As I’ve discussed previously, Technoir features a conflict-resolution system in which players push adjectives onto other characters. For example, instead of making an attack roll with your machine gun to inflict hit point damage, you instead use your Shoot verb to apply the adjective of riddled to the target.

In the rules as written, positive and negative adjectives “can be applied to a character directly – representing her physical or psychological state – or to an object belonging to a character – representing its physical condition or the states of its electronics and software”. When applying the latter, you’re supposed to draw a line from the adjective to the piece of equipment being affected. Some of the former might only apply to a particular part of the body; if so, that should be indicated in parentheses next to the adjective. (For example, broken (arm).)

RELATIONSHIP ADJECTIVES

There is also one other type of adjective in the game: The permanent, locked relationship adjectives which describes how a PC feels about their connections. (These adjectives act “as positive adjectives when the protagonist is helping or defending that character, they act as negative adjectives if she acts against that character”.)

What I would like to propose is a slight conceptual and mechanical shift in how relationship adjectives are handled throughout Technoir.

1. A relationship adjective specifically refers to any adjective which describes the connection between two characters.

2. When you apply a relationship adjective to a character, you specify which character they have that relationship with. The adjective describes the target character’s relationship with that character; it does not necessarily describe the character’s relationship with them.

(You can already apply an adjective like trusting. What I’m saying is that you should specify who, exactly, the character trusts. For example, trusting (Paul) or affectionate (Cyndi). This would mean that they’re trusting of Paul or affectionate of Cyndi; it wouldn’t necessarily means that Paul trusts them or Cyndi likes them.)

3. If you want a relationship adjective to describe their relationship with multiple people – for example, if you want them to be trusting of both you and your friends – then you need to use the rules for multiple targets: You need to have an adjective or tag that justify the application and you need to discharge a Push die (that is not rolled as part of the dice pool) to pay for the attempt.

Pushing relationship tags that describe relationships with multiple people onto multiple targets costs two Push die (one for multiple relationships; one for multiple targets).

(For example, if you want to make an entire Cyn Set gang loyal to Saito International, you’d need to spend one Push die to affect all the members in the gang and a second Push die because Saito International represents a large group of people. However, if you just want the leader of the gang to feel loyal to the corporation, that would only cost one Push die. Similarly, if you want the whole gang to feel loyal to a particular representative of the Saito International, that would also only cost you one Push die.)

4. Relationship adjectives generally act as negative adjectives when you act against the character you have a relationship with and positive adjectives when you’re helping or defending that character. Some exceptions may exist.

5. In general, relationship adjectives work just like any other adjective. If someone is fleetingly trusting of a character, they’ve been momentarily persuaded to believe their story. If that same adjective is made sticky, on the other hand, then they’ll keep swallowing the character’s bullshit for a long time.

If a relationship adjective is locked onto a protagonist, however, the character it describes automatically becomes a connection. (Somebody is saying “this guy is of major importance to this protagonist” and that needs to be respected.) This means they can be hit up like any other connection, added to the plot map, and so forth. (The GM can prep customized connection tables for the new connection; use them to replace a connection who has been killed or otherwise removed from play; or even make them the seed for a new or overlapping transmission. Alternatively, the GM can just use the master table for the connection whenever the nouveau connection is hit up.)

6. Of course, as with any other adjective, you still need to establish the proper vector for applying the adjective.

The beautiful abstraction of inflationary hit points is an efficient, streamlined, and (most importantly) fun way of handling combat damage.

Once you get outside of combat, however, they do take a toll.

Falling damage is oft-cited, but doesn’t really bug me any more: If your character is capable of punching out a dragon (and they are), the fact that they can jump off a skyscraper doesn’t really seem that implausible. My philosophy is let the demigods be demigods.

But the one tack-on effect that does bug me is the loss of stealth-based play. You can’t just sneak past the guards, because in practice that usually just means that you end up with enemies in front and behind you. And since the system is designed to make it difficult to take out your typical opponent in one hit (because that doesn’t make for a fun combat), it’s impossible to execute a “quiet sweep” (by taking out opponents without raising the alarm). So, in general, your only viable option within the mechanics is to go for a full breach every time. And this is a problem that is typically exacerbated as the PCs gain levels.

(You’d think that having a wider range of weaker opponents would counteract this trend, but in practice it doesn’t because the players don’t have a reliable way of knowing which opponents are weak enough for the “guaranteed take-out”. Since a failed stealth attempt will generally put you in a bad position and the group can usually just overwhelm targets they could successfully take-out during a stealth op, my gameplay experience suggests that they’re rarely willing to take the gamble with the odds stacked so heavily against them. This could be addressed by adding a mechanic that would allow PCs to figure out “how tough is this guy?”.)

Another solution, of course, would be to increase the lethality of the system. The D20 version of Call of Cthulhu, for example, lowered the Massive Damage Threshold to 10. This encourages stealth-focused play from both sides — it makes the PCs vulnerable in open melees and makes it possible for them to take out opponents in a single, stealthy blow.

Of course, in D&D, setting the MDT to 10 would simply turn the game into a big crap shoot of save-or-die. Not much fun. I’ve long been tempted to play around with setting the MDT to a character’s Constitution score + HD in a D20 game just to see what would happen. That might work for an E6 game; although beyond that point the lethality would start creeping back up into save-or-die territory.

But I digress. My point is, using MDT to solve the problem will also impact how combat itself plays out. Which may not actually be desirable. So let me tweak it a little bit and propose something different.

SURPRISE DAMAGE THRESHOLD

Create a “surprise damage threshold”. If a flat-footed character suffers more damage than their surprise damage threshold during the surprise round, they are knocked unconscious.

This rule allows the PCs to dogpile a single sentry or small group to help guarantee that their stealthy behavior pays off. And by requiring the damage to be dealt during the surprise round, you’re eliminating random knock-outs at the start of every fight. (The flat-footed requirement is there to make this strictly about achieving surprise.)

What value should the SDT be set at? That’ll probably require some tweaking and playtesting, but Constitution score + HD might not be a bad place to start. You could also add a Fortitude save like the regular MDT rules require.

BABBLE
Level: Brd 2, Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: Up to 3 creatures + 1 creature per level
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell curses those afflicted by removing their ability to speak, read, or otherwise communicate in the language they share most in common. (This will most typically be the common tongue itself.) This is not limited merely to communication with  each other — rather, the language itself is stricken entirely from their minds for the duration of the spell.

The babble cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell.

Material Component: A lump of clay which transforms into a small model of a ziggurat if at least one target fails their saving throw.

In Ptolus, the House of the Sacred Heat believes in the divine healing power of fire. They are not priests and they do not have truly holy magic, but their techniques “serve the needs of Ptolusites who cannot afford to pay a temple hundreds of gold coins to heal a wound or deal with an illness.”

This concept of fantastical healing lying somewhere between the naturalistic limits of the Heal skill and the magical extremes of divine magic has always been very appealing to me. Unfortunately, the purview of the sacred heat wasn’t given any mechanical definition. Without that mechanical definition, there’s no compelling reason for the PCs to ever interact with the Healers of the Sacred Heat. As a result, in a setting already teeming with activity, the Sacred Heat is a non-entity.

Reading through Reign t’other day, however, I found the esoteric discipline of Truil Bodywork. Greg Stolze describes this discipline, in part, by writing: “Some Truils argue, quite seriously, that bodywork functions by compressing a month’s suffering into ten or fifteen minutes. The bodyworkers themselves just roll their eyes at the jibe.”

Reign is built on the One-Roll Engine (ORE), so the pain-for-gain mechanics of Truil Bodywork don’t directly translate. But the basic concept was inspiring. Here’s the Healer of the Sacred Heat feat:

HEALER OF THE SACRED HEAT

Prerequisite: Heal 5 ranks

Benefit: The character gains access to the Healing Arts of the Sacred Heat. As long as they have access to an open flame, they gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Heal checks and they can also use any of the following abilities.

Burning Out the Poison: By using flame and heat applied to specific locations on the body, a Healer of the Sacred Heat can attempt to burn a poison out of a patient’s body. (Some ingested poisons will also require the patient to swallow specially prepared coals.) This treatments takes 1 round and deals 1d6 points of nonlethal damage to the patient, but if the healer succeeds on a Heal check with a DC equal to that of the original poison + 5 the patient is completely cured. (They suffer no additional effects from the poison and any temporary effects are ended. However, the treatment does not reverse instantaneous effects such as hit point damage, temporary ability damage, and the like.)

Cooling the Disease: By using strategically placed flames or heat sources around a patient’s body, a Healer of the Sacred Heat can create a biorhythmic vortex which will draw heat out of the body. As the heat departs the body, it draws non-magical diseases with it. The treatment takes 10 minutes and deals 1d6 points of nonlethal damage to the patient due to the sudden chilling of their body, but if the healer succeeds on a Heal check with a DC equal to that of the original disease +5 the patient will automatically succeed on their next saving throw against the disease.

Cauterizing the Wound: With 10 minutes of work and a successful Heal check (DC 15), a Healer of the Sacred Heat can convert lethal damage to nonlethal damage equal to their margin of success. A patient receiving this treatment also suffers 1d6 points of additional nonlethal damage due to the strain placed on their body by the technique.

DESIGN NOTES

I’m tempted to add a “once per day per patient” limitation to Cauterizing the Wound, but I’m  not sure it’s actually necessary. What do y’all think?

This material is covered by the Open Game License.

Savage Worlds uses playing cards for initiative: Each round, everybody is dealt a playing card and the rank of the cards determines the order in which characters take their actions. The system has the advantage of being quick, intuitive, and transparent. (It’s very easy to glance around the table and immediately see when people will be taking their actions.)

Here’s a variant of the same idea designed for D20 or D20-like systems.

PLAYING CARD INITIATIVE

THE DEAL: Each round, deal each PC and each group of NPCs a playing card. Characters with an initiative bonus are dealt extra cards equal to their bonus and get to keep the best card dealt to them. Characters with an initiative penalty are dealt extra cards equal to their penalty and must keep the worst card dealt to them.

(For example, Peter the Brave has a+2 initiative bonus. He is dealt three cards — the single card that everyone receives automatically, plus two bonus cards from his initiative: A ten, a nine, and a jack. He keeps the jack.

Brazz the Slow, on the other hand, has a -1 initiative penalty. He’s dealt two cards: An eight and a six. He must take the six.)

THE COUNTDOWN: Once the cards are dealt, the GM simply counts down from Ace to Deuce with characters taking their turns when their card comes up. In the case of a tie, actions can be resolved simultaneously. If the tie must be broken, resolve by suit order in reverse alphabetical order: Spades, then Hearts, then Diamonds, and then Clubs.

JOKERS: Jokers are wild. When you’re dealt a joker you can keep it even if you have an initiative penalty. A joker allows you to go whenever you want in a round, even if it means interrupting another character’s action with your full turn! In addition, you gain a +2 bonus to all checks and damage rolls for the round.

SHUFFLING: Reshuffle the deck after any round in which a Joker was dealt.

VARIANTS

TRADITIONAL VARIANT: Instead of drawing each round, you can simply draw once for the full combat. When characters take a readied or delayed action that changes their initiative, it’s recommended that players fish out a card of the correct value.

UTILITY VARIANT: Designate one of the players as the dealer. The GM can just tell them how many cards he needs and let them handle the actual dealing of the cards. Alternatively, if you’re all right handling simultaneous action resolution, there’s no reason the GM and players couldn’t have separate decks.

POKER VARIANT: For completely dissociated wackiness, let the players form poker hands by taking collective actions with various bonuses depending on the hand formed. Many poker hands, of course, would require some of the players to delay their actions for the round. (For example, two players with a pair attacking the same target could each deal double damage. What might a royal flush be worth?)