Questions on dirty dice

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hi Seth

Some questions and probably a typo:

• p. 53: "The Authority opens the bidding if this is the first Exchange" versus p.55: "You may not Push a Violence Conflict; (...)"
• Can you confirm that the Authority does not loose a die any more upon announcing a Violence sequence? Since he opens the bidding, I had seen this as a way to equalize chances. Also, now that an Authority has a chance to refresh in such a sequence, this is going to be really hard on the investigator. I'm ready to accept this as a feature, I just don't have the experience to tell.


• What is the rationale behind rewarding an Authority with a recovered die for not getting into Conflict?


• I see on p.41 that it's possible to pass from, say, "3 fives" to "4 twos" on the conflict tracker. Having played a different version of this, I thought this was an illegal move, because it allows a player to ignore a bid in some cases.
  Say I start with "2 twos" and I know the chances are good that we can raise some more on that side. My opponent bids "3 fives". I have none. Of course I could attempt a call, but the chances are good that he has exactly three of them. Now it seems cheesy for me to fall back on "4 twos" (which I could have done just as easily if he had announced "3 twos": so I really ignore his bid in a way that doesn't seem very risky). In the board game I played, to get back to the "twos" there would have to be an Ace Bid first, which usually has the effect that it costs more to get back to the "twos" (especially if no player has an advantage in announcing Aces).

Take your time to reply, I'm in no hurry. Cheers, have a nice weekend!

[GreatWolf]

• p. 53: "The Authority opens the bidding if this is the first Exchange" versus p.55: "You may not Push a Violence Conflict; (...)"

At first, I was going to say that this was errata.  However, I caught myself just in time.

This is necessary to intersect with the rule on p.46, where a player Pushing may change the conflict to a Violence conflict.

• Can you confirm that the Authority does not loose a die any more upon announcing a Violence sequence? Since he opens the bidding, I had seen this as a way to equalize chances. Also, now that an Authority has a chance to refresh in such a sequence, this is going to be really hard on the investigator. I'm ready to accept this as a feature, I just don't have the experience to tell.

That's the correct reading.  Here's what's up.  No one was really calling for Violence sequences.  And why should they?  From a mechanical perspective, it "only" generates Violence.  It didn't provide the Authority with any potential mechanical advantage that would justify spending the die.  So, after consulting with my playtesters, away it went.

I also added the refresh possibility as an additional bribe to the Authority.  This is connected to the answer to the following question, so I'll answer it there.

• What is the rationale behind rewarding an Authority with a recovered die for not getting into Conflict?

This goes back to the idea that your current dice pool level reflects your ability to enforce your will on the game world.  If I have fewer dice than you, it means that you have more information than me during a conflict, which makes it harder for me to pull out a win.  Therefore, the Authority has a choice when the Investigator selects a sequence:  get my own choice of sequence, or regain a die.  The same idea is in play during an investigation sequence:  fight for what I want, or regain a die by giving the Investigator what he wants.  As a result, the amount of dice becomes a strategic cue for the Investigator.  Early in the game, he should attempt to deplete the other players of dice.  Then, when he gets back to an Authority without many dice, he should push his agenda for the story.  That places the current Authority on the horns of a dilemma: either fight the investigator at a serious disadvantage, hoping to score a win and eventually force a Reflection; or roll over and give the Investigator what he wants, in order to regain his dice.

That new Violence rule gives the Authority a third option.  He can take a stab at a Violence sequence instead, hoping to hammer the investigator with 3 Violence to earn himself a refresh.  It's a desperate move, but it provides another way out of the dilemma posed by the Investigator.

• I see on p.41 that it's possible to pass from, say, "3 fives" to "4 twos" on the conflict tracker. Having played a different version of this, I thought this was an illegal move, because it allows a player to ignore a bid in some cases.
  
  Say I start with "2 twos" and I know the chances are good that we can raise some more on that side. My opponent bids "3 fives". I have none. Of course I could attempt a call, but the chances are good that he has exactly three of them. Now it seems cheesy for me to fall back on "4 twos" (which I could have done just as easily if he had announced "3 twos": so I really ignore his bid in a way that doesn't seem very risky). In the board game I played, to get back to the "twos" there would have to be an Ace Bid first, which usually has the effect that it costs more to get back to the "twos" (especially if no player has an advantage in announcing Aces).

Ah, but now you've given away information to the other player.  On average, there will be 3-4 dice matching a given face value (factoring in Aces).  So, if you've bid 4 twos, you've announced that you have 2-3 twos.  If nothing else, he now knows that you are strong in 2s...or at least that you feel safe there.  He should then check his own dice and bid accordingly.  (Of course, this doesn't factor in Violence, which is an additional factor to consider.)

I've said that Liar's Dice isn't really about the bidding.  It's about reading your opponent's dice in his eyes.  I'm not really great at it.  Crystal is, though!

Check out the annotated games in the book.  Those aren't creative examples.  We actually played out several games of Liar's Dice, recording the bids, and then discussing our strategic thinking after each game.  So, for better or worse, those are real games that we played.

[Christoph Boeckle]

All right! Thanks for the detailed answers.