Maneuvers and Suaven Blessings as Aspects

[Judd_of_Kryos]

I'm on my second campaign and both Maneuvers and Blessings have been nearly overlooked in both games. Maneuvers, it seems to me, have no place in a system like Blooded, where narration is so up in the air.

Blessings, while potent, really make creating NPC's on the fly difficult.

So, eff 'em both, I'm strongly tempted to just have them both be additional aspects.

Characters would start with one Aspect for their martial prowess, their relationship with the sword and one Aspect for their relationship with the Suaven.

[wunderworks]

Gods Above! Thank you Judd.

Seriously, your post is like a message from the August Personage of Jade himself whispering his honeyed words of sweet enlightenment into my earthly ears.

Let me back up. I've been working on a game (Legends of Piracy) that uses an aspect system. Unfortunately, I've been struggling with crunchy bits (sword maneuvers) vs. grand gestures (regular aspects). I think you're right though. I think I have enough for players to go on with what I've worked out - without having to create a whole crunchy set of layers on top of that. ^_^


Thank You.

[JohnWick]

I am curious to see where you go with this. Keep us up to date.

[Ashkelion-Yvarai]

I'm on my second campaign and both Maneuvers and Blessings have been nearly overlooked in both games. Maneuvers, it seems to me, have no place in a system like Blooded, where narration is so up in the air.

I think that Sorcery, Maneuvers and Blessings offer three powerful subsystems. Each of these systems can be used as a "power base": Sorcerer vs. Duelist vs. Priest. They give the ven three very different flavors to chose from. So, removing two of the three systems might change the dynamic of the game. But I am still running my first campaign as well as playing my first campaign, so I can't really judge on the difference.

Blessings, while potent, really make creating NPC's on the fly difficult.

Why? Most NPC start off without any style points. Without style points, they cannot use blessings. So you have all the time between two game sessions to stat up the blessings of a character.

So, eff 'em both, I'm strongly tempted to just have them both be additional aspects.

I'd be interested in hearing how you do this.

Characters would start with one Aspect for their martial prowess, their relationship with the sword and one Aspect for their relationship with the Suaven.

So that would grant the character a three dice bonus on duels and/or mass murder, give their opponent a two dice tag to use said maneuver against him, and compel a character to martial prowess?

Same goes for blessings. A character could gain a three dice bonus on risks related to the suaven s/he worships, an opponent could get a two dice from tagging the aspect and compel the character to behave in accordance with his/her believe?

Funny. For suaven a could see this working. Sounds like a good way to model devotion to the suaven. Will this aspect then rank from one to five (or up to the suaven rank)? This way, you could define one aspect for each greater suaven and each suaven later introduced into the game. I like that.

[Judd_of_Kryos]

They absolutely are powerful sub-systems. I am not saying they aren't but to my mind they are too power.

In my play experience, NPC's gain Style Points pretty quickly. Also, in my experience, when PC's have won duels and Mass Murders, they have done so with Blessings. I like the even playing field of the Aspects for everyone. It is one less thing to memorize.

With the maneuvers, it doesn't gibe in my brain-meats how you have this system with wagers, where you can gain a spoonfull of narrative control but then you've got these bits on your character sheet telling you how you can swing your sword. I am all for creative constraints but it doesn't fit with how dueling has worked at the tables I have played at.

My first instinct is to use these as straight-up Aspects. I'd rather model a character's devotion to the Suaven through their creation of shrines and their relationship to the Suaven itself, as in their interaction with them and their priesthood. If the character wants to show their devotion through the system, they can gain more aspects reflecting that suaven, and build shrines via season actions.

So that would grant the character a three dice bonus on duels and/or mass murder, give their opponent a two dice tag to use said maneuver against him, and compel a character to martial prowess?

Same goes for blessings. A character could gain a three dice bonus on risks related to the suaven s/he worships, an opponent could get a two dice from tagging the aspect and compel the character to behave in accordance with his/her believe?

That really is not how Aspects have shaken out at my table. It is not a straight up 3 for me, 2 for you affair. Aspects can only be tagged if the character knows they are there or has used a special power to gain their knowledge. I like that knowing your foe gives you dice; that works for me but it is a rare fight where every aspect dice exchange is 3 for me and 2 for you. There is a matter of context and the knowing.

The main reason I'm tinkering with this house-rule, is because Blooded is terrifically dense already. These two things are great but in the context of the greater whole, they feel like the fat that can easily be trimmed.

But we'll see, see what my players think of it and see how it works at the table.

[Ashkelion-Yvarai]

So that would grant the character a three dice bonus on duels and/or mass murder, give their opponent a two dice tag to use said maneuver against him, and compel a character to martial prowess?

Same goes for blessings. A character could gain a three dice bonus on risks related to the suaven s/he worships, an opponent could get a two dice from tagging the aspect and compel the character to behave in accordance with his/her believe?

That really is not how Aspects have shaken out at my table. It is not a straight up 3 for me, 2 for you affair. Aspects can only be tagged if the character knows they are there or has used a special power to gain their knowledge. I like that knowing your foe gives you dice; that works for me but it is a rare fight where every aspect dice exchange is 3 for me and 2 for you. There is a matter of context and the knowing.

I was a bit brief here My description is reduced to the purely mechanical aspects. I haven't taken into account the context and knowing in my description. I just wanted to be brief

The main reason I'm tinkering with this house-rule, is because Blooded is terrifically dense already. These two things are great but in the context of the greater whole, they feel like the fat that can easily be trimmed.

But we'll see, see what my players think of it and see how it works at the table.

I agree with you on the dense part, as well as maneuvers at least being a "strange" subsystem considering the narrative freedom players enjoy. Before introducing maneuvers, we had some very lively duels. Suddenly, you need to know the right maneuver to do stuff you could do with wagers in the demo game. Doesn't quite fit.

I am very interested in this, because I would consider using such a system as you propose. Therefore, I'd like to hear more details about this.

[JohnWick]

The main reason I'm tinkering with this house-rule, is because Blooded is terrifically dense already. These two things are great but in the context of the greater whole, they feel like the fat that can easily be trimmed.

I agree that a lot of the mechanics outside the core mechanic can be trimmed. The Suaven in particular should be mysterious and out of the players' hands. Something they can't control, but still has influence over their lives.

In my own game, the Suaven are very mysterious and have powers the players don't understand. They do things outside the rules. They break the rules. And they do so in very scary ways.

Every Narrator has to figure out the Suaven themselves.

[scudmore]

I was thinking along the same lines. I'll be starting a game soon, and I don't particularly want to tell my players "You can use a wager to say one thing that happens. Except you can't say that you dodge, parry, disarm your opponent, grab the other guy, or take a step. You have to 'level up' first."

I might keep some of the maneuvers in but say anyone can do any of them, as long as they spend the right number of wagers. So it costs two wagers to disarm your opponent, and so on.

[Jaellot]

I kinda like the Maneuvers, but then again they remind me of the Swordsman School Knacks from 7th Sea.

I would also say if you want to allow your players to use Style/Wagers to Disarm and so forth, do it. Don't let the printed mechanics bog you down, just do it.

For an example, I spend a Wager to Disarm Count Chocula, he then replies in kind "But you drop your sword as well" or "And as it flies across the room your friend catches it, with his face" and so on back and forth.

Just keep in mind the Veto rule. I would think the Maneuvers, while requiring varying numbers of Wagers, aren't simply spending Style to accomplish something, they are determined effects within the game, and probably can't be Vetoed like Style.

[jeffszusz]

I like the idea of having access to all the maneuvers, but spending wagers or style to use them. It gels with me.