I emailed Joshua my questions, since I wasn't sure if it was kosher to post about 1.1 yet, but he said it was cool, so I am cut and pasting my questions and his answers here.

My text is black, Josh's answers are in blue.

***

Question 1- Narration rights: Just want to confirm my understanding of this. If the Protag wins their intent, the Protag narrates. If the Protag FAILS their intent, the Antag narrates- UNLESS the Protag failed due to an Audience d4, in which case the Audience member narrates. So narration rights hinge entirely on the Protag's success or failure, regardless of the Antag's, correct? And the Audience only narrates if their die caused the Protag to fail, but not if it caused them to succeed- success is always the Protag's narration. Do I have all that right?


Yep. You never get to narrate someone else's success if you're a *Tag.

2- In the case of Escalation, the Protag only rerolls d10s and the Antag only rolls d4s, the Audience leaves their dice out, and the highest Audience d4 that has not already been used can be invoked. Is that correct?


Yep.

3- On that same note, I notice that whereas in 1.0, every Audience member got to contribute a d4, in 1.1 only the highest one does- if the highest roller passes, does the option pass down to the next highest, etc? Or does on the highest roller get the option, and if they don't use it, no minutia for that scene?


Anyone else then has the option to.

4- When the Protag risks a link, a new conflict starts- does this mean the Protag gets a Feature from the one that just ended, BEFORE the Link-Risking conflict begins? Does this then mean that theoretically a Protag could earn 3 new Features during one scene (one for the original conflict, and one each for risking both Links), is that right? Is there a maximum number of Features a Protag can acquire?


No, you're right. There is no maximum. That guy's going to fucking deserve some victory after all that failure by the end. Also, that's not going to happen, both because the player won't want it to and because, if zie does want that, the dice will betray hir desires.

5- When risking a link, the Protag can choose new Praxis, does the Antag spend new credits, or just recycle the ones from the previous conflict?


Recycle them. Good way to put it. It's just like a reroll for escalation in that respect.


-J


***

Based on the differences between the text and the AP reports, it looks like there's been a lot of paring back and simplifying, streamlining the game considerably, which I can totally appreciate. Really looking forward to trying this sucker out.

Thanks!

Thanks for posting this, Nev!

This is going to sound like a stupid question, because it is, but everyone uses the same Praxis scale descriptors, right? Each *tagonist sets their own fulcra, but the scale descriptors are the same across all the stories in the current game... right?

That's correct. Everyone's Praxis are the same. Their fulcra are whatever they like, between 3 and 8, with the guidance in the book on which ones to choose.

Check, and check. Thanks!

With any luck, I'm'a twist some arms and get a game together this weekend.

Sweet! I'd love to hear how it goes.

Nev wrote: 3- On that same note, I notice that whereas in 1.0, every Audience member got to contribute a d4, in 1.1 only the highest one does- if the highest roller passes, does the option pass down to the next highest, etc? Or does on the highest roller get the option, and if they don't use it, no minutia for that scene?


Anyone else then has the option to.

Only one Minutia die stands for this piece of the conflict. It's the largest one that anyone wants to use. So option A is correct.

Say, I had a couple of questions, based on a Shock: session I played recently (my first! fun game!).

1) There seem to be two rulings in the text on resolving ties in Audience members' D4s. On Page 35: "everyone with the highest die should roll anther die each," and on Page 36: "the player who wants the *Tagonist in question to win gets to use hir die and Minutia." Which is it?

2) On Escalation: The text says: "The original Intent is still unsettled." So what happens to that original intent? The new Intent is settled, the victor of that Intent wins both? Or something else?

3) Do the content of Features have any mechanical effect on play? I understand that the number of features does, but what a feature actually is doesn't seem to do anything beyond telling other players about your character. Which is cool, but I keep wanting to directly invoke a Feature like PTA Edges to gain something-or-other.

Anyway, love the game so far, can't wait to play again. Our next session is Sunday, so here's hoping you see this before then. :)

Peace,
-Joel

1) Hm. Yeah, I guess that's kind of vague. The people with the highest die roll off if they disagree whose minutia will stand and they both want the Protag to lose or the Antag to win OR if they both want the Antag to win. That is, you only roll off if you're either both rooting for the Protag or both against the Protag / for the Antag.

2) The original Intent — assuming it hasn't been obviated by the Escalation's Intent — is also settled. Like, if I was trying to escape from the police, and it was escalated and now they're shooting at me, then I win, I get away from the police *and* they don't shoot me.

3) The content of a particular Feature isn't important mechanically. Features do two things on a technical level: they give the player strategic options for when to lose and when to win (which implies different kinds of stories), and they pace the story against the Antag. You can look at the number of dice and the number of Features as coincidentally the same. The important thing is "how much do we know about this character?" The more you know — that is, the more things have tried the character and shown hir limits — the more dice you roll.

Dig?

I'd love to see some AP, however informal!

Joel was in the game I wrote about on Story Games.

Christian: Yo wrote about it? Cool, I'll have to read it!

Joshua: Follow-ups:

2) The thing that came up in our game was, we were leaning toward an option that didn't seem possible: like, you get away from the Police, BUT, you get shot. "You win, BUT. . ." is a generally cool thing to have around.

3) Let me see if I've got this right: when you say "they give the player strategic options for when to lose and when to win," do you simply mean that the increasing number of features gives you more dice allocation options? Or something else?

Thanks for the answers!

Peace,
-Joel

Melinglor wrote: 2) The thing that came up in our game was, we were leaning toward an option that didn't seem possible: like, you get away from the Police, BUT, you get shot. "You win, BUT. . ." is a generally cool thing to have around.

3) Let me see if I've got this right: when you say "they give the player strategic options for when to lose and when to win," do you simply mean that the increasing number of features gives you more dice allocation options? Or something else?

OK, got it--thanks for all your answers and clarifications; this clears a lot of things up and should help our game tonight sing. :)

Peace,
-Joel

Awesome! I look forward to hearing about it.

-J

Antagonists escalate just like Protagonists if their rolls end up on the fulcrum, right?

When you escalate, what happens to the original intent?  It's put aside while you resolve the escalation, but does it also resolve with the new, escalated intent?  Does it just turn into a failure?

Say, frex, my *tagonist is hacking into a computer database to plant evidence about my rival.  My intent is "If I succeed, the police will raid my rival and shut down his operation."  I land on the fulcrum, and the situation escalates.  Now the police are on to my hacking attempt.  What should the new intent cover, and who states it?  For this situation, it seems like there's an implied "If I fail, the police will..." going on, but who gets to fill it in?  Is it something the players should come to a consensus on, or is it up to the opposition?  And if I succeed on the escalated roll, have I also succeeded on my original intent, so the police raid my rival?

Also, for clarification, when an Antagonist fails to achieve their intent, do they get a new minutia?

Thanks,

-Greg

ldd,

It works like this: you're doing something, and you don't quite get it because stuff got more complicated. You're trying to get something, but now there's something else in the way.

In your example, the way escalation works is, your Antag set your new Intent that includes your old Intent. So if you fail, the police catch you and you don't plant the evidence. If you succeed, you plant the evidence and the popo don't catch you. I think this is a little vague in the book, but this is the way to do it that works. Often, players come to a consensus on the matter, but that's weak and I play the way I've just described.

Antags get new Minutiæ like any Minutiæ. Since the Antag player Owns the Antag, they can make up whatever they like about hir. When sie's lost a conflict is a good time, but it's not required. Really, it's just when something occurs to the player. The real character development happens to the Protag.

Welcome to Lotro and Gladden. For the most part the community is pretty helpful. Every now and then you get the people who seem to cause more trouble than help but they are few and far between.

Are you a spambot? Or are you a vision of a Duchampian future?

Hi Joshua

He has come up a few times, Ben Lehman is tackling him as well. Duchampian future all the way!

It's eerie. It's really like it's struggling to gain sapience.