The Dogs totally blow it - then what?

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

What's right and wrong and the Truth is for the players to decide, not characters. "Dog" is just a Trait if you're not playing a protagonist.

[lumpley]

So Fred, how are you doing with this? Did I answer your question?

-Vincent

[Vaxalon]

Well, not really.

Whether the GM betrayed them, as a co-player of the game and a co-collaborator of the fiction. Very specifically "betrayed," not just "how they feel."

-Vincent

Sorry to get back to this so late.  I have been away from the forum for a while, and didn't mark this thread "Notify"

The answer you gave still leaves me a little confused.

Let me rephrase my summary and resubmit:

You seem to be saying that the measure of what the GM ought to do, is whether the players feel betrayed if and when they find what consequences GM has decided on.

[lumpley]

The straight answer:

Yes.

The nit-picky answer:

Of course the GM hasn't done anything until the players find out about it. The GM can harbor secret fantasy consequences all he likes, same as everybody else; it's not until the GM makes them real in the game (via town creation and/or conflict resolution) that they are real in the game.

Here are the two different interactions I'm imagining.

Interaction 1: proper GMing

GM: When you arrive in town you learn that sister Marybette had the child after all.
Players: Oh crap oh crap oh crap, I can't believe she did that, this is the worst thing we've ever had to deal with, crap, what are we going to do about that, she totally sucks, maybe we should just kill her to death right now.

Interaction 2: improper GMing

GM: When you arrive in town you learn that sister Marybette had the child after all.
Players: No she didn't, that's not okay, you totally suck, take that back or I'm going to quit this stupid game.

-Vincent

[Eero Tuovinen]

It probably should be noted here that the distinction Vincent draws is, again, exactly the same whether you're making a new town or revisiting an old one. It makes no difference whether players withdraw credibility due to the GM abusing a previous town or due to him abusing, say, reappearing characters from another town, or player sensibilities concerning the Faith, or whatever else. The GM is always in a position to abuse authority when he sets up situation in town creation, so if there's a difference between an old town or a new one, it's only in the degree of expectations players have concerning the material. I imagine it's pretty rare for a GM to manage to betray expectations in the first session, but a crass enough misreading of the setting could manage even that.

Furthermore, you could say that Vincent isn't discussing rules here at all, but rather base social contract issues. The rule seems to be that the GM does whatever he pleases concerning the town. Vincent' criteria of betrayal concerns a more fundamental requirement of roleplaying happening at all - players have to give credibility to what others claim about the SIS - Lumpley principle, in other words. So as I understand it, Vincent isn't so much saying that the DiV rules require the GM to not make players feel betrayed, but rather that it's a requirement of play happening at all.

[The_Tim]

It seems to me the issue on how the Dogs' efforts are treated.

The good GM doesn't disagree with the decision and then go about twisting it around.  This will end up with a result the shows where it comes from.  The GM wanted something, didn't care about the choices the players made and decided an outcome.
Example: The Dogs set things right in a town by gunning down bad folks.  The good faithful folk receive a talking to and the Dogs head out.  The GM wanted more out of the town, and is particularly annoyed that the players ignored a feuding set of brothers, just shooting one in the process of cleaning up.  When the Dogs revisit the town the GM decides that the town is pissed that so many of the people died and have abandoned the Faith.  The demons won, even though the players and the dice indicated that the Dogs had passed judgement and cleaned up the town.

Now if you think instead about what might happen on revisiting a town you can make very similar situations that don't come from a place of "Screw you and your story direction", and thus don't look like it.
Example: The Dogs set things right in a town by gunning down bad folks.  The good faithful folk receive a talking to and the Dogs head out.  The GM has more notes on the town, and keeps them in case of a revisit or to recycle unused material.  When the Dogs revisit the town the GM decides that the surviving brother in a feud "settled" by the Dogs is angry that he didn't get to set things right with his brother.  With demon help he brings his brother back from the dead and starts leading the town into damnation.  The demons have major ground because of an NPC who has betrayed the Dogs.  The players and the dice did not cut off this option from the NPC, and presumably won't mind that something else has happened and that it relates to what they did.

Basically if in describing the town after the Dogs you could reasonably slip in "And your efforts amounted to nothing!" it isn't right.

[Vaxalon]

Okay, let's take a specific instance of play, and draw a hypothetical out of it.

The players in my FTF game, last session, finished playing through a town.  There were two blood-brothers, one of whom was the Steward.  The Steward leaned a bit too hard on the justice side of the justice/mercy dichotomy, and his brother decided he'd be a better Steward than the first, and founded a schismatic temple.  The whole thing devolved into sorcery, and in a big gun battle, only one Dog was left standing - the rest were in bad shape.  The last one standing (not the most decisive member of the group by any measure) decided to lock the steward up until his fellow Dogs were well enough to decide, collectively, what to do with him.  He didn't feel that he had enough authority, alone, to kill the sorceror (though he personally felt it was the right thing to do).

I presented the players with the possibility that the Sorcerous ex-steward would escape from jail while the dogs recovered.  They thought that would make a nifty piece of story, so they adopted it, and that's what happened.  They fully expect that at some point in the future, that Sorceror is going to show up again, in another town.

The Dogs had also chosen a new steward, and left the schismatic brother mostly intact; he had to pay for the damage that had been done to the town while it was in turmoil, but otherwise went unpunished.

One of the things that I listed as things the Demons wanted, in this town, was for the Brothers to be maintained in their positions.  In the case of the schismatic brother, they have done this.

Would it be amiss for me to start a revisit of this town with the following?

"PRIDE: Brother Hatham feels that since the Dogs did not strip him of his wealth, that he deserves it, and that what he does in furtherance of it is the Will of the King of Life."

[lumpley]

Would your fellow players feel that you'd betrayed them by that?

-Vincent

[14thWarrior]

Would it be amiss for me to start a revisit of this town with the following?

"PRIDE: Brother Hatham feels that since the Dogs did not strip him of his wealth, that he deserves it, and that what he does in furtherance of it is the Will of the King of Life."

It would seem to to me that so long as Br. Hatham isn't lusting after the office of Steward again, it's fair game.  The Dogs left town having left someone other than Br. Hatham in charge; this clearly indicates that the Dogs don't feel he's right for the position and he should accept that.  But otherwise, deriving some kind of pride from the result of the Dogs' judgement seems acceptable.

I'm not even sure that it would be entirely wrong for a revisit where Hatham is vying for Stewardship again.  The demons, having gotten something of what they wanted, would still present in the town even after the Dogs cleaned things up; they might just start fermenting desires of stewardship within Hatham all over again, turning him to sorcery as they did his brother.  In such a case, the Pride would be "Br. Hatham feels he knows better than do the Dogs", or something like that.  Such a situation isn't so much saying to the players 'you screwed up, try again', but rather, 'you missed a loose end, you need to tie it up'.

And ultimately, what vincent is saying about how the other players would feel, is key.

DitV is structured as a very open game, in terms of communication. So, if after play you spot the loose end, you would want to talk tell the players about it and gauge their reaction; tell them you think it could be turned into a 'revisit' situation.  Their reaction to the revisit idea will tell you whether or not it should be done.

[dunlaing]

The demons, having gotten something of what they wanted, would still present in the town even after the Dogs cleaned things up;

Is this a valid interpretation? It was my impression that, assuming the players think the Dogs did what was necessary to banish the demons, the demons were banished. Entirely. Regardless of what the GM had said the Demons wanted. Even if the Dogs end up doing exactly what the Demons wanted, the Demons should go away because the Dogs did what the Dogs judged was the right thing. The Demons had just wanted the wrong things.

They might have wanted Br. Hatham and his Brother to keep their positions, but then when Br. Hatham kept his position, the Demons realized that that didn't do them any good.

Basically, if the Dogs' players think they've thwarted the demons, then they've thwarted the demons.

Am I wrong about this?

[lumpley]

When there's a conflict, the GM is to say yes or roll dice.

If the players say "we banish the demons!" the GM is to say "yes, you do!" or else "oh yeah? Roll for it!" and if the players win, then indeed their characters have banished the demons.

In no other circumstances may the players assume that the demons are or remain banished.

That's all the rules there are about that.

-Vincent

[14thWarrior]

Basically, if the Dogs' players think they've thwarted the demons, then they've thwarted the demons.

Am I wrong about this?

IMHO, both right and wrong. :D  I believe its all dependant on the players thoughts of the demons still remaining to re-corrupt an NPC that the Dogs chose leave in the town.  If they're cool with the idea, then run with it.  If they're not cool with the idea, then assume the demons have been banished and everyone becomes model members of the Faith.

To bring my response up to speed with Vincent's reply; even if you assumed the demons were banished, nothing would stop you from introducing new demons that have found inroads through the new pride/sin.  So again, it falls to whether or not the group at large is accepting of the town being revisited in such a way.

Personally, I see no problems with such a revisit, because the prides/sins are new.  They're a result of the Dogs' actions, as opposed to being in spite of their actions.

[TonyLB]

In no other circumstances may the players assume that the demons are or remain banished.

Right, but ... the demons come back ... it's not within the GMs role to respond "Well, the Dogs say they banish them, but clearly they're actually supporting the demons.  Rather than ask them to roll dice I'm going to say 'Yes,' but actually think 'No,' because clearly their idea that this is an adequate solution to the problem is poppycock."

This whole thing is reminding me of Burning Wheel's "Let it Ride" roll ... or, rather, the dysfunction of repeated tests that lead to the creation of the rule.

Suppose a player with a thief says "I want to infiltrate the enemy camp," and you say "Okay, check your stealth to get past the outer picket.  Now check your stealth to get past the inner picket.  Check your stealth to make your way through the tents of the camp.  Oops!  Campfire!  Check your stealth!"  You are deciding the matter.  You are testing the same thing, over and over, until either you get the answer that you want or people walk away from the table.

Likewise, suppose a group of Dogs says "What Br. Hatham is doing ain't the problem here," and you say "Okay, make that judgment.  Now, here's another consequence of this exact thing that Br. Hatham was doing.  Tell me again that your original judgment was right.  Now here's another consequence of the exact thing you judged.  Tell me again that your original judgment was right.  Now everybody in town is dead, and the demons have dethroned the King of Life, all because of that thing that Br. Hatham did, which you said was okay.  Tell me again that your original judgment was right."  You are deciding the matter.  You are testing the same thing, over and over, until either you get the answer that you want or people walk away from the table.

So, to my mind, the thing to bear in mind is that the Pride of the town cannot be the Dogs' previous decision, dressed up in funny clothes.  It's a new act of pride, arising from the fact that human beings are prideful critters.

"Br. Hatham looks at the wealth he still has, and decides that getting more wealth is the Will of the King."  Fine.  Br. Hatham has fallen into pride and error.  The Dogs can judge what needs to be done about that.

"Br. Hatham takes the Dogs' stupid, wrong-headed judgment to heart and decides that since they left him his money they've given him carte blanche to do anything to gain more of it."  Bad.  Br. Hatham has not committed pride.  He's following the natural consequences (in the GM's mind) of a decision of the Dogs.  There is no root cause to the hierarchy of sin for any town that starts from such a failed address of the Pride stage.

[Vaxalon]

Would your fellow players feel that you'd betrayed them by that?

-Vincent

I honestly can't say. 

I'd have to ask them.  In the process of asking them, I think that at least some of them would feel deprived of the fun of figuring out What's Wrong for themselves.

[lumpley]

Would your fellow players feel that you'd betrayed them by that?

-Vincent

I honestly can't say. 

I'd have to ask them.  In the process of asking them, I think that at least some of them would feel deprived of the fun of figuring out What's Wrong for themselves.

Don't ask them.

Would YOU feel that you'd betrayed them?

-Vincent