[IaWA] Questions
lumpley:
I am going to answer these questions! I lost track of them at first. Give me a bit longer.
-Vincent
Darren Hill:
Quote from: steven807 on February 23, 2008, 12:40:53 PM
Thanks for the response, Darren. I'll mull on these and pass them on to the other players.
Your welcome.
Just a minor point of clarification:
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.
Quote from: steven807 on February 23, 2008, 12:40:53 PM
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.
I was using 'intent' as in 'statement of intent' - you know, when at the start of a round in traditional games, the GM asks everyone for their statement of intent, or what they are doing that round. I was talking about actions. So my statement and Vincent's are saying basically the same thing, but with different words :)
I was using the word 'outcome' in the same way people in conflict resolution systems use the word 'stakes' - before the contest, you say what the outcome will be if you win, or what's at stake if you lose, that sort of thing.
My main point, perhaps confusingly stated, was that you can't go into a conflict and know what the result will be - even if you win. You state what you are trying to do, your opponent does the same, you roll dice, and then you negotiate what actually happens. The winner may have a specific desired outcome, but may have to settle for exhaustion or injury, or his opponent might suggest something less than he asked for, but which he is happy to accept.
lumpley:
Steven! Okay.
1) It's a perfectly fine best interest. If no other player takes a best interest like "keep the ring," then It's the GM's responsibility to decide where the ring is and who has it. Ideally, someone with an interest in the ring and high dice to back it up, but it's the GM's call.
2) Well ... it's okay. It's super important to know that "without anyone seeing me" isn't guaranteed even if B wins the dice, that's something they'll have to negotiate at the end. Maybe A would rather see B and be exhausted or injured.
3) It does, strongly.
4) A took action and C tried to stop her, right? "I get past without you noticing." "The hell you do." So yeah, that's right for an action sequence.
Hey, you know how in Dogs in the Vineyard, you aren't allowed to make a raise resolve the stakes? The Wicked Age doesn't work that way. If C wins initiative, C's move can be "I see you and start shouting." The action sequence continues from there. A doesn't have any "but I didn't want you to see me!" recourse.
5) You should have, yes. No dice ever count against some people and not against others. B gets the d8, plain and simple.
6) 5 hours is a long time for one chapter. The GM needs to be pacing better and throwing people together more aggressively, is my guess. Resolving people's best interests isn't the goal of play, but using people's best interests to get them to roll dice against each other is. The GM needs to be paying attention to conflicting best interests and setting scenes accordingly.
Followup questions welcome, always.
-Vincent
Rustin:
Quote
If C wins initiative, C's move can be "I see you and start shouting." The action sequence continues from there. A doesn't have any "but I didn't want you to see me!" recourse.
If A, in his answer rolls really well and then says:
"A flits from the light to shadows and hides, so quickly that it makes C think maybe she really didn't see anything at all. C stands uncertain."
Then let's say C doesn't want to go up against the Advantage Dice for round two. A offers a negotiation:
"Only if C turns and behaves as though she didn't see A."
In other words, I have the feeling that even though C can say on their initiative, "Ah ha! C sees A." A can turn it right around and say, "But it doesn't matter because C doesn't believe what she saw, or rather-- C does not behave as though what she saw was real."
In other words, with negotiation, there is a mechanical way to still get Steath to work?
Michael Loy:
I think that, as with everything else, you can't guarantee stealth will work. You can place your opponent in a situation where he'd probably rather overlook you (or disbelieve what he saw, etc) than take exhaustion or injury, but you can't force someone to accept a piece of narrative.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page