This content is protected against AI scraping.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about a rule from Masks: A New Generation that I wanted to bring into Godflesh. The rule lets enemies react after players damage them, which breaks the usual Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) rhythm.
In standard PbtA, the GM waits for player actions and only steps in under specific circumstances: a player rolls a six or under, or the players are stuck and need a nudge (“What do you do?”).
The Masks rule changes this for battles. When players land solid hits and damage villains, the villain gets a chance to retaliate. It creates a back-and-forth that feels more like an actual fight.
Putting it into action
Our latest session was the first test of these new battle rules. We ran two battles against lesser foes. One thing became clear immediately: monster health needed adjustment. Players were dealing 3-4 damage per attack, which meant most monsters lasted less than a round. I needed to roughly double their health and factor in defence and armour to make encounters last long enough to be interesting. Even after that adjustment, the fights stayed engaging – high rolls just ended things faster rather than making them pointless.
When monsters reacted after taking damage, I didn’t hit players with their strongest abilities. Instead, they used minor or secondary effects. Each monster had a tiered system: a minor effect (1-2 damage), a medium effect (2-3 damage), and a powerful effect triggered by player misses. Players took some damage, monsters went down – a satisfying exchange, and closer to what I’d hoped for.
Lessons learned
We always debrief after playtesting. One piece of feedback concerned the new “tracks” system for character damage. Currently, damage is divided between “pressure” and character attributes (Prowess, Resolve, etc.). Players choose where to assign status effects based on the situation. If I describe monsters creating nausea-inducing fog, players decide whether it affects physical Prowess or mental Resolve.
Stacking damage: a balancing act
Once a status is established on a specific attribute, subsequent damage from the same source stacks onto it. If nausea returns, it goes on the existing “nausea” track, potentially pushing the attribute into negative territory and hindering its use.
The feedback was to separate status effects from attributes. Rather than attaching statuses to specific attributes, players would have general character statuses alongside individual damage tracks for each attribute. This keeps player choice but avoids stacking everything onto a single attribute – which can dilute the impact by spreading things too thin.
During one session, a character built up two or three statuses on the same attribute across battles, even after a short rest to refresh resources. The question: is that actually what we want? Should the character suffer cumulative damage all at once, potentially hitting a more critical state, rather than spreading it out?
That’s a question for future sessions. We need to find the point where the damage severity feels thematically right – not just balanced, but actually cool. The goal is a specific experience, not optimised numbers.