[The ASH System, V2.00] Fluidity and Creativity
Rubbermancer:
Sure thing, man, Gaeric is yours for the taking. Glad he helped, hehe.
You've hit the acronyms bang-on. Also glad to hear that the setting is evolving, as I think it will be absolutely crucial to the CC and gameplay process.
As far as motes go: I still can't help thinking of them as a form of hit points, albeit even more abstracted than hit points usually are. Were they to drop to zero because you were incinerated, and your character's Integrity were at 1, would it be like a resurrection kind of thing? Also, if a character gets his reserves near-exhausted through non-physical attrition, would a tap on the forehead be enough to kill him, despite his being in perfect physical health?
As you know, I'm not a fan of hit points either. On that note, I think my problem with getting a handle on this is not that this strides against a traditional hit point system. Rather quite the opposite problem, in that motes, as I'm seeing them, could in fact be a little too close to hit points in some situations. I'm not sure how you'll tackle this, if you choose to see it as an issue. If I were in your shoes, I would go with a mechanics-free "wounds" system, like I have in BR; people just keep track of how banged-up they are, and narrate accordingly. Motes could then be seen purely as "resolve" or "strength reserves" or "stamina" or what-have-you. But that's me.
The mixture is what's killing it for me. In my mind, it's having an effect opposite to marginalizing hit point mechanics; it fills me with questions, and answering those questions might consume more rulebook space than is justified by something you want to marginalize.
In closing, I would like to stress that I'm in the nitpicking phase of ASH critique now. Everything else about the system, I like, and motes are not a deal-breaker for me either. They just seem to raise some issues of abstraction and in-game circumstance.
Thriff:
Rubbs,
The setting is less so "evolving" and more so being "revealed". I had the setting long before I had even played my first RPG--or dreamed of designing one.
Motes, eh? All right.
I think of motes as more of a player resource than a character resource. So ya, they are a drastically more abstract version of hit points. I didn’t want hit points because (1) they generally encourage damage in a purely physical sense and (2) it is odd to quantify a character’s health in discrete units such as HP.
Motes, as an abstracted version of HP, evade (1) because they can be expended or gained based on any action, be it physical/intellectual/emotional; and (2) they aren’t primarily used to quantify a character’s health so much as that they quantify a character’s capacity to take action.
Conditions
I want to avoid a “Conditions” (wounds) system because (1) too much paperwork for my liking and, perhaps more importantly, (2) such Conditions are still very very relevant to the system through the mechanic of Context Bonuses.
Notice: players don’t have to write down their character’s Conditions because these Conditions will have been acquired due to someone’s narration. Remember that any detail from any narration may be used as a Context Bonus by any player for their character. This system implicitly tracks Conditions because players will be consistently referring to others’ negative Conditions and their own positive Conditions to gain Context Bonuses to win conflicts and become the Narrator.
Every 1 Context Bonus (on a scale of Negligible, Favourable, Significant, and Godsend) grants a re-try at the Rock-Paper-Scissors. Whoever exceeds their opponent in Context Bonuses gets to have the difference in re-tries. It’s a massive advantage to get 1 more re-try, so you bet players will be (mentally) keeping track of Conditions.
0 Pool
I agree that there is a potential for confusion regarding someone reaching 0 Pool.
Let’s first consider the situations under which someone could reach 0 Pool.
No character can be forced to have 0 Pool. There are only four ways to lose motes (the units for Pool) in this game, and all of them are voluntary.
(1) Expending Motes for Tasks (maximum of 5), (2) Gambling Motes for Conflicts (maximum of 10), (3) Taking Success Level Deficit “SLD” as mote-fatigue by losing a conflict (maximum 10), and (4) Resisting a Compulsion (maximum 6).
(1) can be avoided by not attempting Tasks, (2)/(3) can be avoided by not initiating Conflicts, and (4) can be avoided by accepting Compulsions instead of resisting them. Doing both effectively removes a player from the game (instead they become a viewer) but it keeps them safe. This is why mote refreshment (primarily accepting Compulsions) are important. But most importantly a character can avoid all damage by not vying for any influence over the narrative.
(2) and (3) are mutually exclusive (because if you Gamble 10 motes you can’t have a Success Level Deficit) so a character can only lose 10 motes in any one action (2/3 of their Pool). But to lose 10 motes would mean a massive Gamble that’s not supported by an Identity to get free Success Levels (a bad idea to try) or entering a Conflict with no intention of gaining Success Levels (also a bad idea).
So. Characters can’t be forced to die. So any time 0 Pool enters the scenario is any time a player cares enough about something to risk death (or removal from the narration of a scene if their Integrity is 1).
My default understanding is that if a character has an Integrity of 1 (full Integrity because they haven’t contradicted their Seek or Code) then Pool 0 just means the narrator has to allow for the character’s survival. Somehow. No matter how outrageous. Yes, this is Nar being prioritized over Sim, and I’m fine with that.
0 Pool Examples
Let’s assume an Integrity of 1. Integrity 0 is easier: kill off the char or force them out of the story somehow.
Fire in the Face
If a character’s Pool were to drop to 0 Pool due to incineration it will likely be one of two scenarios. (1) They are attempting a task, such as walking through fire or (2) they’ve been pushed into/targeted by some source of fire. Or, less likely, they are trying to bear hug a flaming bear to death. Regardless, it’s either a Task (1), or Conflict (2) and the character voluntarily assumed the risks of getting fire in the face in the first place.
A character drops to 0 Pool while trying to walk through flames (task). Every player will now know that that character is severely burned and likely suffering from the (many) adverse effects of strolling through an inferno. [Conditions have been accounted for].
But note that the character itself doesn’t have to die. It could succeed (or fail, that’s not the issue here) at the task but be left unconscious from all the smoke or the pain of the burns. Perhaps he collapses somewhere mortally safe within or outside of the flames. All that matters is that they have lost the ability to influence the narrative for the remainder of the scene. (They could be rescued by PCs/NPCs and revived later or awaken of their own accord once the scene is complete.)
A conflict would be resolved very similarly. Effectively: do whatever makes sense to keep the character alive but removed from the scene if their Pool is 0 and their Integrity 1.
Non-Physical Attrition Leads to Forehead Tap K.O.
I think by now the clarification has been made, but in case not.
Integrity of 1.
When a character’s Pool becomes 0 due to intellectual/emotional exhaustion and then they are confronted by a minor physical task/conflict (notice that a character attacking them won’t do anything to their Pool, the player must volunteer to take a hit to their Pool) which reduces their Pool to 0, then they can lose their ability to impact the narrative due to intellectual/emotional stress (which makes sense).
Integrity of 0. Conflict Example.
The final blow that removes 1 SL from the exhausted Character X could be purely physical. Character X’s opponent, Character Y, could use X’s exhaustion as Context Bonus [again, implicitly tracking Conditions] and succeed at physically harming X. The degree of physical harm is not tracked by how many motes are exhausted, the narration determines how severe the consequences are.
So in this case the character [does NOT have to die when they Expire] could Expire due to intellectual/emotional stress from before, or the physical damage of the last conflict.
Summary
Motes are a player resource more than they’re a character resource.
Motes can be thought of as a player’s bidding tokens that represent a character’s capacity to influence the fiction. Mote fatigue should be represented as a character’s Condition as often as possible—but mote-fatigue doesn’t always necessitate a character acquiring a Condition.
Listing Conditions is too much accounting for my tastes, but the Context Bonus mechanic continuously accounts for Codntions without having to write them down.
Characters are never forced into a situation where they must expend motes. They must voluntarily enter Tasks, Conflicts, or Resist Compulsions—the only ways to experience mote fatigue.
Characters can only ever lose 10 motes at a time (very unlikely because of the astronomical stupidity necessary to enter such a situation)
As long as a character has Integrity 1 the character will survive. Use wildly unlikely probabilities or events to ensure this happens. Yes this is Nar over Sim, but that’s fine.
Expiration (Pool 0 and Integrity 0) does not always have to be death. It can be, but doesn’t have to be.
T
Rubbermancer:
OK, this is much clearer for me now. Two thumbs up! Hopefully you can find a way to clarify this distinction in the rules without an extra 2 pages. It might be just me, but I think other people might also find that the true definition of a mote eludes them at first.
Thriff:
Rubbs,
Fair enough and duly noted. Glad to have your approval :D:D:D
T
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page