Comments on: Old World Order: The Accords (Part 2)

By: admin

admin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:04:47 +0000

@XavierDLH, the author of that part, Genevieve Cogman, is from the UK. I’ll make sure our editors know about it.

By: XavierDLH

XavierDLH — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:48:31 +0000

Is there any particular reason for using the British spelling for ‘offense’ in that write-up? Is this going to be in the final book?
I can’t stand it when people mix versions of English.

So were you going for an Old World feel, or what?

By: Fruny

Fruny — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:15 +0000

Heh, good idea. Here’s a further (rather obvious) suggestion: assign each rule in the Accords a rating, which must be beaten to find a rule that contradicts it. If you try to contradict multiple rules, you need to beat them all. The rating of the new rule can be chosen by the player anywhere between the next rating above that of the original rule and the effort that was rolled.
The opponent could, in turn try to contradict the new rule with a better roll.
Of course, all the rules so generated should be permanently recorded for later use. There is a bit of strategy involved in choosing between narrow or sweeping rules, and between lower and higher ratings, though th GM should probably make sure sweeping rules have a lower rating than narrow ones… (spend shifts to broaden the rule?)

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:10:49 +0000

At my table, with enough shifts in a Lore-based declaration, the Accords will say whatever the PC needs them to say.

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:23:44 +0000

And remember, even if the Accords are clear, you still have the laws of your own people to deal with.

Sure, there is an simple solution to this problem with the Accords. All you need to do is open the gates of beyond and…

By: fred

fred — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:36:24 +0000

@Gdex, those are the moments that duels to the death are made of.

By: Gdex

Gdex — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:35:32 +0000

The accords seem to make it clear that humans are the Nuclear Option for the supernatural community and Neutron Bomb being Lawyers. Someone who can argue the letter of the law it’s utmost stretching point and in doing make it easier to stretch the next time.

But I’m more wondering what happens when two letters of the law collide. Like say that naughty child on the bridge is the apprentice of a warden. Or if someone attempts a John Constantine and gets both the winter and summer court to try to claim the exact same thing.

By: fred

fred — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:06:56 +0000

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I agree that an accords wiki or similar thang is an attractive way to go with this.

By: Perrin Rynning

Perrin Rynning — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:52:05 +0000

It’s not exactly appropriate in-game, but I think that an “Unseelie Accords Wiki” is probably the way to go. It would offer a compromise between references to what Jim has included to this point (i.e., “canon” Unseelie Accords text as well as general concepts that have been discussed in service of the stories), while leaving other game groups the freedom to come up with their own codicils and addenda.
Trying to imagine the time and effort Mab invested in the Accords makes my brain hurt. Trying to replicate her mindset (to capture the “look and feel” of the Accords’ structure and loopholes) hurts even more. Still, I look forward to some fascinating discussions about various fine points…

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:43:39 +0000

Maybe some mention of those aspects (heh, heh) that have already appeared in the books. Like the concept of Hospitality, or the Duel. And of course, how the Letter of the Law might be circumvented.