GM - Onyx

[dramatispersonae]

The room is like any other room, really—a cabin with a door, and windows, and beds. But the fireplace never gets warm, and the beds are hard, and the air is cold.

(Is it familiar, this place? It's hard to tell . . .)

On the table there is food—water, and dry bread, and there is a pot of stew that always stays warm, and full, and smells delicious.

There are also five cards, waiting for your decision.

[full instructions, of which your characters will be ICly aware of the pertinent details]

Comments

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

Then we might as well play the less painful one. We will play at least one of them and that is the only compromise I will make.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

If we could verify whether it's a fever or literally setting someone on fire, I'd be more willing to play it in the latter case...

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

I doubt it's actually fatal, or it'd be worth more points.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

Prolonged fatality, less points for not being instantaneous.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

Probably. Losing blood is practically painless. I'd rather do that.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

Are you kidding, that's horribly painful. No one dies immediately from blood loss.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

No, you pass out first.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

Not always immediately.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

Still less painful than burning alive.

Are you accepting or not, Dino?

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

[ Exhales, glancing away. ]

... I'd rather play the 3 bottom cards and save the high two for a later round, when teams are more likely to have enough points to construct a shield to protect themselves. Anything that we send out now goes through for certain.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

[blunt, bitter and kind of exhausted.]

And it was because of that kind of considerations that we were wiped out that time. No. David might not be here, but if all of us die it might hurt Maleficent anyway. The only one that isn't here is Hawkthorn.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

It's that kind of consideration that keeps us from becoming bigger targets and loathing ourselves at the end of a game like this.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

No. I won't risk it again. You know the compromise I'm willing to make.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

You need work on your definition of a compromise.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

Perhaps. I still won't go lower than that.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

I'll consent to the six card if you agree not to play any cards that will obviously kill someone with their play for the rest of the game.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

. . . For as long as there are cards that can offer enough points instead. And in the case we're only left with cards that might kill someone, we will use the least painful ones.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

Only left with those cards AND don't have enough points to spare to swap our hand.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

And even then, we will have to play some during that round.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

I understand that could happen, but I do want to make sure it's only a last option reset and not a play for points.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

It'll be a last option. But if we're hit hard, that's going to be off the table. Do we agree on that?

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

It stays on the table, even then. Otherwise, I'd demand all other considerations be taken off the table as well, if we're going to insist on a 'play to survive and win' scenario.

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

I don't care about winning. I only care about surviving and for that we need enough points for a barrier.

Re: DISCUSSION

[mylittlecavallone]

Enough to attack Emerald too?

Re: DISCUSSION

[fraternaldevotion]

[what the fuck.]

Enough to attack anybody else, except those we decided not to.