[IaWA] Concrete actions questions
Rustin:
When Shahu Seen whispers in Amek's ear, pointing out the curve of Tajie's lip and how the light falls on her throat--- is that a conversation or an action? (I understand a particular strength is involved in this example, and was thinking the "inciting Amek's passion" is a concrete action via the Particular strength, no the talking per se).
Is refusal to act an action? Example: The village fool is standing in the street babbling cryptic, poetic truths. An old woman approaches, telling the fool of the wonderful meal she has prepared for him. (She is trying to talk the fool into going to her place for dinner). The fool does not move, but continues to babble.
Can old woman character interfere with the fool's stated action of not moving?
Clinton R. Nixon:
Rustin,
As I understand it, there's not a way to act and make a character do anything else, except by force, or through a particular strength. "I point out her beauty" doesn't strike me as an action, although I know different groups probably draw the line in different places on that.
Refusal to act causes a contest, as far as I know, but is a reaction, not an action.
Valvorik:
Ah, metaphysical lines being drawn where physical actions leave off and attitudes/mental reactions being (e.g., do you chose to be attracted and act on it or is it pheremones etc. or a far-reaching power to compel actions etc.)
When Sahu Seen inflames and Mekha professes love vis a vis Tajie, and she gives in (p.12) ~ what were the 'actions' and what would have been diced for if Tajie's player doesn't decide she gives in and presumably sleeps with Mekha.
As I see it:
Through far reaching Particular Strength, one cannot do something the rules otherwise disallow (according to a Query Vincent answered). So wherever the line lies, Particular Strength can't be the "key" to doing something such as inflaming passions. If one can inflame passions and there is a PS good for that, inflaming passions must be possible within rules generally and thus could be done without a PS (e.g., an exotic dance, a seductive poem etc.). Mekha could have been successful on his own.
Gramatically, "inflaming passions" doesn't force action on someone, it forces a condition that may be visible and result in actions from others and it creates a need to demonstrate the subject character as "inclined to act upon such or not". Thus it isn't the dice compelling decisions.
To me, if game literally only allows physical conflicts over physical actions, I think that's not as exciting as a broader definition of acting and some of examples do seem to go further but how to define line between "just talk" and "action" is tricky. The game appears to intend to leave control of beliefs, attitudes of PC's exclusively in a player's hands thus an argument about whose beliefs are true and whose false is just colour assuming it's PC's - neither Player can be forced to choose to change a belief.
Conditions that may "incline" someone to act in a way but don't require it seem fair game to impose, likely as logical narrative levers for a conflict winner to negotiate with. Passions inflamed is a condition. Acting on inflamed passions is a choice and that seems across the line of what dice can allow one person at table to dictate to another. Perhaps Tajie's player decided she is not a woman who would control her passions when they were so intensely fanned.
So in the particular example, the fool and the old woman. If the fool is a PC/NPC and the action is to "tempt hunger" (with hope of negotiating agreement come in off street) [in same school of arounse physical passion, say in this case with scent of fresh baked bread and bowl of stew], the PC who loses and is tempted does something interesting. They negotiate or they don't (yeah I'm tempted but now we know that I'm such a fool, believing so strongly in the need to warn everyone the sky is falling that though outrageously hungry and tempted I stay here ranting). That seems interesting to learn. What can be won is whether the fool is tempted, feels acute hunger and appetite, just as whether they are wounded, angered etc. What the PC fool does when tempted, wounded, angered etc. still up to Player to decide or negotiate over.
Now I think changes in attitudes of "faceless masses" should be allowed. For example, I think social status, public image, confidence of masses, political factions, the jury's views, these things can be affected by actions and words can be actions here. X makes a speech before the senate that turns the senate against Y's candidacy. That's a game for a conflict. If Senator Q is a PC, Senator Q's attitudes are, however that Player's choice. If Senator X is a named NPC under GM's control, Senator X's attitudes are also discretion of GM. Convincing Y to withdraw their candidacy does not seem like an "action" (it's something Y might offer in negotiation).
Ultimately, social standing etc. do depend on view of other characters but I would draw a line between attitudes of "furniture" masses ~ e.g., attempts to fearsomely intimidate the mob ~ and those of named PC's and NPC's with best interests (conflict drivers). Since their attitude/belief drives conflict, letting actions change their inner compasses short circuits conflict. Conflict-based play requires conflict drivers be "fairly robust" both in terms of "not taken out by one lucky shot" and "not likely to change goals and just say 'never mind'+.
lumpley:
Physical vs nonphysical isn't the thing.
Go read "Red Nails." Read the conversation Conan has with Valeria in the opening section. Conan's like, I totally want to fuck this woman and I totally want her to do what I say, but, well, fuck it, I'm not going to make her to.
If you roll dice, you're no longer trying to convince someone to do something, you're trying to make them do it. Shahu Seen isn't trying to convince Mekha to go for Tajie, he's trying to MAKE him go for Tajie.
So: if you want someone to do something, tell them your reasons. Maybe they'll do it, maybe they won't. But - while you're leaving it up to them, don't roll dice.
Rolling dice means that you don't care anymore what they want to do, or whether you've convinced them, or anything like that. It means you're holding the gun to their head and telling them what to do (whatever the gun happens to be).
Make sense?
-Vincent
Valvorik:
I think so. The "gun" can be inflamed passions that override judgement, terror created by intimidation, or just "acting against best judgement because of the flim flam" that really doesn't care about your free will or desires, only wants a particular answer. I work in consumer protection and we see high pressure sales constantly force people in vulnerable situations, including vulnerability the seller creates or falsifies, into signing contracts and handing over money that they didn't want to before, regret doing after and are often of two minds about even as they do it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page