Could there be the negative version of an asset
Could there be the negative version of an asset
Then maybe as an optional rule a player could pick more than 3 but for each extra needs to take a negative.
Then maybe as an optional rule a player could pick more than 3 but for each extra needs to take a negative.
A Liability?
ReplyDeleteThat's a really interesting idea. "Liability", as Mamading Ceesay notes, would be a great name.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of things that make me hesitate:
First of all, in terms of the playspace, my hope is to avoid too much fiddly-ness. That's one of the reasons the XP system encourages upgrades versus new assets. Adding a liability would essentially add 2 new cards (1 for the liability, and one for the asset trade-in), so things can get a bit cluttered and unfocused.
Secondly, I'd have to consider how the liabilities impact things in terms of mechanics. Ironsworn doesn't use penalties (no negative stats, no D&D style disadvantage mechanics), so the liabilities would need to focus on narrative impact or limit the use of moves in particular situations. That's all fine, of course -- I'd just have to think through how that looks.
Shadow-Kin and Battle-Scarred are actually 'sorta-'kinda liabilities turned into assets. I really like those, and it'd be interesting to explore more of that sort. Worth mulling over for sure.
Just adding some random thoughts. Perhaps limit the liability of Liabilities by capping them at one? Especially if they function differently than Battle-Scarred or Shadow-Kin.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, they could offer a diminishing return, have them act as a negative asset but you only get to upgrade an existing asset for having a liability, instead of getting a whole new asset.
Or as another alternative, let them be Hard Mode or for narrative purposes only. Sure, take a liability if you want to. You just don't get anything for it. I can think of a few people on the boards who like punishing their characters. ;-)
Other random thought. In a thread with, Bernhard Lutz I think, you'd discussed the possibility of using advantage or disadvantage mechanics with the challenge dice. If that makes it in at some point, a Liability could force a disadvantage roll in certain circumstances. Roll disadvantage when using relationship moves with First Born or something similar. That would alleviate the problem of negative stats or stat modifiers. Like with any negative, it is up to the player and narrator to introduce situations where it is interesting and impactful.
It could be limited to one option only, and placed at the bottom of the asset card. The other game we play, Blade of the Iron Throne has a good and poor version of most assets, from a role playing perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think that no liabilities is a good decision. It would be another step at creating character and it is not needed. The simplicity of Ironsworn is its great advantage. Debilities and Vows fulfill the role perfectly.
ReplyDeleteAllan Prewett it's your game, so sure! Just increase the difficultly of the "puzzles" you put in your game.
ReplyDelete