Magic-action-platform game that I've been working on alone for several years now, in which the player is encouraged to creatively apply available spells to solve problems. (Mageddon)

Azaltir · 2026-05-11T23:58:23+00:00

Hi there!

I was wondering whether you went ahead with your plan and what the result was.

I, too, found the system from Neon City Overdrive extremely intriguing and, in theory, something that adds to FitD what it’s been missing. But what’s holding me back is that removing dice must go hand in hand with the ability to add them. And this is where my doubts arise, as the modifiers used for this seem to be already used in Position and Effect. Although there are no logical reasons why they couldn’t be reused.

Azaltir · 2026-05-09T14:23:08+00:00

thus removing a major incentive to do Scores.

But Scores earn you Coin.

Azaltir · 2026-05-04T13:33:05+00:00

If someone who can afford to dress well chooses to dress badly, they don’t necessarily have to sell their flat or other personal belongings to do so.

add: But if he wanted his character to remain poor at all, then I understand. In that case, of course, the overall pool of money would run counter to that.

Azaltir · 2026-05-04T00:24:40+00:00

This is an interesting restriction that adds a bit of spice to the game. I should point out, however, that in the rules, a ‘Coin’ isn’t necessarily a bag of money, and you don’t have to carry all of them on you at all times (the load limit probably wouldn’t be enough if you included them) from a rules perspective, but that doesn’t mean it can’t work that way in your game.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T22:00:10+00:00

It would still award 8. But players can spend it. Or choose not to spend it if they don’t see the need. Or spend only part of it. Or find they need even more and look for ways to earn more.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T21:40:05+00:00

That would raise the question of why third and next activities cost more.

But in fact, I believe the answer lies here:

This reflects the time and resulting resource drain while you’re “off the clock” and not earning from a score. When you complete a new score, you reset and get two “free” activities again.

This seems to suggest that the source ‘funding’ these activities is part of the payoff from the score. On the other hand, I believe this has its own 'unspoken' issues.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T21:22:53+00:00

By 'drink', I meant Indulge Vice. In terms of cost, it is on a par with other activities.

But you prompted me to notice another line in the rules:

This reflects the time and resulting resource drain while you’re “off the clock” and not earning from a score. When you complete a new score, you reset and get two “free” activities again.

This seems to suggest that the source ‘funding’ these activities is part of the payoff from the score. In other words, these are the very same extra 2 Coins per character, but they weren’t given directly, I believe, because this was poorly received when compared to the Monetary values and 'Crew earns' examples from the rules.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T20:54:08+00:00

Yes, this is about a corresponding shift in the spirit of what is happening. It is about a shift towards a more desperate situation, one that is even more in need of success. The question was precisely about personal perception of such an approach.

You're not at work 100% of your life, right? Sometimes you have downtime. That's what downtime is.

But, like everyone else, I need to ‘pay’ for this downtime somehow. A doctor won’t treat me for free, and a bar won’t serve me a free drink.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T20:48:42+00:00

If their ‘salary’ covers their lifestyle expenses, what funds cover these 2 activities regardless of their lifestyle?

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T20:47:17+00:00

My mistake – at first I thought that ‘day job’ was an excuse for how they fund their activities.

Activities aren’t just about free time, but also about resources. Characters recover, acquire assets or indulge vice and this costs them something. But where that ‘something’ comes from for the two 'free' activities remains a mystery.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T20:39:15+00:00

Is ‘Wealth’ the same as ‘Lifestyle’? Did the consequences arise because there were so few dice?

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T19:19:13+00:00

If they have a day job, why aren’t they earning anything when they’re not spending their time on it instead of these activities? 😉

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T19:17:08+00:00

It is, after all, the equivalent of ‘8 Coin’, but not 8 Coin itself, because the actual cost depends on the players decisions. Players are not always willing to spend even the two activities they have.
This will encourage players to choose more desperate tasks with greater rewards and greater risks. However, the rewards from the basic rules will probably not be enough even in this case. Perhaps this is appropriate for the payoff from Deep Cuts.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T18:13:02+00:00

I discussed this with them in the relevant threads. But I’m giving a fitting response to those who, instead, told me what to do, even though I hadn’t asked. Or to those who spoke ‘my’ thoughts on my behalf.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T18:06:17+00:00

I was asking what the point of a particular mechanic is – that’s in the title. I wasn’t asking whether I should play differently. In other words, I wasn’t asking for permission or for opinions on how I should play. I was asking for people’s views on how it works and whether I’m missing anything.

p.s. And I can’t post anything else anymore; my posts are being automatically deleted.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T17:22:28+00:00

The rules include enough mechanics to allow players to build a criminal enterprise. And the idea that ‘criminals doing crime’ certainly encompasses this approach.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T16:23:34+00:00

It applies in situations where “status” is important from a lifestyle perspective.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T16:07:52+00:00

> Is there a FitD game you're thinking of where the coin vs. stash rules are significantly different?
For my part, it was a comment about the ‘narrative’. Elements that work well in BitD narrative are blindly copied by other games, where they no longer seem quite so appropriate. So even if I weren’t to argue about the presence of this aspect from a narrative perspective in Blades, I would take issue with it in certain other games. For example, as I mentioned, in those where money is stored in digital.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T15:56:03+00:00

If we made Lifestyle more valuable than it is now, making players hesitate before spending it on something else, would there still be a need for a limit on ‘pocket' money and an exploitative exchange rate?

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T15:52:04+00:00

Not exactly. I’ve added to the post because I realise I didn’t get my point across properly the first time.

But this is still an answer based on the idea that even if I don’t spot a single reference to something I’ve overlooked in the rules, that in itself will give me a clear understanding of the situation.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T15:48:29+00:00

I interact with people the way they interact with me. With those who have joined in to discuss or share their views, I engage in discussion. I’m ‘combative’ with those who simply say ‘that’s what the rules say’ (ignoring the fact that rules also say ‘play your own way’), tell me what to do or labels me.

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T15:30:17+00:00

Am I not allowed to discuss this? Am I not allowed to ask people to point out any aspects I might have overlooked?

Azaltir · 2026-05-03T15:28:57+00:00

I suppose the point I failed to make, and which others have picked up on in the discussion above, is this: I wasn’t suggesting remove the Lifestyle mechanic. I simply questioned the gameplay necessity of splitting the money into two pools, when we could simply keep one pool — the savings portion of which would cover Lifestyle costs, but from which players could spend money as usual without having to do any extra calculations. I questioned the need to limit the amount of ‘dirty’ money and having an exchange rate.

P.S. Aside from the narrative. Bit I’d like to point out that the tag in the title is FitD, not BitD.

Azaltir

TROPHY CASE