*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 10, 2022, 05:46:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 72 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: Short lived Goals?  (Read 10196 times)
Sindyr
Member

Posts: 795


« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2006, 09:41:10 AM »

OK I *think* its coming together for me...

-Hans and Tony - very helpful

some remaining thoughts... so if a Goal is placed down, anyone can use an action to roll either die even though no one has claimed any side.  Once you do so you are allied with the side you rolled for if you rolled up or allied with the other side if you rolled this side down.

You can at any time choose to roll up or down either side - if you were previously allied with one side and you try to roll it down or the competing side up, then your alliance switches to the other side?

The only way in which being allied with a side limits your choice of actions is when it comes time to claim a side - and the only limiting factor is that you cannot claim a side while being allied with a competing side.

And Tony - is it true that if you Claim a side you automatically become allied with it?

And being allied to the goal last page after page while the goal remains unresolved?

Also, if someone splits a side into 2, than that conflict has 3 separate sides each opposing the other, right?  You cannot be allied to 2 sides that used to be one, you can only be allied to one of the new 2 sides.

Fred rolls up the blue side, becoming allied with it.  Later Marvin claims that side.  Tom splits off a second die staking a point of debt to create a new side.

1.  Marvin is only claiming the die that was left behind when Tom split, correct?  So where Marvin might have been claiming a single die showing a six, after Tom splits Marvin only is Claiming a 3?
2.  Which side is Fred currently allied, if any?  The old Marvin die, the new Tom die, or is his past alliance null and void with Tom's split?

Finally, if I stake 2 debt and split dice, *not* creating a new side, and then next Page someone claims the side I have debt on, how do I split my own side off of that so that hopefully they cannot succeed claiming the fruits of my labor (assuming for some reason that I want to Claim and narrate)
Logged

-Sindyr
TonyLB
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 3702


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2006, 09:47:53 AM »

Wow, lots of questions.

Rolling changes alliances, so you can roll whatever side you want?  Correct!

Does Allying make any difference other than what you can claim?  One thing ... you can't stake debt on a side that the character is allied against.  This is to force people ot at least show some token support before trying to schism off a third side in order to weaken the side they leave.

Does Claiming a side Ally you with the side?  Uh ... dunno.  I suppose it could, but the question has genuinely never come up in my head before.

Do alliances last page after page, where claims refresh each page?  Correct!

When Tom splits away, what happens with Marvin's claim?  Marvin is left holding the puny die left behind.

When Tom splits away, what side is Fred allied with?  Marvin's side.

If I stake two debt, and end up with 5+3 on my side, then next page I want to split, how do I do it?  You presumably split away from the three ... turning it into 5+2+1, and then leave the one behind as the die required by that side, while taking the 5+2 away with you to the new third side.

I hope this helps!
Logged

Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum
Sindyr
Member

Posts: 795


« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2006, 09:55:17 AM »

This helps a lot, thanks for the assist! :)

If I stake two debt, and end up with 5+3 on my side, then next page I want to split, how do I do it?  You presumably split away from the three ... turning it into 5+2+1, and then leave the one behind as the die required by that side, while taking the 5+2 away with you to the new third side.

Going from 5+3 to 5+2+1 and making the 5+2 into your new side...  do you need to stake more debt, or is the two debt you originally staked to get 5+3 enough?  Why?  When do you have to stake more debt to split of a new side and when do you not?

Thanks again Tony (and Hans and everyone else), I really appreciate it.
Logged

-Sindyr
TonyLB
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 3702


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2006, 09:59:42 AM »

If you've got debt on a side then you can split with that debt (either for more dice on that side or to take dice to a different side).  You should never have to stake more debt (unless, of course, you want even more dice than the debt you've staked would entitle you to).
Logged

Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum
Sindyr
Member

Posts: 795


« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2006, 10:04:39 AM »

Back on the original topic, when two players Claim either side of a Conflict, unless someone splits off a new side it is likely  - well, virtually guaranteed - that that Conflict will be resolved at Page's end, correct?

So any page that starts with all sides to all remaining Conflicts Claimed is quite possibly the last page of the Scene.  Unless during that page someone introduces a new Conflict that is.

I guess I am having a hard time with this because somehow in my head I got fixated on my impression that Conflicts were back and forth tug of wars that would last several (3+) pages. Now it seems that a Scene is really a collection of sequential short lived conflicts - and those conflicts that have been temporarily sidelined while others are the focus.

But any actively contested conflict seems likely to be a short lived one.

Right?
Logged

-Sindyr
TonyLB
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 3702


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2006, 10:16:51 AM »

Depends.  If people Claim, it's saying "I want this conflict to end soon."

No reason they have to do that.  In fact, if they're looking to boost up the Inspirations and Story Tokens they can earn off that conflict, and they think it's got the legs to stay interesting for more than one more page, then they're actively rewarded for not claiming it too early.  I've seen plenty of conflicts that are deliberately left to ripen on the vine, and plenty of pages where someone (often me) says "Okay, we're coming to a climax.  I've got a handful of story tokens here, and I'm claiming every side that hasn't yet been claimed."
Logged

Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum
Sindyr
Member

Posts: 795


« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2006, 10:19:29 AM »

So communally leaving conflicts unclaimed for a time can be a strategic choice that can work for all members of a group.  That could make sense - hopefully someday I will even be able to experience a game and see it in action.

Thanks again.
Logged

-Sindyr
Sindyr
Member

Posts: 795


« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2006, 05:07:02 AM »

Sorry to resurrect this older thread, but I have found a development that seems to contradict something earlier in the thread, to wit:

Quote
Before or after Claiming, a player may introduce new Conflicts. If a character and their Exemplar are in the scene together, the player of either the character or the Exemplar may add the Free Character Conflict between the two for free.

This would seem to indicate that a Conflict could be introduced, *then* claimed, and at the end of the page, resolved - i.e. - it would seems to make one page scenes quite possible.  Unless the words *Before or" should be stricken from the above?
Logged

-Sindyr
Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2006, 06:54:01 AM »

You can't claim a conflict that hasn't been rolled on yet.
Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
Hans
Member

Posts: 576


« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2006, 03:41:29 PM »

You can't claim a conflict that hasn't been rolled on yet.

Fred, could you cite a page number on that?  It doesn't seem to say anything like that on page 22 of the rules, so it must be elsewhere.  Page 22 seems to say that if you have rolled on it, you can't claim the other side, but if you haven't rolled on it, you can claim either side, and doesn't make any mention of conflicts being unclaimable until rolled on. 
Logged

* Want to know what your fair share of paying to feed the hungry is? http://www3.sympatico.ca/hans_messersmith/World_Hunger_Fair_Share_Number.htm
* Want to know what games I like? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/user/skalchemist
Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2006, 04:44:33 PM »

Page 22:

"At the start of the page, clockwise from the starter, each player may put their marker on the side of a conflict that one of their characters is allied with."

Page 26 ("Allied")

"Any character that has tried to roll up a die on a side or roll down a die opposing a side is allied with that side until they ally with another side in the same conflict."
Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
TonyLB
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 3702


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2006, 07:00:44 PM »

Damn, Fred, that borders on maliciously inaccurate advice.  What's up with that?

Actual quote:  p. 22:  At the start of the Page, clockwise from the Starter, each player may put their marker on the side of a Conflict that one of their characters is Allied with.  If they have no character Allied (particularly for new Conflict where sides are not yet defined) they may put the marker on any side.
Logged

Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!