Raises that ought to be Stakes of their own...

[dunlaing]

What do you do in a situation where someone makes a Raise that really ought to be the Stakes of another conflict?

Here's my example:

Brother Azaria and Brother Caleb capture Seth, a sinner who kiled his sister's rapist. In doing so, they're both wounded to the point of needing medical attention. Seth runs back to town to get them said medical attention (Brother Azaria has impressed Seth). The Dogs are revived, but in the meantime Seth has been strung up by a mob of locals.
Brother Azaria's player launches a conflict to get the mob (and the rapist's father) to Repent. Brother Caleb joins in. At one point, Brother Caleb (who has joined in to help Brother Azaria win the conflict) Raises with "Killing Seth was the right thing, but you should have waited for us to do it, not done it on your own." Brother Azaria doesn't believe this, doesn't agree with this, and frankly, if we're being totally honest can't ignore this.

I was Brother Azaria's player. In a moment of weakness, I just let that Raise go and didn't See it (it was "aimed" at the mob and the father) largely because I didn't have two dice high enough to See his Raise, so if I did See it, I would have had to Take the Blow.

• If I had Taken the Blow, would I have had to admit that Seth should have died?
• I realize I could have Given in order not to Take the Blow, but damnit, I wanted to make those bastards Repent. Should I have Given?

I felt like the issue of whether killing Seth was the right thing was pretty central to the session. For Brother Azaria to admit that Seth should have died, I felt like I would need to have lost a conflict. This was just a Raise in the middle of a conflict.

Is this clear enough for someone to answer?

[Vaxalon]

Remember that one of your options when someone else is seeing a raise, is that you can add one of your dice to their see.

You could have slid a die across to the GM, and said, "Brother Caleb, I don't agree with that."

[dunlaing]

That's good strategy, but I guess I still am not over the idea that I should have been forced to See. Do you not think I had to See that Raise?

[Brendan]

That's good strategy, but I guess I still am not over the idea that I should have been forced to See. Do you not think I had to See that Raise?

One of the great things about Dogs is that the mechanics let you make statements.  In your situation, I would have slid three dice out and said "taking the blow:  I stay silent."

[lumpley]

I may be having some trouble visualizing. If so, correct me!

Imagine that your Dog had been the only Dog in the conflict. The stakes were: will the mob repent? Your Dog sees a good argument that will press them to repent; it's "killing Seth was the right thing, but you should have waited for us to do it, not done it on your own." Problem is, it's a lie, it's not what your Dog feels is true. You have him say it anyway! Now your Dog's a lying hypocrite ... but he's winning the conflict.

Because he doesn't believe it, should he be forced to see it? Not at all.

Does him going along with it, even though he didn't believe it, say something about him? Sure.

Mechanically, what are your choices, if you don't want to go along with it?

a) You can see it along with the mob. If you want to do this but don't have the dice, you'll have to bring in a trait, assign a relationship, or escalate. Failing that, you have to give. I like Brendan's see, if you have those dice handy.

b) You can pass a helping die to the mob (with appropriate "now I wouldn't say that, brother" narration).

c) You can give outright, dropping your character out of the conflict.

d) In conjunction with (c) or not, you can launch a followup conflict - but even in conjunction with (c), you have to wait until this conflict ends.

At the moment of the raise, all that's at stake is whether your character goes along with it for now, not whether he believes it. You only have to see the raise if your conscience demands it; you can let it pass without endorsing it, instead, if your conscience will.

-Vincent

[Lance D. Allen]

You could also have not Seen that, but immediately after that conflict, started a followup conflict. Seeing that Raise wouldn't have prosecuted your side of the current conflict, which was to try to make the crowd repent for hanging Br. Seth. As much as the mechanics can and do put forth huge opportunity to have inter-PC conflict, I can't imagine it's mechanically wrong to put off responses that will weaken your side of the conflict. My own rule of thumb is that most Raises should be able to end the conflict in your favor if not Seen, either with a Block/Dodge or a Take the Blow. Had you chosen to See the Raise yourself, that would have been a meaningful statement about where you stand, but keeping silent and launching a followup conflict is, too.

The way I see it, Dogs have a responsibility to represent the Faith as a unified front, and not air their disagreements in front of the common Faithful. As humorous as it is to make the statement that "The King is thinking it over out loud" to justify the Dogs arguing in public, I think most of the time, the Dogs would have their disagreements in private.

[dunlaing]

Ok, so in the Real World (the one Bill lives in), I feel bad for not standing up at that point, pushing dice forward, and establishing that no, my character does NOT think that's true.

In the Fake World (the one Br. Azaria livie in), Br. Azaria feels bad for not standing up at that point, confronting his fellow Dog, and affirming that no, he does NOT think that's true.

That seems like a Good Thing. (having my emotional response line up with my character's)

I guess I was getting a bit hung up in the idea of what "can't ignore" means. Brother Azaria couldn't ignore the statement entirely, but for the purposes fo getting through the conflict and not showing lack of unity, he could ignore it for now (and feel real bad about it). The stand-up thing to do might have been to See (and make a statement), but another viable option is to not See (and make a not-statement). Cool.

I really like Dogs a lot. I'm going to get to play in a Dogs campaign starting this Wednesday and I'm really looking forward to it. (the example was from a one-shot with the same GM)

[Supplanter]

b) You can pass a helping die to the mob (with appropriate "now I wouldn't say that, brother" arration).

Speaking as the GM, I'd even accept a narration like "Brother Azaria says nothing" or "Balaam notices that Br. Azaria stops nodding along with Brother Caleb here."

The stand-up thing to do might have been to See (and make a statement), but another viable option is to not See (and make a not-statement). Cool.

Yeah, pretty much any of the options, including the one you actually chose, are "correct" options, so on that level it's all good. Not all of them establish around the table and within the fiction that Br. Azaria disagrees with Brother Caleb on the matter of whether Seth deserved to die, though. That's another concern, right, that the course chosen didn't get the disagreement *explicitly* into the story?

I really like Dogs a lot. I'm going to get to play in a Dogs campaign starting this Wednesday and I'm really looking forward to it. (the example was from a one-shot with the same GM)

Me too!

Best,


Jim

[dunlaing]

Not all of them establish around the table and within the fiction that Br. Azaria disagrees with Brother Caleb on the matter of whether Seth deserved to die, though. That's another concern, right, that the course chosen didn't get the disagreement *explicitly* into the story?

Best,


Jim

Yeah, but I think that's probably ok. As we progressed through the town, Brother Azaria definitely began acting as though he were deferring a bunch of issues with Caleb for later. I think that if that had been the first session of a campaign, we'd have seen the, er, fallout of that habit he had gotten into in later sessions. Now, we knew it wouldn't be a campaign, but I like to play as if it's going to be a campaign anyway. I likes me some buildup and some subtext in my Story.

In other words, it was probably the wrong way to go for a one-shot, but I don't want to get out of that habit for our upcoming campaign.

Second best,

Bill

[Supplanter]

Cool. We have No Problem then.

Best,


Jim

[Gugliandalf]

a) You can see it along with the mob. If you want to do this but don't have the dice, you'll have to bring in a trait, assign a relationship, or escalate. Failing that, you have to give. I like Brendan's see, if you have those dice handy.

But assigning relationships shouldn't be only at start of conflict, not in the middle of it?

[lumpley]

Let's carry this conversation on here.

-Vincent