[DitV] Are NPCs like Safes?

[Jason Newquist]

You know the clue-in-the-safe  example Vincent uses when he's talking about Task Resolution vs. Conflict Resolution, where the PCs are trying to find the clue, and it doesn't matter if the GM thought it was in the safe or not because, under CR, if the player wins the conflict, he *gets the clue from the safe*?  Well, are NPCs like safes?

Let me explain...

What if, in writing up your town, you come to believe that only the people who are forming a False Priesthood know about it.  And you've enumerated who they are: the Steward's wife and two other women in some kinda female cult thing.  Trite example, but work with me.  :)  Now, suppose the PCs have chosen someone that, for whatever reason, really ought NOT know what's up (like, a man), and they eagerly lay some stakes down for a conflict: "Conflict!  Do we beat find the clue [about the False Priesthood] from this guy?"

Is this the *exact same situation* as the safe, or do your GM's notes about who-knows-what in the town trump this nascent conflict, and thereby prevent a conflict ever coming up in the first place?  Is the GM saying, "Well, I'm going to have to rework some details, but let's roll dice!"  or is he, "I am saying yes to you - no need to roll dice.  The guy just doesn't know."

If the former is true, the PCs can walk up to anyone and get anything out of them, and makes setting up secret-y stuff in towns hard.  If the latter is true, players can use calling for conflicts as a litmus test to determine who knows what.  The minute we launch into an actual conflict, they have their guy!

Hmm. What am I missing?

[Bankuei]

Hi Jason,

Conflicts only occur when something is... well, in conflict.  "Can we find a clue from X?" wouldn't apply if there's no clue to be found.  There is no conflict.

That aside, I can't imagine why any NPC would show up that:

1) Don't know nothing about nothing (they gotta know something, about some piece of dirt.  Maybe not the one you thought, but there's something)

2) Doesn't have an opinion, and an interest for or against whatever dirt they do know

3) Doesn't have a bent on either helping the Dogs, using the Dogs, or getting the Dogs to leave.

Consider a TV show, extras show up, but they don't get serious screen time unless they have something important to do with the plot (at which point, they're not an extra...).  Likewise, you're not going to be sending up NPCs who don't matter.  It's not like a videogame where players have to wander to each person and talk to them to find the people who matter.  

Just scene frame them stumbling into someone who knows something, and gives away that they know, either by choice("It's my sister, you see...") or accident ("Mommy said to never show anyone her secret book...").

Chris

[Jason Newquist]

Just scene frame them stumbling into someone who knows something, and gives away that they know, either by choice("It's my sister, you see...") or accident ("Mommy said to never show anyone her secret book...").

So, get a read on their intentions, and move into a scene which delivers.  Don't let the traditional "investigation game" take over.

Damn, that's a hard habit to break.  :)

-Jason

[Bankuei]

Hi Jason,

You don't need to get a read on any intentions whatsoever.  

The whole point of Dogs is to step into shit.

That's the Dogs job- cleanup.  That's the whole game right there.  That's like having D&D and making it hard for the players work to get to monsters- you're missing the point of the game.

The GM's job is to throw shit(the drama of the town) at the Dogs and let'em react.  It's like all those horrible reality TV shows, except the players get the satisfaction of being able to pull a gun out and handle the problem like it ought to be done.  And it's your job to give them problems that need some serious handling.

You want to push them so hard that they have to make some ugly choices.  Sometimes even choices they'd wish they didn't do.  It doesn't seem like it would be fun, except unlike real life there is no consequences when you walk away from the table.

You don't hide the problem, you throw it at them.  And then you throw the other part of it.  And then another problem that's linked into it.  And you keep throwing until all the town's drama is there, in a horrible, horrible Jerry Springer Tarot deck layout.

Enjoy :)

Chris

[Lance D. Allen]

The investigation game does seem to be a hard habit to break, but it's as much a player problem as a GM problem. As we began both towns so far, we roll into town, talk to the Steward to get an idea of what's going on, then split up to go lookin' for dirt. We tend to set up our own conflicts as information finding conflicts.

As a GM, you're gonna have to break your own habits, and keep from responding to the players' habits, too.

[TonyLB]

I think the "What do characters want from the Dogs?" questions do a great job at defusing this behavior.  

I make sure that every character who wants the Dogs to do something has a world-view in which what they want is the only reasonable thing.  Their first priority, the moment they see a Dog, is to trot out all of the facts that they view as evidence for their world-view.

In my experience, players react not by saying "Yawn... the GM is spoonfeeding us information", but rather by saying "Land o' Goshen!  We can't go anywhere in this town without someone button-holing us to try to convince us of something!"  They get all the information they need almost as a side-note.

[Jason Newquist]

Thanks, folks.

I think the cure for what ails me is actual play.  My habit of needing to second-guess everything the PCs do to derail the GM-plot (in traditional games) has turned into second guessing everything the PLAYERS (me included) might do to cause dysfunction.

I shall report back after chargen.

-Jason

[Valamir]

Good Luck.

The only additional pointers I'd add to the above are these:

1)  "What do you do?"  Is about the worst question a GM can ever use to spur action...at least among players used to traditional games where the appropriate answer is always some variation of "wait to see what the GM throws at us next and try to avoid being ambushed by it".

Instead try questions like "what are you going to accomplish next?"  Blow over answers like "I go to the general store to buy more ammunition" and hit them back with "what are you trying to accomplish by going to the store?".  If they still respond with "I want to buy some ammo"  then come back with "Fine you do" and turn to the next player.  It will probably be rough at first but what you are trying to acheive is drive home the idea that players get zero spotlight time for mundane trivium and maximum spotlight time for making things happen.  Don't ever let shopping trips or drinking at the tavern (what would the Dogs equivelent be...a prayer meeting?) become the center of attention without making sure the players are there to actually accomplish something.


2) You'll have created a pretty cool town.  Show it off.  Don't hide the best parts under a basket, only to be revealed if the players look in the right place.  And don't railroad them to where you want them look, either.  Instead bring the town to them.  Dogs makes it easy.  The characters are celebrities!  They don't wander around in Technicolor Dream Coats for nothing.  They wear those coats so that every where they go EVERYONE knows they're a Dog.  Today fans might accost a celebrity for their autograph.  In Dogs, towns folks will accost them for what they represent...outside authority capable of irrevocably changing the balance of power in the community.


3) That takes you right back to the "what does so and so want from the Dogs" questions.  Every town character has a position of some sort in the community...that makes each and every one of them a part of the local power balance.  The Dogs represent one of two things:  an opportunity to improve their station in the town, or a threat to their station in the town.  If you ever get stuck or start floundering for what to do next, or feel play start to slip into old habits...go down that list of questions and bring the town to the Dogs.  

Each and every NPC has a personal agenda relative to the Dogs...they want the Dogs help (to do what they think should be done)...or they want to help the Dogs (to do what they think should be done)...or they want the Dogs to get lost (so they can get back to doing what they think should be done).   Dogs never have to investigate to find out what the NPCs think should be done.  The NPCs will come to them and try to get them to do it.

[Jason Newquist]

Ralph, thank you for that distilled advice.  Processing.

-Jason