[IaWA - OOG] Tales of False Fortunes



  • edited October 2007
  • Set out my challenge to be persuasive and liked, not uncouth. Looks like rolls make me Challenger and rugrsi Answerer.
  • 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
  • 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).
  • edited November 2007
  • edited November 2007
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.