[IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
David Artman:
Quote from: Melinglor on November 12, 2008, 12:54:36 PM
Dave, are you saying that you can actually change forms (roll different dice) between exchanges in a sequence? Or just that your narrated actions can be like, whatever after the initial kickoff?
No, I'm just saying that when you pull your two dice, you choose forms that are appropriate for the action you are doing (which becomes a Challenge, if you win initiative) or how you intend to Answer (if you lose). The point is to make sure you're not always pulling your best (or worst, to own the We Owe List) dice, mainly.
After that one round, you stick with those dice (no, you can't swap them out) regardless of how you continue to narrate. You could, for instance, begin "With Love, For Myself" trying to seduce a beau... and she slaps you (With Violence For Herself) and you become all Conan-enraged and snap her wrist in the second round (DEFINITELY With Violence and Directly).
Quote
Also along those lines, my read of the book's example is that default procedure is, you choose forms and roll, THEN describe your answer.
Well, sure you do... because you don't know if you're the Challenger or Answerer until you compare first rolls.
Are you using the flowchart Ryan made? I can't find it (damned Story game crap-ass Search function), but you can email him (rcstoughton[circle with a in it]gmail[small, roundish thing]com). It saves my butt sometimes, when the sequence is weird (multiple agendas in a conflict).
Quote
but someone ends up the Answerer, so the action evaporates and we go with the other one.
Exactly. The only pre-conflict response is, "ONYFD,A!" Everything after that is driven by Challenge and Answer. In fact, the very statement made that started it all, itself, gets retconned. "I punch you in the throat to shut you up" becomes "I try to punch you...".
Quote
1) Do you see the answers you just gave on Forms to be in contradiction (or at least contrast), with the statement in the book example ("can't use Violence," etc.), or in harmony with it?
Um... neither? It's true for the first statement 9Challenge or Answer) and fades away for follow-up rounds.
Quote
2) How do you settle, at the table, a dispute like "I think you'd need Far-reaching for that!" "Well, I think you wouldn't!" Does someone have the last word, or is it "discuss until consensus," or what?
Never came up. This is prolly, again, like the supernatural dial in Dogs--consensus rules.
But generally, far-reaching means what Vincent said--doing things at such a remove that without F-R, the character could not be in the conflict. Apparently, having a bow brings one "near enough" to act against someone up a hillside. But F-R lets the person be literally out of sight, in a disconnected location, in another scene.
Heck, I generally save it for magical stuff anyhow, which mitigates a lot of "does this apply?" YES, it's MAGIC! :)
-----
By the way, you should have had a mini-session with the one player, to get a feel of the flow so you have more practice when you get more. Yeah, yeah--shoulda, coulda, woulda. :)
lumpley:
David's answers work for me. Oh, but:
2. The GM has the final word. Never, ever discuss to a consensus. The GM makes a ruling and you go on from there.
Believe it or not!
-Vincent
Joel P. Shempert:
OK, I think I see what you guys are saying: going into a conflict, you're thinking to yourself how you're going to Challenge or Answer, then picking forms base on that. . .and after the roll you name a Challenge or Answer as appropriate. Got it. Your initial responses were giving me a weird picture (which I've seen come up and play, and be a bit confusing an unfun) of everyone nameing a Challenge, picking forms, then rolling--but only one Chellenge ends up "sticking" and the rest get modified into suitable Answers. Which strikes me as a bit too much retconning.
Quote from: lumpley on November 13, 2008, 08:57:54 AM
2. The GM has the final word. Never, ever discuss to a consensus. The GM makes a ruling and you go on from there.
Gotcha, that's what I needed to know: where the buck stops.
Peace,
-Joel
Moreno R.:
Quote from: lumpley on November 13, 2008, 08:57:54 AM
2. The GM has the final word. Never, ever discuss to a consensus. The GM makes a ruling and you go on from there.
This is a change from the original text, or it's already written there somewhere? (I don't believe I have read about this before but I could be mistaken)
lumpley:
Keeping me honest!
Okay, okay, it's true. You can resolve that kind of dispute - "no man, you'd need a far-reaching particular strength to interfere with me" "the hell I would, you're right there" "I'm tellin' ya..." - however you want, and still be playing by the rules. The rules don't care a bit, they'll just wait patiently until you resolve it. Discuss to consensus all you want.
The rules DO provide you with a single player (the GM) who reliably has nothing riding on the outcome, and can therefore make impartial rulings, and who has already taken additional responsibility for making the game go. I strongly recommend that, instead of discussing to consensus (shudder), you let that player just resolve disputes.
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page