Remove ads

A Sword Without a Hilt: A Song of Ice and Fire/D&D 3.5 Crossover

Reader mode
egoo said:
...on one hand, my clinging nature and difficulty to let go of established things holds me back...

But on the other hand, its not like I was participating in social votes anywhat much before.
Having a re-do of the entire way we vote wouldn't be something I will oppose.

I'm not sure just how well that will translate into text though
We (DP included) wouldn't ever let an important/difficult combat encounter run without player's decisions for more than a few rounds.
Wouldn't such broad "speak about X"-plans naturally gravitate towards just that kind of thing, with us not getting a chance to write up a rebuttal, where it would otherwise naturally be?

Honestly, to me it feels like a whole bunch of short, 3-5 hundred-words-long updates, with us getting decisions on what to say at the end of each, would work best for important social encounters.
But that runs into the fact that applying that in practice is all but impossible :/
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It needs a common sense clause, or no clause at all. At this point though, common sense basically means "what you are trying to say about a minute from this point will just dig you deeper into the hole you made, so we're breaking here".
 
egoo said:
Honestly, to me it feels like a whole bunch of short, 3-5 hundred-words-long updates, with us getting decisions on what to say at the end of each, would work best for important social encounters.
But that runs into the fact that applying that in practice is all but impossible :/
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would not say it's impossible. For specific important discussions I could see that working. It's important to be flexible about these things.
 
DragonParadox said:
I would not say it's impossible. For specific important discussions I could see that working. It's important to be flexible about these things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...the last time I brought up the idea, you told me that it won't work, so I kinda relied on that argument as a basis for my conclusions here :/

I'll be quite happy with that, still.
We may no longer have Azel writing socials, but that only means more need for fine control given to players when the stakes are high.
 
egoo said:
...the last time I brought up the idea, you told me that it won't work, so I kinda relied on that argument as a basis for my conclusions here :/

I'll be quite happy with that, still.
We may no longer have Azel writing socials, but that only means more need for fine control given to players when the stakes are high.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think the last time you asked I was worrying too much about getting out larger updates and not enough about the quality and flow of the story.
Adhoc vote count started by DragonParadox on May 18, 2019 at 3:05 AM, finished with 177 posts and 8 votes.
  • [X] Snowfire
    [X] Truth in Mercy
    -[X] "Given your own lack of protections from seeking magics, I hope you will not take it amiss if I secure us further from prying eyes. You have my word that I will abide by the peace of the Conclave." Bloodwish Mage's Private Sanctum on the room. Then drop the mask of Dywen, using glamour to hide the mundane disguise Tyene has equipped us with. I'm keeping this. Everything else changes. In this context, we're giving security and openness.
    -[X] Contact Dany and ensure that the captives are safe and whole. "Your friends are perfectly healthy, as are Lucan's subordinates. I am not a monster, whatever rumours may paint me as." Directly lifted, and an excellent opener.
    -[X] "You wish your companions returned." This is not a question. She hopes we will be a person of reason, and not what the rumours have shown us to be. We can prove that. "I will have them released. Now, or at a time more convenient to you."
    -[X] When she asks of Lucan's subordinates, grimace, and explain that it is more complicated, as our only true interaction with the works of the man has painted him as our enemy. The Angel born of the man who had been Baelor the Blessed in life was summoned to kill a king. Given that it had not already struck down the pretender in King's Landing, as it surely could, there were few enough other targets. I want the explanation for Baelor before we go any further with this.
Click to expand...

Adhoc vote count started by DragonParadox on May 18, 2019 at 3:06 AM, finished with 177 posts and 8 votes.
  • [X] Snowfire
    [X] Truth in Mercy
    -[X] "Given your own lack of protections from seeking magics, I hope you will not take it amiss if I secure us further from prying eyes. You have my word that I will abide by the peace of the Conclave." Bloodwish Mage's Private Sanctum on the room. Then drop the mask of Dywen, using glamour to hide the mundane disguise Tyene has equipped us with. I'm keeping this. Everything else changes. In this context, we're giving security and openness.
    -[X] Contact Dany and ensure that the captives are safe and whole. "Your friends are perfectly healthy, as are Lucan's subordinates. I am not a monster, whatever rumours may paint me as." Directly lifted, and an excellent opener.
    -[X] "You wish your companions returned." This is not a question. She hopes we will be a person of reason, and not what the rumours have shown us to be. We can prove that. "I will have them released. Now, or at a time more convenient to you."
    -[X] When she asks of Lucan's subordinates, grimace, and explain that it is more complicated, as our only true interaction with the works of the man has painted him as our enemy. The Angel born of the man who had been Baelor the Blessed in life was summoned to kill a king. Given that it had not already struck down the pretender in King's Landing, as it surely could, there were few enough other targets. I want the explanation for Baelor before we go any further with this.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Azel said:
Maybe it's worth stepping back from direct speech votes entirely, as I personally think a bullet point as @Snowfires plzn includes to talk about Baelor is inherently easier to weave organically into the narrative.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think we're thinking along similar lines. We got used to being able to run over opposing parties with our social scores, though to be fair that's not something that should vastly change where most of Planetos is concerned. My initial vote involved actual speech lines on all parts, but I stepped back from them because they're clearly too directive in the new paradigm you and DP are shooting for. They'll work in speeches, sure, and if we have a particular line that needs using then we can splice it in. But in general, we need to move away from the tightly-banded social voting we had before.

It only exacerbated the problem.

egoo said:
We may no longer have Azel writing socials, but that only means more need for fine control given to players when the stakes are high.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I feel this statement does a rather major disservice to all the other people who did write social votes. And it wasn't, in many cases, that it was Azel writing the vote. It's that he (and others, including myself) were wielding the deteriorating depth of many NPCs against DP like a mono-edge scalpel.

It was easy to roll over NPCs because all we had to do was vaguely infer certain beats and victory would simply manifest from the result.

@DragonParadox @Azel I am aware you are unlikely to want to do this, but though we're not retconning the arc, the way in which things got so badly tangled due to a total lack of communication should, I feel, necessitate some changes on your part, too.

We all understand what this arc was meant to be, but it's already failed in doing what it was planned to do. Salvage what you can, sure. But if you were seeing a morality hammer at the end of this road, find a way to avoid it if you can. You're both creative enough individuals to do that, and we should not be punished narratively for a failure which was as much yours as anyone else's. The responses from Azel on certain points here seem to speak of extreme attachment to the current line of plot extension.

Let it go.

DragonParadox said:
Never mind I just noticed the vote is not finalized
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Adding x's now. One moment.

Done.
Adhoc vote count started by Snowfire on May 18, 2019 at 3:45 AM, finished with 184 posts and 10 votes.
  • [X] Truth by Action
    -[X] "Given your own lack of protections from seeking magics, I hope you will not take it amiss if I secure us further from prying eyes. You have my word that I will abide by the peace of the Conclave." Bloodwish Mage's Private Sanctum on the room. Then drop the mask of Dywen, using glamour to hide the mundane disguise Tyene has equipped us with. I'm keeping this. Everything else changes. In this context, we're giving security and openness.
    -[X] Contact Dany and ensure that the captives are safe and whole. "Your friends are perfectly healthy, as are Lucan's subordinates. I am not a monster, whatever rumours may paint me as." Directly lifted, and an excellent opener.
    -[X] "You wish your companions returned." This is not a question. She hopes we will be a person of reasonable intentions, and not what many rumours have called us instead. We can prove that. "I will have them released. Now, or at a time more convenient to you."
    -[X] When she asks of Lucan's subordinates, grimace, and explain that it is more complicated, as our only true interaction with the works of the man has painted him as our enemy. The Angel born of the man who had been Baelor the Blessed in life was summoned to kill a king. Given that it had not already struck down the pretender in King's Landing, as it surely could, there were few enough other targets. I want the explanation for Baelor before we go any further with this.
    [X] Truth in Mercy
    -[X] "Given your own lack of protections from seeking magics, I hope you will not take it amiss if I secure us further from prying eyes. You have my word that I will abide by the peace of the Conclave." Bloodwish Mage's Private Sanctum on the room. Then drop the mask of Dywen, using glamour to hide the mundane disguise Tyene has equipped us with. I'm keeping this. Everything else changes. In this context, we're giving security and openness.
    -[X] Contact Dany and ensure that the captives are safe and whole. "Your friends are perfectly healthy, as are Lucan's subordinates. I am not a monster, whatever rumours may paint me as." Directly lifted, and an excellent opener.
    -[X] "You wish your companions returned." This is not a question. She hopes we will be a person of reason, and not what the rumours have shown us to be. We can prove that. "I will have them released. Now, or at a time more convenient to you."
    -[X] When she asks of Lucan's subordinates, grimace, and explain that it is more complicated, as our only true interaction with the works of the man has painted him as our enemy. The Angel born of the man who had been Baelor the Blessed in life was summoned to kill a king. Given that it had not already struck down the pretender in King's Landing, as it surely could, there were few enough other targets. I want the explanation for Baelor before we go any further with this.
    [X] Abstain
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Snowfire said:
@DragonParadox @Azel I am aware you are unlikely to want to do this, but though we're not retconning the arc, the way in which things got so badly tangled due to a total lack of communication should, I feel, necessitate some changes on your part, too.

We all understand what this arc was meant to be, but it's already failed in doing what it was planned to do. Salvage what you can, sure. But if you were seeing a morality hammer at the end of this road, find a way to avoid it if you can. You're both creative enough individuals to do that, and we should not be punished narratively for a failure which was as much yours as anyone else's. The responses from Azel on certain points here seem to speak of extreme attachment to the current line of plot extension.

Let it go.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For me it's not so much attachment to plot-lines as a desire to be true to the characters as created. I will try to work though this as well as I possibly can keeping in mind al I've learned over the past OOC discussions.
 
Vote tally.
Adhoc vote count started by DragonParadox on May 18, 2019 at 3:48 AM, finished with 185 posts and 10 votes.
  • [X] Truth by Action
    -[X] "Given your own lack of protections from seeking magics, I hope you will not take it amiss if I secure us further from prying eyes. You have my word that I will abide by the peace of the Conclave." Bloodwish Mage's Private Sanctum on the room. Then drop the mask of Dywen, using glamour to hide the mundane disguise Tyene has equipped us with. I'm keeping this. Everything else changes. In this context, we're giving security and openness.
    -[X] Contact Dany and ensure that the captives are safe and whole. "Your friends are perfectly healthy, as are Lucan's subordinates. I am not a monster, whatever rumours may paint me as." Directly lifted, and an excellent opener.
    -[X] "You wish your companions returned." This is not a question. She hopes we will be a person of reasonable intentions, and not what many rumours have called us instead. We can prove that. "I will have them released. Now, or at a time more convenient to you."
    -[X] When she asks of Lucan's subordinates, grimace, and explain that it is more complicated, as our only true interaction with the works of the man has painted him as our enemy. The Angel born of the man who had been Baelor the Blessed in life was summoned to kill a king. Given that it had not already struck down the pretender in King's Landing, as it surely could, there were few enough other targets. I want the explanation for Baelor before we go any further with this.
    [X] Truth in Mercy
    -[X] "Given your own lack of protections from seeking magics, I hope you will not take it amiss if I secure us further from prying eyes. You have my word that I will abide by the peace of the Conclave." Bloodwish Mage's Private Sanctum on the room. Then drop the mask of Dywen, using glamour to hide the mundane disguise Tyene has equipped us with. I'm keeping this. Everything else changes. In this context, we're giving security and openness.
    -[X] Contact Dany and ensure that the captives are safe and whole. "Your friends are perfectly healthy, as are Lucan's subordinates. I am not a monster, whatever rumours may paint me as." Directly lifted, and an excellent opener.
    -[X] "You wish your companions returned." This is not a question. She hopes we will be a person of reason, and not what the rumours have shown us to be. We can prove that. "I will have them released. Now, or at a time more convenient to you."
    -[X] When she asks of Lucan's subordinates, grimace, and explain that it is more complicated, as our only true interaction with the works of the man has painted him as our enemy. The Angel born of the man who had been Baelor the Blessed in life was summoned to kill a king. Given that it had not already struck down the pretender in King's Landing, as it surely could, there were few enough other targets. I want the explanation for Baelor before we go any further with this.
    [X] Abstain
Click to expand...
 
@Snowfire, the issue is not that I'm attached to a specific plot direction or direly want to drop a morality hammer. If I had to pick a preferred way this should have gone, then it would have been vastly different. Either ending in a heartfelt conversation that resolves to agree to disagree, or a climatic battle in the skies.

The Morality Hammer is not what was intended at any point. The intent was to show a character that disagrees with Viserys on moral grounds, without any intent, desire or even chance to vote "yes, mope a bit and be more Good".

What I am attached to is keeping Lucans characterization, but that means he will make a moral argument against Viserys MarySue-topia. And if your post illustrates anything, then that the thread will be entirely unable to not see this as OOC morality preaching.

Which puts us at the impasse that Lucan must either be a idiot that thread can easily hate or a Pokemon that will fawn over Perfect Viserys.

That is... unsatisfying.
 
Azel said:
@Snowfire, the issue is not that I'm attached to a specific plot direction or direly want to drop a morality hammer. If I had to pick a preferred way this should have gone, then it would have been vastly different. Either ending in a heartfelt conversation that resolves to agree to disagree, or a climatic battle in the skies.

The Morality Hammer is not what was intended at any point. The intent was to show a character that disagrees with Viserys on moral grounds, without any intent, desire or even chance to vote "yes, mope a bit and be more Good".

What I am attached to is keeping Lucans characterization, but that means he will make a moral argument against Viserys MarySue-topia. And if your post illustrates anything, then that the thread will be entirely unable to not see this as OOC morality preaching.

Which puts us at the impasse that Lucan must either be a idiot that thread can easily hate or a Pokemon that will fawn over Perfect Viserys.

That is... unsatisfying.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think this is a good example of how, when reading a story, it should be kept in mind that a character is not the writer, and while they have to act according to their personality and goals, it doesn't always reflect those of the author. That's something we've forgotten, as time goes on.
 
Azel said:
What I am attached to is keeping Lucans characterization, but that means he will make a moral argument against Viserys MarySue-topia. And if your post illustrates anything, then that the thread will be entirely unable to not see this as OOC morality preaching.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If the writing is on point, I can promise that I won't.
Of course I will probably vote to kill him, but assuming he's just overly optimistic (and not a total dumbass) I probably won't think he's a moron or Evil.

Varys showed that enemies who weren't idiots are possible (Varys was sometimes ill-informed and certainly very daring, but not an idiot).
 
Azel said:
@Snowfire, the issue is not that I'm attached to a specific plot direction or direly want to drop a morality hammer. If I had to pick a preferred way this should have gone, then it would have been vastly different. Either ending in a heartfelt conversation that resolves to agree to disagree, or a climatic battle in the skies.

The Morality Hammer is not what was intended at any point. The intent was to show a character that disagrees with Viserys on moral grounds, without any intent, desire or even chance to vote "yes, mope a bit and be more Good".

What I am attached to is keeping Lucans characterization, but that means he will make a moral argument against Viserys MarySue-topia. And if your post illustrates anything, then that the thread will be entirely unable to not see this as OOC morality preaching.

Which puts us at the impasse that Lucan must either be a idiot that thread can easily hate or a Pokemon that will fawn over Perfect Viserys.

That is... unsatisfying.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I like to think that after all the OOC discussion we had, including the above post we can all trust each their not to see this in a bad light.
 
@Ericwinter, precisely. However, the thread is a bit... thin-skinned with critique of Viserys.
For the record, so was I when I was on the other side.

@TalonofAnathrax, and this is what people tend to forget. The character has no plot armor. That's why I kept pointing out you could just lure the Chosen away and murder them.

In fact, I was 90% sure that Lucan and possibly Danelle would die, spending a lot of thought on potential encounter setups.
 
Azel said:
What I am attached to is keeping Lucans characterization, but that means he will make a moral argument against Viserys MarySue-topia. And if your post illustrates anything, then that the thread will be entirely unable to not see this as OOC morality preaching.

Which puts us at the impasse that Lucan must either be a idiot that thread can easily hate or a Pokemon that will fawn over Perfect Viserys.

That is... unsatisfying.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm still sleepy and waking up, but the fact of the matter as I see it is that unless Baelor has some damn good justification, anything you do with Lucan is going to smack of hypocrisy so hard that Viserys will probably have to make will saves not to just murder him outright.

I'm not going to judge that yet, but rewriting what we were able to infer into something totally different on every level is, in some ways, worse than yanking the rug out from under us mechanically. We have learnt to trust rumour posts, at least a little. Your explanation of Lucan is one pushing him through a lens of 'nope, everything negative you might have believed is wrong.'

That on its own, is workable. But throwing in a justification for the act that made us enemies so tangibly will feel very much like narrative fiat to remove a weakness rather than anything else.

I don't want you to change Lucan's characterisation, not really. I want him to be a person instead of a person shaped object labeled 'Foil' with a bunch of plot attached to back it up, regardless of what we 'know'. Because as this discussion has gone on, the latter has definitely begun to overwhelm the former. And that's...not nuance.
 
Last edited:
TalonofAnathrax said:
Varys showed that enemies who weren't idiots are possible (Varys was sometimes ill-informed and certainly very daring, but not an idiot
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
his plan was to play several demonic, devilish, or otherwise outright evil factions against each oth in a supernatural war... for the good of Westeros. If that doesn't just spell out idiotic i dont know what is. The man was clever, perhaps, but intelligent? I wouldn't say so.
 
Azel said:
In fact, I was 90% sure that Lucan and possibly Danelle would die, spending a lot of thought on potential encounter setups.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If that helps, I'm still really looking forward to the Lucan fight.

I'm still relativly sure that no matter how the social goes, our goals are fundamentally not compatible.
Though you can surprise me of course.
 
Azel said:
@Ericwinter, precisely. However, the thread is a bit... thin-skinned with critique of Viserys.
For the record, so was I when I was on the other side.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think that mostly comes from the fact that this has been a multi-year (IRL time) effort that has seen contribution from dozens if not hundreds of people of the years and probably over a thousand hours of thought so to have that work dismissed as a "MarySue-topia" really grinds the gears (at least it does for me). That also isn't to say that you of all people didn't contribute to that but that still doesn't change that it seems (at least to me) that years of decisions and work is being tossed out for the "Wheel of Morality", cause I mean even one long arc (like this has felt like) isn't going to be enough to change that what was previously built up took years and is now being torn down in weeks/months (in my opinion).
 
Noobody77 said:
Yes out of over a hundred regular readers that discussion you had with two or three of them (that isn't threadmarked in anyway) is definitely going to solve the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

OK, please stop that is the opposite of helpful.

Snowfire said:
I'm still sleepy and waking up, but the fact of the matter as I see it is that unless Baelor has some damn good justification, anything you do with Lucan is going to smack of hypocrisy so hard that Viserys will probably have to make will saves not to just murder him outright.

I'm not going to judge that yet, but rewriting what we were able to infer into something totally different on every level is, in some ways, worse than yanking the rug out from under us mechanically. We have learnt to trust rumour posts, at least a little. Your explanation of Lucan is one pushing him through a lens of 'nope, everything negative you might have believed is wrong.'

That on its own, is workable. But throwing in a justification for the act that made us enemies so tangibly will feel very much like narrative fiat to remove a weakness rather than anything else.

I don't want you to change Lucan's characterisation, not really. I want him to be a person instead of a person shaped object labeled 'Foil' with a bunch of plot attached to back it up, regardless of what we 'know'. Because as this discussion has gone on, the latter has definitely begun to overwhelm the former. And that's...not nuance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Don't worry de does have flaws and is a character before he is a foil.
 
Noobody77 said:
I think that mostly comes from the fact that this has been a multi-year (IRL time) effort that has seen contribution from dozens if not hundreds of people of the years and probably over a thousand hours of thought so to have that work dismissed as a "MarySue-topia" really grinds the gears (at least it does for me). That also isn't to say that you of all people didn't contribute to that but that still doesn't change that it seems (at least to me) that years of decisions and work is being tossed out for the "Wheel of Morality", cause I mean even one long arc (like this has felt like) isn't going to be enough to change that what was previously built up took years and is now being torn down in weeks/months (in my opinion).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We are not actually trying to do that... like at all. I'm not sure how I can even engage with this.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top