[Nine Worlds] Trumps and Talismans questions

[Ron Edwards]

The trouble is that "oppose" is too vague for the question I'm asking. If someone is trying to hit my character, then by definition, given that my cards might be higher than his, I'm opposing him. The question is where my character is putting his or her proactive effort.

What I'm talking about is probably better understood as the classic attack, and let all the defending be considered automatic. If everyone's attacking "everyone," then I guess that makes sense that every single hand of cards will affect every single hand "beneath" it in the Fate order. Some of the game text seems like it's written with that in mind, but as you say, it's not 100% explicit.

It's also better discussed if we had a really good in-play example to work with, but anyway ...

Back to Chloe, Zoe, Moe, and the gorgon. Let's keep it straightforward: each of the characters is trying to "beat" the gorgon, with exactly how being left up to the Urges per draw of cards. And the gorgon is trying to beat any or all of them, as many as it can get, apparently with its stonifying gaze, but hey, that'll be left up to its chosen Urges too (although we can take it as given that it's got some Trump potential for Stasis, duh).

Now - the gorgon pulls out its Trump potential for Diamonds and the other characters are 100% stuffed by it. This is, of course, no different from the gorgon simply getting the best draw even without its Trump. Whatever. It wins. Let's say the best Fate scores are, in order, Chloe's, Zoe's, and Moe's.

I think we've established one thing from earlier in this conversation, that there is no reason for Chloe's hand to be compared with Zoe's and Moe's, and no reason for Zoe's hand to be compared with Moe's. There aren't any Points or whatever going on in those comparisons. In this case, the order among the three player-characters is of no interest. No one narrates except the gorgon player, presumably the GM.

Now for the real question. Let's back it up to before the draw. This time, the person playing Zoe says, "I'm gonna show up Chloe, that snotty wench!"

The question is, does her attack on the gorgon actually count in game terms? Or does it become just Color?

OK, the cards turn out exactly the way they did in the previous description. The gorgon beats all three characters, and neither Chloe nor Moe compare their cards to anyone except the gorgon ... but now, once the gorgon player has finished, then the person playing Zoe compares her cards to Chloe's. Zoe has a better Fate score, so regardless of the fact that they are all now statues, Zoe did in fact show up Chloe.

What I don't know is, if Zoe had actually had the winning score, whether she would have been considered to have beaten the gorgon. As I understand it, by wanting to show up Chloe as her primary purpose in this round, she gave up her "gorgon attacking rights" and the gorgon is safe from her. So it beats the other two and basically ignores Zoe's attack, which was effectively (mechanically) directed at Chloe.

Best, Ron

[Matt Snyder]

OK, the cards turn out exactly the way they did in the previous description. The gorgon beats all three characters, and neither Chloe nor Moe compare their cards to anyone except the gorgon ... but now, once the gorgon player has finished, then the person playing Zoe compares her cards to Chloe's. Zoe has a better Fate score, so regardless of the fact that they are all now statues, Zoe did in fact show up Chloe.

What I don't know is, if Zoe had actually had the winning score, whether she would have been considered to have beaten the gorgon. As I understand it, by wanting to show up Chloe as her primary purpose in this round, she gave up her "gorgon attacking rights" and the gorgon is safe from her. So it beats the other two and basically ignores Zoe's attack, which was effectively (mechanically) directed at Chloe.

Ah, I get it.

But ... no. What you suggest is too limiting in my mind. I get how it could be, what, narratively more interesting, even strategic? Something like that. But, I really see it as counter to the purpose I loaded in the game. And, of course, if you see great fun in that option, go for it!

(What you're suggesting Ron reminds me some of sorcerer "offense" and "defense" in initiative, I think.)

Regardless, in Nine Worlds, "attacks" that you can aim only at one purpose, and that if you do so you must ignore another purpose is definitely not how I envision or play the game. (Presumably, this also means you might say one purpose, find out something a second later and go "Oh, wait. No, not that. This instead is my purpose, let's rock." Also not that too!)

You have a fate score. Viewing it as "attack" and "defense" is misleading. It's not that. It's "Who wins?" Never, ever does a Fate score "defend" against an opponent, and then NOT produce a victory. If you're comparing Fate scores at all, then you are opponents. One will emerge as a victor, regardless of who said what. (Don't misread that last bit too much; someone did have to say at least "no way!" or something to declare opposition. You should know before-hand whose fates you compare.)

Now, it gets tricky. The game text explicitly does say something like "Don't try to do too much in a phase. If you do, you'll have to spread it out over a couple phases to enact your plan." How does one square that with, "You can declare as many opponents as you like?" That's tricky.

My quick answer is the usual flip designer reaction: "Eh, it doesn't come up much in actual play."

But, I think the slightly better answer is that the nature of these scores flying around are intended as narrative constraints. So, "Whaddya mean HE beat ME, but I beat HER? How are we going to explain that?!?" And, then, the magic happens when they do.

[Ron Edwards]

Actually, I agree. It got mixed up in my mind with another game.

I'll revisit this thread which I think I totally fucked up for the original poster and make sense of what I really want to say.

A bit later. Sorry about introducing all the flying squirrels.

Best, Ron

[Neil the Wimp]

I'll revisit this thread which I think I totally fucked up for the original poster and make sense of what I really want to say.

No, you didn't.  It's an interesting discussion, and touches on a couple of things that were starting to come up in play.  So yeah, it was fine.  I'm looking forward to it continuing.

Neil.