It comes from the phrase “success means success – full stop”, which was originally presented in response to a suggestion I had made that a character’s success today could come back with a negative repercussion at a later date.
From subsequent posts, it appears to be fully settled that this was an overstatement, and that success today can lead to complications tomorrow. For me it is quite reasonable for a bluff to have only a short-term effect. The rules advise “that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe.” The Drake later figuring out he’d been bluffed and taking action accordingly is the approach I would prefer. But then, I am also one of those advocating that Charm Person does not mean “he does what I want now and never realizes he was enchanted or, if he does, takes no offence”.
So what has “been resolved”? The Drake was bluffed so he can never seek vengeance? There was a baby with the dragon tribute, so it must truly be an innocent baby, neither illusion nor shapeshifted creature? The Chancellor has been persuaded, so he can never have second thoughts? Our info gathering indicates the King is a just and righteous man, and thus it is so – there can be no deception here?
Read it again – the Drake was fleeing, and had threatened retribution. The Bluff was specifically aimed at preventing such retribution. The Chamberlain only understood a portion of the exchange, as it was carried out in part in a language known only to the rogue and the chamberlain.
I think the problem is the assumption that nothing but a sneak attack – direct, spiky damage – could possibly have an impact on the combat scene. This seems similar to deciding that only the Insight skill – not diplomacy, leadership, bluff or intimidation, and certainly not skills further afield like knowledge of history or athletics – can possibly be used to address the challenge posed by the obstinate chamberlain.
A situation which, until now, has been presented as absolute anathema to an Indie Game, I note.
Much like the consistently dismissed suggestion that, even if they have no hope of persuading the Chamberlain in this scene, their treatment of him, and the situation overall, can have an impact in later scenes.
I try to swim through the sandstorm – give me a Fate point!
I would say, rather, that it lacks mechanics in this regard. The features are role playing outside the established mechanics – looking beyond the skills, feats and spells the character possesses, described previously as “thinking outside the box”. An alternate term would be “looking beyond the character sheet”. We had a sorcerer recently with a focus on enchantments (low level, Sleep, Charm Person, etc.). In a combat against a flying creature immune to mind affecting spells and with acid resistance (he had Acid Splash) he could either sit out and whine, or think outside the box. He chose the latter, using Mage Hand and a skull in the room, asking if he could use that to distract the opponent, effectively using Aid Another at range. I believe we landed at least three hits due to that Aid – to us around the table, that was a meaningful contribution.
Around 152 or so, he is told in no uncertain terms that “X-Men don’t kill – sheathe your claws or use them on me” by Storm, in the midst of a pitched battle. In other words, the character did not look the other way, and take the issue up only when it would have no impact on the situation.
So why? Well, because the Hellfire Club arc was planned to be Wolverine’s swan song. He didn’t fit in and he was planned to die, however instead Claremont and Byrne decided to give him one more shot, resulting in the “Wolvie fights alone” issue. It worked – the fans responded. But now we had to deal with the dichotomy of his attitude towards killing and that of his teammates. “If a man comes at me with his fists, I’ll meet him with my fists. But if he pulls a gun, or threatens people I’m protecting, then I got no sympathy for him.”
And that’s a fine playstyle and approach. That, and ensuring the differences are not so marked as to become irreconcilable, are both common approaches. I don’t question that. But it means we do not truly explore the divergent belief systems of the characters in depth. It means the characters, through their players, find a compromise. Their characters’ beliefs are tempered, or even changed. Often, the result is that these change from real tensions and conflict to occasional lip service, commonly through minor dialogue that has no mechanical impact (I thought mechanical impact was of crucial importance to your gaming, btw), NPC dialogue, out-of-character jibing and cajoling, etc. The conflicts are not alive – they are swept under the carpet, the characters work together, their differences marginalized, and the game goes on.
What I see from your game is a clear proponent of Law and a clear proponent of Chaos. Yet both are happy to work with one another, and the proponents of Good accept that at least one of their colleagues routinely consorts with, even serves, evil powers. We brush these strong differences aside in the interests of party unity, although it sounds like matters will come to a head eventually.
No, it was a conflict of ethos which was briefly remarked on, then swept under the carpet for party unity. Not quite “I want to do something evil – please have your Paladin leave the room for a moment so he won’t notice.”, but not far removed.
As you have noted, I don’t read a host of in-depth play reports. That leaves me ill qualified to pass judgment on a campaign. What I see from what you have posted is that characters with strong ideological differences still work together, and the examples I have read show those differences dismissed pretty easily, and the party stays a happy family.
Is that “a shallow game”? Perhaps it is. I suspect Ron Edwards would classify it as such. If it is, then I suggest most games are “shallow”, as most shy away from deep inter-party conflict by either restricting the belief systems of the PC’s for compatibility so the issues do not arise, or marginalize the conflicts, sweeping them under the carpet, in the interests of party (and player group) harmony. While I have seen character conflicts reach a head on a few occasions, the normal answer is compromise to preserve party harmony.
Maybe that is shallow, but it is game-preserving. I don't think most games are great literature examining the Nature of Man or other such philosophical issues. They are penny dreadfuls, pulp novels and action movies - entertainment that doesn't dig too deep.
). I need 5000 gp worth of diamond to cast Raise Dead. Does that mean that being able to cast Raise Dead is dependent on diamond miners? Technically, I suppose, yes, but, honestly, how often is that ever actually played out at the table? You cast the spell, you mark off your spell component cost and move on.
