Playing Fantasy for Real

pemerton

Legend
Last week I GMed an online session of Fantasy For Real. I'd bought the rules the evening before - thankfully they're quite short, and so I'd been able to read them.

I was expecting to be a player rather than GM, and so had written up a PC. But when the three of us logged on, after a quick discussion there was an agreed change of responsibilities: and so I GMed while the other two played.

We started by doing our respective prep.

For players, that means creating a character. PC build is pretty straightforward:

*PCs start with Base 3. This is a like a mixture of hit points and RQ-esque Power.​

*PCs start with Pool 3. This is something like karma/spirit/reserves/"oomph" - by default it's probably meta-currency, but nothing stops it being given in-game flavour.​

*The player rolls a d6 to see whether their PC is a Goblin (which, as per the rulebook, may be "anywhere in the range from elfy-fairy to ogre-orc" or a human "as known and loved". The chance of each is 50/50.​

*The player picks a name for their PC, and also a pithy descriptive phrase to give a sense of role/theme/genre for the character (the rules have some examples, but they are just that - examples); and picks two bits of noteworthy gear from a short list, and then briefly describes their character, including where they’re from (this requires the GM to share part of their prep, as I'll explain below).​

*The only technical bit of PC creation is choosing skills. There is a list of 14 skills, and each skill is rated at one of 3 levels of expertise: Not Great, OK, and Great:

^Athletics, Convince, Fight, Magic, Money, Normal Lore, Outdoors, Sneak and Speed all default to OK;​

^Arts & Crafts, Culture, Elan, Ranged Weapons and Weird Lore all default to Not Great.​

As part of build, the player can shift as many skills as they want: but lifting a skill up one level requires shifting a different skill down. The skills themselves are mostly self-explanatory: the rules provide a brief description of what falls under each of Culture, Normal Lore and Weird Lore; explain how Convince works against NPCs and clarifies that it doesn't work on PCs; and explain Speed and Elan.​

The action resolution rules are also fairly simple, and are based around skill tests (with magic as an exception - see below). When a character has their PC do a thing that invokes a skill, a test is made. The GM rolls a d6, and on an odd number the test succeeds; otherwise it fails. However, if the skill is rated Not Great then failure is automatic with no test rolled unless the player spends a Pool point; and if the skill is rated Great then on a success the player can spend a Pool point for extra effect.

Success means the PC does the thing they tried to do; failure means some sort of adverse change in the situation. And on a failure, the player also gains a Pool point.

A final, and important, component of PC creation is the player's choice to create a "picklet" for their character. As the rules explain, this is "a specific relationship, goal, or other personal concern: such as "a rivalry to resolve, a non-negotiable task, a specific monetary need, a mission of vengeance, a rescue, a romantic complication, a family obligation, a magic trinket to find, etc".

Elan is a curious skill, with three uses: first, it defends against ranged attacks (that's it most straightforward use); second, it is used by a player to bring their PC back into play if taken out (see more below on how combat works); and third, it can be used once per seen to bring the PC's picklet into play - a bit like Circles or Wises in Burning Wheel. When this is done, the picklet automatically is established as an element of the situation, but on a success the content the player wanted is present to the PC's advantage; whereas on a failure the content is not present in the immediate situation, and the character gets into some sort of trouble.

Elan can also be used in that third way to create new picklets during play.

It's interesting that Elan is, by default, Not Great. I think the incentive to make it at least OK is quite high; but only one of our two PCs had OK Elan.

Here is @thefutilist's PC, an Elf-y Goblin:

NAME: Verly​
SUMMARY AND DESCRIPTION: An incorrigible bounder, from the Elven city of Syenis​

GREAT SKILLS: Athletics, Fight​
OK SKILLS: Arts & Crafts, Convince, Normal Lore, Sneak, Speed​
NOT GREAT SKILLS: Culture, Elan, Magic, Money, Outdoors, Ranged Weapons, Weird Lore​

GEAR:​
A decent weapon (Elven thinblade)​
Fancy Elven clothes, inappropriate for the climate (black and white fur coat)​

PICKLET: To apologise to a former lover​

And here is @Manbearcat's character, a more goblin-y Goblin:

NAME, SUMMARY AND DESCRIPTION: Zirgly the (footloose) Goblin exile from the Dead Lands (where worship of my goodly god Zyrr the Vigilant is outlawed)​

GREAT SKILLS: Fight​
OK SKILLS: Athletics, Convince, Elan, Magic, Outdoors, Speed, Weird Lore​
NOT GREAT SKILLS: Arts & Crafts, Culture, Money, Normal Lore, Ranged Weapons, Sneak​

GEAR:​
A decent weapon (a mace with its head carved with the Unblinking Eye)​
Light armour​

PICKLET: Zyrr the Vigilant has charged me with finding the ancient, broken temple in his name and restarting the faith​


For the GM, prep is about establishing setting and latent situation.

The rulebook has a list of five fantasy places - a terrible swamp, a feudal kingdom, a fantastic desert, etc - each with about 50 words description including an account of how humans and Goblins fit in. The GM chooses one, then sketches a map and comes up with basic ideas about animals, culture and society (including money). As the rules put it, the GM should "daydream about the inhabitants’ ways of life, the look-and-feel of being there, and a sense of culture", and should "Consider the basics of any social location, beginning with animals and money". The GM is also directed to come up with a list of 10 personal names, to be used for NPCs.

The GM shares all of the above with the players.

I had to prepare in a hurry (I think I took 10 minutes or so), and so I wanted to short-cut as much as possible. I started with The White Wastes,

a baking hot, blinding expanse, where veiled human nomads ride brilliant-scaled reptiles, and lean and mean rawboned goblins stalk around, not averse to human meat. All revere the Temple of the Great Zero, whatever that might be.​

I told the players I was thinking of Dark Sun, swords-and-sandals with kanks and tharks and also creatures like kruthiks part-way between reptiles and insects. And that I would use the name list from In A Wicked Age. As I kept working on prep, @Manbearcat found a Dark Sun-y map online and drew in a Nile-like river (that I had mentioned as part of my conception of the setting). The start of play requires specifying a "specific location" although there is a bit of flexibility in that respect (see more below). Here is the map we used, with the red circle showing the starting location that we all agreed on:

White Wastes (location).png


The crucial bit of GM prep, which the GM does not share with the players, is creating the pickle - that is, the starting situation that, together with the PCs' picklets, will drive play. This is done procedurally - first, roll a d6 to determine how many elements, and then roll a d6 for each element. The elements are specified in general terms, but with a couple of pages of advice on how to flesh them out.

Naturally, I rolled a 6 on my first roll, and so had to roll for and flesh out 6 elements in the pickle:

*A dangerous circumstance, namely, that the vizier of Nibenay (Natan) is trying to wake the Great Dragon;

*Another dangerous circumstance, namely, that crops are dying;

*A conflict, namely, that the Prince of Tyr (Nyr-Ayyaand) and the Queen of Gulg (Ubalnu) are sleeping together;

*A substance, namely the intoxicating cherry lotus powder;

*Another substance, namely, the silt from the Sea of Silt, blown on the wind and killing the crops;

*Magic, namely, the Saying of Dire Revelation, centred on the pyramid in Nibenay, which means that when one person says "tell me" (or some synonym of that) to another, the other must answer truthfully.​

The last of those was my first brush with the magic system, which serves three functions: for setting up magical elements in the pickle; for establishing "trinkets" (ie the system's version of magic items); and for resolving PC use of magic. There are a series of tables, which are lists of words from one to four or more syllables - Type (d10), Object (d100), Author (d8), Colour/Metal (d12) and Adjective (d100). When you need a magical effect, you choose the tables to roll on - 3 for a trinket or the pickle; equal to Base for a PC's spell - and that gives you the spell's name (words like "the" and "and" and "of" can be interpolated as required). The number of syllables in the name (ignoring the interpolated words) determines the spell's strength, in accordance with a few extra rules and charts.

The in-fiction rationale for this as a method of spell-casting is that "Everyone has memorized some spells at some point. This is the one you remember at this particular moment, and once cast, it goes away, poof, out of your mind."

There is no test required to use Magic (though if a PC's skill is Not Great, they still need to spend a Pool point to cast a spell), but the GM is given a lot of licence to decide the effects of magic, especially when, as the rulebook puts it,

A lot of magic in a single scene interacts: examine the name and strength of each spell, as they will affect one another – the more surreal and bizarre, the better.​

For my magical element in the pickle, I rolled a Type ("Saying"), an Object ("Revelation") and an Adjective ("Dire"). Hence The Saying of Dire Revelation. I then specified its effect based on that name.


With PCs and setting done, and the pickle information noted on my scrap of paper, it was time to establish starting situations. Both PCs had their homes off the map (to the west), and so we knew they would be far from home. The rules state that "All of the characters already know one another and are at least marginally invested in one another’s well-being. They may or may not know the others are present." The players agreed that Verly had met Zirgly while travelling in Klad, the City of Thieves; and Zirgly had subsequently heard rumours of Verly in his travels, from multiple "dalliances".

The rules then tell "each player to say what their character is doing and where, then test a relevant skill" with success meaning that the character is where the play says they are, and failure (i) earning the player a Pool point and (ii) meaning that the GM says where the PC is, with it not being safe or good for the character. Then the GM establishes each character's immediate situation.

We had one success and one failure for the starting situation - Zirgley was a success (and so was crossing the Tablelands, looking for food and water) and Verly a failure (and so was in the jaws of a kruthik that was also looking for food and water).

I'll do a second post for how the session actually unfolded.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


I narrated Zirgley cresting a dune, and seeing two Kruthiks, one with Verly held in its mandibles. Zirgley's Athletics test to run/slide down the dune and rescue Verly was a success, and we played out a combat. This uses the basic test system, with an action order (NPCs go first, but players can test Speed to go ahead in the action order; failure puts the PC to the end) and players defending against NPC attacks, and then making their own attacks, with damage accruing to Base (NPCs have Base rolled on d6, with a minimum of 3).

For PCs, reduction of Base to zero means that subsequent damage is to Pool. When a PC is dropped to zero in both, they are "out". When a NPC's Base is dropped to zero they are out or driven off - a player may spend a Pool point to take them out permanently. (In our session we didn't remember this rule, and when killing in combat happened it was by way of spending a Pool point on Great Fighting, for extra effect).

The PCs were victorious against the kruthiks - Verly escaped the mandibles, but with her fancy clothes ruined; and Zirgly drove off the kruthiks. One or both PCs may have lost a point of Base here, I think (but can't properly remember).


Fantasy For Real doesn't have a broader structure for actions and framing - unlike, say, The Grid in Torchbearer or Days and Phases in Mythic Bastionland. And that means that my notes from the session are a bit sketchier than the notes I generate when GMing those other games. So I can't remember all the details of procedure in what happened next.

What I do remember is that the PCs saw, on the horizon, a merchant wagon being pulled by kanks. This may have been the result of a successful Outdoors test, or may have been framing by me - I can't recall now. @Manbearcat made a test, looking for some sign on the wagon that showed it was connected to Zyrr the Vigilant. I remember what I narrated, and therefore I think this test - which was successful - must have been on Weird Lore and not Elan: as the wind blew, a cloth that was tied across the top of the wagon came loose on the far side, and flapped up with the sun shining behind it - and Zirgly could see that the cloth was golden yellow in colour, emblazoned with a red unblinking eye.

The PCs hurried to reach the wagon, but the Athletics test failed, and I narrated the wind picking up and blowing a great cloud of sand and silt, making it impossible for them to reach or even to see the wagon. At this point @Manbearcat must have made another test, on Elan, to bring his picklet into the situation: because the cloth blew through the storm towards the PCs. But (again, per my imperfect memory) it was buried in sand.

I made a bit of a mis-play at this point, as I used the trinket rules to establish the cloth as possessing the Uncertain Call of Azure whereas I think that, by the rules, this is meant to be player-side rather than GM side. The players graciously went along with my mistake: Zirgly persuaded Verly to dig it out (successful Athletics test) and with her Great Athletics Verly kept digging and found water beneath it. (By application of my prior determination of the cloth's magical nature.)

Zirgly tried to study the cloth further (with Weird Lore, which is the trinket activation skill), but failed.

Their thirst slaked, the PCs trekked across the Tabelands and around the eastern side of the mountains to Nibenay. I'll write up the Nibenay action in a further post.
 

As the PCs walked into Nibenay, they could see that the crops were failing - many of the leaves that should have been green were rusty red-brown. They could see small pyramids of clay bricks, a bit more than a human head high, and (I think with some sort of Lore test) realised that these marked where slaves were being sacrificed to try and lift the blight on the crops.

At one of these small pyramids, Zirgly confronted the priestess Larsa. Initially she was hostile, as Zirgly was disparaging the local religious practices. At some point in the conversation, someone asked someone else to tell them something, and so I introduced the Dire Saying of Revelation.

There was a fight between Larsa and Verly, which involved Verly stopping her from speaking so that she couldn't speak her word of power (NPCs don't have mechanical weapons or attacks in this system, so I was following my Dark Sun instincts in narrating Larsa's attacks). And Zirgly cast a spell - which was the beginning of @Manbearcat's love affair with the magic system! The spell was Vatz's Severe and Twisted Blessing - it caused Larsa's body to be wracked with contortions and spasm, as she knelt down and abased herself before Zirgly, becoming temporarily cooperative with the PCs.

Somewhere about this point there were a couple of Elan tests made in relation to picklets, which I think may have been in conversation with Larsa at least on Zirgly's part: for Zirgly this succeeded, and it was established that Natan was from a long line of Zyrr cultists, and that the ancient temple was in the great pyramid. (Some of this backstory may also have emerged as a result of the Dire Saying compelling Larsa to speak the truth.)

In Verly's case, it's not clear that we quite followed the rules properly: the test was to establish that Natan was Verly's lover to whom an apology was owed, but it failed. And so I suggested that it was rather Ubalnu to whom the apology was owed, and that Natan was the one to whom Ubalnu had turned after she was wronged by Verly. It's not clear that this sort of negotiation over backstory is actually within the scope of the picklet rules (but given the rules for introducing new picklets, is not obviously out-of-bounds either), but @thefutilist went along with it.

Larsa, "blessed", agreed to take the PCs to the great pyramid to meet Natan. As they walked through the streets of the city, they could see that - with no crops to work, and little hope - many of the people of Nibenay had turned to cherry lotus powder for solace. Little work was being done, and the streets were fall of sand and silt, and buildings were falling into disrepair. (In narrating this, I drew upon my memories of the third Earthsea book, The Farthest Shore, and the use of an intoxicant plant in the seaport in that story.)

A group sitting in a doorway invited Verly to partake, and she did. Another role on Elan for her picklet was made here, but again it failed. Verly could sense Ubalnu but could not communicate with her: rather, she was aware that Ubalnu was in the climactic throes of passion with another (the Prince of Tyr).

Also, around this point, one of the players - I think @Manbearcat - invoked the trinket rules in relation to the cherry lotus powder. The magical effect being attempted was determined to be the Comforting Powder of Argent Excruciation. But the Weird Lore test failed, and so no effect was achieved: as I put it to the player, there was an obvious error from the get-go given that cherry lotus powder is red-purple, not silver!

The PCs came to the pyramid: I described a scene of chanting priests and congregants. The blessing on Larsa was wearing off, and they decided to sneak through to Natan's chambers- Verly thought she knew a secret side-way that could get them there. This test was successful, and the characters found themselves on a high side-ledge, looking down onto Natan performing his ritual in the central temple chamber of the pyramid: he was walking around an altar on which sat a statue of the Great Dragon, chanting, waving censors, sprinkling it from an aspergillum, and gently squeezing fluids onto it from sacramental cloths dipped in holy liquids.

Zirgly leapt down and confronted Natan. Natan explained what he was awakening the Great Dragon. Zirgly cast another spell, Bisbane's Blessing of Manic Negation, to calm Natan. I don't recall all the details here, but Zirgly had a crisis of faith and looked to Verly for guidance - because she was the one who had recovered the cloth in the desert, and had found water, and thus to date had been only the true conduit between Zyrr the Vigilant and Zirgly. Verly expressed her opposition to Natan, and joined the fray - with her thinblade and her Great Fighting she severed Natan's head from his shoulders.

Somewhere along the way here, Zirgly was dropped to both Body and Pool zero, by Natan's words of power. But a successful Elan test brought him back into the scene:

If you’re brought to 0/0 by violence, fail a test in deadly circumstances, or are caught by an appalling spell, the GM describes it almost entirely, leaving some ambiguity or “cutting away” at that last moment.

To stay in the adventure, test Elan whenever your character would have an action.​

And also somewhere along the way here, Zirgly had changed his mind, and wanted Natan's advice after all. He used another spell - The Covert Jellied Eyeballs - to preserve Natan's head for a short time and permit him to communicate telepathically. Natan shared more of this plans, about how only the Dragon - trapped beneath the pyramid - could fly to the Sea of Silt and stop the storms that were killing the crops.

Verly apologised for the head-severing, and then left the scene. Wanting to ride to Gulg, she tried to steal a kank. But her Sneak failed, and so she had to reach a bargain with its merchant owner for passage - that she would collect the kank droppings and light the campfires. She agreed to this.

Zirgly, meanwhile failed in an attempt to use Weird Lore to follow Natan's directions, and so used the trinket rules instead to free the dragon - combining all of Natan's potions and items into Obert's Nightmarish Itch, which gave the Dragon the power to free itself, awakening and bursting out of the pyramid. This also brought the Saying of Dire Revelation to an end.

Zirgly himself ended up captured and taken prisoner - I can't remember the exact details, but I think he must have failed in an attempt to explain himself to the priests and congregants who had survived the collapse of the pyramid.

Meanwhile, Verly arrived in Gulg. During the set-up I had mentioned that Gulg is something of a foodbowl, and Verly could see that the crops here were sill mostly growing - the silt from the Sea of Silt had not blown as much to Gulg.

Verly's robes were still in tatters, and she was covered in filth from her labours with the caravan. And so when she entered the city, templar confronted her as to her business. Verly insisted that she was here to see Ubalnu. I think the Convince test must have succeeded, because he agreed to her request, albeit ironically - the templar anticipated that he would humiliate this vagabond by "presenting" her to the Queen.

So Verly was presented to Ubalnu. At first she offered short shrift, but I think there was another successful test - on Convince, I guess. Verly apologised - I shouldn't have written that poem about you and Ubalnu accepted the apology, and asked Verly to now write a great ode instead. Verly agreed, but said there was something she had to do first - help her friend Zirgly, who was in trouble in Nibenay.

Ubalnu agreed to this, and sent a troop of templars with Verly, herself cleaned and reclothed. They arrived without incident (and with no need to test) at Nibenay.

Meanwhile, I think it was around this point that the imprisoned Zirgly once again resorted to magic, and cast Devizard's Shattering Glyph of Calming, to communicate to the town the truth about the release of the Great Dragon, and that this was all part of Zyrr's plan. And so he was released from imprisonment, and was able to greet Verly as the latter made her triumphant entrance into Nibenay.
 

The rules state the conditions under which the session ends. The relevant one for us was "A climactic ending: play hits a clear resolving moment, effectively concluding the pickle":

*Natan was dead, but the Great Dragon freed;

*The destruction of the pyramid had ended the Saying of Dire Revelation;

*The Great Dragon was now off to deal with the Sea of Silt; and Nibenay had new access to Gulg's crops;

*With the return of hope to Nibenay, the longing for the intoxication of cherry lotus powder would end;

*It seemed the the reunion of Verly and Ubalnu might end the latter's relationship with Prince Nur-Ayya.​

In any sequel, a possible starting point would be hostility of Tyr to the united Gulg and Nibenay.


In mechanical terms, I think the most egregious error we made was allowing Zirgly to use Magic as if he was Great rather than merely OK. Someone with Great Magic can spend Pool Points to add additional tables beyond a number equal to Base; but we missed the limit on this ability, and Zirgly was spending those Pool Points freely as he whipped up his crazy spells.

The other issue, as I noted, was a possible misplay in relation to Verly's picklet.

Mostly, though, I think we played the game as it is meant to be played. It played pretty well and straightforwardly.

Yesterday I GMed a session of Mythic Bastionland. I think there is a noticeable degree of overlap, in terms of approach and techniques, between that system and Fantasy For Real. Fantasy For Real has the pickle; Mythic Bastionland has its Myths. These are not identical but are similar, in the sense of relying on a degree of procedural generation, and throwing up quirky material that needs to be incorporated. And both use a setting map, although in Fantasy For Real it is used for coordinating the fiction but not as a technical component of framing and resolution like it is in Mythic Bastionland. (Mythic Bastionland doesn't have picklets, though - the players have their Oath, the Passion and their special/weird abilities to guide them, but they're not quite the same.)

I might another post, in a new thread, with some more thoughts about these techniques.
 

Interesting landing page. Doesn’t give much away about the game itself except that it is designed to “teach game mastering skills”

Let me know how that goes
As per my post just above, not too bad. I think the balance between procedure and imagination in prep, and between prep and improvisation in play - together with the rulebook advice on how to manage these things - are pretty solid.

Based on my experience, it is easier than In A Wicked Age - which is deceptively subtle, as I posted not long ago: *Situation* in RPGing (with In A Wicked Age as an illustration)

And I think it is also easier than Mythic Bastionland, which has some incompleteness in its rule that I've posted about in my actual play thread and in this thread: Mythic Bastionland - initial impressions, and making a Realm And which, lacking picklets or some equivalent, requires the GM to do a bit more heavy lifting in connecting the various elements that are thrown up in play, and having them fit some sort of coherent trajectory or framework for play.

Probably none of the above is as straightforward as Prince Valiant, but I would say that Fantasy For Real comes second.
 

I enjoyed the session but found the picklet rules unclear, which was frustrating because they were the primary draw of the game for me.

After asking about I think I’d rewrite the rules as follows:


(1) Player invokes the picklet (literally just says ‘my picklet is in this scene). If the picklet content is already in the scene then they don’t invoke it.

Optional: The player can state what the character is doing.

(2) The picklet is established right there and then, the GM ties it into the pickle as a whole but also

(3) A successful elan roll means it arrives advantageously (go hard) a failure means it arrives advantageously (go hard)


This totally disregards two clauses in the actual text. One is that the player must state a concrete action by the character. Two is that the content is validated but not there.
 

I've been looking at the rules closely again the past couple of days.

At one point they say:

The player tests Elan to bring in picklet content. The picklet itself is always invoked into play simply because of the test; the test’s resolution determines whether the character gains an immediate benefit or simply gets wind of the picklet in some way.​

At another they say:

You bring your picklets into play. Once per scene, you may say exactly what your character is doing concerning the picklet, then test Elan. The GM describes the fact of the picklet’s involvement.

• Succeed: the content arrives to your immediate advantage, much like testing a skill successfully to solve a problem.
• Fail: the picklet is validated in some way as being present, but not in the moment and your efforts cause trouble.​

At yet another they say:

When players bring in their picklets, they provide some backstory. Treat this as a mini-version of creating the pickle, adopting it as part of the pickle, for you to develop, and provide information in the same ways.​

Putting these all together gives:

Players bring their PCs’ picklets into play. Once per scene, you may say exactly what your character is doing concerning the picklet, then test Elan to bring in picklet content. The GM describes the fact of the picklet’s involvement based on the outcome of the test:

• Success: the content arrives to the PC’s immediate advantage, much like testing a skill successfully to solve a problem;
• Failure: the picklet is validated in some way as being present, but not in the moment and the PC’s efforts cause trouble.​

When players bring in their picklets, they provide some backstory. The picklet itself is always invoked into play simply because of the test; the test’s resolution determines whether the character gains an immediate benefit or simply gets wind of the picklet in some way. Treat this as a mini-version of creating the pickle, adopting it as part of the pickle, for the GM to develop and provide information in the same ways.​

The reference to "exactly what your character is doing" and to "efforts" suggests that the character has to do something. However, the rules for tests refer to "what’s happening and what you say your character is doing" and also to the GM needing to "be prepared to recognize when a test is required. It is often obvious based on stated activity, but it may also arise based on specialized content that you think characters may perceive." The wording of these test rules suggests that a player might invoke their picklet, and then the GM - prompted by that "specialised content" - calls for an Elan test.

So here I'm in agreement with you @thefutilist.

The further question is what backstory does the player provide? Just what's written in their picklet? Or do they specify more content, at the moment of invocation? The rules are clear that the GM describes the facts of the picklet's involvement. But I think there is at least a hint that the player is permitted or even expected to have some sort of view about how the picklet is involved - this also relates to the idea of advantage.

Related to the proceeding paragraph: I don't think the trouble that is introduced on a failure has to be directly related to the picklet at all, although the context of the trouble would still have to validate the player's invocation, as the PC has to "get wind" of the picklet even though the intended content is not there in the moment.

So on this further question I think I'm not quite in agreement. I feel my view that the player has some input here is reinforced by another bit of instruction to the GM, that they should

keep GM and player jobs separate, especially concerning their characters’ personal backstories, picklets or otherwise. Bringing them into play is not your job. Don’t say “and this is your home village,” or “why look, it’s your magical mentor.” Only players do this, and in these and similar substantive cases, they must be using picklets. Only after a player does so can you get all character-y and active with that content.​

To me, this reinforces that the player, in invoking the picklet, gets to introduce some backstory then-and-there. Almost like a mini-/subordinate GM.
 

I've been looking at the rules closely again the past couple of days.

At one point they say:

The player tests Elan to bring in picklet content. The picklet itself is always invoked into play simply because of the test; the test’s resolution determines whether the character gains an immediate benefit or simply gets wind of the picklet in some way.​

At another they say:

You bring your picklets into play. Once per scene, you may say exactly what your character is doing concerning the picklet, then test Elan. The GM describes the fact of the picklet’s involvement.​
• Succeed: the content arrives to your immediate advantage, much like testing a skill successfully to solve a problem.​
• Fail: the picklet is validated in some way as being present, but not in the moment and your efforts cause trouble.​


At yet another they say:

When players bring in their picklets, they provide some backstory. Treat this as a mini-version of creating the pickle, adopting it as part of the pickle, for you to develop, and provide information in the same ways.​

Putting these all together gives:

Players bring their PCs’ picklets into play. Once per scene, you may say exactly what your character is doing concerning the picklet, then test Elan to bring in picklet content. The GM describes the fact of the picklet’s involvement based on the outcome of the test:​
• Success: the content arrives to the PC’s immediate advantage, much like testing a skill successfully to solve a problem;​
• Failure: the picklet is validated in some way as being present, but not in the moment and the PC’s efforts cause trouble.​

When players bring in their picklets, they provide some backstory. The picklet itself is always invoked into play simply because of the test; the test’s resolution determines whether the character gains an immediate benefit or simply gets wind of the picklet in some way. Treat this as a mini-version of creating the pickle, adopting it as part of the pickle, for the GM to develop and provide information in the same ways.​

The reference to "exactly what your character is doing" and to "efforts" suggests that the character has to do something. However, the rules for tests refer to "what’s happening and what you say your character is doing" and also to the GM needing to "be prepared to recognize when a test is required. It is often obvious based on stated activity, but it may also arise based on specialized content that you think characters may perceive." The wording of these test rules suggests that a player might invoke their picklet, and then the GM - prompted by that "specialised content" - calls for an Elan test.

So here I'm in agreement with you @thefutilist.

The further question is what backstory does the player provide? Just what's written in their picklet? Or do they specify more content, at the moment of invocation? The rules are clear that the GM describes the facts of the picklet's involvement. But I think there is at least a hint that the player is permitted or even expected to have some sort of view about how the picklet is involved - this also relates to the idea of advantage.

Related to the proceeding paragraph: I don't think the trouble that is introduced on a failure has to be directly related to the picklet at all, although the context of the trouble would still have to validate the player's invocation, as the PC has to "get wind" of the picklet even though the intended content is not there in the moment.

So on this further question I think I'm not quite in agreement. I feel my view that the player has some input here is reinforced by another bit of instruction to the GM, that they should

keep GM and player jobs separate, especially concerning their characters’ personal backstories, picklets or otherwise. Bringing them into play is not your job. Don’t say “and this is your home village,” or “why look, it’s your magical mentor.” Only players do this, and in these and similar substantive cases, they must be using picklets. Only after a player does so can you get all character-y and active with that content.​

To me, this reinforces that the player, in invoking the picklet, gets to introduce some backstory then-and-there. Almost like a mini-/subordinate GM.
On the trouble doesn’t have to be related thing.

I’ll concede the point with the caveat that strongly related is probably better.


On the backstory thing: I’m not sure what you mean. Going back to previous examples.

Can Verly pull back her hood and reveal herself to Natan AND I say, yeah Natan is my ex-lover? It doesn’t seem so but I’m not sure.


Putting that aside and letting the GM choose the exact nature I can see something like the following. Consider two pickets

To apologise to my lover.

To apologise to my lover, Thruk the brash, for an unflattering poem I wrote about him.


In the first case it seems like I can provide some back story as and when. The fact the lover isn’t specified might mean you get to choose.

So I invoke my picklet. You say it’s Natan who is my lover. I then say, oh yeah I wrote an unflattering poem about him.
 


Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top