During a game yesterday a knight declared that he wanted to make a good show for the public in a swordmaship duel during a tournament.
He rolled vs his Hospitality passion and failed becoming disheartned.

A couple of rounds later he claimed a Honor passion roll to recover his pride and somehow to balance his dishearthened status...

Can this be done?
As far as I remember it's just "1 passion per time" and being disheartened is a passion effect, so (if I was a GM) no way you can even think about a Honor roll to recover the disheartned status.
But I was not the GM.

By the way the GM allowed it saying that, if he failed, he would have become immediately Mad (and I feel this is his House Rule).
The player succeded and the GM allowed him to be inspired (+10), in effects deleting the dishearthened status (-5) on the grounds that only 1 passion effect per time can be un use....

I think that a GM can even ignore rules if this is good for story...but, for the sake of balance, do you think that what happened is OK?

I have said no to this scenario (passion roll to mitigate previous passion roll), and I have said yes to it.

It comes down to two different things.
1. Does it make sense. Did the player describe *WHY* it would come into play, and *how* the new passion would come into play.
2. Is it better for story if he does or does not. Player has to come up with the story for how it is better if he is allowed to try.

I explain that if he succeeds, he can ONLY stop the negative effect, and will not gain any other benefit. So, no turning a -5 into a +5. PK would only remove the -5 effect.
I also explain that if he fails, at the end of the scene he will go running off under the effect of being mad.

As an example, PK failed at a chaste and was going to go have some fun with baron's sexy daughter.
PK asked for a "love-wife" roll to stop this from happening. I agree, and he failed.
PK then asked for a hospitality roll, and came up with a good story for both *why* he should be allowed, and what would happen if he succeeded. He even threw in what would happen if he failed (namely, that failing the hospitality roll would be treated as if he had critted his Lust).
He failed, and much political fallout happened.
Even more will be coming when the girl gives birth to a lovely bastard boy in 6 months.

Hi, Luca's GM here just to explain, the above scenario (which has not been explained correctly anyway) was in response to 4, yes 4 hours of constant bickering and rules lawyering and in those four hours we managed to get three rounds of combat fought. There was name calling, accusations of cheating, requests to have players banned from my game. The works. This was all about as low a stakes local tournament as can be imagined. With this being the case, I made a call to get the game moving again. Was it the correct call? Well, we're playing again, and only because of the decisions I made, so I would say yes.

Obviously you made the correct call. Group integrity and fun trumps any rule made anywhere.

I'd probably also permit other PKs to intervene with a melancholic knight (say, a pause between combats?) and encourage them--thus enabling a different passion roll. That said, as SirUkpyr illustrates, if the reroll chance doesn't work out then sometimes you just need to roll with the punch and let the character get into hot water.

Main thing is to establish as a storyteller a table that respects the story, the fun of each, and trusts the GM enough that their individual play interests will be held up past momentary failure. Sometimes that takes more work, as SleepyWill points out. Bravo. Humans are hard.

--Khanwulf

SleepyWill, I would give one word of advice. Sit down with your players and ask them how they want passions to run going forward.
Let them know that every PK (excluding the one who has already gotten a double-passion roll) will get one free "failed my passion - get a different passion roll".

The idea is that you come up with the players *how* the issue in the future will be handled, while also giving everyone 1 free "double-passion" reroll if needed.

You might even give the players a timeframe for how long they can hold onto their double passion reroll, based on how often you play.

Good luck getting this all sorted.

Hi, Luca's GM here just to explain, the above scenario (which has not been explained correctly anyway) was in response to 4, yes 4 hours of constant bickering and rules lawyering and in those four hours we managed to get three rounds of combat fought. There was name calling, accusations of cheating, requests to have players banned from my game. The works. This was all about as low a stakes local tournament as can be imagined. With this being the case, I made a call to get the game moving again. Was it the correct call? Well, we're playing again, and only because of the decisions I made, so I would say yes.

Sounds rough.

Personally I'm a stickler against re-rolls. Players should know that if they're rolling there is a risk, no risk, no roll required. This is true in particular with passions. Passions represent a knight willingly tossing aside all sense and control to give in to their emotions. It's a great way to accomplish heroic things, but there should always be room for doubt.

This is especially true since players are often wont to think of Passions as just an I-win button. I'm already considering limiting their effects to just a +5 on a regular success (reserving +10 for Criticals) just as a way to make players rely on them less. But all the same, too often I've encountered Players assuming that the best way to approach a fight is just to come up with an excuse for why their highest passion is applicable. (No you cannot just think thoughts about your wife before you go into battle to activate your Love (Wife) passion, anymore than you can just imagine the guys you're fighting are Saxons for your Hate passion.) Making sure that the effect stings when it turns out badly is a critical part of avoiding abuse.

All the same, I don't begrudge you for what you did. I've never had to deal with a 4 hour tantrum over failing a semi-trivial roll. I think it's very possible that I would have done to same were in your situation.

This is especially true since players are often wont to think of Passions as just an I-win button. I'm already considering limiting their effects to just a +5 on a regular success (reserving +10 for Criticals) just as a way to make players rely on them less.

That is what we have been doing in our campaigns for a long time. At the same time, we did away with Shock, since frankly, we felt it was a bit unfair, resulting in a rather strange decision tree:
1) An easy situation to win: use passion, win for sure, get checks and Glory.
2) A desperate situation where you'd imagine actually being inspired by the passion: you might still lose and suffer Shock, so you might instead not to risk being Inspired. If you were inspired, you'd get a double whammy by not only losing the fight (with its consequences) but likely losing a stat point(s) too.

By making away with the Shock and reducing the benefit of being Inspired, it wasn't really worthwhile for the Players to try and use the passion in normal circumstances (since they might still fail and thus lower the passion). Instead, it was being used when it was actually necessary and appropriate to the story, and they didn't have to fear being punished not only by losing but by suffering Shock, too. Thus, the house rule worked well for us. We did rule that failing the task while inspired did mean losing a point from the Passion (you still got the check from succeeding in becoming inspired), but on hindsight, I am not sure I would impose even that anymore. Why would you suddenly feel less loyal to your Lord if you did your best and still failed? Surely such an outcome ought to make you even more eager to prove your loyalty, not the other way around?

As for multiple passions... This hasn't really come up in our campaigns, but I think I might be tempted to allow it, if the situation is appropriate. Given that we still give -5 for the failed passion roll, the second passion roll (at -5) would only manage to bring the skill back up to its original value, and not counter the full effect of the Disheartened. Otherwise, it would be too much of a good thing.

To bring it back to the original post, NEITHER passion roll in the original post would have been allowed in any game I'd GM. You don't use Hospitality to make yourself look good, nor would Honor help you to avoid losing a fight, if Honor has not been insulted. I'll just finish by saying that any player trying to rules-lawyer me for more than a quick check/clarification on the rules would test my patience and the player in question would have been invited to leave the game well before the hour is up. Luckily, my players are all adults and my friends, so it is a rather self-selecting group and I seldom have to put up with drama. But people can have their off-days, of course. Myself included.

Since we're on alternate ways to handle things:

1. I use "fate points" that represent rerolls. The refresh at 1 per year. I also do a LOT more action in a year than stock KAP so far, but may be able to slow down later. But the point is that fate points take the place of permissive multi-passion checks and hand the decision on use of a rare resource back to the player. If the second (or third or however many points later) roll fails? That's how it should be.

2. Have had a PK with an Amor(Ygraine) finally get a chance to escort her from a feast to the ladies hall, attempt to impress her with skills, succeed in passion, then fumble the skill roll. Shock dropped SIZ 1 (he's never been able to eat right afterwards). It was... weird... and while I could see dropping the passion (it gets dull as you become depressed), the physical impact was... just strange.


--Khanwulf

Hi, Luca's GM here just to explain, the above scenario (which has not been explained correctly anyway) was in response to 4, yes 4 hours of constant bickering and rules lawyering and in those four hours we managed to get three rounds of combat fought. There was name calling, accusations of cheating, requests to have players banned from my game. The works. This was all about as low a stakes local tournament as can be imagined. With this being the case, I made a call to get the game moving again. Was it the correct call? Well, we're playing again, and only because of the decisions I made, so I would say yes.

Hi Will!
No problem.

You know: I just accepted that and went on.

I was just curious what's the others take on this.
Many rules are prone to interpretation and maybe it will happen the same to me, if I happen to GM Pendragon.

As a GM I limit the use of passion a lot. I want them to be a special case, not a common occurance. So I allow its use only in special situations. The passion needs to be apropriate so a player needs to explain to me why the passion is apropriate. And my rule is law, so if you cannot convince me tough luck.
Some examples:
You are fighting a horde of Saxons and suddenly your brother goes down. you are still surrounded by those foul men. A Love(Family) or Hate (Saxons) is then apropriate.
Your PK has a Love (Wife) or an Amor(Lady). During a tournament your fight is going bad and you still wish to impress the lady a passion roll is apropriate.

In the example I do not see the use of Hospitality in trying to put on a good show. Why was this so important for him? It seems more Pride than anything other. I think there was a rule that you could use traits as well as passions to get inspired (but not sure if it is still in 5.1), so you could use that. But I would need more than just: 'I want to be good'. Otherwise it would mean you could use a passion all the time.

So a reroll could be made if it was apropriate. If during the fight something happens that makes a roll obvious I would allow it, but not just because the fight goes bad (you failed, your heart is not into it). Something must trigger the new roll (for instance other knights calling out; the opponent that threatens your family/lady or something like that).

Hi, Luca's GM here just to explain, the above scenario (which has not been explained correctly anyway) was in response to 4, yes 4 hours of constant bickering and rules lawyering and in those four hours we managed to get three rounds of combat fought. There was name calling, accusations of cheating, requests to have players banned from my game. The works. This was all about as low a stakes local tournament as can be imagined. With this being the case, I made a call to get the game moving again. Was it the correct call? Well, we're playing again, and only because of the decisions I made, so I would say yes.

In our games we have 2 rules:
1. GM's rule is law.
2. You may argue, but in the end: see rule 1.

I listen to each argument and then make a ruling. The ruling is final for that evening.
If I do not like the outcome later on I will explain this to the players and change my ruling.
This limits the rulelawyering discussions.

Your PK has a Love (Wife) or an Amor(Lady). During a tournament your fight is going bad and you still wish to impress the lady a passion roll is apropriate.


I'd allow this only if it makes sense in the story. For example, the Lady in question has tasked the PK to do well in the tournament (one of those Amour tasks), or the PK is fighting against a romantic rival. "My wife is watching, I want to impress her." would not be enough for me, just as "The King is watching, I want to impress him, Loyalty(Pendragon)!" would not fly.



I think there was a rule that you could use traits as well as passions to get inspired (but not sure if it is still in 5.1),


KAP 5.2, p. 85:

At the Gamemaster’s option, minor Inspiration may be
gained from a critical success with a Trait, gaining the character a
+5 modifier to one Skill selected by the player, lasting for the du-
ration of the situation that provoked the roll. Such Inspiration
should be gained only in rare instances, for it is usually the do-
main of Passions, not Traits. Still, when a truly dramatic Trait
roll occurs, Inspiration can make the process far more exciting.
The possibility of Inspiration also makes Trait rolls more enter-
taining in general.



Something must trigger the new roll (for instance other knights calling out; the opponent that threatens your family/lady or something like that).

Yep. New threats or insults during the duel might allow for a Passion roll.

SleepyWill, I would give one word of advice. Sit down with your players and ask them how they want passions to run going forward.
Let them know that every PK (excluding the one who has already gotten a double-passion roll) will get one free "failed my passion - get a different passion roll".

The idea is that you come up with the players *how* the issue in the future will be handled, while also giving everyone 1 free "double-passion" reroll if needed.

You might even give the players a timeframe for how long they can hold onto their double passion reroll, based on how often you play.

Good luck getting this all sorted.


Thanks everyone for the kind words! Yes, when I made the decision, it was stated at the time, as soon as this tournament is over, we will go and look at the rules, and decide as a group what we want going forward, the decision was only ever about getting the game moving again!

---

Moving onto the alternative rules discussion, it's funny, I seem to have the opposite problem! I may have oversold the risk of passions to my players, because many of them don't use them when the probably should! Poor Luca's character has just run off, maddened, from my game, though in the same combat, a player crit - but I tend to say no to passion rolls I feel are frivolous, not that I have to much. That being said, two of my players have started to use them every combat, and my tactic so far has been to match their use of passions with asking to test against them to push their characters to act in undesirable ways - if you're telling me your character is unusually driven by their passions, then I shall match that!