Hi, I rolled

a Nest of Vipers
6H: A tower of silver and alabaster, which rises from the sea under the new moon.
7H: A squat town on the banks of a wide, long river, rich from plunder, whose men raid up and down the river in their ugly boats.
2S: The unscrupulous landlady of a roadside wayhouse.
KS: A village executioner, practicing his trade on a caught burglar.

and its my first game, and Ill be GM.  Im a bit perplexed as to characters for this one, as there are a lot of locations, and in fact the first element (silver tower) is nothing but a location).

not to mention, of the two characters specifically named, one is about to kill the other one and I assume has a decisive physical advantage at the start of the game.  I mean, a direct confrontation would be executioner tries to chop off burglars head, but it seems kind of contrived to have the burglar escape somehow without help.  but until that 'caught burglar' situation is resolved one way or the other, how do I involve the burglar in the story.  I guess I have to resolve it very quickly.

When I say resolve, obviously I mean 'introduce a scene that will lead to conflict in which it is resolved'

any suggestions?

Your post is giving me the impression that you're going to be making all the PCs and NPCs and the whole story all by yourself... Which is very specifically NOT how IaWA works. Well, okay, it could work, but that's not how it was designed.

The whole point, or at least as far as I can tell, is for the entire group of players to cooperate towards a good story. This would be why the Oracles are deliberately vague, so that every player has the freedom to latch on to whatever inspires him/her.

Your tower? One player might see it as a prison. One evening for the knight to rescue the princess kept inside. Another might think of a siren living in it, luring men to her. Neither of which might actually be played out in the game, it might all be background to the characters they're building in their head.

But if you're going to do it all for them, then I feel you might as well play another game, since you'll be losing a good chunk of what IaWA is about, how it feels to play it.

Yep! Don't draw from the oracle until you're all sitting down at the table together, ready to play.

-Vincent

OK, sure.

but anyway lets look at this example specifically - lets say we are all around the table and people select their characters and two PCs take the burglar and the executioner.  I think in the rules somewhere it says someone has to take specifically designated characters.

Is not my job as GM to set up a situation which encourages the characters to pit themselves against one another.  My original question still stands - in this situation, one character is going to execute the other and nothing much can happen to either character until that is resolved somehow.

what do you suggest?

Open with that scene. Why not?

"Okay, you, you're tied ankle and wrist, forced to kneel beneath the executive tree. You, you're wearing your hood of office, choosing from among your many strangling cords. Who does what?"

-Vincent

My original question still stands - in this situation, one character is going to execute the other and nothing much can happen to either character until that is resolved somehow.

I'm currently in an IaWA game where I'm playing the murderer for hire and another player character is my target. The story is all about that getting resolved. We are not worrying about trying to resolve it before hand.

And don't forget the Best Interests!

Julie

Don't know if this will help.

We had that King of Spades draw in a game I played in.  I was the execution and another PC was the caught burglar.  The details are little hazy but one of the NPCs had a Best Interest about replacing me.  Either taking over the job himself or finding another person for the job.  This is why Best Interests are important.  They add detail and context beyond the implied situation in the card draw.

So I started the game going to the burglar in his jail cell.  I said to him, "I can execute you tomorrow as scheduled or you can do me a favor and I'll see to it that never happens."  And the game proceeded from there.

I know for sure the burglar never got executed.

Jesse

ok, thanks.

Sure!

Is there more to it than that?

-Vincent

No not really.  Ill just put those two characters in a scene at the start and let the conflict resolution system do its thing and see what happens.

The reason we are doing the character setup via email is I have a 2 hour window to introduce the game to a group, who most certainly wouldnt have done more than a cursory scan of the rules before the start, so this way Ill be saving time and also giving them time to appreciate at least the rules involving best interests and so on before turning up at the table.

actually, what about the best interests...  If the burglar player says something like "not getting executed!" I assume thats pretty naff because it doesnt give the story anything and pretty much every character would have that as an implied best interest anyway...  So , I would guide the player to elaborate on a best interest that is interesting for ongoing play that perhaps might peripherally give some guidance as to how the player might accomplish not getting executed?

Ah! I get it. Doing setup by email is fine, if that's what you gotta do.

"Not get executed" isn't a terrible best interest, especially for 2 hours of play, especially if the character's second best interest is even a little better. You can nudge the player toward "escape" if you want, or just suppose that the player means something like "escape" anyway. But really it's the player who answers to the character's best interests, not you.

More questions welcome, always, or just let us know how it goes!

-Vincent

Well, OK, here is what I am proposing to the players for my NPCs, leading with my most powerful NPCs best interests.  Are those best interests OK?  Too vague, too , err, big?  I havent got a concrete idea WHY those are the characters best interests yet, Im keeping it open.

Silver Tower inhabitant:
Name:  Ugurnaszir the sorcerer
Action:                  d10 d6
Maneuvering:      d12 d8
Self-Protection:    d6 d4
particular strength - sorcery
Best interests:
    1)  Capture the Burglar
    2)  Destroy the squat town

Wayhouse traveller: 
Name:  Omid the travelling  "merchant".
Action:                  d6  d4
Maneuvering:      d10 d6
Self-Protection:    12 d8
No particular strength
No best interests yet.

Riverboat raider II:
Name:  Javid the riverboat raider
Action:                  d10 d6
Maneuvering:      d6 d4
Self-Protection:    d12 d8
No particular strength
No best interests yet.

Squat towns person:
Name:  Leili, a townswoman
Action:                  d6 d4
Maneuvering:      d12 d8
Self-Protection:    d10 d6
No particular strength
No best interests yet.

PARTICULAR STRENGTHS:

SORCERY:
This is the ability to perform feats of magic
significance 1
forms:  PC  directly.    NPC  action
it is far-reaching (Your character can use the strength to act beyond her normal human reach)

The best interests are a fine start. Now, as GM I suggest you wait until each of the players puts forward at least one best interest. Then you kick off another round of best interests. You can't properly aim until you have targets.

Well, we played.  Players were positive and we will play another session in a few weeks.  Was a bit slow during the first conflict or two.  We kept wanting to just work with our initiative rolls rather than initiative, then turns, then answer.  Took a bit of getting used to the idea that even though someone rolled badly for initiative, they got to reroll to answer.

As it turns out, the sorcerers best interest of destroying the town was pretty naff - it didnt really conflict with any of the PCs in a direct way, so nothing came of it.  but the game also ended short due to the learning curve, so I suppose had we played at a better pace, I might of got a clue as to why the town needed destroying and conceived of a way for the sorcerer to act on it that would have caused him to come into direct conflict with PCs.

one question.  The executioner wanted to kill the burglar.  the burglar wanted to escape by headbutting the executioner in the stomach and running.  The sorcerer in the crowd also wanted the burglar to escape, by way of blasting the executioner with magic just before he dealt the blow.  Executioner wins initiative - I slice your head off!  Obviously the burglar has to answer.  But does the sorcerer also have to answer as his aim and the burglars are the same, or does he just wait until his turn and try to blast the executioner at that point.  I guess the latter, and I also guess that is why initiative is rolled every round. 

one more question.  Every time someone acts or answers in a round, they can use different forms depending on the type of action, or are they locked into a certain combo at the start of the conflict?  I guess the former.

Vincent's got your back already, but I'll try to answer and he can correct me if I bungle it.

stefoid wrote: Executioner wins initiative - I slice your head off!  Obviously the burglar has to answer.  But does the sorcerer also have to answer as his aim and the burglars are the same, or does he just wait until his turn and try to blast the executioner at that point.

stefoid wrote:
As it turns out, the sorcerers best interest of destroying the town was pretty naff - it didnt really conflict with any of the PCs in a direct way, so nothing came of it. 

one question.   The executioner wanted to kill the burglar.  the burglar wanted to escape by headbutting the executioner in the stomach and running.  The sorcerer in the crowd also wanted the burglar to escape, by way of blasting the executioner with magic just before he dealt the blow.  Executioner wins initiative - I slice your head off!  Obviously the burglar has to answer.  But does the sorcerer also have to answer as his aim and the burglars are the same, or does he just wait until his turn and try to blast the executioner at that point.  I guess the latter, and I also guess that is why initiative is rolled every round. 

one question.   The executioner wanted to kill the burglar.  the burglar wanted to escape by headbutting the executioner in the stomach and running.  The sorcerer in the crowd also wanted the burglar to escape, by way of blasting the executioner with magic just before he dealt the blow.  Executioner wins initiative - I slice your head off!  Obviously the burglar has to answer.  But does the sorcerer also have to answer as his aim and the burglars are the same, or does he just wait until his turn and try to blast the executioner at that point.  I guess the latter, and I also guess that is why initiative is rolled every round. 

If the Sorcerer wants to blast the executioner before he deals the blow, he damn well better answer a move like "I slice his head off" don't ya think? It doesn't sound like he can wait to me.

I suppose in a multi-party contest, its possible to both win your move and then be forced to answer someone of lower inititive's move, and loose that - do you go into the next round with advantage or not?

stefoid wrote:
well, yeah.  But the rules clearly state the mover has to name the answerer.   Can an answerer vote themselves to answer?  I would think it makes more sense that anyone opposing the move announces an answer, and the rules have it ass backwards?

stefoid wrote:
I suppose in a multi-party contest, its possible to both win your move and then be forced to answer someone of lower inititive's move, and loose that - do you go into the next round with advantage or not?

What the rules say IIRC is that you get your advantage die only in the next round, not immediately. Whenever you win a challenge-answer pair, you are eligible for an advantage die the next round. You cannot lose the die in subsequent answers in the same round, and you cannot ever have more than one die, no matter how may answers you won.

Noclue wrote:

stefoid wrote:
well, yeah.  But the rules clearly state the mover has to name the answerer.   Can an answerer vote themselves to answer?  I would think it makes more sense that anyone opposing the move announces an answer, and the rules have it ass backwards?

Think of it this way, if I'm the sorcerer and your the headsman and you don't make me answer your move, then I'm free to blast you with sorcerous fire. Since you "can and would interfere" you better make me answer.

way wrote:
What the rules say IIRC is that you get your advantage die only in the next round, not immediately. Whenever you win a challenge-answer pair, you are eligible for an advantage die the next round. You cannot lose the die in subsequent answers in the same round, and you cannot ever have more than one die, no matter how may answers you won.

Anyone got a clue what to do if an ongoing conflict seems to sweep up a previously uninvolved third party?  Can that 3rd party become involved in the conflict in say, the 2nd or 3rd round, even if they werent involved previously?

stefoid wrote:

way wrote:
What the rules say IIRC is that you get your advantage die only in the next round, not immediately. Whenever you win a challenge-answer pair, you are eligible for an advantage die the next round. You cannot lose the die in subsequent answers in the same round, and you cannot ever have more than one die, no matter how may answers you won.

thats solid.

Tom’s answer:
Tom rerolls for an 11+4=15 and a 7, beating
Martha’s 11 & 5 and so taking the advantage.
“Amek would kill them dead if they gave me away.
We are spectacularly equal.”
He keeps his advantage die.
Tom doesn’t get a move, because he had to answer
before his turn.
Erin’s move:
Erin rerolls for a 9+5=14 & 6.
“Oh, but when I go into the circle? I defer. I surely
do.”
Tom’s answer:
Tom rerolls for a 7+6=13 & 1, not matching Erin’s
9+5=14 & 6. He has to give Esan the advantage.

On rereading, my example's not as clean as I would like because Tom got the advantage die in the previous round and is only "keeping it" after his answer. I still don't see where it clearly says in the text that you have to wait until the next round to use the advantage die in a multiple party conflict. The text merely states:

•If your roll’s less than your challenger’s, but more
than half, you lose the advantage: roll forward, and
your challenger gets an advantage die (or you can
negotiate consequences here, too).
•If your roll matches or beats your challenger’s,
but not by double, you win the advantage: you roll
forward and you get an advantage die (or you can
negotiate consequences here, too).

I've played it both ways. Both ways work fine.

I believe that the text more strongly supports the "don't roll your advantage die until next turn" interpretation, but you should go with whichever interpretation makes more sense to you personally.

-Vincent

Oh, and sure, a third party can roll into an action sequence after round 1.

-Vincent

Vincent,

Interesting! I hadn't taken either of those things from the text. I'll have to try them. For clarification:

1. If joining an ongoing action sequence, are you still bound by the "three rolls" rule? Like, if I join in the third round, does that mean one roll for me will settle things for certain, no going on to a future round?

2. If you're assigning advantage dice _immediately_, to the next roll as opposed to the next round, do you indeed "lose" it when you roll lower than another Challenge or Answer?

My interpretation was that you get an advantage die in the next round, no matter what, as long as you won at least one exchange in a given round. Is that how you play, too?

Finally, I have something other than questions to contribute:

About Answers and Challenges, and who gets to say what, I have gathered from an earlier conversation with Vincent is that it's a consensual process. So:

1. The Challenger should name who he or she expects to Answer, because that helps clarify the intents of her action. By naming who's answering me, I communicate more clearly to the group what my action entails. ("Oh, the baker has to Answer, too? I see what you mean...")

2. If you weren't included in that list, but feel like your character would interfere, you should speak up, though. The Challenger's list of Answerers isn't writ in stone; if you would and can interfere, you'll get to Answer, too.

I hope that helps. (Vincent, let me know if I read you wrong earlier, however.)

1. If you're joining an action sequence already underway, it still goes only 3 rounds. You don't extend it.

2. Yeah, that's how I play too.

About who answers: right on.

-Vincent

Oh, well that blows my initiative theory out of the water.

Vincent, its in my best interests to have a clear, concise and comprehensive set of rules outlining how to proceed with conflict so that my group isnt held up for half an hour at the table mulling through wordy examples trying to resolve mechanics-related issues.

I challenge you to provide it.

How do you answer? (Ill concede that you have the advantage)

If you want low-detail, here's my summary:

* When a "Oh, no, you don't!" situation comes up, everyone involved rolls dice.
* Then everyone gets to say something about what their character is doing, in order of die rolls.
* When someone says something that your character opposes, or something that could hurt your character, you reroll your dice and say how it turned out based on that die roll.
* Once you've had to "answer" someone (which means "narrating the outcome of their action against your character"), though, you don't get your own action any more--you've been busy struggling with whoever is doing something to your character.

For the Advantage die, if you won any roll at all in a given round, you take one to the next round.

If you want high-detail, this is probably the best:

http://www.thestoughtons.ca/staunwark/pdfs/Wicked%20Age%20Map%20-%20Expanded.pdf

Thanks Paul.    That is clear.

Just want to run the headsman scenario past it again for verification.

p1)  anyone can choose to abandon their later move by choosing the option to answer the current challenge??  i.e.  sorcerer decides to answer headsman challenge, which is to hurt victim.

p2)  this opens up the possibility of contradictory results.  victim looses to headsman, but sorcerer wins.  In this 1 vs. many scenario,  my interpretation is that there is an advantage in numbers.  headsman must defeat all answerer in order to achieve his aim?

I think its possible to expand on your short summary to cover all circumstances, paul, I just want to get confirmation before adding to it.

heres my attempt:

contest initiated by someone making a concrete move and someone(s) else opposing it.  3 rounds then proceed as follows:  (TALKING IN CAPS)

1) everybody rolls for initiative, which determines  move order for the round
2) the first player to move leaves his dice stand as his move roll, and ANNOUNCES HIS MOVE
3) anyone answering that move (trying to prevent it) ANNOUNCES THEIR INTENDED DEFENCE and rolls their answer, and the outcome is resolved
3a)  if multiple characters oppose the move, there is an advantage in numbers.  Challenger must overcome *all* answerers to achieve his move.
3b) the answerer(s) NARRATE HOW THE CHALLENGER achieved or didnt achieve his move for that round (may involve interpretation of multiple dice rolls if opposed by multiple characters)
4) answering robs you of your unused turn to move that round
5) the next person who has not answered moves next in initiative order and so on
6) anyone who wins as either the challenger or the answerer gets an initiative dice to use for the duration of the *next* round, even if they fail subsequent answers in the current round.
7) parties who were previously not involved in the contest can join in at any time, either at the start of the round when initiative is rolled, or by deciding to answer any announced move during the round.  This does not extend the number of rounds of the contest.

stefoid wrote:

p2)  this opens up the possibility of contradictory results.  victim looses to headsman, but sorcerer wins.   In this 1 vs. many scenario,  my interpretation is that there is an advantage in numbers.  headsman must defeat all answerer in order to achieve his aim?

James is 100% correct.

You just follow the procedure, and see what happens. The dice never tell you whether someone "got their aim" or not: you could lose and still get your aim if an Answerer chooses to give it to you in their narration, or you could get it through negotiation at the end.

In this sense, your "initiative" theory is correct:

Let's say the headsman rolls highest and his Challenge is to cut off the burglar's head. The burglar and and the sorcerer Answer; both reroll their dice. If the burglar rolls higher than the sorcerer, he Answers first. If his Answer is to narrate his head getting cut off, or if he's doubled and negotiates losing his head instead of having his dice damaged, the sorcerer is out of luck, with no chance to stop that happening.

Hi,

That summary is really helpful I just have a question regarding 7). When you say any player that wasn't initially involved in the conflict (did not roll for initiative) can join at anytime, is that after a round has started or during it?

If he wants to join during the round, while it's being resolved, what is his place in the initiative order, does he make his move (if hasn't answered) after the last player with valid move or does he roll initiative to decide when he can play?

All the best,
D.

Let the madness stop! You clearly have to join in at the beginning of the round, if you're going to, so you can roll initiative with everybody else.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:
Let the madness stop! You clearly have to join in at the beginning of the round, if you're going to, so you can roll initiative with everybody else.

-Vincent

I should add that this isnt a theoretical situation.  In the one game I have played, a one on one chase conflict entered an area where a third character was previously narrated to be at.  When it became apparent that the chasing character was going to do something to the fleeing character that the third character didnt like, that player asked if she could truly to stop it.

and I went - huh? I dont know... maybe?  Probably not?

Oh wait, you know? You're right.

If more than one person is going to answer, they answer in initiative order. So what you do is just put the newcomer last in initiative order, no big deal.

-Vincent

1) everybody rolls for initiative, which determines  move order for the round
2) the first player to move leaves his dice stand as his move roll, and ANNOUNCES HIS MOVE
3) anyone answering that move (trying to prevent it), in order of initiative, ANNOUNCES THEIR INTENDED DEFENCE and rolls their answer, and the outcome is resolved
3a)  if multiple characters oppose the move, there is an advantage in numbers.  Challenger must overcome *all* answerers to achieve his move.
3b) the answerer(s) NARRATE HOW THE CHALLENGER achieved or didnt achieve his move for that round (may involve interpretation of multiple dice rolls if opposed by multiple characters)
4) answering robs you of your unused turn to move that round
5) the next person who has not answered moves next in initiative order and so on
6) anyone who wins as either the challenger or the answerer gets an initiative dice to use for the duration of the *next* round, even if they fail subsequent answers in the current round.
7) parties who were previously not involved in the contest can join in at any time, either at the start of the round when initiative is rolled, or by deciding to answer any announced move during the round (in which case they answer last).  This does not extend the number of rounds of the contest.

Hey, there: I'm not sure if what you're posting is a house rule or your attempt to make sense of the rules as written. If it's the latter, this part (below) is wrong, and pretty wonky, if you ask me:

stefoid wrote:
3) anyone answering that move (trying to prevent it), in order of initiative, ANNOUNCES THEIR INTENDED DEFENCE and rolls their answer, and the outcome is resolved
3a)  if multiple characters oppose the move, there is an advantage in numbers.  Challenger must overcome *all* answerers to achieve his move.
3b) the answerer(s) NARRATE HOW THE CHALLENGER achieved or didnt achieve his move for that round (may involve interpretation of multiple dice rolls if opposed by multiple characters)

OK, try this then:  (TALKING IN CAPS)  (dice stuff in italics)

1) everybody rolls for initiative, which determines  move order for the round
2) the first player to move leaves his dice stand as his move roll, and ANNOUNCES HIS MOVE
3) anyone answering that move (trying to prevent it), in order of initiative, rolls their answer, and the outcome is resolved as follows:
3a)  if multiple characters oppose the move, there is an advantage in numbers.  Challenger must overcome *all* answerers to achieve his move.
3b) the answerer(s) NARRATE HOW THE CHALLENGER achieved or didnt achieve his move for that round (may involve interpretation of multiple dice rolls if opposed by multiple characters)
4) answering robs you of your unused turn to move that round
5) the next person who has not answered moves next in initiative order and so on
6) anyone who wins as either the challenger or the answerer gets an initiative dice to use for the duration of the *next* round, even if they fail subsequent answers in the current round.
7) parties who were previously not involved in the contest can join in at any time, either at the start of the round when initiative is rolled, or by deciding to answer any announced move during the round (in which case they answer last).  This does not extend the number of rounds of the contest.

That's better, but it's 3a) and 3b) that I take issue with. I suppose you could try to play the game that way, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it's intended to go. It's a needless complication, in my mind, and it might cause you problems down the road.

The standard way is:

3) In order of initiative, each player who needs to Answer, Answers.
3a) To Answer, reroll your dice and NARRATE YOUR ANSWER according to the results (if you were doubled, you suck it up, whatever badness the move had in store for you--tell us how that goes down; if you lost bit weren't doubled, you somehow defend yourself but find yourself at a disadvantage; if you rolled higher, you narrate how you come to have the upper hand).
3b) Once you're done, the next person in initiative order Answers.

Again: the dice don't tell whether the challenger achieved his/her move or not--the players do. The dice just tell you who has the Stick--i.e. who's in danger of being exhausted or injured.

Hi, I dont see how your version is different to my version.

Ok, great!

It was just this part:

stefoid wrote:
3a)  if multiple characters oppose the move, there is an advantage in numbers.  Challenger must overcome *all* answerers to achieve his move.
3b) the answerer(s) NARRATE HOW THE CHALLENGER achieved or didnt achieve his move for that round (may involve interpretation of multiple dice rolls if opposed by multiple characters)

Well that just confuses things for me.  In order of initiative - If  the headsmen wants to chop off the burglars head, and the sorcerer also wants to oppose that, how would htat work via youre interpretation if the burglar fails to defend himself?

Paul wrote:
Let's say the headsman rolls highest and his Challenge is to cut off the burglar's head. The burglar and and the sorcerer Answer; both reroll their dice. If the burglar rolls higher than the sorcerer, he Answers first. If his Answer is to narrate his head getting cut off, or if he's doubled and negotiates losing his head instead of having his dice damaged, the sorcerer is out of luck, with no chance to stop that happening.

Hey, actually, there's an interesting little rules niggle in there:

If the burglar DOES have his head cut off right away, then why in the world would the Sorcerer be Answering the headsman's Challenge?

In this case, it would make most sense, I suppose, to just ignore that Answer and just go straight to the Sorcerer issuing a Challenge, if he's still interested in what's going on now that the burglar's dead.

Vincent? Anyone else? This is a *little* sticky.

Well...

Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Burglar rolls a 7, goes second.
Sorcerer rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Burglar: Natch.
Burglar rerolls. Gets a 2. Doubled and out.
Burglar: ...Actually, cool. How about you kill me dead?
Headman: Good with me!
Burglar dies.
Sorcerer: Huh. That makes my involvement here moot. I'm done rolling if you are, headman.
Headman: Sure.
End.

Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Sorcerer rolls a 9, goes second.
Burglar rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Sorcerer: [interrupts, in initiative order] I'm going to answer too.
Headman: Oh!
Sorcerer rerolls, gets an 11, seizes the advantage.
Sorcerer: I crook my finger like this and your axe becomes a hazel twig with a head made of feathers. You can still whack the burglar in the neck with it, I suppose.
Headman: Dammit.
Burglar: I twist out of my bonds. Nobody has to answer if you all don't mind.
Burglar rerolls, gets a 7.
Headman: I mind. I'll answer.
Headman rerolls, gets an 8, seizes the advantage.
Headman: Oh no you don't. I press you down onto the chopping block and keep you from getting free.
Action sequence continues into round 2.

Does this answer the outstanding questions?

-Vincent

Vincent,

Basically, yes: what you've described is what happens most of the time you play. But it's this one unusual case I'm thinking of which made me realize it's a little funny.

Also, there's no mention in your examples of determining who the Answerers are (i.e. the Sorcerer is not included either time). Is that significant? Because I think that may be the stumbling point here.

Anyway, here we go:

lumpley wrote:
Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Burglar rolls a 7, goes second.
Sorcerer rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Burglar: Natch.
Burglar rerolls. Gets a 2. Doubled and out.
Burglar: ...Actually, cool. How about you kill me dead?
Headman: Good with me!
Burglar dies.

Well, yeah, if it gets to the sorcerer's turn and there are no outstanding challenges he wants to answer, he gets to make a challenge himself. This IS following the rules, not playing loose with them.

"The Sorcerer was also supposed to Answer the the headsman's Challenge" doesn't make sense to me. There's no such rule.

The sorcerer wanted to answer the headman's challenge, but didn't have the opportunity after all. Or maybe the headman expected the sorcerer to answer his challenge, but it didn't work out that way. Those are fine; that's how it goes sometimes.

Ah! Yes. Declarations about who should answer and who intends to answer aren't binding, they're just table talk. I think I've written about this somewhere, let me see if I can find it...

And look at that! It was in a conversation with you, Paul: [IaWA] Challenger names Answerers, Answerers Call Back Later

-Vincent

Quite right!

And totally clear. I was reading the Challenger's naming of Answerers as binding, since this has never actually come up as an issue in a game I've been in.

Thanks again!

headsmen gets two turns in one round?  by answering the burglar?

lumpley wrote:
Well...

Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Burglar rolls a 7, goes second.
Sorcerer rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Burglar: Natch.
Burglar rerolls. Gets a 2. Doubled and out.
Burglar: ...Actually, cool. How about you kill me dead?
Headman: Good with me!
Burglar dies.
Sorcerer: Huh. That makes my involvement here moot. I'm done rolling if you are, headman.
Headman: Sure.
End.

Headman rolls a 10, wins initiative.
Sorcerer rolls a 9, goes second.
Burglar rolls a 6, goes last.

Headman: I chop the burglar's head off! Burglar, I figure you'll answer?
Sorcerer: [interrupts, in initiative order] I'm going to answer too.
Headman: Oh!
Sorcerer rerolls, gets an 11, seizes the advantage.
Sorcerer: I crook my finger like this and your axe becomes a hazel twig with a head made of feathers. You can still whack the burglar in the neck with it, I suppose.
Headman: Dammit.
Burglar: I twist out of my bonds. Nobody has to answer if you all don't mind.
Burglar rerolls, gets a 7.
Headman: I mind. I'll answer.
Headman rerolls, gets an 8, seizes the advantage.
Headman: Oh no you don't. I press you down onto the chopping block and keep you from getting free.
Action sequence continues into round 2.

Does this answer the outstanding questions?

-Vincent

That link was helpful, thanks.

I dont understand why the challenger has to name answerers in any situation at all - it seems redundant and confusing. 

lumpley wrote:
Well, yeah, if it gets to the sorcerer's turn and there are no outstanding challenges he wants to answer, he gets to make a challenge himself. This IS following the rules, not playing loose with them.

"The Sorcerer was also supposed to Answer the the headsman's Challenge" doesn't make sense to me. There's no such rule.

The sorcerer wanted to answer the headman's challenge, but didn't have the opportunity after all. Or maybe the headman expected the sorcerer to answer his challenge, but it didn't work out that way. Those are fine; that's how it goes sometimes.

Ah! Yes. Declarations about who should answer and who intends to answer aren't binding, they're just table talk. I think I've written about this somewhere, let me see if I can find it...

And look at that! It was in a conversation with you, Paul: [IaWA] Challenger names Answerers, Answerers Call Back Later

-Vincent

OK, try this then:  (TALKING IN CAPS)  (dice stuff in italics)

1) everybody rolls for initiative, which determines  move order for the round
2) the first player to move leaves his dice stand as his move roll, and ANNOUNCES HIS MOVE
3) anyone answering that move (trying to prevent it), in order of initiative, rolls their answer, and the outcome is resolved as follows:
3a)  if multiple characters oppose the move, there is an advantage in numbers.  Challenger may have to overcome multiple answerers to achieve his move.
3b)  the answerer(s) NARRATE HOW their action modifies the challenger action, if at all.
3c)  multiple answerer actions happen in a linear sequence, each taking previous outcomes into account.  i.e. it is possible for the Challenger to win outright before an answerer has a chance to act.
4) answering robs you of your unused turn to move that round
5) the next person who has not answered moves next in initiative order and so on
6) anyone who wins as either the challenger or the answerer gets an initiative dice to use for the duration of the *next* round, even if they fail subsequent answers in the current round.
7) parties who were previously not involved in the contest can join in at any time, either at the start of the round when initiative is rolled, or by deciding to answer any announced move during the round (in which case they answer last).  This does not extend the number of rounds of the contest.

Just nitpickin'...

3a really does not add anything to the mix, you can simply omit that.
However, I wuld put emphasis on the fact that if you are to be the second or third answerer, and the previous answerers' resolution sounds ok to you,
you might decide not to answer at all. This way you might get to announce your very own Challenge later on, instead of answering.
In 6, the game text calls it an "advantage die", not an initiative dice.

As a sidenote, we've been playing 6. the way that you will have to win all your rolls to get an advantage die next round, not only one. This gives more advantage of two or more are stacking up against one. We felt that this works better.

stefoid wrote:
I dont understand why the challenger has to name answerers in any situation at all - it seems redundant and confusing.