I'm posting these questions at the urging of my co-player and GM, who posts here as lin swimmer.

Since he created the town, he can probably fill in the Town info at a later point, but there are a few rules questions that came up and confusions that came up in our first session of play, affected our pacing, and perhaps made things less intense than they could have been. Perhaps constant rules checking is a bad habit from other, lesser RPGs. Maybe one way for us to solve things is to just form a concensus amongst the group when we have rules questions, and then move on. Regardless, here's what I was wondering about:


1.“do NPCs have followers? and how do they add dice to a conflict?” For example, in our play session, the heretical town Steward, Br. Ennis. had a couple of fellas in a lynch mob that the dogs had to face.

is “brother ennis and his boys a group?” or is it “brother ennis + dice for boys as NPC helpers?” (NPCs helping PCs gives them 2d6 stats + 1d6 trait).

2. more generally, can the “GM run more than one NPC in a conflict?” So it would be “Brother Ennis” + “Group, his Boys”? somehow, it seems like a D&D-ism that we’re trying to work out.

3. “when raising, how do we exactly detemine who is affected and has to see?” If Brother Charles is facing down 2 dogs, Brother Steve and Brother Earl, and Charles points his gun at Earl, does Steve have to see? I know the examples say, you call out who needs to see when you raise, but it doesn't address the question of when that's appropriate. When it's "just talking" it's a bit more confusing.

thanks for the help!

mmt

Good questions!

1 and 2. The GM should only ever have one batch of dice in any conflict. If there's more than one NPC, the GM should mash 'em together into a single group NPC.

It's very appropriate, however, to have an initial conflict with either the ringleader or the mob, and then a followup with the other. Like, if the players say "we take the ringleader into custody!" as stakes, the GM can say "first you have to get through his followers, save the ringleader for followup if you make it" or else "as followup, his mob is gonna rescue him, you bet."

Make sense?

3. If it's not clear, ask the person making the raise. If the answer and the raise don't seem to add up, like "he whispers to sister Evie that he remembers her dad, all four of the Dogs have to see" then that's a problem. Then, insist that the raiser a) justify why everybody has to see it, or else b) redo the raise so that it makes sense why everybody has to see it, or else c) accept that not everybody's going to see it after all.

-Vincent

thanks, Vincent!

For questions 1 and 2 I think the stakes of the conflict were "we gain control of the mob." If I recall correctly, there was the steward, his four hardcore followers, and then crowd at large of about 20 folks that we were struggling to keep out of his influence.

Based on your answer, I'm assuming the interaction could have been: "Hey, we want to gain control of this mob from the Steward." And the GM would say, "sure, but you have to get through his harcore followers first" (begin group vs. dogs conflict). Nice.

Would "he's talking to both of you" be an appropriate justification for making 2 dogs see a raise from an NPC? We got tied up in the game when both Dogs were involved in a conflict with one NPC, and the conversation went roundabout.

Would "he's talking to both of you" be an appropriate justification for making 2 dogs see a raise from an NPC? We got tied up in the game when both Dogs were involved in a conflict with one NPC, and the conversation went roundabout.

Here's another technique you can try!

Allow the NPC to keep speaking after the first see, as long as she addresses herself to the other Dog. In dice terms it all works exactly the same way.

Like this:

GM, raising 7: "you Dogs get off my land."
Dog 1, block or dodge: "we go where the King sends us."
GM, turning to Dog 2: "the King sent you here?"
Dog 2, block or dodge: "yes'm."

GM, raising 7: she hits you with the blade of the hoe, and you with the butt.
Dog 1, block or dodge: I block with my walking stick.
GM, turning to Dog 2: she still hits you with the butt.
Dog 2, take the blow: I stumble back.

That'll preserve the effect - the outnumbered party raising vs. all opponents - while making it much easier for the players to come up with what to say.

-Vincent

We had this problem as well, in our first session. Two things said here on the boards have resolved the problem in my mind. The first one, said recently, is something we decided on as well. To paraphrase "don't take forever; If you can't come up with a suitable raise, just do something, or give."

The second is a bit older, and I wish I could remember exactly which topic it was under.. But again to paraphrase "If the first Dog's See can resolve the Raise, then I guess it wasn't against all of them in the first place."

Frex: Br. Notsogood raises with "I fire at the man all the Dogs are trying to save." The intent is that all the Dogs have to See. But the first Dog Sees with "I knock the gun out of line just as you fire" None of the other Dogs have to See to prevent him from shooting the man. Another possible scenario has the first Dog Take the Blow with "I jump in front of the man, so the bullet strikes me instead" Which also neatly finishes off the conflict.

Another example, from our group's actual play: The Dogs are trying to track someone down. THe GM raises with There are two trails from this point. His intent was to cause both Dogs to See. I See with " I notice one trail has a lot of blood; Almost certainly a survivor of the violence found here." Which effectively resolved that Raise. A later Raise from the GM being "the horse throws a shoe, stumbling to the ground" My character was astride, and Raven was riding a stirrup. There was no argument that the Raise caught both of our PCs, and neither of us could See so as to resolve the Raise for both of us.

Thanks for the advice folks. I feel a bit more confident about being able to GM a town in the near future.