A tentative rules structure for a Live Dogs game [Warning: Long]

[Levi Kornelsen]

Because these rules might wander into the general area of being, by it's very nature and the number of points of similarity, partly or wholly Vincent's property, I'm putting it here, where he can delete it if he thinks it necessary.

That said, this is a very ugly first draft of the rules I'm thinking of using for taking the Dogs live-action.  It will need a lot of work, I have no doubt.  But here goes.

CHARACTER CREATION
Get a picture of a character in your head – a person you'd enjoy pretending to be in this setting.  Got it?  Great.  That is your character.  You'll want to talk back and forth with other players and organizers, discussing where your character came from, what they're all about, how they fit into their group, things like that.  Now, you're going to need to be able to express that character mechanically, so we need some numbers.  These take up some serious space, but don't fixate too much on them; these are here to express your character, and feed back into helping you develop that character in future; they are not here to dictate who your character is to you.

How Numbers Look
All number ratings for everything look the same; they have the name of the thing being rated, then a number, and then a short series of check boxes, like this:  Gunfighter 4-OO
Okay.  So what that means is that this character is, in fact, a gunfighter, a trait they can call to help them in situations where it makes sense for a gunfighter to be good at whatever they are doing.  Their Gunfighter trait has a rating of 4, which means they're good at being a Gunfighter, but not astonishing (1 is a weak rating; 6 is outright astonishingly impressive).  It has two checkboxes, meaning that the player can "call on" this trait twice in any given conflict, which is about middlin' (check boxes usually range from 1 to 4).

The Four Number Sets: Stats, Traits, Relationships, and Items.
There are four sets of things that you'll assign numbers to.  The first is stats, basic attributes and faculties.  The second is traits, which are any other notable things that are specifically about your character.  The third is relationships, notable links your character has to people, groups, or important concepts.   Last is items.

Stats: There are four stats.  These are Acuity (perception and brains), Body (physical size, speed, and strength), Heart (emotional and social capabilities), and Will (mental 'grit' and such).  There are four ratings for you to assign given here; attach one of these to each of your stats, in whatever order you like: 3-OO, 3-OOO, 4-OO, 4-OOO

Traits: You will begin play with a total of five traits, which you will invent yourself.  You can describe them as skills, as professions, or however else you like, but they will require approval from the organizers and other players.  A list of already-approved traits will be available as well in the near future.  There are five ratings for you to assign given here; attach one of these to each of your stats, in whatever order you like: 2-O, 2-OO, 3-OOO, 4-OO, 5-O

Relationships: You will start play with a total of three relationships; two of these will be relationships of your choosing, and one will be "blood kin" – a general relationship with your blood relatives.  You may name individuals, groups, or important concepts like virtues, vices, and sins as things you have relationships with.  There are five ratings for you to assign given here; attach one of these to each of your relationships, in whatever order you like: 2-OOO, 3-OO, 4-O

Items: You may have any reasonable number of items at creation, described by you, but no more than two of those may be "large", and no more than two may be "high-quality".  Suggested items include guns, horses, and ceremonial items.  Each item has a rating of 1 (it's crap), 2 (okay quality), or 3 (high quality).  Each has only one checkbox, unless it is large, in which case it has two.  Detail only items that matter to your character; generalized stuff that your character has like money, food, and general kit is not normally worth noting.  Most characters have about three to six items worth listing.

Got all those numbers?  Great.  That, plus the name of your character, is your character sheet.

CONFLICT & RESOLUTION
These rules are used when and as determined by the players and organizers.   These rules do not matter unless something valuable is at stake from your perspective as a player, actor, or organizer, or when agreement on what happens next has been attempted, but doesn't lend itself to easy agreement.

These rules are strongly oriented towards how much you're willing to see your character changed and injured.  A character that pushes forward regardless of the cost will usually win, but the costs to that character can be tremendous.  For example, your homesteader with a gun can win the stakes "What happens when the Grey Bandit arrives at my homestead, set on robbery?" and drive the bandit away, despite being less competent; however, after those stakes are done, chances are that your homesteader will be injured in the encounter far more severely, and his attitude maight be profoundly affected - for the Grey Bandit, likely, it was just another day, because his player made less calls, with higher numbers.

Step 1: Stakes: The stakes are always a single question, usually one that starts with the phrase "What happens when...".  The winner of a conflict is the one who gets to determine the outcome of the stakes, though there will often be some negotiation on the details.  Some good stakes might include "What happens when the Grey Bandit arrives at my homestead, set on robbery?", "What happens when I finally confront Jacob with his adulterous affair?", "What happens when we meet, with guns, at high noon, as we arranged?".  Further example stakes, as well as advice on setting good stakes, will be discussed later on.

Step 2: Narrated Bidding: Once the stakes are set, whichever player is the one taking action, or taking action pre-emptively, will narrated a 'bid'.  They will describe an action their character is taking, naming (or "calling") a single stat, trait, relationship, or item that they are using in that bid and which fits with the description, and naming the number for it – they will then check off one of the checkboxes for that trait.  Their opponent will then need to beat that number by narrating, naming a trait of their own, and marking it off in the same fashion – If they can't beat the current total bid with a single trait, they may narrate, call, and mark off a second, even continuing to a third or more as needed, but must stop as soon as the total ratings of their calls beat the total of their opponent.  Their opponent then takes a turn again, doing the same – their initial bids stay in place, and they increase their total with narrative bids until they are above the total of their opponent again.  No narrative bid may claim the stakes, narrate the actions of anyone other than the one narrating, or end the conflict except as described in resolution.  Examples of good narrated bids, and how to make them, will be discussed later on.  You cannot narrate use of a trait if you have already checked off all boxes for it in the conflict.
-As a special rules note, when calling traits for actions that are not actual combat activities, check off traits with a single line through the box.  When calling traits for combative actions, or in response to combative actions, mark off those boxes with an "X".

Step 3: Resolution: Narrative bidding ends when one of the two players in the conflict, on their turn to bid for their character, simply states "I Give" rather than narrating an action.  If a player finds that their character no longer has any traits that apply to the situation, they must Give.  At this point, the other player has control over the stakes, and must narrate a conclusion to the conflict.  The conclusion they narrate may not be one that acts against the character integrity of any other player character in the scene, or which eliminates any player character from play on a long-term basis.  Non-player characters may be outright eliminated, or have their natures effectively destroyed in this fashion, however.  Narrating resolution, like all steps of the this process, will receive more in-depth discussion later on.

Step 4: Impact and Injury: At the end of conflict, all of your ratings will reset, ready to be used again.  However,  before you erase the checks, you need to check for Impact and Injury.  For each two full calls made, including combat calls, make one choice from the Impact list – these choices represent how much effect the conflict has had on the way your character thinks and acts.  In addition, for each two full combat calls made, make one choice from the Injury list; these represent how exhausted, strained, and injured the character is.

Note: These rules assume one character on either side of a two-person conflict.  Sometimes more rules are needed.  See the special rules.

IMPACT AND INJURY
These two lists will be seeing a lot of use whenever mechanics are in use.  Each list is given in order, from choices expected to be used most often, to those expected to be used least often.

The Impact List: For each two total calls you made in any conflict, choose one of the following; some of these options can be chosen repeatedly, as described in the text:

-Place an asterix (*) next to one of your relationships.  That relationship counts as having a rating of 1 until the end of your next conflict; you must quickly describe the reasoning behind this to another player or organizer (typically, this is simply because current events are 'overshadowing' that relationship in the mind of your character).  This option may be chosen up to twice for any given conflict.

-Strong Feelings: Note a single new relationship, narrating it's relationship to the conflict just passed, on the back of your character card.  At the end of the current game, you will delete one of your existing relationships, "move up" any less-potent relationships, and insert that new relationship in the spot previously held by your weakest (lowest total combined rating plus checkboxes) relationship.  You can only choose this option once per conflict, and only up to twice per game total.

-Time Out: Your character feels the need to spend some time alone, or only with close friends.  This may be played out as a short reflective 'discussion' scene between your character and that of another player, if players find this agreeable, or simply by skipping out on the next scene that you would normally be involved in.

-Change of Focus: Mark off a single checkbox (not one for an item) on your character record; cut it in half diagonally, and black out the 'top half.  This checkbox can't be used for the remainder of the game.  At the end of game, you will need to permanently "refocus" that traits – you may raise it's rating by one while removing one checkbox from it, or reduce it's rating by one while gaining one added checkbox.  Alternatively, if marking a trait, rather than altering the numbers, you may make a subtle change in the name of that trait, such as changing the trait 'gunfighter' into 'sharpshooter'; such changes of name must be agreed with other players and organizers.  You can only change the focus of each individual stat, trait, or relationship once per game, and it's recommended that you not change the focus of more than two ratings each game.

The Injury List: For each two combat-based calls you made in any conflict, choose one of the following; some of these options can be chosen repeatedly:

-Medical Care: Your character requires medical attention; another character with combined traits that are applicable to medical care, and with total ratings of at least seven, must assist your character within the before the end of the next scene, for several minutes, or they will gain two additional injuries.  This option may be taken only once.

-Strain: Choose and mark off three of the check boxes used in the last conflict (stats or traits only), after erasing marks, as "non-combat calls"; these boxes can't be used in your next conflict, and count as calls in that conflict .  This option may be selected twice; if it is, instead mark off two such check boxes, blacking out the top half of those boxes diagonally; these traits will be 'refocused' as per the Impact choice at game end, and can't be used until then.  It may be selected a third time, as well; if so, choose only one check box, and black it out completely – it will be lost permanently, though you may choose after game to regain that box by instead reducing the rating of whatever it is attached to by one instead.

-Unconsciousness: Your character falls unconscious, and will remain so until the end of the next scene.  This option may be taken twice; taking it a second time means that your character will remain unconscious until the end of the game.

-Death: This choice supersedes all other choices.  It is only required if the number of combat-based calls you made in the last conflict was 14 or greater (as this means you've selected all the other injuries the maximum number of times, and have no other choices).  Once taken, you must decide whether your character dies instantly, or will die after a deathbed scene played out immediately following.


SPECIAL RULES
These are rules for conflicts in which things get a little more complicated.

Multiperson Conflicts: If there are multiple people on any one 'side' of a conflict, one of those people is always taking the lead - generally, the first one to declare action on that side.  In effect, that one leader maintains a bidding total that is compared to that of the other side.  Those helping the leader, in mechanical terms, call traits on behalf of their leader, adding the value of those traits to the leader's total; the leader determines when their side 'gives'; if nobody else on their side is willing to volunteer a further bid on behalf of their side, it falls to the leader to bid of Give.  The leader of a side also decides which traits on their side are called, if there are multiple calls volunteered.  The whole side, in effect, is treated as a single person in terms of making bids and total bid, though they remain separate in terms of impact and injury, and in terms of narration (each player on each side narrates their own bids).

Multisided Conflicts: When there are more than two sides to a conflict, each of those sides maintains their own total bid.  Conflict opens normally, starting with the most active side and moving to the least most active.  After each side has made at least one bid, from that point onwards, whichever side has the lowest total bid is always the "next up" to bid, and must raise their bid total to beat the highest, or must Give.

Mid-Conflict Entrances: Entering a conflict in the middle is generally frowned upon by these rules, but it's sometimes unavoidable.  To do so, one must either join one side of the conflict, treating the person or leader already present as your leader, and carry on normally, or create 'a new side'.  When coming in as a new side, the person or persons joining in must defeat the current bid total immediately in order to join the conflict currently running.

PLAYER SKILLS
These three items are consistently open to discussion within any group, but here's some very basic advice.

Setting Stakes: Creating good stakes for a conflict requires a modicum of ability; good stakes are generally pretty vague, but clearly motivating.  When stakes are set, it should be clear to everyone involved why the situation is one where the outcome can go more than one way, and where the way that it goes can actually have significant impact on those taking part.  If there's only one real outcome, or no chance of significant impact on any of the characters, there's no point in setting up stakes.  If the stakes imply that a   specific kind of Impact or Injury is inevitable based on who Gives and who doesn't, then the stakes need to be restated without that implication.  Stakes determine who narrates the outcome; they don't dictate what happens in that outcome.  Also, stakes don't repeat; if you just lost a fight against someone, that fight is over and lost; don't try to start up that struggle again until the location, players, and starting conditions have all been changed.

Narrating Bids: Narrating bids can be a bit tricky.  Firstly, a bid furthers, but does not dictate, resolving a conflict - if the stakes are "What happens when we meet with guns at High Noon.", then an attempt to run away isn't a Bid; it's a Give, and whoever just gained the stakes will tell you how successful running away was for your character.  Second, a bid must show how you are using the stat, trait, relationship, or item you've just called in a way that relates to the challenge.   "My character's hand folds around the old locket around his neck with the pictures of the sisters he lost to bandits, and, taking new inspiration, he fires at the Grey Bandit again." – that, naming the item and rating, is a solid bid.  "My character really doesn't like you, so I'm calling my Heart Stat" is poor; the character didn't do anything.  In general, if you can't mime out an action to add substance to your bid, showing us as well as telling us what you're doing, why it matters, and how it relates to the call, you've made a weak bid at best.

Narrating Resolutions: When narrating a resolution, you may be able to hit on a satisfying resolution that matches your vision of the story straight off - but equally often, a few details will need adjusting.  In general terms, if you've gained narrative 'rights' through conflict, you may narrate any resolution that fits the actions involved in the conflict, and which doesn't dictate specific impact or injury on any player character.  It's important to respect the integrity of other characters as much as possible when narrating an outcome – try not to narrate actions for them that they wouldn't normally even consider, and never describe their specific impacts or injuries - but it's equally important for other players to keep in mind that conflict itself, and the process of narrating the resolution, is one drive to character development.  It would be too much, in the case of a gunfight, for the player performing the narration to dictate that their opponent had been shot dead in the street, but it would not be too much to state that their opponent had fallen to the ground, their gun kicked away, and their hands bound behind their back.  Their opponent, then, could decide when taking fallout if they were unconscious, simply grazed and winded, outright dead, or whatever details might apply.


EXPERIENCE:
At the end of each venture (town or similar), you may choose up to two Experience 'advances'.  There are two basic ways to do this.  First, you may raise the rating or number of checkboxes for any trait by one, up to a maximum (rating plus checkboxes) of seven.   Second, you may choose and gain and describe a new trait, relationship, or item, and add it to your character record; new traits and relationships start with a base rating of (2-OO); items are simply given appropriate numbers and boxes normally.  Note that is possible to both refocus and increase a trait after a game, but refocusing a trait or advancing it twice is not allowed.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Already noted - there are a few places where I wrote "trait" and meant "trait, stat, item, or relationship", especially where I'm talking about calling traits to make bids.  And there are three starting realtionships and three ratings in this draft - the "five ratings" is a typo.

[Adam Cerling]

Hypothetical examples of play, please! They help so much when understanding how text actually works.

I can tell already that your description of Stakes doesn't cut it for me. "What happens when..." is the problem -- anything phrased that way is not a Stake.

"What happens when I finally confront Jacob with his adulterous affair?" I don't know, what happens? Do I change his sinnin' ways? Does he snooker me into promising not to tell? Does he kill himself in shame? Do we part amicably after a nice spot of tea?

Any possible answer to the "what happens when" question -- that's a Stake.

In Dogs, it's important to know what outcomes are at stake so that you can judge good Raises. A Raise like "I stand vigil all night outside Jacob's door" can be ignored if the Stake is about Jacob repenting, but it's a great Raise if the Stake is about Jacob killing himself.

[Warren]

I'm no LARPer, but it does seem like more record keeping than I would expect for a live-action environment. But, as I said, this is way of of my experience, so I'll assume that it's all cool.

Overall, I quite like this system apart from I agree with Adam that "What happens when..." isn't really a good way of explaining Stakes, but I won't go into that here. Instead, I do have a couple of more specific points, the simpler to explain first: I think that Relationships shouldn't all be allocated before play begins, and 'free' relationships should be left open as in the book. I've found that one cool thing during actual play is having characters take relationships with major NPCs in order to (get more dice and) win a conflict -- it's the old, "Out of dice? Well you could take a Relationship with her, or shoot her in the face. Your choice." kinda thing.

Secondly, I would not have Acutity/Body/Heart/Will, and instead have Talking/Physical/Fighting/Shooting as the basic four stats instead, with the obvious requirement that if you play your Fighting stat you have to act out a combat of some sort, etc. In tabletop play, the individual Attributes don't really enter play themselves as much as creating basic pools of dice for each Escalation level. Also, the system as described doesn't seem to capture the sense of Escalation that Vincent has put into Dogs, but having each of the four conflict arenas as a seperate and accountable Traits I think will tempt players to escalate. If I'm in a argument (Talking), but I have a nice juicy 5-O 'Shooting' stat, I could start shooting to get those 5 rating points, but it means I start shooting/ Having a Will score of 5-O wouldn't be as cool, I think.

Hope that helps,
Warren

[Simon Kamber]

The way you describe traits, the quality of the trait defines how good a character is at something, not how important that something is to the character like in tabletop dogs. Is that on purpose, and if so, why?

[Levi Kornelsen]

Sorry to get back so late.  Holidays make for a crazed Levi.

Any possible answer to the "what happens when" question -- that's a Stake.

Hm.  This makes sense.  I'll have to reword and clarify that a bit.

Examples, I'm working on.  I'm testing just the numerical systemry with some friends tonight; if that's no good, no example in the world will save me, so I'll fix that first if needed.

I'm no LARPer, but it does seem like more record keeping than I would expect for a live-action environment. But, as I said, this is way of of my experience, so I'll assume that it's all cool.

The book-keeping needs, after first runs (done by myself just to test description and timing and the like), some slimming down.  Not a whole lot, but some.  I'll work on that.

Open, unspecified Relationships were something I wanted as an *option*, and a favored one, but forgot to note in.  Will correct.

And tracking the four stages of escalation seperately is a nice idea...  I'm just not sure about the numbers, and if they'll work.  I'll try it as a test both ways, and see what I can see.

The way you describe traits, the quality of the trait defines how good a character is at something, not how important that something is to the character like in tabletop dogs. Is that on purpose, and if so, why?

That is, in fact, not on purpose.  Had I realized what I would have typing, I would have made it go either way - as either good, but unimportant, to a character, or important but not necessarily skilled - but always as something of importance and interest to the *player*.

[Graham W]

Levi,

I'm with Adam: I think an example of play would really help here.

I like what you're trying to do here, but I'm not totally sold on this ruleset. Firstly, there's a few ways in which the rules differ noticeably from Dogs. Secondly, I'd like to see some randomness in there: the Relationships and so on, as stated, are numbers rather than dice, which I think changes the game quite a bit.

Graham

[Levi Kornelsen]

AN EXAMPLE
Brother Thaddeus is crossing the town square in a fury, having just learned that Steward Mill, an old retired dog himself, has been leading a cult of worshipers in the town.  Steward Mill steps out of the temple, facing the square, gun in hand.  Righteously angry, Brother Thaddeus brings his rifle to bear...

Both sides are very clearly up for conflict, so stakes are set.  The question to be answered, after a moment of player discussion, is "Which of these characters will be put down?", and each notes their intent that they intend to narrate the defeat of the other.  All the calls made here are combat calls, and will be marked off with "X".

Brother Thaddeus, a starting character, has the following:
Acuity 4-OO, Will 3-OO, Marksman 5-O, and his beloved Rifle 3-OO

Steward Mill, a former Dog that outlasted his bloody career, but has been almost crippled as a result, has:
Acuity 3-O, Will 2-OOO, Tough as nails 2-OOOO, Gunfighting 4-OO, and his Pistol 2-O

The two move 'onstage', pacing out a dozen steps distance from each other. 

Thaddeus opens the bidding "I move to cover behind the hand-cart in the square and fire carefully; I'm a marksman at 5."; he moves to act out this bid, and marks off his marksman box, and the organizer on hand moves a chair in front of him, with a sheet tossed over it, as an impromptu hand-cart prop.

Mill, already anticipating injury from this conflict, responds "The shot clips off of my shoulder, and I move in, firing as I move; that's Tough as Nails 2, and Gunfighting 4; and I'm at 6."   Mill moves as he narrates, showing his actions, and marks off his two calls.

Thaddeus comes back with "I pull in behind my cover, with your shots blowing fragments of wood into me, track your movement carefully with my rifle, reloading quickly, and shoot for the center of your body, circling to keep my cover; that's Acuity 4, and I'm at nine."  The player shifts to show their new position, and marks off the call.

Mill bids "I twist and fall back with the shot, blasting back at you as I fall.  That's Tough as Nails 2, and then Gunfighting 4, again; I'm at 12."; the player moves to their new position, marking off their calls.

Thaddeus returns with "Ignoring my wounds, and snapping another shot into place, I step up onto the cart, pull my rifle close to sight for your chest, and shoot down into your prone body. That's my Rifle at 3, for a tie, and Acuity 4." He steps onto the chair, and moves into position.

Mill Gives, and Thaddeus begins his narrated ending as jumping down from the cart, kicking Mill's pistol away, and holding the rifle on him while checking his injuries – he then pauses his narration to allow both players to check their calls and injury.  Each has made four calls, so each needs to take two Impacts and two Injuries.

-Mill chooses unconsciousness and medical care as injuries, and strong feelings (towards Thaddeus) and change of focus for his Tough as Nails trait as impacts.

-Thaddeus , as injuries, chooses strain twice, and marks his Acuity and Marksman trait to be refocused.  As impact, he marks two relationships with an asterix, stating how the current action has chased away his thoughts of those people.

Thaddeus then continues his narration, calling for someone able to tend Mill's injuries while he's locked away, and has Mill removed to confinement for later questioning.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Agh.  Sorry, correction to the above: Thaddeus made five calls, not four, but it's not enough to push him up to three selections. 

Regardless, though, that's a rough example.  A bit too heavy on the end-of-conflict accounting, but it seems to move pretty smoothly.  When testing it, we agreed that it seemed functional, but not quite right somehow.

More work seems needed.

[Kimberley Lam]

1. My thoughts on stakes:

If a stake is a possible answer to "What happens when..." then technically "I run away" during a gunfight at High Noon is a valid stake and not a Give. Phrased this way, a Give is nothing more than a player allowing another player to resolve a conflict. That is, she's giving up her narrating rights. (This theoretically opens up the idea that a player who has Given can still "win" the conflict if the other player narrates it that way, which feels a bit weird but I wonder if it isn't a bad thing....)

I'm probably stating the obvious, but stakes should define why there is a conflict at all. I mean, if Bandit Sam tries to rob Farmer Jacob, then "Farmer Jacob gets robbed by Bandit Sam" is a stake only if Farmer Jacob's player says that he doesn't like this outcome to the question. Stakes, then, are opposed answers to "What happens when...?" questions championed by different characters or groups of characters. Multigroup conflicts arise when different stakes are being championed and all stakes are at least somewhat opposed to each other (ie: Brother Emmanual and Brother Mark are arguing over a point in the Book of Life, and Sister Sarah just wants them both to shut up).

2. Example of conflict:

What strikes me most about the conflict is phrases like "That's Tough as Nails 2, and then Gunfighting 4, again; I'm at 12." In tabletop you don't need to say any of that because players can add up the numbers of dice in their heads and just keep narrating from there. Is it possible to shift that to someone else? An uninterested party (ie: the poor shepherd who's been following the Shepherd in his cult and is now hiding under a table in the temple) or the organizer perhaps?

Like so:

Thaddeus opens the bidding "I move to cover behind the hand-cart in the square and fire carefully." He shows his sheet to the third party, crossing off what he's using.

Shepherd says, "Total of 5."

Mill responds. "The shot clips off of my shoulder, and I move in, firing as I move." Shows his sheet to the Shepherd, crossing off the appropriate traits.

Shepherd: "That's up to 6."

Thaddeus comes back with "I pull in behind my cover, with your shots blowing fragments of wood into me, track your movement carefully with my rifle, reloading quickly, and shoot for the center of your body, circling to keep my cover."

Shepherd: "9."

And so on....

Problems with this idea: Traits being used aren't announced so if there's any disagreement about the validity of the trait, it will have to come from the third party. Ideally, the third party is neutral and this shouldn't matter, but the opposed player should know what he's going up against, to a certain degree. A possible solution would be to have the trait be announced at the beginning of the narration and, if it's used again, not to bother announcing it because it's already been approved for use in the conflict.

Another problem is getting a third party. Depending on how large a group is playing and how involved everyone is, there might not be enought organizers are uninterested parties. Furthermore, someone acting as the announcer of the numerical totals may be a player who will see an opportunity for a midconflict entrance and this bogs down game play. Thankfully, the whole "leader of a group" idea cuts down on the number of people the announcer has to run to.

[Levi Kornelsen]

1. My thoughts on stakes:

If a stake is a possible answer to "What happens when..." then technically "I run away" during a gunfight at High Noon is a valid stake and not a Give. Phrased this way, a Give is nothing more than a player allowing another player to resolve a conflict. That is, she's giving up her narrating rights. (This theoretically opens up the idea that a player who has Given can still "win" the conflict if the other player narrates it that way, which feels a bit weird but I wonder if it isn't a bad thing....)

I'm probably stating the obvious, but stakes should define why there is a conflict at all. I mean, if Bandit Sam tries to rob Farmer Jacob, then "Farmer Jacob gets robbed by Bandit Sam" is a stake only if Farmer Jacob's player says that he doesn't like this outcome to the question. Stakes, then, are opposed answers to "What happens when...?" questions championed by different characters or groups of characters. Multigroup conflicts arise when different stakes are being championed and all stakes are at least somewhat opposed to each other (ie: Brother Emmanual and Brother Mark are arguing over a point in the Book of Life, and Sister Sarah just wants them both to shut up).

Yes, yes, and yes.  And don't think of this as "stating the basics".  When this goes Live, after suitable thrashing, the "obvious" will be things every player will need to learn all over again.

...And you'll get to help teach them.

(And, Kim?  Forge tradition generally seems to be use of your real name, whether as your title, in your signature, simply by telling others, or whatever.  Just to let you know.)

Another problem is getting a third party. Depending on how large a group is playing and how involved everyone is, there might not be enought organizers are uninterested parties. Furthermore, someone acting as the announcer of the numerical totals may be a player who will see an opportunity for a midconflict entrance and this bogs down game play. Thankfully, the whole "leader of a group" idea cuts down on the number of people the announcer has to run to.

Well, I'm still trying to thrash out that hybrid model back on my journal; chacnes are, I'll be using something like that.  Which is an organizer at each running town, two groups per town (one playing as the town, one playing as Dogs, with switch-offs).

[Adam Cerling]

Just a few quick observations:

When two folks throw down, before a single Trait has been bid, can't someone look at both sheets, add up all the relevant combat traits, and know who wins? Unless someone decides to Give early, of course. But if I have a fat helping of combat traits -- if that's all I focus on -- I can be pretty sure to get what I want.

It also seems that a 5-O is clearly superior to a 2-OO. Is that correct?

[Levi Kornelsen]

Just a few quick observations:

When two folks throw down, before a single Trait has been bid, can't someone look at both sheets, add up all the relevant combat traits, and know who wins? Unless someone decides to Give early, of course. But if I have a fat helping of combat traits -- if that's all I focus on -- I can be pretty sure to get what I want.

It also seems that a 5-O is clearly superior to a 2-OO. Is that correct?

Unless someone decides to give early, yep.  Or someone joins in.  Or someone escalates to bring in more relevant stuff.  But still, generally, yes.

But giving early is, at least in theory, a very likely outcome, for specifically the reasons that a 5-O is generally better than a 2-OO, and possibly even generally better than a 3-OO; the 5-O gets less impact/injury.  Unless you want your character to take impact or injury (rare in the first case, *very* rare in the second, I think).  Because it gets worse as you go on.

Mentally, I can see many conflicts ending after one party decides that the other has "paid" enough, or when they know they're going to have to "pay" too much, in those terms.  Which is what I'd like to see.

So, in many ways, I'm thinking of rebuilding impact and injury to start very, very light (as 'color' more than anything else) and ramp up as you bid from colorful to character-shattering as you approach naming your tenth or twelth trait of the conflict.

[Kimberley Lam]

(And, Kim?  Forge tradition generally seems to be use of your real name, whether as your title, in your signature, simply by telling others, or whatever.  Just to let you know.)

(Noticed that after I browsed a bit. What's with you and dragging me into new rpg forums, anyway?)

Well, I'm still trying to thrash out that hybrid model back on my journal; chacnes are, I'll be using something like that.  Which is an organizer at each running town, two groups per town (one playing as the town, one playing as Dogs, with switch-offs).

I remember that. That's why I think the whole third party as announcer idea would work. There's no way that could work in the WoD LARPs we've been playing because of the rules system, but this might be okay since there's going to be more narrators. Even if all the actors want in on the action, there's still likely to only be two or three sides, which an organizer can keep track of easily enough with the "leader of group" set up.

Mentally, I can see many conflicts ending after one party decides that the other has "paid" enough, or when they know they're going to have to "pay" too much, in those terms. Which is what I'd like to see.

So, in many ways, I'm thinking of rebuilding impact and injury to start very, very light (as 'color' more than anything else) and ramp up as you bid from colorful to character-shattering as you approach naming your tenth or twelth trait of the conflict.

Furthermore, a player might initially be willing to go for  broke and take the consequences (I'm a big fan of the dramatic death scene), but a well narrated riposte by the opposing player might make you decide to Give because it furthers the story. Which, I think, is an advantage and also something that Live Players will need to bend their heads around. I know I will.

That may well be the biggest problem with the system: we, as players, need to stop looking at our sheets and going "Oooh, I need to upgrade my 4-OOO to 5-OO" and comparing numbers because those numbers won't dictate how the conflict will end. They'll only influence it. I like the idea of scaled impact/injury because it'll drive home the idea that winning doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to come out of it well.

Speaking of coming out well, I was thinking of non-physical conflicts. Most LARPs I've played in rarely brought in skills for verbal confrontations except for supernatural powers or maybe to take back a phrase or something. Generally, it's usually a test or two and then things move on to the shouting, handwaving, teary-eyes, or whatever. In any case, this particular conflict resolution system can really disrupt the flow of the debate if players have to announce what their traits are, especially if both players are willing to go for broke and this goes back and forth for ten traits.

... On the other hand, maybe there will just be lots of yelling back and forth without traits or formal conflicts. The problem with this, though, is that it devalues any non-physical/fighting traits (or seems to, anyway). If the conflict resolution system is going to work, it has to work for both verbal conflicts as well as physical conflicts. That means streamlining the "comparing traits" part of it.

[Levi Kornelsen]

What's with you and dragging me into new rpg forums, anyway?

Heh.  While you're here, wander to the top here, and click the Articles link.  If you're willing to read some relatively dry text, there are some lovely eye-openers in those.

There's no way that could work in the WoD LARPs we've been playing because of the rules system, but this might be okay since there's going to be more narrators.

True dat.

That means streamlining the "comparing traits" part of it.

Yep.  Streamlining for Live can be a brute.  One of the things I've started trying for is that, as it is already, when you bid, you're doing three things.  You're telling us (narrate), showing us (act out), and putting numbers on (bidding).

If narration and action can be made to overwhelm bidding (both by enforcing their importance and by slimming down bidding just a touch), then we'll have achieved something that will be, I think, very new - play won't stop with conflict.  Instead, players will simply slide naturally from moving through the game as an Actor, to moving in it as an Author.

And that would be awesome all on it's own.