[Polaris] Thou Art But a Warrior

13

Comments

  • Rugrsi? Simon? Are you two waiting for each other or for me?
  • Sorry! I've got something coming! Just doing some other things for the site. I'll be on it soon.
  • That was cool! I'm really impressed with how easily this is flowing in PBP. It might get more tricky later on, but I'm pretty happy so far. Is everyone else happy with the pace here? We can try to speed up if you like, but I think a slightly relaxed pace is good to give the moon and star a chance to chip in. What do you think?

    Also, who's next?
  • I am a little surprised that is where you want to end the scene but OK. It is an option to end the conflict with [b]And that is how it happened[/b] and continue the scene if you wanted a more definite end point. Personally, I was hoping for at least a little writing on Ishaq's reaction to all this. I feel there is an experience roll lurking somewhere in the discovery of a friend's betrayal.
  • I just figured it was a good idea to let the other players have a go. That seemed like a natural end point. I'd like to pick up again with Ishaq tracking Arieh down. I think if there is an experience roll in here, it's about Arieh getting away. Ishaq's always known that he's involved with planning uprisings and stuff, but he also thought Arieh was a man of his word. The deception, especiallly when the boy's involved, is the big deal for him. It feels like that should go at the beginning of the next scene, but what do you think? I'm happy to post again leading up to the next conflict between Ishaq and Arieh, I'm just wary of hogging screen time.
  • If you are happy ending it there then that is where we end. rugrsi, do you want to take the next scene?
  • FYI: Carlitos can probably fall into any of the categories (infidel, moon, star). I figure the first player who has a good idea to use him will dictate which cosmos category i'll place him on Asad's character sheet.

    (I seem to recall I can just add characters to my Cosmos at anytime---is that correct rules wise?)
  • I edited my post only to correctly call the character Carlitos. I'm pretty sure characters can go into the cosmos at any time. I forgot to double check last night.
  • Since we can't interrupt a a post, I'm wondering if we can use the strike function "s /s" to make a note of what established facts are in conflict.

    I feel maybe my posts have been a bit too aggressive in establishing what happens, without proper opportunity for others to interject. I have no qualms with someone using the system to Strike out what i've said to introduce conflict.

    Maybe this technique is best suited for a different game. Though, something to think about.
    Thoughts?
  • I am having a little trouble responding to your post. Perhaps it comes down to limiting the contents of posts to mostly your own actions. For instance, I'm supposed to control the shadowy figure and Carlitos but within the conflict system I can't really veto what you just said.

    Now I took some leeway with that in my own post, so it's difficult to know where the line is, but for instance this:
    Posted By: rugrsiThe shadowy figure, so frightened by Asad, fled.
    is not something I want that character doing. I think it might be best to stick with the policy of not writing actions for characters that other player's control. That's just my 2 cents.
  • On page 61 of the core rules it reads: “It is of the utmost importance that every player says what they want to have happen.” Payers shouldn’t hedge bets. They should say things that will have long-term consequences.

    One of the offered examples of good descriptions: “I perform an expulsion, knocking her sword aside, and with a quick thrust I run her through the heart. She dies.”

    Action and result.

    In the case of my descriptions I could have said: “Asad rushes into the darkness looking fearsome and dangerous.” On some level, I have to describe the effect it has on elements controlled by the infidel(mistaken) or else we will have a hard time finding conflict.

    I’d see no problem in a Infidel response like:
    The shadowy figure, so frightened by Asad, fled.

    Carlitos crouched, cowered and shivered.

    "Come now Carlitos, lets find your family. We shall gather them. They will live in Toledo and know Allah's glory."

    Carlitos took Asad to his family and they journeyed back to Toledo, where they found good work and lived a good life in the service of man and Allah, never again having to fear the barbarian's blade.
    you ask far too much…

    At this point everything described that’s been crossed out never happened. I have to describe something significantly different.

    The conflict phrases are there for you to hit back, so to speak, if your opponent goes too far. Depending on the phrase selected you can hit back hard or soft.

    Anyhow, that's my understanding of the Polaris mechanic. I hope I'm not doing it wrong.

    I'm curious to re-read the rules that you're referring to where it instructs us to not write actions for characters that other players control. I can see where it says a player guides only the characters from their specific assigned theme-- but even the Moon in the example on page 69 describes a killing blow to Fomolhaut.

    So there must be a distinction between Guidance authority and action authority.
    Maybe players can describe their assigned characters any way they want and people can't use conflict phrases against them. Its only when they start describing consequences that affect characters outside their theme that other players can turn to the conflict phrases.

    Thoughts?
  • edited November 2007
    Posted By: rugrsiAt this point everything described that’s been crossed out never happened. I have to describe something significantly different.

    The conflict phrases are there for you to hit back, so to speak, if your opponent goes too far. Depending on the phrase selected you can hit back hard or soft.

    Anyhow, that's my understanding of the Polaris mechanic. I hope I'm not doing it wrong.

    I'm curious to re-read the rules that you're referring to where it instructs us to not write actions for characters that other players control. I can see where it says a player guides only the characters from their specific assigned theme-- but even the Moon in the example on page 69 describes a killing blow to Fomolhaut.

    So there must be a distinction between Guidance authority and action authority.
    Maybe players can describe their assigned characters any way they want and people can't use conflict phrases against them. Its only when they start describing consequences that affect characters outside their theme that other players can turn to the conflict phrases.

    Thoughts?
    Since you are asking for thoughts, I thought I'd jump in. If you'd prefer that I keep comments to the audience thread, just let me know.

    The method of play you are describing sounds interesting, but there are a bunch of pieces of it that I think are inconsistent with the book.

    1) Conflict statements can be made by the Heart and Infidel about anything (different conflict statements have to be used for responding to Moon/Star statements rather than Heart/Infidel statements). You are not limited to conflicting to things you have guidance over.

    The things you can't ask for in conflict statements is pretty limited in Polaris (such as PC death), and I imagine that its the same in this game.

    2) Players can only control the things they have guidance over. They can influence other entities through the actions of the things they have guidance over, but that's it. They can't narrate what the other entities outside their guidance do.

    Killing another character is fine, because its a result of a character you guide affecting another through their actions. Narrating that another character just does something though is not permitted... they are guided by somebody else.

    Note, that this doesn't hold true when using conflict phrases. The Infidel could use a phrase to specify that the Heart does something (or doesn't do something).
    Posted By: Dave Cleaver
    Posted By: rugrsiThe shadowy figure, so frightened by Asad, fled.
    is not something I want that character doing. I think it might be best to stick with the policy of not writing actions for characters that other player's control. That's just my 2 cents.
    This does seem fine to me (though I suppose it could be rewritten to make it clearer), as the Heart (Asad) scared the shadowy figure, causing him to flee. This is an example of the action of the Heart affecting another character. If you don't want it to happen, use a conflict statement, that's what they are there for.
  • I'm basically on board with Garvey's interpretation. This is my first time playing Polaris, so I'm not used to exactly where and how I can use all the conflict phrases. I have no idea if you are doing it wrong, and we just have to explore the level that we are comfortable with. In the interest of keeping the game rolling. I'm going to take your wonderful suggestion. :-)
  • Your post looks good to me.
  • Star and moon, make sure my different description is reduced or changed enough.

    Also, I'm starting to feel Carlitos would fit nicely into Asad's Star cosmos. I'm going to edit my Character sheet to represent that. Asad

    As for the rules, I agree with Garvey's interp as well. Pretty much any statement is up for conflict. Even if I said , "Asad felt sad." The Infidel could conflict that.

    My feeling is that we need more Moon and Star activity. The nature of the posting though, makes it rather difficult. Any ideas on how we can get the Moon and Star more involved?
  • Involving the Moon and Star more is easy enough. Just have scenes with characters that are under the guidance of the Star or Moon. Plenty of room for interesting conflict with those characters - they could be in danger, be asking something difficult of the Heart, or doing anything interesting really with the Heart.
  • I agree that getting the Moon and Star involved more is a good idea. I was thinking about jumping in to take over Carlitos (as an otherwise unclaimed male NPC he's Moon, as I understand it, until you say otherwise), but I didn't really have a good idea for how to do that, until now. (Of course, now he's Star).
  • In the interest of moving things along, when a spot in the conflict says "The Star and Moon must approve" can we amend that to "if there's a disagreement, then the Star and Moon have final decision." That way we can proceed with conflicts quickly and easily when there are amended statements and Theme exhaustions.
  • edited November 2007
    I am fine with assuming consent unless someone objects. Also that alternative scenario is acceptable to me.
  • I was wondering with the ... at the end of And so it was, does it make sense to summarize the end of a scene. For example, And so it was that Asad found himself in the very heart of his enemies camp.
  • That might be a good way to make sure we're all on the same page about what just happened. Any miscommunications are likely to come out.
  • rugrsi? You there? You're infidel for this scene, it seems.
  • I think that's a pretty good end to my heart scene.
    I'm ready for RichD's, Nasir's, heart scene. That makes me the Moon.
  • Shoot! My mistake. Rich, are you about?
  • I am here! Shortly I will be gone for the Thanksgiving holiday but I am here. Do you have an evil idea rattling about your head or shall I start?
  • Please start, if you will. If you're out of ideas, I can do it. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
  • Hey guys. Is anyone going to start the next scene?
  • Good call Dave. Done.

    I hope I haven't stepped on your toes as Salima. Are you good to take her from here? I figure you can post next, if you want to.
  • Sorry for disappearing. I had computer issues coupled with less time to post at work. I'm back now though. I'll jump in soon.
Sign In or Register to comment.