Ben, apologies if you've answered this before.

In our Polaris PBP game, a Moon has made a statement that I, as the Heart, naturally want to respond to by saying "But only if...".

To check: I can't do that, can I? I have to say "It was not meant to be" and wait for my Mistaken to say "We shall see what comes of it".

I'm wondering what would happen if we drifted the rules so that you could reply to a Moon's statement with "But only if...". One reason is speed: since it's PBP, I may have to wait a couple of days before we can continue the scene, but if I say "But only if...", we could carry on straight away.

However, I'm probably not seeing a drawback. What am I not seeing?

Graham

Graham wrote:
Ben, apologies if you've answered this before.

In our Polaris PBP game, a Moon has made a statement that I, as the Heart, naturally want to respond to by saying "But only if...".

To check: I can't do that, can I? I have to say "It was not meant to be" and wait for my Mistaken to say "We shall see what comes of it".

I'm wondering what would happen if we drifted the rules so that you could reply to a Moon's statement with "But only if...". One reason is speed: since it's PBP, I may have to wait a couple of days before we can continue the scene, but if I say "But only if...", we could carry on straight away.

However, I'm probably not seeing a drawback. What am I not seeing?

Oh, sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was: how about we drift the rules so that the Heart could reply to a Moon statement with But only if...; and thereafter the conflict was taken up by the Mistaken.

You know, as if we're skipping the bit where the Heart says It was not meant to be and the Mistaken said We shall see what comes of it and then the Heart says But only if....

But, then you said:

The alternative is making the Mistaken defending something he doesn't care about and that's... well ... dull in terms of play.

Note: I'm playing Graham's Mistaken in the PbP game.

Interesting idea, Graham.  I think it would work, but only for But Only If.  You don't really need to worry about the Mistaken having to fight for something he doesn't care about, but if he doesn't care, then he just use a It Was Not Meant To Be.

For example, under the existing rules, you'd have to do:

New Moon: Keid runs away in a panic.
Heart: But it was no matter.
Mistaken: We shall what comes of it.
Heart: But only if the Demons chase Keid, leaving Tian Ke in peace.

Under your change, we'd get:
New Moon: Keid runs away in a panic.
Heart: But only if the Demons chase Keid, leaving Tian Ke in peace.

If the Mistaken doesn't care about the conflict then under the existing rules you have:
New Moon: Keid runs away in a panic.
Heart: But it was no matter.
Mistaken: But it was no matter.

Under your change we'd get:
New Moon: Keid runs away in a panic.
Heart: But only if the Demons chase Keid, leaving Tian Ke in peace.
Mistaken: It was not meant to be.

So, it doesn't save posts if the Mistaken is uninterested, but it saves 2 posts if the Mistaken is interested, which in a PbP game is a HUGE savings.  The only reason it works for But Only If is because the Mistaken can cancel both statements out with a It was not meant to be, which is really the same as if the Mistaken had just done a "But it was no matter".  It really just becomes a short-hand for the But It Was No Matter, We Shall See What Comes Of It, But Only If sequence.

I don't think I'd recommend the change for a Face-To-Face game, it'd be too confusing, and the savings wouldn't be a big deal.  In a PbP game though, saving two posts could be a big deal.

Hey all,

As I see the clarifications suggested by Graham you could still run into a potential problem.

If the Heart is using this new "But only if" he is investing himself into the situation, and initiating a dialogue into what could be made of the situation, when the Mistaken has not. When the Moons make these suggestions they are really negotiating with both the Heart and the Mistaken, not talking one on one with either.

Maybe this could work with your group, as you may all be of the mind that if something is important to the Heart then the Mistaken is up for it, but it could suck for the mistaken if he had to exchange a number of statements (taking multiple posts) when he only really went into it in the first place due to feeling that he should because of the premature investment.

It strikes me that the three way check would be best handled by both the heart and the mistaken regarding anything that the moons suggest as a request for their input and investment or dismissal and objection (which will tell you what's cool for conflict naturally). You are more likely to have a cool conflict if you are all fully invested in it, and if that takes extra posts then maybe it is worth it in the longer run. After all, once you are into the Conflict you are going to have a fair few exchanges anyway.

I think the important rule is that once "we shall see what comes of it" is used the Heart or the mistaken are taking on the Moons statement as their own, so if the heart is modifying the moons statement, it will not necessarily be the heart who wants to take up that statement. In the above example "but only if her father is a demon" it is not clear where the conflict is arising, as to oppose this the mistaken may be taken down an odd route where he is suggesting that the father shouldn't be, when plainly he might wish this so. You need the fully modified statement before one side or the other knows what to push for.

I think maybe I am just saying the same thing multiple times so I'll pause here and check: do you see my concern; and do you think its valid in your situation?

I'm also in that game.

A change like that doesn't make sense to me.  The existing structure requires the Heart or the Mistaken to take up the Moon's statement as their own, before going into conflict. That's important, and quite different from the Heart (or the Mistaken) putting a Only If on a Moon's statement ... Only If-ing is a different logic (I accept that ONLY IF this is in there to) than No Matter-ing (I'm not interested in that).

If the Heart No Matters a Moon, then there's the real chance that the Mistaken will agree, killing the statement entirely.  Thus, if you no matter something, you have to understand that that might be all she wrote.  On the other hand, if the Heart looks at what a Moon said and likes it, he/she says nothing, and there's the real chance that the Mistaken will also let it pass.  You have to decide, straight up, whether or not you want the Moon's statement to count, as written.

The difference is that with the rules modification, you'd be able to look at the Moon's statement, decide that it was interesting, and then say BUT. That reduces the power of the Moons, since - as is - you can't quibble with them. That's big, because the power of what they say is the only power that the Moons have.

I think the important rule is that once "we shall see what comes of it" is used the Heart or the mistaken are taking on the Moons statement as their own ...

Hi!

I'm also in this game.

Using other conflict statements can have a higher cost associated with them.  For example, the danger with It was not meant to be, you lose your statement as well as the Moon's.  With And Furthermore, you must expend a Theme. 

With just We shall see what comes of it, both Heart and Mistaken can decide if they want to start a conflict without an initial cost.