[IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
lumpley:
Incredible bowman, yes, absolutely.
If my only particular strength is, oh, "wicked smart," and it's potent and that's it, and I'm standing at the bottom of the hill with my longbow, I can still ONYFDA Bob throwing Mary off the cliff. A bow just extends my normal human reach, the same way any tool does.
"Incredible bowman" would let me, I dunno, specify that I'm shooting him through the hand, which I surely can't do at this range if I'm just a guy with a bow.
Um. This may be one of those distinctions that works perfectly inside my own brain, and isn't portable elsewhere. That's okay - yes, like the supernatural in Dogs, part of the first few sessions of play is finding out precisely how this stuff works for you.
-Vincent
Joel P. Shempert:
Thanks, guys. gettin' a better picture.
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?
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. Which I liked, because when I played it (before I got my own book) there was often some awkwardness when both (or all) participants would describe an action, but someone ends up the Answerer, so the action evaporates and we go with the other one. I liked the cleanness described in the example where only one person has to describe a Challenge, so there's less of a "rewind and describe what really happens" effect.
Then again I can definitely appreciate the value of actions leading Forms and not the other way around.
RE: Far-reaching, I think I get it, and I like it. it seems helpful to situational avoidance tactics of whatever kind: "You can't get me, 'cuz i'm across the city!" (or ". . .'cuz I'm locked in my bunker!" ". . .'cuz I'm hiding in Tamar's soul!") "Oh, yeah? With this I can!"
Here's a couple of new questions:
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?
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?
Peace,
-Joel
Valamir:
Far Reaching is the awesome.
One of my favorite characters had "Master Plotter" or something of the like as far reaching.
My description was something to the effect of "I have more schemes in motion than you can count, any one of which is ready to hurt you right about now".
In one scene there was a battle. I wasn't there but I rolled my dice in the conflict because "I've already bribed the officers you're giving orders to...they work for me now"
Course, I rolled for shit and the officers apparently just pocketed my money and flipped me the bird...but my guy was miles away and I was still rolling in the battle.
Joel P. Shempert:
Quote from: Valamir on November 12, 2008, 01:26:33 PM
One of my favorite characters had "Master Plotter" or something of the like as far reaching.
My description was something to the effect of "I have more schemes in motion than you can count, any one of which is ready to hurt you right about now".
That is some hot shit right there. :)
Joel P. Shempert:
Well, we ended up just being me and one guy tonight, so we didn't play. I talked up how cool the game is a bit, then we watched Dr Horrible and called it a night.
But we WILL play soon, and I'll be ready. :)
Thanks for the help.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page