thread: 2009-04-07 : 3 Resolution Systems

On 2009-04-08, Jim Henley wrote:

Vincent, what about the case of something like SotC, where a few things can be true:

1. GM puts a "Raining" Aspect on the scene. "+2 to your roll for the rain" IF you pay a Fate Point. Otherwise, the rain has no mechanical effect.

2. GM puts a "Raining" Aspect on the scene. "+2 to your roll for the rain" IF you succeed at an Assessment roll. Otherwise, the rain has no mechanical effect.

3. GM doesn't put a "Raining" Aspect on the scene, but mentions that it's raining. "+2 to your roll for the rain" IF you succeed at a Declaration roll to place a Raining Aspect on the scene and then use your free tag. Thereafter, "+2 to your roll for the rain" IF you pay a Fate point.

Correct my guesses as necessary, please:

1 and 2 are the same, diagrammatically.

GM says it's raining is straightforward dice-to-cloud.

But getting the plus-two doesn't seem like straightforward "cloud-to-dice," because I have to manipulate the real-world stuff to get my bonus. IOW, it doesn't seem the same as 1.3.

It doesn't seem quite like the dice-to-cloud-AND-dice diagram of 2.2, 2.5 and 3.7, though. If I make my roll or spend my point, I don't establish that it's raining; I just establish that the raining impinges on my opponent. At the same time, I'm constrained by the fiction in terms of color, at least - I can get "+2 for the rain," but not +2 for a sandstorm.

What I'm pretty sure of is that rain in SotC-like games is not a "solid-state thing," like Robert talks about in 21. It's only material if you buy it or earn it at that moment. (Contrast with tactical constraints in Storming the Wizard's Tower.) Which would suggest that maybe I'm wrong in the previous paragraph? IOW, each time you pay the Fate Point or succeed at the maneuver, you're establishing upper-case Rain (as opposed to lower-case "rain") again.

On to 3. You tagging the scene with a Rain aspect if you make your Declaration roll seems like dice-to-cloud. Thereafter, ANYONE can pay for the privilege of "+2 for the rain," and we're back to cases 1 and 2.

Separately, are you familiar with The Committee for the Exploration of Mysteries? Based on one read of the rules, it SEEMS like you could play through its conflict resolutions with no reference to fictional content at all. That is, describing the Hazard, entering actions into the fictional record as the Opposition and the Hero roll and push dice, is optional. The conflicts could be played purely as a (kind of dull) dice-swapping contest. Diagrammatically, it could work purely as a series of dice-to-dice steps, without even dice-to-cloud or dice-to-dice-AND-cloud steps. More or less, it could be a progression from 3.2 direct to 3.4 direct to 3.6. In fact it has an envelope of narration around the dice-exchange system, so you end up with something that looks more or less like IAWA? (And since you can possibly earn Acclaim for really good narration, the reward system incents paying attention to the "fictional wrapper.")

Corrections eagerly sought.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":