Hi! I'm playing In a Wicked Age tonight (first time GMing) and I had a question: how exclusive are the Forms supposed to be, in terms of narrowing down narrative options based on which ones you pick? Like, in the book example it says if you're acting For Myself and Directly, you can't use violence, 'cuz you didn't pick With Violence. But if I try to apply that to other combinations it breaks down for me: If I picked For Myself and With Violence, I couldn't act directly, 'cuz I didn't pick Directly? But then I didn't pick Covertly either, so where does that leave me? And What constitutes Violence in this context? Deadly attack with a weapon? Brawling? Apparently Mekha's "heel to the face" in the example doesn't count.
Is this just something the group is going to have to work out its own metric for in play, like Dogs' Supernatural Dial? The text implies a hard line, but i'm seeing at most a blurry strip. I can easily grasp the Forms as positive descriptions--I picked this form, so I've got to be doing this thing this way. But as negative terms, that exclude other aspects? I don't get it.
Similarly, I'm having a spot of trouble with "Far-reaching." Without the book example I would've assumed that of COURSE Exorcism could cast out a spirit that's possessing a person right here in front of me; far-reaching would seem to imply "over a distance" or "across dimensions," or "many at once" or whatever. Or is this just a "limited by the specific qualities of the Particular Strength" thing? Kinda like Sorcerer's Demon Abilities?
I know this is kinda last minute; sorry. I've been thinking about the questions all week, and only just realized, hey! I forgot to actually ASK 'em. :P
peace,
-Joel
Payed a couple, run a couple, YMMV, I might be wrong on the "official" ruling.
Quote from: Melinglor on November 12, 2008, 12:00:21 PMhow exclusive are the Forms supposed to be, in terms of narrowing down narrative options based on which ones you pick?
Not at all. You're stake-setting, when the actual flow of Challenge and Answer could end up (in round three) on another continent, in the past or future, with whatever happening.
Look at what make you say, "Oh, No You Don't" and take immediate consideration of how you would Answer (if you win initiative). THAT's your forms. After that, you could Challenge or Answer however--doesn't matter anymore. You could go from For Others With Love to For Myself With Violence in a round, not a problem.
QuoteLike, in the book example it says if you're acting For Myself and Directly, you can't use violence, 'cuz you didn't pick With Violence.
I'd say that's just on the initial Challenge or Answer, after which you don't want to be struggling to make an Answer or Challenge (and constraint could make you struggle). I could be wrong (I say again).
QuoteIf I picked For Myself and With Violence, I couldn't act directly, 'cuz I didn't pick Directly? But then I didn't pick Covertly either, so where does that leave me?
I'd say neither Covertly nor Directly is at issue, so you can waffle all you want. But then again, I'd say waffle anyway, after the first C/A.
QuoteSimilarly, I'm having a spot of trouble with "Far-reaching."
Just consider the basic rule of ONYFDA: you must be able to interfere and willing. Far-reaching removes the "I'm right there" issue for interference. It also adds the ability to narrate doing something at a remove, rather than only what you can reach with your hands and feet and mouth (etc).
So, for a simple example, a bow is far-reaching, a sword isn't. Oratory is far-reaching, seduction (close contact, whispers in ears, subtle touches) isn't
Vincent will be here directly (heh) to correct me (with love, hopefully).
Not particularly exclusive. As a rule, you should say (or strongly imply) your character's action, and choose forms that follow from it - DON'T choose a form first and then try to figure out your character's action to fit. As a rule, I say, but occasionally that flow gets interrupted: you've already rolled your dice, and now it's time to say what you do, and your original intended action makes no sense whatsoever given what's happened inbetween. In those cases, don't worry about it; your dice are your dice, you say what you do without regard to what forms you rolled, and all's well.
Actions constrain forms, forms don't (strictly) constrain actions.
About far-reaching: that's a fun example. My take is, the possessing demon can always retreat into the person's psyche, and how will I reach it there?
Demons might not be able to do that in your Wicked Age, in which case your exorcism doesn't need to be far-reaching.
-Vincent
Bows and oratory aren't far reaching. A network of assassins or provocateurs, able to act while you're sleeping peacefully elsewhere, are. A bow that shoots through walls, a magical voice that allows you to orate from a mountaintop to an entire kingdom, are.
-Vincent
Ah, OK. I have misplayed it a bit then. I presumed ONYFDA would only be invokable if your PC, literally, could reach out and prevent the action--melee range/personal space/etc. And so, if I see WAY up on a hillside that Bob is about to throw Mary off a cliff, and my Bow is "farr-reaching," I can ONYFDA because I could "shoot him before he can toss her off." Otherwise, being WAY down here at the foot of the hill, I can but scream and moan as she plummets to her squishy death (and get ready for a follow-up conflict, as I rush up the hill to send Bob down after her!).
Got that wrong, huh? Hmph....
Well, fortunately, no one makes Particular Strengths that are so narrowly focused. "Incredible Bowman" might be a good far-reaching PS, though, yes? (*whimper*)
Incredible bowman, yes, absolutely.
If my only particular strength is, oh, "wicked smart," and it's potent and that's it, and I'm standing at the bottom of the hill with my longbow, I can still ONYFDA Bob throwing Mary off the cliff. A bow just extends my normal human reach, the same way any tool does.
"Incredible bowman" would let me, I dunno, specify that I'm shooting him through the hand, which I surely can't do at this range if I'm just a guy with a bow.
Um. This may be one of those distinctions that works perfectly inside my own brain, and isn't portable elsewhere. That's okay - yes, like the supernatural in Dogs, part of the first few sessions of play is finding out precisely how this stuff works for you.
-Vincent
Thanks, guys. gettin' a better picture.
Dave, are you saying that you can actually change forms (roll different dice) between exchanges in a sequence? Or just that your narrated actions can be like, whatever after the initial kickoff?
Also along those lines, my read of the book's example is that default procedure is, you choose forms and roll, THEN describe your answer. Which I liked, because when I played it (before I got my own book) there was often some awkwardness when both (or all) participants would describe an action, but someone ends up the Answerer, so the action evaporates and we go with the other one. I liked the cleanness described in the example where only one person has to describe a Challenge, so there's less of a "rewind and describe what really happens" effect.
Then again I can definitely appreciate the value of actions leading Forms and not the other way around.
RE: Far-reaching, I think I get it, and I like it. it seems helpful to situational avoidance tactics of whatever kind: "You can't get me, 'cuz i'm across the city!" (or ". . .'cuz I'm locked in my bunker!" ". . .'cuz I'm hiding in Tamar's soul!") "Oh, yeah? With this I can!"
Here's a couple of new questions:
1) Do you see the answers you just gave on Forms to be in contradiction (or at least contrast), with the statement in the book example ("can't use Violence," etc.), or in harmony with it?
2) How do you settle, at the table, a dispute like "I think you'd need Far-reaching for that!" "Well, I think you wouldn't!" Does someone have the last word, or is it "discuss until consensus," or what?
Peace,
-Joel
Far Reaching is the awesome.
One of my favorite characters had "Master Plotter" or something of the like as far reaching.
My description was something to the effect of "I have more schemes in motion than you can count, any one of which is ready to hurt you right about now".
In one scene there was a battle. I wasn't there but I rolled my dice in the conflict because "I've already bribed the officers you're giving orders to...they work for me now"
Course, I rolled for shit and the officers apparently just pocketed my money and flipped me the bird...but my guy was miles away and I was still rolling in the battle.
Quote from: Valamir on November 12, 2008, 04:26:33 PM
One of my favorite characters had "Master Plotter" or something of the like as far reaching.
My description was something to the effect of "I have more schemes in motion than you can count, any one of which is ready to hurt you right about now".
That is some hot shit right there. :)
Well, we ended up just being me and one guy tonight, so we didn't play. I talked up how cool the game is a bit, then we watched Dr Horrible and called it a night.
But we WILL play soon, and I'll be ready. :)
Thanks for the help.
Quote from: Melinglor on November 12, 2008, 03:54:36 PMDave, are you saying that you can actually change forms (roll different dice) between exchanges in a sequence? Or just that your narrated actions can be like, whatever after the initial kickoff?
No, I'm just saying that when you pull your two dice, you choose forms that are appropriate for the action you are doing (which becomes a Challenge, if you win initiative) or how you intend to Answer (if you lose). The point is to make sure you're not always pulling your best (or worst, to own the We Owe List) dice, mainly.
After that one round, you stick with those dice (no, you can't swap them out) regardless of how you continue to narrate. You could, for instance, begin "With Love, For Myself" trying to seduce a beau... and she slaps you (With Violence For Herself) and you become all Conan-enraged and snap her wrist in the second round (DEFINITELY With Violence and Directly).
QuoteAlso along those lines, my read of the book's example is that default procedure is, you choose forms and roll, THEN describe your answer.
Well, sure you do... because you don't know if you're the Challenger or Answerer until you compare first rolls.
Are you using the flowchart Ryan made? I can't find it (damned Story game crap-ass Search function), but you can email him (rcstoughton[circle with a in it]gmail[small, roundish thing]com). It saves my butt sometimes, when the sequence is weird (multiple agendas in a conflict).
Quotebut someone ends up the Answerer, so the action evaporates and we go with the other one.
Exactly. The only pre-conflict response is, "ONYFD,A!" Everything after that is driven by Challenge and Answer. In fact, the very statement made that started it all, itself, gets retconned. "I punch you in the throat to shut you up" becomes "I try to punch you...".
Quote1) Do you see the answers you just gave on Forms to be in contradiction (or at least contrast), with the statement in the book example ("can't use Violence," etc.), or in harmony with it?
Um... neither? It's true for the first statement 9Challenge or Answer) and fades away for follow-up rounds.
Quote2) How do you settle, at the table, a dispute like "I think you'd need Far-reaching for that!" "Well, I think you wouldn't!" Does someone have the last word, or is it "discuss until consensus," or what?
Never came up. This is prolly, again, like the supernatural dial in Dogs--consensus rules.
But generally, far-reaching means what Vincent said--doing things at such a remove that without F-R, the character could not be in the conflict. Apparently, having a bow brings one "near enough" to act against someone up a hillside. But F-R lets the person be literally out of sight, in a disconnected location, in another scene.
Heck, I generally save it for magical stuff anyhow, which mitigates a lot of "does this apply?" YES, it's MAGIC! :)
-----
By the way, you should have had a mini-session with the one player, to get a feel of the flow so you have more practice when you get more. Yeah, yeah--shoulda, coulda, woulda. :)
David's answers work for me. Oh, but:
2. The GM has the final word. Never, ever discuss to a consensus. The GM makes a ruling and you go on from there.
Believe it or not!
-Vincent
OK, I think I see what you guys are saying: going into a conflict, you're
thinking to yourself how you're going to Challenge or Answer, then picking forms base on that. . .and after the roll you name a Challenge or Answer as appropriate. Got it. Your initial responses were giving me a weird picture (which I've seen come up and play, and be a bit confusing an unfun) of everyone nameing a Challenge, picking forms, then rolling--but only one Chellenge ends up "sticking" and the rest get modified into suitable Answers. Which strikes me as a bit
too much retconning.
Quote from: lumpley on November 13, 2008, 11:57:54 AM
2. The GM has the final word. Never, ever discuss to a consensus. The GM makes a ruling and you go on from there.
Gotcha, that's what I needed to know: where the buck stops.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: lumpley on November 13, 2008, 11:57:54 AM
2. The GM has the final word. Never, ever discuss to a consensus. The GM makes a ruling and you go on from there.
This is a change from the original text, or it's already written there somewhere? (I don't believe I have read about this before but I could be mistaken)
Keeping me honest!
Okay, okay, it's true. You can resolve that kind of dispute - "no man, you'd need a far-reaching particular strength to interfere with me" "the hell I would, you're right there" "I'm tellin' ya..." - however you want, and still be playing by the rules. The rules don't care a bit, they'll just wait patiently until you resolve it. Discuss to consensus all you want.
The rules DO provide you with a single player (the GM) who reliably has nothing riding on the outcome, and can therefore make impartial rulings, and who has already taken additional responsibility for making the game go. I strongly recommend that, instead of discussing to consensus (shudder), you let that player just resolve disputes.
-Vincent
Yeah, I admit that I threw out "Discuss to consensus" as sort of an absurdist and undesirable example. Perhaps my question should've been phrased, "Is there an alternative, ANY alternative, pleasefertheluvagawd, to simply 'discussing to consensus?'" ;)
This does bring up a whole 'nother issue, of how much "good play of a game" is transpitted* through the game text, and how much is received through other sources (discussion with author, general internet discussion, how other games do it, your own best guess)? I mean, is the ideal that I should be able to buy IaWA and read it, and play a good game from just that? Or is author accessibility part of the package, so needing to ask questions is a feature, not a bug? Or is it just that there are some things a game text can never give you, regarding real-people interactions? But I dunno, that's probably a bigger discussion than this thread's designed for.
peace,
-Joel
*typo, but I'm keepin' it.
It's a big discussion! I can answer the little piece of it specific to this game, and we can have the big discussion in its own thread if you want.
I hear regularly that Dogs in the Vineyard is one of the best- and most clearly written games. Nevertheless, for the first year and more of its existence I had to answer, answer and reanswer fundamental questions about how to play it. I had to lead people through the text. Not everybody, of course, but always somebody. I had to pop into actual play threads and say, "yeah, you played that part wrong" all the time. I still do sometimes, as new people find the game (although now I can rely on the game's many and enthusiastic fans to do it for me if I'm busy elsewhere. Thank you my friends!).
When I wrote In a Wicked Age the way I did, my theory was that I could experiment with the text (imply more than I said, hope my readers would make the right leaps instead of the wrong leaps, demand active and repeated reading, hide rules under one another) and the downside would be ... that for the first year of its existence I would have to answer, answer and reanswer fundamental questions about how to play it. I'd have to lead people through the text, not everybody, but always somebody, you know?
I was right! For all the "Vincent, I don't understand, Dogs is so CLEAR and In a Wicked Age is so BAFFLING," my own experience of the two is the same. Some people, I have to hold their hand through the text, lead them from point to point until it finally clicks for them. It's not more people, it's just about the same number. Some of them never get it - but that was true of Dogs too. If Dogs in the Vineyard is a successful text, In a Wicked Age is too, by the same measure.
Quote from: Melinglor on November 14, 2008, 09:43:15 AM
I mean, is the ideal that I should be able to buy IaWA and read it, and play a good game from just that?
That's the ideal, and it mostly comes true.
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpley on November 14, 2008, 08:37:31 AMThe rules DO provide you with a single player (the GM) who reliably has nothing riding on the outcome, and can therefore make impartial rulings, and who has already taken additional responsibility for making the game go. I strongly recommend that, instead of discussing to consensus (shudder), you let that player just resolve disputes.
I hear ya... and I was all-good with "GM is God" right up until I had a thought this morning, during my... uh... constitutional:
The GM is a facilitator, not a dictator. THAT's really all I meant by "consensus," I think--the group decides, with the Gm going along with the majority (and, yes, logically breaking ties). For instance, if all my players think "Drug-Induced Magic" is far-reaching, even though I had envisioned it more as "personal buffs for localized effects," then I go with their vision of it, their consensus (their shared imagining?).
Not to veer wildly off into theory stuff--this IS a practical play advice thread, and the questions ARE answered--but that's the only authority or agency I'd ever take, as a mature GM in fear of being illusionist or a railroader or a sole story author. Just sayin'....
Quote from: lumpley on November 14, 2008, 11:14:34 AM
I was right! For all the "Vincent, I don't understand, Dogs is so CLEAR and In a Wicked Age is so BAFFLING," my own experience of the two is the same. Some people, I have to hold their hand through the text, lead them from point to point until it finally clicks for them. It's not more people, it's just about the same number. Some of them never get it - but that was true of Dogs too. If Dogs in the Vineyard is a successful text, In a Wicked Age is too, by the same measure.
Mmmm.... I just re-read recently my first post in the forum (early 2006... how time flies...) and noticed that most, if not all, of my questions and problems were caused by not trusting the game text. I was used to "traditional rpgs" and DitV was really my first experience with something so different, and my first posts were a mixture of my misreading what was really written and my asking questions about how it could work. Sometimes I was baffled by some "not answers" I did got from you, and then in time I discovered that the answer was already in the book, or it was in playing it by-the-book and seeing what happened (my current opinion about Dogs as a game text come pretty much from this later phase, not from the first reading)
This, I noticed, is a rather common experience: both here and in the Italian forums the most common answers I have given to question about dogs is "play it like it's written", or "the answer is on page xxx" or "play it and then you will see". My "work" in explaining how to play dogs to Italian players is 10% explaining the rules and 90% telling people to play it exactly as it's written, and not house-ruling it without even trying it once
The problems with IAWA, if not in quantity, are different in quality. The people baffled by the texts are not the people who brought the manual coming from a traditional background (that at this time, from the sales level, I would say make up the majority of Dogs readers), but are people who already played a lot of dirty hippy games (the traditional gamers have LESS problems, it would seem). I did read again and again the game texts and the forum posts, and in the forum post you gave a TON of instructions that aren't simply there in the game text. I had to explain how to play IAWA, too (a rather difficult task, thinking that I still not really sure I was playing it right) and I noticed that not once I cited the game text, and instead I gave people a lot of forum threads links with your explanations.
Talking about the amount of people who have problems with DitV and IAWA, and the number of questions... when you say that the number is the same, are you talking about absolute numbers, or percentage of the readers? And what about the percentage of people who after the answer "get it" and then begin to answer other people's questions? It's he same for IAWA and DitV?
But, more than about people's reaction, I am interested in the reasoning behind the stylistic change: you say you guessed that the amount of explanation you would have to give would have been the same. OK, but this is a "it will cost the same" motivation. What was the positive motivation for the change?
Quote from: lumpley on November 12, 2008, 03:10:38 PM
Um. This may be one of those distinctions that works perfectly inside my own brain, and isn't portable elsewhere.
For what it's worth, Far Reaching made sense really quickly to me, because of my Alyria experience. You roll your own dice, even if your minions are doing your dirty work for you. Far Reaching seems pretty much the same idea.
And Ralph's "Master Strategist" particular strength
was way cool.
Moreno: as it happens, you hit upon the reason exactly.
Quote from: Moreno R. on November 14, 2008, 04:26:45 PM
the traditional gamers have LESS problems, it would seem
I wrote it the way I did to best reach its primary audience, within the strict page-count limit I set myself.
Seth: great!
-Vincent