[Polaris] Conflict flowchart for new players

[Arturo G.]

Hi, folks!

I have drawn a flowchart of the conflict key phrases, with colors, to help new people to understand how the conflict works. Perhaps someone may find it also usefull.

Diagram of Conflict flow alone
Diagram of Conflict flow + Phrases which deal with the Moons

Arturo

[Selene Tan]

It looks neat!

But, um... Is there a key somewhere explaining what the colors mean?

[Arturo G.]

Well, the colours are just something I added to help in following the arrows. If everything were black it would be not so immediate to know where can you go from where. There are so many arrows crossing here and there... The colors do the job pretty well.

The main criterion is that arrows are colored as the box they are coming from. Blue is for the "But only if" phrase and its output arrows; Red for "And furthermore" and its output arrows; Green for "You ask far too much" and its output arrows. Black for the starting conflict arrows.

However, the yellow color became consistently used for the phrases which end the conflict; it helps to distinguish them easily from the rest. As a final touch I added the cyan bullet to the sentences which imply exhausting a theme to use them.

In the second flowchart, when I added the phrases to deal with the Moon statements, I used a different color for the whole section. I didn't like the look when painting the "But it was no matter" phrases in yellow, despite they lead to a conflict ending. I prefered to keep the main conflict flowchart apart.

What I like about the main chart is that, with the colors help, it is very easy to grab the main conflict ideas. "But only if" forms the core of the conflict cycle; but if you exhaust a theme using "And furthermore", you force the opponent to a conflict ending, unless she accepts to also exhaust a theme with "You ask far too much"; then he may not only negotiate your last statement, but she also activates the green loop to come back to the main conflict cycle (however, she cannot end the conflict after the negotiation without risking a roll). It is very well thought, but I did not really get it before drawing the colored graph.

Arturo

[Ben Lehman]

Spiff!  Permission to recirculate?

yrs--
--Ben

[Arturo G.]

Of course, Ben!
Use them at your convenience.

I have modified the charts and uploaded them again in the same links. If you have the older version, please, download them again:

• I have eliminate the black frameworks that were not printing nicely
• I have added at the output-arrow of the "You ask for too much" a new label "+Next phrase", to remind it is the only phrase which (after the negotiation) the same player continues with the next key phrase.
• I have corrected the moons part. It the previous version there was an arrow from "Moon statement" to "We shall see what comes of it", but it is not possible to say this phrase at a moon statement directly, there is nothing yet to oppose to. It must always follow the "But it was no matter" phrase which create the opposition. I have also changed the color of the second "But it was no matter" to show it leads to  an end, consistently with the main conflict part.

I hope it helps your players as much as mine,
Arturo

[Jeffrey Straszheim]

Can't you go straight to "You ask far too much"?

Jeffrey

[Ben Lehman]

Can't you go straight to "You ask far too much"?

Just confirming: Yes.

yrs--
--Ben

[Arturo G.]

Indeed, we had missed the possibility of starting the conflict with "You ask for too much". There was no arrow in the flowcharts to represent that.

The new arrow has forced me to reorganize the chart, so I have improved the layout grouping the conflict-ending phrases together.

Thus, new corrected versions uploaded.

Does someone notice any other fault?

Arturo

[Adam Biltcliffe]

The treatment you've given to "You ask far too much" seems confusing to me. In particular, I can't tell from the chart whether you're allowed to change the conflict phrase you're using as well as changing the request (which I can't remember the answer to at present) and it looks like you can go from "And furthermore" to "You ask far too much" and thence back to "But only if" (which you can't, right?)

[Arturo G.]

Hi, Adam!

I can't tell from the chart whether you're allowed to change the conflict phrase you're using as well as changing the request (which I can't remember the answer to at present)

When you say "You ask far too much" the opponent must offer a different/lower statement. You choose the one you prefer, and you continue with the conflict saying another allowed phrase. This is the reason I wrote "Revise" (the opponent statement) "+ Phrase" (to indicate that this is the only situation where the person who invoked the phrase is the one who says the next one.
I didn't find another way to express this concept in the chart. To understand it you need to know the rule, it is only a reminder. Does someone have any better suggestion?

it looks like you can go from "And furthermore" to "You ask far too much" and thence back to "But only if" (which you can't, right?)

Ummmm....I have not here the rules book, but as far as I remember it is perfectly possible.

One player (let us say the heart) says And furthermore (exhausting a theme to do it) and adding the statement A. The opponent (the mistaken) says You ask far too much (exhausting a theme). The heart has to offer a different thing, let us say statement B. The mistaken choose between A, or B (let us say he chooses B). Thus, statement A is forgotten and in practice the heart has say statement B, and it is the mistaken turn. The mistaken continues the play and he can say But only if ... to continue the conflict from the B statement of the heart.

Arturo

[Adam Biltcliffe]

When you say "You ask far too much" the opponent must offer a different/lower statement. You choose the one you prefer, and you continue with the conflict saying another allowed phrase. This is the reason I wrote "Revise" (the opponent statement) "+ Phrase" (to indicate that this is the only situation where the person who invoked the phrase is the one who says the next one.

But the person saying the phrase doesn't say the next one, because the opponent has to revise their statement, which includes saying a conflict phrase. I guess I'd summarise this as just "opponent revises", and take it as read that play then continues as it always would after the opponent makes a statement.

it looks like you can go from "And furthermore" to "You ask far too much" and thence back to "But only if" (which you can't, right?)

Ummmm....I have not here the rules book, but as far as I remember it is perfectly possible.

What I meant was this: X says "But only if A". Y says "And furthermore, B". X says "And furthermore, C".  Y says "You ask far too much". Now X can't revise his statement to a "But only if" phrase, because the conflict is in the second stage, where "But only if" can never be reached again. I really want a diagram that makes it clear how once "And furthermore" has successfully been used once, "But only if" can never be used again, since that's the key difference between the two.

I have an idea for how to express this, but it'll have to wait until I'm home to draw it up.

adam

[Eetu]

I've got a flowchart version I think has the proper relationships here, though it's a more treelike visualization than the one proposed here.

[Arturo G.]

Ok, Adam now I understand you. I was not thinking on that at all !!

My flowchart does not show that the output of "You ask far too much" depends on the sentence used to arrive at it. Indeed, it has three different possibilities: (a) When used at the beginning of the conflict; (b) when used after "But only if"; and (c) when used after "And furthermore".

The Eetu's flowchart looks more complicated but it clearly shows how it works. It solves both problems: It shows what is the meaning of "revise" and what could follow the revision.
BTW, Eetu, your moons part looks like my previous charts. I think it is not possible to say "We shall see what comes of it" directly after a moon statement, because nobody has yet created and opposition.

For the moment the only thing I can think on, is to eliminate the output arrows, which are not correct, and write something to transmit the idea that you should come back to the previous stage of the conflict to revise and choose again.

What was you thinking on, Adam?
Eetu, do you think there is a way to express the same as in your flowchart, but keeping a compact structure, without expanding the different three possibilities in different branches?

Arturo

[Eetu]

Yes, I think it's both doable and desirable. How about using the "and furthermore" and "but only if" colors for the respective arrows outgoing from "you ask far too much"?

Also, at least for some of the people in my group, it was a big help that I added the boxes for "fictional content" (which were not there initially).

[Arturo G.]

I was also thinking in the colored back-arrows, but there is still a problem. Page 72, you cannot use "And that was how it happened" after revising the statement due to "You ask far too much".

Indeed, after the "You ask far too much" you are not coming-back to the same schemes of answers you get after the original, "but only if", or "and furthermore". Eetu, I'm afraid this restriction is not represented in your flowchart.

This is getting more complicated, isn't it?

Arturo