From another thread, I understand this is okay.
Dog is talking down Evil Gunslinger (EG). EG escalates to gunfighting. Dog doesn't, still trying to talk, so EG gets extra dice and Dog runs the increased risk of losing.
What about this case?
Dog is talking down Evil Gunslinger (EG). EG escalates to gunfighting. Dog keeps talking, but it isn't working, so he escalates to Fighting, and hits him with his axe.
Can Dog do this?
Does EG also then get extra dice (which would be Body) since he switches to melee too?
Or this case:
Dog is talking down EG. EG escalates to gunfighting and accepts. But then both decide to de-escalate to Melee.
Is this okay?
My gut feeling:
Once someone escalates to one level, you must either escalate to that level or not - if not, you can't ecalate any more.
If someone escalates to gunfighting, you must escalate to gunfighting or stay at your current level - you can't escalate to anywhere between the current and the escalated level.
I ran my first session last night and had a more complex version of the above.
Player 1 & Player 2 were facing down a gunfighter, and it escalated from talking to gunslinging.
Meanwhile, as part of the same conflict, another player was trying to talk down someone who wanted to "help" the players kill the gunslinger, and that quickly escalated to Fighting, and _then_ escalated to gunfighting.
Those characters had started involved with the first trio, separated and fought each other, then both turned on the gunslinger, rejoining the others.
But because of the way the escalation had occurred, they had gained Body dice when the other group hadn't.
Did I do something wrong?
Byt he way, the conflict stakes were: "does the gunslinger ride of with his baby son, against the wishes of his grandparents." The other NPC involved didn't want that to happen and was technically on the PCs side, for a while anyway.
Escalation is all about the extra dice from traits; that's pretty much the entirety of it. So you can escalate from guns to talking or to physical, or whatever.
Narration determines the fallout level... escalation determines which stats are in play, and to some extent limits which traits might apply.
Quote from: WolfenNarration determines the fallout level... escalation determines which stats are in play, and to some extent limits which traits might apply.
I realise that. In the examples I gave, though, some people might get more stat dice than others - are the examples wrong?
Hm. Re-reading your post, I think I glossed over the last example the first time. Your first few examples are legitimate.
That last one is kinda tricky. I think maybe you might have complicated it by having two separate conflicts rolled into one. The main conflict seems to have the Dogs working to stop the gunfighter from leaving with his son. The second conflict, if I read right, begins from the first, and ends before the first, to rejoin the first. All the same, this sub-conflict has it's own stakes: "Does the NPC help kill the gunslinger?" in which all raises and sees do not directly effect the main conflict until the sub-conflict is resolved.
A pretty mess. I don't know that allowing the sub-conflict was wrong by the rules, but for simplicity's sake, I just would allow that sort of thing to happen; My rule of thumb for determining valid raises is that the raise can potentially win the conflict if the opponent sees instead of gives. In the case of the sub-conflict, The Dog raises with "I'm not gonna let you shoot that gunslinger!" and if the GM gives, that doesn't win the stakes of "does the gunslinger ride off with his son?".
All in all, I wouldn't worry about how many dice anyone has; As you can only roll a given stat once, all you had to do to even the playing field was have one of the first group throw a punch or swing a stick at someone, and they get to roll body too. So in that aspect, I'd say no, you didn't do anything wrong.
Quote from: WolfenThat last one is kinda tricky. I think maybe you might have complicated it by having two separate conflicts rolled into one.
As I wrote up the question, I was beginning to think that too. It arose naturally within one conflict, and it would have been difficult to stop that conflict, resolve this one, and then resume the other conflict. If I'd have been more on-the-ball I might have been able to set it up so that conflict was settled before the other one. The main conflict there (gunslinger-baby) had already followed another conflict (does Lakey get hung by the mob) where the gunslinger basically sat out, and that had felt unnatural.
QuoteMy rule of thumb for determining valid raises is that the raise can potentially win the conflict if the opponent sees instead of gives. In the case of the sub-conflict, The Dog raises with "I'm not gonna let you shoot that gunslinger!" and if the GM gives, that doesn't win the stakes of "does the gunslinger ride off with his son?".
I wasn't thinking of it in terms of whether the GM gives. Samuel and Cutter were both in the conflict, and Samuel could Give, and if he did, Cutter would still be doing his thing.
Yes, I see that is wrong and makes it more clear that it should have been a separate conflict.
Then again, let's say the 3 players are fighting the gunslinger - each of the players can Give independently and drop out, and that doesn't end the conflict. Does it?
So that's not so different from three NPCs each facing the PCs - each of them could Give, and the conflict continues (a PC raise of "I'm gonna shoot if you don't Give!" followed by one NPC giving, means that your suggestion of "a Raise is somthing that can potentially end the conflcit" might not work in all situations. Which is a shame, because it sounded so good I was planning to use.
Please show me how I'm wrong, so I can keep that guideline :)
QuoteAll in all, I wouldn't worry about how many dice anyone has; As you can only roll a given stat once, all you had to do to even the playing field was have one of the first group throw a punch or swing a stick at someone, and they get to roll body too. So in that aspect, I'd say no, you didn't do anything wrong.
Could they do that
after the shooting had started though? Is this okay?
1) PC1 & 2 talk to Cutter, and start shooting.
2) PC 3 and Samuel talk, then fight, then shoot, and then join the others.
3) PC1 then punches Cutter, so getting his Body dice, even though they are already Shooting.
Holy cow that's a lot of posts! You win the prize of: a lot of short answers!
a) In practically every case, when one person escalates on a raise, the other person will escalate to match on the see. To escalate on a see, all you have to do is have your character react appropriately; dodging a bullet is escalating to shooting. Ducking a punch is escalating to fistfighting.
If someone starts shooting at you, any reaction at all to the bullets is escalating to match. To not escalate, you have to stand there as though there were no bullets coming at you.
b) There are no limits to when you can escalate or in what direction. A conflict can start with shooting and end with talking, or start as a footrace and end as a screaming argument, with a shootout in between. No restrictions.
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpleyHoly cow that's a lot of posts! You win the prize of: a lot of short answers!
Well, I'm suffering from post-count envy :)
Thanks for the clarification, particularly about "de-escalation"
Darren
Quote from: Vincenta) In practically every case, when one person escalates on a raise, the other person will escalate to match on the see. To escalate on a see, all you have to do is have your character react appropriately; dodging a bullet is escalating to shooting. Ducking a punch is escalating to fistfighting.
If someone starts shooting at you, any reaction at all to the bullets is escalating to match. To not escalate, you have to stand there as though there were no bullets coming at you.
Wow. I think this is the first time that I didn't like your answer Vincent. It would seem to me that if you narrate dodging a bullet, you're escalating to Physical and not to Gunfighting, same with ducking the punch; Physical not Fighting. Your answer here seems to soften one of the hard questions that makes the game great;
Just because they're being violent towards me, does that mean I have to be violent back towards them? Can I still win this conflict without resorting to violence?
Now, one might say that, if the player dosen't narrate violence they don't provide the big dice o' fallout to their target, and that's true, but I don't think it's enough. If a player(or GM) can access their characters' Willpower dice without resorting to doing violence... Well, once again, it does seem to soften one of the finer edges that we like about Dogs.
-Eric
edit: Okies, I quickly found my brain again, and here's a slightly more rational argument against getting to escalate to Fistfighting or Gunslinging without narrating violence: If one player narrates a gunshot to escalate, they are doing so to gain more dice, to try to gain an edge to win the conflict. If their target can gain their Gunslinging dice without having to violence in return, so where's the edge for the character that first escalated?
and...
We all want to tempt the Dogs into violence, don't we? So, if a Dog can get his entire host of attributes without ever doing violence, then haven't we taken away a great deal of the temptation?
I'm with you, Eric. This answer doesn't easily jibe, for me, with other things Vincent has said.
Me, I like it simple: You escalate to Gunfighting when you pull out your gun and shoot at somebody.
If you really want the rules to read that way, Vincent, I'll give them a try that way and see what happens. But can I ask you to, y'know, confirm the launch sequence?
Them's the rules.
The rationale is mechanical, as it must be. Here's the scenario: you and I are arguing, just talking. It's my raise, it's the end of the argument; I'm down to two dice, a 1 and a 2, and you're down to three dice, two 1s and a 3. Not an uncommon scenario by any stretch.
So I've lost the argument; I just can't win with those dice. I say, "screw this, I punch you." I roll 7d6, I come up with a 6, a 5, and some lower numbers. I'm like, "yay!" I put forward the 11.
You've still got only your 1, 1 and 3. If you can't escalate on the see, you're out! That's not okay. That's far, far worse than whatever the bad consequences of allowing defensive escalation are.
Here's a character for you: in his youth he was a cold and wicked gunfighter, but now he uses his experience and fearsome will only to walk unharmed through gunfights, never pulling the trigger himself.
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpleyYou've still got only your 1, 1 and 3. If you can't escalate on the see, you're out! That's not okay. That's far, far worse than whatever the bad consequences of allowing defensive escalation are.
I don't think anyone would argue that you shouldn't be able to escalate on a see, the argument (at least the one inside my head, which sounds much like what Eric and Tony are saying) is that we don't think that you MUST escalate on the see if you react to the bullet/punch/whatever at all. Can and must are two different things, and while the first is certainly needed I don't know that the second is.
Or would you just make it all a matter of how things are staged?
For example: Raise "I shoot him in the head" followed by See "I hurl myself out of the way!" = Escalation on both sides
Raise "I shoot him in the head" followed by See "I narrow my eyes, knowing that he's going to miss by a hair, and stare him down while the bullet only grazes my coat" = Escalation for first character, no escalation for second character
Quote from: Brand_RobinsI don't think anyone would argue that you shouldn't be able to escalate on a see, the argument (at least the one inside my head, which sounds much like what Eric and Tony are saying) is that we don't think that you MUST escalate on the see if you react to the bullet/punch/whatever at all. Can and must are two different things, and while the first is certainly needed I don't know that the second is.
I know I'm the newbie here, but that was the impression I got from Vincent's post. Basically the person who is being shot at chooses whether the defensive action she takes counts as an escalation or not, depending on what she plans after that.
It does seem to leave things open to 'abuse' - escalating to gunfighting, and then just talking anyway, for example. Assuming that is abuse - you don't get to roll your shooting-based traits after all.
Oh. Yeah, the (potential) escalater decides whether to go ahead and roll the Will dice. Can, not must.
It's not abuse to escalate to gunfighting and then have all your raises be just talking. Your Will dice let you keep talking with someone while they're shooting at you? That sounds right to me.
-Vincent
Okay, I'm confused. Can you give me an example of a situation in which the (potential) escalator would choose not to escalate on a See? Or is that always the right move?
"Practically every case."
I've heard of it done once, maybe twice, just to make a point.
-Vincent
I think maybe a thing not in this conversation yet is: if you raise with violence, I'm less likely to take the blow, more likely to give, than if you raise with words. The temptation to use violence to solve your problems is still there, and still problematic, even if I'm the one who escalated.
-Vincent
So it's not meant to be a meaningful choice? Escalating in a See is not meant to, for instance, say anything about the character or the situation?
Well...
I have the same issue as technocrat13 here. Vincent, when you say:
QuoteIt's not abuse to escalate to gunfighting and then have all your raises be just talking.
That means: dogs can choose to never, ever shoot anyone, and they'll be just as effective. If I explain this to potential players, my fear is that they will win every fight with talking, simply to avoid having to resort to violence. Since the narration determines the fallout, there's just no need to ever inflict more than D4s on anyone. That kind of takes the punch out of every example in the book.
I gotta stop my brother from shooting the shopkeeper's wife. I have to escalate? Well, sure, since I just keep talking, I'm not really hurting him.
In reference to your latest essay, that means they can always take the easy way out. The thematic decision disappears. It's no longer "shoot your brother or let him shoot someone else."
Did I misunderstand something here?
Tony, I have no idea what you're talking about.
If we're arguing and I start throwing punches, you're going to give or you're going to stay in the conflict. Which you choose, is meaningful.
You get dice so you can stay in the conflict, if that's what you choose to do.
-Vincent
To escalate to shooting on a raise, you have to shoot someone.
To escalate to shooting on a see, you have to be shot at.
You escalate when you're losing an argument.
If your Dogs never lose an argument, they'll never shoot anyone.
-Vincent
What I was asking about was specifically the act of taking the dice. Taking the dice is not meant to be meaningful. Gotcha.
I'll try playing this. It hasn't been the way I've played to date. I'll have to see how the patterns evolve when they're actually in use before I can say more with any certainty. Thanks for the clarifications!
Quote
In reference to your latest essay, that means they can always take the easy way out. The thematic decision disappears. It's no longer "shoot your brother or let him shoot someone else."
Did I misunderstand something here?
This does actually appear to be the case, since the rulebook does show in examples that fallout is linked to narration. In one example, conflict has escalated to gunfighting, but the shooter punches someone and so does fighting fallout.
Even if you're shooting, you can say "I shoot the rope holding the sign above his head so it falls on him" or "I shoot the horse out from under him," or "I fire several shots at the ground at his feet, telling him to dance for me," etc. (inflicting, in order, Fighting, Physical, and either Social or Physical, I think.)
Once you start shooting, even if you are trying not to kill, your opponent will probably start shooting back - and he might not be so merciful. So the meaningful risk is still there.
Quote from: xenopulseIn reference to your latest essay, that means they can always take the easy way out.
Where can I find said essay?
Brand: it's here (http://www.lumpley.com/opine.html), a couple entries down.
-Vincent
Danke
Quote from: In a different thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15323), ChristianBut why have an escalation mechanic when the game works just as well if no player ever escalates? I mean, the book tells you explicitly to escalate, escalate, escalate. If the players don't have to follow suit, that seems like it doesn't do a thing.
Christian, I can't figure out where you're getting this. Of
course the players are going to escalate. They're going to escalate a lot. They're going to escalate whenever they're losing the argument - or else they're going to lose the argument.
And of course when their opponents start shooting they don't
have to follow suit, but they're going to, all the time. They've got all kinds of dice invested in following suit; following suit is how they're going to stay in the conflict.
It's like you've taken what I said about your stat dice when you escalate on a see, and applied it willy-nilly to all the dice on your character sheet, whenever you use them. What gives?
-Vincent
Well, seeing that you took it from a different thread, I should point out that in that thread, the assumption was that if you have a lot of player characters teaming up, they don't need to escalate because they have an overwhelming amount of dice just from everyone talking. So in that scenario, you'd need to turn up the heat to make sure you have enough dice that they have to pull out their traits and escalation dice to stay in the conflict.
I guess that's its own thematic statement on teamwork :)
Ah. I getcha.
Jeez, I'm cranky today. I'm'a try and chill.
-Vincent
I am sure it's exhausting to have all these discussions about your game, most of them being hypothetical, so... I promise now to only come back when I have half a dozen Dogs sessions under my belly :)
Yeah. I'm still confused. That usually means I've missed a logical step somewhere in the middle. If any of the following statements are incorrect, please correct me.
Assuming a one on one confrontation between two characters where the conflict began as Non-Physical...
The NPC draws and fires his gun at me. I choose to narrate dodging the bullet. I have now technically escalated to Gunfighting. (??) I therefore roll my Will.
or...
The NPC throws a punch at me. I narrate dodging the attack. I have now technically escalated to Fighting. (??) I therefore roll my Body and Will.
In either scenario, it's kosher that I never narrate my Dog doing violence upon the NPC after said escalations. Therefore, it is possible for me to gain all my Stats dice without ever doing any more than talking to the NPC. Indeed, if all my Traits and Belongings are of a non-violent bend, then, as a Dog, I can pull all of my dice without ever having to so much as raise a fist to anyone.
If all those statements are correct... well then I think that sucks. IMHO, if you can escalate to Fighting or Gunfighting without any possibility of lethal fallout, or even the idea that the Dog is willing to do harm to do the right thing, then the theme falls flat.
And I totally disagree with the idea that a Dog would have to get those dice for game balance (which is what I believe Vincent had said in an earlier post). Dogs are pretty well Uber compared to even a baddie sorcerer, I really don't think they need to get dice for doing something they really haven't done yet.
Further, IMO, the lack of dice without violence is one of the draws of the game for me. The challenge of trying to talk someone down from a gunfight without having to get violent in return. In Dogs, without my Body or Will at my disposal, it is very possible for me to talk a gang of desperate gunfighters down without ever raising my hand to them. Unlikely, but possible. Make it easy on me to do it, and I care less to try. It's just not as exciting.
I've been putting a lot of bank in some of your essay's recently Vincent. Especially the one you title something like "A Small Thing About Suspense". We know the Dogs are gonna win. That's almost a given. But now we seek to find what the Dogs are willing to go through to get their win. Are they willing to kill? Are they willing to inflict pain upon the Faithful? As I see it, with the rules as you explain them now Vincent, the Dogs don't have to make that decision. They will always win without ever having to raise their fists, much less draw a gun.
-Eric
Quote from: Technocrat13Yeah. I'm still confused. That usually means I've missed a logical step somewhere in the middle. If any of the following statements are incorrect, please correct me.
I'll have a go at answering this, which may mean I haven't learned my lesson yet...
QuoteAssuming a one on one confrontation between two characters where the conflict began as Non-Physical...
The NPC draws and fires his gun at me. I choose to narrate dodging the bullet. I have now technically escalated to Gunfighting. (??) I therefore roll my Will.
From previous Vincent responses, it's actually:
"I choose to narrate dodging the bullet. I have now
either escalated to Gunfighting, or not escalated at all, depending on exactly waht statement I want to make.
You don't have to escalate when someone attacks you, but you can.
Quote<snip>If all those statements are correct... well then I think that sucks. IMHO, if you can escalate to Fighting or Gunfighting without any possibility of lethal fallout, or even the idea that the Dog is willing to do harm to do the right thing, then the theme falls flat.
A key point is that even if you try not to harm your foe, he'll be trying to harm you and you can still take lethal fallout.
I've often seen (in other games), conflicts in which a player is trying to take a foe down non-lethally, but is frustrated by lack of a quick success, suffers a close call, and then says, "damn it, he's going down."
So, just the fact that one side is using violence does increase the chance that the other will give up his lilylivered pussyfooting and let loose with the cannons.
QuoteIndeed, if all my Traits and Belongings are of a non-violent bend, then, as a Dog, I can pull all of my dice without ever having to so much as raise a fist to anyone.
Note: if all your traits and belongings are of a non-violent nature, and you concentrate your stats in Acuity and Heart, with a little Body, and a Will of 2 - then you'll get the vast majority of your dice without ever escalating. So you can do that even if escalation must be accompanied by violent acts.
QuoteAnd I totally disagree with the idea that a Dog would have to get those dice for game balance (which is what I believe Vincent had said in an earlier post). Dogs are pretty well Uber compared to even a baddie sorcerer, I really don't think they need to get dice for doing something they really haven't done yet.
The game balance issue is there for the situation that Vincent described:
If you have two dice left in front of you, say a 1 and a 3, and your opponent puts forward his last two dice, a 5 and a 2, your choices are:
-Give
-Escalate, get extra dice
If you can't escalate as part of a See, your only choice is Give.
Now whether the escalation must be violent or not, that I'll leave to more wise folk.
A fascinating thread. I think it'd be cool if someone ran a Dog built for winning without killing anyone (or at least having all their dice available without having to shoot someone). Perhaps as his Accomplishment he could snatch a pebble from his blind trainer's hand.
If the character's design is signalling "Nothing is worth killing for" then that seems plenty interesting. "So this sinner isn't worth killing?" "How about this one?" "Even THIS?" And what happens when your fellow Dogs decide someone does need to be killed? Sounds like big fun to me!
I also really like Vincent's idea for a gunslinger that uses his cool under fire to not have to shoot folks. "It's easy to kill a man. It's hard to save him. The King of Life got other folks to call on for the easy things." I even think it would be big fun to drop 2d10 or 3d10 into "Lightning's Hand" and then never use it, just have it there tempting, like the gun hanging on the wall in Act 1.
--
Carl Rigney
"I've killed a lot of men 2d10"
"But I'm done with killing 6d4"
Quote from: demiurgeastarothA key point is that even if you try not to harm your foe, he'll be trying to harm you and you can still take lethal fallout.
I've often seen (in other games), conflicts in which a player is trying to take a foe down non-lethally, but is frustrated by lack of a quick success, suffers a close call, and then says, "damn it, he's going down."
So, just the fact that one side is using violence does increase the chance that the other will give up his lilylivered pussyfooting and let loose with the cannons.
But what will letting loose the cannons ever gain you if you've already rolled will? I agree that the game will work despite this. Players will still "feel" that guns are a more effective and direct solution. But I think it's more appropriate if the dice support this rather than make it an option without mechanical effect.
Quote from: Simon KamberBut what will letting loose the cannons ever gain you if you've already rolled will?
You'll be able to get your "let loose the cannons 6d10" trait?
Despite that glib answer, I see what you mean - I could fire away at something other than my target to get the dice, and then I have them even if I just declare all my actions to be intimidating and talking.
It comes back to that frustration element - when someone is shooting at me, and inflicting lethal fallout, I realise - "the threat of non-lethal fallout isn't having any effect - and I'm going to get killed. Time to finish this now." Then switch over to lethal fallout and hope your opponent Gives.
This argument works best when your opponent is another PC - GM's don't have the same pressure on them when making decisions about their NPCs fate, so might allow their inclination to deliver a good story override their ability to act as the NPC in question.
But there's also, "the person I'm trying to save is trying to kill me! Stuff that, I can't be bothered to save him any more, he's going down."
So players do have the ability to escalate without killing, but there are pressures on them to change their attitude. They might stay true to their goal in some cases, and give in to violence in others. Finding out when they go one way or the other sounds pretty interesting to me.
We're arguing. We've rolled Acuity and Heart. I'm losing. I throw a punch; I roll Body and Will. You throw a punch back. Now we've rolled all of our stats. If I shoot you, I don't get any new stat dice. Do I no longer have any temptation to shoot you?
You have a gun with dice in it for a reason.
-Vincent
*sigh* Ya didn't answer any of my questions Vincent. I so wish we could sit across a table and discuss this. My OnlineGetMyPointAcross Fu is weak.
-Eric
[/quote]
But what will letting loose the cannons ever gain you if you've already rolled will? I agree that the game will work despite this. Players will still "feel" that guns are a more effective and direct solution. But I think it's more appropriate if the dice support this rather than make it an option without mechanical effect.[/quote]
I'm confused. How don't the dice support it? If you change tactics and start shooting you (A) get to roll your Belongings dice for your gun, (B) roll any applicable traits, and (C) Escalate and change the size of the Fallout dice. I'm not seeing the problem.
Nick
Eric, I don't even get what your questions are.
Yes, you can get all your stat dice without ever doing anything violent, under some circumstances.
No, it doesn't hurt the game at all. The game works great.
-Vincent
Quote from: NikI'm confused. How don't the dice support it? If you change tactics and start shooting you (A) get to roll your Belongings dice for your gun, (B) roll any applicable traits, and (C) Escalate and change the size of the Fallout dice. I'm not seeing the problem.
A) What if the character doesn't have a gun? Then they won't be tempted to use one, will they?
B) What if none of their traits are violent ones?
C) What if they don't want to actually hurt the person, they just want to win the conflict?
I have one player in my current group that has a pacifist character. Almost all his stat dice are in Heart, he has no violent Traits, and he has no weapons on his character sheet. So it does happen. His goal for the character, designed three months ago, is to win every conflict without violence. And he's done a great job of it so far.
So, my point is, that without violent traits or violent belongings, the only thing left to tempt the player into violence is to withhold his Will dice until he does violence. If he can gain those Will dice in a passive way, he will, to maintain the integrity of his character. That Dog will never be tempted to violence. At all.
-Eric
Quote from: EricI have one player in my current group that has a pacifist character. Almost all his stat dice are in Heart, he has no violent Traits, and he has no weapons on his character sheet. So it does happen. His goal for the character, designed three months ago, is to win every conflict without violence. And he's done a great job of it so far.
So, my point is, that without violent traits or violent belongings, the only thing left to tempt the player into violence is to withhold his Will dice until he does violence. If he can gain those Will dice in a passive way, he will, to maintain the integrity of his character. That Dog will never be tempted to violence. At all.
And that's just fine.
Is he not an interesting character?
-Vincent
I really gotta chill out.
Hey Eric. You're right, this'd be a lot easier in person.
You've mentioned my theme essay a couple of times, I just want to get with you about Dogs' themes.
"What makes a good shepherd?" So you've got the characters' decisions + outcomes + the players' judgement. You wind up with themes like "a good shepherd lies all the time," "killing people makes a bad shepherd," "a good shepherd kills who needs killing," "a good shepherd never shows his doubt," "a bad shepherd never shows his doubt" ... and so on.
Pacifism, non-violence, winning every conflict without raising a hand. Is that a good shepherd or a bad shepherd? You take the character and play the game, that's how you find out.
That's why the temptation to violence, that's why violating that character's principles, doesn't matter, isn't necessary. Does pacifism make a good shepherd? To find out, you need a pacifist.
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpleyDoes pacifism make a good shepherd? To find out, you need a pacifist.
Well, you need one more thing: a series of towns that test his pacifism. Is his pacifism only effective because of the violence of his peers (Gandhi's was)? Is his pacifism effective because he forces the minds of others (is that any different)? Does his pacifism cost others' lives while he's not killing? &c.
I literally got the book on Saturday (but already read it cover to cover), so here's my totally uneducated input:
If a character could not get dice from escalating until he acted in the manner described, you could never get dice on a See, simply because a See is always a reaction. You would have to wait for the Raise to be able to get your dice -- which is likely too late since the opponent (probably) Raised because the number of dice left on the table was pretty small.
This does not mean a character with a gun can get all his dice on the table without pulling his gun and shooting it, so there's still something to be gained from finally drawing your weapon and using it. That's why the gun itself has some dice value, I think.
-- Ribbit
Quote from: mister.ribbitthe opponent (probably) Raised because the number of dice left on the table was pretty small.
I think you're confusing Raising and Escalating here. A raise happens on every time someone acts. An
Escalation happens because you want to bring in another type of conflict - verbal, physical nonfighting, fighting, and gunfighting, probably because you're out of options (dice) in the frame that you've already used. You're right that a See is always a reaction.
Quote from: nikolaI think you're confusing Raising and Escalating here. A raise happens on every time someone acts. An Escalation happens because you want to bring in another type of conflict - verbal, physical nonfighting, fighting, and gunfighting, probably because you're out of options (dice) in the frame that you've already used. You're right that a See is always a reaction.
You're right. I meant Escalate in that part of the post. Still trying to get used to the terminology (although it is definitely sensible).
Thanks!
-- Ribbit
Quote from: lumpley
And that's just fine.
Is he not an interesting character?
-Vincent
He'd be more interesting if he had to make sacrifices for being a pacifist, like not getting his Will dice. I guess he loses his gun dice already, as well as the good shot dice most dogs have.
But yeah, in practice I agree with other posters: with a character like that, I'd push the whole "you only get away with being a pacifist because you're surrounded by a posse of armed Dogs" thing, and maybe throw him up against an NPC with high scores in things like "deaf" or "crazy" as defenses against having to listen to reason.
Ooh! Ooh! Or maybe a town where the false doctrine is bound up with pacifism!
Because the ultimate questions of pacifism are "is it better to be hurt than to hurt someone else? How about to die?" and "is it better to let someone else be hurt than to hurt someone else? How about to let them die?" Playing a pacifist in a gun-happy setting is just begging to crash head-on into those questions.
Quote from: James HollowayHe'd be more interesting if he had to make sacrifices for being a pacifist, like not getting his Will dice. I guess he loses his gun dice already, as well as the good shot dice most dogs have.
But yeah, in practice I agree with other posters: with a character like that, I'd push the whole "you only get away with being a pacifist because you're surrounded by a posse of armed Dogs" thing, and maybe throw him up against an NPC with high scores in things like "deaf" or "crazy" as defenses against having to listen to reason.
Ooh! Ooh! Or maybe a town where the false doctrine is bound up with pacifism!
Because the ultimate questions of pacifism are "is it better to be hurt than to hurt someone else? How about to die?" and "is it better to let someone else be hurt than to hurt someone else? How about to let them die?" Playing a pacifist in a gun-happy setting is just begging to crash head-on into those questions.
I think this approach would work if you made sure you challenged all of the player's approaches to violence equally.
If you just challenged one character's pacifism, the issue wouldn't become examing "is pacifism effective or not?" but instead acknowledgment of "I find your view questionable, so I'm going to make it hard to do."
But if you challenged everyone, it'd work out fine because no one is recieving special difficulty for the "questionableness" of their views.
Quote from: sirogit
I think this approach would work if you made sure you challenged all of the player's approaches to violence equally.
If you just challenged one character's pacifism, the issue wouldn't become examing "is pacifism effective or not?" but instead acknowledgment of "I find your view questionable, so I'm going to make it hard to do."
I think Dogs as-is does a pretty good job of challenging the idea that violence is a good way to solve problems. The Dogs are already expected to resolve the town's problems by killing people, and to have to deal at least a little bit with the ruined lives they leave behind.
But yeah, if the game as written weren't there to address the role of violence, you'd have to step carefully.