[DitV]Why must Escalation be met?

[sirogit]

Hello,

Just bought the Dogs in the Vineyard book and let me tell you I am 100% wowed. For starters its the first book that ever convinced me of the positive influence of religion, which is saying quite a bit. I'm also really digging the regular stuff I'm sure people gush over; Town creation, resoloution, etc etc.

One thing I don't quite understand is, why is it nessecary to meet the level of Escalation someone brings? I can imagine a lot of dramatic tension from a character trying to talk someone down and remain pacifistic while getting the shit beat out of them with a pipe.

I can see a lot of pros and cons for the rule but I'd like to hear what more expiereinced folks think.

[Tobias]

But you can - there's no need to follow the other's escalation.

Of course, you might get beat up. That's the nature of the beast.

[TonyLB]

My understanding is that it isn't necessary to meet their level of Escalation.  Do you see something in the rules that says it is?

If they're shooting at you, and you're talking to them, then they're taking d4 Fallout and you're taking d10.  And they've got a bunch more dice, from the Escalation, of course.  But other than that it's still a fair fight, legal under the rules.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

For starters its the first book that ever convinced me of the positive influence of religion, which is saying quite a bit.

Yow. Really? Cuz I think it addresses the topic of the rightness of the religion only in certain rarified circumstances.

- God has to actually, proveably, speak to those in power.
- Evil has to be a quantifiable, active force in the world.
- Evil must follow a particular clear path of decadence.
- The world outside the religion has to be evil.
- The religion must be the only true one.

There are positive influences of religion (in the abstract) in the real world, but I don't know if Dogs addresses them.

[sirogit]

Err, my reading of page 37 "Now I have to decide whether to give or to escalate", which, I mis-read several times thinking that it meant an ever-present rule about Escalation, when it now seems like it was in reference to the example alone. My face sure is red.

[lumpley]

You're not the first one to read that text that way! My fault.

-Vincent