I've perused the BRB about this, and I have not found a satisfactory answer. And thus, I state it here.

Kingdom Come seems to assume that you never spend a Cinematic Point when opposing another character in a test, as far as I can tell. You can spend a point to turn a test into a Comparable, but you cannot spend a point to undo something someone else has done. I would like to spend Cinematic Points in combat against another person, but it seems to me that this cannot be, because there is no way to get into a bidding war (because you would have to undo what the other person did, and turn a Comparable back into a Challenge), and there is no real way to decide who spent their point 'first' other than silly yelling matches whenever a round starts. And it seems to me that this is sad.

Dear Storyteller, are there any cases in which one might use a Cinematic Point in combat to turn a test to a Comparable? The possible case your ninja and I worked out was against an Angel, as it lets us cinematically whack them for one round, their Transcendent Advantage be damned.

Last edited by Molior on Sun 12 Jul 2009 - 22:36; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : fix fix fix the mistakes)

Hrm.
I will check up on it and get back to you on this.

My *gut* instinct (which has been proved to be wrong two times) is that Cinematic points aren't about outbidding. In fact, Cinematic Points cannot be used to 'cancel' the use of Cinematic Points, nor to counter the effects of the use of a Cinematic Point. Furthermore, Cinematic Points can not be used in a duplicate manner by more than one character; therefore, if you use a Cinematic Point to alter the contention of a Technique or challenge, another character cannot use a CP in the same manner (to aler the contention of a Technique or challenge). Remember that the Cardinal Rule of Cinematic Points is that they may *never* be used to "end" story. They must only be used to further or embetter story.

You are talking about one very specific use of Cinematic Point in combat, so I won't touch on the other four uses of Cinematic Points. And I *think* you're asking specifically if you can use a CP to turn a *combat challenge* to Comparable rather than a Challenge. Yes?

In fact, the *only* way you can use a Cinematic Point in combat is to give your Opponent a Potent Hindrance or to attempt a Winnowing attack in the next round.

So no, I don't think you can use a CP in combat to alter the contention of the challenge itself. In fact, I know you can't.

My wonder, Jill, is if you can spend a Cinematic Point against an NPC. Do THEY have Cinematic Points?

Yes, you can, and yes, they do.

Also, this isn't really on topic, but it's a little tangential, so:

Burning Cinematic points

You can now permanently get rid of
Cinematic points. Why would you want to? Because there is no other way
to 'guarantee' some sort of game effect, albeit, sometimes that might
be temporary.

When you burn Cinematic points, the camera is on YOU and all players should try to respect that. [ed. note: similar to "Spotlight" in Mike's Exemplar game.]

There are some examples of the things you can do on Page 243.

A generic example is: Survive anything.

Other
examples are based on what you are, particularly your Conviction.
Divine can become heroes and can gain back all their Severe wounds.
Infernal can make a Secular Action SUCCEED. Deistical can force others
to respect ancient traditions (such as keeping the peace).

With regards to the bidding war thing - even if you could spend Cinematic points on the same thing as someone else, it still wouldn't come in for the Challenge->Comparable->Automatic usage, since you can only spend Cinematic points to move one direction on that ladder it looks like. I wouldn't think it'd be a "who spend first" contest, because you can only spend to make it easier, not to make it harder, right?

Clarification for Jill: The whole can't spend Cinematic points against each other thing - can you still spend Cinematic points when the other person has spent them, if they aren't directly opposing? In Challenge X, I spend a Cinematic point to alter it in way Y, you can't use yours to make a change that undoes Y, but can you spend one to alter it in way Z, presuming the two usages are independent and don't contradict each other? "I want to change your usage of your power from a Challenge to Comparable!" "Oh yeah, well I want to spend a point to make my power glow with sparkles and whistling sounds when I use it this one time!" <-- Both possible?

Also, with regards to the Cinematic Points for combat... Is that just for Combat Challenges, or any challenges when in a combat? I totally understand simplifying the use of Cinematic Points for when you are trying to do Warfare challenges to hurt each other, but it'd be nice if you could still use Cinematic Points for other things like just happen to be occuring in a combat. I'd think one of the main uses of the 'make a Slow Action a normal Action' usage would be to give people a chance of firing off some non-combat Techniques in the middle of a fight, and I really personally like the idea of people being able to attempt that, and it seems entirely appropriate to the spirit of things. Same with wanting to use the editing power to make a scene cooler in some way, or many of the other Cinematic Points powers. All subject to the SG's approval, as usual, part of which in a combat would probably mean 'not slowing things down'. Anyway, my personal reading is that you are limited in how you can use Cinematic Points for Dynamic Body/Warfare-base challenges(it explicitly spells out that limitation for Technique alteration), but that the other options were still potentially open for other non-Warfare actions that occur inside a combat. And now is where I hope Jill agrees with my reading of that?

Um.

Actually, Wade, I'm not sure if you're asking a question or writing a treatise....

Could you do point form, maybe?

**note - I just got back from a day running a Very Sick Little Boy to the emergency room, so my mind might not be entirely on the game.

****Also too - he's okay.

cenobyte wrote:Um.

Actually, Wade, I'm not sure if you're asking a question or writing a treatise....

Could you do point form, maybe?

**note - I just got back from a day running a Very Sick Little Boy to the emergency room, so my mind might not be entirely on the game.

****Also too - he's okay.

Part asking questions, part providing a rationale for why you should give the answer I prefer.

Question #1 is: Can you spend Cinematic Points in the same challenge as someone else has, if they are for different things?

Wade's suggested Answer #1: I think you should be able to, if it is something that affects the same challenge, but doesn't contradict a previous expenditure. So you can't block someone's expenditure, but you can add to it. If Player A spends because "I want the explosion to be a hellfire green!", Player B can't spend one to make it red instead(that'd be contradicting the previous one), but they should be able to spend one to say "Hellfire Green *And* makes the sound of a flight of bats!" Or whatever.

Question #2: Are you limited in spending Cinematic Points in Combat, or just on Combat Challenges?

Wade's suggested Answer #2: The "Combat-only" effects of Cinematic Points should only apply to Combat Challenges(ie: "Warfare"/Dynamic Body ones to inflict harm or perform Dramatic Maneuvers). That's my reading of the "Combat" section of Cinematic Points. I don't think just being in Combat should prevent you from, for instance, doing scene editing, altering the SFX of a Technique, or making a Slow Action Technique into an Action Technique - so long as it isn't a combat challenge to inflict damage or use a Dramatic Manuever or whatever.

And good to know your boy is okay.

Question 1: Yes. Absolutely. That follows the rule of "Yes" by saying "yes and..."

Question 2: Combat generally, from my understanding, since there's a note that says "combat can already be a chaotic enough time, so the only thing you can do with CPs in combat is..." I think the only example I'd disagree with you on on that list is making a slow action technique take only an action. The other things just add flavour; the third potentially could confusticate things further in combat.

cenobyte wrote:Question 2: Combat generally, from my understanding, since there's a note that says "combat can already be a chaotic enough time, so the only thing you can do with CPs in combat is..." I think the only example I'd disagree with you on on that list is making a slow action technique take only an action. The other things just add flavour; the third potentially could confusticate things further in combat.

That is too bad - it'd be both useful and, I think, cool for someone to try and throw out a Detestation in combat, taking their turn and screaming insults to try and get someone's ire. And I think it is a Slow Action now - maybe I am wrong, I'd have to look it up. What about altering the Contention of non-Warfare techniques in combat? I personally thought part of the balancing factor of Comparable Techniques is if your opponent just has you outmatched, you can always expend a Cinematic point to do it anyway. But if you can't do that in combat, it really puts the stress on people to get all their "Buffs" up in advance of combat and makes some Techniques like Ravage a little bit less useful, since presumably you can't do the comparison ahead of time(if you can do the comparison ahead of time and then activate later, it isn't so bad, but it does go back to really making sure people "buff up" before starting a fight, which might be good, might be bad).

I always assumed that the reverse direction was simply implied, Wade - if I can go from Challenge to Comparable, why wouldn't I be able to go in reverse? But you are absolutely correct, it isn't explicitly stated.

I will be sad if you interpret the Combat section of Cinematic Points as meaning "You cannot use any of the things I just mentioned in the Techniques section if they happen to occur in combat", Jill, but I will understand.

And thank you for apparently being able to communicate with Jill more effectively than I can, Wade. These are things I have been wondering for some time.

Yeah, I was told at one point that the whole purpose of the Challenge->Contention->Automatic was it was something that a) makes challenges simpler and faster, and b) makes the active thing happening more likely to succeed. Whereas if you go the opposite direction, you are introducing complication(going from nothing to a comparison, or from a comparison to a die roll), and simultaniously reducing the chance of an effect(the outcome of a challenge) happening. Plus, I think having the ladder only go one way has the handy side-effect of eliminating any chance of 'who spent first' questions come up, as you previously mentioned.

I personally do think the combat section is supposed to apply to combat challenges specifically, instead of all challenges and events occuring inside a combat, but it is certainly easy to read either way. Heh, I know Trent himself has used Cinematic points on me in some of those fashions, but that was an earlier edition, and maybe his own abuses of them caused him to take them out. No one knows how to work Trent's system like Trent, obviously. Goddamn Rumour bushwacking me in an allyway, grumble, grumble...

And it isn't that I can communicate with Jill more effectively, simply that I keep trying, and eventually she gets me to reduce my pages long arguements to something she can actually read.

It's all about simplicity.


*That* was the most loaded statement of the day. Not because I'm loaded (although I may not not be loaded), but because it's weighty.

The computer scientist in me says it is better to have a slightly complicated set of rules that are applied in all situations, than to have a slightly complicated set of rules which are applied sometimes, but not in others. You don't want folks mucking around with how combat challenges themselves work, because that complicates things. But I do think it is simpler for if someone knows they can spend Cinematic Points to do X with their Technique, to have their knowledge hold true whether they're trying to do the exact same thing in a fight, or out of it.

In short, I also think it is about simplicity.

Guh. I *wish* there was 'one rule to bind them all'.

There is. It's called the HERO system.

If it's a "system", it has more than just one rule.

Simplicity != Hero System.

Hero system rules-bits are, however, very bound together. Little KC memorization, more first principles stuff.

It's got crunchy rules-bits! And possibly raisins!

And I'm probably the only person in this LARP who would even give it the time of day. Except possibly Dan, but he's quite mad.

Well. I would give *any* system the time of day, provided the story behind it was appealing. I'm pretty easy, when it comes to giving rules systems (and devilishly handsome, tall, skinny men) the time of day.

cenobyte wrote:Well. I would give *any* system the time of day, provided the story behind it was appealing. I'm pretty easy, when it comes to giving rules systems (and devilishly handsome, tall, skinny men) the time of day.

I normally am not a fan of the HERO System...but I kept coming back every week when Lev was running his Champions game with it, just because Lev runs some of the most awesomest games ever. Of course, I am not upset at all that he has switched to Mutants & Masterminds for the time being.

Back to the Cinematic points thing(and Jill, let me know if you want this conversation to end, or if you are still open to persuasion if the persuasion is persuasive enough )... I will point out that two of the example uses of Cinematic points outside of the "Combat" heading are, indeed, uses in Combat. And although it is easy to read author intent that way, the Combat section never actually says the other uses don't apply in Combat...only that there are specific ways to use Cinematic Points in combat. It'd be easy to read that as that section saying "The other types of uses have very broad capabilities - if you want a specific combat use, there are only these two to choose from" - not ruling out the other types of uses, but explicitly saying if you choose a Combat use instead of altering contention, or editing a scene, or whatever, you only get those two combat uses - you can't make up an entirely new combat use.

Oh, by all means keep making your arguments. All of this goes into my thinker, and then usually gets forgotten within ten minutes. Then I come back and read this stuff later and think, "you know, I should really think about this." And then I forget. And then I come back to it and say, "WHOA! These are some good points! Still wrong, but good!" and then eventually, I realise I have to make a decision *sometime*, and having all the discussions in one place is helpful.

I'm very glad I put a rules discussion Forum up here.

Makes sense. I am much the same way when STing. Or, rather, I make very rapid decisions - almost always NO!!! But then I'll think and stew and then come back later on and make a decision I am happy with, which might still be No, but it comes from a different place.

Which is why I tell my players not to surprise me with sneaky rules stuff. If you've got a clever rules trick and just spring it on me mid-scene, I'll almost certainly shoot it down without thinking. If you approach me when you build your character, say "Hey, could I do this clever rules thing?" I'll think on it, and generally give a much better reaction. I just don't like being surprised by stuff that feels like it is potentially rules-lawyering as an ST. Probably comes from the fact that half of the time when a player tries to spring it on you all of a sudden, they are trying to fast talk you.

It occurs to me reading the above, that after seven continuous years of STing Saskatoon by Night in various Chronicle and incarnations, it is probably a good thing I am taking a break now, eh?

Even though I'm still planning on doing more one-shots. Including a hundred person Firefly extravaganza in only two months. Man, I am not smart.

The important thing is to spring the rules twinkery on a player mid-scene when the ST is distracted.

Also, for those who disagree with my interpretation of the rules when Jill isn't around DO NOT go to Keth/Dan for clarification. He's been annoyingly righter than I on new stuff added to effects in the system. Take my word for it and I will be happier.