Now that the thesis is over, I've started looking at various bits and bobs of gaming stuff again. I've been primarily thinking about Hot War (and, in a connected sense, Cold City). Two things in particular–tools and monsters–have come up that I'd like to get some feedback on/have a discussion about. I'm posting about tools just now and will post about monsters in a while, once I've had a chance to summarise my thoughts.
Tools
At the moment, if you bring a situationally appropriate tool into a conflict, you get a flat bonus of two dice. This works very well: either the tool is appropriate and you get the dice, or it isn't and you don't.
However, I was thinking that there could be scope for more powerful/weaker tools, ranging from one to three dice. This is very similar to Dogs in the Vineyard and 'things' being crap, normal, or excellent.
So in HW/CC, you might have:
Rubbish/only mildly appropriate tool: 1d
Normal/appropriate tool: 2d
Powerful/excellent/incredibly appropriate tool: 3d
I'm thinking that 3d tools might need to be tied to the character somehow, for example as a very personal item.
As an example: You have a Bren Gun. If you are trying to mow down a mass infantry attack, then this a very appropriate tool. If you are in a cramped sewer, then it's not really the ideal weapon and might be a rubbish tool.
Thoughts on this?
Cheers
Malcolm


Subject Line
Submitted by Rich Stokes on Tue, 24/11/2009 - 10:22.
Sounds solid to me.
I mean, you're going to have the people at the table agree that a tool is either great, useful or crap. It's usually pretty obvious.
Looks good
Submitted by Scott Dorward on Tue, 24/11/2009 - 10:56.
It may be worth throwing in a number of solid examples to help groups reach consensus quickly. While Hot War is a high trust game, I can imagine a few arguments over the appropriateness of a given tool, and firm guidelines and examples may help avoid this.