I have to agree that it seems that features would only impact the the amount of dice for the person possessing those features. For the zombie the "horrifying" and "unrelenting" features would add positive dice to the zombie's actions. The same way if a PC had a "body builder" feature wouldn't add negative dice to the zombies attack.

Actually if the zombie were grappling with a PC with "bodybuilder" I would be inclined to give the zombie a negative die for that. The extra strength would make it easier for the PC to hold the zombie at bay, thus making it harder for the zombie to make a successful attack.

Bodybuilder would not help if the PC were the target of a rifle or pistol shot though.

There is a reason most RPG don't go that route... I could just as easily grab a bodybuilder as I could a guitarist.

He would free himself a lot easier though... but that would be on his turn.

Yeah, I totally understand where you are coming from... Everyone that is.

"Relentless Pursuit" and "Unyielding" are zombie features. I have been unable to find either "Relentless" or "Unrelenting" in my copy of the game. Which zombies have "Unrelenting" as a quality?

I actually wonder about the quality "+Hard to Kill" if opponents' possitive qualities never add negative dice to a player's pool. What test would you add possitive dice to a zombie's pool for having the "Hard to Kill" quality?

I would add a negative die to any physical attack pool against an opponent with "Hard to Kill" to reflect the difficulty of scoring a significantly damaging hit. Likely because the enemy shrugs off most damage as inconsequential, not because it is actually harder to physically hit.

Regarding the "+hard to kill" I would like to note that it is not "+hard to wound" also whether or not there is a negative die there only means that you might get stress and it doesn't make the target a lot harder to kill (of course dice might cancel out.)

I think that it is more a way to add an extra positive on the death saving throw then anything else...

But page 46, NPCs and Trauma suggests having minor NPCs, such as most zombies, just dies without a cling to life roll. Perhaps those with "hard to kill" would get the roll and those without would not?

I'd figure those with the "hard to kill" feature wouldn't be minor NPC's? Idon't know, I need to have my book when I argue I guess

This is not the first game I have played with possitive and negative dice in a dice pool. I have found that the cancelation of positive dice by negative dice can make tasks significantly harder to accomplish, but does so in a different way than a flat increase to teh difficulty target. Negative dice should not be thought of just for their potential to add stress.

But that is what they end up doing a lot of the times. Mind you I use negative dice a lot in my game...

So you have no "active" defense during my turn? Only passive? No matter how strong you are or weak you are it will be equally easy for me to grapple and bite you? I'm sorry but my experience tells me differently.

Yes, there is armour rules, but that wasn't where I was trying to go.

I know. I was just wondering out loud what they were... Do they add negative dice as well?

Armour acts like resistance (from filling up stress tracks), deducting stress from successful hits.

"Hard to Kill" is a feature of Infested fragments in Under the Skin, interestingly enough these also only get one tier of three stress boxes per track and when all three boxes in any track are filled the fragment dies. Seems pretty weak for something that is "hard to kill".

When you make a physical attack against another character, you roll a Dexterity test. You add positive and negative dice to this test just as with any other test; these can be due to features, environmental effects, cover, or any other effects.

If I wanted to twist the the sometimes unclear rules to my advantage, I'd say the lack of your in front of features, indicated that features from either side could be used.

But I won't!

"Relentless Pursuit" and "Unyielding" are zombie features. I have been unable to find either "Relentless" or "Unrelenting" in my copy of the game. Which zombies have "Unrelenting" as a quality?

Since features are basically made on the fly, if i roll a zombie with Relentless or Unrelenting then that is what they have. The book only gives examples to work by. Majority of features are not going to be listed in the book.

So you have no "active" defense during my turn? Only passive? No matter how strong you are or weak you are it will be equally easy for me to grapple and bite you? I'm sorry but my experience tells me differently.

My experience as a player of RPG's tells me differently.

Yes, there is armour rules, but that wasn't where I was trying to go.

I know. I was just wondering out loud what they were... Do they add negative dice as well?

Armour acts like resistance (from filling up stress tracks), deducting stress from successful hits.

Thanks! So no negative dice for armor I see.

So you have no "active" defense during my turn? Only passive? No matter how strong you are or weak you are it will be equally easy for me to grapple and bite you? I'm sorry but my experience tells me differently.

My experience as a player of RPG's tells me differently.

Silly me. I was citing real life experience. Some times the sillier RPG rules break kafabe for me.

I have to agree that it seems that features would only impact the the amount of dice for the person possessing those features. For the zombie the "horrifying" and "unrelenting" features would add positive dice to the zombie's actions. The same way if a PC had a "body builder" feature wouldn't add negative dice to the zombies attack.

Actually if the zombie were grappling with a PC with "bodybuilder" I would be inclined to give the zombie a negative die for that. The extra strength would make it easier for the PC to hold the zombie at bay, thus making it harder for the zombie to make a successful attack.

Bodybuilder would not help if the PC were the target of a rifle or pistol shot though.

A: Just because you are fit doesnt mean you are good at fighting, B: wrestling with a zombie would never be a good idea lol. A bite is a bite is a bite, regardless of a six pack and putting on a gun show,

"Relentless Pursuit" and "Unyielding" are zombie features. I have been unable to find either "Relentless" or "Unrelenting" in my copy of the game. Which zombies have "Unrelenting" as a quality?

Since features are basically made on the fly, if i roll a zombie with Relentless or Unrelenting then that is what they have. The book only gives examples to work by. Majority of features are not going to be listed in the book.

True. However, if we are discussing how features apply it might be helpful if we used as our examples either features from the book or features that we all agreed on what they did.

I think the game would be better suited to new players if it included even brief definitions of what was intended for features. A sentence or two could have eliminated the need for this whole thread.

So you have no "active" defense during my turn? Only passive? No matter how strong you are or weak you are it will be equally easy for me to grapple and bite you? I'm sorry but my experience tells me differently.

My experience as a player of RPG's tells me differently.

Silly me. I was citing real life experience. Some times the sillier RPG rules break kafabe for me.

This is a simple RPG. Not a "life simulator" games get too bloated and difficult once you follow that route... Case in point D&D 3.5

Look at EotE for instance, landing a punch on anyone is the same difficulty at all times. Whether you are fighting Jar-Jar or whether you are fighting Darth Vader. It is hurting the one you are punching that makes it a challenge.

The points stand regardless of the names applied to features. "Relentless" or "Unrelenting" is pretty self explanatory.

If you let the zombie go hand to hand with you, you already lost...

Walking Dead is going to get a lot of people killed when the zombies come. A knife to the skull will either glance off or result in a stuck knife more often than not. Better to club them with a smooth club (it won't get stuck, but you have to hit *hard*) or just stay out of reach.

When you make a physical attack against another character, you roll a Dexterity test. You add positive and negative dice to this test just as with any other test; these can be due to features, environmental effects, cover, or any other effects.

If I wanted to twist the the sometimes unclear rules to my advantage, I'd say the lack of your in front of features, indicated that features from either side could be used.

But I won't!

Hmm in the article here , it does use your :

Positive and negative dice can be added by your positive and negative features, your equipment, any existing injuries, the difficulty of the task, the environment, or other contributing factors.

I'll stick with contributing factors , to justify my actions...

Although I admit It doesn't specifically state this anywhere in the book; I am sorely tempted to not roll dice at all myself as GM. Leave ALL the tests to the PCs. A PC would roll to attack an zombie, on the zombie's turn however I would simply say it lunges at the PC and have the PC roll vitality to resist rather than me roll as the zombie to attack. Basically NPCs succeed unless PCs resist. This eliminates the concern over who's features would apply on the the NPC turn of the PC turn, since the PCs are always the ones making the rolls, if that makes sense. Anyone see what I mean?

Also, in all RPG's I've played the to hit roll does not take the fighting ability of the opponent into account. Neither D&D, nor EotE, nor CoC. I am having a hard time believing a simple rules-light system such as this one would do so.

Well, actually in D&D the to hit roll required is based on the opponent's Armour Class which is in part determined by te fighting ability of the opponent. So if you have played D&D, you have played a game that works just this way. The only way this is not so is if you also argue that a high level combatant requiring a lower to hit roll to hit the same AC as a lower level combatant in no way reflects the combat skill of the two. Both roll the same die, both score the same roll against the same opponent with the same AC, one hits the other misses because of combatant skill. Two animals are attacking you, they have the same thickness of skin, neither is wearing armor, they have different AC because one is more skilled at hand-to-hand combat than the other.

In Tunnels&Trolls and any other opposed die roll system (and there are many) to score a hit you need to directly beat the combat score of your opponent. If they beat you, you take the hit.

In fact that is incorrect. Since that is based on lvl something that this game doesn't bother itself with.

I agree my example of D&D was falicious though as that game is waaaay more complicated in those manners (or I should so, in all manners.)

Which part is factually incorrect?

My example

OK. BTW, I bear you no personal animus, I just like to dig my teeth into a good debate.

And do I ever wish FFG had hired us lot to tighten up this game before release. The rules are so wide open as to almost not be there. I feel for the new gamers trying to figure out how it is *supposed* to work. So much seems to be down to GM interpretation. Not in itself a bad thing, but not what the current market expects.

Shame we don't see any developers drop by to clarify things....

I haven't played yet so mind you I'm still learning but if I where the gm Id probably agree that "contributing factos" would include an enemies features. I mean it makes sense I think that if (going to an earlier example) a body builder is being attacked by a zombie he's going to have an easier time pushing that zombie away (Ie you get knocked over and the zombie is lunging at your face with only your arms pressing against its weight to keep it from closing that distance and chomping your flesh off). While a body builder isn't neccessarily a great fighter they would be stronger and thus have a reduced chance of being bit in a straight up power struggle (ie dodging something they get no benefit but a test where their strength would make it harder to hit them they would such as the example above).

In the case of attacking a kung fu fighter you might also do more harm to yourself by attacking them than not attacking them because attacking might mean you expose yourself or overextend or trip as they step aside or roll with the punch, etc. That's kind of he risk with ANY check though it seems as any increased difficulty opens up the risk to stress yourself while standing around typically won't.

As for difficultly in other games since EOTE was mentioned it gets harder to hit players who train to avoid (dodge, adversary, taking cover, enimies who spend their advantages from doing well to add setback dice to your roll or increase their own defense, etc).

To bring it back to the subject of the thread, would those of you actually running the game post examples, in context/play, of tests, like Mouthymerc did?

You can specify whether it's RAW, or with HOUSE RULE, or SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION (which RPG isn't anyway?). At the end of the day, while the heated discussion about what to add or not add is interesting, showcasing specific examples would be tremendously useful for those of us who have not run or are new to the game.

Thanks!