Black Fire, you can never have too many buckles

[jburneko]

Hello Again,

Blinks. No. Player-character death is a bad thing. It means you are losing. Black Fire is about winning and losing. I'm pretty sure I like it the way it is, pending playtesting.

Well, there's a difference between losing and lost.  If all the minor goals are taken and half the major goals are gone and a player suddenly fails a goal I really don't see much point in continuing to play because I don't think they stand a chance.  But if the goals they've completed become up for grabs then they have a shot at rebuilding and the other players have a chance at becomeing even MORE powerful by snatching up those goals themselves.

As for the geography thing I was indeed thinking about the Playing Up phase as being like the boardgame part where counters are moved around and storymap cards get played without any regard for in world logic and the Playing In phase being like the roleplaying part where in world causality matters.

I was thinking that might be part of the strategy.  That I can move from the mainland to an island during the Playing Up phase without needing a boat but if I want to do that during the Playing In phase I do need a boat.  So if a monster is threating Goal A but I use the Playing Up phase to jump to Goal B to prevent a player from completing it I'm risking the next Playing Up phase not coming soon enough for me to jump back to Goal A in time to complete it before the monster eats it.  But I guess not.

Okay, I think this is my last question.  I notice that there aren't any rules for assisting other player characters in completing their goals or fighting side by side against a monster.  Note: I realize Player A can help Player B by taking out a Complication but there are no rules for Player A and Player B tackling a Goal or Monster as a team.

I can imagine two places such rules would be desirable.

a) I have experienced a "piggy backing" phenomenon during play where one player kind of latches onto another player and acts more or less like a sidekick for that player.  The first player is the player addressing the premise or tackling a goal and the second player is gleefully assisting them by running around doing errands or fighting side-by-side with the first player.  They are unconcerned with winning themselves and are more than happy to help someone else win so long as they can be helpful and stay engaged.  I can imagine a, "can't hack it, don't play it" answer to this question but...

b) A much more direct situation is one where players want to form temporary alliances such that Player A agrees to help Player B achieve goal X if Player B agrees to fight by Player B's side against monster Y.  Note: It might even be a nifty addition to Vow if a player can vow to see that another player DOES complete a goal.  I don't know.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse!

Thanks for taking all the time to help me with this game.

... If all the minor goals are taken and half the major goals are gone and a player suddenly fails a goal I really don't see much point in continuing to play because I don't think they stand a chance. But if the goals they've completed become up for grabs then they have a shot at rebuilding and the other players have a chance at becomeing even MORE powerful by snatching up those goals themselves.

Playtesting, playtesting, playtesting will tell. Since we're both talking through our hats, I'm not sure anything too useful can be derived from an agreement or a disagreement. I definitely have a view on what "would" happen, but it's worth about as much as any such view.

As for the geography thing I was indeed thinking about the Playing Up phase as being like the boardgame part where counters are moved around and storymap cards get played without any regard for in world logic and the Playing In phase being like the roleplaying part where in world causality matters.

Yeah, I'm trying to keep the Playing Up as being mainly abstract, and not about in-game cause at all. Once people start saying things they want to happen that do require in-game cause, it's a sign to start getting ready for Playing In.

I was thinking that might be part of the strategy. That I can move from the mainland to an island during the Playing Up phase without needing a boat but if I want to do that during the Playing In phase I do need a boat. So if a monster is threating Goal A but I use the Playing Up phase to jump to Goal B to prevent a player from completing it I'm risking the next Playing Up phase not coming soon enough for me to jump back to Goal A in time to complete it before the monster eats it. But I guess not.

Nah, 'cause that much abstraction will take over fast - pumps everything toward Hard Core play immediately, because the Exploration is diminished.

Okay, I think this is my last question. I notice that there aren't any rules for assisting other player characters in completing their goals or fighting side by side against a monster. Note: I realize Player A can help Player B by taking out a Complication but there are no rules for Player A and Player B tackling a Goal or Monster as a team.

It seems to me that simply strategizing among the existing rules would work very, very well, especially when in-game elements and privileges get called into the picture. I'm not sure why distinctive rules of this sort are necessary. The target merely gets nailed by two characters. If, say, my goal is to destroy the current Red King's power and your goal is to rule the Red Kingdom, well, we can work together nicely.

Actually, wait a minute. Since there's a subtle distinction between abetting one another's goals and actually confronting a danger together, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about.

a) I have experienced a "piggy backing" phenomenon during play where one player kind of latches onto another player and acts more or less like a sidekick for that player. The first player is the player addressing the premise or tackling a goal and the second player is gleefully assisting them by running around doing errands or fighting side-by-side with the first player. They are unconcerned with winning themselves and are more than happy to help someone else win so long as they can be helpful and stay engaged. I can imagine a, "can't hack it, don't play it" answer to this question but...

Don't the existing rules seem eminently well suited for this? You fight against the Red King, I kill the monsters who bug us. We stay together most of the time and use our positions at the table strategically to keep the Black Pool beefy (or to drive it to zero when called for).

b) A much more direct situation is one where players want to form temporary alliances such that Player A agrees to help Player B achieve goal X if Player B agrees to fight by Player B's side against monster Y. Note: It might even be a nifty addition to Vow if a player can vow to see that another player DOES complete a goal. I don't know.

M'm, that's a neat idea. One side of me would like to keep such things completely Explorative. Another would like to see whether the current goal rules already cover it.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Thanks for taking all the time to help me with this game.

No problem.

I think I'm clear on everything up to the point of playtesting being needed.  But I do have one more point of clearification:

Actually, wait a minute. Since there's a subtle distinction between abetting one another's goals and actually confronting a danger together, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about.

I'm talking about actually confronting danger together.  I don't see any support in the rules for this at all.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

So, we have two characters, and they're both ... um ... well, let's say they're both fighting some band of outlaws.

Two characters, two tries, and with some Black Pool strategizing, therefore an increased chance of success. How is that not confronting a danger together? Why would any special rule be necessary?

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Yeah, I guess that works.  Something about it bothers me with regards to risk of injury relative to chance of success.  But I'm not sure what.  Does order matter?

For example, if Player A and B are fighting a monster.  A roles first and actually succeeds.  What happens?  Does player B still have to roll?  I can see two answers:

1) No, because the monster is dead by B's "turn"
2) Yes, because although the monster is dead the action was considered simultaneous "in game" and thus player B might still have been injured during the fight.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

Order's going to matter a lot, and I see that as a major source of strategizing and even potential betrayal.

As for your second question, I see it as option A, but that still means that the second character did try to help.

Best,
Ron

[EricAlexander]

Here's a new question.  Anyone know where I can get sheets of little tiny skull and sword stickers?  Backup plan is dry erase markers on blank white d6's... anyone know a place to get blank d6's?

[angelfromanotherpin]

There was a CCG based on the Wheel of Time series put out some years ago.  It's out of print now, but each starter came with four blank dice (of different colors: Blue/Green/Black/White) and sticker sheets, including skulls, swords and both(other symbols as well, but not for these purposes).  See if anyone you know played the game, because they're bound to have spares of these left over.