[IaWA] Breaking Bad Habits
lumpley:
Oh, Mike, I meant to answer this. The negotiation is between the players, not between the characters. Occasionally it'll involve negotiation between the characters, but it sure never has to.
Like, here's one way it could go. I'm the ogre, you're the guy hiding the treasure:
Me: ...I win! Okay, I'm about to tear your arm off, I'm like "TELL ME WHERE IT IS AND I'LL FIGHT ON YOUR SIDE."
You: Tear it off then. I say "I don't need you on my side. Get screwed!" I'd rather be injured than bargain with you.
Me: Done. I dislocate your shoulder. "HA HA I'M GOING TO FIND IT ANYWAY."
See how the players' negotiation frames the characters', but they're distinct?
This would be a valid way to do it too:
Me: ...I win! Okay, how about I'm about to tear your arm off and you squeal out where the treasure is hidden like a little girl.
You: Pff. I'd rather you injure me.
Me: Done. I dislocate your shoulder. "NOW TELL ME WHERE IT IS AND I'LL FIGHT ON YOUR SIDE, YOU'VE SEEN HOW I FIGHT."
In that case the bargain between the characters follows after the negotiated outcome between the players.
Make sense?
-Vincent
Mike Holmes:
That's a clear answer for as much as it addresses. But the question of scope is still out there. I now know it's OK to negotiate about outcomes as a player, but how much can we agree upon?
For instance, in the example, can we agree that his character actually shows me where the treasure is? Or if we agree that his character has told me where the treasure is, that can't have been a lie, correct? I don't have to put in a "And it's not a lie" clause. That is, the negotiation isn't that the character says something in particular, but that they tell the truth. That's allowable, yes?
To take it further, could we negotiate that not only does his character show me where the treasure is, but that I now have it? How much "future" action can we agree upon? Again, to go to the abusurd end, can we agree that not only has his character shown me where the loot is, and my character has obtained it, but also that we've ganged up on a third character and kicked his ass?
In boardgames we talk about deals between players being "enforcable." Meaning that, if they are, not giving what the other player wants is cheating. If they aren't, then the deal is "in-game" and a player not holding up his side of the bargain is merely having his character dealing in bad faith in a reasonable in-game manner.
There are times in game design where either is a good idea, depending on the design. Which is the case with negotiations in IAWA? Are agreements made between characters "enforcable" or not? It seems not. But can you narrate post facto as part of an agreement to get around that? Or is negotiation restricted to only resolving events that occur as an immediate result of the fight in question?
Mike
jenskot:
I'm going to take a stab at answering Mike's questions. I'm not Vincent so I could be very wrong. But I want to test what I've learned from Vincent's answers and use my hopefully greater understanding of his intent to make educated guesses on how all this should work.
My understanding is that in IaWA:
- Negotiations are between players.
- Negotiations can involve roleplaying which may influence the outcome by putting consequences into context.
- Since negotiations are between players, you don't have to put in a "and it's not a lie" clause. But you can have fun with this, say you negotiate that you now know where the treasure is. That doesn't mean in the fiction your opponent literally confesses the whole truth. Maybe in the fiction they spend the next 3 hours lying to you but you beat the truth out of them.
- Agreements in the fiction between characters are not enforceable.
- Restrictions on narration in terms of time, space, and credibility are limited based on play group style moderated by the GM.
- For example, one play group may be ok with weeks passing by between rounds in a conflict where another play group may prefer rounds limited to action in "real time."
- Provided that your play group is light on these restrictions, I don't think there is anything wrong with negotiations lapsing time.
- For example, "your character shows me the location of the treasure right now or I will injure you," and then if your opponent agrees, having the conflict end with both your characters at the locations of the treasure.
- You can't lock down actual future actions, "I plan on getting into a conflict with another player later on and I want you to promise me that your character will fight on my side".
- When we say "future actions" we mean future actions at the game table, not events described in the fiction.
- You can advance the timeline to state what has already occurred as part of the narration of a negotiation.
- What you describe is limited to the agency of your character. So if the GM has an NPC protecting the road to the treasure, the GM can restrict your narration.
I apologize if any of this is wrong.
Rock,
John
lumpley:
Mike:
Deals between the characters aren't enforced by the rules.
Negotiate only the immediate consequences of the events of the action sequence.
By the rules, you specifically can't negotiate consequences onto an uninvolved character.
This doesn't stop you from saying "cool, it's a deal," then turning to the GM and saying "we go together and kick the ass of Mitch's character," of course. It wouldn't be a done deal, though, it'd just be play continuing as normal.
On preview, John, that all looks right to me.
-Vincent
Piers:
Quote from: lumpley on May 05, 2008, 09:23:22 AM
Deals between the characters aren't enforced by the rules.
Negotiate only the immediate consequences of the events of the action sequence.
It is interesting to note the difference between IAWA and Poison'd on this point:
In IAWA bargains have no mechanical enforcement because the action is all about this particular moment. The episode will be over in no more than a couple of hours. Right now is all there is. Next episode is next episode.
By contrast, bargains in Poison'd are all about the future. They delay the resolution of tension between characters, but ensure that when it does resolve it resolves more violently.
The differences say a lot about what each game is up to.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page