edit  whisperquote# 1
I'm working on a mechanic where damage received is translated to "Scars". Scars may only be healed by buying them off. Each Scar will have its own buyoff condition stated in terms of a goal.

For instance, here's what a Scar would look like on the character sheet:

Scar: Convince Clive to forgive you

or

Scar: Send a message to Jasper on behalf of Paul

These would be placed on the player by the rest of the table, decided as a group. So you take damage and receive a Scar, Tom, Jeff, and I are going to openly converse about what the buyoff should be, you can of course provide your own input but have no final decision power. If we can't decide unanimously we'll vote as it shouldn't be a lengthy process.

Would this seriously miff you, if the group placed a forced buyoff condition on your character? I imagine group dynamics and the social contract would play a huge part. I really think it would work for my group, but would it work for yours? Does it even matter?

Hi Charles,

That's an interesting idea.  I wonder if framing these as a specific condition is the best way to do this?

For example, what if "Convince Clive to forgive you" was instead "Betrayal".  That means that it might not be Clive who you get to forgive you.  I love it in TV shows when a conversation two characters are having totally relates to something that just happened to one of them, but they're not saying that, it's all implied and below the surface.  So this guy who betrayed Clive at some point, but took some damage over it, next time someone betrays him, or next time he's talking to someone who's betrayed someone else, maybe he's a little more forgiving than he would have been.  Or maybe he's less forgiving.  That feels like a "Scar" to me.

Your second example feels less like a scar, and more like a stake in a conflict.  I'm not sure if "Send a message to some guy" has much emotional impact, and calling it a "scar" feels a little overblown. 

On the other hand, I like the idea of stakes in a conflict becoming a character goal that you get rewarded for fulfilling.  Possibly that's a different mechanic though?  I like the idea that it's mechanically rewarding to be convinced to do stuff you didn't want to do, that you get more reward for being forced at gunpoint than going of your own free will.

Thanks for the response Simon.

I like the term Scar because these Conditions will leave lasting impact on the relationships surrounding the character.  The repercussions of your actions and how it affects others is the Scar.  The condition you must satisfy merely causes the wound which will attempt to heal over.

I'm not sure I completely understand your Betrayal idea.  I think you're intention is that a Scar of Betrayal would be a sort of trait reflecting what the character's been through.  While I think that is interesting, I'm really looking for damage from combat to be a prompt for future actions;  sort of like a reverse-engineered Bang. 

At this point I'm also struggling with the fact that I want to hand-waive it and say the Scar doesn't have to relate to the conflict in which you took the damage at all.  This seems rather illogical when you try to apply reason to the mechanics, but I think it would work very well in pushing play forward in new and altogether unpredictable ways.

agony wrote:
Does it even matter?

Hmmm. . . personally I think that you should maybe only get one scar per battle, as it would really suck if you had to do something for every hit you take.

Do you have to work to sort out the problem associated with the scar, or is there just some mechanical penalty if you don't? The latter is more compatible with the traditional "get an injury, try to get it healed" paradigm, but the former is more suited to certain kinds of mind control mechanics. I suggested something like the penalty one before, with a game where injuries from different things all do the same amount of "damage", but different one's are healed in different ways. Social damage by resolving the issues they uncovered or simply by calming down, through to gunshot wounds and being blown up, with much more tricky requirements for removing them!

If you do go for enforced goals, then I suspect that will be more suited to social combat, where characters could influence each other all over the place! I like the idea of the action that caused the scar influencing the chosen goal but not totally determining it, it leaves a lot of room for unintended consequences, and generally means if your character has objectives they have to do them themselves.

agony wrote:
Would this seriously miff you, if the group placed a forced buyoff condition on your character? I imagine group dynamics and the social contract would play a huge part. I really think it would work for my group, but would it work for yours? Does it even matter?

Thor wrote:

agony wrote:
Would this seriously miff you, if the group placed a forced buyoff condition on your character? I imagine group dynamics and the social contract would play a huge part. I really think it would work for my group, but would it work for yours? Does it even matter?

I'm with Mike. It sounds like a fine idea to explore to me.

Will all damage be emotional damage then? Or will there be different sorts of scars that must be bought off in different ways?

Is there a benefit to having scars as well as a downside? Would it be valid to choose to retain a scar rather than working it off?

I think it does matter, in that I can't see the goal of the mechanic as yet and so, Agony, you might not be achieving any of your own goals (or maybe I don't see too well, which could also be the case).

Weve got a mechanic where people get scars and they can be bought off and...what? What's it getting at? Again, maybe I don't see it and you do. I'm just saying I don't see it in case there is indeed nothing there.

Toward that point, what are the other players deciding the scar on? What objective are they basing it on?

It doesn't sound like it has any sort of fun right then, upon the rules invocation. Maybe latter, depending on the scar. But that's fun latter. What fun is it getting at right now? And it doesn't have to be ball bustingly fun - mild fun is fine?

Callan wrote:
I think it does matter, in that I can't see the goal of the mechanic as yet and so, Agony, you might not be achieving any of your own goals (or maybe I don't see too well, which could also be the case).

Weve got a mechanic where people get scars and they can be bought off and...what? What's it getting at? Again, maybe I don't see it and you do. I'm just saying I don't see it in case there is indeed nothing there.

Toward that point, what are the other players deciding the scar on? What objective are they basing it on?

It doesn't sound like it has any sort of fun right then, upon the rules invocation. Maybe latter, depending on the scar. But that's fun latter. What fun is it getting at right now? And it doesn't have to be ball bustingly fun - mild fun is fine?

Hello Charles,

Kickers, as I understand them, are made outside of/prior to play. Play isn't interupted in order to make them? Am I reading this wrong and the scar buy offs are determined after the game session or something like that? If so, ah, okay, seeing that - except what happens if no one gets any scars during a session? Is it possible to not get one or more?

Callan wrote:
Hello Charles,

Kickers, as I understand them, are made outside of/prior to play. Play isn't interupted in order to make them? Am I reading this wrong and the scar buy offs are determined after the game session or something like that? If so, ah, okay, seeing that - except what happens if no one gets any scars during a session? Is it possible to not get one or more?

It's an interesting idea, but everything is always muddled when you have it determined by group vote alone. What role does the GM have in this?