[IaWA - OOG] Tales of False Fortunes

2456

Comments

  • I'm still getting a feel for the rules, and I'm not sure what to roll. I feel like it should be something to do with his dark arts, specifically the binding of spirits and such. Meaning I roll Andreas Arts. Is that right?

    And I'll post a description of him once we get to free narration again.
  • Ouch, answered and lost, the Challenge doubled my roll, so it happens as scripted, Sigismund is "out of conflict", didn't get on owe list.

    I believe Challenger is not bound to demand what they stated, so do we confirm that is what Andreas demands and see if I can offer something else - as I understand it baseline is the narrated outcome - e.g., name known etc. - or the exhaust/injure dice lost - or something else I offer that is accepted? In that case I would accept that Andreas knows Sigismund's name and thus is positioned to use his powers against Sigismund to bind etc. when he has the right blood if that doesn't mean "and that happens automatically without a further conflict" or it would be automatic but that means Sigismund has an interest in the "right blood" never being found then, Sigismund can conflict over Andreas getting that blood. (e.g., the intent stated here wasn't "bind Sigismund" so there needs to be some sort of conflict where that's a stake left).

    How does that sound ~ Andreas has what he needs to bind Sigismund (no conflict) if he gets the blood, that "if" being what is outstanding and a conflict?
  • Testing the duplicate roll result wasn't cut and paste going too far

    #DiceRoller( 1d10 )
    #DiceRoller( 1d6 )
  • It wasn't just dice deserting Sigismund.
  • I specifically left out "bind Sigismund" so that it could be a future conflict or such. I knew I could push harder, but I didn't want to.

    So, Valvorik, you're proposing that if Andreas gets the blood, then he can bind Sigismund without conflict? That sounds fine to me - it makes getting the blood a lot more interesting. Now, what blood does he need? I dunno, but I'm sure Andreas does. This is making getting the blood a conflict, right? Or at least pushing it in that direction (maybe nobody will oppose it).
  • I want to make sure I understand.

    Valvorik can negotiate to avoid dice damage, but not to avoid the summoning name thing that I narrated, right?
  • edited October 2007
  • See "In Game" Inn thread (I am negotiating, offering something tastier than summon, I agree basic intention takes place + damage unless negotiation varies) - I think you mean IG not IC.
  • RusRus
    edited October 2007
  • Valvorik,

    Just to clarify because the negotiation was very in-character. So, your proposing giving on the future conflict of binding and giving Andreas insight into Sig's appearance and desires in exchange for the lack of a loss of Grace? Sounds like the blood is also being specified to be that of certain innocent. Since it wasn't stated explicitly, it sounds like it still up for future debate. I gather that Ilsa or Wanda's blood is what is desired though, right?
  • Yes, I'm proposing an automatic give on binding (read binding as: imprison, in the sense you put the geni in the bottle and then to get out it must give you a wish, the ghost if bound must perform an action for you to be freed of binding, you must win a contest thereafter to keep it bound but let's say that contest requires no fresh blood). Thus you can have severl ghosts on tap (handy) but not endless uses (overpowered).

    The only conflict left for Sigismund thus being bound is Andreas acquiring the necessary blood.

    I'm proposing that for that to be interesting/meaningful it has to be "life's blood", if cutting a palm and bleeding into cup etc. was enough, well that's not a terribly hard qualifier. Wasn't trying to specific a particular innocent, just that it's life's blood of an innocent human being.

    IMHO, Ilsa wouldn't qualify as "innocent" given she is a murderess and knows it. Wanda is unclear at this point but seems to be leaning "not so innocent". Ilsa's children and Wanda's father are all innocent it seems.

    If Ilsa or Wanda's "blood is on the table", well there's a whole other "offer" Sigismund might make ~ I'll post that in the Inn thread. The rules question about it is that it would require Andreas to agree to something against Ilsa's interest and she was on the winning side (though not the winner with high die and right to narrate) so having her come out "behind" doesn't make sense.
  • edited October 2007
  • edited October 2007
  • No love in the Inn thread?
  • edited October 2007
  • I presume in a conflict to bind "every ghost" that would a conflict against Sigismund and allies on Sigismund's side. If binding also amounts to get a "permanent ghostly company of servants" ~ well that's really a mastery/specialization, and as a permanent thing (not temporary) is a big ask. It is bind spirits which I suspect is supposed to include demons, I thought that would be one by one as well. Woo hoo Andreas if it's just one conflict vs one opponent to bind a bunch o'demons.

    I suggested baseline as: Andreas needs blood + he needs to then bind. I thought that was pretty clearly implicit from oracle, and pretty easily can be 2 conflicts right there. Getting the blood is against the interest of anything he would bind and likely to be a conflict under baseline rules for such. I was offering to eliminate the 2nd step vis a vis Sigismund (if it is via other ghosts too fine) in exchange for not losing dice (and because consolidating the conflicts makes for faster more dramatic play).

    The oracle gave "needs blood", I think that suggets that having the blood is not a hand-wavey thing for colour, it's a need, an issue and thus "conflictable". As "a need" it should be big in the story and a driver, and thus valid conflict subject.

    I was suggesting in IG thread the theory of "what sort of blood does it take to bind a ghost" based on what was interesting and dramatic (and yes in my character's interest). Binding costs with rabbit blood or thumb pricked blood doesn't sound like much of a "need". I am suggesting that is what would apply to any ghost.

    What a "baseline binding" means needs to be established to see what the concession is that needs to be offered, how far what I am proposing would take things away from that. What is the "binding" that he would otherwise achieve?

    If binding amounts to "negating Sigismund's free will and making him a tool period" then it's a negation of Sigismund as a character similar to killing him and should be governed by similar standard (he couldn't be on the owe list etc.). I was suggesting that was not what binding means as a baseline.

    I was suggesting a theory of magic of this sort that says one use is "bind" (bottle up and have on tap) to "release subject to a command that must be obeyed and subject to a leash that allows pulling back through there might be another bind conflict pulling back". At a minimum what a physically frail fellow like Andreas gets is an invisbile tool of his will that go off and do various things for him that mundane means cannot trace to him. Demons might have other things to offer.

    Bind thus equals protect yourself and others from a ghost/demon (because it's stuck in place/object) and get a favour from a ghost/demon (at risk of it being unstuck unless you rebind). I didn't think that was so bad a baseline.

    Why won't we wait for Garvey to weigh in.
  • edited October 2007
  • edited October 2007
    Posted By: yellowparis
    If binding also amounts to get a "permanent ghostly company of servants" ~ well that's really a mastery/specialization, and as a permanent thing (not temporary) is a big ask.
    No ... that's why there's a Ghosts mastery ... so that it can be picked up in just that way.
    Why "no" then, I was saying it's a big ask as permanent conflict outcome, it's really a mastery.

    You didn't speak to the issue of whether binding ghosts in general is a conflict against Sigismund + allies or not?
    Posted By: yellowparis
    That kind of thing happens in this game. It's not materially different from Ilsa winning a conflict for Sigismund to forgive her, or for Wanda to convince Sigismund to dedicate himself to protecting her. You'd be able to get into conflicts to get out of such a thing, if a reasonable opportunity arose, but you've still got to be willing to accept that a conflict can dramatically change where your character's going.
    I see that conflicts can change where characters are going. My concern is that left vague "bind" could = no control over direction, or if left as "well it can always be contested again" then what did the binder win when they bound. Binding should win something and if it amounts to killing character as such as recreating them as something else where they are an extension of another player's will, then it should be on same terms as "kill", and if something else it should still be "something won" and the binder should get some clear value before any chance to recontest it comes along.

    I see a difference between being convinced of one thing or to accept a goal (as a non-exclusive goal that does not reduce character to a puppet, rather changes direction) and being "bound" depending on what "bound" means.

    My style is I would prefer a consensus on what something like "bind" means rather than creating a conflict about it. To me it is a "fact" like "swords are sharp and can kill people" or "persuasive words can change attitudes", and the system is not about conflicting about facts like that ~ this isn't Universalis. Such facts should be established by players including the GM. Conflicts should be about what particular applications of something like "bind" or "a sharp sword" produce.
  • Sorry for my absence of late. I've been very distracted. I'm migrating the other PbP forum that I'm on (and help run). Email notifications sure would be useful here though...

    I'd like to keep magic a bit fuzzy. Writing lots of specific rules takes the magic out of it... I'm thinking about taking the second option (since I don't really want to cut out Sig's grace right now), but it contradicts the main point of the narration I made, which is that Andreas *can* summon Sig if he has the 'right' blood. Val, your post says he has doesn't have a leg up in summoning - which cuts out the main point of my victory. I'm fine with no leg up on binding.

    The first option, honestly, sounds like a big old loss for Andreas - no thanks.
  • By the way, while Andreas might be able to make puppets of the other spirits, I don't think anything in the game should make a puppet of a PC. You shouldn't be able to de-protagonize a protagonist. The only way Andreas could make a puppet of Sig, is if Sig was effectively 'killed', removing his plot immunity. Rather than dying, he could become a puppet servant of Andreas - only PC death should be capable of removing the control of the protagonist. That's my feeling at least.
  • edited October 2007
  • Posted By: yellowparisI'm curious - why are you reluctant to deal dice damage? It is a integral part of the game, and the main pacing mechanism.
    Just seemed too soon in the game, plus Andreas wasn't attempting to harm Sigismund, so it seemed a bit much to me...
  • I see what you're saying YP. I think I wasn't pushing hard enough.

    We can do a scene with Ilsa if you have something you want to push.
    I'm interested in a scene where Ilsa goes after Andreas, or a scene with Andreas and Wanda.
  • Sigismund's fragmented ghostly mind follows his targets haphazardly.

    In addition to coming when Andreas calls,

    - In any scene Wanda has trying to convice Bergen about "the merits of demon-dealing" or such, Sigismund would love to interfere as a ghostly voice turning Bergen against his wicked daughter.

    - If Ilsa's children are out in the woods, Sigismund would lure them with glimpses/sounds into finding the evidence of her crimes in the form of bodies in ruin.

    Basically, getting at his targets through their loved ones, isolating them.
  • RusRus
    edited October 2007
Sign In or Register to comment.