[IAWA] Flee in the middle of the fight?
Supplanter:
Vincent, thanks. Let me make sure I get this.
In Dogs, you block or dodge *because the dice back you up*. They've already been rolled and you earn a block or dodge by meeting your opponent's dice with no more than two.
I read your IAWA explanation as saying that you get at least part of a block or dodge in IAWA just by hanging in there. I'm getting this:
GM: I'm running the hell out of the tunnel.
Ghost: ONYFDA.
[They roll. GM wins initiative. Ghost's player picks up dice.]
GM: Am so. I am running out of the tunnel.
Ghost: I tackle you before you go three steps! [THIS IS MORE OR LESS A BLOCK.]
[Ghost's player rolls dice.]
NOW WE DETERMINE WHO HAS THE ADVANTAGE.
If we were playing Dogs, the sequence would be different.
[GM and Ghost's player roll a bunch of dice.]
[GM pushes forward two dice.]
GM: I'm running out the tunnel, Dogboy!
[Ghost's player pushes forward 1-3 dice.]
Ghost: "A see that depends first of all on how many dice I used!"
It does seem different. In Dogs, the dice result is buying you a block or dodge. In IAWA, it seems like the intent to roll dice gets you that.
Am I going astray somewhere?
Thanks,
Jim
Moreno R.:
Jim, I will try to answer your question, to see if I have understood correctly Vincent's answers
Quote from: Supplanter on April 28, 2008, 07:57:45 AM
GM: I'm running the hell out of the tunnel.
Ghost: ONYFDA.
[They roll. GM wins initiative. Ghost's player picks up dice.]
GM: Am so. I am running out of the tunnel.
Ghost: I tackle you before you go three steps! [THIS IS MORE OR LESS A BLOCK.]
No, if I have understood what Vincent meant, I (the Ghost) roll BEFORE saying what I do. I don't have to say "I block him" or some other thing before rolling.
Quote
[Ghost's player rolls dice.]
NOW WE DETERMINE WHO HAS THE ADVANTAGE.
The roll determine who has the advantage.
Now, I have to narrate SOMETHING, and my limits are (1) what already "happened" in the story before the roll, plus any shared understanding of the kind of game and setting we decided before playing ("please, no monty python quotation, this time!"), (2) the declaration of the GM about what the NPC is trying to do ("he is running to the exit", even if he did say it like "he go outside"), and (3) who has the advantage from the roll.
In the game, yesterday, I lost the advantage, so let's continue using that roll as example
I could have said "no, I tackle him before he goes outside, but he get over me and is pinning me to the ground, He has the advantage" (my character had the particular strength of "solidify" himself when he wanted, , or stay immaterial)
Or I could have said "he flee, hearing my curses from the tunnel. But then, after two days, while he sleep in his bed, I enter his room to kill him. (my lover did free me when she arrived at the cave). But I underestimate his fear, she was sleeping lightly and heard me, and he is waiting for me, hidden in his room. He has the advantage"
Vincent, if I understand correctly what you mean, I must say that I really like this A LOT. It mean that in that situation BOTH me and the other player could have got what we wanted without having to force the narration in tight restraint, and without having to stop the conflict!
But I have another question: one of the other PC (a semi-god who was my rival for the Sorceress love) was trying to prevent her from getting to the cave and free me. In this situation, with the result of that conflict influencing mine, how could we have played the situation?
Moreno R.:
Some errata on my previous post, and a clarification.
I meant "he was sleeping lightly", and my rival was a "Demi-God" (the son of the Death Goddess. The Death Goddess's best interest was to have the Sorceress marry my murderer. That was her father.)
At the time of the conflict, the Demi-god player's had not stated that he wanted to prevent her from reaching me, so the situation would have been like:
The Ghost (narrating the roll from the example above): "he flee, but two days from now I, freed from the tunnel by her, will..."
The Demi-God: "Ehi, stop it. Who said she free you? I want to stop her".
How would you play this?
Moreno R.:
Another question: I suppose the answerer can't narrate particular actions done by the challenger (so my example, with the bit about "you hid in the room" would need his consent, and without I can only say what my character do, and add that he noticed me and has the advantage), right?
But the answerer has plot or content authority with that narration (over the backstory or the setting), or can only use situational (scene framing) and narrational authority? Or what he can or can't narrate doesn't align on these categories?
(I would suppose only scene framing and narrational authority, but IAWA already surprised me with some rules and I would like to be sure)
lumpley:
As answerer, you get to say how your character reacts and what comes immediately of it. I don't think that's full narrational authority, even, since you're limited to your own character's agency (but I didn't look up those posts of Ron's to check that).
The solution to the funny, hitchy problem with the ghost trapped in the tunnel and leaving the tunnel for round 2 but this demi-god interfering THEN is: let the demi-god roll dice in round 2. "I find you at your house" becomes the ghost's round 2 action, if he wins initiative, and the demi-god answers. It'll take a little on-the-fly reorganizing, but that's just because you didn't know upfront who's really participating.
There's an important tool in the rules you can use to minimize and smooth this kind of haggling. It's the rule that says that when someone asks you to describe something, you should, what's obvious to you plus a detail. Use this rule to clarify, at every stage, who's where, doing what, right now. Don't argue about who's allowed in by the rules - everyone is! Instead ask the player where her character is and how she's getting involved. Make sense?
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page