Sagas of the Icelanders: The Game – Page 5 – Powered by the Apocalypse G+ Archives

Sagas of the Icelanders basic move mod

Originally shared by Mikael Andersson

Sagas of the Icelanders basic move mod

Inspired by Egil’s Saga, chapter LXXXIII, regarding Egil Skallagrimsson’s close friendship with fellow poet Einar Helgisson, as recounted in David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 years.

One of the most powerful basic moves in the game is When you give someone a gift, gain 1 bond with them. It’s assumed, to trigger the move, that the gift is accepted – of course, refusing a gift from a man probably means throwing an insult at him, or that his honour is in question, so it’s not without its risks to refuse.

Let’s make it even more loaded. In Egil’s Saga, Egil’s close friend Einar [or Einar’s son Einar Skala-glam; it’s a little unclear] – who was in every way his equal – was given a gift by earl Hacon in exchange for a poem Einar sung in his honour, “a shield, which was a most costly work. It was inscribed with old tales; and between the writing were overlaid spangles of gold with precious stones set therein.”

This gift was probably far too precious for one such as Einar, but it coming from an earl, by Graeber’s arguments, the usual customs of gift exchange between equals do not apply – the earl was probably just demonstrating his great benevolence while simultaneously recognizing Einar’s talent and rubbing some of his status off on him.

However, Einar then rode to his friend Egil’s longhouse, and – not finding him at home – waited for him for the customary three days. With Egil still not arrived home, Einar hung the shield on the wall and told Egil’s huscarls it was meant a gift for him, and rode off.

Egil, upon returning home, found the shield and, upon being told it was a gift from Einar, spat “The wretched man, to give it! He means that I should bide awake and compose poetry about his shield. Now, bring my horse. I must ride after him and slay him.”

Why would Egil feel compelled to slay his close friend [or his close friend’s son, as it may have been] for giving him a gift? Graeber lays it out – because the giving of a gift of such wealth without giving Egil even an opportunity to pay back in kind would mean that the two men’s status, going forward, would no longer be equal. Egil would be forced into a debt of honour towards Einar, one which he’d be unlikely to repay within his lifetime, and in the interim would be compelled to make interim (“interest”, “token”) payments and defer to Einar whenever suitable. Their friendship was jeopardized by the gift, and in the heat of the moment Egil saw only one way to redeem his honour and status – to ride after his former friend and cut him down.

So, then, the revised (and totally optional) basic move mod:

When you give someone a gift, gain 1 bond with them. If both giver and recipient are men, at the option of either of them, the recipient’s honour is in question.

That is to say, whether the parties’ statuses are unequal or not, and whether the richness of the gift (or indeed the inadequacy of the gift, in case of a gift between equals so small it could be perceived as an insult) is sufficient to trigger the recipient’s honour being in question is up to either giver or receiver. Did the giver intend for the gift to be a weapon to reduce the recipient’s status or elevate their own? Or perhaps the giver had underestimated the recipient’s wealth and status, and the recipient (and others) misinterpreted the gesture as an intentional attack on his honour.

For best effect, I’d recommend that this “honour being in question” situation is triggered upon offering the gift, acceptance not being an issue yet. Einar, of course, managed to implicitly get Egil’s acceptance by delivering it to his house when he wasn’t home, but ostensibly even the offering of a too-rich or too-poor gift between equals could be problematic, especially if done in public. Acceptance is what triggers the Bond exchange, however.

Also consider that a way to more safely pass gifts would be to use wives or other women as proxies. This can’t just be a messenger, of course – the gift must be the woman’s to give to begin with. In Einar’s case, should he truly wish for Egil to have his shield without fear of repercussion, he could have first given the shield to his wife as part of a dower, and later had his wife give the shield to Egil. As women are exempt from the rules of honour, there’d be no implicit impact to Egil’s status – if anything, the bond between their families would only get stronger as a result. Of course, rather than a Bond between Einar and Egil, this complex exchange would result in a Bond between Einar and his wife, and Einar’s wife and Egil. In this way, rich, complex, culturally sensitive gifting actually contributes to the creation of strong communities.

So how do we interpret Egil’s response in game terms? I think when Egil realized his honour was in question (which was probably Egil’s, not Einar’s, player’s call), he rolled +gendered and came up with a 7-9: your word is not enough but they will offer you a way to prove it. Egil can’t just laugh it off, but the two can continue to be close-enough-to-equals for as long as Egil writes a lush poem about Einar’s shield (as he did), and Einar will keep up appearances in the future despite his mis(?)-step to honour their friendship.

The story concludes with Egil “accidentally” dropping the shield into a tub of sour whey at a wedding, requiring the gold filigree to be removed and effectively ruining it. I’m personally not convinced this was an accident.

Damn I love this game so much.

Tagging Rachel E.S. Walton, Judd Karlman, Daniel Levine (who’s reading the same book), and Gregor Vuga, Jason Morningstar, and Paul Beakley for obvious reasons. Feedback is appreciated.

http://www.northvegr.org/sagas%20annd%20epics/icelandic%20family%20sagas/egils%20saga/083.html

Did you know Clarissa Baut Stetson and Jason Morningstar made the best playbooks for Sagas of the Icelanders?

Originally shared by Keith Stetson

Did you know Clarissa Baut Stetson and Jason Morningstar made the best playbooks for Sagas of the Icelanders? S’truth!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0Nn_OAO6qmzaXl2Mzh4WEFVQlE/view?usp=sharing

Any tips on how to use the Voelva move from the Seidkona ?

Is the MC supposed to take the vision described by the player and make it happen ? Or just take it as a broad direction to follow as reasonably possible ? Something else entirely ?

Thanks in advance.

After three game sessions, I was thinking about posting a review here, but I changed my mind and will be posting…

After three game sessions, I was thinking about posting a review here, but I changed my mind and will be posting only this:

1. When I presented SotI to my brother: he takes a look “Oh come on, another of your hipster games! No way we are going to play this. Look at this art! Its silly, man! Besides that, we already have that Yggdrasill on line and thats so much more gorgeous and beautiful! Its certainly must be a better game! “

2. After a couple bottles of beer, he decides to hear me describe a little of the game to him. “Hmmm.. so youre saying we will be a clan of sorts just like in King of Dragon Pass ? And we will be totally free to manage our lands, bick our neighbours, plunder far lands, etc as we wish ? And the rules activelly support this kind of freeform open-ended gameplay ? Hmmm.. I admit this sounds neat”

3. Three short, experimental sessions later: “Wow… thats… huh…. Im speechless! This is like anything we have played before! Its like a totally different evolutionary path from the kind of RPGs we are used to play. Here its like the rules reinforce the narrative or something! Its so liberating and fun ! I cant see myself going back to our Shadowrun and D&D tables! ….in fact, I will tell you: THIS IS THE BEST GAME I’VE EVER PLAYED!”

Hehehe. I just happen to agree with him. Im even liking this more than Apocalypse World. So, thanks Gregor Vuga . You just made a couple brothers very happy. (oh, and thanks Daniele Di Rubbo too for some great clarifications and insights on the rules! 😉 )

I am confused about the playbooks around, in particular by the existence of so many dead links.

I am confused about the playbooks around, in particular by the existence of so many dead links. Which ones should I use if I don’t really care about beautiful looks or exotic playbooks, but I would appreciate updated rules if there were any changes towards the better?

Concerning hólmganga duels

Concerning hólmganga duels

[This was originally a comment on this post (https://plus.google.com/112509706035121254690/posts/G2Nvyamvmzv). I’m coping it here because a main post is easier to find.]

Well, one cannot say that the rulebook does not speak about this topic (see pp. 130-131):

– – –

Hólmganga duels

Duels were a way to resolve disputes and court cases or most commonly a way for a man to avenge his honour. If a man or their family was insulted, he could (and usually would) challenge the insulting party to a duel. Hólmganga translates as “island walk” and it might mean the duels were originally fought on islets. The more common and well-documented way is to stake out a piece of ground with a large cloak or hide (or perhaps hazel rods). The demarcated area was square and about three meters on the side. Each man had three shields they could use. If a shield broke, they could replace it until they were left without protection.

Duels were originally fought to the death, but having both feet outside the marked area (willingly or not) counted as a loss as well. Over time, the duels became more symbolic and less brutal. Berserks or professional duelists often abused the earlier, less-regulated form of duels as a kind of legalized robbery or murder, first laying claim to something and then proving their ownership through this ritual practice.

You can run a duel with the rules as they are. Use the ‘accept a physical challenge’ move to resolve blows and other manoeuvres and the armour move to take the three-shield rule into account. Additionally, you can tweak things a bit with the following move.

When you endure grave harm during a hólmganga duel, you can decide to step or fall back out of the square and lose the duel. You endure no harm if you do so.

– – –

In our Icelandic saga, +Talisa Tavella’s shield maiden fought in two duels and +Nikitas Thlimmenos’ man fought in one duel.

One of the first issue you have to deal with, when it comes to hólmganga duels in your Sagas of the Icelanders game, is how much importance you should give to weapons, armours and other warrior-stuff.

This is important, since you have some additional moves on the pp. 127-128, which revolves around weapons in detail. Of course, you are not forced to use them, as the rulebook says (p. 127):

– – –

The following moves are not considered core to the game, but you can add them to give weapons and armour more significance in your play.

– – –

In our saga, we choose to not use them, because it would have put an extra weight and narrative relevance to weapons, which we didn’t think necessary. Of course, you can choose otherwise and, in that case, remember to also apply those rules.

So, we have these two people (usually two men) on a relatively narrow piece of land, who are armed with some kind of weapon (a sword, an axe, a hammer, a spear, etc.) and three shields. And you have to manage that situation with nothing more than the basic moves and that additional move for “when you endure grave harm during a hólmganga duel”.

To show oneself on the land of the duel without appropriate weapons and/or without one or more shields (remember you need three shields) could likely cause your character to have his honour in question (if he is a man). His opponent could likely refuse to fight against a man without proper weapons and armour (otherwise his honour would be in question, too).

If you fight an opponent who comes to the duel without proper equipment, a goði could be persuaded to declare your duel illegal and blame you for the unlawful murder of another person (resulting in full outlawry). If you come to a duel without what you need to fight it, the people who came as witnesses could consider the duel lost by forfeit by you, even without any blood is shed, and of course your honour will be in question (all the dales nearby would speak of your bloop).

If you are a woman, one of the first issues is to convince someone else to accept to duel with you (if he is a man, his honour would be in question, unless you convince a goði to decree that it is fair to duel with you – and good luck with that!). If you come to a duel land without proper weapons and shields, you honour would not be in question, but your opponent would never fight against you (if he is a man of honour; otherwise he could kill you outright and face the consequences, likely full outlawry) and the duel would be won by forfeit by him. Of course, the people around would say that you were just a woman and you should have not engaged in such things as a duel.

But, let’s say both of you are in a duel with your weapon of choice and your three shields. You should face this situation like any other situation in the game. Start with a soft move:

“Vigdis, the boy in front of you is young, but it seems he can handle a sword: he makes rapid steps towards you and tries to take a blow to you with his sword. He aims to your belly. What do you do?”

“Oh, gods, I won’t kill him: he’s just a boy and he doesn’t know how wrong it was for him to defy me. But I know he did it only to keep his and his father’s honour. I deflect his blow with my spear, when he is very close to me, and, with all the weight of my body, I try to throw him beyond the hólmganga sacred boundary with both of his feet.”

“Ok, it seems you are tempting the fate.” [Vigdis is a shield-maiden and cannot accept a physical challenge.]

“So it seems. Whoops, I rolled an 8.”

“Well, you do it, but the Fates take a bond with you. The boy is clearly overconfident and cannot believe it, when you block his sword with your spear. After that, it’s just a matter of lever and force: you make him lose his balance and end with both of his feet beyond the duel boundary.”

“Hurrrah for Vigdis the White, the shield-maiden!”

“Hurrah for you! It seems no man, from now on, will take lightly the choice of duelling with you. Oh, and we should not forget that: how do you think the Fates are going to take a bond with you?”

“Well, it was that morning. I went to Helga, the seiðkona, and asked her how could I won the duel with the son of Koll. She told me I had to catch a hare and sacrifice it to the will of the Three. I did it and, now, I guess I have their attention.”

“Interesting! That’s something we could build on during the following scenes. Maybe you could change one of your relationships to one with Helga, at the beginning of the following session.”

“Hey, I already have one!”

“Whoops! I should take a note!”

And so on.

We had a duel between Vigdis, a shield-maiden, a female PC, and Hrolf Kollsson, a young male NPC, son of a former huscarl, now dead by the hand of Vigdis.

Here you can also see that you can resolve a duel with a single move. Just remember the moves, in Sagas of the Icelanders don’t imply nothing about the detail of the actions of the PCs. In Apocalypse World this was explained plainly. I cannot find something similar also in Sagas of the Icelanders, but I really think this apply to this game as well (Apocalypse World, pp. 121-122):

– – –

Elide the action sometimes, and zoom in on its details other times. Play out a battle in precise and exacting detail, but in the middle of it say “so they keep you both pinned down there until nightfall.” Sometimes pick one session up in the moments where the last left off, other times let days or weeks pass in between.

This goes for moves, too. Making a dash under fire might mean crossing 3 meters of open ground in view of one of Dremmer’s snipers, it might mean crossing 100 meters of broken ground with his gang arrayed thereupon, it might mean crossing the whole damned burn flat with Dog Head and his grinning-dingo cannibals in pursuit. Let the moves expand and contract in time, all through the range from their smallest logical limit to their greatest.

– – –

So, what are you going to do? Are you playing detailed duel, breaking shield after shield, until someone dies first or is put out of the area of the duel with both of their feet, or are you watching the duel with a bird’s eye view.

A duelling male could accept a physical challenge to resolve an entire duel, but he could also make the same move, trying to shatter his opponent’s first (or last) shield. Always clarify the circumstances of the situation in the fiction and what the character is doing which triggers his move.

You, as the MC, should be aware of these choice you have and always ask yourself: “What can I do to be a better fan of the characters? How can I make the players’ characters’ circumstances worthy of a saga?

That’s the secret. Nothing more. 😉

Some doubts that came up while reading the book:

1. How women deal with violence in terms of moves ? I undestand men have “Accept physical challenge” for this, but how about women ? Do they have to straight “Tempt fate” ?

2. How do you guys run combat between two players, like a duel/Holmganga ? Assuming the fictional positioning is balanced (same weapon range, ground level, etc), do you ask both to “Endure grave harm” straight away ? Or ask them to “Accept physical challenge” first, and only then ask for “Enduring grave harm” depending on the outcomes ? Or some other way ?

Thanks!

Does someone know of a SKALD playbook ? If so, please, lemme know.

I was trying to scratch some ideas to create this playbook and came up with the following analysis: from the “core” roles, The Man and the Woman are the clan providers, The Godi and Matriarch are the clan “controllers”, and the Huscarl and Shieldmaiden are the clan warriors. That makes the Seidkona a kind of a lone clan “troublemaker” (kind of the opposite from Matriarch and Godi). So it seems natural that the Skald could be a good “pair” to the Seidkona in the troublemakers role. What do you guys think ?

Going further, I envisioned the following moves for the Skald:

– an “insult-amplifying” one

– a reputation boosting poem (for someone else)

– a silvertongue/female seduction one (think the trouble this ould cause!)

– a silver earning one (though chanting/poems reciting sessions)

– a morale boosting one (+1 forward for challenges ?)

– dead praising poem (allows bond use for increasing chance of Valhalla/gaining 3 hold after death for killed characters)

– if someone asks if you are saying the truth, the answer is always yes

Thats more or less it. houghts ? 🙂