Justin Gordon Shawn Tomkin
Justin Gordon Shawn Tomkin
Hey guys,
Finished a session with Lysa and Justin a while ago and had an interesting thought. I was discussing a possible mechanic of cashing in assets for replacements. I had realized I liked being a duelist more than an archer, and proposed if it was possible to "trade in" an asset in exchange for enough experience to train an asset you already have, i.e. setting my arching ways aside to further develop my dual-weapon arts. Let me know what you guys think.
--- Lucas
Hey guys,
Finished a session with Lysa and Justin a while ago and had an interesting thought. I was discussing a possible mechanic of cashing in assets for replacements. I had realized I liked being a duelist more than an archer, and proposed if it was possible to "trade in" an asset in exchange for enough experience to train an asset you already have, i.e. setting my arching ways aside to further develop my dual-weapon arts. Let me know what you guys think.
--- Lucas
I didn't include a provision for it in the rules, but If I were GM'ing a game I certainly wouldn't have an issue with a player trading in an asset soon after they acquire it or early in the character's development. Same goes for a GM-less game with my own character.
ReplyDeleteNormally this would be "I'm not really feeling this asset, so am going to try this one instead", and just trade straight across. If you're looking to trade it in for an upgrade in an existing asset, I would just count it as 2 experience instead of 3 when you cash it in. If you are a starting character that would leave you with 2 assets instead of 3. I actually had that as an option at one point in the rules--you can have 3 assets, or have 2 plus one upgrade--but decided to keep it simple. Feel free to consider it a slightly official-ish option.
Cashing in assets is not something to make a habit of further down the character's career, but early on it's all-good to course correct.
Also, how did the game go?
ReplyDeleteyou can already sort of do this with Companions... ie when your horse dies you get back partial experience that you could plow into something else or get a new horse at bit of discount.
ReplyDeleteAlso I'm a big fan of letting players re-jig their characters after the first little bit of play anyway, especially if its a new game you've never tried before but even if its a old game sometimes initial concepts don't work out in play.
Usually after the first adventure I let everyone re-evaluate and retro in almost any change they want. The only exception would be if they are tossing an ability that was central to the story that actually played out, I'd need a good reason to have them drop something that got significant 'screen time'. Though I have never had anybody try to do that anyway, if they had a power that saved the day its not normally the one they want to ditch.
Anyway in my game I'd probably let you swap out an asset during the early going but also probably ensure you still had at least 3 assets, since the rules normally don't allow you to start with your 3 starting assets all piled into only 1 asset - I'd like to see a bit of breath of character. Other than that I'd be fine with you dropping archery that your not really using and bump up your dueling that is seeing screen time.
Shawn Tomkin I think it went well, there were some seriously desperate stakes near the end (an Archer, some bandits, a bear Oh My!)
ReplyDeleteThe only hitch I ran into is that during the session there was a moment where Lysa Clarke pulled off a clutch Compel to convince the bandits attacking Lucas Sapp to flee, the end result being that while he did not have initiative mechanically, his fictional position was solid and relatively safe (the other enemies were tied up facing my fighter nearby)
I don't play ranged attackers often, so it's never been something I've had to deal with. How do you bring the pressure to a PC that generally hangs out far from the fight?
Hey, Justin Gordon. What was Lucas' intent after the bandits fled? Was he trying to pick off foes engaged with his allies at range? if so, I might treat that as a Face Danger to get in position in order to shoot into the melee.
ReplyDeleteYou can also feel free to make a ruling to "clean slate" initiative for someone who is momentarily no longer in the fight because their foes have been dealt with. In this case, that's probably how I'd deal with it, unless the situation, terrain, etc. warranted other moves to get back into the thick of things or avoid new dangers. Lysa essentially shortcut right past End the Fight for him, so it makes sense. Think of her successful action as a variation of Aid your Ally.
Shawn Tomkin I killed a bear in one shot with two daggers. It was marvelous.
ReplyDeleteShawn Tomkin those are both reasonable thoughts! In this situation would Lucas have to Enter the Fray again to resume combat or would he just pick up and go back to combat moves
ReplyDeleteLucas Sapp you did and it was phenomenal
ReplyDeleteRolling to Enter the Fray again to establish his new positioning would be reasonable as well, Justin Gordon. Fictionally, he's out of the fight, trying to get into the fight, so it makes sense. I'd save that for unusual circumstances, though, since it's really intended as a staging move.
ReplyDeleteOne other thought ... Clash can also be slightly bent to fit this situation. If he doesn't have initiative and wants to fire into a melee, he can Clash. On a weak hit or miss, the Price can be that one of his allies take harm (either from their foes or his errant shot), he ends up drawing the attention of an enemy, etc.
Lots of options, which can probably give you a bit of decision paralysis but also show that it's hard to go wrong.
At one point my character broke off from the fight to find the leader using her dog. I think Lucas Sapp was onto something when he said she should have entered the fray. I made her a rather combat light character, with a lot of heart, which probably would have helped, rather than resulting in my capture and use as a human shield as the leader tried to get away.
ReplyDeleteI had a ton of fun, but knowing there was the possibility of re-entering thefight rather than continuing on as if if been fighting this guy and possibly not winding up (several times) with a dagger to my throat is something I will keep in mind next time.
Shawn Tomkin I guess one other thing while we're on the subject of this session, it might be worth emphasizing in the Pay the Price move's description that you don't necessarily have to suffer mechanical harm, but could represent any number of negative fictional outcomes (ending up on your back, losing your weapon, being blinded or knocked loopy). I feel like a lot of players are quick to inflict mechanical punishment on their characters rather than embracing the dangerous fictional position
ReplyDeleteJustin Gordon I know I am haha
ReplyDeleteFunny you should mention that, Justin Gordon. I am tweaking the Pay the Price move a bit, and updating the summary text to spell out the process as follows:
ReplyDelete1) Determine the cost
2) Apply that cost to the fiction. What does it look like? How does it impact the current situation and your options?
3) Apply any appropriate mechanical cost. If you face a physical hardship or injury, suffer -health and Endure Harm. If you are disheartened or frightened, suffer -spirit and Test your Spirit. If you lose equipment or exhaust resources, suffer -supply. If you waste precious moments or are put in an unfavorable position, suffer -momentum. A result can be purely narrative without a mechanical cost, but many situations can impact both your story and your character’s readiness as represented through your status tracks.
In your example above, for example, getting knocked prone in a fight may force you to make a new move (i.e. Face Danger) to get back in position, and probably saps a bit of momentum.
Pay the Price is going to lose the explicit mechanical costs for the 55+ results, since that implies results further down the table don't have a related mechanical cost. Actually, though, "a person or community you trusted loses faith in you, or acts against you" could very well mean a loss of spirit, etc.
Kind of a substantive change late in the game, but cleaner, and addresses some of the feedback I've been given with the move. I don't want to reinforce a clean divide between narrative outcomes and mechanical outcomes. Instead, I want to start with the fiction, apply it to the mechanics when appropriate, and go from there.
I think you're affirming my decision, but let me know what you think.
Shawn Tomkin you gave voice to my thoughts exactly. I feel like it's something that really needs to be highlighted because it's probably the single biggest departure from bog standard roleplaying games. It takes some retraining to play "fiction first"
ReplyDelete