Multiple Participant Conflicts

[MUKid]

Hi all.  I'm new to both the forum and to Dogs, so please be kind!

We played our first game of DitV this weekend.  I was able to run the same scenario twice for two different groups of five players each.  What fun!  We all had a blast, creating characters at the table and then moving right into the game.  For the most part, things went amazingly well.  Everyone understood the mechanics and bought into them, and I think a couple of players will be picking up the rulebook.  Yay!

Anyway, my biggest problem has to do with multiple participants in conflicts, specifically non-combat conflicts.  There were two instances in which the multiple participant rules just don't seem to work right.

In the first instance, three PCs were trying to talk a single NPC into doing something he didn't want to do.  The NPC would raise, and each PC would See, and then take turns Raising and stating they were only affecting the NPC.  The NPC quickly ran out of dice, and lost every time.  Now I don't have a problem imagining that a group of three Dogs is pretty intimidating and should often be able to browbeat a storekeeper or whatever into doing something - but every single time?  Every time it's three on one, the Dogs just win?  Why bother to roll at all?  What if it's three NPCs talking a PC into something?  Is there no way for a Dog to hold his own in a shouting match against three townsfolk?

In the second instance, it's a simple chase scene.  Again, three Dogs chasing one NPC.  Everybody rolls and the NPC raises first, forcing everyone to see (she is, after all, running from all of them.)  But now the PCs each take a turn raising, affecting only the NPC each time, and the NPC runs out of dice and is caught.  Okay, that's cool, maybe the Dogs cut her off at the pass or yelled scripture at her and she fell down or something.  But every time?  And it's not weighted toward the PCs or NPCs - it's just weighted toward the group with more characters, and thus more dice.

We tried a couple of experimental ways of dealing with these problems.  In the first instance, we decided one PC was "leading" the argument, and the other two were just helping out.  The lead PC rolls his pool, and the NPC rolls his.  The other participants roll their dice, choose their single highest die, and just give it to the lead PC.  They can still chime in from time to time (justifying their single die participation) and the PC still has an advantage, but at least it's more interesting.

I had a really hard time figuring out how to deal with the second instance.  It was tough to figure out how two PCs could "help" a third one chase down a girl when it was basically a straight-line sprint.  Cheer him on?  Lend him some running shoes?  So we did it like this - we hid the NPC's dice, and made all the chasers raise at once, revealing what they showed.  Then the NPC only has to see the highest raise, not all three.  It was a little clunky, but it seemed to work.

Well, anyway, problems aside, we had a great time and these were minor issues in the play of the game.  I just wanted to see how others were dealing with these instances and if I'm just missing something.

[Darren Hill]

Hi there, welcome to the DITV club.
This is one of the most common questions that crops up. There are a couple of things:
First, I think there may be a misconception regarding the way NPCs are rolled: In actual fact, things are weighted towards the PCs, not just the side with greater numbers. You see, when the GM rolls for those up against the players, he treats all the characters he controls as a single character, with a single pool. (The pool has extra dice, but not as many as PCs will get.)

So, it might be looking even worse, from your perspective.

But there is hope. Remember, DITV is a game of escalation. First, if you have a single NPC facing three dogs, maybe you should just Give (say Yes or roll the dice, rememeber), unless you think you'll escalate during the conflict.

Second, make Raises that really test the Dogs.
If you have one NPC, and he's facing three Dogs, and he makes a Raise of 18: "I shoot you all in the head," then some of them just might be tempted to Give - especially if they've experienced fallout from guns.
The trick is that it doesn't matter how many dice your opponents have, and it doesn't matter that you'll probably lose - the question is, how far will the Dogs go to win, and what will they suffer to win.
DITV gives the mechanics to support this, but there's a learning curve for GMs in fiiguring out how to make the best use of their limited resources - what is a good raise, and when to pull out those big raises in an attempt to get players sweating and considering backing down. If they do sweat, even if they don't back down and they ultimately win, well it's still been a fun conflict.

Finally, there's also the issue of framing conflicts. In the rulebook at the start of the conflict chapter is the example of the Dog's brother off to kill a "Lady of the Night" for taking his son's - the Dog's nephew's - innocence. What does the Dog do?
In a situation like this, there's no right answer, and the Dog may back down simply because he doesn't want to hurt his brother - and if he doesn't back down, if he presses on despite his brother's willingness to fight over it, welll that's exactly the kind of thing DITV thrives on.

Finally, Vincent has mentioned on the forum the following advice: make sure your town has NPCs who will present at least three conflicting and mutually incompatible desires to the players. This kind of thing is important because if you have built the town well, players will actually disagree about what should be done. Perhaps the most important source of conflict in DITV is between the Dogs themselves. It doesn't matter if three Dogs can defeat any NPC if they are actually on opposite sides of a conflict.
If your players have a team mentality, I'd recommend looking for ways to encourage their characters to get in conflict with each other.
I'm not talking about sneaky traditional GM tricks to separate the group, but just keeping an eye out for when one player, by his expression or body language, isn't in full agreeemenet with another player, and mention, "you don't look convinced. Do your want to argue the point?" and look at the dice. When players start gently discussing what they want, but it's clear that different opinions are present, I often say, "It looks like we have a conflict. Grab your dice."
I then stress that either side can give at any time, there's no reason for it to escalate beyond talking - but that does mean of course that they lose. So, sooner or later, someone will feel strongly enough to escalate.

[MUKid]

Hi Darren, and thanks for the advice.

The groups I played with this weekend were both very experienced role-players who've played a multitude of various systems.  They're the kind of gamers who would have a team attitude if they thought it would benefit the overall story, but not if they don't.  I'm really lucky to be running a game for such gifted players - most of them have campaigns of their own and are very familiar with story and setting and such.  I just mention this so I can set the stage here and let you know that understand the INTENT of the game and the mechanic, and so do I, but we were just looking for other ways of doing things.

I also understand that multiple NPCs are treated as a single dice pool.  I think this is the way to go, because otherwise the GM would have multiple pools to keep track of.  For this simple reason, I'd always try to roll a group of NPCs as a bunch of dice, and use the rules to describe it the way that Vincent describes in the rulebook.  For example, when the NPC mob sees a raise, one of them gets shot in the head, weakening the whole group (just as an example).  So I want to just stick to discussing multiple PCs and a single NPC for now, just to keep things simple (I know, I brought it up, but I want to focus my question to only this instance).

I know that there are multiple story tricks to use to make even a successful action painful for the NPCs.  I used those this weekend.  For instance, when the characters browbeat the old farmer into letting them see his daughter, it was clear from his body language that he felt he'd failed as a father.  By insisting the way they did, the characters really made the old guy feel bad, which in a campaign would certainly lead to repercussions (these were one-shot games, so there were no long-term repercussions, but the players are good enough that they still cared).  The characters appreciated that fact and enjoyed the way it was handled.  They really did feel bad for the old guy, but hey, nothing to be done about it.

But I'm talking pure mechanics here, not story.  What if the PCs weren't arguing against Farmer Bob, but against Daniel Webster?  According to the rules, three or four Dogs with modest stats in Acuity and Will could talk circles around him.  What's odd to me is that a single PC would be flummoxed by Mr. Webster, but if he gets two or three of his thuggish friends standing around him (or even not so thuggish friends) they can defend OJ against Daniel.  What if I want Daniel Webster to be a truly great orator?  What if I want the characters to find some other way to get around him rather than just talking him down?  What if I'm using these rules in a setting where it makes sense that sometimes the PCs are not the baddest and best around?

More troubling is the way the rule works in a simple chase scene.  Now why would multiple Dogs have a better chance at beating an NPC in a race than a single Dog?  And I'm not talking about fancy story tricks here - I can easily narrate how two or three Dogs team up on one NPC, cutting her off at the pass, tripping her, throwing obstacles in her way, using teamwork to slow her down and catch her.  Or maybe even the sight of three Dogs, with their coats and pistols and whatnot, just freak her out to the point that she can't run.  Again, let's just stick to mechanics - how does a single NPC beat three PCs in a footrace?  Ever?

I really, really like these rules.  When it comes to a ruleset that allows PCs to roleplay debate, discussion, and non-physical conflict, they are superior.  I do wish that there was a simple "d20+skill" roll that could come up sometimes just to see who's faster, or quicker, or wins in an arm-wrestling contest.  I'm tempted to just have players in these situations simply roll their dice pool and count up the total.  That would solve the footrace problem - everybody roll Body, plus any relevant traits and relationships, and high roll wins.  I'm wondering if that's the best solution, or what others do to solve these problems (if they experience the problems at all!)

Thanks again for the input!  :-)

[rohoe]

Wow, amazing how the fates can align. I too am new to the forum and just ran my first DiTV game this weekend. I don't want to hijack this post with my experience but we had the exact same problem with the many dogs on one NPC. I would be interested in hearing specific examples of how other groups have dealt with this issue in your games.

Thanks

[Glendower]

Here's some advice.  Vincent's working on another game called Afraid, that uses a similar mechanic.  He's got a great rule on group conflicts that I've used in my Dogs games to great success.

The link is here.  Run a search on the page for "Group Conflicts".  It solves the mechanical problems of One GM vs. many Dogs rather nicely.

[lumpley]

It's easy to make a Daniel Webster. Check out the rules for sorcerers and possessed people (and notice especially that sorcerers can become possessed at will.) Here's a guy who gets 4d8(demonic relationship)+5d10(demonic influence) to roll in the conflict, plus inflicts d6s for "just talking" fallout.

Three Dogs can kick the butt of any normal person - and I agree with you, why bother to roll at all? A possessed person can take on two Dogs. A sorcerer can take on three for sure.

-Vincent

[lumpley]

As for the chase, just say "hey, who's fastest? Okay, the conflict's between the NPC and you. If you win, the rest of you can be there for the followup."

-Vincent

[Moreno R.]

In the case of an ordinary person, I think it's perfectly normal that he is unable to stand by his opinion when confronted by 3 dogs. Think about you, confronted by 3 angry persons who have the power (and the duty) to decide if you are a good faithful, a sinner or a demon worshipper, and if they get the wrong conclusion, BANG, you are dead.

Do you say to them that they are wrong, and you know what they should think if they weren't wrong? I don't think so.

All you have to do is: don't allow stakes of the kind of "we convince him that we are right", and change them to "we convince him to admit that we're right"-

[MUKid]

Wow, lunchtime is the time to check for replies!

Glendower:  Those rules look good, and are pretty much how we did it in one instance.  We'd make everyone match to "stay in" a conflict.  So even if PC#1 raises and names the NPC as his target, the other PCs have to match that raise, too.  We said that in this case, if you couldn't see or didn't want to, your side didn't actually "lose" the conflict - just that your participation became more theatrical than mechanical.

Vincent:  Thanks for the replies.  Yes, I figured that I could make a single NPC have enough dice to be able to withstand a barrage of several Dogs.  I can see in another setting how "Jedi Training" or "Law School" might take the place of "Demonic Relationship," and give a well-trained character another good pool of dice to draw from.  However, the point still remains that if there are several PCs talking to one single badass NPC, the group always has the advantage just based on sheer numbers.  That's fine for some things, but in other situations I just can't make it work in my head.  Why would eight Padwans be able to beat Yoda in a drinking contest when a single one couldn't?  But I don't want to belabor the point anymore, so I'll just leave it at that and go on with life.  :-)

As for the running contest, I like that answer a lot.  Make the PCs decide who's fastest, and then he rolls against the NPC.  Simple.

Moreno:  I agree 100% with you that a single normal NPC should definitely not be able to stand against three Dogs, and the presence of three Dogs at once makes that NPC a little more shaken than normal, and so he wouldn't be arguing his best.

[MUKid]

Okay, so for the record, here are some different ways of handling multiple NPC conflicts, or conflicts with multiple participants.

1)  Remember that a group of Dogs is more than a match for most NPCs in any task, even just talking.

2)  Use Demonic Relationships (or something similar, if you'd like, like "Law School") with lots of dice.

3)  For straight up "Who's Fastest?" kinds of conflicts, start by asking the PCs which of them is fastest, and then have that PC be the only participant in the conflict along with the NPC.

Other ideas (that I came up with):

1)  Use one answering See for the NPC no matter how many times he's challenged in a single round.  (Possibly hide the dice from players in this case, so that they are each encouraged to go "all in" for their raises?)

2)  Roll your pool's dice once, total it, and compare everyone's total - highest total just wins.

3)  Designate one PC as the primary challenger - others who are helping may roll their pools, and give one die to the primary challenger for the duration of that challenge.

[lumpley]

Your ideas:

#1 is very much like a rule in Afraid for group NPCs, you might want to check it out.

I never, ever endorse playing with hidden dice.

#2 I don't like. As GM, I'd rather just give. Giving is good!

#3 is a lot like an existing rule. Check out the rule for using your fellow Dogs as improvised belongings. That's my preferred way to handle it.

-Vincent

[Valamir]

My favorite trick is to make the Dogs see each other's raises.

This is especially effective if they are using different tactics.  For instance say you're in a "Just Talking" conflict and one Dog is using their "Kind and Gentle Ways" Trait, while another Dog is using their "Big and Scary" Trait.

In my view I'd make each of these Dogs see the other's raise.  Dog #1 isn't going to want to see Dog #2 brow beat the poor guy, and Dog #2 isn't going to have the patience to let Mr. Nice Guy take all guy schmoozing (if he does have that patience, then he shouldn't have called on "Big and Scary" yet.

This accomplishes several things:
1) a little intra Dog rivalry is often a very good thing
2) it demonstrates how too many cooks can spoil the soup...where the Dogs are essentially getting in each others way.
3) it mechanically bleeds some dice out of the Dogs, and
4) it encourages Dogs to "go it alone" when they know the other Dog wouldn't see things there way any way.

[Web_Weaver]

Hi all,

Replace 'make' with 'encourage' and me and Valamir are on the same page, as the rules suggest that only the raising player chooses who has to see. However helping dice can be solicited from players and are mechanically powerful, allowing surprise Turned Blows very easily if a large dice is donated to a pool of low dice.

As an aside, in comming to this conclusion our group have struggled with how to represent actions that are aimed at one PC/NPC but have an effect on others, and we have decided that rather than asking all peripherally effected players to see, the mechanics work much better by utilising Helping Dice.

Differences of opinion are one of the keys to this game in my opinion, and if you can twist a conflict to play PCs off against one another then you can always achieve some level of victory.

Another way of looking at it is to have a wider definition of winning, I would consider a conflict a success if:

• The PCs come down on different sides in the end regardless of the resolution.
• One or more of the players give because they no longer agree with the conflict.
• One of the players uses the fallout or later reflection fallout to change the character as a result of the conflict.
• The NPC gives and comes back with an immediate follow-on conflict that ratchets up the tension or drama.
• The loosing NPC was able to hang on by blocking or taking the blow and make a raise that made the players seriously consider giving.
• The loosing NPC was able to hang on and make a raise that revealed major plot points.

A lot of these are dependant on careful selection of stakes so that conflict is giveable, this takes negotiation with the players.

Remember the details of the conflict are narrated not rolled for, many games suggest that failed rolls do not mean the character couldn't perform the task, but that complications arise, so in your example of a competent and experienced orator you can still narrate his confidence in his argument and his ability with rhetoric and have him loose for other reasons. He may even loose for reasons that are unintended by the players, such as the afore  mentioned intimidation, or end up with counter-productive fallout like "I Don't Trust Dogs" or "The King of Life sends judgement through a Gun".

[MUKid]

It's been a couple of days since I visited the forum, so pardon my late replies.

Vincent, I assume you've playtested using hidden dice.  What kinds of problems does this cause, or what sorts of advantages do you see by keeping dice always open?  It seems that hiding the dice can create some drama, tension, or just uncertainty at times in the game.  I recognize that playing with them open lets the PCs know if they're going hammer an NPC or perhaps get hammered themselves, and then they can narrate accordingly.  As a "game," however, it seems fun to sometimes not be sure what you're up against.  (I'm assuming here you're anti-hiding-dice in Dogs, not in all RPGs).

Also, I looked over that rule for Afraid, and the reason I didn't quote it outright is that I thought it was only when there was a group of NPCs that is up against one or more PCs - is that correct?  Using this mechanic, the problem that I found is that once the PCs know what the NPC Sees with, they know which dice they should use for subsequent raises.  Example:

PC #1:  Raise 8, NPC affected.
NPC:  See 10.
PC #2:  Well, I can't beat a 10, so I'll burn a couple of low dice.  Raise 2, NPC affected.
NPC:  My 10 already sees the 2.
PC #3:  Me too... I could make a 9, but not an 11, so I'll just raise 4, NPC affected.

I don't know, it seems weird.  But maybe now that I think about it, it works.  As characters, the second one judges how the first one's action affected the NPC, and either "kicks it up a notch" or just settles back to watch.  Then, if needed, he jumps in with a big number later on.  The PCs still have a decided advantage, what with more dice to choose from, but at least they're having to burn up dice as the rounds go by.  Without doing something like this, the problem is that the NPC, no matter how good he rolls, usually just flat out runs out of dice before the characters do, and is forced to give up the conflict even after "winning" every point.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Your ideas:

#1 is very much like a rule in Afraid for group NPCs, you might want to check it out.

I never, ever endorse playing with hidden dice.

#2 I don't like. As GM, I'd rather just give. Giving is good!

#3 is a lot like an existing rule. Check out the rule for using your fellow Dogs as improvised belongings. That's my preferred way to handle it.

-Vincent

[lumpley]

Remember also reversing the blow. If I'm the GM and I've got a 6 and a 4 see showing, you aren't going to want to raise me less than a 6. If you do, I get to keep the 6 for my next raise.

About hiding dice: it's important for the rhythm of the game for people to give or escalate as soon as they know they're losing, instead of playing it out to the boring bitter end. If you hide the dice, nobody can tell when they're losing.

Uncertain outcomes, I don't care about. Sometimes outcomes are uncertain, sometimes they aren't. Giving and escalating are the things that matter.

-Vincent