[IAWA] Failing to Resolve
lumpley:
Oh and - thanks for saying so, Mike. I wished I could've been there.
-Vincent
jenskot:
Quote from: Mike Holmes on April 14, 2008, 10:30:28 AM
It did not happen in play, note, that we ever repeated a conflict. But, again, I wonder to what extent it was the conflict resolution "only one attempt" rule rearing it's head, again. Whether that's the intent or no. Actually it comes down to playing and feeling like, "I guess that maybe I can just say I try again, but that's not very creative, and feels like it's cheap play."
Mike, it did happen in the game you played between Thor and myself. We cut to another scene before the re-roll and narrated our attempts to get what we wanted differently but it was essentially a repeated conflict.
I believe I've played IAWA 9+ times now (with different players, some non-gamers, and I never GMed). In the majority of our games, we had repeated conflicts.
I enjoy the mechanics and I very much enjoy that you don't state intent, you simply act! But 2 types of events keep reoccurring:
1. A particular strength's color sometimes only matters if your opponent lets it matter.
Actual Play example:
- Frank goes to a party, dressed to impress.
- John attempts to use his particular strength on Frank.
- John pulls out a scroll that allows him to alter Frank's appearance.
- John doesn't state his intent, but it becomes fairly obvious that he wants to alter Frank's appearance in a negative fashion to spoil his party plans.
- Frank punches John in the face as he starts to read from the scroll.
- Frank and John roll dice.
- After 3 rounds, John wins.
- John gives Frank a choice. Frank's appearance is negatively altered or Frank is injured.
- Frank chooses injury.
- John won but Frank's appearance was not altered in any way.
If John wanted, he could press on and try again. But if Frank never wants his appearance to change, it won't. Even after Frank has two of his stats reduced to zero, thus removing him from the game. His appearance still never changes.
2. When players focus too much on mechanical weight, color becomes a weak negotiating tool.
Actual Play example:
- Chris and John roll dice as they engage in physical combat.
- Chris wins.
- John offers, instead of injury, he will draw a map to find the treasure that Chris' "best interest" references.
- Chris rejects and states that he can narrate finding the treasure later and doesn't need John's map. And even with the map, the GM can still put obstacles in his way. The map doesn't guarantee Chris anything.
- Chris chooses to injure John.
Note, Chris is not a gamer. Although I have had very similar situations happen on 2 other occasions with gamers. Gamers who tend to be heavy Narratavist in general.
I haven't run IAWA yet. I want to. But I feel like I'm missing something or that all the different people I am playing with are doing something wrong.
Any help is very much appreciated.
Rock,
John
lumpley:
"Narrate finding the treasure later" concerns me. How does that work?
-Vincent
jenskot:
Quote from: lumpley on April 14, 2008, 01:29:23 PM
"Narrate finding the treasure later" concerns me. How does that work?
That's poor phrasing on my part. I apologize.
Please replace:
"Chris rejects and states that he can narrate finding the treasure later and doesn't need John's map. And even with the map, the GM can still put obstacles in his way. The map doesn't guarantee Chris anything."
with:
"Chris rejects and states that he can describe his character attempting to look for the treasure later without the use of John's map (for example, looking for someone who is not in direct conflict with Chris' character that may know of the treasure's location). Unless the GM specifically says that John's specific map is the only way to find the treasure. The map doesn't guarantee Chris anything or improve his odds in finding the treasure."
This may or may not address your concern. That all being said, I was in an IAWA game that was run GMless where this potential issue escalated 10000%. I'm a firm believer that the GM holds a pivotal role in IAWA and the play experience is far better with a GM.
I hope that helps with clarification. If not, please let me know what information would be helpful.
Rock,
John
Valvorik:
I've had this "repeat same fight" come up once so far, as described in the "Talky but Fun" thread post on "Alia and the Leprechauns" where I asked if people saw the "I will not compromise" phenomenon often.
All-out verbal duel of insults and challenges in front of Leprechaun Court where each time someone loses "so is that the end of it, will you negotiate an outcome satisfactory to the winner or will you be [exhausted is the choice winner says makes sense]" and "exhausted" is the choice as argument continues.
However, it really wasn't "the same argument" as the back and forth does change the "starting point", "status quo". If it had been, then it would have seemed like "the same fight" and no so exciting (yes there's the "take damage or compromise" issue but still, same fight exactly no so much fun). But the fact that the narration of what happened in each action sequence along the way "moved the fiction" and so kept the conflict feeling fresh (for example the final decision of Leprechaun King to accept a compromise and let Alia go was perhaps motivated by the fact her arguments were increasingly casting doubts on his suitability and trustworthiness to rule and thus the logical outcome of his losing was moving into a very bad place for him, even if he seemed to have the upper hand).
I think that players had the choice to "stand ground and take it on chin" was important to table.
Rob
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page