“When you select your rival, mark a level 1 harm and explain what they did to you.”
What does everyone think?
I should note, the hack I’m working on has a strong emphasis on non-physical harm.
“When you select your rival, mark a level 1 harm and explain what they did to you.”
“When you select your rival, mark a level 1 harm and explain what they did to you.”
Sounds intriguing, and the kind of mechanic that will need to be tested in play. The effects I am guessing it will have is that it causes the game to start not only at the bottom of the ladder but also downtrodden, the first score-equivalent-in-your-hack will be more desperate with everyone working with with a burdened spirit. The amount of PCs going for their rivals throats at the first given opportunity will increase.
When does this happen? At the beginning of the game?
Harm impedes your character and removes some of their agency. It’s a consequence of risk, and sometimes a player choice. It locks up a downtime action if you want to heal it. What does taking harm right out the gate with no opportunity to resist add to the game that you couldn’t get without it?
To me it doesn’t seem necessary. You can hate your rival and say what they did without ticking a box.
The Duelyst from Mythic Mortals had a similar mechanic.
Why not reward the player for picking a rival.
“Create a rival. Give them at least one: Power, Intelligence, Money, Motivation. When acting against this Rival you may Push Yourself multiple times for one action. If you defeat your Rival, your gang gains 4 REP.”
This happens before the first score, yeah.
Part of the goal is to give the first downtime a focus, to provide something like a kicker in Sorcerer, to start with tensions high and a feeling of scarcity. I’m worried there aren’t enough touchstones for the setting, so I wanted something to provide immediate direction.
You could be right that marking the harm is overkill. I’m hoping that ticking the box before the first score will make people direct the harm away from their strengths – martially focused characters will end up with a socially focused threat, for example.
I am a concerned it might be a bit much, which I why I was curious what immediate reactions were.
I think the first downtime actions already develop a focus naturally, as an outgrowth of how the score goes. This just seems like putting a tax on your first downtime that won’t have anything to do with the first score; it means you have to backtrack out of the game and go back to stuff you wrote before the game started, which you aren’t necessarily interested in at the moment. That seems like a bad thing to me, personally.
I do like the idea of having options to pursue in downtime that have nothing to do with the score, right off the bat. People feeling that they /have to/ spend/waste their downtime actions healing that harm is something I’m concerned about.
David Harrison Another option is to make Rivals a long-term project, something that the whole group can help with, and will result in a short “revenge mission” when completed.
David Schirduan I was thinking of the rival from “Choose a close friend and a rival” fame. So it is something that everyone would have. I like the idea of getting benefits from the interaction. I think the +1d to downtime actions with friends covers the one you’ve chosen as a rival too, so maybe it covers the healing from the initial harm.
Could you clarify, do you mean to start with a downtime before the first score, or is the ‘first downtime’ after the first score?
Sorry, the latter – the first downtime after the first score.
“For any downtime activity, take +1d to the roll if a friend or contact helps you.” If you can somehow get your rival to help you heal, you’d get +1d, but I doubt the guy who just hurt you wants to help you recover. Healing faster from harm inflicted by people you know, just because you know them, seems odd.
I’m with James Etheridge, this seems unnecessary. Players are already encouraged to develop a story for what happened with their rival. Making them take harm and explain why seems like enforcing role-playing, and then immediately punishing it. I’d say let players involve themselves as much or as little as they want with their rivals.
It also feels like that “You all meet at a tavern” scene from everyone’s first D&D session. “You were all accosted by your respective rivals recently, for some reason.” (I’d suggest making it even more general: “You start with level 1 harm: what happened?” and then offer suggestions, like involving a rival. Tying it to your rival automatically is a bit too formulaic for my tastes.)
My first table’s first session downtime involved one Reduce Heat roll, the Whisper had to Indulge (because he Tempest’d for 4, and flashed back for 2). Most chose to Train, or work on a long-term project. People already knew what they wanted to work towards. If they’ed all already had some harm to start with, most of them would have come out of that score with two or three harm entries, and I think most of that first downtime would have been about finding a doctor and getting patched up. I suspect that they’d be encouraged to play more conservatively early on, instead of taking risks, because they’re already hurt and can’t afford to get hurt much more before it threatens to drag them down.
This sounds like a hard-mode option to me, rather than a default starting point.
If you wanted to keep what you’ve written, you could balance it out with something like “In exchange, start a new long term project and add two ticks or add two ticks to a long term project clock. Explain how your encounter with your rival has caused this progress.”