[IaWA - OOG] Tales of False Fortunes



  • Posted By: yellowparis
    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.
    Vincent's answer in the thread suggests to avoid backstory - if not then make it subject to universal approval/any veto.
  • There's nothing wrong with such a conflict. I, Bergen's player, don't want him to find the remains ... there is a clear difference between that and 'find the remains, but not be controlled by the ghosts'. I prefer for him to be entirely ignorant of the murders, and if I want to risk losing a conflict on that basis, it's quite reasonable and natural for me to contest it.
  • Since I disputed an early part of your narration, you don't have to stick to what you previously wrote. You can, but you don't have to.

    Assuming you do, it raises the earlier not-quite-an-issue:
    The specific rule at issue here is:

    [quote]When do we roll dice? When your character does something and I say "hold on there," and my character's capable of intervening in some way.
    It's debatable whether or not, I'd have been able to justify 'capable of intervening' if the conflict was only about getting Andreas riled up or not. If Ilsa hadn't been in prior contact with Andreas, then I clearly wouldn't be able to.[/quote]

    Since it's now on the table, I'll call for a vote. If character A (Sigismund, here) is trying to modify character B's (Bergen's) perception of character C (Ilsa/Wanda), does character C's player get to enter the conflict, on the basis of a prior relationship?

    I think it makes sense, because B's past interaction with C should influence how susceptible B is to believing ill of C. Bergen knows his daughter and she should be able to roll Influence Others to prevent him from turning on her. Andreas, say, would not be able to do something like that, since he's never had a chance to give Bergen a good impression.

    The alternative is to wait until, in this case, Bergen does something against Wanda or Ilsa. At that point, you'd roll to see if Wanda or Ilsa (whichever of the two is involved) can convince him to remember his affection for her.

    That doesn't make as much sense to me, since I think it should be more difficult to corrupt an existing relationship than it would be to turn someone against a stranger. Bergen is more likely to see an attack on Wanda and Ilsa as a lie than he would be if the attack were on someone he did not already know and love.

    So, vote: yes or no question: Should it be possible to enter a conflict in which someone is being turned against your character if you have a prior, positive relationship with that person?

    I vote yes. Feel free to discuss.
  • I'd vote yes if one can dish out some convincing narrative. I'm not firm in my belief though, so I could be swayed by a convincing argument.

    My only hesitation right now is that the person (Wanda or Ilsa in case) who is being bad-mouthed (so to speak) is risking dice and more by entering the conflict. If Ilsa entered this conflict and lost, she'd possibly lose dice, right?

    Hasn't this already happened as well, such as when Sig was trying to turn Andreas against Ilsa? Ilsa entered there, but her only relationship to the conflict was the impression she made on Andreas.
  • Oh, and don't forget about the Inn scene. If writer's block is messing you up, you can always change Ilsa's actions to something easier to write. (Though I like the seduction idea)
  • edited November 2007
    Ilsa entered there, but her only relationship to the conflict was the impression she made on Andreas.
    That was very nearly the same situation, but not quite. In that case, the narration actually said that Andreas would attack Ilsa, so she clearly got to defend herself (which she did by using Influence Others to make Andreas disinclined to attack her). If the narration had been more vague, we would have had to deal with this question back then.
    My only hesitation right now is that the person (Wanda or Ilsa in case) who is being bad-mouthed (so to speak) is risking dice and more by entering the conflict. If Ilsa entered this conflict and lost, she'd possibly lose dice, right?
    Of course. Entering a conflict always carries risk. (But you always have the choice to not enter a conflict.)
    Oh, and don't forget about the Inn scene.
    Crap. Right. Sorry.
  • I'm really struggling with the Schwarzwald scene.
    Since the conflict was resolved but the effects never established, i'm not sure where I can push and when I can narrate something.

    In the last post I've included an Influencing Other's description in Italics. I'm not sure we can, under the rules, move to another dice check though, since we never fully resolved the Eater's earlier victory.
  • edited November 2007
    You actually suggested exactly what I would've given as the Eater's response, so ... give. I'll narrate an IC response in a bit.

    I thought we had settled it, since you didn't comment on this:
    How 'bout this, for the IG description of the situation: "She's scared - convinced that anything she does against the Eater (including trying to trick him) will result in her doom. So, she will play along for the moment (and maybe try to negotiate her way out of this), unless he tries something drastic. At that point, playing along is no longer a survival tactic, and she'll do her damnedest to get away or fight back."
    Sorry - I didn't realize you were still uncertain.

    My intention behind the challenge was simply to force Wanda to talk, rather than try to trick him, run, or otherwise not deal with the Eater. (I wasn't trying to keep her from bargaining, nor from defending herself if he tried to harm her.) So negotiating a deal works just fine.
  • edited November 2007

    Disregard this post.
  • Cool. Once again, I've over thought something. :)
  • So, I'm understanding that Wanda can get in on this Conflict.
    Note, however, that her only interested is in having Bergen believe she did not do it-- her numbers do not reflect anything about Ilsa.
  • I've lost initiative in Mansion and will reroll as answerer once Bergen's challenge roll/challenge is established.
  • Then, if Sigismund defeats Bergen and Ilsa, but not Wanda, Bergen believes Ilsa was involved, but not Wanda.

    When did Sigismund go on the Owe list?
  • edited November 2007
    I don't think I'm on the owe list am I - might have been when you forgot about the dice side count.
  • Okay, so I beat everyone but Wanda, and was over half her roll.

    So I can "Give" at this point and Bergen believes Ilsa was involved but not Wanda? Didn't lose to her badly enough to suffer dice loss. That's fine then.
  • For Owe list - among those rolling against me, both Bergen and Ilsa had more sides and neither doubled me on first roll of conflict, so I think that means I'm owed.
  • edited November 2007
    Initiative was rolled:
    • Wanda had 6
    • Ilsa and Bergen had 4
    • Sigismund had 2

    Sigismund answers both Wanda and Ilsa/Bergen with a 5. He opts to give to Wanda, and goes on the Owe list. Essentially, Bergen (if he believes Sigismund) believes that Wanda's inclusion was in error (he believes the truth). At this point, Sigismund goes on the Owe list.

    Now, Sigismund is challenging with his 5.

    Ilsa/Bergen each individually beat him, now challenging with an 8 (Bergen's advantage).

    (Just writing it all out, so it's straight in my head.)
  • -addendum-

    Valvorik can still choose to push the conflict with Wanda, of course - I took the above 'That's fine, then' to mean that he didn't care to, but that's an assumption.
  • Ah I see, except the rules say GM characters never go on the owe list, that's in the wiki as a Vincent-sourced statement.

    I will strike myself off the owe list immediately to roll a d6 on top of my 5 then.
  • Wrong order of operations. You only go on the Owe list after your roll - you can only add the dice to subsequent rolls (you could push for a reroll against Wanda, and add the advantage die at that point.)
  • No NPC is going on the Owe list, just Sigismund.
  • Wrong order of operations.
    To clarify. You rolled a five, being beaten (but not doubled) by Wanda. The fact that you failed gave you an entry on the Owe list. You don't get to go back and revise that into a success ... that roll is over. You can only add the advantage die to later rolls.
  • Yellowparis, I think we can just Fade Out on the Schwarzwald scene, unless you think can think of something else?

    As for a scene request, I think it would be interesting to have a Scene with Andreas and Wanda. I'm not sure if she already knows he is a conjurer.

    Also, what would it take to claim the Ghosts of Murdered Travelers? I'm a bit sketchy on how a player can get that extra die.
  • For someone to claim the ghosts, they've got to approach and state a conflict built around taking control of them. Andreas has the easiest job of that, since he just has to find some appropriate and then bring to bear his magic powers. But any tactic you can justify would work.

    I don't think Wanda has met Andreas yet, since he just arrived, so she shouldn't know what he can do. Unless you have another take on that.

    I'll add a bit to the Schwarzwald scene, to describe what happens to the skinned Eater, but we can move right on from then. I'd like to follow through directly into a scene with Bergen, since that puts Sigismund back in play (and also generally makes sense).
  • I'm done with the Schwarzwald scene, though you can still contest points in that post, if you like. I'll move onto a fresh scene soon, in the same thread.
  • That was pretty cool. I see nothing to contest.
  • edited November 2007
    Are you sure you want to go after both Bergen and Wanda, Valvorik? Bergen's inclined to be rolling against Wanda in this scene, so you could get behind him and be rolling two against one. As is, you're outnumbered again, and you might run into trouble if you keep pushing.
  • Bergen will roll to protect himself and Wanda. He'll Endure Duress to have Sigismund exhaust his energy. If Wanda also avoids direct retaliation, Sigismund will be forced to use Exert instead of Defend (you can't Defend against someone who isn't fighting back), and his Exert dice are a little weaker than his Defend dice.

    Part of the reason I was so eager to give Wanda the Eater's skin was so that he'd be able to have a presence in her scenes ... I think I'm going to bring that into play, and have his skin protect Wanda (but not Bergen).
  • Given how you've played NPC's in the past, with everyone and their uncle coming in against Sigismund whether they were in the scene or not, figured might as well go for killing everyone then anyway.

    The rules say: Defending myself: physically, armed or unarmed; even attacking another, if she's capable of fighting you back. That's capable not "choosing to". A target that doesn't fight back is the best of all targets to attack, why would attacking then not work?

    Pretty clearly, I'm attacking them seeking to inflict fatal damage. Do you have a specific citation for "if someone doesn't choose to fight back, you can't use Defend to attack them?"
  • It's common sense ... the stat's called Defend Yourself. How can you defend yourself when you're not in danger? Rather, you are 'exerting yourself' to do something to someone.

    In any case, Wanda still gets a roll, as she might roll high enough to have been the challenger.
Sign In or Register to comment.