Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Ludanto, November 24, 2006, 10:14:16 AM
Quote4) Launch a conflict where no PC is present. Choose a player to roll opposition. Have her roll acuity: she's starting at research. Make your raise ("this person you don't know and haven't met is going to sleep, and she left her window open a crack...") and look at the player expectantly, "your see."
Quote from: Ludanto on December 08, 2006, 04:13:35 PMSo, If I'm understanding you correctly, absentee monster stakes are sometimes handled by sort of metagamely tying them to indirectly related conflicts that the PC is actually there for. Getting to the PD doesn't inherently stop the monster, but we've set up the conflict so that it's assumed that if the PC gets to the PD, he'll have whatever (lowercase) circumstances he needs to decide the victim's fate.I may have butchered this, but I've learned something at least.
QuoteI think this will help: you remember how one time I said that the circumstances would be implicated by conflicts' real stakes? "What's at stake is, does the hellhound keep you from getting ol' betsy out of the trunk (if it does you stay unprepared)?"The monster's offscreen actions are the same. "What's at stake is, does the hellhound delay you from driving to the PD (if it does, the monster gets a new victim)?"
Quote from: Tim M Ralphs on December 13, 2006, 06:25:21 AMSomething to watch out for is that implicit stakes are going to be unstated, but that they should be obvious. If I lost a conflict to avoid getting stuck in traffic thinking that all that was at stake was the circumstance Lost and then out of no-where the GM told me that the Monster had victimised someone, I'd be ticked off. Whereas if I knew the Victim was stuck in the Monster's lair and I went and got stuck in traffic I'd be cool with Victimisation taking place. I think that 'what can be considered obvious' is just something that you work out with your group as you go along.