Clarification on splitting sides

[Matthew Glover]

While demonstrating Capes on Saturday, an issue came up and I wasn't completely sure we handled it correctly.  Here's how it went:

Five players: Alice, Bob, Charlie, David, and Eddie (not necessarily acting in that order).  Alice, Bob, and Charlie are playing heroes, David and Eddie are playing villains.  There's a goal on the table: Kill [Eddie's character].  At the beginning of the page, Alice claims the first side and Bob claims the second side.  Each wants to be the one to kill Eddie's guy.  Charlie looks alarmed, because his hero objects strongly to killing even the worst villain.  It is explained that he can split off a third side and roll it up and if he's in control at the end of the page, the conflict won't resolve because nobody will have claimed side 3 and he decides to do that.  Alice stakes debt and splits dice on Side 1.  Charlie stakes debt on Side 1, splits one of Alice's dice, and takes his debt and dice to Side 3, then drops an Inspiration and rolls up a die.  David and Eddie also stake debt on Side 3, splitting some of Charlie's dice and rolling them up as well.  Now Side 3 is strongly in control of the conflict at the end of the page, so it doesn't resolve.

Next page, David claims Side 3 of the conflict.  Alice and Bob recognize that there's a crapload of debt on the winning side and that neither of them has a chance of winning the conflict, so they decide to let the conflict go and to concentrate on other stuff this page.  Both Side 1 and Side 2 stay unclaimed.  Charlie realizes that at the end of the page, David is going to get to narrate  the resolution and that while it won't involve a death, it also won't be to his liking.  He takes his debt and dice and splits off to a new side, Side 4.  He rolls up his new side as much as he can, but David and Eddie roll up Side 3, each spending a Story Token for another turn to make sure that they retain control.  Side 3 wins, and David resolves the conflict at the end of the page.

Now here are my questions:
Was it legal for Charlie to split one of Alice's dice onto his debt?  I think so, but I wanted to be sure.

Could Charlie have rolled up Side 1 (which had Alice's debt still on it) or Side 2 (which had no debt staked), then moved his debt and dice from Side 3 to the side that he's now allied with rather than splitting to a new fourth side?

For inspirations, the books says you match winning and losing dice.  Does that mean that you must match each die from Sides 1, 2, and 4 with a die from Side 3?  Can you match a die from Side 1 with a die from Side 2, awarding the remaining Inspiration to Side 1 or 2, whichever appropriate?

I noticed that in the rules the act of splitting to a new side is occasionally called a Schism, but the application of that name doesn't seem to be consistent and isn't in the index.  Has that nomenclature been deprecated?

And just as a curiosity, how many pages would you consider to be average for a scene? 

Feel free to quote and respond to each of the questions individually if you like. 

By the way, that was the only time I was shaky on the rules, and everybody had a blast.  Nobody had difficulty understanding the rules or the player's roles, nobody had trouble with the narrative power available, and after an initial "No GM?[/]  How does that even work?" nobody seemed to give it a second thought.  When we were done, the three players new to Capes immediately suggested meeting at the game shop to play again on subsequent Saturdays.  At that point, I felt like I was pretty much done.  :)

[Eric Sedlacek]

Now here are my questions:
Was it legal for Charlie to split one of Alice's dice onto his debt?  I think so, but I wanted to be sure.

Yes, this is legal.  He split onto his debt to create the new side.  That's how you create a new side.  After you have created the new side, you can no longer split from the dice on the original side, but I'm sure you knew that.

Could Charlie have rolled up Side 1 (which had Alice's debt still on it) or Side 2 (which had no debt staked), then moved his debt and dice from Side 3 to the side that he's now allied with rather than splitting to a new fourth side?

Tony will correct me if I am wrong, but I'm quite certain you can only split to create a new side, not to enhance an existing side.

For inspirations, the books says you match winning and losing dice.  Does that mean that you must match each die from Sides 1, 2, and 4 with a die from Side 3?  Can you match a die from Side 1 with a die from Side 2, awarding the remaining Inspiration to Side 1 or 2, whichever appropriate?

I'm not sure exactly what the book says, but you can match dice between sides any way you want.  So the winner in a three-way conflict can match dice between losing sides to maximize his own inspirations.

I noticed that in the rules the act of splitting to a new side is occasionally called a Schism, but the application of that name doesn't seem to be consistent and isn't in the index.  Has that nomenclature been deprecated?

I'll leave this one for Tony.

And just as a curiosity, how many pages would you consider to be average for a scene? 

That's a really hard question to answer.  Scene length varies immensely.  Tony, Sydney, and I have had single-scene sessions, and I can't even begin to guess how many pages there were, though I suspect there were fewer than I would tend to think.  Long scenes don't necessarily have a lot of pages when there are a lot of story tokens on the table.  A single page can last a long time.

If you are concerned about pacing, my only suggestion is to pay attention to conflict churn.  If you are constantly introducing and resolving conflicts, then the scene is lasting because people are coming up with more things they want to do.  That's good.  If too many conflicts are languishing on the table then you need to pick up the pace.  From the vibe I am getting from you, I suspect you were fine.

By the way, that was the only time I was shaky on the rules, and everybody had a blast.  Nobody had difficulty understanding the rules or the player's roles, nobody had trouble with the narrative power available, and after an initial "No GM?[/]  How does that even work?" nobody seemed to give it a second thought.  When we were done, the three players new to Capes immediately suggested meeting at the game shop to play again on subsequent Saturdays.  At that point, I felt like I was pretty much done.  :)

And it sounds like you did a good job getting them started.  Well done.

[TonyLB]

I noticed that in the rules the act of splitting to a new side is occasionally called a Schism, but the application of that name doesn't seem to be consistent and isn't in the index.  Has that nomenclature been deprecated?

Uh ... I mostly think "schism" is a really nifty word.  Almost as cool as "smock."  Schism, schism, schism.  See, that's fun.  Smock, smock, smock.  More fun.

Which is to say:  I called it "schism" in places (notably the strategy section) because I thought it was a cool, evocative word.  I called it "split" as often as I could manage (notably the rules section) because I thought that was the least loaded, more clear term.  I probably should have chosen one term or another.

Smock.