[IaWA] What is the scope of resolution
stefoid:
I get it.
Kind of related to this. when I initially interpreted the rules as the looser can insist on something not happening by sacrificing, I thought it was kind of cool (but probably not cool in other ways that might render the game unworkable, probably).
However, did you consider making the conflict escalate-able (is that a word?) something like diTV although I havent played that game for real. Like instead of automatically loosing two forms, something like each conflict starts with one form at risk and conflict round loosers either have to drop out, take the form loss or negotiate immedaitely OR to stay in the contest for the next round, they have to up their ante and risk additional form losses (up to a maximum of 3). (and get rid of the 'double me and contest ends on this round' rule.)
stefoid:
sorry, instead of 'automatically loosing two forms' I meant automatically risking
RPL:
Hi,
Vincent: I’m finding this answers very productive, thank you :).
Namely this
Quote from: lumpley
Going into negotiation, the ring is in the demon's stomach and the demon's player holds the stick, so yeah, the demon keeps the ring AND gets to exhaust or injure the hobbit. Sucks for the hobbit.
I was actually going to ask this as a follow up question. So you can use you actions in the rounds to pull of your intent and bypass having to fight for it all over again in the negotiation phase.
It makes me very happy to read that, because it prevents conflict repetition and a sort of … meh … that I sometimes felt in some conflicts, because they made me feel that after a lot of broken bones and name saying and demon summoning and the likes, nothing actually happened in the game…
And this
Quote from: jburneko
If the ring was all you cared about then stop here. In fact you're also done with Negotiation. You've lost your hand and the ring is swallowed. If that's all anyone cared about it's over and decided.
Keep it focused on what the players (GM included) care about that conflict and realise when it's over.
So I feel enlightened now, thanks everyone for your help in interpreting this. My group is playing this on Sunday, I’ll try to keep these things in mind. I think it might bring about a new very different game experience than the one we’ve been having with IaWA.
Thanks everyone for your help and insight.
On a more procedural note:
Quote from: jburneko
This, here, is what is causing the confusion. The DP hasn't given us enough information to use the mechanics correctly. WHAT exactly is he doing it to "go get it"? It's at this point BEFORE the die roll that he has to say, "I bite your hand off and swallow the ring."
We kind of play it like this:
Everyone who is in the conflict does the initial roll (initiative?);
The high roller states and describes his action;
The GM asks if anyone wants to oppose;
The answerers roll their dice;
According to the numbers the answerer describes his actions and how they affect what the other character did and what the outcome of it all was.
I don’t know if it brings more to the game or not, but I don’t think it takes anything away from it. Either way, I usually hate do describe my actions before rolling, I rather state my intention and then describe according to the dice/cards/whatever.
On a curious note about interpretation and shared imagination space, I have no idea when we started talking about the soldier character like he was a hobbit, but in fact he was just a plain human soldier.
“Stop pushing the little guys” :p
All the best,
D.
stefoid:
Quote from: stefoid on February 22, 2010, 08:54:07 PM
I get it.
Kind of related to this. when I initially interpreted the rules as the looser can insist on something not happening by sacrificing, I thought it was kind of cool (but probably not cool in other ways that might render the game unworkable, probably).
However, did you consider making the conflict escalate-able (is that a word?) something like diTV although I havent played that game for real. Like instead of automatically loosing two forms, something like each conflict starts with one form at risk and conflict round loosers either have to drop out, take the form loss or negotiate immedaitely OR to stay in the contest for the next round, they have to up their ante and risk additional form losses (up to a maximum of 3). (and get rid of the 'double me and contest ends on this round' rule.)
no love for this idea?
JoeBeason:
I fear I've been one of those people running draggy conflicts where one spends multiple conflicts hashing out X instead of moving on to Y and Z. I'll have to work on that.
But I'm still a little stuck on "So my answer has to admit your character’s action, more or less in full." It's one thing if the action had some narrative wriggle room, like "I run you through with my sword." But what happens if the action was something more absolute and character-ending like "I chop off your head"? Is the character now decapitated, more or less? It would have to be a lot less to keep the character in play. I'd been thinking that the only way to eliminate a character was to drive two scores down to 0, but I may have been making an error in logic, since "two zeroes means out" does not imply "out only if two zeroes".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page