First session

[Zamiel]

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.

I'm not sure that's actually the case, if we see the mechanic as "there must be equal Debt to the number of dice after splitting." The first die on a side has no Debt associated, which may make it the exception, but the subsequent splitting mechanics follow directly from the above.

So, technically, once you have 1 Debt staked, you can split as much as you want for the cost of one 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...

All that is very true. But its not from that perspective that I dislike the "kick-out" tactic, but purely due to the fact its one of the few mechanics to make cooperating on / sticking with a side somewhat profitable (ie. if you're already invested, you'll get more out of staying than splitting), which leads to more interesting decision-making from my point of view.If you get to drag all your investments with you when you schism, then there's really a negative pressure to stay, because you'll get fewer resources for resolving the Conflict than otherwise. At which point, mechanically speaking, its a no-brainer. Whereas if your staked Debt has to remain associated with the side it was originally put on, it means there's more incentive to stick with it. Moreover, from a philosophical PoV, your character has vested in this particular set of options; should it then be cheap and trivial to change what he cares about?

(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')

p19, on Splitting, says:

"A side may split to as many dice as it has Stakes."

This seems to imply, if not state outright, that stakes are associated with a side, else it would be "A Conflict may split to as many dice as it has Stakes."

p37 says:

"So long as they end up with no more dice than they have
Stakes, a side can split a die into two (or more, if they've got a
lot of debt) dice."

These two passages definitely support the idea that Debt is associated with a side.

Interestingly, its probably worth quoting another passage on p37, while we're in here:

"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. They split
a die from the side they're leaving, and leave one of the
resulting dice (usually the smallest) on that side. The other die
or dice go to found the new side the player is creating."

I think the telling bit here is "leave one of the resulting dice," which, in context, is extremely explicit about which dice are being taken, the ones being split from the donor die.

[Zamiel]

I hate it when I blow a closing quote ...

[Zamiel]

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.

In my preferred solution:

A side of a Conflict must have at least two Debt staked before a new side can be schism'd off. If so, staking one point of Debt will let you schism off a new side, with that invested Debt going to the new side. If you want to split the donor die further, you can add one die per added Debt (so a 6 could be split 2, 2, 2 for a total cost of 3 Debt on the schism'd side). Of the set of dice involved in the schism (donor die and all split dice), you take all but one (generally leaving the lowest die behind). The split di{e|ce} and any Debt staked in schisming end up on the new side, any previously staked Debt and all other dice remain on the donor side.

Is that clearer? I think it hits all the points.

[TonyLB]

Okay, folks.  We've departed from explaining rules and started writing entirely new ones.  Here is how I know the game can be played:

• If there is one die (say, a 5) on a side, you may stake one debt, split the die into a 3 and a 2, take the 3 and form a third side.
• If there is already two debt from someone else, and two dice (say a 5 and a 2), you may stake one debt, split the 5 into a 3 and a 2, take the 3 and form a third side.
• If you have staked two debt and have two dice (say a 5 and a 2) you may, without staking any further debt, split the 2 into a 1 and a 1, take two dice with your two debt, and go off and make your own side.  You split to maintain a "free die" on the starting side.
• If you have a side which exists only because of your debt (say you split off to a third side and then somebody other than you allied and claimed it) you may make a new (fourth) side and leave them with nothing.  Not a free die, not one of your dice ... nothing.
• In case this hasn't been made clear, you absolutely, positively may stake debt, play for pages and pages, and then later take your debt and some dice away to make a new side.  You do not need to stake more debt and leave your old debt behind.

Are we clear on what I'm not debating?  Cool ... now here's the bit that I didn't think through real well.

• If there are two debt, for two dice, are you allowed to add a new point of debt and simply take (not split for three dice and take one of the results of that split) one of those dice which you had no part in creating or increasing?  Doesn't seem immensely fair, no it doesn't.
• Could you, in fact, stake two debt and take both dice, maybe splitting off a "free die" to hold down the side as before?
• Or, contrary-wise, are the dice "owned" by the debt that created them, so that while you can split bits off of them, you cannot take them wholesale?

I have been playing with that last assumption ... that you can't simply take dice when there's debt sitting there waiting to be split onto ... but rather, if you've just added debt that debt does not yet entitle you to any dice ... it entitles you to the opportunity to grab some dice, by splitting them off of existing dice.

I'm working on the errata write-up here.  I'd like to be able to do it without repaginating the whole book for the next printing, and that means it's going to have to be written fairly concisely.  In the meantime, let's not go rewriting the rules in ways contrary to what I've stated above.  'kay?

[Zamiel]

• If there is one die (say, a 5) on a side, you may stake one debt, split the die into a 3 and a 2, take the 3 and form a third side.

Except that this directly and specifically contravenes the text, and I'm not sure what advantage there is in doing so. Its more the latter point that bugs me than the former, mind you. Yes, yes, I know you wrote Capes and are the Final Authority, etc. I'm an obsessive logician, a playtesting author's worst nightmare. :P

So, that said ... Page 37 says you have to have two Debt on a side (yours or another's) before you can schism off a new side. Is that remaining textual, or are you deliberately errataing to the new rule?

• If you have staked two debt and have two dice (say a 5 and a 2) you may, without staking any further debt, split the 2 into a 1 and a 1, take two dice with your two debt, and go off and make your own side.  You split to maintain a "free die" on the starting side.

Just for clarity, this effectively reduces to your second point, just reiterating that Debt, for the sake of "at least two points" is not "owned" per se. Unless you're saying you can do it at the start of a Conflict, ie. no other Debt on the Conflict side, in which case see my point above.

• If you have a side which exists only because of your debt (say you split off to a third side and then somebody other than you allied and claimed it) you may make a new (fourth) side and leave them with nothing.  Not a free die, not one of your dice ... nothing.

This is where we go off into the high weeds, as far as I'm concerned. I understand wholly that the beginning two sides of a Conflict have a free die. By text as stands, if you take only split dice, then there is no situation in which a side can have no dice, and this is a good thing, because if there ever is a situation where a side has no dice, there is no way to get any. Dice can neither be created nor destroyed, you can just split them. Leaving no dice on a side violates that underlying conservation, and quite possibly puts someone in a position where they have Debt invested on a side and nothing they can do with it.

I think that's a bad degenerate case and probably grounds enough for not playing with that understanding.

• In case this hasn't been made clear, you absolutely, positively may stake debt, play for pages and pages, and then later take your debt and some dice away to make a new side.  You do not need to stake more debt and leave your old debt behind.

I can deal with Debt being a mobile resource; once its allocated to a Conflict, its only the fact the Debt is bound to the Conflict that's of concern, not that its associated with a side. That simplifies certain understanding about how Debt is moved (or rather, doesn't moved; Debt is present on all sides of a Conflict at once).

Are we clear on what I'm not debating?  Cool ... now here's the bit that I didn't think through real well.

Well, you may not be debating it, but there are still some issues with what you said that need to be hammered out. :)

I have been playing with that last assumption ... that you can't simply take dice when there's debt sitting there waiting to be split onto ... but rather, if you've just added debt that debt does not yet entitle you to any dice ... it entitles you to the opportunity to grab some dice, by splitting them off of existing dice.

I'm working on the errata write-up here.  I'd like to be able to do it without repaginating the whole book for the next printing, and that means it's going to have to be written fairly concisely.  In the meantime, let's not go rewriting the rules in ways contrary to what I've stated above.  'kay?

Well, except for the inconsistancies, I'm happy to play along. :)

I think the best means of simplification would be to remove the idea of "taking" dice at all. Specify that he only way to "get more dice" is by splitting, We already have verbiage which specifies how splitting works; you stake enough Debt that the total Debt of players Allied to that side equals the final number of dice, then pick a die to split. Schisming a new side should function in the same way, possibly with a one Debt cost decrease if and only if there are already two dice present on the donor side (much easier to explain and, because of the way splitting works, guaranteed to have at least two Debt staked already). The requirement ameliorates the decreased cost.

Actually, I suspect we can make it all rather more concise by merging the mechanics for splitting and schisming:

The main reason to Stake Debt on a Conflict is to Split the
dice. Two dice can roll from two to twelve, while one can roll
only one to six. When one side has more dice than the other
they have a statistical advantage.

So long as they end up with no more dice than they have
Stakes, a side can split a die into two (or more, if they've got a
lot of debt) dice. This split must be done as evenly as possible.

(Replaces next paragraph:)

The other use for Staking is that if you disagree with the side you've been supporting so far, you can split off and form your own side. Doing so functions just like normal splitting, except that you take all but one die (typically the lowest) and may take all Debt you have staked on the original side to the new one.

That's even shorter than the current schisming mechanics and explains how you move Debt around. I think its a more consistent presentation, too, given the proximity of the splitting mechanics.

[Zamiel]

In fact, I can do even better:

The main reason to Stake Debt on a Conflict is to Split the
dice. Two dice can roll from two to twelve, while one can roll
only one to six. When one side has more dice than the other
they have a statistical advantage.

So long as they end up with no more dice than they have
Stakes, a side can split a die into two (or more, if they've got a
lot of debt) dice. This split must be done as evenly as possible.

(Replaces next paragraph:)

The other use for Staking is that if you disagree with the side you've been supporting so far, you can split off and form your own side. Doing so functions just like normal Splitting, except that you take all but one die of those Split (typically the lowest) and may take all Debt you have staked on the original side to the new one. So, if you split a 6 into 2, 2, 1, 1, you could leave a 1 and start your new side with the other three dice and all the Debt you had Staked on the original side.

A bit longer than my first run at it, but working in an example is always good.

[Hans]

[li]If you have a side which exists only because of your debt (say you split off to a third side and then somebody other than you allied and claimed it) you may make a new (fourth) side and leave them with nothing.  Not a free die, not one of your dice ... nothing.[/li]

WOW, I love that!  To me, that really helps me understand how you originally intended things to work.

Otherwise, awaiting the errata.

[drnuncheon]

So, that said ... Page 37 says you have to have two Debt on a side (yours or another's) before you can schism off a new side. Is that remaining textual, or are you deliberately errataing to the new rule?

The way I read p37, you only need one die to schism.  The line "Players may not plit dice on a side with no Debt or one Debt staked" is just restating the original rule.  It follows up with "But by staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side".  That's the exception - the "but" implies you can do it even with 0 or 1 debt staked.

J

[Hans]

So, that said ... Page 37 says you have to have two Debt on a side (yours or another's) before you can schism off a new side. Is that remaining textual, or are you deliberately errataing to the new rule?

The way I read p37, you only need one die to schism.  The line "Players may not plit dice on a side with no Debt or one Debt staked" is just restating the original rule.  It follows up with "But by staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side".  That's the exception - the "but" implies you can do it even with 0 or 1 debt staked.

J

And as I mentioned earlier, at least two play examples (the one on page 37 and one in the long play example) go beyond implying and actually show exactly this occurring.

[Matthew Glover]

• If there is one die (say, a 5) on a side, you may stake one debt, split the die into a 3 and a 2, take the 3 and form a third side.

Except that this directly and specifically contravenes the text, and I'm not sure what advantage there is in doing so. Its more the latter point that bugs me than the former, mind you.

I think the text explicitly says exactly what Tony said there.  J quoted the bit I mean, "But by staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side".  This doesn't seem to require any other circumstances.

Are you asking about the advantage in splitting with a single die?  Or the advantage in contravening the text? 

So, that said ... Page 37 says you have to have two Debt on a side (yours or another's) before you can schism off a new side. Is that remaining textual, or are you deliberately errataing to the new rule?

I'm with J in that I don't see anything on 37 that supports what you're saying.  Can you quote the text to support this?

This is where we go off into the high weeds, as far as I'm concerned. I understand wholly that the beginning two sides of a Conflict have a free die. By text as stands, if you take only split dice, then there is no situation in which a side can have no dice, and this is a good thing, because if there ever is a situation where a side has no dice, there is no way to get any. Dice can neither be created nor destroyed, you can just split them. Leaving no dice on a side violates that underlying conservation, and quite possibly puts someone in a position where they have Debt invested on a side and nothing they can do with it.

Hrm.  If I remember correctly, you can only schism to a new side, never moving debt or dice from an existing side to another existing side, right?  In that case, yeah, you can end up with stranded debt. 

I'm fine with that.  I created side C, using my action and my debt, then you step in, claim it, stake debt, and don't even split your own dice?  Fine, you wanted it, you got it.  Keep side C, I'm taking my debt and dice to side D.  Now you're stuck and you're getting back double debt from side C no matter what the outcome because you left yourself open to it.  I bet you'll never make that particular bad play again.

The other use for Staking is that if you disagree with the side you've been supporting so far, you can split off and form your own side. Doing so functions just like normal splitting, except that you take all but one die (typically the lowest) and may take all Debt you have staked on the original side to the new one.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're suggesting here, Zamiel.  Could you give some "If there is one die, no debt/two dice, one debt/three dice, five debt/etc" examples of play using this rule?

[TonyLB]

Except that this directly and specifically contravenes the text, and I'm not sure what advantage there is in doing so. Its more the latter point that bugs me than the former, mind you.

I think the text explicitly says exactly what Tony said there.  J quoted the bit I mean, "But by staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side".  This doesn't seem to require any other circumstances.

Exactly.

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

If you have a side which exists only because of your debt (say you split off to a third side and then somebody other than you allied and claimed it) you may make a new (fourth) side and leave them with nothing.  Not a free die, not one of your dice ... nothing.

This is where we go off into the high weeds, as far as I'm concerned. I understand wholly that the beginning two sides of a Conflict have a free die. By text as stands, if you take only split dice, then there is no situation in which a side can have no dice, and this is a good thing, because if there ever is a situation where a side has no dice, there is no way to get any. Dice can neither be created nor destroyed, you can just split them. Leaving no dice on a side violates that underlying conservation, and quite possibly puts someone in a position where they have Debt invested on a side and nothing they can do with it.

Tony, I know you said this was the "not debate"part, but I'm with Zamiel. This... this is weird... I'm not even getting into the whys and therefores of these being "good strategic plays" or "horrible tactical blunders". From a strictly mechanical point of view, it's just bizarre. It's like the "third side" is more special somehow just because someone created it later...

Someone created the first two sides as well, by spending an action to lay down a conflict... I don't see it...

So, if this is really, really what you meant, I'd like to ask you to please repeat that yes, this is really, really what you meant. If not, I'd ask that you say something along the lines of, "neh, you guys are wrong, but I'm gonna look at it again, just to make sure"...

In fact, if this were a Capes game, I'd lay down Event: Tony Reevaluates This Mechanic... ;) (yes, event, not goal... I s'pose you could always veto...:)

Cheers,
J.

[Kai_lord]

Tony, I know you said this was the "not debate"part, but I'm with Zamiel. This... this is weird... I'm not even getting into the whys and therefores of these being "good strategic plays" or "horrible tactical blunders". From a strictly mechanical point of view, it's just bizarre. It's like the "third side" is more special somehow just because someone created it later...

Someone created the first two sides as well, by spending an action to lay down a conflict... I don't see it...

Here's how I see the mechanics. You have three separate actions which are all being squished together.

1) You can stake debt. This involves putting debt onto a side of a conflict.

2) You can split a die. Once there is debt on a side, you can use it to split an existing die as many ways as there are debt. There must be at least two debt to split, unless you are intending to schism, in which case the original side is treated has having a "phantom" debt for the purposes of splitting.

3) You can schism to a new side. To do so, you must have debt that already has dice that has been split. You then move the debt to the new side, and the dice follow along.

Tony, is this how the mechanics are supposed to work?

[TonyLB]

From a strictly mechanical point of view, it's just bizarre. It's like the "third side" is more special somehow just because someone created it later...

That's right.  It is special.  'kay?

[TonyLB]

Tony, is this how the mechanics are supposed to work?

That's pretty close, yeah.  Still working on the errata entry.