[ASH: A Saviour’s Heart] Full Game and System-Specific Questions
Rubbermancer:
The carrot/stick isn't really metagame though, not in a bad sense anyway; on the one hand, your character is encouraged to follow his seek and vow through said mechanic. This encouragement is both to the player and to the character, so I see how that could be interpreted as metagame, but I don't see that as a bad thing, as the character's goals and the player's goals align by default in this case. And on the other hand, in-game elements (evil carrots) tempt a character to pursue things anemic to his seek/vow. It sounds a lot like life to me. The only tension I see arising from it is good plot tension and character exploration, and I suspect that Thriff had something like this in mind when he designed the seek/vow system.
Thriff:
Rubbermancer,
I don't know when "evil carrots" entered the scenario. :P! More on that below.
Stefoid,
You're right that there are more than a few terms in ASH that could be serviceable if replaced by a more historically common term. You've listed quite a few and you've definitely made an effective argument for each.
Fellowship-Party, Sessioneer-GM, Identities-Traits, Seek-Goal, Vow-Code
I know that using the second term in each pair would make the game easier to approach and understand from the get-go, but I'd be sacrificing the accuracy and aesthetic that I believe the first term offers. It's a trade off with no correct answer, but I'm very glad you pointed this out to me.
As of now...
I think Fellowship doesn't increase the barrier of entry too greatly--and, to the best of my knowledge, (outside of DnD and DnD-esque) party isn't too common of a term. So it stays.
Even though GM is more common, it definitely doesn't fit with my system, setting, or design goals. Can't make that change.
Traits for Identities is interesting. This one is the best example of the more common term being serviceable without being as accurate as the term I chose. Identities are the multiple traits that identify a character. By using the term Identities I hope to emphasize that whatever a player chooses as an Identity must be a core feature of their character's being. I think of the relationship between the two terms as follows: every single Identity suggests a host of traits that the character may have.
Seek and Vow are on the verge of revision to Goal and Code. Seek will survive, Vow won't. There are 2 reasons I prefer Seek over Goal. (1) "Goal" seems too mundane to me. The purpose of ASH (my idealized designer's version) is to focus on PCs that are trying to save something of infinite value to them, thus the Saviour sub-title. This something of value may be an ideal such as courage or honour, or perhaps a town or country. It may even be saving a person, a family member or a romantic interest , from physical harm or emotional trauma.
(2) This is an instance where a more common term is actually detrimental to the game. If players read, or more likely skim, a section on goals (which they likely won't because "everyone knows what goal means") then they will just make up anything that would work as a "goal" in any number of systems they've already played. This, coupled with my first reason, is why I think Seek is a better choice than Goal.
I prefer Code because it is actually more accurate than Vow. A Vow suggests that the character is aware of their behaviour, but some Vows may be biases or social/economic/racial stereotypes that plague a character's world-perspective [similar to some Motivations in Ingenero]. So ya... you've got me here. Vow is now Code. Thanks for the insight!
Stick vs. Carrot
Thanks for your perceptive clarification of stick/carrot Rubbermancer! Just be careful not to give me too much credit (ego and all that :P).
I think you've phrased the Integrity mechanic better than I have: "the character's goals and the player's goals align by default".
I wanted dramatic and practical tension to arise in multiple ways in ASH, and you've identified exactly how I intended tension to arise due to the Seek/Code/Integrity mechanic: "in-game elements (evil carrots)... [which] tempt a character to pursue things anemic to his seek/vow".
[Anemic, good word. I like reading the many good words I near-always neglect!]
You're also right to mention that the Integrity mechanic can be seen as (and I think is) a meta-game feature. But I can't think of many mechanics that aren't... However, if necessary, I would agree that Integrity is better classified as "stick" over "carrot".
You're right that this sounds a lot like life. I don't think I was consciously considering that when I was designing. But that helps with the fluidity of the game I suspect.
The GM's "evil carrot"
If you want to play ASH with a "strong" GM that structures a specific scenario for a specific setting and has a specific (anticipated) course of action that the PCs will attempt in a specific chronological order then that's fine. This is the "railroading/structured" style and there is nothing wrong with that! Structured-emergent styles fit along a continuum (similar to the Virtues idea) and a happy balance is where players will be happy. That balance can be nearer one extreme than the other, and every person will have a different "happy place".
ASH knows this and accommodates for it. If you want a railroad approach then the GM's "evil carrot" comment makes perfect sense and can be applied with the ASH system.
I, however, prefer playing emergent games and thus default to considering ASH with that perspective in mind. This is why I used the term Sessioneer over GM for this particular role. The Sessioneer engineers the setting and then reacts to the PCs' involvement within that setting with the utmost fidelity. The Sessioneer doesn't guide the PCs, because the Sessioneer has no ultimate goal* for the PCs!
*[Some readers may have noticed that "complete session's goal" refreshes all of a character's motes (pg 15). This goal must be agreed upon by the players and Sessioneer before the session even begins. "Goal" is used differently here than a character's Seek (which always exists) and a Sessioneer's goal (which only exists in a highly structured session). This detail still needs to be explicitly stated in Part Four: Sessioneering.]
Summary
Vow is now Code.
Thanks for the different method for explaining Integrity.
Railroading with "evil carrots" is not a bad thing.
Thanks,
T
stefoid:
It might work out, but for some reason it troubles me, even in my own game. For ASH, maybe its the fact that Integrity is a stick - Its like: which is worse, missing an opportunity to make $10 or having $10 stolen from you?
Rubbermancer:
OK, evil-carrot railroading is all well and good, but you don't want to railroad. I feel you; you want to maintain the "temptation" bit that the evil carrot methodology brings to the table, without the necessity of linear plot events. ...Dare I say it: Evil Weenie? Like a carrot, but more bendy, and... well, god knows what they put in those things, right? It's the shape of the weenie that's important. The skin, the idea. The rest is just floppy pseudo-meat. Strewn liberally over the background of your fertile Sessioneer mind, a handful of Evil Weenies could leave you comfortably half-prepared to throw temptation at your players.
Am I right in thinking that's what you're going for? If so, I recommend you stop the presses immediately, and rename the Sessioneer sections of the core rulebook The Mechanical Soil for an Evil Weenie Tree in Your Mind.
Rubbermancer:
Quote
It might work out, but for some reason it troubles me, even in my own game. For ASH, maybe its the fact that Integrity is a stick - Its like: which is worse, missing an opportunity to make $10 or having $10 stolen from you?
That's a very interesting question, possibly the root for an extensive study in player psychology. I've seen plenty of games whose mechanics are based on leveling down rather than up, and the focus becomes more like trying to grip the sides of the abyss and thereby protract your inexorable descent into hell, madness, what-have-you. They can be fun, but some of them go too far, or are too narrow in scope. I think that this "lesser of two evils" aspect of the ASH system is a nice touch, a perfect, middling daub of difficulty on the vista. I wouldn't want to see the whole painting with that colour (as I said, some systems go too far), but that daub is... pleasing. My two cents, speaking as a prospective player with my own tastes.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page