I was talking to Tony about the rules for escalation and we came to a descrepancy that I'd like to discuss. I heard it was the subject of a thread earlier but my internet time is limited, so hunting down that thread is not an option.
Situation:
There are those not of the Faith, paid soldiers of one of the congregation to protect his riches that he guards greedily.
The Dog goes outside to talk to the fellas, as they are dicing outside of the Temple and making a ruckus during Sunday's services. The young Dog asks them politely to keep it down.
CONFLICT!
They respond by punching him. Immediate escalation.
Looking at their physical dice, he continues with his social dice, rolling nothing further.
"Your mama raised you better 'an that. She'd be ashamed about now."
He wins. And I liked that he won with words, even though they escalated. He never rolled his body nor any of his violent traits.
Now Tony said that if one person escalates the other has to roll his Body immediately along with any traits having to do with violence?
Am I right in that?
I'm not sure I dig it.
I don't think I said exactly that. What I meant to convey was that they were allowed to roll their Body, because the situation had escalated, even if they did not themselves escalate to violence. Where you got the "all their violent traits" from I really don't know, though I certainly concede that it may be from my miscommunication.
The thread in question is here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15307.0).
Woops.
Sorry, Tony.
Hate to misquote ya.
The way Tony quotes it is the official ruling. If you're defending from a Physical Raise then you get to roll your Body dice when you See.
But.
I play like you play Judd. Or similar to it. If I were to narrate my Dog just standing there, attempting to deflect the fists with nothing but words, I wouldn't roll my Body dice just yet.
But that's just me.
And you.
And maybe a couple other people.
-Eric
Quote from: Technocrat13 on July 19, 2005, 11:13:18 AM
The way Tony quotes it is the official ruling. If you're defending from a Physical Raise then you get to roll your Body dice when you See.
But.
I play like you play Judd. Or similar to it. If I were to narrate my Dog just standing there, attempting to deflect the fists with nothing but words, I wouldn't roll my Body dice just yet.
I'm not sure that's exactly the official ruling. In this (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15307.0) thread, Vincent says:
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.
If you just stand there and keep talking, you're not reacting appropriately to the punch and, therefore, you're not escalating on your see. At least that's how I understand it.
Quote from: coffeestain on July 19, 2005, 11:49:42 AM
If you just stand there and keep talking, you're not reacting appropriately to the punch and, therefore, you're not escalating on your see. At least that's how I understand it.
Which puts it all in the narration? Or mechanically, is that Taking the Blow? (Vincent? Bueller? Anyone?)
Right... Didja read the whole thread? Cuz Vincent and I had a good debate on that one. We weren't seeing eye to eye and communicating very well.
Vincent's quote there kinda sucks. Because you can never do nothing in a Raise or a See. You've always gotta narrate -something-. Notice he also says 'as though there were no bullets coming at you.' and that's not what I said. I said 'trying to deflect a fist with nothing but words'. Which means I am doing something.
It's kinda hairy there. Something vs. Nothing. I'm pulling at straws I know. Lemmie give you the low-down on how Vincent and I really differ, as per the discussion we had about that old thread over PMs.
Brother Nasty fires his pistol at my Dog. My Dog has only been talking so far. I narrate that I "dodge behind the tree for cover". Vincent defines my narration as escalating to Guns. Because I've done something to avoid Br. Nasty's gunshot. I define my narration as escalating to Physical because what I did what physical. Vincent further explained to me that his reasoning had some system balance backup. Meaning, once I'm shot at I should have access to more dice. Otherwise the guy who Escalates on his Raise has too much of an advantage. I propose that, if I wanted to escalate to Guns on the See I should be required to narrate the use of my guns. Instead of ducking behind the tree... "When I see him going for his pistol I jump back to where I have my rifle swung and attempt to shoot him first..."
-Eric
The way I see it, it's like this..
If someone punches you, and you don't dodge, block, something physical to prevent the blow, then you didn't escalate to fighting. That doesn't mean you have to take the blow, though. How about something like this..
Br. Nasty: I slug him in the jaw!
Br. Dog: Br. Nasty McCoy, I wouldn't do that if I were you! (and Br. Nasty hesitates, cowed momentarily by the authority in the Dog's tone)
Basically, if you See, you get to narrate why the blow missed, or otherwise didn't affect you. Another possibility..
Br. Dog: (I take it in the jaw, and I just look at him, sadness and resolve in my eyes) You shouldn't have done that and you know it, Br. Nasty. (Raise) What would your mother say if she knew you'd become such a ruffian?
You Saw because you didn't allow the blow to affect you. Sure it landed, but it had zero effect, and likely didn't break the group's genre expectations.
So to sum: Unless you respond in some way that is appropriate to that arena of conflict (I think jumping behind a tree counts for gunplay, because it's about not getting shot just as much as shooting) then you don't escalate.
"Escalation" just means which stats you get to roll. If you engage with a gunfight, you get to roll acuity and will. If you engage with a conversation, you get to roll acuity and heart. Et cetera.
If you don't want to roll acuity and will, don't engage with the gunfight. No skin off my nose.
Your group gets to decide what "engage" means. Like I say here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15911.msg170120#msg170120), your group should follow the lead of the player with the highest standards.
I don't see the controversy!
-Vincent
FWIW, I've played it both ways now, very deliberately, and I do see the controversy, though perhaps I see it differently than others will. I'm going to toss out my overall 'gestalt' of observations on this, and people can pick it apart... but I don't intend to make a huge lecture of it, or show all the steps of my thinking, unless what I say confuses people more than I think it will.
Your Dogs young, demur, female cousin slaps him for something he said that she thought was "inappropriate." Now with either set of rules the Dog (in-character) has a choice about whether to respond by slapping her back.
If your system says that he only gets his dice when he slaps her back then it makes that into a player decision as well, often in terms of whether they want to risk losing the Stakes. Which means that the player is more constantly forced back upon the question of exploring his own character.
If your system says that he immediately gets his dice as well then the only reason (mechanically) to slap her back is either (a) you've got traits that would access or (b) you want to do her more fallout. Either way, you're now engaged in a situation where what you are exploring is the interaction of this particular Dog with society as exemplified in the context of this one town. You are, in short, playing a less introspective game, and one in which the situation that the GM has prepared has more of a spotlight position.
Honestly? I'd play it the first way with experienced players and the second way with those new to Dogs. But that's just me.
Thanks Tony. You said what was in my head but couldn't get into decent words.
-Eric
Quote from: Technocrat13 on July 19, 2005, 12:02:29 PM
Right... Didja read the whole thread? Cuz Vincent and I had a good debate on that one. We weren't seeing eye to eye and communicating very well....
I actually did slog through that entire thread because I was concerned about the answer as well. What I appear to be stuck on is "reacting appropriately" as opposed to just "reacting at all". If the actually letter of the law is that even acknowledging the action that necessitates the See is escalating, then I don't play it that way either. I allow escalation on the see if there is a defense against the Raise, or if the See is negating the consequence of the Raise. Dodging the bullet, blocking the slap, etc. I've also allowed it if the player assures me that the following Raise will include that form of escalation in the narration, which tends to happen naturally when we're playing anyhow. My players (perhaps because we're all still pretty new to Dogs) have a tendency to narrate the See and Raise in one big breath and then assign dice where appropriate.
Quote from: immlassWhich puts it all in the narration? Or mechanically, is that Taking the Blow? (Vincent? Bueller? Anyone?)
I believe it's all in the narration. Taking the Blow is specifically seeing with three or more dice and results in fallout. Narration doesn't cause fallout in and of itself.
In either case, I am most comfortable when my players are allowed to escalate on a See because I know they are going to narrate the escalation on the Raise. That covers the mechanical aspects for me, as well as continuing to make the narration relevant.
Tony, I'm consistently impressed with how well you get my game and how astutely you see it. Better than I do myself, often.
-Vincent
Hey Judd, you got swept up a little in an old argument. Do you feel answered okay?
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpley on July 19, 2005, 02:05:55 PM
Hey Judd, you got swept up a little in an old argument. Do you feel answered okay?
-Vincent
I never felt swept up in anything, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page and if not, why.
The text in DitV has been the most reliable that I have ever read and I wanted to know the reasoning if i disagreed with it.
Consider this baby put to bed.
On to the next town...
Quote from: coffeestain on July 19, 2005, 01:41:38 PMI believe it's all in the narration. Taking the Blow is specifically seeing with three or more dice and results in fallout. Narration doesn't cause fallout in and of itself.
Yes, I see that. But the question was, if you don't react, isn't that the sort of narration you use for Taking the Blow? I was trying to get at the question of what happens if you react, because if you say a Block or a Dodge is doing something that gets your escalation dice, then the mechanics are answering the question for you in a way I was guessing Vincent didn't intend.
Tony's answer gets at what I really want to know as a follow-up question, though, so I'm good.
Well, this is weird
The example in the game text says that when one side escalates the other rolls dice right there on the spot, even if it's not their see or raise or anything. So I took that to mean it's the situation that gets escalated, not the actions of any given player, and so that's where the dice come from. "But I'm not using my body" isn't an appropriate response to "it's a situation of physical conflict" now. And if anyone wants, the situation gets escalated.
I can see how you might let it be the person rather than the situation that gets escalated, maybe that lets you make more of a statement. I prefer it the way the game example goes because otherwise your stats become more like big d6 traits; they stay clearly separated this way.