Finally, after a motorcycle accident and a National Guard Drill weekend are done delaying, we got around to our Post-Apoc Dogs in the Vineyard game.

PC recap:

Brother Thaddeus "Dove" Johah Gentry: Former Territorial Authority Deputy Marshall, played by me.

Brother Raven: Former bandit and all-around bad guy, played by Zach

Brother Malachi Falconer: Son of a doctor with a tendency to talk with his fists, played by Kory

See here for more details on the characters.

Summary: So our Dogs come riding into Canton, the first stop on their first route as Dogs. Brother Thaddeus is hand-carrying a letter from his mother to his aunt Flora Montgomery, and Brother Malachi has a young aunt who sometimes babysat him while he was growing up. They're met by the town Steward, and quickly greeted by Brother Ebenezer Crane, a prominent citizen of Canton. As the Dogs are escorted to the Temple, they also catch sight of the young Brother Virgil Walker, who takes their horses.
Upon reaching the Temple, they see a statue of a man Brother Raven recognizes from his days as a bandit; Job Crane. When asked, the Steward tells the story about how, 12 years ago, Job Crane stole a truck full of foodstuffs from Ft. Reynolds, the nearby Mutant settlement, to help Canton through a rough winter. Job Crane disappeared after that, but they learned that rumors had been going about lately that he was in the area again, which has the Mutants a bit unsettled.
After further conversation with Steward Cornelius, they learn that Brother Ebenezer Crane, Job's brother, is a man strong in the Faith, having two wives, one of which is the Steward's daughter Adelia(?) and the other is Thaddeus' cousin Sabryna. Having got a snapshot of the city's situation, our Dogs separate, Malachi going to see his aunt, and Thaddeus and Raven going to see Brother Ebenezer and Sister Sabryna.

Malachi finds his aunt having a tense conversation with young Virgil (approx. 16) in which the boy was using a bit of harsh language. Sending the boy on his way to think about proper conduct, Malachi settles down to find out what's going on. After a bit of direct questioning and avoiding answering, he finally learns that his aunt is being courted by Virgil, as well as by Ebenezer Crane, who apparently feels he's ready for a third wife. He goes off troubled (temporary fallout) by his aunt's request to bless Brother Virgil's courtship.

Meanwhile, Brother's Thaddeus and Raven arrive at the Crane home. Thaddeus asks to speak to Sabryna, and Raven sits down to have a chat with Ebenezer. Thaddeus, though wanting to believe Ebenezer is a good man, is convinced that he's definitely far too full of his own worth, and sits down to convince his cousin that Ebenezer isn't as righteous as everyone seems to believe. The seeds of doubt are planted when she is unable to come up with a strong case for her husband, and Thaddeus takes his leave of her. At the same time, Ebenezer has cornered Raven into agreeing to perform the ceremony when Sister Ebenezer Crane and Sister Temperance Falconer (Malachi's cousin) are wed. Thaddeus comes out just in time to see Raven heading out the door, and stays to have a short conversation with Sabryna, at her father's request.

About then is when things start getting tense. Wandering the nearby woods and thinking about the situation, Malachi comes upon a badly injured mutant, who gasps out the name "Job Crane" before collapsing. Calling on every bit of knowledge he learned while training as a Dog and from his father, Malachi does his best to save the mutant's life. In the end, he calls upon the power of the King of Life, laying his hands upon the mutant and bringing him back from death's door. He then carries him back to the town, where he encounters Raven and Thaddeus. After a brief explanation, Raven takes off into the woods, believing he'll be able to catch Job Crane. Thaddeus accompanies Malachi to the temple with the bloody mutant, and then leaves Malachi with the Steward to look after him and goes after Raven.

Raven is now putting his tracking knowledge to the test, with the assistance of his dog, as he follows the trail. Unfortunately, the trail is a difficult one, at one pointed sprinkled with pepper to put the dog off the scent. Just when things couldn't get any worse, they do; Raven steps into a bear trap, and his dog runs off. Luckily, Thaddeus is able to find Raven about the time he gets free of the trap, and they set off on the trail again.

After several more switchbacks and setbacks, (like Dove's horse throwing a shoe, mysteriously.. that gave both myself and my character the hint of what was coming) they saw a shadow running through the darkness. Thaddeus called out for his surrender, and Raven threatened arrest. When the shape in the darkness called back that "I'm on your side! I'm Job Crane!" Thaddeus' suspicion was confirmed. However, when the shape tried to bolt, Thaddeus' patience ran out. Drawing both pistols and his considerable skill, he put two bullets through the meaty section of both of the shadow's legs.
After the gunshots brought Malachi to their position, and the boy's wounds were seen to, a multiple part conflict began, with the three Dogs alternating defending the boy's actions as stupid but well intentioned, and putting the fear of the King of Life into him. In the end, the Dogs all concurred that the boy hadn't meant any real harm, and they had a better idea of how to solve things. They brought him back to the Temple, and prepared for the final showdown the next day.

The next day, the three Dogs went their ways. Malachi went to arrange the wedding between Temperance Falconer and Virgil Walker. Raven prepared to give a sermon/tell the truth about Job Crane. Thaddeus just sat back, facilitated, and waited until it was time. Raven's sermon wasn't well received, but the full force of what he'd revealed was too much for even Ebenezer Crane to overcome. When the crowd began to disperse, Thaddeus stepped up and accosted Ebenezer, calling him on his pride, and pronouncing sentence; that both of his marriages were to be anulled for one year, at which time, he could attempt to remarry, if either of them would have him, and the Steward gave his approval. But when he called for anyone to speak up in mitigation, Adelia(?) stood by her husband, and spoke of how she'd married him before the town came to almost worship Job Crane, and his pride had caused him to overstep his bounds. Then on a happier note, Malachi stepped forward and announced that Temperance Falconer and Virgil Walker would be wed on the Sabbath Day. It also came about that Steward Cornelius had been searching his soul for some time, and had decided that the King of Life had drawn him to take a second wife himself; Augusta Walker, Virgil's mother.

Denoument: Ebenezer Crane's marriage to Sabryna was anulled. Virgil Walker was taken under the Steward's wing as a Temple assistant, and married Temperance Falconer. The Steward took a second wife, Augusta Walker, and an effort was made by the community to fix the town's crop problem, and relations were to be smoothed with the nearby Mutant community. And an old Dog, Raven's mentor Jason Walker, was requested to stop through to talk to the boy who it turned out was his nephew, and to check on the progress of the town.

What we missed: Lx revealed after the fact that the cues that I caught, but then dismissed, were something that could possibly lead to more trouble. It seems that Ebenezer was so concentrated on courting Sister Temperance that his wives took to finding comfort in each other. Though it's possible that the anullment of Sabryna's marriage may have solved the problem, the fact that she is now living alone may lead to further problems down the line.

Rules comments and observations:

It may have been my own quirks, but it seemed to me that Lx frequently had dicepools that were considerably larger than our own, even when we managed to call on 2-3 traits every time. I'm not totally familiar with the recommended size of NPC dicepools, but there were many times that if I'd not kibitzed and called bullshit that we'd have been easily trounced. Is this a common thing, and I'm just being too nitpicky?

There was also a bit of confusion in multiple person conflicts when a raise affected multiple participants. In the case where Thaddeus and Raven were cooperating to run Virgil's trail down, in specific, if we'd have both had to see every one of Virgil's raises, even with him having to see both of ours, he would have beaten us handily. Though we did finally come to a compromise that seemed to work, we agreed that this concern should be brought up.

The mechanics do one thing really well; The simple statement that raises cannot be ignored means that some really cool things sometimes happen. In particular, Kory, who is a rather passive player, surprised the whole group on at least a couple occasions, by coming up with lines and decisions that were absolutely perfectly what the scene called for.

The conflict in the woods between the three Dogs and Virgil was perfect. What was at stake was whether or not Virgil could convince the Dogs that he was just a misguided kid. Raven was the initial opponent, who thought he was a bad seed, whereas Thaddeus wanted to see the best in him, and Malachi just wanted to know what the hell was going on. We ended up opposing each other at different times, and then supporting each other at different times. Halfway through the conflict, we'd already decided the outcome, but we played it out just to see what would happen. In the end, Raven and Malachi gave, and not only was the kid's hero-worship of Job Crane shot down, but it was decided that he'd marry Temperance, and would assist the Steward in the Temple.

Memorable lines:

Malachi to his aunt: "You took care of me when I was younger; Now that I'm a Dog, it's my turn to take care of you."

Malachi to Virgil: "I was considering letting you marry my aunt. Now I'm not so sure that's a good idea." (to which Virgil takes the blow, and starts bawling his eyes out)

When Augusta asks what happened to her son, Thaddeus: "He was playin' the fool and got shot. He'll live-"
Raven, with his signature line: "There's a lot you can live through."

I'm sure I missed at least half a dozen things. Zach and Lx will probably chime in with their own impressions and questions.

Hey Lance,

It may have been my own quirks, but it seemed to me that Lx frequently had dicepools that were considerably larger than our own, even when we managed to call on 2-3 traits every time. I'm not totally familiar with the recommended size of NPC dicepools, but there were many times that if I'd not kibitzed and called bullshit that we'd have been easily trounced. Is this a common thing, and I'm just being too nitpicky?

Tim Alexander wrote: Can you give me a little more context for this? You mention traits, but were the Dogs escalating along the way? Did you guys assign any of your own relationship dice to boost your effectiveness? Were you outclassed in the dice even when the Dogs worked together? I've only played dogs a couple of short times but I found that the players pretty much always had the pools to win, assuming they thought it was worth it to push to the bitter end.

Wolfen wrote: Raven was tracking him alone at first. Following tracks, without any sign of the person he's tracking (the stakes were whether or not he found the person he was tracking) it's hard to escalate to anything beyond physical-but-not-fightin'.

Wolfen wrote: I tried to suggest a flimsy means to escalate but Lx said it was too weak, and I had to agree.

Well, I can answer one or two questions, but I'm pretty confused.

When you Give, you don't have to Take the Blow. Like, you say "I shoot him in the legs." I say "I give! He throws himself to one side, you don't hit him, but he's down." I get to decide when I give whether you hit him or not. What I don't get to decide is whether you get the stakes or not - I Gave, so you get them. In this case, "you find him."

But now, you shot him as a Raise when what's at stake is do you find him? How? Had you found him already? I think there's something weird going on there.

Tony, cussin' and shooting the trees only count as escalation if your opponent - the guy getting away - can't ignore them. That's the rule for Raises: do something your opponent can't ignore.

-Vincent

Hm. I think it may be a part of our social contract then. GM is still the final arbiter of what's allowable, with group discussion when there's a disagreement. I suppose this is something we're definitely going to have to discuss.

By that same token, would you say that the beartrap laid by Virgil would count as an escalation to fightin'?

And the following is in response to Vincent's comments here

lumpley wrote: Hey, I've been thinking hard about Lance's problem with the Dogs being consistently outclassed by the NPCs, dicewise, here. Do you have any insights? Even just data would be helpful, probably: how often did the Dogs lose a conflict? How often were they forced to escalate?

Vincent,

Yes, as I said, Zach made a statement which wasn't technically allowed by the terms of the conflict, but Lx let it stand, and responded in kind. This changed the stakes on the fly to "do we catch him" rather than "do we find him".

As for giving and taking the blow.. I guess we were a bit confused. As I understood it, unless you See (block, whatever) then you cannot negate the stated effect. Either way, it was just a bit of confusion on how it was described, but it's something to be mindful of.

Hey Lx! I know you're readin', (or will be when you get off work) chime in already!

Whole lotta cross-posting going on heah..

lumpley wrote: Tony, cussin' and shooting the trees only count as escalation if your opponent - the guy getting away - can't ignore them. That's the rule for Raises: do something your opponent can't ignore.

Tony,

Probably if we'd set the stakes to "catch him" from the beginning, we'd have been better off. When it seemed appropriate, either side could have decided we'd caught up with him, and used escalation as normal.

It was a funky conflict, though. Basically what we did that he "couldn't ignore" was to gain on him, and what he did that we couldn't ignore was throw pitfalls in our way. Looking back, I think you're probably right. He could easily ignore that we were gaining on him, because he'd done everything ahead of time, before we'd even begun trying to track him down. If he can ignore whatever we do, then it's not much of a conflict, and should probably be decided narratively.

"I look for tracks, and when I find them, I follow them. When I find where they lead..."

Ha ha! Vincent's getting Trollbabe questions, Vincent's getting ... [repeat in singsong voice until punched by older sibling]

... my take on these matters is that people with a lot of gaming background tend to perform actions which have little or nothing to do with any conflict, then look expectantly at the GM. If the system has nothing to do with resolving non-conflict actions, then the GM is best off not using it (or rather, switching to the system which does resolve or enact such things, which is often tacit).

Conflict, conflict. The character is in a scene, by definition. The question is whether there's a conflict. Is there? Chasing someone, etc? Good. Do something which resolves or intensifies the conflict.

"You're chasing the guy through the desert." "I stop and look for water."

"You're chasing the guy through the desert." "I look for water and other desert survival stuff, 'cause it's going to be a long chase - I want to find him without being ragged out."

See the difference? The in-game actions performed by the characters are the same. But in Sorcerer, Trollbabe, or Dogs, the first one merits no roll of any interest, and the second absolutely does.

Mild cautionary note: groups differ in their lingo about this stuff. In one of my regular groups, all statements are considered as if they're the second kind, unless the person specifically indicates that it's only Color. So they might sound like the first kind, but we all know that there are no such statements in our game, so we go by the logic of the second kind.

Best,
Ron

Tony wrote:
how do you even do a conflict against an absent opponent (i.e. "tracking him down")?

The stakes all along, as I understood them, were "do we catch up to him." Yelling at him across a crowded woody landscape isn't exactly "yup, we've caught up to him." He still can get away at that point, and have the trail get lost, even if he's glimpsed through the trees. So it was within the bounds of the conflict as I understood it. And shooting his legs so you catch up to him is also within the bounds of that conflict.

Thus yelling at him, even shooting at him, is all acceptable, since he still could have gotten away. Yeah, I didn't quite think hrough the whole "Giving doesn't mean Taking the Blow" in fact, it's the opposite. But I don't mind Virgil needing a cane now either, even if it wasn't Fallout he took. The shots allowed me to decide that catching up to him turned int catching him, as Virgil didn't want a follow up conflict for capture.

Yes, Virgil's beartrap might've been an escalation to fightin', though I just treated it as a physical "fallout" injury, in retrospect, Lance is right there. Raven/Zach got off with less Fallout than he otherwise might have, had I thought that.

He couldn't ignore you gaining on him because he was against the idea of being gained on. You couln't ignore the pitfalls, 'cause that's the point of the chase. Nothing funky there, really.

In this case Virgil fucked with the horse's shoe. But could my See in a "do you find him" conflict have just been "your horse throws a shoe for no reason"? More generally, do Sees have to invole actions of the opposite party? Can I See in a talking conflict by saying "as you say that, you spill your drink on yourself, making yourself look ridiculous". Or does my See have to invole my Talking character?

How does the GM escalate in a generic conflict? Or do only PCs have that option in such a case?


Anyway, hopefully Town Two will be better, as will my runnin' of it. I keep stopping short of sorcery for some reason when I design towns in my head, and I need to work on it.


Flavor things and random comments:

Canton was at the bottom of a mesa, on the top was Fort Reynolds, a Mutant settlement in a former nuclear reactor. (Mutants are the local variant of mountain folk, such that we used the terms interchangeably. Also, for future colour, all mutant towns start with "Fort.")

It's Sybrina. Not Sabryna.

Raven has no blood. This makes him hard to tie into towns. I'm finding ways though.

----------

I gotta get to physcail therapy. I'll be back with more later.

I think we definitely need to make a point of being more explicit when we frame a conflict in stating exactly what the stakes are, because we were obviously seeing it different ways. I saw it as "Do we find him?" and you, and possibly Zach, saw it as "Do we catch him?" I saw it as an impromptu shift of stakes, whereas it was perfectly in line with what you saw.

And actually, the beartrap didn't cause fallout. He couldn't see the raise, and gave. His fallout came from the pepper that fouled up the dog, as I remember. I pointed out that, if we wanted to interpret it literally, losing the knife didn't make any sense because the fallout came from an earlier stage of the conflict. However, it was agreed that literal interpretation isn't the way it was intended, nor was it the only idea. We ended up talking Zach into losing the dog rather than the knife because it seemed to be an interesting theme.

Still, after Vincent's comments, I'm thinking that the beartrap can't/shouldn't count as escalation, because at that point, there was no way he could have chosen to escalate himself. The idea as I see it is to set up conflicts where you choose to escalate or not, not where you don't have the choice.

And finally, as for the idea of sees and raises having to be explicit action, I'd think so. However, it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be the explicit action of the person involved if, for instance, the demons want to get involved...

...what the hell am I doin'? I'm giving my GM ideas on how to screw with me.. Must be the masochistic side of me.

All personal issues aside though, I really enjoyed the game, and I think DitV has the best chance yet of helping Kory and Zach overcome their self-admitted handicaps.

Oh.. and:

Sabryna, Sybrina.. You just said "sabrina, but with a y" I suspected I got it wrong after seeing the most recent Town, which used the same name, but ah well.

And Raven's lack of kin presents no difficulty at all, in my mind. He's got enough complicated history that you should easily be able to drop a relation of some sort into every town we encounter. I'd think Thaddeus would give you more trouble, over all.

Hey All,

There's a lot of good stuff in here, but this is really important:

Wolfen wrote: I think we definitely need to make a point of being more explicit when we frame a conflict in stating exactly what the stakes are, because we were obviously seeing it different ways. I saw it as "Do we find him?" and you, and possibly Zach, saw it as "Do we catch him?" I saw it as an impromptu shift of stakes, whereas it was perfectly in line with what you saw.

How does the GM escalate in a generic conflict? Or do only PCs have that option in such a case?

Hello,

I'm confused about one thing. Alexander (A. Cherry, not Tim A.), what in the world is a "generic conflict"?

Best,
Ron

The wrong term for what I was trying to refer to, apparently. which is one of them conflicts vs 4d6 + Demonic Influence instead of vs other specified individuals who have their own traits and such. I've been thinking of that in my head as a "generic conflict." Is there a beter term?

So Tim, why should a PC be allowed to escalate in a geeric conflict? Is escalation really meaningful in a situation where the opposition is stymied from escalating?

Also, any thoughts on my other question - do Raises and Sees in standard (non-generic conflicts) have to take the format of "action on the part of opponent", or can they also be incidental/environmental effects. "Ha!" the guy you shoot says in a See, "the sun got in your eyes, and you missed me." Now, the guy didn't do anything to cause the sun to get in your eyes, but that seems an acceptable See to me. Am I missing something?

Hey Alexander!

When you're rolling 4d6+Demonic Influence, you can't Escalate, but anybody else in the conflict can - if they can. Meaning, if they can make a valid Raise that newly brings in talking or punching or whatever.

Yes, that means that the PC is pretty much always going to win. You're rolling some d10s, though, so it's also pretty likely you'll inflict Fallout. That's how those conflicts work: you win, but at what cost?

do Raises and Sees in standard (non-generic conflicts) have to take the format of "action on the part of opponent", or can they also be incidental/environmental effects. "Ha!" the guy you shoot says in a See, "the sun got in your eyes, and you missed me." Now, the guy didn't do anything to cause the sun to get in your eyes, but that seems an acceptable See to me.

Hello,

Tim Alexander and I had a little private-message exchange that I thought might do well publicly.

Tim wrote to me, in reference to

Huh, I assumed that he meant a conflict that didn't have an NPC attached, so you're just rolling 4d6+demonic influence. If not, you may have hit on a big deal.

Yeah, I think it's a big deal. I think the group is still struggling with the basic idea of conflict, and I'm kind of annoyed that no one has picked up on the key difference between the two sentences I provided.

I think it's a catch 22 though, if you don't get conflicts you don't see much difference between the two sentences. It's the opposite effect of what you detail later in the post, that in your group sentence one would be assumed to relate the sort of conflict expansion that's explicit in sentence two. In a group that isn't getting it then sentence two just looks like color on sentence one.

lumpley wrote: Hey Alexander!

When you're rolling 4d6+Demonic Influence, you can't Escalate, but anybody else in the conflict can - if they can. Meaning, if they can make a valid Raise that newly brings in talking or punching or whatever.

Yes, that means that the PC is pretty much always going to win. You're rolling some d10s, though, so it's also pretty likely you'll inflict Fallout. That's how those conflicts work: you win, but at what cost?

You could use the rules for dealing with groups on page 84 and 85, rather than using the rules for generic conflicts. That would make more sense to me.

Roger Eberhart wrote: You could use the rules for dealing with groups on page 84 and 85, rather than using the rules for generic conflicts. That would make more sense to me.

Hey Alex,

Glad to see you postin' again, hope the arm is doing better.

Lxndr wrote: So Tim, why should a PC be allowed to escalate in a generic conflict? Is escalation really meaningful in a situation where the opposition is stymied from escalating?

Also, any thoughts on my other question - do Raises and Sees in standard (non-generic conflicts) have to take the format of "action on the part of opponent", or can they also be incidental/environmental effects. "Ha!" the guy you shoot says in a See, "the sun got in your eyes, and you missed me." Now, the guy didn't do anything to cause the sun to get in your eyes, but that seems an acceptable See to me. Am I missing something?

Deprotagonism.

Out of all the Forge jargon, that one intimidates me most. Probably because I thought I had a handle on it when I first came here, and was soundly disabused of many notions about it.

Hence, when Lx and I had this basic conversation, I never touched on it.

I am vehemently against the idea of incidental things in Raises and Sees. If I am beaten, I want to be beaten by my opponent, not because I stepped in a hole, or some other incidental thing. I want my defeat to be because my opponent got the better of me in ability, or just circumstance (ie, the dice). It just seems very, very disappointing to be beaten by a chance occurrence.

Likewise, I'd never use an incidental Raise or See against my opponent, for the same reason. I want it to be my victory, not something that couldn't have happened without a lucky fluke.

Yes, I'm totally aware that it is my victory, because it's my dice. But I want the narration to be that way, too. The fuzzy space between numbers and story... It's important.

If that's protagonism/deprotagonism, great.

Also, on a sideline.. I'm all for "incidental" Raises and Sees that suddenly happen about the same time a few d10s are rolled, if you catch my drift. I'd like the supernatural to stay subtle, but I want it to be there. The mix of supernatural Clinton describes in his games is precisely the sort of thing I want.

Hey Lance,

I hope this all becomes a productive conversation for you folks and not just muddying of the waters.

Wolfen wrote: I am vehemently against the idea of incidental things in Raises and Sees. If I am beaten, I want to be beaten by my opponent, not because I stepped in a hole, or some other incidental thing. I want my defeat to be because my opponent got the better of me in ability, or just circumstance (ie, the dice). It just seems very, very disappointing to be beaten by a chance occurrence.

Likewise, I'd never use an incidental Raise or See against my opponent, for the same reason. I want it to be my victory, not something that couldn't have happened without a lucky fluke.

Yes, I'm totally aware that it is my victory, because it's my dice. But I want the narration to be that way, too. The fuzzy space between numbers and story... It's important.

Hi Lance,

I'm a little confused as to whether your statements apply to ...

1. How "a system" should work, in general

2. How Dogs should work, for everyone in a game you're playing with them

3. How your own character's actions/events should work, probably with the coooperation of everyone involved so their narrations work for your guy too

If it's #1, then I think it's a bit much of an expectation. I have lots of notions for ways that I think everyone should do things, but whaddaya gonna do?

If it's #2, then again, I suspect that you might be bringing in frustrations from previous games (usually GM fiat, which often makes use of stuff like unexpected gopher holes in tweaking NPC failure into success or PC success into failure)

If it's #3, then no biggie. All you'd have to do, in playing Dogs with me, is make some mention of this preference during character creation, and we'd all shrug and say "Cool," and move on.

Perhaps you were specific about which of #1-3 you are describing, but if so, I at least managed to miss it. Seems to me that Tim's question is hovering around this issue too.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Perhaps you were specific about which of #1-3 you are describing, but if so, I at least managed to miss it. Seems to me that Tim's question is hovering around this issue too.

Ron,

Sorry, yeah. I'm talking personal preference, Ron. A bit of 2, but mostly 3. It would probably bother me to have incidental raises and sees used against someone else, but if it didn't bother them, I'd hold my tongue.

Tim,

I actually considered traits like that after posting my last post. Personally, I'd never pick up traits like that, or if I did, I'd never use them for incidental things. They'd be attached to personal actions where a little bit of luck helped too. It wouldn't bother me as much, either, because they would be the traits I'd chosen. It wouldn't be "incidental" It'd be supernatural ('cept for probably the lucky one) and I don't object to that. See my comment about the demons, above.

When I said I vehemently against it, I'm speaking from a very personal position. Lx asked my opinion on it, and at first I couldn't justify it at all. But if the rest of the group is cool with it, then I'd bite my tongue and cope. The fact is though, before Lx's question, I couldn't imagine WHY you'd want to do it that way. I still can't. If you're free to describe the specifics of what happens, why would you want something that's a result of your character's (or NPC's) abilities, which is what the dice represent, to be represented by some fluke?

I feel that I'm not being clear, but this isn't uncommon. Are you getting what I'm saying?

Hi Lance,

I do see what you're saying. For plain old thought-food, though, consider that the dice "represent" whatever they are said to represent. In your character's case, they do represent the fictional character's fictional strength, wits, etc. In (say) my character's case, they represent "how stuff happens to me."

Perhaps the best way to look at the dice in Dogs is, how events go or even what they're about, relative to a given character. In that context, your statement that the dice must represent a character's abilities should be rejected. However, your preference that they do, for your character, becomes a viable option within the larger framework.

Best,
Ron

I'm talking more mechanically when I mention what the dice represent.

You get dice according to your character's basic abilities as applied to a particular conflict, and various traits that also apply. In this sense, before you actually determine what each set of dice for Raises and Sees means, the dice represent the total ability your character can bring to bear on the situation.

Once you actually roll the dice, things become a bit more fluid, obviously. I don't expect you to only raise or see with one of the 2d8 for "Devil's Hand" (a trait I defined to be directly related to his abilities with guns) when he shoots. Still, though, it only feels right, to me, to use the dice to represent in a more general sense what they represented in the beginning; The character's ability.

Yes, I'm aware that my sim preferences are showing through. But it just doesn't seem right any other way, to me.

Hey Lance,

Preferences are cool. They're important, and sometimes they make for hairy arguments when they conflict. It's good to know about this stuff and get it out into the open and articulate it and wrangle if it needs wrangling.

Wolfen wrote: The fact is though, before Lx's question, I couldn't imagine WHY you'd want to do it that way. I still can't. If you're free to describe the specifics of what happens, why would you want something that's a result of your character's (or NPC's) abilities, which is what the dice represent, to be represented by some fluke?

I feel that I'm not being clear, but this isn't uncommon. Are you getting what I'm saying?

Tim Alexander wrote: Part of this may be character vision though. Can you see how useful incidental sees/raises might be for someone who's playing a Dog with traits like:

The King's lookin' out for me 2d6
I got the touch of angels 2d8
Damn I'm a lucky shit 2d6

See Tim, I think this is an example of our basic differences in view.

You see the possibility for new conflict because it looks like the dog just shot him dead when he didn't even fire a shot. (assuming of course the guy can't see and raise himself, obviously) I see a cold fish of a scene. What I see is that the Dog's "I'm a kickass shot" trait meaning nothing whatsoever, narratively.

On the other hand, if I had my "The King is looking out for me" trait involved, then suddenly it becomes a different story. I See with his gun not firing, and suddenly it's not dumb luck. It's the King of Life twisting fate to save my ass. Suddenly, it MEANS something that his weapon didn't fire. Likewise, if my gun doesn't fire, I don't want it to be dumb luck that the primer in that bullet was dead. I want it to mean, really mean, that the demons are taking a hand. As above, it really means something, it's not just happenstance.

Sure, any See or Raise that involves happenstance can be interpreted as demonic influence, or divine intervention. But I don't want to have to interpret it. I want it to be real, backed up by system, with representation by traits and dice.

Hey Guys,

I think we're pretty much now just talking squarely about preferences. You don't want a game with happenstance, and that's cool, assuming you work that out with the other folks in your game.

xect wrote: Thus, if a see was nothing but "the sun gets in your eyes, you miss", it'd bother me. For me to accept a see, or even the use of a trait like "damn I'm a lucky shit", it'd have to have a connection to the premise of the game.

Wolfen wrote: You see the possibility for new conflict because it looks like the dog just shot him dead when he didn't even fire a shot. (assuming of course the guy can't see and raise himself, obviously) I see a cold fish of a scene. What I see is that the Dog's "I'm a kickass shot" trait meaning nothing whatsoever, narratively

Hi Lance,

It may be interesting to you to run a search on any posts by "soru" in the HeroQuest forum, and to look for exchanges between him and Mike Holmes. Very relevant to your points in this thread.

Best,
Ron

I have one loose end, but it seems to me that we see Lance's preference and hooray! His group can work it out.

My loose end is just about preaching to a congregation. Alexander, rather than making the congregation of 50+ a group NPC, just make the ringleader(s) an NPC. You can take "the congregation" as a Relationship, as a Trait, or both.

-Vincent

Zach here AKA(Raven)
Just chiming in.
The next town is in play and I hope that lance will hurry up and do the recap for the first session. So stay tuned.