I like the sound of the setting, but I was a little confused about how narration interacts with success. Success in the conflict comes from the greater number of successes rolled, but narration goes with the 6s? I'm not sure what that achieves compared, say, to having the narration go with the conflict winner.

If the conflict is, say, between the Mayor the Graver's village and the mayor of another village why is it still the Graver's dice that are rolled? Is the Graver assumed to be involved in the meeting as an advisor, for example, or is it more about the fact that the actions of the people under the Graver's guardianship reflect on the Graver directly?

Solipsist RPG, on its way ... eventually

Ah, I haven't explained this very well in the text and it needs clarification.

Short version: You aren't rolling the Graver's dice to see who wins that conflict. There are no mechanics for determining who wins conflicts. Who wins conflicts isn't important. What's important is how the Graver reacts to the events which happen.

Slightly longer explanation (which I need to incorporate better into the text):

The die roll serves two distinct purposes:

First, the successes, dice which roll 3 or under, determine whether you gain or lose a point of the attribute you wanted.

Second, the number of sixes (or fives or whatever) you get determines who gets to describe the outcome of the conflict.

The exact outcome of the conflict (ie, what happens) is up to whoever describes it (whoever gets the most 6s). But bear in mind that it has to make sense that whatever happens causes the change in attributes.

So your not really rolling to see who wins the conflict, because that's not really the point of the game. You're rolling to see how the Graver reacts to the outcome of the conflict, because that is the point of the game.

As for why the Graver's dice are used, well, it's all about the Gravers.

Massive thanks for the input, really helpful.

Ahhh that makes much more sense!

Maybe the word conflict isn't right at all then, more like ... ummm ... dilemma? As in moral dilemma, since that is what is happening.

So going back to the example in your story games post, where you have the two rival mayors meeting, how does the Graver get involved (since it is all about the Graver). Would it intervene and offer advice or instruction, or would it be asked for wisdom? Or does it simply observe the encounter and modify its opinions based on what it sees happening?

Your other examples, like the famine and war, kind of suggest direct physical involvement by the Graver

Solipsist RPG, on its way ... eventually

Good! It needs to go into the text for definite. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yeah, Conflict isn't really the right term maybe. I probably just used that because, well, that's the terms which is usually used and I was in a hurry.

Doubt would be a better word: Here is the thing which may cause doubt when it's presented to the Graver. I need to think on that. Or maybe Question is better: The Question asked which makes the Graver change it's outlook.

Pretty much all of what you've said. That is:

The Graver isn't supposed to interfere with the humans, but a the same time it's supposed to look after their spiritual wellbeing and make sure they do right by The Teachings. Which is very contradictory and paradoxical.

So in you example, yes, the Graver might intervene and offer advice. It might be asked for advice, depending on the relationship it has with the humans under it's stewardship. Some humans will be utterly dedicated to God and will cling to a Graver's every word. Others will pay lip service to The Teachings and pretty much ignore anything the Graver says or twist it to suit their own agenda. Some Gravers will just sit by and let the humans do whatever they want and contemplate the outcome. It all depends on the specific Graver and their flock.

Again, I need to be explicit with that, because I don't make it clear anywhere in the text.

Yeah, strictly speaking the Gravers aren't supposed to interfere directly with the humans at all. But the idea is that this isn't really possible, because they have to give sermons, bury the dead and advise on spiritual matters, so they have to interfere.

The question posed might be something like "Is it a sin to defend the village against the barbarians? Is it a sin to NOT defend them?" The thing I'm driving at is this: A Graver is more than capable of defending the village. The question is the important thing. "Can I do this?" is not important. "Should/Will I do this?" is the important thing.

So lets have a proper example:

Barbarians are invading a village at the edge of your stewardship. The village is very devout and the elder of the village asks you for help against the barbarians. The harvest has not been great this year, if the barbarians take the village's food stores times will be hard this winter. The villagers are outnumbered and do not have weapons or combat training; if they try to fight they will most likely be slaughtered.

Your Graver has the weaponry required to prevent the village coming to harm.

Faith is the Attribute at stake.

We agree that the question is: "Is it right to defend the village from the barbarians?"

In favour of "No" is the fact that you aren't supposed to interfere directly, and that killing is a sin.

In favour of "Yes" there are a few things, which will vary depending on the player and Graver being played. "The barbarians are Godless heathens: their lives are worth less than those of the devout and faithful villagers" would be one. "This show of God's power will strengthen the faith of the villagers" might be a different one.

We roll. Your Graver has a Faith of 6, so you roll 6 dice. I roll 5 dice.

You get the most successes and I get more 6s than you.

Because you go the most successes you gain a point of Faith, taking you to 7.

Because I got more 6s than you, I describe the outcome of the scene: Your Graver decides that God's will must be obeyed and that killing is a sin. It advises the village elders to hand over their food stores to the barbarians so that they will leave in peace. Without their food stores, the villagers will have a hard winter and some may starve. A small price to pay for their immortal souls, thinks the Graver, and in a hundred years or so no-one except God will remember the dead anyway.

Does the player of the Graver get to pick this? It seems that the winner of the narration decides how the Graver reacts to the situation, which may not match the player intent at all. Does the player intent come from choosing which of the opposed pair of stats is used for the question?

i.e. if I (the player) feel that in fact I would much rather side with the beating up the bandits I would presumably choose doubt instead of faith, seeking to increase it. So a success, for me, makes me beat up the bandits, and on a failure I am too overcome by my built in faith to do so.

Of course if my faith is strong it is very hard for me to doubt, even if I want to, because I roll so many fewer dice. Surely there is a sort of opposite death-spiral going on here, the more I lean towards a particular trait the more dice I roll and therefore the more likely it is to increase. Even if the framing player keeps throwing me doubt based scenes I roll few dice for them and am unlikley to increase them.

Solipsist RPG, on its way ... eventually

The idea is that yes, the player controlling the Graver which is the focus of the scene chooses which attribute to test. Whoever narrates the outcome of the scene can do whatever they want with that, as long as they explain why the Graver's attributes change the way they do.

Going back to the previous example:

Imagine that you had both won the most successes and got the most 6s. You gain your point of Faith as before, but this time you get to describe the outcome of the scene. You decide that you want to kick the bandits arses. You need to come up with an answer to the Question which allows for that. Which is pretty easy: "The barbarians are Godless heathens. Their lives count for nought next to the lives of my faithful flock" So you let them have it with both barrels and gain a point of Faith because from you Graver's point of view, destroying the barbarian horde was the right thing to do in the eyes of God. "If it's good enough for the crusaders, it's good enough for me" is a perfectly valid stance for a Graver. But not all of them would agree, and an interesting one might be to set that Graver's next scene as a meeting with a slightly less militant Graver over the Net.

Yes, there is very much a "death spiral". The first two or three scenes will pretty much set the path for the rest of the Graver's story. A Graver which gains two points of Doubt in it's first two scenes is likely locked into it's fate of losing it's faith by the end of the game. Also, with more dice being thrown by the Graver in later scenes, the chances of the controlling player getting more 6s and thus getting control of the narrative is higher as the game moves on.

It's kind of the point the the Gravers have little control of their ultimate fates. Faith either finds them or Doubt does, there's not really much they can do about it.

(Edit: Yay! Quotage!)

you've got to have a name in the quote (i.e. quote=Hituro) or it doesn't work

Solipsist RPG, on its way ... eventually