[DitV] Re-entering a conflict or entering late.

[Hello Sailor]

Let's say that August, Bartholemew, and Cuthbert are the Dogs. Damaris is August's pretty and intelligent (high Heart and Acuity) older sister, who's become a sorcerer. Edwin is Damaris' husband. Murder has happened, so the demonic influence is high.

The Dogs suspect Damaris has some minor involvement in the town's problems, but are about to be blind-sided by just how deep her involvement is.

August and Bartholemew are "just talking," trying to get the truth of things from Damaris, while Cuthbert has gone out into the fields to speak with Edwin while he chops wood to see if he's noticed anything suspicious.

With her high stats, Damaris is handily defeating the two Dogs in verbal sparring and they have to escalate or give. Bartholemew, not wanting to rough up August's sister, gives. August escalates to fist-fighting, determined to beat the truth out of her. Rough-housing occurs, with Damaris now coming out on the losing end. Damaris escalates by using demonic influence, becoming possessed, and grabbing a pistol she keeps nearby. Several large dice hit the table.

Bartholemew wasn't prepared to escalate before, but he is now. He draws on Damaris. What does he do as far as mechanics go?

Cuthbert and Edwin hear shots ring out from the house and they both decide their "just talking" conflict is less important than whatever's going on back there. They run to the house and join the conflict. Cuthbert also draws on Damaris, while Edwin (lacking a gun) becomes possessed and brings his axe to bear. What do they do as far as mechanics go?

[ScottM]

I'm very interested in the response, since I had similar issues in my last session. Plus your situation sounds interesting all by itself.
--Scott

[lumpley]

Yay! Rules question.

If you're in the conflict, you're in the conflict. You've rolled dice.

If you're in the conflict, when it's your Raise, you can either Raise or Give. You can't pass, there's no such monkey. If your character has no Raise "just now," you gotta Give and take your dice off the table.

If you're not in the conflict - because you never were in it or because you Gave - you're not in the conflict. You can't roll dice.

If you're losing a conflict and need backup from your friends - Give. Then call for a followup conflict and get them to be in it. Yes, you will lose what's at stake, and you'll have to come up with new stakes for the followup conflict. That's life.

So:

Bartholemew, not wanting to rough up August's sister, gives. ...Bartholemew wasn't prepared to escalate before, but he is now. He draws on Damaris. What does he do as far as mechanics go?

He sits on his hands until the conflict's over. He Gave, he's out.

Cuthbert and Edwin hear shots ring out from the house and they both decide their "just talking" conflict is less important than whatever's going on back there. They run to the house and join the conflict. Cuthbert also draws on Damaris, while Edwin (lacking a gun) becomes possessed and brings his axe to bear. What do they do as far as mechanics go?

Same thing.

To make this work in play, you need to do two things. First, you need every player to know it. "You can't join a conflict already underway. If you drop out of a conflict but it continues, you can't rejoin."

Second, you need to exploit the mechanics' time flexibility. You need to stop thinking of a Raise-See exchange as a combat round or whatever - it can happen in as much or as little game-world time as you need it to.

It might go like this:

Cuthbert says, "shots! I run around the house, drawing my gun."

Bartholomew says, "holy-! I draw my gun after all!"

You say, "okay, August - the rest of your conflict with Damaris has to play out in the split second before Cuthbert gets here and Bartholomew starts shooting. Go!"

Frankly, if August has a brain in his head he'll Give at once and launch the obvious follow-up conflict: "she's possessed! Hold her down!"

And Scott, reading your writeup - you gotta say what's at stake before you roll dice, and mean it, and stick to it. If you play loose and wiggly with what's at stake, no wonder you're having wonky dice probs.

-Vincent

[Doug Ruff]

You say, "okay, August - the rest of your conflict with Damaris has to play out in the split second before Cuthbert gets here and Bartholomew starts shooting. Go!"

Do you also say "okay, Cuthbert - your conflict with Edwin has to play out before you hear the shots and dive into the house"?

And does that mean that you allow Cuthbert enough time for the argument to be played out to the end, or that Cuthbert has to decide whether to Give, or to miss out on the fight?

And if Cuthbert does have to decide, and he chooses not to Give, do you then decide whether or not Edwin Gives (allowing both characters to enter the house) or stands his ground?

Thanks,

Doug

[lumpley]

Doug, yeah, in theory I guess. I never, ever, ever try to play out two conflicts at the same time. In my game, what happens is Cuthbert and Edwin haven't started their conflict yet, for whatever reason makes sense.

We might go back after the big conflict, like "...okay, and while all that was going on, Cuthbert, you're grilling Edwin?" But then of course we'll know how the big one turned out and what constraints we need to abide by.

-Vincent

[Hello Sailor]

Ah, I get it now. The original conflict with Damaris was "Do the Dogs get the truth from her?" Damaris escalating to gunfire and demonic stuff is just a strong vote for "no," where the fallout could kill August.

Bart, Cuthbert, and Edwin are starting what should be a follow-up of that conflict: "Does Damaris get gunned down?" The Dogs want "yes" while Edwin, Damaris, and possibly August* want "no."

* August Skywalker and Damaris Vader: "There's still good in her, I can feel it."

[lumpley]

Exactly!

-Vincent

[DevP]

Doug, yeah, in theory I guess. I never, ever, ever try to play out two conflicts at the same time. In my game, what happens is Cuthbert and Edwin haven't started their conflict yet, for whatever reason makes sense.

It seemed in my experience that cutting between scenes was actually helpful, and this specific circumstance the concurrency between the two seems right. Would concurrency work if you were flexible about the time (i.e. using the time flexibility in Raises) and firm about the Stakes?

Also, looking at these examples: if the Stakes are "Does Danaris tell the truth", is getting gunned down not possible because it's not on the stakes, or is that a possible escalation from the Fallout? And, in the followup content with stakes of "Does Danaris get gunned down", is that resolved in the Fallout that occurs, or in regards to which side Gives first?

[lumpley]

It seemed in my experience that cutting between scenes was actually helpful, and this specific circumstance the concurrency between the two seems right.

I strongly recommend cutting between scenes, but I do it between conflicts. You're like, "oh man I followup SO HARD!" and I'm like, "yes! But meanwhile over here with Mitch..."

If you all wanna try managing the dice for concurrent conflicts, be my guest! Write here and tell us all how it works out. My personal brain is just too small.

Also, looking at these examples: if the Stakes are "Does Danaris tell the truth", is getting gunned down not possible because it's not on the stakes, or is that a possible escalation from the Fallout? And, in the followup content with stakes of "Does Danaris get gunned down", is that resolved in the Fallout that occurs, or in regards to which side Gives first?

"What's at stake" is what the winner of the conflict gets. Fallout is what everybody is risking. Don't ever mix them up or fuzzy the line between them.

If what's at stake is "does Damaris tell the truth?" and it escalates to shooting and somebody takes a ton of gunshot Fallout, yeah, maybe they got gunned down. (The taker of the Fallout gets to decide, remember.)

If what's at stake is "does Damaris get gunned down?" then same thing. If Damaris loses the conflict without ever taking Fallout, she still gets gunned down. If she wins the conflict but takes a ton of Fallout, she didn't get gunned down - whatever "gunned down" means, she's not obligated to go along with it. Even if the Fallout kills her. Deadly Fallout allows you a whole scene before you have to die. During that scene she can inflict all kinds of horrors or make all kinds of peace or do whatever it is that being gunned down would have prevented her from doing.

-Vincent

Does Damaris