[DitV - Colorado City Branch] Running out of steam

[matthijs]

Characters
Isaiah (cynic, intuitive, tough, street urchin, liar, dog)
Jezebel (good shot, unfazed, pious, dog who inspires shame and purity, well-read, hasn't forgiven father)
Zillah (intuitive, strong willed, daredevil, strong faith, charming, confident, dog)

Accomplishments
- Isaiah tried to overcome his cynical belief that God is top dog, and replace it with a real love of God. In a conversation with his mentor Zebediah, who truly loves everyone, he qouted harsh verses from the Book of Life and shut Zebediah up.
- Jezebel tried to forgive her abusive father. She went to the hotel where he lived, found him old and naked in the bathtub with the book of life by his side. Trying to say some words about sin and punishment, her voice faltered. He shat himself in the tub. She shot him with her Winchester.
- Zillah wanted to be best among that year's new dogs. On the eve of their final initiation, her main rival started speaking of humility. He's always had it easy, she's always had it tough; not-so-subtle words were spoken. A dove settled on his arm, pecked his hand so it bled and flew away. Smilingly, Zillah dressed the wound.

Conflicts
- With Elise, bro Jeffs' second wife: Can they make her tell them what she knows about bor Jeffs' dealings?
- With Patience, the youngest wife: Similar
- With Jeffs: Can they make him sit down and bow to their authority, right there at the dinner table?
- With an injury: Asaiah injured his arm when bro Jeffs pushed him away. A bone splinter enters the blood stream and blocks an artery. Will he survive?
- With Ishmael and Ezra, two young men who want some action: Can the calm the situation?

Stuff we did wrong
- Not enough player engagement in each others' dealings. At start, players went off to the toilet, read gaming books, meditated on their character etc while others were in conflict. In play, they went their separate ways a lot while doing the same basic thing (gathering info), making for fragmented and time-consuming play.
- Too many minor scenes became conflicts. This is probably my fault; to show the players how the game goes, I pushed them into initiating some vague and not-so-interesting conflicts. Instead of rolling to see if Elise talked, I should just have made her talk. "Actively reveal the town in play".
- Players not clear on conflict resolution. There were some questions like "Can I roll my <trait> to make her talk?", to which I answered "Do you want to initiate a conflict?" The players were used to task resolution, and I should have made sure to explain the difference.
- Running out of steam in a major conflict. When we got to the drunken fighting in the street, the players had already been through several conflicts, and it was getting late. One of the players just lost her motivation at that point, and they all had a feeling that "whatever we do, the GM just keeps on rolling more dice". They could narrate whatever they wanted on their raise, but I'd still be seeing and raising. This would probably have been fun earlier in the evening, so I think it's a case of not knowing where to stop.
- No strong scene framing. At a point, they agreed to go Back East to meet ex-brother Alvin, who'd sued Jeffs. I tried to cut to that scene, but each of the players just needed to do something else first, and of course that something else led to something else againg. In retrospect, I should have been more decisive about cutting to a new scene, but I didn't want the players to feel deprotagonized.

Ways to do it right
- GM: Always read player and GM responsibilities (page 58) aloud just before starting. I did this last time, and it worked great.
- GM: Tell the players what they need to know. Don't make them start conflicts for information. It slows down play, and if they win, the GM has to narrate, which sucks.
- Players: Engage in each others' characters more. When doing the same thing, stick together. Forget all those info-gathering games like Cthulhu - do cool stuff, not necessarily logistically clever stuff.

[matthijs]

Some more...

My favorite scenes
- Jezebel's voice faltering as she shoots her father in the bathtub. Just showed the character so well.
- Zillah grabs bro Jeffs by his collar and pushes him against the wall of his house. "You're hereby excommunicated, and your wives are no longer married to you". Instant chaos ensues. I liked this because the Dogs finally stopped talking to the wives and brow-beating Jeffs, and started taking decisive, authoritative action. Right here, right now! Cool!
- In the temple, the French doctor (NPC played by a player) has to decide who to save: The Dog who took a bullet, or the drunken kid who shot her. The Dogs are standing right by his side, imposing, showing their guns, and he is forced to save the Dog. I liked this because it was a moral question, and the players just scoffed at it - so obvious! To be followed up later by "...and now? What about now?"

Questions
- When is it a smart idea for the GM to give? I kept on escalating, and in the street fighting scene, that meant one of the Dogs took a bullet from a drunken kid. The players were miffed that their authority as Dogs didn't work; they would have wanted the kids to give much earlier. (At stake: Can the Dogs calm the situation down? They did, by shooting one kid and hitting the other with the barrel of a gun while he was down).
- Ceremony... it doesn't give you extra dice in a conflict, but just changes the type of fallout, or what?
- The players didn't like that when they escalated, it meant they took higher fallout dice while their opponents didn't. Are we doing this right?
- Are there no consequences for NPC fallout?
- How do you prevent conflicts with several participants on each side, from becoming drawn-out and dull?

[Simon Kamber]

- The players didn't like that when they escalated, it meant they took higher fallout dice while their opponents didn't. Are we doing this right?

Don't have the book yet (still waiting :D), but I can answer this one. The fallout is determined by the way the fallout is inflicted. So, if the players escalate to guns, their opponents are the ones suffering "guns" fallout (assuming that the raise in question did involve the guns).

[Judd]

Questions
- When is it a smart idea for the GM to give? I kept on escalating, and in the street fighting scene, that meant one of the Dogs took a bullet from a drunken kid. The players were miffed that their authority as Dogs didn't work; they would have wanted the kids to give much earlier. (At stake: Can the Dogs calm the situation down? They did, by shooting one kid and hitting the other with the barrel of a gun while he was down).

I tend to back down or keep on pushing through fallout based on the NPC.

The players know that if a demonic entity is close to the surface, they are in for a grinder but if they're just messing with some shmoe, he'll most likely back down.  Every so often they don't realize how deep of a puddle they've stepped into how fast.

Sweet.

[matthijs]

The fallout is determined by the way the fallout is inflicted.

Huh. But that means it's relatively riskless to escalate. I thought the philosophy behind it was that OK, you escalate and get more dice - but then you also risk higher fallout.

On the other hand, when you escalate, that means the other party will probably do so too... so the risk would still be present.

[TonyLB]

It's not about risk to the Dog.  It's about risk to the people he's trying to save.

Remember that they don't escalate by brandishing a gun.  They escalate by shooting the gun, at someone.

[Simon Kamber]

Huh. But that means it's relatively riskless to escalate...

Yup, it's so easy. Just pull out your gun, and all your problems will be solved...

I *think* that's the point. Doing the easy thing is tempting. There's no one to judge your character but yourself.

On the other hand, when you escalate, that means the other party will probably do so too... so the risk would still be present.

Of cause, there is that ;)

[Lxndr]

Or alternatively, they DON'T escalate, and you get to deal with the knowledge that you might be shooting someone in cold blood (especially if they're still in the 'talking' stage).

[lumpley]

Lots of rules questions! Yay!

Escalation and Fallout:

You get to roll Acuity + Will into your side of the conflict (or whichever of those you haven't already rolled) when you shoot a gun at someone, or when you react appropriately to someone shooting a gun at you. That's all there is to escalation. When you think of escalation, think "what should I have my character do in order to get more Stat dice?"

You roll d10s for Fallout when you Take a Blow that included you being shot. This is totally unrelated to whether you've rolled Acuity + Will. When you think of Fallout, think "what's the Raise I'm Seeing?"

Two totally separate questions, two totally separate answers. "I escalated to gunfighting, therefore I take d10s for Fallout" is not how it works. Neither is "I escalated to gunfighting, therefore you take d10s for Fallout when I wave my gun around and call you a whore-loving pig."

"You Raised by shooting me and I Took the Blow, therefore I take d10s for Fallout," that's how it works. "You Raised by waving your gun around and calling me a whore-loving pig, therefore I take d4s for Fallout," that's how it works too.

Ceremony:

Ceremony lets you Raise against demons. A Raise is something your opponent can't ignore, and demons can ignore talking, pushing, punching, stabbing, biting and shooting, on account of they got no bods. Demons can't ignore the sign of the tree, being called by name, three in authority, etc.

The elements of ceremony list Fallout dice because when the demon Takes the Blow, the demon gets Fallout.

(Sorcerers, the possessed, and the souls of the Faithful can't ignore ceremony either, so you can use it to Raise against them too.)

NPC Fallout:

If you're not going to roll it and track it on the NPC's character sheet, slide the dice unrolled across the table to the player. The player gets to roll them straight into her side of the follow-up conflict, if there is one.

When the GM should Give:

1) When it's clear that you're going to lose the conflict.

2) When the alternative is escalating, and the NPC wouldn't escalate.

3) When you think of a cool follow-up conflict.

Multi-party conflicts:

First, always always always use group NPCs. You should never have more than one pool of dice in front of you.

Second, if any of your NPCs side with a PC, give that player dice for the NPC as though the NPC were an improvised belonging.

You can even play that trick with PCs. It's very appropriate, for instance, if one PC is having the real argument, and the other is standing behind the first as backup or for intimidation. Be like, "you, second player, don't roll dice, instead you, first player, take 1d8 more. Brother Morris counts as an improvised tool, and he's big!"

Finally, try to make the first multi-party conflict easy, with (of course) clearly defined stakes and an obvious way to get them. Like, "do the toughs get past you on the road?" Everybody can see at once what the Raises and Sees will look like in that conflict. Get the rhythm of multi-party conflicts down before you take on a hard one.

As far as play bogging down, I'm sorry to hear that! I hope my answers help.

-Vincent

[matthijs]

That all makes perfect sense. In fact, I believe some of it's in the book already - I seem to remember reading it. Badaboom badaboom. Thanks, Vincent, all that stuff was very helpful, and will be included next time I play!

[Betsi-G]

Just some thoughts on what you posted, though you've gotten heaploads of great feedback as it is.

Don't make them start conflicts for information.

This is one of those cases where, in my opinion, the way to decide if they have to start a conflict is first the GM gets the player(s) to explain just what they want to know. Then the GM considers this with regard to what they're written is what this character wants from the Dogs. I found the step in town creation of "what does each player want from the Dogs" to be very helpful for in-game decisions. For instance, in a game I did last night, my players wanted info out of some one. She told them what she knew, but mostly what she knew was that her daughter was the only one likely to be able to answer some of their questions. So they tried asking the daughter, but she had something to hide, defined specifically in what she wants from them (in this case, not to be caught). So I made it a conflict. This leads me to

When is it a smart idea for the GM to give?

As Vincent says, the GM should give when the NPC would give. The daughter was twelve, so part of why the conflict talking to the give ended when it did is because I wasn't about to have a twelve year old girl pull a gun on a Dog. She might have fought, slapping ineffectually or something, but she respects the Dogs. Which brings me to what you said next,

I kept on escalating, and in the street fighting scene, that meant one of the Dogs took a bullet from a drunken kid. The players were miffed that their authority as Dogs didn't work; they would have wanted the kids to give much earlier.

In our game we've been using the whole "Authority as a Dog" things multiple ways. If they want to make an authoritative impression right off the bat, when you start the conflict have them roll their coat along with the relevent stat dice. Later, in conversation, a PC might say something along the lines of "I'm a Dog, I know better than you," they can roll they're "I'm a Dog" trait, provided they took one. And part of the Dogs authority comes from a good knowledge of the Book of Life, so sometimes we'll have a character quote something relevant to the situation, pointing to the exact passage in their copy of the Book... and they can roll the dice for the Book there.

On the subject of using items during conflict, you had the question

Ceremony... it doesn't give you extra dice in a conflict, but just changes the type of fallout, or what?

The way my group has been treating it is that various Elements of Ceremony require or at least could incorporate one of the Belongings that the PCs have. Obvious examples include... "Annointing with Sacred Earth" = roll the character's Jar of Consecrated Earth dice here; "Reciting from the Book of Life" = roll the character's copy of the Book of Life dice here. A less obvious example from our own game include... "Laying on Hands" = narrate that the character anoints their hands with consecrated earth to do this, and use the dice from the jar of consecrated earth to do it. Most elements of ceremony can incorporate consecrated earth, or their copy of the book of life.

To keep it from getting draggy, be sure to help the players; look at their sheet, see what they've got for traits, belongings, relationships, everything. Engaging the other players, as you mentioned, is key. Be willing to allow a certain degree of silliness or creative uses of things... last night, a player was getting desperate for dice, trying not to escalate, and I pointed out the paper and pen item she'd taken when she created her (rather scholarly) character. Her character drew the NPC a diagram of how much of an idiot her was being as her raise. It's things like that that are what I like about this game; you're mostly only limited in a situation by your own creativity. In another conflict (the one mentioned above, with the twelve year old girl) the character ended up escalating the conflict... by giving the girl a hug.


Well, that's all for my lengthy thoughts on all of what you brought up. Some of it is perhaps my group's interpretation of the rules, but so far, it's worked for us, and we're having a blast. Hope your game continues to improve (it certainly sounded like the session after the one your refer to here went smoother!)

loquaciously,
==Betsi

[matthijs]

Thanks, Betsi, inspirational input! Sounds like your group have a good creative atmosphere going on - I especially liked escalating by giving the girl a hug.