thread: 2011-04-12 : A background in Principled Freeform
On 2011-04-25, Vincent wrote:
Let's see, a busy week put me pretty far behind here.
Alex at 28: I don't hold much with "looking at the story" vs "looking through the character's eyes."
Instead I'd say that Emily WAS looking at the situation through Ash's eyes, which naturally included an understanding that Ash simply was not capable of killing a dragon. When Emily rolled better than the dragon, it meant that Ash was free to act within her own capabilities, not that Ash was able to transcend them, and certainly not that Emily got to say anything she wanted.
> So, Simon's question is, I think: what did the players
> agree to that meant Emily couldn't do whatever she wanted
> when her dice came higher?
We agreed that dragons are gigantic, wicked, and very difficult to kill. We agreed that some little magus who hasn't studied dragon-killing, hasn't studied the nature and particulars of this dragon itself, hasn't prepared herself for the confrontation, and is meeting the dragon on its terms, not on hers, can't possibly kill one.
You can see it again later on, when Lucere tells his son Clarus Sol to go to the dragon and call it to heel, and Clarus Sol comes to our wizards and tells us that Lucere wants him to commit suicide by dragon. Everybody knows that Clarus Sol can't call a dragon to heel! Everybody knew that Ash couldn't kill one.
To generalize this point: the integrity of the fiction we were creating was always a big player in our system, absolutely overriding any player's momentary interests.
