Seeing when everything depends on the future

[Jasper Flick]

[lumpley]

Going back and re-doing a see to take into account the crappy trait roll has never bothered me. It's the official solution, in fact. It doesn't even bother me if the re-done see DOESN'T invoke the trait in question. Leave the dice as they are and go forward, don't sweat it.

But if you don't like that, then to be safe you just have to make a see that doesn't depend on the dice you're about to roll. Basically you have to take the blow.

-Vincent

[Jasper Flick]

I was afraid you'd say something like that. My poor "traditional" players have much trouble with their perceived disconnect between the fiction and the dice, this was nearly a gamebreaker for them. They're still solidly into "I don't wanna see the GM's dice, yuck metagame!" territory, so to speak.

I guess what didn't help is that it came up all the friggin' time during our first play. The dice really were wonky. They rolled crap a lot, while I rolled complete straights. Still, they enjoyed it, I think more than they dared to admit. Stuff actually happened!

Funny you say re-doing is official, because I can't remember re-doing is written about anywhere. Did I miss it? It might be a "duh!" thing, but not for everyone.

[jburneko]

Jasper,

For what it's worth, I tend to not use the See then roll rule.  Especially in light of Vincent's "do over" clarification.  Instead when players roll in traits I just make sure they announce them out loud.  Then when they see I basically mentally check them off to make sure they incorporated them.  And if they miss something I just say, "What about X that you rolled?"

But that's because I have honest and creative players.  I know they can work whatever they roll into whatever kind of See they can pull together.

Jesse

[Filip Luszczyk]

Jasper,

Funny you say re-doing is official, because I can't remember re-doing is written about anywhere. Did I miss it? It might be a "duh!" thing, but not for everyone.

It's not in the book, as far as I know. Many official rules are not there, though. It's only official in the "official web supplement" sense - as a game manual, the book is somewhat lacking, I'm afraid. I advice reading this forum to anyone who approaches running this game seriously (especially old threads, there's plenty of rules questions threads there that cover a lot of the "not necessarily obvious in the text" ground).

As for the re-doing rule itself, unfortunately it's one of the major flaws of the game (or maybe fortunately, given that, official clarifications taken into account, there aren't many such flaws). The timing on Sees is somewhat wonky.

[Jasper Flick]

Thanks guys!

Jesse,

My players are honest too, but they aren't used to the freedom Dogs grants them. They'll loosen up with time. Right now they're helped lots by following strict procedures and by me giving them lots of suggestions. That approach worked fine so far, except with that special case of Seeing. Next time I'll present it to them as the gray area it is, and we'll decide how to deal with it.

Filip,

I just don't like it when people say "it's official" when you can subsitite "that's how I intended it, no it's not in the book or on a handy page of my site, it's somewhere hidden in a forum, maybe". Yes, it's proper use of the word official. No, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But it fools me into thinking it should've been obvious and I'm stupid for missing it.

I did check online and read a lot about Dogs, but couldn't really find what I was looking for in a reasonable amount of time. My WTF count for Dogs so far is 1, which is actually very good.

[David Artman]

I don't know if it will help you, but you can try our general way of invoking Traits or escalating. I'll use your example:

PLAN: To escalate to physical and invoke a Gun and related Trait.

NARRATION:
Beginning see...
GM - "I've had enough of this talk [escalate to physical, because I don't intend to hurt the other Dog; roll dice]. I draw my gun [roll die/dice] and take aim, like any Good Shooter would [roll dice]."

Check out the dice and pick a see...
GM - "Well that was crap; I have to take the blow [push forward dice], so I clearly fire wide of the bottle that I was aiming at and hit the wall. 'DAMN it!' I shout, clearly losing my cool. My gun hand is shaking with rage and embarrassment. [set aside d4s for Fallout] Um... OK, I raise by saying, 'Next shot's your hand... or maybe your head, I'm pretty shaky.'"

So so I (the GM) escalated to physical, invoked the gun JUST because I'm wielding it around--it's NOT fighting or gunplay if I doesn't intend harm, as I understand it--and invoke my Good Shot trait to get more dice. The rolls mean I will have to take the blow on the see, which means his words have had their impact (Fallout at d4) and I make a feeble raise that is *still just talking*. In essence, I de-escalate back to Just Talking, but I can't re-roll those dice (been used). Or, hell, I could say my guys throws the gun at the bottle, having missed with my shot (a physical Raise).

Basically, realize that taking the blow means fallout for what was narrated, NOT the dice used. Likewise, dice are invoked by intent but DO NOT guarantee outcome, NOR do they require a "typical" application of the invocation--viz how I "aim" to invoke Good Shot on a raise which would lead to merely d6 of Fallout if he takes the blow; meanwhile, in a gunplay conflict, I could invoke the same thing to say I shoot him in the face, making for d10 Fallout if he takes the blow.

And it's not retconning if you say, "I shoot him in the face" and push forward, say, a pair of twos; after which he says, "You miss wildly and hit the Tree of Life alter behind me, shattering it" to see with a single die (a four). That's sort of like "soft outcome" narration, where it literally could be narrated as "I try to shoot him in the face." The d10 Fallout dice would come in due to the obvious intent (harm, with a gun), but it is only taken if the blow is taken (yep, shot me in the face, cause I only have a pair of ones left to see your pair of twos). But in the example above, the Fallout dice would, at most, be d6s because the intent (break bottle) isn't literally to harm the target, just use physical means to get them to Give.

Making sense? (Am I off base, Vincent?)