[DitV] On seppuku and saving throws vs. area effects

[Filip Luszczyk]

There's a kind of Raise we had a couple of times in our recent games and don't really know how to handle. The problem arises when a Raise targets multiple opponents by threatening something fairly specific and individual. Say, I Raise by commiting seppuku, killing a hostage, blowing up the Universe or whatever and multiple players can't ignore it. We're never sure how to deal with Seeing such a Raise when more than one target side is involved.

Normally, when I Raise with seppuku the target player (i.e. one whose character doesn't want my guy to disembowel himself) has the following choices:

-Block, stopping my guy's hand or something.
-Dodge, declaring his character's indifference about my guy's seppuku.
-Reverse, somehow using the suicide attempt against my guy.
-Give, forfeiting further direct influence on the conflict, but with an option to automatically Block or Dodge my guy's seppuku.
-Take the Blow, in case of which my guy's guts decorate the floor and the other character gets affected by that.

Right?

Now, it gets complicated if my guy's seppuku targets multiple characters. What happens if someone Blocks, but someone else Takes the Blow? Does the declared action come to pass or not? Is it enough for only one player to Block? Maybe we should work out some partial outcome? We're always confused in such cases.

Does my guy slash his belly? Is the hostage killed? Does the Universe explode?

[lumpley]

Oh. Just see in initiative order until someone's see is decisive.

There are true "everyone has to see" raises, there are "everyone has to see until someone stops me" raises, there are "someone has to see I don't care who" raises (answer: the person who opposes the raise who goes next by initiative), and there are probably further nuances too.

-Vincent

[Ward]

Oh. Just see in initiative order until someone's see is decisive.

There are true "everyone has to see" raises, there are "everyone has to see until someone stops me" raises, there are "someone has to see I don't care who" raises (answer: the person who opposes the raise who goes next by initiative), and there are probably further nuances too.

-Vincent

So does this mean only the people up to and including the first person to Block (in the example) would have to spend dice on seeing the raise? This possibly has some interesting mechanical implications.

[Darren Hill]

It means there are some Raises that everyone has to Block, until someone succeeds (with an appropriate Block) at which point no else needs to See.
There are some Raises that everyone has to Block, and even if someone succeeds, everyone else still has to Block. (e.g. True area effects).
There are some Raises that must be blocked by the next person to act: if they don't. the Raise succeeds.

[Ward]

Which is kind of interesting, since it forces you to describe a raise against multiple opponents very specifically if you don't want your dice to go to waste. It can also be a big motivation for players to play their sees really hard. Good stuff.

But, although I agree with the idea story-wise, because seeing something which has been blocked doesn't make sense at all. On the other hand, the Dogs very often already have the advantage of numbers (there is only so much you can do to split them up) and this makes that advantage ever so much bigger. Especially because they have more time on their hands to come up with sees for the GM's raises.

[lumpley]

Ward: There's an interesting option you can play, but it depends on your GM-group relationship. It's clearly within the spirit of the rules (which is why I'm telling it at all) but if your players rely on their own existing procedural understanding of the rules for group trust, it won't fly. Probably the best way to bring it to your group is to wait for an occasion when a player would benefit from it and suggest it then, and adopt it as a GM practice only after you've established it solidly as a player practice.

Here it is: when someone wants to raise and affect everyone, but can't come up with a single raise that would affect everyone, let them raise against everyone individually in turn, but using the same two dice.

Mitch: [pushing forward two dice] I cut my own throat! I'm raising against both of you.
Vincent: [blocking] I knock the knife out of your hand.
Mitch: Oh. Uh. I throw myself out the window and land on my head! [his dice stand]
Meg: [reversing the blow] Well out you go, but now you're lying in the mud dazed, not dead.

What's happening here is that Mitch's real raise is "I kill myself," and he's adding details in the form of individual actions. Each of us seeing an individual action constitutes all of us seeing the overall raise.

-Vincent

[jburneko]

Here it is: when someone wants to raise and affect everyone, but can't come up with a single raise that would affect everyone, let them raise against everyone individually in turn, but using the same two dice.

For reference I've done something like this with group conflicts.  Where I've raised with just two dice but narrated something different for each PC based on different actions within the opposing group.  There was a group of bandits who attacked the PCs.  With a single raise I narrated three different bandits attacking the three PCs in different ways.  My players didn't have a problem with it.

Jesse

[lumpley]

Jesse: Right on. Me too.

-Vincent

[Ward]

Vincent, Jesse: Thanks for the suggestions. I like the alternative very much, especially since being outnumbered already screws one over bigtime (which it probably should in a lot of situations, but maybe not all of them).

Filip: Sorry for hijacking your thread, although I think we stayed on topic and your question should be mostly answered as well.

In two weeks we'll have a character creation/initiation session with our group, I hope I can get them as riled for this game as I am right now. It is going to take a little work to get everyone on the same page as to characters, though. Some pretty odd ideas were floating around already, and I don't see some of them functioning as good Dogs at all. Let's hope they don't create too much of their character yet, away from the table. Time to search the forum, this is bound to be a common problem.

- Jonas

[Filip Luszczyk]

Thanks for the clarification!

Looks like we did our last hostage situation right after all, even though I had some doubts back then. I knew about the multiple individual Raises with the same dice option, but somehow I always forget about it when I need it

Jonas, never mind, I got my answers.

[zornwil]

Here it is: when someone wants to raise and affect everyone, but can't come up with a single raise that would affect everyone, let them raise against everyone individually in turn, but using the same two dice.

For reference I've done something like this with group conflicts.  Where I've raised with just two dice but narrated something different for each PC based on different actions within the opposing group.  There was a group of bandits who attacked the PCs.  With a single raise I narrated three different bandits attacking the three PCs in different ways.  My players didn't have a problem with it.

Jesse

I''ve done that as well, but I've never done it in a sequence as Vincent suggested, which is pretty cool.  And after dozens of Dogs games, I actually ONLY THIS LAST WEEKEND hit on the notion of letting Sees just be sequential and if it gets Blocked appropriately so the next PC doesn't have to deal with it, then so be it.  To be honest, never occurred to me otherwise, and the only reason it happened was because I and the players forgot to let the intended target do their See after a PC stopped the Raising PC from performing the action, and narratively it made sense, anyway - and that Blocking PC was earlier in the Turn order.  Which made sense, as the two PCs were racing to the target with their opposing intents. 

The actual play is at http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6655&page=1#Item_1