Topic: Resolving: I don't get it
Started by: tetsujin28
Started on: 6/11/2006
Board: Muse of Fire Games
On 6/11/2006 at 12:24am, tetsujin28 wrote:
Resolving: I don't get it
I've read through the rules twice, now, and Resolving still doesn't make any sense, to me. When, and how, does it occur?
It seems that you can only Resolve a Conflict if you have Control, Control being defined as "have a higher die/dice total". Yet in the example of play on pg. 47, one side clearly has Control of the Get Out Early Conflict (4 vs. 1), and all players have performed Actions, yet Alex declares, "There's nothing to Resolve, so that's pretty much the Page."
On 6/11/2006 at 1:17am, Glendower wrote:
Re: Resolving: I don't get it
You are right, but you've missed the part about Claiming a side. In page 47, no one had claimed any side as of yet. You can claim a side of a conflict at the beginning of a page. If you control the side you claimed, then you can resolve it.
On 6/11/2006 at 2:49am, tetsujin28 wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
How could a die be rolled without a Side being Claimed?
On 6/11/2006 at 2:40pm, Glendower wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
You'll have to be a little more clear in the question. Here's what I'm guessing you are asking. Once a conflict or event is out there, players can roll on any side they like. Rolling on a side is NOT claiming a side. Claiming is a specific action you take to say "I'm invested in this conflict, and I'm going to try to win it out".
Let's break it down to the cycle of play.
Page starts. Player tosses down a conflict. Next player either toss down a conflict or roll on one of the two sides of existing conflicts (or does nothing). Other players react to rolls. Next player plays and so on until no one is left. Page ends.
New Page... At the very beginning of this new page, any player that wants to CLAIM a side of a conflict that's sitting on the table (from previous pages of gameplay) can do so. If they want. Conflicts can stay unclaimed for a several pages of play. After this claiming step ends, then you proceed just like the previous page.
Does this help?
On 6/11/2006 at 7:20pm, nicolasfueyo wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
I thought Goals were only going to stay on the table for more than one page if at least one side of the goal was claimed, with the exception of the first page, where this "refreshing" didn't work (giving the "initial setting goal" is the closer to a GM in Capes).
Do unclaimed goals remain in the half-world of "could bes" ? Not content with stealing the author of a goal (badly timed, must admit) his wording, can you also steal the action he used in order to set the goal in the first place ? This doesn't look bad. Doesn't look too good either. Depending on which side you are.
On 6/11/2006 at 9:47pm, Glendower wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Calliclès wrote:
I thought Goals were only going to stay on the table for more than one page if at least one side of the goal was claimed, with the exception of the first page, where this "refreshing" didn't work (giving the "initial setting goal" is the closer to a GM in Capes).
Do unclaimed goals remain in the half-world of "could bes" ? Not content with stealing the author of a goal (badly timed, must admit) his wording, can you also steal the action he used in order to set the goal in the first place ? This doesn't look bad. Doesn't look too good either. Depending on which side you are.
When you set down a goal, it stays set down until it's claimed and resolved. Then it is taken off the table. If it isn't claimed and resolved, it sits there, on the table, until someone claims and resolves it. There's no refreshing, I don't understand where you found refreshing in my post. I also don't know where you got an initial setting goal from either.
And I really need you to rephrase the entire second paragraph. I don't understand the questions in it.
On 6/11/2006 at 11:07pm, drnuncheon wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Glendower wrote:
There's no refreshing, I don't understand where you found refreshing in my post. I also don't know where you got an initial setting goal from either.
I think that "refresh" refers to the fact that claims only last for the current page. The initial setting goal is the goal set down by the Scene Starter as their first action.
(I suppose technically the Scene Starter could use their action to build up an Inspiration and leave the first Goal of the page to one of the other players, but I've never actually seen that happen.)
J
On 6/12/2006 at 8:10am, nicolasfueyo wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Thank you for "refreshing" my memory. My mistake. Of course, claims, not goals, are cleared every page in the conditions stated.
As for the second paragraph, Glendower, I was thinking of those goals players would create in a given situation, 1) that don't suit the players needs for the page (eg : "superheroine Safran disarms the Ninja Assassin", claimed once), and 2) are left to die for the end of the scene because they don't seem to be relevant anymore (eg : the fight is over).
I think this only happens with my group because 1) we create some bad goals, 2) we wouldn't twist the whole story to come back on them. So we took the habit of removing those "dead" goals from the table, as with claims, and now I understand it is an illegal move as well as a mistake. For instance, we could use some flash-back in a later page (eg : Safran analyzing Ninja fighting style discovers technique and dojo). Thank you Glendower for correcting me.
As for using an Inspiration early in a scene, this we call a "deathtrap". It seems to me a valid move if you have a prepared plot and a fine strategy to go with it. Setting it firmly prevents the other players to get away from it too easily. I will admit it is evil, anal retentive, and works only if you are able to predict the players' moves, but it also enforces continuity and rewards a good preparation. Thanks to you Glendower for the exact wording.
Now I will just shut up and apologize to Tetsujin 28 for my foolish interruption.
On 6/12/2006 at 1:34pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
tetsujin28 wrote:
I've read through the rules twice, now, and Resolving still doesn't make any sense, to me. When, and how, does it occur?
It seems that you can only Resolve a Conflict if you have Control, Control being defined as "have a higher die/dice total". Yet in the example of play on pg. 47, one side clearly has Control of the Get Out Early Conflict (4 vs. 1), and all players have performed Actions, yet Alex declares, "There's nothing to Resolve, so that's pretty much the Page."
Hi Tetsujin:
I think your original question might have gotten a bit lost in the shuffle, so I'm going to take a stab at it:
For a conflict to resolve at the end of a page, two conditions have to be met:
1) One side has to be in Control of the conflict (i.e. the total of the dice on that side is higher than the other side) and,
2) The side that is in Control must have been Claimed by someone at the beginning of the page.
Therefore, there are several situations in which a conflict can carry over to the next page:
* No one claimed any side of it at the beginning of the page: this conflict will not resolve this page, regardless of who is in Control.
* A side has control, but no one Claimed it at the beginning of the page: this conflict will not resolve, even if the OTHER side was Claimed.
* A conflict on which all sides are tied: this conflict will pass on to the next page, although it is just possible it might be Deadlocked, as described in the rules on page 30. The only way I can think of for this to actually happen is so out there as to be incredibly unlikely and probably not worth describing, but the fact that Tony mentions it in the rules means it has probably happened at least once in the history of Capes.
I've added this to thread to the FAQ under "Conflict Resolution", by the way.
On 6/12/2006 at 2:30pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Callicles,
I don't think removing Conflicts at the end of scene is technically illegal. I've seen it happen and heard of it happening with some frequency. If towards the end of a scene the only Conflicts left on the table seem pretty uninteresting to everyone, the group can agree to simply take them off the table and finish the scene immediately. There's no reason to drag out a scene with a Conflict out there that no one really wants to fight over. It's better to just get rid of it and move on.
On 6/13/2006 at 9:47am, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Doesn't seem logical to just remove conflicts from the table, certainly not considering the resource factor. Must make more sense to Claim, roll, resolve, and take the Inspiration rather than just remove the conflict, and all this with a little narrative effort.
On 6/13/2006 at 3:27pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Tuxboy,
The issue becomes is it really worth the effort if the payoff is likely to be pretty small. After all, if no one cares about the Conflict, then no one is really going to oppose you very hard. Thus, you'll typically get a small Inspiration and nothing more. That's not really worth dragging the scene on to me. Let's move on and get to something where I have the chance to get some REAL rewards.
On 6/15/2006 at 7:11am, nicolasfueyo wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Then, a "small stakes" strategy is not appropriate in Capes.
On 6/15/2006 at 12:41pm, Glendower wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Mouth-of-Darkness wrote:
Then, a "small stakes" strategy is not appropriate in Capes.
How do you mean? As long as the stake is important to another player, then it's appropriate. When a player tosses out a goal/event that no one cares about, it'll fizzle.
On 6/15/2006 at 1:50pm, TheCzech wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Andrew wrote:
After all, if no one cares about the Conflict, then no one is really going to oppose you very hard. Thus, you'll typically get a small Inspiration and nothing more. That's not really worth dragging the scene on to me. Let's move on and get to something where I have the chance to get some REAL rewards.
The interesting thing is that in theory, you could glom onto some conflict nobody cares about, stake some debt, roll up some dice and collect some big honkin' inspirations because nobody opposed you. In practice, this rarely works because once you stake debt, people say "oooo debt!" and then leap in to oppose you.
Ironically, the big inspiration payoffs come when you have good opposition. It's really counter-intuitive when you first see the rules, but it's true none-the-less.
On 6/15/2006 at 6:50pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Eric,
Actually, you're plan wouldn't be too difficult to pull off if you were the last player before the page ended. Then there's no one left to oppose you without spending Story Tokens.
On 6/15/2006 at 7:08pm, TheCzech wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Andrew wrote:
Eric,
Actually, you're plan wouldn't be too difficult to pull off if you were the last player before the page ended. Then there's no one left to oppose you without spending Story Tokens.
IF your die rolls don't suck, IF you have multiple characters to roll up, split and roll up again, IF the other players don't react you down just to be spiteful, then yeah, you can score.
Seriously, I've done this. You get one or two middling inspirations unless you get really lucky. On the other hand, I once got three level 6 inspirations from a conflict people cared about. I think Tony got four level 6 insps on another occasion. High interest conflicts are the most lucrative way to get insps.
Now, you can also convert story tokens to insps by taking extra actions. This is a perfectly valid way to shuffle your resources and give you a bit more juice to get the job done.
On 6/15/2006 at 9:13pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Resolving: I don't get it
Eric wrote:
I think Tony got four level 6 insps on another occasion.
Five of them, actually. But then, it was saving the universe. Not that such a conflict has any inherent advantage over "Hug a puppy," but it does tend to secure more fervent feeling.