So, one of the players in my game wanted to play an accomplishment with stakes, "Do I solve a problem without resorting to violence."  Right out of the book.

And then he stopped and said the following:  That the conflict is decided by a specific escalation I do or do not take -- not by actually following the rules which allow escalation in order to win the conflict or not.  Now, I hemmed and hawed, but I really see his point.

Most of these conflicts, what you're trying to accomplish *is* the conflict. In this case, the conflict is some other thing, and raising is the temptation I fight against. Which means that the conflict is really *beside* the point. If it is beside the point in my head, then I can't do it right, I'm just picking whether to succeed or not. Is there a way to make it not beside the point?  Or, alternately, is there some way to make the proposed conflict *actually* the conflict, not just an element of it?

This is a bit vague, but that just gives the GM the option of making things nasty.  I'd just tell the player, "You can always Give," and then I'd come up with the most shameful, awful, reputation-staining thing I could think of, and have a fellow Dog-in-training accuse him of it.  Go ahead!  Give.  I dare ya!  You want to be known as the boy who wore a nightgown to bed and wet himself, be my guest.  Otherwise, punch this liar's lights out.

It's all well and good when refraining from violence means gaining honor.  When it means everlasting shame, it's something else entirely.

Neal wrote:
This is a bit vague, but that just gives the GM the option of making things nasty.  I'd just tell the player, "You can always Give," and then I'd come up with the most shameful, awful, reputation-staining thing I could think of, and have a fellow Dog-in-training accuse him of it.  Go ahead!  Give.  I dare ya!  You want to be known as the boy who wore a nightgown to bed and wet himself, be my guest.  Otherwise, punch this liar's lights out.

You can escalate to the physical level without violence... I've done that... but I don't know how you'd escalate to weapons or guns without violence.

Vaxalon wrote:
You can escalate to the physical level without violence... I've done that... but I don't know how you'd escalate to weapons or guns without violence.

James wrote:
Well, you could escalate to guns by, say, threatening somebody with one ... but that's probably "violence."

We generally play it that to count as Shooting, you need to use a firearm with the intent to kill or wound someone. Just waving it around and being threatening counts as Talking (or maybe Physical) plus the gun dice in our group.

In any case, I'd say that for this accomplishment ("Do I solve a problem without resorting to violence.") you simply can't Escalate without implictly Giving. That's just how it goes, I guess.

Also, despite being in the book, those stakes do seem to contradict the "no fudging of Stakes" proposal made somewhere in this forum (and which I believe that Vincent endorsed). Don't specify methods, specify outcomes. "Do I learn that violence doesn't always solve my problems" might be better (it allows you to Escalate, in any case). Again, I think this is a pointer to Good Stakes==Good Game.

We had a similar Accomplishment in my IRC based game. The Accomplishment was 'I hope I learnt to solve a conflict without fighting' for a soldier-turned-dog. It actually went quite OK. Going away from someone is physical in my book, which was a raise we had, or doing a pursuit.

On the other hand, you could try to make this into 'I hope I solved a conflict without *starting* a fight'. This would be a bit more to the point.

I need to post the IRC log about the Accomplishment soonish now to link it back in here. What the dog got as Accomplishment trait was "I learnt not to interfere with other peoples' business unasked." which is quite a statement for a dog...

We'll see where this leads soon enough!

H.

Obviously, if Vincent weighs in then he'll probably have something more useful to say.  But this problem struck me, so I'm gonna pontificate a bit.

The system has a job, which is jealously protects.  For Dogs, this niche is "resolving how far people escalate in order to achieve their goals."  If you make your Stakes "I want to achieve my goals without escalating too far" then you are trying to steal the game-system's job, and things get all wonky.  Who decides whether you escalate?  The Stakes or the system?

Same thing is easy to achieve in many other systems:

Sorceror:  I want a Lore roll to increase my Humanity
Capes:  My Goal is that I save the day without becoming morally invested.
The Mountain Witch:  My goal for the roll is that I can do this without needing anyone's help.

So I'd say just recognize what you're doing:  You're trying to resolve something in two different places, and it's confusing the whole system.  Those aren't good stakes, the same way it's not good Dogs play to say "My Stakes are that I solve this fight without taking any Fallout."  You don't declare those things in Stakes, because they're resolved elsewhere.

If the player's interest is purely "Can I resolve this fight without resorting to violence" then the Stakes are "Do I resolve the fight?" and you find out whether you resort to violence by resolving those stakes.  That's all you need.  You don't mention the "resort to violence" thing in the Stakes because it's covered elsewhere.  Now, by comparison, I would love Stakes of "My character proves that violence never solves anything."  Are you willing to escalate to gunfighting in order to prove that?

The ability to escalate isn't a right you hold, sacrosanct and inviolable. The rule in play in this allegedly problematic case is: you are not allowed to make a raise or a see that would, by itself, resolve the stakes.

I encourage you to leave escalation out of the stakes, as Tony says, whenever it's practical to do so. When escalation is built into the stakes, you've hobbled yourself - but that doesn't break the game.

Anybody still doesn't get it?

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:
The ability to escalate isn't a right you hold, sacrosanct and inviolable. The rule in play in this allegedly problematic case is: you are not allowed to make a raise or a see that would, by itself, resolve the stakes.

I encourage you to leave escalation out of the stakes, as Tony says, whenever it's practical to do so. When escalation is built into the stakes, you've hobbled yourself - but that doesn't break the game.

Anybody still doesn't get it?

-Vincent

Jason wrote:
So, here's my question.  Right there in the book, it recommends the Accomplishment: "I hope I can resolve a serious problem without resorting to violence."  What sort of stakes do you use for this which leave escalation out of them?

Neal wrote:
Why not something like "Can I talk Brother Esau into giving up his whiskey?"  Or how about "Can I give a sermon that shames Sister Hesther into going back to her husband?"  Or even "Can I take Brother Jacob on a nature walk that convinces him to take better care of his body?"

The last of these would invite Physical escalation, but without making necessary any kind of fighting.

"Without resorting to violence" is an awkward stake -- but not a game breaking one. "Without anyone getting hurt" is the game breaker, so far as I can see. That second one just won't work.

The first one will work, but it will handcuff the character and could, if used too often, become a big shield the player uses in order to keep from having to make the really difficult calls. Still, if you push it hard enough it should be something players won't want to get into all that often. After all no one likes to sit there while their character has the crap pounded out of them over and over and over. And if they make it work? Well hell, then they're on a path of saying something.

Upon reflection, here's a clearer statement of my remaining befuddlement.  Hope that Vincent sees this before he replies.  :-)

I agree and understand Tony's point, and yours, that escalation should be left out of the stakes.  But at the same time, you said that this was an "allegedly problematic" case -- which seems to contradict what came after - that this case is definitely problematic!

We agree that I hope I can resolve a serious problem without resorting to violence isn't well-formed, clean stakes, unlike the other suggestions in the book.  How do you go from that to saying that this is only an allegedly problematic case?  Do you not agree that this is errata?  Or is there something else I'm not seeing?

It's not problematic.

You aren't allowed to make a raise that would decide the stakes all by itself. If the stakes are "who draws first?" then you aren't allowed to raise "I draw first!" If the stakes are "I hope I don't jump out the window," then you aren't allowed to raise "I jump out the window." If the stakes are "I hope I don't use violence," then you aren't allowed to raise "I use violence." Easy as that.

Yes, this means that you won't be allowed to escalate during this conflict. That's life.

For this reason, I encourage you - just encourage, not require - to leave escalation out of the stakes, for your own benefit, whenever it's reasonable to do so - which isn't always. When you do have escalation in your stakes, that's perfectly nonproblematic, you just play by the rule that says "don't make a raise that resolves the stakes outright."

-Vincent

Lightbulbs.  Thanks, V.

By the way, Tony -- those stakes about learning that violence doesn't prove anything? The players in my group were following this thread, and our eyes all lit up and we went "oooo."  Terrific.

"Resorting to violence" to me talks about the Raises.  You can Escalate without ever being violent -- drawing your gun and threatening someone with them isn't necessarily "violence".  Shooting them is.  But shooting is the result of a Raise.  It's all about the consequences.  If you Escalate to Gunplay by drawing your gun and pointing it at them, and they Take the Blow, your gun went off.  If you didn't want to deal with those possible consequences, you shouldn't have Escalated.  You probably should have Given.

My understanding, as was mentioned upthread, is that drawing your gun isn't escalating to gunplay, but it DOES bring your gun's belonging dice into play.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember reading this in the book.

You're right, I stand corrected.

If you use such stakes, it's important to figure out which part of the sentence is actually important.

When I read stakes like "I hope I solve the conflict without resorting to violence", particularly as an initiation, the conflict I see is the "... without resorting to violence". That the dog will solve the conflict isn't important. So, the way I see it, if the player gives he doesn't fail to solve the conflict, he just fails to do it without violence.

Simon, me too.

"I give, dammit. I shoot him in the head."

-Vincent