The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: [IAWA] Another We Owe List Q
Started by: Supplanter
Started on: 11/16/2009
Board: lumpley games


On 11/16/2009 at 2:09am, Supplanter wrote:
[IAWA] Another We Owe List Q

I can hardly believe I'm asking this one, but the group expressed some interest in the official ruling on the following matter, and I am the designated person who posts such things here.

So, in the first session Ben - not his fake name - played Kirigalzu, a tempter demon. He got on the owe list, way down there somewhere. Since then, Ben has played a different character each time, carefully crossing his guys off the list for extra dice to avoid playing them again. EXCEPT! He missed that Kirigalzu entry, and then he had to miss last week's session. And, yes, Kirigalzu is at the top of the list. Ben has no desire to play Kirigalzu, or any other of his previous characters - not even the ones who didn't die horrible deaths.

So like, what now? Officially. We did not find the situation covered in the book. I would think you don't make someone spend 3-4 hours playing a character they hate, but that may be the brain damage talking. ;)

Aside from the obvious option of just skipping to the next name on the list, it occurred to me that we could let Ben choose the first card even if he doesn't play Kirigalzu.

TIA.

Best,

Jim

Message 28989#271245

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Supplanter
...in which Supplanter participated
...in lumpley games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 11/16/2009




On 11/17/2009 at 4:39pm, David Artman wrote:
Re: [IAWA] Another We Owe List Q

Check the rules again (I don't have my book on me): Does it say the player of the character at the top of the We Owe list *may* play that character? Conversely, does it say that player "chooses one Oracle," which implies an imperative not an option?

We'd never force someone to play the same character, regardless of the rules. Further, if someone ELSE wanted to play a character on the We Owe List, and the original player didn't object, we'd be good with that, too. And, hell, we're pretty loose about interpreting Oracles to reintroduce characters NOT on the WOL, so I guess we're just permissive hippie freaks. ;)

Message 28989#271271

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by David Artman
...in which David Artman participated
...in lumpley games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 11/17/2009




On 11/17/2009 at 5:45pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: Re: [IAWA] Another We Owe List Q

Get a haircut!

The rule is that the player has to play that character, even if he doesn't care to.

Obviously I'm not going to come to your house and insist, and it obviously won't break the game if you play by some different rule (unlike some of the game's rules). But I do recommend that rule as a good one.

-Vincent

Message 28989#271272

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by lumpley
...in which lumpley participated
...in lumpley games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 11/17/2009




On 11/17/2009 at 9:55pm, jessecoombs wrote:
RE: Re: [IAWA] Another We Owe List Q

He could always play a different version of the same character. Older, younger, a clone, an alternate reality version, a magically controlled version, etc, etc.

Just figure out what he didn't like about Kirigaizu and make a version of the character that doesn't have those traits. This can be a lot of fun.

Message 28989#271282

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by jessecoombs
...in which jessecoombs participated
...in lumpley games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 11/17/2009




On 11/17/2009 at 10:20pm, David Artman wrote:
RE: Re: [IAWA] Another We Owe List Q

It's mandatory in the RAW, huh? Didn't (k)no(w)tice that...

Andy! You have to play that ghost again, man; even if its Best interests are all fulfilled. ;)

(I got a haircut--razor-shaved skinhead, now. So I can now be a Nazi GM!)

Message 28989#271283

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by David Artman
...in which David Artman participated
...in lumpley games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 11/17/2009




On 11/19/2009 at 1:16am, Brand_Robins wrote:
RE: Re: [IAWA] Another We Owe List Q

Vincent might not have the guts to come to your house and beat you if you don't play by the RAW, but I do.

I mean, I get it, not wanting to play the character again. And, honestly, I wouldn't force it.

However, given that Ben-o's been never letting characters return, it could be used as one of those "try it once, its only one session" challenges that sometimes yield good results. Letting the system shake up your preferences from time to time can be a good thing.

Message 28989#271301

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Brand_Robins
...in which Brand_Robins participated
...in lumpley games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 11/19/2009




On 11/19/2009 at 3:45am, Supplanter wrote:
RE: Re: [IAWA] Another We Owe List Q

Thanks, Vincent. I will explain the Law, and let the community decide whether to live within it. I do see some value in the approach, along the lines that obnoxious Brand Robins fellow suggests.

What the hell does "RAW" stand for?

Best,

Jim

Message 28989#271305

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Supplanter
...in which Supplanter participated
...in lumpley games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 11/19/2009




On 11/19/2009 at 4:12pm, David Artman wrote:
RE: Re: [IAWA] Another We Owe List Q

Rules As Written

Message 28989#271314

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by David Artman
...in which David Artman participated
...in lumpley games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 11/19/2009