Personae v4 SRD, Piece by Piece: a Series (entry the Fifth)

VII. MODERATING A PERSONAE GAME

In a Personae game, the chorus takes the lead at the table for making sure that the game runs smoothly, that all the players act respectfully towards each other and towards the chorus, for resolving rules disputes, for setting the scene and describing what the players' characters experience through their senses. The role of the chorus is also to work with the players to negotiate for their characters' trait details. The chorus is the final arbiter of disputes—discussion of disputes is acceptable and encouraged, but once the chorus has made a decision on a matter, then further discussion or argument should take place away from the game, so as to not slow the game down or spoil the fun for everybody. The following are areas which the chorus will come across in the course of moderating a Personae game, which he should develop an opinion on and, if necessary, discuss with the group so as to come to an agreement on them through consensus.

FICTION FIRST

This section condensed and paraphrased from, and inspired by, The Book of Hanz (found at https://bookofhanz.com/), a product of Amazing Rando Design, developed, authored, and edited by Robert Hanz, John Adamus, and Randy Oest and licensed for our use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

“Sense within the fiction” is a term that is used frequently throughout the Personae system. Personae is intended to be complete, mature and robust, but it is unable to cover every possible edge case or specific case for every group that plays a Personae game anywhere, ever. The rules are intended to be a baseline, and may have to be clarified, supplemented or expanded on an as-needed basis. However, such clarification, supplementation or expansion should be in service to the fiction. That is a matter of gameplay philosophy, but it is the predominant philosophy of Personae. Simply because the rules allow for something to happen shouldn’t mean that it breaks the internal consistency, the “verisimilitude” of the communal narrative space shared by the players and chorus. There are lot of decisions to be made by a group in a Personae game, not only about the fiction but about how mechanical questions are addressed. It might behoove the group to come up with a “game creation” document to help keep track of decisions made by consensus.

TALK AMONG YOURSELVES

Credit to Apocalypse World and many other Powered by the Apocalypse games for inspiration by way of “the conversation”. Meguey Baker, Vincent Baker. apocalypse-world.com

It is said that open and honest communication is the most important element to a successful relationship, no matter what kind of relationship that is—and that is just as much the case in a Personae game, let alone any roleplaying game environment for that matter. The flow of speaking, talking and conversing will shift throughout a session of Personae.

If the game is happening in a public environment, such as a bookstore, shopping mall, convention or a FLGS, “friendly local gaming store”, then people who aren’t a part of the group will invariably hold conversations with people at the table, with other people beside the able, etc. The players may talk about their favorite fictional media property while they’re waiting for everyone to show up to the session. They may even play a different game while they’re waiting for the session to begin. Once the session begins, however, it’s important that everyone be clear about what they’re trying to communicate, be respectful of the lines between what’s within the fiction and what’s outside it, about both player- and chorus-controlled identities, and about every player and chorus at the table. Everyone at the table should do their best to limit distractions and focus on what’s going on in the story.

The conversation at the table might shift from 1st person to 3rd person point of view: “I try to pick the lock”, “my character tries to pick the lock”, etc. There are a lot of variables when it comes to how talk, ideas, the flavor of the scene, and so forth are expressed at the table. Honest and open communication is crucial. The table should be a safe space, which is why safety tools and discussing lines in advance are important. Players and chorus should use not only each others’ pronouns, but the pronouns of both player- and chorus- controlled identities that are considered people.

This goes for how the game’s mechanics are triggered in order to facilitate play progression is concerned as well. One player may feel a challenge is being issued; another player may not feel issuing a challenge is necessary. The whole group should discuss, and the chorus should look to establish consensus as quickly and efficiently as possible to everyone’s satisfaction.

THE CHORUS IS A PLAYER TOO

The chorus is a facilitator, and might be more knowledgeable about how Personae works than others at the table, but that doesn’t instill the chorus with any special authority that might make the other players in a group subordinate. The chorus is a player too—they simply have an extra set of responsibilities and tools at their disposal to help express and represent the world that the players are interacting with the fiction through. The chorus isn’t a “master”, isn’t an autocrat that must be blindly obeyed simply because they’re wearing the chorus hat. That kind of mentality doesn’t belong in a Personae game. Just because the chorus takes the lead at the table in a variety of ways to make the gameplay experience worthwhile for the whole table, doesn't mean that everyone at the table is absolved in any way from responsibility. Everyone at the table is responsible for everyone's enjoyment—that responsibility isn't supported solely by the chorus. The chorus is well within their rights to ask for advice, for input, to say they need a break, to ask for where their prep should aim for from one session to the next, and so on.

NOTHING IS BROKEN, NOTHING IS FIXED

There are a very few things that are absolutely necessary in order to be playing a Personae game: attributes, traits, identities and challenges are very likely the “kernel” of a Personae game. That being said, the chorus shouldn’t feel that this rules document is a straitjacket, but a guide.

It might make sense for a player- or chorus-controlled identity to have different attributes than what is standard. It might make sense for a whole new type of trait to be introduced, and how that trait connects to an attribute, attributes, or none at all. Since anything can be an identity, it might not make sense for a very abstract identity to have the same attributes a character has. In fact, a group may decide to subdivide identities, or give them more specific descriptors such as game identities, scene identities, object identities and so on. The ultimate determination of what “the rules” are, and whether the players or chorus are “following the rules” is the players and chorus within any given group.

ADVANCEMENT

Throughout play, players will earn development points, which they can use either to increase the attributes of or acquire new traits for the identities they control. These development points gained through advancement reward the players for expressing their characters' concepts in a meaningful way, accomplishing goals that are either personal or group-oriented, and for the overall progression of a good collaborative story at the end of a session.

Baseline method of earning development points: Keep a tally of the results of challenges you issue, both clear successes and failures. When you have accumulated a combination of both successful and failed challenges equal to your potential threshold, earn a development point.

Your character's potential is 3, for example, and their potential threshold is 5. You've marked, and accumulated, 2 successful & 3 failed challenges, or 3 successful and 2 failed challenges. You earn a development point.

One (1) development point is earned automatically every time a chorus-controlled identity, typically opponents of player-controlled identities, is negated. Development points may also be earned when the group decides it’s relevant, such as when they succeed challenges. The chorus may award development points as well. Group consensus should drive the specific details for how development points are earned.

The player invests development points into the character on a one-for-one basis: every point spent to increase an attribute increases that attribute's value by one, or every point spent to acquire a new trait results in the character acquiring one trait. The only restriction to this process involves the character's order of importance for attributes: the rules set into effect at Character Creation for how attribute priorities impact starting point allocation apply to advancement as well (second-priority attributes can't be greater than first-priorities, third-priorities can't be greater than second-priorities, and the hindrance can't be greater than the third-priority).

If you choose to acquire a new trait for your character, one point invested will allow you to

• unlock a new skill

• acquire a new enhancement, or upgrade an existing one

• acquire a new preternae, or upgrade an existing one

• acquire a new sphere

• Increase any one of the three types of vitality by one, allowing them to sustain one more hit in nonviolent, hostile or violent encounters before suffering shock

UPGRADES

Rather than acquire new traits, a character can upgrade a trait instead. Rather than acquire a new preternae, for example, the player can increase the potency or utility of one of their character's existing preternae. Upgrading traits, rather than acquiring a new trait that performs a similar effect, not only cuts down on a player's bookkeeping and helps to speed up play, it helps to better focus the character rather than have the character spread thin. (Of course, there's always those characters who enjoy being a jack-of-all-trades type, so the system is capable of catering to either end of the spectrum when it comes to acquiring new traits. Always remember to stay true to your character's overall theme or concept when considering advancement).

Enhancements as Superior: If you wish to define one of your enhancements as superior, it’s treated as if it were double the cost—two enhancements instead of one—when you first take it. It still requires one development point for every time you wish to upgrade the enhancement, unless player-chorus consensus dictates otherwise.

Enhancements as Exceptional: If you wish to define one of your enhancements as exceptional, you must also at the same time define it as superior—effectively worth three creation or development points depending on when its purchased.

FRAMEWORK OF ADVANCEMENT

Players should work with the chorus in building into an enhancement or preternae an advancement framework, or at the very least envision what such a framework might look like even if it’s not specified as a whole from the outset. Rather than making a newly-acquired enhancement or preternae excessively powerful, there should be room for the enhancement or preternae to be upgraded with additional development points gained through advancement.

Preternae: When preternae are first acquired, they should only affect one opponent, or if they are preternae that inflict injury, should only inflict one hit. Upgrades can increase the number of targets a preternae affects, or increase the number of hits inflicted by the preternae. Additionally, when a preternae is first acquired, it should have either an Instant or Maintain duration, then can be upgraded later to Independent or Special duration.

Possible advancement progression with a preternae: opponent suffers one(1) hit from an injury delivered by a successful attack challenge → suffers two(2) hits

Enhancements: When enhancements are acquired, they should only provide a benefit of one (+1 to a skill roll, one additional die, reroll one die, force a reroll of one die). If the benefit is a reroll, then initially, the second result should be taken, and the highest die roll result cannot be affected. Upgrades can increase the benefit provided by one (+2, two additional dice), or in the case of a reroll, allow the better result to be taken, or allow the highest die roll result to be affected.

Possible advancement progression with a skill: Reroll (3rd die, 2nd result) → reroll (3rd die, better result) → +1 to die roll result

Spheres: Spheres could be upgraded to provide more than one bonus die when a skill is rolled, or last longer before expiring.

SPACE AND TIME

While the world (or worlds) of the fiction may have very specific rules for the passage of time (which are very similar to the passage of time outside the fiction), not every moment of time outside the fiction translates to a moment within the fiction. Long sea voyages may be hand-waved: “it's three weeks later, and you arrive in port”, for example. Such concessions are often made for the sake of efficiency—not everyone wants to roleplay out every single day on such a voyage, unless it has some direct impact on the progression of the story the group wants to explore together. Just as such concessions are made for the long-term passage of time, they should also be made for smaller-scale time increments as well.

In the Personae system, mechanically speaking, time is specified in two different ways: sessions and scenes. Scenes might aggravate into encounters, and encounters might escalate from one type to another.

SESSION

A session of the game can last anywhere from thirty minutes to two hours or more, but generally encompasses all of the scenes that take place in the course of one "real-world" meeting of the game group. A session of gameplay might resemble an episode of a television series, or a chapter of a novel.

Traits may refer to game sessions in the explanations of their benefits to a character.

SCENE

A scene is a fraction of time that takes place during a game session, an organizational unit typically defined by time within the fiction (days, hours, and such) and location. Just like a novel is divided into chapters, or a play into acts and scenes, a typical session in an ongoing storyline should consist of several scenes. A scene can last any amount of time, which should not be predetermined (not all scenes will last for one hour, or thirty minutes, or any other specific amount of time). The content of a scene can vary from scene to scene—sometimes it's just receiving information from a venerable sage, but can also involve a thrilling swordfight or a chase.

While the former type of scene is common and sometimes very necessary, the best scenes:

• involve some sort of conflict, and

• drive the conflict of the overall story towards one or more climactic moments.

The exact details of a scene should be agreed upon by the group, but be balanced at the same time: allow roleplay to dictate what happens in a scene, not something pre-determined or pre-written, don't cut the players short in what they want to accomplish in a scene, but at the same time don't let a scene languish—periodically ask the players what they are trying to accomplish, and what their overall objective is when beginning a scene. Most of this will happen organically as time goes on, but it's good practice to be mindful of these things as gameplay takes place.

Scenes can be thought of in three different broad categories, not intended to prove restrictive but instead to provide a common frame of reference, and terminology that can be employed in the description of benefits provided by enhancements, preternae and spheres.

Expository scenes typically involve scene-setting, the chorus providing information to the players. They're the least likely to escalate to an encounter.

Discovery scenes typically involve the players learning about, sensing, or attempting to understand the world or worlds around them. They might also involve player-controlled characters communicating with each other, or player-controlled characters communicating with chorus-controlled characters. Discovery scenes are more likely to escalate than expository scenes, typically escalating to nonviolent encounters when subtleties such as rhetoric are employed to advance one's goals.

Conflict scenes typically involve manipulation and domination—coercion through either words, gestures, body language or the threat of violence, as well as outright violence—the intent to wound, maim or kill. They are the most likely to to become aggravated as either hostile or violent encounters

ENCOUNTER

An encounter is a scene that involves tension. Goals and stakes shape and frame the flow of an encounter, from rising action to denouement—an ebb and flow, a tide sweeping in then drawing away.

Nonviolent Encounters: Encounters typically start with words, and are referred to as nonviolent encounters because in a nonviolent encounter, there is a chance that the encounter will not come to weapon blows or offensive preternae.

Hostile Encounters: Hostile encounters might involve words, but the words chosen are intended to belittle or demean into compliance through instilling fear, to more forcefully dominate rather than manipulate. They might involve violence, but typically violent displays in hostile encounters are intended to threaten violence rather than enact it—again, with the same intent to intimidate.

Violent Encounters: Violent encounters ensue when words begin to fail, and identities begin staking their lives by bringing harm upon others to accomplish their desires.

TIME AND ENCOUNTERS

The best stories involve a tightly-structured plot, and the best plots emerge from the strongest conflicts. Without conflict, there is no plot, and without plot there is no story (at least, not one worth engaging in). It's very easy to have characters walk around the world, carrying on conversations with people they meet, and in general doing nothing in particular. It's when ideas and practices begin to clash against each other: the best form of government, belief in the gods or the supernatural, secrets about the history of the world that conflict arises, and that conflict—and its resolution—drives the best stories.

ESCALATION

When a situation increases in tension, a scene aggravates into an encounter. When an encounter increases in brutality, it's said to have escalated.

The order of escalation is typically as follows:

expository scene ↔ discovery scene ↔ conflict scene

scene ↔ nonviolent encounter ↔ hostile encounter ↔ violent encounter

(interaction challenges ↔ power challenges ↔ attack challenges)

Depending on what a situation looks like in the fiction, however, it is perfectly reasonable for scenes to escalate or de-escalate by skipping stages, such as escalating from nonviolent encounter immediately to violent encounter.

RESOLUTION

As discussed above, violent encounters are resolved over an extended series of challenges, where all identities involved are put into an order of action by rolling to determine the action order. The violent encounter could be resolved in as little as two or three rounds, or as many as ten or twelve rounds. The resolution of the conflict should be kept in mind by both players and chorus as the violent encounter unfolds, and the chorus should periodically ask if the goals of the player-controlled characters have been achieved. (This might occasionally involve discussing “out-of-character”, "out-of-game", or “player” knowledge, rather than “in-character" or "in-game" knowledge, but in cases where the death of characters isn't the immediate goal, this should be made plain by all parties involved.)

ENCOUNTER TIME VS “GAME” TIME

The amount of "game" time (the way time is tracked within the fiction) that passes in the resolution of an encounter should be a consensus of both the players and the chorus, especially in the case a violent encounter. Rounds in a violent encounter are little more than a way to make sure that everyone gets a turn in combat, and that such turns aren't all taken at the same time; they are at best only an abstract way to determine the passage of time. If one game group wants to say that one round equals ten seconds, that's fine; it doesn't mean that every game group has to do this as well. In fact, if a group wants to determine the passage of “game” time after a violent encounter is resolved (“this combat took about twenty minutes”, for example), that's okay too.

DISTANCE AND LOCATION

The impact of space and its dimensions increases as you progress from scene, to nonviolent encounter to violent encounter. The distance covered by an arrow in flight, the range of a lightning bolt conjured by a mage, or how long it takes for the scout to scurry stealthily back to the allied camp become increasingly more important as conflict intensifies.

While it's a point that has been amply expressed across the body of these rules, it applies here as well: just as time is a matter that should be agreed upon by the game group, so should space be one as well. If one group prefers a closely-structured, tactical framework for determining distance and location (such as a large-scale grid and miniatures), then they are welcome to implement such things in their game. For groups that prefer to focus on the narrative resolution of a violent encounter, and aren't so worried about the particulars of distance and location, then the group can use relative terms such as "adjacent", “close”, “near”, “far” and “out of range”. The system provides an abstract way to resolve conflict in both nonviolent and violent encounters, and it's at the game group's discretion to define or not define these things to their desired level of distinction.

FLOW OF SCENES AND ENCOUNTERS

CONFLICT

Challenges typically take place between two identities, one the actor and the other the reactor. There will be times, however, where a single challenge will not adequately resolve a conflict between two opposing points of view. A point in a debate is made, but it does not convince the opponent sufficiently; a sword wounds a murderer, but the murderer refuses to back down. In cases such as these, both actor and reactor should make their objectives clear to determine whether or not multiple challenges, resolved in succession, must be initiated in order to resolve the conflict at large. The overall conflict, discussed between players or chorus, should direct the ultimate resolution, based on what's at stake and what the ultimate goals of both actor(s) and reactor(s) are. Whether or not the “meta-resolution” is achieved, for either side of the conflict, should be reassessed periodically as encounters unfold, until one side achieves the kinds of results they want and the losing side backs down.

NONVIOLENT ENCOUNTERS

Series of challenges strung together, emerging from one to the next, can be applied to situations where there is no fighting. A stealthy trek through a city at midnight, a lengthy debate, or a chase sequence—all of these are considered nonviolent encounters. How nonviolent challenges are handled might look differently from one group playing a Personae game to another: they can be resolved just as easily with a series of separate challenges, or one initial challenge followed by a series of additional challenges. Consensus at the table is always the best way to decide on what method of resolving challenges will work best for the group.

Since anything can be an identity, it is possible for vitality and shock to be employed to help evaluate nonviolent challenges. In this case, skills that would otherwise not be expected to “inflict injury” might be used to issue challenges to identities that, when successful, inflict hits to the identity’s vitality, result in shock being incurred, and the identity being incapacitated, or forfeiting. The locked door identity can have a vitality and shock levels; the Pick Lock skill can be used to issue interaction challenges to the locked door identity; if the locked door identity fails to defend, it takes one or more hits to vitality, then potentially marks shock levels, then it forfeits.

Subject Matter Expertise: Every sphere identified as an expertise represents a subject on which an identity is more familiar with than the average: an area of focus, concentration or specialization. If an identity doesn’t have a sphere in an appropriate subject area, then they’re only able to answer basic or common questions about the subject. If an identity has a sphere in that subject area, they’re considered an "expert" when it comes to questions about that subject. When it comes to asking questions, however, in order to determine whether an identity knows a fact about a subject, this can be handled in one of two ways.

• Method 1, You Know It Or You Don’t: The first method is straightforward: if the identity has an expertise in the subject area, they know the fact—the answer to a question. If they don’t, then they don’t.

  • Depending on the fiction, and how the density of the subject area impacts the fiction, this method might be considered too generous by the group. In a game that is not only fiction dense but rules dense, in accordance with the play style of the group in question, a question about Hawking radiation might be considered the realm of astrophysics rather than mere science, and such a distinction might be important not only to the fiction but to the sensibilities of the group.

  • As a result, the group may decide that more spheres should be invested in a narrower degree of expertise in order to satisfy the question being asked. An identity might have an expertise in science, and an additional sphere invested in astrophysics for example. The expertise in science wouldn’t have the answers to a question about Hawking radiation, but the additional astrophysics sphere would.

• Method 2, Subject Area as Identity: If method #1 is unsatisfactory for a group, a subject area can be modeled as an identity, since anything in a Personae game can be an identity. It doesn’t have to have the same attributes as other identities: in fact, a “science” identity can have attributes or traits related to increasingly complex or intricate concentrations, such as astronomy, medicine, etc. How the identity is crafted should be decided upon by the group, and make sense within the fiction.

OBSTACLES

Characters will not always enter into challenges with each other. A locked door is just as much of a challenge as a big, hulking ogre with a wicked looking axe. In the case of these “static” type of obstacles that wind up occasionally in the way of a character (inanimate elements that are incapable of dependent or independent action, and impede a character's progress in some way), there is a dilemma. The system of opposed rolling is not as concerned with locks, or barred doors, or walls that have to be jumped over—it is more concerned with resolving the outcome of conflicts that involve an active investment of thought and deed from two opposing sides, not just one. A barred door might stand in the way of heroes chasing down the evil wizard, but the conflict is with the wizard, not the barred door. The thirty-foot wall might surround the tyrant's fortress, but it's the tyrant that's more of a problem for the rebels, not the wall. It is the responsibility of the game group to come to a consensus on how these types of “unopposed challenges” affect the overall direction and drive of the story, and ultimately how they are resolved.

This is where a challenge's goals play a very important role—if the group can divine, through the goals of a challenge, how such a static obstacle might have an impact on the story at large, then an appropriate challenge can be devised to incorporate any issues regarding the locked door or the thirty-foot wall. If not, then the chorus is well within rights to simply narrate the resolution of coming up against an obstacle. The dice should only be rolled when the outcome is critical to the story's development. (Such a narration, however, should still stand to enrich the overall atmosphere of the play experience. “You jump over the wall”, or “you pick the lock” shouldn’t be good enough.)

Effects such as disease and extreme temperature may also deal damage or impose adverse effects on a creature. While no one sentient being is responsible for a bolt of lightning striking a creature from the sky during a thunderstorm (regardless of what mythology might say), or excessive temperature causing an identity to collapse from heat exhaustion, they still might occur. If the group and chorus decide that these sorts of hazards have the potential for threatening the party, then the group as a whole should determine how the hazards will play out—both mechanically as well as in within the fiction. One group might decide that if the party is traveling in the midst of a heavy thunderstorm, that there's a chance someone might get struck by lightning. How the group determines such chances, and figures out if anyone does in fact get struck by lightning, is entirely up to them.

The players and chorus are welcome to address this however they see fit. Below are two recommended methods: unopposed obstacles, and obstacle as identity.

Obstacles as (one or more) individual response(s): Sometimes in the course of a story, characters may encounter situations in which they would like to commit to actions, but where there are not any obvious characters to issue a challenge to. These are referred to as Unopposed challenges. In general, unless it is import to the scene, these challenges should be passed or failed by the chorus, based on the specific situation, e.g. if the chorus feels that is in the purview of the character as designed and developed throughout the most recent sessions, without the need for rolling dice. From time to time, though, these challenges will be important to a scene. If rolling is required, then the following steps should be taken:

Situation: Decide if the action is appropriate to the character and the scene, and determine the necessary skill that'll be used to challenge or respond.

Difficulty: Determine how hard it will be to accomplish the task and assign it a difficulty based on the list below, increasing or decreasing the difficulty based on the character in question's capability and concept.

• Easy: 0 (e.g. kicking in a door)

• Simple: +1 (e.g. jumping out of a 1st-floor window)

• Typical +2 (e.g. tracking muddy footprints)

• Challenging +3 (e.g. jumping out of a 2nd floor window)

• Difficult +5 (e.g. picking an average lock)

• Very Difficult +7 (e.g. disabling an camouflaged trap)

• Extremely Difficult +9 (e.g. tracking a target in unfamiliar terrain)

• Nearly Impossible +10 or more (e.g. opening a bank safe with many layered methods of penetration prevention)

Challenge or respond: depending on who's initiating action and who's reacting to it, both parties roll.

Complexity: how intricate or complicated overcoming the obstacle might entail, representing the number of dice the chorus would roll to challenge or respond with the obstacle (examples below):

• 2 dice, straightforward

• 3 dice, elaborate

• 4 dice, complicated

• 5 dice, labyrinthine

Risk: How substantial the fallout of failing to overcome the obstacle might be, representing a yield imposed on a player- or other chorus-controlled character responding to a challenge from the obstacle (examples below):

• Opponent must yield 1, risky

• Opponent must yield 2, threatening

• Opponent must yield 3, perilous

Dunmore Throop, a foolhardy young noble, wishes to jump from a 2nd-story window without hurting himself. He is an athletic character with experience in city-style terrain, there are no obstacles in his path, and he has a skill appropriate to the task with a rating of three dice. In this instance the chorus determines that this would be a typical difficulty for Dunmore and rolls 2 dice, the result of which are 3 and 7, achieves a result of 9 (7 plus the Typical difficulty of 2), and advises Dunmore's player that this challenge will be based off of his Prowess (owing to the fact that Dunmore's special acrobatic training is what is being challenged). Dunmore then challenges. Dunmore rolls three dice, resulting in 1, 5, and 6, and adds 3 for his Prowess, achieving a total 9. The chorus and Dunmore's player tie on the highest die rolled, and as a result compare their second-highest die roll results. Dunmore has an 8; the chorus has a 5. The noble challenges the obstacle successfully.

Obstacle as Identity: This method is the most open-ended, albeit the most abstract. Since anything can be an identity in Personae, a chorus can introduce a locked door, for example, as an identity with any attributes and traits it wishes, as long as it has at least a vitality trait and shock levels.

This gives player-controlled identities objects to issue challenges to, so that they can be negated (rendered inoperative). This opens up the possibility of nonviolent encounters affecting vitality and shock—the Resilience of a locked door might be the quality of the lock, and the burglar might inflict hits against the door’s vitality representative of bypassing its security measures. Sense within the fiction will be the primary driver of how to make the game mechanics align with the environment being simulated by identities in this case.

Vitality: The extent the player-controlled characters must reach in their efforts to overcome the obstacle, effectively the same as a character’s vitality (examples below):

1. Minion: don't have vitality (no distinct vitality types like player-controlled characters have) only two shock levels (rattled, distressed); forfeit immediately upon second shock level reached

2. Minor: don't have vitality (no distinct vitality types like player-controlled characters have) 3 shock levels only (rattled, distressed, stunned); forfeit immediately upon third shock level reached

3. Moderate: don't have vitality (no distinct vitality types like player-controlled characters have) 4 shock levels (rattled, distressed, stunned, incapacitated); forfeit immediately upon second fourth level reached

4. Major: Full vitality suite the same as a player- or chorus-controlled character, 4 full shock levels before forfeit

   • This aligns with the guidelines for allies and adversaries