I had a situation come up while running my town of Olive Grove, and I'd like some opinions on my decision.

The Dogs were in conflict with a girl possessed by a demon.  I had already Taken a Blow with as many dice as I could manage, demonstrating that the demons were fully willing to let the girl's body suffer as much damage as the Dogs wanted to deal out.  A moment later, one of the Dogs put forward a Raise ("I'll pistol-whip her") with his two highest dice, resulting in a 12.  I could easily have Blocked or Dodged, and I could also have Taken the Blow with about four dice, but I wanted something really awful to happen.

I slid a 10 over to the player to aid his Raise and said, "She seems almost to lurch right into the oncoming pistol-butt."  The player didn't mind taking the higher die and reserving one of his 6s.  And the move let me accomplish two objectives: the girl had fewer high dice in her pot, and could only Raise with a single die on her next Go; and I could force a good deal more Fallout.

At the time, I justified the move to myself by saying, "This is what the Demons want, after all.  The girl is no longer a credible threat to the Dogs, but if she gets hurt really badly, then it will be on the Dogs' heads."  As I saw it, the Demons were just doing what Demons do: they were making things as bad as they could.

Afterwards, however, I questioned the move.  It seemed too manipulative.  Perhaps I should simply have let things play out however they happened to go.

What do you think?

Well, taking dice from Demons is pretty much Sorcery by the rules, so I think it's totally OK for the Dogs to do it, as long as they know what they're getting themselves into. 

Just to clarify: did you add the 10 straight to the Dog's Raise (so it went to 22), or did you offer him a die that he could use in that raise instead of one of his own?  Most importantly, did he have the choice to take it or leave it?

Giving dice that the players can choose to use is right in-line with how Dogs is supposed to work.  Rewriting the actions of the players -- either increasing or decreasing their effectiveness and by replacing their dice -- compromises their sole authorship of their characters, which can conflict with their ability to take their own moral stances.

However, the real question is: did you all enjoy yourselves, and did it lead to good play?  If the answer's yes, I wouldn't worry about the rest.

Danny: I hadn't considered the Sorcery connection.  That throws a whole new light on things, and one we didn't take into account during the game.  I think if I'd put it in that light, the player would have flatly declined the help.  I was thinking less in terms of the player calling on help from the Demons, and more in terms of the Demons offering aid indirectly to further their own ends.

Joshua: The die was made available just as if another player had offered it.  It replaced one of the 6s the player already had on the table.  And yes, the player was given a choice: "You want some help?"  Finally, yes, we did have a good time, so I guess that's what matters.  In hindsight, though, I probably won't do this again.

You had some rather particular circumstances, Neal, that made it feasible in the first place.  I don't think you misstepped at all, but the player may not have realized exactly what taking the die meant.  Of course, the only way to make that clear is to do it again (and again, and again) until they're wary of any dice you offer them.

Joshua wrote:
You had some rather particular circumstances, Neal, that made it feasible in the first place.  I don't think you misstepped at all, but the player may not have realized exactly what taking the die meant.  Of course, the only way to make that clear is to do it again (and again, and again) until they're wary of any dice you offer them.

When players act in accordance with the demons' wishes, I see nothing wrong with offering them "demonic influence" dice to roll... but I'm not sure about handing an already-rolled die across the table like that.  That seems a bit irregular.

Vaxalon wrote:
I'm not sure about handing an already-rolled die across the table like that.  That seems a bit irregular.

Player 4's character has reversed the rake in his hands and brings it crashing down on your character's back.  Player 4 puts forward a big Raise, and you've only got small dice: you'll be out of the conflict.

I've been holding a good die in reserve, though.  "Zeke shouts and shoves you out of the way," I say, and give you my die.  With it, you're able to See and stay in the fight.

I would suggest that whether or not it is taken seriously is up to the player. However, having said that, I also agree with the above that it would be fun to continue to offer players dice in more circumstances and under different degrees of necessity.  Perhaps starting with genuinely needed in dire moments, and after while making them available for less critical things and escalating from there.  If the players don't take it as important or interesting, though, I'd probably drop it.

Perhaps coloring the description in ways that suggest the demons are helping the players.  For example, with the sample you posted adding "... as though her body were not under her control she makes it easier for you to hit her..." or something similar.  The players, as a group, can then decide if the actions of the individual dog (accepting demonic aid) should be questioned.  That can lead to some juicy conflicts.

Very interesting idea, Neal, especially in line with the GM's role of finding out how far the players are willing to have their characters go to succeed.

Hey Neal.

Why had you rolled the demonic influence dice to begin with?

(This is not a pointed question, just a question.)

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:
Hey Neal.

Why had you rolled the demonic influence dice to begin with?

(This is not a pointed question, just a question.)

-Vincent

Cool. So here's the rule:

A sorcerer can:
— Call on the demons. Add the current Demonic Influence to his preferred side of any conflict, as though it were a Trait, by introducing demonic special effects into a See or Raise.

Vincent, that'll work.  So the stipulation is that the Sorcerer can give the player D.I. holus-bolus, but he can't use the rules for Helping a friend.  I can work with that.  And thanks for making it visual.

Here's a follow-up question (and I'll let you hold onto the Fallout dice for this):

Situation: A Sorcerer (or in my case, a coven of sorcerers) has called upon the Demons for help.  They've already performed the rituals for possession of three people.  They know their opponents, and their opponents' general whereabouts.  They want their opponents dead, and the Demons are aware of this.

The Question: Is there any reason why the Sorcerers would have to be proximate to the conflict, much less involved directly in the conflict, for them to exercise Demonic Influence over the conflict?

My reading of the rules tells me that proximity isn't necessary, much less direct involvement in the conflict.  If Demonic Influence can affect conflicts regardless of who's involved, then a more directed and powerful Demonic Influence (one in the service of a Sorcerer) shouldn't suffer from greater restrictions than the kind of vague "bad luck" D.I. of lower-key towns.  This reading makes Sorcerers a force to be feared, enabling them to meddle in all kinds of events from a safe distance.  Am I off-base in this?

Just as a note, and this is extremely nitpicky, but that says the "sorcerer's" preferred side and not the "demon's" preferred side of the conflict. Is it cool to have the demons act in a manner that opposes the sorcerer?  Assuming, that the sorcerer wants the demons to aid him and not the dogs, is it still reasonable to have the demons disobey the sorcerer, as it were, and aid the dogs? This would seem to be at odds with the idea that the demons' goals change to match the sorcerer's goals, when a sorcerer appears.

Neal wrote:
At the time, I justified the move to myself by saying, "This is what the Demons want, after all.  The girl is no longer a credible threat to the Dogs, but if she gets hurt really badly, then it will be on the Dogs' heads."  As I saw it, the Demons were just doing what Demons do: they were making things as bad as they could.

Tindalos wrote:
Just as a note, and this is extremely nitpicky, but that says the "sorcerer's" preferred side and not the "demon's" preferred side of the conflict. Is it cool to have the demons act in a manner that opposes the sorcerer? Assuming, that the sorcerer wants the demons to aid him and not the dogs, is it still reasonable to have the demons disobey the sorcerer, as it were, and aid the dogs?

Neal wrote:
Is there any reason why the Sorcerers would have to be proximate to the conflict, much less involved directly in the conflict, for them to exercise Demonic Influence over the conflict?

My reading of the rules tells me that proximity isn't necessary, much less direct involvement in the conflict. If Demonic Influence can affect conflicts regardless of who's involved, then a more directed and powerful Demonic Influence (one in the service of a Sorcerer) shouldn't suffer from greater restrictions than the kind of vague "bad luck" D.I. of lower-key towns. This reading makes Sorcerers a force to be feared, enabling them to meddle in all kinds of events from a safe distance. Am I off-base in this?

lumpley wrote:

The sorcerer's side. This is very specifically an option that sorcerers have, not an option that the GM has. The GM should not be watching conflicts and declaring the demons to be on one side or the other.

Tindalos wrote: This is a pretty neat discussion as it reinforces, yet again, that GMing Dogs is much different that from GMing the bulk of RPGs.  I love this game!

lumpley wrote:
Here's an example. Let's say the current demonic influence is 4d10. The stakes are something like "does the Dog get into the barn?" and the Dog's escalated to shooting.
Player, raising with a 9: I shoot her! Bam bam bam!
You: the bullets burst into flame and scream as they leave your gun.
You roll 4d10 and slide it over to the player.
You, taking the blow: she goes down in a heap. All the bullet holes are cauterized and smoking.

How's that? Make sense?