[Polaris] But only if it wasn't my fault
David Shockley:
Earlier this month I went to visit my Grandmother in law for her 80th birthday. My wife and I were there for a week or so, and so was my Sister in law Casey (A friend of mine since High School, its still weird to call her that). Since she, my wife, and I are all fans of RPG's we decided to try out Polaris while we were there.
Unfortunately, we only had three players, rather than the recommended four, and we only had enough free time for two short sessions. None of our Knights made it to Veteran, and there were only 2 experience rolls. Overall the game was enjoyable, though I feel as though with more experience with the game it could have gone better.
The main issue, I think, was just not being in the habit of saying the effects of actions and not just the actions themselves. Also I forgot that the Mistaken player has guidance over 'background and environment'.
Long ago, the people were dying at the end of the world.
Characters:
Na'ir al Saif - Casey's Protaganist, a Knight who joined up 'for the ladies'. He's in charge of the love poetry section of the remnants library and is a noted fencer.
Mulu-Lizi - Warden of Southreach, leader of the local knights and an enemy of Na'ir's due to Na'ir's not entirely honorable intentions towards his daughter. He's played in this scene by Darla, Casey's Mistaken.
But hope was not yet lost, for Na'ir al Saif still heard the song of the stars. And so it was that Na'ir al Saif was called into Mulu-Lizi's private office.
Mulu-Lizi informs Na'ir that he has been "randomly" selected to participate in the upcoming crusade against the Mistaken, on the front lines no less.
Casey: But only if I return safely
Darla: But only if Mulu-Lizi's daughter is wed to another.
Casey: But only if her husband goes on the crusade, and is slain
Darla: But only if you had the opportunity to save him. [Here there was a brief break, while Darla looks over Na'ir's sheet for a relevant Aspect to check off so she can use an And Furthermore instead, but none were relevant. Casey realized she should probably have an Aspect related to Na'ir's womanizing ways, but I convinced them to wait to add it until the next Advance because I like following rules.]
Casey: But only if Mulu-Lizi's son was also nearby, and in need of assistance.
Darla: But only if when you turn to him, the son says he doesn't need any help and you should go help the fiancee.
Casey: But only if I turn to help the fiancée, but by then its too late.
The negotiation continued from here, ending with Na'ir talking himself up in poetry back at the remnant, and getting trashed to Mulu-Lizi by Mulu-Lizi's son. We talked it over and agreed that Na'ir should roll experience for apathy/callousness. I mean sure he ran out of time, and had an excuse to hesitate, but we all knew it was really because he didn't want to save his rival. (I think I mostly decided this, but Casey agreed with it. I think I was supposed to make the call as the Moon, but I'm not sure if thats correct now..)
So, it seems to me that those last two pairs of 'But only if' statements were really all about what "you had an opportunity to save him" really meant, morally. (I'm not entirely sure it was just two pairs, there might have been a third that I don't recall). I'm having difficulty articulating why, but I'm not exactly comfortable with this. I suppose its because instead of moving forward things suddenly caught in place, as if we lost traction. I don't think we were breaking any rules, though maybe this sort of thing doesn't tend to arise with more experience? (For example, maybe there is a way to use the conflict phrases to gain traction again. If there were enough Aspects unchecked 'And Furthermore' and/or 'You ask far too much' would probably have done the trick)
PS. My Knights name was Apsinthion, the Greek name for Wormwood, the apocalyptic star in Revelation. I mention this here because I'm really pleased with it, and couldn't figure out a way to work it in above without making this post longer and more unfocused.
Ron Edwards:
Hi there,
I hope people respond besides myself, because I am perhaps in the minority in hating But Only If. Or rather, I see its value, but I see it as an edge option in play, to be used sparingly and probably involved in absolutely momentous revelations or plot events.
For whatever reason, it's easy to get stuck in a But Only If loop, and at least sometimes, I think it's more behavioral and reflexive than actually creative - in other words, people responding to a perceived escalation in emotional, counter-escalation terms rather than staying with the fiction. You might be interested in the Phrases flowchart I worked up when we played Polaris a while ago. It helped me keep an eye on some important dynamics in the rules. With that in front of us, it was easy to see that when someone hits you with a But Only If that you find excessive, It Shall Not Come to Pass and It Was Not Meant to Be are right there, cost-less, to knock it down to size. The worst thing to do (for us) at that point was to get our little cockatoo crests ee-recting on our heads and try to "counter" with a bigger, more annoying But Only If. Tempting as it might feel at the moment, it actually doesn't "counter," but in fact, validates exactly the thing one is trying to diminish.
But Only If may be too free, in resource terms. At least for me. If I were to house-rule Polaris, I might suggest things along the line of "No But Only If in response to a But Only If," or perhaps making it a resource-drainer like some of the other phrases, at the least. At the most, I might find myself simply striking it off the list of options entirely.
I can't really recommend my view as a genuine suggestion for you. But maybe this idea can help - when someone says But Only If (blah blah) to you, then stop and breathe for a second. Think in terms of content, the fiction being created right there, and bear in mind that just because that person said it, does not mean it's established into the fiction yet. The only thing that will cement it there is you, saying "But Only If" back.
I'd be interested to know what your players make of that suggestion. If they have the same iffy, what-was-that feeling about But Only If that you expressed here, it might help them let But Only If stand only when it's something they like. Which as I understand it, is what that key phrase is for.
Best, Ron
David Shockley:
The flowchart was printed and available on the table. I know the other players were aware of 'It was not meant to be' because at least once during that conflict while people were reviewing there options I spelled out where an 'It was not meant to be' would leave the conflict.
Generally, people did seem to prefer 'But only if'. Most of the time, I don't think it was being used as an attempt to counteract the other statement, or to escalate or outdo the other players. Obviously, in this case it was being used as a counter, but not really in an 'escalating' manner. I think the main causes were A) 'But only if' is the only free option (other than ending the conflict), and B) I felt that free play was more difficult than conflict.
Callan S.:
Ron,
That kind of reminds me of [Final Hour of a Storied Age] The trait/dice mechanics, as in, perhaps just a blunt limit on the number of 'but only's would be the thing? I mean, I think I sometimes see a trend in your discussion to a certain self discipline at certain points in rule usage. Self discipline that just as much could be replicated by a hard limit and indeed, actually preserve that cockatoo crest effect simply because it's a very human element that if preserved will syphon down into the characters played (and so undergo examination, but in the fun of roleplaying (with swords!!1!)). I think my gaming group has over time applied self discipline during gaming, not to go off on some tangent or such, because self discipline was the only barrier in place (no rule). And I think it just made things overly serious (and even tense). Further I think that led to less material in game - less of characters grabbing greek fire and spilling it about (AP example) so to speak and more the players quietly looking for a que. Anyway, as much as I'd grant not going cockatoo would work, in terms of options to choose from I think simple hard limits would be more beneficial here than self discipline.
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hi there,
I think it’s a feature of Polaris that there isn’t the “one way” to play it, but rather, a group needs to find out what approach suits it best. Personally, I would say that most of those conflict phrases were outside the scope of the scene that had been framed, which was “called to the office” after all.
Quote
Casey: But only if I return safely
Darla: But only if Mulu-Lizi's daughter is wed to another.
Up to this point it could have happened in one of my games, as a sort of condition for future scenes. The next scene I would have framed as either Heart or Mistaken would probably have been the knight’s return and learning of the wedding.
Quote
Casey: But only if her husband goes on the crusade, and is slain
Darla: But only if you had the opportunity to save him.
My personal interpretation of “scenes” would be that this is outside the scope of the scene, but could be established as something to happen in the future (maybe adding a fate aspect or however it was called). Casey’s statement is not against the rules, but I would consider it poor play. To my mind it’s a lame and boring counter of Darla’s statement, the very thing Ron is aiming at with his criticism. If I were to house-rule it, I would probably just make it “BUT ONLY IF cannot negate the effects of the previous statement”, or some such.
Quote
Casey: But only if Mulu-Lizi's son was also nearby, and in need of assistance.
Darla: But only if when you turn to him, the son says he doesn't need any help and you should go help the fiancee.
Darla’s last statement might be counter to the rules because by replying with “but only if” she accepts that the son was in need of assistance, but then the son says he doesn’t need help? Also, they are now definitely playing a different scene and have skipped a lot of time passing in mid-conflict. I’m not sure about the rules but I certainly would not like to play that way. I mean, what’s the scene, who’s there, what does it look like? Who killed the husband? What happened to the son? I have, somewhat dismissively, termed this phenomenon “neglecting the Shared Imagined Space”. I think this lack of substance in the SIS might be part of why you feel uneasy with how this scene turned out.
Personally, I would have required at least two more “AND SO IT WAS” to arrive at the husband’s death scene.
- Frank
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page