[IAWA] Some minor questions...
Valvorik:
The "alcohol challenge" is interesting. IAWA assumes conflict is inter-character and it's not really a conflict in scope for the game, so the "warranty is void" if you start taking it in that direction (not that aren't all sorts of warranty-voiding fun to be had with all sorts of things).
Conceptually, depending on motivations etc., could it have been a conflict with the Sword. In the story of this character it looks like the issue is particular case is dealing with or breaking under the stresses of the Sword's influence and its interests at conflict with the character's.
Overall, that sounds like a blast. So very Elric.
Rob
Landon Darkwood:
Quote from: Lars M. Nielsen on January 27, 2008, 03:46:29 AM
A "Save vs. Alcohol Poisoning" is not what I would do.
See, I think you're unfairly characterizing what happened by calling it that.
First of all, evil dude wasn't really evil at all: his best interest was to get the soldier to forgive him for executing his family as part of his service to a ruthless god-queen. It was in the soldier's best interest to exact vengeance on him for the same crime. It wouldn't have made sense to turn his motives on their head for no good reason.
Second of all, we'd established as an ealier fact that the sword's influence extends to its current wielder, and by then, the sword was long gone, having been recovered by the constabulary and picked up by another PC. So, there was no other character around for him to reasonably have a conflict with.
Third of all, the roll was not made as frivolously as a "save" or whatever - I asked both other players what they thought about the approach, talked it out, etc. Really, the object was to establish at what cost would the soldier be charging out into the night. And it did that in spades - losing the conflict started a chain of events where he played the rest of the session circumspect and avoiding violence from his weakness, even at the cost of having to give up his chance at vengeance for now and trust in the will of the youth who'd ended up with the sword.
In the final scene, the god-queen totally humbled him (basically because he bore the sword's burden unnecessarily, her being an all-powerful god-queen and all who could have just taken the burden from his hands), and he ended up forgiving the executioner, to snap the executioner out of the sword's attempt to get him to kill the god-queen right there in the throne room. It was fantastic stuff, and it all grew out of that moment where we established that yeah, he could totally walk out of that inn, but in bad shape, vomiting blood and missing dice. Had we glossed over it, it would totally not have had the same impact.
In other words, there was a lot of reason not to just say "yes", and there wasn't any character available to stop him.
Valvorik: I don't really think the text is written to suggest that conflicts should be primarily intangible or conceptual in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it's actually quite basic task resolution. Stakes don't even really come into play at all except very vaguely, because you never have any guarantee that anything you do will accomplish anything except exhaustion or injury, and a basic admittance of your action. And in that setup, straightforwardly addressing the facts at hand in a scene, I wonder if trying to force a character-character setup every single time is... well, trying too hard in certain rare instances like what happened to me. Bear in mind, it's not that I expect something like this to happen a lot.
Lars M. Nielsen:
Quote
A "Save vs. Alcohol Poisoning" is not what I would do.
Hmm. That was condescending. Sorry about that.
Now that i read your new post, I can totally see what you mean, and why you would want to roll the dice. I'm trying to figure out some way of making the sword the opponent, even if it isn't physically close. The sword is indirectly responsible for his drinking. Maybe on a physical level it's all about vomiting blood and being sick, but on a dramatic level it's about him trying to recover his will to fight, and go on even in the light of the atrocious murder. In that kind of conflict the player of the sword could challenge him with feelings of disgust, self-loathing and vivid memories of the murder. I think that could work.
It sounds awesome, by the way.
lumpley:
Hey Landon, did I meet you at Dreamation?
I'm falling on the side of "make alcohol poisoning an NPC," myself. You'd be like "I walk out the door" and alcohol poisoning would be like "oh I totally stop you." Call it action d12 d8, maneuvering d10 d6, self-protection d6 d4, but all it's likely to ever do is action.
With Darcy, you could also get hinky and have the PC oppose himself. That could be cool.
Or how about you make it a particular weakness? Stat it out like a particular strength, but give the die to your opponent instead. That's pretty nifty.
-Vincent
John Harper:
Whereas I think that stating up an alcohol-poisoning NPC is a terrible idea. :-)
I mean, yeah, as a transitional measure to ease out of "having a conflict over X" type of play and into "only roll when someone opposes your actions," type of play -- then yeah, I can see it. But I'd ditch the proto-NPCs as fast as possible.
But I'm crotchety. I play Wicked because it doesn't feature "let's have a conflict about this!" in the system. I like to take a break from that kind of play, and Wicked is the place I go. Not that there's anything wrong with it (PTA is the bomb!) it's just a different thing. The times when we have tried to slip into conflict/stakes mode with Wicked have been the times when the game was weakest, IME.
Making proto-NPCs to stand in for alcohol or the mountain you have to climb or the memory of your sister? Nah. Not for me, thanks. You don't need dice and consequences for those things to have power and meaning in the game.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page