*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 19, 2018, 07:03:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 180 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: [Polaris] The Fifth Remnant: Southfork  (Read 4426 times)
Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« on: December 20, 2005, 10:00:00 PM »

Our group got together on Monday night for the first of a 3-4 session run of Polaris. I have a few questions about the game and our session, which will be in the following post, but first, group background.
We've played a number of indie games - Dogs in the Vineyard and Primetime Adventures being the ones we've played over 6 sessions, and we've played odd sessions here and there of Dust Devils, The Pool, trollbabe, Stranger Things, and Pantheon. I might be forgetting one or two.
PTA seems to be a near-universal favourite (or in one player's view, the least awful :)); one player did wonder though if this was just because it was the most recent one played.

Players:
Darren That's me - I'm the Monday night GM. I don't play in any games by choice - the only options available are traditional games which don't appeal to me, plus scheduling is difficult. I just GM on Mondays, so having the opportunity to actually play in a game I might like was very tempting.
Gary - He also plays (and often GMs) in another group where they play mostly D&D and GURPS these days. They have played lots of other game systems - Vampire, HERO, Fudge, Amber, and more, the list is long. Of the Polaris group, he is the least enamoured of forge-style games. He likes the idea of the GM constructing a world and plots for him to explore. But, he has often described himself as a gaming whore - he'll play anything (once, anyway). We have been roleplaying together for around twenty years.
The rest of the group (Jim, Helen, Mark, Stuart) have been roleplaying with me for around ten years (Gary is a relatively late addition to this group - still a few years though). The group has concentrated on D&D and Champions/HERO, but there are a number of other traditional games that have been played.
Jim and Helen - a couple, together with me they are probably the most enamoured of the indie games. Jim, Mark, and Stuart also play together with another group (plus two other players) on Sunday nights. Stuart also plays with yet another group, and GMs with them - they play a wide variety of traditional games, from what I understand.
Helen is usually a fairly passive player - partly because she is naturally introverted, and partly because many of the other players are so vocal that she can't get a word in edgeways, and they aren't used to her talking so when she does say something, they often miss it. Pantheon was the first non-traditional game we played, and this was a revelation for her - here was a game in which the mechanics gave her a voice, forced the other players to take notice. She liked the way conflict worked in Dogs in the Vineyard for the same reason, and though we haven't discussed it, I suspect she liked the "players request their scenes" mechanic of PtA for the same reason.
Jim and Mark - these two players are very much in love with the sounds of their own voices, and I mean this in a (mostly) good sense. They are veritable plot-creation machines. Give them blank character sheets, put those characters in an empty room, give them no feedback, and in moments they'll still have concocted character motivations and desires, and given the GM things to react to. Despite this, they are both willing to suppress their characters goals in the interests of the party the way you usually have to in a traditional team-based game (they don't ride roughshod over other players) - but given the opportunity to express their characters inb a more narrativist fashion, they seize it.
Gary and Stuart - These two are less proactive than Jim and Mark and more goal oriented - they thrive when the GM (or other players) gives them something to react to, and once they have that, and figured out how they feel about it, they can be much more focussed (less easily distracted!) than either Jim or Mark in actually getting things done about it. They still develop fully developed personalities for their characters, of course, but it's less easy for an outside observer to know it - you have to watch what their characters do, rather than what the players say to ferret out that kind of information.

The Session
Right, character assassination of my players over with, on to the session.
The character design process went smoothly enough. Picking names to put in the character's cosmos was a little shaky at first but soon gathered steam. The end product (with its soap opera-like relationships between each protagonist and their connections) led to someone drawing comparisons to Dallas, and suggesting that there should be a Remnant called Southfork.

I was pretty overwhelmed with all the names and relationships we'd come up with, and I know I wasn't alone. But I wasn't worried too much about that, as I thought it would sort itself out in play - the people with responsibility to play those characters would do so when the time comes. The information any individual player needs to know at any one time is much less than the all the information on all the character sheets.

The scenes: we played nine scenes; 3 players got two scenes, and 3 got one. On the whole, I was fairly happy with the way things went. I fully expected that we'd be fumbling around, learning the rules, and wouldn't get into much of a stride. Based on post-play discussion, I think the rest of the players weren't really that happy with the way things went, thinking we didn't get much done, and what we did do was fairly halting. (I'm directing them to this thread, so if they disagree, feel free to pipe up.)
But looking back on it, we had quite a cohesive plot emerge.

The Story
Protagonists in order around the table: Helen - Corona Borealis, Sole Heir; Jim - Lupus, Waste lover with companion wolf; Mark - Eridanis, Exile who possess that compass thingy; Gary - Aquila, Renowned Hero; Stuart - Ursa Major, Big, has a complicated family; Me - Konepheros, Idea: Greatest Knight (putting me in possibly conflict with Aquila), and Bound Companion Arrakis.
(I've missed a few aspects out because I can't remember them off-hand - one memorable one: seeing how our Starlight Weapons were like light-sabres, Stuart gave his character a Greater Starlight Weapon, he fires arcs of electricity from his fingertips.)
So, Jim has Helen and Mark as Moons, and Stuart as Mistaken - you can work the rest out if needed.

So, Lupus was guiding a caravan from one Remnant to Tallmost. He got lost in a storm, and met Eridanis, who guided him out to the nearest remnant, which wasn't the destination (I can't remember which was which - all those Souths; Stuart had it all straight).
They entered the remnant, and while there one of the caravan's passengers had fallen mysteriously ill and was taken away to the physician. Nothing more came of this (this session anyway).
Aquila and Ursa Major had been looking for the caravan together, and so turned up and met the others. At this point, a nurse came up to Ursa and quietly asked him if he had brought the drugs with him; it turned out he was acting as a recreational drugs runner for a physician who was keeping a senators wife supplied. Conflict established that Ursa himself didn't realise the true reason for his actions, but that his idealist younger brother (Uras Minor) would learn about his dastardly deeds.
Aquila and Ursa had been seeking the caravan because it carried an important person, Rastaban. Apparently a demon had taken the place of the real Rastaban in our home remnant, and they were coming to collect the real Rastaban.
Konepheros also was seeking Rastaban, having been told that the one on the caravan was a demon, and he was on his way to make a name for himself by exposing and killing his first demon. Konepheros arrived, sought out the Castellan - told him to get his men, quarantien the caravan, and keep everyone back while he killed the demon. The Castellan wasn't convinced, called Eridanus to take Konepheros to see Rastaban, to see what Rastaban had to say.
Then, Corona was brought into play - she had been in the library in this Remnant, seeking information on her past (that Sole Heir business). Now she wanted to travel home, and there was a handy caravan here planning to go in that direction - but she needed the permission of the Castellan to join it, who just happened to be of a Kaus that doesn't like Borealis. She managed to bypass this by approaching Lupus, and let him negotiate with the castellan - it was established that the Castellan would learn of her identity after she left with the caravan. Would he send people after her?
Then, the caravan left, and returned home. Rastaban was taken by Aquila to see Gemini - who is our group Fate. She is apparently a power behind the throne sort of woman, and she has brought Rastaban back to be revealed at a banquet in a day or two, where the demon will be exposed and defeated. Aquila was the lover of Gemini, but in the discussion with Gemini, it turned out Rastaban had plans of his own, and Aquila didn't like that and so abandoned him, declared that he was no longer his guardian.
Also, Lupus was berated by Gemini for nearly losing the caravan.
That was the end of the session.

Questions about the session follow in the next post.
Logged

Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2005, 10:36:31 PM »

Observations and Questions

The Team Impulse

One thing that surprised me was just how quickly the players managed to get their protagonists together in a single team. I was a little worried by that, as it seemed the players were missing some of the unique opportunities Polaris offered. If the Moon or Mistaken player has his protagonist in a scene, he might give attention to those characters, and give less attention to the NPCs, and to the duties his GM role requires.
For other Polaris players, does this sort of thing happen a lot?
Having said that, most scenes did involve a conflict, and the presence of the other protagonists didn't usually get in the way.
I did do my best to have my Moon characters throw in outlandish plot developments to see if Heart or Mistaken would take them up, and primarily so that the players could see that playing Moon characters can be fun.
(As a moon, I was responsible for starting the drug running plot of Ursa, and I also suggested a complication for Helen/Corona that was countered. Being countered felt a little strange for me, having been exclusively a GM so long!)

Wary about conflicts
There was two instances where the Mistaken made a conflict statement and the Heart agonised for several minutes over how to respond.
I wish I could remember the specific conflict statements - Gary, if you're reading, can you remember the one that stymied you?
What this phenomenon looked like to me was a clash of traditional gamer instincts with the freedom of conflict resolution mechanics - basically, in traditional games, you spend a lot of effort trying to keep your character out of problematic situations, because you're basically powerless to control how they'll turn out. But in a system like Polaris where you have explicit immunity to death and can counter anything nasty, you don't have to avoid these situations.
Has anyone any advice on how to help my players over this block?

Protagonists being used to block
In my scene, this happened:
I had arrived at the Remnant, got the Castellan, tried to get him to keep any bystanders away from Rastaban so I could get in and killed him.
The Mistaken said that the Castellan summoned Eridanis (the Mistaken's own protagonist), and sent him to accompany me to question Rastaban and determine if I was right or wrong.
I could have objected with a conflict statement and ensured Eridanus wasn't present, and in retrospect I should have. But now that he was on the scene, it had the process of blocking my actions. I wanted to say, "Konipherus convinces Eridanus to stand aside, and kills Rastaban." But I couldn't make a statement involving Mark's character without Mark's permission, and Mark was my Mistaken!
I was happy for the Mistaken to stop me doing this through the conflict system - I was happy for my character to be persuaded that this was the real Rastaban, then I'd still have a demon to kill, the other Rastaban. I was desperately eager to get to the confrontation with Rastaban and see how it turned out one way or the other, but the presence of Eridanus seemed to completely kill that, especially since it was clear that Eridanus would protect Rastaban. Any statement I made would have to deal with the fact that Eridanus was present, and I couldn't make any statement about getting Eridanus out of the way without the Mistaken's permission.
Now, I know Mark did not do this deliberately, and was probably completely unaware of the effect it had on me. A strange situation - have I misunderstood the rules? Is my frustration reasonable?
(This phenomenon - a Mistaken player bringing his own protagonist into a scene - happened during someone else's turn, but wasn't a factor in conflict. But it could have been, so that bothered me too.)

I brought the scene to an end with a So It Was, to give me time to think about the rules - and to scheme for a way to get Eridanus away (I'd be that player's Mistaken before my next turn, so that shouldn't be a problem!). That turned out to be a mistake...

Scenes must respect what has gone before, mustn't they?
In Jim's next scene, he established that the caravan - with Rastaban, and all the other players - had left and was arriving at our home remnant. That was fine. But then, someone mentioned that Eridanus was with the caravan.
Hang on, I said - I was on my way to meet Rastaban, and Eridanus was with me. Now he's with the caravan? What happened?
I mentioned that last we knew, Eridanus was with Konepheros on his way to meet Rastaban. I clearly stated (repeatedly!) that I was happy with the possibility that some as yet unnamed events allowed the caravan to leave before Konepheros reached it - but if Eridanus was with the caravan, we needed an explanation for that.
That led to a long frustrating discussion with Mark, where I was just looking for an explanation, but Mark and the others didn't seem able to comprehend what I was asking - I think some of the players thought I was objecting to the caravan leaving before I reached it, whereas all I wanted was a clear picture of the chain of events that explained how I got left behind. I stated I was okay with Eridanus and Konipherous being separated - so is this what has happened and how? That question was repeatedly sidestepped.
Jim pointed out I could be with the caravan, and I said that if I reached the caravan, there would be an immediate confontation with Rastaban - but I was okay with being left behind. But what about Eridanus? And so we went aound in circles, before I realised we weren't going to get anywhere and dropped the matter.
I still don't understand what the difficulty was - a communication breakdown certainly.
Here's what we know: Eridanus and Kornepheros were on their way to see Rastaban. Now, Eridanus is with Rastaban, and Konepheros isn't.
What we don't know: what Eridanus's motives are: he has allowed Rastaban to leave the remnant without helping to being the meeting about, nor has spoken to Rastaban about it to warn him that Kornepheros - his son - is looking for him. It is as if my scene just hadn't happened.
I don't think this is just sour grapes - the narrative just doesn't make sense. Was I wrong to insist on some kind of explanation for the disjoint that occurred here? How do other players handle these situations?

Abandonment
I'll mention one last scene that raised questions.
It was Gary's final scene. Aquila had been sent by Gemini to protect the real Rastaban, and now brought him to secretly meet Gemini. It was revealed that he had to lie low for a couple of days till a big feast/event, where the demon would be exposed.
During this scene, Mark played Rastaban and Stuart Gemini; they had a good rapport and immediately begin strongly hinting at plans for these characters that Aquila immediately took exception too. Aquila angrily declared that because of this he withdrew his protection from Rastaban, and stormed off.
Now, I'm pretty sure this scene turned ugly on Gary - it wasn't just his character that was upset. (Though I admit, I find it hard to tell the difference between Gary being upset and his character being upset.)
What I think happened here - Gary had to face the fact that the person responsible for playing his romantic partner might play her in such a way that it didn't make sense that Aquila would actually like her. A very reasonable concern.
Now, Gary could have objected to the scheming of the Moons through the conflict - as I think about it now, I think he should have. We're all too knew with the system to have thought of that at the time. Maybe Gary did, but was concerned that the Mistaken would make things worse. (Helen, by the way, was the Mistaken during this scene and had no need to do anything other than sit and watch.)
Any suggestions about how to help players avoid situations like this? Also, did the Moons do anything wrong?

Despite these mammoth posts, I wasn't disappointed with the session. I expected there to be problems, and none brought the game to a crashing halt. I can see the potential of the game. Now we just have to see if we can realise that potential!
Logged

Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2005, 10:57:43 PM »

Oh I've just remembered one other thing. In the after session discussion, Stuart suggested that it was a mistake for the Mistaken for a given player to always be the same. There was so much potential around the table with 5 other GMs (in our group), that it seemed a shame to lock players into one particular nemesis.
Some other players agreed - on the face of it, it looks like a good idea.
I said it was intentional that Heart and Mistaken are always the same people, and mumbled something incoherent about the nature of the developing relationship between the players at the table.
I'm sure people around here can explain the intentions behind the Polaris method better than that. Go ahead, please.
Logged

Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2005, 12:39:24 AM »

Me again. I've just realised I finished my "narrative of the session" a little early.

My first scene as Mistaken didn't go too smoothly. As the only player who had read the complete rules, ny first words in my first scene were actually against the rules! I started describing NPCs actions just like a conventional GM would, before I realised that I didn't actually have guidance over them. So I used the conflict system, and established that a caravan passenger had been possessed in the storm. Mark used the conflict statement that made me rephrase it, and that led to him just becoming ill and being taken away to be treated.
At the time, I was a bit disappointed, since I liked the idea of establishing the storm as being caused by demons and creating a menace in their midst - which would give all players an enemy to fight. But in retrospect, I'm happy with it.

My last scene as Mistaken went very smoothly, and is part of the session's narrative I forgot to describe up above.
Eridanis (Mark) is having an affair with Andromeda(might not be the right name, but I'll assume it is), and Perseus is her husband. This marriage is one of the little plots Gemini arranged. So, Eridanis arrives at the remnant, where he is an exile, and Andromeda rushes to meet him.
At this point, I had no real idea to go with the love triangle that Mark had created, and had no idea how to play Perseus, so I thought: when all else fails, go for the jugular.
As Mistaken, I have Perseus learn about his arrival and catch the two together. (Mark had mentioned earlier that his affair with Andromeda was the trigger that led to his exile, sp Perseus knows about it.) Perseus sends Andromeda home, and - since Eridanis is an Exile - has his guards escort Eridanis out into the ice. Perseus gives them secret orders to throw him in a chasm, and with a single conflict statement they do. (I think he added "But only if he kills a bunch of them first." I'll need to check that with him.)
I see on Mark's face that he didn't mind that outcome in the least - so that's where we ended the scene. We don't yet know if he's lying crippled on the floor about to be attacked by demons, or if he falls into a room full of treasure that has a secret passage to Andromeda's chamber. Or whatever.
Mark had also mentioned that he saw Perseus as the sort of person to send his minions to do his dirty work, and we established that he was also probably an artist (like Rastaban, as it happens).
Now, I have a vivid idea of what Perseus is like, and will be able to play him better in future scenes. So I'm very happy with the way that scene went, and I think Mark was too. So it's not all doom and gloom!
Logged

Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2005, 05:33:39 AM »

Stuart isn’t a registered member of the forge, and asked me to send along his comments. (By the way Stuart, I left out one line clarifications – they were useful to me, but aren’t necessary to post here – especially since my browser crashed just as I finished writing the post the first time and I had to start over!)

In reckless disregard of standard posting practices, Stuart’s comments are inside the quotes.

About PTA being our favourite Indie game:
Quote from: Stuart
I think we all agreed that the main reason we like PTA was the design session at the start – as this allowed us all to have a degree of control on the whole setting of the game (pardon poor phrasing)

About the emergent plot:
Quote from: Stuart
Plot-wise, I was happy with the way things went – we were never really going to get that much done as we were all getting use to the mechanics behind Polaris.  I already have my next scene sort of worked out on how to start it (and some idea of where I’d like it to go).

Stuart/Ursa’s main conflict of the session went like this:
Jim (Mistaken) takes up a Moon’s suggestion about drug running.
Stuart: but only if Ursa doesn’t realise what he is doing. He’s a bit slow, and thinks he’s a medical courier.
Jim: but only if his idealistic younger brother hears about it and is shocked at his brother’s actions.
Stuart: but only if he chooses to confront me about it before he tells anyone.
Jim: and this how it happened.
Stuart then took a Fate aspect – his brother - to represent this future event.
Quote from: Stuart
That was one bit I liked – the way I could reduce the severity of the future confrontation by using the various phrases and aspects.

About the Team Impulse
Quote from: Stuart
Interestingly this was one of the things I thought about in some post game reflection a day or so later – that people could really go off and do their own thing.  OK my next scene might not capitalise on that fact but it is something that I will look at exploring later on.

I mentioned how I used the Moons to provoke things, to try to show the potential of the Moons.
Quote from: Stuart
I think I managed to get the hang of that with Gemini in the last scene – as a further development to that I wish I’d actually had time to have Gemini send a message to Aquila to tell him that Rasta’ban was a fool whose usefulness would soon be outlived, but until that time it would be useful to let him think that he was important

I think here from comments during the character creation I had got the impression that Gemini was very much as you said earlier a ‘Power behind the throne’ type of schemer – so that was how I played her.  In essence the question we might need to answer here is ‘Why did Gemini take Aquila as her Lover?’  Is it love?  Or does she see a useful tool in such a Renowned Champion at her call?  Or is there another reason behind this?

If I had known that it was love then I would most likely have played the character differently.  All I had to work on was what we had seen during the creation process.

I also have a feeling that the rather direct approach I used at one stage to describe Gemini’s desires regarding Aquila may also not have fitted Gary’s idea of how his Moon would have acted (I had thought the two characters were alone at the time of saying that).   Furthermore having Gemini ignore Rasta’ban’s claims to be heading for power could have added to this concern.

How I viewed that exchange from the point of view of Gemini.  She has brought Rasta’ban to Tallmost to help unmask a demon – until that has been done it is important to keep Rasta’ban happy.  Since Rasta’ban is an artist (and therefore likely to be a bit vain) she is allowing him to feel important and feel that he is the centre of things.   She will quite happily correct his sense of self-importance once the task at hand has been completed. 

The fact that Aquila was shocked by what was going on shows that he is a direct and honourable man – probably the thing that attracted Gemini into to becoming his lover.  So the message of explanation is something she would do to bring him back onside.

About the scene in which I felt stymied:
Quote from: Stuart
Actually it was me as your moon (playing the Castellan) that summoned Eridanus – as it seemed logical that the man would summon the one person who had guided the caravan that was from his own keep (essentially someone he could trust).  I can see why you felt stymied in hindsight but that was never the intention during the scene.
Oh that’s right, it’s you I have to blame :)
I agree it wasn’t intentional. Just from the rules side: Mark didn’t know the rules well enough at the point to think about the potential of blocking (which might not be possible anyway – we’ll see what the veterans have to say).
I tend to overreact when I see anything that even hints at railroading/player blocking, and in this case my internal alarms went into overload, unnecessarily. But it raised a valid rules question: is this sort of thing actually possible.

About the idea of shifting Mistaken’s around each session:
Quote from: Stuart
I didn’t think I said it was a mistake (even if I used that word – I don’t recall) to keep the Mistakens the same, I just thought it be better the other way.  Having the same Mistaken limits at times who you are essentially pitting your wits against.

We as a group have a very good relationship – which is why I think moving the Mistakens around might help.  As it stands you do realise that me and Jim are probably going be antagonistic as Heart and Mistaken (Jim, as the heart, offers so many opportunities to use when you are his Mistaken, and he obviously sees the same when the roles are reversed).

I wait to see what others however have to say on the matter.

I described my last scene, saying: "We don't yet know if Eridanus is lying crippled on the floor about to be attacked by demons, or if he falls into a room full of treasure that has a secret passage to Andromeda's chamber. Or whatever."
Quote from: Stuart
Strangely enough I plan to have my next scene relate to this rather than the showdown with his little brother (saving that for later).  And a secret passage into the city was one of my thoughts as well.  Who knows Kornepheros might also reappear at this time (with your approval of course)
Logged

Dan Svensson
Member

Posts: 31

Celibate


« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2005, 12:34:27 AM »

about "Protagonists being used to block"
Did you at any time try involving his Protagonist in a conflict statement? And if so did he agree to it? If you didn't what stopped you from at least trying it?
Did you consider that the Mistaken having his own Protagonist in a scene could be a clever ruse as to making your character believe it to be the real Eridanus while in fact it was a demon posing as Eridanus?
Logged

Indulging in everything is like indulging in nothing.
Dan Svensson
Member

Posts: 31

Celibate


« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2005, 12:51:20 AM »

You said "I wanted to say, "Konipherus convinces Eridanus to stand aside, and kills Rastaban." But I couldn't make a statement involving Mark's character without Mark's permission, and Mark was my Mistaken!"

Did you try playing out conversing IC with Eridanus to stand aside to let you kill Rastaban? Maybe you could have solved it without resorting to the conflict system in this case.

about Scenes must respect what has gone before, mustn't they?
You were concerned as to the hows of Eridanus appeared where he did. Instead of discussing this back and forth and being frustrated you should have when Eridanus appeared said BUT ONLY IF <insert reason for Eridanus being away from the caravan and with you instead>.
The system is there to resolve things like this no need for lots of frustrating discussion back n forth... use it.

Logged

Indulging in everything is like indulging in nothing.
Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2005, 08:31:09 PM »

Hi, Dan - thanks for responding.

about "Protagonists being used to block"
Did you at any time try involving his Protagonist in a conflict statement? And if so did he agree to it? If you didn't what stopped you from at least trying it?
Did you consider that the Mistaken having his own Protagonist in a scene could be a clever ruse as to making your character believe it to be the real Eridanus while in fact it was a demon posing as Eridanus?

To answer your first question, I didn't try involving his Mistaken in a conflict. I was unsure how the rules worked there, and didn't really mind postponing it until I had a chance to ask online (I didn't think we'd have time to get back to me). Mark wasn't using his protagonist in that complex way you suggest - though that's one possible retroactice explanation for what happened. Maybe Konepheros is still with the false Eridanus...
Logged

Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2005, 08:45:36 PM »

Did you try playing out conversing IC with Eridanus to stand aside to let you kill Rastaban? Maybe you could have solved it without resorting to the conflict system in this case.
Believe me, that would not have happened.

about Scenes must respect what has gone before, mustn't they?
You were concerned as to the hows of Eridanus appeared where he did. Instead of discussing this back and forth and being frustrated you should have when Eridanus appeared said BUT ONLY IF <insert reason for Eridanus being away from the caravan and with you instead>.
The system is there to resolve things like this no need for lots of frustrating discussion back n forth... use it.

I wish I could have done that. The thing was, in this scene neither Mark nor myself were Heart or Mistaken. I wasn't even a Moon. Basically, I had had my go as Heart. Then two scenes later, Jim had his turn as Heart, and on this turn, it was declared that the caravan had left, with Eridanus. I didn't at this point have the ability to say But Only If or any conflict statement at all.
Also, it didn't occur to me to use the conflict system to try to hammer this out, because it didn't seem that hard - there was no conflict for me. I was happy for Mark/Eridanus to be with the caravan and I was happy for him to stay behind with me. (I'd said definitively, that I had been left behind, and I didn't mind that.)
The events - the things that happened - were fine. But there was a discontinuity - a gaping hole between the events in one scene, and the events in the next. It didn't seem hard to reconcile the two scenes (I suggested one explanation, a simple crowd confusion) - but Mark just couldn't seem to recognise there was that disjoint in the narrative. That was the frustration.
It's making me more frsutrated the more I talk about it :)
Logged

Dan Svensson
Member

Posts: 31

Celibate


« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2005, 09:59:43 PM »

More ramblings and disjointed thoughts Wink

Try framing a scene where your Protagonist meets Eridanus and asks him why he dissappeared.

If you want to avoid your Mistaken having his own Protagonist in scenes with you and thus restricting you. It's easily solved just try something like this:  BUT ONLY IF Eridanus is exposed as a mistaken shapeshifter and it is my destiny not to meet the real Eridanus ever.

Maybe combine it all, maybe there really is a fake Eridanus/evil twin out there Wink
Logged

Indulging in everything is like indulging in nothing.
Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2005, 07:40:26 AM »

More ramblings and disjointed thoughts ;)

Try framing a scene where your Protagonist meets Eridanus and asks him why he dissappeared.
That's a good diea. It would have to wait a bit - as his Mistaken, I left him at the bottom of a chasm in his last scene...

Quote
If you want to avoid your Mistaken having his own Protagonist in scenes with you and thus restricting you. It's easily solved just try something like this:  BUT ONLY IF Eridanus is exposed as a mistaken shapeshifter and it is my destiny not to meet the real Eridanus ever.

Nice idea, but I'd need the permission of his Heart to use him in that way, wouldn't I? I've already had that scene with him - so he'd have the right to say, "nope."
I had an even funnier idea (I thought so anyway), which was to include in my next scene, "AND FURTHERMORE, Konepheros remembers how Eridanus struck him from behind and left him for dead, on the orders of Rastaban." But I'd need his permission for that, too! Drat.
I think problems of this kind are really only solvable by talking player to player, rather than resorting to the conflict system - but I tried that and it didn't work, which was why it was frustrating.

Quote
Maybe combine it all, maybe there really is a fake Eridanus/evil twin out there ;)
Which would be fun, especially that the character I was on my way to kill had an evil twin, too. I might add an extra twin of Rastaban, maybe several... "I keep killing him, and he's still here!"
Logged

Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2005, 07:41:39 AM »

Oops, I meant to mention that I've separated out the questions from this thread and raised them over on the Polaris forum here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18143.0
Logged

Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!