Risking for rerolls (mechanic)

[MikeF]

Paul,

you choose which of the ways your valued thing is threatened, but then, when I'm the other player and I decide to "alter" your thing, I have full creative lattitude and there's nothing you can say about it?

Yes, that's pretty much it. The way I wrote out that first simple ruleset the player whose thing is threatened could still roll to try and save it from whatever you decided to do with it. But they would have to roll, whereas before they'd get an automatic veto.

I think I'm saying that a 'treasure' is a part of the SIS where there are clear hierarchies of rights and vetoes over narration. If I have a safe treasure then noone can touch it without my consent, and I get to say absolutely what happens with that part of the SIS. If I've put it at risk then other players have more rights to screw around with it, use it for their own advantage, etc - and if I put it at ultimate risk players can even destroy it and remove it from the SIS altogether.

Michael.

[Paul Czege]

Yeah, I like how you're thinking about it. Let me ask you this, why would I, as a player, ever feel motivated to destroy a treasure that you'd placed at ultimate risk?

Paul

[Callan S.]

Jeez, I can think of a bunch of ways I'd be motivated to destroy or screw with a treasure, all because they'd be fun in some kinda way.

Callan,

Which are you shooting for? A rule of the story that you sacrifice? Or always a depiction of character? Or am I drawing a false dichotomy?

For my game you'll have a dull time if you don't sacrifice something

Hmmm, I think your wrong - I could have a fun time. But I'll grant perhaps there are alot of people who wouldn't take the non responce and enjoy the character depiction it presents,  something like "Wow, he just ended up not sacrificing for anything through that whole session - jeez, I didn't realise my character would just not give up anything in the end. What a butthead he is - that's a good, surprise ending for me!"

Is the game kind of like how war recreationists will put alot of effort into getting their uniforms 'just right' - here it's getting the amount of sacrifice in a sacrifice story 'just right'? I'm just curious on that question, I'm not saying there's any pressing need to follow it up.

[MikeF]

Paul

why would I, as a player, ever feel motivated to destroy a treasure that you'd placed at ultimate risk?

That's a question I don't have a definite answer for yet. I've got a vague idea of what I want the game to be (heroes fight for what they believe in, but face moral choices about what price they pay in order to achieve it), and a mechanic for how part of that might be realised, but it's not fleshed out much beyond that. Hmm. I don't envisage the other players being in direct competition with each other, which I guess reduces the chances they'll want to actively destroy each other's Treasures, so maybe it's only the GM who's going to be using that power to any great degree - in which case this mechanism boils down to a way of reining in the GM: he's free to trash or twist anything he can get his hands on, but you the player get to choose which bits of the SIS he can play with.

Callan

Is the game kind of like how war recreationists will put alot of effort into getting their uniforms 'just right' - here it's getting the amount of sacrifice in a sacrifice story 'just right'?

I don't think I'd describe it that way, because I don't see it so much about the player having to sacrifice the right *amount* of treasure, it's about them making a choice about *what* to sacrifice. So on reflection yes, perhaps it would be equally valid to go through the game and not put any of your Treasures into harms way at all - because then you're still making a choice and essentially sacrificing the *goal* in order to keep your Treasures.... in fact maybe that should be written mechanically into the game: treat the PC's goal exactly like a Treasure, but one that's already been put in harm's way, at the whim of the GM. The PC is trying to get it back - restore it to safety like Dindenver suggested - but to do that he'll have to offer up something else.

Sorry if any of this seems vague or contradictory - I'm still at a very early stage, so still thrashing out in my head what I'm aiming for. Thanks everyone for the feedback - it's already been extremely useful in making me think more about this.

Michael.

[Callan S.]

I don't think I'd describe it that way, because I don't see it so much about the player having to sacrifice the right *amount* of treasure, it's about them making a choice about *what* to sacrifice. So on reflection yes, perhaps it would be equally valid to go through the game and not put any of your Treasures into harms way at all - because then you're still making a choice and essentially sacrificing the *goal* in order to keep your Treasures.... in fact maybe that should be written mechanically into the game: treat the PC's goal exactly like a Treasure, but one that's already been put in harm's way, at the whim of the GM. The PC is trying to get it back - restore it to safety like Dindenver suggested - but to do that he'll have to offer up something else.

Sorry if any of this seems vague or contradictory - I'm still at a very early stage, so still thrashing out in my head what I'm aiming for. Thanks everyone for the feedback - it's already been extremely useful in making me think more about this.

Seems to make sense to me! Good luck with it! Your doing well!