Would you ditch your crippled character?

[higgins]

This poll was inspired by 33's wounds chapter feedback. Not meaning to put him on the spot, but I'm just giving his partial quote for the context.

It takes a very special kind of player to roll up Jamie Lanister, have his hand cut off and continue playing on happily. /--/ To be honest, probably 90% of the time a character of mine loses a hand I'll just let them die so I can make a new one, and if by some miracle they live without my spending SAs they will probably be retired anyway.

The hand example is... just an example. But a good one. Or it could be any other Amputee permutation. Or Brain Damage. Or Blind.

Or on a more cosmetical side, Disfigured, Missing Ear or One-Eyed.

If your answer is more nuanced than the three main options listed above, please explain. Of course, feel free to explain your Yes and Naw as well.

Edit: since nobody voted yet, I added an option about the length of healing time.

[thirtythr33]

So I voted for "It depends".

If it is a cosmetic flaw that doesn't interfere heavily with the mechanics (such as a missing ear, eye or finger) I would enjoy continuing to play. Those are the things that build character, give opportunities for roleplaying and can be fun.

If it is a big flaw, it will depend on on the type of character I am playing. If I am playing a Mercenary, I would probably be okay taking brain damage but not with having an arm or leg amputated. If I was playing a charismatic diplomat of some sort, I would probably be okay losing a hand or foot, but not be okay with the brain damage or massive facial damage. The point is, is that if I wanted to play a character with a very crippling feature I would have created a character with that crippling feature. Being blinded or paralyzed would pretty much always be too crippling for me to continue wanting to play that character.

That said, depending on the story and how the character is developing I would also be happy with a "character rebuild" option. For example, Jamie Lanister was built to be an awesome swordsman, but after getting his hand taken off he has to find a new calling. If I had the option to "sell" his high proficiency Tiers and use the points slowly buy up some other Tiers to give him a different focus, I would be happy with something like that. Character advancement through earning SAs just wouldn't be fast enough to hold my interest in this case.

In regards to the wound healing time: I screwed up some numbers in my healing calcs. The way the recuperation numbers are set up it would be very unlikely to get bed rest time over 7 or 8 weeks, even for Level 5 wounds. Usually for a Level 3 wound you will be looking at around 2 weeks if it isn't cleared immediately by a surgeon (50% of that).

[dysjunct]

I will split the difference.

I think it would be really cool to grit ones teeth and push onward with a crippled character.

But I would not be very interested in playing a game where every time I played, I had to grit my teeth and push onward with a crippled character.

[thirtythr33]

I've never actually been in a game where it has happened, but I can give you an example of it happening on camera.

Granted, this is a game of DND 2e with a critical wounds system hacked in. The players have played this system a while (over a year) using the same rules but this is the first time it had actually come up with a full on crippling. They might not have fully known it was a possibility. Here are some highlights of the players reaction and the GMs side story:

From 3:45 to 6:49 is the relevant part here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHo2H-o ... u.be&t=225

7:32 to 8:40 for this clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoNhDa5 ... u.be&t=452

and 26:59 to 27:47 from this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoNhDa5 ... .be&t=1619

It is worth pointing out that the player does actually continue playing the character in later sessions and having fun. He is a joker and makes light of waving his stump around at people and things like that. 4 sessions later though, the character is killed by a basilisk (Can't really tell if it was intentional or not. He was right in the front line, but that's what fights do, right?).

[Agamemnon]

This presents a couple interesting and related topics.

The first topic is one that I think we're already running into in some of the posts above. It isn't the actual injury that is so heinous, as the threat it can pose to the core concept of a character.

If it is a big flaw, it will depend on the type of character I am playing. If I am playing a Mercenary, I would probably be okay taking brain damage but not with having an arm or leg amputated. If I was playing a charismatic diplomat of some sort, I would probably be okay losing a hand or foot, but not be okay with the brain damage or massive facial damage. The point is, is that if I wanted to play a character with a very crippling feature I would have created a character with that crippling feature. Being blinded or paralyzed would pretty much always be too crippling for me to continue wanting to play that character.

I think we are naturally very protective of the idea of the character we set out to play. Your grizzled veteran losing an arm can be very good drama. For a man who defined himself as good with a blade, losing the ability to wield one is an existential crisis and makes for good internal conflict. On the other hand, it's not quite as fun when the character's internal conflict becomes our own internal conflict as we struggle to decide "what do I do with this guy now?" Add to that the amount of points invested in that character's combat abilities over time through SAs and the like and it's not difficult to see why someone could be justifiably discouraged. Some players may find that this sort of arc can make the character for them, take them in a direction they didn't expect and be all the richer for it. Others will be bummed that their swordsman is less swordsy than they had hoped, and lose interest in the character.

Second is the topic of permanent injury as and its role in game design. Right now, the only possible ways to get a permanent injury are:
> Get a level 5 wound to a place that doesn't result in instant death.
> Take a level 4 wound to the face, crown, or groin (if male).

Mechanically, the level 5 injuries serve as the ultimate fail state of combat. Your character has unquestionably been defeated and paid the cost for that defeat in some terrible way. It makes the combat more bloody and menacing than it would be without it, and in the process adds flavor to the conflict.

So now we get to start asking questions, starting with the simplest:

Should losing combat be that bad at all?
Right now the penalties for taking a level 5 wound are death or dismemberment. If we argue that it's too easy to be maimed, it's also probably too easy to be killed. On the other hand, the "average" proficiency level of a semi-professional fighting man in the game is going to be ~6-8. The game lets you start as high as 11. The tactically minded player is generally avoiding a conflict if they don't have an SA firing (anywhere from +1-5 dice), and if possible you shouldn't be in a fair fight in the first place if you can help it. Advantage of reach, ambushes, and so on. One could argue that if you're fighting someone who is comparably skilled in a fair fight you should have sufficient reason that you're fine gambling your life away. On the other hand, a bad roll at the wrong time could mean that you are screwed no matter how carefully you plan.

Should maiming happen at all?
The rational thought would be that it's better to lose a hand than be killed, but weirdly enough that's often not how players see it (as above). You could argue that from the perspective of PC integrity, it's better to remove maiming entirely except for perhaps as the result of a wound that should otherwise have been fatal.

If we went that direction, though, it means that certain injuries (head and torso, primarily) will be lethal whereas the rest are a bad mauling the results of which you will eventually get over. Longswords seem slightly less impressive when there are no limbs being hacked off, but maybe that's my personal taste. On the other hand, if we have no maiming, then is the exact location as important? Once you declare that a limb can't be removed as a mechanical result of combat we are already beginning to abstract damage. If one can't lose an arm, is there a mechanical reason to care whether it was their hand or forearm that received the blow? It will heal either way, and the arm is useless in the meantime regardless. Our armor mechanics are only as complicated as they are because our wound locations are as specific as they are because our wound results are as specific as they are. If we're throwing out any kind of permanent effect one could easily begin to start abstracting things down to the wound-wheel level and ignore the inside/outside tracks entirely. A boon for the speed of play and book-keeping, to be sure, but at the cost of some realism.

If yes to both, then what?
The obvious answer is what we have now - to suggest that this is an acceptable consequence of combat, but if not, then what? Henri suggested at one point that we could allow level 5 wounds to be altered the way you can survive lethal wounds via SAs, but I worry that will simply mean that injuries become an SA tax, rather than an interesting consequence. Thirtythr33 suggested some kind of refund system to let you sell back proficiencies if you lose your arm -- but should we also sell back skills if they are now less competent? My thief isn't going to be picking many locks with one hand. It's a possibility, but it seems... unsatisfying as a solution.

[thirtythr33]

Right now, the only possible ways to get a permanent injury are:
> Get a level 5 wound to a place that doesn't result in instant death.
> Take a level 4 wound to the face, crown, or groin (if male).

There is also:
> Get an infected wound (of any level) and choose to amputate instead of die.
> Choose Yes But... on a recuperation roll to prevent an infection that is likely to result in death of amputation. (This is probably a minor permanent injury though).

Should losing combat be that bad at all?
Right now the penalties for taking a level 5 wound are death or dismemberment. If we argue that it's too easy to be maimed, it's also probably too easy to be killed.

On the contrary, a lot of players see character dismemberment as a fate worse than death. We know what to do when characters die. We make a new one and move on.
But by sticking a player with a crippled character you are forcing them to confront a horror that most people will find uncomfortable, especially if it wasn't what they signed up for.

Losing combat should have some penalties though; it makes victory all the sweeter. But usually those penalties are going to be temporary like being robbed, being taken captive and ransomed or the bad guy getting away. Sometimes permanent ones like a beloved NPC dying or character death can be appropriate (or there is just no reasonable way to twist the story such that the character survives)

The rational thought would be that it's better to lose a hand than be killed, but weirdly enough that's often not how players see it (as above). You could argue that from the perspective of PC integrity, it's better to remove maiming entirely except for perhaps as the result of a wound that should otherwise have been fatal.

.
What is interesting here is that by allowing death to be bought off with SAs you are effectively asking the player for permission to kill their character. Maiming and dismemberment doesn't ask for that permission even though some players might think it is a fate worse than death. Unless you count allowing "I cut my own neck open with a knife" as giving the player a choice, but then that is just forcing a them to commit suicide with their character which is just about as dark as role playing could ever go.

If yes to both, then what?
The obvious answer is what we have now - to suggest that this is an acceptable consequence of combat, but if not, then what? Henri suggested at one point that we could allow level 5 wounds to be altered the way you can survive lethal wounds via SAs, but I worry that will simply mean that injuries become an SA tax, rather than an interesting consequence

Isn't Not Quite Dead Yet a tax in exactly the same way? I agree it's tricky and I don't have any great ideas. On the one hand I am attracted by the idea of playing a game that has the balls to say "Your arm just got cut off. Deal with it." but at the same time I don't know if I would get any enjoyment out of it actually happening to me. Hence my position that I would likely let the character succumb to their heroic wounds after the battle (and giving my last will and wishes etc) or retire the character to live the remainder of their days on a peaceful farm somewhere instead of forcing the now incompatible character to stay in the story. That's a satisfying ending for me. Other people might prefer playing on, and that's cool too.

Thirtythr33 suggested some kind of refund system to let you sell back proficiencies if you lose your arm -- but should we also sell back skills if they are now less competent? My thief isn't going to be picking many locks with one hand. It's a possibility, but it seems... unsatisfying as a solution.

I was actually suggesting something more like a full character rebuild, with the restriction that they keep all their current Flaws. Any Priority Category who's Tier would be increased due to the rebuild wouldn't be unlocked immediately but would unlock at a accelerated rate that would reflect a change in focus of the life of the character. It wouldn't necessarily just be refunding proficiency; you could just as easily refund all your social skills and edges if you got acid dumped on your face. Or if your example your thief could refund his lockpicking if he so wished.

Taking Jamie Lanister as an example, his original concept was to be "a morally bankrupt world class swordsman" who's build might have been something like:
Tier 5 Greater Noble
Tier 5 Proficiency
Tier 3 Attributes
Tier 1 Edges & Flaws (Minor Beauty, Major Infamy, Major Oathbreaker)
Tier 1 Skills

He gets his hand cut off and he decides to rebuild the character, now with the concept of "Man without purpose, trying to atone for his sins". He has to keep the new Minor Amputee and whatever else doesn't make sense to change, but can otherwise rebuild how he desires. Perhaps something like:
Tier 5 Greater Noble
Tier 2 Proficiency
Tier 3 Attributes
Tier 3 Edges & Flaws (Minor Beauty, Minor Claim, Minor Amputee)
Tier 2 Skills

He wants to work towards getting some more Social Skills, buying off those Infamy and Oathbreaker flaws and asserting his Claim over Casterly Rock now that he is no longer in the Kingsguard. It doesn't happen all instantly, but considerably faster than earning the SAs and purchasing each part that way. Perhaps 1 tier per couple of sessions.

[Agamemnon]

Answering out of order, lumping them together thematically:

If yes to both, then what?
The obvious answer is what we have now - to suggest that this is an acceptable consequence of combat, but if not, then what? Henri suggested at one point that we could allow level 5 wounds to be altered the way you can survive lethal wounds via SAs, but I worry that will simply mean that injuries become an SA tax, rather than an interesting consequence

Isn't Not Quite Dead Yet a tax in exactly the same way?

To a degree. I've always looked at it as a begrudging compromise, myself. I'm actually considering changing it in some way to be more significant than just "spend x points." Perhaps something that requires an interesting shift in character or whatever. Make it more meaningful than a point expenditure.

What is interesting here is that by allowing death to be bought off with SAs you are effectively asking the player for permission to kill their character. Maiming and dismemberment doesn't ask for that permission even though some players might think it is a fate worse than death. Unless you count allowing "I cut my own neck open with a knife" as giving the player a choice, but then that is just forcing a them to commit suicide with their character which is just about as dark as role playing could ever go.

Solid point, though one could argue "What did you think would happen when you picked up that sword?"

I agree it's tricky and I don't have any great ideas. On the one hand I am attracted by the idea of playing a game that has the balls to say "Your arm just got cut off. Deal with it." but at the same time I don't know if I would get any enjoyment out of it actually happening to me. Hence my position that I would likely let the character succumb to their heroic wounds after the battle (and giving my last will and wishes etc) or retire the character to live the remainder of their days on a peaceful farm somewhere instead of forcing the now incompatible character to stay in the story. That's a satisfying ending for me. Other people might prefer playing on, and that's cool too.

You're not wrong. I can see both sides of the thing. TROS was and 'Bastards currently is a game where things are violent and life is cheap. For swordplay to feel realistic and dangerous, it has to actually be dangerous. There are a great many systems out there where people lose hit points and so forth that do just fine. This was never meant to be one of them.

On the other hand the central issue remains "what do you do when your character concept is fundamentally damaged?" I dunno. It's a strange place to be in and a hard decision to make. I need to consult my SAs.

But usually those penalties are going to be temporary like being robbed, being taken captive and ransomed or the bad guy getting away. Sometimes permanent ones like a beloved NPC dying or character death can be appropriate (or there is just no reasonable way to twist the story such that the character survives)

This is actually the sort of narrative thing that I love --- but a push in that direction is a fundamental change in the type of game it is, I think. The wound chart could be tossed if the intended consequence of losing a sword fight is that the characters lose an asset (whether that be a relationship, their possessions, their temporary freedom). It's the sort of thing that you expect in a Fate game, but it seems out of place here unless we want to take steps away from the whole HEMA angle in the first place.

Thirtythr33 suggested some kind of refund system to let you sell back proficiencies if you lose your arm -- but should we also sell back skills if they are now less competent? My thief isn't going to be picking many locks with one hand. It's a possibility, but it seems... unsatisfying as a solution.

I was actually suggesting something more like a full character rebuild, with the restriction that they keep all their current Flaws. Any Priority Category who's Tier would be increased due to the rebuild wouldn't be unlocked immediately but would unlock at a accelerated rate that would reflect a change in focus of the life of the character. It wouldn't necessarily just be refunding proficiency; you could just as easily refund all your social skills and edges if you got acid dumped on your face. Or if your example your thief could refund his lockpicking if he so wished.

Taking Jamie Lanister as an example, his original concept was to be "a morally bankrupt world class swordsman" who's build might have been something like:
Tier 5 Greater Noble
Tier 5 Proficiency
Tier 3 Attributes
Tier 1 Edges & Flaws (Minor Beauty, Major Infamy, Major Oathbreaker)
Tier 1 Skills

He gets his hand cut off and he decides to rebuild the character, now with the concept of "Man without purpose, trying to atone for his sins". He has to keep the new Minor Amputee and whatever else doesn't make sense to change, but can otherwise rebuild how he desires. Perhaps something like:
Tier 5 Greater Noble
Tier 2 Proficiency
Tier 3 Attributes
Tier 3 Edges & Flaws (Minor Beauty, Minor Claim, Minor Amputee)
Tier 2 Skills

He wants to work towards getting some more Social Skills, buying off those Infamy and Oathbreaker flaws and asserting his Claim over Casterly Rock now that he is no longer in the Kingsguard. It doesn't happen all instantly, but considerably faster than earning the SAs and purchasing each part that way. Perhaps 1 tier per couple of sessions.

I dunno. That's an odd one. On the one hand, I can see where you're going with it. On the other hand, it would bug me that the character gets to be completely rewritten to effectively minmax around their new injury. Even if you got acid on your face, you still know how to sweet-talk a girl, you just don't want her looking directly at you. If anything, the latter provides more characterful and interesting role-playing opportunities than "well I guess im going to suck at social roles now, better respect into something else."

From a purely plot perspective, I'd rather see our swordsmen with a missing hand try to learn to fight southpaw and overcome the adversity of it than to have their missing hand suddenly make a poor student a scholar. I also acknowledge that I'm perhaps the minority here.

It's worth chewing on.

[hector]

I voted for It Depends. Simply put, it depends on whether I would still be able to enjoy playing the character. A grizzled veteran who loses an arm could be interesting to play, as he suddenly has to get used to having to change his fighting style. A more intellectual character who gets brain damaged? Probably not so much.

[thirtythr33]

Isn't Not Quite Dead Yet a tax in exactly the same way?

To a degree. I've always looked at it as a begrudging compromise, myself. I'm actually considering changing it in some way to be more significant than just "spend x points." Perhaps something that requires an interesting shift in character or whatever. Make it more meaningful than a point expenditure.

Perhaps something along the lines of: "Pay 3 SAs. In addition, add to your character sheet a new SA or change an existing one to be in some way related to your brush with death."

You're not wrong. I can see both sides of the thing. TROS was and 'Bastards currently is a game where things are violent and life is cheap. For swordplay to feel realistic and dangerous, it has to actually be dangerous. There are a great many systems out there where people lose hit points and so forth that do just fine. This was never meant to be one of them.

Like I mentioned somewhere else, if BoB were a one-shot the dismemberment rules would be great because you don't have that attachment to the character. Unfortunately, due to BoBs complexity I don't see it often being run as a one shot.

This is actually the sort of narrative thing that I love --- but a push in that direction is a fundamental change in the type of game it is, I think. The wound chart could be tossed if the intended consequence of losing a sword fight is that the characters lose an asset (whether that be a relationship, their possessions, their temporary freedom). It's the sort of thing that you expect in a Fate game, but it seems out of place here unless we want to take steps away from the whole HEMA angle in the first place.

I also love this kind of thing. I thought the examples given for complications and compromises on p14 were great. It has even crept into Setting the Stakes for a Full Contest. BoB has this strange mix of a narrativist skill system and a simulationist combat system. Finding the right blend and mix of the two styles for combat fallout and consequences is a tricky thing.

[hector]

Perhaps it would help if "not quite dead yet" could be replaced with a catch all thing for maimings and deaths, with a major compromise as the price in addition to the SA expenditure; at least as a lever. Personally, I like that most level 5 (and a couple of level 4) wounds are maimings and deaths; they provide the dangerous feel to combat that would be lacking without them, and as far as I'm concerned, they give the players reason to try to avoid a straight fight where possible. In other words, it incentivises acting like a real person instead of like a stereotypical D&D character.

[nemedeus]

Perhaps something along the lines of: "Pay 3 SAs. In addition, add to your character sheet a new SA or change an existing one to be in some way related to your brush with death."

why not just this: I take all stats of the character, but i get to use (a single point of) my Karma to gain the benefits of the next higher tier in one column (with the exception of Social Standing of course, and also keeping any flaws my character has, even if i buy a higher tier for Edges).
Calculating the difference between two tiers is easy enough, and seeing as proficiency increases are not commutative/order-of-oparation-invariant, i don't see the problem with that either.

I also love this kind of thing. I thought the examples given for complications and compromises on p14 were great. It has even crept into Setting the Stakes for a Full Contest. BoB has this strange mix of a narrativist skill system and a simulationist combat system. Finding the right blend and mix of the two styles for combat fallout and consequences is a tricky thing.

excellent observation! this might be why i'm so drawn to the game as i have.

(Btw, would like a simulationist crafting system some time in the distant future. Just putting it out there.)

From a purely plot perspective, I'd rather see our swordsmen with a missing hand try to learn to fight southpaw and overcome the adversity of it than to have their missing hand suddenly make a poor student a scholar. I also acknowledge that I'm perhaps the minority here.

It's worth chewing on.

I voted "It depends" and this was pretty much the thought i had.
If i can somehow make the character work, then i'll keep going anyway.

For a Swordsman that might be retraining for the Left Hand, or if he lost a leg, he learns to fight on a peg (if he still got a knee, of course). Maybe he learns to fight with a pata grafted onto his arm stump.
For the diplomat that got acid'ed... well maybe he can wear a mask, like that Leprous King Guy from Kingdom of Heaven, and still enthrall the ladies. Maybe he will find a new career in the Intimidation Business, if you know what i mean.
I should note that a non-negligible factor in this is how stubborn my character is.

Ultimately, question for me is, does the GM allow me to tinker up some alleviation from these new conditions?
If i was the GM, i'd try my best to say yes. Creative Problem Solving is what i'm all about in RPGs.


With more fantastic settings, another option is redefining the level of chirurgical technology available. Maybe, there's a genius surgeon (who goes by the name of Frankenstein) who both can transplant a forearm, AND knows how to keep it from rotting off after the fact. Maybe the problem with that is that this surgeon's services are ABSURDLY expensive (which is justified because his service level is absurd). Or maybe there's a genius inventor who can build a functional mechanical prosthetic...
That's moving away quickly from 15th century fantastic realism, but it might be considered. Personally, i always like anachronisms like that, if it's granted that they are WEIRD enough. Like Weird West, but with renaissance. Weird Renaissance.
Honestly, i wouldn't want to miss gothic horror elements like that in my low fantasy. In german gaming circles, that's sometimes called "Bauerngaming", a pastiche of Powergaming, and "Bauer" which is german for "peasant".

[Marras]

Totally depends on circumstances and how much it affects my character concept.

I like how BoB is lethal and how badly maimed the characters can end up. Lethal combat system saves a lot of time during gameplay and gives a very good reason why even the best swordsman can't feel absolutely confident in combat. Crippling and disfiguring effects give a game mechanical reason why there are NPCs with eye patches and peg legs as that can happen to any PC. This sort of outcome has to be accepted like insanity in Call of Cthulhu. I have seen GMs who insist that the player keeps on playing with that crippled character even if the player doesn't want to. I think player should be able to just retire his character with the help of the GM especially if it can be justified that the character keeps on going even after he is unable to keep up with rest of the characters. Perhaps he becomes a recurring NPC after a while (like happened to one Rolemaster character that got paralyzed waist down).

Funnily enough I tend to agree after a character gets crippled some sort of shifting in specialty should be allowed. Perhaps a crippling wound that makes the initial concept no longer viable is the clearest reason for this but I can see other reasons for it, too. I don't propose the whole rebuild although it could work if the character is dormant for years or even a decade. Let's say a player of master thief wants to play out his character's change towards a criminal mastermind. It doesn't actually matter if he wants to do this because he got caught and both of his thumbs got cut off, he lost his dominant arm or the player just wanted to "level him up" to be a head of a criminal organization. During the sessions he progresses normally but player can free some points from skills and proficiencies, perhaps even from edges that are not used for a while. Those points could be used to buy skills etc. in a faster rate than normally. The conversion rate doesn't have to be exact, he can even loose something in the process but he doesn't loose everything. I think in this conversion the character should still retain at least one point in that skill/proficiency or even up to half of the original to represent his knowledge about the subject.

[Benedict]

Depends on the nature of the game at hand.

If its a one-shot I'dmake a new character the minute my character gets crippled by a Lv5 wound.

If it's an ongoing campaign and he survives I'd keep the poor bastard and adjust him accordingly. Have no problem at all playing blind, amputees, old people, or whatever. in fact I've done it many times in the past.

[higgins]

I voted for It Depends. Simply put, it depends on whether I would still be able to enjoy playing the character. A grizzled veteran who loses an arm could be interesting to play, as he suddenly has to get used to having to change his fighting style. A more intellectual character who gets brain damaged? Probably not so much.

Just curious. Have you read the brain damage flaw?

[taelor]

A few weeks ago, I rolled very poorly in a Burning Wheel game, resulting in my character taking a crossbow bolt to the chest. This was a mortal wound, but I spent a persona point for Will To Live, allowing my character to survive. I then proceeded to fail my recovery tests, resulting in the character being permanently crippled. I wasn't the only one who the dice were unkind to that night, and the result was that two thirds of the PC (including me) were dead or disabled. We decided to end the campaign there. I'm still rather attatched to that character, and would like to revisit her story sometime (which was left very much unfinished), though it definitely won't be the one that would have been told otherwise (Vincent Baker has a saying along the lines of "the rules are there to force us to tell a story that we otherwise would not have told). I can't speak for what Higgins and Agamemnon are trying to achieve with the BoB, but BW's tagline has always been "Fight For What You Believe In"; this cuts the other way, to: you'd better believe in what your fighting for, because your character's life and limb could very well be on the line.