[Nine Worlds] Points question

[Iskander]

Shit! Fucking Firefox! Fuck! Fuck! I had a whole fucking page of post that FF just fucking nuked. I hate it. This crappy board system, too, that doesn't save a draft of what the fuck I'm typing. FUCK!

Oh, well... in brief, if Fate works out (after point capture) thus:

Nestor (6pts) > Jason [GM] (5pts) > Philoctetes (no points) > Sarpedon (no points)

Is it kosher for the GM to use Jason's points 'against' Nestor? I interpreted that as fine: it represents a potentially Pyrrhic phase victory for Nestor, who still has the opportunity to use his points to 'heal' himself. Thor disagreed - he felt that it would have negated his victory. Which of us is 'right'? (In AP, I kept the points for new muses for Jason - it kept the game running, and will help Jason in the long run.)

Cheers,
Alexander

P.S. We're having fun! Here's (some of) the story so far in the Cælestial Compass.

[Matt Snyder]

There is no limitation to how one spends Points, regardless of victories. You were correct; there is nothing stopping Jason from, say, using Chaos to diminish Nestor's scores.

However, I'm confused. How did Jason have any points that Nestor didn't capture? Were the two not opponents? Or, did Jason capture points from Sarpedon and/or Philoctetes? Both of those are feasible explanations.

If Jason his Nestor's opponent, then Nestor has the option to take any or all of Jason's points from his hand.

That said, Nestor can't capture points that Jason captured from Nestor's allies (i.e. non-opponents).

[Jon Hastings]

However, I'm confused. How did Jason have any points that Nestor didn't capture? Were the two not opponents? Or, did Jason capture points from Sarpedon and/or Philoctetes? Both of those are feasible explanations.

Jason captured those points from Philoctetes and Sarpendon.

[Matt Snyder]

Ok, cool. He's good to go then, and, yes, he can sucker punch Nestor good!

But, as you learned, putting Points in Muses is Almost Always Better.

[Iskander]

Thanks for the clarification (and sorry for the outburst this morning!)

[Thor Olavsrud]

So really, it's in my interest, mechanically, to ask other players not to participate in my conflicts?

[Iskander]

Unless they're sufficiently invested (with Muses) to give them reasonable odds of victory. There's no reason for them not to be present in the scene, but a weak presence in the conflict could cause you harm. Same with Talismans... a feeble talisman is going to be more of a liability than a boon.

OTOH, more participants = more points, and points mean prizes! er... more points available to the me, as GM, gives me more incentive to develop NPCs according to the rules, giving them appropriate Muses as they come up in play, not behind the scenes.

[Matt Snyder]

Thor, there is another slightly more disturbing option. Don't ask them to duck out; declare them as opponents (you'll have to get creative as to why your goals are opposed, e.g. capture all the glory or something).

[boredoom]

Like Thor, I'm troubled by the implication of the rules. There were a couple of instances last session where Thor, because of his Muses, outclassed us other players. The opposition was generally scaled to give him a challenge. To Thor, our participation was counterproductive, because it gave his opponent Points. To us, there was no incentive to participate, because we could win no Points. I dealt with it by splitting off to place my character in conflict with an opponent who was more my scale. It seems the mechanics fragment the group, which isn't really what I'm looking for.

[Matt Snyder]

I need more information. Does Thor's character have MORE total Muse points than everyone else? Or, are they comparable.

If you all have basically comparable Muse points, what the hell are you fussing about? Get into situations where your Muses rock as much as Thors! Concede. Get out. Do whatever. That strikes me as a bunch of player choices, not a system flaw.

If Thor does indeed have lots more Muse points total, what's up? How did he get so many more? Was it luck?

And, finally, if the game master is throwing things at Thor to match his numbers a bit better, one alternative is to separate out some scenes / conflicts for you. Easier said than done, I realize, but it could be an issue of GM management.

[Jon Hastings]

If Thor does indeed have lots more Muse points total, what's up? How did he get so many more? Was it luck?

Thor's character does have more total Muse points than mine (Philoctetes) does.  Thor was really sharp about both setting up his starting muses and coming up with new muses during play: most of his Muses are sort of nested within each other, so he's able to bring most of them to in on most conflicts, and he hasn't been left in a situation where all of his high-point Muses have resolved because he's continually building up new ones.

My starting Muses were more all-over-the-place: some of them haven't come into the game at all and some seem to have stalled out.  After watching Thor, I changed strategies, but by that point I was already lagging behind and basically am trying to play catch up.

In other words, with regard to my character's status as a liability, it isn't luck: the approach I took towards creating a character - have a bunch of different Muses that were not connected to each other or only loosely connected to each other in order to "see where they would take me" - was not as effective as having a group of Muses that were designed to work in concert with each other.  (Which is completely obvious to me in retrospect and may even be part of the advice given in the book).  Although, in my defense, during the first session of the game I had really lousy cards, so the difference between my character and Thor's, while slight at first, grew pretty quickly as he started consistently earning points.

One of the issues might be that we set things up so that the player characters would be connected and have incentive to work together, but the game system seems to encourage player characters to go their own ways.  It makes much more sense tactically for me to ask for scenes where I will be able to face opponents who are relatively weaker than the ones that Thor's character is currently able to walk all over.

[Valamir]

It seems the mechanics fragment the group, which isn't really what I'm looking for.

Somewhat tangental, but I think relevant to this discussion is that its been my experience that 9 Worlds works best when the player characters are working at cross purposes.  This could be as out and out enemies of each other (i.e. a game with no villains except the other pcs), or as reluctant and hesitant allies (i.e. strange bedfellows temporarily working toward a common goal), or as allies with rivalries and personal agendas that are often at odds (i.e. with the potential for rifts, factionalization, and potentially betrayals).

In such an environment its relatively easy to envision conflicts where participation of all players is favorable because there will be multiple opportunities for cross capturing points.

Thematically I think 9W is at its weakest (i.e. less interesting to play) in an environment where the player characters are all tightly knit on the same "side".  I don't think that the above mechanical eccentricity is the reason WHY this is so, but rather indicitive of why it isn't really a problem for the game.  The situation you describe where all of the PCs are on the same side fighting in 100% agreement with a common purpose should be the exception rather than the rule.  Most of the time it, it should be relatively easy to see how each player can fight to a common purpose...with their own twist (i.e. "defeat the bad guys by stealing the mcguffin" vs. "defeat the bad guys by destroying the mcguffin" vs. "capture the badguys and forget about the mcguffin" vs. "the hell with the bad guys I just want the mcguffin").  In such a situation there will be ample opportunity to capture points from "allies" as well as "opponents"

For this reason I think the GM's primary goal in 9W is to try and find ways to bring player muses into conflict with each other and then push the "and you'll still help him out...even NOW?" button.  The more often you can find situations where the player's answer is "No, in that case, I'm in it for myself" the better play will be.

[boredoom]

I agree that the rules are more set up for individual or adversarial action among the players, rather than team play. The problem with adversarial play is that I don't want my character to engage Thor's over anything that matters to him, because then he'll bring his Muses into play, and I'll lose. We each have an incentive to frame scenes that matter to us, but not to anyone else.

I was attracted to 9W in part because Muses can resolve no matter if you win or lose. But I'm finding that you really have to win the contests that lead up to resolution of the Muse, or you won't have enough points invested in the Muse to give a nice payoff.

[Matt Snyder]

In other words, with regard to my character's status as a liability, it isn't luck: the approach I took towards creating a character - have a bunch of different Muses that were not connected to each other or only loosely connected to each other in order to "see where they would take me" - was not as effective as having a group of Muses that were designed to work in concert with each other.  (Which is completely obvious to me in retrospect and may even be part of the advice given in the book).  Although, in my defense, during the first session of the game I had really lousy cards, so the difference between my character and Thor's, while slight at first, grew pretty quickly as he started consistently earning points

I recommend that you let the game play out a bit longer. I have observed players take these two alternate paths you describe. The more focused player burns brightly ... until his story arc resolves. And, then he's left pretty open and relatively "weak" as he basically starts from scratch. Meanwhile, the player with a varied character is a slow-burn, and builds up a considerable amount of effectiveness and versatility over several sessions -- at least 4-5 sessions.

[Thor Olavsrud]

I recommend that you let the game play out a bit longer. I have observed players take these two alternate paths you describe. The more focused player burns brightly ... until his story arc resolves. And, then he's left pretty open and relatively "weak" as he basically starts from scratch. Meanwhile, the player with a varied character is a slow-burn, and builds up a considerable amount of effectiveness and versatility over several sessions -- at least 4-5 sessions.

That depends on whether the focused player also focuses on developing new muses to replace old muses as they resolve. ;)

I've struck a pretty decent balance so far. I think I'm up to about 7 fairly buff muses at this point. I figure three or four of them will resolve in the next session, but that should leave me plenty of space to use the others to build some new ones.