We were all keyed up to play some Primetime Adventures last night, when two things happned. The first was a sudden and serious lack of confidence in the idea we'd come up with on my part, which is a matter for another thread.

Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately) Seth had some nasty Internet connection problems, so not only was his Ventrilo server unavailable, but he couldn't even hook up for chat via Skype! We've postponed the session for another couple of weeks, which hopefully will give us some breathing room to rethink the Pitch a bit (if required).

But, as Vickie and I had a stable (well, fairly stable; it did drop out for a few minutes later on) Skype connection with Gav, and we had some time, I suggested we play a little Dogs in the Vineyard. When I explained the premise, I got, rather surprisingly in fact, a "This sounds interesting!" from both Gav and Vickie. Now, let me just say that Vickie has rarely if ever been down on an idea for a game. But this was the first time I can remember that it took only a few minutes to get her that seriously interested.

We spent the evening creating characters. It was about eight thirty when we started, and allowing for the abovementioned connection woes, which had us out for around ten minutes, it was eleven before we had two characters out of initiation and ready to go. This highlighted a couple of things:

• I still prefer gaming via voice chat over gaming via text chat, but both share the same problem – it’s a little hard to tell who’s waiting for whom to speak. There were quite a few long pauses there when, because he hadn’t spoken up to say “Okay, I’m done, what’s next?” I thought Gav was still working on splitting dice up, while in fact he was waiting for me. We finally got that sorted out, but I think it was around ten by then.
• Gav wasn’t particularly spontaneous. In the early stages, when I was going through the basics of character creation, Vickie had already assigned Traits by the time Gav chose a History. Although I’d read out most of the early pages describing the setting and some of what the Dogs do, he spent a lot of time browsing the Dogs web pages, I believe looking or character inspiration. Now, I don’t believe Gav’s ever been big on Westerns, so he may well have been feeling very out of his depth (neither have I). I didn’t quiz him on it at the time. It also probably didn’t help that I couldn’t just hand the book over to him, which probably would have helped enormously. (However, he has stated that he’s interested in buying it himself, which could ease any later pressures).

Vickie came up with Sister Sarah, an adopted Mountain Folk who had been brought up the hard way by a strict Faithful family. Her initiation stakes were, "I hope I can apply Scripture to someone's real problems," which she won by escalating from Talking to Physical (a big hug given to a very drunk old man who'd lost both of his children to wasting disease) and running me out of dice. I have to say that Vickie was also very keen on the dice mechanic of Seeing and Raising, probably the first RPG rules she's ever really grasped! That, as far as I'm concerned, is a damned good sign!

Gavin's character was Brother Gabriel, a well-balanced young Dog who (if Gav's initial suggestion of "I kope I kept my faith intact" as stakes for his initiation was any hint) will probably hit some spiritual speed-bumps later on. As losing one's faith would make one ineligible to be a Dog, I talked Gav down from his stakes; we agreed to "I hope I take the right option over the easy one," which I eventually Gave on - I had a pair of really nasty dice left, but Gav was already having a tough time with coming up with Sees and Raises ( I was the one who actually came up with an idea for what his character did in his last Raise).

I suddenly finding myself comparing Dogs with Feng Shui – it really needs you to be spontaneously creative and on-the-button when Things Start Happening, although you don’t always need to be as capital-F Flashy in Dogs as you do in Feng Shui. Both Gav and Vickie were having a little trouble coming up with Sees and Raises. (Then again, a lot of that may have just been due to the additional pressure of figuring the rules out.)

So, how did doing things over voice work? Having never played Dogs with an entire group face-to-face, I can’t really compare. As above, there was the protocol problem of making sure everyone knew who was waiting for whom. Also, neither Gav nor I could see each other’s dice. I came up with a compromise – we used Skype’s text-chat facility to send each other our current dice and the values we used to Raise each other with. I might just put the procedure up on my Wiki, so that my players can see it and make suggestions. It shows things down slightly, but I think the time factor’s an acceptable compromise!

As it was past eleven, we called it a night, but sometime in the next few days I'm going to flesh out the Branch of the Faith named Anvil Hill; with any luck, I should be able to put Gav and Vickie through it before week's end!

Coming up with a convention to handle "I'm done, you guys go ahead" is an important one.  What did you work out?

We didn't come up with any specific conventions, as such. Gav was the only one who wasn't in the room with us, so I basically asked him to let us know if/when he'd finished what he was doing.

In hindsight, I'm wondering where some sort of thirty-second or one-minute guideline might also help. As I mentioned, Gav was getting stuck on some of those Sees and Raises, and having no visual cues it's hard to figure out whether he has an idea he's brewing on or whether he's actually got Gamer's Block. So maybe after a the allotted time the GM says, "How are you doing?" and the player has to respond with "Well, I've got this idea: (explain) but I think it needs a little more." (which it probably won't) or "Yeah, I'm stuck." in which case the group pitches in.

Still, as it's a small group - only one person logging in via voice chat - we don't have to worry too much about conventions or protocols.

Would you lay out a conflict or two for us? What was at stake, how you set the stage, what the dice looked like, what were the raises and sees?

I've never seen anybody struggle to come up with a raise or see for longer than about ten seconds. I'm a bit worried.

-Vincent

I've seen similar things happen in other games.  I remember one that imposed a penalty to a combat action, if you repeated the same action more than once.  People struggled to think up a new bit of narration for each "round" on occasion.

One guy would prepare all week, writing down lines to use in a little notebook.

Hi, Vincent,

lumpley wrote:
Would you lay out a conflict or two for us?

lumpley wrote:
What was at stake,

lumpley wrote:
how you set the stage,

lumpley wrote:
what the dice looked like, what were the raises and sees?

lumpley wrote:
I've never seen anybody struggle to come up with a raise or see for longer than about ten seconds. I'm a bit worried.

Good, thanks!

If I were you I wouldn't worry about it at all, unless it persists through a couple of conflicts with nice solid stakes where the player knows exactly which side he wants to win. Action-y a plus.

-Vincent

Hello again, all,

Well, I'm not sure whether it was due to my savaging of his quality here or just a decision based on taste, but after tonight's PtA session fell through (Seth was exhausted after working overtime) and I tried to organise some Dogs with Gav and Vickie, Gav decided that he'd prefer to play Dogs tabletop rather than over voice chat - which is cool, except we're separated by over three thousand kilometres.

Look, I'm turning this thread and the PtA voice chat one into a big long whinge fest, so if any actual play actually happens, I'll let you all know.

IMAGinES wrote:

lumpley wrote:
What was at stake,

As above, Gav came up with the stakes, "I hope I take the right option over the easy one." In retrospect, it was a rather sticky, slightly vague set of stakes, but I went with it at the time.

lumpley wrote:
I've never seen anybody struggle to come up with a raise or see for longer than about ten seconds. I'm a bit worried.

I think it was just a need to warm up to being spontaneous compounded by the fact that we weren't all in the room together (so firing off each other wasn't as easy or natural as it otherwise might've been). Plus, it was around a quarter to eleven when we started on Brother Gabriel's initiation and we were all feeling tired.

In the meantime, for those of you who're interested in wo we manage the inherent differences between face-to-face play and voice-only, here's what I came up with for managing dice during conflicts:

Rolling The Dice

When you initiate a conflict and roll the dice, put the results of your rolls into a single text chat line and in order of lowest to highest. Use some sort of clear separator between each roll; although the only two-digit result will be a "10", the line should be easy to read. Copy the line to your clipboard for use in Raises and Sees.

Personally, I find a space is the best separator. A comma clutters the line and drwas the attention of the eye away from the numbers, and a comma without a space doesn't separate the numbers enough to be easily identified on the first pass.

Example: It's the start of a conflict, and I roll my dice, say 7D6 Stats plus a 2D10 Relationship. I get 9, 3, 5, 2, 1, 4, 6, 1, 3, 4. I arrange my dice and enter "1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 9" into my chat client.

Raising

When you Raise, paste the line of die results you copied into your chat client and remove the numbers of the dice you're using. Put the total value of the raise in brackets at the beginning of the line.

Example: Assume I'm going first. I decide on a low Raise, a 5 on two dice. I paste the line above into my chat client, but before sending I delete the 3 and 2 and add the Raise. The result is  "(5) 1 1 3 4 5 6 9".

Seeing

Seeing a Raise doesn't necessarily require you to send an altered line; your opponent will be able to see your remaining dice after you last Raised, allowing him or her to question your See if it seems you do not have enough dice to pull it off as you've stated.

If your group has decided to demonstrate Sees over the text client, put brackets around the die results you're using to see your opponent's Raise.

Example: You've Seen my Raise and Raised me a 8 in return. I copy the remaining dice after my last Raise and paste them back in, adding brakets for the dice I'm using to See: "1 (1 3 4) 5 6 9". I've bracketed three dice so it's obvious that I'm Taking The Blow; rather than announcing I'm doing thus I launch straight into my description of what happens to my character before I decide to Raise.

Adding Dice

Intorducing dice for a Trait or a Belonging into the conflict is simple; roll the dice and slot them into your existing line. Send the line immediately, before you choose which dice you'll Raise with (it's good manners).

Example: On my Raise I decide to bring my Big pistol into my description. I roll the dice and get 2 and 5. My line, before I choose the dice I'll raise with, now looks like "1 2 5 5 6 9".

What do you think?