I'd like to clarify my understanding, please, of the scope of the Mistaken-player's authority over Moon characters. The following grows out of a session four of us participated in last week:

Personae:
Fornax - The Heart
Cygnus - His Lover, a doctor, written into the New Moon section of Fornax's cosmos
Etzilitotec - A Demon, logged in the Mistaken section of Fornax's cosmos. Currently trapped in Fornax's starlight sword.
Senator Rigel - Kind of a groupie of Fornax, written into the New Moon section of Fornax's cosmos

Scene opens with the Mistaken going directly into conflict:

1. M: And so it was that Fornax awoke to himself standing beside Senator Rigel's bed with blood on his sword, the murdered senator stiffening among his bedclothes.
2. H: But only if Fornax spots the trail of blood leading to the open window, and catches up with the assassin he wounded three blocks later.
3. M: But only if, when he spins the hooded figure around, he discovers it is Doctor Cygnus.
4. H: But only if it was NOT demonic corruption that drove her to the act, but mortal passion.
5. M: And that was how it happened.
6. Mistaken drops out to freeplay to give Fornax a chance to confront his lover.
7. Fornax's player turns to the New Moon and asks, "Why?"

At what step if any has the forgoing flouted the rules? 1 seems entirely kosher: Fornax is carrying a demon-haunted sword! 2 seems legit if the Mistaken doesn't use one of the negating/curtailing responses: Fornax is making a a big claim about his own actions and their result.

3 and 4 are where I wonder. If I'm the Mistaken, can I essentially take over a Moon character like in step 3? Statement 4 declares a fact about a Moon character AND (negatively) about the the role of the demons in the encounter (Mistaken-business): kosher? In 7, should the Heart be talking to the New Moon, or, given all that has transpired, should the Mistaken now be playing Doctor Cygnus?

I haven't said anything about poor Senator Rigel because I just assume the Mistaken can whack a Moon character as part of a conflict sequence, but let me know if I assume wrong, please.

The above probably boils down to, can the Mistaken "take over" Moon characters freely?

What about a variant, reversing the speakers?

1. H: And so it was that Fornax awoke to himself standing beside Senator Rigel's bed with blood on his sword, the murdered senator stiffening among his bedclothes.
2. M: But only if Fornax spots the trail of blood leading to the open window, and catches up with the assassin he wounded three blocks later.
3. H: But only if, when he spins the hooded figure around, he discovers it is Doctor Cygnus.
4. M: But only if it was NOT demonic corruption that drove her to the act, but mortal passion.
5. H: And that was how it happened.
6 & 7. The same.

Is this more or less according to Hoyle at any point than the first example?

Thanks,

Jim

Both totally kosher. A key phrase (conflict or and so it was) lets the player cross ordinary lines of control.

Now, there are reasons why you wouldn't necessarily *want* to play conflicts out like that, but they're both totally legal.

Thank you, Ben. So it really is just that simple. Awesome!

I infer that outside of key statements, the Heart and Mistaken should keep their hands off the Moons? (Control-wise, I mean.)

Also, I'd be sincerely interested to hear your reasons on why one might not "necessarily *want* to play conflicts out like that" if you care to share them. (For the record, everything through Step 3 in the first example "really happened" in play. I excised a "Far Too Much" by the Mistaken between 1 and 2. Step 4 was me trying to figure out what the Heart's sway might be.)

Best,

Jim

Yeah, outside of a key phrase, players should stick to their own authority. (which -- for all players -- can include projecting your authority via your characters' actions: "I swing my sword and cut his head off" doesn't require a key phrase.)

I don't like it when conflicts skip big amounts of time. As the Mistaken, I would close the conflict after "but only if he follows the trail of blood and catches up to the assassin three blocks later." with a simple "and so it was that Fornax came across the assassin only to discover it was Dr. Fornax." Basically, apparently the scene we've set is not what we're actually interested in, so let's just jump to what we want, plus play hand-off with the Moon and get him involved in play.

yrs--
--Ben

First, tons of thanks. This is all helpful.

Ben wrote:
Yeah, outside of a key phrase, players should stick to their own authority. (which -- for all players -- can include projecting your authority via your characters' actions: "I swing my sword and cut his head off" doesn't require a key phrase.)

Ben wrote: I don't like it when conflicts skip big amounts of time. As the Mistaken, I would close the conflict after "but only if he follows the trail of blood and catches up to the assassin three blocks later." with a simple "and so it was that Fornax came across the assassin only to discover it was Dr. Fornax." Basically, apparently the scene we've set is not what we're actually interested in, so let's just jump to what we want, plus play hand-off with the Moon and get him involved in play.

Hey, Jim. There's no particular strategic reason to do what I did (that I can think of). It's mostly a stylistic question: I like free play better than conflict, so any time I'm in conflict I'll be aggressively pushing towards resolution and more free play.

Although, I'd like to note that the Heart has no "it was not meant to be" option against "and so it was."

Ben wrote:
Hey, Jim. There's no particular strategic reason to do what I did (that I can think of). It's mostly a stylistic question: I like free play better than conflict, so any time I'm in conflict I'll be aggressively pushing towards resolution and more free play.

Ben wrote:
Although, I'd like to note that the Heart has no "it was not meant to be" option against "and so it was."

Postscript: Fortified with the insights above, we had a very successful session (Number 3) tonight. Thanks again.

Best,

Jim