Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

[Dust Devils] Narration results question

Started by Clinton R. Nixon, April 12, 2005, 11:37:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Clinton R. Nixon

I've just re-read the Dust Devils rules, as I might be running it soon. One question: does only one player need to win the deal for all the players to win?


There's a shootout. A gang of Mexican banditos are fighting Buck, Chuck, and Duck, the PCs.

The Dealer gets three-of-a-kind, nines.
Buck's player gets a full house.
Chuck's player gets three-of-a-kind, fours.
Duck's player gets bupkiss, but wins narration.

Does Duck's player decide his and Chuck's fate completely? Or must he narrate Chuck and Duck getting hurt, because of their hands? And must they then take Difficulty?
Clinton R. Nixon
CRN Games

Matt Snyder

Good question, Clinton. As you know, similar questions have been posed before, and exactly this kind of question gets asked about Nine Worlds fairly often.

In the example you've described, the only requirement (and this is in the Dust Devils text under "The Deal") is that the winner's hand takes effect.

Clearly, in this case, Buck's full house brings some serious Difficulty to the Dealer's banditos.

From there, it's up to Duck's player whether the other player's difficulty is applied.

Maybe he decides that the Dealer's three-of-a-kind also shoots up Chuck. Why? Well, maybe Duck secretly has it in for Chuck, and the player wants to worsen the situation. Or, maybe they're all pals, and Buck saves the day. No extra difficulty applied. Either way is fine.


Another question: What if the Dealer had the full house? There are five cards dealing difficulty, and three opponents to receive it. Do they all take five difficulty, or does one take five Difficulty, or do you spread the five difficulty around to the three opponents in some fasion?

(EDIT: See reply to Jesse Burneko below, and see his reply for a link to a prior ruling, which should stand. I've removed this advice to Clinton because I've contradicted myself, and I prefer my "old" explanation to Jesse)
Matt Snyder

"The future ain't what it used to be."
--Yogi Berra


Hey Matt,

Is this a recent change of heart because it seems to directly contradict what you told me here:

way back when.  Scroll down to the part where you tell me that difficulty goes to EACH character and doesn't get spread around.


Matt Snyder

Dag burnit! I KNEW this would bite me in the ass. I seriously did! I even went searching for my own prior clarifications ... and failed. Now I knew that was sitting uncomfortably with me somehow.

Ok . . .

Yes, absolutely, I contradict myself, straight out. See what that bourbon Devil will do to a fella? ;)

Fact of the matter is, the text IS unclear about this. It's no damn good when the supporting designer is, too.  

On reflection, I'd stick with my OLD ruling. That if you are the Deal winner, you deliver Difficulty to any opponent you defeat.

Another fun idea: You can affect a number of opponents equal to your Devil rating. I mention back there limiting it to the attribute ratings. No fun! I'd rather see some escalation via the Devil for this fun variant.

I'd love to hear whether anyone can give that a shot in actual play (pun intended!).
Matt Snyder

"The future ain't what it used to be."
--Yogi Berra