[IaWA] Breaking Bad Habits
Eero Tuovinen:
Apologies if this has come up already earlier in the thread, long as it is, but I need to know where this gamism angle came from to understand the current leg of the discussion. So: where did this gamism angle come from, again?
I'm asking because from everything I've read the game itself seems pretty obviously to provide minimal traction for that stuff. Mike's played IAWA, so he's probably not just babbling here - did you just interpret the game into a whole another GNS category when playing, or what? It seems obvious to me at a glance that the ONYFDA stuff (is that in the rulebook?) is just emphasis for character passion, not an expression of player-level resistance to anything in particular - why would Mike interpret this differently? How do you even establish and commit to gamist challenges in something like this?
Brand_Robins:
I think I'm the first one that said "Oh No You Fucking Don't, Asshole" as the thing my group did to mark the time to go to dice.
With us it was always a semi-in-character thing. A player expression of character intent, as it were. That others read it as something the players were saying to each other as players was something that never even occurred to me until long after the fact.
In fact, often times if someone didn't say ONYDA after something, people would say "What, you're letting him get away with that, won't someone stop this asshole?" when asshole was their own character. We roll the same for conflicts we want to lose as those we want to win, and negotiate accordingly.
lumpley:
Mike:
Oh! I see. Yes, this is the crux of things. You keep asking me how consequences work when you don't negotiate any mechanical weight to them, so I keep answering it. What I should do instead is tell you that you can give mechanical weight to consequences in negotiation.
For instance:
Quote from: Mike Holmes on May 06, 2008, 04:43:46 AM
Like, for instance, you could have one negotiated outcome be that the other player has to spend his next "turn" so to speak, defining how his character gets out of the situation into which I put him. Meaning he can't affect anything else, he just negates that maneuver... mechanically the player "loses a turn" so to speak.
Perfectly acceptable.
Quote
Or the player might get some sort of penalty dice (or I get bonus dice) that come into play if you as a player attempts to overcome the situation that was negotiated, and goes against me.
Also fully supported by the rules.
Quote
...I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more rules options if pressed to do so.
I'm certain! If you limit yourself to mechanical effects already accounted for by the existing rules, I'm sure you could still come up with half a dozen. Apply them flexibly, half a dozen should fully cover a year-long campaign's worth of circumstances, considering that most RPGs have about that many and most indie RPGs have only one or two. And if you get a really weird circumstance in session 15, taking a minute to figure out how to give it mechanical weight will be part of the fun.
So yeah, the crux:
Quote
The point being that there can be a fine detail in coming up with mechanical support for negotiations that would allow them to remain very versatile in supporting the color of the negotiations.
Yes. Absolutely. If you play again, include mechanical consequences in your negotiations. You'll be a lot more comfy.
It's a matter of this: knowing the game's mechanics better will mean a more sophisticated and concrete mechanical component to your negotiation.
Before you know to say "how about I take a 0-significance particular strength, far-reaching but not worth a die, called 'my sway over you,'" yes, good feelings and playing soft will help it work more smoothly. The game doesn't depend on that over time, though, it depends on you coming to own and apply the mechanics.
My design goals - no prep, no pre-play, character creation in 5 minutes, playing 15 minutes after you sit down, no up-front rule dump - mean that I can't have a Dogs-style initiation to teach you the rules (for instance). You know that weird discomfort when you do a personal growth initiation in Dogs for the first time? And how after the session you're like "oh, y'know, here's how we should've handled that, wish I'd realized it then." For In a Wicked Age, your first couple of sessions ARE your initiation.
-Vincent
jenskot:
Quote from: lumpley on May 06, 2008, 07:47:25 AM
Quote from: mike
Or the player might get some sort of penalty dice (or I get bonus dice) that come into play if you as a player attempts to overcome the situation that was negotiated, and goes against me.
Also fully supported by the rules.
Cool! What are the rules that support this? How do you do this?
lumpley:
We're negotiating. I have the stick.
Me: How about you're locked in my basement?
You: Okay.
Me: And if you try to get out and go against me, you roll d4 d4 instead of your regular dice.
You: I dunno. d6 d6? It's just a basement.
Me: ...Fine. Done.
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page