[Dogs in the Vineyard] Entering a conflict after it's started

[JamesDJIII]

While playing our first game of Dogs last night, a player wanted to know if he could enter a conflict after it's begun.

As an example:

Dog 1 starts a conflict with NPC 1. During their initial, just-talking part of the raise,see, raise process, Dog 1 announces that he wants to pull his pistol and start shooting! Dog 2, who up until now has not been involved but concerned that this is now out of hand, wants to prevent Dog 1 from shooting NPC 1.

How is this handled? Should Dog 2 be involved from the start?

Thanks!

[Vaxalon]

Dog 1 should give on the just-talking conflict (his argument probably is moot given the gunplay) and start a new conflict with Dog 2.

This is why it's usually good to have ALL dogs who are present in a scene in a conflict, in some way.

[JamesDJIII]

Assuming the Dog 1 wins the conflict with Dog 2, he turns back around to confront the NPC - would we call this a follow-on conflict?

[lumpley]

Dog 1 starts a conflict with NPC 1. During their initial, just-talking part of the raise,see, raise process, Dog 1 announces that he wants to pull his pistol and start shooting! Dog 2, who up until now has not been involved but concerned that this is now out of hand, wants to prevent Dog 1 from shooting NPC 1.

How is this handled? Should Dog 2 be involved from the start?

Dog 2 should not be involved from the start.

This is a strong GM moment. This is a moment where you, as GM, tell both players that they can't just have what they want.

"Dog 2, you can't participate in this conflict. Dog 1, you and I must play this conflict to its conclusion in the instant between when your hand lands on your gun and when Dog 2 catches your arm. All our raises and sees have to fit in that tiny space. If you can't do it, you have to give."

The players have to obey the rules for conflicts, the conflicts have to obey the causality of the in-game fiction.

-Vincent

[Ludanto]

I had a similar situation.  Luckily it was near the end of the conflict so I didn't have to worry about it too much.  In this case, the NPC was a Blood Relation to Dog 2 so I let her have an extra d6 for his Relationship.  He wasn't really "in" the conflict, but he could offer himself as a "tool" in the NPC's narrations.  She ended up having to Give anyway.

[JamesDJIII]

Dog 1 starts a conflict with NPC 1. During their initial, just-talking part of the raise,see, raise process, Dog 1 announces that he wants to pull his pistol and start shooting! Dog 2, who up until now has not been involved but concerned that this is now out of hand, wants to prevent Dog 1 from shooting NPC 1.

...

...
"Dog 2, you can't participate in this conflict. Dog 1, you and I must play this conflict to its conclusion in the instant between when your hand lands on your gun and when Dog 2 catches your arm. All our raises and sees have to fit in that tiny space. If you can't do it, you have to give."
...

Ok - I'm missing something.

When you say "Dog 1, you and I must play this conflict to its conclusion in the instant between when your hand lands on your gun and when Dog 2 catches your arm." - I'm having a really hard time fitting this into the scenario I have in my head.

Player 1 [playing Dog1]: I want NPC 1 to spill his guts!
GM: No way! This is a conflict! Roll those dice!
Player 1: I Raise!
GM: I See! I Raise!
...
GM: Finally, I Raise again!
Player 1: I can't See that Raise - I have to escalate! I draw my pistol and I shoot the NPC!
Player 2: Whoa! That's horrible! Don't shoot him! I want to stop you!

Are we talking about the same thing? Did you mean "play this conflict to its conclusion" as in Player 1 and the NPC must finish theirs first? If so, then, the consequence is that the conflict could be gun related fallout for the loser, even before Player 2 can do anything about it?

Thanks for your answers, everyone!

[lumpley]

I mean that you impose a constraint on the whole remainder of the conflict between Dog 1 and the NPC: all of its raises and sees from now on absolutely must fit into the tiny sliver of time available before Dog 2 interferes. Dog 1's player must choose raises and sees that fit into that time, or give; you must too.

Depending on the conflict's very individual circumstances, this might mean that there's no way for Dog 1 to escalate to shooting; it might mean that Dog 1 has time to draw but not fire; it might mean that Dog 1 can get one single shot off. Is Dog 2 out in the barn, listening for sounds of trouble, or is she leaning against the wall nearby with her shotgun pointed at the ceiling? That's what decides the scope of raises available to Dog 1.

-Vincent

[lumpley]

Oh and I should add, you've seen this technique a zillion times in movies. Dog 2 is like "doooooon't..." and we see Dog 1 thumb back his hammer and we see his eyes narrow and we see the look on the NPC's face and the NPC's hand moves up to ward off the shot as though that were possible and we see the flex across the back of Dog 1's hand as he pulls the trigger and we watch the hammer fall. And THEN the room is full of smoke and noise and Dog 2 has knocked Dog 1 down and the NPC slides slack down the wall.

Or maybe Dog 2 has knocked Dog 1 down and the NPC's got his hand to his cheek where the bullet tore it open - you've seen that in movies too.

-Vincent

[JamesDJIII]

In this particular situation, I'm assuming that Dog 2 is right there, in the barn, just not involved in the rolling of the dice between Dog 1 and that NPC. 

It hadn't occurred to me that you would or could impose restraints on escalation or raises in this way.

I don't have any issues with posing and then resolving conflicts into however small slices of time and space are called for. I get that, and think that's just fine.

I'm still having a hard time figuring how Dog 2 is supposed to get any input on whether or not Dog 1 can escalate to guns, other than me, say, as the GM interjecting during the initial conflict. Or is that the ability to escalate is a whole other conflict?

This is hard for me to really get a grasp on - a real life example would be great. But I appreciate everyone's patience.

[Neil the Wimp]

"Dog 2, you can't participate in this conflict. Dog 1, you and I must play this conflict to its conclusion in the instant between when your hand lands on your gun and when Dog 2 catches your arm. All our raises and sees have to fit in that tiny space. If you can't do it, you have to give."

Apologies if this is threadnapping, but is there a reason why you couldn't use the rules from Afraid for joining a confllct?  That is, Dog 2 can join in when the conflict escalates, but he's counted as having already rolled any dice that Dog 1 has.   (if Dog 1 has already rolled Acuity + Heart and is now rolling Will for escalating to guns, Dog 2 rolls Acuity + Will for guns but is considered to have already rolled Heart, just like Dog 1).

Neil.