Does opposition have to mean "rolling on the goal"

[hyphz]

Just a question that came up from the comments about narration and story tokens.

Joe Hero creates the Goal "Save the cat trapped in the tree in Central Park".  Not a particularly major goal, but evidently he wants there to be something important about this cat, so he makes it a goal.  There is no other way for the cat to get down: it really is, somehow, too high to safely jump.  The goal is at 1-1.

Question 1:

On his turn, Dr. Evil free-narrates: "Dr. Evil blows up the apartment complex next to Central Park, killing hundreds of people.  All of the passers-by see Joe Hero."

On his next turn, Joe Hero has a choice to use his single action to save the cat or to drop a Preventative Goal against Dr. Evil.  Dr. Evil can continue doing this, so that Joe Hero knows that if he ever fails to use his action on a Preventative Goal and tries to save the cat, something atrocious will happen.

Which of these is true?
-  Dr. Evil has not opposed Joe Hero's goal, because he did not roll on the goal.

-  Dr. Evil has opposed Joe Hero's goal, because he created a problem that affected Joe Hero's ability to deal with the goal.

-  Joe Hero's reputation will not be affected by the fact he was seen trying to save a cat while a villain ran amok in the very next street, because affecting Joe Hero's reputation was not presented as a Goal.

-  Joe Hero's reputation will not be affected by the fact above because Joe Hero's player has done nothing to express the fact that he "cares about" the character's reputation.

-  Joe Hero's reputation will not be affected by the fact above, because the game rules require that he can only by affected by action, not inaction.

-  Joe Hero's reputation will be affected by the fact above, becuase the passersby on the street don't know about the rules system.

Question 2 (not really related):

The Goal is set up as above, but on his turn, Dr. Evil narrates: "SIX MONTHS LATER, Dr. Evil blows up the apartment complex next to Central Park."  There is no time travel available in the game setting.

Which of these is true?
-  Six months pass in the shared narrative.  Joe Hero, Dr. Evil and everyone else are assumed to go on with their normal lives during this time.  The goal related to the cat is removed, because during that six months all kinds of things could have happened to the cat and tree, and thus the outcome of the goal can no longer be modelled within the system.

-  Six months pass in the shared narrative.  Joe Hero, Dr. Evil and everyone else are assumed to go on with their normal lives during this time.  However, because there is still a Goal open related to the cat, the cat's state is locked against any change made by free narration.  This means that the cat is dead because it has been stuck up a tree, without food, for six months.

-  Six months pass in the shared narrative.  Joe Hero, Dr. Evil and everyone else are assumed to go on with their normal lives during this time.  However, because there is still a Goal open related to the cat, the cat's state is locked against any change at all.  Thus the cat has still been stuck up the tree for six months, but has somehow survived the experience.

-  Six months pass, but only in Dr. Evil's narrative.  Joe Hero can still try to save the cat.  However, Dr. Evil can narrate evil acts freely which Joe Hero cannot affect because Joe Hero's narrative hasn't reached that point in time yet.  Joe Hero can jump there anytime, via his own "six months later.." but he needs to deal with the cat first.

[Larry L.]

Question 1: Goal: Save the Kitty stays on the table until somebody claims it and rolls it up. There is no system for modeling reputation, so the villain would have to introduce Goal: Tarnish Joe Hero's reputation, or just win the Kitty conflict and narrate that as his victory, or something.

Question 2: Same as question 1. However, note that the scene cannot end until all Goals are off the table. Jumping ahead six months could be considered "re-framing" the scene, and can't happen until Dr. Evil leads a new scene.

Really, though, you are still thinking in terms of causality and what "would" happen. The kitty is live and well until somebody says otherwise.

[TonyLB]

Poor cat.  It's always the innocent kitties who suffer.

Question #1:  Dr. Evil has not opposed the Goal.  He has just narrated.  When he rolls, then he's opposed the Goal.

On reputation:  If Dr. Evil is the only one who cares about reputation then he can narrates how Joe Hero is lambasted in the press for not eating his broccoli, for all anyone cares.  If Joe Hero is the only one who cares about reputation then he can narrate the lead story "Joe Hero Saves a Kitty!", with a photo of Joe receiving a medal in front of the smoking ruins of the apartment complex he didn't save.

If both Joe Hero's player and Dr. Evil's player care about Joe's reputation then, as Larry points out, they create a Conflict.  Since Joe probably has an Inspiration off of saving the kitty, and Dr. Evil has nothing off of blowing up the apartment building, Joe has an advantage, but not a decisive one.

Question #2:  Either the cat's been up there those six months, and still needs to be saved, or Joe invokes the "Not Yet" rule and reminds Dr. Evil (quite reasonably, I think) that narrating a six month jump forward would be invalidating the "Save Kitty" conflict.  Doctor Evil (or Joe, or anyone else) can propose a way that the conflict can still be open, or the Doc can amend his narration.  

Many of your suggestions, including "the cat somehow survives, poor starving, bedraggled kitty!" and the very clever "separate time-lines" narrative structure that you propose could be a way that the conflict could still be open


Does that make things clear?