Sides are undifferentiated apart from the Characters who are allied to them and the actions that make them becoming allied. When you create a Conflict (e.g. The Villains take over the police) in the Claiming phase and Claim on one side of it, you claim an undifferentiated side, you just announce that you (the player) want this side to win. Often, you have an idea of how you'd like it to finish. In this case, say you want the Villains to win.
If you are not the first player, a Character (say a hero, whereas you play a villain) rolls up the die on your side, declaring it the hero side (in this case, the side against the police defeat). You are now claiming a hero side where you would desire to claim the other. It's a bug in the system, to my mind.

2 solutions :
- Claiming a side gives the right to narrate what this side is about. If so, then the sides are now differentiated by claiming, which is a change in the rules.
- no changes. It's part of the game to claim a side without knowing how it will turn out. New strategies, and many hardly narrated scenes spring.

What do you think ?

Ahey, :)

Nocker wrote: Sides are undifferentiated apart from the Characters who are allied to them and the actions that make them becoming allied.

Yes, if decided willingly, it's totally narratable. It wasn't my point.

I understand that Goals have more or less two sides (but if a character Schisms to a third side, does he have to announce if he is for or against the Goal ? Do so manichean claims are desirable ?)

For Events, you mean that this situation is possible and normal :
You, as a player, want an Event to resolve badly (Villainously) and claim one side. Another player rolls the die up on this side, but with a Hero character trying to resolve the Event Heroically. So if the Event stays controlled by this Hero until the end of the Page, the Event resolves Heroically (the coherence of the narration imposes it) but you narrate the outcome, and gain Inspiration from it ? The very purpose of claiming is to resolve Conflict the way you want, and the narration observance makes it impossible, here.
Don't you agree ?

Hey, :)

Nocker wrote: I understand that Goals have more or less two sides (but if a character Schisms to a third side, does he have to announce if he is for or against the Goal ? Do so manichean claims are desirable ?)

Nocker wrote: You, as a player, want an Event to resolve badly (Villainously) and claim one side. Another player rolls the die up on this side, but with a Hero character trying to resolve the Event Heroically. So if the Event stays controlled by this Hero until the end of the Page, the Event resolves Heroically (the coherence of the narration imposes it) but you narrate the outcome, and gain Inspiration from it ? The very purpose of claiming is to resolve Conflict the way you want, and the narration observance makes it impossible, here.

Nocker wrote:
Sides are undifferentiated apart from the Characters who are allied to them and the actions that make them becoming allied. When you create a Conflict (e.g. The Villains take over the police) in the Claiming phase and Claim on one side of it, you claim an undifferentiated side, you just announce that you (the player) want this side to win. Often, you have an idea of how you'd like it to finish. In this case, say you want the Villains to win.
If you are not the first player, a Character (say a hero, whereas you play a villain) rolls up the die on your side, declaring it the hero side (in this case, the side against the police defeat). You are now claiming a hero side where you would desire to claim the other. It's a bug in the system, to my mind.

2 solutions :
- Claiming a side gives the right to narrate what this side is about. If so, then the sides are now differentiated by claiming, which is a change in the rules.
- no changes. It's part of the game to claim a side without knowing how it will turn out. New strategies, and many hardly narrated scenes spring.

Nocker wrote: So if the Event stays controlled by this Hero until the end of the Page, the Event resolves Heroically (the coherence of the narration imposes it) but you narrate the outcome, and gain Inspiration from it ? The very purpose of claiming is to resolve Conflict the way you want, and the narration observance makes it impossible, here.
Don't you agree ?

TonyLB wrote:
Let me suggest a third solution:  When you claim a side, take a moment to get into your character voice and say "By the Hallowed Halls of Asgard, I swear that the Reichsmaster will NEVER gain dominion over Boost City while I still draw breath!  Come at me with your jackbooted minions, foul puppet-master, and I shall show them the valor of the Aesir!"

JMendes wrote:
Erm... No. "Heroically" and "Villainously" are character considerations. Claiming and resolving happen on the player level. Events resolve in a manner decided upon by whichever player has claimed the winning side. Narration observance just means that things have to follow from one another, but "Heroically" and "Villainously" can (and often do) swap around very fluidly. (For food for thought, consider what happens if I'm playing a Hero, but then spend a Story Point to introduce a Villain into the scene...)

TonyLB wrote:
"Coherence of the narration"?

When it turns out that the heroes efforts, though well-intentioned, have actually aided the villain in advancing his goals, that's not the narration breaking down and becoming incoherent.  That's a plot twist.

If the hero's player didn't know what was happening then maybe he'd feel all betrayed, but he rolled up the side claimed by the villain, right?  He rolled up the villainous side.  He knew his character's actions were heading for a bad outcome, and he did it on purpose.  So there shouldn't be any player-outrage when it turns out that Doctor Planaria planned for the heroes to beat his worm minions to paste, because that gave them the chance to absorb the hero's powers through the genetic contact of being punched repeatedly.  Sure, the characters can be outraged.  Being outraged is what superheroes do best.  But the players knew what they were signing up for, and should have a good laugh at the clever way Worm-Doc's player turned the narrative tables.

Nocker wrote:
But it isn't a "villainnous side", by the rules, because nothing differentiate a Side when you claim it. All that you do is saying "I, the player, want this side to win". So the first time a Hero roll up on this Side, nothing force him to advance the villain cause, because it's a "neutral" side (or more precisely, an "undefined side") and he can describe the Villain actions being hindered.

Ok, I understand.
But if it actually happens. If a player roll up the die for the Hero on the Side you would have wanted to be villainous by claiming it ? Is it unfair ? Is it legal (I don't see anything that prevent it in the rules) ? Is it a strategy ? Or is it just stupid ?

Allow me to repeat:

TonyLB wrote: When it turns out that the heroes efforts, though well-intentioned, have actually aided the villain in advancing his goals, that's not the narration breaking down and becoming incoherent.  That's a plot twist.

Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand. If you claim a side, you are saying "if this side wins, I decide the outcome", nothing more, but nothing less. So if the Heroes start rolling up "your" side, they just allow you to narrate the end the way you want.

The problem I see is the lack of opposition, in this case. It's a very interesting twist in a comic book, but is it useful in this game ? The debt tokens a villain has put on his side don't become story tokens because the heroes weren't much of an opposition.

And all this works only if someone says his intentions when he claims a side. If a player control a Hero and a Villain, when he claims a side, who knows his intentions for this conflict. Will it be a villainous victory or a heroic victory if this side wins ? If you says it, yes people will know that rolling up the side is going to help that goal, but if you don't, it's a gamble, at best. So is it a hard-rule : say your intention when you claim ?

Nocker wrote:
The problem I see is the lack of opposition, in this case. It's a very interesting twist in a comic book, but is it useful in this game ? The debt tokens a villain has put on his side don't become story tokens because the heroes weren't much of an opposition.

Nocker wrote: And all this works only if someone says his intentions when he claims a side. If a player control a Hero and a Villain, when he claims a side, who knows his intentions for this conflict. Will it be a villainous victory or a heroic victory if this side wins ? If you says it, yes people will know that rolling up the side is going to help that goal, but if you don't, it's a gamble, at best. So is it a hard-rule : say your intention when you claim ?