[DitV] partial sides in a conflict

[Dick Page]

I stumbled on this way to swing conflicts in my Dogs game last night, and thought it was cool enough to share. I'm pretty sure it wasn't brought up in the rulebook.

The last town we had played (a first for two of the players), I GMed. The players ran in guns blazing to break up a ritual sacrifice and rescue the Faithful children who had been sucked into it. They got owned, and since we had declared that "the children" were what was at stake, I had the Mountain Folk who rescued the PCs tell them that the sacrifice went ahead as planned - except six Faithful children were the sacrifices. Cool, but not what I'm posting about.

One of the PCs died in the process, and the player offered to run the next game, finally giving me a chance to play on the other side of Dogs. I created a character that I hoped would conflict well with the hard-edge, violent, angsty characters and even gave him "So nice I rub everyone the wrong way 2d6" as a trait. I also made him something of a pacifist.

So here's the cool bit. The Dogs go up to a Mountain Folk village to talk with some Folk, and are attacked by two demon-possessed Folk with guns. We declared the stakes as "the two Folk with guns." So as the other two characters whipped out their pistols and started shooting, I stepped out in the middle and raised everybody with something to the effect of "we can resolve this without fighting!"

The result of this was that I got to roll in my 1d10 relationship with the other Dogs, which netted me a sweet 8 that I used for the conflict ending raise shortly thereafter. The other players and I then resolved the stakes in our favor, casting out the demons and healing the two possessed Folk of their gunshot wounds.

So basically, Dogs lets me be partially on a side. I can support others with my raises as far as it goes towards my own goals, then turn my back on them when I need to. That's awesome

[ffilz]

Yep. I haven't seen it in play yet myself, but it's an obvious conclusion to draw from the rules that a raise must be seen by everyone in the conflict who it affects. Dogs can easily handle a conflict with 3 or more sides. In the end, there will be one person who "wins" the conflict (we automatically short cut 2-sided conflicts with multiple PCs on the same side by the players agreeing on the outcome, negating the need for all but one PC to give). If two PCs have slightly different goals in the conflict, then ultimately one will have to give, either explicitly by the rules, or implicitly by allowing the other PC's goal to be met when the GM gives, or they will compromise (I'm not sure it's actually explicit in the rules, but I assume at any point, the participants in a conflict can reach a compromise - probably that should mechanically happen by one side offering a compromise as a raise, and the other side giving, or by one side offering a compromise as a see, and then giving on their turn to raise).

Of course this is the beauty of the rules. You have the opportunity on your raise to make a demand of or take action against anyone in the conflict you choose. And the dice tell the players what support they have for their response.

Frank

[oliof]

Part of the Craft(TM) of running a successful Dogs game is setting stakes that work in a given group. Your stakes are great because they are broad enough to involve people without narrowing down the results. With stakes like these, raises can be very much about shaping the process of a conflict as well as a goal..... in other words, you did great and I commend you for what you achieved!

[Web_Weaver]

Frank,

In the end, there will be one person who "wins" the conflict... If two PCs have slightly different goals in the conflict, then ultimately one will have to give, either explicitly by the rules, or implicitly by allowing the other PC's goal to be met when the GM gives, or they will compromise

You see this completely differently to me. For me, the overall conflict gets to resolve the stakes, the actual narration does everything else. In a subjective way, players may decide on winners and losers, but I don't see that as a mechanical necessity. Indeed, I believe that if I am doing my job well as a GM, winning and loosing should be hard concepts to determine.

I have found that the actual stakes are generally only part of what a conflict is about, with player and character agendas effecting narration, and GM manipulation of circumstances often altering who cares about what. Which way the players wish the stakes decided may change during the conflict.

Dick's example is just one instance where side taking is secondary to situation and narration.

In this respect I agree with Oliof, raises can shape the conflict, indeed I would go further and say that the narration resulting from each round defines the conflict, and it is often only possible to see it's shape once the conflict is over the stakes have been decided and the fallout is calculated.

[Dick Page]

In this respect I agree with Oliof, raises can shape the conflict, indeed I would go further and say that the narration resulting from each round defines the conflict, and it is often only possible to see it's shape once the conflict is over the stakes have been decided and the fallout is calculated.

Exactly. Once I tried to stop the fight like that, the two other Dogs also switched to trying to subdue the Folk rather than kill them. They may have even put the guns away and got to talking. Also, I got to do the badass See where bullets ricocheted off of my coat as I stood between the combatants.

Another time a similar thing happened, and the PCs had plenty of dice left after taking down some attackers. I made it clear that if we weren't going to resolve the stakes in such a way that we save the lives of the Folk, then the conflict wasn't over.

[Brian Newman]

I'm not sure I completely get it.  If you set the opponents as the stakes in the conflict, what do you make as the opponents?  Are they the opponents as well as the stakes?  Do you do this for every conflict?  What if a player wants a follow-up conflict?  The stakes must be different -- does that mean the opponents (who are the stakes) must be different?  What stakes do you set in conflicts with no clear embodied opposition?

[Web_Weaver]

Brian,

I'm not sure I completely get it.  If you set the opponents as the stakes in the conflict, what do you make as the opponents?  Are they the opponents as well as the stakes?  Do you do this for every conflict?  What if a player wants a follow-up conflict?  The stakes must be different -- does that mean the opponents (who are the stakes) must be different?  What stakes do you set in conflicts with no clear embodied opposition?

Your question suggests that the stakes will always be the opposition? This was never asserted, only that in this instance they coincided. For follow-up conflicts the stakes could be anything else and maintain the same opposition.