Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Filip Luszczyk, May 31, 2009, 12:41:46 PM
Quote from: Filip LuszczykThe situation: two player characters are in a conflict, both have no Inspiration and both have some Corruption. Both players want to spend Corruption for an automatic success.
Quote from: GreatWolfWell, here's the thing. Spending Inspiration (or Corruption) isn't an auto-win for the character. Instead, it's a win for Good or Evil, in the cosmic sense. So, if both players are wanting to spend Corruption, they both want Evil to win instead of either character winning. So figure out what it means for Evil to win in this particular situation, with the Narrator having final say over what happens.Now, I admit that "initiative" would be useful for this situation. When we played, it was never a problem. If I were to revise the game, I'd probably make this a blind bid: Inspiration, Corruption, or none. Then just go with the outcome. Actually, if you wanted to test this rule, I'd be curious to see how it works.
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on May 31, 2009, 12:41:46 PMBesides, at least once we had a I/C bidding tie in a conflict with an NPC, when Narrator's decision wouldn't be much different from the NPC automatically winning his goal, despite the tie.
QuoteFirst, I think that it is a basic referee skill to distinguish what I as referee want from what any of my non-player characters what. After all, I have dozens of those, and they all want different things. So my decision as referee and my decision as character player would be different.
QuoteSecond, particularly with Legends of Alyria, I find it difficult to imagine a conflict in which it would not be possible to determine what "good" and "evil" would want to have happen. It is painted as a very bleak world with a divinely good aspect. The point of Inspiration/Corruption conflicts is precisely that it takes it entirely out of the realm of which character gets what he wants and makes it a conflict between the unicorns and the dragons, whether this goes in a way that benefits the good powers of the universe or the bad powers of the universe, and that outcome very likely will not mean that either "side" wins, but that something completely unanticipated happens--intervention by a third party, for example.
QuoteWhat surprises me most, though, is the idea that this was a conflict between a player character and a non-player character. Ninety-nine percent of the time, non-player characters are not the instigators of conflicts; the conflicts are between the player characters. (...) Legends of Alyria is not designed to be a game in which player characters overcome obstacles set by the referee, but in which they create a story by their conflict with each other. If Brutus has his own agenda, he should also be a player character listed on the story map and run by one of the players at the table, even if one of the players runs two characters (in which case, like the referee, the player must distinguish what each of his characters wants from the other and from himself).
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on June 06, 2009, 05:59:27 PMQuoteFirst, I think that it is a basic referee skill to distinguish what I as referee want from what any of my non-player characters what. After all, I have dozens of those, and they all want different things. So my decision as referee and my decision as character player would be different.I don't think I understand your point well. Before any non-player character even begins to want anything, somebody has to establish that fact in the fiction. I'm not sure how this could happen if the person didn't want the character to want a given thing in the first place. It's a fundamental aspect of the creation of imagined spaces.I guess one needs to be deeply engaged in (creative?) denial not to be aware of that.
QuoteIn the context of specific scenes the specific intent of "good or evil in the cosmic sense" was always ambiguous.However, the main problem with I/C ties was that as opposed to one of the sides winning their pre-established goal, this result left us with a much broader space for interpretation. We wound up debating each such instance for a few minutes and in the end, we had to rely on consensus despite our initial effort to resolve the issue at hand through mechanics.
QuoteSpending Inspiration (or Corruption) isn't an auto-win for the character. Instead, it's a win for Good or Evil, in the cosmic sense. So, if both players are wanting to spend Corruption, they both want Evil to win instead of either character winning.
QuoteMore directly, when you are running multiple NPCs and they matter, know who they are and what they want, and build their choices from that.
QuoteSure, the GM might want the NPC to want something that the GM himself doesn't like personally, but that only means the NPC will be despicable specifically because the GM wants him to be despicable. The NPC's agenda remains an extension of the GM's agenda.
QuoteHe has no agenda, but to ensure that everyone else has a good time.
QuoteHowever, the main problem with I/C ties was that as opposed to one of the sides winning their pre-established goal, this result left us with a much broader space for interpretation. We wound up debating each such instance for a few minutes and in the end, we had to rely on consensus despite our initial effort to resolve the issue at hand through mechanics. So it was:"What happens?" -> "We don't know exactly." -> "Let's use this rules to see which of those possible things happens." -> "We still don't know."Note that we've been playing with the "winner narrates" option, which further complicated the matter, since there was simply no clear winner. It felt rather unfair for the Narrator to take over narration and resolve the conflict with no concrete lines, whereas otherwise the winner would be limited to the pre-established goal. More specifically, it felt pretty much like the GM stealing the player's right to narrate and deciding stuff by fiat, as opposed to freely narrating the outcome in games that make it a default (say, InSpectres).
QuoteBut here are my thoughts. First, I'll cop to the rules text not being the best. In many ways, that text was an attempt to capture something of our local play culture's approach to playing Legends of Alyria, while teaching other groups how to manipulate the rules to better match their own play culture. This was also written over the space of a number of years, based on ideas that I had 8-10 years ago. I didn't even have the words to describe some of these things. Like, you know, "play culture".