I ask Vincent a bunch of questions like I was a horde of flying monkeys
Christopher Kubasik:
I wrote a long post in another thread, and then realized this was it's own thread.
The original thread is here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=25765.0.
Quote from: lumpley on February 21, 2008, 09:04:16 AM
Each "to hit" roll takes a while, it's true - in that way, I hope the game puts a certain amount of creative pressure on everyone to negotiate interesting consequences instead of "I hit you. I do damage. I hit you. I do damage."
Hi Vincent,
What you wrote there is what I'm interested in.
Okay, I'm actually interested in all of the how's and why's you designed the mechanic. But this was a big part of it as I sat (and often stood, and often jumped up and down during conflicts!) playing a game on Sunday. I like the answer because it touches on exactly what I wanted more of on Sunday: I knew you had an agenda with your game design -- but I couldn't figure it out, and I kept grinding up against the gears of it because I couldn't see it.
I'm absolutely certain, knowing the kind of thoughtful designer you are, that you were provoking and eliciting certain behaviors from the players -- between the players and the rules, and the players and each other. (This may not have been what you meant by the terms on the thread at Anyways, but they are good words for what I'm grasping for.)
As we played, what I really felt was, "Okay, Vincent's up to something, and I'm not seeing it/feeling it.... And no one else at the table is seeing it or feeling it either. We'd have these cool color moments, and then these conversations about what the heck were we supposed to do with these results. Or rather, not so much the results (though it was that, sometimes), but why we had gone through the steps to get the results.
Now, something that occurred to me this morning before I read your post -- which was exactly what you wrote: "a certain amount of creative pressure on everyone to negotiate interesting consequences" I though... Well, you know, if I kept playing the game, I'd get tired of spending 40 minutes taking another PC down, and eventually I'd start using the system to do new things that didn't feel repetitive and scratchy. (A feeling based on how we were using the system, not the system itself. I think. That's what I'm trying to figure out!)
***
So, if you could talk about what sorts of contested actions work best for the system? Does that make sense as a question? As you just said, and I realized, direct death matches aren't what the system is really designed to do. So can you talk about the kinds of contested actions it is designed to do?
***
What sort of interaction did you want the system to provoke and elicit between players?
***
The dice mechanic itself. During the first rolling of dice I got confused. I haven't had a chance to take it apart again since Sunday night, but at first blush it all seemed kind of random. You roll dice, I roll dice. Random numbers are generated and then someone wins the round. I could obviously choose which size die to use, but I didn't see any real strategy involved -- except pick the big one!
Then I realized I might go in on the first round with smaller dice to get the bonus die. (That might not be the game's technical term for it.) Okay, so that's a choice.
But then it occurred to me that there's no penalty for losing on the first or second rounds, right? The victories or losses aren't cumulative -- all that matters is the third round. So, I wasn't sure what the three rounds are for or why you designed the system the way you did. I'm sure you had your reasons, but without having you there I was like, "Okay, this is clearly designed to do something, and right now it feels like I'm missing that something and using the game 'wrong' -- and if I could only figure out HOW this thing is supposed to be used and used it effectively, the questions at the back of my head would settle down and we could focus on the cool color, content, situation and character this game is generating." So, if you could talk about why the mechanic is designed the way it is, I'd be greatly appreciative.
Thanks!
CK
Moreno R.:
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on February 21, 2008, 01:03:50 PM
The dice mechanic itself. During the first rolling of dice I got confused. I haven't had a chance to take it apart again since Sunday night, but at first blush it all seemed kind of random. You roll dice, I roll dice. Random numbers are generated and then someone wins the round. I could obviously choose which size die to use, but I didn't see any real strategy involved -- except pick the big one!
Then I realized I might go in on the first round with smaller dice to get the bonus die. (That might not be the game's technical term for it.) Okay, so that's a choice.
But then it occurred to me that there's no penalty for losing on the first or second rounds, right? The victories or losses aren't cumulative -- all that matters is the third round. So, I wasn't sure what the three rounds are for or why you designed the system the way you did. I'm sure you had your reasons, but without having you there I was like, "Okay, this is clearly designed to do something, and right now it feels like I'm missing that something and using the game 'wrong' -- and if I could only figure out HOW this thing is supposed to be used and used it effectively, the questions at the back of my head would settle down and we could focus on the cool color, content, situation and character this game is generating." So, if you could talk about why the mechanic is designed the way it is, I'd be greatly appreciative.
Christopher, I know that you played a lot of Sorcerer. What do you make of the similitudes between the dice mechanics in IAWA and Sorcerer? (my group is playing Sorcerer & Sword these days, but we tried IAWA once when it was published, and a player said to me that he understood how the S&S dice system worked only after playing IAWA). What confused you in the dice system in IAWA, after becoming familiar with the one in Sorcerer & Sword?
Christopher Kubasik:
Hi Mareno,
lol... Well, if I knew what confused me, I wouldn't be asking the questions.
And now I'm more confused... The dice mechanics are similar to Sorcerer? My brain just twirled on that. I mean... Each round of rolling in Sorcerer produces effects upon the characters immediately (which, if I understand IaWA), isn't the case (effects are at the end of three rounds). Bonus dice are earned by providing color in Sorcerer, not so in IaWA (which asks for color to justify dice). In Sorcerer Initiative and effectiveness are determined from one roll of dice, there's full defense and dodge, which are important options, dice bonuses carry over into the next round, from round to round, which can encourage players to cat-and-mouse their opponent for a while with all sorts of non-combat skills to nail someone with a final combat attack (or visa versa.)
In Sorcerer players roll their intent, and then the dice rolls determine whether a) the Intent happened at all, and b) if it did, what the result of the intent moving forward was. As Vincent says, the IaWA system is designed to provide consequences for contested actions, not resolve intents.
As far as can tell, after writing those two paragraphs up, IaWA might confuse me BECAUSE I've played Sorcerer!
If you want to break out the similarities, that would be great. It might help me grok something.
CK
Christopher Kubasik:
By the by....
Given what I just wrote, the difference between resolving a PC's Intent and providing Consequences for Contested Actions is HUGE.
Now that I see that distinction, I know I'm supposed to see something clearly about how to a) build contested actions, and b) move toward cool consequences that come about because of the contested actions (as oppose to "I hit you, you hit me, repeat")
But my brain is having trouble going, "YES! I see what this game is encouraging now!" (And I put that all under the context of the questions from my first post and look forward to Vincent's answers.)
CK
Alan:
Hi Christopher,
In another thread you wrote "This is exactly how you mean the system to run: Two PCs want to kill each other, and they run the conflict mechanic again and again until someone goes down."
As I read the rules, yes, if two players have some reason to want each others character dead, this can happen. However, in the three chapters I played, I never saw two characters who both had killing each other as their best interests. There was always something else they really wanted out of the conflict and so negotiations happened. The system sings when most of the character's best interests are in competition but not outright mutual destruction.
I think the true genius of IaWA's conflict system is that it doesn't require that players have intentions clearly in mind when they start, but the consequence negotiation causes such intentions to emerge.
The conflict system does resemble Sorcerer's in several ways: first, it's just about conflicts of interest (actually a subset called "action") and doesn't require stakes be identified; second, the high roller's dice stand and all responders have to reroll; third, a win in one round produces an advantage dice for the next.
The three round structure encourages players to model the standard pattern of heroic conflict where the hero starts out at a disadvantage and makes a comeback -- players are encouraged to choose lower dice so they can get on the Owe list. Then in later rounds, if they don't get the advantage dice by rolling, they can get one by burning an entry on the Owe list. Also, in a multiple character conflict, when one gets knocked out earlier than the others, this can produce interesting dynamics.
Very cool.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page