[IaWA] Breaking Bad Habits
jburneko:
"From now on, in every action sequence, before you roll dice, think of what action you'll have your character do if you win initiative."
Heh, I was doing that this weekend unconsciously based on my Sorcerer training. At the top of the round I had everyone announce what action they were planning on taking. It was only AFTER the game I realized, "Oh wait... you don't do that in this game..." Glad to know it was within the spirit of the rules though.
Jesse
Troels:
#s 2-5 look sweet and good to me. However I have trouble with #1.
The clash of strong wills at the table and in the story seems to me to be one of the most central features and attractions of IaWA. Picking best interests that the character really doesn't share, or will have trouble influencing in a meaningful way, appears unattractive to me.
I see in my mind's eye a conflict between two characters with best interests of the type "It's in my best interests to fail to seduce and marry the monk, even though it's what I intend to do", competing to suck the hardest. OK, it's bound to be comical, but also dispassionate, which in my IaWA book is bad.
Failing can be fun and make for great stories, but that's pretty much bound to happen for a great deal of the characters in any given chapter, anyway, and isn't it more fun to fail despite trying to succeed, than to fail because you're trying to suck?
Am I missing something here?
Yours, Troels
jburneko:
Troel,
I'm going to take a stab at this and then let Vincent correct me if I'm wrong.
You're looking at a Best Interest as something to be actively pursued, whether by the character in fiction or by the player at the meta-level regardless of what the character is up to. My understanding is that NEITHER is the case. Best Interests are not something to be pursued by anyone. They are simply facts of the situation. I think the hardest part about them is that WHY this or that is in a character's Best Interest is left undefined until someone has an epiphany moment mid-play and says, "And THAT'S why it's in that character's Best Interest to such and such."
I'm reminded of something that was once said about a rule in the Sorcerer supplement Charnel Gods. In that game when one character reaches Humanity 0 end game is triggered. That character becomes co-GM and helps narrates how the world ends. It was once described that rule should be, "Articulated, Acknowledge, and promptly Forgotten." No one should drive to Humanity 0 and no one should jump through hoops to stop it either. I feel like that's how Best Interests work in this game. They are not something to be driven towards but rather something that the state of the fiction should be constantly compared to.
For example, I played the game this weekend. I was the GM and I had an NPC whose Best Interest of was, "To kill the Demon God of Blood and Vengeance." However, the Demon God of Blood and Vengeance and I started to make deals with one another and join forces and plot against my ward (the NPC was a Guardian Spirit). But it was also clear that the Demon God was gaining power over me. That I was being unfairly manipulated. So, yes, it was absolutely in my Best Interest to kill him, but I didn't. I didn't even try because I liked plotting against my ward and I liked scheming with the demon from a character perspective.
Does that help?
Jesse
lumpley:
Jesse's right.
To the very point, though: restriction 1 is for people who aren't enjoying the game because their "characters" are made 1-dimensional by their pursuit of their driving goal-style best interests. If that's not you, you don't have the bad habit, and I don't recommend the restriction to you.
-Vincent
Troels:
Quote from: jburneko on April 17, 2008, 02:08:30 PM
You're looking at a Best Interest as something to be actively pursued, whether by the character in fiction or by the player at the meta-level regardless of what the character is up to. My understanding is that NEITHER is the case. Best Interests are not something to be pursued by anyone. They are simply facts of the situation. I think the hardest part about them is that WHY this or that is in a character's Best Interest is left undefined until someone has an epiphany moment mid-play and says, "And THAT'S why it's in that character's Best Interest to such and such."
I'm totally on board with the desirability of having charaters who aren't all monomaniacs. However if all you do with Best Interests is write them down and "forget" about them, they're a waste of space IMO. If you take the trouble to define them, they should be brought into play. If they aren't brought into play, nobody will play with them, and no play, no epiphanies (or very rarely), in my experience. Writing down something that the character doesn't even want, and then not pursuing it as a player on at the meta-level screams "dead stat" to me. How does...
Quote
They are not something to be driven towards but rather something that the state of the fiction should be constantly compared to.
...actually enter play and become relevant in practice, especially if there's more than half a dozen of the little buggers flittering around the table at the same time?
BTW I have no problem with being flexible regarding the best interests of NPCs, but then they aren't protagonists, and that makes it different. I'm also totally cool with having two BIs that don't point in the same direction, or even aren't compatible.
Yours, Troels
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page