[IaWA] Concrete actions questions
lumpley:
Very much so, Ryan.
Hey PorterO! Are you the Porter O. I think you are?
-Vincent
Rustin:
Thanks for all the clarifications. I think I get it. I hope I don't sound too clueless, but if I could get some more hand holding that would be wonderful.
"I swing my sword at his mid section" is a preferred player statement because it gives us a concrete, vivid action without necessarily including a consequence.
"I cut him in half " is frowned upon because is includes a consequence that might not necessarily happen.
Now we move from physical attacks to control and manipulation of another character.
"Mehka, Playing on her inflamed lust, seduces Tajie and brings her to bed with him" would appear to be in the frowned upon category of statements because we have a stated consequence.
Is this just a compromise we must make when trying to non-physically manipulate people? (IOW, make it more like Dogs when doing social battles and it should work fine.)
All in all, I think I like the system's approach.
I always felt the stake setting of Shadow of Yesterday's Sway and even the Diplomacy in d20 acted a bit too much like mind control.
In this system, once you get into character another character could convince you just through roleplay. And, it strikes me as more realistic to need psychological force to get another character to act out of character. Moreover, if that character type was strong enough, you simply take the injury but don't act.
Basically, it should be hard, if not impossible, to use reason to get a fool to do anything. . If someone wants to play a fool, then we shouldn't let some game mechanic mind control that character out of her nature.
Ry:
I encourage players to push hard for what they want and then back off when it gets to consequences. I think there's something like that in the text too.
Valvorik:
Quote from: Rustin on February 04, 2008, 02:12:46 PM
..."Mehka, Playing on her inflamed lust, seduces Tajie and brings her to bed with him" would appear to be in the frowned upon category of statements because we have a stated consequence. ..
Vincent has explained elsewhere in forum that the consequence part of that statement is expressed in play as an exhuberant engaged style of play not as what is actually being diced over, with only the "action" part actually being diced, not the consequences. Whether your style is this or prefers to focus on "the action" that can be diced for is up to table (the thread did suggest online where actions remain visible as text expands it would be better to stick with only the action part).
Myself, I would prefer to keep statements to what is gamed and resolved perhaps with the exhuberant part being framed more as "such as might be imagined to seduce her and bring her to bed". Those of us not the game designer or with game designer at the table with us may need a bit of help to "stay on the rails".
My one game so far was all fighting and slaughter first chapter (through about 3 scenes I think) ~ lots of fun though ~ with 2nd Chapter being spy and political shenanigans, with non-figthting actions including devil passing off as official entitled to take custody of a prisoner, a debate in front of nobles forming delegation about accepting or rejecting treaty terms etc. (with some blood and slaughter in the midst of that of course).
So for example, in the debate we agreed the Prince character (NPC as it happens) with authority to make decision about treaty couldn't be forced to make a decision but if they lost debate in front of all the councillors and military officers in delegation (which they did) as action being diced over, then negotiation would proceed and could encompass commitments about treaty. At it happened, yes I decided as GM that NPC would prefer to not suffer "personal loss" (dice) and prefer to conceed on treaty. This also noted that since future actions couldn't be bound, he could turn around next day and sign it, just coming across as real louse. Players were fine with that (him being such a miserable louse being just as tasty as treaty failing).
PorterO:
Quote from: Ryan Stoughton on February 04, 2008, 11:08:03 AM
Paradoxically, you go to dice to make people do stuff, but winning doesn't make them do stuff - the negotiating does. So if I win Tajie comes to bed with Mehka only if Tajie prefers that to being exhausted/injured.
Ok, this makes sense to me. I was in the "narrating power" mode of DitV, so I wanted to dictate the result once I won the dice off. I see now how this system can work with non-physical conflict: I play for the negotiating stick through what ever means are available to me be they physical or verbal. Once I have the stick it doesn't matter how I got there and I negotiate a resolution. I like it.
Quote from: lumpley
Hey PorterO! Are you the Porter O. I think you are?
Hey Vincent. Yeah, the very one.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page