[Bliss Stage] Men and girls
Ben Lehman:
Hey, Simon: I'm curious about your line about anchors not necessarily having enough content authority to be mini-GMs. Another thread?
Ron Edwards:
Hi guys,
Dave, you're right, I got the two kids mixed up - Bobby is the dog-fighter.
Regarding Color, I want to stress that Color is my first priority when playing, with System being its hand-maiden. Table-talk and general among-person interaction seem to me to be a different variable.
Ben, you wrote,
Quote
It's interesting that you see Lesley's goals with the war ("to get things back the way they were") as also including her relationship with you as an emotional stopgap. I got a very different read from it ("I want things to be back to normal so we can be safe together),
I think you're jumping the gun a little. My phrasing in my post was a first try, not a fixed or finished idea, and it's strongly influenced by Gina-vision. What you wrote seems to me to be equally likely, or to put it differently, perhaps Gina herself would not distinguish between the two (regarding Leslie). I'd rather not pin my view of Leslie down after the short amount of play she saw, especially since she wasn't in an Interlude.
I am totally up for continuing this game via Skype or anything equivalent. Let's in touch by email to organize it. If that works out, then we can have a Hope discussion too.
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
Hey Ben, I have a question!
On page 98, your text-character Chris says that for every endangered category or forced relationship, you subtract one die from your pool. This doesn't seem to match what the rules say on page 97 (which he's supposed to be clarifying in terms of procedure): according to them, all the various GM-threatening, endangering, and forcing require the player to allocate dice in certain ways, but not to reduce the total dice rolled.
Help me out on that?
Best, Ron
Ben Lehman:
Darn it. I've been meaning to write a real reply to this thread, too, but I'm going to have to leave it for now and just answer the rules question.
The key is the difference between threaten and endanger, both of which are technical terms. Threatening a relationship means "place an extra die, read the lowest" and uses one trauma. Endangering means "place two extra dice, read the lowest" (essentially a "double threaten") and uses three trauma. Thus, if the GM chooses to Endanger one category rather than Threaten three, you have to allocate one die less than you normally* would. Forcing a relationship (which adds an extra category at the cost of two trauma) also means you have to allocate one less die than normal*.
This is what Chris is saying. At no point do you actually roll any less dice than the total intimacy of your active relationships. The text is not as clear as can be. It's a relatively simple process in play (you have to place 8 dice, take your eight highest) but describing it gets very complicated.
yrs--
--Ben
* Where normal here is taken to mean "GM uses all trauma for threatening."
Nev the Deranged:
I'm wondering if it's worthwhile for me to finish my recollection of the game, which is mostly color- I think I covered all the at-the-table stuff in my first post. Should I post the rest to help jog the memories of the other participants, or not sweat it?
I'm not opposed to giving Skype a go- I've never used it before, and from what I've heard on podcasts, it's pretty temperamental. I have no idea how well the game would work over it, socially. I also have no idea what kind of time commitment we're talking about. I'm willing to give it a shot if you guys are, with the understanding that it might end up being suboptimal, logistically speaking.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page