[DitV] The Township of Canton

[Lxndr]

The wrong term for what I was trying to refer to, apparently. which is one of them conflicts vs 4d6 + Demonic Influence instead of vs other specified individuals who have their own traits and such.  I've been thinking of that in my head as a "generic conflict."  Is there a beter term?  

So Tim, why should a PC be allowed to escalate in a geeric conflict?  Is escalation really meaningful in a situation where the opposition is stymied from escalating?

Also, any thoughts on my other question - do Raises and Sees in standard (non-generic conflicts) have to take the format of "action on the part of opponent", or can they also be incidental/environmental effects.  "Ha!" the guy you shoot says in a See, "the sun got in your eyes, and you missed me."  Now, the guy didn't do anything to cause the sun to get in your eyes, but that seems an acceptable See to me.  Am I missing something?

[lumpley]

Hey Alexander!

When you're rolling 4d6+Demonic Influence, you can't Escalate, but anybody else in the conflict can - if they can. Meaning, if they can make a valid Raise that newly brings in talking or punching or whatever.

Yes, that means that the PC is pretty much always going to win. You're rolling some d10s, though, so it's also pretty likely you'll inflict Fallout. That's how those conflicts work: you win, but at what cost?

do Raises and Sees in standard (non-generic conflicts) have to take the format of "action on the part of opponent", or can they also be incidental/environmental effects. "Ha!" the guy you shoot says in a See, "the sun got in your eyes, and you missed me." Now, the guy didn't do anything to cause the sun to get in your eyes, but that seems an acceptable See to me.

This is, by design, something your group will have to work out over the first session or couple sessions of play. What's an acceptible Raise? What's an acceptible See? It sounds like your group may be having a harder time working it out than others!

It doesn't matter so much what standard you arrive at. What matters more is that everyone knows what it is.

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Tim Alexander and I had a little private-message exchange that I thought might do well publicly.

Tim wrote to me, in reference to

Huh, I assumed that he meant a conflict that didn't have an NPC attached, so you're just rolling 4d6+demonic influence. If not, you may have hit on a big deal.

And I responded,

Yeah, I think it's a big deal. I think the group is still struggling with the basic idea of conflict, and I'm kind of annoyed that no one has picked up on the key difference between the two sentences I provided.

And he then said,

I think it's a catch 22 though, if you don't get conflicts you don't see much difference between the two sentences. It's the opposite effect of what you detail later in the post, that in your group sentence one would be assumed to relate the sort of conflict expansion that's explicit in sentence two. In a group that isn't getting it then sentence two just looks like color on sentence one.

There you go. Alexander Cherry's reply shows that I was wrong and Tim was right about what "generic conflict" meant (although I think "demonic conflict" would be the best term). But I do think the point about understanding task-announcement vs. conflict-announcement regardless of verbiage is important.

Best,
Ron

[Lance D. Allen]

Hey Alexander!

When you're rolling 4d6+Demonic Influence, you can't Escalate, but anybody else in the conflict can - if they can. Meaning, if they can make a valid Raise that newly brings in talking or punching or whatever.

Yes, that means that the PC is pretty much always going to win. You're rolling some d10s, though, so it's also pretty likely you'll inflict Fallout. That's how those conflicts work: you win, but at what cost?

So does this mean that if there's an NPC loosely involved in the conflict, they can escalate using their own traits, or only that PCs involved can escalate?

Frex: Raven was preaching to the community as a whole, not singling out any one person with his sermon. Lx deemed, for flavor purposes, that Ebenezer Crane was part of the congregation. The conflict was just talking, originally. Can Ebenezer Crane escalate to fighting, and roll his body+will for the escalation? Or is Ebenezer more limited, perhaps only being able to use traits, or nothing at all to affect the conflict?

[Roger Eberhart]

You could use the rules for dealing with groups on page 84 and 85, rather than using the rules for generic conflicts. That would make more sense to me.

[Lxndr]

You could use the rules for dealing with groups on page 84 and 85, rather than using the rules for generic conflicts. That would make more sense to me.

"Each person gives the group +2d6 to its stats, divvy as you see fit."  A congregation of even 50 people handled using those rules used more dice than was in my bowl.  Unless that counts just the "notable" people in the group?

Still, for our purposes, the "generic" conflict sufficed.  It wasn't a group so much as a mob.  I do plan on taking advantage of them rules for future towns though.

Ron, I do see the differences between the two sentences, and I think our group in general did too.  We need to work a bit more on communicating the stakes of any given conflict, and what comprises a Raise/See, but knowing what the conflicts are seems to happen without too much trouble (though I hope we'll get better at that too, over time).

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Alex,

Glad to see you postin' again, hope the arm is doing better.

So Tim, why should a PC be allowed to escalate in a generic conflict?  Is escalation really meaningful in a situation where the opposition is stymied from escalating?

Vincent pretty much already covered this, but basically PCs can escalate here because well, that's the whole point. What are you willing to escalate for strikes right at the core of the game. The major conflicts are driven by the NPCs, but these intermediate conflicts are setting the stage. See, initially these conflicts are pretty straightforward, and you can get through them pretty much without escalating unless you roll poorly. As the town is revealed you're up against more demonic power and it becomes harder to achieve these intermediate goals. Moreover, the temptation to escalate is huge because the GM can't escalate back. It's a slippery slope though, because now suddenly you're knifing, and punching, shooting, and calling on the King your way through the towns, and are you really going to slow down once you come up against the corrupt Steward? So I see it as incredibly meaningful, because even if you know you can win it's at a very fine point.

Also, any thoughts on my other question - do Raises and Sees in standard (non-generic conflicts) have to take the format of "action on the part of opponent", or can they also be incidental/environmental effects.  "Ha!" the guy you shoot says in a See, "the sun got in your eyes, and you missed me."  Now, the guy didn't do anything to cause the sun to get in your eyes, but that seems an acceptable See to me.  Am I missing something?

In my games we use incidental stuff in sees, so this doesn't seem too off to me. That said, doing it this way certainly leaves more room to step on the toes of someone else's understanding of the SIS, or enter into deprotaganism. I'd be open to backing off, rewording, or adjusting if doing it this way is stepping on someone else's toes.

Does that make sense?

-Tim

[Lance D. Allen]

Deprotagonism.

Out of all the Forge jargon, that one intimidates me most. Probably because I thought I had a handle on it when I first came here, and was soundly disabused of many notions about it.

Hence, when Lx and I had this basic conversation, I never touched on it.

I am vehemently against the idea of incidental things in Raises and Sees. If I am beaten, I want to be beaten by my opponent, not because I stepped in a hole, or some other incidental thing. I want my defeat to be because my opponent got the better of me in ability, or just circumstance (ie, the dice). It just seems very, very disappointing to be beaten by a chance occurrence.

Likewise, I'd never use an incidental Raise or See against my opponent, for the same reason. I want it to be my victory, not something that couldn't have happened without a lucky fluke.

Yes, I'm totally aware that it is my victory, because it's my dice. But I want the narration to be that way, too. The fuzzy space between numbers and story... It's important.

If that's protagonism/deprotagonism, great.

Also, on a sideline.. I'm all for "incidental" Raises and Sees that suddenly happen about the same time a few d10s are rolled, if you catch my drift. I'd like the supernatural to stay subtle, but I want it to be there. The mix of supernatural Clinton describes in his games is precisely the sort of thing I want.

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Lance,

I hope this all becomes a productive conversation for you folks and not just muddying of the waters.

I am vehemently against the idea of incidental things in Raises and Sees. If I am beaten, I want to be beaten by my opponent, not because I stepped in a hole, or some other incidental thing. I want my defeat to be because my opponent got the better of me in ability, or just circumstance (ie, the dice). It just seems very, very disappointing to be beaten by a chance occurrence.

I don't have an easy time picturing an incidental raise (see below though,) so offhand I'd be somewhat surprised if someone raised with something that isn't the result of an action on the part of that side. Most of what you talk about though is stuff that really needs to get out in terms of how people are envisioning the way things take place. Like Vincent says this is pretty group dependent.

Likewise, I'd never use an incidental Raise or See against my opponent, for the same reason. I want it to be my victory, not something that couldn't have happened without a lucky fluke.

Yes, I'm totally aware that it is my victory, because it's my dice. But I want the narration to be that way, too. The fuzzy space between numbers and story... It's important.

Part of this may be character vision though. Can you see how useful incidental sees/raises might be for someone who's playing a Dog with traits like:

The King's lookin' out for me 2d6
I got the touch of angels 2d8
Damn I'm a lucky shit 2d6

In this case the sun coming out from behind a cloud and glinting into someone's eyes as a see could work perfectly with adding a trait. Would you still be opposed to that?

-Tim

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Lance,

I'm a little confused as to whether your statements apply to ...

1. How "a system" should work, in general

2. How Dogs should work, for everyone in a game you're playing with them

3. How your own character's actions/events should work, probably with the coooperation of everyone involved so their narrations work for your guy too

If it's #1, then I think it's a bit much of an expectation. I have lots of notions for ways that I think everyone should do things, but whaddaya gonna do?

If it's #2, then again, I suspect that you might be bringing in frustrations from previous games (usually GM fiat, which often makes use of stuff like unexpected gopher holes in tweaking NPC failure into success or PC success into failure)

If it's #3, then no biggie. All you'd have to do, in playing Dogs with me, is make some mention of this preference during character creation, and we'd all shrug and say "Cool," and move on.

Perhaps you were specific about which of #1-3 you are describing, but if so, I at least managed to miss it. Seems to me that Tim's question is hovering around this issue too.

Best,
Ron

[Tim Alexander]

Perhaps you were specific about which of #1-3 you are describing, but if so, I at least managed to miss it. Seems to me that Tim's question is hovering around this issue too.

Just a confirmation that yeah, this pretty much sums up what I'm wondering in a much more direct statement.

-Tim

[Lance D. Allen]

Ron,

Sorry, yeah. I'm talking personal preference, Ron. A bit of 2, but mostly 3. It would probably bother me to have incidental raises and sees used against someone else, but if it didn't bother them, I'd hold my tongue.

Tim,

I actually considered traits like that after posting my last post. Personally, I'd never pick up traits like that, or if I did, I'd never use them for incidental things. They'd be attached to personal actions where a little bit of luck helped too. It wouldn't bother me as much, either, because they would be the traits I'd chosen. It wouldn't be "incidental" It'd be supernatural ('cept for probably the lucky one) and I don't object to that. See my comment about the demons, above.

When I said I vehemently against it, I'm speaking from a very personal position. Lx asked my opinion on it, and at first I couldn't justify it at all. But if the rest of the group is cool with it, then I'd bite my tongue and cope. The fact is though, before Lx's question, I couldn't imagine WHY you'd want to do it that way. I still can't. If you're free to describe the specifics of what happens, why would you want something that's a result of your character's (or NPC's) abilities, which is what the dice represent, to be represented by some fluke?

I feel that I'm not being clear, but this isn't uncommon. Are you getting what I'm saying?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Lance,

I do see what you're saying. For plain old thought-food, though, consider that the dice "represent" whatever they are said to represent. In your character's case, they do represent the fictional character's fictional strength, wits, etc. In (say) my character's case, they represent "how stuff happens to me."

Perhaps the best way to look at the dice in Dogs is, how events go or even what they're about, relative to a given character. In that context, your statement that the dice must represent a character's abilities should be rejected. However, your preference that they do, for your character, becomes a viable option within the larger framework.

Best,
Ron

[Lance D. Allen]

I'm talking more mechanically when I mention what the dice represent.

You get dice according to your character's basic abilities as applied to a particular conflict, and various traits that also apply. In this sense, before you actually determine what each set of dice for Raises and Sees means, the dice represent the total ability your character can bring to bear on the situation.

Once you actually roll the dice, things become a bit more fluid, obviously. I don't expect you to only raise or see with one of the 2d8 for "Devil's Hand" (a trait I defined to be directly related to his abilities with guns) when he shoots. Still, though, it only feels right, to me, to use the dice to represent in a more general sense what they represented in the beginning; The character's ability.

Yes, I'm aware that my sim preferences are showing through. But it just doesn't seem right any other way, to me.

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Lance,

Preferences are cool. They're important, and sometimes they make for hairy arguments when they conflict. It's good to know about this stuff and get it out into the open and articulate it and wrangle if it needs wrangling.

The fact is though, before Lx's question, I couldn't imagine WHY you'd want to do it that way. I still can't. If you're free to describe the specifics of what happens, why would you want something that's a result of your character's (or NPC's) abilities, which is what the dice represent, to be represented by some fluke?

I feel that I'm not being clear, but this isn't uncommon. Are you getting what I'm saying?

Ron posted some stuff that sums this up really nicely, but basically I just see this as another tool in the arsenal. How you frame the actions of sees and raises can say all sorts of interesting things. Let's take a simple example of a Dog in a squaring off against Bad Sinner in the center of the town and there is all the normal contrived Western face-off stuff going on. They've been going back and forth and yelling and stuff and finally:

Bad Sinner raises, "I shoot the sumabitch."
Brother Dog sees, "Click, goes the gun, striking a dead round."
Brother Dog raises, "Brother Dog raises his gun against the Sinner and shoots him dead dead dead."

Holy Crap, what a cold fish! The guy was basically helpless, not part of some sort of fair fight, and Brother Dog just shoots him in cold blood. Nasty business. Also very different than the sort of thing that would come from other sees. Now, could you accomplish the same oomph with a see that was direct action? Sure, maybe, but why constrain yourself if everyone's on board with it?

Oh oh, and since you just posted as I'm previewing this you bring up a good point. In the case of raising or seeing with traits then you have to bring in the trait in the content of the see or raise, it's totally in the rules. This still means that in those traits I listed above I think incidentals are valid. When it comes to the other dice though, and the general pool that develops I'm not at all wedded to the idea that because I've got a bunch of agility that I'm actually agile. Think of it in the same way that "I'm the awesomest shot 1d4" means both 1)that you're an awesome shot, and 2)that it doesn't add much more effectiveness.

-Tim

-Tim