[IaWA] Breaking Bad Habits
Mike Holmes:
Yeah, I know, I'm the guy who created the "advocacy" language. I get that one can play that way. I often do play that way. I'm not incapable of understanding it, nor am I incapable of playing that way. I even play that way when presented with an incoherent system like Hero Quest.
The argument, however, is based on good faith and, in fact, actual examples of play. I'm not making up some, "the game will fall apart if this happens" fiction to poke holes in Vincent's game. When we played at ForgeCon, more than one of us, myself included, felt that the game had this problem.
I'm willing to be shown why the impression we got was wrong. But I'm not going to accept that my points are invalid because they're not based on somthing concrete.
To reiterate, I enjoyed IAWA, and am looking for a solution to this problem. Be it in terms of being explained how there is no problem, or whatever else may happen (it's possible that I'm too brain damaged by other RPGs to understand this one). So that next time I play, it's more fun.
I was using the ring example, because, in fact, it was used by Vincent in the other thread. But let me use the actual play example that happened with us:
My character had as his best Interest that he was after a treasure (in olive oil, as it happens). Through a substantial amount of play it was determined that another player's character had the treasure stashed away somewhere (so much the better, now we have the conflict we're looking for). So I said that my character was going to find where the treasure was, and get it. The player who's character had it, predictably, stepped in the way, and told me no. My character came out on top, and so now I had a choice it seemed to me, negotiate for the treasure, or not get it, because the other player would simply take the injury or exhaustion, if I didn't offer something palatable.
So I negotiated. The other PC would show me where the treasure was, and I would promise to help her attain her goal. Being as that PC didn't have it as a Best Interest to keep the treasure, or to prevent me from getting it, the player aquiesced. But he was uncomfortable doing so, because we noted that I could have my character just not do what he'd promised to do.
Sans any sort of committment from my character, something that simply wasn't possible to make mechanically, the player had no way of being certain that my character would help his. His strong inclination was to take the injury. In the end he made the agreement when I argued that he wasn't losing anything by making it. And would, in fact, if he didn't (the stick). He was still uncomfortable, because he felt that it might actually be worth thwarting my character for that point, however.
Again, it was the pressure of not wanting to put himself in the position of putting myself into the position of having to do the same contest again, I think, that made him finally agree to let the game move on as a tie-breaker on his decision. Something that neither he, nor I, were happy with.
Now, the example given, and reading Vincent's latest post, here's where I think we went wrong. I think that somebody was supposed to, if they wanted to, get the narration of my character getting the treasure somewhere along the way.
A point of order in the discussion. When we say "round 1" there are two contexts. The first is in terms of the series of dice rolls that determines who gets injured/exhausted, which can go three rounds, but can also go only one in some cases. Then there's the "rounds" of reattempting the same action, and being repeatedly blocked by the same character. Does it matter which, for these purposes, we're talking about when you say we could determine whether or not my character could have found the treasure?
But that's what you're saying, I take it? That the only thing that a player saying that they're blocking an action resolves is who gets injured/exhausted in the attempt.
Do I have that right?
Well... then when does this narration occur? By whom? I could have said:
Mike: "OK, I lost the first roll against you, but my character, rolling around avoiding you, sees the treasure under the couch, and takes it."
Would that be kosher? I could go on, but having an answer to that would help. If it's wrong, how is it wrong?
Before I take anything on faith, I have to be sure that I'm understanding what it is that I'm taking on faith. There's an extent that what you're saying sounds to me like a contradiction. And, no, I can't take contradictions on faith. That's gotta get straightened out first.
Mike
jburneko:
Mike,
I'd like to take a stab at this. Can we break your example down? Let's talk about JUST round 1. You say you wanted to find the treasure and another player wanted to stop you. Okay, cool. What action did your *character* take to start trying to find the treasure that the other *character* opposed?
How did round one go, action for action, exactly?
Jesse
lumpley:
I was about to ask the exact same question. What action did you have your character take in order to find the treasure?
-Vincent
Valvorik:
Quote from: lumpley on April 18, 2008, 07:53:07 AM
Mike: #2: You missed my point. My point is: resolve grabbing the ring in the first round. Don't leave the ring ungrabbed until final negotiation, don't even leave it ungrabbed until round 2. By the end of round 1, somebody's grabbed the ring, decisively. Go into round 2 with the ring no longer up for grabs.
-Vincent
If what was disputed was "I get the ring" and that is decisively settled in the first round, with the winner of initiative saying "I seize the ring" and coming out ahead with advantage, why then are there three rounds? I assume "decisively" means "not still in dispute" as in Round 2 can't be "Challenge, I trip you before you get away with it" and Round 3 "I pry your fingers open and seize it".
I can see, in example of boat, that first action is settled but that it is not decisive as its significance, whether it's immediately countered etc. is still up for grabs, and the back and forth of rounds play that out.
lumpley:
Uh, nope. What's settled is whether I grabbed the ring - I did. Now that I have the ring, now what? "I trip you before you get away with it" and "I pry your fingers open and seize it" are perfectly good possible actions for rounds 2 and 3.
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page