scratches]

I'm with grauenwolf and the role-playing aspect. I may be missing something but it seems like a simple thing to add and promotes the players to put in a bit of extra RP effort and thereby color the game.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

And to be fair Shawn, you have changed your stance on when and how we should use Boon/Bane over the course of this beta, so I feel even though you may not want to admit it, I think even you have been unsure at times as well. 8)

To me, it has been simplified to being just a roll type now. It did take me awhile to get used to not piling +/- DMs onto skill checks, like I did with MgT1. Matthew has been removing Bane/Boon from some of the rules and putting the hard-wired +/- DMs back in. That is because Bane/Boon was getting used up before a referee decides if a Bane/Boon roll would be made for a skill check or not. And also, it wasn't allowing for Effect range to change when a situation becomes more interesting for it to change. The Effect is all we're really looking for when doing skill checks.

I think Boon/Bane should be fairly rare.

Very much so.

 

[Wizard]

Page 59: The task difficulty levels allow a referee to pre-plan the skill and characteristic checks Travellers will need to succeed in during an adventure. However, there will likely be situations that arise that will make things either easier or harder for the Travellers.

If a Traveller has help, such as good tools, competent aids or other beneficial circumstances, he receives a Boon.

If a Traveller is hindered in a check, such as with poor tools, a dimly lit environment or other negative circumstances, he receives a Bane.

Page 61: If an exterior factor is influencing the task, for better or worse, then a Boon or Bane is applied to the check. Making a phone call while hanging upside down from a spacecraft is a good example of a Bane being applied…

As written, Boon/Bane applies to various circumstances. In my mind there can be multiple circumstances effecting a task. Take the example from the second quote above, “Making a phone call while hanging upside down from a spacecraft”, now add “during a meteor shower”. To me that screams double Bane. It the Traveller making the check doesn’t like their chances with rolling 2 Bane dice then they can either wait for the meteor shower to end or get into a more secure position. A choice that the Traveller has to make, adding to the fun of the game. Otherwise if those 2 Bane dice are just collapsed into 1 Bane dice then there is no game reason for the Traveller to do anything, they might as well roll while hanging upside down in a meteor shower, they are no worse off.

I like the Boon/Bane mechanic, but absolutely hate how you can only have 1 Boon or Bane applied at a time, it just seems like an arbitrary limit on roleplaying. Also I believe more examples need to be added to clearly demonstrate how it is used. I also don't think it should be rarely used. What is the point of having a game mechanic and then only use it sparingly. You might as well replace it with dice modifiers if that's the case.

The Boon/Bane mechanic has a lot of potential, but sadly, as TrippyHippy has suggested, maybe it should be moved to the Companion and replace with DMs in the core. Currently it just seems to be adding confusion as everyone has their own take of how it works.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I like the Boon/Bane mechanic, but absolutely hate how you can only have 1 Boon or Bane applied at a time, it just seems like an arbitrary limit on roleplaying. Also I believe more examples need to be added to clearly demonstrate how it is used. I also don't think it should be rarely used. What is the point of having a game mechanic and then only use it sparingly. You might as well replace it with dice modifiers if that's the case.

The Boon/Bane mechanic has a lot of potential, but sadly, as TrippyHippy has suggested, maybe it should be moved to the Companion and replace with DMs in the core. Currently it just seems to be adding confusion as everyone has their own take of how it works.

You like Boon/Bane.
You hate not stacking Boon/Bane.
You don't think Boon/Bane should be rarely used.
etc.

True. It adds confusion if your game has more than one referee at the table. A lot of players are still on the +/- DM confusion. I don't think those should go away.

 

[bbmike]

...Take the example from the second quote above, “Making a phone call while hanging upside down from a spacecraft”, now add “during a meteor shower”. To me that screams double Bane...

To me that's where the referee would make the call to add an extra Bane. The rules state you already get the first one.

 

[Wizard]

You like Boon/Bane.
You hate not stacking Boon/Bane.
You don't think Boon/Bane should be rarely used.

Yes, I do like the concept of Boon/Bane, but I do believe it needs a bit of refinement to make it fit in with the concept I have in my head from reading the rules. Maybe my concept is wrong, and a few examples of Boon/Bane in use would help me visualize it better.

True. It adds confusion if your game has more than one referee at the table. A lot of players are still on the +/- DM confusion. I don't think those should go away.

Agree, I can just define it and use it the way I feel it should be used in my games. But from reading all the various forum posts there does seem to be confusion on how to officially interpret how it should work. For something that is in the core rulebook, that confusion shouldn't exist, and I believe it should be clarified.

 

[grauenwolf]

For something that is in the core rulebook, that confusion shouldn't exist, and I believe it should be clarified.

Agreed. But to be fair, I think they are going in the right direction with the changes in the newest draft.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Two sets of MgT2 rules then? One with +/- DMs and one with Bane/Boon? It's hard enough keeping any examples updated every time a rule gets changed in just one book.

That is the case as it already is. The Core Rules and the Companion options.

 

[TrippyHippy]

For something that is in the core rulebook, that confusion shouldn't exist, and I believe it should be clarified.

Agreed. But to be fair, I think they are going in the right direction with the changes in the newest draft.

I think the opposite. The implication in the first draft was that the referee would merely set a difficulty, players would then add their DMs (based on Chracteristic mods and Skills) and if there was a final adjustment to be made for other external conditions, then that's what you add a boon or a bane dice for.

As it stands, we've seen a reversion back towards referee administered DMs instead of boon/bane dice. Moreover, I know from experience now that players will start to ask how to get more boon dice. A cap of one is purely arbitrary and, as such, it's an arbitrary ruling. Saying that it should given 'for roleplaying', or that it should only be used sparingly or 'rarely' is also arbitrary.

Arbitrary rules are akin to referee fiat. Fine for an experienced referee, but if players get wind of it or the referee is confused by the implementation in any way, then it's cause for a dispute round the gaming table.

In short, the rule is a pig as it stands. Promising, interesting and fun.......but still a pig. It needs to be relegated to an optional rule, and the depository of all optional rules is the Companion, apparently. If it was discussed there, as an optional rule, it could be on the basis of boon/bane replacing DMs wholesale or as mix.

 

[-Daniel-]

As it stands, we've seen a reversion back towards referee administered DMs instead of boon/bane dice. Moreover, I know from experience now that players will start to ask how to get more boon dice. A cap of one is purely arbitrary and, as such, it's an arbitrary ruling. Saying that it should only be used sparingly or 'rarely' is also arbitrary.

Arbitrary rules are akin to Referee fiat. Fine for an experienced referee, but if players get wind of it or the referee is confused by the implementation in any way, then it's cause for a dispute round the gaming table.

This is an important point. Several days ago I spoke about the CRB should never assume a GM that is experienced. Especially if we want to pull in new fans. Rather the CRB must assume new players and new GMs. As the combination of difficulty, DM adjustments, and Boon/Bane mix remains vague, this passes a problem for new GMs and players.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Other points for Boon/Bane discussion alongside whether they could be open-ended, would also be whether they could replace Characteristic bonuses.

Characteristic Bonuses are a D&Dism in some ways, but in Classic Traveller they are not tabulated and in other versions they don't exist.

You could have Boon/Bane replacing them insofar that you'd get a Boon if your Characteristic score is higher than the difficulty score of the task, and a Bane if it is below*. Eg, a character with a Strength of 10 get's a Boon to any task where the difficulty is ranked 9 or less, but a Bane if it's 11+.

Not a rule I'd expect in the Core rules, but one that could be discussed in a Companion. Another reason why Boon/Bane could be entirely shifted as an option to the Companion, of course.

* Incidentally, this is also a statistical fix for what happens if the scale of the Characteristic goes beyond human range (0-15). With Boon/Bane, all it means is a single bonus/penalty is applied vs the difficultly level of the task - rather than escalating DMs to a point that it is beyond a 2D6 range. If the scores are exponential beyond that you merely add an additional boon/bane for every multiple relative to the difficulty. Eg If a creature with a Strength of 32 attempts an Average task (difficulty 8), then they'd get a boon dice for every 8 points they exceed the difficulty by - so 32/8 = +4 Boon dice.

 

[Stainless]

I like it and am comfortable with how I would use it in my game (in the spirit I think the rules intend it). But then again, I'm used to it from Barbarians of Lemuria. So my vote is for keeping it in the core book. But it's not a big one since if it's taken out, I'll personally just houserule it back in.

 

[TrippyHippy]

To be clear, I am not attacking the concept of Boon/Bane. I'm just suggesting that the current implementation is confusing, while the concept could be expanded upon and played around with more as an optional rule in the Companion.

In the original playtest, the implication was that a Referee would merely select a difficulty, the players would then apply their own DMs and that any other variable factor would be applied as a Boon/Bane die. There would therefore be no more fiddling around with DMs by the Referee, in a manner similar to the intent of D&Ds Advantage/Disadvantage rolls.

However, this factor is lost when certain things start having DMs being applied again in certain situations. The text for a referee should nor have any more DMs to apply - merely a set difficulty level and/or a boon/bane.

 

[Loconius]

No.

I don't think boon and bane should be reserved for the companion. Each condition just needs a good explanation for when the Referee should apply it (Whenever the rules "can't" provide a DM). I've been using them since I playtested them as Advantage and disadvantage, no looking back

 

[Loconius]

To be clear, I am not attacking the concept of Boon/Bane. I'm just suggesting that the current implementation is confusing, while the concept could be expanded upon and played around with more as an optional rule in the Companion.

In the original playtest, the implication was that a Referee would merely select a difficulty, the players would then apply their own DMs and that any other variable factor would be applied as a Boon/Bane die. There would therefore be no more fiddling around with DMs by the Referee, in a manner similar to the intent of D&Ds Advantage/Disadvantage rolls.

However, this factor is lost when certain things start having DMs being applied again in certain situations. The text for a referee should nor have any more DMs to apply - merely a set difficulty level and/or a boon/bane.

I personally think the issue currently is the presence of DMs that are circumstantial based on the referee's description of the environment. The referee already sets the difficulty of a task, and should set the difficulty higher if circumstances warrant (target has cover, shooter is using auto fire). Circumstantial DMs should be eliminated, instead having DMs from characteristics, equipment or injury only. If the referee thinks something should be tougher because of circumstances (environmentals)she should increase difficulty or lower it if it makes it easier. Finally if an action taken by the player makes something harder or easier, she should use boon or bane.

Circumstantial DMs should be replaced with "Difficulty Steps" and should adjust the difficulty and should largely be transparent to the players except for seeing the end difficulty.