[DitV] new town in progress (mechanics too?)

[lin swimmer]

Hello everyone.
First off, if anybody from my gaming group has stumbled across this, please don't read it (Jason, Ryan R, Ryan L, Geoff). You'll ruin any surprises you might have gotten from it.

What I've got so far is:
Carlos Sanchez is a young man who was living a wicked life East of the mountains where Bridal Falls lies, well outside the territory of the faith. One night, over a card table where he was playing with a companion and two strangers, things went wrong and the two strangers were shot dead. He fled west, into the Faithful territory. He eventually settled in a small community, acclimated himself, became quite pious, courted and fell in love with a local girl. They're engaged to be married. She's pregnant, in a slip neither one of them is quite proud of, but they're doing their best, and are excited to be wed. The problem? He's been in town for six months when the sheriff from the Territorial Authority has finally caught up with him. Clayton Church. He's not a religious man at all, and doesn't give two shits that Carlos seems to have joined this weird cult where everyone is everyone else's brother and sister. He's been looking for him for a long time, and he's here to take him back....

So the Dogs either arrive right before, right as, or right after Clayton rides into town. I'll fill out the rest of the town with some nice juice, like a local boy who loves Carlos' fiancee, and is jealous of this hunky newcomer. Some stuff to basically say, "Hey, maybe the demons are here for reasons other than Carlos Sanchez." My problem is, the whole thing pretty much boils down to did Carlos shoot those two men? I wanted to say, "You know what? I don't know. And you don't know. Can't know, in fact. Sure, you can beat a confession out of him; but people confess to shit they didn't do all the time." I think it's important for the Dogs to step into their role of a jury with the real world limitations that they just can't know for sure what happened there. So... does that break the game? It's an interesting problem, because if it does, I'm royally fucking us. If it doesn't, it could be really fun.

Now, if I need to, I could always just decide if Carlos shot them or not. It doesn't change the fundamentals that Carlos is trying to be a good member of the community, and that Clayton doesn't give a shit and won't bend to the Dogs' authority. At first, I was thinking that if Carlos didn't shoot them, and it was his other Mexican companion who was at the table that night, that he would be a sincere Faithful convert, and if he did shoot them himself that he'd be a fraud, manipulating the good townsfolk to give him sanctuary, callously getting that girl pregnant just to make a more convincing ruse. Then I thought, "that's too predictable," so I switched it. If he didn't kill the men, he's a cold hearted fraud. If he did, then he's genuinely reformed and been saved by the King of Life. Better, right?

So that's where I'm stuck. Can the game function if I blankly state the truth can't ever be known? Or should I just run one version of reality? I feel like I'd have to run the town three separate times for three separate groups to really get the full potential out of it. Which might actually make it a great town to polish up, and have as a ready-made. But for the group coming up... hmmm. I really want to try the unanswerable version. It will make the Dogs' choice be about whether a reformed man can be absolved of his past. And even if he can, what do you do about the man standing there that cares nothing for your authority in this matter, and stands with the strength of his own code? Would you go to any means to protect one of your own, or does he have to answer for what he [may] have done?

I know that was long, but I figured I'd have to get a little specific to really get at what I'm talking about. All opinions and comments are greatly appreciated.

-Ryan Theodores
(Yes, I'm aware our gaming group has three Ryans. Yes, it does get annoying.)

[Lance D. Allen]

My advice?

He shot them both. In cold blood. He rode into the town looking to lay low, fell in love despite himself, got genuine faith as well, and is trying to atone for/leave behind the sinful life of his past.

Clayton doesn't give a shit about faith and repentance. He's out for justice.

The Dogs.. Well, just let the Dogs decide where they stand. That's what they do, after all.

They could shoot Carlos themselves, or they could shoot Clayton to defend him. They could turn him over to Clayton, or strike a deal. Maybe they'll talk Clayton into the Faith himself. Don't assume anything, just set the situation, and make it as juicy as you can. The above situation is the juiciest, I think.

[TonyLB]

I don't think it will break the game.  On the contrary, I think the game will make minced-meat of your plan to preserve a central mystery in about five seconds flat.  As it stands, I'd be inclined (as a Dog) to just say "I'm going to convince Clayton that Carlos is innocent."  As GM you now get to say "Yes" or roll dice, but either way I intend to win, even if it means beating Clayton to a bloody pulp.  He goes away, Carlos gets married, end of problem.

I look at this description and I say "Where's the town?  Where's the progression of sin?  Where's the interconnection of Carlos's deed with the responses of other people in the Branch?"  I don't have that sense of one thing leading to another that can make people's sins seem reasonable and justified.  It's that intertwined history that makes judging a town so very involved and complicated.

[lin swimmer]

Right. As I've spent more time examining the characters in my head, the more I've realized that this isn't really an appropriate scenario to explore what I actually started this thread for. The question that I'm curious in discussing is whether or not anyone has built a situation for their Dogs to judge, but denied them their almost standard ability to get at the truth. I'm not talking about being a jerk GM and just whining and saying, "No, no stakes about that, ever!" but more about embracing ambiguity and uncertainty.

In the case of Br. Carlos, it occured to me that if he had really repented and joined the body of the Faith, then he probably wouldn't make many bones about being open in regard to his past. Hence, hard to have any real unanswerable questions.

Also, I'm curious about having an NPC who has a certain amount of iron in their convictions, making stake setting a bit more delicate, as there are certain things they just would never allow themselves to be swayed on. Take Clayton. I don't imagine that any words, no matter how elegant, would be able to convince him that he should just get back on his horse and split after riding all over creation for months looking for Carlos. Like the players would never let me set a stake of, "This NPC wants to convince you to get the hell out of town and forget what you saw here." It's just not happening. (This might just be me trying and failing to shake off my pre-conceived notions of how to GM something. My big goal as a GM right now is to get rid of all white hat/black hat distinctions, and have everyone be a shade of gray, as far as just likability)

The way that I've come up with towns is to spend some time coming up with the loose structure of the town's drama, then to use the sin progression ladder to flesh it out fully. It's probably slower than it would be if I just used Vincent's creation tools straight out of the box, but I enjoy having a bit of freedom in the initial brainstorming. But that's why you see no sin ladder signs at this stage of the concept.

Ryan Theodores

[Lance D. Allen]

Re: Clayton. He's got his convictions.. so that means he'll escalate?

::grins, and steeples his fingers:: Excellent.

If your Dogs do decide to go the route of convincing Clayton to ride away, I'd like to hear how it goes. With escalation, the most likely result is serious injury and/or death, but if that means the Dogs win the stakes, then the Dogs still win the stakes.

And as for me, as a player, I'm not totally sure I'd be totally against the Conflict of "Ya'll Dogs need to saddle up and ride out". It'd be tense, at the very least. And unless it involved all of the Dogs present, and they still lost, then all it would take to turn it around is another Dog initiating a conflict to change the convinced Dog's mind. Or hell, if all of the Dogs "get out of town and forget what they saw there", There's absolutely nothing saying they can't go back after a short hiatus, or even later on in the route, and deal with the real nastiness that emerged when they were convinced to abandon that branch to it's demons.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

The question that I'm curious in discussing is whether or not anyone has built a situation for their Dogs to judge, but denied them their almost standard ability to get at the truth. I'm not talking about being a jerk GM and just whining and saying, "No, no stakes about that, ever!" but more about embracing ambiguity and uncertainty.

Say yes or roll dice.

By which, I mean, when they stake, "I want him to tell us everything", he can tell them everything, or resist. The fact that it's his perspective is obvious.

But if you deny the players the ability to know what's going on, it didn't go on. It didn't happen. The game doesn't have facilities for making up a fiction that doesn't have to do with the story, and if it doesn't make itself clear, it doesn't have to do with it.