I was thinking about the Goal/Price trading mechanic in &Sword, and wondering how others have handled it in play.

Frex, if a character were to swear an oath of vengeance to the gods against another character, would it make sense to give them Goal: Vengeance on Bob, +1; Price: Vengeful -1? What would you have the Price apply to, mechanically speaking? Prices in general seem hard to regulate to me... many examples of Prices are listed throughout the Sorcerer books, but few of them are given in mechanical terms (IE This Price applies to X).

I was also kind of imagining one might take it a step further, by allowing the player to actually earn penalties for roleplaying the Price really well, in exchange for extra bonuses for the Goal. Not permanently, just on a one for one basis, you know? So like if the vengeful character above were to play it out really well, acting bitter and cursing Bob's name frequently, etc. to the point that it started annoying other characters, or otherwise interfering with his social interactions; effectively earning him -2 or even -3 Vengeful dice, would it be cool to then give them (assuming they also played it up) +2 or +3 for their next Vengeful (Goal) actions? And of course I know you can give out RP bonus dice anyway, but I'm talking above and beyond that.

OR is it just expected that the player must roleplay the Price well in order to even GET the Goal bonuses in the first place?

Looking back over my thought process, that seem much more sensible. I hate when I think I'm on to something cool and then it turns out to be extraneous.

But anyway, I'd still appreciate any examples of Prices in play and how they have been handled.

1. I'm personally be for goals only to raise your original price... seems more of the literature. A more concrete reason would be that it make the pirce more characterizing.

2. I'd be curious how well the pirce raising idea would work.. I mean, it sounds cool, but it'd be taking power out of the players hands. The way I think the situation would idealy play out is:

Gm: The court monkeys are really licking their teeth at you now.

Player:(Getting revved up) I'm swearing up and down to bury their bones beneath this whorehouse before I tell them where my sister is... my bitter dice will be -3 now.

The reward being, the player decides how vengrefull he's acting. This is supported by the fact of how many dice he is giving up in game, not by the GM's judgement. But the process facilitates player-empowerment.

Hello,

Sirogit is right: the Goal rules add further penalties to the existing Price; they don't add on new Prices.

Furthermore, staying on top of Price penalties is a serious matter for the Sorcerer GM, and a great deal of the pressure that's taken off of having to manage and manipulate the outcomes of scenes is transferred over to overseeing Humanity rolls and Price penalties.

Nev, I gotta say, you did sort of end up just re-stating the rules as they stand. Unless I'm still missing something?

Best,
Ron

Ahh...
yeah, I didn't have the book in front of me for this one, so I wasn't quite as sure what I was trying to say as I usually am.

Anyway, I'll look it up again before I consider using it, but the concept of letting the player decide what the penalty/goal tradeoff is worth makes a lot of sense.

So, if it only works for existing Price, does that mean only Goals that are consistent with that idiom should be allowed?

Anyway, this question is much less important than my other one, which you didn't comment on >.<

Hello,

I have not yet seen any need to coordinate the content of the stated Goal with the content of the Price. By definition, the Price is central to the current version of the character - by definition, as determined right here and now in play, the Goal is what he or she wants most. Regardless of how un-matched they may seem, they are indeed matched, because their juxtaposition, for purposes of the conflicts the character is about to face, is who the character is.

As for the question you're referring to, I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, and I just re-read your first post. Does it have something to do with all that stuff about role-playing bonuses and Price and Goal bonuses and something? If so, please re-state, 'cause I can't make head ner tail out of what you have there.

Best,
Ron

Apologies, I'm really tired right now, and not as coherent as usual (which is still pretty incoherent).

My other questions is on the other thread, which you've no doubt noticed by now. The conflict resolution one.

And I think I get what you're saying about goal/price trading. I hadn't really expected it to come into play since the first game at least will be in a modern setting, which is less appropriate to that sort of thing. Before running anything fantasyish I'll probably try to read some of the &S literature to bone up on the characterizations and stuff.

thanks.....zzz.zz...