Topic: Complex Conflict Clarification
Started by: Tasseomancer
Started on: 8/11/2008
Board: Adept Press
On 8/11/2008 at 6:33am, Tasseomancer wrote:
Complex Conflict Clarification
Hi,
I've been reading Sex & Sorcery and have been trying to get my head round the Dice Diagrams section.
I've read the first example, and I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it correctly.
The point is that the jewel's effect isn't a pre-stated action in the scene, it's a condition brought into effect by Billy's action. It can't be "added in" as a new, now-it's-here action, not in SORCERER. We can't permit all those stated actions to be canceled and eliminated, like un-persons in a totalitarian regime. They matter - a player's stated action has weight in this game, and the only way for it to be canceled are:
(a) if the character is penalized beyond recovery by another pre-stated action before the action occurs or
(b) if the player cancels the action to switch to defense.
Ok, all that makes sense so far. The example goes on to explain about the defensive rolls and people opting to do b) and cancel their action to switch to defense. Again that all makes perfect sense.
Now where it gets a bit confusing is when a player opts to continue with their action.
the real question is whether their stated actions occur and to what extent. Roll their defensive dice (one each), and compare
the victories of the jewel, if any, to the victories of the characters' actions, if any...
...The real question is whether her bullet hits Cristof - he's failed his defensive roll, let's say, and she's hit him for three victories. Three victories on the bullet beats one for the jewel, so we'll say that her shot goes off effectively before the jewel's effect on her takes place.
So this is where I get confused. Because if I'm interpreting the above correctly then the rules, the the inverse must also be true. If the Jewel scores more victories then it's damage occurs first and if high enough could penalized the character beyond recovery before his action occurs. And then a third clause is also possible
c) if the character is penalized beyond recovery by another non-pre-stated action which is activated before the characters action and scores more successes than the action.
I'm not a writer so I'm a bit of a clunky sentence but you get the drift.
Is this correct or am I misunderstanding the example?
Mark
On 8/11/2008 at 7:14am, Tasseomancer wrote:
Re: Complex Conflict Clarification
Oh I just remembered while we are on the topic
THE TWO-POSSESSOR PROBLEM example
In the example different characters and demons are involved in their own little conflicts. However because the result of each conflict is related to the success or failure of the Binding. The results of the initial conflict are added or subtracted from the final roll. Depending on which side they favour.
Now this sound to me like the Rollover mechanic in operation.
If a character is carrying out a series of related actions then the bonus dice are carried over as a bonus dice for the next roll.
In this example is sounds like characters can co-operate in achieving a goal and hence add their bonus dice to the final roll.
However I can't find anywhere that says this is possible in the rules other than in Group Sorcery.
Is this right?
Mark
On 8/11/2008 at 1:27pm, Tasseomancer wrote:
RE: Re: Complex Conflict Clarification
One other thing, sorry I don't know how to edit old posts.
You talk of the currency of sorcerer
1 score point = 1 die etc etc.
The Rollover mechanic fits nicely into the currency.
Group Sorcery fits nicely into the currency.
Then you go and make an exception. Banishing, Summoning, Contacting and Containing are allowed with Group Sorcery. But Binding and Punishing are not.
Ok, Binding and Punishing are too powerful to allow the currency to allow bonuses due to Group Sorcery. I guess this was your decision Ron?
But, Rollover bonuses from other Characters are allowed for Essinal to Bind Zett away from his old master. Which feel to me like the Group Sorcery bonuses in action. It's feels to me like a get around way of allowing Binding and Punishing bonuses without group sorcery.
Am I misinterpreting it?
On 8/11/2008 at 1:41pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Complex Conflict Clarification
Hi Mark,
These are fantastic questions. I'm having a day from hell preparing for GenCon, though, and although I'm drafting a detailed reply, I can't promise to finish and post it quickly. I'm writing this to let you know I'm on the job.
Best, Ron
On 8/11/2008 at 3:53pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Complex Conflict Clarification
Hi Mark,
Whoa, it came together quicker than I thought. You wrote,
... if I'm interpreting the above correctly then the rules, the the inverse must also be true. If the Jewel scores more victories then it's damage occurs first and if high enough could penalized the character beyond recovery before his action occurs. And then a third clause is also possible
c) if the character is penalized beyond recovery by another non-pre-stated action which is activated before the characters action and scores more successes than the action.
That's correct in concept but the additional (c) isn't actually necessary.
Here's the correct part: if a character is penalized beyond recovery at any time during a complex conflict, he or she has no more actions, and all stated actions-in-motion are canceled. That's a primary rule which operates at all times, and to which any of this other stuff is subject. You're absolutely right about that.
In this example, the jewel's damage is considered an outcome of Billy's action. Basically, it's like Billy is setting off a grenade that affects everyone but him. Therefore its effect is technically pre-stated, and is fulfilled by my statement (a).
Regarding group sorcery, there are at least two questions and concerns embedded in your question. You wrote,
... Banishing, Summoning, Contacting and Containing are allowed with Group Sorcery. But Binding and Punishing are not.
Ok, Binding and Punishing are too powerful to allow the currency to allow bonuses due to Group Sorcery. I guess this was your decision Ron?
But, Rollover bonuses from other Characters are allowed for Essinal to Bind Zett away from his old master. Which feel to me like the Group Sorcery bonuses in action. It's feels to me like a get around way of allowing Binding and Punishing bonuses without group sorcery.
The first issue is why group sorcery rules apply to some rituals and not others. My reason for making the distinction isn't based on the power or effect of the rituals, but rather on their highly personal nature. As I see them, four "group allowed" rituals are slightly more general, and the two "one person only" rituals are extremely one-on-one, this demon and this person.
Binding is the quintessential relationship ritual, so I think that's probably pretty clear. No one can provide dice via sorcery into Binding except that one person because the entire concept of Binding is based on a single person's commitment to cement the demon's existence into, well, existence.
Punishing is actually the exact mirror: the Binding sorcerer does not have to roll dice to Punish, due to the intensity of the established relationship. So the only demons one would have to roll to Punish are not Bound at all or not Bound to you. In a way, it's a personal act toward a demon that overrides or intrudes into someone else's Binding, if present. I consider Punishing more personal than Banishing because the former is taking it upon oneself to modulate the demon's "presence" in reality (i.e. its Power) and therefore to participate in that presence, and the latter is like asserting the whole universe against the demon in a kind of "splat the whole thing" way.
The second issue is based, I think on your mis-reading the example a little. The final roll which is affected by all the others is not a Binding roll. It's a command by a sorcerer to a demon to try to break its Binding to another sorcerer. Or am I missing your use of the example?
Even so, you still raise a good question: whether rollover bonuses can apply to non-group sorcerous rituals. I'll specify: person A is trying to Bind or Punish a demon. Person B is in the vicinity and doing things which affect person A in some kind of way. I need to specify: person B's acts cannot be, themselves, Binding or Punishing; they have to be some other kinds of actions, probably not rituals at all. That's why this is not group sorcery. In this case, then if applicable, and if (very if) the timing works out, then yes, person B's victories might be helpful to person A's roll.
Why is that? Because the rollover bonuses operate at the purely narrative mechanical level: they are "story impact" bonuses rather than simulative bonuses in terms of in-game physics or metaphysics. This level of mechanics operates universally in Sorcerer, like the Currency (and in fact Currency rules express this principle). The group sorcery rules are based more on the in-game metaphysics, as illustrated by my reasoning regarding the first point above. So they have their own logic and relationship to the basic idea of any Sorcerer setting, but they are still subject to and indeed should be considered subsets of the more universal, play-only-based principles, such as the Currency ones.
Therefore a group-sorcery bonus is not the same as the fundamental rollover bonus - it is an in-game, circumscribed application of it.
Does that help, or make sense?
Best, Ron
On 8/13/2008 at 9:23am, Tasseomancer wrote:
RE: Re: Complex Conflict Clarification
Yes, I misread the example but thanks for continuing with my line of questioning even if my example was wrong.
Thanks a lot that all makes perfect sense.
Mark