[IaWA] Questions
steven807:
Firstly, I'll say that my little group just got done with a fun first chapter of Wicked. Thanks for another great game, Vincent! But we did have some questions:
1) We had the entry: "A noble house’s signatory ring, left behind in a street brawl." One player took as his PC's best interest: "Get the ring back". We didn't know who had the ring, so it was not clear how/whether it would bring him into conflict with anyone. Is it a reasonable best interest?
2) We had a situation in which A and B were trying to retrieve the lost ring. A ordered a beggar to search for it, B tried to hide himself from view while finding and taking the ring. We handled that as a conflict: A: "The beggar finds the ring." (for others/direct) B: "No, I find the ring and take it away without anyone seeing me." (for myself/covert). Is that a reasonable conflict?
3) When A returned to report not finding the ring to C, C ordered A to go back and continue searching for the ring. No conflict ensued (although the scene was colorful). Does Wicked support/encourage/discourage scenes with no conflicts?
4) A wanted to get D alone, but D was with C. When B took C aside for a brief conversation, A tried to get past without C noticing. We handled this with a conflict. Was that a good time for one?
5) B's possession of the ring gave him power over demons -- we created demon-control as a Particular Strength associated with the ring. B tried to control demon D, and at the same time A tried to kill B. We had a 3-way conflict. We said that the extra d8 for the ring was only used in the B-D conflict, not the A-B conflict. Should we have handled the conflict differently?
6) 1-4 suggest a common theme arising from our play -- we didn't jump straight into the conflicts that would resolve the interests of the characters. Perhaps these questions suggest that we pussyfoot around too much, postponing the meaty conflicts: those that resolve the opposing interests. Maybe a better approach is to have each scene resolve at least one interest? (It took us about 5 hours to complete the first chapter, including lots of rules-checking.)
Thanks for any feedback,
Steven
Ry:
Steven, I think the best advice is in the thread just above yours.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=25654.0
Does that help?
steven807:
Thanks for the response, Ryan.
The thread was helpful to understand the game, in that it explains that IaWA conflicts are rolled when things escalate to coercion (physical or otherwise). But my questions were on different matters.
In each case the question is: Does IaWA support this? If so, any guidelines on how best to handle it?
1 was about best interests: what if a best interest doesn't clearly imply who it interacts with?
2 and 4 were about conflicts: What happens when characters don't conflict (because they don't know what's going on), but players conflict, e.g. when someone wants to do something secretly?
3 and 6 were about flow: should every scene have a conflict? Should every scene resolve an interest?
5 was about mechanics: how do Particular Strengths and 3-way conflicts interact?
Steven
Darren Hill:
Quote from: steven807 on February 03, 2008, 12:26:24 AM
1) We had the entry: "A noble house’s signatory ring, left behind in a street brawl." One player took as his PC's best interest: "Get the ring back". We didn't know who had the ring, so it was not clear how/whether it would bring him into conflict with anyone. Is it a reasonable best interest?
I've just reread page 6 of the rulebook, where it describes how you choose best interests. Based on that, I think that is a fine best interest. However, once it's chosen as a best interest, it would have been good if the other players or GM took notice of that, and realised that one of them should create a best interest for one of their characters that somehow conflicts with it. The process described on page 6 encourages players to do this.
I don't think this is absolutely required - since in play, people should be looking for opportunities to get into conflict with each other, and so, someone would probably come up with a reason to put themselves between that player and the ring. So it's not required, but it helps a lot.
I imagine it's something that frequent players of IAWA will start to do naturally.
Quote
2) We had a situation in which A and B were trying to retrieve the lost ring. A ordered a beggar to search for it, B tried to hide himself from view while finding and taking the ring. We handled that as a conflict: A: "The beggar finds the ring." (for others/direct) B: "No, I find the ring and take it away without anyone seeing me." (for myself/covert). Is that a reasonable conflict?
It sounds okay to me, as long as its remembered that the conflict system deals with intents, not outcomes.
Quote
3) When A returned to report not finding the ring to C, C ordered A to go back and continue searching for the ring. No conflict ensued (although the scene was colorful). Does Wicked support/encourage/discourage scenes with no conflicts?
it does mention in the rulebook somewhere that some scenes won't have conflicts, and that this is good. So yes, it does support/encourage it.
Quote
4) A wanted to get D alone, but D was with C. When B took C aside for a brief conversation, A tried to get past without C noticing. We handled this with a conflict. Was that a good time for one?
I think pretty much any intent that is opposed by someone else can be a conflict, so long as both sides are willing to risk injury or exhaustion to get it. I see no problem with your example.
Quote
5) B's possession of the ring gave him power over demons -- we created demon-control as a Particular Strength associated with the ring. B tried to control demon D, and at the same time A tried to kill B. We had a 3-way conflict. We said that the extra d8 for the ring was only used in the B-D conflict, not the A-B conflict. Should we have handled the conflict differently?
Yes, I think so. I think all dice that apply in one side of a multi-way conflict apply to all sides. It could get very complicated otherwise.
Look at it this way: if B had been able to control demon D before A tried to kill him, the demon might have been able to stop A killing B. So, even though B wasn't directly opposing A, that die would help him against A.
Quote
6) 1-4 suggest a common theme arising from our play -- we didn't jump straight into the conflicts that would resolve the interests of the characters. Perhaps these questions suggest that we pussyfoot around too much, postponing the meaty conflicts: those that resolve the opposing interests. Maybe a better approach is to have each scene resolve at least one interest? (It took us about 5 hours to complete the first chapter, including lots of rules-checking.)
I don't think a hard-and-fast rule, "one scene per best interest" is a good idea. Besides, with the advice in the rulebook about skipping between scenes in the middle of conflicts, it's hard to say exactly when a scene ends. It does seem that best interests can be resolved fairly quickly - but even if you think it's resolved, it might not be.
Let';s say in the first conflict of the session, that character gets the ring - so resolving one of his best interests. But later in the session, as a result of other conflicts, someone else gets the ring from him, or it's lost for ever. In the first case, he will try to get it back or abandon that best interest, and in the second case, that interest - once thought to be resolved - is now impossible. So a best interest is only truly resolved when the chapter is ended and it can't be undone.
The rulebook avoids giving concrete guidelines for when a best interest is resolved, or whan a chapter ends, for precisely this reason I suspect. Basically, you just play, and let the players pursue their interests, and after a time some of them are resolved, some of them are impossible, and some might be left hanging, but at some point the group will come to agreement that - at this moment of play - one of the conditions described on chapter 25 is true, and the chapter is over.
steven807:
Thanks for the response, Darren. I'll mull on these and pass them on to the other players.
Quote from: Darren Hill on February 23, 2008, 12:06:25 PM
It sounds okay to me, as long as its remembered that the conflict system deals with intents, not outcomes.
Well, it doesn't deal with outcomes, but apparently it doesn't deal with intents either. Here's Vincent:
Quote from: lumpley on February 21, 2008, 09:04:16 AM
Most importantly, I think, the rules don't care what anyone's intent is. Their function is to provide consequences for (contested) actions, not resolve intents.
So I'm still unclear how best to handle this situation. In similar circumstances, we'll probably continue to wing it.
Quote
I think pretty much any intent that is opposed by someone else can be a conflict, so long as both sides are willing to risk injury or exhaustion to get it. I see no problem with your example.
That's a good way of thinking about it.
Quote
I don't think a hard-and-fast rule, "one scene per best interest" is a good idea.
I see what you mean. My problem in part was that our chapter took 5 hours, when clearly the game can go much more quickly. Perhaps it shouldn't be a "hard and fast" rule, but can still be a "soft and loose" rule (i.e. a guideline).
Steven
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page