Dust Devils - first session

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

We played Dust Devils yesterday! This represents the first serious foray into a new system for this group after eighteen months of Hero Wars. This group's players are "slow-burners," which is to say, they want a lot of components and layers to a situation, a lot of personal investment at the player-level, and a lot of NPC-PC connections, before they really kick into Premise-busting decision-making.

We decided on Dust Devils because I have an itch about this game; I think that Matt has put his finger on a powerful, riveting element of modern story creation, embodied in the concept of "the western," that has always veered off true in role-playing games, from Boot Hill to Deadlands. Westerns are not about setting; they are about alienation, Chinese-finger-puzzle moral choices, and the role of violence in resolving, or failing to resolve, these problems. The players got excited immediately when we talked about it and made up great characters in less than five minutes. (They'd also watched more westerns than me and so I had to scoot off to the video store to watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Destry Rides Again. Moral of both movies? "Pick up the gun.")

I took some time to prepare, as well, because the Premise of the game needs more material than "the bandits stole your cattle and now they're gonna kill you." I'd asked the players what state or proto-state, they wanted the story to take place in, and they decided on pre-state Nevada; also, they wanted to stay away from the Civil War, which has a way of taking over stories. Well, that sent me to the internet and to reference texts, because I'd been under the impression that before the railroad, there weren't nothin' in those parts except for red dust and inhospitable Paiutes, and I was pretty much correct. To my disappointment, Las Vegas was a short-lived Mormon fort that stayed abandoned until far after our period of interest, and then I happened upon the importance and notoriety of Donner Pass in the late 1840s. Hmmm, said I. So our game is set in Reno, in early 1850.

True to form, the players made up characters that did not conform to the "basic" protagonist of the Premise (this group always does that to me), lending themselves more to complex intrigue and smoldering passions than to shoot-outs. So our first run was more about letting them all situate themselves relative to the NPCs and physical setting, rather than pointing them towards a given and pre-set conflict. Just as we did with most of our Hero Wars play, the players themselves tended to generate just how the conflict was arranged, through interaction with NPCs and taking sides on their own hook, rather than by my prompts.

The good news is that it worked wonderfully. We now have a powder-keg situation on our hands, after one little session, full of lurking passions and alliances criss-crossing among the player-characters and NPCs, and only two of the PCs have even met, briefly. What happens when the third PC arrives in town with a satchel full of silver ore is not going to be pleasant.

Now for my comments and concerns about play. Most of these are directed toward Matt but anyone else is welcome to chime in too.

The system is rather Pool-like in letting different people narrate outcomes at any given point. This group hasn't seen this before and they liked it immediately. We found that it also prompts more interesting conflicts, as using the system for a traditional perception check is boring; there's nothing to narrate once you've spotted the whatever. Therefore such events tend to be givens ("You spot it"), reserving the draws for conflicts of interest rather than for tasks. I suggest that some examples would help to focus readers' attention on this crucial element of games with this kind of design (Hero Wars, The Pool, e.g.).

I decided to employ a rules suggestion I'd made to Matt, which is to quantify the Devil to one to three cards, player's choice. This choice is repeated at the beginning of every session, such that the player can decide how hard the character is being "ridden" by his or her Devil based on the events of the past session. As a related issue, I also encouraged the players to consider what flashbacks might reveal about their character when the Devil comes into play, and I did not require these flashbacks' content to be pre-set . (Notice that this variant allows the Devil to be a fine blend of the Kicker and the Humanity mechanic from Sorcerer.)

Actual play revealed a crucial aspect of the Dust Devils system which is probably not evident just through reading: the players are not playing against the dealer (GM). No bluffing is involved; it is a fine example of cooperative Fortune-in-the-Middle. It worked swimmingly during play and everyone got interested in the card mechanic only insofar as it impacted our creative efforts. I highly, highly approve. Don't let the "poker" fool you; there is very little, if any, competitive element to the mechanics.

The players loved the poker system and it moves very fast in play, much more so than most dice systems, even for the one player who didn't know the poker hand ranks. I'm still not sure about how it will work in a multiple-character situation and when I have to deal with lots of NPCs and conflicting or order-dependent PC actions. More questions will arise then, I'm sure.

Here are three questions that arose about the actual ebb and flow of cards in the game.

1) Given that hand size is not uniform across the group, some non-Poker combinations potentially appear. For instance, does three pair beat three of a kind, or is it only superior to two pair? I'm sure that a few similar issues will arise - say, if someone has a four-card hand and has a Straight with higher cards and better suit than another person's hand with a five-card Straight, what then?

2) I don't see any reason why a player has to retain one of the original cards when discarding and re-drawing (i.e., using a Knack). Is this poker?

3) How about folding? We kind of liked this idea, although no one used it during play. The idea would be that a player might simply "fold" during a conflict, automatically losing but also avoiding damage effects. This might take a little playtesting, as it might, without some tweaking, lead to an easy out - but it does seem kind of good, too. Maybe ... maybe folding causes one's Devil to increase (if you're using the quantified Devil-variant idea)? Or potentially, folding might be disallowed when Stakes are involved?

We decided that the player and GM decks are both re-shuffled after every full conflict scene, but never during that scene. This seems to me to be both mechanically and dramatically necessary.

A minor question arose when I found that, through chip spending, one might hit a maximum number of Knacks equal to Hand + Eye. Does this apply back in PC creation, and how does it relate to the "half a dozen" permitted there?

We encountered no difficulties with the passage of narrative power around the table, but here are some questions that arose from looking over the rules.

1) When taking over the narration by spending a chip, a player may reduce damage to his PC by one. Can he use that privilege to reduce damage to another PC instead? How about to an NPC? And finally, if I own the narration simply by having the high card, can I reduce damage to said PC or whoever by one, without spending a chip? (It would seem logical.)

2) If two players dispute over who gets to narrate, and they're spending chips, I assume that the "defender" (the one with the high card) only has to match the "attacking bid" in order to keep the narration. Correct?

3) Can a player whose character is not involved in the scene spend a chip in order to take over the narration of the outcome? (And before you say "Of course not" I suggest thinking about it. There's no real reason why not.)

We haven't used the damage rules yet, as I'm saving them for more personal and significant conflicts than the ones we've seen in play so far. However, based only on my reading, I strongly suggest taking a page from Over the Edge and cutting all sustained damage in half following a conflict. (I used this in Sorcerer.) It not only follows the conventions of the western but also makes it unnecessary to heal up outrageous amounts of damage through "realistic" means, which functionally leads to lousy stories.

My biggest concern about Dust Devils is about the "end" or resolutions of character issues in general. The rules as written end with a discussion all about whether a character lives or dies, and I find that both flat and irrelevant. I submit that the Premise of the game is essentially unconcerned with character survival - it's more about character decisions, relative to external problems, and what those decisions mean about human nature. (If this sounds pretentious, I recommend watching a few more westerns.) I suggest that a certain "endgame" concept might come into play; i.e., there comes a time when we learn if the character's Devil wins out once and for all. As you can see, both of my modifications to the Devil mechanics lead toward this mode of application, and I think this is probably the one remaining element of Dust Devils design that needs work.

Overall, it's a great game. I anticipate quite a few more sessions and a real blowout of a story from our current play.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I can answer the Poker related questions.

1) Given that hand size is not uniform across the group, some non-Poker combinations potentially appear. For instance, does three pair beat three of a kind, or is it only superior to two pair? I'm sure that a few similar issues will arise - say, if someone has a four-card hand and has a Straight with higher cards and better suit than another person's hand with a five-card Straight, what then?

In all Poker (and many variants allow more than five cards) your "hand" is the best five cards you have available. So, three pairs is really two pairs and a spare card. Note that the sixth card is still advantageous as it allows for more possible hands. As far as being short, you need five cards for a straight (though some house rules allow for a mini-straight with only three) and a flush (all the same suit) requires five cards as well (no mini-flush). If you ae short of five cards for some reason, then you're SOL as far as getting these hands.

2) I don't see any reason why a player has to retain one of the original cards when discarding and re-drawing (i.e., using a Knack). Is this poker?

On a normal draw in Poker, you may discard three of your five cards. A common house rule allows for you to discard four if you show that you're remaining card is an Ace. Games with other than five cards do not use the draw mechanic. I think that Matt was just trying to keep that retaining element in the game, somehow. Its a strrategy thing forcing the player to consider which card to retain at all times. FWIW, it sounds like it would be a good idea to me.

Mike

[Matt Snyder]

On a normal draw in Poker, you may discard three of your five cards. A common house rule allows for you to discard four if you show that you're remaining card is an Ace. Games with other than five cards do not use the draw mechanic. I think that Matt was just trying to keep that retaining element in the game, somehow. Its a strrategy thing forcing the player to consider which card to retain at all times. FWIW, it sounds like it would be a good idea to me.

Mike, this is precisely what I had in mind when requiring folks to keep at least one of their cards in hand (though I don't require that one card to be an ace -- FYI, I've played poker w/ that rule often).

Ron, I'm working on a longer response, which I hope to post shortly (hopefully today). Until then, let me say I'm thrilled you guys had a good time, and I really appreciate your post.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

OK, I get the retain-one-card thing - it's poker, so we do it, and I buy it.

However, Mike, you're missing the salient points of Dust Devils mechanics and my questions, which are (1) that some hands will be less than five cards, and (2) that opposed characters or situations will be represented by differing numbers of cards in their hands. To my knowledge, neither of these situations occurs in poker of any kind. Matt, any thoughts on this would be useful.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Not sure I'm following Ron.

Mike's point was that there are certain poker hands (flushes, straits, etc) that require 5 Cards.  If you have more than five cards you have a better chance of getting a better 5 Card hand, but there is no such thing as a 6 card hand.  a Straight 5,6,7,8,9,J  would not beat a 7,8,9,J,Q

Further if you have fewer than 4 cards than there are certain Poker hands you just can't make.  You can't make a Flush with 4 cards...4 Hearts does not a Flush make.

Matt may want to change that in the game, but thems the poker rules.  Granted I've never seen a poker game with fewer than 5 cards (there are certainly gambling poker-esque games with fewer, but they aren't, strictly speaking, poker)

Personally I think it makes perfect sense and puts a natural breakpoint into the game.  It takes a minimum of 5 cards to have a "Skillful" or "Professional" level of ability.  At 4 cards are less, there are some hands you can't get so you are at a decided disadvantage ("unskilled" as it were).  But you can still get 4 of a Kind which is a very high hand, so you can still do fairly well with 4 cards, if you get lucky.

Thats my take anyway.

[jrs]

I suggest that there be a separation between number of cards dealt and number of cards played.  It would be reasonable to state that the number of cards played can be no more than 5, regardless of the number of cards dealt.  This would retain traditional poker hands for comparrison without the confusion of excess cards (I was the one with the 3 pairs who was trying to figure out how to proceed).  The benefit of being dealt more than 5 cards is that there is a greater chance of putting together a winning hand.  For those who have less than 5 cards, well, it's less likely (but not impossible) to have a winning hand.  

In addition, I think it would be interesting if only the *played* cards were used in determining high card=narration.  In situations where a player has more than 5 cards, they may need to choose whether they will include the highest card in the played hand.  There will be times when a choice will be between a hand that has a better chance of winning and one that has a better chance of narration.

BTW, Matt, I'm really enjoying the game!

Julie

[Mike Holmes]

Mike's point was that there are certain poker hands (flushes, straits, etc) that require 5 Cards.  If you have more than five cards you have a better chance of getting a better 5 Card hand, but there is no such thing as a 6 card hand.  a Straight 5,6,7,8,9,J  would not beat a 7,8,9,J,Q

Thanks, Ralph. I think your example has a mistake in it, tho.

Matt may want to change that in the game, but thems the poker rules.  Granted I've never seen a poker game with fewer than 5 cards (there are certainly gambling poker-esque games with fewer, but they aren't, strictly speaking, poker)

Well, strictly speaking, by Hoyle, the only game that is technically Poker is what is referrred to as Five Card Draw. Which is thus referred to as "Straight" Poker (then Hoyle goes on to list many variants; such is Hoyle). There are a lot of Poker variants with less than five cards. Guts, and Indian are two common ones off the top of my head.

In any case, you're point is correct. Five cards are required to make a flush, and five to make a standard straight. Any fewer cards available, and you just can't do it. You have to settle for pairs, three-of-a kind, etc.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I suggest that there be a separation between number of cards dealt and number of cards played.  It would be reasonable to state that the number of cards played can be no more than 5, regardless of the number of cards dealt.  This would retain traditional poker hands for comparrison without the confusion of excess cards (I was the one with the 3 pairs who was trying to figure out how to proceed).  The benefit of being dealt more than 5 cards is that there is a greater chance of putting together a winning hand.  For those who have less than 5 cards, well, it's less likely (but not impossible) to have a winning hand.  

Yep, that's Poker. Take ferinstance seven card stud. You are dealt seven cards. In the end, though, you only get to select five of them to make your best hand. In Three Card Guts, you use all the cards, but cannot get straights or flushes (or, obvioulsy full houses or Four of a kind).

In addition, I think it would be interesting if only the *played* cards were used in determining high card=narration.  In situations where a player has more than 5 cards, they may need to choose whether they will include the highest card in the played hand.  There will be times when a choice will be between a hand that has a better chance of winning and one that has a better chance of narration.

That is an excellent idea.

Mike

[Valamir]

true, I seem to have forgotten the 10.


I can't recall where I read it, or whether it was an actual authority, but I remember reading somewhere that there are standard poker hands, and any game where you cannot get all of the standard poker hands is not technically speaking a poker variant.  Not that it really matters.

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, and in "Baseball" a player recieves an extra card when they draw a four (a walk), IIRC. Just an example of a common Poker game in which each player cn have differing size hands.

None of these things voids the central "scoring" mechanic of Poker (which is actually very versatile): take up to five of your cards, or all available if five or less are available, and find the best "hand".

For our next Poker Trivia Question: can anyone remember what the order of suits is? There are no ties in Poker. Someone always has the high hand.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I can't recall where I read it, or whether it was an actual authority, but I remember reading somewhere that there are standard poker hands, and any game where you cannot get all of the standard poker hands is not technically speaking a poker variant.  Not that it really matters.

Yeah, like I said, Hoyle only recocnizes one true Poker, and then lists like ten other common variants right afterwards. And players will have all sorts of their own qualifications depending on the "seriousness" of the game. A "serious" game will probably use the limit you mention. And eliminate a lot of common variants that are included for their colorful nature. This is usually beause of the fact that they are less predictable, and therefore rely more on luck, and less on the skills of the players. Wild cards are frowned upon in a serious game (calling more than one will get you really bad stares or refusal to play), and often jacks or better are required to open in really stoggy games.

Still, the rules exist, and seem to pertain here. As long as some people know them, there is a usefulness to including them, as they don't have to be relearned. And there's always the authenticity thing. :-)

Mike

[Matt Snyder]

In addition, I think it would be interesting if only the *played* cards were used in determining high card=narration.  In situations where a player has more than 5 cards, they may need to choose whether they will include the highest card in the played hand.  There will be times when a choice will be between a hand that has a better chance of winning and one that has a better chance of narration.

BTW, Matt, I'm really enjoying the game!

First off, thanks!

As for your suggestion, I actually avoided this specifically to make things interesting. This means you can either include that high card in your hand to resolve conflict OR you can keep that high card to win the narration.

There are a couple reasons for this. First, it avoids the tendency for whoever wins the hand to also win the narration. I realize this is not the case for every hand  (for example, three 5s beats two As, but the As mean that the loser narrates), but rather just a tendency. That is, if you include a high card in your hand that also counts toward winning narration, it's likelier than not that the high card will contribute to your better hand AND earn you narration.  I wanted to avoid this.  It should make things more interesting because while you may win, things may not turn out as you expected or hoped. Things never do.

It also makes you think twice about what you keep and what you throw away to redraw. With a crappy initial deal that includes a nice Ace, you should probably keep the Ace and redraw the others cards (assuming you're able). That way, even if your hand stinks, you can probably win the narration, setting yourself up for a better outcome next time, perhaps.

I like this, because keep the Ace just feels in the spirit of a good gambler. <shrug>

More to come, Ron, I promise! Gawd, you think I'd just post it already! It's coming, I promise!

[Gordon C. Landis]

For our next Poker Trivia Question: can anyone remember what the order of suits is? There are no ties in Poker. Someone always has the high hand.
Mike

My understanding is that this is *not* true.  I remember looking it up way-back-when, and according to the most authoritative source I could find at the time . . . no suit is higher than any other.  Identical (non-flush) straights will split the pot.  If 2 players both have 2 pair, Aces and Eights, with a Queen kicker, they split the pot.   The "tie breaker" in poker is always the high card - if one of our Aces n' Eights players had a King kicker to other guys' Queen, he'd win.  If you can't break it that way (very rare), it really is a tie.  Even with flushes, you look at the value of the cards, not the suit.  If (in some odd wild card and/or multi-deck game) you have flushes with the same value . . . again, that's a rare, "real" tie.

Gordon
(Who doesn't put it past Mr. Holmes to have posed this as a "trick question", to see if anyone really thought suits had ranks . . . ;-)

[jrs]

In addition, I think it would be interesting if only the *played* cards were used in determining high card=narration.  In situations where a player has more than 5 cards, they may need to choose whether they will include the highest card in the played hand.  There will be times when a choice will be between a hand that has a better chance of winning and one that has a better chance of narration.

As for your suggestion, I actually avoided this specifically to make things interesting. This means you can either include that high card in your hand to resolve conflict OR you can keep that high card to win the narration.

Hmm.  I'm not sure I'm following you in regards to my suggestion.  I'm not refering to discards.  I'll use an example to explain my thinking:

Player is dealt 6 cards.  After any discards, he has A,9,9,2,2,2.

I'm suggesting that he only play 5 of the 6 cards.  He can choose to play the 9,9,2,2,2 for a full house where his high card is a 9.  He has a good chance of winning, but not as good a chance to narrate.  Or, he can play A,9,9,2,2 for two pair where the high card is an ace; he's not as likely to win but will almost certainly be narrating.

I like the idea that the person winning is not necessarily the person who narrates.  On this issue, I think we are in agreement.

Julie

[Matt Snyder]

Ron, I'm thrilled you and your group played Dust Devils are are looking forward to more. Besides, how cool is it that I'm featured at the same table top that Robin Laws was featuer via Hero Wars, and all run by the guy who wrote Sorceror. Ok, so I'm overstating things a bit ...  reality will set in a few minutes from now, but, by God, let me enjoy my delusions of granduer for a moment!

On to the comments ...

The system is rather Pool-like in letting different people narrate outcomes at any given point. This group hasn't seen this before and they liked it immediately. We found that it also prompts more interesting conflicts, as using the system for a traditional perception check is boring; there's nothing to narrate once you've spotted the whatever. <snip> I suggest that some examples would help to focus readers' attention on this crucial element of games with this kind of design (Hero Wars, The Pool, e.g.).

Glad to hear the high-card-wins-narration worked well. This was the one aspect of Dust Devils I was really proud of. I though if all else failed, this idea had some merit. It seems a few other ideas are working though. Great!

Your suggestion of including examples to highlight crucial conflicts is duly noted.

I decided to employ a rules suggestion I'd made to Matt, which is to quantify the Devil to one to three cards, player's choice. This choice is repeated at the beginning of every session, such that the player can decide how hard the character is being "ridden" by his or her Devil based on the events of the past session. As a related issue, I also encouraged the players to consider what flashbacks might reveal about their character when the Devil comes into play, and I did not require these flashbacks' content to be pre-set . (Notice that this variant allows the Devil to be a fine blend of the Kicker and the Humanity mechanic from Sorcerer.)

Ron, I like the Devil rating mechanic you've suggested (I think I said as much earlier). I think I tried to hard to figure out some way to make it dazzling, when what you've suggested works perfectly. That is, the player "sets" his Devil rating at character creation, with an appropriate back story for why it's mild (1) or severe (3). Take Unforgiven (again) -- it would seem ol William Munny's Devil is mild at the beginning (1), but by the end of the film, it's gotten ahold of him like never before (3).

As for the "flashback" notion, I like it, too. Now that I'm reading Sorceror, I see what you mean about Devil being like Humanity and Kicker. (I think it's also a bit like Price as well, right?) There really isn't any rules ammendment, but I think a paragraph or two suggesting this mode of play -- i.e., leaving the Devil back story a bit vague so that it might be developed later in play via flashbacks -- would be a nice addition.

Actual play revealed a crucial aspect of the Dust Devils system which is probably not evident just through reading: the players are not playing against the dealer (GM). No bluffing is involved; it is a fine example of cooperative Fortune-in-the-Middle. It worked swimmingly during play and everyone got interested in the card mechanic only insofar as it impacted our creative efforts. I highly, highly approve. Don't let the "poker" fool you; there is very little, if any, competitive element to the mechanics.

Well, I'd like to take credit for my brilliant foresight there . . . but this is unintentional. Not that I tried to do otherwise, just that it never crossed my mind that the mechanic would be cooperative or competitive. Fortune favors the bold, you might say!

The players loved the poker system and it moves very fast in play, much more so than most dice systems, even for the one player who didn't know the poker hand ranks. I'm still not sure about how it will work in a multiple-character situation and when I have to deal with lots of NPCs and conflicting or order-dependent PC actions. More questions will arise then, I'm sure.

Ok, now this I'll take credit for! I'm thrilled that it made for quick game play. That was one of my key mechanics goals.  Now on to the key questions . . .

1) Given that hand size is not uniform across the group, some non-Poker combinations potentially appear. For instance, does three pair beat three of a kind, or is it only superior to two pair? I'm sure that a few similar issues will arise - say, if someone has a four-card hand and has a Straight with higher cards and better suit than another person's hand with a five-card Straight, what then?

Ok, based on some other replies, I can see this is something that really needs to be addressed! The game should allow players to create only "regular" poker hands. Three pair is non-existant. In this case, pick the two most suitable pairs, and go with those. That's a really good hand, by the way, because you count four cards for damage. Three of a kind, which is a higher hand, counts only three points of damage. Full houses have the same advantage over four of a kind. Finally, players may lay down only up to five cards for a single conflict resolution.

In cases where the player has only four or fewer cards, well, let's just say the West is one tough place. Make of it what you can -- maybe a pair or whatever -- 'cause it's all you get, even if others got more!

Important Note: Wild cards are the only exception to the above. They make it possible to have Five of a Kind, which I think beats all kinds of schtuff up to a royal flush (need to look that one up). This is permissable in Dust Devils, but it allows for only Five of a Kind, not Six of a Kind (i.e., you can only play up to five cards). I'll have to add one note to the Poker Hands sidebar about this.

Food for thought: I considered making it possible for players to play multiple hands. For example, in the case of the three pairs in one hand, the player could direct his plays toward either one, two or three actions or targets. She could play one pair against each of three targets / actions, or two pair against one target / action and one pair against another target / action, or simply two pair against one target / action. I'm not sure how this pans out in a narrative game like this where "multiple actions" are kinda irrelevant. Anyone have ideas?

2) I don't see any reason why a player has to retain one of the original cards when discarding and re-drawing (i.e., using a Knack). Is this poker?

I think we answered this one. Yeah, it's a Poker trade off. Conceptually, it keeps folks relying on their primary attributes (Hand, Eye, etc.) because everyone has to keep at least one card drawn based on his/her attributes, rather than replace the whole lot w/ one's Knacks. Just something I wanted to do.

3) How about folding? We kind of liked this idea, although no one used it during play. The idea would be that a player might simply "fold" during a conflict, automatically losing but also avoiding damage effects. This might take a little playtesting, as it might, without some tweaking, lead to an easy out - but it does seem kind of good, too. Maybe ... maybe folding causes one's Devil to increase (if you're using the quantified Devil-variant idea)? Or potentially, folding might be disallowed when Stakes are involved?

Folding! Doh! Why didn't I think of that? Great idea. 'Course, it makes you a damn coward, but it keeps your skin intact. I like the idea that doing so alters your Devil. I was also thinking that Folding requires you to "ante up," spending a Chip (or more) to get out of the mess and move on.

We decided that the player and GM decks are both re-shuffled after every full conflict scene, but never during that scene. This seems to me to be both mechanically and dramatically necessary.

Aha! See, I knew you was a damn cheat!

Just kidding. See, this is really interesting to me because you mention "player and GM decks." Do I take that to mean that there is one deck for the players, one for the GM, or, is it that everyone has his/her own deck, just as they might w/ dice? While I don't say so specifically, I intended the game to be run w/ only one deck for everyone. This is because it follows the rules of odds of poker -- i.e., folks can't really have equivalent hands. With multiple decks, ties are possible.

HOWEVER, it really intrigues me that you've got at least two decks in play. Did this seem to work better? Obviously, one of the problems with only one deck is that you may run out of cards.

I absolutely agree, though, with the idea that you shouldn't reshuffle the deck (or decks!) until the scene is finished. Now if I can only figure out what to do once the cards run out in a scene . . . out of bullets, you might say.

A minor question arose when I found that, through chip spending, one might hit a maximum number of Knacks equal to Hand + Eye. Does this apply back in PC creation, and how does it relate to the "half a dozen" permitted there?

Hmm, good point, as I didn't consider that for character creation. The rationale for maximizing Knacks was to keep folks from going nutso buying every Knack in town. Maybe that's just not necessary. I'll likely remove that sentence.

We encountered no difficulties with the passage of narrative power around the table, but here are some questions that arose from looking over the rules.

1) When taking over the narration by spending a chip, a player may reduce damage to his PC by one. Can he use that privilege to reduce damage to another PC instead? How about to an NPC? And finally, if I own the narration simply by having the high card, can I reduce damage to said PC or whoever by one, without spending a chip? (It would seem logical.)

Hmm, I'm inclined not to let players reduce the damage of others. It just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. Instead how about this? The player can either reduce damage to his character by one OR he can "take the bullet" for someone else, reducing damage to their character by one, but taking that one damage for his character. Yeah, I like it.

I don't see we can't make this possible for whoever wins narration, whether by high card or chip, so to answer that last question, yeah you can do this simply with high card.

2) If two players dispute over who gets to narrate, and they're spending chips, I assume that the "defender" (the one with the high card) only has to match the "attacking bid" in order to keep the narration. Correct?

Thank god, an easy one to answer. That is correct.

3) Can a player whose character is not involved in the scene spend a chip in order to take over the narration of the outcome? (And before you say "Of course not" I suggest thinking about it. There's no real reason why not.)

Ah, you won't get an "Of course not" from me! I think this is a great idea. Keeps everyone invested in what's going on, and it could either let players help each other out, OR make for some connivin' play!

We haven't used the damage rules yet, as I'm saving them for more personal and significant conflicts than the ones we've seen in play so far. However, based only on my reading, I strongly suggest taking a page from Over the Edge and cutting all sustained damage in half following a conflict. (I used this in Sorcerer.) It not only follows the conventions of the western but also makes it unnecessary to heal up outrageous amounts of damage through "realistic" means, which functionally leads to lousy stories.

Hmm, this reminds me of something similar from 7th Sea, where minor wounds "disappeared" while major wounds (Dramatic wounds, was it called?) stayed w/ the character. I think it's worth considering, and I think your solution would work fine, Ron.

My biggest concern about Dust Devils is about the "end" or resolutions of character issues in general. The rules as written end with a discussion all about whether a character lives or dies, and I find that both flat and irrelevant. I submit that the Premise of the game is essentially unconcerned with character survival - it's more about character decisions, relative to external problems, and what those decisions mean about human nature. (If this sounds pretentious, I recommend watching a few more westerns.) I suggest that a certain "endgame" concept might come into play; i.e., there comes a time when we learn if the character's Devil wins out once and for all. As you can see, both of my modifications to the Devil mechanics lead toward this mode of application, and I think this is probably the one remaining element of Dust Devils design that needs work.

Overall, it's a great game. I anticipate quite a few more sessions and a real blowout of a story from our current play.

I think you've really called a spade a spade here, Ron. Heh. The last section on character death might just be irrelevant (or at least less important) that resolution of a character's Devil. I'd love to here more detail on it, because my oft-traditional brain is wrangling with how to handle this one in the game text.

All in all, thanks very much for your comments, Ron. They're very helpful and insightful. Dust Devils will be a better game for it!

Matt