In a Wicked Age



  • edited October 2007
  • edited October 2007
  • edited October 2007
    re exhaust/injure, I see what you're saying, yes misread a bit first time. Exhaust or Injure go to Exert/Endure, you negotiate losses to other things than the stats assigned to those in the "negotiating consequences" phase. Thinking about it, that seems okay then, losses elsewhere come in via negotiation. I suggest we try it that way and see if outcomes wonky.

    On situation possibilities, why don't we wait until (a) another 24 hours pass and rugsri, Simon, Garvey weigh in on the list. The list's members and the situation aren't elaborated until we get to (b) starting play with the Players going first as indicated picking the ones to take as PC's, the GM picking rest, then the GM stating one character's interest, Players going and GM jumping in with another turn between Players as rules suggest, if GM desires, and presenting the interests of the rest anyway at end. That's the process in the draft rules and the division of authority in game they suggest is part of what attracts me to it.

    On the weakness of characters who put lots into Defending, presumably that helps them avoid harm, Assertive and Influential characters are more effective in those sorts of Endeavours. Would the trick be for them to instigate conflicts using those, and also to assign the non-Endure Exert dice to their other freeformed endeavours since they won't deteriorate from lost to Endure and Exert. Also, since stats refresh and can be re-arranged each Chapter (as one of the choices to take and existing or new mastery or bump up a mastery) one can be high Endure Duress in one Chapter and high something else next, you're not trapped. You've got to be wiped out in a single Chapter to be killed if Player not done with character yet.

    I admit I'm vague on when a Chapter ends, I assume it's when the interests declared at Chapter start have been resolved as interests refresh each chapter.

    I'm okay with 'feudal Germany' as template for feel, sort of like Warhammer's fantasy setting of the "old world", pseudo-germanic names and titles etc.

  • The list looks good to me. I'm still pretty happy with staying out of this round and then maybe jumping in again later.

    Something I was thinking about is that, as per the rules, a conflict happens when you're doing something that's in conflict with the desires of another character. It should usually be clear when that's happening, but I think some sensitivity should be exercised about how you describe what your character is doing. For example, end your post with a possible point of conflict, or even with a roll of the dice. It's also probably not a good idea to quibble with something in the middle of someone's post. If they're like "He creeps into Alan's house at night and tries to murder him in his bed", don't be like "No way! He'd never get into the house" but rather make the conflict about what they've made it about, the attempted murder. Unless it's something you really can't live with.
  • Why don't we let others weigh in before continuing.

    I see the argument that it should be the stat used in the Endeavour chosen that is threatened with damage. If you have a favourite stat and use if for lots of Endeavours (as I read it nothing stops you putting the same stat on all your free form endeavours except that's it's kinda boring), you are risking it being burned down, this encourages you to switch tactics in a Chapter when one tactic fails you and also encourages not overusing same stat.

    If others are fine with it, sure. Otherwise I think the default should be the game as written (even though Vincent has actually rewritten rules but not put them out yet), I admit I didn't really sign up to be re-writing a game as opposed to playing it. If a character loses about 3 conflicts in a row without getting on owe list in process then yes dice attrition could kill a d8 d6 stat that kept getting picked on. Then again, 3 lost conflicts and no interesting concessions maybe it's time for character to be done. Assuming PC's are playing contrary interests, you're getting pretty beat up by that point. I assume GM is not pushing that hard for death and is pushing for story-enhancing concessions.
  • edited October 2007
  • edited October 2007
    Sigismund Orn, ghost of a slain traveler

    Art d8 d6 -> Exert (Exhaust damage)
    Grace d10 d4 -> Defend, Assert, Influence
    Guts d12 d6 -> Endure (Injure damage)

    Other Endeavours - Pass Unseen (Art), Sense Emotions and Intentions (Guts), Sense the Unnatural (Art),

    (leaving declaration of Interest till next round)

    [we should probably move to a IC thread with OOC thread soon, OOC - I pick a ghost because it leads to obvious interests/conflicts with some other characters and it's cool to me, I do so expecting that in conflicts etc. others can easily narrate injury etc. to my ghost via various means as harmful to a ghost as a blade to a mortal etc., not trying for any uber character and the Endeavours really same as a thief or sorcerer might have for sneaking etc.]
  • edited October 2007
  • If "spirits" (as in bind the) is meant to include "ghosts" suggest that be clear.
  • edited October 2007
    Posted By: ValvorikIf "spirits" (as in bind the) is meant to include "ghosts" suggest that be clear.
    I suppose so. I've modified the sheet to indicate that.
  • Thanks for waiting, but I am gonna sit out this round, and watch how it plays out. I'm looking forward to jumping in later though!
  • This exchange came up in a playtest discussion over on the forge, and I thought it was relevant here:

    The Danish playtester wrote:
    Most importantly, "What you use is what you risk". We have a rule replacing the standard Injury/Exhaustion baseline for consequences of defeat with damage to whatever dice you were using in the conflict. As always, it's subject to negotiation.
    To which Vincent replied:
    For the public record, I'm totally cool with this and barely even consider it a rules mod. Since you can get the same effect informally without deviating from the written rules, formalizing it doesn't bug me a bit.
  • Thanks Simon, that tilts me over a bit, I don't object then to "what you use is what you lose" being the "default, no negotiated offer accepted" standard.
Sign In or Register to comment.