[DitV] Question about Escalation

[lumpley]

I think maybe a thing not in this conversation yet is: if you raise with violence, I'm less likely to take the blow, more likely to give, than if you raise with words. The temptation to use violence to solve your problems is still there, and still problematic, even if I'm the one who escalated.

-Vincent

[TonyLB]

So it's not meant to be a meaningful choice?  Escalating in a See is not meant to, for instance, say anything about the character or the situation?

[xenopulse]

Well...

I have the same issue as technocrat13 here. Vincent, when you say:

It's not abuse to escalate to gunfighting and then have all your raises be just talking.

That means: dogs can choose to never, ever shoot anyone, and they'll be just as effective. If I explain this to potential players, my fear is that they will win every fight with talking, simply to avoid having to resort to violence. Since the narration determines the fallout, there's just no need to ever inflict more than D4s on anyone. That kind of takes the punch out of every example in the book.

I gotta stop my brother from shooting the shopkeeper's wife. I have to escalate? Well, sure, since I just keep talking, I'm not really hurting him.

In reference to your latest essay, that means they can always take the easy way out. The thematic decision disappears. It's no longer "shoot your brother or let him shoot someone else."

Did I misunderstand something here?

[lumpley]

Tony, I have no idea what you're talking about.

If we're arguing and I start throwing punches, you're going to give or you're going to stay in the conflict. Which you choose, is meaningful.

You get dice so you can stay in the conflict, if that's what you choose to do.

-Vincent

[lumpley]

To escalate to shooting on a raise, you have to shoot someone.

To escalate to shooting on a see, you have to be shot at.

You escalate when you're losing an argument.

If your Dogs never lose an argument, they'll never shoot anyone.

-Vincent

[TonyLB]

What I was asking about was specifically the act of taking the dice.  Taking the dice is not meant to be meaningful.  Gotcha.

I'll try playing this.  It hasn't been the way I've played to date.  I'll have to see how the patterns evolve when they're actually in use before I can say more with any certainty.  Thanks for the clarifications!

[Darren Hill]

In reference to your latest essay, that means they can always take the easy way out. The thematic decision disappears. It's no longer "shoot your brother or let him shoot someone else."

Did I misunderstand something here?

This does actually appear to be the case, since the rulebook does show in examples that fallout is linked to narration. In one example, conflict has escalated to gunfighting, but the shooter punches someone and so does fighting fallout.

Even if you're shooting, you can say "I shoot the rope holding the sign above his head so it falls on him" or "I shoot the horse out from under him," or "I fire several shots at the ground at his feet, telling him to dance for me," etc. (inflicting, in order, Fighting, Physical, and either Social or Physical, I think.)

Once you start shooting, even if you are trying not to kill, your opponent will probably start shooting back - and he might not be so merciful. So the meaningful risk is still there.

[Brand_Robins]

In reference to your latest essay, that means they can always take the easy way out.

Where can I find said essay?

[lumpley]

Brand: it's here, a couple entries down.

-Vincent

[Brand_Robins]

Danke

[lumpley]

But why have an escalation mechanic when the game works just as well if no player ever escalates? I mean, the book tells you explicitly to escalate, escalate, escalate. If the players don't have to follow suit, that seems like it doesn't do a thing.

Christian, I can't figure out where you're getting this. Of course the players are going to escalate. They're going to escalate a lot. They're going to escalate whenever they're losing the argument - or else they're going to lose the argument.

And of course when their opponents start shooting they don't have to follow suit, but they're going to, all the time. They've got all kinds of dice invested in following suit; following suit is how they're going to stay in the conflict.

It's like you've taken what I said about your stat dice when you escalate on a see, and applied it willy-nilly to all the dice on your character sheet, whenever you use them. What gives?

-Vincent

[xenopulse]

Well, seeing that you took it from a different thread, I should point out that in that thread, the assumption was that if you have a lot of player characters teaming up, they don't need to escalate because they have an overwhelming amount of dice just from everyone talking. So in that scenario, you'd need to turn up the heat to make sure you have enough dice that they have to pull out their traits and escalation dice to stay in the conflict.

I guess that's its own thematic statement on teamwork :)

[lumpley]

Ah. I getcha.

Jeez, I'm cranky today. I'm'a try and chill.

-Vincent

[xenopulse]

I am sure it's exhausting to have all these discussions about your game, most of them being hypothetical, so... I promise now to only come back when I have half a dozen Dogs sessions under my belly :)

[Eric Provost]

Yeah.  I'm still confused.  That usually means I've missed a logical step somewhere in the middle.  If any of the following statements are incorrect, please correct me.

Assuming a one on one confrontation between two characters where the conflict began as Non-Physical...

The NPC draws and fires his gun at me.  I choose to narrate dodging the bullet.  I have now technically escalated to Gunfighting. (??)  I therefore roll my Will.

or...

The NPC throws a punch at me.  I narrate dodging the attack.  I have now technically escalated to Fighting. (??) I therefore roll my Body and Will.

In either scenario, it's kosher that I never narrate my Dog doing violence upon the NPC after said escalations.  Therefore, it is possible for me to gain all my Stats dice without ever doing any more than talking to the NPC.  Indeed, if all my Traits and Belongings are of a non-violent bend, then, as a Dog, I can pull all of my dice without ever having to so much as raise a fist to anyone.

If all those statements are correct... well then I think that sucks.  IMHO, if you can escalate to Fighting or Gunfighting without any possibility of lethal fallout, or even the idea that the Dog is willing to do harm to do the right thing, then the theme falls flat.  

And I totally disagree with the idea that a Dog would have to get those dice for game balance (which is what I believe Vincent had said in an earlier post).  Dogs are pretty well Uber compared to even a baddie sorcerer, I really don't think they need to get dice for doing something they really haven't done yet.  

Further, IMO, the lack of dice without violence is one of the draws of the game for me.  The challenge of trying to talk someone down from a gunfight without having to get violent in return.  In Dogs, without my Body or Will at my disposal, it is very possible for me to talk a gang of desperate gunfighters down without ever raising my hand to them.  Unlikely, but possible.  Make it easy on me to do it, and I care less to try.  It's just not as exciting.

I've been putting a lot of bank in some of your essay's recently Vincent.  Especially the one you title something like "A Small Thing About Suspense".  We know the Dogs are gonna win.  That's almost a given.  But now we seek to find what the Dogs are willing to go through to get their win.  Are they willing to kill?  Are they willing to inflict pain upon the Faithful?  As I see it, with the rules as you explain them now Vincent, the Dogs don't have to make that decision.  They will always win without ever having to raise their fists, much less draw a gun.

-Eric