[Mountain Witch] Ai-Uchi (Mutual Kill)

[timfire]

In MW, as it stands right now, there's an option under Partial Success called "Win-Lose". With a Win-Lose, both parties gain a Regular Success. The idea behind this was basically self-sacrifice - you're willing to take a hit in order to win.

But noone has ever used this option in any of my own playtests, and as far as I know, never in anyone else's. (For those of you who have tried the game, did it ever come up?) I believe this points to the fact that this is a weak option. Thus, I feel I need to do one of two things: I can either drop the option completely, or I can try to strengthen it. I'm not sure which is the better option. (Does anyone disagree with me that this is a weak option?)

So I thought about this, which I'm calling Ai-Uchi (which just sounds cooler than "Win-Lose"). After a roll is made, no matter what it is, a player may declare an Ai-Uchi. When an Ai-Uchi is declared, both parties' Degree of Success is raised by any amount the player wants - though both parties degree of success is increased by the same amount.

So, if the player wins by a margin of 2, he could declare an Ai-Uchi and raise that margin of Success to a 5 (Double Success), but he would have to take a 3 (Regular Success). Or, if he were to lose by 1, he could raise his own degree of success to 3 (Regular Success), but would have to take a 4 (Critical Success).

This option, IMO, betters fulfills what I was trying to accomplish with the original "Win-Lose" option. But this new option still has some wrinkles:

[*]Can the player declare a Ai-Uchi before the roll is made (In which case the roll would be considered a tie)? I'm leaning towards saying no...
[*]Should there be a cap to how much the player can raise the degree of success? It would seem logical that the roll could only be increased to the point where the winner gains a 5 (Double Success). (ex. If the winner wins by a margin of 3, the degree of success could only be raised by a max of 2.)
[*]As with the current Win-Lose rules, only a player can declare a Ai-Uchi, never the GM. But can a player declare an Ai-Uchi against another player?
[*]What happens when mutual success is unreconcilable due to conflict of interests? Should the player just automatically receive damage with an Ai-Uchi?[/list:u]
What does everyone think? Does it sound like this new rule would work, Or should I just remove the option altogether?

Thanks!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Tim,

Speaking as a recent MW GM, my take is that the entire success/degrees-of-success resolution has a bit of a learning curve. Anyone who rolls has a lot of options that aren't immediately clear until they see it in action for a while. Most especially, the losing character(s) of a given roll often have a lot they can do, as narrated by the player of the winning character. This is a necessary and valuable component of a game like The Mountain Witch, which has such a strong Fortune-in-the-Middle feature. It's a lot like HeroQuest in this regard, but explicitly transfers the authority about the process around the table.

To use the Win-Lose, I think the group already has to understand Partial Success, which itself isn't immediately going to happen for everyone at the table. It took me about two sessions to get comfortable with it enough to look at the dice on the table and feel like I knew what my options were for narrating if I won, or like I could summarize those options to the player who won the roll.

That's why I think there are two steps to the issue you've raised here: (1) is Win-Lose a weak option, and (2) is Ai-Uchi a better one. I'm suggesting that you're passing over #1 a little too quickly.

On the other hand, I specifically am not saying that #2 is irrelevant. Certainly, if Ai-Uchi is a better option, than by all means use it, even if Win-Lose ain't so bad. I'm not going to comment on Ai-Uchi on its own merits until I think about it a little more, though.

Best,
Ron

[Eetu]

When I ran my playtest of TMW, I made the conscious decision to not even tell my players about the win-lose option. I did it to remove the additional Point of Decision / Point of Consideration from the system - because, even if it is only an infrequently used option, it still has to be paid at least passing consideration at every "Partial Success" roll. In this regard, Ai-Uchi is even more intrusive, generalizing the mechanic to apply to all rolls, and adds a need for further consideration (how much to affect the result).

Also, while win-lose was ruled out as a distinct choice, I think some of our descriptions for partial success and mixed success were nearly indistinguishable from descriptions that would arise from a win-lose. So, the range of resolution description options may already well cover the scope of the original win-lose without the need for real rule additions.

Finally, looking at the two rules from the point of intending to model self-sacrifice, Ai-Uchi does instictly feel better, providing more oomph and being available to be used in all situations. But if what you are looking for is a strong thematic statement, I think there's an even easier and more powerful way to do that: simply have a rule that a player can whenever state an action of self-sacrifice, after which he gains complete narrative control of the whole current conflict, with the only requisite that his character be dead at the end of it. This rule would be less intrusive in that it is more extreme, probably only coming into serious consideration in the course of the most important moments in the game. Its use would also clearly signal to all that this is the thematic statement the player wants to make for his character.

- Eetu

[timfire]

Finally, looking at the two rules from the point of intending to model self-sacrifice, Ai-Uchi does instictly feel better, providing more oomph and being available to be used in all situations. But if what you are looking for is a strong thematic statement, I think there's an even easier and more powerful way to do that: simply have a rule that a player can whenever state an action of self-sacrifice, after which he gains complete narrative control of the whole current conflict, with the only requisite that his character be dead at the end of it.

I just realized that I never responded to this! Sorry 'bout that. Hopefully its not too late.

Eetu, thanks for chiming in. I respect your comments about the intrusiveness of the Win-Lose and Ai-Uchi options. I just wanted to comment on what you wrote above.

My intent with Ai-Uchi was not neccessarily to model an altruistic self-sacrifice. That's definitely a possible application, but I also wanted to model a more, um, self-serving type of sacrifice.

I've actually studied a classical Japanese sword style. Something my teacher taught was that idealistically, a swordsman should never worry about his own safety. He should concentrate on taking down the opponent no matter the cost, even if it meant injury or death.

Yeah, that's why I said *idealistically.* But still, a number of schools teach a "if I'm going down, I'm taking you with me" mentality. I thought the Ai-Uchi mechanic could be used to model this type of blatant disregard for one's own well-being.

But I'm curious how (if at all) this mechanic will affect play. (Are any of my other playtesters out there? I would love for you guys to try this out.)

[Eetu]

My intent with Ai-Uchi was not neccessarily to model an altruistic self-sacrifice. That's definitely a possible application, but I also wanted to model a more, um, self-serving type of sacrifice.

I've actually studied a classical Japanese sword style. Something my teacher taught was that idealistically, a swordsman should never worry about his own safety. He should concentrate on taking down the opponent no matter the cost, even if it meant injury or death.

Cool, I can totally dig this, I've read my Hagakure:

The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that dying without reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivolous way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death, it is not necessary to gain one's aim.
We all want to live. And in large part we make our logic according to what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to live is cowardice. This is a thin dangerous line. To die without gaming one's aim is a dog's death and fanaticism. But there is no shame in this. This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai. If by setting one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead, he pains freedom in the Way. His whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling.

.. and back on topic, I did actually think of this also when I wrote my previous reply, and wasn't intending to limit my "self-sacrifice scene" to mere altruistic actions -- though absolute control over another player character's death is probably hugely disruptive if both of the players aren't invested in the conflict. Maybe I would require approval from both players before allowing this between PCs.

In the end, I think the issue is one of scale and granularity. I, and my group like to think large and resolve such issues in one fell swoop, other groups will probably be differently inclined.