Originally shared by T. Franzke
Why i think i don’t need a jousting move
5 days after Vincent Baker released the playtest files of AW:DA there was a discussion about how you would do Jousting tourneys in this game. Today, in a discussion with Misha Polonsky and Eric Nieudan the question of a tourney move arose again.
Misha: Do they hold tourneys when they meet? I always love a good tourney scene.
Eric: Tournament move! Need.
My first reaction was that a tourney move would defeat the whole point of having it. A tourney should be a big thing. There are a lof of people to meet, deals to make and battles to fight. So doing the whole thing with one move that gives you a few positive and negative results takes away all of these scenes. Because you would roll the move and then skip to after the tourney, or just really short say how all these things come to pass.
I think that a tourney gives you enough stuff to base at least half a session on. So we clarified and it was more about the fact that battle doesn’t work well for jousting and what moves i would do instead.
Now here is the thing. There are fictional qualities in play. If you set up your character as Kervin the Jousting Master then you will win at jousting, that is your stick. Unless Aenny the jousting queen of the east also participates. So what do you do then. Maybe you describe that you go at at for a few rounds and you see you are equals. But the sun is hot in the air and you are getting exhausted. You need to hold steady even to continue. And since you can’t win with your usual technique, what do you?
There are quite a few options when dealing with this. You could draw them out to know what you would need to do to win. You can pray for guidance. Maybe you need to go and ask the Wicker Wise to read her soul during a break. Who knows. Tell me how you deal with it.
So the character just wins every tourney if Aenny isn’t there?
Oh no. Maybe they are hurt. Maybe another participants cheats something into their drinks. There are a lot of interesting situations to be had that don’t strictly involve rolling to see if you win.
Maybe someone pays you to loose. Do you want to? What if you really need that money to fix your destroyed castle walls? What if it is for your friend that wants to win the heart of the princess by winning against the fabled jousting legend?
Misha then asked what i would do in an archery contest between two good archers that are both PCs. My response was, that i wasn’t interested in who wins but how people deal with that situation and who the characters are. Maybe you just describe PC A making a few really good shots and then you ask PC B how she is doing with that since she described herself as really nervous and easy to impress in the past. That character would need to hold steady. Someone that is really sure of themselves wouldn’t need to.
Everyone involved can use the options stated above too. Maybe they have an oath that hinders them in some way and we are more interested to see how they decide based on that instead of only if they win. Maybe A just wants to see character B lose?
If we have moves that skip over these things, we might lose all these options. Now what does that got to do with other systems?
There is no “when you write an important test” move in Monsterhearts either. But you can study for it. Maybe you take 2 weeks off from your relationship, concquests and monster struggles to just learn like a crazy person. You ace that test. Maybe your character is set up as extremely clever. They also get good results without trying.
Now what if you don’t want to study? Go and buy the test from the teacher, or seduce him. Maybe you can convince someone to let them allow you to copy from them. Maybe you gaze into the abyss for answers. You could go to your infernal sugar daddy for help too.
All in all the characters don’t have the tools to deal with most situations. They have their stupid teeny and monster moves. These are their tools and using them is part of the tone and story of the game.
However, having moves for these things is not wrong in any way. It is a different way to run the game. I am more interested to see how characters deal with situations (given the tools that they have) then if they win or loose. A lof of other systems teach us that things like tourneys should have special mechanics to see if you win. And if there is not such a mechanic then how can you win? How can you make sure your character is good at the thing you want them to be good at?
However in World games you can be good at stuff without having mechanics for it.
Have you found something similiar in a World game, where you thought a specific thing clearly needed a move?
Or stories where you handled something that would have mechanics in other games just with basic and playbook moves and it turned out good? Where it turned out bad and you really needed a move?
All comments are greatly appreciated.
To be continued in part 2
Where i think you should put in custom moves
(but i need to think about this a while more)
Not sure why you’re conflating entire tourneys and single jousts, but its making me agree and disagree all at once.
Yes, a tourney is too big for a single move. Totally agree.
That said, I don’t think anyone was suggesting a custom move for anything larger than a single joust, a match of one on one hitting.
Yes, that was me misunderstanding Eric. I wanted to make the point about that anyway.
And I totally agree with the point! I completely endorse not cutting through so much juicy gaming by making a single custom move. I wasn’t sure if something else was going on behind the scenes I wasn’t aware of.
Plus there is so much flavor you could pour into a Joust move, winning against the opponent, gaining the favor of a lover or patron, and doing it all honorably are the three things I see at stake right at the start.
Joust move, yes. Tourney move, no. My two cents.
It all depends on the importance given the context of a very specific fiction in each individual situation… so a full tourney-skipping move would make sense if it was a custom move offered or requested (and if it is requested, your answer should be “yes, but…” — the MC’s bias is not the only one at the table, after all.) and everyone is in agreement that the tourney is less important than the results, and scenes that will come from and in spite of the results. A custom or special-case move like this, would not be much different than a move that says, “When you enter the bazaar of a seasonal market fairgrounds, and in search of something specified; roll plus moneybags, and…”
OTOH, mounted combat, non-combative displays of archery prowess, games of tug’o’war, horseshoes, charades, and verbal ‘roasting’ matches do deserve moves of specific consideration as a competitive comparative (implied in the case of NPCs) of relevant attributes, presumed skills implied by given playbook expectations, and previously shown instances of preparation. Games of competitive mastery are not used, and not needed often enough to fuss over, in an AW setting proper, but non-combative competition of combative skills drives much of the peacetime pastimes in the dark ages. It is much more likely to come up even outside the structured environment of scheduled events… games (including many variations of non-physical games) were often used as spontaneous settlements of dispute, with no loss of life or scandal of court involvement.
Point of note; tournaments involving military prowess — like rider-unseating jousts, iron-man armor-testing matches, and archery targeting… amongst many more — were both rare and less popular than other less deadly forms of tournament hosted competitions… despite what attention they have received from historians and movies. As a general rule one can expect that most people throughout history don’t rush-in at every opportunity to get maimed or die… and, even the military tourneys popularized by history and drama, were rarely matches of savage display in live steel — rather, training weapons, safety mechanisms, and
{{ gasp }} prearranged scripts for rigged fights, were the norm…
(what do you mean gladiatorial pro-sparing entertainment is faked?)
…not the exception.
Just thinking out loud but I’m wondering if non-lethal combat such as this could be handled with a different set of fates instead of a move?
These would have a “quit or suffer the consequences” type of vibe to them along the lines of
“You are still in the fight if you want to be but you must cheat to stay there”
You are still in the fight but you must hurt someone for real in order to stay there”
Or something…
I think non-lethal is oftentimes considered acting under fire… but, that certainly seems lacking.
To attempt a Go Aggro or Sieze by Force with a non-lethal intent, might be a situation where a show of more experience and discipline becomes a liability — as it gets harder to pull a punch, or cushion your throw, with a higher roll.
Seize By Force is especially harsh for this kind of thing. The choices are pretty hard to soften. And the better the roll, the harder it gets.
Moving on a pulled punch with a Go Aggro, and a Tell you what you want to hear or give you what they think you want could be interpreted as cry in convincing pain for the crowd as they relent to your non-lethal maneuver with athletic grace. However, the move is difficult to justify in a nonviolent posturing, though it could work… especially as the first maneuver.
Act Under Fire has the best follow through for this technique… even if it does seem a bit limp. But, short of a 10+ the choices are then fully on the whimsy of the MC… who could switch between gentle and vicious calls, without warning.