I'm a bit tired, but if I put this off it'll happen like next week, so I'll ask now and perhaps elaborate a bit later on.

One of my players had an initiation that didn't go that well. Got thrown in one of those water thingies in front of the bar for the horses to drink from. Caught pneumonia. Fallout kept getting worse and worse to the point where I actually had to run a 'Do you survive' conflict with him. No, i wasn't going to kill him, but... Initiation rules say you can't take one where failure would mean being removed from the game. Shouldn't there be something, even if it's just a warning in the book, to stop people from dying from fallout during initiation?

Later on, I'm opposing two Dogs. They each have a pile of d6es with which they can't go higher than 9. I have a 10 showing on a d10. The first one raises me with 9. I reverse the blow, keeping the 10 for my next raise or see as per the rule in the multiple opponent section. Then the other Dog raised me 9 as well. I still had my 10, had to use it, but since I was able to yet again reverse the blow, I kept it for yet another action, being my next raise. Correctly played, or not? (On a side note, later while flipping through the book we rediscovered the section on helping each other which would have changed the situation quite a lot. We're obviously not experienced enough at this)

When does a conflict end? Okay, the obvious answer is 'when one side gives', but why is there no other option? Or at least, it's not in the book. They were having a conflict with a guy and okay, they were winning, they still had dice, I only had one 1 and I had pulled in almost every trait and whatnot I could think of. But it still felt wrong for this guy to just give. I sort of wanted him to be forced to come up short on his last see, take some extra fallout because of that, you know, just be horribly stubborn about it all. Any ideas?

And the last bit: we've only played like 3 sessions, but... I'm a bit worried that Experience Fallout is getting out of control. Especially the bit about raising your Traits. They're not pure gamist players, but at least one of them likes getting the most out his character. He's been raising his stats pretty consequently and, well, there's just nothing I can do about it. Having them suffer long-term fallout would work as a balancing element if they weren't totally free to leave their stats  like they are and just get more d4 traits which they might never use... Thoughts on the matter?

Falc wrote:
Later on, I'm opposing two Dogs. They each have a pile of d6es with which they can't go higher than 9. I have a 10 showing on a d10. The first one raises me with 9. I reverse the blow, keeping the 10 for my next raise or see as per the rule in the multiple opponent section. Then the other Dog raised me 9 as well. I still had my 10, had to use it, but since I was able to yet again reverse the blow, I kept it for yet another action, being my next raise. Correctly played, or not? (On a side note, later while flipping through the book we rediscovered the section on helping each other which would have changed the situation quite a lot. We're obviously not experienced enough at this)

The power balance, in terms of "winning" conflicts, is heavily weighted in favor of the PC's in this game.  If they stomp all over your NPC's, that's how the game is supposed to work.

That being said, you have tools for evening things up somewhat.

If the PC's were to walk into town to find the Steward, dead, nailed to the Temple door, his entrails arranged in an inverted pentagram, well...

Hate and Murder, 5d10 demonic influence.  Bang.  Right off the bat.

And then find that half of the townsfolk are posessed, with three and four die demonic relationships...

Well, it wouldn't be pretty.  There aren't many Dogs who could handle that situation.

I hate to do this, but since it's about to fall off the first page and I was really hoping that Vincent would reply to this:

*bump*

It's even more frustrating that one of my players took the book along with him after the session, so I can't even verify the bit about reusing my 10. I would like to point out that I have a second printing and that the pdf does not say anything on the matter, so it's possibly a newish addition to the text...

Hah! I be smart! Me ask friend over IRC to check book!

*embarrassed*

Anyway, the books seems to say: "If you reverse a blow in a group conflict, keep the die for whatever you do next, whether it's raise or see."

This question has come up on the forum, so if you trawl the threads, you'll find it, somewhere.

The answer was: you did it right. That single 10 can be used on each See the character makes, as long as they are all Reversals, and then used to power his next Raise.

Yes: you played the 10 right.

About that experience fallout: your goal as GM is not to win conflicts. Your goal is to inflict fallout, force escalation, and raise with all your might. You should realize right away that when you do win a conflict, all that means is that the players are going to launch a followup conflict that you won't win.

So make sure you're usually rolling a few big dice, for the opportunities, and mechanically speaking you'll be fine.

One non-mechanical thing to focus on is: make your raises so fierce (and your stakes modest enough) that taking the blow is as bad as giving the stakes. Kill NPCs outright. Introduce complications. Introduce complicating delays. Dogs' resolution isn't limited to the 6-seconds-per-exchange blow-for-blow of other games - love that fact and use it hard.

Another thing to focus on is: make your NPCs emotionally compelling. That means, to a large extent, giving them people who care about them. Then winning the conflict doesn't make anything easier. Forcing the steward to admit his culpability and driving him out of town is easy for Dogs to do if he's just standing there by himself, but a lot harder if he has a wife, a teenage daughter who loves to play piano, and baby twins.

These are both things you'll want to do whether experience fallout's a problem or not.

I'll answer your remaining two questions later.

-Vincent