Drama
Ever notice how conversations never go the way they do in the movies? The reason is simple they are scripted yours aren’t. Drama in Xor’Veil is a way of mimicking the drama from movies, serials, and books. Drama is ‘social combat’ giving your investigators another way of approaching problems. Drama is a way of raising the stakes without going to combat. Dramas are laid out in a simple manner best two of three contests.
+Before you begin
Drama requires an additional tool drama tokens, these can be anything but Xor’Veil has it’s own tokens to be used for this purpose with the game. If you do not have these tokens it is suggested you use coins, or casino tokens if you have them. No token should be the same colour as the other. If you are not using the Xor’Veil tokens they must represent guile on one side empathy on the other, intimidate on one side conviction on the other, and reason on one side deduction on the other. Giving you a total of three tokens with two sides. Everyone should be clear as to what token is what, no one should have a misunderstanding of what the tokens represent.
Starting a drama
A drama begins as soon as both sides agree to terms. This will usually be the Investigator requesting/stating one thing, and the antagonist refusing/denying that. Usually there will be a short out of game discussion to determine exact terms before the drama begins. Once those terms are set then the drama will begin.
+Example
‘We need to get in there! This could give us the evidence we need.’ ‘I am guard if I let someone it could cause problems for me, I could lose my job. Go, this is a hassle I do not need’.
Out of game. “I want to start a drama” Investigator “Okay and what are the terms” Conspirator “If I win, he will let me in, and will cover for me” Investigator “hmmm he will let you, but your found its on you and if you lose you won’t come back or try and break in to cause him problems.” Conspirator “Sounds fair, let’s do it” Investigator.
Whoever started the argument is the aggressor, the aggressor uses the aggressive social skills, these are reason, intimidate, and guile. These each represent one of the three proofs for arguments, logic, credibility, and emotion. In the Greek this is logos, ethos, and pathos. Reason uses logic to argue a case, just the facts so to speak. Intimidate argues the fear as aspect of things, arguments of credibility valid or not. Guile argues the emotions of things how a person feels, a person’s gut response and intangible aspects of arguments.
Intimidate
Intimidation is far more subtle and cruel than most people think it. It is rarely the threat of naked force pushing some against the wall do as I say or things will go badly. Instead they might threaten a person’s livelihood, their place in a community, or being on the wrong side of history, telling them they will be seen as a monster. All of these are forms of intimidation subtle or not. Intimidate is a tool of force, regardless of how it used, it can be used cut or to bludgeon. Intimidate was singled out because often people see it as one thing only. Intimidation is far more common than many realise.
Defensive skills
Just there are a range of offensive skills for drama which represent the artistic proofs. So, too do defensive skills represent certain aspects of argument. Empathy represents trying to get people to understand your point of view, conviction represents your commitment to your beliefs, and deduction is finding the flaws in your opponent’s argument. Whereas conviction is simply resisting the argument all together or giving your own credible sources against their argument.
The cycle of social skills
Just as there are tactics in action scenes, so too are there tactics and strategy to drama. In a drama when you are an aggressor you use the skills reason, intimidate, and guile. However, when you are on the defence you use empathy, deduction, and conviction. These not only represent your argument but also indicate a strategic choice, the strategy is simple but gaining an advantage dice can be decisive in a drama. What gains advantage against each thing is set out in a picture to the left. Reason is strong against deduction, deduction is strong against guile, guile is strong against conviction, conviction is strong against intimidate, intimidate is strong against empathy, and empathy is strong against reason.
Making the argument
Once the argument begins, the rest of the out of game of discussions cease and you return to being your investigator. The person who started the drama uses the aggressive skills, reason, intimidate, and guile, the person on the defence uses the defensive skills empathy, deduction, and conviction. When you make your argument, your argument should match your chosen skill/token. Then the defending person makes an argument, their argument should match the chosen skill/token. Once both sides have made their arguments each side reveals their tokens in a rock, paper, scissors style way.
This allows for both verbal sleight of hand as well as physical slight of hand. Once the tokens are revealed, it moves onto the dice roll. If someone gained advantage, they get an additional dice to their roll. If they already have six dice the additional dice may be used in the same way that you would use an action point. If someone made an argument for intimidate but used reason without using any signs of making a logical argument, they may have advantage taken away and given to the other side at the conspirators discretion. This is because they aren’t agreeing to the spirit of the game and ignoring the Golden Rules.
Result
After arguments have been made the dice are rolled. The person with the higher value wins.
Though, this is only round one of the drama. Regardless of who won or lost, the person who was the aggressor now becomes the defender, and the person who was the defender now becomes the aggressor. The process begins again from the start. This is meant to mimic the back and forth volley style arguments from movies, TV, and radio drama (now podcast dramas). However, if this a person’s second win they win the drama and gain the spoils of the drama. If your Investigators lose an argument, just remember this yet another hurdle to conqueror not the end.
Consequence
Sometimes people do not honour their agreements, Investigators or antagonists. These people do not last long in civil society, ‘a man’s word is their bond’ as the saying goes. For those who cannot live up to this, it is more than just the aggrieved party that cannot trust them.
A person breaking the result of a drama loses one influence, if they promised significant aid (aid that would risk personal harm) they lose an additional influence.
A person breaking the result of a drama loses one honor if the person they are arguing with has higher or equal honour score. Additionally, they lose one honour if significant member of society is in attendance of the argument: a made man, priest, or magi (whatever your societies high members are).
A person breaking the result of a drama loses one fear so long as anyone other the investigators and the antagonist(s) are there. Additionally, they lose one fear if they used intimidate during the argument.
These mechanical punishments are meant to represent the persons loss of face. The humiliation they feel, and the lack of trust society now places in them due there breaking of promises.
If they have lost enough status to be reduced to zero, they become wretched.
Types of drama
What is described above is the standard form of drama however every form of drama is unique. If a drama deviates from the formula above it will say as much. For the most part the only change is cost and what additional abilities you can use within an argument.
+Traditional argument
Cost: One honour or One influence.
It follows all of the rules above.
+Public Debate
Cost: Influence, honour, and fear and an audience.
Public debate is about proving one’s ideals. In this drama both parties may use status to gain an additional advantage on roll in the same way you would spend an action point
- Honor to gain an advantage on reason/deduction rolls
- Influence to gain an advantage on guile/empathy rolls, and
- Fear to gain an advantage on intimidate/conviction rolls.
Any influence, honour, and fear spent by an opponent during this argument is gained by the victor, but the influence, honour, or fear they spent is lost.
+Exposé
Cost: Evidence and Motive.
An exposé is much like a public debate in that isn’t about something tangible but, about proving someone’s guilt. As such it holds much greater risk to the investigators, as they confront them as a group. There is no cost for interloping in an exposé.
Unlike other forms of argument, it does not require a social status cost. To begin an exposé you must have evidence and motive. When you begin this drama your evidence gains you additional dice to your rolls. However, your opponent may use status to gain an advantage as described in public debate.
In the first round of the drama your evidence is given one of three categories. Which gives you a bonus to your roll
- Circumstantial evidence gains one additional dice to your roll.
- Definitive evidence gains two additional dice to your roll.
- Damning evidence gains three additional dice to your roll.
If this would ever make you go beyond six dice, treat the additional dice as you would a hero point for that round only. In the second round your opponent gains dice according to your misconduct used to collect this evidence.
- Suspicious circumstances gains one additional dice to their roll.
- Improbable circumstances gains two additional dice to their roll.
- Criminal circumstances gains three additional dice to their roll.
In the third round should you make it that far, you gain an additional dice due not to evidence but due to motive of the accused. These follow the same rules as evidence. With exposés it the investigators that lead it as such they may choose to begin the drama with motive rather than evidence. Which ever they believe is stronger. Should the investigators lose this drama they are treated as if they broke an agreement as laid out in the consequences section page reference.
If the investigators win the drama they will gain a reward from the conspirator. This reward can be any number of things but, is likely to give them honour. An exposé is usually the end of a session but is sometimes the end of a campaign and often everything has been building to this one moment. Thus, the reward should be equal to the effort put in.
+Interrogations
Cost: One fear and upto one honor.
Interrogations are a peculiar drama. You are always the aggressor; however you aren’t looking to beat your opponent in this drama but make them crack and not break. If interrogation becomes a torture, they are broken giving you whatever you want to hear, anything to make it stop. All evidence gained in this way is void and cannot be used in exposés or for other means.
To win an interrogation, you must match as close as possible to your opponents roll. If you ever tie a roll with your opponent you win the drama. To win a round of this drama your roll must be within three points of their roll, this is a crack. You lose a round if they are six points outside of your roll. If they are six points beyond your roll they stonewall. If they are six points below your roll they break. If they are within four to five it’s a tie and the interrogation continues, this drama does not have a three round limit.
However, in these rolls if you gain advantage you may give that dice after it is rolled to your opponent. You may use action points as normal to reroll your die roll, perhaps choosing lower rolls, additionally you may choose to reroll a dice rather than adding a dice as normal when using your first action point. Your goal is to have them crack twice. If they crack twice or you get a tie on the dice roll you win. If they stonewall or break twice you lose. If they stonewall you lose your previous crack in their armour.
If a fellow investigator spends one honor they may be good cop. Being good cop means they use the defensive skills in this drama and only the defensive skills. If good cop takes over whenever the opponent breaks they lose that one break. If ever the bad cop takes over from you when they stonewall they lose that stonewall, and do not lose their crack (the person who started the interrogation) Neither good cop nor bad cop loses status for interloping. Additionally, the subject of the interrogation may spend status to defend themselves as described in a public debate page reference.
Multi person dramas
Drama is set out with the conceit that it is one-person verse one-person. However, sometimes people really wish to but in, giving advice, additional information, or arguing themselves. If a person gives additional information privately they are not considered to have added to the drama. There are two forms of multi person dramas one is upfront groups and the other is interlopers.
Upfront groups
When there are two groups of people arguing it isn’t each person arguing, there is one person who represent the group as the whole for each side. So too is this way in Xor’Veil when entering a group drama there is one person who is elected as the leader, this person makes the arguments and is backed up by their companions. When entering a group drama each person in the group must pay the cost of entering that drama. As an example, if you were all entering an public debate you would each need to spend one influence, honour, and fear to enter.
The advantage of having an upfront group is that if a person has a higher skill than that of the lead person, the lead gains an additional dice .Only one, if this would give them more than six this is treated in the same way as an action dice. In addition, they gain the benefits of any talents they may have with that skill. However, you only ever draw on one person’s talent pool for each roll. Let’s say that there are two investigators with one half of each the empathy talent tree, you would have to choose which half is better and not gain the benefits of both.
Dishonourable group
If ever a group is used against a single individual, each person from that group loses one honour when they participate. Additionally, they lose a fear if the conviction or intimidate skill is used in this manner, as they are seen as cowardly/inept being unable to stand up for themselves. The only exception to this is with an exposé as they are seen as the group that uncovered the facts rather than a bullying group. This isn’t seen as lopsided as the accused is often a person of power and/or having broken societies moral taboos in addition to their criminal conduct. Also the two person groups of interrogators good cop and bad cop are exempt from this rule.
Interlopers
Sometimes a person in the group may see a drama going very badly and they want to step in on behalf of the person. If a person steps in first the person in the drama must allow them to step in, regardless of if the ‘lead’ allows them to step in or not the interloper loses one honour. If a person has no honour, they cannot interlope. If the person interlopes and the lead allows this they become the lead, the lead loses one influence and fear as they are seen as unable to prosecute their argument. If the lead was winning they lose two honour in addition to the previous losses. When someone interlopes they become the lead of the argument, and the previous lead can no longer participate in the drama. It is almost always seen as bad thing to interlope. There is one exception, if a person is against a dishonourable group, and they have lost at least one round of the argument a person may interlope on behalf of the other person. If a person interlopes in this way, they do not lose honour. Additionally, if they win the drama they gain the honour that dishonourable group members would have used to participate in this drama. This person need not be a fellow investigator.