*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 26, 2022, 09:19:38 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 89 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: [DitV] Why do the players lose conflicts?  (Read 2748 times)
inky
Member

Posts: 51


« on: February 24, 2006, 10:52:41 AM »

Sorry if this has been covered in the past, but I looked back a few pages and couldn't find anything.

I've played in/GMed two short games of Dogs now (three sessions total), with probably a half-dozen conflicts between them. The players haven't lost any of them, or even come close. Is this the way it usually goes?

As far as I can tell, single NPCs tend to be slightly weaker than single Dogs, so if the conflicts were just one-on-one, then I'd expect the players to win most but not all of the time. But I'm not seeing many one-on-one conflicts, and I'm not sure why I should -- it seems natural that the Dogs would stick together in groups of two or three as they're going around the town, and this size is generally able to power over the NPCs's less-than-half-as-large die pools. I know that mobs can be much more powerful than individuals, but it seems like that's not going to be the normal kind of conflict the Dogs get into (even if the town's really riled).

This isn't as much of a conceptual problem in DitV for me as it would be in other games, since the act of playing out the conflict is still satisfying even if the outcome is predetermined, but I'd like it even better if the stakes felt really up for grabs.

So is this how it usually goes? If it goes differently for your group, can you tell me what the players/GM are doing differently?
Logged

Dan Shiovitz
Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2006, 10:56:53 AM »

If you want to make the Dogs lose conflicts, there are ways to do it.

You can have the NPC assemble a huge mob.  The dice that large groups of people get are SCARY.

You can have the NPC's gang up on the PC's when they're alone.

But in the end, I don't bother.  The play is there, win or lose.
Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
Andrew Morris
Member

Posts: 1233


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2006, 11:32:47 AM »

Dan, how many players do you have? I've found that once you have four or more Dogs, it's pretty darn hard to put them in a position to lose conflicts.
Logged

Download: Unistat
coffeestain
Member

Posts: 165


« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2006, 11:42:16 AM »

My favorite rule in games with 4 or more Dogs is the short-term fallout option that states: "Have your character leave the scene and spend some time alone. Only choose this if no one launches a follow-up conflict"

If nobody is launching a followup conflict, I strongly encourage them to take this option.  It's a great way to have the players choose to interact one-on-one with a situation.

Regards,
Daniel
Logged
dunlaing
Member

Posts: 308

My name is Bill


« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2006, 12:02:19 PM »

We just played out a town that ook us three sessions. For two of the three sessions, we only had two Dogs present.

We lost a bunch of conflicts and here's why:
  • We split up to deal with a bunch of things at once, thus often had 1 Dog vs. 1 NPC conflicts.
  • Well-played NPCs are hard to escalate against. (Steward Abraham was in the wrong but he meant well, and I ain't gonna punch a man that means well without serious provocation)
  • There were a lot of Mountain People in the Mountain People's camp

We actually lost a 2 Dogs v. 1 NPC conflict. It was against Steward Abraham, who neither of us wanted to punch or shoot. It was also Stakes we could afford to give on. The GM rolled well, and NPC traits tend to all be useful in the first conflict you have against them. (whereas some of my traits are not useful in many conflicts)
Logged
ffilz
Member

Posts: 468


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2006, 01:34:14 PM »

From my one play session, I think the key is to get your players splitting up. As a player, I found the 2 or 3 on 1 conflicts less interesting and less intense. I would have enjoyed the game better with some 1 on 1 conflicts. I think you could have an NPC pull a PC aside and force a 1 on 1 conflict. Or target things that only one PC really cares about (look for those big die traits, and hit them directly).

Frank
Logged

Frank Filz
Valamir
Member

Posts: 5574


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2006, 02:15:18 PM »

Two things:

one, this is key:
Quote
Well-played NPCs are hard to escalate against. (Steward Abraham was in the wrong but he meant well, and I ain't gonna punch a man that means well without serious provocation)

Make sure you have conflicts that aren't morally easy to escalate.  If the Dogs choose to escalate anyway in order to win anyway...that's exactly the type of moral statement you want them to be making "sure I'm willing to gun down an unarmed 12 year old...I need those dice to ensure I win the conflict"...that's perfectly cool...sick...but cool...and much more interesting than gunning down an ornery shot gun wielding bandit.

Two, don't forget that ALL of the Dogs who are targeted by a Raise have to See.  Having 4 times the Dogs doesn't necessarily mean they have 4 times the dice. 

Sub point #1 to this, IIRC the "rule" for which order players go in is less of a rule and more of a "in lieu of anything better, do it this way" guideline.  IMO that leaves the door open for not simply having the Dogs get 4 raises in a row (1 per Dog) while the NPC has to block 4 times.  I think its entirely reasonable to have the order go Dog #1, NPC, Dog #2, NPC, Dog #3, NPC.  This reduces some of the advantage by allowing the NPC to burn alot of Dog's dice at once.

Sub point #2, if the Dogs are working at cross purposes, there's no reason not to force them to see EACH OTHER's raises as well.  For instance: an NPC is acting erratically, potentially leading to violence.  Dog #1 is trying to appeal to the NPCs faith by quoting scripture about peace and harmony.  Dog #2 escalates to physical and tries to get the NPC to back down by intimidating him with his size.  I see no problem in forcing Dog #1 to have to See #2's raise of "I loom over him menacingly" because the overt use of threatened violence undermines #1s message of peace and harmony.  Likewise I have no problem forcing #2 to See #1's Raise of scripture about peace and harmony because as a Dog the scripture is contrary to his own actions which are not peaceful and harmonious and it would take a force of will (i.e. spending dice) to continue to menace in the face of scripture (possibly a fine opportunity to call in a "I don't care much for what the book sez 2d8" trait). 

As another example Dog #2 starts pummelling the NPC while Dog #3 has "the sight of blood makes me weak 2d4" as a Trait.  I would force Dog#2 to See Dog #1s raises because their Trait makes it difficult to stand and continue in the face of a bloody nose (although the Trait does give them additional dice to roll to do so).

So don't miss the opportunity to make Dogs see each other's raises if they're incompatable.

Logged

Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2006, 05:37:42 AM »

I'm not sure I like forcing a player to see a raise that another player hasn't called him to see.  Suggest might be a better word.
Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!