Persuasion rules
lumpley:
Oh come on. The answer is: sure, whatever.
If everybody agrees to the stakes, they stand. If you lose them, well, now you have to believe whatever you agreed to believe.
Now the unfun part worries me. Did your friend REALLY agree to the stakes? If he did, why wasn't it fun to lose them?
Personally, I don't like conflicts about PCs' internal states, nor about future actions. I think they create distance between you and your character where there doesn't need to be any (I suspect that's what was going on with your friend), and they're usually a sign that somebody's calling for dice before there's a real conflict. But whatever, if everybody agrees to the stakes, they stand.
Oh and in a multi-way conflict: strictly, the person who wins the conflict gets the resolution of the stakes. If two Dogs drop out but the third Dog wins, that third Dog wins.
-Vincent
lumpley:
I'm sorry, "oh come on" was rude. I take it back.
-Vincent
David Artman:
No worries--I am accustomed to exasperating people and can take an "Oh, come on!" from time to time. I know that I am being a bit dense....
Quote from: lumpley on February 15, 2008, 06:04:46 PM
Now the unfun part worries me. Did your friend REALLY agree to the stakes? If he did, why wasn't it fun to lose them?
I guess he didn't recognize that, yep, his character's beliefs would have to change somehow, if the stakes are "Who's solution will we follow?" Maybe he took it too "binary" though--he could have assented to let me take the lead on The Plan while, in his heart-of-hearts, knowing that it's "a bad plan" or "we're doing this the wrong way." Heck, being a Mountain Folks convert, he could have easily explored the notion of "deferring to the expertise" of my Dog who was "Raised By My Whole Town, From Birth, To Be A Dog (2d8)." Perhaps the internal-to-the-player conflict that I thought was The Good Shit was really a misdirection; TGS should have come about from in-play events and challenges, NOT from internal-to-the-player tension between rules enforcement and "traditional" self-determination in RPGs (even though it's not all that "traditional," really, given railroading and Charm person and Persuasion and Seduction skills and...).
Quote
Personally, I don't like conflicts about PCs' internal states, nor about future actions. I think they create distance between you and your character where there doesn't need to be any (I suspect that's what was going on with your friend), and they're usually a sign that somebody's calling for dice before there's a real conflict. But whatever, if everybody agrees to the stakes, they stand.
The bold part makes me wonder still more (I really am trying!): We didn't go to Dog-on-Dog conflict over the town's fate until we'd, literally, gotten into OOC argumentation--we were out-of-character, getting louder, not budging on obvious points (e.g. "Dog's Autonomy" does not necessarily and always engage "Dog's License To Kill"). We weren't Saying Yes. So we Rolled Dice. Conflict had a loser; loser didn't like that he was expected to play as if he'd lost the stakes. So is this group dynamic issue, a Social Contract problem, a Line problem (as I said above: "Line: Don't set internal-state stakes with me"), or what? From your reply above, I'd guess Line. So next time we play, we talk about that Line.
Quote
Oh and in a multi-way conflict: strictly, the person who wins the conflict gets the resolution of the stakes. If two Dogs drop out but the third Dog wins, that third Dog wins.
I hate to say it, but that doesn't answer my question as I read it.
Third Dog wins. Check, that's me. I win what? Stakes. Stakes are "Do We Dogs Agree With Them Sinners?" I win, so I negate the verb: "We Dogs DO NOT Agree With Them Sinners." Thus, none of the three of us are convinced... those two who gave just ran out of arguments (or patience, but weren't exasperated enough to kill) and dropped out, even as I rallied with a stunning turn of phrase, bit of logic, and invocation of authority... which brings the other two back around to The Right as I've defined it while winning the conflict, much to their relief (assuming they want to remain Dogs and not become heretics).
That is what makes sense to me. Giving does not mean losing, in multi-versus-multi. Rather, it means that you no longer can contribute and are praying that the remaining folks on your side can win the day.
Thanks, as always, for beating me over the head with a rock until there's a big enough hole to let in understanding....
David
lumpley:
First part: cool. One way I've constructed that kind of conflict in the past, that's seemed to work, is "what's at stake is, do you go along with me?" "Go along with" makes it clear that if I win you do have to do what I want, but you don't have to change your character's convictions.
Second part: don't mind the bolded part! Don't let it make you second-guess your play. I wasn't there, I'm just throwing noodles at the wall.
Third part: exactly. That's what I meant to say.
-Vincent
David Artman:
*bows* Thank you for the clarifications. Je comprend maintenant.
It's not my thread to close, but I think I was the one keeping it lurching along to the cliff. I'm done, if y'all are!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page