Frenemies Dev Diary #3

 So, how to mechanize the frenemy relationship?

One of my first thoughts was that there should be some way to track the relative levels of friendship versus enmity in the relationship. Over time, they could shift one way or the other. And ultimately, if the relationship swings far enough one way or the other, it could resolve into being just friends or just enemies. Or there could be a move like Write Your Epilogue for determining how it all shakes out at the end of the story.

I came up with two main ways to handle this:

1. The one-track solution. One end of the track is labeled "friends" and the other "enemies". The relationship marker starts out in the middle. Various triggers move the marker toward one end or the other. If it tips over one end, the relationship is resolved in that direction.
2. The two-track solution. One is a "Friends" track and the other is an "Enemies" track. They start out at low values. Each of them increases in value when triggered by appropriate events. There may or may not also be some special triggers that can lower their values. When one of them reaches the maximum value, the relationship is resolved in that direction.

I'm not sure which option better represents the evolution of a frenemy relationship.

Original, I was leaning toward option 1, partly because it feels simpler, but I was also worried about it ending up with the marker just wobbling back and forth around the center, rather than moving toward a conclusion.

On the other hand, the two-track solution has the advantage of maintaining tension towards the end if both tracks are getting close to full.

Either way, there would be various Moves that might make the track(s) go up or down. For example, I really like the "Share an Intimate Moment" rule from Girl By Moonlight. With that, one PC offers up a moment of emotional vulnerability, and the other has the choice to engage with it (which gives mechanical benefits to both parties) or hold themselves apart (which gives a point of XP to just the one PC who made that choice). I want there to be choices like that which give a chance to benefit either way, so it doesn't feel like cooperating and being friends is always the optimal choice. 

I talked it over with someone on Discord, though, and they made the good point that tracking the long-term state of the relationship might not be necessary, and could even make the game worse if it overly restricts roleplay or forces a certain conclusion.

So, I'm actually going to set this specific idea aside for the moment, and focus more on mechanics for immediate and short-term interactions, fluctuations in the relationship, and rewards and penalties from that. I've got ideas around a positive track called "synchronization" or "sync" for short and a sort-of negative track called "tension". More on that in my next post!

Frenemies Dev Diary #2

Time to start making some content! Before I get too far into developing the rules, I want to get a better idea of what kinds of characters and stories this game is about. That will help guide the development of the mechanics. So, I started writing some tables.

First up, I started listing out relationship types and ways two characters might be connected to each other. I want to make sure I'm not limiting myself to just the most common or obvious kinds of pairings. Here's what I've got so far:

• Rivals (academic, professional, hobby, schoolyard, for the affections of another)
• Roommates
• Classmates
• Siblings (elder/younger, half, step, twins (fraternal/identical))
• Cousins
• Extended family (uncle/aunt and niece/nephew, etc.)
• Parent/child (bio, step, adopted)
• Lovers
• Ex-lovers
• Spouses (married for love, married for money, shotgun wedding, arranged marriage)
• Coworkers
• Soldiers in the same squad
• Teammates (sports team, agents, etc.)
• On opposing sides (of a war, two different companies, religions, etc.)
• Childhood friends
• Life debt (one saved the other's life)
• Guardian and guarded / Protector and protected
• Important person and their assistant/bodyguard/butler/whatever 
• Hero and sidekick
• Mentor and apprentice
• Lord and vassal

Then I started thinking about how to generate the core conflict. Frenemies need both motivation to get along and a source of friction. I decided to start with very abstract tables for this. More specific examples could be added, but I wanted something high level that players could use to inspire their own ideas.

So, here is the frenemies generator! Roll a d10 for each table, or roll 2d10 and assign each to one of the tables, your choice.

We work together because...

1. We share a common goal
2. We share a common enemy
3. We share a core belief or value
4. We're using each other for our own ends
5. We love each other
6. An authority is making us do it
7. Something terrible will happen if we don't 
8. Fate or random chance keeps bringing us together 
9. The prophecy says we must
10. It's the only way to end the curse

But...

1. We have wildly different beliefs or values
2. Our personal goals are diametrically opposed
3. We have unresolved history
4. We hurt each other in the past
5. We have conflicting loyalties
6. We are or were on opposite sides of a major conflict
7. Each of us is trying to redeem or corrupt the other 
8. Only one of us can win the prize
9. Only one of us can be the very best
10. Only one of us can come out of this alive

For example, a roll of 1 and 4 could be "We work together because we share a common goal, but we hurt each other in the past", while a roll of 5 and 10 could be "We work together because we love each other, but only one of us can come out of this alive."

This feels like a good starting point. It covers a lot of the examples I can think of from media, such as Deku and Bakugo from My Hero Academia, or Aziraphale and Crowley from Good Omens.

My next step is probably to start thinking more about rules and mechanics!

Frenemies Dev Diary #1

Most tabletop RPGs are designed for a party of around three to five players. Many can scale up to handle a larger party, but very few scale down neatly for a smaller party.

Most solo and duet TTRPGs, on the other hand, are designed around a single player character. The rest usually try to emulate the classic 3 to 5 player party as established by D&D and other popular games.

So, I was thinking: why not make a game about exactly two characters? It could be a solo game, a two-player co-op game, or a guided game for one to two players, but the point would be to have rules, mechanics, and challenges designed specifically around having two PCs, no more, no less.

One big reason I liked this idea was that I have trouble roleplaying a whole party of 3-5 characters by myself, but just two feels more manageable. On the rules and game complexity side, two PCs is also just enough to introduce more interesting combat tactics and allow different approaches to both combat and non-combat challenges. Compare that to running just a single PC, which often devolves into always leaning on your best stat(s) and straightforwardly trading blows with your opponents.

Next, it occurred to me that a game about two PCs could and should have some interesting mechanics to represent their relationship. Maybe there could be something akin to Momentum in Ironsworn, but shared between the PCs? I decided to call it "Synchronization", or "Sync" for short. You could earn Sync by having the PCs work together, protect each other, set each other up for success, etc., and then have special moves you can only do when your Sync is high enough or spend Sync to improve a roll.

Of course, my friend Entitas rightly pointed out that a Sync mechanic, by itself, would just encourage co-operating all the time, which smart players and characters would be inclined to do anyway. To keep it interesting, there would need to be some reason for the two PCs to not always get along.

That got the wheels turning in my head. I had already been thinking about different kinds of relationships this game could involve, but suddenly it all clicked when a specific word came to mind:

Frenemies 

More than just being about any two characters working together on a quest, this game could be specifically about those dramatic, high-tension relationships where people with conflicting goals or personalities need to work together. Think of your favorite examples of friendly rivalries or foes united by a common enemy. Think of ex-lovers who find themselves recruited to the same team, or family members who need to set aside their bad blood to deal with the bigger picture. Those are the kinds of stories I could focus on. It's a broad enough category and set of tropes to let each player make it their own, yet specific enough to be a niche I doubt any other game designer has yet filled.

I'm feeling inspired. I've got plenty of ideas for more mechanics (such as a Tension track that builds toward explosive conflict if not resolved or defused, and a Trust track that represents the long-term growth of the relationship) and Oracle tables for character creation and plot inspirations ("I must work with my frenemy because...", "Fundamental Disagreements", "Minor annoying traits", etc.). I'm gonna try blogging about my development process as I go and share some of the content I come up with.

At this point, I'm not sure if this is going to be an Ironsworn hack or a standalone game. Maybe the former at first, and then I'll evolve it into the latter? We'll see. Anyway, if you like this idea, or you have any thoughts on it, let me know!

Alternate Stat Arrays for Ironsworn

When creating your character to play Ironsworn (or Starforged or various other spin-offs), you have a simple yet difficult choice to make: how do you distribute your stats? Your answer will majorly influence your story as it determines how likely you are to succeed or fail at the many different Moves available to you.

By default, Ironsworn offers you an array of the numbers 3, 2, 2, 1, and 1 to distribute across your five attributes (Edge, Heart, Iron, Shadow, and Wits). This lets you pick one stat to be your strongest, two to have a solid score in, and two to be slightly deficient in (though not too bad - an action roll at +1 still has a 55% chance of rolling a hit). That works out to 30 different ways to arrange your stats.

But what if you wanted more options? Higher stats, lower stats, or just a different distribution? Below, I will examine some possibilities and discuss how they might affect your game of Ironsworn (or Starforged or other spin-off).

(If you want to delve into the math behind how stats determine your odds on a roll, check out this blog post on Basic Probability in Ironsworn by Marx Shepherd.)

Official Alternatives from Lodestar

Ironsworn: Lodestar is primarily a quick reference guide for the rules, moves, and oracles of Ironsworn. However, it also includes one significant new optional rule: alternative arrays for your starting attributes. Lodestar presents three suggestions:

• Challenging: 4, 3, 3, 2, 2
• Perilous (default): 3, 2, 2, 1, 1
• Grim: 3, 2, 1, 1, 0

Compared to the default, the Challenging array is simply the result of adding +1 to all your stats. This will tend to make the game significantly easier, as your best stat is even better, and your worst stats are as good as the default array's middle stats. Your actual odds on each roll aren't hugely different. In fact, the number of weak hits will be almost the same (still around 40%). However, misses tend to trigger the need to make additional moves (especially if you choose big narrative complications), which can lead to more misses. So, the cumulative effect of having fewer misses in the first place really adds up.

On the flip side, the Grim array subtracts a point from two of your stats (compared to the default). Your best attribute will still be at 3, but you only get a single 2, and your worst attribute will be all the way down at 0, where your chance of a hit is only 41%. This isn't as big of a difference from the default as the Challenging array is in the other direction, but it can still make your game quite difficult if you dare to try it. A lot will also depend on which stat you put your 0 in and how often you actually need to roll it. A very honest, straightforward character with 0 Shadow probably won't mind the low stat nearly as much as a character with 0 Heart who finds themselves struggling to swear iron vows or recover their resources via sojourning.

The Challenging array may be a good choice if you want an overall lighter and more heroic tone for your campaign, with fewer complications and less risk. The Grim array may be worth trying if you really want to test your mastery of the system or play a darker campaign where your character struggles to survive in the face of overwhelming odds.

However, as Lodestar hints, those are not the only options available to you...

Cooking Up Homebrew Alternatives

If we want to invent our own stat arrays, it's worth doing a little analysis on the suggested ones first. How many total stat points do you get, and how evenly are they distributed? Here's the breakdown: 

• Challenging: 14 total points, one best stat, difference of 2 between best and worst
• Perilous (default): 9 total points, one best stat, difference of 2 between best and worst
• Grim: 7 total points, one best stat, difference of 3 between best and worst

That gives a general idea of what Ironsworn is designed around and considers "balanced" (though as with any TTRPG, "balance" is hard to define and shouldn't be clung to too tightly). It's also worth noting that a few assets and the optional rules in Ironsworn for increasing attributes with XP reference a cap of 4 on any given stat. Given those parameters, here are some other arrays worth considering (though feel free to make your own as well):

• Jack of all Trades: 2, 2, 2, 2, 1. Total points: 9. With this spread, you have few weaknesses, but no real strength to differentiate your character. They might end up feeling bland.
• Wide Spread: 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. Total points: 10. This is almost like a compromise between the Challenging and Grim arrays, with higher highs and lower lows than the default array. This will probably feel easier than the default overall, especially if you find ways to avoid rolling your weakest stat.
• Over-specialized: 4, 4, 1, 0, 0. Total points: 9. Be awesome in two areas and lacking everywhere else. I don't really recommend this one, but it's interesting to think about how far you can take these ideas.
• Broader Competence: 3, 3, 2, 2, 1. Total points: 11. Good for when you just can't decide which stat should be your highest.  This isn't as strong as the Challenging array, because you don't get a 4, and you still have a weak stat, but it's still noticablely stronger than Perilous.
• Extra Grim: 2, 1, 1, 0, 0. Total points: 4. This is the default array minus 1 from each stat. I would never use this solo or even in a small group. However, for a large enough group of players who like to min-max, this could bring back some of the challenge that is lost compared to smaller games.

Of course, you could also make even more extreme or silly arrays, such as a 9 and four 0s, or just 3s across the board, but I'd bet most of those are more fun to think about than to actually play.

Stat Arrays and Assets

Whichever spread of attributes you go with, you've still got to consider your Asset choices. For the most part, this part doesn't change much - you still want to think about whether to specialize in your best stats or compensate for your worst - but there are few small considerations:

• The bigger the difference between your best stat and your worst, the more value you can get out of assets that let you substitute one stat for another on certain rolls. With the default array, these assets are never better than a +2 bonus, but with a wider spread, they could be effectively a +3 or even +4 difference.
• Some Assets let you roll with a set number that isn't an attribute, such as a Companion's health value. These also may seem more or less attractive depending on how high the stat is you'd normally roll for that kind of Move.
• Some Assets, such as Oathbreaker, let you permanently raise a stat or shift points from one stat to another. Many of these have a cap of +4. It can be worth considering if you're expecting to get any of these at some point and whether you'll hit the cap given your starting array.

What Doesn't Change

Remember that no matter what your stats are, progress Moves don't use them. That means your odds on Moves like Reach Your Destination, End The Fight, and Fulfill Your Vow will be exactly the same regardless of your chosen attributes. Choosing the right time to make those moves can have just as big of an impact on the twists and turns of your story as your attributes will.

Also remember that you still get to choose for yourself what success and failure mean in your story, regardless of how frequently they each happen. How you choose to Pay the Price  especially has a large effect on the tone and difficulty of the game. If you want an easier or harder game, or a lighter or darker tone, shifting your approach to the narrative can do as much or more than shifting your stats.

Conclusion

I hope this article helped you think about what stats you might want to give your next PC. There are a lot of options to choose from, and no right or wrong answer except what works for you. Just remember that the further you stray from the default, the more your experience will differ from what Ironsworn normally expects.

More Ranks for Ironsworn and Starforged

Ironsworn, Starforged, and related games use a simple set of five Ranks (Troublesome, Dangerous, Formidable, Extreme, and Epic) for setting the difficulty of vows, journeys, and combat and tracking your progress. These cover a pretty broad range of possibilities, but they aren't perfect. I'd like to propose some additions that might be useful.

Going below Troublesome

For a Troublesome progress track, you mark 3 boxes at a time. Marking progress twice is enough for a good chance of a hit, three times is solid, and four times fills the entire track. But what about tasks where even that short of a track feels too long? Well, how about...

• Bothersome: Mark 5 boxes per progress. Only two progress needed to fill it! If you Fulfill Your Vow or make another progress move that gives Legacy Track progress and score a strong hit with a match, take 1 XP (in Ironsworn) or 1 tick on the appropriate Legacy Track (in Starforged). On any other result, this does not give any XP or Legacy Track progress.
• Nuisance: Don't roll Swear an Iron Vow or any other such Move for this, and don't make a progress track. This task is complete once you score a hit on a single relevant move. Then, you may Reach A Milestone on a related vow or Develop Your Relationship with a relevant contact, if one exists.
• Trivial: Don't make any Move at all for this. Simply narrate how you easily accomplish the task. There are no rewards for completion.

Now, you may be wondering why even bother with Ranks for such low-effort tasks. Well, I feel like giving them names and thinking about how they extend the scale of difficulty is useful, because it helps you make more deliberate choices about difficulty and how much narrative focus to give a task. I've noticed some players seem to treat Troublesome as a sort of minimum difficulty for any new task or complication, especially ones generated by weak hits and misses on Moves like Compel, Gather Information, and Forge A Bond. Yet it is completely valid to deal with something in a single Move (Nuisance difficulty, which is equivalent to moves like Battle for combat and Set A Course for travel) or even no Moves at all!

Filling in the Gaps

From Dangerous up to Epic, each step up or down a rank doubles the amount of progress required. That works well enough, but sometimes you want something that falls in-between. For those situations, I propose the following (listed XP is for Ironsworn, Legacy Track ticks are for Starforged):

• Dangidible: 6 ticks per progress. On a strong hit, gain 2.5 XP or 3 Legacy Track ticks.
• Fortreme: 3 ticks per progress. On a strong hit, gain 3.5 XP or 6 Legacy Track ticks.
• Extic: 1.5 ticks per progress. On a strong hit, gain 4.5 XP or 10 Legacy Track ticks.

How exactly to track half-ticks and half-XP is left as an exercise for the reader.

Going above Epic

If you want a vow that takes longer than the already absurd Epic rank provides, you could simply mark half of a tick per progress. However, a far more interesting and useful technique is to simply say that each Milestone requires completing an entire quest of its own. That can easily triple the amount of effort involved, or more. Plus, you'll earn XP or Legacy Track ticks for each sub-quest along the way!

Disclaimer

The above suggestions are not meant entirely seriously. The author of this blog takes no responsibility for any choice paralysis which may ensue when deciding between so many marginally different ranks, nor for any frustration or pacing issues experienced due to excessive quest-nesting.

Scaling Up Ironsworn, Part 3: Combat

Welcome to Part 3 of my series on Scaling Up Ironsworn. In this post, I'll address one big issue and one smaller related problem you might run into when playing Ironsworn, Starforged, or similar games with a larger group of players. You can find the intro and overview for this topic in my earlier post here. Links to the rest of the series are at the bottom.

Big Problem #3: Combat Is Over Too Fast

With more players, combat can end much too quickly. For example, a Formidable combat takes around 3 to 5 hits on Strike or Clash to fill up the progress track. For a solo player, that’s a decent challenge which will likely involve some back-and-forth as they gain and lose initiative. For a large group, that same combat might be over by the time each player has taken a single turn. Such short combats can be unsatisfying and anticlimactic.

The problem is made worse in combination with the scaling issues I discussed in earlier posts. Large groups will likely enter combat with their resources tracks mostly full and plenty of Momentum, unless they've been making the game harder for themselves. I've also noticed that most players prioritize having decent Iron or Edge, along with at least one combat Asset. That means parties rarely have anyone who is bad at combat.

All that can take combat, which should be dramatic and dangerous, and make it feel safe and unexciting. Fortunately, there are some simple adjustments you can use to bring back the fun.

Here's how to adjust combat so it lasts longer and feels more challenging:

• Choose higher rank enemies, whether tougher individuals or larger packs.
• In Ironsworn, fight multiple enemies with individual progress tracks.
• In Starforged, invent combat scenarios with multiple objectives, so there are more tracks to fill.
• Add more narrative complications that have to be dealt with, so it's harder for players to just Strike their way to a quick victory. For example, “Oh no, the enemy can fly, so you can’t get close enough to Strike +iron unless you do something about it first,” or “Oh no, that enemy is wearing a prototype powered armor suit which is impervious to small arms. You can’t Strike or Clash against it until you find a weakness or other solution.”
• When a PC rolls badly and ends up without Initiative or In A Bad Spot, don’t immediately turn the camera away to another PC. Instead, stay with the current player and have them Clash, Face Danger, or React Under Fire at least once before going to someone else’s turn. That way, they get to experience the consequences of their failure and maybe suffer further before there is a chance for the combat to end or an ally to come to their rescue.
• Realize that with more players, not every character needs to be good at combat. It's fine to specialize in other areas and not worry about "pulling your weight" in combat. In fact, a character who is particularly skilled at exploring, socializing, or solving problems in other ways can make a big difference by helping the party avoid combat in the first place or be more prepared for it when it does happen.

Small Problem #3: Narrating Combat When The Foes Are Outnumbered

This is really more of a narrative problem than a mechanical issue, but it's closely related to the rest of this post, so I felt like discussing it. (Plus, it rounded out the count of Big and Small problems for the series.)

When there are more PCs than enemies in a fight, it can be difficult to reconcile the mechanical outcomes of Moves with the narrative, particularly on failed rolls. The most common problem is when a PC rolls a Miss on a Strike from long range. If all the enemies are already engaged in melee with someone else, how do any of them threaten the PC who just missed? Per the rules, they should lose initiative / be in a bad spot, but there is no obvious danger for them to face with their next Move. Players may struggle to come up with a satisfying narrative resolution that doesn't make the shooter look incompetent or make enemies seem like they're teleporting across the battlefield to attack.

The fundamental issue is that it can be hard to envision how a single enemy can threaten multiple PCs at the same time. Honestly, this is one problem for which I'd say there is no perfect solution, but with a bit of creativity it can at least be mitigated much of the time.

Here are some ways to make combat more engaging when the foes are outnumbered:

• Make the terrain, environment, or battlefield itself a threat to the PCs by including rockslides, unstable platforms, collapsing ceilings, fire, storm winds, traps, automated security systems, and other such hazards.
• Give your enemies extreme size, unusually long reach, extra mobility, ranged attacks, area attacks, or other such advantages so they can threaten more of the party at once. For example, in a fight against a vampire, my party decided that he could summon and direct flocks of bats to attack from a distance.
• Consider the risk of friendly fire. A "threat" could be, "I can't safely attack the enemy until I get into a better position."
• Have key equipment break or malfunction. Re-stringing a bow, clearing a jammed rifle, or restarting the flux capacitor is much more difficult in the middle of combat.
• Introduce reinforcements or another new enemy as a way to Pay the Price, or avoid the problem in the first place by giving a major foe allies or minions. That eldritch horror has cultists. The dragon has a mate. Station security shows up, but they've already been bought out by the mob boss. Etc.

Conclusion and Links

I hope you find this analysis and advice helpful in your own Ironsworn games. For more on this topic, just follow the links:

Intro and Overview for this series

Part 1: Stat and Asset Coverage

Part 2: Resource Tracks and Aid Your Ally

Part 3: Combat (<- you are here)

The Worst Rule in Ironsworn

"Make the most obvious negative outcome happen."

(Disclaimer: I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't love Ironsworn. I have very few complaints about the game, but I found one I couldn't resist writing about. Thus, the clickbait title, which I half-apologize for.)

The "obvious negative outcome" rule comes from page 105 of the Ironsworn core rulebook, as part of the Move Pay the Price (often shortened to "PtP"). It's in Starforged as well, so this all applies there too. From what I've seen in play reports and discussed in the Ironsworn community, no other rule has caused as much confusion and frustration for players and guides. I strongly suspect this rule is responsible for a significant portion of Ironsworn's undeserved reputation as a grim, gritty, and deadly game where you should fully expect your character to be killed off at any time. The reality is, adventures in Ironsworn are only as dangerous as you choose to make them, though it takes some system mastery to tune the experience to your tastes.

Before we dive into my reasoning for why the "obvious negative outcome" rule is the worst in Ironsworn and what can be done about it, let's back up and establish some context. If you're already pretty familiar with Ironsworn's rules and Pay the Price, feel free to skip ahead to "What's so bad about this rule anyway?"

What is Pay the Price (or PtP for short)? It is the Move you make in Ironsworn when you suffer a negative outcome from another Move. That usually means you rolled a Miss on something else, though it can also trigger off a weak hit on certain moves like Clash. PtP tells you how to decide what consequences you suffer. It's similar to the GM Moves from other Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) games, but designed to support GM-less play by being a bit more concrete and allowing the player(s) to choose a consequence for themselves.

Here is the text of Pay the Price:

"When you suffer the outcome of a move, choose one.

• Make the most obvious negative outcome happen.
• Envision two negative outcomes. Rate one as ‘likely’, and Ask the Oracle using the yes/no table. On a ‘yes’, make that outcome happen. Otherwise, make it the other.
• Roll on the following table. If you have difficulty interpreting the result to fit the current situation, roll again."

This is followed by an oracle table of possible outcomes, such as "Something of value is lost or destroyed" or "It is harmful." Depending on the result you choose or roll, PtP may lead to a narrative consequence (such as angering an NPC), a mechanical consequence (such as losing Health), or both. Those consequences can then trigger other Moves, such as Endure Harm or Face Danger. Over the course of a campaign, you'll be dealing with Pay the Price a lot, so the results will heavily shape your story and the difficulty you face.

What's so bad about this rule anyway?

In short, because it implicitly encourages players to choose simple, direct consequences most of the time, and especially ones that cost Health. This problem is usually most noticable and severe in combat, but it happens in other contexts too.

Here's how it commonly goes:

• "I need to roll Face Danger to (climb a cliff / swim across a river / evade an enemy's attack)."
• "Oops, I rolled a Miss. Time to Pay The Price."
• "Hmm, it says to make the most obvious negative outcome happen. Well, what's most obvious here would be to (fall off the cliff / start drowning / get stabbed)."
• "Guess it's time to Endure Harm and then try again."

Now, there's nothing terribly wrong with that sequence of events, if it happens occasionally, but it shouldn't be the default. Choosing mechanical hits instead of narrative complications too often can make your story uninteresting and lead to your character suffering excessively or even dying, leaving you unsatisfied and frustrated.

Yet time after time I see conversations like this:

• New player: "This game is so hard! I did just one Dangerous rank combat and nearly died!"
• Experienced players: "Well, did you make yourself lose Health on every Miss?"
• New player: "Of course, because the game says to make the most obvious negative result happen. In combat, that means losing Health, right?"

Why do so many players fall into this trap? I think there are several factors. The biggest one is probably that many players are used to other RPGs, board games, and video games where losing hit points is the primary or only consequence for failure, and where combat often boils down to taking turns trading blows until somebody dies. But also...

• "Obvious negative outcome" is the first option listed in PtP. Studies show that most people are slightly biased toward choosing the first option from a list. Additionally, players may assume that the first option must be the default or most recommended, or that the other two options are only for when there isn't an "obvious" result.
• It's easier and faster to just choose an outcome, compared to rolling on the full table and interpreting the result, or coming up with two options and rolling to see which one happens.
• Some players may only read the rules and moves once, then rely on their memory, or merely skim for a quick reminder, rather than referencing the full text of the move. It's easier to remember the simple "obvious negative outcome" rule than the rest of PtP.

Is this really the worst rule, though? It's not like the rule is logically or mathematically broken. In fact, when applied correctly and judiciously, the "obvious negative outcome" rule is a time-saver that helps keep the story flowing. It also lets players know it's okay to just pick something instead of always rolling for a random result. The main reason I dislike this rule so strongly is because it can cause new players to bounce off Ironsworn (due to its perceived difficulty) before they've had a chance to learn how to handle it and experience how awesome Ironsworn can be. The secondary reason is because I believe it would only take two tiny changes to fix most of the problem.

So, what's the solution?

Oddly enough, the main fix is already there in the Ironsworn rulebook, on page 104, where it discusses how to use the two Fate Moves (Ask The Oracle and Pay the Price). Specifically, it suggests...

"If an answer to a question or the result of a situation is obvious, interesting and dramatic, make it happen." (Emphasis added)

Those three extra words make all the difference. They prompt players to choose an outcome that is fun and engaging, not just one that follows logically from the setup. Unfortunately, that text is easily overlooked during play, because it isn't in the Move itself. I would love to see Pay The Price amended to say...

"Make the most obvious, interesting, and/or dramatic negative outcome happen."

Additionally or alternatively, I think it could be helpful to move this line down so it is presented as the second or third option in PtP. That might make it feel less like the default approach and more like an option on par with the other two.

Ok, but how do I come up with better ideas for consequences?

Even once you realize that getting hurt doesn't have to be so common, it can still be hard to come up with alternatives that don't feel like a stretch. Rolling on the Pay The Price table is one option, but some players may dislike that randomness or struggle to interpret the results. Below are some suggestions for how to spark your creativity. With practice, you will find yourself coming up with consequences that feel interesting, dramatic, and obvious.

• Read through the Oracle table in PtP again from time to time. Notice how most of the results are not directly harmful or stressful. Even if you aren't rolling on it, the table can be very useful for sparking ideas for consequences.
• Go re-watch some of your favorite action or adventure movies. Think about each story beat and whether it feels like a strong hit, weak hit, or miss for the protagonist. Pay attention to the action scenes and notice what else happens to the heroes besides getting hurt. Usually, a lot of narrative complications get introduced before anyone takes a serious wound. Mine your favorite media for examples.
• Try to think of at least one possible negative outcome before making a Move. If you can't think of anything interesting, that might mean this isn't a dramatic or high-stakes enough moment to bother rolling.
• Sometimes use success-at-a-cost or "yes, but..." outcomes to "fail forward" on a Miss. For example, instead of falling down from the cliff you were climbing, you get to the top only to find a nest of angry harpies in your way.
• Break down a big consequence into smaller steps. This lets you ratchet up the stakes and tension across multiple rolls. For example, on a Journey or Expedition, one Miss could mean simply "the weather is starting to look bad", and the second Miss is where you say,  "now the thunderstorm is rolling in, time to find shelter." Or for a combat example, instead of getting knocked off a cliff due to one bad roll, you can have stages like "oh no, I've been pushed closer to the cliff", "oh no, I'm teetering on the edge of the cliff", and "oh no, I'm clinging to the top of the cliff for dear life."
• Try to have stakes and goals in combat other than "let's see who dies first." For example, if you are fighting to protect an NPC, a threat of injury to them is a great "obvious" consequence.
• Think about your enemy's fighting style and approach to combat (or other forms of conflict). Use the combat action Oracle for inspiration as well. Then, when you lose initiative or are in a bad spot, don't just say, "they attack me." Choose an action or tactic like "they try to disarm me," "they try to intimidate me," or "they try to lure me into terrain that favors them." Then, if you fail your next roll, the "obvious" outcome will be the result of whatever your opponent was trying to do.
• Add some detail to the environment in combat. A fight should rarely take place on a flat, open plain or in an empty arena. Trees, cliffs, mud, stairs, walls, fences, boulders, pits, traps, and so on all provide opportunities for you and your opponent to fight in more interesting ways, which can then generate more options for consequences.
• If you feel that a particular failure deserves a mechanical hit, or you don't feel like coming up with a narrative complication, remember that Health, Spirit, Supply, and Momentum are all valid ways to pay that cost. Maybe instead of getting hurt, you had a close call that frightened you, or you lost or wasted valuable supplies, or you were delayed or put at a minor disadvantage.

Conclusion

I hope this post was helpful. If you have other ideas for how to generate fun Pay the Price results, or you disagree with me about what deserves the title of "worst rule in Ironsworn", leave a comment, or find me on the Ironsworn discord server and let me know!