[IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
Joel P. Shempert:
Hi! I'm playing In a Wicked Age tonight (first time GMing) and I had a question: how exclusive are the Forms supposed to be, in terms of narrowing down narrative options based on which ones you pick? Like, in the book example it says if you're acting For Myself and Directly, you can't use violence, 'cuz you didn't pick With Violence. But if I try to apply that to other combinations it breaks down for me: If I picked For Myself and With Violence, I couldn't act directly, 'cuz I didn't pick Directly? But then I didn't pick Covertly either, so where does that leave me? And What constitutes Violence in this context? Deadly attack with a weapon? Brawling? Apparently Mekha's "heel to the face" in the example doesn't count.
Is this just something the group is going to have to work out its own metric for in play, like Dogs' Supernatural Dial? The text implies a hard line, but i'm seeing at most a blurry strip. I can easily grasp the Forms as positive descriptions--I picked this form, so I've got to be doing this thing this way. But as negative terms, that exclude other aspects? I don't get it.
Similarly, I'm having a spot of trouble with "Far-reaching." Without the book example I would've assumed that of COURSE Exorcism could cast out a spirit that's possessing a person right here in front of me; far-reaching would seem to imply "over a distance" or "across dimensions," or "many at once" or whatever. Or is this just a "limited by the specific qualities of the Particular Strength" thing? Kinda like Sorcerer's Demon Abilities?
I know this is kinda last minute; sorry. I've been thinking about the questions all week, and only just realized, hey! I forgot to actually ASK 'em. :P
peace,
-Joel
David Artman:
Payed a couple, run a couple, YMMV, I might be wrong on the "official" ruling.
Quote from: Melinglor on November 12, 2008, 09:00:21 AM
how exclusive are the Forms supposed to be, in terms of narrowing down narrative options based on which ones you pick?
Not at all. You're stake-setting, when the actual flow of Challenge and Answer could end up (in round three) on another continent, in the past or future, with whatever happening.
Look at what make you say, "Oh, No You Don't" and take immediate consideration of how you would Answer (if you win initiative). THAT's your forms. After that, you could Challenge or Answer however--doesn't matter anymore. You could go from For Others With Love to For Myself With Violence in a round, not a problem.
Quote
Like, in the book example it says if you're acting For Myself and Directly, you can't use violence, 'cuz you didn't pick With Violence.
I'd say that's just on the initial Challenge or Answer, after which you don't want to be struggling to make an Answer or Challenge (and constraint could make you struggle). I could be wrong (I say again).
Quote
If I picked For Myself and With Violence, I couldn't act directly, 'cuz I didn't pick Directly? But then I didn't pick Covertly either, so where does that leave me?
I'd say neither Covertly nor Directly is at issue, so you can waffle all you want. But then again, I'd say waffle anyway, after the first C/A.
Quote
Similarly, I'm having a spot of trouble with "Far-reaching."
Just consider the basic rule of ONYFDA: you must be able to interfere and willing. Far-reaching removes the "I'm right there" issue for interference. It also adds the ability to narrate doing something at a remove, rather than only what you can reach with your hands and feet and mouth (etc).
So, for a simple example, a bow is far-reaching, a sword isn't. Oratory is far-reaching, seduction (close contact, whispers in ears, subtle touches) isn't
Vincent will be here directly (heh) to correct me (with love, hopefully).
lumpley:
Not particularly exclusive. As a rule, you should say (or strongly imply) your character's action, and choose forms that follow from it - DON'T choose a form first and then try to figure out your character's action to fit. As a rule, I say, but occasionally that flow gets interrupted: you've already rolled your dice, and now it's time to say what you do, and your original intended action makes no sense whatsoever given what's happened inbetween. In those cases, don't worry about it; your dice are your dice, you say what you do without regard to what forms you rolled, and all's well.
Actions constrain forms, forms don't (strictly) constrain actions.
About far-reaching: that's a fun example. My take is, the possessing demon can always retreat into the person's psyche, and how will I reach it there?
Demons might not be able to do that in your Wicked Age, in which case your exorcism doesn't need to be far-reaching.
-Vincent
lumpley:
Bows and oratory aren't far reaching. A network of assassins or provocateurs, able to act while you're sleeping peacefully elsewhere, are. A bow that shoots through walls, a magical voice that allows you to orate from a mountaintop to an entire kingdom, are.
-Vincent
David Artman:
Ah, OK. I have misplayed it a bit then. I presumed ONYFDA would only be invokable if your PC, literally, could reach out and prevent the action--melee range/personal space/etc. And so, if I see WAY up on a hillside that Bob is about to throw Mary off a cliff, and my Bow is "farr-reaching," I can ONYFDA because I could "shoot him before he can toss her off." Otherwise, being WAY down here at the foot of the hill, I can but scream and moan as she plummets to her squishy death (and get ready for a follow-up conflict, as I rush up the hill to send Bob down after her!).
Got that wrong, huh? Hmph....
Well, fortunately, no one makes Particular Strengths that are so narrowly focused. "Incredible Bowman" might be a good far-reaching PS, though, yes? (*whimper*)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page