[IaWA - OOG] Tales of False Fortunes

1235

Comments

  • Please proceed with Wanda's roll, to see if she was challanger etc.

    The text of the Defend action includes attacking others, the text of no other description type includes that. This is not dissimilar to Afraid/DitV (Vincent's other works) in that "lethal action" is a different category than "physical action" for dice even if intuitively one might think that the former is often a subset of the latter.

    The rules also say that your stick with the same dice as you roll to determine challenger and then reroll. The wiki shows a Vincent-sourced confirmation you do not change dice. Sigismund's challenge being to attack that's his Defend dice and that's the dice he sticks with according to the rules when he becomes Answerer.

    Sigismund is losing this conflict based on dice to date in any event, only issue is if Wanda rolls well enough to be the Challenger. Presumably this is a simple "they're on same side" conflict, particulary the way Bergen framed his Challenge, Bergen has already rolled well enough to trounce Sigismund.
  • edited November 2007
    I was at a real loss for what to do with Andreas so I decided to push him further into a dark direction.

    I figure I'll get a conflict out of that...
  • edited November 2007
    This is not dissimilar to Afraid/DitV (Vincent's other works) in that "lethal action" is a different category than "physical action" for dice even if intuitively one might think that the former is often a subset of the latter.
    That doesn't follow at all. DitV is a considerably different game from this, as well as a much older one. If you want to make comparisons, you should look at Poison'd. It was designed contemporaneously with IaWA.

    If you do, you'll note that that game gives you the specific tactical option to avoid getting into a fight by 'enduring duress', and that doing this denies the attack the ability to use his combat stat. It's important enough a consideration that Baker's had a post about it pinned to the top of his front page since August. He doesn't use endeavors in IaWA anymore, but it's pretty obvious where that thinking did end up going.

    Also, Sigismund hadn't chosen his dice, nor could he have chosen his dice - you don't get that opportunity until after the target of your narrative accepts that there is a conflict. Thus, it makes perfect sense for your options, in terms of dice selection, to be tied to how the other guy chooses to protect himself. There's no 'sticking to his dice' because there were no dice selected.

    But, whatever - it doesn't matter, since there's no longer anybody that has a higher Defend than Exert.
    Wanda - Defending self. d8 d6. - The roaring flames frighten, but do no real damage.
    You've put down the wrong dice there, rugsri. You only Defend Yourself when you're fighting back against someone. What you're describing is Enduring Duress.

    Plus, while you don't have to, you should consider an active response. If you roll against Sigismund and succeed, he doesn't harm you - that's just how it works. So, your actual challenge should generally take it another step ... like, Bergen, doing a similar thing, challenges that Sigismund exhausts his strength in the attack.

    So, if you actually want to Defend Yourself, you'd have to state a different challenge. Maybe the iron poker Wanda left in the fire this morning is heated by the flames, burning a brand into Sigismund that can be seen even when he is invisible. Or Wanda senses a malevolent presence and - angry - puts a hex on it (this is the Eater's suggestion ... witchcraft = good).

    Or you could reroll as Endure and fold your action into Bergen's.

    Either way, it's important. If you roll as Endure and beat Bergen, you control what dice get lost. If you rework your narrative as a Defend action, that's actually a conflict to be resolved in parallel with Bergen's, since you'd have a different goal.
    I was at a real loss for what to do with Andreas so I decided to push him further into a dark direction.
    That actually sounds like a new scene. Here's where IaWA isn't anything like Polaris ... we have to stay roughly in the same timeframe, because the characters are all connected. There remains a good chance that something will happen to affect Ilsa and Andreas before the night is out, you see. Actually, I pretty much guarantee it.

    Could you tighten it up? Maybe Andreas waits until the kids are in bed, then starts right in on whatever he's trying to do. Otherwise, I'd want to wait until Wanda's talked to Bergen about devil pelts before moving forward in time (and, if something goes down, you might miss your chance).
  • Ok, I'll tighten it up, and make it all happen that evening.
  • Sweet! Vile intent, on the go.
  • I've had an unusually busy week, please forgive my confusion.

    I did not see anything distinguishing the description of Sigmismund's killing Wanda with fire from the example in the rules of Athesa killing Irin using a knife. In the text example they used defend self. I'm still a touch confuzzled, but I think in the example's description there was a hint that Irin would fight back while in my description I included none.

    (time passes as I re-read the rules)

    Upon reflection, I did not imagine Wanda doing anything assertive. I envisioned her just defensively jumping out of the way. While enduring duress evokes images of just absorbing the damage and shaking it off. If any dice damage happened to Sigmsimund, I would consider it a bruised ego or overwhelming frustration in the face of failure.

    As such, it looks like Enduring Duress it is!
  • edited November 2007
    I did not see anything distinguishing the description of Sigmismund's killing Wanda with fire from the example in the rules of Athesa killing Irin using a knife. In the text example they used defend self. I'm still a touch confuzzled, but I think in the example's description there was a hint that Irin would fight back while in my description I included none.
    Quite right. Irin never got to state a challenge, but the choice of Defend says he would have fought back (had he not gotten stabbed in the ear).
  • Cool. I like your alternative description as well and accept it. No dice size loss.
    Do you want to describe the outcome in the narrative or shall I?

    Something to think about: In many ways this scene sort of resembles Sigismund doing a "Key buy-off" in TSoY.

    Your main "Keys" so to speak, were Vengeance against Wanda (and Ilsa) and finding the Truth. Those have significantly changed. I feel it is important for you to think of some new interests in conflict with other characters. I think we still have an interesting inter-character conflict with Wanda and Sigismund, but this negotiation really shifted its tone unexpectedly.

    Anyhow. Somethings to consider if you choose to narrate the outcome. Since the outcome so affects Sigismund, I think you narrating it makes the most sense.
  • The "keys" comparison is a good one.

    Don't know if we want to "nail it down", but I am thinking that to be a valid alternative this needs to be a permanent shift in Sigismund's priorities (made feasible in part by the fact I'm interpreting being a ghost as not being sane, logical etc.). This doesn't mean they couldn't shift again but that too would have to come from play not just be "narrated/hand waved".

    Yup conflict still possible. She's got a defender, someone to guard her from harm. Someone not very sane and who may act on his own initiative. She's also got a would-be ghost lover. That could lead to some conflict too. What she hasn't got is a threat to her life and what she has got is help against any such.
  • I've updated my response in IG thread to narrate outcome.
  • With that resolved ... don't overlook that Bergen's conflict still stands. Wanda escaped but Bergen still needed to protect himself. You accepted dice damage, earlier, but it could be something else, given the circumstances. If not, two dice off of whatever the higher die is.
  • Shouldn’t Sigmisund get a second chance to answer then?

    Here’s how I’m seeing it.

    Since Bergen was narrated doing something more than just helping Wanda we can’t use the helping rules.

    Since Sigmismund narrated multiple intentions on the outset we might not want to use the multiple sides of a conflict rule.

    There probably should have been two separate conflicts because the multiple actors in a conflict rule in this case does not accommodate Sigmisund getting double the intentions (one against wanda & one against Bergen).

    From my reading of the example of multiple players in conflict it acts more like BDTP in TSOY where you have one intention only. Once we let Sigmisund bundle both Wanda and Bergen into one action it became unbalanced.

    If we still want to salvage the more than two sides to a conflict rule…
    If we look at the 6th paragraph down we see that after the first challenger has called on his answerer and resolved that specific conflict, you go to the next one in line and they, as answered, get a chance to “reroll . . . and resolve as usual.”

    Not to forget the Eater of Shadow's roll either, right? He'll be next in line after Bergen. But Sigmisund should get to individually answer each time.
  • edited November 2007
    No - the Eater wasn't trying to do anything not already covered by a superior roll. Wanda protected herself, and his assistance was unnecessary.

    We use one set of rolls from Sigismund because they represent a single action. The burst of flame affected multiple characters, so each needed to react, but it's still just one effect. He didn't have two different intentions ... his intention was to burn two people, and that's fine.

    Put differently, there's only one narrative element to which we're objecting ... that is represented by Sigismund's rolls. Each of us is objecting in a different fashion (you say Wanda is too spry to be caught in the flames, and I say that Bergen is too big and tough to be hurt by them), but it's still the same piece of narrative.

    The example in the wiki is a different situation. A is trying to do something to B, while B is trying to do something A, and C is also trying to do something to A. Each of those 'somethings' is different, and so cannot be resolved in parallel.
  • I took it Bergen was helping Wanda - it seemed to me he and she both wanted her to avoid harm, he be willing to take it instead, she won so avoided it straight out, but if not then doesn't the wiki state that when multiples, having picked up and rerolled against Wanda, moving on to next Challenge, I would pick up and rereroll again against Bergen?

    So now, other than the two of us, who has the highest roll showing? (Mitch does.) Now it's Mitch's turn to challenge. He says what his character does and names his answerer - me, again. If there were anyone else remaining with a higher die than mine - you don't count because you've had your turn - they'd have the choice to interfere; otherwise I reroll and Mitch and I resolve as usual.
  • edited November 2007
    Again, it's a different situation. Bergen is performing a single action against your single action - the example to which you are referring involves multiple actions going every which way. It would apply if, say, Bergen were going to accept being burned, but wanted to attack Sigismund, or something else new.

    Since his roll already covers protecting himself, and Sigismund's roll already covers trying to burn him, it doesn't make sense to start over and reroll things. Bergen has clearly resisted Sigismund's attack ... Wanda did so better, but the rolls have already told us that Sigismund wasn't able to hurt Bergen.
  • So I understand, you're not saying that I'm reading the wiki version of rules incorrectly when I read them to state in a multiple challengers situation, with same character answering, the answerer rerolls for each challenge (thus perhaps rolling well and beating one but poorly and losing to other, as opposed to same way against both)?

    You're saying that, as GM, you're deciding that Bergen's challenge against Sigismund is resolved with Sigismund's same answering dice as were used to resolve the first challenge by Wanda, without a source in the rules text for this deviation from the rules text?
  • Ok, I've re-read the rules a couple of times now. I hope this post does not appear argumentative. I'm using this as a chance to verbalize the rules for my understanding of the system. (IaWA is quickly becoming my favorite system and I really want to learn the rules cold).

    I've asked my question over on the Forge hopefully Vincent can chime in.

    I think we have a unique situation that the rules do not directly address. We have this situation because of our PbP choice of stating intentions with our dice rolls to speed up play. Additionally I don't see the rules using one single Answer against different Challenge totals unless you're in a Helping mode, which we do not have here.

    In this case, once we called a conflict we should have used the multiple parties with different goals rules.

    We all roll.
    High dice directs that high total Challenge to a single Answerer.

    From the Rules: " You also name your answerer - me or Mitch." I think Vincent's use of the singular here is important.

    (lets ignore the option to interupt).
    That answerer rolls an Answer to that specific Challenge.
    Conflicts is taken to resolution or where one party gets 1d6 PIP.

    Here's the twist that I didn't see until I read it like ten times. Since two characters have already gone, the last person becomes a Challenger automatically.

    From the Rules: " So now, other than the two of us, who has the highest roll showing? (Mitch does.) Now it's Mitch's turn to challenge."

    So even though that original conflict establishing roll wasn't high enough early, now its treated as a Challenge total. The character called to Answer then re-rolls. Taking into account any consequences of the previous resolution.

    From the rules: " I reroll and Mitch and I resolve as usual. "

    So in our case.
    Wanda won (10) Challenged Sigsimund. Bergen, since he was higher than Sigsimund could have interrupted, but in this context it would have not made sense.

    Sigsismund Answered and rolled poorly. Total victory for Wanda. Conseqenses are met out.

    Now Bergen's total becomes a Challenge and he can either point that at Wanda or Sigsimund-- its still his choice. He's not locked into anything yet.

    I just rambled this off, have not read for typos or anything, but I'm in a rush.

    Does this make sense?
  • edited November 2007
    Yes, I understand what you're saying. But what I'm trying to show is that those rules, as written do not cover this situation. They're set up for a situation in which, say, three characters are in a fight, and they're attacking each other. That is, there are multiple pieces of narration flying around, and each needs to be responded to.

    They roll to determine who the 'highest challenger' is and then step down through the order of challengers because, while these actions (each individual attack) are basically unrelated, it is important to determine the order in which they happen, since dice damage (and possibly character death) on an earlier roll affects performance in later rolls ... if one attack wounds you, you won't be able to attack or resist attack as effectively in a later conflict.

    That makes sense, and I have no objection to that. However, it doesn't relate to our situation.

    What we have is a piece of narrative that attacks two characters simultaneously (not a series of attacks that need to be resolved in an order), and each of those characters is conflicting with it. The multiple-character conflict rules laid out in the wiki don't cover that.

    I'll demonstrate ... let's say Sigismund had rolled high, and beaten both Wanda and Bergen's initiative rolls. According to the rules as stated, he would have to pick one challenger, making it impossible for him to narrate the burst of fire damaging both Wanda and Bergen, which is kind of nonsensical.

    An alternate way to read the rules: Sigismund can narrate that, but Wanda and Bergen would have to be considered helping each other, so it would be impossible for Wanda to 'protect herself', as she did. That also doesn't make much sense.

    There isn't, presently, any consideration of how to deal with a 'area of effect'-style attack ... because, I assume, the system is still very much in progress. At least, the system as we see it in the wiki - it's current incarnation is, supposedly, dramatically different.

    So, the simplest, most reasonable way to handle it is for Sigismund to make one set of rolls, with Bergen and Wanda rolling against those rolls independently. His intention was to harm both characters ... he was able to do that this way, though he didn't roll high enough for it to work.

    We've actually already done this at least once ... remember when Wanda beat Sigismund, but Bergen and Ilsa (working together) didn't, at first? As a result, Bergen might have believed Ilsa was a murderess, but disbelieved that Wanda was involved. Different characters had different responses to the same piece of narration.
  • edited November 2007
    You're saying that, as GM, you're deciding that Bergen's challenge against Sigismund is resolved with Sigismund's same answering dice as were used to resolve the first challenge by Wanda, without a source in the rules text for this deviation from the rules text?
    If you want to take it that way, though the rules don't cover this situation. That's what GMs do, really.
  • RusRus
    edited November 2007
    What we have is a piece of narrative that attacks two characters simultaneously (not a series of attacks that need to be resolved in an order), and each of those characters is conflicting with it. The multiple-character conflict rules laid out in the wiki don't cover that.
    I agree the rules don't cover. . . exactly.
    I would say the theme and spirit of the rules would urge us to drive things to a 1v1 resolution.

    Consider if I should narrate something like:
    "And Wanda goes thermonuclear, killing everyone and everything." I arrange it so I roll 1d12, and I then add my 1d6 PIP. Getting an 18. I can almost end the game like that with one lucky roll if we do a 4 for 1 deal. Whereas, if we cycle through individual conflicts, luck fades as we drift toward the mean.

    Again I hope this doesn't come off as argumentative. The Forge is glitching out right now, hopefully someone can reply to my question. I'm cool with your mechanical fix-- at this point, to me, its more of an academic question on just how to handle that type of conflict.
  • edited November 2007
    I agree about 1:1 resolution on something where the situation is really reduceable to that without violence to any Character's roles/views/nature etc.

    There was no "Sigismund tries to kill both" challenge, Sigismund lost his initiative, that never happened. Wanda won and went first, scripting fire she avoided. I don't see a situation the rules don't cover.

    Both Wanda and Bergen are described as most wanting Wanda not hurt, this ghost that it is manifesting to not be a threat (Bergen with the idea of it becoming weak and ineffectual, Wanda with the idea of it becoming her servant), it would have made more sense to me for them to be simply be on the same side with with a single Challenge satisfying both their sets of objectives, which Wanda's challenge as the first in order does but in her way.

    Any two allies on the same side might have different preferences for how to meet that objective, with the high roller being the one who gets to choose how. At this point, Bergen's victory in his challenge would actually reduce the value of what Wanda has won, and be unnecessary to accomplish his intent of seeing her not hurt.

    It seems to be me better to take this route (these are figures on the same side of a conflict) that lies within the rules as written to resolve the conflict among them, rather than creating new rules (they are not on the same side, it's multisided but we won't use the rules as written for that).

    GM as rule author is a role of some games not all, not more cooperative distributed-authority games. There is no "rule 0" in the draft rules version of the GM role, the GM plays the rest of the world and pushes conflict, the GM is not "the walking rule editor". If a rule-edit/addition is needed, that is something the entire group of players can decide and approve.
  • edited November 2007
    "And Wanda goes thermonuclear, killing everyone and everything." I arrange it so I roll 1d12, and I then add my 1d6 PIP. Getting an 18. I can almost end the game like that with one lucky roll if we do a 4 for 1 deal. Whereas, if we cycle through individual conflicts, luck fades as we drift toward the mean.
    It's not as much a problem as you imagine. Remember - if you narrate lethal results, they won't happen (unless the player of the character you're targeting accepts them, or unless the dice is sufficient to empty out a stat). So you could narrate that, get a lucky roll, and deal normal dice damage/negotiated consequences to everyone else in the game.

    But, if you do that, you're also risking instant death ... if you get an unlucky roll and multiple characters deal dice damage to the stat you're using, that could easily be enough to kill you. Even a d12/d10 stat can only take five hits, over the course of the game. The risk balances, in my mind, since you can't do more than that two dice of damage to any given character.

    The same is true, on a lesser scale, right now. Sigismund attempted to kill two characters, and he has to deal with two responses. If he'd rolled high, he'd have been able to deal serious damage to both of them. However, he rolled quite low, and now he has to deal with double consequences.
    There was no "Sigismund tries to kill both" challenge, Sigismund lost his initiative, that never happened.
    Nonsense. You wrote down, for all to see: "the fire will explode as if a backdraft emerged from a sealed room in an inferno, burning both these miscreants alive, turning them into living torches."

    That is a piece of narrative that both characters have to respond to. If Bergen is just 'assisting' Wanda, which he is not, he would be on fire right now.

    He was defending both himself and Wanda, and there should have been no confusion on that count. Even if you misconstrued the IG post, I was careful to state my intent, explicitly, OOG.

    Also OOG, I questioned whether you really wanted to attack both characters, and you were quite clear about it. This rule is simple, intuitive, and fills a blank in the available rules, allowing you to do this thing you wanted to do. You had a chance to pull it off, you rolled low, and now Sigismund has to deal with the consequences.

    Nor is it the first time this has appeared in the game, so you shouldn't be shocked to see it applied here.
  • I vote we end rules discussion and move along.
    I'm cool with doing it however Paris wants.
  • edited November 2007
    What I wrote was as you say narrative, yes it happened, but it wasn't what we being rolled for as stakes in conflict. Thus there was no "Challenge" of that nature as Sigismund's rolls never authorized a Challenge. My statement was "it" (the Challenge) never happened. The narrative triggered a conflict for which rolls were made to determine Challenger/Answerer and what specifically was at stake. That being anything from people being burned to a ghost being destroyed depending on who challenged and what they staked.

    I still don't see an answer to the issue of why really that was not left at 2 sides given the similarity of interests of Wanda and Bergen.

    The dice said the Challenger was Wanda, a question there is whether she is effectively Challenging for 2, there really being only one side of the conflict they both share. If it was treated that way, how, with that side being 2 cooperating and one of that side having rolled high and won, that would mean the other would then be suffering a loss consequence, is something I don't see following from the rules for multiple side conflicts with 2 on the same side responding. Obviously if they are cooperating and their high roller wins, "they win" not just the character rolling high, thus Bergen is not harmed.

    Another question is why, if acting as an independent side of a multiparty conflict Bergen's specific act (Challenge) is not tied down until he acts, after other outcomes are established from actions taking place first. Predeclarations were established as way to speed movement online if one rolled high but only really matter if one is the high Challenger. By the time he acts, Wanda is saved. His initially scripted action (if he had been high Challenger) at that point thus seems to me to be out of step with what is actually transpiring, there is no issue when he acts of Wanda being harmed thus no need for him to risk himself on her behalf. There is an issue of interpreting if Sigismund's defeat by Wanda and breaking off of his attack, change of view, means he was still "attacking" Bergen at the point Bergen responds. My thought is "no", these things happen sequentially as resolved and he is not. That is something I don't see a clear answer to in rules so could be debated. Bergen can still declare an action against Sigismund, and one harming/exhausting him etc., but "jumping in front of his daughter to save her" seems rather pointless to script.

    That still leaves that the rules state Sigismund rerolls dice to answer this new challenge but you are saying no on your discretion as GM. A discretion that I think is inconsistent with a non-tabletop format that does not allow parallel rules discussions and with the spirit of the game and its description of GM responsibility. Yes, I said I was prepared to be in conflict with two, just as I said earlier I had read the rules on 3-way conflicts which are now not being applied as written.

    I also don't see a "blank" in how the rules treat one character attacking two characters. The two are actually only at risk if the attacker is Challenger. If so, they can agree to be on same side Answering and use high roll (stand or fall together, better chance of both standing), they can be on different sides, both could end up as Answerer, both could end up losing and if Challenger didn't compromise on lethal intent, still both be dead. One could be an Answerer and one a Challenger (also challenging death) and you could still end up with 2 people dead, just different people (attacker and one resondent). Etc. I don't see how the rules fail to address resolution for this situation.

    It appears we see things differently when it comes to the priority for working to be within rules as written or the approach to rules disputes as being something to govern colloboratively.

    Nor do we apparently have the same view of using responses with modifiers such as "nonsense" which characterize another's words/thoughts negatively without engaging with them to move forward as opposed to saying "I don't see" etc. Please don't mistake my approach to positing positions as possibly being in error and the error being my mistake as meaning I don't also have a less aggreable dialogue in my head, I just don't see the point of posting the latter.

    I suspect this is getting tiresome and although I have enjoyed players' creativity, the style of the game being run is not enjoyable to me and seems likely only to produce more debates of this sort. I signed up to play the game as written not as edited by GM fiat on an as we go basis. So feel free to proceed with Bergen's actions against Sigismund who is now yours to control without any arguments. Bergen can win his "Sigismund is ineffectual" Challenge, pick which dice to eliminate, Sigismund effectively sits out remainder of this chapter. That was the scripted outcome of Bergen's Challenge in any event, I Give.

    Which fits tidily with my withdrawing as I don't plan on continuing to play. Simon had indicated he might come in after first round, perhaps he is still interested.
  • Sorry - I've been away for Thanksgiving. Just got back today.

    In short, yes ... salvage. But more tomorrow.
  • If an audience member wants to take over Sigismund (or one of the other NPCs), that's fine.

    If Sigismund is to be an NPC, I don't really want to run him as such. I already have three of them, and with his conflict with Wanda dramatically reduced, he doesn't have much that differentiates him from the other ghosts.

    So, he can be combined back into the The Ghosts of Murdered Travelers mastery. In order to preserve Wanda's recent victory, she gains access to that mastery, though the only ghost she actually controls is Sigismund. Someone else could take control of the other ghosts without any conflict, though anyone who wanted to take control of all the ghosts would have to challenge Wanda to do so.

    In the fiction, it isn't necessarily that Wanda controls Sigismund. Rather, rugsri controls Sigismund and Wanda, as a unit.

    I don't think this creates any specific problems with regard to Andreas' earlier conflict with Sigismund.
  • This isn't really a good time for me - I have final projects coming due at school.

    Rugsri, if you want to push the scene forward into convincing Bergen to accept the Eater's skin, I'll probably be able to keep up. I don't really have the focus, at the moment, to start things that way myself, but I can respond.

    Still with us, Garvey?
  • I'm still here. I'm just a bit flooded with work right now (big funding deadlines are upon us). I'll get the rewrite up soon.
  • I have some lab accreditation work piling up too. No rush here.
    I got the feeling you had some ideas on the Bergen/devil skin scene. If true, I'd like to riff of that.
  • No specific idea, really. I know how Bergen would react, in general (at least, until modified by a conflict), but I don't have a particular angle on the scene.

    I do have a few specific ideas for what might happen after, depending on how the scene works out.
Sign In or Register to comment.