Group Conflicts

[Emily Care]

Hello there,

It seems like the issue of how to deal with group conflicts is a common question. My friend Charles is running a game right now and ran into problems with it, so I thought I'd put a little outline of it here, along with some links to good threads. Please check me on the correctitude of this!

Conflicts with multiple opponents have a slightly different structure than normal ones: they break down into Rounds in which each person has a Go. "Go"s follow in order of that player's best roll (highest 2 dice).

Raises can affect any or all characters as chosen by the player who makes it and as determined by what is narrated. The players of those characters that it affects must See. If at any time you fail to See a Raise, you must Give and drop out.

Example:
For the players of three dogs D1, D2 and D3, and the GM. The highest rolls are in the order: D1, GM, D3, D2.

Round 1:
Go 1:
--Raise: D1 puts forward a raise that affects the GM's character and D3
--Sees:  GM Sees with 2 dice, D3 sees with 2.

Go 2:
--Raise: GM puts forward a raise that affects all other characters.
--Sees: D2 Sees with 1 die (a Reversal, D2 gets to use this die for their any next Sees and/or to add to their next single Raise), D1 and D3 see with 2 dice.

Go 3:
--Raise: D3 puts forward a raise that affects the GM.
--See:  GM sees with 2 dice.

Go 4:
--Raise: D2 pusts forward a raise using the die from their last See. It affects the GM's character and D1.
--See: D1 doesn't have enough to See so Gives. GM sees with 3 dice and takes the blow.

Multiple Named NPCs in a Conflict (how to figure the GM's die pool for a group of NPCs)

Group Helping Strategies (having characters aid one another in group conflicts)

DitV Rules Questions: Groups in Conflict (mechanics for aid given by NPCs to PCs vs. given to other NPCs)

Reversing the blow in a multi-way (how die used to reverse can be used in multiple person conflict)

best,
Emily

[Warren]

Just one note; when I've had group conflicts in Dogs I hand out a counter to each player and keep one for myself. Then after each set of Sees, the participant with the highest pair who still has a counter gets to Raise and as they do so, they discard thier counter. Once all the participants have discarded thier counter, the round ends and everybody gets it back ready for the next Round.

Essentially, this works almost* the same as the official way of handling things, but I find it easier to follow who can Go when, etc.

*The difference being that a players High Pair can change if they use thier high dice to see a Raise made earlier in the round, which could affect the order of who Goes when.

[Alephnul]

Thanks Emily!

On the turn order question, how disastrous would it be to try to accommodate my players free-form tendencies, and let them see and raise in whatever order comes naturally to them (rather than highest die)?

Also, in an argument, how do you judge who was affected by the previous argument and needs to see? One of the Dogs in my group (with low verbal abilities) has the verbal strategy of staying silent until late in the argument, and then tagging in and delivering some brutal conversational blows (this is in free-play). If I force her to see after every argument to which she could respond, then this strategy fails, as she will have burnt all her few dice seeing before she reaches the point in the argument where she'd want to tag in. Do I just assume that if she isn't talking yet, then she isn't being affected by the other sides arguments yet, or do I make her verbal strategy impossible whenever we get into a diced conflict? It is a nice verbal strategy, effective, believable, idiosyncratic, and I'd hate to see it get killed off by a formalism. Obviously, if the NPCs personally call her out, then she is forced to see, but how directly does she need to be called out before she needs to see? Or is that pure GM fiat, and I should force her to see whenever I think she should have to see?

[Levi Kornelsen]

Or is that pure GM fiat, and I should force her to see whenever I think she should have to see?

Anything she "can't ignore", she sees, by the book.  Can she ignore it?  Yes?  Then she doesn't need to see it.

My own group uses "group fiat"; we agree on what someone should 'have to see' in conflicts like this, based on the fiction.  Sometimes, it takes a bit of back-and-forth about what's going on in the fiction, but we get it settled, and we're getting better at describing raising and seeing group-style to keep it clear.

[Valamir]

I'm going to disagree with Levi here. 

Absolutely force her to see.  Or more precisely, demonstrate why she should and get her buy in to that standard.

If person A is scoring points with his arguement while person B remains silent, then person B's position is being undermined.  Whatever she does to "come in later" the damage has been done...if she had such an all fire good arguement she should have spoken up before...that is why she's seeing.

She may LOOK like she's ignoring the other arguement...but she can't be really.  The arguement she will be making when she finally decides to jump in will most certainly be colored by the arguements that went before.

Her Sees may be of the nature of "I look stoically on, remaining silent" or "I speak no words, but by my stance all know I'm unmoved by his arguement" or even "I look careless about the room, not giving him the time of day.  Clearly his words are of no import"

All kinds of fun Sees to be had, but absolutely...yes she HAS to See, she can't simply horde her dice and then come on at the end.


Rule a. on page 69 reads "everybody whose character is affected has to See.  You decide who that is; make it clear in your description of your Raise."  So if your Raise represents an NPC making an effective arguement, by all means insist that anyone who has any stakes riding on the outcome has to See it, EVEN if they're just passive observers.  They may want to jump in later (heck, they may want to draw a pair of smoke wagons and end the arguement the old fashion way) and having forced them to See in the meantime makes sure the dice distribution remains equitable.  Being forced to Give as an observor would mean you're so flummoxed, bamboozled, lost in your own thoughts, or giving weighty concideration to what was said, that you simply lack the ability to act (you gave).

I further recommend adhering to the second key rule of Dogs (the first of course being "say yes or roll dice") which is to adhere to the standards of the most critical player at the table.  If Dog #1 is making a Raise that you think Dog #2 should have to See, but Dog #1 doesn't identify Dog #2 per the above rule (out of negligence or gaminess) then you are entirely within your rights to step in and say "hey Dog #1, don't you think that Raise affects Dog #2 and Dog #2 should have to See as well?"  According to this standard Dog #1 is morally obligated to agree to that standard unless they can demonstrate to your satisfaction otherwise.


As for the order of go's in a round, I again refer you to page 69 where rule b. reads "Break it into Rounds and Goes if that helps" (emphasis mine.)  In the spirit of taking the rules for what they say, if you have a situation where it clearly doesn't help to break it into Rounds and Goes, don't. Rule c. on page 70 which indicates taking your Go in order of highest Best Roll is only applicable "if that helps".

[Alephnul]

Ralph, thanks, that was my take on the second one (that it was validated by the rules), but what I wonder is, in other people's experience, does free forming group conflicts in that manner make them even harder to handle, or is it a reasonable response to a play group that doesn't like to be forced down the chute of a mechanical system (and yes, that is a pejorative way of phrasing it, but it is pretty much how we currently think)?

On the first one, I can see from a play balance side why it is important not to let the quiet character who jumps in at the end not have to spend dice at the end (since it means she is a much more effective character than her dice should make her, and means that the Dogs are even better positioned to overwhelm the GM). However, how would you do that character (who jumps in at the end of arguments, to lay on some last arguments, and crush the exhausted opposition)? I suppose you could take 'I can wait, 4d6' and 'silence speaks volumes, 2d8' along with low acuity and heart. Or I suppose you could push your silent actions all the way to being non-combat physical, and start off with body + heart dice, and see with physical description (then you get your acuity dice when you finally start talking). Both of those allow for a character who can't really hold their own in a long argument, but is good at sitting out an argument, only to jump in at the end with a couple of perfectly timed rhetorical punches. It also gives some traits for her to take from conversational fallout, as she struggles to keep up with the arguments that she isn't really currently designed to last long enough in to reach the end game and jump in on.

There are definitely some subtle complexities to the mechanics that are not obvious in the first time through character creation. But then, I suppose that that is always the case, even without mechanics.

[jlarke]

I've been lurking for a while but trying to refrain from posting. My gaming friends' lives have been too complicated for me to run a session yet. Hopefully you all can confirm or deny my sense of how the game is meant to work.

If the character isn't being hit by anyone else's raises nor making raises of her own for most of the argument, can he really be said to be part of the conflict? At some point the right move from a game mechanics point of view is to let the characters who've been doing the heavy lifting pull in their silent partner as a gang member, 2d6.

I do like the "silence speaks volumes" trait. My worry would be that a character whose traits focus on waiting until the end of the conflict to score the final blow is going to be hard-pressed to get his way if he gets into a one-on-one conflict with a named NPC. Come his turn to raise, he has to talk, and there go most of your dice.

[Emily Care]

Hello,

I think Ralph answered your questions ably. I have a couple suggestions and comments about how to work with the player who waits.

My interpretation of the rules, which pretty much matches what has been said here I think, is that the person who makes the Raise indicates who is affected by it, and others can suggest amendments to that. I like the "strictest player" approach that Ralph described. But it is important that if you are affected, you must See or are out of the conflict.  Also if the strategy the player is using is about the representing the character as being silent until the end, then it makes sense to include that in the traits available and narrate Sees as non-verbal responses or descriptions of the character not being moved by the other's arguments etc. Those are all perfectly reasonable blocks and dodges.

However, the real question seems to be about how to accomodate and support this tendency on the part of the player regardless of the character she's playing.  Letting her have her Go last seems perfectly reasonable, except for the fact that she then will likely always have fewer dice to back up her statement. 

Here's a thought though:  a verbal strategy in free-form like that is based on the characteristic of free-form that the weight of what you say & its effectiveness are based purely on what you say & the social/narrative support you & others give it.  In Dogs, the weight & effectiveness of one's words are given by the dice that you allocate to them.  This means that her verbal strategy is not necessary in order to give her the same effectiveness that she has learned how to muster by going last. She might feel creatively blocked in making things up when she doesn't get to use her strategy due to the difference in pacing & not being in her groove, but the fact that her words are supported & carry weight earlier in the conversation might allow her to adopt different strategies than the one she has found optimal in free-form play.

best,
Emily

[Emily Care]

a verbal strategy in free-form like that is based on the characteristic of free-form that the weight of what you say & its effectiveness are based purely on what you say & the social/narrative support you & others give it.

Let me change that to "may be based". Sorry.

best,
Em

[Alephnul]

To make this less abstract, this is Matt Schlotte's (known to Emily, probably not to anyone else here) character. I don't think he needs the player 'I speak last' technique to have authority in free-form. :) 

I think that it is intended to be a trait of the character, and is certainly (as you suggest in suggesting that it is a functional tactic in free-form) a viable rhetorical strategy. I'd like to see Dogs support the player's decision to have a character who uses this particular rhetorical technique, which, using physical, non-combat dice to support non-verbal reactions, and perhaps giving her the trait 'silence speaks volume' or 'I can wait' or even 'argument closer', it seems that it does. So I think I'm happy.

And it makes sense that you need some additional traits to distinguish a character who can't hold her own for long when she is talking, but can follow the argument as long as she stays quiet well enough to be able to jump in at the end from a character who just isn't verbally skilled and looses her way quickly in a complicated back and forth, whether she speaks or not.

[lumpley]

For the record, everybody in the conflict needs to raise once before anybody in the conflict can raise a second time. A player who "passes" when everyone else has made a raise has given and is out.

A player who wants her character to hold silent through an argument and come in strong at the end must a) get really good at "I hold silent" raises, and b) have some traits to back it up so she doesn't run out of dice.

Re (a), fortunately, "your character thinks about that last thing he said for just a second too long, and it doesn't hold up, on account of X; my character just looks at him and watches it happen" is a legit raise.

-Vincent

[jlarke]

Re (a), fortunately, "your character thinks about that last thing he said for just a second too long, and it doesn't hold up, on account of X; my character just looks at him and watches it happen" is a legit raise.

-Vincent

That would never have occurred to me, but it works perfectly. Brilliant!

[Valamir]

but what I wonder is, in other people's experience, does free forming group conflicts in that manner make them even harder to handle, or is it a reasonable response to a play group that doesn't like to be forced down the chute of a mechanical system (and yes, that is a pejorative way of phrasing it, but it is pretty much how we currently think)?

Again, I would defer to the standard of "if it helps", where "helps" here refers to determining who gets the next go quickly, decisively, and with little delay.

If somebody out of order has a raise that makes perfect sense to everyone at the table and that comes out in "free form" play as you describe it, then perfect.  Run with it.  If you reach a point where two people both want the next raise, and both have reasonable arguements (whatever that looks like in your group) for why they should get it, then employ the rule.  I would not allow endless wrangling and negotiating on the subject which is common to free form play I have seen.  Instead, as soon as that wrangling begins, it is clear that both have good reason to take their go next, employ the Highest Best Roll standard and move on...quickly, decisively, and with little delay.

If at that point someone else wants to jump in and they have and even higher Best Roll, then the Go would go to them.

So, in a nutshell, as long as its obvious to everyone who should Go next (subject to Vincent's clarification below) then there is no need for the rule.  As soon as its not immediately obvious, go with the rule.  Its a "buck stop here" kind of thing.

[jburneko]

The only potential problem I see with the "Rounds and Go" method is when one person can "Reverse The Blow" on multiple opponent raises in a round.  What do you do in that case?

Example: Player 1 Raises against GM with 6 (3 and 3 on 2d6), GM can Reverse the Blow with a 10 on a d10
               Player 2 Raises against GM with 7 (4 and 3 on 2d6), GM can Reverse the Blow with an 8 on a d8
               Player 3 Raises against GM with 5 (3 and 2 on 2d6), GM can Reverse the Blow with an 6 on a d6
               GM Goes.... uh, he was able to Reverse the blow 3 times against three different playes, what does his Raise look like?

Note: These numbers are contrived but I have trouble imagining it would NEVER happen.

Jesse

[coffeestain]

Jesse,

If you're in a group conflict and you can reverse the blow, you use the die again on your next See or Raise.

Regards,
Daniel