[DitV] PCs entering in an on-going coonflict?

[Arturo G.]

I have posted in Actual Play about our last session: [DitV] Fun, fun, fun... with no fighting!.

A couple of mechanical questions arose:

We had the following conflict. One Dog want to convince the parent of the girl that she is not behaving properly with respect to his courtship opportunities. He is very angry because his precious girl was crying and the Dog is using some rude sentences about her virtue.

Scenenary 1:
The other dog, BTW a relative of the family, is afraid that it may become a fight. He prefer not to be in the conflict, but if it goes to a fight, he wants to enter the conflict and help his relative.

How may a PC help another PC?
How may he enter in an on-going conflict after several raises of the original contenders?


Sceneray 2:
The other dog, when he sees it becomes a fight, he wants to stop it. His stakes are different than the original conflict.

How may a PC interfere in an on-going conflict to stop it?


Cheers,
Arturo

[Vaxalon]

It's a bit unfair to come in after a conflict has started.  It means you have one or more raises that you would have had to see, but didn't.

[Parsolamew]

Is there a mechanical way to simulate this in play?  Limit access to one or more traits, or remove one stat's worth of escalation, or something, to simulate the dice you'd have lost seeing raises?  I ask because this was a problem in my group as well, when we were playing. People didn't often realize the direction a conflict could go at the outset.


Of course, typing that, I immediately get the sense that this may have been a mushy-stakes problem to begin with, as it should be -obvious- where a conflict could go from the outset.  Bugger.


Curse you, Vincent! Curse you for making a mechanically solid conflict system!

*shakes a tiny fist*

-Ben

[Brand_Robins]

A couple of ideas:

1. You can add dice for a relationship that comes to your aid in the midst of a conflict. So, if the Dog wants to enter the conflict with their relationship character, they could possibly give their dice to the relationship to add to their pool. The Dog isn't a full participant in the conflict in this case, but does have the chance to weigh in and help one side win. Alternatly, I suppose a Dog could come into a fight as "improvised equipment" -- adding dice to the already involved character's pool. It lets you in, but you don't get to be a full protagonist in the conflict. You snooze, you lose, I guess.

2. It may be possible to interupt a conflict to start a new conflict to determin the results of the first conflict, but the logistics involved make me feel dizzy. In general I just stick with the "if something or someone you care about is in the conflict you should consider the possibility that it could get escalated to violence before saying you aren't interested in being in the conflict" idea and run from there.

[Simon Kamber]

There's also the option of the first dog giving, and then calling a followup conflict where the second dog is able to enter.

[Darren Hill]

Vincent mentioned he wouldn't have much time for the forum for a while, so I'll post the answer he's used on several occasions when this question is raised.

When one player wants to get involved in an ongoing conflict, then all remainingraises and sees in that conflict must occur in the moment between the player choosing to get involved and the moment he can get involved.

Any Raise or See that does not make sense with this constraint is not allowed.
You have a lot of flexibility with the things you can say or do as a Raise (for example, have a look at the sample conflict in the rules where the entire conflict is about all the raises and sees occurring in the moments before two gunfighters draw and one dies).

In other words, the conflict ends before he can get involved, thus explaining why he wasn't able to.

Bear in mind also that the text encourages players and GM to drive for lesser stakes. This allows a player in this situation to Give, and have a follow up over higher stakes with backup.

Also, take note of the text which says how it is possible to have a second conflict over the same stakes - I think it's something like: the people, place, and time must not be identical.

[Arturo G.]

I know Vincent should be very busy with the new family member. More than ever, thanks for your answers!

About scenery 1: Helping...
I was also thinking on the idea of the new dog used like a relationship or improvised tool, or just 2d6 by default.
But I must say that the "give" and follow-up conflict idea has much more sense for me.

As my players pointed to me the moments where someone escalates the conflict (from talking to physical or fighting, or from fighting to guns) are somehow breaking the continuous of the conflict raises, introducing a new element to be judged by people outside from the conflict. They should be able to react to it.

In the scenery 1 example one of the dogs want to come in the conflict only if it escalates to fighting.
But that escalating points could be the perfect moments for the dog inside the conflict to give, to create a follow-up conflict with higher stakes and the help of the other dog. It should be easy.


Ok, but ... my real problem is with the second case.

About scenery 2: Not helping/Multiple conflicts...
This is a different theme. I'm not talking here about one PC helping another PC.

Consider this:
- Dog 1: If I win the NPC will confess his crime. Otherwise I will believe he is not lying.
- Dog 2: If they begin to fight I will try to stop it.

Probably it is a problem with the statement of the Dog 2. But I cannot see how to rephrase it as stakes, in a way we can use the multiple conflict resolution system from the rules. Because he is not worry about what happen with the conflict before it goes to fighting, and indeed he is implicitly saying that he will prefer not to be involved on it.

Any ideas?

Cheers,
Arturo

[Simon Kamber]

The way I'd do that is to split it up in several conflicts with smaller stakes.

So start off with a conflict that has the stakes "can I get him to confess without starting a fight". And if that one fails, you can relaunch with "Can I get him to confess anyway", and this is where the second dog can enter the picture.

[daHob]

About scenery 2: Not helping/Multiple conflicts...
This is a different theme. I'm not talking here about one PC helping another PC.

Consider this:
- Dog 1: If I win the NPC will confess his crime. Otherwise I will believe he is not lying.
- Dog 2: If they begin to fight I will try to stop it.

Probably it is a problem with the statement of the Dog 2. But I cannot see how to rephrase it as stakes, in a way we can use the multiple conflict resolution system from the rules. Because he is not worry about what happen with the conflict before it goes to fighting, and indeed he is implicitly saying that he will prefer not to be involved on it.

Any ideas?

Rephrase the stakes of the first conflict to be 'Can I convince him to confess without resorting to violence?'

Depending on the outcome of the first conflict, there may be a second?

[coffeestain]

Hello,

Solidify the stakes.  The first player wants the NPC to confess.  The second player wants to try to stop the fight.  There's no reason these need to be associated to the same conflict.

If all players agree to this, the first player and NPC have their conflict.  The moment either of them escalate to fighting, give.

A new conflict may then be presented, regarding the fight.

There's nothing that indicates to me that the second player cares in the least about the NPC's confession.  Thus, he should never really enter the conflict.

Regards,
Daniel

[Valamir]

You might find This Thread useful to this discussion.

[Judd]

I think the major disconnect here is that it isn't the PC's entering the conflict but the players.

When a conflict starts the players can enter the conflict, right?  I'm sure there are instances where I'd ask them to let someone have their moment and let it be but sure, there are times when I could see a player entering a conflict when their PC wasn't around.

If the PC is in another part of town but the player wants to take part in the conflict, they can raise and see with having a vision and running across town to save their brother or sister.

But once the dice are rolled, that's it, you can wait for the follow-up conflict.

[Arturo G.]

Good advise!

Simon, Steve, Daniel: I got it. Perfectly clear. It has a lot of sense for me.

Valamir: Thanks! The link was very helpful to consolidate my ideas. It also solved me some other doubts about how to deal with situations with many dogs around and other details related to conflicts.

Judd: I found your comments useful. It made me reflect a little deeper about this type of situations.

I think I understand much better now the resolution system dynamics. We will see in the next session.

Thank you all again!
Arturo

[William Burke]

Solidify the stakes.  The first player wants the NPC to confess.  The second player wants to try to stop the fight.  There's no reason these need to be associated to the same conflict.

If all players agree to this, the first player and NPC have their conflict.  The moment either of them escalate to fighting, give.

A new conflict may then be presented, regarding the fight.

I agree with this, but I'd do it in the opposite order.  The first conflict is "are we willing to resort to violence on this issue?"  The second conflict is the confession.  In other words, at the point where Dog A says "I want a conflict to make this NPC confess," Dog B has to say "I want a conflict to make sure they don't fight during that conflict."

This prevents the confession conflict from ending just when it was getting good.

If you modify the conflict stakes to be "can we make him confess without resorting to violence?", then the Dogs in the fight (ha ha) are actually UNABLE to use violence, since that would immediately resolve the stakes.  Check out this thread.  This means that if somebody actually has a desire to use violence they're unlikely to agree to the stakes.  You can, I suppose, immediately go from there into the followup "okay, so can we make him confess WITH resorting to violence?", but you'll be restarting the conflict.

[coffeestain]

William,

I strongly dislike conflicts (or stakes) that restrict escalation in future conflicts.  So I generally suggest against them.

Regards,
Daniel