[DitV] Question about injury from non-physical fallout

[Trevis Martin]

My group was creating some more DitV characters last weekend and when running an initiatory confilct I had a character who had to 'take the blow' with 4 dice.  It was a non-physical conflict, just talking.  He was standing up to his freinds who were wanting to play a disrespectful prank on a teacher at the temple.  

Thing is when the conflict was over, he took his 1d6 trait of "Learned to stand up for my convictions"  Then he rolled the 4 fallout dice he took during the conflict...all of which came up as 4.  16 fallout in a non physical conflict and the rules say that counts a permanent injury.  I had him do the body dice thing and he didn't make it.

What puzzled us is how to describe how this happened.  Nothing but words had been exchanged and yet he is supposed to be injured.  Is this something I'm supposed to disregard in non-physical conflicts?  I have a sneaking suspiscion that the answer is no but I certainly wasn't sure what to do.

I just had him take the appropriate long term fallout and we dismissed the injury stuff b/c we couldn't figure out what to do.

Anyone help me out with this?

best

Trevis

[TonyLB]

Thing is when the conflict was over, he took his 1d6 trait of "Learned to stand up for my convictions"  Then he rolled the 4 fallout dice he took during the conflict...all of which came up as 4.  16 fallout in a non physical conflict

You take the sum of only the top two dice.  So that's 8.

[Trevis Martin]

D'oh!  My misread.  Thanks Tony.  That'll teach me.

best,

Trevis

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

But still, total amount or not ...

... is it so hard to imagine a permanent social injury? I mean, hell, we're role-players, and frankly, we're often surrounded by people who represent permanent social injury.

Best,
Ron (with much experience of explaining to gamers that in HeroQuest and Trollbabe, yes, words can hurt you)

[Brand_Robins]

Jebus Ron, you gotta warn us before you just out with the unvarnished truth like that....

And for the record, I agree. I can remember a half-dozen "word attacks" in my life that have left marks deep enough that I still get hot behind the ears remembering them a continent, decade, and foot of height away.

[Trevis Martin]

You're right Ron.  It's not so hard to imagine.  I think what confused me though is that the rule book talks specifically in terms of physical injury and medical treatment for fallout of that level.  I just sensed somthing was off and I couldn't figure it out.


Trevis

[Leningrad]

Hiya,

But still, total amount or not ...

... is it so hard to imagine a permanent social injury? I mean, hell, we're role-players, and frankly, we're often surrounded by people who represent permanent social injury.

Best,
Ron (with much experience of explaining to gamers that in HeroQuest and Trollbabe, yes, words can hurt you)

Good call, Ron.  Permanent social injuries are a good way to look at what's commonly regarded as "baggage".  I've certainly had my fair share of fallout.  *laugh*

[TonyLB]

Permanent social fallout makes perfect sense, and is a staple of the system.  My players have all said that a conflict where they fail to generate a trait through Long-Term fallout is a conflict where they did less than their best.

Social injuries would be a bit odd, since the only rules-effect of an injury that I recall is that you roll to see whether you're bleeding to death.  How bad of a tongue-lashing are you folks imagining here?

[Lance D. Allen]

Aye, but by the system, you get permanent "injury" (in terms of fallout traits) at level 8 or higher.. This can be social or otherwise, however you choose to interpret it on an individual basis.. You can nearly die (16+ fallout) and only take social fallout (heart drops by one, socially-oriented traits or relationships, etc.) or even gain social experience (from the beloved 1s).

12+ specifically does refer to actual physical damage. that 16 refers to serious physical damage. However you choose to define the fallout, you're still physically injured.

[Lxndr]

Well, in the system, you can get permanent fallout at 8 or higher (and I'll admit a part of me is a teensy bit sad that it's so rare for talking fallout to be permanent, but I suppose when rolling 7+ D4s it becomes more common, and you'll always be rolling at least 3 dice...).

But to be injured (i.e. needing medical attention and whatnot) seems to generally require more than just talking fallout (even if it's ceremonial fallout).

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Banging my head against the wall!

Dudes! How many movies have you seen in which a social or interactive trauma deprives the protagonist of being able to conduct certain physical acts? Or to carry out certain interactions?

And in which the person needs dedicated care and attention from someone in order to recover these capacities?

Romantic comedies are nearly predicated on this kind of injury for the male lead. What do you think The Wedding Singer is about, anyway?

Bullets and bleeding / abuse and withdrawing - the same damn things, in stories.

See the game Wuthering Heights and play it a few times; that'll do the job. "I failed to roll over my Despair! I shall nip off and overdose on laudanum now!"

("How can you take actual damage from a social injury," they ask. Mumble grumble kick the dog mumble ...)

Best,
Ron

[TonyLB]

Bullets and bleeding / abuse and withdrawing - the same damn things, in stories.

Yes, Ron, but not in this ruleset.

You seem to be using the term "injury" in a general way.  And in general I totally agree with you.  However the word "injury" has a specific, rules-defined, meaning in this context.

Are you, in fact, making a statement with regards to that specific rules-mechanic?  Because nobody's disagreeing with you about the other stuff.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Tony, my latest post specifically answers your question:

Social injuries would be a bit odd, since the only rules-effect of an injury that I recall is that you roll to see whether you're bleeding to death. How bad of a tongue-lashing are you folks imagining here?

My answer: no, social injuries are not odd at all.

You can take that answer and apply it to playing Dogs, using the current system, if the group wants to.

Now, if you don't want to, and if you want every escalation to be very literally about "no more talking, it's fists now," and then to "no more pummelling, it's guns now," then you can do that too.

Although in Dogs the rules cap non-escalated social injury at 8, which does not require medical attention, certain kinds of escalation from social to physical have been a source of confusion for many people in many posts and threads to date.

Start social, then escalate - take some physical damage, 12+ to 16+, whatever. More than one person has expressed all sorts of puzzlement about "how that could happen," especially when they'd like to preserve the social element of the interaction in the midst of the physical escalation.

Here you are, arguing with Maw Kettle, and she's supposed to whip out the shotgun and shoot you? Everyone in the game wants the escalation, but the actual gunfire is a little too much for anyone to swallow as a reasonable piece of the SIS. Well, what I'm describing preserves every detail of the rules, but solves this little imaginative hitch.

Best,
Ron

[TonyLB]

Ahhh... I think I get you.  Let me recap, so I can be more sure.

You're pointing out that changing the rule to allow for social injury (implicitly "unto death") would not be "odd" in any global sense, it would just make for a different (but still perfectly acceptable) feel to the way the world works.  A different rule for a different intended result.

I've been saying that allowing for social injury unto death would be "odd" in relation to the rest of the color of the system, which isn't (to my mind) a "nip off and drink laudanum now" sort of setting as a rule.

We've been hearing each other say different things:  I heard you saying "social injury unto death totally belongs in Dogs as written" and you heard me saying "you cannot play a game with social injury unto death".


Have I just about figured out both sides of what's being said?

If so, I'll agree with you that changing the rules that way would make for an interesting game.  I'd go further and say that you might want to add some explicit rules for how "social injuries" hemmorhage into sin, and thereby into social attacks on other characters.  And then you can reinterpret the town creation rules on that basis:  Someone made an attack, someone else got wounded which bred more attacks, and now the whole town is bleeding to death in their souls.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Nope, I'm not talking about changing the rules. I'm addressing a concern which has been raised about using the rules as written, and saying why it's not much of a concern after all.

To go back to Trevis' original post and the purpose of this thread, I think the whole difficulty for him and his group arose because they failed to apply the rules correctly - only read the top two dice for your Fallout. That's why he got a 16 instead of an 8.

Question raised, solution (provided by you), and it's over in three posts, counting Trevis' thanks to you.

All of my responses in this thread have not been challenging that exchange. Instead, I've been responding to some secondary commentary in both your and Trevis' posts which have expressed potential puzzlement about how social injury could actually do damage. These secondary comments are 100% in line with other threads to date (many by Lance) which had a little difficulty in justifying escalation from social to physical during play.

My responses should be helpful in terms of this secondary or "shadow" discussion that seems to accompany the primary one. It is not intended to challenge or modify the primary discussion issue, which was solved by you, very straightforwardly. The shadowy one is still wriggling.

Therefore, again, I am not proposing any change to the rules. I am not challenging your excellent and clear response to Trevis' question. There is no need to defend either that response or the rules-set itself.

Best,
Ron