help with IaWA

[stefoid]

Hi, I dont see how your version is different to my version.

[Paul T]

Ok, great!

It was just this part:

3a)  if multiple characters oppose the move, there is an advantage in numbers.  Challenger must overcome *all* answerers to achieve his move.
3b) the answerer(s) NARRATE HOW THE CHALLENGER achieved or didnt achieve his move for that round (may involve interpretation of multiple dice rolls if opposed by multiple characters)

I got the impression you were going to roll all the Answers at once, then use the results to all narrate the outcome of the Challenger's move together ("...must overcome *all* answerers to achieve his move"). That part I just quoted isn't true: if it makes sense for the very first Answerer to narrate the Challenger achieving his move (sometimes even if the Answerer won the roll), then that's what happens.

[stefoid]

Well that just confuses things for me.  In order of initiative - If  the headsmen wants to chop off the burglars head, and the sorcerer also wants to oppose that, how would htat work via youre interpretation if the burglar fails to defend himself?

[Noclue]

Let's say the headsman rolls highest and his Challenge is to cut off the burglar's head. The burglar and and the sorcerer Answer; both reroll their dice. If the burglar rolls higher than the sorcerer, he Answers first. If his Answer is to narrate his head getting cut off, or if he's doubled and negotiates losing his head instead of having his dice damaged, the sorcerer is out of luck, with no chance to stop that happening.

(emphasis mine)

[Paul T]

Hey, actually, there's an interesting little rules niggle in there:

If the burglar DOES have his head cut off right away, then why in the world would the Sorcerer be Answering the headsman's Challenge?

In this case, it would make most sense, I suppose, to just ignore that Answer and just go straight to the Sorcerer issuing a Challenge, if he's still interested in what's going on now that the burglar's dead.

Vincent? Anyone else? This is a *little* sticky.

[lumpley]

Well...

Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Burglar rolls a 7, goes second.
Sorcerer rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Burglar: Natch.
Burglar rerolls. Gets a 2. Doubled and out.
Burglar: ...Actually, cool. How about you kill me dead?
Headman: Good with me!
Burglar dies.
Sorcerer: Huh. That makes my involvement here moot. I'm done rolling if you are, headman.
Headman: Sure.
End.

Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Sorcerer rolls a 9, goes second.
Burglar rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Sorcerer: [interrupts, in initiative order] I'm going to answer too.
Headman: Oh!
Sorcerer rerolls, gets an 11, seizes the advantage.
Sorcerer: I crook my finger like this and your axe becomes a hazel twig with a head made of feathers. You can still whack the burglar in the neck with it, I suppose.
Headman: Dammit.
Burglar: I twist out of my bonds. Nobody has to answer if you all don't mind.
Burglar rerolls, gets a 7.
Headman: I mind. I'll answer.
Headman rerolls, gets an 8, seizes the advantage.
Headman: Oh no you don't. I press you down onto the chopping block and keep you from getting free.
Action sequence continues into round 2.

Does this answer the outstanding questions?

-Vincent

[Paul T]

Vincent,

Basically, yes: what you've described is what happens most of the time you play. But it's this one unusual case I'm thinking of which made me realize it's a little funny.

Also, there's no mention in your examples of determining who the Answerers are (i.e. the Sorcerer is not included either time). Is that significant? Because I think that may be the stumbling point here.

Anyway, here we go:

Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Burglar rolls a 7, goes second.
Sorcerer rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Burglar: Natch.
Burglar rerolls. Gets a 2. Doubled and out.
Burglar: ...Actually, cool. How about you kill me dead?
Headman: Good with me!
Burglar dies.

So, let's say that all goes down. Now, the Sorcerer was also supposed to Answer the the headsman's Challenge. He's next in the initiative order, and he's NOT happy to leave it there--he wants to keep going. It seems not to make any sense for him to Answer anymore, so my intuition is for him now to make a Challenge on his turn, instead.

So, I guess the lesson is "go with what makes sense, rather than following the rules as closely as possible"?

[lumpley]

Well, yeah, if it gets to the sorcerer's turn and there are no outstanding challenges he wants to answer, he gets to make a challenge himself. This IS following the rules, not playing loose with them.

"The Sorcerer was also supposed to Answer the the headsman's Challenge" doesn't make sense to me. There's no such rule.

The sorcerer wanted to answer the headman's challenge, but didn't have the opportunity after all. Or maybe the headman expected the sorcerer to answer his challenge, but it didn't work out that way. Those are fine; that's how it goes sometimes.

Ah! Yes. Declarations about who should answer and who intends to answer aren't binding, they're just table talk. I think I've written about this somewhere, let me see if I can find it...

And look at that! It was in a conversation with you, Paul: [IaWA] Challenger names Answerers, Answerers Call Back Later

-Vincent

[Paul T]

Quite right!

And totally clear. I was reading the Challenger's naming of Answerers as binding, since this has never actually come up as an issue in a game I've been in.

Thanks again!

[stefoid]

headsmen gets two turns in one round?  by answering the burglar?

Well...

Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Burglar rolls a 7, goes second.
Sorcerer rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Burglar: Natch.
Burglar rerolls. Gets a 2. Doubled and out.
Burglar: ...Actually, cool. How about you kill me dead?
Headman: Good with me!
Burglar dies.
Sorcerer: Huh. That makes my involvement here moot. I'm done rolling if you are, headman.
Headman: Sure.
End.

Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Sorcerer rolls a 9, goes second.
Burglar rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Sorcerer: [interrupts, in initiative order] I'm going to answer too.
Headman: Oh!
Sorcerer rerolls, gets an 11, seizes the advantage.
Sorcerer: I crook my finger like this and your axe becomes a hazel twig with a head made of feathers. You can still whack the burglar in the neck with it, I suppose.
Headman: Dammit.
Burglar: I twist out of my bonds. Nobody has to answer if you all don't mind.
Burglar rerolls, gets a 7.
Headman: I mind. I'll answer.
Headman rerolls, gets an 8, seizes the advantage.
Headman: Oh no you don't. I press you down onto the chopping block and keep you from getting free.
Action sequence continues into round 2.

Does this answer the outstanding questions?

-Vincent

[stefoid]

That link was helpful, thanks.

I dont understand why the challenger has to name answerers in any situation at all - it seems redundant and confusing. 

Well, yeah, if it gets to the sorcerer's turn and there are no outstanding challenges he wants to answer, he gets to make a challenge himself. This IS following the rules, not playing loose with them.

"The Sorcerer was also supposed to Answer the the headsman's Challenge" doesn't make sense to me. There's no such rule.

The sorcerer wanted to answer the headman's challenge, but didn't have the opportunity after all. Or maybe the headman expected the sorcerer to answer his challenge, but it didn't work out that way. Those are fine; that's how it goes sometimes.

Ah! Yes. Declarations about who should answer and who intends to answer aren't binding, they're just table talk. I think I've written about this somewhere, let me see if I can find it...

And look at that! It was in a conversation with you, Paul: [IaWA] Challenger names Answerers, Answerers Call Back Later

-Vincent

[stefoid]

OK, try this then:  (TALKING IN CAPS)   (dice stuff in italics)

1) everybody rolls for initiative, which determines  move order for the round
2) the first player to move leaves his dice stand as his move roll, and ANNOUNCES HIS MOVE
3) anyone answering that move (trying to prevent it), in order of initiative, rolls their answer, and the outcome is resolved as follows:
3a)  if multiple characters oppose the move, there is an advantage in numbers.  Challenger may have to overcome multiple answerers to achieve his move.
3b)  the answerer(s) NARRATE HOW their action modifies the challenger action, if at all.
3c)  multiple answerer actions happen in a linear sequence, each taking previous outcomes into account.  i.e. it is possible for the Challenger to win outright before an answerer has a chance to act.
4) answering robs you of your unused turn to move that round
5) the next person who has not answered moves next in initiative order and so on
6) anyone who wins as either the challenger or the answerer gets an initiative dice to use for the duration of the *next* round, even if they fail subsequent answers in the current round.
7) parties who were previously not involved in the contest can join in at any time, either at the start of the round when initiative is rolled, or by deciding to answer any announced move during the round (in which case they answer last).  This does not extend the number of rounds of the contest.

[way]

Just nitpickin'...

3a really does not add anything to the mix, you can simply omit that.
However, I wuld put emphasis on the fact that if you are to be the second or third answerer, and the previous answerers' resolution sounds ok to you,
you might decide not to answer at all. This way you might get to announce your very own Challenge later on, instead of answering.
In 6, the game text calls it an "advantage die", not an initiative dice.

As a sidenote, we've been playing 6. the way that you will have to win all your rolls to get an advantage die next round, not only one. This gives more advantage of two or more are stacking up against one. We felt that this works better.

[Paul T]

I dont understand why the challenger has to name answerers in any situation at all - it seems redundant and confusing. 

It helps clarify why and how the Challenger is doing what they're doing: another way for the group to make sure they're communicating clearly. It's helpful, really.