[DitV] First game: Blueberry Creek, and lessons while getting lost

[WildElf]

So, I finally got to run my first Dogs in the Vineyard game, and first time to play to (other than a conflict test run when a friend first showed me the game).  I made a town.  It seemed fairly straight forward. But we played the first session without a resolution near, so we'll pick it up again to finish.

The Town: Blueberry Creek:

It's up to sorcery.  I actually started there and worked backwards.  It started with Sisten Helen, she was doing a man's work when her husband was sick last winter.  But when he got better, she refused to stop.  Under advice from the Steward, her husband, Jessiah, tried to talk her back out of it, but she just enjoys it too much.  He lost his temper and started beating her.  She fled to her brother's house, James.  Shortly thereafter, two other wives came to James asking for protection from abusive husbands.  Unbeknownst to anyone, they had bruises and the illusion that their husbands hit them on multiple occasions delivered by demons.  One of the husbands, Michael, with the help of some farm hands, grabbed his wife and brought her back home.  He's afraid to let her out of the house, in case James tries to grab her back - or she runs away. Since the kidnapping, James hasn't gone to church and reads scripture to them on Sundays (Micheal does the same for his wife).  James has the idea that the Steward has failed, and that the husbands should be punished and he should be made Steward. He doesn't realize he's fueling the demons.

We started with making characters.  We have Brother Elijah and Sister Althea. 

Elijah's from a strong community, with his oversized and very fine coat that his entire town pitched in to make. He doesn't believe in killing, and wanted his initiation conflict to be centered on that, "All problems can be solved without killing."  So, we had a Dogmatist man that was found sick on the road and taken in to heal up at the temple.  Once he got better he was very upset that he was taken in by the Faith, calling them heretics and sinners.  He leaves, cursing.  But, a few days later, he comes back and sets fire to one of the dormatories.  No one is hurt, but they grab him and decide to test Elijah's judgement.  He decides his fate.  He talks to the man, trying to convince him to accept the generosity of the temple and leave in peace.  He sets about trying to convince Elijah how wrong they are.  A bit of back and forth, with Elijah getting physical (slamming his fists on the table), proud of his knowledge of the Book of Life (one of his traits), says "Tell me where in the book it says what we do is wrong."  The man puts forth a raise, "You send your men out to kill sinners.  The book says 'Thou Shall Not Kill.'"  Elijah can't meet his dice and has to give.  I could have left it at that, he doesn't solve the problem, and he still could have learned that not all problems can be solved without taking it farther, even though he didn't. But I pushed since part of it was solving without killing, and asked the player to narrate how he kills this man.  So what happened was the man left the temple, ended up robbing and killing a shop keeper on the way out.  Elijah, on the road weeks later, comes across the man in camp.  And he delivers justice with his gun.  His trait is "Problems can be solved without killing, most of the time."

Althea's from a complicated community. Growing up she would often here voices, one consistent one seemed to be the voice of god. Her mother believed she was special and wanted to join the faith but couldn't leave her father, an Athiest, got her in a caravan of pilgrims heading out west.  She was raised on the road and in Bridal Falls, eventually learning to become a Dog, as they also thought there was something to the voices.  So, her conflict was to learn to control the Voice and have it come when she needed it. She spend time in prayer and singing hymns under the guidance of an instructor.  She lost concentration, but we both still had dice.  So for my next raise, I had her carrying in a bucket of water a few days later. She heard the voice say "This water is poisoned." She looked for clues, but didn't find any.  She ended up getting a mouse and having the mouse drink the water.  I was out of dice with her raise, and so the result was, the voice was right - she had learned to control it and although it came unbidden, it came when she needed it. She has "The Voice" as a trait.  This was the only conflict that I felt was executed correctly.

Into the town.  They arrive, meet Jessiah on the road and he's happy to see them and makes his case about his kidnapped wife.  They talk with him a bit but say they'll come back to his house, they're going to meet with the Steward.  Most of the session is them going to the different homes: Steward, then James, then the three husbands individually.  There's no conflict until they get to Michael's house.  I decide to tell them he has his wife locked up and gagged in the cellar, but they don't know.  The conflict is to see if they discover that or not.  Demonic influence is on Michael's side, and they don't push things.  Since he gives them a false story "She's at her sisters" they decide to Give and check that out.  They return upon discovering its false.  It's gotten late, so Michael tries to stonewall them, asking them to come back in the morning, we get Conflict again to see whether or not they get them to talk to them tonight or not. Guns get drawn, Michael even blasts at them with his shotgun, but he gives shortly after and they set about checking with the wife and getting everyone to calm down.

First, I wish I had read this thread before playing. Because in most of the conflicts I was "if / then"ing all over the place.  That was certainly causing problems, particularly in the last fight, where it was "If you win, you get them to talk, if they win, you call it a night."  It worked out, but with certain raises, it could have gone ugly and confused.  I still find myself struggling to get a handle on how taking the blow and reversing the blow should play out in dialog.  I'm trying to avoid the "you do what they say" but, most of the time the players would have their characters stammer or react wordlessly if they took the blow (which I advised at a loss for how else to explain it).  When it gets to their raise, they recover.  Also the conflict system is very hard when, two on one NPC is really overwhelming odds.  Unless all my raises effect both of them, they widdle me down really fast.  So, I'm not sure if I'm running them right.

I have ideas where it will go for the next session, and most of them are in a response to what has happened so far.  The players enjoyed it, but there doesn't seem to be enough conflict ratcheting up.  Maybe its only because the players are being more cautious than I expected.  But it feels like I need to be driving towards conflict more.  I have some ideas. Since the Dogs took Michael up on his hospitality, I think the Demons will make it appear as if he abused his wife again with some fresh bruises, he'll deny it, but they might have that to deal with in the morning. Maybe they'll even hear some yelling and be victims of the trickery, too. Jessiah is going to want results, so he might head out to James with some men and guns to force his wife home - adn someone might get hurt (I think it would be best if the Dogs encountered him on his way, so they can see if they send him home or not). James is going to push to oust the Steward if things start to get ugly.

I'm also looking for a way to get the players to use more traits.  They have been playing pretty traditional - use a trait if it comes up, but not directing things too much, or stretching it.  I think they are warming up, though.  The big hurdle is relationships, I think.  They both picked community backgrounds, so they have a lot of dice here, a lot of free dice too, but they've already talked to the primary characters and didn't establish a connection with anyone.  I read in another thread where the GM had players say who they knew in the town even before the game really started.  That's a great idea, but too late for it.  With all the important NPCs introduced, is there a good way to let them establish relationships? Or should I just let it go?

[Noclue]

Elijah can't meet his dice and has to give.  I could have left it at that, he doesn't solve the problem, and he still could have learned that not all problems can be solved without taking it farther, even though he didn't. But I pushed since part of it was solving without killing, and asked the player to narrate how he kills this man.  So what happened was the man left the temple, ended up robbing and killing a shop keeper on the way out.  Elijah, on the road weeks later, comes across the man in camp.  And he delivers justice with his gun.  His trait is "Problems can be solved without killing, most of the time."

I'm such a newbie at this game, having read the book and played it once. But, I can't help commenting. Tell me if I'm getting this wrong, but it looks like this is a classic follow-up conflict. New location, new participants, and new arena. On the road, no teachers around, escalation to guns. I'd say Elijah had already earned his Sometimes you just gotta kill a body trait (or whatever) back when he lost the argument.

I still find myself struggling to get a handle on how taking the blow and reversing the blow should play out in dialog.  I'm trying to avoid the "you do what they say" but, most of the time the players would have their characters stammer or react wordlessly if they took the blow (which I advised at a loss for how else to explain it).  When it gets to their raise, they recover. 

If their just talking, shouldn't taking the blow amount to being unable to deflect their argument and having to admit that at least some part of it has merit. Reversing the blow would be turning their argument against them and scoring.

Also the conflict system is very hard when, two on one NPC is really overwhelming odds.  Unless all my raises effect both of them, they widdle me down really fast.  So, I'm not sure if I'm running them right.

Well, if its an argument shouldn't your raises effect both of them? And if its gunplay, shouldn't two on one widdle you down really fast?

[WildElf]

I'm such a newbie at this game, having read the book and played it once. But, I can't help commenting.

I'm a newbie too, so no worries.  Thanks for the insight and feedback.

Tell me if I'm getting this wrong, but it looks like this is a classic follow-up conflict. New location, new participants, and new arena. On the road, no teachers around, escalation to guns. I'd say Elijah had already earned his Sometimes you just gotta kill a body trait (or whatever) back when he lost the argument.

It could ahve been, except that Elijah's player already Gave, so this was just what happened next.  Killing the guy wasn't really a conflict.  Although, it might have been a bad conflict and stakes to begin with because Elijah was pretty much prevented from raising to guns - he could have raised to Guns, shot him dead, and won, in which case his trait for winning (which would have been along the lines of "Solved a problem without killing a man") and what actually happened (killing a man) are opposed. Maybe I should have played the roll of his urge to break his pacificism, while he played his steady will.

Either way, once Elijah gave, the conflict was decided, and having the guy resist would have defeated the purpose, so killing the guy wasn't going to be part of that conflict, or a follow up.  His death was certain; this was a case of saying "Yes" and not rolling the dice.

If their just talking, shouldn't taking the blow amount to being unable to deflect their argument and having to admit that at least some part of it has merit. Reversing the blow would be turning their argument against them and scoring.

Yeah, that's a good way to play it and something I was considering, but I bristle against it since it amounts to forcing their character to react a certain way.  It's also pretty difficult to come up with an arguement that feels like they should see merit in it. But maybe I should just say something like "Taking the blow means you see merit in what he's saying...what is it?" and let them fill out the blanks.

Well, if its an argument shouldn't your raises effect both of them? And if its gunplay, shouldn't two on one widdle you down really fast?

Sometimes it did.  Sometimes it made more sense in a way that they were playing good cop, bad cop (of a sorts) and coming at him with different sides, which does make sense to lose pretty fast, I suppose.  So, I guess I handled that okay, it was just surprising and caught me off guard, even though I knew logisticially that was going to happen.  I guess I just need to make my NPCs more in a position to escalate if I want more escalation.

You raise some good things to think about, thanks!

[Noclue]

Maybe I should have played the roll of his urge to break his pacificism, while he played his steady will.

I think that is essentially how a similar conflict plays out in the book involving a Dog learning to control his temper.

Yeah, that's a good way to play it and something I was considering, but I bristle against it since it amounts to forcing their character to react a certain way.  It's also pretty difficult to come up with an arguement that feels like they should see merit in it.

I don't agree. A good argument is going to have some basis in fact and you can usually see the merit in an argument even if you don't agree with the ultimate conclusion that they draw from it. My take on taking the blow is that whatever they said caused you to doubt your own point of view a little (a little, because you haven't lost the argument yet). So maybe they say "the Book says thou shalt not kill" and point at your gun. You can't see them with two dice and take the blow, so the argument had weight with you. The player gets to narrate that result for her character. What does that look like? Maybe you suddenly look at the fact that you're carrying a gun and think "wow, maybe I've been wrong." Or maybe you realize that you are fallible and recognize the awesome responsibility that is on your shoulders, or maybe you remember an innocent you killed by mistake. But you rationalize your place in the King's plans and soldier on.

The player's choices are definitely limited to narrating how the argument had an effect, but its a far cry from forcing them to react in one certain way.

But maybe I should just say something like "Taking the blow means you see merit in what he's saying...what is it?" and let them fill out the blanks.

Yes. I think we are on the same page here.

You raise some good things to think about, thanks!

Happy to oblige.

[Noclue]

It could ahve been, except that Elijah's player already Gave, so this was just what happened next.  Killing the guy wasn't really a conflict.  Although, it might have been a bad conflict and stakes to begin with because Elijah was pretty much prevented from raising to guns

Actually, I believe you have to give for there to be a follow-up conflict. The player that gives starts the new conflict with advantage dice, if I recall.