[Polaris] questions & new storygamer report
vonkorff:
Thanks, you have summarized my questions very accurately. This "do you want to answer your own questions" is a very sneaky technique, I approve. Here are the best answers I can come up with. But they aren't all satisfactory to me, so I would really like to hear your own answers, if you have anything to add to mine.
1) Why doesn't over-use of "but it was not meant to be" cause infinite conflict loops?
Just to clarify the question, I think an infinite loop could start something like this:
H: I behead one of the demons.
M: But only if the demons eat the villagers.
H: It was not meant to be! Let's try something else.
H: This time, I hold my sword to the demon captain's throat, threatening him.
M: But only if the demons possess all the villagers, and the villagers attack the knight.
H: It was not meant to be!
And so on. Every two statements, the Heart says "it was not meant to be" and tries something else.
Now, the rule book's examples do not say "It was not meant to be ... let's try something else" and start a new conflict on the same issue. In your only "it was not meant to be" example on p. 72, Emily (Heart) says "No way! It was not meant to be. I ride a retreat away from the demon."
But you do say "Often, a scene will have lots of little conflicts." (p. 78) In this case it seems unavoidable. The demons are still there. The villagers are still there. The villagers can't escape on a fast steed. How can we possibly avoid another conflict?
So, perhaps the Mistaken has to use "and furthermore", preventing "but it was not meant to be."
M: And furthermore, the demons possess all the villagers, who attack the knight.
The only trouble is, what if the Mistaken has no themes left, and cannot use "and furthermore"? (Or doesn't want to use up his themes on something so unimportant.) In that case, I don't see how to prevent an infinite loop.
2) Are the demons, once prevented from eating the villagers in conflict, allowed to eat the villagers again? When?
They are not allowed to eat the villagers again. "If you have asked for one thing already this scene, and it has been denied, you can't ask for it again (and generally it is bad form to ask again until things have really changed dramatically.)" (p. 76) However, they are allowed to kill the villagers, or abduct them, or possess them, or turn them into small clay statues using their demonic powers, etc. This is what I was getting at in my question. The conflict can go on indefinitely, because there are infinitely many things the demons can do to the villagers.
I suppose the Moons might instead rule that the demons cannot harm the villagers in any way, because it would be too similar to the request that had been denied.
3) Why can't the Heart say "one of the villagers is a knight in disguise!" without use of a key phrase?
I concede that my example doesn't work. The Heart does not have guidance over anyone but himself (p. 40), except as a result of one of his own actions. ("I kiss him, and he falls into my arms. He loves me." p. 61) The Heart could request that one of the Moons say "one of the villagers is a knight in disguise", but the Moons' agreement is not guaranteed.
With a key phrase, you can clearly say that the villager is a knight. Forcing the knight to fight with you seems like another thing again ... can you do this even with a key phrase? The Moon has guidance over that character.
4) Is it bad if the Heart says "I cow the demons, and no harm comes from them ever again?" What should the Mistaken respond with?
I think that "no harm ever again" is okay from time to time, but this sort of sweeping statement could get silly if used too frequently or taken too far. (Should every NPC you come across get blessed to live a happy life forevermore?)
An example in the rulebook states that the hero pins the Solaris Knight "forever" with his sword-shard. So "never again" seems to be an option supported by the rules. (p. 85)
In the case of "no harm ever again", the Mistaken has to work a little more, but still has many possible responses, ranging from "you ask far too much" (if he has themes left) to "but only if another group of demons arrives" to "but only if the ungrateful villagers attack you in order to steal your starlight sword." But it would be undesirable for the Heart to try to anticipate every possible bad outcome, and prevent them all in his statement.
5) Is the "headless demon" statement complete?
If I may, I'd like to add this one question:
You said: "As the demons approach, I behead the first to cross my path and hold the head up, screaming 'this shall be the fate of all who oppose me!'" However, this statement doesn't fully describe the results of the action. (p. 61) Presumably, you intend to frighten or cow the demons. Do the demons run away in terror, or fall over from fear, or kneel to you and call you their new liege, or what?
I just want to verify whether you are endorsing such a partial statement? Or did you mean this to be only the first half of a statement?
J
Ben Lehman:
Hey, Josh. Thanks for indulging me! Let's compare to my answers.
Here's mine:
1) No, they would use the "And Furthermore" or "It shall not come to pass" phrase.
2) If the demons are actually prevented from eating the villagers in conflict, then it is poor form to have them eat the villagers (or otherwise harm them) right away. All future scenes are totally up for grabs, as the future cannot be negotiated in a conflict (except by the introduction of a Fate aspect, which is not a promise, just a resource.)
3) That is outside the Heart's realm of authority.
4) It's not bad. It's how the game is played. The Mistaken should respond, not by trying to undercut the Heart's action, but by attaching a price to it which comes in addition to what the Heart wants. The two that come readily to mind are:
a) "But only if they take you as their king and you gain the Office 'king of demons.'"
b) "But only if they stay peacefully with the villagers, intermingling and intermarrying, and you gain the Fate 'half-demon children.'"
Comparisons: Mostly we're on the same page. I think that there are two misconceptions to be cleared up, one of which I'm slightly wibbly about myself.
1) Looks like we're basically on the same page. The only difference is that I would say that, if you don't want something to happen, but you don't care enough to spend a theme, the appropriate response is to either let it happen anyway, because you don't care that much, or to use "it shall not come to pass" which gives you a chance of stopping it and, importantly, is free.
There's a second important bit, but we'll get to that in the second part.
2) You are correct inasmuch as it is poor form (not explicitly illegal, but the book mentions it as poor form) for either character to immediately do something which was countermanded in a conflict.
But there's a difference between something being explicitly countermanded in a conflict (ex: and furthermore the villagers are unhurt) and something just being annulled with "but it was not meant to be." That's not an explicit request for something not to happen, just an immediate cancellation, which is clearly less important. Ultimately, it's the Mistaken's call what makes good form. Speaking solely for myself, if the Heart was blocking me so continually, I would not be afraid to simply act aggressively in any means (towards the Heart, the Villagers, or something else) immediately after the second "but it was not meant to be." To some degree it's a question of sportsmanship.
3) The rules for other Protagonists in scenes are in the book. I can't remember them at the moment: I rarely use them. You could easily introduce a knight as a secondary character with And Furthermore, though. But you still have to handle all your own conflict.
4) Note that "forever" in the example is not mechanically binding. I mean, yes, he's bound forever. Sure. Until another knight falls ...
According to the rules, you can't negotiate the future.
5) That statement indeed is not a strong base for conflict. There's a more advanced thing here (about times when it is okay to make such statements) but let's get the basics down first.
yrs--
--Ben
vonkorff:
Ben -- thanks again for providing all this useful advice. It's very kind of you to spend time on this.
Yes, I think we are on the same page. To verify this, here's my summary of the reasons our one extended conflict didn't work as well as we would have liked:
a. We didn't use "and furthermore" when appropriate.
b. We didn't always state the desired results of our actions.
c. We didn't make aggressive statements (an aggressive statement asks for awesome, horrible things to happen, things that would mess with other people.)
d. We assumed that we should be seeking some sort of fair compromise or consensus.
e. We were using "but only if" to undermine or cancel each others' actions. "But only if" should attach a price to an action, not undercut it.
f. We were making new statements that were minor variations of denied statements. (Like "kills" instead of "eats.") This is another way of undercutting.
However, regarding (e) the rule book does give one example where one player uses "but only if" to undercut another player's action. On p. 74, where the Heart exorcises a demon from Fomolhaut:
Emily (Heart): I hold up my sword, and the light of stars shines into his eyes, and Doubt is driven from him in fear of my power and the power of my star.
Rick (Mistaken): But only if Fomolhaut dies.
I assume that the purpose of the exorcism was to rescue Fomolhaut. So if he dies, the Heart's statement was undercut. (Unless you consider possession to be a fate worse than death, in which case it's only a partial undermining, or a compromise.)
In (3) above, I was actually thinking about a secondary or tertiary character as the "knight in disguise", not a protagonist. So the Heart could say "but only if the villager is my sister in disguise. She is a knight, and she helps me fight the demons." However, a key phrase is required regardless, because the sister is under the guidance of one of the Moons.
On (5), I am curious as to what your advanced thing might be, assuming we are done with basics. I would have thought that you can say "I behead one demon, and the rest flee" whenever you want, since you have guidance over the results of your actions. (p. 40)
Noclue:
Josh, I don't agree that's an example of using statements to undermine each other at all. Ben's initial post about the type of statements that the Mistaken should be making is here:
Quote from: Ben Lehman on September 22, 2009, 08:11:40 PM
Putting the rules aside, there is also a serious, serious attitude problem here. The sort of statements that both the Heart and the Mistaken (but especially the Heart) are making are, to point a point on it, crap statements. They don't add anything to the game, they just serve to wriggle out of whatever the other player threw at you. They aren't technically illegal they're just bad play as in wet, soft, and unenjoyable.
In you example, the Mistaken is clearly adding a price, a very painful and dire price to the act of exorcising the demon. Its up the Heart whether to accept that price (effectively, the heart decides if possession is worse than death). It definitely adds to the story. It adds a lot to the story in terms loss and sacrifice and strong character development by making a thematic statement about the Heart. An example of using statements to undermine or "wriggle out of" something might be "But only if the demon comes back that evening and possesses him again." That would allow the exorcism and rob it of any dramatic weight at the same time, rendering it meaningless in the story. "But only if" should not be used to block by permitting the Heart's action and then robbing it of meaning. Instead, the Mistaken should be challenging them with a consequence that turns the Heart's action into a pivotal moment in the story. Does the Heart kill Fomolhaut in order to save him from the demons, or is she unable to kill him and thus dooms him to become a part of the Mistake for eternity? That's poignant. That's the stuff good stories are made of.
vonkorff:
James,
Your post is very helpful. You say "the Heart decides if possession is worse than death." For some reason I was thinking it must be obvious whether possession is worse than death. But in fact it isn't obvious, and that's what makes it interesting. The Heart decides, and the choice is difficult and meaningful.
Maybe the best sort of conflict is where the Mistaken's price is not easily comparable to the gain asked by the Heart. They are different in kind, they have different natures. Like "Fomolhaut's life" vs. "Fomolhaut's soul." Two different things should be going on at once, and it is unclear which thing is more important. Now the Heart has a genuine decision to make, which reveals something about his or her character, as you say. "Undermining" would happen when the price and gain are not only comparable, they are identical. (Like Fomolhaut's demon gets exorcised, but the price is that Fomolhaut gets possessed again.) It would be just as problematic to have a conflict over whether 100 villagers vs. 50 villagers get eaten ... there's no basis for an interesting decision, because 100 is just plain bigger than 50. This issue came up in our actual play ... a conflict over how many villagers should get killed: all, half, or none?
Another example like this is the following conflict from our actual play:
M: As the two of you pull on the book, it crumbles to dust.
H: But only if I keep half of it, which has some useful information in it.
The Heart's price ("I keep half") is comparable, or similar in kind, with the Mistaken's gain ("you keep nothing.") This makes the exchange meaningless as a conflict. Instead, the Heart should have said "you ask far too much" if he wanted to keep part of the book.
I just fixed my name I think, now it appears as "Josh V" where yours does.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page