[In A Wicked Age] IIEE A Little Unclear
Valvorik:
Quote from: Landon Darkwood on January 15, 2008, 02:48:19 PM
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.
The way I read it, you're only negotiating the dice consequences not the narrated outcome. I win my action to make you look a fool before your beloved, than looking a fool you are. The dice are negotiated, can be traded for other events in fiction (how about I not only look a fool but I get ordered out of her presence by her father, told never to come back and only take 1 die reduction). The loser must "admit" the winner's action "more or less in full" (page 15, 2nd column) and negotiate from that point. Right?
lumpley:
You have to admit the winner's action, not her desired outcome.
Sometimes you can utterly deny her desired outcome. "...And we wind up in bed and fuck all night. Ha! Doubled!" "That does. not. happen. However, I spend the night rebuffing your advances and now I'm exhausted." "But... dang. Can we negotiate?" "Nope, I'm sticking with the default. That's what it is. Unless you want to injure me instead?" "Uh, no, really no."
This works because we understand "we wind up in bed and fuck all night" as a casual, appropriate, totally acceptable statement meaning "my character makes serious sexual advances." We understand it to mean that because that's all the action-dice-consequence rules allow it to mean.
The lesson is, be very clear about what's your character's ACTION, and don't set your heart on anything but THAT.
There is absolutely no stakes-setting in this game, in any form. Your character executes her action, and we negotiate the consequences.
-Vincent
Jason Newquist:
Quote from: Valvorik on January 15, 2008, 05:11:39 PM
The way I read it, you're only negotiating the dice consequences not the narrated outcome. I win my action to make you look a fool before your beloved, than looking a fool you are. The dice are negotiated, can be traded for other events in fiction (how about I not only look a fool but I get ordered out of her presence by her father, told never to come back and only take 1 die reduction). The loser must "admit" the winner's action "more or less in full" (page 15, 2nd column) and negotiate from that point. Right?
Well, that admission "more or less in full" is in your answer to someone else's move, in one of the rounds of a conflict. You have to admit the tactical move made against you.
However, I think similar reasoning applies in resolving the conflict at the end. Here's why: players are encouraged to state big, strong, bold things so that they can negotiate from a position of power. Here's the book on p. 17:
Quote
This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t make potentially-lethal moves. “I slit your throat!” “My war-elephant tramples you into crushed bones and gore!” “I chop your head clean off your shoulders!” In fact, those kinds of moves put you in a very strong bargaining position (as you’ll see).
When you make a lethal move, just be prepared to scale back at consequence time.
The way I read this, the reason strong moves provide for a strong negotiating position is because they're actually a kind of stakes. "I possess you and force you to eat of the human flesh!" If I win the conflict, that's what happens. Injury or exhaustion or something else we negotiate happen as a result of those stakes. I think I'm agreeing with Landon, here, to a point. Except I would assert that "and force you to eat human flesh" is actually part of the stakes here, not a consequence. It's giving me a stick to negotiate with.
Thoughts?
Jason Newquist:
...And cross-posted with Vincent...
Jason Newquist:
Point taken about stakes and their absence. I think I see that. :-)
But I also think I figured something out. I was thinking about far-reaching actions a bit weird, and assuming an interstitial step that was not needed.
Instead of thinking about it as enabling action + consequencies ("sending a message to my network of spies" then "they assassinate the king!" ...or... "possessing the victim" then "the victim eats the human flesh!"), it seems better to just treat the far-reaching power as an extension of you. "I assassinate the king!" "I force my victim to eat human flesh!"
Yes/no?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page