Before I start, I have to say "very very good game." I haven't been this excited to run a new game since I first bought Nobilis.
Okay, so these questions might demonstrate that I'm an idiot who can't read or doesn't understand some vital idea in the game concept, but I'll ask them anyway.
1) It was not clear to me whether or not Aspects not present at a conflict could have their sufferings increased in cut-scenes or not. A post in another thread indicated something about this, but I wondered if I read it wrong or if that was a house rule. In case I'm not phrasing my question well, an example: The Bullet has a family relationship aspect to his mom (non strife). She's in Albuquerque and he's in New York but they call each other all the time. In a conflict can he have her fall down some stairs or something to change her suffering?
2) In your example of play for the conflicts, I noticed that Debris's Stake and Noir's Stake seem to have something of a contradiction problem: if Noir lost but Debris won, then in the same fight (recall, Noir at first was swinging in to help her) Debris kidnaps Pearl and gets away and at the same time is arrested. Am I understanding something wrong here? Is there a resolution to this? Should in-play stakes consciously plan to avoid this?
3) The same example of play brings up a separate question: is there a mechanic for the idea of teaming up? Since the conflict is played out single character vs GM, how could Noir and Debris both fight Mudslide? Are the fights on different pages even though they occur simultaneously? If they're not simultaneous, is there a mechanic for handling simultaneous fights with two versus one with main characters (good and bad) on both sides?
Hi, yoshog! Thanks for the kind words.
I love rules questions! Here goes:
1) Yes, the Bullet's player can increase Suffering of Aspects that are not physically present in the same scene, BUT it must connect to the conflict at hand in a way that the Reader would understand. Your example of "I'm zooming past Mudslide faster than sound. Then, there's a panel that says 'Meanwhile, in New Mexico,' and it shows my mom falling down the stairs. Give me my cards so we can get back, back to the fight." wouldn't fly because there's no connection between the fight and the Suffering.
However, The Bullet's player could also say: "I'm zooming past Mudslide faster than sound. Then, there's a panel with Mudslide pushing a button on a remote. The next panels says 'Meanwhile, in New Mexico,' and it shows my mom's car blowing up. Mudslide gloats 'I've just killed your mother, Bullet. Surrender now or lose more of your loved ones!' Give me my cards so we can get back, back to the fight." That would be legit. So would goons approaching the mom's house with evidence that her son is The Bullet, or the like.
2) I don't have my copy of the book with me. I'll tackle this one when I get home.
3) Yes, they can both fight Mudslide at the same time. The cards still go on their own individual pages. The "team-up" Aspect can come into play in a couple ways. First, the players can easily discuss changing suits in an effort to target suits that the GM is weak in. This happens a lot. Secondly, exactly how each panel gets inked can help the teamwork angle. For instance, if Debris changes style to "Attack with Weapon," she may be doing a Fastball Special with Noir, hurling him physically at Mudslide--he is the weapon. Then, when we get to his page, he does the Striking/Punching/Kicking, or Grappling, or Power, or whatever attack.
Clearer?
Much, though I'll be waiting for your answer to 2) as well.
Oh wow, I didnt realize that any player can control ANY character in the scene as long as it makes sense with the game mechanics. A player can put words in the villains mouth,etc... That is too cool and opens up a LOT of dimensions to script from.
Can the GM put words in the HERO's mouth?
Another question... Lets say a 7 of hearts is played by the hero to DODGE. How does the GM's villain counter that with a dodge of his own (a higher heart)? How could something like that be scripted or do you pretty much have to change suit once a dodge is played (a way of forcing the opponent to change suit)?
Hey, sourflower!
As for putting words in another character's mouth, consider it really strong pencilling than outright inking and you're good to go.
As for the Dodge question, look closely at the Characteristics of Conflict, and you'll see that the box is called "Dodge/Manuever" so any type of "getting in better position/location" is legit. In the case of an actual Dodge, a place that is not being hit is better than one that is being hit. In the case of Spidey swinging on a webline behind his foe, his still out-manuevering him, even if no dodge was involved.
Ok, I get it... If my character FreezeFlame is blasting his nemesis Munga with a Ice Blast and the GM lays down the seven of hearts for a "dodge" scripting that Munga leaps out of the way and dives behind a garbage truck. Now I play the 8 of hearts and state something like, "FreezeFlame soars into the air in order to get a clear shot at Munga behind the truck". Right?
I see how I misunderstood after rechecking the sheet. There was no slash between Dodge and Manuever so I read it as a "Dodge Maneuver". My bad.
sourflower: You've got it exactly right!
yoshog's neglected question number two: Consulting pages 63-64, I see the Stakes for for Debris & Noir as follows:
Debris: Force Mudslide to exit the scene with me
Mudslide: Force Debris to exit the scene with me
Noir: If I win, I save Pearl and she's not scared of me anymore.
Mudslide: Force Pearl to exit the scene with me
So, if Mudslide wins against Noir, but loses to Debris, what happens to Pearl? Good question. That becomes your Scripting Question for Step 4C: Winning the Stakes. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest that Mudslide hurls Pearl out of the scene into somewhere undesirable, or hides her down in the sewer before being captured. Or perhaps he engulfs her inside his gooey mass, so that she's trapped inside him even as he's hauled off to the pokey. I'm sure your group can come up with others.
To help facilitate this, it's okay to hold off on inking one of the victories until the other page is complete, so you can weave the events together.
But you're also right to keep this sort of thing in mind while setting the Stakes. If you see an obvious contradiction, then certainly re-phrase the Stakes to accomodate it.
Right. Actually, the arrest was only implied, and Mudslide's Stakes could be seen as controlling Pearl's exit from the scene.
Thanks!
Okay, another rules question:
I'm having trouble with multiple character combats: Suppose Perjury and Mudslide were robbing a bank. Do Noir, The Stalwart, and Debris have to, among them, pick fights with both of them individually (like S vs P and N&DvsM)? Can they change targets after initial selection? Does the GMs cardplay differ at all with two villains there at once?
Quote from: yogshog on March 10, 2006, 10:16:09 AM
Suppose Perjury and Mudslide were robbing a bank. Do Noir, The Stalwart, and Debris have to, among them, pick fights with both of them individually (like S vs P and N&DvsM)?
Yes, that's usually the way it works.
QuoteCan they change targets after initial selection?
Sure. The guiding priciple of each page of conflict is the Stakes. If the next thing your character needs to do to bring their Stakes closer to fruition is to change target, then change the suit and go for it. That's one of the reasons I ask people to write down their Stakes on the Synopsis Sheet, so that you can keep your eye on what you're fighting for.
QuoteDoes the GMs cardplay differ at all with two villains there at once?
Not at all. Each villain is just an opening through which the GM can play cards.
I see. So no matter how many villains there are, or heroes, the gameplay mechanics remain the same (except for the number of cards the GM gets for more heroes and the greater variety of aspects that can be made to suffer.)
Cool.
I'll be playing my first session of this tomorrow night. Looking forward to it.
Okay, so we played last night, and (while the first comment was "when can we start up a regular meeting time to play again?") there was something we're not completely sure about.
It seems as though, since the GM can move devastated aspects to "transformed" during assessment, that "redeeming" an aspect is really tough. It might have just been us, but at the end of the game, I had transformed 3 aspects. Is that your intention? Should they have that happen so often in your mind?
To elaborate on the thought: shouldn't, for dramatic reasons, transformation require winning a page of conflict?
Hmmm. You do realize that the GM can only Transform an Aspect after space #5 on the Story Arc is filled, right? Until then, the best she can do is move it to Undone.
Does that help?
I did know that (though in the interest of play-testing-ish behavior instead of actually starting a full campaign, we used the "giant-sized annual" timing rules, so it didn't take too long to get to page 5.
Is that more of a hazard of those timing rules? It just seems that before stage 5, the GM can get several aspects to just below transformed, have one hero yield to get onto page 5, then in the next assessment after that hero has yielded, transform-transform-transform.
It just seems odd that the GM can put the aspect out of the player's reach during assessment - it seems like an anticlimax to have the final strife aspect transformed in a situation where the heroes have *no* chance of changing it - all the GM has to do is prolong the conflict as long as possible. Now, I know you're assuming people are going for story over strategy, but since it's so difficult for the players to redeem an aspect I suspect their awareness of the fact leads to more of a competition psychology than a story-emphasis strategy.
But maybe I'm swrong and it was all about the timing.
Hmmm. I've never run into that problem during my games. Normally my players have me so on the ropes card-wise by the time endgame rolls around that I rarely get a chance to Transform much of anything. Maybe you're just a stronger card player than I am.
In any case, I like the sound of your idea about requiring victory for Transformation. I suggest you play it that way and see if the game is any more fun. Then, definitely let me know how it goes!
My group also ran into this issue. Part of the reason this came up for us was that we had 3 heroes and 3 villains. Also I intentionally devestated one of my own aspects because I wanted to redeem it later.
We decided that while an aspect can be assessed to Transformed during a conflict, the transformation doesn't take effect until the end of the conflict, so if the hero wins it can still be redeemed.
We also allowed for aspects to be transformed during enrichment, but only if the aspect is involved in a conflict between the enrichment scene and when the fifth part of the arc starts. This guarantees that the player always has a potential oppurtunity to redeem an aspect. It also can lead to situations where a hero is forced to choose between two aspects that are sitting at or one step away from Transformed. So far we haven't had any problems with these rules, but we aren't even finished with the our arc yet...
One side effect of allowing it to transform during an Enrichment scene is that the GM can force me to pick a fight with a particular villain by pushing my aspect to one away from transformed. Or not, if he wants another villain to see more play time.