Hello!

I played IaWA for the first time a couple of weeks ago, and only afterwards read through the book. I have two questions:

1. When do you go on the Owe List?

The book can be read either of two ways, depending how you interpret "still in the fight":

a. Go on the list if you didn't get doubled in the first round.
b. Go on the list if you didn't get doubled in the first round, and you're going to roll again in the second.

To me, (a) seems to be the more literal reading of the rules, and what I think Vincent is saying in the text. However, in play it felt kind of... too easy. It seemed that if you go into a conflict with low dice, lose the first roll, and then negotiate your way out of it the action sequence, you get off too easy.

When this came up, we ruled that the player had to go into the second round. Essentially, in our game, you went onto the Owe List when the dice for the second round hit the table.

Which is right? Were we missing some element of the rules?

2. Consequential

If a particular strength is consequential, it sounds like it means it's got some more oomph (like, the equivalent of "more damage" in a roll-to-hit roll-to-damage kind of system). This means that, in IaWA, you get to negotiate with a bigger stick.

However, I reread the rules and it looks like they say it lowers a form, no matter what. So, although you're being more "consequential", you're still negotiating with the same stick--it's just that the loser will have to lower a form, as well, not matter what we negotiate.

Is there some reason why the latter is better than the former? I can see it being very appropriate in some situations (like in the example given in the text), but in others I would be tempted to use the former interpretation.

Finally, one thing I learned from the session, just to share:

The Best Interests I found most interesting, and led to the best story bits, were the ones that couldn't be solved with any sort of direct conflict or violence (like "I want so-and-so to fall in love with me"). They coloured the story and led to much more interesting and unpredictable outcomes, as well as more character development.

Thanks! It's a lovely, lovely game. (Not literally, of course. It's actually nasty and brutal, most of the time.)

I love to answer rules questions.

1. Reading (a) is correct. If you roll smaller dice, lose round 1 (but not by double), and negotiate an end, you do go on the owe list.

If you're getting off too easy, the other player ought to negotiate harder. After all, you're already rolling lower dice, plus you've just given the other player an advantage die. If the other player chooses to keep rolling, she'll most likely win. Why is she letting you off easy?

2. Here's an example to show why. We're playing by your rule and I have the stick.

Case 1: I used no consequential particular strength.
Me: how about, instead of I injure you, you drop the book and run away?
You: oh is that all? Sure.

Case 2: I used a consequential particular strength.
Me: how about, instead of I super injure you, you drop the book and run away?
You: oh is that all? Sure.

See how, in cases like these, the consequential particular strength loses its consequence?

To match my vision, consequential particular strengths have to hit harder every single time, out of the winner's control, even when the winner wants something relatively minor.

Paul wrote:
The Best Interests I found most interesting, and led to the best story bits, were the ones that couldn't be solved with any sort of direct conflict or violence (like "I want so-and-so to fall in love with me"). They coloured the story and led to much more interesting and unpredictable outcomes, as well as more character development.

Brilliant, thanks! Clears it right up.