Intent of Action?

[Karasu]

I ran my first playtest of Dogs last night with two of my five players, and it went swimmingly. It started out as a short introduction to the conflict resolution system and quickly developed into a judgement of the entire town. I used the example situation from "The Simple Case", with one of the two Dogs as the brother of irate father. The players took to the system immediately and were extremely pleased at how the system highlighted their choices, emphasized willingness to do what it takes to ac hive your goals.  However, I have two questions. The first one came up during play, and the second came to me while I was pondering after they left.

When a conflict has Escalated to gunfighting, how should you narrate Raises? It was my feeling that when narrating lethally aggressive actions, such as shooting, one should only describe the intent of the action rather than the outcome: "Take aim and fire at your leg" vs "I fire wounding you in the leg", particularly during Dog vs Dogs conflicts. As far as I understand it, as the aggressor, you step on the defenders rights of narration  when you describe explicit injury. If you want to make sure he gets hurt Raise those high dice, otherwise the defender is free to narrate avoiding your attacks as he sees fit -- granted he can See your Raise. To me it's the difference between f "I pound you in the stomach" and "I pound you in the stomach, knocking out your wind". The first allows the person on the other end of that Raise to decide it's worth Taking that Blow. The second robs them of that choice.

Also, If you Give in order to avoid Taking a imminent Blow, how should you narrate the outcome of the attack? If the Blow was "a haymaker to the temple" it's pretty easy to narrate your Dog falling to the dirt unconscious. But what if attack was a gunshot? Do you have to narrate your Dog getting shot, or are you allowed to narrate a Block or Dodge type outcome?

[Darren Hill]

I think Raises always are declared as intent.

Brother Arturo puts forward a raise of 10: "I punch her!"
Sister Jemima puts forward her two fives: "I block that punch"

See how that punch never actually landed?

Or:

Brother Arturo puts forward a raise of 10: "I punch her!"
Sister Jemima puts forward her five twos: "I block that punch, but I'm knocked off balance and fall into the water trough"

The person who is Seeing has the power (even when taking the blow) to re-interpret the Raise, as long as they incorporate the intent into their See.

[Karasu]

Thanks for the clarification, Darren. Do you, or anyone else, have any thoughts on my second question?

Brother Arturo puts forward a Raise of 10: "I punch her!"
Sister Jemima Gives: ...

Would Sister Jemima's player have to narrate getting punched? Or would she be able to describe a Block or Dodge type outcome?

[lumpley]

A block or dodge type outcome, exactly.

When you give, you don't take that last blow.

-Vincent

[Darren Hill]

[Crossposting with Vincent here, but I think I still have something to add.]

Sorry about that, I missed that question :)

Jemima could describe anything which
a) allowed her to avoid any further consequences from the conflict, and
b) does not contradict the conflict's stakes which have now been lost (this is only true of course if it's a one-on-one conflict).

So, she should be able to describe a block or dodge style outcome in most cases. If the conflict is ongoing (she wasn't the only character on her side), she should also describe why she isn't able (or chooses not to) partipate further in the conflict.
Actually allowing the blow to strike and saying, "I'm knocked out," is one way of achieving this. Remember, being struck doesn't have any lasting effect in itself, unless it causes fallout - and on this case it won't.
Another way is to have the character be active, doing something else. For example, one character on horseback described how his horses panicked and rode off, and it took him time to get it under control - by which time the conflict was over.
Finally, Jemima will have to roll fallout if she has accumulated any earlier in the conflict - I find it helpful to roll that before describing how the Give occurs.

Hope this helps.

That's something that caused me a little confusion when I first played.
There are two situations, each of which are slightly different.
In one on one conflicts, the person Giving has surrendered the stakes, so whatever they were must come to pass. However that happens, that description will naturally incorporate the circumstances of the Give.
In conflicts with several PCs on one side, when one Gives but the conflict is not yet over, you need to explain how that character drops out. IMO, the burden here should be on the Giving player (or GM for NPCs), but I think your instinct is correct - it's basically the same as a Blocking See, but one which also removes that character from further particpation in the conflict.
If the character has taken Fallout, roll that, and then describe how it happens - that could (and in the case of injuries, should) be incorporated in that character's Give.

Basically, the narration must describe how the person Giving avoids any consequences of the action. However you do that is fine. Something like a See would certainly satisfy this requirement - "As he goes to punch me, I wave my hands up in the air - okay, okay, I give."
If someone was shooting at you and you Give, it isn't

[Karasu]

Thanks Vincent and Darren, that explained alot.

-Vasco