OMG this is awsome and I'm super sad that I have to wait for a book. :(  I'm going to try to run a game anyway.

Questions:

1)When a victim succumbs to the monster, what happens to the 4d10 in "victimization" that the monster was gaining from her?  Particularly if the end result kills the victim.  For that matter, what happens to those dice if the victim is killed prematurely?

2)Along those lines, what happens when the monster gets to his third victim and only has 2d10 in his victimization pool?  I suppose both of these issues would be solved if the dice went back into the pool.  Is that what happens?

3)What are these "nightmarish resources" that the monster gets?  Special powers?  Just whatever normal "resources" that people have access to, but with a creepy bent/source?  Both?

4)When you reveal a bond (or an access) to the PCs from GM fallout, are you supposed to work that into the narrative somehow or just automagically reveal it?

Looking forward to this one.
Thanks.

Excellent questions.

1. If the victim dies, see if it makes sense to make her into a slave. Even if not, the victim's death should and must be a victory for the monster, in some form. So should and must be total victimization. A lot depends on the nightmare that the monster is making of the world.

2. The monster starts out with 10 dice of victimization. After the start of the game, that number can go up or down freely, according to events in the game. The monster's first move can be to find a new victim, then another, then another... But now the PCs are there to interfere, that's what matters.

3. Both. Anything you can think of.

4. I can't remember precisely when you take that fallout option - but yeah, the PC should legitimately discover or notice or confirm or learn it somehow.

More questions welcome!

-Vincent

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something basic about Victimization.

1)  It says that the monster gets 10d10 Victimization to start, and that two of that is used for the first Victim.  What happens to the other 8 dice?  I'm beginning to think that they go to "placeholder" Victims that the PCs haven't met yet (and haven't even been created) but who theoretically exist and and are supplying power to the monster.  Is that right?  I think I was thinking of it more like a relationship pool.

2)  That said, the monster "levels up" after Total Victimization, but does he keep the d10s he recieved from the victimization as well?  If so, is there any way to undo that?

3)  With regard to manifestation of Victimization, what's the difference between "Nightmarish events in the victim's environment" and "Disturbing, inexplicable, nightmarish experiences"?

4)  "Changing Status" in play can only happen through conflicts won and lost, but what if the monster goes out and makes a new Victim of somebody the PCs haven't met?  Or steps up its access to a Victim while the PCs are asleep or Lost or something?  Do we just assume that the monster doesn't do that for some reason, and always have a PC "in the loop"?  I totally get not having interesting things happen without the PCs, I just want to make sure I'm getting it right.

5)  What makes a bond of nightmare?  Is it just any bond that isn't a bond of conscience or tradition?  Is it just any bond that is "spooky"?

6)  Is "The slave's bond to the monster" a legitimate stake?

By the way, if you want to let Afraid "initiations" rules leak, I'm sure nobody will complain ;)

Thanks again.

6) Or perhaps "Lessen the slave's relationship to the monster" is better, so as to keep the stakes small?

I haven't forgotten about this. Just busy!

1) Exactly. The monster starts the game with 10 dice worth of victims, one of whom you write up for the first session, the others of whom you write up as play progresses, before you need them. Those other 8 dice worth of victims are real people who already exist, you just haven't written them up yet - yes, placeholder victims. Not like a relationship pool at all.

2) The monster loses the d10s for victimizing her victim, since she's not victimizing her victim any more. Her leveling up (funny but apt) is permanent.

3) If other people can verify it, it's nightmarish events in the victim's environment; if only the victim experiences it, it's nightmarish experiences. "All the dogs in the neighborhood circle your house, snarling" vs "when no one else is in the room, the television tells you dark stories about yourself as a child."

4) Launch a conflict where no PC is present. Choose a player to roll opposition. Have her roll acuity: she's starting at research. Make your raise ("this person you don't know and haven't met is going to sleep, and she left her window open a crack...") and look at the player expectantly, "your see."

It's not that the monster can't do anything outside the PCs' loop. Instead, whenever the monster does something, the PCs are automatically in its loop.

It works the same way, in reverse, with the PCs' circumstances. Whenever the PCs do something, they draw the monster into their loop.

5) Exactly, any bond that is spooky.

6) Mechanical things, like relationship dice, can change only by fallout. But it should be easy easy to set up a conflict where the fallout you inflict should obviously go toward lowering the slave's relationship with the monster.

-Vincent

Awsome!  Thanks for the reply.  I'm assuming that busy is a good thing :)

Ouch.  This makes my head hurt.  I'm sorry if I seem to be full of questions.
4a) So, is "Research" a sort of default Arena, or is the PC actually "researching" (however casually)?
4b) I'm assuming it's difficult to escalate to Talking, or to use Traits since the PC isn't there or doing anything, yes?

7) Oh, and regarding access to the victims.  That's a pretty abstract concept.  So let's say that the next level of access is an intimate one and involves, say, the victim telling the monster her darkest secrets.  How do you undo that?  Once it's done, it's done.  Or is it assumed that the players can narrate some kind of "antidote" conflict?  Or am I completely missing the way access works?

Thanks.

4a) Don't get distracted by "research" as a term, it includes the PC's gut instincts, situational awareness, nagging feeling that something isn't quite right, intuition, all that. You can imagine a movie where the character is sitting down to eat fries in a sports bar and looks up at the TV to see something significant in the background of an unrelated local newscast; that's research.

4b) There aren't any rules about how easy or hard the conflict should be. Set the scene, launch the conflict, and if the player can't figure out a single way to make a see or a raise, fine, she gives, all up front and by the book. You did your part, she did hers, and now the monster has a new victim, even steven.

Did you get my comparison between this topic and the PCs' circumstances? Everything the PCs undertake to do, the monster gets to attack them. Everything the monster undertakes to do, the PCs get to attack it. From the moment the game starts, both sides are vulnerable to one another.

7) Yeah, access has to be maintained. The victim confesses to the monster once, that gives the monster access at that level; if the PCs prevent the victim from confessing to the monster again, that's broken the monster's access.

I don't mind questions! Ask as many as you have.

-Vincent

Thanks!

4b) Well, yeah.  I just meant that it would probably be trickier for the player to escalate and use traits since the PC isn't necessarily physically present.  It might take some mental gymnastics, is all :).  Either way, got it.

Ok, I'm sure that I'm just being thick, but is that what the monster does?  Screws with PCs (personally, through slaves/acolytes/nightmarish resources) and aggressively persues Victimization?  I am, perhaps semi-erroniously but lacking any other guide, trying to apply DitV-style running techniques to Afriad (Actively Reveal the Town Monster in Play, Drive Play Toward Conflict, etc.).  Thus, I'm trying to "Play the Town Monster".  Is this an adequate approach?  Any "How to GM" suggestions that aren't in DitV or that are but don't apply?

The game's kind of stalling while I try to figure this out.  I'm starting to feel a bit better about it, though :).  Thanks again.

8)  Ooh.  And circumstances.  I get most of it, Lost (control of where you are), In Trouble (contol of what you've done, sorta), Alone (control of who can help you), but Unprepared throws me a bit.  Are you just unable to bring Belongings into a conflict, or just unable to use Belongings that the GM has "written out"?  What about being "surprised" or "distracted"?  Do those simply affect which Traits or Belongings the group would find acceptable to bring into a conflict?  Is it more complicated (or simpler) than that?

Thanks agian.

In actual play, what I've done so far is to say that any traits the characters bring in are all converted to d4s (they're drunk).  Any improvised items they use are d4s as well.  Hopefully this won't break things :)

Um buh...

That's brilliant.

I'm pretty sure that's brilliant. If it is, it's going to be the rule. (Credited to you, of course.)

How's it worked in play? Good?

-Vincent

Gee, thanks!  I'll let you know.  Play-by-post runs a bit slow, as you might imagine.