Hi Forge people, my name's Alex, and I am hoping to GM a session of DitV sometime in the run-up to Christmas. I suspect I may post here again before/after this, and I would then want to give some fuller information about the play group, my own background and so on (to be clear, if anyone wants such info now feel free to ask) but at present I have some specific questions about game mechanics in play, specifically about about conflict resolution. Searching the forums has given me a much good advice on this subject but I can't find these specific questions covered [NB just before posting I found the answer to my second Q in the rules so I have truncated this to focus just on the supplementary questions it led to. Shows the benefit of reading before speaking...].

1. Traits and narration. From what I understand of the rules, narrating a trait brings it into play (p63).  The dice are free to be used  in other sees and raises. This is crystal clear to me, mechanically, but am unclear about how it pans out in play, giving real life to those traits. I'll use a hypothetical to show my issue.

Let's say that Br Simeon has the  trait: ' I tell it like my grandaddy told me 3d4', a pushy, dictating know-it-all that thinks a few well-spun homilies solve everything. Obviously, a trait like this is going to be interesting because it causes problems and fall-out for the character. But it seems likely that the narration that brings the trait in is  going to end up disconnected from the mechanical problems the trait will cause, as dice often won't be used at the moment they are avaiable - especially if they are low dice, which will likely be saved until they are absolutely required. So the moment of failure is likely to come downstream of the use of the trait, which could even be at a different level of escalation, such as when the dice are used to take the blow at a shooting level.

When the conflict is all said and done, mechanically granpa's proverbs may be the reason for Br Simeon's bloody knee, but thematically the proverb appeared to momentarily shut up the yahoo, with Br Simeon's slower trigger finger seeming the real culprit. Is this how it's meant to be, or should there be an attempt to weave things together? One example I can think of is the yahoo's critical raise being 'eyes narrowed, bead cocked, ''grab the bull by the horns my ass'', BANG!' but that depends upon being confident on what the see will be (mechanically, at least) and feels a bit railroady.

2 Taking the blow and fallout - just before posting I found an example in the book which answers this question: the scale of fallout dice does rely on the narration of the particular raise, rather than a consequence of the level to which the conflict has escalated (example on p62 - even though they're at shooting, the narrated raise was 'rough physical treatment', so it's d6s). So I've removed my hypotheticals and two interpretations, but I'd still like to canvas thoughts on two outcomes of this,  which I'll call tactical fallout.

Does this incentivise simply narrating 'I shoot at him' on every raise with a big bad enemy, to maximise fallout caused? Additionally, do players use this rule to tactically take the blow on 'safe' raises where shooting has not been mentioned, like the 'creep along the ridge' raise on p82 of the book? My feeling is that the first issue will depend upon the Creative Agenda of the players, meaning I want to be sure to get them on the same page beforehand. On reflection the second may not be a worry: it's good story-wise for the players to allow their characters to fall for stunts and gambits, and not necessarily so to see them explode in blood every gunfight. Does this sound about right: exploiting the rule to narrate only gunshots should not be encouraged (but allowed) whereas tactical taking the blow, being narratively interesting, should be a by and large cool thing to do?

3. Tangentally related, is a player allowed to escalate all the way to shooting but never actually shoot? Let's say a player wants access to as many dice as possible in every conflict, without ever having to deal with the consequences of actually killing or hurting someone.  What's to stop them always escalating, but narrating raises like 'I idly but meaningfully spin my pistol around with my trigger finger', 'I wave my shotgun in his face', 'I pull out my OTHER pistol for added effect' (thinking of the badass described in this thread - http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=13170.0 - and the ruling that they can have as many guns and as many dice as they want from it). If Dice in guns and acuity etc are temptations, it seems wrong that they can be exploited without ever having any consequences.  Given that these kinds raises don't cause d10 fallout but d4s (given the resolution of question 2), the character can do more or less what they want. How does this work?

Again, I'm aware that a lot of this may be just down to players at the table. And I will definitely take this to heart:

The thing to observe in play, by the way, isn't what the group's doing, but instead who's dissatisfied with what the group's doing. The player who shakes her head and uses withdrawing body language in response to someone else's raise, or who's like "that's weak" when someone reaches for dice - that's the player whose lead to follow. Everyone's raises etc. should come to meet the most critical player's standards. As GM, it's your special responsibility to pay attention, figure out what those standards are, and make sure the group (overall) lives up to them.

I'll leave question 1 for someone who can asnwer it better than me.

Alex wrote:
2. Taking the blow and fallout -
Does this incentivise simply narrating 'I shoot at him' on every raise with a big bad enemy, to maximise fallout caused?

Additionally, do players use this rule to tactically take the blow on 'safe' raises where shooting has not been mentioned, like the 'creep along the ridge' raise on p82 of the book?

3. Tangentally related, is a player allowed to escalate all the way to shooting but never actually shoot? Let's say a player wants access to as many dice as possible in every conflict, without ever having to deal with the consequences of actually killing or hurting someone.  What's to stop them always escalating, but narrating raises like 'I idly but meaningfully spin my pistol around with my trigger finger', 'I wave my shotgun in his face', 'I pull out my OTHER pistol for added effect'

There will be other, more informed, responses after mine.

As far as fallout being connected to the traits that supplied the dice that resulted in taking the blow which generated the fallout dice in the first place... I wouldn't really worry about it.  Players will choose fallout based on what is important to their character in the given situation -- if it's important to the player that grandpappy's stories get his character in trouble, he'll select something based on that.  If it's important that his character's slow trigger finger gets highlighted, he'll select something based on that.  There doesn't need to be a strict and formal causal connection in the rules -- player preferences steer better in the first place.

Secondly, players making tactical choices of when to block and take the blow fall under the same deal -- players will do the things that make sense for what they want to happen to their characters.  It's not cheating or skirting the rules; it's how the game is played (consider how many teevee shows or films have the hero win the conflict, not get shot, but come away with doubts about something important to them -- that's what the system produces).

Lastly, pulling a gun is not escalating to gunplay.  You only gain d10 fallout if you are being shot at, not if somebody is waving a gun around.  If you pull a gun, you can get dice for the gun, sure.  Maybe you'll win the conflict by showing off your guns.  But then whoever you cowtowed into submission takes their fallout, and they might take a trait like "Dogs are only thugs" or "Authority comes at the barrel of a gun" and suchlike, complicating matters further down the line.

From my perspective, you're focusing on fallout as if it was damage.  It's not.  Damage is how you determine who wins a conflict -- first one out of HP loses.  Fallout, on the other hand, has no (direct) affect on the resolution of conflicts.  Fallout is not how you track progress towards goals or setbacks from the same.  Fallout is the price you pay for acheiveing those goals.  That's why it happens after the conflict is resolves and the winner gets their stakes.  It is secondary to the conflict (hence the name) but it ends up being tied for the primary focus of the game (tied with what traits the players are willing to tap to win).

Related question to (3): What if I'm shooting, but not even to hit the person, like I want to shoot the wall by their face to scare them or shoot the ground to make them have to dance? Do I get all my shooting dice? Is the possible fallout for them that I miss and hit them, or that they take the blow by being scared or jumping around?

foucalt wrote:
Related question to (3): What if I'm shooting, but not even to hit the person, like I want to shoot the wall by their face to scare them or shoot the ground to make them have to dance? Do I get all my shooting dice? Is the possible fallout for them that I miss and hit them, or that they take the blow by being scared or jumping around?

The first line of my reply should say, "Good Shot" style traits and equipment dice for guns. Not traits dice for guns, obviously.

I like that people begin with a modest disclaimer and then proceed to mop up most of my issues. Thanks to everyone who replied; I'm almost there I think. Slight delay in my response mainly due to time-zone diffs.

1  OK. I think I'm good with this from Joshua and Brand_Robins. Part of me wants to pin this down further but I'm reassuring myself that this will become clear in play.

2a

Darren wrote:
One of the duties of the GM in DitV is to present characters for the players to deal with, rather thar then enemies to shoot.

Darren wrote:
an escalation to shooting must involve shooting. The examples you mention are not shooting actions. You can twirl your gun about for effect, and get the gun dice on that raise, without escalating - though it sounds like a physical action rather than a non-physical.

Joshua wrote:
Maybe you'll win the conflict by showing off your guns.  But then whoever you cowtowed into submission takes their fallout, and they might take a trait like "Dogs are only thugs" or "Authority comes at the barrel of a gun" and suchlike, complicating  atters  further down the line.

Obligatory modest disclaimer: I've only GM'd one full-length session of DitV.  Okay, that's out of the way.

Alex wrote:
3

Darren wrote:
an escalation to shooting must involve shooting. The examples you mention are not shooting actions. You can twirl your gun about for effect, and get the gun dice on that raise, without escalating - though it sounds like a physical action rather than a non-physical.

I agree with the sentiment (reiterated by subsequent posters) but not sure how this should work system-wise. Clearly, when acuity and will are being rolled in a shooting situation you can narrate non-shooting raises such as the 'creep around the ridge'  aise in p82 of the text. Or, presumably 'I step forward and press my muzzle against his temple'. What determines how many of  such raises are considered kosher? I suspect the answer is to rely on player agreement - if it feels like the player is using these types of raises in the genuine spirit of escalation, to end in bloodiness, then that's cool even if opponents end up giving  efore the shots are fired, but if it seems like a cynical tactic then the group should cry foul on it. Does that sound about right?

This is great: guns can (and should) be a pain in the ass whether fired or not. Got it.

I imagine I'm nearing 'Alex, just go ahead and play the damn game and watch your worries disappear' time, but if anyone has any further feedback I'd welcome it.

Alex wrote:
I like that people begin with a modest disclaimer and then proceed to mop up most of my issues.

I agree with the sentiment (reiterated by subsequent posters) but not sure how this should work system-wise. Clearly, when acuity and will are being rolled in a shooting situation you can narrate non-shooting raises such as the 'creep around the ridge'  aise in p82 of the text. Or, presumably 'I step forward and press my muzzle against his temple'. What determines how many of  such raises are considered kosher?

Neal wrote: I shrugged and said, "I'll go with that."

Hey Folks,

Other folks have covered this pretty well, but I wanted to give my take and also highlight something I hadn't seen posted. First, the way I read Dogs is that if you want escalation dice your action has to be one that can cause the escalated fallout. It's mostly Brand Robins way of doing it restated something. Without that fallout risk initially, you don't get escalation dice. You can later raise/see in a way that doesn't cause that sort of fallout, but initially it has to be risked. Otherwise you just haven't escalated.

Secondly, and here's the thing I'm getting at really, don't forget that the other side of the conflict escalates on their own terms. While the Dogs have a lot of options to keep fallout low if they like, the other side of the conflict may have no such compunction. When the Dogs are faced with taking round after round of d10 fallout, while only inflicting d4s you may be surprised to see how quickly the guns go off. Big fallout can often cause one or the other side to give long before they run out of dice.

Third, don't forget that in a natural progression, where you've gone up through the chain, an escalation to guns doesn't earn you additional dice beyond the weapon dice anyway. You've already rolled all your attributes, so it strictly changes the fallout die.

-Tim

Joshua wrote:
For me it always comes down to "can someone get dead from a bullet because of this action." If the answer is yes, then it is escalation. If it is no, then it is not. It is also important to note that you can escalate with a potentially lethal action, then follow up with actions not so lethal -- but once you've set the stage you got to play with the toys you've brought out.

Joshua wrote:
To use your examples, the creepy one I don't see on page 82.

Alex wrote: So just to see if I've got this right, taking another textual example: 2 'Who draws first?' (page 84).

Great. Thank you Brand,  and thanks to everyone else who participated, whether I specifically replied to you or not, your advice was totally helpful. My mental windshield has been well and truly demisted, and I'm now (even more) eager to play out some real conflicts in game. Stick a fork in this thread, as I think it's done.