[Black Powder] A Rough Draft

[Karasu]

Um...

*shameless bump*

:P

[DevP]

Karasu,

To be totally clear, "bumps" sans content are not kosher at most Forge forums, so you should make sure not to do that again. The general protocol if you want to continue a quieted thread would be (a) PM'ing specific people whose feedback you wanted (but do this sparingly), (b) added a threat to clarify or extend the remaining question, in case the original wasn't set to spark enough discussion, or (c) let it go quietly, which isn't a bad thing.

I don't mean to come across as very retentive; I'm just trying to communicate the rules around here. I'll respond to your earlier post shortly.

[DevP]

The F/L boundary sounds mostly good, although I'd recommend that although the GM can permit/suggest a shift after a dramatically appropriate moment, that it should not be mandatory on the player's part to accept this. If a player chooses to play their character out-of-sync with their F/L rating, they will suffer mechanical consequences. So, if their F/L is 2/4, but if they're using their Freedom trait more often, they'll find themselves rolling worse on average, which sounds good: you're rewarding them to the moral profile they have on paper, and forcing them to be cognizant of where they want to stand therein. The main challenge will be setting up appropriate social conflicts played out via the Wushu mechanics in an interesting fashion.

Actually, perhaps we should pool some Social Combats advice on the Wushu Wiki, since it's a subject many would want guidance with. For your game, players could certainly use some help with suggested Details about how to translate "stunts" into social combat phrasing.

[Karasu]

The F/L boundary sounds mostly good, although I'd recommend that although the GM can permit/suggest a shift after a dramatically appropriate moment, that it should not be mandatory on the player's part to accept this. If a player chooses to play their character out-of-sync with their F/L rating, they will suffer mechanical consequences. So, if their F/L is 2/4, but if they're using their Freedom trait more often, they'll find themselves rolling worse on average, which sounds good: you're rewarding them to the moral profile they have on paper, and forcing them to be cognizant of where they want to stand therein. The main challenge will be setting up appropriate social conflicts played out via the Wushu mechanics in an interesting fashion.

Actually, perhaps we should pool some Social Combats advice on the Wushu Wiki, since it's a subject many would want guidance with. For your game, players could certainly use some help with suggested Details about how to translate "stunts" into social combat phrasing.

Ah. I sorry about the bump, it won't happen again. The GM permiting/suggesting a shifts sounds like a good idea, and the dramatically appropriate moment was always a requirement. However, what about those situations where you, say, have a high Law character who breaks the law continually and refuses to accept any shifts to Freedom since they're just 'suggestions'? I know many would just say that you don't need to be playing with anyone like that in the first place, but am I so off base to have some mechanical reinforcement to the understood mode of play?

Also, do you think I should leave the label for the Trait as 'Freedom/Law' or just 'abbreviate' to 'Freedom', with low 'Feedom' representing high 'Law', and vice versa. I know its a bit of nit pick, but I think all those little things add up you know?

I'd be glad to add some social combat suggestions to the the Wushu wiki. As a matter of fact I'm putting together some WushuSupers notes to post on there right now.

[DevP]

I was mainly arguing to circumvent the idea of a GM that was invoking unwated moral shifts on the players, or perhaps putting more of that affect in her hands rather than the player's. In the case of the high Law character continually breaking the Law - I would argue you could still have recourse, i.e. create a situation dealing with the fallout of the action and possibly conflict with lawmen - possibly requiring a Law vs. Freedom check. They will struggle with this check unless they accept a shift.

Now that I think of it, letting the GM decide when a shift can occur isn't really problematic. Sorcerer does just fine with having the GM decide what kinds of actions will require a Humanity check, *although* part of Sorcerer's game prep is a pregame discussion amongst the players of what "Humanity" means. That discussion, and the consensus among the players, is a key part of it working for Sorcerer, and such a discussion should be part of your game rules.

The above example also remind me that you could allow for some randomness, as in a Freedom v. Law roll to see if the shift happens (again, like in Sorcerer, although you may want it to be tied to some in-game conflict rather than being like a saving throw).

[Karasu]

It isn't so much that the situations like the one you suggested above would require a Law vs. Freedom 'check.  I'm not trying to design the Freedom/Law Trait as a something a GM can hold over the heads of his players as a threat. Instead, instances of morality shifts would be due to the scenarios arranged by the GM and the choices the players make.

For example, let's look at the case of a high Law character faced with the choice to side with the sherif against his teenage son who has killed a man unintentionally. Now it's obvious the GM took steps to arrange the situation to explore the PC's concept of Law. However, he can't force a shift in the character's Freedom/Law Trait as any shifts are dependant on the PCs actions. If the player decides to allow the sheriff to take his son away, there'd be no shift. There probably shouldn't be a shift even if he tries to stop the sherrif by explaining the situation was an accident. However, if the  high Law PC was to destract the sheriff so his son could skip town, that would definitely warrant a shift towards Freedom.

Ideally, the PC should be made completely aware of situations in which his actions might warrant a Freedom/Law shift, possibly with a short GM-Player or group discussion before proceeding, though this would by no means mandatory. I do however like the idea of the group coming to a concensus on their own definition of "Freedom" and "Law", as well as the conditions of a Shift, although of course guidelines on all of these will be included in the rulebook. Furthermore, these group definitions might be refered back to in the case of any disputes over Trait Shifts.

[DevP]

Re: the case above, where my character chose to distract the sheriff. I'm breaking the law only spirit, and not directly. (I've done nothing but talk to him about my horses and this new guitar and stuff; if I'd attacked him, that would indeed be more clear.) This kind of issue - breaking in spirit but not in name - may or may not run counter to what you want, and you that should be explicitly mentioned as part of the pre-game talk. I can already imagine the problems between a lawful character helping others to break the law without doing it themselves, and their players not agreeing that such an action is anti-Law.

More complicated version of the above: the *player*. using her knowledge, has her character take actions towards an anti-Law end, with her character naively not "intending" any anti-Law result. In this case, the player would say that the naive character just couldn't help but strike up a conversation, and the character herself is greatly distraught that the lawbreaking son got away. Is this a problem?

A second question: let's assume the character does let the son get away and incurs a shift as above. What happens if the character does this kind of thing again (and again)? Is a character always liable to a shift if they go against the Law (until they're an outright anarchist) or at some point is it in a character's nature (perhaps the F/L 4/2) to always do that ?

The first two problems are just corner cases, although the third one might be more common.

Have you thought about passing your development journal to 20by20room? (Or do you want to limit exposure to your works-in-progress?)

[Karasu]

Answer to First Question:
The breaking of the "Spirit" vs. the "Letter of the Law" is definitey a point that should be addressed pre-game and defined by the group. I can certainly see the point your making, and it's a good one. However, I would make the suggestion anytime a character *knowingly* contributes to an unlawful action, even if it's through inaction, they are eligible for a Shift.

The situation where the Player and Character have different levels of knowledge is much stickier to adjucate. In the case of the pc unintentionally allowing her son to escape the law I could see myself accepting that (without  suggesting a Freedom Shift) if the player seemed sincere.  

... Second Question:
However it the player then proceeded to continuously roleplay in such a fashion, that would warrant the GM taking a group concensus on whether a Shift should take place. As a a matter of fact it might a good idea to make a group concensus more integral part of moral Shifts.

... Third Question:
Although I hadn't explicitly stated it as of yet, I was thinking that the qualfiers for a Shift might be relative depending how close to either extreme the character is. So a F/L 1/5 character wouldn't be eligible for a Shift every time he jaywalked or told a white lie, but he definitely would be if he assaulted someone or stole from a neighbor. Similarly *not* kicking a puppy wouldn't turn an bloodthirsty outlaw into a saint; but saving someone's child from an abandoned mine might herald the turning of a page in his life story. Perhaps a three or four tiered list of Significance levels might be in order as a guideline for F/L Shifts.

Hmm, I didn't know that 20x20 took such submissions. I'd definitely be interested in the comments and suggestions of the individuals that frequent that blog. How would I go about doing such a thing?

[DevP]

Hmm, I didn't know that 20x20 took such submissions. I'd definitely be interested in the comments and suggestions of the individuals that frequent that blog. How would I go about doing such a thing?

I think the best you can do is just pick one of the contributors and email them personally. If you do email them, could you also ask them to set up a quasi-formal "submissions" thing so we can suggest cool new things to them?