Splitting From Multi-Die Pools

[Zamiel]

I'm a bit of an anal-retentive geek. I'm well aware of this fact. As such, I've been reviewing the FAQ posting and the messages it links to, as well as looking at the Capes document itself, and think there's either something that I'm not getting or something we as a community have been misinterpreting, misplaying, or have been Enlightened in a way that is at odds with the implications in the text. Unfortunately, its not easy to resolve these things with abstracts, so ...

The particular point of interest is the act of splitting off a new side from a Conflict in whom the "donor side," as we'll call it, has more than one die. Note that to do this, the donor side must already have two Debt staked on it, else the split could never have occurred. It may have further "unbound Debt", a term we'll use to describe Debt that has not been used in splitting and thus is not bound to a die (typically reified by sitting the physical d6 on the poker chip representing said Debt in my games).

Now, it has been noted that it only takes 1 Debt to split a die off the donor side, per the text on 37. One assumes this would create a "bound Debt" to the newly split die on the newly split side, if not immediately, certainly if it becomes desirable to split the die on the new side, as you cannot split a die on a side if there are fewer Debt staked than the resulting number of dice.

But, now, that brings us to two cases of some question.

A strict reading of 37 suggests that the only dice you can take to the new side are those which are split by Debt from one die of the donor side. That is, if I'm splitting off a side from a Conflict I've already invested 2 Debt in to split the die, and I drop one more to split off a new side, I take only the one die that is split off from one of the originals, not any other die that may be remaining, unaffected. In theory, and taking an expansive view of the splitting mechanic, I could invest more Debt and split the source die more finely (turning a 6 into six 1s, and taking five 1s to my new side and leaving a single 1 behind as required, for the low cost of 5 Debt; or in this case 3 Debt to split the 6 into 2, 2, 1, 1, and leaving a 1, because I already have 2 Debt bound to this Conflict and my maximum Drive rating is 5).

The expansive view of splitting off a new side may not, in fact, be textual. In fact, it doesn't appear to be stated, but implied, as an extension of the splitting rules.

Some of the FAQ entries on splitting state that I could take any dice that I had invested the original Debt to split from the first die, or any others I'd paid for the split of. I don't think this is actually supported by the text; as far as I can tell, the text only allows taking the split value from a single die on the donor side. Specific text runs thus:

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.

Since splitting as a mechanic only applies to a single die at a time, I think its textual to say that you could only bring a single die to your new side and can only diminish the donor side by the split value so moved. p125, discussing strategies, would support this contention and imply by extension that the staking multi-split is textual, even though not explicitly mentioned (Massive Schism depends on the multi-split to work.)

That, at length, covers contention one: That only one die on the donor side can be affected, and only so far as it can be split down in the course of a single splitting act.

The second contention is thus: At no point, during any of the text covering this, is there a mention of moving Debt between sides.

None. In fact, static Debt staked would seem to be more in line with what the underlying architecture of Capes and its philosophy than the idea that you could move it around when a new side is created. Debt represents the things the character cares about. Capes takes a time-linear-forward view of the mechanics and resolution; things map appear to conflict, but what has entered the narrative cannot be undone, merely recast or reinterpreted. To put it simply, resolution is not "No you didn't," it's "Yes, and ..."

Moreover, the limit on invested Debt (p36, Staking) is specific to the Conflict, not the side. This would be in line with the overall Capes philosophy as read, as well.

So, the textual case we come away with is that Debt, once Staked, cannot be moved around, even if you split off a new side and have Debt staked on the donor side. There is no mechanical support for the motion of Debt once staked. That's the critical textual contention at play.

Have I missed anything from a textual point of view?

(Note that I'm not saying these other mechanical acts aren't interesting or useful, just that they aren't, as far as I can tell, textually supported.)

[Hans]

Zamiel uses both the words "textual" and "reified" in his comments...I am intimidated as all hell! :) 

One general comment on the FAQ (which I will add in at some point).  I don't think people should treat the FAQ answers as rules.  I'm not sure they are.  The rules are the actual text in the book.  The FAQ is no more or less than what it appears to be; questions asked about those rules and the (hopefully accurate) summary of what the answers have been to those questions from the Authorities (primarily Tony, with the assumption that if Tony did not directly answer, he concurred with the answers provided by others or would have corrected if he didn't).  Insofar as the FAQ is accurate in its summary of those responses from the Authorities, its value as "rules" is exactly the value you would place on the individual replies. 

Therefore, one important question from my end; do you believe the FAQ has accurately portrayed what has been said by the Authorities on this issue of schisming?  Whether what the Authorities have said is right/proper/good/well designed or not is not for me to say, but if you think I have been INACCURATE in summarizing the Authorities, that is very important to me, because I will correct it. 

If you think the FAQ is accurate, then I will step back and let others discuss the issues raised.  I do think this is an example of an issue in the rules where the responses of the Authorities has added a lot to what is actually written in the rule book.

[Zamiel]

Zamiel uses both the words "textual" and "reified" in his comments...I am intimidated as all hell! :) 

If others can use Forgespeak, I can use litcrit, damnit. I might as well speak my own crazy moon-language! :)

If you think the FAQ is accurate, then I will step back and let others discuss the issues raised.  I do think this is an example of an issue in the rules where the responses of the Authorities has added a lot to what is actually written in the rule book.

Oh, don't get me wrong ... I think the FAQ accurately speaks to what the Authorities(tm)(c) have said, very, very well. But there also needs to be a sense of what, precisely, the text says so that we can know when what they say goes beyond ir, or is in some way disconnected (potentially, in a good way) from it. Otherwise the potential for confusion is serious, most especially among the folk new to the system. So, to decrease the cognitive dissonance between the two, I think its useful to step back and discuss what, specifically, the text says and what it means, then go on to talk about Authority.

You can think of my bits here as marginalia, as opposed to the commentary on the text written afterwards.