The text directs us to ask: Who do you trust the most? Who do you trust the least?

The text directs us to ask: Who do you trust the most? Who do you trust the least?

The text directs us to ask: Who do you trust the most? Who do you trust the least?

Then I had an idea for a limit break kind of thing for a hack I am writing.. but sort of like a connection builder too.

EDIT:

Choose one of these PCs, and create an 8-clock, “Familiarity (Alizon/Bryll)” on your sheet for your relationship with them. If you and another player choose each other, one of you makes a 4-clock instead.

Mark 1 tick on this clock for a result of 4, 5, or 6 on a teamwork action with that character, or 2 ticks for a Crit. When the clock fills, you may clear it to take a teamwork action with this character that breaks the rules in the following ways:

* You may roll a teamwork action using separate actions. “Alizon whips up a frenzy of spiritual energy [Attune] to inflict a devastating assault with Bryll’s dagger flurries [Skirmish].” Basically, you can roll your best actions together without a setup action.

* If you push yourself during this action, then it only costs 1 stress. If it was a 4-clock, you both can push yourself for 1 stress each.

Afterwards, the one targeted by your clock (both parties if it was a 4 clock) must choose to accept or refuse your Familiarity. If accepted, then they describe what deeply held secret, belief, or drive you realize about them, and you permanently (until revoked) gain the benefits listed above when working with them.

You may voluntarily revoke this Familiarity in-character at any time. When you do, choose one: resist their last action as if you rolled a crit (clear 1 stress) – revoke their Familiarity to you.

Note: Generally, you cannot revoke another PC’s Familiarity once accepted without also losing your own – though it may fade on its own for either party as circumstances change.

16 thoughts on “The text directs us to ask: Who do you trust the most? Who do you trust the least?”

  1. Trust in Night’s Black Agent works so you can assist someone who trusts you, but (once ever) can betray them, using that trust against them. Betrayal is about three times more effective than assistance – but once they’ve been betrayed by you, they’ll never trust you again.

  2. Martín Van Houtte thought about it. And I think the fiction is the teamwork actions taken, and the characters are exchanging intimate knowledge of each other’s methods along the way (as represented by the clock’s progression, and when it fills, this is that manifesting with the mechanical benefits; if that makes more sense let me know).

  3. I ment: that fiction already exists, and it already has a mechanical counterpart. You’re adding another mechanical crunch for the same fiction. Maybe you can make it produce more fiction in the interacting of this rule and downtime

  4. Lost me there.

    “fiction already exists”

    Ish. But not really. The basis for it is there, sure (teamwork actions), but unless the players inject in “getting to know each other’s methods better” it doesn’t.

    “already has a mechanical counterpart”

    That does what: what I want to do? To what do you refer?

  5. Hum. Ok. There’s the fiction of helping, wich is covered by the mechanics of helping. You want to add to that the mechanics of knowing each other better. And now you’re proposing that those only apply when they roleplay (i.e.: create fiction) about knowing each other, WHILE helping (without regard to any pther bonding moment that may happen). Also, the fiction o kniwing each other isn’t very clear for me; in AW, it’s mainly when you get harm, you know better the one who damaged you, and usually when consensual sex happens; also, at the ending or beginning of the session each one choses someone who knows them better (based in what has happened untill now), and they get to do that mechanically. Knowing someone better or worse interacts with XP.

    If you were to implement this idea of yours just like it is, I fear it would not be used a lot, and maybe it would be rjected after enough uses, or changed at least. But maybe I’m wrong.

  6. “only when they roleplay”

    I guess we are talking about different things. My intent is not to engage it solely through roleplay (it’s a clock, so that is one way I think, but not the relevant way). In fact, that is quite to the contrary of what I was saying: this would be engaged when they participate in teamwork actions with a specific person (the PC they chose to get to know better). The choice is roleplay, the on-screen action to get the bonus really isn’t.

    Restating so we are at least talking about the same thing: If a teamwork action is taken with the person they chose to get to know better, and the action is successful, take +1 familiarity with them (or +2 on a crit). When at 8 familiarity, player can clear the track to execute a teamwork action with them with an added boon.

    “fiction of knowing each other isn’t very clear for me”

    It is the action taken together, and the success while doing so. It is purposefully unclear to some extent so that any kind of action that is teamwork could advance the clock.

    “would be rejected […] or changed at least”

    Yea, those weakness are part of what I am here to find out.

  7. I understood you very clearly. On the other hand, I still can’t explain myself clearly enough, xD.

    Let me try again: the trigger for this rule is the same one that triggers the rule about teamwork actions, yes?

    With one limitation: the one you teamwork with was before chosen by you to know better, or this special rule doen’t apply. You can call this limit roleplay or not, it really doesn’t make any point the name you give it.

    My question: is there another trigger for this rule? Is it fictional?

    If yes: good, the rule may work well.

    If not: you may want to change the trigger a bit, to make this not an add-on mechanic to the teamwork rules, a mechanic that functions in paralel to the tw rules, and a bit more open to other binding moments in the fiction.

    Also, the effect works also in the mechanic “realm”, hardly affecting the fiction (except through the mechanic it affects). I don’t say that is wrong, but since the effect isn’t that great, and it requires many things (8 successfull tw actions with the same pc), it may be not used a lot.

  8. Okay. Gotcha.

    So I agree that first bit is roleplay. Who you choose is absolutely that; also the choice of who you trust most and least, so it seemed like a fine place to insert the option to do this.

    re: “Another trigger”

    The trigger would be fictional as well; sure – like any clock it depends also on the fiction, so advancing it could happen after training with them too I suppose. Not sure if sex would help, unless they for some reason agreed. IE: the GM has free reign just like before with how clocks move (I should probably clarify that and make a write up at this point too; will get on that after I get my new group to try it, we are only just figuring out who one character trusts)

    re: “8 successful actions”

    I thought about it being a 4-clock at first, but then realized that two PCs might choose one other. So there exists a murky If-then rule I have floating around to just shorten it to a 4-clock when two PCs choose each other, rather than two 8-clocks that mirror one another (or two 4-clocks). Which, I think that subrule will better reflect the fact that one PC might be trying to get to know someone better who actually doesn’t care to know them (so 8-clock makes sense to me if I add that exception).

  9. Ok, so I already saw holes in what I was thinking, and I like the idea of this being a connection builder too. The fiction also seems to perhaps fit the thing I am envisioning as well. So I am trying this different direction for now – it seems more engaging and simpler to run, but choices after going through with it. Updated the OP with that just now

  10. Cool. I will report back after I’ve gotten to try it out.

    It’s a double edged sword once you have it. see last paragraph. You might revoke it to screw over the PC with whom you are familiar. Or revoke it to avoid that happening to you when things get backstabby. And you might reject it entirely if you are worried this is all a sham to get close to you.

Comments are closed.