[In A Wicked Age] IIEE A Little Unclear
Thomas Lawrence:
Vincent, I know you are totally going to hate me for telling you this, since you are totally the guy of clear IIEE.
...I think the IIEE process in In A Wicked Age is a little unclear, at present.
What it is is:
* during the conflict, right? Anne wins initative, she says her action. She's like "I totally rend you into dust and atoms with my godlike power."
* Bob is all "Nuh uh." he rolls his dice and gets less than half and thus loses.
* now, before we negotiate, we have to narrate the answer. Quoting the text:
"So my answer has to admit your character’s action, more or less in full.” (p. 15)
* So Bob is like "uh, ok I am totally atoms and dust"
* NOW Bob and Ann negotiate. It totally fails, and Anne ends up being all like "ok I just injure you then, drop the die sizes"
* THEN we go back to the fiction, and what we have to do is we retcon what happened to Bob's dude. "I get blasted by the power, but I'm just hurt, not atoms and dust"
It's that step where you retcon? That needs to be clearer. I think, anyway.
You do say it, you do. It's in there: (p 17) "When you make a lethal move, just be prepared to scale back at consequence time."
But like, it needs to be so totally explicit that you retcon what went before, you change it, you make it happen different. Otherwise people end up admitting stuff when they lose conflicts they didn't want to admit.
-------------
Here's an unexpurgated conversation between me and Jason Newquist, after me having played three shortish sessions of the game, and him one.
-----------
<planet> So, in the case of possession... I win the conflict, and the victim's player is all, "No negotiation! I'll take exhaustion or injury, but I won't eat that food!" ...That's the rule, right? The only stakes are NEGOTIATED, right?
<planet> Narration of what happens as a result of injury and exhaustion is color, unless it's negotiated in which case it's what happens. Yes?
<GM-Mese> yes
<GM-Mese> that is it
<GM-Mese> ...I think
<GM-Mese> certainly that's what make the most sense
<GM-Mese> however I do think there is a bit of a lack of clarity here
<planet> I finally have my PDF open. I'
<planet> I'm looking at p.17.
<GM-Mese> I'm re-reading the text examples to try and be sure
<planet> p. 18: But at any moment, either of you, winner or loser, can end negotiation and insist upon the default instead. “Forget it. You exhaust or injure me. Which?”
<GM-Mese> right, sure
<GM-Mese> what I'm not sure about is this
<GM-Mese> during the conflict, right
<GM-Mese> people say actions
<GM-Mese> "I cut you in half"
<GM-Mese> "I burn you to a crisp with my fire breath"
<GM-Mese> and then the other guy
<GM-Mese> he rolls dice
<GM-Mese> say he loses, right?
<GM-Mese> the fire breath guy loses utterly
<GM-Mese> before we negotiate, what happens in the fiction?
<GM-Mese> the lose rgoes "uh I guess I am burned to a crisp now" ?
<planet> oooh
<GM-Mese> or does he go like "I'm totally hit, but who knows how hurt I actually am?"
<GM-Mese> I think
<GM-Mese> for the game to work
<GM-Mese> it has to be the second
<planet> The bottom section on p. 17.
<planet> When you make a lethal move, just be prepared to
<planet> scale back at consequence time.
<GM-Mese> right
<GM-Mese> exactly
<GM-Mese> but like
<GM-Mese> that's tricky
<GM-Mese> because it means you have to redact
<planet> Yes.
<GM-Mese> and what I think could be a little better about the game?
<planet> I see your problem now, I think,
<GM-Mese> it needs to make the fact that you redact
<GM-Mese> a bit more explicit
<GM-Mese> like how Polaris has a whol ritual system about hwo you redact
<planet> So it must be understood among the players that when you say, "I cut you in half!" and then you win the conflict,
the most you can do is injure. So you're really saying, "I (go to) cut you in half!"
<Mese> yes
<Mese> it's totally IIEE
<Mese> vincent will so hate me if I tell him his game is unclear about IIEE
<Mese> he will tear his hear out and bellow like a wounded bear
<planet> In the case of possession, "I possess you and force you eat the flesh!"... and then I win, and say Shreyas doesn't negotiate and I choose Exhaustion. That resolves to "I possess you, but you get exhausted and fall unconscious first!"
<Mese> yes, again
<Mese> I think just so
<planet> This is useful feedback, Tom. You have to tell him.
<Mese> I do :(
<Mese> here's what
<Mese> I post this whole log
<Mese> right into a thread on the forge
<Mese> deal?
<planet> He may let the text stand, and that's fine. But it's useful data to hear that certain users are getting caught up on it.
<planet> Fine with me.
<Mese> cool
* Mese does so
<planet> I'd provide a summary at the top, for people who don't want to spend the time. (You're going to post in the Lumpley forum area, yes?)
<Mese> yup
lumpley:
You can avoid the redaction by saying what your character does, which is what you're supposed to say, instead of what comes of it. "I chop you with my sword, as hard as I can, right across the middle" vs "I chop you in half."
But because we both know the consequence rules, you don't have to be technically clear. Instead you can feel free to say "I chop you in half," and we both understand that what you mean is that you chop me as hard as you can right across the middle.
In play, if you're doing any retconning worth the word, it's because the challenger's overstepping, trying to establish consequences when they should be establishing action. Limit yourself to saying what your character DOES, not what your character accomplishes.
-Vincent
Jason Newquist:
Related question: Suppose the implied stakes we set aren't violent or injurious in nature. Do they happen when the aggressor wins the conflict, or do they need to be narrated?
Example: I'm Syphax, the possessing spirit, and I want to possess Sisay and make her eat human flesh. "I possess you and we eat the human flesh!" We roll, my dice hold up, and I win. Does it happen *by virtue of me winning*, or do we have to negotiate for it? Can Shreyas (Sisay's player) just go, "No way I ever let Sisay get possessed - pick to exhaust or injure me, Jason."
If so, there I am, the possessing spirit, winning conflict after conflict, never possessing. Yes/no?
Jason Newquist:
Clarification:
Related question: Suppose the implied stakes we set aren't violent or injurious in nature. Do they happen when the aggressor wins the conflict, or do they need to be negotiated?
Landon Darkwood:
Quote from: Jason Newquist on January 15, 2008, 02:17:03 PM
If so, there I am, the possessing spirit, winning conflict after conflict, never possessing. Yes/no?
Speaking from a strict reading of the text, stakes aren't really an issue in IAWA conflict. So, strictly speaking, the demon's player would say, "I possess you," period dot.
Everything else is negotiation. The demon wins, so the player goes, "Sweet! Keep your dice, what I'm gunning for is for you to eat the human flesh!" The other player can go, "Oh, man, that's horrible. Well, I don't lose any dice, so cool." Or they can go, "Oh, man, I don't know about that. I think I'll have to opt for exhaust or injure."
But then, here's the thing - y'all still have to figure out how that makes sense. So you can still do something horrible, like, "Okay, you get injured, and let's say it happens because I instill a craving for human flesh in you, and with your last shred of self-control, you bite a chunk out of your own arm instead of eating someone else."
In other words, you can't negate the action, just the consequences. If you get in conflict with the demon and their action is to possess you, you're possessed if you lose. That's it. Negotiation happens over what that means.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page