[DitV] Clover Fields Branch

[oliof]

Tonite, we played [link url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18271.0]Clover Field Branch [/link] in the [link url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17158.0]Keepers of the Flame[/link] alternate setting. It was the second town I played with the group. The first was  [link url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17430.0]High Rockton
[/link].

Martin played Brother Karanis, a proud keeper with a good knowledge of scripture and pride issues. Frank played Brother Zaroun, the Big Guy with the Big Mouth and the Big Sword. Ron played Brother Arnosk, well known for his cooking and his eating habits (has a relationship with gluttony).

Let me put this first: The main problem was that I didn't reveal the town fast enough. I forgot to introduce the wounded Brother Amos when Brother Karanis first visited the Jasper Mansion. This lead to the players coming back to the whole Ada-Deborah-Jasper-Amos thing very late in the game (which also meant very late at night). I thought to myself "they'll come back soon enough" - a total misjudgement. I made Brother Jairus a cousin of Brother Zaroun, and I think this might actually have changed Franks judgement of the poor sinner. The whole Obadiah-Jairus-Tamarah arc exemplified very well that sin can come from people who did not show pride or unjust behavior beforehand.

Brother Arnosk provided a bit of comic relief, but not in a way that disturbed the game. A lot of conflict revolved or aimed at his gluttony, so it was quite engaging. I left Jairus out of the Cult, because in game it seemed more natural that the Steward, Adah and Obadiah come together because their different wants and needs all have a commonality in that it is about keeping the society in order and controlling growth.

We had two to three different problems with stakes setting:

One conflict was between Zaroun and Jairus, and the stakes were 'does Jairus convince his cousin that his love is given by the Eternal Flame (i.e. King of Life). We played through the conflict until Jairus acknowledged the Keepers/Dogs authority in the matter of sin, but asked his cousin to talk to Tamarah first. Martin complained correctly that Frank gave at this moment, because the stakes were not settled. It was bad stakes (see next paragraph), but the narration of raises and sees warranted that Zaroun gave at that moment. In a ways, we changed the Stakes in mid-conflict in a way that satisfied me and Frank. It was one of the first conflicts and highlighted the fact that we needed to look more closely to our stakes setting

In a later conflict we started Frank remarked that the conflict was about judgement (of Tamarah's actions). He said that judgement was nothing to have a conflict about. I agreed, but it still seems to be a possible problem. Stakes should be 'does she confess her sins', and not 'do you see what she confesses as sin'. As I knew Tamarah was willing to tell the story from her view, we could cut the whole conflict, which seemed more natural and sped on the game.

The second-to-last conflict was between Adah, Arnosk and Karanis in Adahs kitchen. The conflict was 'does Arnosk take one of the vanilla pies offered to him'. This might sound a bit funny, but it was a conflict as it played on Arnosk's gluttony and was the prelude to the final show-down conflict with Adah, the witch. Adah had nice Traits like "perfect cook 2d10" which caused some vicious fallout. Again, Martin was not quite content with the conflict because he said the question wether someone would take a pie was irrelevant, and the possible fallout was out of proportion. I maintained the stand point that this was important, because the whole food issue was quite important. In the end, we played through the conflict quickly, and Adah gave, but took her 6d6 Fallout into the follow-up conflict where the Dogs got her to confess and repent her sins.

All in all, the game was very satisfying. I still think the guns are missing and take a lot of anxiety and a certain dynamic out of the game, but even without them, it's very rewarding.

Great points was when the Keepers realized the Steward was only a bit off with his interpretation of scripture, but to great effect, Obadiah really is a bad husband, Deborah is just naive, and Jasper does not want to force himself on the young lady.

I would change the following in the 'What do the people want from the dogs:' Jasper wants the dogs to help him get closer to Deborah as he thinks she is just shy. It would bring that whole arc closer to the dogs because someone actively seeks out the dogs. And then, I would change Adah to 'Adah wants the Dogs to stay away', and then play it out as in the thread where this was discussed recently but cannot find at the moment.

Vincent - again, thanks for a great game. We certainly had a lot of fun tonight.

Regards,
     Harald

[oliof]

This is the link. I searched for it in the lumpley games sub forum, but it lives in AP:

[link url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18240.0][DitV] How to play NPCs who wants "to keep Dogs away"[/link].

Regards,
    Harald

[Frank T]

Thanks for the write-up, Harald! It was a good game. Some comments:

First conflict: Thing was, Harald raised with a 12 and "don't judge me before you talk to Tamarah". I didn't want to escalate against my cousin, so I gave, saying: "Alright, I'll do that." That seemed natural with the flow of narration, but didn't really resolve the whole stakes to Jairus' end. Maybe the raise was the problem, because it was nothing I couldn't ignore with regard to the stakes. Whatever.

In the arising argument, confusion arose because Martin and I were talking about two different things. Martin was assuming the action as executed and was arguing I had not given, so I was still in the conflict and had to see, or else the conflict should be postponed with the dice remaining as they were and an intermediate scene with me and Tamarah. I argued that the latter is not possible within the rules. I, on the other hand, was focused on the mechanical side of the conflict: I had given, period. If my narration didn't back that up, I'd have to change it.

The same issue as in the second conflict was present in this first one, in what giving really would have meant: judgment. It just feels wrong for the GM to set the stakes to: she wants to convince you that she did nothing wrong. 'Cause if I as a player am not free to judge for myself whether she did wrong or not, the whole point of playing Dogs gets lost, doesn't it?

The vanilla pie conflict was a nice idea, but as it happened, the very same line ("have a pie") worked much better in the follow-up conflict as just another raise, upon which Brother Arnosk had to take the blow and eat it... It would have saved us substantial time to cut that conflict. With four people in and escalation all the way, it was many dice on the table even without the fallout from the vanilla pie conflict. Even Dogs conflict can get tiring at some point.

I really liked the issues in the town, but I found it a little bit of a pity that the whole "judgment talk" between the Dogs happened before we even had a clue that Adah was a witch. And of course it changed my judgment that Jairus was my cousin. Or did it? I proved nice on those "driven by love" in the first town as well, didn't I? And I was just as nice to Obadiah and Tamarah.

Hey, what I really would have liked to do is hunt down that demon dog that attacked Amos. Just a fun bit of swordplay for a change.

- Frank