[IAWA] Answerer & The Dice

[jburneko]

This is mainly directed to Vincent's analogy about the Answerer in a round and Block/Dodge vs. Taking The Blow in Dogs.  In a couple of threads Vincent has talked about this distinction being the Answerer's choice but that isn't how I read the rules.

My reading of the rules is more like this: If the Answerer wins the round then that's a Block or a Dodge of the Challenger's stated action and the advantage goes to the Answerer.  If the Answerer loses the round then that's a Taking The Blow of the Challenger's stated action and the advantage goes to the Challenger.

Is this not the case?  If it's not the case then I still recommend playing this way as one of the "Breaking Bad Habits" sub-rules as it makes things WAY clearer.

Jesse

[lumpley]

The game text is written that way, and it's a great way to play if it makes sense to you, but I don't think it'll hold up under scrutiny.

Here's why, short form. I can expand this if anyone wants me to.

In Dogs, the difference between blocking/dodging and taking the blow has a solid foundation in the mechanics-fiction dynamic. The relationship between what you say happens and what fallout dice you take is the arbiter of whether a see counts as taking the blow.

In the Wicked Age, the mechanics-fiction foundation you have to build upon is who has the advantage. Since there's no fallout to check your answers against, only the advantage, blocking/dodging and taking the blow can't stand meaningfully apart from one another.

-Vincent

[David Artman]

I don't have to squint much to use Jesse's analogy, with one addition:

The "fallout" that you "take" as an IAWA loser in a round is that the winner gains an advantage die for the remainder of the action sequence.

I mean, it's as if the Fallout chart had--instead of "Gain a die in next conflict" --"Opponents gain a die in the next conflict". In IAWA, the "next conflict" is the following rounds of the sequence.

Right?...

Hang on, I think I got it: your speaking to how your narration, in TTB, must reflect having taken a blow, and that distinguishes it from... nope, I lost it. I can't see this distinction:

...The relationship between what you say happens and what fallout dice you take is the arbiter of whether a see counts as taking the blow.

...Since there's no fallout to check your answers against, only the advantage, blocking/dodging and taking the blow can't stand meaningfully apart from one another.

I mean, I'd say that a B/D must be narrated with just as much plausibility as TTB--for instance, you can't Reverse with a B/D; that would be as improper as narrating a B/D when you're TTB (even as you, yes, pick up Fallout dice). Right?

Further, isn't there a fictional-mechanical limiter in IAWA that forces you to narrate the advantage die? That's what makes me say, above, that the advantage die is little different from a Fallout die--heck, it's influence can lead you, if it helps to injure or exhaust you, STRAIGHT to a common DITV Fallout result: "Reduce one of your Traits by one die." (IIRC)

-David

[lumpley]

In the Wicked Age, the answerer can decide what the advantage is relative to.

I win initiative.
I challenge: "I snatch the ring out of your hand!"
You win on the defense.
You answer, blocking: "You snatch for it but I've hidden it somewhere on my person, it's not in my hand anymore. I have the advantage!"
Or else you answer, taking the blow: "Have it. While you're admiring it I sneak around you and into your home where your husband's sleeping, drawing my knife. I have the advantage!"

The action, the raise, was about the ring. The advantage may not having anything to do with the ring at all. Therefore, winning can't equal blocking and losing can't equal taking the blow.

-Vincent

[jburneko]

The action, the raise, was about the ring. The advantage may not having anything to do with the ring at all.

Well... Okay... It's your game and all.  I just don't think I'd want to play that way.

Jesse

[David Artman]

Got it, thanks as always, Vincent.

GREAT examples, actually--really shows how an action sequence can scale and range about, and is not just a blow-by-blow of 'Uh-uh" and "Uh-HUH!"

(Cross) And you can play it however, Jesse... but give thought to this narrative flexibility. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's the New Nugget of Awesome in IAWA that wasn't used in (or, really, germane to; or needed in) in DITV.