I've been reading some threads talking about inflicting stress. Specifically inflicting mental stress from a physical attack such as shooting a pistol or other firearm. At first I thought that it would be unfair to be rolling against a physical characteristic but have mental stress inflicted. But the reality is that any stress inflicted is based solely on uncancelled negative dice and the rating of the characteristic means nothing to that result. The actual characteristic only comes into play in regards to your success. Now I still think GM common sense should be used, but one could apply it depending on the situation.

For example.

• Joe is standing in the street when a group of three zombies round a corner and make for him. He pulls his pistol and starts firing. He's got a pistol, is a crack shot, and is aiming, so we will say he has 4 positive dice and a Dex stat of 3. The zombies are shambling, but are unrelenting and horrifying, so they give 2 negative dice. Total roll on positive dice is 5, 2, 2, 1. Total roll on negative dice is 4, 2. The 5 is over the stat so is eliminated. Two 2s from the positive and negative dice cancel each other out. But he does hit for 5 damage (2 successes + 3 pistol damage). But 1 negative die roll (4) is uncancelled. This could be applied as mental stress being that the zombies are still at range and thus described as Joe beginning to freak out as the get closer to him.

Now as I said, common sense should still prevail. Once in melee, stress would probably be entirely physical, but it doesn't necessarily have to be if it fits the scene. One could easily split any stress inflicted between physical and mental if they so chose. Say 2 points of stress were inflicted. The GM could put one to the physical for the attack, the other to the mental for the character being scared or freaked out.

The more I look at this game, the more I find I like these simple but very adaptable mechanics.

I think someone has been reading from the other post I responded to

No, seriously, I actually like the added idea here of splitting stress up. That way, it's not TOTALLY mental, physical or social depending on the situation. It gives flexibility and allows a GM to spread the stress around so if the current string of encounters tend to be a lot of little skirmishes, the player does not die of physical exhaustion, but survives with a combination of physical and emotional turmoil. Heck, if one of the fights goes especially bad, there might be social repercussions as they slipped and fell on their butt and had to be rescued by the 8 year old they just saved. I mean, how embarrassing is that? Now try flirting with that kid's mom after she just saw her baby rescue you from a zombie... muy suave.

Kudo's for having an open mind. And thanks for that little GM'ing idea.

I think someone has been reading from the other post I responded to

Not just your post, but you're welcome.

This thought has been floating around since the game dropped. A couple of other posters have brought it up. Since stress is independent of the characteristic being tested it allows for more options for the GM.

This makes a good deal of sense and I welcome the flexibility it would give a GM when it comes to determining where the stress of an encounter goes. I've got my first session coming up soon and as GM I've been thinking hard about creating events that will require the stress tracks of the other stats to be used so my pcs don't go maxing out their Physical track.

After I've gotten some more experience I'm certainly going to give this a try.

Joe is a crack shot and is aiming, despite his firing and hitting them the zombies are still coming! One of them looks just like his neighbor, except for that huge bite on his face. Joe isn't used to shooting at people, and zombies look a lot like people.

Sounds like justification for mental stress to me.

Fans of teh Walking Dead may remember Herschell keeping zombies in his barn because they were people... Not everyone is going to see zombies as soulless monsters to be destroyed, at least not right away.

I've been reading some threads talking about inflicting stress. Specifically inflicting mental stress from a physical attack such as shooting a pistol or other firearm. At first I thought that it would be unfair to be rolling against a physical characteristic but have mental stress inflicted. But the reality is that any stress inflicted is based solely on uncancelled negative dice and the rating of the characteristic means nothing to that result. The actual characteristic only comes into play in regards to your success. Now I still think GM common sense should be used, but one could apply it depending on the situation.

For example.

• Joe is standing in the street when a group of three zombies round a corner and make for him. He pulls his pistol and starts firing. He's got a pistol, is a crack shot, and is aiming, so we will say he has 4 positive dice and a Dex stat of 3. The zombies are shambling, but are unrelenting and horrifying, so they give 2 negative dice. Total roll on positive dice is 5, 2, 2, 1. Total roll on negative dice is 4, 2. The 5 is over the stat so is eliminated. Two 2s from the positive and negative dice cancel each other out. But he does hit for 5 damage (2 successes + 3 pistol damage). But 1 negative die roll (4) is uncancelled. This could be applied as mental stress being that the zombies are still at range and thus described as Joe beginning to freak out as the get closer to him.

Now as I said, common sense should still prevail. Once in melee, stress would probably be entirely physical, but it doesn't necessarily have to be if it fits the scene. One could easily split any stress inflicted between physical and mental if they so chose. Say 2 points of stress were inflicted. The GM could put one to the physical for the attack, the other to the mental for the character being scared or freaked out.

The more I look at this game, the more I find I like these simple but very adaptable mechanics.

I bolded and underlined the part that concerns me. Have we ever determined that and NPC having Positive Features can use them to give a PC negative dice? This seems wrong to me. It seems like the zombies Positive features of Unrelenting and Horrifying would only apply to giving THEM positive dice on a roll, not giving a PC negative dice. I could be wrong and this may just end up being something that each GM needs to determine, but it just seems off to me.

Let's say I'm "Crack Shot". Does that mean that an NPC trying to dive for cover while I'm shooting at them take a negative die for my positive feature? See what I mean?

Let's say I'm "Crack Shot". Does that mean that an NPC trying to dive for cover while I'm shooting at them take a negative die for my positive feature? See what I mean?

I don't know. Are you going to make a roll to dive for cover?

I've been reading some threads talking about inflicting stress. Specifically inflicting mental stress from a physical attack such as shooting a pistol or other firearm. At first I thought that it would be unfair to be rolling against a physical characteristic but have mental stress inflicted. But the reality is that any stress inflicted is based solely on uncancelled negative dice and the rating of the characteristic means nothing to that result. The actual characteristic only comes into play in regards to your success. Now I still think GM common sense should be used, but one could apply it depending on the situation.

For example.

• Joe is standing in the street when a group of three zombies round a corner and make for him. He pulls his pistol and starts firing. He's got a pistol, is a crack shot, and is aiming, so we will say he has 4 positive dice and a Dex stat of 3. The zombies are shambling, but are unrelenting and horrifying, so they give 2 negative dice. Total roll on positive dice is 5, 2, 2, 1. Total roll on negative dice is 4, 2. The 5 is over the stat so is eliminated. Two 2s from the positive and negative dice cancel each other out. But he does hit for 5 damage (2 successes + 3 pistol damage). But 1 negative die roll (4) is uncancelled. This could be applied as mental stress being that the zombies are still at range and thus described as Joe beginning to freak out as the get closer to him.

Now as I said, common sense should still prevail. Once in melee, stress would probably be entirely physical, but it doesn't necessarily have to be if it fits the scene. One could easily split any stress inflicted between physical and mental if they so chose. Say 2 points of stress were inflicted. The GM could put one to the physical for the attack, the other to the mental for the character being scared or freaked out.

The more I look at this game, the more I find I like these simple but very adaptable mechanics.

I bolded and underlined the part that concerns me. Have we ever determined that and NPC having Positive Features can use them to give a PC negative dice? This seems wrong to me. It seems like the zombies Positive features of Unrelenting and Horrifying would only apply to giving THEM positive dice on a roll, not giving a PC negative dice. I could be wrong and this may just end up being something that each GM needs to determine, but it just seems off to me.

Let's say I'm "Crack Shot". Does that mean that an NPC trying to dive for cover while I'm shooting at them take a negative die for my positive feature? See what I mean?

I think this is an important question to have answered.

I think this is an important question to have answered.

So pose a question in a new thread or contact FFG directly and ask them the question.

Otherwise, in my case I view features as being relative to the situation. They may be positives for the one character, but negatives for an opposing character. Again, the mutability of this system supports uses like this which is again why I am enjoying it so much.

I would say no. It would add positives to your chance of hitting the NPC, not impeding the NPC's ability to physically move behind cover. Now what it all comes down to is: did the NPC get into cover before you hit him.

Npc failed his roll and you failed yours: Npc is still out in the open and your shot missed (no positives/negatives))

Npc made his roll and you failed: you missed and npc is now in cover. (negative dice on your next roll to shoot at npc)

Npc failed his roll and you made yours: you cought the npc out in the open and hit him (positive on next shot to hit npc)

Npc made his roll and you made your roll. You grazed the NPC just before he made it into cover.

(you get negative dice on your next shot as the target is now very hard to hit, meanwhile the npc is pinned down: He takes stress and negative die on his atmept to leave cover.)

I think this is an important question to have answered.

So pose a question in a new thread or contact FFG directly and ask them the question.

Otherwise, in my case I view features as being relative to the situation. They may be positives for the one character, but negatives for an opposing character. Again, the mutability of this system supports uses like this which is again why I am enjoying it so much.

I find that comment a bit snarky...

It has been discussed before in a round about way in other posts. But one "explaintion" leads to another question without a definitive answer. I posted my comment as a "I agree" comment that this needs further discussion. I for one am more interested in what other people have to say then FFG...

I think it it is implied, that in some circumstances, an opponent's feature(s) can be used by the acting character, but as the opposite. If a player is running away from a zombie, why shouldn't he have an extra positive dice because they are -Shambling. The rules say "Positive dice are added to a test's dice pool to represent any circumstances that could be helpful to the character making the test" , using the opponents features can be an aid in determining any helpful circumstances . Likewise for negative dice.

I think this is an important question to have answered.

So pose a question in a new thread or contact FFG directly and ask them the question.

Otherwise, in my case I view features as being relative to the situation. They may be positives for the one character, but negatives for an opposing character. Again, the mutability of this system supports uses like this which is again why I am enjoying it so much.

I find that comment a bit snarky...

It has been discussed before in a round about way in other posts. But one "explaintion" leads to another question without a definitive answer. I posted my comment as a "I agree" comment that this needs further discussion. I for one am more interested in what other people have to say then FFG...

Yes, this has come up obtusely in other threads, even by myself . Feel free to comment or start a new thread dedicated to this question? How do people use features both positive and negative?

I wasn't necessarily challenging anyone, so much as trying to offer other examples that may shed more light on the situation. I do think it does make sense in the case of a sprinting PC trying to outmaneuver a shambling zombie. Would that mean the fast positive feature of a zombie dog and the fast positive feature of a PC effectively cancel each other out?

I wasn't necessarily challenging anyone, so much as trying to offer other examples that may shed more light on the situation. I do think it does make sense in the case of a sprinting PC trying to outmaneuver a shambling zombie. Would that mean the fast positive feature of a zombie dog and the fast positive feature of a PC effectively cancel each other out?

Not sure what you mean be cancel out. I would add a positive dice for the characters +fast feature and a negative dice for the zombie dogs +fast feature, the dice may cancel each other, but they might not.

Back to the top and ignoring another almost fight breaking out...

At first I thought that it would be unfair to be rolling against a physical characteristic but have mental stress inflicted. But the reality is that any stress inflicted is based solely on uncancelled negative dice and the rating of the characteristic means nothing to that result.

The features do though... Also, the way positive dice are added hasd everything to do with the act at hand.

I fire a handgun (+1 positive), I am a crack shot (+1 positive), I am at close range (+1 positive), targett is stationary (+1 positive) all these positive dice come from a physical standpoint and could be used to cancel out the negative dice. It just seems weird to inflict mental stress from this roll.

In fact, it would seem highly detrimental to do so as there would be no way of reversing it. You would never inflict physical stress (or be less inclined to do so) for failing a social or mental test.

To each his own of course but I would steer clear of this...

Back to the top and ignoring another almost fight breaking out...

At first I thought that it would be unfair to be rolling against a physical characteristic but have mental stress inflicted. But the reality is that any stress inflicted is based solely on uncancelled negative dice and the rating of the characteristic means nothing to that result.

The features do though... Also, the way positive dice are added hasd everything to do with the act at hand.

I fire a handgun (+1 positive), I am a crack shot (+1 positive), I am at close range (+1 positive), targett is stationary (+1 positive) all these positive dice come from a physical standpoint and could be used to cancel out the negative dice. It just seems weird to inflict mental stress from this roll.

In fact, it would seem highly detrimental to do so as there would be no way of reversing it. You would never inflict physical stress (or be less inclined to do so) for failing a social or mental test.

To each his own of course but I would steer clear of this...

The zombie shambled out of the darkness at Anna, its head partially caved in, one eyeball hanging down on its cheek. Rooted to the spot Anna tries to tear her gaze away from her former high school romance. Her player makes a willpower test which results in negative dice remaining. Overcoming her paralysis, she turns and flees, crashing and stumbling over the furniture in the near dark (physical stress).

There's many ways it can be crossed over from the other categories, not just physical. A social exchange must result in someone being pushed and falling over...

I think you've made your point you don't like it, that's fine. There are obviously others that do, and that's fine too, as it's their fun, just not yours...

I think you've made your point you don't like it, that's fine. There are obviously others that do, and that's fine too, as it's their fun, just not yours...

So I am not allowed to discuss this because my view differs? Are these discussion boards only there to agree with each other? That would be a lot of fun...

Please note I end my post with "to each his own" indicating as you do that everyone should do whatever makes them happy.

I understand what you are doing with that example you give. However, I am pretty sure you fabricated it to counter the point I was making and having such happen in a game would feel completely counter natural and this was the first time you thought about that point and then wrote up this scenario.

I am pretty sure no GM would feel happy dealing out physical stress for failed mental tests but somehow wouldn't mind doing it the other way around. Sure, you can write a nice paragraph about it but it doesn't take away from the fact that it wouldn't sit right with your players.

I am all for dealing stress for emotional or scary situations, don't getme wrong but why not just have a player roll for his mental or physical capacity seperately?

So in your example, the player misses his/her willpower roll and can't shoot out of fear. Then he/she overcomes this paralyses, turns and flees (something I as a GM would never do is force my player to move as you do in your example. The player moves his/her character, not the GM.) In his/her panic the player needs to navigate the dark room of furniture and makes a physical check to do so.

The result is the same but there is stress involved within the right perimeters without the GM taking control of the character.

If my example implied that the GM decided the players actions, then it came across wrong, as I too never force my players to do anything and wouldn't expect any other GM to.

I will agree that my example was made to counter your comments, but only in so much that it is a reasonable (to me) outcome.

And to reiterate, my post was never meant to imply that the GM takes control of a PCs character.

And thus it wouldn't work as a failed willpower test giving physical stress...

It would if the player narrated it that way. My players feel as I do and wouldn't let the rules get in the way of the narration, if they felt that cross category stress was apt.

Yeah, but that would mean you would give them the choice of whether they would take physical or mental stress then?

Or would you ask "how do you get physical stress?"

I am not trying to be difficult but it just seems convoluted...

As a GM I suggest outcomes for stress, however if the player wants to narrate something different then thats fine. Whatever stress is taken (and most of the times it's in the appropriate category), it must be narrated to fit the scene. The player has the final say in this (unless overruled by the GM (or other players) for being in appropriate).

The features do though... Also, the way positive dice are added hasd everything to do with the act at hand.

I fire a handgun (+1 positive), I am a crack shot (+1 positive), I am at close range (+1 positive), targett is stationary (+1 positive) all these positive dice come from a physical standpoint and could be used to cancel out the negative dice. It just seems weird to inflict mental stress from this roll.

In fact, it would seem highly detrimental to do so as there would be no way of reversing it. You would never inflict physical stress (or be less inclined to do so) for failing a social or mental test.

In your example, there are no negative dice. So I would be hard pressed to say whether it seems weird or not. Personally with your example I might not suggest any negative dice but maybe a higher difficulty (you need to successes to successfully hit) if there is a chance of no stress. As I said, something like this depends on common sense. I've seen people suggest using the Horrifying feature in a physical attack when Horrifying (to me) represents something more mental than physical. So if you do use Horrifying in a physical attack, why couldn't some or one point of stress be mental instead of physical?

Features to me are mutable. While in player characters they fall under certain characteristics, in NPCs they are just either positive or negative. And I look at those as just in relation to the NPC. So while a feature like Horrifying would be a positive for a zombie, it would be a negative for a player character's action depending on said action.

Was there something in my example which did not make sense?

• Joe is standing in the street when a group of three zombies round a corner and make for him. He pulls his pistol and starts firing. He's got a pistol, is a crack shot, and is aiming, so we will say he has 4 positive dice and a Dex stat of 3. The zombies are shambling, but are unrelenting and horrifying, so they give 2 negative dice. Total roll on positive dice is 5, 2, 2, 1. Total roll on negative dice is 4, 2. The 5 is over the stat so is eliminated. Two 2s from the positive and negative dice cancel each other out. But he does hit for 5 damage (2 successes + 3 pistol damage). But 1 negative die roll (4) is uncancelled. This could be applied as mental stress being that the zombies are still at range and thus described as Joe beginning to freak out as the get closer to him.

I'll add to this...

• Next round, Joe (Dex 3) starts running for the door of the mall. Looking back, as he runs, he tries to continue shooting. Not able to aim, Joe is down to three positive dice (1 base, 1 pistol, 1 crack shot). The zombies are still coming (unrelenting) but he is running which will throw off his aim (1 negative die) for a total of 2 negative dice. Rolling he gets a 4 and two 3s on the positive dice and a pair of 4s on the negative dice. The 4s cancel each other out leaving a positive pair of 3s and one negative 4. As to the positive dice, I could run this as a normal hit (5 damage again) or (if using the head shot feature) have him take out a zombie with a head shot. As to the one negative die, it could be described as stumbling over debris while running inflicting a point of physical stress or more mental stress as the other zombies keep coming. Personally I'd go with the former as I think taking out a zombie would reduce the horror of the situation somewhat, but either works.

As I said previously, stress inflicted in a test is not tied to the trait being tested, only to the negative dice being used (if at all). And common sense must be used at all times. If you think all stress being inflicted should be physical or mental then so be it if it makes sense.

As a GM I suggest outcomes for stress, however if the player wants to narrate something different then thats fine. Whatever stress is taken (and most of the times it's in the appropriate category), it must be narrated to fit the scene. The player has the final say in this (unless overruled by the GM (or other players) for being in appropriate).

That seems a pretty roundabout way of working out the stress, and might lead to pretty awckward situations when players start moving their stress to unrelated categories to stay away from crippling trauma.

Also, "The player has the final say" vs "unless overruled by anyone else" basically means "the player does not have the last say in this." Which should get you thinking about how convoluted this might get.

I like this discussion, don't get me wrong so I am not being overtly critical just for the hack of it and am really trying to understand how this would make the game better... To me the game is simple enough as it is so there is no need to complicate things like that, but again to each his/her own.