Slay With Me: 1st Game
Paul Czege:
Let's say I'm the player of the adventurer, I'm playing the game with Ron, and I've purchased the death of the Monster as an accomplishment. Is it meaningful for the text to establish that both of the following should occur:
Example 1
Paul: "Okay, the damn thing is blind, right? So I'm inside his reach in a flash and sink the magic Bowie knife into its throat. Foul green blood is gushing everywhere. I'm soaked. It's thrashing and knocking into the temple columns and destabilizing the whole structure. But I get out and it's buried in rubble. Dead."
Ron: "Cool. Yeah, you're out. On your knees, I think, in the courtyard. And covered in gross mix of blood and dust. But Princess LadyPrincess rushes over to you anyway."
Example 2
Paul: "Okay, the damn thing is blind, right? So I'm inside his reach in a flash and sink the magic Bowie knife into its throat. Foul green blood is gushing everywhere. I'm soaked. But I evade his blind thrashing."
Ron: "Yeah, that finishes him. He pitches backward through the stained glass and trailing a twisted arc of blood, down onto the rocks below."
So, death of the Monster established by me, the purchaser (Example 1) and death of the Monster established by the other player (Example 2), as a reaction.
Because if gameplay should feature both of these, I'm not sure the current text ensures it; my thinking is that without a more direct enjoinder by the text, a given pair of players is likely to consistently gravitate to one or the other, based on their personal consensual understanding of what's meant by "provide reactions and resulting events".
Paul
Ron Edwards:
Paul, I'll get to your points in a bit.
Tim, I realized your question about being distracted from the Goal needs to be answered more completely.
If the Go includes only being distracted from the get-go, such that the adventurer doesn't even try or notice going toward the Goal, then there's no dice. That's how I interpreted your question at first.
"Ooh! A monkey!" with no mention of the Goal or direction toward it = no dice.
But then I realized that you might be asking about the final disposition of the character at or by the end of a Go which did in fact include seeking the Goal in the first place.
"I go down to the market to follow the guy [and we know that this guy is relevant to the Goal], but look! Ooh! A monkey!" = a die.
Again, more for Paul later today. Paul and Eero, please wait for my reply.
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
Paul and Eero,
The text as written is the way to go. After the Match, the "you" player is providing the majority of content regarding the disposition of the chosen options, just as you say. However, that entails some things to understand.
1. A Go is defined by one substantive forward-moving event. Therefore it's unlikely that post-Match play will consist of a single Go.
2. Much of what we're discussing here is subject to tuning based on how tight or loose the two people are playing. So Paul, your dialogue examples seem very 'tight' to me, which doesn't make them wrong, but also doesn't map to how Tim Koppang and I play. What I'm saying is that your basic point is right, that the "you" player is attending to the Match outcome in his or her Goes, but that I can't point to your specific text as the way to talk-and-play, because it has too many features that are associated with its particular degree of tightness.
3. I've found, enjoyably, that post-Match play can contine for a few Goes past the point when all the Match outcomes content have been included. Various other features of the story which have been developed sometimes need resolution as well. Although once the Match outcomes are settled, it's time to finish, sometimes finishing needs a little attention. (What I'm saying here isn't counter to the rules text, but I wanted to make sure I was not giving the tacit, incorrect message that play finishes like a flipped-off light switch when the last Match outcome is attended to.)
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page