Remove ads

Anime Rival Quest (Very Meta)

Reader mode
Are we going to do an armor vote also?
If we are I think this one suits the PC the best.
Armor One
I posted it before, but I want to make sure the GM sees it.
 
[X] [Appearance] One
[X] [Clinic] Accept. Stay the night at the clinic.
 
[x] [Clinic] Refuse. You're going home

I want this so, soooo much.

[x] [Appearance] Seven
 
[X] [Appearance] Two
[X] [Clinic] Refuse. You're going home.

Also, fuck all you who wanted the girly appearance.
 
[x] [Appearance] Seven

My first choice is obviously not going to win and I do prefer this one to One a bit more.
 
[X] [Clinic] Accept. Stay the night at the clinic.

Having her know we actually got hurt pretty badly fighting her, but took her to the clinic anyway makes us sympathetic and shifts us from "Smuggy McSmuggerson" back into something the audience is more likely to put up with

We can then try to maybe keep acting tough, which can then work into our backstory in some interesting ways

...it's entirely possible I put way too much thought into this

Anyway

[X] [Appearance] Four
 
Spectral Waltz said:
To be fair, from some of the criticism I've received on discord, I think it was the direct reference to tropes and the Rule of Three that really threw people off. To me it seemed like a really cool way to write that out, showing how the fact that this is a show means that conventions and tropes of storytelling can work both for and against you, but I've had more than a few people not like it, not get it, or both.

I'm not about to reverse it, but I think I may dial down and be a little less overt in those references in the future since you're definitely not the only person to feel that way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be quite honest, you never explained in this thread that tropes played such an important part that any obscure cliche would make or break us, and I do think that you've also neglected to fully explain Tolerance Points as well. The fact that you previous commented that one point would get us more than what the write in using it gives us is very telling.

In other words we are having gm to player miscommunication problems and I do not think that the discord is at all helping with that.
 
Rule of three is a big trope, but I feel that it was more that a specific version of it that specifically dictated that we would lose was what was used that was jarring; narratively speaking, the guy who uses traps and specifically sets up a trap behind his trap to deal with the hero's counter-charge isn't doing that just for it not to work, he's doing that because he's the smart guy and he's pretty sure that that's going to work, because we've established that we're entirely read up on her big displays of power that she doesn't know how to focus, and so proceeding to then turn around and underestimate exactly that thing that we established that we knew about doesn't really make sense.

Or, so to speak, it's a big trope, but not one that supersedes other tropes, and harming the overall basis of the [fast] [analytical] [preparation] guy to establish a random setting rule that things don't work in threes (which an analytical, prepared mage would have known about, analyzed, and prepared for beforehand) really doesn't come off right to me.

[X] [Appearance] Three
[X] [Clinic] Refuse. You're going home.

Sorry for my first post being a complaint. I was really enjoying reading through the quest, and that was the only weird thing I noticed, so I wanted to comment on it, but I know that just coming out of nowhere with a complaint makes me sound like more of a jerk than I would otherwise.
 
chocolote12 said:
Or, so to speak, it's a big trope, but not one that supersedes other tropes, and harming the overall basis of the [fast] [analytical] [preparation] guy to establish a random setting rule that things don't work in threes (which an analytical, prepared mage would have known about, analyzed, and prepared for beforehand) really doesn't come off right to me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not even that you set up a trap for a counter charge though, it's that a trap was set up, and then the thread also wrote in to set up a second trap behind it, making three total. The sub-option that did that was not part of the original vote.

And unless the mistake is potentially lethal, I don't like calling out major corrections in the middle of a vote.
 
Spectral Waltz said:
It's not even that you set up a trap for a counter charge though, it's that a trap was set up, and then the thread also wrote in to set up a second trap behind it, making three total. The sub-option that did that was not part of the original vote.

And unless the mistake is potentially lethal, I don't like calling out major corrections in the middle of a vote.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Going "hey, doing this will do the exact opposite of what you want it to do" is pretty much the exact purpose of [intelligence] traits, though? Like, we're not actually the character. We don't learn real enchanting in video games to make items, we get a perk or buy a skill book or something that says we know how to make the items and then our character can make them.

So when we have a thing that says we're smart, and then we do something that isn't smart, not because we knew what we were getting into and decided to be dumb anyways, but rather because we had no possible way of knowing that it'd do the exact opposite of what we wanted it to do, even though by all rights our thing that says we're smart indicates that we would know that... It's not... fair?
 
Last edited:
You should also probably expand on how to gain and lose tolerance point and what asspulls are possible by number you use.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top