[IAWA] Some minor questions...
lumpley:
Quote from: Ryan Macklin on January 28, 2008, 10:15:56 PM
Actually, it was me you met and only briefly asked that question while we were both busy. I was bummed to not get to sit down with you later about it.
Ah! Of course, I remember now.
I was bummed too.
-Vincent
Landon Darkwood:
Quote from: DainXB on January 29, 2008, 06:01:02 AM
It's "Say yes, unless some other active participant in the game says no".
Here's my only issue with that: the GM is an active participant in the game. However, the GM *isn't* always managing an NPC to serve as meaningul opposition in a scene. So when the GM says no, as a way of expressing that this moment in the game shouldn't just be a gimme (i.e. should mean something), and she gets consent there, the lack of an available NPC can be a straitjacket. Sometimes. Very, very rarely. I should say this again: I'm pretty sure what happened to me was like the 1% scenario not precisely covered by the rules. I'm not saying I want locked doors and rough terrain with dice now in every Wicked game I run.
I have a couple of things I want to follow up on before I call it done - consider my questions answered and everyone's feedback noted; this now is sort of just grist for the mill.
For John Harper:
Without mechanical reinforcement, what does "a serious struggle with the alcohol" that still means something look like to you; what would it look like at your table? I realize that question might sound sort of obtuse, but please give me the benefit of the doubt.
For whomever wants it:
Is the majority response in this thread suggesting a belief that a character's struggle cannot truly be meaningful, worthy, evocative, or whatever (if you want to go there, meaningful in the sense of helping to fulfill Narrativist priorities) unless their opposition is another person, being with self-agency, or whatever?
Valvorik:
On latter, my view is sorta, "yeah, not meaningful" as in "not meaningful enough the rest of us should spend 3 rounds of dice every now and again watching you play out a dispute with yourself". However, "fine for you to narrate the detail of your inner conflict, that's cool and fun to watch", or even also "if you want to narrate the existence of a shadow self as effectively a seperate character sharing shame physical body, and somebody else gets to play that shadow self, cool, but then they're the one's disputing, negotiating etc".
But that is likely a very much individual taste thing, so only speaking for my taste.
Rob
lumpley:
I'll speak a little more broadly: the kind of fiction that In a Wicked Age is good at isn't really about internal conflicts. Lots of fiction, lots of narrativism, is; In a Wicked Age's, not so much.
What would be totally in keeping with the Wicked Age, and playing to its rules' strengths too, is to just go ahead and make alcohol poisoning into a demon. Give it best interests, have it act, maneuver, and protect itself. Maybe even give it particular strengths.
Me and my damn demons, I know it. But externalizing internal conflicts is one of the ways that this kind of sword & sorcery fiction deals with them.
-Vincent
Valvorik:
Well you've got Tanith Lee's "demon" books in the inspiration list so making "demons" out of desires/forces/temptations resonates very nicely with me :)
(I love Tanith Lee though I admit one can overdose on her style).
Rob
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page