[TSOY] Inapplicable Keys

[Ronny Hedin]

Something that hasn't come up yet in play (three sessions into our first TSOY campaign and lovin' it so far) but which I've realized might and wanted to have an answer to beforehand:

How do you deal with a Key which isn't bought off but, due to events of the game, is no longer quite applicable?

The most obvious example would be a person-related Key (Guardian, Fraternity, Love, what have you) which is person is actually killed off (but also something like a Mission which is brought to it's successful completion, or what have you); eg, the Key is made no longer relevant/applicable, but without the character ever rejecting it.

I'd be reluctant to count this is a Buyoff possibility since it isn't quite the same thing as a dramatic rejection of prior motivations. If the character's Lover (or what have you) is murdered, certainly it seems reasonable to allow a switch to Vengeance (or something) if so wished, but that also might not always be applicable.

Like I said, it might not ever come up, and hopefully won't (certainly don't read this is an intention to send assassins with GM-stomp-style deadly intents towards the character's loved ones), but if it does, I'd prefer to have an answer to the problem.

Thoughts?

[Twobirds]

In my case we kind of compromised.  The player lost the Key, but got the cost of it back (rather than 2x the cost as in the Buyoff), and I asked him to think about another Key to replace it, if possible.

I think in other situations you can consider it a Buyoff.  If it's a big culmination, then yes, like when Inigo stabs his father's murderer.  I just thought it would make more sense to remove/replace the Key if you haven't intentionally driven your character in another direction.  That's what I always interpreted the Buyoff conditions being.

George

[Eero Tuovinen]

Looking at the Finnish edition, the basic principle seems to be that you never "lose xp" due to inapplicable secrets or keys or such; the only exception is when the player makes a willing choice amounting to such loss, the foremost example being a gray elf, which loses any aura-related secrets. In all other situations you either regain the xp spent or switch the secret/key into something applicable. A prime example are magic items created with Secret of Imbuement; you can't get them without spending xp, you can't lose them without regaining the xp.

Now, an interesting question is whether you get just the xp back or get the buyback amount. Despite the above, which would seem to indicate that you get the xp spent, in my own games we've always considered any situation where a key cannot apply anymore a buyoff situation for some reason. The buyoff conditions are not that authoritative anyway, they're just an obvious situation that would count; when I'm GMing, any other character choices or events that obviously and irrevocably repudiate the key are admissible as "buyoff conditions", whether they happen to be listed in the key or not. (There are, interestingly enough, some exceptions to this with keys that we feel specific or interesting enough; in those cases we usually decide that it's not that easy to get rid of it. But those are on a case-by-case basis and have nothing to do with buyoff being impossible.)

So my suggestion would be to allow players to buy off any keys that are not applicable anymore. If a relationship dies, for instance, I'd say that it's easily dramatic enough to warrant a buyoff, whether the character actually lets go of the relationship or not. It's better to let the player make the choice of getting "key of remembrance" or some such if they feel like it. On the other hand, the player might also decide to keep hold of the key and go on a quest for some magic mojo to revive the relationship.

Definitely a case for group consideration.

[Ronny Hedin]

So my suggestion would be to allow players to buy off any keys that are not applicable anymore. If a relationship dies, for instance, I'd say that it's easily dramatic enough to warrant a buyoff, whether the character actually lets go of the relationship or not. It's better to let the player make the choice of getting "key of remembrance" or some such if they feel like it. On the other hand, the player might also decide to keep hold of the key and go on a quest for some magic mojo to revive the relationship.

Definitely a case for group consideration.

Good point; certainly, now that you mention it, it makes sense that, say, the ultimate fulfillment of a vengeance is fully as dramatic as abandoning it. (That it would be the player's choice of whether to pick up something related-but-different seems obvious, just as in any Buyoff situation.)

Thanks for the input!

[Ricky Donato]

Hi, Rony,

My group follows things more strictly than what Eero or George suggest; we play that the Key never becomes inapplicable. Let me take the specific example of Key of Fraternity:

Your character has someone she is sworn to, a friend who is more important than anyone else. Gain 1 XP every time this character is present in a scene with your character (maximum 3 per adventure). Gain 2 XP whenever your character has to make a decision that is influenced by them. Gain 5 XP every time your character defends them by putting herself at risk. Buyoff: Sever the relationship with this person.

So suppose the character Joe takes Key of Fraternity for the character Tom. If Tom dies, we play that the Key is still applicable. Joe gets 1 XP whenever he is "in a scene" with Tom; we interpret that to mean that Joe gets 1 XP whenever he remembers Tom. Joe gets 2 XP whenever he makes a decision influenced by Tom; no need for changes here. Joe gets 5 XP whenever he defends Tom by putting himself at risk, such as by defending the memory of Tom, or bringing his killer to justice, or protecting Tom's family because that's what Tom would want Joe to do.

The buyoff also remains unchanged; Joe buys off the Key when he severs his relationship with Tom. So maybe Joe moves past the loss of his friend, or he learns something about Tom that he never knew and now hates him. In either case, the story is no longer focused on Joe's friendship with Tom.

Anyway, that's our interpretation.

[Ricky Donato]

Oops! Sorry for misspelling your name in the previous post, Ronny.

[Ronny Hedin]

Heck, around Americans, I'm usually just happy not to become "Ronnie". At least I don't run much risk of of becoming "Ron" here. :-)

I can see the point, and would absolutely keep that on the table as an option, but it seems like it might become a bit much of a stretch in some cases. Pining for your lost loved one, sure, but striving to complete an already-abandoned mission hurting an already destroyed enemy seems more dubious.

But I may be worrying too much about something never... um... applied.

[Alan]

The most obvious example would be a person-related Key (Guardian, Fraternity, Love, what have you) which is person is actually killed off (but also something like a Mission which is brought to it's successful completion, or what have you); eg, the Key is made no longer relevant/applicable, but without the character ever rejecting it.

I'd be reluctant to count this is a Buyoff possibility since it isn't quite the same thing as a dramatic rejection of prior motivations.

I believe the general rules for keys only require a resolution in order to allow a buyoff -- and having your Guardian dies sounds to me like a resolution. (It was in Star Wars). I suspect Clinton's intent is that any game event that puts an end to the player's ability to hit a key can be a buyoff.