[IaWA - OOG] Tales of False Fortunes



  • edited October 2007
    You should probably be rolling Asserting Self, though. Enduring Duress is for resisting physical pain/force. And it's the better dice, anyway. You can reroll if you like, or stick with what you've got.

    This is a somewhat complicated conflict:

    • Bergen is rolling to convince Wanda to reject Sigismund, but to appreciate Ilsa (possibly her future step-mother, after all).

    • Wanda is rolling for the stated goals.

    • Sigismund is rolling to get Wanda's affection, and probably has not agenda (at this point) with regard to Wanda's attitude toward Ilsa.

    • Ilsa is rolling to smooth things over with Wanda, not all that interested in if she likes Sigismund, or not.

    It'll be easiest, by far, if we roll this out as two separate conflicts - first one about Sigismund and Wanda, then one about Ilsa and Wanda.
  • I finally chose Enduring Duress because I saw it more of her enduring his charms, rather than Wanda taking any action to change Sigismund in any way. If I used Asserting Self, I get a feel that she would somehow influence Sigismund, which did not happen. He continues to have an interest in her, which leads him to his doom.

    After re-reading the rules, I can sort of see how Asserting Self makes a bit more sense, since she is "acting on [her] faith or with confidence, taking space in a room or a conversation."

    But if it doesn't matter I'll just keep the roll for the conflict with Sigismund.
    I will, however, use Asserting Self, in this conflict with her father.
  • Up to you.

    But Bergen isn't rolling against her - he's supporting her against Sigismund. Next conflict (the one about Ilsa), he'll be rolling against her.
  • Just so I'm on the same page.

    I'm assuming Bergen just joined the conflict: Whether Sigismund gets Wanda to like him.
    The follow up conflict will be between Wanda and Bergen: Whether Bergen influences Wanda to appreciate Ilsa, which I suppose we could handle the same way, with Ilsa joining the conflict.

    That way we only have two conflicts to work through.
  • Yup. That's what I mean.
  • Set out my challenge to be persuasive and liked, not uncouth. Looks like rolls make me Challenger and rugrsi Answerer.
  • Wanda and Bergen answer together.

    Bergen has rolled high enough to push the conflict into a second roll, if necessary. Wanda may yet successfully defend on her roll. Note, rugsri, that you have that entry on the Owe list, so you can add an advantage die to your roll, if it's sufficiently important to you.

    That's a question, actually - should it be possible to add an advantage die after you see your roll? I've seen that some groups do that, and I've played it that way myself once, so I don't have a problem with that.
  • edited October 2007
    I'm fine with adding advantage dice after you see your roll as it means you don't use it when you don't need to etc., the owe list is important, spending off it should make a difference (yup I know that works against me here, though I get an advantage dice if it goes forward into a reroll).

    Query - the wiki adds in red some things the Toronto group came up with (not Vincent), this included the "add after roll" concept, so I assume that means these are not all automatically included (since you ask about it). What about the rules for multiple side conflicts that have more options (e.g., instead of an advantage die a Challenger can 'take one person out' of conflict). It also seems to add more chances to get on owe list - the core text only has that come up in the first round of rolls (BTW, Wanda is on owe list again, I think, from this first round), it adds chances in later rounds if no owe list entry generated yet in the sequence.
  • edited October 2007
    ... so I assume that means these are not all automatically included (since you ask about it).
    No - we're not assuming the Toronto group's house rules to be in play. If there's something you particularly want to introduce, you can call for a vote or something. Some of their stuff might end up making sense, but they make some fairly significant changes ... I'd say that'd be the kind of thing to leave for a second game, if we have a second game.

    Wanda isn't on the Owe list again - she beat your roll, so that was that. You only get Owed if you're losing (but not doubled). Am I missing something?

    Sigismund, however, is on the Owe list, for his 9 vs Wanda's 10.
  • Love to be on owe list, but I thought it was only the first rolls (determining who is Challenger and Answerer) that are used, it being "the first roll" on which the "losing but not doubled" and "they have more sides"?

    That's why I thought Wanda was, our first rolls were her dice 14 sides, roll 5 vs my dice 18 sides, roll 9.

    In any event my dice have more sides than hers in the Past conflict so I don't think I'm eligible (or when there are allies do you add all their sides so I am eligible, or at least was).
  • No - you don't use the challenger/answerer roll at all - it's not the first roll, it's the first round of the actual conflict. (You can't even be 'doubled', as a game term, on the initiative check.) Look at the example:
    Your high die is a 4. Mine's an 8. I'm the challenger.
    "I cut your throat while you sleep," I say.
    You reroll. It comes up a 7. You do a partial block or dodge and I get the advantage. (Also, because my dice are better than yours and I didn't double you out the gate, your name goes on the we owe list.)
    But I was forgetting the 'number of sides' thing. Honestly, it seems kind of finicky to me, but hey ... it's there. So nobody's on the list from this exchange.
  • edited November 2007
    Looks like Bergen would negotiate over dice damage, if there's any negotiation, but I'll actually cede that responsibility to rugsri. It was really close, and it's probably more important to rugsri, anyway.

    Don't forget about the Schwarzwald thread.

    I'll send Ilsa after Andreas later today.
  • Ilsa is clearly a delicate woman, unlikely to be much of a direct threat.
    And if she's more aggressive than he thinks, it becomes the amazing battle of the two people with d6/d4 Defending Self! Epic, I'm sure.
  • This time I'm at something of a loss for what to do with Sigismund (incidentally, Ilsa's commiserating with Wanda ... it isn't necessarily the case that Sig is a bad guest, just that Wanda could believe it after the results of the previous conflict). If you can involve him in the Past conflict, Valvorik, that's good.

    If not, well, I'm vague on what scene to start. All the other characters, except Bergen, are tied up, and I don't know what a Sigismund/Bergen scene would involve (unless Sigismund wants to go after Wanda through him, somehow?). We could skip to the next day, but there's still a pretty good chance of something significant happening during the night, so I'm hesitant.

    I think this is a problem with using IaWA in a PbP. At the table, you just kind of sit and watch when you're not in a scene (often the case), and the game's fast enough that that doesn't get tedious. Online, it means you have to sit out for days, which is less entertaining.
  • edited November 2007
    And, God, I am drawing such a freaking blank on the Inn scene. I'm shooting for something that says Andreas finds himself growing attracted to Ilsa, since a wealthy guy wanting to take her away from all of this is way better than a fistful of silver taken out of a corpse's pockets. Plus, that Making Love endeavor's got to be good for something, right?

    However, I'm running into a big, fat brick wall of writer's block. If I end up posting something fairly lame and/or contrived ... you now know why.
  • For a new scene, if you want Sigismund-Bergen, Sigismund would seek to draw Bergen to the site where the murder victims' bodies are found (noises in woods, prey being followed, leading there), seeing the evidence of crimes, Bergen would then hear the whispers of the dead telling him how Ilsa and Wanda are responsible. Bergen likely doesn't want to believe that of his daughter (and of course it isn't true of her, just Ilsa). This could easily cross-over with Wanda being there for demon-hunting or other purposes she doesn't want Dad to know of yet (though I'm getting a bit tired of being against 2 in conflicts, seems I have in each so far though I wasn't trying to be).

    In the Past, I think Sigismund has been smacked down, lost and there isn't really another avenue for him in the conflict. His stake was a good impression on Wanda, didn't get that, I think he's done. "Let it Ride" etc.

    In the Inn scene, again his attempt to advance his interests there failed and I think he's "done" for that scene.
  • If Ilsa does attack Andreas, then he'll certainly call upon Sigismund, so he might not be out of that scene yet....
  • Oh yes, would come back with a fury then. Meant "on his own initiative" he's done.
  • What does everyone think of Troels' answer to my question Here?

    In this game I've established content about Wanda's mother, witches, Ilsa's daughter, and even hinted that the Ghost of Ilsa's husband has returned.
  • I think it's fine for players to establish backstory with some limits that probably wouldn't agree with the example:

    - this isn't a way to 'end run' around the oracle setting out the components of game in first round and adding 3 components in the next chapter, all characters are supposed to come out of that process (as I see it), which is still pretty broad as they can be implied - it isn't a way to create a character you will play in the next round or be an ally or foe as the oracle does that etc.

    - authoring content about characters in the game that you don't control at that moment (Isla's daughter) is really "a suggestion to the GM", I think that's okay, as it would be okay for another player to object.

    - to me this means a player authoring content is thus really adding "colour" and "explanation" it changes nothing but adds value in the game since these things make it more enjoyable (at least to me), however it does not change dice/create characters.

    - I'm not really a fan of inserting scenes that happened before that change the meaning of what happened now or later retroactively. I'm okay with what we're doing here with "The Past" because this was a scene implied by what we all authored already. Authoring that "really your character saved my life once and for me to want to kill you makes me an ungrateful #SY$*" takes it over a line I think.
  • edited November 2007
    Troels' answer
    Well, yeah, that's pretty much right. The GM's minor duty is the playing of NPCs (technically, there could be no NPCs in a game, though that'd be pretty dull for the GM). The major duty, then, is ensuring fair balance of power between characters and players. That could include denying a proposed addition to back story.

    If you are inserting something that is only to do with your character (Wanda's mother) or that is only color (witches), that's unlikely to come up. If you say something that affects other main characters, it invites scrutiny. If the relevant players don't have a problem with it, though, there's nothing to worry about.
  • Can Wanda give right now and not roll an Answer to the new Challenge total?
  • No reason not.
  • In the end of The Past thread Wanda gives and a scene post-Sigismund's death is described.

    If that would be before Andreas arrived, skip the rest of this, as we can't risk continuity with out of order scenes.

    If after whatever resolves with Andreas and Ilsa in the Inn thread, then Sigismund seeing his murderesses dining together would be trying to burn down the building or something! That's just too much evil (in his mind's eye) in one place to not take action (yeah, yeah I know, here I am setting myself up for 1:2 conflict after grousing about it, but some things "the story demands").
  • edited November 2007
    In the past thread, the first roll of the last combat was for who Challenges and Answers right?

    High die tied, in the ties means reroll part of rules, it says "down to last die".

    Didn't Wanda tie her opposition on highest die, and beat them with the second one?

    So she won and was Challenger, yellowparis then rerolled as Answerer and won.

    That was a "double+ win", meaning Wanda loses dice unless she proposes an alternative.

    Unless "Give" here meant "not proposing alternative", there isn't really a "Give" is there?
  • You can only lose dice if you're the answerer. The challenger has the upper hand and is not in danger.

    I didn't reroll and 'win' - I rerolled and successfully defended myself from rugsri's challenge. Then my roll was taken as a new challenge.
  • Sigismund can't try to attack the women in 'The Past'.

    The purpose of that scene was to clear up ambiguous relationships - there was some question as to whether or not Wanda was fond of Sigismund or not, and rugsri also introduced the question of Wanda's relationship with Ilsa. Those questions needed to be answered, and doing a flashback was the best way of dealing with them.

    However, there is no question as to whether or not the inn got burned down, or whether or not Sigismund has harmed Wanda and/or Ilsa. I mean, it's pretty obvious he has not. Maybe he was still adjusting to being dead, or he hadn't yet risen, or he was still laying on the floor of the mansion, bleeding to death. Or maybe Ilsa just happens to keep horseshoes over her doors, or something.
  • re dice exchanges, ah I see, thanks.

    All you really needed to say was "that was all in the past, including the post-script scene", as I wasn't trying to alter continuity, as I said.
  • Grace (infuencing others) - Challenge if winning initial roll - Ilsa and your daughter murdered me!
    Guy, you can't do that. You narrated far too much to jump to the end and declare a conflict. You have to give me a chance to object to earlier assertions.
  • okay, you objected, you [Bergen] are the answerer by the dice, but a conflict over "does he come in and find the bones" seems sorta piddly, not actually "against his interest" and also very "task" level rather than "conflict level".

    Until a conclusion/suspiscion is suggested at odds with what he is disposed to believe, there isn't anything really for him to conflict with. I narrated to the point where something happened that he likely wouldn't want to happen (ghost influences his conclusions from evidence found).

    That he finds Sigismund's remains is not against his interest (particularly given the truth of events), that he is induced to certain unwelcome (and false as it happens) conclusions is against his interest. That seems the logical conflict?

    Breaking this down to task resolution seems at odds with the 'conflict resolution' nature of the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.