I have a question about ‘Touched by death’. What level of commitment qualifies as ‘in your care’? Does that include members of your gang? Followers? Random guy on the street you fail to save from a lynch mob? Should the line be one based on actions (I dive to in the way to try to take the bullet) or emotional (I should have done more)?
edit: Should it be based on whether or not it effects your characters psyche? (I no longer see life as precious because of this loss)
I’d ask the player.
I’d say that’s something the group should agree on (with MC approval) when the player announces they’re taking the move. When you think about it though, the player is at most 4 dead NPC’s away from having Weird+3 — if you buy into the whole “stats as a representation of your character”, then the player should be pretty damn affected by the deaths to justify changing a stat.
Emotional investment in the patient sounds like a bare minimum requirement if you ask me… The move almost implies it. So if the player is dead set on being unremorseful about death, then the move should either be overlooked, or enforced heavily.
An old MC I had used to make the ghosts of past patients (who’d obviously died) show up and torment the Angel. It worked really well… When he blew weird or sharp rolls, the Ghosts would say stuff like — “Hey, those [cannibals] over there wanna have you over for dinner…” or (in response to a failed act under fire to sneak by some raiders) “I don’t know if [those raiders] know you’re here… I’ll go get em!”
Good times…
actually counted 5 deaths from a -2. Remember, other playbooks can take that move. Actually that’s what I was more curious about. For Angel’s care is pretty simple as really anytime they are giving medical care counts. I’m more curious about how it the power interacts with other stuff like followers and such.
I’ve been wondering about that too — I guess that’d be highly dependent on what you and the player think “care” means to the character. A Brainer or Savyhead might consider it anyone they work on, Hard characters might consider it people they’ve taken under their protection… Ultimately, I’d say as a rule of thumb: if the character feels like they’ve failed the dead, then it probably counts.
If I was MC’ing, and a player made a particularly strong case not to abuse the move, I might apply it retroactively (once or twice) for a murderer going crazy from guilt.
True, but then I wonder about the irresponsible leaders with that power. For instance, what about a Hocus who let’s his followers starve. He should have been caring for them but maybe he was too obsessed with his butterfly god to notice that flowers that are the staple of his cults diet aren’t very nutritious. The Hocus might justify the death with something crazy (they’re not dead, they’ve entered a cocoon state and will someday emerge an evolved being). That sounds like somebody getting weirder over death to me
i think “make sure the players don’t abuse their moves” isn’t really part of the MCs agenda
I’d say that if the character made a Move to prevent or ease the death, it counts. Failing an obvious Move, something of equal weight would be required.
Though as Adam McConnaughey points out, it isn’t a matter of controlling abuse. It is mostly a matter of making sure that the Move is done to be done. So if the character isn’t touched by death, the Move doesn’t happen and no Weird is gained. That simple. If the player marks the Weird down after a death and as the MC you don’t get why, start the clarifying conversation. Ask how the death touched them and how they were in your care before they died.
well put
I suppose one could argue the defining rule would be that you can’t use the same move until the situation has significantly changed. I would suppose that would me that your relationship with the deceased or the failure on your part has to be significantly different. Using that guideline then it is probably a lot harder to gain weird off the move than it seems.
not quite sure what you’re saying there, david
also, i feel like the move, as written, definitely hints at the idea of a “killer angel” type character whose patients just don’t seem to make it quite as often as they should…
and that requiring some sort of emotional catharsis from each death cheats that character a bit.
An example I suppose would be a hardholder who fails his wealth roll several times and keeps getting the want hunger. If the PC then does not accomplish anything to provide food and somebody starve then he might be eligible for the weird. The character will react the way he will and we learn about the character from that, but if it happens again, then we don’t learn anything new from the characters reaction so he receives no weird. However, if bandits come into the hold and kills somebody in the gang because the Hardholder did not plan his defenses well enough he could become eligible. I’m not sure that would be how it would play out, but I think it could make sense.
Adam McConnaughey I was thinking that too. And to clarify “curving abuse”, saying “what the rules require” is on the MC’s agenda… Not that I think MC’s should prioritize that against playing the game, and especially not players’ enjoyment. Tim’s comment obviously nailed it though… Making sure the players do the move to reap the benefits ultimately polices the game infinitely better than divine intervention.
David Rothfeder I think I see what you’re saying, but following Tim’s suggestion, what you would do if a second person died and the hardholder took +1Weird, is simply say — “OK, that’s two now… You were hurt the last time this happened, why is it worse now?”
Adam Robichaud , I suppose that’s true, but if the loss is worse, then it’s probably that something is different about the situation. For instance, the Hardholder could have spent his fortune stockpiling food in case of a another famine, only to find that his efforts were still not enough. I also am wondering that do characters with that move have to change based on regret, or are there other ways they manifest a change in personality based on those they are responsible for dying.
i think the best advice is what Tim Groth said; if they want to mark experience for it, and you’re unsure about it (or even if you aren’t!), ask them questions until it makes sense.
I agree with that. However, my interpretation of that move was always that “care” meant “medical care”. In other words, the person is in your infirmary, or otherwise relying on you to survive. Kind of like you would use the phrase in the real world: “So-and-so died while under intensive care at…”
hm. okay.