Commoner, I made a post in the rules section that breaks down TFS vs DS. The *only* time where DS does more damage than TFS is if 2 successes and no banes are rolled. Every other result (1 success, or 2 successes 1 boon, etc) and the TFS does more damage, oftentimes significantly more. Also recall that DS gets an additional Misfortune die, which make a 2x success result more difficult to achieve on DS than on TFS. Read my comparison. TFS is, in general, better than DS.

I haven't sat down with all the other different action cards to be able to comment much on your thoughts. I'll try to do so tonight when I get home. I would also think, for example, that not only for range, pistols are very dangerous because of DR6 (pretty high) and Pierce 1, so they negate 1 soak. Also, you need to also take into account special abilites from multiple successes, as well as banes. It's not all based on who can do the most damage. For example, Execution Shot has the potential to eliminate 3 soak on a target for the rest of the round. That is quite a hefty bonus that not only the user gets, but the rest of the party as well can take advantage of it. And so on. As I said, I'll need to actually do some in-depth research on the action cards, but I doubt they are as unbalanced as you think. (Just like TFS vs DS isn't as unbalanced as you think, should you read my comparison thread). Granted, DS *might* need tweaking with either an additional or a recharge. I don't really know, since I haven't really tried it yet. Neither of the players playing the Trollslayer spammed DS. In fact, both used TFS as much as they could, even using Fortune and talents to reduce its recharge a couple times. However, it does seem from my comparison to match well with TFS for the most part, so a 2 recharge doesn't seem unreasonable. Of course, TFS can be used with a shield ... and shields give an additional Active Defense (Block) plus give extra Defense and/or Soak. So perhaps that's what balances out in the designers' minds.

Opposed resolution:
Take your example of two people running for a set point. What result are you going for? The progress tracker makes it a race, which can have ebbs and flows as people do better on different portions of the race. If you want, you could also just say the person with the higher agility gets there first. Or, just make a single Agi roll and whoever has more successes gets there first. You could also just narrate it however you want, without rolling a single die. All of those *could* be used to represent the race. Again, the question is what are you trying to get out of race from the game mechanics? At least with the track, you get some dynamics, and it literally becomes a race. Use boons and banes to give fatigue, or /[W] to the next roll, for example. If there is the possibility for contact, have a boon give a to the opponent, or a bane give a [W] to the opponent. Chaos could be a trip, costing a success on the next roll or a space on the track. Comets could do the reverse. There is all sorts of stuff you can do, and thus the race across the track becomes a parallel to the race to the spot. This sounds good to me, and it seeme to work this way. So, if this sort of parallel of the race taking place isn't what you want ... what is it you want?

I'd also agree that sometimes it's better to do something a little smaller, but do it all well, than to haphazardly try to throw everything (including the ktichen sink) in and do none of it very well.

Yeah, do take a look at them D'vang, I'd like to hear from somebody who owns the thing about the cards. I also looked at your post in the rules section and I wrote a reply. I liked your notion and you almost had me convinced, but it was a little off base in my opinion so I took some time to discuss it with you.

The opposed resolution mechanic is good and can be easily house ruled, but I wish the manual itself would have addressed this issue more clearly, that's all. Again it's a very, very minor criticism because it's easy to make up, but I think player versus player was something the system needed to take a little more into account is all.

All my gripes about the system are minor. Nothing overall kills the game for me (nor should it for anyone else). I don't know anyone who has ever played a game without modifications and I don't know any system that doesn't need improvement. All I'm doing is highlighting where it doesn't work for me so other people know. I could go on and on about the greatness of the mechanics and I would except it may seem pointlessly argumentative to people who don't like it because it only comes up for me when I read something and go "what? You don't like that?"

I also listed the positives but feel the problems also need a longer explanation just so its clear its not knee-jerk, it's something I've actually thought about. I never intended this thread to simply bash the system and I wish there were more pro/cons in this thread rather than bad, bad, bad. Oh well, I can't control the internet.

I'll leave the majority of TFS vs DS stuff in the other thread. I merely did it to prove that DS does not seem to be the indisputable powerhouse people have been suggesting. The stats are very close between the two actions, so even if we declared DS still "better overall" it isn't by such a large gap as suggested. That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

I agree. There seem to be a few places in the rules where things weren't quite clear enough or detailed enough, and just a sentence or two more would have made it perfect. It felt like at times the writers were too close to the game, so did the whole "assumption that this is known" "or didn't think it needed to be explained" thing (not necessarily consciously omitting stuff).

As for my discussion of the track system ... I hope it didn't come off as "jumping" on you for saying something "negative". I am honestly curious what you want out of the track that you feel it lacks. In an opposed test, like a race, what are you looking for the system to provide? I couldn't figure it out. I'm quite willing to offer suggestions, both using game mechanics and not, to try to help you find something that works for you... but I need to be able to understand what you feel is lacking before I can help suggest ways to fix/solve it.

Any system, and any discussion, needs two sides. 3e isn't perfect, but then no RPG is, just as you said. I didn't see the thread as being a bash of the system, although it does start to sound that way. I think everyone (including me) just needs to keep in mind, that when discussing negatives or things that people have issue with, it will always sound like bashing to some extent, merely because it is about something that someone doesn't get or understand or think works. Sometimes we need to step back and ask, "why isn't is working for X when it works for Y", and go from there ... rather than the tendancy to just say "It works for Y, so you're doing it wrong" or somesuch. Even if it isn't intended this way, I'm sure sometimes comments on the internet can come across like that.

Anyway, a bit of a rambling thing. It's sort of an apology from me if it felt like I was bashing you for daring to have a negative thought about 3e <gasp!> hehe. Again, I was just trying to point out what/how I see things working ... and also obviously poorly explaining that I don't understand what/how it isn't working for you.

Thanks!

commoner said:

This is all dealt with in the rules and is called a 'Competitive Check.' Essentially it's a most successes wins thing, as you suggest. It doesn't require a tracker.

Yeah the Progress Tracker seems to be used more for opposed tests that last a while, or skill tests that take place over time (researching in a library, arm wrestling, climbing a mountain, keeping track of a race, giving a bit of structure to a chase scene etc...).

Essentially, only when the GM wants to use it.

regarding the party card

In both session I ran the groups forgot about the card. The only remembered when I added fortune points to it.

Just like maneuvers, the party benefits would be more easily remembered if each player received a card with the benefits.

There are too many places for a player to focus to know what he or she can do. I would be a whole lot happier with all of the bits if there was a way to lower the cognitive load for the players.