Hi. Nice work on this new ‘edition’! I’ve been looking at the various playbooks and I just want to give you a little feedback while I go through them.

Specifically, I wanted to bring your attending to the Paladin’s “I am the law” move. As it stands, it does very little for the player. In particular, the choices presented are more of a hinderance than anything. I understand that they are there to work with Judge and Jury, which happens to be just as clanky. It might be hard to keep the balance between moves and this has the possibility to upset things are than most, but I feel you should consider revising it.

Oh, as a side note, perhaps you could bundle together the devout virtues and the chains of faith moves, to reduce clutter even further.

5 thoughts on “Hi.”

  1. Alessandro Ussia​ Firstly, thanks for taking the time to give us some feedback.

    Devout Virtue and Chains of Faith are seperate moves by necessity, sadly! It’s partly to keep things readable, but mostly because the formatting wouldn’t allow for all the presented Virtue options AND the Chains text in the same column.

    On I Am The Law, it actually does quite a lot; the NPC doesn’t get to bargain or convince the Paladin otherwise, and certain options are going to be really bad for certain NPCs (e.g. an unskilled commoner deciding to fight you). It represents a very distinct force of will that we feel is appropriate to the class; if we were to revise it, what would you propose it be revised to?

  2. I’ve had that I Am The Law issue with players before. Maybe it’s a presentation issue? “I am the law” sounds like something that would stop people in their tracks, something that can’t be defied. But they can attack or run. Maybe it’s more of a drawing a line in the sand or calling people’s bluff.

  3. After much consideration, I must say it makes sense the way you structured. As Will pointed out, it might be a presentation issue.

    If I were to modify it, I would go like this:

    I am the Law

    When you give an NPC an order based on your righteous authority, roll+CHA. On a hit, the NPC has three choices (the GM will choose one):

    ● They’ll do what you say.

    ● They’ll back away cautiously, then flee.

    ● They’ll attack you.

    – on a 7+, choose one option among the three proposed. You take +1 forward against them if they take a course of action other than the one you indicated.

    – on a 10+, you choose a second option. Take +1 ongoing against them for the scene if they take that second course of action.

    On a 6-, your confidence is shaken. In addition to whatever the GM says, you take -1 Forward against them.

    Judge and Jury

    When you use I Am the Law, on a 12+, you may choose a third option from the list. The GM can’t choose that option.

    This is a bit more powerful, but it really adds to the idea that the enemy has no good options but to comply. On the other hand, it is probably more convoluted than it needs to be, so your version might be the better one. I’ll still post my own as a brainstorming exercise.

  4. Seems less potent to me, actually – it’s a nice idea, though, conceptually. That said, I do have issue with the somewhat gamey “you chose this, so I’ll choose that instead” response it’s likely to result in, along with the complexity of the 10+ result being the opposite benefit of the 7-9 result.

    We’ll probably stick to the current “you’re restricted to these options, GM!” approach for the move.

  5. I would also leave it as is, except rename it “Line in the Sand” or “Call Their Bluff”. I just think the title is misleading. Or possibly “Force Their Hand”

Comments are closed.