My group is having some trouble with debts. We’ve played Urban Shadows a couple of times, but have never done the debts well. Last night was a brand new game, and we had a hard time with them.
In one scene, our demonologist was summoning a demon prince to subdue the other demon she had failed to bind. From put a face to a name, she had a debt with him, and they had a working relationship. She can just cash in the debt, roll persuade with +3, and go right? Does she need additional leverage? Like make another promise or threat to the demon prince? Or is the debt enough? (it seemed like it should have been enough in the fiction). I had her promise the demon a small favor as leverage, but it felt wrong.
At the very beginning, our puppet master character cashed in a debt to get our witch to help out with his problem. Because he was cashing in a debt, he felt the need to remind the witch of the debt she owed as a veiled threat (You better help or I’ll pull the rug out from under you). The witch’s player felt like he needed to go along because of the debt rules, rather than reacting with hurt pride as his character would have, in order to follow the rule. In other words, the players felt like the debt rules got in the way of the fiction.
And that’s the main concern of my players. It seemed like the debt rules got in the way of the fiction. Do you have any advice? Is it just inexperience?
This is also the second group where the players have complained loudly about the experience point system. They want to level up, but feel like it’s too hard or too forced. What would you say to players in this case?
Thank you! I’m excited to get better at the game.
In your first example, you don’t need additional leverage, the Debt is the leverage you’re using.
For example two, why didn’t the witch’s player just choose to refuse to honour the debt? You never have to give into the pressure of a Debt if you don’t want to.
My players are used to traditional “party” style of play, where the players magically work together and don’t have conflicting interests. (“Come adventuring with us!”) The puppet-master’s player was obviously trying to get the party together, and I think the witch didn’t want to be a party pooper. What would you have done?
Oh and thanks for the clarification on #1
I would have told the witch’s player that they don’t have to honor that Debt and then asked them where they go from there? I don’t push for players to work together in my games, it’s not the style I enjoy.
Your issue sounds like a social one, not a mechanical one. Talk to your players, make sure they’re all on the same page on what they all want from the game.
Hi, my first advice is to reread the chapter on Starting Questions. If you harass the players well, and kill them of questions (the right ones), they magically won’ t…magically work together anymore. Granted. They will have conflicting, parallel and complementary interests.
About rules get in the way of fiction, my players told me the same some time ago (AW, not Urban Shadows). But as Andrew says, if the witch’s player knew or remembered about NOT honoring a debt, he wouldn’t have felt constrained by the ruls. Even better “Argh… the choice is up to me! No hiding behind the system…What do I doWhat do I doWhat do I do?!?!”
Have patience, all of you. Use the system a few more times.
1) One of the big points for any *W game is social mechanics. In AW and the same in Urban Shadows it is expected and is part of the premise, that there is no “party”. Trying to magically put them together is wrong first and foremost because mechanics are designed to separate them. Everyone should have their own interests in mind. Instead the game designed for situation when several powerful individuals with their own agendas are pressed to work together by story in hand. A problem arises which cannot be resolved by a single one individual, so people are pressed to seek help of one another. It is expected that PCs know each other professionally, and can cooperate when needed (though refusing to honor a debt is a good and valid reaction to a illogical/selfish requests a la blackmail)
2) IMO when debt mechanics are used, it is not required in fiction to say out loud “do this because of your debt X to me”. It is fine to indirectly point the request as long as both parties get the idea – e.g. if you saved my life or keep my secret, then I implicitly will consider your requests to be important
I would argue that groups can totally work together like the traditional “adventuring party” if that’s what they want to do. There is nothing in the mechanics stopping that from happening. Though they are likely to pair-off a lot from time to time to chase down leads and hitting the streets.
You can actually chain off Faction moves really well this way:
Player A: “I’m gonna go see a woman named Min about these murders, I think she’ll know something”
All Other Players: “Can we Put a Face to a Name on Min?”
“Oh ya, I know Min, she owes me a favor. I’ll come with!”
Andrew Medeiros I agree this is possible. But I also agree that debt mechanic itself – the most core mechanic to the game as far as I see, – pushes characters to use each other for their own interests. Which drives them apart arguably. And I think this is good, and much better than unnatural social dynamic of “we’re party so we do not argue”
I think the whole point of Debts is to pull people together. By owing people favours, you’ll come to their aid when asked and then do things together.
If someone uses their Debts to demand unpleasant favours, that’s a player move, not a system one.
When I’m a friend I come to my friend’s aid on my own. When I owe debt and he spends it, I am driven to come to his aid even if I do not want it. This will pull together people who otherwise do not care and have no motive to participate, but it will not make them be “together”
Now we’re just arguing semantics. Debts can bring people together and drive them apart. Done.
🙂
Do you agree, however, that explicitly stating “I invoke this debt from you” is not required?
You should make it clear that scales are being balanced. You don’t have to go into specifics, but both parties should clearly understand that a Debt is being paid.
Very cool advice and discussion. Thanks guys. I think I need to have a discussion with my group and explain that it’s ok to go in different directions. They’re used to that meaning that only one person gets to play at a time, and may not realize that doesn’t hold true for US.