[DitV] King's Perch

[coffeestain]

But how would you handle that in our conflict? I was trying to convince August to give up drinking and fighting. He tried to convince me those things weren't a bad thing when you are trying to woo a girl.

See, Taking The Blow:  "Well, I'm sure the good lord, in his wisdom and mercy, offers a little flexibility when a man's trying to win the heart of a woman, Br. August."

Raise:  "But you have to realize that your actions are putting your soul in danger, regardless of the circumstances, and I urge you to put aside those sinful temptations.  In the end, it's not worth the risk."

That's an example, based on my limited understanding of the context of the conflict, but I think it illustrates my view of Taking The Blow in a verbal challenge.  The question is: is your character willing to make that first statement?

[Warren]

coffeestain: That's a much better example than mine. And I agree with the intent behind it too.

[Rimke]

See, Taking The Blow: "Well, I'm sure the good lord, in his wisdom and mercy, offers a little flexibility when a man's trying to win the heart of a woman, Br. August."

Raise: "But you have to realize that your actions are putting your soul in danger, regardless of the circumstances, and I urge you to put aside those sinful temptations. In the end, it's not worth the risk."

That's an example, based on my limited understanding of the context of the conflict, but I think it illustrates my view of Taking The Blow in a verbal challenge. The question is: is your character willing to make that first statement?

I like the example. I understand a little better how it might work now. But still I don't see how it can be bad to Take that Blow, when the alternative is losing the conflict and give in on all points (including the one mentioned above) and even to a higher degree. (His stake being Brother Elijah accepting his behaviour and convincing him there's nothing wrong with it). If he loses the conflict it would mean nothing to have said that, since he Augustus would have convinced him nothing is wrong with drinking in this case.

[Warren]

Yeah, but as he took some Fallout dice (as he Took the Blow at least once) he is going to get a fallout trait from it. That could be something like "Drink is a temptation, 1d4" or similar. If it's short-term fallout then, well, after a while he shakes his head and gets on with his life. If Elijah had to Take the Blow a lot, then he may well end up rolling an 8 and getting that trait permanently. So Augustus may well have had some lasting effect on him through this discussion, although not entirely what he was hoping for.

[coffeestain]

Rimke,

I was less addressing situations where your only option is to Take The Blow and more addressing situations relevant to this:

Your comment on tactical escalation and picking the fallout dice you're going to get is an interesting one, though, and I hope Vincent will chime in - is this an example of using the system in too gamist a manner? (Only true if there's dissatisfaction with the resulting narration, of course).

If you want experience fallout, you'll take a blow when people are still talking - it's a "smart" thing to do. (As I understand it at this point).

The fear here seems to be that players will purposefully accept tons of fallout with no consequences in order to gain experience fallout.  My goal was to illustrate the fact that there are still consequences and that they can be even more dire than taking a gunshot wound.

The situation you're putting forth, specifically, I see as a prime example of a proper time to escalate.  Br. Elijah obviously fears for Br. August's eternal soul and is willing to beat that fear into Br. August, if necessary, for his own good.

[Rimke]

I gotta go, thank you all for your help!

I think I understand things better now. Still I hope I'll have the chance to play the game again and play a character with high physical traits and low verbal ones. I am curious how it would turn out.
I think some problems we had with our game were caused by not choosing a good stake btw. I'll be more careful with considering my stake and  think on forehand about how far I'm willing to go to achieve it. That would probably help with descisions about when to Take a Blow and when to escalate as well.

[Darren Hill]

But what is it worth to have him say he's sorry and will change his ways at gunpoint? I wouldn't have convinced him.
<snip>
Only in conversation it would be possible to achieve the stakes stated I think.

The winner of the stakes chooses how those stakes are resolved. He gets some narration rights to do this (this isn't as explicitly described as I'd have liked).
So, say, you win the argument at gunpoint - at that moment, you haven't convinced him. But you then get to describe how you both, say, lower your guns, look sheepishly at each other, and start talking again, and you also describe how your 'opponent' comes to your point of view.

That's why I wondered if it is possible to change the stakes halfway the conflict.

You can't change the stakes halfway through, but as winner, you can describe the outcome which takes into account your evolved view of how the stakes have developed.
If you have an argument to persuade a brother to give up fighting, and fighting occurs, you can choose (if you want) to state that the brother walks away thinking that violence is right under certain principled situations.
It's up to you, if you win, whether you want to have a total victory, or describe a less than perfect victory.
That would allow you (or you foe) to resolve the conflict like so:

Elijah's stake could become: forcing him to promisse never to do such things again. (Not as good as convincing him his actions were wrong, but the next best thing probably.) Augustus stake could become: leaving the room, not listening anymore to Elijah and not promissing anything either. (Which was what he did in our game).

[Lance D. Allen]

A few points specifically dealing with rules:

First, determining your stakes well are utterly vital. Anyone at the table has the ability to call bullshit on stakes that seem inadequate, over-stated, or otherwise questionable. The GM per se has no ability to say no, but as a player he has that same right. Also, it seemed to me at least that this:

I was trying to convince August to give up drinking and fighting. He tried to convince me those things weren't a bad thing when you are trying to woo a girl.

is bordering on a dual-stake conflict. At a second look, the two goals are pretty close to being opposites, but it's generally better to have, as previously advised, a simple single line goal as the stakes. "Do I get August to give up drinking and fighting?" is good because it doesn't overly constrict what methods are available for narration.

Another point: So long as you have traits you can reasonably bring into the conflict and/or are willing to escalate, you CANNOT be forced to give. If I narrate "I knock you out" and that would win the conflict "For instance, the stakes are "Do I subdue you?" then I cannot narrate that, because if you have to take the blow, then the stakes are won.

Finally, I think coffeestain's comment about taking the blow in a talking conflict is that it's a bit more difficult to narrate because you have to concede some particular point without conceding the stakes. It's not that it's any worse mechanically, it's just typically a bit more complicated to narrate. IMO, though, it's also a lot more fun.

[lumpley]

...I hope Vincent will chime in...

I didn't, but I've been following along and I think you've done fine without me.

Particularly, I think that what you've got here are first-session issues. If you were to play a second session you'd sort them out naturally; by a third, you'd be all set. Part of the GM's job in the first couple of sessions is to figure out, mostly by observation, the group's standards for raising, seeing, invoking traits, valid stakes, etc.

The thing to observe in play, by the way, isn't what the group's doing, but instead who's dissatisfied with what the group's doing. The player who shakes her head and uses withdrawing body language in response to someone else's raise, or who's like "that's weak" when someone reaches for dice - that's the player whose lead to follow. Everyone's raises etc. should come to meet the most critical player's standards. As GM, it's your special responsibility to pay attention, figure out what those standards are, and make sure the group (overall) lives up to them.

A one-shot is going to raise the issues, but you get no second and third session to work them out.

-Vincent

[Lance D. Allen]

The thing to observe in play, by the way, isn't what the group's doing, but instead who's dissatisfied with what the group's doing. The player who shakes her head and uses withdrawing body language in response to someone else's raise, or who's like "that's weak" when someone reaches for dice - that's the player whose lead to follow. Everyone's raises etc. should come to meet the most critical player's standards. As GM, it's your special responsibility to pay attention, figure out what those standards are, and make sure the group (overall) lives up to them.

That's some first rate advice there, Vincent.. the sort of thing that should be obvious, but usually isn't. You should write a book or something.

I mean, another one.

[Tobias]

Tx for chiming in Vincent. I agree - these are first-session issues.

The comment on 'work for the least satisfied' is gold. (Assuming no irrepairable dysfunction - which there wasn't).

Hmmm.... I'm starting to get interested in running this group, this story again. Good stuff.

[Remko]

Tx for chiming in Vincent. I agree - these are first-session issues.

The comment on 'work for the least satisfied' is gold. (Assuming no irrepairable dysfunction - which there wasn't).

Hmmm.... I'm starting to get interested in running this group, this story again. Good stuff.

Heej, no problem, I'm always in :D