Non heart Protagonists and asking permission

[Garvey]

In the book, it says you can't use another protagonist in a conflict statement without permission.

My question is whether permission is given ahead of time, not knowing what the conflict statement is going to be.  Or whether permission is given after the fact.  Does the player who controls the protagonist in question (who is not the Heart) have effective veto power over any conflict statements that use his character?

So, let's say our players and characters are:
Alan is Heart for Alshain
Betty is Heart for Bootes
Cecelia is Heart for Canopus
Dave is Heart for Dog Star

And its a scene for Alshain, with Cecelia as Mistaken, that involves Bootes as a secondary character.  Cecelia (Mistaken) wants to make a conflict statement that states a fact about Bootes.  At what point does Betty give permission?  If its permission before the statement is made, does Betty have any recourse if she doesn't like what is said about Bootes?

[Eero Tuovinen]

It's effective veto. The meaning is that players control the intents and actions of their own characters insofar as those are not corrupted by another party. In a situation where you don't have narration rights that translates into a veto over stuff other people are narrating.

Asking permission without telling what it's for doesn't make that much sense anyway. Would add an unnecessary guessing game.

[Ben Lehman]

Eero is correct.  Also, it seems to me that the Mistaken in question is suffering from "GMitis."  Does she often make statements for Moon characters, too?

[Garvey]

Thanks for your answers.  That's what I thought would be the case though I saw some other posts here that made me question it.

Eero is correct.  Also, it seems to me that the Mistaken in question is suffering from "GMitis."  Does she often make statements for Moon characters, too?

Actually, no, this particular player doesn't have that issue.  This was just one of our first few scenes that had multiple protagonists, and the use of conflict statements regarding the non-heart protagonist hadn't been explored.  The Mistaken just wanted to keep the non-heart protagonist out of the action in the scene and so sidelined the knight as part of a conflict statement.  I, on the other hand, have been known to make statements for the Moon characters, but only in conflict statements (when I'm the Mistaken), in an attempt to push more conflict into the scene by making them do stuff (or react to stuff) in a way that causes more trouble for the Heart.  That's what you're supposed to do though, right?  But Only If and And Furthermore are used, partly (because there are many other uses of them), to give control of elements to the player who doesn't control them.  I've never actually put dialog into the secondary character's mouthes though - just stated how they will react.

Returning to the main point though, the question of the non-heart protagonist being used in conflict statements did give rise to other questions about how the Mistaken (or Heart since it would be similar) can affect the non-Heart protagonist.

To make sure I understand.... we have the situation above, and in particular Cecelia wants to make Bootes unable to engage in the action of the scene so that Alshain will have to fend for himself.

The following is not allowed:
And furthermore Bootes is so tired that she cannot assist Alshain.

But the following statements from the Mistaken are allowed:

(No key phrases used) The wind tears at Bootes, draining of her of the last remnants of her strength so that she cannot assist Alshain.

(No key phrases used) The ground crumbles under Bootes, casting her into the darkness beneath the ice, stranding Alshain all alone.

And Furthermore The ground crumbles under Bootes, casting her into the darkness beneath the ice, stranding Alshain all alone.

The key difference is that the Mistaken (or the Heart) can do things to Bootes by having things under their guidance do something to Bootes that causes the effect that they desire.  This doesn't require a conflict statement, but could be done in a conflict statement.  The thing who can't do is make statements for or about a secondary protagonist without a causal agent from your own sphere of control.

If I'm correct on all of that, what defense does Betty (Bootes' heart) have against such statements?  I know that Betty could appeal to Alan (who is the active Heart in the scene) to fight for Bootes, but is there anything else that can be done by Betty?

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Garvey,

To me it seems that you are looking at this issue from the wrong angle.

Narrating what happens to the NPCs played by the Moons can only be a suggestion. The moons get to decide what happens to their respective NPCs regardless of whether conflict arises. I would expect them to be narrating such things, but suggestions are fine.

The phrase "The wind tears at Bootes, draining of her of the last remnants of her strength so that she cannot assist Alshain" is fine if the player of Bootes says it, or if the whole phrase is a suggestion to that player which they can dismiss, accept or change. But, your suggestion implies that the Moons would not be making this type of statement themselves, instead waiting for the other two players.

Dealing with the Moons for the Heart and the Mistaken is more about getting them on board with your narration. Appealing to them for support for your suggestions and ideally getting them to make the suggestions; to provoke conflicts that further your aims. The Moons themselves are free to narrate things, and either get a "But it was no matter" from the both Heart and Mistaken; or a "We shall see what comes of it" from either, leading to a conflict.

You are perhaps seeing the Heart and the Mistaken as the primary initiators of conflict and narration instead of the more subtle idea that they are the players who have the authority to dismiss or resolve conflict arising from any narration, initiated by anyone at the table.

[Garvey]

Web Weaver,

I think I must be misunderstanding you, because it sounds you are saying that Moon supporting cast characters can't be affected by the Heart or Mistaken unless the Moon wants it, even if conflict statements are used.  This might be the case for non-Heart Protagonists, but I'm pretty sure that using conflict statements anyone can be affected. 

Using conflict statements gives the player the ability to control things that don't normally fall under their guidance.  Otherwise they can only influence things outside their realm of guidance by using the things in their realm of guidance.

So, the Heart can't say "The earth opens up and swallows the demons" without using a conflict statement because the environment is in the guidance of the Mistaken.  Similarly neither the Heart nor the Mistaken can say that a Moon controlled supporting cast member does or says something without using a conflict statement.

Players can use things under their guidance to affect those not under their guidance.  For example, I can have my knight, Bootes do the following, "I impale Zhou with my starlight blade, killing him", without a conflict statement.  It doesn't matter if Zhou is a Moon or Mistaken character.  If the Mistaken doesn't like it, they can fight using conflict statements.  If a Moon doesn't like it, they can appeal to the Mistaken to fight it.

Now, the wind from my previous example, is a Mistaken controlled entity - its the environment, so it seems like its acceptable to use the wind to do stuff.

The only characters that have a special realm of protection are non-Heart protagonists, since they can't be used in conflict statements without permission.   I'm really curious about how a non-Heart protagonist can defend themselves when they aren't in a conflict statement.

For example, the following seems legal to me, but I don't like it (I'm purposely moving to what appears to be a less controversial position to me, though it seems the same as the wind situation above):

Alan is the current Heart, and his knight Alshain is in a scene with Bootes (who is a non-Heart protagonist).

Alan says "In a fit of anger, Alshain cuts off Bootes' arm with his starlight blade."

Alan can't kill Bootes because protagonists can only be killed in a certain way.  I'm wondering if there is any way for Betty, Bootes' player, to fight this, other than getting the Mistaken to fight the statement for her.

[Ben Lehman]

Okay, there's a lot of confusion here.  Instead of trying to clear up individual problems, let's just start from the top.

Normally, any player may use a conflict statement to control realms of the game's fiction which they don't normally have governance over.

If a non-Heart protagonist is in the scene, that protagonist's Heart has full and absolute veto power over all statements made about their protagonist.  This is true for conflict statements and for any old statement outside of conflict.  They exercise this veto after the statement is made, not pre-emptively, which would be strange.  This is an exception to the above rule, which is true in all other cases.

yrs--
--Ben

[Garvey]

If a non-Heart protagonist is in the scene, that protagonist's Heart has full and absolute veto power over all statements made about their protagonist.  This is true for conflict statements and for any old statement outside of conflict.  They exercise this veto after the statement is made, not pre-emptively, which would be strange.  This is an exception to the above rule, which is true in all other cases.

Thanks Ben.  That makes sense, and keeps non-Heart protagonists safe.

One last question.  Can you use "But it was no matter." against a non-Heart protagonist's statements?

[Ben Lehman]

If a non-Heart protagonist is in the scene, that protagonist's Heart has full and absolute veto power over all statements made about their protagonist.  This is true for conflict statements and for any old statement outside of conflict.  They exercise this veto after the statement is made, not pre-emptively, which would be strange.  This is an exception to the above rule, which is true in all other cases.

Thanks Ben.  That makes sense, and keeps non-Heart protagonists safe.

One last question.  Can you use "But it was no matter." against a non-Heart protagonist's statements?

There's two ways to interpret the rules on this.

1) Yes.  Always.

2) If the Mistaken player's Protagonist is in the scene, the Mistaken controls them like any other character, which means that they are "up for grabs" for almost any action (excepting, in some situations, death) and the Mistaken gets to "defend" them through ordinary use of key phrases.  In this case, "but it was not matter" would not apply.

yrs--
--Ben

[Michael Loy]

Normally, any player may use a conflict statement to control realms of the game's fiction which they don't normally have governance over.

If a non-Heart protagonist is in the scene, that protagonist's Heart has full and absolute veto power over all statements made about their protagonist.  This is true for conflict statements and for any old statement outside of conflict.  They exercise this veto after the statement is made, not pre-emptively, which would be strange.  This is an exception to the above rule, which is true in all other cases.

Sorry to drag out an old thread, but I find this part fairly shocking: "If a non-Heart protagonist is in the scene, that protagonist's Heart has full and absolute veto power over all statements made about their protagonist.  This is true for conflict statements and for any old statement outside of conflict."

I understand the desire to protect protagonist characters when they can't properly defend themselves (so to speak), but this seems to really break some fundamental ideas of the game.  Everything else in the game revolves around having distributed areas of guidance and conducting conflict through negotiation and the expenditure of resources ... this seems to go outside of both of those principles.

To present a simple example: Mensa is the Heart.  Lyra is a non-Heart protagonist.  I, the Mistaken, say that an avalanche sweeps down over them.

• All Moon-controlled characters have to deal with it, though the Moons can simply describe how they pull through the disaster (or not).  Then, if I really wanted them dead, I can No Matter it, and the Heart might take up their causes.
• Mensa has an avalanche to deal with, but her player can use conflict statements to modify how things go down, as normal.
• Lyra's player, however, can just say 'no', and the avalanche post never happened.  And then I have to either scrap that idea or rethink it so that it in no way affects Lyra, or so that it affects her in such a way that her player is happy.

Is that the intention?  Because that seriously intrudes on my field of guidance as Mistaken, and it also kind of disturbs me that it's even possible for someone to do that anywhere in the game.  There's no other instance of someone having that kind of narrative power ... in it's specific field, it's actually far, far more powerful than anything the Heart or Mistaken can do.

Further, I argue that it's entirely unnecessary, and that the rules (as written in the book) cover the situation.  In the example, Lyra could be narrated by her player to survive the avalanche (however that happens), and I couldn't No Matter it, as I could with Moon characters ... the rules, as stated, prevent me from using Lyra in a conflict statement without her player's consent.

[Ben Lehman]

Hey, pants:

You're reading more into it than is there. The Lyra can say that the avalanche doesn't effect her. She can either say how this happens: "I fly into the sky, escaping the avalanche" or she can simply say that it doesn't effect her and leave it up to you, the mistaken, to fix it.

When there are non-heart protagonists in the scene, it really doesn't make sense for them to be suffering unless they really want to. If you start focusing more on them, do a quick "and so it was" to switch perspectives.

yrs--
--Ben