First session

[TonyLB]

Can C lay down a second debt, not split (leaving 4 debt and 3 dice), and then schism and take both 5s (and both of his debt) to his new Blue side?  That would give him a 10, Black an 8, and leave White with a 3 (and a lot of work to get back into the running).

Yes.  I don't usually do it that way myself, but the rules are pretty clear that I could.

I'm going to have to think for a while about why I don't usually do it that way.  Maybe it's just ignorance of the rules, or maybe I have a reason that's not surfacing consciously.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention, either way!

[Matthew Glover]

Same setup:

Player A has been rolling up the Black side. He's staked 2 debt and split once, and he's got a 4 and a 3.

Players B and C have been rolling up the White side.  B staked 2 and split, and C staked a third and split.  Their dice are at 6, 5, and 3 - they're dominating!

At this point, player C could just take his one debt and any one of those three White dice to a new Blue side, right?

Could C stake two more debt for a total of three, split the 3 into a 2/1 (giving White 6/5/2/1, two debt from B, three debt from C), then take his three debt and the 6/5/2 over to Blue, leaving White with two debt and one die at a 1?

If so, I think I see why Hans said:

Originally, I thought we would play Tony's way, but then a situation came up that made it clear to use that taking any die you want was simply unbalancing, and made it too easy to completely undercut someone.

...I feel like a bridge columnist for the newspaper or something.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I spent some time on my morning commute thinking about how I could draw ascii pictures of conflict cards, debt chips, and dice in a forum post.  I gave up.

[drnuncheon]

I'm going to have to think for a while about why I don't usually do it that way.  Maybe it's just ignorance of the rules, or maybe I have a reason that's not surfacing consciously.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention, either way!

I can only regret that the chance to do it to you didn't come up in actual play.

J

[Hans]

What Jeff describes is pretty much exactly what happened in our game, except add in that player C (me) was the last player on the page, and everything was due to resolve once I was done acting.  I tried to do what Jeff described, and it came up against two things:

1) The fact that the dice are sitting there on the debt tokens sends a pretty strong message that they are associated in some way, and since the rule had never been explicitly stated, the assumption around the table of everyone (except me) was that there WAS an association.

2) This seemed too easy to most of us around the table.  A spiteful schism through splitting dice is already a powerful tactic in a lot of ways.  This just seemed too much.

Therefore, we decided to make the visual connection between debt tokens and dice an actual mechanical connection.  The die sitting on the debt is associated with that debt; it can't be taken off, but it can be split.  A spiteful schism is STILL an incredibly powerful tactic.  In Jeff's example if either the 6 or the 5 is on C's debt token, he can still mess over B's chances pretty royally.  I'm not saying this is right for everyone...to be honest, I think if we had made what Tony says here explicit from the beginning, so that everyone knew it was a tactic to expect, it might have been no problem.

[TonyLB]

Therefore, we decided to make the visual connection between debt tokens and dice an actual mechanical connection.  The die sitting on the debt is associated with that debt; it can't be taken off, but it can be split.

Embarrassingly enough, I think I have also spent my entire Capes career operating under this unstated assumption.  Which doesn't mean anyone else at my gaming table has been making that assumption ... I may have just gotten lucky, the few times schisming happened.

So ... uh ... I heartily endorse this house rule!  And, err ... it may make its way into errata.

Feelin' a little sheepish here, I must admit.

[Zamiel]

Now, we know that C could drop another debt, split the 6 into a pair of 3s, and then take two dice (presumably the 5 and a 3) over to his new Blue side.  He'd have an 8, Black would have a 7, and White would have a 6.

J, I think I have a textual solution for you on this, since I'd had my head inside the text of Capes for days now, treating it like a mix of program spec and Derrida ...

The text says that when you split a new side, you can only take the die or dice you split from the single die that is being split from. Ie, you can only affect one donor die on the donor die, no matter how much Debt you have staked there. That's it. This also solves your problem with cruel splitting feeling too powerful; at most, they can affect the highest die on the side and can only take a cut of it based on how much Debt they have less than their Drive in question to stake.

So, C could drop another Debt and split the 6 into a 3 and a 3, then take that 3 (and that single point of Debt staked to split it) to his new side, but the other die he staked to split are inviolate.

This actually makes more sense than the original community's view, in that no other Capes mechanic affects more than one die with a given act. With this textual interpretation, then you don't get whole sides being raped by a single Debt invested split from a third party. Conversely, a heavily invested original side member can't effectively "kick out" a third party by splitting away and taking the bulk of the dice with them. Odds are they can't afford to split off a compeditive side at all.

Tactically, this means that an uninvested third party has a better chance of splitting a side and making a go of the new one, because they have the unbound Debt on the Conflict to split several times. A pricy, but certainly workable result.

This may be why Tony never really saw schisming occur in a different way; he's internalized the "one act, one die" meta-mechanic.

[Matthew Glover]

Can C lay down a second debt, not split (leaving 4 debt and 3 dice), and then schism and take both 5s (and both of his debt) to his new Blue side?  That would give him a 10, Black an 8, and leave White with a 3 (and a lot of work to get back into the running).

Yes.  I don't usually do it that way myself, but the rules are pretty clear that I could.

I'm going to have to think for a while about why I don't usually do it that way.  Maybe it's just ignorance of the rules, or maybe I have a reason that's not surfacing consciously.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention, either way!

If what Zamiel is suggesting is correct, the rules are pretty clear that you can't take any old die you please, only dice that you split with your own debt.  I may be getting confused, but to me this kinda seems to support the Bound Dice (or Bound Debt, if you prefer) interpretation.

[TonyLB]

Hey, I could buy that!  I was right all the time, I just didn't know it!

[Zamiel]

Hey, I could buy that!  I was right all the time, I just didn't know it!

That's what I'm here for, Tony, to prove you're right, and then explain why. ;)

The "unbound Debt" approach actually seems to be more consistant with the Capes mechanisms as stands, and fixes J's potentiated issue with a whole swath of the best dice taking a walk for one more Debt invested. I think its a good idea to add this thread to Hans' FAQ, if you're on board.

[Hans]

The "unbound Debt" approach actually seems to be more consistant with the Capes mechanisms as stands, and fixes J's potentiated issue with a whole swath of the best dice taking a walk for one more Debt invested. I think its a good idea to add this thread to Hans' FAQ, if you're on board.

Please, its the Capes FAQ, not Hans' FAQ.  It is my gift to the world...

However, it is obvious that an FAQ entry is going to be modified by this thread, so...

Q: When you schism to a new side, how many and which dice are you allowed to bring with you to your new side, and what happens to any debt you already have staked? (a similar question is in there now, which will be incorporated into this one)

A1: (My understanding of what Zamiel is saying) The only way to create a new side is by splitting dice.  You cannot simply move existing dice to the new side.  You must stake at least one new debt on the conflict, or have at least one debt staked on a conflict already that has not been used to split (i.e. there are fewer dice than debt at that moment), and split at least one existing die.  More debt (either previously staked, or newly staked) can be used to schism, splitting more dice off into the new side.  You cannot simply move dice to the new side, and if necessary, you must leave enough of your own debt behind on the old side to ensure that there are no more dice than debt on that side after the schism occurs.

A2: (The Mississauga "Bound" house rule) Each die is associated with a particular debt token.  When you schism, you take some or all of your debt, and its associated dice, to a new side.  You cannot take dice associated with other players debt tokens, but as part of the schism you can stake new debt and split new dice off of other players dice. 

First, Zamiel, have I captured what you are saying?  If not, please post a concise statement of what you are saying that answers the question in its entirety, that is 1) how many dice? 2) which exact dice and 3) what about existing debt already staked?

Second, Tony, assuming I have captured what Zamiel has said, or that he posts it, please let us know which answer is the right one.  Then I (or someone else, if they want) will pop it into the FAQ.

[TonyLB]

You cannot simply move existing dice to the new side.

Yeah, see ... this is something I'm pretty sure I want people to be able to do (for a variety of reasons).

[Matthew Glover]

I just went back through the book again.  I didn't go back through the erratta or the FAQ or the older threads, because that's a lot of mass to move.  I think I finally understand, though.

As Zamiel has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any mention in the text of moving existing dice/debt to a new side.  The text only says that you can stake debt, split dice to that debt (from the original die or dice that have already been split, either way) and can then take those dice and debt to a new side.  It does not seem to address the issue of moving already-staked debt or moving the dice that the already-staked debt was used to create by splitting.

However, the attitude in the text seems to be that when I stake a point of debt and split a die, the die created is "mine" and I schism it to a new side, along with the debt I used to split.  This does not create a Bound relationship between the debt chip and the die.   The Bound/Unbound discussion is a red herring.  What is important is which dice are "mine" to move.

Zamiel seems to suggest that a strict reading of the text would indicate that the "mine" status of the die only exists for a short time.  If I stake and split, but do not schism, that status is lost.  On my next turn, I can no longer move any of my debt that have been used to create dice, nor the dice created.

A more liberal reading might indicate that the "mine" status of the dice is permanent.  My debt is mine to schism, as are the dice that I create with my debt.  This seems to reflect the way the game is actually played, not only in Mississauga (and here in Mississippi as well) but by the author himself, which lends a certain authority to it.  I suggest that this is the actual intent of the text.

I understand now why Tony originally questioned the "Bound" attitude.  As you can see in the question phrased by Hans, the issue is not whether a die "belongs" to a particular chip.  However, as you can also see in the A2 answer, the Bound attitude makes it really really easy to handle.

I suggest that the Mississauga Bound version be considered the authoritative rule, with suggested variant houserules based on Zamiel's strict reading (old debt/dice have to stay, only new debt/dice may schism) and the cut-throat interpretation (dice and debt are unassociated, and if I schism three debt, I pick any three dice from the old side to take with me).

[Zamiel]

A1: (My understanding of what Zamiel is saying) The only way to create a new side is by splitting dice.  You cannot simply move existing dice to the new side.  You must stake at least one new debt on the conflict, or have at least one debt staked on a conflict already that has not been used to split (i.e. there are fewer dice than debt at that moment), and split at least one existing die.  More debt (either previously staked, or newly staked) can be used to schism, splitting more dice off into the new side.  You cannot simply move dice to the new side, and if necessary, you must leave enough of your own debt behind on the old side to ensure that there are no more dice than debt on that side after the schism occurs.

Probably needs a reminder there must already be staked 2 or more Debt total to that side of the Conflict (as its a requirement of the text. The last sentence probably needs to be rewritten not to suggest you can "move" Debt at all, possibly:

"Any Debt you had staked to to the original side remains there, except the one point used to schism off a new side." Simpler, easier, and more straightforward.

You do bring up an interesting issue, what to do with X points of staked but unbound Debt on the original side. The text doesn't address the issue at all, so implicitly there's no mechanism for moving it, but I'd be tempted to house rule unbound Debt can be moved on over to the new side, letting you immediately split your own di{e|ce} with that Debt. Bound Debt, already used to split dice on the donor side, probably has to remain because taking it would create a situation where there's more dice than Debt staked, which should be a validation check.

Incidentally, if we don't concern ourselves with the validation check and allow any owned Debt (but not the dice its bound to) to be moved to the new side, we can end up with a situation on the donor side where you have to invest more than the number of dice you want if you're the next person to split on that side. Which might be what you want, but man, that can be even more evil than snatching away all the high dice. ("Not only did I turn your 6 into a 2, but I increased the cost for you to recover by 3 Debt.") This gets into the degenerate tactic (or at least I think it's degenerate) of a dominating Player "kicking out" a second party who'd heretofore been helping with a smaller investment of Debt and die rolling, right before the resolution, by schisming away and taking all their resources with.

Not to be at obvious odds with you, Tony, but I think the "one targeted die" mechanic of schisming is way more in line with the rest of the system, and cuts back on the abuses J was mentioning earlier plus the "kick out" lock-out tactic. I can only use an Action to roll a single die, I can only React to the same die being rolled, I can only split one die for a given investment of Debt ... Why should schisming get two exception rules (the cost being half splitting, and it can take multiple dice)? What does it give us in such a configuration that single-die-target schisming does not?

From a strategic perspective, I can see that it lets you schism off any dice that you may have previously "paid for." Which implies being heavily invested in a side gives you the ability to control who else can get invested in that side. In such an environment, there's very little impetus to get involved in an existing side when I can just split off my own side for the cost of one Debt. If I do get involved, the original inhabitant can just spin and schism away, retaining the bulk of the dice. It becomes less profitable to cooperate. Hades knows there are few enough reasons to cooperate at the mechanical level in Capes, already.

From a philosophical perspective, the concept of ownership of anything in Capes is relatively thin. You don't own characters without a house rule, you don't own Conflicts without actually fighting over them, it doesn't quite make sense to make ownership of dice in a conflict one of the exceptions. (You do own invested Debt for the sole purpose of distributing that, but there's been enough question of whether the placer or the Conflict resolver distributes invested Debt that there's a case to be made for the interpretation that you don't own Debt either -- and, in fact, if one reads it as not owning Debt, this discussion gets simplified down into my suggested strict reading, anyway, because Debt, while bound, is not "yours" to take to the schism'd side.)

Just a few thought from my side. I know I'm an obsessive when it comes to mechanical consistency. Its my own personal bugaboo. But the more logical and consistent a rule-set like Capes, the more the Players can concentrate on the interplay and working the system to their ends.

[drnuncheon]

Not to be at obvious odds with you, Tony, but I think the "one targeted die" mechanic of schisming is way more in line with the rest of the system, and cuts back on the abuses J was mentioning earlier plus the "kick out" lock-out tactic. I can only use an Action to roll a single die, I can only React to the same die being rolled, I can only split one die for a given investment of Debt ... Why should schisming get two exception rules (the cost being half splitting, and it can take multiple dice)? What does it give us in such a configuration that single-die-target schisming does not?

Point of order - it's actually the first split that's the exception, not the schisming, because the initial die has not been "paid for".  Once you've got 2 debt staked, you can split as much as you want for a cost of 1 debt per die.

Now, I'm going to step away from the pure mechanics side and bring in the "philosophy" behind what's happening, because I think that's equally important.  Staking debt on a conflict is saying "this is important to this character", and winning justifies the use of that character's power.  Looked at from that perspective, it's hard to see why staking debt on side A and then schisming to side C should be any different than just controlling side A - especially since the sides don't mean anything until the conflict is resolved!  If the sides were set out before resolution, then I could see someone who changes their mind about what to support being conflicted (represented by the doubled return of debt from the losing side), but the way the rules are, the goal of side C might be exactly the same as the original goal of side A...

(I'd also like to note, going back to rigid textualism - I can't actually find where it explicitly says that Debt is staked on a particular side of a conflict - all the references I see just say 'Stake debt on the Conflict'.  That could easily mean that the debt is staked on 'being on the winning side' rather than 'on side A winning')

J

[Hans]

Probably needs a reminder there must already be staked 2 or more Debt total to that side of the Conflict (as its a requirement of the text. The last sentence probably needs to be rewritten not to suggest you can "move" Debt at all, possibly:

"Any Debt you had staked to to the original side remains there, except the one point used to schism off a new side." Simpler, easier, and more straightforward.

I think you are mistaken in the first sentence.  Check the example of play given on page 37.  It clearly shows only one debt being used to schism.  Only one debt is necessary, not the three you seem to be implying.  The particular section you are thinking of on page 37:

"Players may not split dice on a side with no Debt, or only one Debt Staked. But by Staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side."

is pointing out an exception to the rule of no more splits than debt staked, as the example makes clear.  There is an example of the same thing on page 63.

Zamiel, can you please post the exact text of how you would answer the question:

Q: When you schism to a new side, how many and which dice are you allowed to bring with you to your new side, and what happens to any debt you already have staked?

You can use my answer based on what I thought you said as a start, or start from scratch.  That way we can all be completely clear regarding our positions.

On the issue of ownership, I will point out that the rule book refers to ownership of dice ("your die", "their dice") several times (pgs 30, 38, 39, 125 to name a few) and refers to ownership of sides as well in several places (your side, their side) as well.  To me this indicates that dice ARE owned in some way, even though many other things in Capes aren't. 

Tony, I suggest that the paragraph I quote above is ripe for errata, so that it directly addresses a) whether a single debt or at least three are necessary for a schism, b) what happens to any of your debt that is left behind, and c) whether more than one debt can be staked to schism.  

Jeff, page 25, third paragraph, states you can only split on "your side" of a conflict, although it does not explicitly state debt is staked on a side.  The errata for page 30 states ""Each player who Staked Debt on the winning side chooses how to distribute their own Debt as Story Tokens to other players."  At the bottom of page 30 it says "All Staked Debt (on all sides) is treated as having lost."  All of the illustrations in the rules imply you stake debt on a side of a conflict as well.  There are a few other places (pg 37, for example) as well that seem to me to make it clear that you stake debt on a side of a conflict.