Question – is it ok to have families and characters earn new surpluses or gain new needs simply as results of the…

7 thoughts on “Question – is it ok to have families and characters earn new surpluses or gain new needs simply as results of the…”

1. .

2. I don’t see why not. You could even gain new moves (custom or otherwise) in response to the fiction, in most PbtA games.

3. Certainly! Looking over the book now I’m surprised to see I didn’t include guidance on gaining surpluses, but it was always my intention that, just as you can lose surpluses and gain needs as a result of the GM’s moves (p. 94), coming across a windfall in the fiction should give you new surpluses.

   For the second question, I imagine Surplus: Barter Goods to be valuable commodities that you would be able to exchange for other things, while Surplus: Trade represents contacts and relationships you can call upon. Basically one’s good for one-off transactions conducted in person, while the other one’s good for long-term commerce relationships with other settlements. Does that make sense?

4. .

5. Aaron Griffin you’re absolutely right of course – it’s sometimes hard for me to remember that any and all mechanics serve as expressions of the fiction.

   James Iles thanks for responding – I’d sort of intended to just run Surplus the way you describe, and it is helpful to get confirmation / clarity! And yes, the idea of Trade as a more lasting relationship involving exchange between two or more entities does make sense – thanks for that as well!

6. I’d also feel like fictionally gained surpluses can be fictionally taken away easier, but that’s just me. 😉

7. Funny thing is we were discussing about what to do when you get a Surplus or Need you already have.

   These days I see no problem in a Family having for instance Surplus: Barter Goods x3 or Need: Motivation x2.

Comments are closed.