Dogs actual play

[Supplanter]

Because at one point in the middle of the second conflict he had a perfect opportunity to reverse the blow, but didn't because, well, in the fiction it would have meant meanness or cheapness or some other less than admirable quality.

I don't understand. what that means.

My fault for not being able to say more about the fictive detail there. Maybe Bill can be more illustrative, but the nature of the raise was such that "turning the tables" (which is what Reversing the Blow does) on Semma at that  moment would have constituted cruelty on Brother Samson's part as Bill judged the situation.

And that the supposed slam-dunk insight, "The character doesn't exist" is, on some levels, wildly, wildly wrong. If the characters didn't exist, I couldn't see any reason to do this stuff.

Huh?

The character not existing has nothing to do with the way the fiction and the fiction's creation makes you feel.  Those feelings are real, hells yes, but Brother X and Sister Y and Town Alpha...nope, not real.

A fictional character is a human mental construct. I'm saying that of course human mental constructs exist. Are real. They have ontology. There is something that it is to be those things. There are some very interesting and problematic issues about how they come to exist, and how malleable they are, but that they exist and become, at some point, as stubbornly themselves as other products of human cognition, is crushingly obvious to me.

This part is probably 20x20 fodder.

Best,


Jim

[Brand_Robins]

Yeah. Bill was amazing on this. Because at one point in the middle of the second conflict he had a perfect opportunity to reverse the blow, but didn't because, well, in the fiction it would have meant meanness or cheapness or some other less than admirable quality.

I had this happen not to long ago in an online Dogs game I was running, but to me as GM. There was a situation in which two Dogs were standing off in the middle of the wilds against a mob of a dozen armed men intent on murder. The Dogs go to stop them, the mob rolls a shit load of dice. We start playing, and because of the way the raises go and the narration happens, the mob ends up folding even though they had craps loads of high dice left. I just couldn't push it any farther without invalidating what we'd done with the fiction up to that point.

[lumpley]

You can read about my own experience here.

Ben Lehman put it to me on the phone the other night that sometimes in Dogs you win a conflict by making the winning raise, not by having the winning dice. The fiction can trump. I think the Dogs-playing community's growing awareness of this as a feature of the game is part of what's making recent play reports so hot.

("The character doesn't exist" is a catch phrase for a certain technique, like "say yes or roll dice" is. It's not a universal declaration of truth.)

-Vincent

[Ben Lehman]

Indeed, as play goes on, the GM is increasingly forced to win with his raises, 'cause he sure ain't gonna win with his dice.

yrs--
--Ben

[Supplanter]

You can read about my own experience here.

Wow.

Ben Lehman put it to me on the phone the other night that sometimes in Dogs you win a conflict by making the winning raise, not by having the winning dice. The fiction can trump.

Hey! It just hit me: that's where the "bonus dice for good roleplaying" went, isn't it?

("The character doesn't exist" is a catch phrase for a certain technique, like "say yes or roll dice" is. It's not a universal declaration of truth.)

And I'm okay with it on that level. My subjective experience is that some people use the phrase is a universal argument ender, though. They seem to think of it more as a UDOT than a technique. But I don't want to waste the thread fighting phantom antagonists.

Best,


Jim

[dunlaing]

Because at one point in the middle of the second conflict he had a perfect opportunity to reverse the blow, but didn't because, well, in the fiction it would have meant meanness or cheapness or some other less than admirable quality.

I don't understand. what that means.

My fault for not being able to say more about the fictive detail there. Maybe Bill can be more illustrative, but the nature of the raise was such that "turning the tables" (which is what Reversing the Blow does) on Semma at that  moment would have constituted cruelty on Brother Samson's part as Bill judged the situation.

I think this is the point where Sema opened her blouse and said "at least lie with me one more time." My recollection of my dice at that point wassomething like  a 10, an 8, a 5, and a 3. Jim pushed forward 8. I could not think of a narration that would adequately reflect "Reversing the Blow" that would not make Brother Samson into a cad. I just could not see throwing that back in a vulnerable woman's face as anything but nasty. And so I pushed forward the 5 and the 3 and Blocked instead.

[dunlaing]

I think that this is probably more important than the first reported Dog fatality.

The last several Dogs reports I've read, including this one, have really shone for me. Thank you!

-Vincent

I am like unto a giddy schoolgirl.

[TheHappyAnarchist]

I can't wait to run this game.
That is all.

:D

[neelk]

Ben Lehman put it to me on the phone the other night that sometimes in Dogs you win a conflict by making the winning raise, not by having the winning dice. The fiction can trump. I think the Dogs-playing community's growing awareness of this as a feature of the game is part of what's making recent play reports so hot.

I  honestly find this a pretty surprising suggestion -- are there Dogs GMs who don't figure this out by the time they run their second conflict? I mean, if there are two Dogs against one GM the Dogs will pretty much always win, unless the GM can find just the right raises that make them WANT to Give. That's why all my efforts at getting better as a Dogs GM have been focused on improved stakes setting -- having solidly giveable stakes is what makes this possible.

[neelk]

I should add: this is a wonderfully inspiring play report. Way to go, guys!