Scattered Random Questions About DitV

[Lxndr]

1.  A reading of the text suggests that all participants in a conflict should be defined at the outset (and thus, no additional participants joining during the conflict).  Is that something I'm inferring incorrectly, or is that something actually there?  New participants seem to imbalance a conflict if they storm in halfway through with full dice.

2.  Medical attention.  You roll the healer's Acuity + the patient's Body.  Who rolls that - the patient or the healer?  Can you use traits from the healer, from the patient, or from both?  (Good at mendin', Quick Healer).  What's the level of Fallout (we did 6 siders)?  And finally, how in the world could one "escalate" this?

3.  "Needs medical attention or dies."  Related to #2, the first time we did this, we assumed that the guy fell unconscious.  But later we kind of expanded that.  How long do you consider between "hey, he needs medical attention" and "oh my, too late for medical attention."  Any particular # of scenes, actions, time-passed-in-game-world, or some other thing?  We had one guy lying in the rain for several scenes waiting for medical attention - it worked great for the story, but was that "too far"?  Can you be awake, needing medical attention, and still participate in conflicts?  (In our game, we said "yes").

Anyway.  Yeah.  Any insight into these questions, either from the designer or other players, would be nice.  Even if it's just anecdotal examples from your own games.

[lumpley]

Hey Alexander!

1. Define who's in the conflict when you define the stakes. No latecomers. If circumstances are such that people would barge into the middle of the conflict, a) play time games ("crunch time! all the Sees and Raises from now on have to happen in the instant between when you hear Thed's footsteps on the porch and when he throws open the door!"); b) let the original participants use the latecomers in Sees and Raises, as though the latecomers were improvised belongings.

As GM, you should suggest both every time, and go with whichever your group prefers at the moment.

2. The healer rolls and does the dice thing. Use applicable Traits from both. Fallout is all to the healer and will usually be d4s, I'd think, unless your patient hits you or something. Escalate if you can work it into your Sees and Raises, as always, case by case. It should be very easy to escalate to include the healer's Heart - really, you're just pretending that the healer's Body is the patient's.

3. No strict rules. As GM, you can call for a conflict where what's at stake is "does he get medical attention in time?" Certainly there's no mandated passing out or anything like that.

As GM, you're allowed to say "you pass out." If the player doesn't want the character to pass out, the player will respond with "no way. What's at stake is: do I pass out?" This is the rule for everything and it goes both ways!

-Vincent

[Lxndr]

1.  Sounds like I got it all right.  What I did was pretty much:  "Latecomers are improvised belongings until the current conflict is over; if you REALLY want to bring him in right now, you can give, then set some stakes for a follow-up conflict..."

(Which reminds me:  It feels, at the very least, inelegant, for a follow-up conflict to have the exact same stakes as the previous conflict.  I disallowed this in my last game, but is there anything in particular against it?  "I try to break down the door!" "Wham wham wham wham wham!" "Okay, the door was too good, I give.  Now, in the follow-up conflict, I try to break down the door!")

2&3:  Sounds like I got them right too, apart from the Fallout (and the first "you pass out" before we got the hang of things).  So, yay!

Thanks for the answers, Vincent.

[lumpley]

Which reminds me: It feels, at the very least, inelegant, for a follow-up conflict to have the exact same stakes as the previous conflict. I disallowed this in my last game, but is there anything in particular against it?

There sure is! The conflict resolves the stakes, and resolved is resolved. You absolutely must name new stakes.

-Vincent

[Lance D. Allen]

I think everything mentioned in these questions was handled well, personally. Allowing Malachi to toss a few traits in, and otherwise use him narratively in Sees and Raises worked well, and I don't think anyone minded.

"Needs Medical Attention" Is definitely something that should be handled on a case-by-case basic. When Malachi passed out, it created a need for action that wouldn't have come if he'd just staggered into the temple wounded. When Thad dragged himself through the rain with a shattered leg to call upon the power of the King of Life to heal Malachi, that was dramatically cool too.

AND.. Hey Vincent, in Lx's last question, the first conflict was between Raven and a loose demon. The stakes were "Do I capture the demon?". He ended up giving rather than taking possibly lethal fallout, and the followup conflict had Malachi joining in, with the stakes being "Do we destroy the demon?"

Is that different enough in your opinion?

We had a similar issue, come to think, in our first town. Raven was attempting to track down "Job Crane". When he gave, Thaddeus joined in, but I think we had the same stakes..

[Simon Kamber]

AND.. Hey Vincent, in Lx's last question, the first conflict was between Raven and a loose demon. The stakes were "Do I capture the demon?". He ended up giving rather than taking possibly lethal fallout, and the followup conflict had Malachi joining in, with the stakes being "Do we destroy the demon?"

How about "Do we destroy the demon together?". It would emphasize how this conflict is different than the previous one, and turn the focus of the conflict to the fact that now there's two dogs working together rather than just Raven alone. I see some potentially cool results coming from that conflict ("Together, we are stronger")

[Lance D. Allen]

Well, they were stronger. They destroyed the demon, killed the host, and only took 3d10 or so fallout apiece.

I need to stop teasing and get to the bloody Actual Play writeup..

[beingfrank]

Well, they were stronger. They destroyed the demon, killed the host, and only took 3d10 or so fallout apiece.

I need to stop teasing and get to the bloody Actual Play writeup..

Yes.  Yes you do.  Or I will send minions to ensure bad things happen to you.

[lumpley]

Yes! Changing the participants automatically changes the stakes - except when it doesn't. Not to worry, you'll be able to tell the difference.

Another handy approach, not a strict rule, is to have whoever lost the conflict choose whether there'll be a followup, but whoever won the conflict choose the followup's stakes:

"He gets away! You guys want to follow up?"
"You know we do!"
"Okay. What's at stake is, does he murder Sister Martha before you figure out where he went?"

-Vincent

[Lxndr]

Hey!  Another random question.

Two Dogs are in a conflict against a third party.  They do Fallout to aforementioned third party.  Due to the nature of the conflict, we don't care about the fallout to aforementioned third party, so they get the fallout dice to roll in the follow-up conflict.

Who, by tradition, gets said extra Fallout dice?  Dog #1?  Dog #2?  Split between both Dogs (how?)?  Tracked from which Dog caused which bit of Fallout (ok Johnny, you shot him, so here's the 3d10, and you Bob just talked to him, so here's the 5d4)? Rolled in a sort of central pot from which all Dogs can borrow for their raises and sees?  Other?

(The situation that actually happened in the game last time, with one Dog in one conflict then two in the next, worked easily - "hey, you were the one in the last conflict, here's his fallout dice.")

[lumpley]

The Fallout belongs to the NPC. Whoever's in the followup conflict gets it - the same PCs or a different mix, doesn't matter.

"Who inflicted it, rolls it" is fine.

"Divvy it evenly" is fine.

-Vincent