Topic: Quick questions: Debt Staking Citation?
Started by: Sindyr
Started on: 9/27/2006
Board: Muse of Fire Games
On 9/27/2006 at 3:20pm, Sindyr wrote:
Quick questions: Debt Staking Citation?
Came up in my regular weekly Capes game (I have a regular weekly Capes game! 4 hours most every Tuesday! Had 3-4 sessions so far, developing nicely.)
1) Does the Capes book say (or strongly imply), as I think it does, that when debt is staked, those debt token are staked on a side? (I am referring to debt that has been staked only, not used to split dice.) Most of the book seems to say debt is staked on a conflict, not on a *side* of a conflict. I have found 2 places where staking on a side is mentioned:
page 30 in my book says at the top of the page: "Each player who staked debt on the winning side..."
page 125, Spiteful Schism says: "Stake a point of debt on the side you want to lose..."
This came up because one of my players, who has read the book, thought that maybe debt was staked on the conflict in general, and which ever side the player that owns that debt was aligned to was where that debt was at the moment. So by changing what side the player is aligned with, that effectively places his debt on the newly aligned side.
My interpretation, based on the above two lines, is that debt, when staked, must be staked on a side of the conflict. If this debt is never used for splitting dice, then it can never leave that side.
2) Another situation came up where I had claimed one side (I was not aligned to it, just claimed) and another player had claimed the other side. He went first and rolled a six. I had a one. The character I was using had a lot of debt. Seeing that I was going to lose this conflict most likely (without spending story tokens, which I did not want to do for this conflict.) I placed 3 debt on *his* side on the conflict.
I know that the out-of-Tony's-mouth answer is that you can't stake debt on a side that you are not aligned with, unless perhaps you are currently not aligned with any side and *promise* that your next action on this conflict, if any, will be to align yourself with the side you staked on.
However, any rule that is not stated or at least VERY strongly implied by the text of the game book is not considered by our group to be canon and may or may not be adopted by us as a house rule.
I scanned the pdf for all instances of the words side, align, stake - found lots of mentions, but not a single line stating or strongly implying that there are *any* restrictions on where you can stake debt.
In fact, the *ONLY* restriction I found in the book relating to alignment is the single rule:
[code]At the start of the Page, clockwise from the Starter, each player
may put their marker on the side of a Conflict that one of
their characters is Allied with. If they have no character Allied
(particularly for a new Conflict where sides are not yet defined)
they may put the marker on any side.[/code]
Oh, and:
[code]Any time anything is narrated about the Conflict, the narration must
be finished by someone allied with the Controlling side.[/code]
In fact, I find only 6 uses of the word "allied" in the whole text.
Am I wrong here, or I am right that, using the game text alone, being allied pretty much only counts for limiting what sides you can claim at the page start (in that you cannot claim a side other than one you are allied to if you have are allied of this particular conflict)?
In other words, going by the game text alone, I can stake debt freely (on my turn) on any side of any conflict?
If the answer to this question is "Yes, the game text does not limit a player from staking debt freely" my next question is:
3) What are the potential downsides to NOT adopting the following "from Tony's mouth" house rule?
"A player may only stake debt on the side of a conflict he is allied with, with one exception: he can stake debt on a conflict on which he is allied with no side, if his next action on that conflict, should he take one, be one that alligns himself to the side this debt is staked on."
4) I just read that Alliance is tracked seperately from Claiming. That is, that claiming a side does not ally you with that side automatically, and that Claiming a side does not prevent you from taking actions that ally you with the opposing side. Is this correct?
5) If Player A claims one side and Player B claims another, Player C stakes debt on Player B's side, then Player B start's rolling up player A's side becoming alligned with it, should Player C cause the side that Player B has claimed to win, is Player B eligible for story tokens, as he is allied with the losing side and provide opposition to the winning side. Does Player B get to narrate the narrative result, since he has a claim on the winning side?
-Sindyr
On 9/27/2006 at 5:37pm, Hans wrote:
Re: Quick questions: Debt Staking Citation?
Hi Benn:
Glad you have a regular game, mate!
Sindyr wrote:
1) Does the Capes book say (or strongly imply), as I think it does, that when debt is staked, those debt token are staked on a side?...
page 30 in my book says at the top of the page: "Each player who staked debt on the winning side..."
page 125, Spiteful Schism says: "Stake a point of debt on the side you want to lose..."
...My interpretation, based on the above two lines, is that debt, when staked, must be staked on a side of the conflict. If this debt is never used for splitting dice, then it can never leave that side.
This is the way everyone, including Tony, seems to play it. See the threads associated with staking in the FAQ, especially http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16060.0. There are two other places where this is at least implied in the rules; page 19 and page 37 in the grey box regarding splitting where it says "A side may split to as many dice as it has Stakes."
It also seems pretty clear that you can only split dice on a side you have a character allied with, even if that character could stake the debt without being allied. You could leave it sitting there, waiting and hoping for someone else to split, or ally one of your characters, and then split. If you play the way your friend suggested, with the debt just sitting there and moving as your character's alliance moves, you would have to house rule a bit around the splitting dice question. An example of what I mean, under your friends interpretation:
Conflict X has 1 die on Side A, and 1 die on side B. You have a character currently allied with side A. You stake debt from that character on Conflict X, and since that character is allied with side A you split that dice, so there are now three dice on side A. You now use that same character to roll up the die on Side B, changing that character's alliance. Can you split the dice on Side B? I would have to say no; this would violate the rules on page 27 which say there can't be more dice than stakes.
Moreover, if you played this way, it would seem to me far too easy to avoid getting debt shoved back in your face when you lose a conflict. If you see the writing on the wall, you just have the character ally with the opposing side through a reaction, and then instead of getting back double debt, you will give it to someone as story tokens (or more likely, since everyone will do this, the debt just dissappears because there is no one to give it to).
I scanned the pdf for all instances of the words side, align, stake - found lots of mentions, but not a single line stating or strongly implying that there are *any* restrictions on where you can stake debt.
I think most people interpret the word "own" and use of the possessive pronoun with regard to dice as "allied" in the rules. There are a number of places where the rules refer to people doing things to "their own die" or "their die"; for example, the splitting rules on page 37, and most of the tactics on page 125. Also, I think I have always interpret language about "winning" and "losing" as applying to alliance; for example, the text for resolution in the grey box on Page 30.
Am I wrong here, or I am right that, using the game text alone, being allied pretty much only counts for limiting what sides you can claim at the page start (in that you cannot claim a side other than one you are allied to if you have are allied of this particular conflict)?
If you assume that possesive language refers to alliance, then it also limits splitting dice. Also, the example of play, on page 63, shows Alex saying "now that he [Liberty] is allied, he is staking a point of debt..." This clearly implies that alliance is a prerequisite for staking.
In other words, going by the game text alone, I can stake debt freely (on my turn) on any side of any conflict?
See http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18381.msg194013#msg194013 for Tony's take on this. but I think you have already read it. I would recommend against playing it this way, and sticking to the idea of alliance being a requirement for staking, based on the discussion in this thread.
4) I just read that Alliance is tracked seperately from Claiming. That is, that claiming a side does not ally you with that side automatically, and that Claiming a side does not prevent you from taking actions that ally you with the opposing side. Is this correct?
Here is the logic; characters can be allied, but can't claim. Players can claim, but can't be allied, except through their characters. Hence, claiming does not make any of your characters allied with anything. Moreover, page 26 states that a character becomes allied by rolling dice, and there is no other mechanism for alliance stated in the rules. Frankly, the FAQ is not consistent in using the correct language for alliance being a character thing and claiming being a player thing, to make this point clear; I need to go through an change that.
5) If Player A claims one side and Player B claims another, Player C stakes debt on Player B's side, then Player B start's rolling up player A's side becoming alligned with it, should Player C cause the side that Player B has claimed to win, is Player B eligible for story tokens, as he is allied with the losing side and provide opposition to the winning side. Does Player B get to narrate the narrative result, since he has a claim on the winning side?
Check these two paragraphs from page 30.
[code]If the character who created the Conflict is on the losing side, and they are being played by someone other than the Resolver then the first Story Token must go to that player.
In the rare case that no player except the Resolver has a character allied with any losing side, Story Tokens cannot be awarded. Instead the Tokens are discarded.[/code]
These two paragraphs strongly imply that the Resolver can NEVER get story tokens, regardless of what else has happened on the conflict. Player B WOULD get to narrate the result, though, as the claimant.
Obviously, all this is just my best interpretation.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 16060
Topic 18381
On 9/27/2006 at 5:50pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Quick questions: Debt Staking Citation?
If "owning dice" is accepted as a synonym for being allied with a side, and I think I am good with that, this is what is in the Capes text:
-Players may evenly split any die they own into dice totaling the same value (p19)
(this addresses who can split, not who can stake - ie, this would not prevent me from staking debt, only from splitting it.)
All other relevant instances of the text referring to "owned" dice are all relating to splitting, not staking.
So I ask again, to be extra sure, am I wrong in concluding that nothing in the Capes text forbids staking debt freely on any side of any conflict during your turn. The limits are on *splitting*, not *staking*.
Correct?
On 9/27/2006 at 5:54pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Quick questions: Debt Staking Citation?
Sounds good to me. If you want to try to give away story tokens for nothing, just in order to manage your debt, feel free.
I'll say though ... dumping three story tokens onto a side without following it up with support seems an awful dicey way to get rid of debt. I mean ... people are going to want to oppose that side now, right? Aren't you worried that your "sure thing" will suddenly go the way of the Titanic?
On 9/27/2006 at 6:02pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Quick questions: Debt Staking Citation?
It's a concern. It all depends. Losing debt can be very situational. Most people seem to be quite willing to take story tokens when offered.
Thanks for the confirmation.
On 9/27/2006 at 7:12pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Quick questions: Debt Staking Citation?
Sindyr wrote:
Thanks for the confirmation.
Benn, make sure you consider my point above about splitting dice when debt is not tied to a particular side before going with this rule. Its bound to come up. You should know what the answer will be in your group before you get to it. Frankly, I'd like to hear how it works, and if it changes the way the game flows at all.
On 9/27/2006 at 7:32pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Quick questions: Debt Staking Citation?
Hans wrote:Sindyr wrote:
Thanks for the confirmation.
Benn, make sure you consider my point above about splitting dice when debt is not tied to a particular side before going with this rule. Its bound to come up. You should know what the answer will be in your group before you get to it. Frankly, I'd like to hear how it works, and if it changes the way the game flows at all.
I think I am confused. Our group is going with:
1) Debt *must* be staked on (and tied to) a side of a conflict. (Because the text seems to very strongly imply this.)
2) Debt can be staked on any side of any conflict, unrestricted by alliance. Splitting (and schisming) *is* restricted by alliance.
So I think our game will wind up being more traditional that you imagined?
On 9/27/2006 at 8:33pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Quick questions: Debt Staking Citation?
Sindyr wrote:Hans wrote:Sindyr wrote:
Thanks for the confirmation.
Benn, make sure you consider my point above about splitting dice when debt is not tied to a particular side before going with this rule. Its bound to come up. You should know what the answer will be in your group before you get to it. Frankly, I'd like to hear how it works, and if it changes the way the game flows at all.
I think I am confused. Our group is going with:
1) Debt *must* be staked on (and tied to) a side of a conflict. (Because the text seems to very strongly imply this.)
2) Debt can be staked on any side of any conflict, unrestricted by alliance. Splitting (and schisming) *is* restricted by alliance.
So I think our game will wind up being more traditional that you imagined?
Ah, the first item was the one I was talking about not the second. I withdraw my comment.