[Polaris] Problems in Play

[Darren Hill]

My group played Polaris a couple of weeks ago (as detailed here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18088.0) and some questions were raised. Our next session is on Monday, so I hope people aren’t put off from answering by the length of this.

Question 1
To use a protagonist in a conflict statement, you need the permission of its Heart
I see this as very sensible, but events in play made me wonder if this could be used to block other player’s legitimate actions. Maybe I’m overthinking it. Here’s the example.
Let’s say I’m the Heart of Konepheros, and my Mistaken is the Heart of Eridanus. In a scene, Konepheros and Eridanus are together; Konepheros is being led to meet Rastaban, who he is convinced is a demon.
Eridanus has been sent with Konepheros to establish whether Rastaban is a demon or not, before Konepheros strikes.
Had Eridanus not been present, I would have said, “Konepheros slays Rastaban in a single blow,” and waited to see how the Mistaken responded. I was quite happy for that action to be negated (Rastaban’s my character’s father – either way would lead to fun), it was just to provoke a conflict – I wanted to see what would happen.
But Eridanus’ presence complicated matters: the player of Eridanus could sensibly say, “I’m protecting him – you can’t kill him just like that!” If such a thing happened under normal circumstances, I’d expect it would be the Mistaken’s call whether to use that to initiate a conflict.
In this case, the Mistaken was that player – so if a conflict resulted, he could use his protagonist in conflict statements, and I could do nothing to combat them – since I’d need the Heart’s permission to use that protagonist in a conflict statement!
How should we deal with a situation like this? How do you handle a conflict where your opponent is another protagonist? Can you inflict damage on them, can they suffer the loss of or gain new aspects due to the conflict? If they are being used as a source of adversity, do they have to abide by conflict statements – even ones they might choose not to accept.
A real can of worms…

So I realised I didn’t know how the rules covered this situation, so I thought of avoiding the situation by saying, “Konipheros gives Eridanus the slip and enters Rastaban’s chamber alone.” But then, of course, I would be using Eridanus in a conflict statement, so I’d need his Heart’s permission to do this.
But could I say, “Konipheros enters the chamber alone.” I haven’t mentioned Eridanus, but even though I haven’t declared anything happening to Eridanus, I have technically done something to him, so should I need the Heart’s permission for that? (I would think so, myself.)
What’s good practice in this kind of situation?

----------------
Question 2
Respecting What Has Gone Before
So, the above scene occurred, and I as Konepheros’s Heart ended the scene before the confrontation with Rastaban, to have a bit of time to think.
Then, before it was my next scene, another player described Rastaban being taken out of the city, and Eridanus being used as a guide.
Hang on, I thought, Eridanus is with me, and we’re haven’t met Rastaban yet. What happened?
I tried to talk to the player of Eridanus to hammer out some suitable explanation of the chain of events that would satisfy my sense of causality.
(Important: neither Eridanus’s player nor myself were Heart or Mistaken during this scene, and I wasn’t a Moon, so I had no way to influence things through the conflict system.)
I suggested the two of us approaching Rastaban’s quarters but being separated in a crowd – maybe during the departure. Another player suggested that I travel with the caravan and hadn’t had the opportunity to confront Rastaban yet, but I rejected that – the journey just described was days long, and I wanted this confrontation now, dammit! I was happy to have been left behind, and pursuing.
The thing that bothered me was the fact that Eridanus’s player seemed to completely forget the previous scene – he never attempted to explain why he was no longer with Konipheros, nor did he attempt to warn Rastaban that some maniac was after him, or do anything to acknowledge our previous scene had actually happened.
Quite apart from the hole in the narrative of the session’s events, I felt as if my only contribution to the session had been erased.
Are my feelings misplaced. Am I being silly? Are the players obligated to respect the events that have gone on before – would I have been able to insist, for example, that because Rastaban has left, and Eridanus is with me, and I have not left, that Eridanus can’t have left either?
(This might also logically follow from Question 1.)

--------------------------
Question 3
Why not change Mistaken every session?
A less urgent question. One of my fellow players thought it odd that the Heart-Mistaken relationship stayes fixed through the campaign. He thought it would be a good idea for the Mistaken of a given Heart to change every session – rotating through the players.
I have a good idea why this is not recommended, but fumbled my attempt to explain. Can anyone give a decent concise explanation for him?

[Shreyas Sampat]

An answer for 3: It's easier to keep track of what you are up to if you only have to Mistaken for one player; you have less responsibility and workload when you're a Moon.

If you might be a Mistaken for any character at any point, that means that you'd have to know four characters and their relationships and supporting characters inside-out and backward, rather than only two.

[GreatWolf]

Another part of the answer to question 3:

In this thread, I say:

The rivalry between Heart and Mistaken drives the game, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  I noticed, as game play proceeded, that Raquel removed the gloves and began to come at me viciously.  Part of this was fed directly by the cruelty that I was visiting upon Bellatrix.  So, as I ramped up my assaults on her character, it only fed her desire to increase the intensity of her assault on mine.  I see this as a good thing; the competition has improved the quality of the game for me.  However, it is a feature that should probably be pointed out to players of the game.  To do this right, you're going to have to get in someone's face.  Some folks might not like that.  I know that Crystal and Gabrielle have both admitted that they have felt uncomfortable being responsible for bringing adversity on someone else.  However, it is the engine that drives the game, and it should not be ignored.

(Raquel is my Mistaken in our current game, which, therefore, makes me her Mistaken.)

Regarding question 2, I give another example.  At one point in our game, my Mistaken narrated the Evil Villain being in one place.  A scene or two later, we determined that the Evil Villain was somewhere else at the same time.  This is what is known as a mistake.  However, being that both events were established, what was there to do?  The answer was obvious.  The Evil Villain had been in both places, either via magic or cloning or something.  That sort of thing isn't outside the scope of the game.

So, in your example, there's no reason that the two scenes need to follow precise chronological order.  By seeing Rastaban and Eridanus together, we know that neither of them died during the conflict.  But there are any number of other possibilities that could exist.

Of course, this answer assumes that all contributions to the Fiction are respected, as you say.  Was the other player actually trying to worm his way out of the scene?  Then that is a different problem that you will want to discuss.

On the gripping hand, though, another factor occurs to me.  You say that you ended Konepheros's scene before the confrontation with Rastaban.  It's important to note that this means that the confrontation never happened.  By ending the scene, you ceded control over the fiction to the next players.  If you had wanted to ensure that the confrontation happened, you should have pressed on through to its conclusion.

So, the point being, some of this is possibly Social Contract issues, and it would be good to discuss "Respecting What Has Gone Before" with your group.  At the same time, you need to see that, since the confrontation was not narrated, it actually hadn't "gone before".  It was what you had planned, but it never actually entered the Fiction and therefore cannot be appealed to as having been ignored.

[Ben Lehman]

1) If it's your scene you can just kill the guy.  No other protagonist was included in the statement.  The other fellow can "but only if" it ("but only if you stab my character to get to him" would be excellent).  The protection afforded to protagonist is not extended to people, things, goals or ideas that the protagonist cares about.

You may not want to just kill the guy, in which case I would say "my guy draws his sword and stabs at him.  The blow will be mortal!" and wait for the other fellow to interfere.

2) There is a reason that "discuss what you want the next scene to be" is required between scenes.  It's for exactly situations like this.  Make sure everyone is cool with with skipping or not skipping the climax before the scene starts.

Also, there is no reason that you can't play scenes out of chronological order.  For instance, after that scene, you could frame your own scene "back in time" to see what really happened.

I would recommend against "non-playing" continuity from scene to scene.  If you care, it's important, and you should play it.  If you don't care, you don't care, and you should skip it.  "non-play" sets up a bad precedent.

In short: If you feel that your only contribution to the session is getting erased, and you feel it is important thematically, then fight for it!  The game has given you the tools to do so.

On a more general note: If something happens of great importance, make sure that it is reflected in a change to the Themes.  This is the entire engine of continuity in the game, and some people overlook that.

3) What Seth said.  Also, consistent characterization.  Also, the ability to plan bangs, in the local parlance.

yrs--
--Ben

[Frank T]

This whole continuity/chain of events thing is something that I have ran into as well. Not in Polaris as yet, but in other games with distributed authoring. Darren, your concerns are totally valid. I cannot even comprehend how people would break such basic continuity/plausibility. They just forget facts that have been established. I find that annoying, but obviously, there are many gamers out there who don't care. It's the same with movie scripts, by the way.

Regarding the "flashback" idea: That tends to make things very complicated if the outcome of one scene might change the whole situation for another scene. I mean, you were going to kill Rastaban! Did you get that across to your fellow players?

I do think you came up with a good solution, though.

- Frank

[Dan Svensson]

I said:
If you want to avoid your Mistaken having his own Protagonist in scenes with you and thus restricting you. It's easily solved just try something like this:  BUT ONLY IF Eridanus is exposed as a mistaken shapeshifter and it is my destiny not to meet the real Eridanus ever.

Darren said:
Nice idea, but I'd need the permission of his Heart to use him in that way, wouldn't I? I've already had that scene with him - so he'd have the right to say, "nope."
I had an even funnier idea (I thought so anyway), which was to include in my next scene, "AND FURTHERMORE, Konepheros remembers how Eridanus struck him from behind and left him for dead, on the orders of Rastaban." But I'd need his permission for that, too! Drat.
I think problems of this kind are really only solvable by talking player to player, rather than resorting to the conflict system - but I tried that and it didn't work, which was why it was frustrating.

----
Ah I should have added that this was an example of a statement that you could have tried while you were in the actual scene with Eridanus. Now its too late of course. It was meant to start you thinking on how to avoid the situation next time. You could also add the fate of not ever meeting Eridanus in a statement at anytime. It doesn't affect him directly. All it does is add a fate aspect to your Protagonist.

oooor maybe just say I dont like it when other protagonists are in my scene. Can we just avoid it.

[Darren Hill]

So, in your example, there's no reason that the two scenes need to follow precise chronological order.  By seeing Rastaban and Eridanus together, we know that neither of them died during the conflict.  But there are any number of other possibilities that could exist.

I'd be reluctant to play out this confrontation as a  flashback, simply because in this instancethe constraint placed upon it eliminate any actual conflict in my mind. But I'm not averse to using that technique in other situations. Frank is spot on here.

Of course, this answer assumes that all contributions to the Fiction are respected, as you say.  Was the other player actually trying to worm his way out of the scene?  Then that is a different problem that you will want to discuss.

I don't think this was the case. It was just a case of innocent obliviousness.

On the gripping hand, though, another factor occurs to me.  You say that you ended Konepheros's scene before the confrontation with Rastaban.  It's important to note that this means that the confrontation never happened.  By ending the scene, you ceded control over the fiction to the next players.  If you had wanted to ensure that the confrontation happened, you should have pressed on through to its conclusion.

So, the point being, some of this is possibly Social Contract issues, and it would be good to discuss "Respecting What Has Gone Before" with your group.  At the same time, you need to see that, since the confrontation was not narrated, it actually hadn't "gone before".  It was what you had planned, but it never actually entered the Fiction and therefore cannot be appealed to as having been ignored.

I do plan to discuss the Respecting What Has Gone Before issue with my group, to find out if my expectations on this are out of step with the others. If so, so be it. But we hadn't discussed it, so it's not surprising in retrospect that something like this happened.
One clarification I feel the need to point out here. My issue really had nothing to with the fact that conflict didn't get done. It was purely the gap in continuity that was caused by jumping between "Eridanus and Konepheros going to Rastaban, and Rastaban may die"and "Eridanus and Rastaban are arriving at Tallmost" with nothing in between. But all of that is moot, as Ben mentions the best solution to this sort of thing.

[Darren Hill]

1) If it's your scene you can just kill the guy.  No other protagonist was included in the statement.  The other fellow can "but only if" it ("but only if you stab my character to get to him" would be excellent).  The protection afforded to protagonist is not extended to people, things, goals or ideas that the protagonist cares about.

That clears this issue nicely in my mind. I can see now it's also the natural progression of a proper reading of the rules...
(I hope line by line responses aren't frowned on in this forum.)

2) There is a reason that "discuss what you want the next scene to be" is required between scenes.  It's for exactly situations like this.  Make sure everyone is cool with with skipping or not skipping the climax before the scene starts.

I'll try to make a point of encouraging this. It's something that doesn't come naturally to my group - when we played PTA, we didn't do much of it then, either. After sessions, I kept noticing we hadn't done it, and reminding myself to do it more next session, and then, once caught up in the heat of play, forgetting it. Definitely something to work on.

In short: If you feel that your only contribution to the session is getting erased, and you feel it is important thematically, then fight for it!  The game has given you the tools to do so.

That was probably the main reason for bringing this up in the forum - I wanted to do this, but I wondered if by doing so, I would be stepping on other players toes. (This arose mainly from the misunderstanding of how to handle other Hearts in your scene.) Especially given that with six players, in any given scene two of the players have no voice in the conflict system. Of course, they still have a voice in the rules, through those inter-scene discussions - which makes it all the more vital that we get in the habit of doing that.

On a more general note: If something happens of great importance, make sure that it is reflected in a change to the Themes.  This is the entire engine of continuity in the game, and some people overlook that.

I had noticed that point raised in a couple of threads and took it to heart. One of out players did get a new aspect for precisely this reason: a conflict resulted in him becoming (inadvertently and unwittingly) a drugs runner, his idealistic brother heard about it, and plans to confront him - and so he has a new fate aspect.

[Darren Hill]

<snip>oooor maybe just say I dont like it when other protagonists are in my scene. Can we just avoid it.

Ah, I see what you meant. I'm much happier with the idea of multiple protagonists in a scene now. Question 1 was the lesser of my concerns anyway, I was mainly concerned about what happens next time, when passions are high, and it's involving players other than me. Since I'd have to help arbitrate those situations as the Keeper of the Holy Book, I needed to know what the rules actually meant and I didn't.

Thanks everyone (especially frank for his much needed validation :))

[Darren Hill]

One more thing, as I struggle valiantly twoards a post count of 500 (not really!)
Seth mentions in his previous thread, "The rivalry between Heart and Mistaken drives the game, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise."
This was something that seems a natural and necessary part of the game. But I wonder if Stuart, the player of who raised the idea of shifting Mistakens, is a bit worried about the cycle of escalation that could easily develop between his Mistaken, Jim, and him. (Jim can be a bit of a bastard, in the best of ways.)
Is there any advice I can give Stuart to allay any worries he might have on this matter, and help him to embrace this aspect of this game?

I have stated that people shouldn't be frightened about the kind of conflict statements they might make - don't be afraid to go for the jugular. The system provides all the protection players need to avoid actual abuse. I'm not sure the players will really appreciate that until they see it for themselves (being used to rules where it manifestly is not the case), and they may not see it for themselves if they hold back for fear of going too far.
I will also be reading the "Advice for Heeart/Mistaken/Moons" sections (both for conflict and free play) to them

Are there any germs of wisdom people can add on top of that?

I'll chat with Stuart about this, and if he is a bit uncertain, I'll recommend that he and I swap Mistaken/Heart combos (Mark, my Mistaken, and Stuart probably complement each other, both being naturally less sadistic than Jim - not hard, while Jim and I probably complement each other).
I know this isn't meant to be done, but we've only played one session, a big chunk of which was character design - it shgouldn't do too much damage at this stage, should it?

[Dan Svensson]

From what I read and from my own one session I can say  your first Polaris game won't be perfect so if I were you I wouldn't change Mistakens. You're still learning to play the game.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Darren, I'm not sure what we can say that you haven't said yourself - that cycle of escalation's desirable.

[Darren Hill]

I know it's desirable, of course. But different people might have different temperaments and escalate in different ways - you might get a clash.
Anyway, I didn't suggest changing Mistakens - we stayed as we were the first session.

This session went a lot smoother, from my POV - there were a couple of occasions at the start of the session where there was confusion over which character was present in a scene and who was saying wehat, but this wasn't really a Polaris problem: there were evil doppelgangers about, and that can be confusing in any game.

Another question did crop up during the game.
In one scene, I stated I fled from the courtyard.
Mistaken: But Only If Aquila (another PC)'s pet demon lands in front of you outside the courtyard, holding you up till Aquila catches you.
Heart (me): But Only If I strike the demon dead as Aquila reaches me.

Now, here's the conundrum: Aquila has a bound demon as an Aspect - it was that demon I struck dead. Can I do this? This was my scene, not Aquila's Heart's scene, so again, I was confused over the limits of doing nasty things to a protagonist when it wasn't the Heart's scene. Can a protagonist cause permanent changes to another protagonists aspects, when it's not the affected protagonist's scene?

Also, can Heart's gain experience when it's not their scene? We had a few scenes where a Protagonist was a guest in a scene, and did things worthy of an experience check. We gave the experience check, after all the character's still did those things, their scene or not - is this correct?

[Dan Svensson]

The mistaken can only use the aspects of their opposite Heart. Guest protagonist aspect are thus only guided by the guest protagonist since they have no mistaken in the scene. Thats how i would rule it.

[Darren Hill]

Hi, Dan.
In this case, the Mistaken wasn't using the aspect of another protagonist as an aspect. It was being used as just another character that happened to be in the scene. The Mistaken made a conflict statement with it, just as he might any environmental feature, and the Heart then killed it. The question is: Does a Heart's Guidance over his own character also apply to those characters (and magic items, and curses, and whatever) that they have taken as Aspects?

I can easily see the correct answer being yes OR no. Gary, the player whose aspect this was, had an understandably kneejerk opposition to the idea when it came up in play, but he has since emailed me to say that he thinks what we did was probably right (that the aspects on a character sheet don't have the same Guidance protection).

I could easily see the other Heart saying, "hey that's mine, you can't kill it. Change your statement to Injure it or drive it off, and I'm cool." (This is essentially what we did, and it led to another conflict statement: "this creature can only be killed by the Greatest Knight" - which was great for me, since I have that as an ideal - now I know, when I finally kill it, I have become the Greatest Knight.)
But even in the most absolute case, where other Hearts get no protection over their Aspects, undoing whatever damage is done is often just one conflict away.

So, I'm conflicted.