[IAWA] Prerequisites Shared Understanding
lumpley:
So my answer is no, you shouldn't ever have to ignore the game's mechanical incentives in order to make it fun or to do interesting things. You need to connect the game's fiction to its mechanics correctly - that is, you should correctly match dice to action and action to dice - but if you're doing that, you should be able to play tactically as hard as you want.
...But if nobody cares about going on the owe list, I don't know what to do about that. It's half the game, tactically. Did nobody do the math and realize that crossing your name off the owe list gives you a serious advantage? Has nobody come up with a character that they'd like to play a second time? Playing the game without the owe list is like playing Dogs without towns.
When you sat down to play, was it with the expectation that you were starting a long-term game?
-Vincent
Jonathan Walton:
Well, no, does anybody sit down with a brand new game and decide they're going to commit to multiple sessions? I generally don't. I sit down with some folks and we give the game a run-through to see how we like it, and if we like it enough, maybe we'll decide to play it again and, after the second session, decide we want to play a bunch of it. We've run Agon the past three weeks at SGBoston, and it was always one-shots with different people playing, since we can't have 9 people play at the same time. We haven't used the Fate rules, which are a large part of Agon, but the game still works okay without them. But now enough people have experienced it and are interested, so Eric's thinking about running a campaign of it. If IAWA was going to become a long-term game, I'd have to sell people on it first, and that's much less likely to happen if I can't make it fun for them in one-shots. But if the We Owe List is more critical to IAWA play than the Fate track is to Agon... I'm not sure how to make that work. Maybe I can hack the We Owe List to make it more immediately applicable? I'm not sure.
lumpley:
In a Wicked Age is a multiple session game. It's not fun for one shots. You can make a single session fun, but it pretty much requires everybody to think of it as the first session of many and to play accordingly. Even so a single session will never be as fun as the game in long-term play.
Now, that said, the owe list is already applicable in single session play, for the advantage dice. You shouldn't need to hack it beyond that - pointing out that it's worth serious dice should be enough, if your players have any tactical sense. I suppose you could try putting a couple of their characters' names on the owe list to start the game, and then encourage them to cross them off for the advantage at the first opportunity. Kick start the owe list arms race, you see.
-Vincent
Jonathan Walton:
Okay, well, I'll see if I can convince folks to give it another try. I like the idea of starting out with a couple people on the list, that might help. Honestly, the first two times we played it, people didn't get on the list often enough (because everyone was rolling the same, highest dice) to realize the advantage of being on the list.
Am I right about #2 up there, though? Is the lack of tactical choices once action sequences start supposed to put the emphasis on negotiating for outcomes other than what the dice render (at least as a strong possibility)? I didn't really emphasize that in the first couple games, which may have been a problem.
lumpley:
About #2: Maybe?
Did you read this, from this other thread?
Quote from: lumpley on April 30, 2008, 10:00:45 AM
I win initiative.
I challenge: "I snatch the ring out of your hand!"
You win on the defense.
You answer, blocking: "You snatch for it but I've hidden it somewhere on my person, it's not in my hand anymore. I have the advantage!"
Or else you answer, taking the blow: "Have it. While you're admiring it I sneak around you and into your home where your husband's sleeping, drawing my knife. I have the advantage!"
The action, the raise, was about the ring. The advantage may not having anything to do with the ring at all.
In the middle of an action sequence, you don't make (many) tactical decisions about your dice, but you do make all kinds of tactical decisions about what your character does. Those, ultimately, set the stage for the outcome, whether it's exhaustion or injury or something else.
So I'd say that the lack of tactical dice choices once action sequences start doesn't bespeak a lack of tactical character choices, up to and including negotiating outcomes.
But either way, yes, exhaustion and injury are limited, limited outcomes, and everybody should be right there negotiating for outcomes they like better. As the GM for a first-time group, it might be good for you to launch the first couple of action sequences NPC vs PC, and then lead negotiations yourself at the end, so that your players can see it in action.
And, you know I'd love it if your group played it and had a good time, but I'm also realistic that not every group will.
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page