Duel of Wits Results and Time

[jchokey]

Per p. 104 of the brown rulebook:

"The loser must abide by the results of the argument: He's lost and has agreed to go along with whatever it was his opponent proposed at the outset of the duel--- for the time being, of course."

My questions concern that "for the time being" part.

How long is "for the time being"? For the duration of the scene? Time to sleep on it? A change in circumstances? At what point can the loser choose to *stop* going along with the duel results without it being "cheating" or being a bad sport?


Let me give an example from play:

Recently, the PCs had encountered a Nolah (an intelligent monster created by the god Ilvir). In our last session, one PC, Maban, persuaded the Nolah (through a DoW) to come back to the city of Coranan with them and dwell in their temple. (The results were actually a bit more complicated, but I'm keeping it simple for example purposes).

So, the Nolah has started coming back with them to the city. But it is only required to do so "for the time being". How long is that? At what point could it *stop* going a long with those results and try and bolt, without it really be gross act of cheating Maban out of her victory of it? Next scene? When it actually arrives in the temple and after it makes at least a brief attempt at living their, ensuring that the results have been met? Some other time?

(If it matters, the trek to the city is about 10 days at the rate they're going.)

[luke]

All tests and conflicts lead to tests and conflicts. DoW results abide until changed in the context of another conflict. They're not walls, they're twists.

[jchokey]

Another related question that I thought I'd post in the same thread:

In some of our group's DOWs, we have introduced 'time-based' compromises.

For instance, the PCs got in a Duel of Wits with a priest of another temple, and advanced the following stakes, "You will order your priests to stop participating in the sale/trade of Ivashu.... and you will stop doing the same yourself." We had chosen a compromise that was, "I and my priests will not participate in the sale/trade of Ivashu for at least four months."

Part of me wonders if being this specific and requiring the other priest to agree to do this for such a long period of time, breaks the "for the time-being" clause. Thoughts?

[jchokey]

DoW results abide until changed in the context of another conflict. They're not walls, they're twists.

Hmmm... OK. Let me work that out by using the example I gave.

The Nolah must go along along with the plan until some other conflict might change that. That makes sense.

But what kind of conflict might change that?

Does it have to be another conflict between the PCs and the Nolah-- something like trying to persuade it: "We need to sneak you into the city. So, we're going to ask you to spend the rest of the trip hiding inside this barrel.... or "People will think you're dangerous, so we need to make it appear like we captured you, so we're going to have to tie you up.".

Or could it be some other conflict, like the PCs (and the Nolah) get ambushed en route, and the Nolah tries to use it as a good chance to try to run away?

Could the *Nolah* initiate a conflict in hopes of changing the DOW result--- or would that be cheating?

[luke]

Nolah can't initiate anything. Nolah's player, however...

Further more, why would Nolah want to back out of the deal? He/she is convinced (because he/she lost the previous DoW).

[jchokey]

Nolah can't initiate anything. Nolah's player, however...

Can you please elaborate on how the Nolah's player can initiate a new conflict that will change that in a way that doesn't involve the Nolah doing it?


Further more, why would Nolah want to back out of the deal? He/she is convinced (because he/she lost the previous DoW).

Not necessarily. Per, p. 104-105: "These rules don't dictate reality or true feelings. They only dictate public performance and acknowledgement.... If a player is particularly open-minded, he can, of course, have his character change his mind.... Being convinced of the merit of an argument is an acceptable result of these mechanics, but it is not the hard and fast rule."

So, maybe the Nolah wasn't really convinced that this was what he wanted to do.... but just felt pressured into going along with it at the time. He was afraid of what might happen if he said no (he had just seen them kill another monster more powerful than him), he had just eaten a big meal and wasn't thinking correctly because he was sated on man-flesh, whatever....

At what point does "for the time being" end, such that he could *stop* going along with the plan, in such a situation? It seems to me that he shouldn't be permitted to do so before the results from the DOW were actually somewhat achieved-- otherwise she's being robbed of her successful intent. But, is that right?

[luke]

Ok, how about this? By the letter of the rules, the character cannot act in a way to contravene the results of the Duel of Wits. I was using "character is convinced" as a convenience.

And I'm not going to answer your first question! And nobody else should either! Hear me?

You answer it. You tell me.

[jchokey]

Ok, how about this? By the letter of the rules, the character cannot act in a way to contravene the results of the Duel of Wits.

Yes, "for the time being". It's still not clear what that is to me yet, though.

And I'm not going to answer your first question! And nobody else should either! Hear me?

You answer it. You tell me.

Sorry. I don't have the faintest idea. If I did, I would have proposed an answer. I apologize for thinking you might want to help actually provide clear answers to questions about your game.

[luke]

Don't get defensive. You may have noticed that I spend a lot of time willingly answering your questions.

Use your imagination. Make something up! Come on. Work with me. Based on the discussions about your games that I've seeen, I know you know this.

-L

[jchokey]

Don't get defensive.

I'm not. I'm being honest-- I really don't have the the slightest idea of what you were suggesting. I'm a little surprised/shocked at your reticence to clarify.

Use your imagination. Make something up! Come on. Work with me.

So really, you don't have the slightest idea either. :) Fair enough... I'll see if I can fill the void:

I'm thinking that the answer to my original question (How long is "for the time being?) is "for the duration of the current scene." Period. Nothing contextual about it. The rest of my questions (and the Nolah example) would then prove to be based on a faulty assumption-- the error being to think that Duel of Wits is capable of persuading a character to take any action beyond the current, immediate scene. Duel of Wits is only capable of compelling action *within* the current scene.

Thus, "If I win the Nolah will come back to us to Coranan and dwell there," is an illegitimate stake/resolution, if "coming back to Coranan and dwelling there" would be beyond the confines of the current scene. The stake should instead be phrased as, "If I win, the Nolah will *agree* to come back to Coranan with us and dwell in our temple" or "If I win the Nolah will agree and begin packing up and traveling with us to Coranan."

What happens later is up to the player of the Nolah. He *could* choose to say the Nolah really was persuaded to come back and now actively wishes to do so. (In which case the question of how long "for the time being" is is moot, unless something else should change the Nolah's mind). Or he could choose to say that the Nolah still thought this was a bad idea, but only agreed due to the high-pressure of DOW> Thus, during the next scene where the Nolah might have a chance to reneg on his prior agreement (by sneaking away, eating the party members, or whatever, he *may* do so, since DOW is only valid for one scene.

The act of renegging, though permissable, would still have social /game consequences, as it would earn the Nolah a reputation for untrustworthiness, indecision, lying, or what-have-you-- and would probably result in some unpleasant trait ("renegger") or bad reputation being voted on it. It could also result in the players taking vengeance on it for breaking its agreement (i.e. the creation of a new conflict). So, although not bound by the rules to *actually come to Coranan and dwell in the temple" there would be social consequences (which could come to be reflected in rules terms)-- and conflicts resulting from the act of breaking his prior agreement.

So, whadda ya think?

[Berandor]

I thought luke meant "the first question in that post", i.e.
Can you please elaborate on how the Nolah's player can initiate a new conflict that will change that in a way that doesn't involve the Nolah doing it?

As for "the time being", I would argue that the terms of the DoW must be adhered to unless the situation changes significantly. That is, the Nolah in your first example would admit that the arguments *for* going to the temple and staying there were better than those against. So he'll go to the temple and stay there for a while,

a) until one of the arguments is proven bogus ("The city is in turmoil wihtout you" and it isn't, for example) or is rendered ineffective afterwards ("The mafia threatens the temple" and then the mafia is broken up in a razzia or something)

b) unless something happens on the way that changes things or

c) unless the Nolah escalates the conflict.

With the priests, it's the same. They'll stop doing business, but if after a week former customers start throwing bad food at them when they go out or complain to the mayor (or whatever) who in turn starts pressuring the priests, things may change.

I would say "for the time being" is a way of requiring a character, when he breaks the terms, to be able to say, "Hey, I tried" // "That's not what I agreed to" // "That's not what you said" (unless he escalates the conflict, of course).

[Saphim]

I think "for the time being" means "until another conflict changes this". If you agree to live somewhere, then you live there until a conflict forces you to do otherwise.
If you agree to come into the city and dwell in the temple, then you will do so until the population drives you away with pitchforks. Of course this all is subject to change and interpretation due to personal beliefs.

[luke]

Thanks for doing that. It helps!

Anyway, Patrick's almost got it, but Dominik nails it.

DoW abides by the essential tenet of Let It Ride. The agreement remains in effect until fulfilled or until the "situation changes." In other words, until a conflict or significant test alters the conditions of the Statement of Purpose.

If you lose a DoW to a "You will help us defeat the rebels," you're going to help your friends defeat the rebels no matter how much you hate it.

If, in the course of your duty, you meet a Rebel Princess and fall in love, you're still going to help your friends defeat the rebels. If the Rebel Princess engages you in a DoW and convinces you to run away with her, you've dramatically changed the conditions and aren't bound by the first result. But unless she does something like that, you're bound to turn her into your friends as the rebel scum she is.

-L