I am beginning to worry there is simply a glitch or bug. I have tried to confirm how to prevent the bombing, talking to folks off-line and am told just pick the stop him option on both toasts. That is exactly what I did. I picked ‘perhaps you want to stop him’. Twice! And then, for me, the embassy blew up. Others tell me they did the same thing and prevented the bombing. It sounds like folks are picking the same option, but getting different endings. Is there some other factor? I think the issue is that if you tip off the Embassy (which you have no reason to think would not lead them to partner with you in stopping it) that it doesn’t then matter that you pick ‘you want to stop him’ every time. Is there a third variable? Does it matter how much trust you build up, for reasons obscure? Again, I thought building trust helped prevent it, but maybe not?
I loved it. No surprises there.
I feel like we finally got a big, juicy hint about some aspect of the lore that hasn’t been uncovered by any of our lore experts yet.
And it was nice, as a roleplayer, to get plenty of details about what the Embassy looks like, how it functions, and so on.
Whoever got enough of the protester’s trust to find out how he got the bomb, I’ll be poring through your snippets. Also, anyone who chose to work with the constables.
If you tell the Embassy and betray the bomber, they bomb still blows up, but in a way that gives Devils a diplomatic advantage.
[quote=Robin Mask]I’m not sure this forum has a multi-quote system, so forgive me for answering two people at once . . .
I can’t remember the exact wording, so I can’t comment too precisely on that, but the options were basically: "toast sincerely" and "make enough noise people notice the toast". The latter seemed to imply a loss of his trust, as well as potential obstacles, while the former seemed to make more sense to me, as you would want to gain someone’s trust in order to learn more (and stop their plan). You can’t really stop someone, if they don’t trust you and you have no idea what they’re up to and they bugger off on their own without you.
I also think it directly contradicts the earlier choice; if the constables or devils know, it shouldn’t matter how much the bloke trusts you (or how much you may have changed your mind, which - if anything - would show you fickle and potentially able to change it back), because these guys ought to know and ought to be able to stop you/him . . . not to mention, they already know and you already showed allegiance to them, so you ought to have the choice to turn to them accordingly. Well, just the devils, I’ll admit, but it’d be cool if the constables were an option, too, at the end.
You say there’s a lore reason why the devils don’t get involved? I must have missed that. Can you tell me why? I find it extremely odd that I can tell them everything, but that they just ignore it (especially after - for some people - there may have already been trouble in their embassy, leaving it in disarray from another story, which should put them on high alert).[/quote]
I understood the toast options to be "toast sincerely" and "toast ambiguously". For example in the second toast the second option was toasting to subterfuge, which the protestor would clearly interpret in his favor but for the player could be interpreted in any way chosen. The second toast was also in his own house, so getting people’s attention wouldn’t really be relevant. I’m pretty sure it’s also completely possible to side with the Constables overall and completely prevent the bombing given the right sequence of choices. (Is it possible to side with Hell initially then betray him to stop the bomb?)
I think part of the problem is the ease of going along with the plan vs the difficulty of stopping it. I wanted to do the bombing so I enjoyed the story; it fit what I intended. You wanted to stop him, but didn’t realize the intended sequence of events to prevent it; therefore the story didn’t go along with your goal on a meta level. I guess my suggestion here would be to add game notes to the toasts and the initial choice that the decision would have consequences, though a way to betray to a different faction after the plan’s details were known would be ideal.
Had there been 3 toast options, labeled “toast sincerely and look forward to setting the bomb off”; “toast him knowing you intend to betray him even as you let the bomb explode”; “toast him hiding the fact that you intend to prevent the bombing”, it would prevent the issues flagged.
Can anyone see a reason that level of clarity about your own intentions would not improve the experience?
[quote=babelfishwars][quote=ochrasy]well, I have to say one thing I didn’t like:
An Account of the Souls Aboard Hell’s Triremes
is a quality and not an item. unless it will be used again (it has a number following it), I hope it gets changed to an item soon.[/quote]
[color=#e53e00]coughs apologetically Look again.[/color][/quote]
finally! I can now put it on my mantelpiece.
[quote=Appolonia]Had there been 3 toast options, labeled "toast sincerely and look forward to setting the bomb off" "toast him knowing you intend to betray him even as you let the bomb explode" "toast him hiding the fact that you intend to prevent the bombing", it would prevent the issues flagged.
Can anyone see a reason that level of clarity about your own intentions would not improve the experience?[/quote]
Having three separate options like that seems both more confusing and slightly spoilers for what might come, but mostly just makes changing your mind harder. Currently the betrayal option is just that you might betray him, but it isn’t written to decide your choice then and there - it just leaves your options open differently.
Wait, so is bombing the Embassy really a loss or a gain for the devils? If that’s the case, then my only complaint for this otherwise enjoyable ES would be that they need to make that more clear for those wishing to stay loyal to the Protester. From a narrative perspective, it sounds like the damage alone from planning out the bombing was a damage to Hell, or at the very least a sore thorn in their side. That added with the fact that you can bomb important sections of the Embassy crucial to Hell, wouldn’t that cost be worth it in the end? Or at the very least, if not, shouldn’t that be somehow made known?
edited by Sir Joseph Marlen on 5/27/2016
More or less I thought it was all right, but the thing that stuck out at me that I was really very unhappy with was that the only ways (besides immediately running to tell someone, and then you only have the once chance that I saw to do this) to indicate that you intended on double-crossing the Protestor was to literally indicate this to the Protestor.
I don’t necessarily love ‘what are you actually thinking here’ options but that would have felt a lot more preferable to me than ‘slyly toast to something that suggests you’re not on board here’.
edited by neongrey on 5/27/2016
[quote=neongrey]I don’t necessarily love ‘what are you actually thinking here’ options but that would have felt a lot more preferable to me than ‘slyly toast to something that suggests you’re not on board here’.
edited by neongrey on 5/27/2016[/quote]
I thought that’s what it was? I don’t remember the exact wording but I interpreted it as toasting to something he’d interpret as fitting the bomb plot but ambiguous enough you aren’t really supporting him. For the second one I believe it was subterfuge, which applies to the plot but also attempts to undermine it.
The second is ‘a sly toast to intrigue’ which strikes me as really inappropriate for ‘yes i am on board with your bombing plot’ and when you do it he side-eyes you before running with it. I forget specifically what the first one was but I recall that I wasn’t willing to entertain it because it would have pretty much entirely given away the farm and I was trying to milk the guy for information.
The first one was screaming that you were going to bomb the devils at the top of your lungs, or something close to it. He was rather bothered by it.
edited by suinicide on 5/27/2016
I didn’t have any trouble with the toasts. First you’re given a choice on who to tell, which establishes your initial loyalties. Then you’re given the opportunity to toast in an honest or dishonest way. Then later you’re given a second opportunity to make another such toast. So, like, that’s three opportunities to commit or change your mind. Am I missing something?
I liked this month’s story. It might not have been the best story ever, but the fun glimpse inside the enigmatic Brass Embassy was worth it alone.
I didn’t have a real problem with the choices presented; I felt it was rather clear which choice lead to what consequences. Sure, there could always have been ‘more’ opportunities to rethink, but that’s a moot discussion. Also, a protagonist is not always a hundred percent in control of events, that would be unrealistic itself.
I think what’s going on is some people are having the opposite problem from the previously-criticized “unmarked quirk loss” storylets – that the telegraphs feel too on-the-nose, so much so that it seems difficult to disbelieve that the Protestor wouldn’t immediately catch on, or at least that they’re presented in such a way. This is probably exacerbated by the fact that you do have to make the toasts out loud, so it seems odd that he wouldn’t catch on to what “a toast to intrigue” means.
For what it’s worth, for as clearly signposted as they were, I was very surprised that toasting chaos and intrigue did not drop Steadfast.
Loved it loved it loved it! My character loathes devils, so he was pretty much dying with joy the entire time. It felt so nice to actually be doing something tangible against a serious menace too…so much so that that even the "OMG stop this! You’re going to harm innocents!" part at the end wasn’t enough to give me pause, and my character is usually Mr. Magnanimous (though finding out the devils might actually benefit from my actions does kinda stick in my craw :P ).
I didn’t have trouble with any of the options available, although I was playing a very straightforward path (sided wholeheartedly with the Protester from beginning to end) so that was probably why. I found the mechanics enjoyable and had a lot of fun with this one.
Kudos to the writers! It was nice to have fun with an exceptional story again after one of the more recent ones practically destroyed my character and almost made me quit. I knew you guys could win me back! ;)
I also fail to see how any of this warrants a downvote :P
edited by Kukapetal on 5/28/2016[li]
edited by Kukapetal on 5/28/2016
I think, for me at least, I want always to be given the option to change my mind at the very last moment.
In this specific story I did not have enough information to make up my mind till I knew all the details and saw the situation at the location the day of the bombing. I was not sure at all if I was going to betray him or not, certainly not at the first toast and not even at the second.
I think there lies the problem; some see it as a cop-out to be able to change your mind at the very end and want you to commit early on.
For me it just doesn’t work that way; lots of things could sway your mind/opinion/etc.
It’s always dangerous to bring the ‘real world’ into things like this but there’s been examples enough of people who were completely convinced they were going to do A and then at the moment supreme did B.
Well, he does catch on. That’s why you don’t get trust from doing that. He’s desperate for a second pair of hands though, hence why he’s willing to work with someone he doesn’t trust and who could easily be a double agent.
I was on board with the plot from the beginning, so I don’t know much about the devil option, but it seems to me that a choice like that early on should have a significant impact on the course of the story, not just a brief explanation of why they won’t interfere (even if it’s a good explanation). You should, for example, have options later on to coordinate with the devils to make sure your co-conspirator/patsy places the bomb exactly where the senior devils want it placed.
From what I understand, it’s
[spoiler]insurance fraud writ large. If the Embassy gets bombed on Masters’ watch, they can extract a lot of concessions in return.
That’s why the Constables’ branch warns you not to let the plan succeed: the devils "can’t be allowed that kind of leverage". [/spoiler][/quote]
Ooooo, that’s really interesting. Kind of a powerplay situation between the different forces in london. Who has sway over who and all that