As a GM, I'd like the opportunity to have an NPC take a painful fall, taking the blow (rather than blocking, even if it's possible) and perhaps folding immediately after (rather than re-raising). Is this kosher, in being with the spirit of things?

To stretch this further, is it rules-legal to spend more dice than necessary to take a blow? (If I want to make sure that a certain piece of Fallout is extra problematic for the NPC and by extension, the Dogs.)

From what little I know, I think the answer is: "Yes, absolutely, totally! If it's cool, go ahead."

I have a player who's been sinking a lot of his 'experienece' into his "I'm a Dog" trait. I totally plan on putting the screws on that.

Imagine, he's discussing with someone that sort of matters to him. Then he pulls out the trait. My reaction: take the blow with as much dice as I can. Give right away. NPC turns around, (if it's a woman, with a tear in the corner of her eye) and just walks away, saying: "Fine, if you're gonna be that way..."

Dev wrote:
As a GM, I'd like the opportunity to have an NPC take a painful fall, taking the blow (rather than blocking, even if it's possible) and perhaps folding immediately after (rather than re-raising). Is this kosher, in being with the spirit of things?

To stretch this further, is it rules-legal to spend more dice than necessary to take a blow? (If I want to make sure that a certain piece of Fallout is extra problematic for the NPC and by extension, the Dogs.)

I can see the point in Dev’s concern. It’s sort of invalidating a players choice. Like, I throw that guy a punch just to calm him down. I deliberately put forth a 10, though I would have been able to raise with a 17. Why? Because I can see he’ll have to take the blow, but I don’t want to force him into too much fall-out. Now, instead of taking the blow with his 4, 5 and a 1, the GM takes it with all the low dice he’s got, which means 7d6 Fallout instead of 3d6, an after that, he just gives, winking at me and saying “gotcha”. It’s certainly fine with the rules, but should you really do it, I wonder?

This isn't in the rules explicitly, BUT:

Once you've put forward enough dice to equal or beat the raise, you have to stop putting forward more dice.

I raise with a 10, for instance.
You have 5 5 2 1 1 1 1.
You can see with 5 5, of course.
You can see with 5 2 1 1 1.
You can't see with 5 5 1 or 5 2 1 1 1 1.

However, you might want to check out the bodyguard conflict in the "resolution in action" chapter, for some insight into NPCs and fallout.

-Vincent

Ok, let me rephrase: What would be the point in doing this? Taking as much fallout as you can and then giving? I'm just wondering.

- Frank

Yeah, that's what I see as the point of it.

The GM wants the NPC to take a lot of fallout, possibly die, rather than just submit to the PC's.

The reason to take Fallout would be to inflict some more consequences onto the losing side of the conflict, and possibly making things more anything. The key example that comes to mind is this:

Suppose Billy's been raising all kinds of hell and cussing at your Dogs' authority, and he gets it into his fool head that you guys are going to box. You try talking at him, but he still is swinging all drunk like. Your character gets angry and just picks up a table and smashes it over his head. That shit is cold! So I use the dice (within Vincent's rules) to take some big physical fallout before follding this conflict.

I guess I see what you're saying, Dev.  My worry would be that the players would see this as spiteful or (worse) an attempt to bully them emotionally into caring about an NPC.  But if you don't have that worry with your own group, and if you're not going outside the rules to achieve the effect, I'd say "Soldier on."

I would definitely have a "bad touch" reaction if I put out a raise of 2 and the GM put in more than 2 dice to see it, just so that he could add fallout to an action that I was implicitly stating I didn't want to see fallout from. As my raises get higher than 2, I'm obivously willing to accept at least some chance of fallout to my opponent, but the principle still remains that part of my influence on how the game goes as a player is that I get to establish a certain range of possible fallout for any of my actions. Spending more dice than are allowed removes that from me.

Neal wrote: My worry would be that the players would see this as spiteful or (worse) an attempt to bully them emotionally into caring about an NPC.

Dev wrote:
I still think that this can be a fine and legal technique, but it points out a spot where I can get used to loosing a bit of control.

Brother Jeb has been arguing with a drunken young Billy who seems intent on picking a fight despite Brother Jeb's (and Brother Jeb's player's) utter lack of interest in such a conflict.  Finally, Billy Excalates to fist-fighting despite Brother Jeb's attempts to calm him down (or perhaps because of them).  Brother Jeb rolls his dice and gets some pretty high numbers.  The GM rolls for Billy and gets a few decent numbers and a crapload of 1's.  It's Brother Jeb's go.
Player: (Raises with a 2 and a 3, his lowest dice) "Geez, I'm getting sick of this.  I'm twice this kid's size.  I'll give him a shove in the chest and say 'Vamoose, kid, before you get hurt.'"
GM: (Passes up a few 3's and 2's, taking up four 1's to See): "The kid staggers backwards and drops.  'Ow, my ribs!  I think I felt my sternum snap.'  He Gives."
Player: "Whoa, his what?  His sternum snapped?  How?  I just tapped him!"
GM: "Don't know your own strength, I guess.  The kid's writhing on the ground, gurgling something about his granny with the two wooden legs, and who'll take care of her now that he's dying.  He starts moaning his goodbyes to his loved ones."
Player: "Aw, come on!  I tapped him.  I told you that."
GM: "Hey, the rules are the rules, y'know?"

One thing I'm missing with these examples, which hopefully is not missing in the game: why the HELL aren't the player and GM talking to each other?

GM: He's little, but he's drunk and spoiling for a fight.
Player: I put up my 2 and 3.
GM: Buh? Those are your lowest dice. Sure you don't want to use bigger ones?
Player: I'm not beating on a damn kid. I'm not risking killing him.
GM: But this is a pretty important conflict for this town. Yeah, he's a kid, but he's also part of a larger problem.
Player: There are better ways to deal with the problem than risking a kid getting hurt or worse.
GM: Dude, you realize that this game is about uncomfortable decisions and tough choices, right?
Player: Dude, you realize that this is going down a road I do not want to travel, right? Isn't there another way of dealing with the little drunk weasel? Can't we scale back to talking shit out?
GM: Yeah, we can. I just thought that the game was about exploring tough situations.
Player: Fine, but I think there's a better way to explore it than wailing on a kid. Right now I, not to mention my character, wants to find the so-called adults who supplied this kid with the whiskey and set them on fire with their own distillery.
GM: Cool! The kid staggers back, sits down, and passes out.
Player: (to other Dog) Okay, healer! Get this kid coherent so I can grill him on who gave him this sinful swill!

I mean, Dogs is a rough game, but there's meaningful conflict and then there's torture. It's a game; it's not good to really cross that line. I'd use your technique as a way to bow out of fights most often, unless the player has specifically stated "problems with overreaction/violence" is a big part of his character.

Y'know, I don't think any of this is necessary.

The dice I have in front of me, the dice you put forward, the rules for what's taking the blow and what's a block or dodge, the stakes of the conflict - those are all the constraints I want or need.

"I shove him in the chest" with a 4, "I shove him in the chest" with a 19 - the number you put forward doesn't show how hard you shove him. If I see the 4 with 3 dice and take the blow with "he staggers backward and falls against the bar," and I see the 19 with 7 dice and take the blow with "he tips backward about 5 degrees and puts his left foot a few inches behind him," I'm within my rights.

I get to see your raises however I want. You don't get to put any expectations on me about what dice I'll see with or what I'll say. None. There's no reason on earth for us to have any kind of conversation about how I'll play my side of the conflict, or how you'll play your side. Playing the conflict replaces that conversation.

(Now, I don't get to take the blow with "his ribs shatter and he drowns in his own blood" - that'd be taking some other blow than the one you landed, same as if I said "his brains explode out the side of his head onto the glasses and bottles behind the bar" or "he bursts into tears, saying 'you're right, my mama never did care for me!'" But that should go without saying. Surely we aren't worried about that.)

-Vincent

Yeah, I guess this is kind of moot, especially when we consider it's going to be the after-conflict Fallout roll that helps determine the extent of the "damage", more than the narration of the action.  As GM, I could say "He falls over and you hear the cracking of bones," but if the dice come up with a "short-term consequence," I'll be eating my words (and tempering them in future conflicts).

And Dev, reading my own previous post back, I think it could be interpreted with a strain of bitterness or spitefulness.  I didn't intend that.  In fact, I was trying to be a little bit funny.  After a day working at a relief agency call center, though, I think my humor engines were a bit rusty.

Neal wrote: And Dev, reading my own previous post back, I think it could be interpreted with a strain of bitterness or spitefulness.  I didn't intend that.

I haven't played yet, but for me, all of the information for this comes from the dice.

If we come to a conflict that you were hoping to lose and lose big, and you as the GM roll the NPC's dice and roll really well, then take that information into the game itself.  He knows he has the drop on me in the situation.  He's already sized me up and knows he can take me out if he wants, or fend off anything I could put up... but in his mind, he doesn't want to hurt the Dog, he wants to lose and be punished.  So he'll have to Give.

Just start a follow-up conflict with the stakes as "Do I coerce the Dog into punching me anyway?".

I hope I have the right idea, anyway.