An event hits the table, played by the guy to my right.
"A giant robot runs amok in Central City."
It comes out, as usual, with two dice on it... one red, one blue. The red one is usually "Villain" and the blue one is usually "Hero".
I'm playing a villain, Doctor Pipewrench.
I use my powers to roll up the "hero" die. "Noone trashes this city but me!" I stake the debt that I just earned on that die.
The other players spend their actions putting other events and goals into play.
Next page. I'm first to claim. I claim the "hero" side of the "A giant robot runs amok in Central City." event.
One of the other players, Joe, who's also got a villain, seeing a possible easy story token in it for him, claims the "villain" side.
I take my turn. I roll up the die again, take the resulting debt, and split it. I react to my own roll by rolling up again. It's a good score.
Play goes around to the other villain. He makes a token resistance, staking just one debt.
The round comes to an end. The Event resolves. It's my turn to narrate...
Does the fact that I've been playing the "hero" side of the conflict mean that I'm constrained to narrate a heroic conclusion to the event?
Absolutely not. They're only "usually" hero and villain dice.
p. 26: "Before being rolled the dice don't represent any particular side. Once someone roles one, it now represents their side."
If you've got two villains competing in a Conflict, and no heroes then it's going to be something villainous pretty much any way it falls out. They're debating about whose brand of villainy.
Hm.
Okay... so after I roll a die as my action, it's MY die, and if it (and any dice spawned from it) win, *I* win, no matter who else may have reacted to it?
Or does owning a die require staking debt?
Ah... a different question, I think. In your first example there was no mention of anyone other than you deciding what the blue die stood for, right?
But if you roll up the blue die, then someone else allies with you and resolves the blue die, can they do something radically different than your obvious intent?
Can, to use a real-play example, a hero resolve the heroic side of "Goal: Assassinate President on Live Television" (i.e. the one where that plan fails) to say that the Prez still gets killed, but it's not on live TV? Even if only that player, among the three players who contributed to the heroic side, favors that solution?
Yes, he can. If you want to undeniably own the die then you have to stake Debt, and make it a die created because of your Debt. If you can't trust your allies things get very tricky.
I now see the value of the claiming mechanic, when I hadn't before.
Really... dice don't have sides, at all, not until they're claimed.
You know, during the claiming phase, it should be legal to create a one-die, one-point side, with debt unstaked, as a third side, at that point.
Otherwise you run the risk of having two villains claim both sides of an event, thereby giving the heroes no chance to create a "heroic" resolution.
If your hero doesn't care, why does it matter?
I'm assuming the hero DOES care.
You're in the claiming portion of the turn. Players are A, B, C, and D.
You're D. A and C are villains. A goes first, claiming one side of the conflict, B claims a different one, C claims the other. Since noone has taken any actions yet, either one could win it.
At this point, it would be really, really hard for D to win this conflict. The best he could do, is try to make it tie, so he could grab a side in it in the next round.
I'm a little confused. Is there a reason the hero cannot invest Debt, and schism off his own side (which he would then have greater game-mechanic authority over)?
Sure, he can schism off his own side, if he has the debt available for it. But he can't claim it at that point. He's been shut out during the claiming phase. He can weaken one side by splitting off dice from it, but unless he is lucky enough that the dice will allow him to cause the two sides to be tied, or has enough resources available (story tokens, inspiration) to actually WIN the conflict, he's still at a disadvantage. Even if he DOES win that page, he still has to go into ANOTHER page to claim it... and can concievably get shut out again.
It just seems more fair to me, to allow folks to create a third side during the claiming phase.
I'm still not getting you. What's unfair about it? Don't the heroes have exactly the same opportunity to make a conflict with two heroic sides, and lock the villains out?
And from a strategic viewpoint, if the villains are occupied fighting each other, wouldn't it be the perfect time for a hero to be concentrating his effort somewhere else?
Maybe it'll make more sense if it's in specific. I'll try to make it as direct as possible.
Our characters are again A, B, C, and D.
The event, played in the first page, is "D's girlfriend is rescued from the bugblatter beast." For whatever reason, A and C both think it would be really funny if D isn't the one who rescues her. On the claiming phase, A claims one side and C claims the other. As play comes around, both of them play on it, and both roll up each other's dice... so each die gets rolled three times before it gets to D. Let's say neither of them put down any debt... after all, this is just a lark for them, tormenting D by playing "keep away" with his girlfriend. Both dice are likely to wind up either 5 or 6 by the time they get to him. He'll have chances to roll them down, but since he'll have (at maximum) only one "5" on his character sheet, he'll probably only be able to roll ONE of them down, and possibly neither.
When it comes around to D's action, he's at a strong disadvantage. He can invest debt to split off one of the sides, but it remains likely that if he does, the other will win. Even if this tactic succeeds, and he comes out on top, the side he has created will get claimed by C (who claims before him) in the following round, and he'll once again be at a disadvantage.
Uh... you're talking about three players consistently opposing D, yes?
Well then, yeah, he's screwed. And it has nothing to do with the structure of these particular rules, and everything to do with the fact that he has three players united to kick him around.
My advice? Take it like a man. They're wasting their actions and accumulating debt on something that will net them just about zero inspirations or story tokens. Gnash your teeth eloquently, to make them feel they've accomplished something, then go off and rack up a four or five Inspiration by winning a Conflict they're too busy to oppose you on.
No, two players. A and C, though they're not spending a lot of resources on it.
Whoops, I somehow thought that either B was opposing or B was the one jumping D's claim of his newly created side.
C can't claim D's side, as C is already (and potently) allied with the side that he claimed and rolled on the previous turn.
So, a quick spot-check that we're both understanding the situation the same way:
A and C both end up with 5s, on Blue and Red dice respectively.
D stakes two Love Debt on the Red side, splits the dice 2, 2, 1 and takes the 2s for his own, purple side. The sides are now: B: 5, R: 1, P: 2+2
D then rolls up one of the twos. If he gets a three or higher, the Conflict doesn't resolve that Page. If he fails it resolves for Blue.
If it doesn't resolve that Page then the only people who can lay claim to it next Page are B and D.
Is that our mutual understanding? 'cuz if we've disposed of the miscommunications then we can discuss whether D is unfairly disadvantaged.
Yeah, that pretty much covers it.
B was there as a hypothetical hero or other (non villain) character, someone that keeps the balance at the table.
Okay. So here's how I see it.
Player D is outnumbered two to one. Nonetheless, if he's willing to invest Debt, he's got a pretty decent chance at creating his own side and making it stick.
Players A and C are likely, if D cares about this, to reap Story Tokens for having put him in this situation. That elevates this from a "lark", as you put it, to high strategy. They're working the system masterfully to their own benefit.
Do you see it differently?
Hm, I did until you expressed it that way...
Quote from: TonyLBD stakes two Love Debt on the Red side, splits the dice 2, 2, 1 and takes the 2s for his own, purple side. The sides are now: B: 5, R: 1, P: 2+2
D then rolls up one of the twos. If he gets a three or higher, the Conflict doesn't resolve that Page. If he fails it resolves for Blue.
Wow. If I had sat down to play Capes before reading this, I would have had Purple resolve that conflict at the end of that page, if D rolled above three. And (I now realize) my scenes would always have had only one page, except in the case of non-deadlocked ties, because everything else would have resolved at the end of page 1.
I think that in this case I would have been helped immensely by one more sentence on page 37, explicitly reminding the reader that unless a player has
claimed a side on that conflict, he's really just playing to
prevent it from resolving this page, not to resolve it himself. Perhaps an illustration of a conflict that includes the mysterious "marker" from the Claiming section on page 22, for those of us who learn visually. That should trigger confusion and some re-reading for anyone who's misread things the way I did up to that point.
Quote from: TonyLBIf it doesn't resolve that Page then the only people who can lay claim to it next Page are B and D.
This part I haven't figured out yet. Don't A and C still have characters allied with sides of this conflict? As far as I can tell, page 22 therefore says that they can claim. It feels like there's some sort of mini- or pseudo-resolution process at work here between pages for unresolved conflicts that I somehow missed. Can you only claim a given conflict once per scene? Does "losing" a conflict preclude claiming it again? What's the mechanic?
If a given conflict can only be claimed once by any given character, I can see situations arising where a conflict can never be resolved because everyone in the scene has claimed it, and failed (either by ties or end-of-page winners by unclaimed characters) to win the claim.
Oh, duh. The claims from the previous page still count. Right? That's why I couldn't find the part that describes when claim markers evaporate -- they last till resolution.
So, Tony, you meant "lay claim" to mean "establish a claim," whereas I interpreted it to mean "have a claim." This makes much more sense now.
Vax: I think that's covered by the Deadlocked conflict rule at the bottom of page 30. A question about Deadlocks, though: it says "if [...] nobody can spend more debt." What if people can, but would prefer not to? Can players opt for a deadlock if they don't want to expend more resources? As written it looks like No, but I don't know how you'd decide who has to spend if no one wants to.
Uh... no. Claims last until the end of that page. Then everything evaporates, and you get a chance (if you want) to claim it again the next turn. I agree this isn't well clarified in the rules (mea culpa), but I think the examples make it reasonably clear.
At the bottom of page 49, for instance, Chris's claim on "Get Out Early" fails to resolve. On page 50, he claims it again.
Make sense?
Quote from: TonyLBAt the bottom of page 49, for instance, Chris's claim on "Get Out Early" fails to resolve. On page 50, he claims it again.
Let's hope I don't cross-post this with someone..
I read the example differently. In the beginning of page 48 you have the following claims:
Alex: Black "Get out early"
Beth: Nothing
Chris: White "Assert Authority"
Neither Alex or Chris resolve, since black controls "Assert" and white "Get out".
On page 50:
Beth: Opposing side (white) of "Assert"
Chris: White "Get out"
Alex: Black "Assert"
I thought that Beth and Chris ganged up on Alex by both claiming against him on the same conflict, but didn't they would resolve it. Now I see they don't have that problem.
Ah... yeah, okay, I misread my own example.
This is one of those blind-spots where I've been doing it one way for so long that I totally neglected the possibility of a totally different interpretation. It's in the errata, and happily I can squeeze it in for the second edition.
Thanks, everyone, for working the kinks out in this! I'm getting a bit embarrassed about how many rules ambiguities there turn out to be in what I thought was a tight, clear set of instructions. Oy. Not that Thomas didn't warn me. "More playtesting," he said, "Release it at GenCon," he said.
In spite of all the errata, Tony, I'm perfectly happy having it now.
Quote from: TonyLBNot that Thomas didn't warn me. "More playtesting," he said, "Release it at GenCon," he said.
I believe I also wrote to you and pleaded with you not to rush the game. For the record, I am so glad that you didn't listen to me! Right now, a lot of people are playing this game, having fun with it and exploring the possibilities. Playtesting can't completely replicate that.
Tony, you ARE going to put any corrections that go into the second printing in the errata file on the site, right?
I think they're already up (including this one), actually. But yes, generally, things go into the errata first, then get corrected in the text second.