I think it's a pretty fruitful comparison; crippling and legendary weapon loss are both severe problems that change your character concept and are a bugger to fix.

Maybe severing an arm and losing/breaking a daiklave should use the same mechanics. Wouldn't be too hard to adapt the 3e crippling-wound-accepting rules, I think.
 
And you can repair or retrieve a broken or lost weapon, so what's your point?
Well, there are a number of things that can permanently fuck over an Artifact.
Like Vitriol Baptism, or re-forging it into a handful of one-use items that consume themselves on use, or being swallowed by a Behemoth in the Deep Wyld and then dissolving along with it when the thing dies, or falling into the Ravine of Whispers, or...

And anyway, removing a Character's Artifacts is a little more like removing their Charms than crippling them.
 
Last edited:
Thus far, the most extreme instance of messing with a player (like, even I admit it was probably a few steps over the line, even if things turned out better than they could have) was in response to the party cleric walking into a hyper-shady bar*, laying down a purse of gold pieces, and saying "bring me the strongest drink you have."

The waitress looked him up and down, then simply said "Are you sure?", which was my way of warning him IC that maybe getting hammered during a mission for local law enforcement wasn't a good idea, and asking for the most potent brew in an establishment used to patrons with illegal bio-augs, supernatural fortification, or bizarre inhuman ancestry wasn't too bright either.

He decided to go for it, at which point the waitress listed off three drinks; when he chose "Keventori Blue", I gave another IC hint that maybe he should try a Knowledge check to dig up information on it before chugging it straight from the 200-year-old metal flask they'd brought it to him in. This hint flew clean over his head.

Unfortunately for him, Keventori Blue was a bit of setting fluff I'd written up weeks earlier during a late-night writing binge, and can be succinctly described as a thaumaturgical chemical weapon that can also get you drunk; specifically, it was made by a necromantic empire to fuck over enemy divine casters, and causes them to suffer demonic possession on contact with exposed skin. Cue him drinking it and immediately descending into a psychotic frenzy as he botched his "don't get possessed" save and started vomiting acid everywhere, while the rest of the party desperately tried to stop him from either killing someone or getting killed by the more spell-happy patrons.

I've learned a great many lessons about how to DM since then.



*Like, its motto was basically "where nobody knows your name or what you've done, and the proprietors are very scrupulously ignorant of bounty boards, national edicts, extradition laws, and other factors that could keep them from taking your money in exchange for an environment of ironclad anonymity and safety enforced by the fact that everyone else here is probably just as dangerous and on-edge as you are."
 
I'm allowed to kill or cripple their characters entirely, just not touch their stuff. Gotcha.
Well, honestly, yes. Players want to be awesome; they're often fine with going down awesomely, but getting ambushed, or steadily chipped away from their advantages and then curbstomped? Not so much. It's fun to do that to an Elder, but having that done to you is... significantly less fun.

So yeah, if you take them out of the game that's it, that was fun, give them some last words, gg go roll up a new sheet. But if you cripple them, you're implicitly saying "you have to continue playing this nerfed character for a while."
 
Well, honestly, yes. Players want to be awesome; they're often fine with going down awesomely, but getting ambushed, or steadily chipped away from their advantages and then curbstomped? Not so much. It's fun to do that to an Elder, but having that done to you is... significantly less fun.

So yeah, if you take them out of the game that's it, that was fun, give them some last words, gg go roll up a new sheet. But if you cripple them, you're implicitly saying "you have to continue playing this nerfed character for a while."
Well, I did cut off Laughter's arm and the player found that great fun.

urgh i need to update my actual play but i'm so lazy
 
See, I could never handle that kind of thing. If I can irreversibly maim you (and I will, because regeneration of limbs should require just as much investment as replacing the missing bits with cybernetic alternatives, which will also generally be an option to pursue), then I can shatter your gear. Narsil could be reforged into Anduril, and I don't see much point in running a game where the players can't do that.
 
Last edited:
Players don't typically like being disempowered. They can handle losing, but having their power taken away is another matter. And yes, this typically includes meaningful crippling.

I'm not sure why this is so complicated.
 
Yes, but "number of Artifacts" has its own innate drawbacks in the size of your mote pool. Having several Artifact weapons at 5+m commitments is not gonna be worth it. That's a lot of perfects you could be paying for with that.
It does not. It fails at it.
It lets you pick up a random longsword and say "this is my magic sword now".
That's all it was meant to do. It does it well. And...

It can serve as a compensatory measure, if you decide you really want a high-end Artifact weapon, which you didn't thought you'd need at chargen, and your ST is the kind that won't let you have one through the story. In which case yes, paying oodles of xp may be worth it because there is no other way of getting such a high-end weapon. But that's pretty shitty mechanical grounds. In the end you're still paying a huge xp surcharge over just taking an Artifact.
...if you shift from, say, sword-and-board to just-sword, or sword-and-board to axe, or sword-and-board to just-sword to axe, the charm is a strictly superior investment, since that's 18xp for artifact weapons versus 16xp.
And if you switch to a lance, you're still good. If you have multiple weapons for different situations, and you have to pay for Artifacts with experience, or you don't have a friend to craft a weapon for you, or you can't find the weapon you want...

I didn't miss anything, I just assumed @Aaron Peori would know better than to create a boilerplate Charm that can be used as-is for all splats with no rebalance.

Look, this is a bad Charm. It's okay. When you throw something together really quickly just to Prove Someone Wrong On The Internet, chances are it won't be very good. This mostly misses the point of the Artifact/mundane weapon question and answers it with bad mechanics. It's cool, just go back to the drawing board.
So, a charm that lets you use mundane weapons as if they're Artifacts should have different costs for different splats, just like Artifacts require different commitments from different splats?
Good criticism, dude.
 
For whatever reason, RPG players tend to be adverse to irrevocable negative consequences affecting their characters in any way. Even killing a player character, the single most recurring irrevocable consequence in a game, is a topic itself fraught with controversy. The fact is, players tend to view negatively having their big numbers made smaller, no matter what the source is. The value of a character in an RPG is intrinsically tied to their big numbers, and when characters spend their character points to buy stuff that has bignums, they have a certain expectation that their stuff-bignums won't be taken away from them, much as they expect to not have their body-bignums taken away by crippling wounds, and why when characters die their players want, at least, their next character to start with XP-parity to the rest of the party.

This leads to an oft-unwritten social contract where the ST is not supposed to take away a player's stuff or negatively affect their character except in very temporary ways - even killing a player character may be forbidden - and consequently any disadvantage based on stuff being potentially lost is a paper tiger. Balancing something around being "potentially lost" is also extremely difficult, because games rarely have mechanics that create a predictable cool-stuff-loss-rate; instead it comes entirely down to ST fiat. All in all, it is difficult to handle anything but the extremes; stuff is worthless because you can never be sure you have stuff with you, or stuff is great because you'll never lose it.

Some game systems have explicit rules for an imposed disadvantage always leading to a proportional imposed advantage; if you lose your fancy sword, you immediately gain some advantage to offset the loss (and if you get your sword back, you pick up some penalty, etc.). It's a system that is mechanically sound, though I've always felt it cheapens the consequences of bad stuff happening to player characters. How is losing your source of swordly power meaningful if you immediately learn magic instead? But then, I am a bitter and vindictive ST who sees nothing wrong with hospitalizing characters for months at a time with crippling injuries after fights, giving them lasting neurological damage from hits to head, and killing everyone they love...
 
Players don't typically like being disempowered. They can handle losing, but having their power taken away is another matter. And yes, this typically includes meaningful crippling.

I'm not sure why this is so complicated.
Doubly so because Exalted is explicitly an empowerment fantasy.

Somewhat related, some people just don't like recovery/growth through trauma arcs. I know PCs who would look at losing an arm, or their legendary sword, and say "cool, now I get to spend three sessions roleplaying that growth." I know some others who say, "well this sucks, and I'm done. I enjoyed playing the master swordsman with a legendary sword, that's the important thing about this character that I find valuable, and you've just taken that away. I have no desire to spend the next three session less able to play the character I want to play."
 
Technically, no; daiklaves are defined as oversized + featherlight in the core.
Daiklave (DY-klayv): The traditional weapon of the Exalted, each daiklave is a one-of-a-kind artifact sword, usually oversized, forged from magical materials and imbued with a unique Essence from which its Chosen wielder may learn to call forth Evocations.
So while they are usually larger than an equivalent mundane sword, that's not always the case, and even the oversized ones are generally less so than before.
 
The issue here, @Revlid, is that the examples of mythic figures losing their superweapons that you used (Thor having giants steal his hammer, etc.) are generally not just "and then it got exploded, sucks to be the owner". There's some sort of immediate follow-up, generally involving the mythic figure either getting their shit back or, at the least, beating seven kinds of shit out of the person responsible. For a player, the sting of losing a weapon should be a moment of outrage/loss, but then you jump right into setting the scales. Make retrieving the item or extracting blood-soaked remuneration from the guilty party be their driving thought - dwelling on a loss is certainly something that happens in mythology, but it's pretty much the exact opposite of fun, engaging, or immersive for a player (not their character, the player) to experience.

Please, by all means, argue that it's okay to maim PCs or have them lose possessions - I'm at least willing to entertain the idea, and I'd love to see a polite discussion of the concept. However, I think you'd be much more effective if you offered ways to use that as a jumping-off point for interesting plot developments or personal character arcs, because that's what the entire exercise is (at least theoretically) supposed to be in service of.
 
Finally! It is past 1 AM here, i am one third asleep, but i can write! I can expose! I can talk!

It also didn't help that i was busy before, and also had an headache.
I can see two ways:
  1. Charms that let you treat mundane weapons like artifact weapons. The most important issue is that these need to be Reflexive otherwise the action cost is a really big deal.
  2. No inherent statistical bonus to artifact weapons, but the option to purchase Evocations from them.
If 3E didn't give slightly better stats to artifact weapons, they would mostly be a way to spend background dots to unlock an additional way to spend XP (especially solar XP) on charms.
Actually there is a third way to make Mundane Weapons a viable option: make Artifacts have the same stats of the equivalent of Perfect Mundane weapons, but both apply special effects to them and decrease flexibility of the user.

How?

Let's suspend this question, and quickly go on a diversion that will help answer this question.

Let's take the Table from the Oedanols Codex (Incidentally: Ah Ha! I spotted Earthscorpion and Aleph cribbing partially from it, but maybe missing something from it! Not that it isn't hard, being every example awful.) (Also, i have currently no access to the PC containing Most of my exalted files, because it decided to start the "Upgrade" to Win 10 whilst i wasn't looking, and i objected shutting it down. I will probably have to deal tomorrow with a messed up computer, but luckily i have a recovery disk. What i was going to say, is thaat my memory isn't perfect and i may be wrong.) and analyze it: and look, Three dots artifacts, Fours dots artifacts, and Five dots artifacts are suggested to have powers equivalents to respectively a terrestrial circle spell, a celestial circle spell, and a solar circle spell. Or solar charms of varying strenght.

Well, the last part is solars are most importants! bullcrap explained badly, but it has a menaing, which can be understood thanks to the Exalted Seconce edition book, specifically thanks to the Daiklave of conquest (Artifact 5) and the Singing staff (Artifact 4).

The singing staff is pretty much a perfect example of "Sourcerous" Four dots Artifact: other than being a weapon, it allows the weilder to twist the earth to their benefit, even reaching to the level of making a Desmene easier to make. (My memories fails here: was it true, or i am remembering badly this?) Nothing like the pillar of light reaching the heavens of Solar sorcery, but making the work of a year in a month? Twisting the very dragon lines in such relatively short time? Yeah, that effect is easily Celestial level, the mundane applications re simply the cherry on the top of the cake.

The Daiklave of conquest is anyhing but a Sorcerous artifact: nothing of its war empowering effects can be mapped to any other spell. But what can be done is mapping them to the impact of a Spell. And using such a scale? The Daiklave of conquest is pretty much a very good Five dots artifact: its mechaincs may be lacking, but it was intended to make your army massivley stronger in respect to everything else. It was meant to make anyone but the fiercest enemy in mewling cowards, and still weaken their resolve to the level of a barely above averange human. It was meant to change the face of regions, like Solar Sorcery is meant to do.

As a little diversion, Death at the Root is too overpowered for a 5 dot artifact but, after a pruning and a rebalancing, makes for a very good N/A artifact: having Solar Circle level powers but much more subtle. No titanic pillars of light, only the wielder of a weapon capable of cutting away your infrastructures and putting her own in place in two orders of magnitude less that it would have taken. Scary.

So we can now see what the oadenol's codex was meant to say: each level was supposed to have the same impact of an equivalent spell level.

And now you are almost surely saying, "But Giygas, artifacts fixed in such a manner would make me more likely to want them, then to want a mundane weapon!"

Well, there is a mildy complex solution to that! Let's start with Aaron Peori's Martial arts fix, lets crossbreed it with the evocation system, and than apply it to the native charmset to the exalted.

And now, fellow forumegoers, you are probably saying"Giygas, you madman! What are you doing! Oh god, i can immage the complexity and brokennes leaking into reality! Goood God, it buuurrrrnnnssss."

And you would be wrong! Here the two am has come and passed, but Giygas isn't still competely insane or mad! He is at the third tea, but this mean nothing!!! He isn't really effected by caffeine! NAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

... Okay, i will assure you that it is less complex that it read like.

SImply put, let add to the Exalted another thing to buy, and modelling it like a fusion of a evocation style artifact and Aaron fix, and then divide charms in two categories, universals and style charms Okay, better explanation:

In this system, Exalted charms (And probably all the other kind of charms too) would be divided to two kind of charms: Universal Style charms, and Stance Style charms.

Then, to every Exalted splat (And probably to all the other essecne wielders) would be added another thing to buy: Stances, a susprisingly holy hybrid between Aaron solution, and EX3 solution of artifact and martial arts.

Every stance would have artifact like effects and costs, and both open up when activated the Stance Style charms trees conncted to it and close down certain Universal Style trees (Which are otherwise usable everywhen, being universal); Stances would also have some cost/difficulty to switch between each other, but nothing impossible to pay/do. And of course, as long as they aren't completely incompatible, an Essence user can held Stances for different susbsistems.

For example, a rapier wielding swordsman has the Dashing Rapier Stance and the Beautiful Orator Stance activated (The three AM come closer and closer, so please don't judge my name giving abilities), which means that the Stance Style charm trees associated to them would be presumibly something about wielding well a light weapon, being a beautiful and graceful orator, but not the (otherwise Universal)/(Stance Style) breaking things well tree.

Then the rapier wiedling swordsman find himself in dire need to breaking a thing well, but he cannot use charms to do it because he is in an incompatibble stance.

The option are now three:
1)If the Breaking things well tree is an universal one, then the Reapier Guy needs simply to drop his Dashing Rapier stance, use the right charms, and then assumume it again.

2)If the Breaking thing well three is a Universal one, but it is incomplatible too with Beautiful Orator Stance, then the Rapier guy would have to drop both stance, use the charm, and then he would be able to assume then both gain.

3)If the Breaking thing Tree is a Stance one, then the Rapier guy would have to drop DR Stance, and assume the other one to use the charms. (Thi may be combined with 2, assuming that the breaking things well tree is incmpatible with the BO stance.)

Okay, Three AM has just Passed, so i am going to cut this short with a rapid explaation of Artifacts and Martial Arts.

Essentially, Artifacts would empower one/more Styles(Both by empowering their charms, and giving them more), but would require them to be active with much greater difficulties in dropping the Stance(Which would have its bonuses presumibly overwritten by the artifacts). Martial Arts would outright give you new Stiles, but would also be in most cases their own stance, stopping you from doing anything incpmatible with it.

More detailed explanations will come later, now i must really go to bed.

Goodnight!
 
Last edited:
You get what you ask for.
Somewhat, but I can't help but feel a little bit bad about him ending up with his Wisdom knocked down to 3 and his Dex to 0 just for making a single dumb mistake, especially considering he'd already been plagued throughout the campaign by some of the most consistently shit rolls our group has ever seen.

Also, it opened the way for the most OHGODWHY moment of my DMing career when the party rogue, while dragging the now-paralyzed and delirious cleric to the local Hall of Gods to try and get him mobile again, decided that when the creepy rag-shrouded figure sidled out of an alley, assumed he was dragging a corpse around, and offered to buy its skin for a pittance, the correct answer was to haggle and then haul his fellow PC into a side alley so said creeper could deglove one of his forearms.
 
Somewhat, but I can't help but feel a little bit bad about him ending up with his Wisdom knocked down to 3 and his Dex to 0 just for making a single dumb mistake, especially considering he'd already been plagued throughout the campaign by some of the most consistently shit rolls our group has ever seen.

Also, it opened the way for the most OHGODWHY moment of my DMing career when the party rogue, while dragging the now-paralyzed and delirious cleric to the local Hall of Gods to try and get him mobile again, decided that when the creepy rag-shrouded figure sidled out of an alley, assumed he was dragging a corpse around, and offered to buy its skin for a pittance, the correct answer was to haggle and then haul his fellow PC into a side alley so said creeper could deglove one of his forearms.
You should have face-palmed or laughed malevolently when they missed the "this is a bad idea" hint, that would have gotten the message across.

Also :jackiechan:
 
I suppose, But by that logic if my game has only one player who wants to use the combat system, I'm obligated to murder Melee.

No, because you can make the entirely reasonable statement that even if you don't go looking for trouble, due to the setting itself, trouble will inevitably come to you. If only one character in your entire group has the ability to put up a fight, as long as you're not softballing the opposition, what'll likely happen is the others die or get horribly maimed until they produce something that doesn't die if attacked by extras. Combat de-facto benefits from a system such as you propose for downtime powers - you have to take it.

Melee certainly needs less bloat, much like all the other combat abilities do, but "I don't wanna participate in combat (and also I don't wanna die or get maimed)" is an invalid choice in Creation as-is (you can have one, but not the other, lol). "I don't wanna invest in crafting" has no similar selection pressures influencing it.

I'd much rather the game have a working system that I could personally ignore in my particular game than force me to write the system from scratch myself if I want to use it.

Yes, but we aren't talking about a hypothetical perfect game, we're talking about Exalted Craft. Which is something that eats a huge chunk of your XP to do, is only really usable in downtime and requires your entire group to bend around your desire to use it because of how it works, or else you're completely useless. Therefore, alteration to make it rely on something you can use out of downtime, where expanding your magic item crafting ability also expands your ability to do something useful that isn't just Craft, and cutting bloat severely. This solves the specific problem of Craft, with extra bonus elegance points because I can piggyback on work done for Sorcery rather than have to write an entirely separate magic item powers system.

Bureaucracy has a similar problem, but at least that one isn't nearly as bloated as Craft.

For Melee as well? And I don't think I've ever played a game where we used the stupid Craft breakdown. We just omnicrafted and it worked fine.

Yes, for Melee as well. Bloat is fucking stupid. There is enough bloat in there to kill half the tree and you'll still be fine. Also, again, I'm not working off a theoretical perfect system or your houserules, am I? Had to kill the seven or eight or however many different Craft Abilities.

The same reason its not as much work to build a separate daiklave for every PC origin. I assume that "have access to artifact level equipment/martial arts" is a default for all of them and build the Charmsets around that. For instance, if artifacts make the maximum damage without Charm 10d (ie, 5 Str + 5 equipment bonus from artifacts) then I balance the Charms around a max non-Charm damage of 10d.

Damage adding (within reasonable limits) is not at all a problem. Unique artifact abilities are the problem when looking at problems with combinatorial hell. Example we both know (too) well: Gem of Adamant Skin / Laughing Wounds Style. As long as you have a vector through which arbitrary effects may be introduced into any charmset, you're obligated to make sure that introducing said effects into any charmset doesn't create a degenerate build.

If a player wants a magic sword that does X (assuming X is some form of qualitative special effect rather than just adding accuracy, damage or soak), there's nothing separating the process of making it from the process of making a charm for the player that does X, except with the added burden of having to make sure the custom charm doesn't break when added to the set of every charmset in the game, not just the player's own splat charmset, because anybody could pick up that sword.

Naturally, I do not want to do that. So I try and keep cases where I am obligated to do that to an absolute minimum, even if it's not possible to do it 100%. Hell, even 3E Evocations are splat-specific now, aren't they? Because of precisely this issue. The artifact power does not need the added constraint of having to be not-broken with every splat in the game, the developer does not need the headache of having to make sure it isn't.

No, the special thing about Sokka's space sword is he learned to forge it from a grand master while mastering the art of swordsmanship to prove to himself that he was a useful member of the team. It being made of meteor iron was flavor text. The point is that we spent an entire episode building up to this so that the space sword was memorable and iconic of the character. The player had to struggle to earn the sword and thus felt much more attached to it.

Mechanically could I (in game) have just dropped BP on it? Of course. But then its just "a daiklave I had laying around". I don't recall it or fondly remember it because the point is to have something interesting to play through and enjoy.

I don't particularly care about feelie mechanics. If you can attach sentimentality to the sword you bought at chargen saying that you inherited it from your father (players do this a lot), you can attach sentimentality to the sword you bought at chargen saying you made it with your Craft Charms (which you bought at chargen) after being taught by your Mentor (who you also bought at chargen). That's the player's problem, to come up with a cool story they can get attached to.
 
Last edited:
I'm allowed to kill or cripple their characters entirely, just not touch their stuff. Gotcha.

You can take my arm, but the only way you're getting my loot is to pry it out of my cold dead hands just like I did with the previous owner.


More seriously, attempting to take away player's weapons is something that tends to be met with considerable hesitation. At least part of which is due to paranoia, justified or otherwise, that it's going to be the lead in to an attack they'll be less able to defend themselves from. Not helped by the fact that depriving someone of their weapons can in some cases deprive them of a lot of power.

Like for example, Solar Joe the Swordmaster has invested heavily in his swording skills. He's got Melee 5, his specialties are invested in being a swordsmen, and he's bought a ton of Melee Charms.

He walks into the hall of Theoden and he's not even able to bring in his walking stick, much less his Surfboard of Death. Lacking a weapon drastically restricts his actions if a fight breaks out because given he's Swordguy, he's unlikely to have put any dots in Brawl/Martial Arts or bought any Charms from there. That drops him down from being a Glorious Golden Blender to somewhere around six or seven dice when attacking with his bare hands, plus whatever Charms he doesn't need a weapon to use.

Now granted, six or seven dice is probably more than enough to deal with mortals and extras and provided your ST isn't a bag of dicks you could either steal a guard's weapon or stunt a broken table leg or something to regain access to your Melee dots and Charms.

Another reason, IMO, why players are hesitant to fork over their weapons is being unsure when they get those weapons back and what hoops they've gotta jump through to get them.

If it's a "leave your weapons at the door, pick them up on the way out" type of deal, it's less of an issue. Personal example, a while ago in a D&D game I was playing a druid in, I was told I had to leave my animal companion outside of our hub city. Apparently they had an ordinance against poisonous velociraptors inside of city limits, no matter how well trained.

Dicks.

In any event, I was annoyed because I had to go "without" a not inconsiderable amount of combat power. But ultimately, it was the annoyance of being minorly inconvenienced more than anything. It was our hub city. We went there to rest up, resupply, and have our DM go "There plot, there castle."

If it's something like the Frost Giants have stolen Thor's hammer and he has to "cleverly" disguise himself as Freya to get it back, it becomes a different issue. IMO, it may be because of "having to get back what is rightfully mine" aspect of it. You've already paid XP or BP or CP or whatever points to get Mjolnir on your character sheet. Having it taken away and then having to go and get it back is irritating.

Depending on the group and how it's done it could be fun instead. I don't know, I've never played out that sort of situation.

The closest to it was in the game where I was playing a druid. One of the other guys due to how his character was introduced had the armor and weapon he took from charagen be confiscated by the town guard. Looking back on it, I think our DM was expecting us to use bribery on the corrupt guardsmen to get his stuff back. Instead we used fire.
 
He walks into the hall of Theoden and he's not even able to bring in his walking stick, much less his Surfboard of Death. Lacking a weapon drastically restricts his actions if a fight breaks out because given he's Swordguy, he's unlikely to have put any dots in Brawl/Martial Arts or bought any Charms from there. That drops him down from being a Glorious Golden Blender to somewhere around six or seven dice when attacking with his bare hands, plus whatever Charms he doesn't need a weapon to use.
Also, Attuned Weapons become unattuned if left alone for too long.

That's actually a valid strategy I've seen used; a Lunar let themselves get stabbed by a Solar, then disarmed them, yoinked the sword into Elsewhere and kept it their until they had attuned to it themselves. Then they returned to beat the Solar to death with their own sword(...or was it a spear?).
 
The thing people keep coming back to here but never fully spelling out is that when the principal characters lose something in a story, be it a fight, a limb, a weapon or an ally, there is something of an implied lateral-movement at work rather than a full-blown Loss. As mentioned before, something being stolen opens up a chance to get it back, a crippling sickness shunts party effort towards seeking a cure, and so on. Because that loss is still an event which structures the narrative. It is advancement, either for the plot of a story or a character in an RPG. But RPGs do not typically present these things in the context of "you lost power, but gain spotlight in a sidequest all about you," but "strike it from your sheet, and submit to the ST's generosity."

The reason players fight so hard to keep the things they have earned, purchased or been given is the same reason people get angry when a novel bumps the protagonist on the head midway through the story to forget the whole plot up until that point, because things are not Moving Forward anymore. Its a reset button, filler arc, a Level drain, or marking XP down, leaving a debt that has to be corrected before anyone feels "in the black" once more and able to move on. While some might characterize advancement in RPGs purely as "the numbers go up/get more stuff," the owning of stuff and gaining higher numbers are Also events the players have a stake in, because those are Tangible Things they can use to move progress along.

More than just depowering, removing options from characters is a bottleneck that says, unless the prior implication of "suffering a loss grants a redeemable token to make the next story all about you and your struggle with that loss" is 100% clear, that there will be no further progress made until this is resolved or new options are gained as replacements. If there are no lateral-movements on the way to a goal, only considerable steps back which must be retread before things can pick up where they left off, that is when players begin to lose interest to play or even bother anymore.
 
Maybe you could have it so that, when something bad happens to a quality of yours due to the GM, you get XP equal to the rating of the quality? That seems like a nice way to mollify players when their things are at risk.
 
Maybe you could have it so that, when something bad happens to a quality of yours due to the GM, you get XP equal to the rating of the quality? That seems like a nice way to mollify players when their things are at risk.
nWoD, or I guess we call it CoD now, has that in the form of the Sanctity of Merits rule. If your shiny gets taken away, you get to spend the merit dots you used for it on something else.
 
nWoD, or I guess we call it CoD now, has that in the form of the Sanctity of Merits rule. If your shiny gets taken away, you get to spend the merit dots you used for it on something else.

Not quite like that. I'm saying that, if something you paid for gets threatened, you can get XP for it.

It doesn't mean that it's gone, it's just in danger.
 
Back
Top