Black Fire, you can never have too many buckles

[EricAlexander]

I just read this game in the articles section, and it sounds like a pretty good time. A couple of questions for the author:

How long did you intend for a playing in phase to last?  Until someone tests for a goal?

What form should complications take?  I didn't really get that on my first readthrough.

How many rolls (about) do you figure would be necessary to complete a goal?

Is there some Ultimate Goal in mind, or is the player free to state it like other goals?

Thanks in advance!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Eric,

How long did you intend for a playing in phase to last? Until someone tests for a goal?

H'mmm ... that depends. I think that having everyone deal with conflicts is necessary for a Playing-In phase, and that can include either testing for a goal or directly removing a complication. Arguably, even if everyone has done this, maybe "not enough" has happened for anyone to want to state new goals or to Play Up yet ... in which case, go ahead and keep playing as normal until Playing Up is necessary.

What form should complications take? I didn't really get that on my first readthrough.

In-game-wise, complications are people, places, and things that act as barriers or opportunities (or both) about a given goal or monster. So if the goal is "Rule the Red Barbarians," then one complication might be the "chief's son," another might be "the spiky swamp of initiation," and so on. Storymapping by definition means adding complications to goals or monster; the "map" part means in-game connections among them and potential pathways of moving from one to another. So if there's a priest you have to impress, you have to deal with the spiky-swamp first.

Mechanics-wise, complications are dice that get pulled from the Black Pool (before the player gets there) and rolled by the GM at the same time the player rolls. Whatever values come up on the complication dice are cancelled from the player's roll. Clearly more than one complication might apply at the same time. In fact, if you test for a Goal, every existing complication will apply. Note as well that you may attack complications directly, just to remove them from the storymap (in-game, this may include getting the priest on your side and killing the chief's son, or perhaps exactly the reverse, or whatever), in order to make the eventual testing-roll easier.

How many rolls (about) do you figure would be necessary to complete a goal?

Well, with any luck, it should require several scenes and perhaps several Playing-In phases. I figure that the connections surrounding a given goal would require some rolling to get through, and that a Monster in the situation would provide some adversity as well. So maybe four to ten rolls? And maybe one to three Playing-In phases? But both of those are very subject to playtesting results.

Is there some Ultimate Goal in mind, or is the player free to state it like other goals?

The Ultimate Goal gets stated like any other goal, right there in play. It can't be stated unless that player-character has completed a Major Goal.
I really like lots of things about this game design, but it is way not yet ready for major playtesting. Usually I'd bake a manuscript through at least two sessions with at least two groups before making it available, and this one hadn't been through anything prior to its posting. So if you're brave enough to try it, feel free to make any number of executive decisions about what does and doesn't work during your game. If you keep notes about that, you'll be giving me immense help.

Best,
Ron

[EricAlexander]

I don't know if I'll be able to convince my game group to give it a try, only one other is an rpg player, most of the rest are more into board games.  When I told the rpg guy in my group about Black Fire, we had the following exchange:

Me: So, if you take any swords on your dice, your character has to have buckled straps on their outfit somewhere.  And if you take skulls, something has to be in tatters.

Him: Well, obviously.


I'm hoping to convince some people that it's enough like a board game to try.  After all, it has a map, and an end in sight.  ;)

I really like the "Twist the Knife" thing, that's really cool.  I think you might have to change the seating order once in awhile, because sitting 'after' the guy that always rolls all ones would suck after awhile.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Eric,

Your friend sounds just right. "Of course." Of course, "of course"! Straps, man. Tatters.

I think you might have to change the seating order once in awhile, because sitting 'after' the guy that always rolls all ones would suck after awhile.

I've been wondering about the seating. It's possible that the order of action could shift about, or start with "next person" for every new Playing-In phase. Something like that.

Best,
Ron

[EricAlexander]

In talking about Black Fire with a friend, he asked, "So, if I were to finish a goal like 'Rule the Assassin's Guild', could I send the assassins out after the other players?"  It seems like a good idea to me, but what kind of target number would you assign to an assassin when they met their targets?  Or would that be an example of adding a complication to another player's goal?

Also, we agreed that it would be cooler if the trickster god had killed the hope god, even though that conflicts a bit with mythology.  :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Eric,

Let's see ... with the assassins, that's a matter of the player-character rolling his own dice as usual (the assassins are now his "weapons"), so you could use the same target numbers as you would for player-character on player-character conflict in the rules.

As for the hope god being the victim, that seems fine to me.

Best,
Ron

[EricAlexander]

In the rules, you haven't come up with a way to distinguish the gods from the rest of the monsters, so what about using some kind of modification of the player on player rules for them?  Splitting the black pool and all that.  That way, each god could have their own customized skull/sword dice.  It'd be possible for a player to slay a god with the ones he rolls against him and still lose the conflict.  If that happened, they will have defeated the god but have to perform some final service for him or something.  Like, you slay the one-eyed god of knowledge, but he rolled much higher than you, so you're obliged to hangyourself from a tree in contemplation or something.  Just an idle thought.  :)

[jburneko]

I'm curious, can you complete someone else's goal?  If Player A has the goal, "Kill the Red Fiend" but Player B kills the red fiend, perhaps in an effort to remove it as a complication from a goal they created, what happens then?

Jesse

[motherlessgoose]

Where can I find out about Black Fire?

[montag]

Black Fire can be found here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/22/
it's linked in the Gamism article, but unlike Mongrel and Zero at the Bone, it isn't linked to on the main Articles page http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Oooh, a Black Fire discussion! At last!!

Eric, you wrote,

In the rules, you haven't come up with a way to distinguish the gods from the rest of the monsters, so what about using some kind of modification of the player on player rules for them? Splitting the black pool and all that. That way, each god could have their own customized skull/sword dice. It'd be possible for a player to slay a god with the ones he rolls against him and still lose the conflict. If that happened, they will have defeated the god but have to perform some final service for him or something. Like, you slay the one-eyed god of knowledge, but he rolled much higher than you, so you're obliged to hangyourself from a tree in contemplation or something. Just an idle thought. :)

Not a bad idea at all. There are actually a whole bunch of thoughts kicking around, in the forums and in my notes, about how the gods differ from plain old Monsters. I'm open to more suggestions and developing a concrete plan about it here in this thread.

That reminds me; here's a list of previous discussions for those who are interested: Black Fire/ Black Blood, Staring into the Black Fire (this one is silly), Black Fire - developing for playtest[/url][/b] (this one is really good), and Ron Edwards' current projects (a bit about future plans).

Jesse, you wrote,

can you complete someone else's goal? If Player A has the goal, "Kill the Red Fiend" but Player B kills the red fiend, perhaps in an effort to remove it as a complication from a goal they created, what happens then?

There's two ways this can happen. The first is as you describe: player A is after the Red Fiend, but it gets killed by some other player en route to something else. The second is if player B declares killing it (or conceivably, saving it in some permanent way, or transforming it into a maiden, or whatever) as a Goal and does so.

Either way, the game effect on player A is the same: he has just automatically failed at this goal, just as if he'd rolled for it and lost, with everything that implies. Yup, this is a built-in mechanism for players to decide whether they are or are not competing for Goals. And you'll note, I trust, how the (N + 1) Minor Goals, (N-1) Major Goals, and (1 and only 1) Ultimate Goal rules fit into that mechanism.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Hey Ron, remember the cognative zones I create just to become confused?  I'm there right now.

1) If a player declares a goal that is already embedded in a storymap what happens with that goal during the next Playing Up phase?  Do NEW story map elements get added to it or does it count as already having a story map and so nothing happens.

2) A monster is created every Playing Up phase and it has a story map just like a goal.  BUT it says that monsters are associated with a goal and its story map.  Okay so:

2a) Who creates the monster?  The GM?

2b) Is the monster described before going through the round of storymap creation or just the initial story map elements proposed by the GM?

2c) What is the relationship between the monster's storymap and the goal's storymap?

2d) It says that monsters destory storymap elements up to and including the goal?  How?  By GM fiat?  On a preplaned schedule (one unit per die roll, playing up phase, etc?)

2e) How and when do storymaps link up in general?

3) What happens in this worst case scenario: At the start of play no-one declares any goals.  They just throw their markers randomly down on the map.  I guess one monster and storymap get created and it goes somewhere, not known to the players so they can't deliberately put their markers on it.  How does the GM play this situation?  No prep has occured, so he has no meat with which to play with.

3b) This of course also covers the situation where a lot of play has occured but a player decides to throw their marker down on a spot that has previously been unexplored with no goal or monster.  What then?

4) How much setting prep is done before play begins?  The section on goals makes it sound like the list of "objects" is pre-set and the description of the map makes it sound like it's pretty fleshed out.  There may not be any preset storymaps, goals or monsters "in play" but it sounds like the communities, organizations, "famous places", rummored monsters, artifacts are all set up before hand.  Is this what the GM is expected to use in the case of #3 above?

5) The rules state: "Goals are expressed as Minor, Major, or Ultimate, which sets the Goal's Target Number" with a similar statement for monsters.  The general target number is 8 but no guidelines are given for these other target numbers.

6) The limits given for goals, is that EVER or "at one time."  So let's say I've got three players.  Four minor goals are on the map and all four get completed.  Can no one ever propose a minor goal ever again?

7) What does endgame look like?  If an ultimate goal has been achieved do goal proposals stop?  Does it just become about the gods desending to earth as monsters at a rate of one-per-Playing Up phase?  When does endgame, er, end?

I think that covers the first round of considerations.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Sigh ... hello, Jesse. Seriously, though, thanks. Time for the fun ...

1) If a player declares a goal that is already embedded in a storymap what happens with that goal during the next Playing Up phase? Do NEW story map elements get added to it or does it count as already having a story map and so nothing happens.

Actually, you treat it as two goals: one for the first player (as it already exists), and the other for the second player. Mapping the second goal (which of course has the same name as the first one) may or may not include elements mapped onto the first. So you have two goals, each with its own map, one for each player-character, and with the same names, which may or may not include the same mapped complications.

Now, if a complication is destroyed and it's shared between two goals, then it's destroyed for both. But be careful! Let's say that for player #1, the chieftain's daughter is an obstacle and the player-character kills her and removes that complication. But for player #2, the daughter plays a very positive role in the map, and that character was going to get to the goal by making her the chieftain. For player #2, the complication remains - now it's the memory of the daughter that acts as the same complication in his map. See?

2) A monster is created every Playing Up phase and it has a story map just like a goal. BUT it says that monsters are associated with a goal and its story map. Okay so:

2a) Who creates the monster? The GM?

Yeah. My very brief playtest shows me that this ought to include some very streamlined mechanics and/or play aids

2b) Is the monster described before going through the round of storymap creation or just the initial story map elements proposed by the GM?

The latter, which get added onto a bit by the players. All they know about the monster per se is that it will start showing up some time during the Playing In phase.

2c) What is the relationship between the monster's storymap and the goal's storymap?

None. The monster's map makes defeating the monster harder; the goal's map makes achieving the goal harder. The only time these have anything to do with one another is when a monster becomes itself a goal through a player-character's announcement, in which case its storymap becomes that goal's storymap.

2d) It says that monsters destory storymap elements up to and including the goal? How? By GM fiat? On a preplaned schedule (one unit per die roll, playing up phase, etc?)

More or less on the latter schedule, probably one storymap unit per scene or set of scenes of the player currently involved with that map. In other words, once you've stated a goal, don't sit on your butt, because a monster's eating it apart. And yeah, it's making the goal easier to achieve by removing complications, but it's also threatening the goal itself pretty fast.

2e) How and when do storymaps link up in general?

They don't, except by sharing units, which is established when they're created. And the units can play different roles within each map, as stated above.

3) What happens in this worst case scenario: At the start of play no-one declares any goals. They just throw their markers randomly down on the map. I guess one monster and storymap get created and it goes somewhere, not known to the players so they can't deliberately put their markers on it. How does the GM play this situation? No prep has occured, so he has no meat with which to play with.

No problem! The monster starts attacking the player-characters. The GM always makes more monsters. When this happens, the game becomes a monster-hunt and you can still hit Endgame when the player-characters beef up to all-faces-filled. You've just bypassed the Goals, that's all.

Bear in mind also that characters who've achieved no goals have no money, no extra clothing, no friends, no home, no food, and no respect. And without achieving Goals, they won't get any of these things either. Feel free to hit them with major adversity (treat as combat) via the weather and starvation.

3b) This of course also covers the situation where a lot of play has occured but a player decides to throw their marker down on a spot that has previously been unexplored with no goal or monster. What then?

Depends. What's he doing there? Deal with that. And go ahead and attack him with a monster. Rrrrah!

4) How much setting prep is done before play begins? The section on goals makes it sound like the list of "objects" is pre-set and the description of the map makes it sound like it's pretty fleshed out. There may not be any preset storymaps, goals or monsters "in play" but it sounds like the communities, organizations, "famous places", rummored monsters, artifacts are all set up before hand. Is this what the GM is expected to use in the case of #3 above?

My vision for the game is actually a fairly setting-heavy presentation, much on the order of the first Dark Sun boxed set or the manuscript I've read for Legends of Alyria. So all the stuff you mentioned, yeah, is pretty much already available. And I also think that it'd be handled through actual physical representation, like heavy-stock cards or even dry-erase type writeable placards, with cool art.

5) The rules state: "Goals are expressed as Minor, Major, or Ultimate, which sets the Goal's Target Number" with a similar statement for monsters. The general target number is 8 but no guidelines are given for these other target numbers.

Huh. I wonder what I was thinking ... gee, 11 and 14? Why not. Playtesting will tell.

6) The limits given for goals, is that EVER or "at one time." So let's say I've got three players. Four minor goals are on the map and all four get completed. Can no one ever propose a minor goal ever again?

Correct. No more minor goals, after that. Now, let's break that up into two steps though.

1. Let's say four minor goals get announced. Two get completed and one gets failed.

2. That means three are accounted for, the two "done" ones and the still-in-the-air one. If it's failed, then two minor goals remain to be announced. If it's successfully completed, then one remains to be announced. Does that make sense?

7) What does endgame look like? If an ultimate goal has been achieved do goal proposals stop? Does it just become about the gods desending to earth as monsters at a rate of one-per-Playing Up phase? When does endgame, er, end?

All the goal-oriented play can keep going as normal. Endgame ends with all the gods being killed and with one player-character still standing, or with all the player-characters killed. Players whose characters die during Endgame are considered to have lost.

I think that covers the first round of considerations. [emphasis mine - RE]

!!

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Hello Again,

I'm getting a much clearer picture here.  I'll stop asking Target Number questions as it seems the answer is "needs playtesting" rather than, "damn, I THOUGHT I put this table in there."

Some further clearification....

"Mapping the second goal (which of course has the same name as the first one) may or may not include elements mapped onto the first."

Erm... Why does it have the same name as the first goal?  The situation I was thinking about goes like this:

Let's say that Player A has the goal, "marry the Queen of Zizzy."  One of the units of the Storymap for this goal is the Assassin's Guild wants the Queen dead.  So, Player B has no goal and is just mucking about in this storymap and suddenly declares that his goal is, "To wipe out the Assassin's Guild."

What happens durring the next Playing Up phase?  Do we a) say that Assassin's Guild goal already has a story map or b) attach NEW storymap elements to it that effectively "hook in" with the Queen's storymap?

"Correct. No more minor goals, after that. ... Does that make sense?"

Yes it does but that seems particularly harsh for a) characters who die and a player who chooses to start a new character and b) characters who fail a goal and are stripped of their previous advantages.  I suggest that if either of these conditions happen then that character's goal count becomes up for grabs.  Such that if the character had completed two minor goals and a major goal and then fails at his next goal that two minor goals and a major goal now become "available."  This at least gives the new/stripped character a chance at building up again.  Sound reasonable?

Okay, round two officially begins here.  This is the geography portion of the exam.  Man, I wish I had a white board...

All of these questions relate to the notion that there is a physical map with makers for goals, monsters (invisible at first), and PCs and there seems to essencially be a "movement phase" of the Playing UP phase.

Okay, let's start with Monsters and my worst case scenario listed in my previous post.  So nobody has a goal and we've only got one monster and its story map.  Note: Strictly according to the rules as presented that monster is secretly placed BEFORE the players lay down their markers.

The situation I'm imaging is where the GM places the monster at point A and the players all throw down their markers WAY on the other side of the map at point B.  How can I "just start having the monster attack" when all of its storymap units are way over at point A.  For that matter how can the monsters move around at all when they are anchored to storymap units?

Example: So I've got this monster and all of its storymap units are members of the village of molmoth.   How can the monster be attacking PCs or storymap units for the kindom of Kalama which is way on the other side of the map?  Does the storymap move WITH the monster?

Okay now for a broader question: When we say a goal, monster or PC is "placed" on the map and that PCs "move" at the end of the Playing Up phase, what exactly are we talking about and how far can these things move during the Playing In Phase.

Example: I've got the goal "unite the three capital cities of nation X, Y and Z"  Where on the map is this goal placed?  Where is the PC trying to complete it considered "to be."  Can the player only move from the capital of nation X to the capital of nation Y durring a Playing Up phase?  If not then what is the difference between long distance travel during the Playing Up phase vs. the Playing In phase?  What about long distance travel for monsters?

One possible solution I have is that a player is considered to be "in" a storymap.  Presumable a goal on an order of magnitude like, "unite the capital cities of nation X, Y and Z" has story map units that span all three nations such as, "the daughter of the king of nation X is loved by the prince of nation Y but X and Y are bitter enemies"  Such that a player can only move between "disjointed" storymaps during the Playing Up phase but can travel freely (perhaps with adversity such as bad terrain, weather, etc) during the Playing In phase as long as they are traveling between points that share geographical share storymap units.  Make sense?

Jesse

P.S. You really, really, really need a concrete "automated" method of switching between Playing Up and Playing In because when these happen has HUGE HUGE HUGE impact on things like whether a player can jump from goal A to stop a player from completing goal B and back to goal A before a monster destroys goal A.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

"Mapping the second goal (which of course has the same name as the first one) may or may not include elements mapped onto the first."

Erm... Why does it have the same name as the first goal? The situation I was thinking about goes like this:

Let's say that Player A has the goal, "marry the Queen of Zizzy." One of the units of the Storymap for this goal is the Assassin's Guild wants the Queen dead. So, Player B has no goal and is just mucking about in this storymap and suddenly declares that his goal is, "To wipe out the Assassin's Guild."

What happens durring the next Playing Up phase? Do we a) say that Assassin's Guild goal already has a story map or b) attach NEW storymap elements to it that effectively "hook in" with the Queen's storymap?

Don't get confused about my "same name" comment. I'm only referring to the easy-peasy fact that both goals concern the Assassin's Guild.
In your example, during the next Playing Up phase, the Assassin's Guild gets a storymap all its own which may or may not include the same units of the existing one about the Queen. Yeah, I know that the Guild is a unit in the Queen's map. So what? It's not hard - if it helps, write the first goal and its map on one piece of paper, and the second goal and its map on another piece. Any overlap between the two is no big deal; just deal with it during play.

"Correct. No more minor goals, after that. ... Does that make sense?"

[/quote]Yes it does but that seems particularly harsh for a) characters who die and a player who chooses to start a new character and b) characters who fail a goal and are stripped of their previous advantages. I suggest that if either of these conditions happen then that character's goal count becomes up for grabs. Such that if the character had completed two minor goals and a major goal and then fails at his next goal that two minor goals and a major goal now become "available." This at least gives the new/stripped character a chance at building up again. Sound reasonable? [/quote]

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.

All of these questions relate to the notion that there is a physical map with makers for goals, monsters (invisible at first), and PCs and there seems to essencially be a "movement phase" of the Playing UP phase.

Okay, let's start with Monsters and my worst case scenario listed in my previous post. So nobody has a goal and we've only got one monster and its story map. Note: Strictly according to the rules as presented that monster is secretly placed BEFORE the players lay down their markers.

The situation I'm imaging is where the GM places the monster at point A and the players all throw down their markers WAY on the other side of the map at point B. How can I "just start having the monster attack" when all of its storymap units are way over at point A. For that matter how can the monsters move around at all when they are anchored to storymap units?

I just checked out the rules, which state: "The GM does not place the Monster counters on the map; that will come as player-characters encounter them during the next Playing In phase." If I'm not mistaken, that pretty much eliminates your entire concern. The monsters "appear" where the player-characters are, if the GM wants them too.

Also, although it's not explicitly stated in the current manuscript, the Playing Up phase is not a "go where thou wilt" freebie. The players can say where their characters want to go, and the characters are subject to the same constraints they would be during the Playing In phase. If they go to the West Isles, then Playing In starts with them limping along the coastline nearest to wherever they were, wishing they owned a boat.

Example: So I've got this monster and all of its storymap units are members of the village of molmoth. How can the monster be attacking PCs or storymap units for the kindom of Kalama which is way on the other side of the map? Does the storymap move WITH the monster?

Most of this example is negated by my point about monsters above, but let's say that we're talking about monsters moving in general. And the answer about the storymap is, some of it could, in some cases. Depends on the monster and depends on the map.

Okay now for a broader question: When we say a goal, monster or PC is "placed" on the map and that PCs "move" at the end of the Playing Up phase, what exactly are we talking about and how far can these things move during the Playing In Phase.

Example: I've got the goal "unite the three capital cities of nation X, Y and Z" Where on the map is this goal placed? Where is the PC trying to complete it considered "to be." Can the player only move from the capital of nation X to the capital of nation Y durring a Playing Up phase? If not then what is the difference between long distance travel during the Playing Up phase vs. the Playing In phase? What about long distance travel for monsters?

See, you're all over that "scrub logic, re-position player-character" notion. Granted, you can read the current text that way. But if you're talking about the game as I see it, you don't have to worry about it. Player-characters' motion is constrained by in-game cause; the Playing Up phase is not a Teleport phase.

P.S. You really, really, really need a concrete "automated" method of switching between Playing Up and Playing In because when these happen has HUGE HUGE HUGE impact on things like whether a player can jump from goal A to stop a player from completing goal B and back to goal A before a monster destroys goal A.

Maybe. I like it as it stands, at least on paper.

Best,
Ron