[DitV] "Cool Applications Of Conflict Resolution"

[Darren Hill]

I have a couple of questions about this section of the rulebook (see subject title).

First an unrelated question, expect that it is a potentially cool application of conflict resolution.
As parts of raises and sees, players have the ability to declare facts about the situation (it's now two days later, etc.).
Can you use this to bring in Relationships?

Say, in Silver Creek, you met Brother Billiam who is good with a rifle.
Later in Black Creek, you are fighting a sinner and raise with "and just then, Brother Billiam comes into view and shoots at you" ???
It goes without saying that if this is possible, someone would have to explain what he is doing here - but that's easy sorted. The big question is, can players do this?

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Why wouldn't they be able to do this?

[Darren Hill]

In the rulebook (pg52, or 56 in PDF), an example conflict is WHO DRAWS FIRST. It gives the example raises you'd expect, and the traits used are appropriate for gunfighting.
But what happens when the gun eventually comes out? Is that the end of the conflict and you start a new one with whatever fallout/experience you may have suffered/gained? For some reason that doesn't feel right - I'd want the winner of the who goes first to have a bigger momentary edge. (There's the rule about carrying fallout dice over to the next conflict which is perfect for this, but that only applies to NPCs.

Also, are you suffering non-physical fallout through the entire conflict, which is my impression?

I'll probably have a couple more questions about this section of the rulebook, but I have to go out now.

[Darren Hill]

Why wouldn't they be able to do this?

It just hadn't occurred to me that they might be able to until a few minutes ago. A light bulb moment.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Is that the end of the conflict and you start a new one with whatever fallout/experience you may have suffered/gained?

Yeah, a followup conflict. PCs take fallout, NPCs give fallout dice to PCs. Most likely, the PC's fallout is temporary, stuff like "I'm afraid of Bro. Peter's steel gaze".

For some reason that doesn't feel right - I'd want the winner of the who goes first to have a bigger momentary edge.

So give and take lots of fallout.

(There's the rule about carrying fallout dice over to the next conflict which is perfect for this, but that only applies to NPCs.

PCs take fallout.

Also, are you suffering non-physical fallout through the entire conflict, which is my impression?

Probably. That's the point, isn't it?

I'll probably have a couple more questions about this section of the rulebook, but I have to go out now.

Note that the answers to all these questions you're asking is "do what's appropriate and simplest."

[Darren Hill]

(There's the rule about carrying fallout dice over to the next conflict which is perfect for this, but that only applies to NPCs.

PCs take fallout.

I was referring to the rule where, say, your opponent has taken 6d6+4d4 fallout, so in the followup conflict you give the PCs an extra 6d6+4d4 to roll into their pool.

Note that the answers to all these questions you're asking is "do what's appropriate and simplest."

What's appropriate isn't always obvious to me. :)

[lumpley]

In that sort of Western, "who draws first" generally means "who kills whom." Thus the followup conflict should probably be "I'm shot, do I survive or die?"

-Vincent

[Blankshield]

I have a couple of questions about this section of the rulebook (see subject title).

First an unrelated question, expect that it is a potentially cool application of conflict resolution.
As parts of raises and sees, players have the ability to declare facts about the situation (it's now two days later, etc.).
Can you use this to bring in Relationships?

Say, in Silver Creek, you met Brother Billiam who is good with a rifle.
Later in Black Creek, you are fighting a sinner and raise with "and just then, Brother Billiam comes into view and shoots at you" ???
It goes without saying that if this is possible, someone would have to explain what he is doing here - but that's easy sorted. The big question is, can players do this?

Seems perfectly fine to me - except that you can't bring a relationship in as part of a see or raise.  Relationships come in at the beginning of a conflict only, when the relationship is either at stake (to some degree) or on the other side of the conflict.

James

[Darren Hill]

Seems perfectly fine to me - except that you can't bring a relationship in as part of a see or raise.  Relationships come in at the beginning of a conflict only, when the relationship is either at stake (to some degree) or on the other side of the conflict.

James

I didn't mention using the relationship dice - just making a raise or see and mentioning the relationship arrives. It's then available for future conflicts.
Having said that, I think there is a good case for using relationships just like traits - incorporate them as part of a raise or see - in exactly one case: when that relationship comes to your active aid in a conflict. (It's listed as the third way to use a relationship.)
If the relationship is declared as part of the stakes, it gets rolled at the start. But if it's not part of the stakes, you don't necessarily know whether it's going to come to your aid during the conflict. That first raise by your foe may put you in a situation where the relationship isn't available, and it hasn't been used yet.
So the "comes to your active aid" clause seems more natural to be treated just like a raise. Of course, once it is introduced it is at risk - since an enemy raise can threaten it.

That sounds reasonable to me, hopefully I'm not off-base.

[Darren Hill]

In that sort of Western, "who draws first" generally means "who kills whom." Thus the followup conflict should probably be "I'm shot, do I survive or die?"

-Vincent

Hmm, yes, that sounds good. Yes, if that consequence was declared as part of the stakes, that's very good. [edited to add: that last sentence was a reminder to self - I've just come in from playing a Dogs session and I forgot to make crystal clear the consequences of the contest at the start. I imagine that's fairly common teething troubles.]

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Seems perfectly fine to me - except that you can't bring a relationship in as part of a see or raise.  Relationships come in at the beginning of a conflict only, when the relationship is either at stake (to some degree) or on the other side of the conflict.

How you figger? "During the gunfight, Sister Philomena runs out in the street <grabs dice>"

[sirogit]

Here's what I believe are the methods of bringing in new Relationship into a conflict:

A) You buy a relationship during the conflict that would've applied at the begining.

B) The character moves to a place that they have  Relationship dice in.

C) The character commits or resists a Sin that is relevant to the conflict.

D) Something about the nature of the Stakes changes to make the thing at stake.

I would be pretty cautious about D, though it occured in the last game I played in a rather smooth way: Dog is trying to raise the spirits of the people towards a prospective Steward, his opponenent begins trying to convince the people that the Dogs shouldn't be listened to, so "The Dogs" becomes very much part of the Stake after his opponent's raise.

I wouldn't add in relationship dice for allies or opponenets unless they were rolling full dice, which means they'd have to enter at the start of the conflict.

[Darren Hill]

That's a nice list, sirogit. I'm wondering why you excluded:

e) A relationship comes to your active aid during a conflict.

This one is explicitly stated in the rulebook.

[Darren Hill]

I know I had two other questions prompted by the Cool Apps chapter, but I'm blanking on what they were. I hate it when that happens. But I noticed something about the powers of the Possessed:

- Viciousness: The possessed person inflicts Fallout one die size higher than usual. Punches do damage like blunt weapons, blunt weapons like edged weapons, edged weapons like guns. It still maxes at d10.

Damage doesn't work as described here. Does non-physical fallout get promoted to physical (which is very odd to describe)?
Physical -> weapons -> guns seems fairly safe though.

[Eric Provost]

Damage doesn't work as described here. Does non-physical fallout get promoted to physical (which is very odd to describe)?

Works pretty well for my group.

I recently used the Non-Physical = d6 fallout due to Viciousness in Silent River.  When the Singer sorceress came to attack the party, her singing voice did d6 fallout.  The players whos dogs took fallout narrated falling backwards from the song and being hurt on the fall.  That was their preferance and I dug it.  I would have been just as happy if they'd narrated sudden bruises or broken blood vessels from the song.  All would have been kewl.

I suppose it all depends on how high you turn the supernatural dials.  Can a word cause bruises in your game?  Certainly a vicious shout could startle someone into loosing their balance and falling to hurt themselves.  

But hey, maybe that's just my group.

-Eric