Taking a fall

[DevP]

As a GM, I'd like the opportunity to have an NPC take a painful fall, taking the blow (rather than blocking, even if it's possible) and perhaps folding immediately after (rather than re-raising). Is this kosher, in being with the spirit of things?

To stretch this further, is it rules-legal to spend more dice than necessary to take a blow? (If I want to make sure that a certain piece of Fallout is extra problematic for the NPC and by extension, the Dogs.)

[Falc]

From what little I know, I think the answer is: "Yes, absolutely, totally! If it's cool, go ahead."

I have a player who's been sinking a lot of his 'experienece' into his "I'm a Dog" trait. I totally plan on putting the screws on that.

Imagine, he's discussing with someone that sort of matters to him. Then he pulls out the trait. My reaction: take the blow with as much dice as I can. Give right away. NPC turns around, (if it's a woman, with a tear in the corner of her eye) and just walks away, saying: "Fine, if you're gonna be that way..."

[Andrew Morris]

As a GM, I'd like the opportunity to have an NPC take a painful fall, taking the blow (rather than blocking, even if it's possible) and perhaps folding immediately after (rather than re-raising). Is this kosher, in being with the spirit of things?

To stretch this further, is it rules-legal to spend more dice than necessary to take a blow? (If I want to make sure that a certain piece of Fallout is extra problematic for the NPC and by extension, the Dogs.)

Can't see why it wouldn't be.

[Frank T]

I can see the point in Dev's concern. It's sort of invalidating a players choice. Like, I throw that guy a punch just to calm him down. I deliberately put forth a 10, though I would have been able to raise with a 17. Why? Because I can see he'll have to take the blow, but I don't want to force him into too much fall-out. Now, instead of taking the blow with his 4, 5 and a 1, the GM takes it with all the low dice he's got, which means 7d6 Fallout instead of 3d6, an after that, he just gives, winking at me and saying "gotcha". It's certainly fine with the rules, but should you really do it, I wonder?

[lumpley]

This isn't in the rules explicitly, BUT:

Once you've put forward enough dice to equal or beat the raise, you have to stop putting forward more dice.

I raise with a 10, for instance.
You have 5 5 2 1 1 1 1.
You can see with 5 5, of course.
You can see with 5 2 1 1 1.
You can't see with 5 5 1 or 5 2 1 1 1 1.

However, you might want to check out the bodyguard conflict in the "resolution in action" chapter, for some insight into NPCs and fallout.

-Vincent

[Frank T]

Ok, let me rephrase: What would be the point in doing this? Taking as much fallout as you can and then giving? I'm just wondering.

- Frank

[Vaxalon]

Yeah, that's what I see as the point of it.

The GM wants the NPC to take a lot of fallout, possibly die, rather than just submit to the PC's.

[DevP]

The reason to take Fallout would be to inflict some more consequences onto the losing side of the conflict, and possibly making things more anything. The key example that comes to mind is this:

Suppose Billy's been raising all kinds of hell and cussing at your Dogs' authority, and he gets it into his fool head that you guys are going to box. You try talking at him, but he still is swinging all drunk like. Your character gets angry and just picks up a table and smashes it over his head. That shit is cold! So I use the dice (within Vincent's rules) to take some big physical fallout before follding this conflict.

Of course he folds; odds are that a drunk kid had no chance against the Dogs. But perhaps now on top of other things, Billy's crippled father won't be able to work his crop for a month (since he counted on Billy, who's now in a sling and a crutch). Plus, that fallout could have resulted in a "The Dogs broke my leg! 1d4" trait.

I checked out the Bodyguard example, and there was a good point there. This "taking a fall" measure only would matter for NPCs who are interesting and whose Fallout-taking would result in interesting outcomes for the players; I think the above example could be that.

[Neal]

I guess I see what you're saying, Dev.  My worry would be that the players would see this as spiteful or (worse) an attempt to bully them emotionally into caring about an NPC.  But if you don't have that worry with your own group, and if you're not going outside the rules to achieve the effect, I'd say "Soldier on."

[dunlaing]

I would definitely have a "bad touch" reaction if I put out a raise of 2 and the GM put in more than 2 dice to see it, just so that he could add fallout to an action that I was implicitly stating I didn't want to see fallout from. As my raises get higher than 2, I'm obivously willing to accept at least some chance of fallout to my opponent, but the principle still remains that part of my influence on how the game goes as a player is that I get to establish a certain range of possible fallout for any of my actions. Spending more dice than are allowed removes that from me.

[DevP]

My worry would be that the players would see this as spiteful or (worse) an attempt to bully them emotionally into caring about an NPC.

Actually, I think I still have a few bad habits (as a GM) in the vein of trying to push certain reactions or outcomes, such that I might want to refrain from "taking a fall" in an overly big way. The system as such gets a lot of this done simply by virtue of the unhindered fallout dice themselves, as well as the NPC's willingness to overexert themselves. (In the case above, it would be more fair if Billy met with a bunch low dice in order to use his higher dice for a mean swing back.)

I still think that this can be a fine and legal technique, but it points out a spot where I can get used to loosing a bit of control.

[Neal]

I still think that this can be a fine and legal technique, but it points out a spot where I can get used to loosing a bit of control.

I guess my big problem is with the motive for putting all those dice forward, rather than the mechanics of it.  Can you do it?  Sure, so long as you don't keep shoving dice after you've hit the See.  Vincent's pretty much settled that point, which makes Dunlaing's example a bit off the mark (with a "2" to beat, no one can put forward more than two dice, by the rules).  Still, Dunlaing's take on the way this robs the player of tactical control is valid.  If a player puts forward a dinky Raise when he's capable of delivering a whopping haymaker, he's clearly trying to give his opponent a chance; when that doesn't happen, for whatever reason, the player has the right to suspect the GM's motives.

Example:

Brother Jeb has been arguing with a drunken young Billy who seems intent on picking a fight despite Brother Jeb's (and Brother Jeb's player's) utter lack of interest in such a conflict.  Finally, Billy Excalates to fist-fighting despite Brother Jeb's attempts to calm him down (or perhaps because of them).  Brother Jeb rolls his dice and gets some pretty high numbers.  The GM rolls for Billy and gets a few decent numbers and a crapload of 1's.  It's Brother Jeb's go.
Player: (Raises with a 2 and a 3, his lowest dice) "Geez, I'm getting sick of this.  I'm twice this kid's size.  I'll give him a shove in the chest and say 'Vamoose, kid, before you get hurt.'"
GM: (Passes up a few 3's and 2's, taking up four 1's to See): "The kid staggers backwards and drops.  'Ow, my ribs!  I think I felt my sternum snap.'  He Gives."
Player: "Whoa, his what?  His sternum snapped?  How?  I just tapped him!"
GM: "Don't know your own strength, I guess.  The kid's writhing on the ground, gurgling something about his granny with the two wooden legs, and who'll take care of her now that he's dying.  He starts moaning his goodbyes to his loved ones."
Player: "Aw, come on!  I tapped him.  I told you that."
GM: "Hey, the rules are the rules, y'know?"

This situation is exaggerated, of course, to make a point.  The table-swinging Dog mentioned earlier has no right to expect anyone to come away from such a scuffle without being banged up.  Nevertheless, if my GM were taking unnecessary injuries to his NPC's (and trampling all over my tactical choices while doing it), I guess I'd have to begin to second-guess every encounter, and that would interfere with the way I like to play.  If my character pulls his punches, I don't want the GM unpulling them for me.

Of course, if my GM insisted on pulling stunts like the above, I'd eventually give up and start kicking the living crap out of everyone I met.  I'd buy a bigger gun and an extra horse to carry the ammo.  I mean, the NPCs are going to end up with serious Fallout no matter what, right?  So why pull a punch for the sake of developing my character's personality?  And on the off-chance the GM passed the Fallout to me for the follow-up conflict, I'd launch right back into my beaten opponent, kicking him while he's down and using those dice in addition to my own.  If the GM wants Fallout for his NPCs, I'll serve him a whole can of the stuff.  "Die, Billy!  Diiiiie!"  But that's just me.

[Spooky Fanboy]

One thing I'm missing with these examples, which hopefully is not missing in the game: why the HELL aren't the player and GM talking to each other?

GM: He's little, but he's drunk and spoiling for a fight.
Player: I put up my 2 and 3.
GM: Buh? Those are your lowest dice. Sure you don't want to use bigger ones?
Player: I'm not beating on a damn kid. I'm not risking killing him.
GM: But this is a pretty important conflict for this town. Yeah, he's a kid, but he's also part of a larger problem.
Player: There are better ways to deal with the problem than risking a kid getting hurt or worse.
GM: Dude, you realize that this game is about uncomfortable decisions and tough choices, right?
Player: Dude, you realize that this is going down a road I do not want to travel, right? Isn't there another way of dealing with the little drunk weasel? Can't we scale back to talking shit out?
GM: Yeah, we can. I just thought that the game was about exploring tough situations.
Player: Fine, but I think there's a better way to explore it than wailing on a kid. Right now I, not to mention my character, wants to find the so-called adults who supplied this kid with the whiskey and set them on fire with their own distillery.
GM: Cool! The kid staggers back, sits down, and passes out.
Player: (to other Dog) Okay, healer! Get this kid coherent so I can grill him on who gave him this sinful swill!

I mean, Dogs is a rough game, but there's meaningful conflict and then there's torture. It's a game; it's not good to really cross that line. I'd use your technique as a way to bow out of fights most often, unless the player has specifically stated "problems with overreaction/violence" is a big part of his character.

[lumpley]

Y'know, I don't think any of this is necessary.

The dice I have in front of me, the dice you put forward, the rules for what's taking the blow and what's a block or dodge, the stakes of the conflict - those are all the constraints I want or need.

"I shove him in the chest" with a 4, "I shove him in the chest" with a 19 - the number you put forward doesn't show how hard you shove him. If I see the 4 with 3 dice and take the blow with "he staggers backward and falls against the bar," and I see the 19 with 7 dice and take the blow with "he tips backward about 5 degrees and puts his left foot a few inches behind him," I'm within my rights.

I get to see your raises however I want. You don't get to put any expectations on me about what dice I'll see with or what I'll say. None. There's no reason on earth for us to have any kind of conversation about how I'll play my side of the conflict, or how you'll play your side. Playing the conflict replaces that conversation.

(Now, I don't get to take the blow with "his ribs shatter and he drowns in his own blood" - that'd be taking some other blow than the one you landed, same as if I said "his brains explode out the side of his head onto the glasses and bottles behind the bar" or "he bursts into tears, saying 'you're right, my mama never did care for me!'" But that should go without saying. Surely we aren't worried about that.)

-Vincent

[Neal]

Yeah, I guess this is kind of moot, especially when we consider it's going to be the after-conflict Fallout roll that helps determine the extent of the "damage", more than the narration of the action.  As GM, I could say "He falls over and you hear the cracking of bones," but if the dice come up with a "short-term consequence," I'll be eating my words (and tempering them in future conflicts).

And Dev, reading my own previous post back, I think it could be interpreted with a strain of bitterness or spitefulness.  I didn't intend that.  In fact, I was trying to be a little bit funny.  After a day working at a relief agency call center, though, I think my humor engines were a bit rusty.