So it occurs to me that, perhaps, it's too difficult to have a protagonist "burn out" in Fastlane, and thus be taken out of the game. Currently, the rules state thus:

* If all a protagonist's Life values ever simultaneously reach zero, the character has burned out.

However, the rules are set up so that the only time any particular Life can reach zero, is if the player specifically chooses to do so. Judicious play can ensure that a burnout will never occur regardless of the spin of the wheel, which just feels not-risky-enough.

Specifically, when a Life is determined to come into play, in a conflict, it is the player's choice whether it is "on the line" or "threatened" (yes, I know this is clumsy, I'm working on it). If it is the former, it will increase the character's facet value, but if the character loses, the Life value is reduced by one. If it is the latter, it will reduce the character's facet value, but if the character wins, the Life value is increased by one. There is no other method to reduce Life.

Therefore, a player could choose to keep a 1 point Life in reserve, and never put it on the line. Thus, it will never go down to zero, and that character will never burn out.

In retrospect, I'm finding this unacceptable. I wanted to make it a challenge for a protagonist to "die", but I think I took it much too far, and by doing so I've sabotaged myself, by removing a major element of risk. I'm not sure exactly how to fix it, though.

I want to keep Lifes in Fastlane, and I want the attribute to be considered very important. I also that, if at all possible, burnout should happen when all Lifes, together, add up to zero - the whole "you have nothing left to live for" angle.

So I suppose what I need are alternative methods to reduce a character's Life. Preferably mechanical ones. Help?

You know, sometimes posting here is cathartic, even when nobody answers (no, I'm not blaming anyone for not posting - hell, it's only been a half hour). By laying out my thoughts and worries, it helps order them in my mind, which makes them easier to process. So I submit a few changes:

First, the croupier decrees whether or not a protagonist's Life is applicable in a conflict. If it is, it must be either one or the other, and adder or a subtractor, nothing in between - this remains the player's choice. This will hopefully get Lifes used a little more often.

Second, any Life that used in the conflict can be reduced through humbling. In earlier editions of the rules, I decreed that "humbling can never reduce Life" but now I'm changing that. This, combined with the above, will allow Lifes to be used and reduced even in situations where the player might want to play it safer.

Is that enough, though? Or do I need more?

We can test it next session and see how it goes. Is this cropping up in your RL game as well, or just the IRC one since I'm trying to make things difficult? ;)

If it turns out to be too much, maybe state that the rules apply to one out of every three Lives you have. So if you had 5 Lives (1up! er.. nevermind) the two of them would have to be marked Important, and those would fall into the always-activate category.

Well, in the in-person game, I haven't asked one player to kill another yet; it's definitely not you making things difficult, per se, it's just the circumstances of the game itself. Multiple discrete playtests are helpful for just this reason. :)

Anyway, I don't think I'll need to differentiate between "important" and "not important." I'm not saying all Lifes will apply to all conflicts, I'm just removing the choice of "neither" from the player. If the Life applies, a player must choose one or the other - rather than in the game last night, where Nate decided not to use his "Thieving is my Life!" at all...

So, the croupier decides whether or not a Life is applicable, and then the player decides whether he's putting his Life on the line, or if he's letting it be threatened. There's no "always activate" Life. And if all five, ten, twenty, or sixty of your Lifes are active at once, well, that just shows how important a situation your character is in, no?

I am using the rules outlined above, with one addition: if you put a life on the line (i.e., use it for a bonus), the minimum # of chips that you must bid is increased.

So what about the cases where your facet isn't sufficient to meet the increased bid? Or is this not an issue, and I'm not seeing it 'cause you're bein' a little vague?

Remember, putting your Life on the line increases your facet equal to the value of the life. So by definition, you'll be able to cover that minimum bid, barring problems with the bank.