The People/Furniture dichotomy has been big in Dogs discussion lately, and I'd like to discuss when a game person, place, or thing becomes a Person (that is, an entity with which the PC's can have opposed conflicts) in the game.

I'd say that there are two thresholds:

1> The People the GM creates in the Town creation process
2> The People the GM stats up and uses in conflicts in the course of play when necessary

1> is well documented in the book, but 2> needs work, I think.  When does it become necessary for the GM to take an NPC and elevate him to the level of Person?

I think there are actually THREE states of Personhood/Nonpersonhood in DitV, that is:

1> Not mentioned anywhere by name
2> A trait on a true Person's sheet (such as a relationship, or a member of a mob) only
3> Full Personhood with character sheet

My thought is that anyone can elevate from 1 to 2 by putting down a trait or relationship that names the person, but from 2 to 3 should require some kind of group assent.

I pretty much use one threshold: when the PCs find the NPC interesting enough to engage in a conflict with.

Of course I will push as hard as I can to make the NPCs detailed in town generation that interesting. Most of the time I am succesful. In fact, I don't think I've ever not had a TG NPC become a person, so the point may be moot.

For non TG NPCs, however, if they aren't interesting enough to the players for them to get into conflicts with them, then they're furniture. The moment the become interesting enough, however, is when I start slapping names onto those blank NPCs I rolled up as the PCs came into town.

I'm definitely going to play closer attention to these issues next time I run Dogs (which should be soon, if all goes well).

I'm going to make a point of creating non-human "characters" for some Towns, a la Capes.  I used a set of stats for a pack of demonic-influenced wolves in one game, and that worked out well.

I wonder what happens to the game, when the power to declare "I want to roll dice on this conflict" is entirely in the hands of the players?

I'd say the jump from (2) to (3) or even (1) straight to (3) is when one of the players (including the GM) declares a conflict with said character.

When players take a relationship with that person because they hate them that much or like them that much, that's a good sign of an NPC who isn't furniture.

I agree that when a Dog is in conflict with a non-player character, then the npc is definitely a "person" with stats, etc.  If there is no conflict, then the "say yes" rule applies.  I'm liking the idea that the move from furniture to person is not necessarily one-way; that an existing npc with stats who has already engaged in conflicts with Dogs can be relegated to furniture based on the nature of a specific conflict.  That is, the npc is not participating in a conflict but is present in the capacity that the other characters (both Dogs and stat'ed npc's) who are involved in the conflict could use said npc as an improvised belonging (i.e., furniture).

I only fill in the names of traits and relationships for an npc when a Dog comes into conflict with that npc.  I do it strictly in order too--I have my randomly generated stats and the next open one is it.  I don't spend any time looking for what might be the "best" set of stats for that character.

Julie

Fred, I'd take Brand's first response to your post as gospel, personally.  That's what worked for me in my first DitV session.  I think you may be overthinking this, trying to theorize what doesn't require elaborate theory.  Just play each NPC to the elbows, and then let the players decide who's worthy of conflict.

Also, recall that you have other tools at your disposal besides those "character sheets." 

You have groups, for example.  Got six roadagents bearing down on the PCs in the old abandoned hotel?  Just assign them to one group of stats and bump up the numbers based on how many they are. 

Likewise, if the players are mildly interested in some inanimate object or solitary task, just pull out Demonic Influence instead of assigning stats.  Let the general badness of the town oppose the PCs, rather than trying to decide what Acuity and Heart are most appropriate for a "mysterious bloodstain," for example.

In my own game, I'm also writing down some notes as I go.  Just jots.  Things like "The tinker who forged Br. Jonas's letter was named Evans... the roadagent with the ugly scar carries a stolen Oglala warclub (big and excellent)... Sr. Editha used to keep slaves in Alabama...  The Last Candle Hotel looks like it's frowning."  If those NPCs come up again, I can give the players a sense of continuity, but I needn't enshrine their "character sheets" against that eventuality -- just remind myself that the roadagent was "a big guy" and Sr. Editha was "over-refined."  Getting the exact numbers right for Body, Acuity, etc., just isn't all that important.  And hey, if some time passes between the PC/NPC encounters, even the Traits and Relationships needn't be the same; NPCs, like PCs, can change over time (That's why they get Fallout).

I wonder what happens to the game, when the power to declare "I want to roll dice on this conflict" is entirely in the hands of the players?