During our play, we found that giving the helpers a lesser condition makes it a bit awkward roleplayingwise, by the means that, beside the main story of failure that results in the condition of the tester, we are making a second story of less interest about the helpers taking a condition that doesn’t fit so much for the situation.
So, we are thinking about changing the rule, giving the helpers the same condition as the tester. As a counterbalance to the risk, we think having halp giving +2D instead of +1D.
How much impact will this change have in the system?
Granting +2D is very, very powerful, especially with several helpers. I’d be wary of using that, though I don’t have a great alternative at this moment. Perhaps granting them same condition BUT only on a roll of 4+? Adds randomness, but maintains about the same balance.
By doubling your helping dice you’re severely increasing the chances of success. The average test will go from 5D vs the obstacle to 7D. I think that shifts the balance of helping too far to where helping is just a given, because the odds of failing are so low.
So, the other thought we have is to call every participant for a proper Will/Health test with obstacle equal to the magrin of failure instead of immidiately giving the condition. This will make it easier to avoid conditions by will move the grind.
Another option is to have Twists ready. If it just doesn’t make any sense of the helpers to get conditions, expose them all to a twist instead! And if no condition OR twist makes sense… why were they rolling in the first place?
Do what you think is thematically appropriate. If you want to give everyone the same condition for helping, just do it, and let the action succeed. Otherwise, give them a twist.
Another thought we had is to not approach it mechanically, but instead change the way we roleplay such a situation.
What we typically do is to introduce a situation that brings a condition to the tester, then explain how this situation affects the helpers with a lesser condition. This way, is more like «oh, and you suffer that one!». Also, after giving the first condition, there is bar that that shows you what to expect.
So, our new approach is to explain how the situation gives a condition to the helpers on first hand, and then giving it all on the tester’s condition. This way, also, the bar of what to expect is raised. We had it analysed a little bit…
