So, we've just finished our first session like half an hour ago. While the rules generally seem clear (I'm really fond of the slick non-linear presentation), and the game feels about as smart and fun as Capes, I wasn't quite certain about a few things:

1. When giving an opinion, should the card be passed openly or face-down? My guess is openly, but the fact that everyone can see what card you receive makes me wonder.

2. Is it possible for the GM to play the same phase more than once per game? Otherwise, what happens when the GM runs out of phases and there is no way to reach the climax (i.e. all draw slots full or too many cards in the deck and not enough drawing capacity)? Sounds like a possibility of a blue screen of death scenario to me, and since our game started rather slow, at times I've been afraid we might have not been able to go through the entire deck.

3. Likewise, can a player use cards 11-19 to return to an already closed phase?

4. When providing the group with difficulties and adversity, does the GM have to play his card for Stakes? My guess was the GM only plays his cards to defeat a player's card, give opinion or for a special effect, when applicable. Otherwise, if the GM actually plays a card to initiate adversity, it seems to me he'd suffer from awful shortages often. Most of the time I had only one or two cards at hand.

5. In Action phase, when the player plays a card for Stakes, but the GM doesn't play his own against it, is the GM considered the losing side for the purposes of drawing to the middle draw slot?

Hmm, the forum seems defunct. Was the game abandoned? Did something perhaps happen to the author?

I don't know about the forum, but I might have an opinion on some of those questions.

1. No idea, but my guess would be that it doesn't matter, so do it either way you like.
2. You can repeat phases, I seem to remember seeing that in passing somewhere. The phase cards are a set of options for the GM to choose from.
3. Yes, based on the above answer.
4. No would be my guess, but it's not in any way authoritative. As you say, that seems like the more sensible choice.
5. Yeah, I suppose that the GM would be the loser. Again just guessing, really.

1. Yeah, openly. Everyone knows what the opinion is, anyway, because you've said it.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes, I think you play cards to initiate adversity. It just means that a lot of the conflicts will be between the characters.

5. I think probably not, but it's a funny edge-case. Does that phase say "Draw a card when someone loses a conflict?" or something similar? If so, I think it should be a player. Personally speaking.

Thanks.

4. This one's tricky, I can see. Has anybody played with the author, perhaps?

5. The wording is specifically "Draw a card when the GM loses Stakes." So, essentially it all depends on whether the GM is always considered a side in conflict, even if he didn't play a card. But then, I guess wording like "Draw a card when a player wins Stakes" would be much less ambiguous. Hmm, though now that I look at the phases description, "the GM" in this case might actually refer to an implied NPC enemy. Which ties to point 4, again :)