If a conflict is escalated and the action does not obviously affect anyone but does advance one side's goal, how do we determine who has to see it?

If a physical action is the opponent's raise and we see it, does the action take place? Does it only take place if we take the blow?

If three people are affected by an action and one takes the blow and one dodges or blocks and one reverses, but there's only one possible outcome, how do we determine which one to implement?

The rules state that if someone escalates, the opponents must either escalate or give, is it possible to keep talking instead of escalating back?


The context of the questions above, from our actual play, is that our four dogs were confronting a lynch mob and the stake were 'does the mob hang Brother Scapegoat?'

Brother Ringleader couldn't see Sister Boo's speechifying, so he said "The time for talking is over!" and went to put the noose around the neck of Brother Unconscious-Scapegoat. This was an escalation from verbal to physical and clearly was a physical attempt to further his aim in the conflict. Based on what we understood of the blocking, it wasn't reasonable for any of the dogs to physically prevent the action. We didn't think it was valid to have Brother Ringleader "give' and then have a follow-up conflict, because if he "gave" then the question of what's at stake should have been resolved in our favor, not his.

In the end we decided that our body dice came into play because the conflict had escalated to physical, that we could see his action by calling out to him to stop (in the name of the King of Life, before you break his neck...). We decided that if we reversed, he'd stop, if we blocked or dodged, he'd hesitate, and if we took the blow, the noose was set. We thought that the best result would take place, in that if one person managed to get his attention that would be all it took.

Okay, two rules things that would make this easier to adjudicate.

First, a Raise must be something that the opposition cannot ignore. So if Brother Ringleader can't hear or see Sister Boo's speechifying then she hasn't yet Raised. Shooting a gun in the air, that'd be a Raise (and get her dice for her gun, though not escalate to gunfighting, not until she shot at someone).

Second, just because Brother Ringleader escalates to physical does not mean that the Dogs need to escalate to physical in order to See him. They can See (and Raise) with the dice they still have from all their talky-talky.

Does that help?

TonyLB wrote: Okay, two rules things that would make this easier to adjudicate.

First, a Raise must be something that the opposition cannot ignore. ...

Second, just because Brother Ringleader escalates to physical does not mean that the Dogs need to escalate to physical in order to See him. They can See (and Raise) with the dice they still have from all their talky-talky.

Does that help?

Ahh.... couldn't see, not couldn't see. I gotcha. I should have parsed that correctly.

Re: p. 37, I refer you here.

TonyLB wrote: Ahh.... couldn't see, not couldn't see. I gotcha. I should have parsed that correctly.

Re: p. 37, I refer you here.

Okay... then I'm unclear on the question. Why is resisting a physical action with words any different than resisting it with physical (or for that matter guns)?

MCroft wrote: Yes, that definitely is clearer. It still leaves the questions about what happens when you resist a physical action with words and who is affected for purposes of seeing the raise when Brother Ringleader starts actually stringing up Brother Scapegoat.

I'm not sure the matter of escalation is relevant.

When the Conflict was in the just-talking stage, we were working under the assumption that everyone on each side of the debate had to See every Raise from the other side.

With fighting, it's usually obvious. If Br Ringleader tries to shove Br Abel into Br Baker, then Abel and Baker have to See, and Brs Caine and Daniel don't, even if Caine and Daniel don't want Abel and Baker to get hurt.

But in this case Br Ringleader was taking physical action against a passive object. If all four Dogs have to see, because we're all invested in the same side of the conflict, then under what conditions wouldn't all four have to See?

avram wrote: But in this case Br Ringleader was taking physical action against a passive object. If all four Dogs have to see, because we're all invested in the same side of the conflict, then under what conditions wouldn't all four have to See?

Just thought of a possible definition. A raise is something the opposition can't ignore. So the ones who have to see must be the ones who can't ignore the raise. In the case of Br. Scapegoat getting hanged, that applies to everyone who is against Br. Scapegoat getting hanged. In the case of Br. Ringleader verbally attacking a dog in front of the crowd, that would be the dog only, unless one of the other players feels his character cannot ignore the insult in question.

How does that work?

nikola wrote:

avram wrote: But in this case Br Ringleader was taking physical action against a passive object. If all four Dogs have to see, because we're all invested in the same side of the conflict, then under what conditions wouldn't all four have to See?

A Raise is something the opposition can't ignore. What was at stake? The dude's life?

If the Dogs gave, the ringleader would hang the guy.

If he threatens his hostage, and says "I'm gonna hang 'im!" the Dogs can ignore that, so it's not a Raise.

If Bro. Ringleader says over the din of the crowd, "You're not so holy, Watchdog. I know what you did to that boy." then it's a social thing, just like the rest of the hostange sitch, but everyone else doesn't have to react.

I've got a possible interpretation that makes sense to me and resolves the issue. Bros Able, Baker, Caine, Daniel are the Dogs, Br Ringleader is the NPC antagonist at the head of the mob, Br Unconscious is the guy whose potential hanging is the Stakes, and the mob are not involved in the conflict.

Case 1:
Br Ringleader Raises by putting the noose around Br Unconscious's neck. All four Dogs have to See, because the Raises directly addresses what's at Stake.

Case 2:
Br Ringleader Raises by trying to push Able into Baker. Abel and Baker have to See, because they're directly affected. This Raise doesn't directly address the Stakes, so Caine and Daniel don't have to see.

Is this how it's supposed to work? Is this a good guideline, or am I promoting False Doctrine? Do we need to wait until a band of Dogs of the Dinner Table ride to our gaming group and adjudicate the conflict?

avram wrote: Is this how it's supposed to work? Is this a good guideline, or am I promoting False Doctrine? Do we need to wait until a band of Dogs of the Dinner Table ride to our gaming group and adjudicate the conflict?

See, now this raises a question from a previous session..

Br. Ringleader raises by going to put the noose around Br. Unconscious' neck.

Br. Abel sees by grabbing Br. Ringleader's arm. This effectively stops Br. Ringleader's action, meaning that the other Dogs need do nothing to see the raise.

An example of a raise that affected both Dogs present without a doubt was when, in my game, Dove and Raven were trying to track down Job Crane, and Dove had loaned Raven a stirrup. When the horse through a shoe, both Dogs were affected, and therefore had to see.

Am I wrong? Can only one Dog see, thereby removing the necessity for other Dogs to see?

The Raiser decides who has to See. The Raiser should make it obvious in the text of the Raise, by "targeting" those people.

I Raise: "Dude, you can't just go shooting people" with 8. I have just asserted that you can't ignore that; in order to ignore me, you have to See my 8 with two dice.

"Something your opposition can't ignore" is according to your own judgement, not your opposition's. The phrase's purpose is to spur you into making good Raises, not to ever give your opponent an out.

This is no less the case with group conflicts. If I put forward a Raise like "all you damn Dogs better get bent and piss off," every Dog has to See, simply because I included the words "all you Dogs." To then ignore me you have to Block or Dodge.

If I Raise "I hoist the rope and hang the guy," I haven't specified my targets, and we as a group have to figure out who they are. "Everybody who cares" is where we start, but it may not be the final answer.

So the first (by "best pair") guy who cares has to See. If his See definitively ends my act, hell, I guess he was my sole target after all. Otherwise, we go to the next guy. If his See definitively ends my act, those two were my targets, and so on down the line.

If I Raise "I hoist the rope and hang the guy, while my thugs swing their rifles around and shoot anyone who tries to interfere, especially you Dogs," all the Dogs will have to See. The first Dogs in line will have to See the hanging, until it's Blocked; the rest of the Dogs will have to See being shot by the thugs.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: The Raiser decides who has to See. The Raiser should make it obvious in the text of the Raise, by "targeting" those people.
-Vincent