[Polaris] Frenzied screwing in the icy wastes

[Ron Edwards]

We've been playing more Polaris since [Polaris] Effete, very cold knights and the demons who love them.

First point is, the game moves both quickly and slowly. Quickly, in that all sorts of dramatic stuff happens very fast within a scene, and slowly, in that the knights' inexorable slide from Novice to Veteran is ... well, slow. We push hard toward rolls in our game, and not a turn goes by without an experience check for one reason or another. Yet still, after three very full sessions of play, we have three knights with Zeal 2 and two with Zeal 3.

It doesn't help that at least three of the players persistently rolled 6's on experience checks. I think Maura rolled three of them, or some shit like that.

Second point is, it's veeeeeery important to note how new Aspects get onto that character sheet. We did a pretty thorough text check to figure that one out, in addition to disavowing any punk-ass feely crap about "if anyone would like to, whenever," just in case it every showed up in the forum or something. By the rules, here's when: (1) after an
Advance, new Aspects may be added and old ones can be erased; (2) as a component of a ritual phrase, as in, "But Only If you gain the Ability 'branded hands.'"

That latter brings up the neatest point about Polaris, which I've been looking forward to seeing in action since I first learned about the game. The resolution rules apply to any interactions between the beginning and ending ritual phrases of the session. Anything can be treated as a conflict phrase. There's a shift between ...

- But Only If your sword shatters into a thousand pieces

and ...

- But Only If you cross off "Bodyguard Arrakis" from your sheet

I'm not sure how many groups have processed this point, which is easily (and in my view textually) taken one step even further - in our game, we even used the ritual phrases to resolve a rules dispute/interpretation! How cool is that?

Third point is, everyone should have a clear idea of what the ritual phrases get limited to if all the Aspects are checked off on both sides. Unless you get some more in there via the mechanisms described above, the phrases are primarily limited to But Only If, It Shall Not Come to Pass, and That Was How It Happened. (Never mind that weeny one about Not Meant to Be or whatever it is ... punk-ass ... grumble). This is a neat situation! It's a "screwdown" effect, a feature that needs more development in role-playing games.

So much for the points. What about what happened? Geez ... we have five knights, so that's a lot of stuff to be happening. Well, here's one thing: my character and Tod's have both effectively completed their story-arcs, including the attempted takeover of a Remnant and the death of a bad guy. My character ended up alone (no lover, no servant, no friend, all dead!). Tod's ended up a bit of a hero, although he did inadvertently bring Spring prematurely. We've verbally agreed to "do Screen Presence 1" for a while, in order to see the other characters finish up their stuff.

I think that's kind of important in playing Polaris, just as in Universalis - you have to recognize when it's time for your current conflicts just to get done, dammit. We talked about how if we play it light for a bit, then we'll discover commitments to the others' conflicts and therefore contribute to the telescoping-down, focusing of the overall saga rather than a sprawl.

What else? Oh - this session, the third, featured a whole lotta sex. Among all the moans and sighs and gasps, Tim's character boinked Kershah and she birthed a demon, which sorta was a nuclear blast. I think his guy is currently wandering around in the frozen wastes with the infant cradled in his arms. The two remaining characters belonging to Julie and Maura are wrapped up in such bizarre soap-operas that I'm not even sure where to start. The good news is that we all have a good idea of where we want to put the next crises.

Best,
Ron

[Nev the Deranged]

Good summary. Link's broken.

[Ron Edwards]

Gah. [Polaris] Effete, very cold knights and the demons who love them.

Thanks!
Ron

[Solamasa]

Can you define what you mean by screwdown effect?  Is that simply in reference to a "phase" of play in which your options are narrowed?  If so, I think there's more going on there, based on what I've seen thus far—it also yanks your Knight's story forcefully onward. 

Adding a new Aspect won't refresh an exhausted Theme and, in fact, the text stipulates you can't refresh (only exhaust) Themes through the ritual phrases.  This means the only way to get out of Theme exhaustion is through experience rolls; in my group's Polaris play, then, total Theme exhaustion catalyzes a flurry of experience roll requests from both Heart and Mistaken.  We are so enamoured of our "And Furthermores" and "You Ask Far Too Muchs" that to let them languish in disuse is unpalatable. 

So it seems Theme exhaustion not only forces a more conciliatory attitude between the Heart/Mistaken pair (the screwdown?), it offers a second non-fiction-related mechanism to push toward a Knight's tragic ending.

- Kit

[Bret Gillan]

This needs to win some sort of "best thread title ever" award.

I don't currently have the rules on me, but I recall very distinctly a part of the text where it says you should look at your sheet at the end of every scene and consider replacing Aspects that you're not using, which would left me with the impression that you Aspects could be changed at any point between scenes. Unfortunately, I won't be able to refer to the text for another 9 hours so I can't give you an exact quote or page number.

Ron, when you guys were making "metagame" consequences of ritual phrases (your "But Only If you cross off "Bodyguard Arrakis" from your sheet") were you making narrative justifications for this? Or just leaving the mechanical consequences alone(Bodyguard Arrakis could still be in the narration, but he just can't be used as an Aspect)?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello!

Kit, absolutely right. Everything you wrote is exactly what I'm referring to. I realized when posting that I could either leave it at a brief mention and get to it later, or write a huge freakin' essay ... your reply totally captured what the latter would be about, and I urge everyone to consider it carefully. Current endgame-mechanics found in a number of games are a fairly useful, but ultimately crude expression of a key dynamic in theme-creating play.

Bret, I could be wrong, but I think you're remembering the text that is specific to advances, i.e. rolling under Zeal (in our case) on an experience roll. Just in case, as well, I need to be clear that I'm talking about Themes and Aspects, not the Cosmos.

In the instances that we used ritual phrases for altering Aspects, they were always connected tightly to fictional events; for instance, Arrakis was killed during a confrontation with a bunch of demonic nasty-critters in a big fight. The fight was already occurring before my Mistaken used that "But Only If."

Arguably, such a connection wouldn't really have to be there. If someone said, "But Only If you cross off the Bound Servant Arrakis," and it didn't have anything to do with what's going on, it's still a good But Only If. I'd have two choices - either say, "H'm, looks like that has to be an upcoming scene" and save the content for later, or respond with an objecting phrase, probably a strong one like You Ask Far Too Much, or even It Was Not Meant to Be.

Best,
Ron

[Bret Gillan]

Okay, you're right. I'm confusing Aspects with the Cosmos. As the kids say, my bad.

Now that I have a clearer head about what you're talking about, I like that a lot - that Aspects are only changed during Advances or as a result of ritual phrases. I'm also imagining situations where an Aspect has narratively been destroyed (Bound Servant Arrakis is killed) but remains on your sheet, and you can still call on it to represent memories, guilt, or a desire for revenge. That's really cool and hadn't occurred to me!

The reverse could happen as well, and I'm not sure it would necessitate narrative justification - you just wouldn't be able to call on that Aspect for ritual phrases - your character still has his starlight sword, but since it's crossed off his sheet it becomes less thematically important to gameplay.

[jrs]

My favorite meta-game use of conflict phrases took place in this last session.  Tod's heart had just killed a demon and he called for an experience roll.  The moons are going, nah, you killed a demon and even though the consequence of killing that particular demon aren't nice, you definitely weren't sympathetic to it.  Instead of following the rules that the mistaken gets final say, we turned it into a brief conflict using "But only if ..." to adjust his heart's cosmos (the dead demon* was moved from the mistaken into the new moon) to allow the experience roll. 

* We keep the dead in the cosmos.

Julie

[Ben Lehman]

Hi!  Thanks for the play report.  I'm sure you know well how freakin' great it is to read these as a game designer.

I find it interesting that "all alone" is the end of your knight's storyline.  In my experience with the game, it has more often been a pivotal turning point -- if the knight is left with nothing, he suddenly becomes a conflict powerhouse, and can get huge amounts of stuff done.

I am glad that you guys keep the dead in the Cosmos.  So do I.  Very useful, that.  I am absolutely fascinated by the fact that the demon, post-death, moved from Mistaken to New Moon.  Did her death redeem her spirit and so now she's a person again?  That's awesome, and rich.

As far as metagame phrases -- yup!  Also, the parenthetical is really powerful here: "but only if your sword shatters into a thousand pieces (you lose your starlight sword aspect)" is a perfectly fine statement.

This is the part of the post where I have fun with incredibly minor rules tidbits.  If that's not your kink, move along.

Technically, there is a third way to change and remove your aspects -- via specific rules imbedded in the aspect itself.  This is pretty rare in terms of actual play.  I think that this is because it is mostly a very fiddly sort of concern; only players who have been playing the game for a while (several times through) will care about messing with aspect-specific rules.  However, if you look at the precedents set in the example aspects, there's some really interesting possibilities and easter eggs here.  (When I sometimes mention that the rules of Polaris are possibly broken, this is the part I'm talking about.)

Also technically, the conflict phrases apply to any conflict (meta-game or fictional) that goes on during the play of the a scene (from "and so it was..." to "and so it was...")  Why?  Because only the Heart and the Mistaken can use them, and outside of the scene these roles are not defined strictly.  Now, of course, sometimes it's abundantly clear, even between scenes, which character we're talking about, so it's totally fine to use the conflict phrases in this case, which is what I imagine you are doing.  What you guys are doing is a pretty natural extension of this (sounds like it, at least), so I can't imagine that you'll run into any trouble.  If it turns into a free-for-all, though, it'll break.

Okay I'm done now

The one bit that is slightly worrisome is the impression that the moons are handing out Experience.  As it happens, it doesn't matter too much, but technically Experience is a strictly Mistaken deal.

It's good stuff!  I'm particularly enthused about the demon-baby -- that's a great source of Experience, that's what that is -- and in seeing what happens with the "Screen Presence 1" folks as the game goes on.  If you want to push the still-Zealous sorts towards Weariness, I suggest using "but only if you roll an extra experience check" which is totally within the game rules.  If you like it better, do what Paul Tevis's group does and phrase it narratively "but only if you despair" or "but only if in your heart, you despise him" which effectively forces Experience the same way, but with more color.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  On the topic of Theme exhaustion -- my favorite state is when one player has exhausted all of their Themes, but the other player hasn't -- particularly when the Mistaken has the upper hand, which usually results in a frenzy of both atrocity and "it shall not come to pass" by the Heart.

[Ron Edwards]

Ahhhh ... most of that is very helpful. The bit about calling for extra Experience will enter play with a vengeance, I'm sure.

Never fear, our Experience checks are in practice confirmed by the Mistaken, although it's pretty much the Heart saying "I want Experience for that" and everyone pretty much going, "Yeah, duh." The one minor issue that Tod had, I was the dummy so I can't say who really came down with the hammer on that one. Maybe it was the Moons, in which case we could have saved some debate and just asked Maura (Tod's Mistaken).

For my character, you have it a little backwards. It just so happens he's all alone at this point; that didn't cause the ending of the storyline in any way. Interestingly, he starts the next session with, I think, only two unchecked slots for Themes.

Also, we did indeed restrict the conflict phrases to Heart vs. Mistaken. We didn't have any rules-discussion or ritual phrases during free play.

Regarding the Aspects with easter eggs about change, hey - I saw those, or think I do. Maybe after playing a bit more I'll be more certain.

One Theme we can't use is Kerhah, who does exist in the Cosmos of two characters but currently is not anyone's Aspect. Julie just liked the name and put it in her Full Moon during character creation, not realizing Kerhah was an important Theme. When I pointed that out, we decided that it was indeed that Kerhah, but while she might be someone's Fate in some other story, here, she's not. (That might change due to Theme alteration, but then again it might not.)

Julie does have the Rischia Fate, though, so uh, Julie's character is kind of busy with highly-significant soap opera. Especially since the most important person in her Mistaken is her twin sister.

Best,
Ron

[Ben Lehman]

Hey, Ron.  Happy to be of help.  I enjoy talking about the game at the level of "here's some fun, non-obvious stuff to do" rather than having to clarify basic-level rules.

I hope everyone reading along at home realizes that the example aspects are just examples, and that Ron's group choosing to use "The Fall of Kerhah" as part of their local fiction is strictly a "for-fun" thing and not required by the rules in any way.  *sinister glare*  Any assertion that even implies that there's any canon in the Polaris text will be met with lethal force.

I'm glad to see Rischia getting some play.  (heh.)  She's one of my favorites in the examples.  Julie, can you tell me what's going on with her?

yrs--
--Ben

[Nev the Deranged]

Thank you, Ben, for clarifying that. I was all set to read through the book for the second time this week to make sure I hadn't missed something obvious. *whew*

[Christoph Boeckle]

While you're discussing mechanics, I was wondering what your take was on demanding things like:
But only if you exhaust a theme

Does this short-circuit the conflict phrases or do you consider it a good thing to put pressure on the other player to use a stronger phrase to negate this one (and thus exhausting his theme anyway)?
I can see this as another means of accelerating experience checks, but haven't tried it out myself.

[Ben Lehman]

While you're discussing mechanics, I was wondering what your take was on demanding things like:
But only if you exhaust a theme

Does this short-circuit the conflict phrases or do you consider it a good thing to put pressure on the other player to use a stronger phrase to negate this one (and thus exhausting his theme anyway)?
I can see this as another means of accelerating experience checks, but haven't tried it out myself.

It's not a matter of opinion.  It's a matter of game rules.  Asking for exhaustion of a theme is specifically allowed by the rules.  The section you're looking for is called "it is important to know what you can ask for, and what you cannot" and it starts on the bottom of page 75.

As the header would suggest, it's an important section to read.  Let's not derail Ron's great AP thread with a bunch of rules questions (yeah, I know, I brought it on myself...)  If people want to know my preferences about what I ask for with conflict phrases, that should really be a thread in the TAO Games forum (which I would totally welcome -- please start it!)

yrs--
--Ben

[faerieloch]

Ron, commenting on how you find it goes both quickly and slowly, I agree.  I'm currently in the middle of a "campaign" that is more slow-moving; we've only had one session, and only a few experience rolls.  However, I played a game at KueiCon with Ben and Paul and all three of us made veteren in 3 hours or less.  It really depends on a) how much the Mistaken pushes the Heart, b) how much the Heart is willing to take on, and c) the story arc created.  In the first game I mentioned, the story arc was more Heart-defined and so as zealous knights, they didn't narrate down-falling stories.  However, in the game at KueiCon, the stories were very Mistaken-defined and so really pushed the knights.  I think we were all really excited to be playing, as well, and more focused on creating an amazing story than in delaying the downfall of our knights.

As an aside, the character in your game who is involved in a soap opera can still be driven to experience rolls: have a relative turn out to be a daemon, have them fall in love with someone and have that person be killed by a daemon, give them the desire to be rid of that really damnably annoying cousin who never shuts up and always interferes, etc.

I also think I, personally, prefer to narrate things that affect aspects and then use parentheticals like Ben suggested.  This keeps the flow of the banter and of the story while still letting you bargain effectively with the things on the character sheet; "but only if you cross X off your cosmos" seems a bit of a cop-out to me (no offense).  I think this is because I view it as bargaining for narrative influence of the story in your role as Mistaken/Heart and bargaining as two players looking in on the world.  Like the gods in Terry Pratchett's Discworld, you have pieces that you move around and affect the lives of, but saying "cross that off" is one more level of removal.  This is just a personal preference, however.  :)

--Nancy