Hello
Here´s another stupid question that I am trying to find an answer to before it comes up in play.
What if the stakes in a conflict have a long-lasting effect that should be reflected in the character´s traits, but loser Gives before sufficient fallout can be generated?
For example, my stakes are: "I want to make her respect me." I win but there´s no fallout. Does this mean that there´s respect, but it is short-lived and without mechanical effect? Which, to me, seems like I won the stakes, but not really, or we all just have to remember later that this was that woman who respects me a lot.
Could I have framed my stakes as "I want to give her a trait: respects the Everspinner dude d4"?
Cheers,
+ Mikael
It's best to try to avoid stakes such as "I want her to respect me," but instead, "I want her to show respect for me by backing me up with the steward" (or whatever). The emotion/motivation you're trying to instill in someone is best expressed by an agreement to perform some action in service of the emotion/motivation.
After that, the affected person (which may be a PC, remember) may be free to do whatever they want, or at least, will be able to start another conflict to contest the imposed behaviour.
Looking at your question in another way:
"What if the stakes in a conflict have a long-lasting effect that should be reflected in the character´s traits, but loser Gives before sufficient fallout can be generated?"
There's an example conflict in which someone learns to ride (I think, it's a skill of some sort) - the stakes are "Do I learn to ride," and winning gives Riding 1d6.
You could easily turn this around and have the stakes be, "if you lose, you gain a trait (or maybe Relationship): 1d6, Respect Everspinner." That might give the victim an incentive to avoid Giving early - or it might encourage them to Give early, since extra dice are always good!
Even a "respect Everspinner" relationship can be used when opposing Everspinner, remember. You don't want to hand dice to your enemies!
If you don't end up with a Fallout trait, you could assign one of your Relationship dice.
Also, just because one character "respects" another doesn't mean that it has to have any mechanical influence in Dogs. I mean, the traits aren't there to be an exhaustive list of abilites and attitudes, just the ones you want to be more central to the game. I might describe the steward in a particular branch as being overweight -- does that mean he should have a trait that limits his physical abilities? Not unless I want that to be a key element of his character. Same with the "respect" stakes you mentioned.
I don't know if you can assign dice to traits as part of your stakes instead of fallout. I'd wait to hear from Vincent, but my gut says no.
Quote from: Vaxalon on December 08, 2005, 12:01:03 PMYou don't want to hand dice to your enemies!
I do. :-)
I know you were joking, Vax, but badass enemies make my character look
cool. No one roots for the guy who overcomes easy challenges posed by weaklings. I want my enemies to be friggin' scary.
Quote from: Everspinner on December 08, 2005, 06:24:33 AMa long-lasting effect that should be reflected in the character´s traits
I think your problem is right there. Traits do not describe characters in Dogs; they express characters. There's a big difference. GURPS, say, describes characters -- nailing down every characteristic in game mechanics to be referenced later. You can look at a GURPS character and get a good idea of what the guy looks like, occasionally acts, and especially how well he'd do in a fight. In Dogs, traits are expressive -- tools that you can use to express your character through the conflict resolution system. Things that would be traits in GURPS or other descriptive systems may not be traits in Dogs -- so your "should be reflected in the character's traits" may be approaching the traits as if they described, rather than expressed.
Also, giving somebody else "Respects that Everspinner Dude" only makes them more capable in a conflict -- especially a conflict with you! It does not mechanically make them respect you, however. Yeah, kind of weird, but it's approaching things from a different angle.
Joshua has a good point. If you want to remember something about your character, but it's not a trait or relationship, just make a side note.
There is still something deliciously mind-bending about having a trait as the stakes, for all the reasons stated above. If a PC wants to do it to an NPC, I would be happy to allow it - but doing it to a PC would be deprotagonizing, I guess.
Thanks for your input.
+ Mikael
Quote from: Everspinner on December 12, 2005, 07:24:30 AMbut doing it to a PC would be deprotagonizing, I guess.
Well, it's just an obvious case of the player having to be OK with the stakes.