Quote:
- The nature of the truce or understanding between the Traditions and the Technocracy - any references to rules or protocols?
- What if any other matters come up, and whether those are routine or not?
- Suggestions as to current tensions w.r.t. the above?
So I gave you a bunch of information RE: the nature of the truce in the first post. Here's a copy paste of that information:
[ +- ] Spoiler
at the beginning of every other fiscal quarter, representatives from the Traditions and the Technocracy meet to... well, it depends, but mostly they meet just to meet and show each other whatever good will they can manage, for however long they can manage it. There's nominally supposed to be an "open discourse" regarding the state of things in the area, a "sharing of news and ideas" and all that, but... In reality it's usually just a shared meal and a tacit acknowledgement that the other exists, and that's okay, and that they can all continue to agree not to try to kill each other... for now.
On the alternate-quarters, the meet is at the Technocracy's Tower of the Americas.
The Techno's have a firm foothold in and around Austin, and everyone knows Texas beyond that is mostly theirs anyway - at least where it matters - and so all the Factions know that they see San Antonio as the place to tactically give ground and show good will.
And? Good will is good will. And the Traditions are happy to "keep their enemy closer" than their friends here, and so they do this thing.
When and where the Factions can agree, there is some history of collaboration between the two factions here in the City. What with the Alamo and the history of the Missions, the Shroud can get rather thin here in San Antonio, and they can at least agree that the interests of the living should take precedence over those of the dead.
Most of them can, anyway... most of the time.
In summary: it's a tense truce.
That's the important part right?
And sure. There are rules and protocols. But... they're not important are they? Particularly because you guys are just gonna follow them, aren't you? You have to for the group to come together, right?
All of this is just a narrative artifice so that we can bring the group together in a plausible fashion, right? None of this scene really matters, beyond that.
It's a tense truce.
There are rules and protocols.
You follow the rules and protocols.
Let's move on to a place on the narrative where there is more interesting information and gameplay to zoom in on.
I'm not hiding anything from you guys in this scene or interaction. I'm just "bringing the group together". And introducing the first "adventure".
So again, just a bit of insight into my ST style there.
Quote:
Quite reasonable that Dominic's own demeanour should be a separate roll if warranted. To try and be more specific, he is trying not to give anything away, rather than actively fit in. I would suggest Manipulation and Subterfuge is a reasonable combination for this, if there is any need to roll.
And I don't think there is a roll needed to "not give anything away". You don't really have anything to give away yet, and feeling/seeming out of place or out of your depth is rather inconsequential (if for no other reason than because it is assumed by the senior members) at this time :P
As for explaining your goals for future rolls...
I mean, I don't think that should be necessary most of the time?
However I say that based on an assumption that we all understand the system to work/rolls to be formed roughly the same. And so this has made me question my assumption in that regard.
How about:
If you're following one of the many pre-defined actions in the book that has a "RAW" roll defined for it, you don't need to add context.
However, if you're just making up your own roll, let's give the context you think is necessary, to understand why you put the roll together as you did.