OOG stuff for The Chateau

edited October 2010 in Out-Of-Game
So, I'm having trouble figuring out when to use first and third person. It feels stilted to always write in the third person -- I don't talk like that around a table when I'm playing. But I'm all over-conscious of the player-character divide and so writing in the first person doesn't feel quite right either. I'm going to be reading what the rest of you are doing with an eye to this topic, but also, if you have any suggestions, I'd like to read them.


  • I'm writing my stuff out like I'm actually at a table talking to you guys, even as far as mimicking actions I might take (like snapping my fingers or whatever). One of my principles of course is to address the character, so I'm going to be saying "You see it" and not "Spector sees it" of course. I'm cool with first or third person if you guys want to use either, but I dig first person the most I think.
  • I've been doing first person just because it helps me get into at least what I think the mindset of Gritch is. It also lets me talk more about what he's thinking at any given time, which maybe I shouldn't do, but I think it adds to the overall experience. The apostrophes I spice in throughout are just to help me get in that spirit, although I admit they might make it harder to read and be hurting my writing as much as helping.

    I think that writing in first person conforms to one of the principles in AW, in that it helps make it more real. I totally understand the player/character divide, which is why I periodically drop in those parentheses, because they're just another crutch to help me figure out who I'm talking as at any given time.

    In the end, I'd say go with whatever suits you best. It's been fun reading everything. I just think the first person helps me to get into the situation a bit better.
  • edited October 2010
    I go back and forth, usually consciously. First person is much more immediate and intense, third person is more reflective and distant. Some things are obviously first-person; others are obviously third-person.

    I like knowing the character's thought processes. That's one of the things I really like about written rather than visual art forms: you can have an interior monologue without a cheesy voiceover.
  • Yes. I'm really digging the internal thoughts of the characters, so keep it up. And, I'm with everyone else, do what suits you.
  • I'm sticking to first person. Usually I don't, in PbP, but Apocalypse World recommends it, so I'm taking it as a challenge. It does feel a little odd when touching on mechanics, though.
  • Cool stuff, guys-- i'm enjoying it.
  • How do you guys want to handle the end of the first session?
  • Seems like it should be pretty soon. But how do we wrap up a bunch of scenes synchronously?
  • Yeah. I was hoping to end once this morning is resolved and then maybe time skip forward, to later in the night or something. We'll just need to get everyone to a nice pausing point and then go from there.

    So, that means, Marlene and Spector finishing up their scenes with Vera (and family) and Gritch and setting up the trip to the unearthed medical facility. Navarre wrapping up his scene with Tum Tum (which will involve finding Gritch and bringing him to Uncle) and then closing down the Uncle thread, however that might turn out.
  • (Thanks, rugrsi!)

    Sounds good for a "first session."
  • Yeah, thanks, rugrsi. :)
  • re: Going Aggro

    There's a specific example in the book: go aggro for "I want you to stand there and die in an explosion of brains". Of course, they'll never accept that, and they'll take the harm or take a lesser option on a 7-9.

    Most things are legal, they might just never be accepted.
  • Thanks for the heads up!
  • Sure. And, I'd say, if they can't fight back, it'd seem reasonable. Like, say sniping someone or using direct-brain whisper outside the range of Violetta's pistol or she's tied down or whatever. But, in this instance, seems like if Violetta is able and willing to fight back, so it seems a little shady.
  • Yeah, that's when someone can react, but they can't fight back. I was really just noting that you can say "I kill you" as part of going aggro. It's just not that efficient.
  • Unless you're dealing enough harm that it really does kill them, though. Because if you're dealing 3 harm to an NPC if they don't give in, and if you're killing them if they do give in, they're dead either way, right?
  • edited October 2010
    Right. Yeah, it's like, "I'm sniping him and what I want is for him to die."

    Their options are pretty much, 'death or death?' (Opposed to 'cake or death?')
  • Hm, I don't think I want any cake, so death it is!
  • edited October 2010
    Well, you need to succeed with a 10+. Otherwise, they can just put their hands up and back away, or whatever, no harm done. Compare to seizing by force, where you can easily kill someone on a 7-9, but you'll maybe take some harm in the doing. That's what I mean by inefficient ... you can usually expect a 7-9, but a 10+ requires a +3 modifier to break 50-50 odds.
  • True enough! That's an excellent point.
  • Wait, you can totally threaten violence to manipulate, without immediately following through. It's just, mechanically, he can extract a promise or more if I roll a hit, as opposed to sucking up damage or give me something I want.

    Wouldn't jumping over the table and all be seizing by force? I dunno, maybe he's way more badly injured than he looks, but it seems like he'd be able to fight back over that.
  • edited October 2010
    Sure. I could see that. But, what I mean is, right now, Seville in particular ain't scared of your empty threats. So, it's only leverage against someone who's really scared? He ain't. So, unless you really go after him, with the intent to do violence, by going aggro, I'm not seeing him be leveraged by your threats. However, he's not really in a disposition to fight at the moment. He's listening to what you have to say. Yeah?

    Edit: Going aggro means using violence or the threat of violence to control somebody else’s behavior, without (or before) fighting. From the book, page 193. Meaning, even a threat of violence is going aggro.

    Otherwise, you'll need to manipulate him with the threat of something else, like, "I'll cut you off from your daily rations..."

    That's where I see the threats in manipulate more. It's the threat of something non-violent. "I might get mad at you..." Seville doesn't give a shit about you getting mad or empty threats.

    Yah feel me?

    In other words, if you want to use the threat of violence against him, it's gotta be going aggro.
  • edited October 2010
    There's specific examples of using actual violence as a threat. In fact, turn the page to p194 and check the mistake and correction section.

    And then in seduce/manipulate, it calls out how promises need to be related to leverage, mentioning: 'The leverage is violence? "Just promise you won't hurt me." '

    I don't even think I can personally go aggro on him. Maybe I could through Mo, since she's in my gang, but jumping across the table and attacking him sounds like seizing by force. Unless, yeah, he's just too injured and feeble to defend himself, in which case ... well, can I just walk around the table, seize him by the hair, and slam him down? 'Cause I've got a machete here, not a gun or anything. Doing anything I can do to him puts him in a position to fight back.
  • edited October 2010
    Oh, totally! Those are good examples and points. And like I said, I think that would work in certain situations where someone is certainly afraid of violence by Uncle or his thugs. Would Princy be scared of Uncle telling him he's going to break his fucking face? Yeah. Definitely. It's leverage in that scenario.

    Thing is, I'm just not seeing Seville being leveraged by violence in this situation. You're effectively "absent leverage" in this particular circumstance. It's like trying to seduce someone who doesn't give a fuck about having sex with you or giving someone food who's sitting on a bunker full of canned vegetables. It's not really leverage to them. Does that make sense at all?

    The only way to get him to actually be threatened by violence is to actually get in his face with a gun or machete and take it as far as going through with it. If this totally doesn't gel with you, lemme know and we'll hash it out. I'm not trying to like, cock-block you or anything. :)

    Also, Seville doesn't have a pistol right now. Violetta did, but she dropped it when the loud brain whisper happened. That's why I said it'd be likely you could leap across the table and get to him if he sucked up the go aggro or you went seizing his life or some shit.

    What do you think?
  • Heading from work I'll try to hop on when I get home.
  • edited October 2010
    Yeah, I made sure he didn't have a pistol. Princy has it. (c: Very deliberate, that.

    I am a little unsure about manipulating: it sounds like an NPC dignity thing. How does he know I won't just tell Mo to shoot him? But maybe not all NPCs are equal.

    But I'm actually, I think, seizing by force. If it is going aggro, I've noted what I want to achieve that way, but I'm pretty sure that leaping across the table and beating him into submission is seizure.
  • The guys in Uncle's scene should hear my gunshot too...y'know, just to add to the festivities.
  • They will, I'm waiting for the right moment to bring that into play. On my way home now, on my iPhone (no, I'm not driving heh).
  • Posted By: yellowparis
    I am a little unsure about manipulating: it sounds like an NPC dignity thing. How does he knowI won't just tell Mo to shoot him? But maybe not all NPCs are equal.
    Exactly. Even if Mo was going to shoot him, he'd suck it up. That's why the threat of violence has no weight. Oh, and it's the thing strapped to his chest is why.
  • I really am not liking how you're applying Go Aggro.

    First, if we need rules reference: I'll point out that the section on violence on p197 does not say you the target has to be fighting back for it to be Seizing by Force. He simply has to be able to fight back. If the situation doesn't allow for the full exchange of fight, he gets some narrative protection by defaulting to Go Aggro (which, as mentioned above, is less lethal).

    Beyond that ... this makes no sense. I try to grab him, dealing him harm (and risking harm myself) but getting him fully under my control. He chooses to not fight back, and that means he can automatically wiggle free, provided he's willing to take the harm I was going to deal him anyway?

    If he chooses not to resist, when he could resist, I should be able to just get him. It's seize by force, and the 'harm as established' that I'm taking is 0.

    I'm being forced into a situation where I only have three options:

    - kill him
    - cave and do what he wants
    - keep trying to find something he'll fight back over, so that I can seize by force, hoping that I don't fail a roll, ever

    Everything I've tried here has just kind of not worked, despite a whole run of successful rolls (up until this last one).
Sign In or Register to comment.