[DITV] Failure

[Moreno R.]

but since I can pick usefull traits for the NPCs, when the PCs' traits don't always apply, I'd say a beginning Dog doesn't always have the upper hand

maybe I should go easy when I pick the NPC traits

No, don't go "soft" on the players. The game is set in a way that you can't really hurt their character if they don't allow that (and so you must give them good motives to risk), and with objects and helping dices they are already able to win every conflict, if they are ready to pay the cost.

And remember that the fact that the player said "I shoot, but not at him, to make him afraid" don't mean that you can't turn the blow with a big dice saying "Mary didn't see that you didn't aim at his husband, and she jumped in front of the gun taking the bullet. You killed her"  (remember that in this case, if the dogs give in the conflict, he can still start a follow-up conflict to save mary's life against the usual 4d6 + 4d10, but this mean losing what was at stake in the first conflict. Or they can continue the conflict accepting that Mary die)

wouldn't Giving let the Dog's player say something like "OK, you win what's at stake, but that last raise where I shoot Mary never happened"?

No, giving can always block a raise from your opponent, but you can't turn the clock and cancel one of your previous raises.

[The Mule]

Why wouldn't a PC's trait apply?

[Callan S.]

Hi JC,

have any of them expressed any desire to have things happen without just deciding it all?

not really, no

I think I'm actually the only one who is starting to feel the need for my decisions to have an impact on the game

that said, I still often have a great time playing in games where I have the impression of making important decisions, when everything has really been decided beforehand by the person who wrote the scenario

They may be very happy with what they've got, or atleast in a familiar rut. If they are - what will you do if you can't go anywhere new with these guys.

BTW, it's great that you still enjoy having the impression of making important decisions. That's fine - what I particularly like is that you know it's like that, so it's really something you've chosen

do they all think they are playing dangerous when it's entirely up to the GM to decide how things pan out?

well, they sort of trick themselves into believing it, most of the time

but we sometimes play games where the PCs' decisions really do have an impact

some scenarios we played at the annual parisian ruleless RPG convention come to mind (like the one where we played the people who decided whether to drop the atom-bombs at the end of WWII)

I think your right - but the actual impact is determined by the GM - he'd narrate out the effects of the bomb drop. With dice - well, can you imagine yes, making the big decision to drop the bomb, but rolling dice and finding one of them detonates early, taking out some innocent island nation that was on the way to the drop point?

If the GM decided that happens, it's quite easy to see it as a second decision after the players made the first decision (to drop the bombs). This is a complete distraction - what's important, the players choice or the GM's? Who knows? Confusion reigns! With dice it's more like a physical connection - like the players made their choice and pulled a 'lever'/rolled to let loose the bombs, but the lever eventually led to this premature detonation. In that case the lever doesn't distract you from there having only been one decision made here, and that was the players. When the GM decides what happens next, it distracts focus from that decision.

Perhaps you could discuss that difference with them and see if someone was already interested, but needed to know that it was there.

the DG campaign I talk about in my previous post is something else: the plot is pretty much pre-defined, but characters can die at any time if the dice say so

It might be good to give a seperate actual play account in another thread, to see if they are interested in death at any time based on a die roll.

[JC]

wouldn't Giving let the Dog's player say something like "OK, you win what's at stake, but that last raise where I shoot Mary never happened"?

No, giving can always block a raise from your opponent, but you can't turn the clock and cancel one of your previous raises.

OK, I see the difference

so if the Dog gives, Mary still gets shot (that's the Raise), but isn't dead (the Giving Blocked the Raise)

hence the possibility of saving her

the Raise happened, but since it was Blocked, it didn't have "intended" consequences

[JC]

Why wouldn't a PC's trait apply?

well, I guess some traits just really have nothing to do with the situation at hand

like maybe "bear-hunting" when trying to teach some bad-mannered kids a lesson

you can always bend over backwards to narrate some kind of link, but someone is bound to say "that's kind of weak"

perhaps the trick is to really explain very clearly to the players beforehand that the traits don't just define the character, but will be his way of dealing with conflicts

seems obvious once you've played, but it probably took my players by surprise

[JC]

They may be very happy with what they've got, or at least in a familiar rut. If they are - what will you do if you can't go anywhere new with these guys.

well, as I said, one of them is interested in trying out new ways to play, so I'm not completely stuck

the others, well, I guess I still enjoy immersion for immersion's sake, so we can still fight Cthulhu together

I sure will talk to them in clearer terms about having player choices have a real impact on the story, and I think they'll agree that can't be a bad thing

apart from that, I'll maybe try to find other like-minded gamers to play TMW/DITV/Polaris/etc.

hey, it's an opportunity to meet some new people

BTW, it's great that you still enjoy having the impression of making important decisions. That's fine - what I particularly like is that you know it's like that, so it's really something you've chosen

I believe my friends think the same way

the players sometimes joke around with the GM after a game, asking him what his back-up plan would have been if the PCs had done this instead of that

the trick is having the illusion be strong enough

with these guys, it usually is, because they're good actors, and good at creating gripping situations

but I walked out of a campaign last year, with different players, when the GM started complaining that we wouldn't let him tell the story he wanted to

I think your right - but the actual impact is determined by the GM - he'd narrate out the effects of the bomb drop. With dice - well, can you imagine yes, making the big decision to drop the bomb, but rolling dice and finding one of them detonates early, taking out some innocent island nation that was on the way to the drop point?

If the GM decided that happens, it's quite easy to see it as a second decision after the players made the first decision (to drop the bombs). This is a complete distraction - what's important, the players choice or the GM's? Who knows? Confusion reigns! With dice it's more like a physical connection - like the players made their choice and pulled a 'lever'/rolled to let loose the bombs, but the lever eventually led to this premature detonation. In that case the lever doesn't distract you from there having only been one decision made here, and that was the players. When the GM decides what happens next, it distracts focus from that decision.

interesting points

I guess the confusion you talk about is at the heart of the illusion in our usual games

but in those few games we've played where player decisions really do have an impact, I'd say there's some kind of tacit understanding that the GM would only mess with the consequences of a player's decisions if it allowed him to create a more believable world or a more stressful/dramatic situation

Perhaps you could discuss that difference with them and see if someone was already interested, but needed to know that it was there.

you're right, I'll talk to them about it, but I think I know what they'll say

"we think that sometimes, it's worth it to have the GM make the real decisions, if it makes for a better story"

I don't even think I disagree with that

it's just that I'm starting to feel that this is the case too often

then there's the question of preperation, but I think everyone's already been over that before

It might be good to give a seperate actual play account in another thread, to see if they are interested in death at any time based on a die roll.

well just quickly:

I don't think they'd enjoy the actual PC-death (even though the strong emotion associated with it is kind of a rush), but knowing their PC can die at any moment makes everything more dramatic

we've played four sessions (two scenarios, with one scenario to go) and one PC did die, but he sacrificed himself in order to kill a monster and save the others

there were plenty of die rolls that we all understood could have ended in PC-death though (I use a heads-or-tails rule when a character gets shot while wearing a bullet-proof vest)

[Moreno R.]

so if the Dog gives, Mary still gets shot (that's the Raise), but isn't dead (the Giving Blocked the Raise)

hence the possibility of saving her

the Raise happened, but since it was Blocked, it didn't have "intended" consequences

No, isn't that the reason why Mary can still be saved.

I think I used a confusing example, because I used in the example a "feature" of DitV different from the ones we were talking about, and so I made you think that they were tied. Sorry about that.

The rule about "giving block every raise from your opponent" is just that. It doesn't tell nothing about your past raises. In the example, you raised "I shoot to scare you", your opponent turned the blow with "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her". You can't stop that by giving. It's the end of the round. It's over. You can't modify what just happened.

Now it's the following round. You can continue this conflict, ignoring Mary, or give AND BEGIN ANOTHER CONFLICT TO SAVE HER.

Why should you give to save Mary's life? NOT because "giving" could avoid some consequences from the previous rounds. It doesn't have that power. What happened, happened.

In my example, I used ANOTHER different "feature" of DitV. (and I even made a mistake assigning the dice).  Look page 89, "Life and Death". When "you are dead" as a result of a conflict, and NOT by fallout, it's the same as getting a fallout of 4 dice of the appropriate kind (in Mary's case, 4d10) with a 16 as a result. If you get immediate medical attention you can still be saved with a conflict against these 4 dices + demonic influence.  In the example, you can choose between continuing the previous conflict, or give Mary immediate medical attention to save her.

Sorry about the confusion, I was showing you another way to force the PC to make difficult choices, but I didn't explain that it was a different method, and not an application of the same one.

[JC]

OK, I understand what you're saying

I'm just still a little confused about this part:

The rule about "giving block every raise from your opponent" is just that. It doesn't tell nothing about your past raises. In the example, you raised "I shoot to scare you", your opponent turned the blow with "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her". You can't stop that by giving. It's the end of the round. It's over. You can't modify what just happened.

I read the rules again, and this is how I think it should happen:

turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"

turn 2:
- my Raise is defined by the fact that I Reversed the Blow in the previous turn, so it's: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"
- you Give, so you say something like: "it's just a flesh-wound" or "the bullet was stopped by her silver pendant"

am I missing something again?

[Moreno R.]

I read the rules again, and this is how I think it should happen:

turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"

turn 2:
- my Raise is defined by the fact that I Reversed the Blow in the previous turn, so it's: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"
- you Give, so you say something like: "it's just a flesh-wound" or "the bullet was stopped by her silver pendant"

am I missing something again?

I am not sure. Do you think that when you reverse the blow you have to use exactly what you said in the reversing as the next raise? No, you don't need to.

These are three example of how that could go:

Example 1:

turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"

turn 2:
- my Raise is NOT defined by the fact that I Reversed the Blow in the previous turn, BUT I CAN KEEP THE DIE, so I add another die and say "You shoot Mary?! I will make you pay for this - I shoot you"
- you Give to save Mary, so you say something like: "I drop the gun and go to Mary's side to save her, you can't shoot without hitting her, and anyway you won"

Example 2:

turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake"

turn 2:
- my Raise is "...and your bullet kill her"
- you Give, so you say something like: "it's just a flesh-wound" or "the bullet was stopped by her silver pendant"

Example 3:

turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"

turn 2:
- my Raise is "the sight of Mary's body make you drop the gun"
- you Block, and say "no, I don't care about her, my hand is steady".

If you compare examples 1 and 2, you see that the action is actually the same, but it's "created" in a different way at the system level. What is the "right" way? Both, and none.  You decide. "the right way to raise and see" is something that has to be tailored to the group you play with. Some group will be all right with "you hit and you kill" in the same block or raise or returning, other groups would accept it only if you divide "you hit" and "she die" in two different statement.

Another example: I used a "returning the blow" to kill Mary. Some group would let me do it even on a simple block. Other don't.  Other would not accept that statement even with a returning the blow.   

If you want to know how my group would play it, we would let "you hit her and she die" be said on a returning the blow, but not on a simple block. You could totally block with only "you hit Mary" and say "...and kill her" in the next raise, though.

The game system is the same, but you have to learn which statement are acceptable to your group or not.

[JC]

OK, that clarifies it, thanks Moreno

would anyone else like to contribute on how Reversing the Blow is handled in their group?

[Web_Weaver]

Hi JC,

A small side note, but I think vital. I would strongly advise against discussing GNS theory as a way of describing this game or to manage the players expectations.

If you as the GM play the town in the manner expressed in the book and in this thread then the game speaks for itself. But, if you cloud that with talk of Agenda then the players may never get to the point where they stop looking for the "Narrativist Thing" and enjoy the game.

It is also worth noting that there are many different ways to explore a narrativist agenda and this game is just one approach which focuses in on character and judgement, as such it might make a useful discussion point AFTER a pattern of play has become established, but before would just confuse things and make them think that it is representative of all such games. They may not like Dogs and then decide not to play other games that they may love, purely because of the GNS label.

My advice:

Tell everyone that  "my job as the GM is to confront you with difficult choices and situations so that you can explore your character and what it means to be a Dog" and "conflict is all about how far you are prepared to go for the stake".

Jamie

[oliof]

You can speed up play considerably if you let strong actions implicitly block raises.

Raise: "He asks you to think of your own sisters and brothers, and how bad it would be to lose them"
See and Raise with  "I brush his pithy words away and shoot his kid brother"

would be OK with me. You'd still use separate dice for seeing and raising, but the See doesn't need to be particularily separate from the Raise (that's a trap attack/parry system trained role players like me easily fall into).

[Moreno R.]

You can speed up play considerably if you let strong actions implicitly block raises.

Raise: "He asks you to think of your own sisters and brothers, and how bad it would be to lose them"
See and Raise with  "I brush his pithy words away and shoot his kid brother"

would be OK with me. You'd still use separate dice for seeing and raising, but the See doesn't need to be particularily separate from the Raise (that's a trap attack/parry system trained role players like me easily fall into).

In your example I still see, separated, a block and a raise:

Block: I brush his pithy words away....
Raise:  ...and shoot his kid brother

So I see it not so much as a different way of playing, but as a FASTER way of playing (you go from the block to the raise without stopping).  I concur that it's a good way to speed up play, and I often use it, but could confuse people still not used to the system.

[oliof]

Moreno: Yes, but you don't need to mince your words with a razor just to "fit the structure".

[JC]

My advice:

Tell everyone that  "my job as the GM is to confront you with difficult choices and situations so that you can explore your character and what it means to be a Dog" and "conflict is all about how far you are prepared to go for the stake".

...writing that down...