Timeline for How can I simplify Duel of Wits to make it more like Bloody Versus?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2013 at 18:26 | comment | added | user8248 | @AlexP Ah, thanks! Hopefully your question was answered, then? | |
| Aug 23, 2013 at 11:56 | comment | added | Alex P | I'm giving this answer the bounty because it was the first to suggest using margin of success to determine compromises. | |
| Aug 23, 2013 at 11:53 | history | bounty ended | Alex P | ||
| Jul 29, 2013 at 4:07 | history | edited | user8248 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 469 characters in body
|
| Jul 29, 2013 at 3:36 | history | edited | user8248 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1216 characters in body
|
| Jul 29, 2013 at 3:07 | comment | added | user8248 | @AlexP If it's possible, you can communicate to the players that they can and should debate in character; once they start, they'll stop when it's natural, and then you can roll. Or, maybe you'll find you don't need to. You can also roll at critical points in the argument, and do as Fate: lose certain points, win others. | |
| Jul 29, 2013 at 2:53 | comment | added | Alex P | It's certainly a viable approach. One thing I do like about DoW's back-and-forth is that sometimes a statement will completely change the way I think about a situation, which prompts me to just give if I'm not longer worried about the stakes in the same way. Going to straight-up one-roll does kinda reduce that. | |
| Jul 29, 2013 at 2:23 | history | answered | user8248 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |