Hello Mark Diaz Truman  and Andrew Medeiros

Hello Mark Diaz Truman  and Andrew Medeiros

Hello Mark Diaz Truman  and Andrew Medeiros ,

my group and I encountered a bump in the road last night during our ongoing Urban Shadows campaign.

It is about Cashing in a Debt, and more precisely about what is exactly a moderate favor.

Basically, a PC1 (played by Player 1) was asking another PC2 (played by Player 2) for something really precious to her (a magic artifact she stole with great peril to prevent a disaster). I immediately asked Player 2 : “Do you think this is a moderate favor ?”. The player answered : “No, of course it is not”. I agreed completely. So, we didn’t trigger the move.

During the debriefing, Player 1 maintained that we should have triggered the move, saying it was a moderate favor, for it meant no danger for PC2. As it is said in the rules, he said, the favor should be calculated depending on the capacity of the PC (Asking a violent character to kill a nobody is moderate. Asking a mere mortal to kill a badass werewolf is not). I argued the point that, following only that logic, killing your own parents could be considered a moderate favor (which, to my mind, is of course absolutely absurd).

I argued that he could have tried to trick Player 2’s PC by misleading her into thinking this was not so tall a price to pay.

What do you think ? I could really use your insight on this.

32 thoughts on “Hello Mark Diaz Truman  and Andrew Medeiros”

  3. Thank you Aaron Griffin, but that is not enough for this case (which I do believe is quite a rare occurrence). Saying that the MC has the last word is not satisfying for me. Saying that the fiction dictates what is “moderate” is the way to go (and I believe that in this situation, the fiction agrees with Player 2). Yet, player 1 does not agree still.

    That is why I am asking for other’s insight. I did read the rules 😉

  4. Antoine Pempie it actually says the MC “arbitrates any disputes”, not “has the last word”. It sounds like you listened to both sides and arbitrated fairly based on your view of the fiction. By the letter of the rules, everything happened as intended.

    You are never going to get everyone 100% in agreement as to what is true or not in a fictional reality people are imagining and simply talking about. Here you have a case where two people believe it is one way, and a third does not. You guys will have to come up with ways to compromise at your table that works for everyone if simple arbitration does not work. Ask the player who is having a problem how they would like to fairly decide the dispute – maybe a vote from all the players. Make sure they’re willing to abide by the vote even if it doesn’t go their way.

    Make sure the player knows that no one at the table is out to get them, and the game is about telling an awesome story about awesome characters, not about individual players getting what you want. Sometimes NOT getting what you want is exciting, too. “Oh I can’t cash in a debt for this artifact you have? Fine, then i’ll cash in some debts on some of your enemies so we can attack you”

  6. I do agree with you Aaron Griffin. We cut short the technical discussion with a vote around the table, saying we will discuss it later.

    And yet, the player has a valid point. When he reads “what the fiction dictates”, he reads what mechanical cost the debtor might endure.

    He also argued (which a very good point in my opinion), when do I REFUSE TO HONOR A DEBT then ? Because if I can simplysay “no, you are asking too much of me” when someone cash in a debt with me without engaging the mechanics of the game, then why would we use the move ?

  10. Fictional positioning analysis prompts: Why was the debt incurred before? How was the favor articulated? What fiction is present that would make it more powerful than moderate?

    All in all I think Player 1 might be correct unless the above prompts skew it in a different direction. The move triggers when the criteria is met, then Player 2 can refuse to honor it.

    I would like to point out that Player 2 CAN honor the debt and ask for limitations. I.e. If you do anything terrible with this I will…(insert serious blowback). Or state that it can be used for X time or whatever.

    There is also the opportunity for someone else to erase the debt as it is being leveraged or Drop Someone’s Name to ratchet up the tension.

  11. This move very clearly can push Player vs Player conflict into the forefront, that should be embraced. Also Player 2 can let them have it and then immediately go about leveraging their own debts or acquiring debt to stop that Player from using it or holding on to it.

  13. Rich Glover You are saying Player 1 is right when just before you said the contrary ? I am not following you, I have to say.

    As for “All in all I think Player 1 might be correct unless the above prompts skew it in a different direction. The move triggers when the criteria is met, then Player 2 can refuse to honor it.” What criteria do you use in your games ?

    Because it could led to some bizarre situations

    Example : “Hey, remember when I let you use my appartement. Yeah ? Could you please rip the heart out of your baby daughter ? No ? Then roll the dice please. 6- ? Ok, so the whole Mortality thinks you should have done what I asked of you.”

    O.o

  14. Unless there is a reason (in the positioning) that call outs danger, retribution or otherwise, in excess of a moderate manner, than you have to rule it as a moderate favor. Handing over an object is not a major request. It can’t be.

    “Here you go sir. So we are good now?” (Example of dialogue)

    Now if the player doesn’t want to do it, then trigger the Refuse a Debt move and see what happens.

    Possible examples of it NOT being moderate: the peril that was prevented becomes a peril again (large scale), having it outside of Player 1’s possession causes a series of dangers/threats to be unleashed, etc.

    However, other than Player 2 not wanting to do it I am not seeing anytime that makes it anything but a moderate favor.

  15. Antoine Pempie in response to your request about what I use, I push the players towards that conflict when it happens. I am reading your example over and I am sensing that you already don’t feel it’s moderate, so there must be something supporting that judgement.

    In your situation you need to let the move play out or pacify Player 1 in some manner (give him more debt over Player 2, have him rephrase it, ask for something else, introduce a threat that pushes the artifact into Player 1’s hands, etc).

    Do these players have issues with each other in other games? If so you may need to arbitrate this very differently and away from the table.

  17. Antoine Pempie The fiction is not dictated by player 1 alone. It sounds like you guys voted to determine just what the fiction dictated and he’s not honoring the vote, is that correct?

  19. Rich Glover “Handing over an object is not a major request. It can’t be.” Why not ? Would you say that asking King Arthur for Excalibur would not be a major request ? It is only an object, but without it, his right to reign is forfeit.

    Aaron Griffin No, we voted and Player 1 agreed to the result of the vote. But talking after the game, he still insisted that, according to the rules, we should have triggered the move. We feel that we need to get a concrete way of determining if a favor is more than moderate.

    It is not a problem of a player with a bad behaviour, just the need to get a more precise definition of a moderate favor.

  20. This seems pretty clear cut to me. Player 2 thinks the cost being asked to pay is too high, you arbitrated that and agreed. Done.

    Player 1 will have to deal, they can still ask for lots of other favours with the Debt; it hasn’t been wasted at all.

  21. Andrew Medeiros The question is : was I right to say it was more than moderate because of what the artifact means for the character ? Or was it irrelevant ?

    By the way, thank you folks for taking the time to answer me.

  22. If Lancelot asked for Excalibur after saving the kingdom, Arthur might do it, but if Mordred asked then No. Also give and borrow are two different things.

    Player 2 still has the right to hand it over and say “I need it back by Sunset.” Debt Honored. This is where the positioning matters.

    If Player 1 got their debt as a “freebie” for an earlier move then the value of that debt is not established as relevant to a precious artifact. But if they almost died getting that debt from Player 2 then it might be justified. This is why the move starts with “remind them why they owe you” because that matters to the determination of what is “moderate” IMHO.

    Also I think your players need to read this discussion as there is a lot of info in it for various perceptions. And they need to decide whether PvP debt cashing is going to be welcome at the table…very important.

  23. Antoine Pempie yes. And that’s ok! As to the one incident, it seems fair to me.

    If the player then thinks, “aha, an exploit, I can never be subjected to Debt if I just say everything they ask is too precious,” then that’s a table problem and you all talk some more about why that won’t fly.

  24. Rich Glover Your insight is really interesting. But where in the rules did you read that the favor asked for can be haggled over ?

    Where did it say that you judge a debt by the way you obtained it ?

    I mean, it does make sense, but I don’t believe it is clearly stated as such.

    And I sent the link to this post to my players from the get go, of course 🙂

  25. Antoine Pempie, my personal opinion is that you made the right call. The fact you need to make that call at all doesn’t impress me, aka Player 1 is being a dink; again, my opinion.

    Toby Sennett speaks wisdom too. People taking this too far is a table problem, not a game problem.

  26. Ok, thank you all for the answers.

    Again, Player 1 agreed to the decision of the table, but felt the need to discuss it after the game (which is fine by me, and he is entitled to do so). I might have not been clear about this : he did not impede the game itself.

    Again, thank you all for taking the time to address my problem.

  27. Antoine Pempie Just closing the loop on our Q&A here – the concrete way of determining if something is a moderate favor is to ask the player of the character doing the favor if it is moderate to that character. No one else has say in what a player character feels. The MC arbitration comes into play when a player is not being consistent with their character and other players are calling them out on it.

    Edit: in my mind this is similar to the way Sagas of the Icelanders handles bonds in play: giving someone an honest gift gives you +1 with them but they get to decide if it’s a worthy gift or not.

  28. Antoine Pempie to me it is implicit in the game style. You are not using a mechanic to flip a switch, but bringing the play to life by using the mechanic. These are two characters having a discussion, one owes the other, the one wants something from the other, THEY can haggle not the rules.

    Also what is the point of doing something for someone if your not moving the story along. If this isn’t interesting to the table, then don’t spend time on it. But the point of debts/strings(MH)/influence(Masks) is to be able to make interesting things happen in the fiction and the table.

    The US game really sings when the debt cashing starts “falling like rain” and the situations become real and volatile. There is 1-2 sessions of slow burn and set-up that happen at my table and then it takes off as the players start using their debt to get what they want from others. This is the nature of dramatic conflict, debt is just the currency. Refusing a debt is pretty common at my table, in fact it is close to 90% of the time with PvP debt cashing. Nobody wants to relent and give the other the thing that they want, that’s why the currency is there to force it to be a thing!

    The dice will decide the outcome of the refusal, but the ramifications should be far reaching in the game. Think about all the dramas on the CW and how the principle leads are constantly chaffing under what they owe others for and how that “debt” causes all kinds of trauma in the show. That’s what this is about. Embrace it.

    Enjoy Antoine Pempie

  30. Andrew Medeiros 

    Hi, as english is not my native language, and it’s “…make a PC: Do you a favor AT moderate cost” and not « Do you a favor OF moderate cost », I’d like a clarification if possible.

     

    What is moderate :

    1-the cost for the one performing  the favor (it’s not my job=it’s not moderate, it goes against my personal interests = it’s not moderate). PC argue but won’t have to use the refusal move.

    2-the cost he will name to do it : If you cash in, I have to do it, “invoicing” a moderate cost, unless I use the refuse move (standard contract is not the same price than killing your own wife)

  31. The cost is about what it will cost them personally, that’s what is moderate. The favour is a favour, which like any favour is open to interpretation.

    Asking a Vampire to get you in contact with their boss is a favour at moderate cost, as is lending you some of their blood for a ritual. Asking the same vampire to betray their boss or sacrifice themselves for your ritual is not.

    Ultimately, it’s between the two parties. Character 1 and Character 2 both have to agree what is being asked counts as a favour and has a moderate (or less) cost to the one fulfilling it. When those two characters can’t agree, that’s when the MC needs to step in to arbitrate.

    Hope that helps.

Comments are closed.