Few quick ?s

[Knoble]

Hi Guys,

I just got the book and stayed up waaay too late last night reading the first 5 chapters.

I'm very excited about this game, and look forward to playing soon.

I have a few things I'd like clarification on.

1).  It wasn't clear to me from the examples how to determine when the tenets "phase" ends.  I gather that this is something that is more-or-less achieved by mutual consensus.  I believe I read somewhere that more tenets can be introduced even after the first scene has been framed and is underway.  That seems reasonable to me.  I also remember reading that, once you observe people trying to plot out story with tenets, you know it's time to start bidding on framing the first scene.  Could I trouble someone to elaborate further with advice/hints/suggestions on knowing when to move out of the tenets phase?

2).  I think I understand interruptions, but I want to make sure.  Assume players 1-5 seated in order in a circle.  Player one starts play, and say, player 3 interrupts.  Once player 3 is done, my understanding is that the next player will be player 4.  Assuming there are no further interruptions, player 2 now has to wait for players 4, 5, and 1 to go before their turn comes back around.  (I suppose this encourages player 2 to interrupt someone along the way, but I'm a little concerned that new "shy" players can get bypassed by this mechanic.)  Of course the only alternative is to keep track of a pontentially complicated "stack" of interruptions.  I just want to make sure I got this right, and have a fair understanding of the reasoning behind it so I can better explain it when I introduce the game.

3).  Bidding question.  After the bidding goes around the table and then comes back to the challenged player, and assuming the challenged player ponies up and pays the coins necessary to remain undefeated, does bidding start back with the initial challenger again and proceed normally? 

3). Part 2.  I guess what I really want to do with this question is suggest a gimick and see what more experienced players think of it.  Why not just have bidding only go around the table one time?  The challenge is issued.  The challenger pays whatever number of coins he's willing to pay to make the challenge.  Then the other players bid their coins normally.  Finally the challenged player either "pays-up" or backs down from the challenge.  This gimick would force the challenger to really consider how opposed they are to the idea that they are challenging, and it would also make it clear to everyone else.  (They're putting their money where their mouth is.)  It would also prevent bidding wars.

BTW, in practice, how often do challenges really occur?  Is it the experience of most of you that things more often get worked out in the negotiation stage?  I realize this depends largely on the players involved and would vary from group to group, or even from session to session.  It's my hope (I think) that challenges would be fairly uncommon.

Anyway, thanks for considering these questions.

I can't wait to get started playing this game.

Knoble

[Valamir]

Hi Guys,

I just got the book and stayed up waaay too late last night reading the first 5 chapters.

I'm very excited about this game, and look forward to playing soon.

Awesome.  When you do, please post your actual play experience.  As soon as the new website is finished we'll be looking to put up some more play examples.

I just got back from holiday travels, happy to answer.

1).  It wasn't clear to me from the examples how to determine when the tenets "phase" ends.  I gather that this is something that is more-or-less achieved by mutual consensus.  I believe I read somewhere that more tenets can be introduced even after the first scene has been framed and is underway.  That seems reasonable to me.  I also remember reading that, once you observe people trying to plot out story with tenets, you know it's time to start bidding on framing the first scene.  Could I trouble someone to elaborate further with advice/hints/suggestions on knowing when to move out of the tenets phase?

My rule of thumb, and how I explain it when teaching the game is this.

"...<explain about tenets>...<go around the table with everybody adding one>...then "Ok, we'll keep going around like this adding tenets until someone has an idea for the first scene.  Imagine that we're making a movie, what's going to be the opening scene that sets the tone for the rest of the movie...when you have one of those in mind we'll get started with the game."

Then I make sure I have one in mind in case nobody else comes up with one, but I prefer it when somebody else (or ideally more than one somebody else) has the idea...and I NEVER over bid them for the first scene when teaching the game.

If someone else wants to add more tenets, you can let them do that, or suggest that they can be added later during play, whatever feels right at the time.

2).  I think I understand interruptions, but I want to make sure.  Assume players 1-5 seated in order in a circle.  Player one starts play, and say, player 3 interrupts.  Once player 3 is done, my understanding is that the next player will be player 4.  Assuming there are no further interruptions, player 2 now has to wait for players 4, 5, and 1 to go before their turn comes back around.  (I suppose this encourages player 2 to interrupt someone along the way, but I'm a little concerned that new "shy" players can get bypassed by this mechanic.)  Of course the only alternative is to keep track of a pontentially complicated "stack" of interruptions.  I just want to make sure I got this right, and have a fair understanding of the reasoning behind it so I can better explain it when I introduce the game.

Yes, you do have it right.  And yes that was primarily to avoid fiddly tracking which can get REALLY annoying when there are multiple stacked interrupts.

When I am teaching the game I do not mention interrupts at all until the second scene.  Do the bidding for the first scene, then just play around the table for the entire first scene.  If any one asks about "hey can I jump in?" you can either teach the rule then, or say "yes, there's a rule for that, but let's wait to do that till the next scene" depending on how much your group is getting it.

If shy players are a problem after that, you can try any of a variety of gimmicks such as:

-- give a totem of some kind to the first player skipped.  Play returns to the person with the totem once there are no more interrupts
-- give a free Coin to every player skipped.
-- The Interrupting player pays 1 Coin to every player skipped instead of the normal 1 to the bank.

3).  Bidding question.  After the bidding goes around the table and then comes back to the challenged player, and assuming the challenged player ponies up and pays the coins necessary to remain undefeated, does bidding start back with the initial challenger again and proceed normally? 

yes.  Bidding continues in that same order (Clockwise from the Challenger, with the Challengee going last) until all sides but one have yielded.

3). Part 2.  I guess what I really want to do with this question is suggest a gimick and see what more experienced players think of it.  Why not just have bidding only go around the table one time?  The challenge is issued.  The challenger pays whatever number of coins he's willing to pay to make the challenge.  Then the other players bid their coins normally.  Finally the challenged player either "pays-up" or backs down from the challenge.  This gimick would force the challenger to really consider how opposed they are to the idea that they are challenging, and it would also make it clear to everyone else.  (They're putting their money where their mouth is.)  It would also prevent bidding wars.

Not a bad gimmick.  Feel free to try it.

Here's why I didn't make it that way in the rules:  I wanted bids to be snappy and fast.  Single round bidding like that requires a bit more thought...its a bit more of an auction mind game / mini game and that can lead to analysis paralysis and time spent strategizing.  By keeping it open, its just a pure game of chicken, as the challenger you don't have to think about it you just pony up, and stop ponying up when it gets too rich.

BTW, in practice, how often do challenges really occur?  Is it the experience of most of you that things more often get worked out in the negotiation stage?  I realize this depends largely on the players involved and would vary from group to group, or even from session to session.  It's my hope (I think) that challenges would be fairly uncommon.

In practice, there are a lot of "Negotiations" but they rarely get to actual bidding.  Players see the attitude of the other players at the table and who they're likely to side with, size up the odds of winning a bidding war, and one side or the other typically gives in without any Coins hitting the table.  On the occassions where it does go to bidding, it rarely goes more than one round if one side out numbers the other.  On the very rare occassion when I've seen it go to a bidding war, its usually just two players adding coins one after another until someone realizes the non bidding players are getting a big relative advantage by them spending all their Coins and gives in.

[Knoble]

Hi Valamir,

Thanks for the reply.  I hope you had a great Christmas and New Years. 

I'm planning to give it our first go next Monday night.  I'll try to put together some sort of play report soon thereafter.

Knoble