Hi! I'm playing In a Wicked Age tonight (first time GMing) and I had a question: how exclusive are the Forms supposed to be, in terms of narrowing down narrative options based on which ones you pick? Like, in the book example it says if you're acting For Myself and Directly, you can't use violence, 'cuz you didn't pick With Violence. But if I try to apply that to other combinations it breaks down for me: If I picked For Myself and With Violence, I couldn't act directly, 'cuz I didn't pick Directly? But then I didn't pick Covertly either, so where does that leave me? And What constitutes Violence in this context? Deadly attack with a weapon? Brawling? Apparently Mekha's "heel to the face" in the example doesn't count.

Is this just something the group is going to have to work out its own metric for in play, like Dogs' Supernatural Dial? The text implies a hard line, but i'm seeing at most a blurry strip. I can easily grasp the Forms as positive descriptions--I picked this form, so I've got to be doing this thing this way. But as negative terms, that exclude other aspects? I don't get it.

Similarly, I'm having a spot of trouble with "Far-reaching." Without the book example I would've assumed that of COURSE Exorcism could cast out a spirit that's possessing a person right here in front of me; far-reaching would seem to imply "over a distance" or "across dimensions," or "many at once" or whatever. Or is this just a "limited by the specific qualities of the Particular Strength" thing? Kinda like Sorcerer's Demon Abilities?

I know this is kinda last minute; sorry. I've been thinking about the questions all week, and only just realized, hey! I forgot to actually ASK 'em. :P

peace,
-Joel

Payed a couple, run a couple, YMMV, I might be wrong on the "official" ruling.

Melinglor wrote: how exclusive are the Forms supposed to be, in terms of narrowing down narrative options based on which ones you pick?

Like, in the book example it says if you're acting For Myself and Directly, you can't use violence, 'cuz you didn't pick With Violence.

If I picked For Myself and With Violence, I couldn't act directly, 'cuz I didn't pick Directly? But then I didn't pick Covertly either, so where does that leave me?

Similarly, I'm having a spot of trouble with "Far-reaching."

Not particularly exclusive. As a rule, you should say (or strongly imply) your character's action, and choose forms that follow from it - DON'T choose a form first and then try to figure out your character's action to fit. As a rule, I say, but occasionally that flow gets interrupted: you've already rolled your dice, and now it's time to say what you do, and your original intended action makes no sense whatsoever given what's happened inbetween. In those cases, don't worry about it; your dice are your dice, you say what you do without regard to what forms you rolled, and all's well.

Actions constrain forms, forms don't (strictly) constrain actions.

About far-reaching: that's a fun example. My take is, the possessing demon can always retreat into the person's psyche, and how will I reach it there?

Demons might not be able to do that in your Wicked Age, in which case your exorcism doesn't need to be far-reaching.

-Vincent

Bows and oratory aren't far reaching. A network of assassins or provocateurs, able to act while you're sleeping peacefully elsewhere, are. A bow that shoots through walls, a magical voice that allows you to orate from a mountaintop to an entire kingdom, are.

-Vincent

Ah, OK. I have misplayed it a bit then. I presumed ONYFDA would only be invokable if your PC, literally, could reach out and prevent the action--melee range/personal space/etc. And so, if I see WAY up on a hillside that Bob is about to throw Mary off a cliff, and my Bow is "farr-reaching," I can ONYFDA because I could "shoot him before he can toss her off." Otherwise, being WAY down here at the foot of the hill, I can but scream and moan as she plummets to her squishy death (and get ready for a follow-up conflict, as I rush up the hill to send Bob down after her!).

Got that wrong, huh? Hmph....

Well, fortunately, no one makes Particular Strengths that are so narrowly focused. "Incredible Bowman" might be a good far-reaching PS, though, yes? (*whimper*)

Incredible bowman, yes, absolutely.

If my only particular strength is, oh, "wicked smart," and it's potent and that's it, and I'm standing at the bottom of the hill with my longbow, I can still ONYFDA Bob throwing Mary off the cliff. A bow just extends my normal human reach, the same way any tool does.

"Incredible bowman" would let me, I dunno, specify that I'm shooting him through the hand, which I surely can't do at this range if I'm just a guy with a bow.

Um. This may be one of those distinctions that works perfectly inside my own brain, and isn't portable elsewhere. That's okay - yes, like the supernatural in Dogs, part of the first few sessions of play is finding out precisely how this stuff works for you.

-Vincent

Thanks, guys. gettin' a better picture.

Dave, are you saying that you can actually change forms (roll different dice) between exchanges in a sequence? Or just that your narrated actions can be like, whatever after the initial kickoff?

Also along those lines, my read of the book's example is that default procedure is,  you choose forms and roll, THEN describe your answer. Which I liked, because when I played it (before I got my own book) there was often some awkwardness when both (or all) participants would describe an action, but someone ends up the Answerer, so the action evaporates and we go with the other one. I liked the cleanness described in the example where only one person has to describe a Challenge, so there's less of a "rewind and describe what really happens" effect.

Then again I can definitely appreciate the value of actions leading Forms and not the other way around.

RE: Far-reaching, I think I get it, and I like it. it seems helpful to situational avoidance tactics of whatever kind: "You can't get me, 'cuz i'm across the city!" (or ". . .'cuz I'm locked in my bunker!" ". . .'cuz I'm hiding in Tamar's soul!") "Oh, yeah? With this I can!"

Here's a couple of new questions:

1) Do you see the answers you just gave on Forms to be in contradiction (or at least contrast), with the statement in the book example ("can't use Violence," etc.), or in harmony with it?

2) How do you settle, at the table, a dispute like "I think you'd need Far-reaching for that!" "Well, I think you wouldn't!" Does someone have the last word, or is it "discuss until consensus," or what?

Peace,
-Joel

Far Reaching is the awesome.

One of my favorite characters had "Master Plotter" or something of the like as far reaching.

My description was something to the effect of "I have more schemes in motion than you can count, any one of which is ready to hurt you right about now".

In one scene there was a battle.  I wasn't there but I rolled my dice in the conflict because "I've already bribed the officers you're giving orders to...they work for me now"

Course, I rolled for shit and the officers apparently just pocketed my money and flipped me the bird...but my guy was miles away and I was still rolling in the battle.

Valamir wrote:
One of my favorite characters had "Master Plotter" or something of the like as far reaching.

My description was something to the effect of "I have more schemes in motion than you can count, any one of which is ready to hurt you right about now".

Well, we ended up just being me and one guy tonight, so we didn't play. I talked up how cool the game is a bit, then we watched Dr Horrible and called it a night.

But we WILL play soon, and I'll be ready. :)

Thanks for the help.

Melinglor wrote: Dave, are you saying that you can actually change forms (roll different dice) between exchanges in a sequence? Or just that your narrated actions can be like, whatever after the initial kickoff?

Also along those lines, my read of the book's example is that default procedure is,  you choose forms and roll, THEN describe your answer.

but someone ends up the Answerer, so the action evaporates and we go with the other one.

1) Do you see the answers you just gave on Forms to be in contradiction (or at least contrast), with the statement in the book example ("can't use Violence," etc.), or in harmony with it?

2) How do you settle, at the table, a dispute like "I think you'd need Far-reaching for that!" "Well, I think you wouldn't!" Does someone have the last word, or is it "discuss until consensus," or what?

David's answers work for me. Oh, but:

2. The GM has the final word. Never, ever discuss to a consensus. The GM makes a ruling and you go on from there.

Believe it or not!

-Vincent

OK, I think I see what you guys are saying: going into a conflict, you're thinking to yourself how you're going to Challenge or Answer, then picking forms base on that. . .and after the roll you name a Challenge or Answer as appropriate. Got it. Your initial responses were giving me a weird picture (which I've seen come up and play, and be a bit confusing an unfun) of everyone nameing a Challenge, picking forms, then rolling--but only one Chellenge ends up "sticking" and the rest get modified into suitable Answers. Which strikes me as a bit too much retconning.

lumpley wrote:
2. The GM has the final word. Never, ever discuss to a consensus. The GM makes a ruling and you go on from there.

lumpley wrote:
2. The GM has the final word. Never, ever discuss to a consensus. The GM makes a ruling and you go on from there.

Keeping me honest!

Okay, okay, it's true. You can resolve that kind of dispute - "no man, you'd need a far-reaching particular strength to interfere with me" "the hell I would, you're right there" "I'm tellin' ya..." - however you want, and still be playing by the rules. The rules don't care a bit, they'll just wait patiently until you resolve it. Discuss to consensus all you want.

The rules DO provide you with a single player (the GM) who reliably has nothing riding on the outcome, and can therefore make impartial rulings, and who has already taken additional responsibility for making the game go. I strongly recommend that, instead of discussing to consensus (shudder), you let that player just resolve disputes.

-Vincent

Yeah, I admit that I threw out "Discuss to consensus" as sort of an absurdist and undesirable example. Perhaps my question should've been phrased, "Is there an alternative, ANY alternative, pleasefertheluvagawd, to simply 'discussing to consensus?'" ;)

This does bring up a whole 'nother issue, of how much "good play of a game" is transpitted* through the game text, and how much is received through other sources (discussion with author, general internet discussion, how other games do it, your own best guess)? I mean, is the ideal that I should be able to buy IaWA and read it, and play a good game from just that? Or is author accessibility part of the package, so needing to ask questions is a feature, not a bug? Or is it just that there are some things a game text can never give you, regarding real-people interactions? But I dunno, that's probably a bigger discussion than this thread's designed for.

peace,
-Joel

*typo, but I'm keepin' it.

It's a big discussion! I can answer the little piece of it specific to this game, and we can have the big discussion in its own thread if you want.

I hear regularly that Dogs in the Vineyard is one of the best- and most clearly written games. Nevertheless, for the first year and more of its existence I had to answer, answer and reanswer fundamental questions about how to play it. I had to lead people through the text. Not everybody, of course, but always somebody. I had to pop into actual play threads and say, "yeah, you played that part wrong" all the time. I still do sometimes, as new people find the game (although now I can rely on the game's many and enthusiastic fans to do it for me if I'm busy elsewhere. Thank you my friends!).

When I wrote In a Wicked Age the way I did, my theory was that I could experiment with the text (imply more than I said, hope my readers would make the right leaps instead of the wrong leaps, demand active and repeated reading, hide rules under one another) and the downside would be ... that for the first year of its existence I would have to answer, answer and reanswer fundamental questions about how to play it. I'd have to lead people through the text, not everybody, but always somebody, you know?

I was right! For all the "Vincent, I don't understand, Dogs is so CLEAR and In a Wicked Age is so BAFFLING," my own experience of the two is the same. Some people, I have to hold their hand through the text, lead them from point to point until it finally clicks for them. It's not more people, it's just about the same number. Some of them never get it - but that was true of Dogs too. If Dogs in the Vineyard is a successful text, In a Wicked Age is too, by the same measure.

Melinglor wrote:
I mean, is the ideal that I should be able to buy IaWA and read it, and play a good game from just that?

lumpley wrote: The rules DO provide you with a single player (the GM) who reliably has nothing riding on the outcome, and can therefore make impartial rulings, and who has already taken additional responsibility for making the game go. I strongly recommend that, instead of discussing to consensus (shudder), you let that player just resolve disputes.

lumpley wrote:
I was right! For all the "Vincent, I don't understand, Dogs is so CLEAR and In a Wicked Age is so BAFFLING," my own experience of the two is the same. Some people, I have to hold their hand through the text, lead them from point to point until it finally clicks for them. It's not more people, it's just about the same number. Some of them never get it - but that was true of Dogs too. If Dogs in the Vineyard is a successful text, In a Wicked Age is too, by the same measure.

lumpley wrote:
Um. This may be one of those distinctions that works perfectly inside my own brain, and isn't portable elsewhere.

Moreno: as it happens, you hit upon the reason exactly.

Moreno wrote:
the traditional gamers have LESS problems, it would seem