help with IaWA

[Noclue]

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. 

That's where targeting your NPC's Best Interests can come in handy. Although, the natural "Save the town" is boring. I'd probably go with something like "Bequeath the town to my heir, Omid the Merchant."

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.

[stefoid]

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.

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?

On that point, twice we had a situation where 3rd parties became involved in the contest half way through (like decided they might like to participate in the 2nd round).  Can they do that?  We ruled that if they  werent in the contest from the start, they couldnt, but one such character wasnt present at the start (it was a chase) and the contest found her...   

[stefoid]

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?

[Noclue]

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.

[Noclue]

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?

If someone challenges you, you pick up your dice to answer (including the advantage die you just picked up, I believe). If you lose the advantage in that answer, I believe the advantage passes to your challenger. If you had made them answer your move, they would have lost their move.

[way]

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.

[stefoid]

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.

The sorcerer is not free to blast him, he is simply forced to wait until it his his turn to move, at which point the headsmen gets to answer the fire.  It still seems to me that the rules (as they read in the book) have it backwards, because the mover has the power to determine who is a potential answerer or not.   

OR (and this just came to me) perhaps that is the point of the initiative rolls in the first place?  They place the sorcerers blast action after the headsmans action in time, and only the headsman has the power to make the blast happen simultaneously with the chop, presumably by the player including the sorcerer player in the challenge, which fictionally would mean the headsmen delays his action slightly (for whatever reason he would want to do that, Im not sure).

I can buy that second explanation, as it is coherent and fits the rules.

[stefoid]

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.

[stefoid]

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?

[Noclue]

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.

It may be solid, but I believe it's inaccurate. In the Two-on-one example, Second Round, Tom's answer gives him the advantage die. During Erin's move, still in the second round Tom's answer includes an additional 1 from the advantage die:

	Logged

James R.

[Noclue]

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:

	Logged

James R.

[lumpley]

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

[lumpley]

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

-Vincent

[Paul T]

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.)

[lumpley]

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