[DitV] Singe Stakes or Orthagonal and Oppositional Stakes?

[Yokiboy]

Hello,

In preparing an DitV Actual Play post in Swedish, I talked about some of the reflections we had following our most recent session. It struck me that I had to first translate some game terms to avoid using terms such as "Stakes" in English throughout my post. When doing this I looked up Stakes in the game rules again, and was surprised to see that What's at Stake is just one thing or question rather. We had been playing with orthagonal Stakes, i.e. each player involved in the conflict stating what he wants if he wins.

My question then, have we been playing it wrong, should DitV Stakes be just one question?

I think where we end up splitting the Stakes is when it comes to Who's Participating and taking sides. We even have conflicts with three or more sides. I've noticed how all examples in the rules only have one thing, that one question, at Stake. Doing it exactly as written should help us avoid some of the problems we've had, specifically with setting small Stakes.

Alright, whether you think we're wrong or not, I will definitely give this a go next time.

TTFN,

Yoki

[lumpley]

In any single conflict, a single thing is at stake. I think that the text in the Afraid playtest doc sums it up best:

Read "stakes" to mean the thing at stake itself, not the possible outcomes. "What's at stake is where I go," for instance; "what's at stake is my survival;" "what's at stake is her trust." The winner of the conflict gets to resolve the stakes: resolve where I go, resolve my survival, resolve her trust.

The people on each side of the conflict may feel free to name their characters' preferred resolution of the stakes. Strictly, however, you aren't committing to that resolution if your side wins. You're speculating how you might resolve the stakes if you win, that's all; idly speculating.

But now here's a nuance: you can name the stakes implicitly by only speculating how you might resolve them. "If I win, he chops your head off with his axe," for instance - what I'm really saying is that your head is at stake.

Once everyone in your group can read the stakes implicit in a declaration of intent, there's no need for any especial formality. Formally, explicitly naming the stakes is useful as a learning tool and when you require absolute clarity; otherwise, feel free to play casual.

-Vincent

[Yokiboy]

Excellent, thanks Vincent,

Yoki

[Yokiboy]

It worked a hell of a lot better when we played with single Stakes. We had an incredible session and tons of cool follow-up conflicts.

TTFN,

Yoki

[claes]

Will you be updating the actual play page continually after each of your game sessions? It's an awesome read :)

[Yokiboy]

Thanks Claes, yes I definitely intend to do so, I will try to have the last session up Tuesday.

TTFN,

Yoki

[claes]

I've read the concluding part and it's a great read. You should translate it to English so the people here who's not fluent in Swedish can read your Dogs' stories.

[Yokiboy]

The problem is that our gaming is so damn good, that I'd rather game than write about it. I actually found as our gaming got better, and we had fewer issues, the less interested in writing about our game I became.

TTFN,

Yoki