So, my group has got through two sessions of Dogs now, and it's all going pretty well; I'll make an Actual Play post when I get some time to write it up. But one of the players came to me with a question after the last session which I wasn't really happy with my answer to.

What turned out to be the mostly-final scene of our first town involved the Dogs facing off against an angry, violent father. The big conflict was something along the lines of "does Brother Samson to repent?", and so far the players have been digging that the conflict system basically makes for cooler play when, if the stakes aren't totally vital, one of the Dogs steps forward to take it on alone, on the understanding that when things get rough whoever's in the limelight can give on the current stakes and then the rest of the gang can whip out their guns and force things to a less subtle conclusion.

So one of the Dogs goes, "Brother, are you aware that what you did was wrong?", and I'm like, sweet, this is a conflict, what's at stake is, does he repent, who's in? And the one player, Tom, who just made the opening statement, says he's in, and the second player says she'll watch. But the third player says she doesn't care about this conflict and she doesn't care about Brother Samson at all, he can repent or get shot or whatever, but she wants to make sure that his son Bartholemew, who's in the room with them, doesn't get hurt.

I don't know how to handle this. As it turns out, Brother Samson doesn't get too violent, so it's all good. but I wasn't sure how to make sense of her protecting of little Bart within the confines of the conflict system. Since anything that's not part of the stakes is fair game, I'd have been totally within my rights to have Brother Samson kill his own son as a big Raise to force the Dogs to either Give or live with Bart dying. (I'm not sure why the player thought that Samson was likely to hurt the kid, but it was obviously a concern for her, and I can totally see situations where this could be relevant.) So my answer to her was that if that happened she should say "Tom, you'd damn well better Give on this conflict right now, and then we can kick Brother Samson's ass for what he's trying to do to his son", but she pointed out that if Tom really cared about getting Brother Samson to repent, the mechanics put the decision of whether or not to sacrifice Brother Bart in pursuit of that goal solely and totally in his hands and there wasn't a damn thing she could do about it.

I know Dogs has a philosophy of "if you don't want in on the conflict, it's your lookout if things get nastier than you intended later", but when you can potentially bring any damn consequences you like in on a Raise, I dunno how to prevent making everyone except the participants totally powerless as soon as a conflict starts.

adam

Let's name the player who's protecting Bro Samson's boy Ann.

GM: I raise 10: Bro Samson shoots his son! In the head!
Tom: Crap, my dice...
Ann: I AM AN IMPROVISED BELONGING! I am excellent at protecting him! Roll 2d6 for me!
Tom rolls.
Tom: I still have to take the blow...
Ann: HE PLUGS ME INSTEAD!
Tom: Wouldn't that be a block or dodge?
Ann: I HAVE A FRICKIN' BULLET IN ME. Does that fee like a block or dodge to you?
Tom: ...So do you take the fallout? D10s?
GM: Nope. D4 fallout for you, Tom. You took the blow.
Tom: But ... that seems weak.
GM: I promise you, my followup conflict is: does Ann die from the bullet in her?
Ann: Oh. Damn. Sweet.
Tom: Yeah, that works. My raise. Bro Samson, YOU ARE DONE.

-Vincent

Sweet! This game rules.

I'll see how 'Ann' feels about this example.

Come back and tell us; I'd like to hear.

-Vincent

Hello :)

Yup, I'm happy with that.

I have slight jarrings of wanting there to be something in between nothing at all and BIG DRAMATIC ACTION, along the lines of "well, in that situation my character would do this"... Otoh am logically happy that "this" is relatively boring and probably entirely peripheral to the context of the conflict that's going on.
Also wow, BIG DRAMATIC ACTION.

And you can also jump into conflict's against other dogs on the GM's side when appropriate. I'd wondered about that. Cool.

I think I'd need to say "I want to do this" and talk it through with the GM or the player, whoever gets to improvise with my character, rather than just saying "I'm doing this ROLL DICE FOR ME", otherwise I'd feel I was overstepping. So far each conflict has been the province of one individual controlling only their Dog (I could be wrong). I guess you negotiate with the relevant person if the initial suggestion doesn't cause burning lights of anticipation in their eyes, as it's still their dice pool and narration. This might slow things down horribly?

I imagine the last will just get easier with more experience of setting/framing conflicts.

Anyway, thanks. I'm really enjoying Dogs.
Anything where a few lines of play can make me grin like a loon... :)

So, actually, this is still kind of bothering me, because in the cold light of morning (read: after a day or so of mulling over it), it still does feel like a Block or Dodge to say "no, he doesn't shoot him, I take the bullet instead". I discussed this with another player (Tom, in fact) way back before we started playing (he was the one who'd GMed a Dogs game before and seen how the mechanics worked) and we came to the conclusion that Taking the Blow meant conceding that yes, whatever you just did lands exactly as you intended it to, no pussyfooting around trading consequences.

I guess this is a "work out with your group what your standards for narration are" issue, but I'd be very interested to hear from other Dogs players where you draw the line between Blocking or Dodging and Taking the Blow.

I'm kinda wondering if the whole problem is that the example is an invalid one to begin with -- it doesn't make sense to argue over whether a response to Bro Bart getting shot is blocking or taking, because Bro Samson shooting him wasn't a valid Raise in the first place; how does that make sense as something which, if ignored, would win him the stakes (ie. let him be the one to decide whether he repents)? If Brother Zeke (Tom's character) cares so passionately about Brother Samson's redemption that he's willing to let innocent people die rather than be distracted from his goal (which was the situation Bryony was worrying about originally), then how is killing innocent people to distract him from his goal a valid Raise?

Grabbing the kid and sticking the gun to his head and saying to goddamn leave me be and get out of my house or I'll shoot him I swear, that's a valid Raise. That's a Raise I want to make. Having him pull the trigger -- is that? If not, can it happen? When does it happen? Can anyone stop him?

I need to think about this some more, but I'd love to hear everyone else's opinion.

adam

Adam wrote:
So, actually, this is still kind of bothering me, because in the cold light of morning (read: after a day or so of mulling over it), it still does feel like a Block or Dodge to say "no, he doesn't shoot him, I take the bullet instead".

One question, if I may, using Vincent´s example:

lumpley wrote:
Let's name the player who's protecting Bro Samson's boy Ann.

GM: I raise 10: Bro Samson shoots his son! In the head!
...
Ann: HE PLUGS ME INSTEAD!
...
Tom: ...So do you take the fallout? D10s?
GM: Nope. D4 fallout for you, Tom. You took the blow.
...

Adam and Bill, you're doing great. Take my example as an approach to the problem, keep it in your back pocket for when you need it, and assume that when you need it the stakes, raises and sees will all make sense.

Mikael, the fallout dice you take depend on the specifics of the blow you take, not on who's escalated to what. In my example, Tom gets d4 fallout because his taking the blow didn't result in his character being shot.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:
Adam and Bill, you're doing great. Take my example as an approach to the problem, keep it in your back pocket for when you need it, and assume that when you need it the stakes, raises and sees will all make sense.

Mikael, the fallout dice you take depend on the specifics of the blow you take, not on who's escalated to what. In my example, Tom gets d4 fallout because his taking the blow didn't result in his character being shot.

-Vincent

Tindalos, first of all, I fully endorse your way as a house rule. It's my favorite house rule ever.

But strictly speaking, "he shoots you!" "I take the blow!" is the only way to get d10 fallout. "He shoots your dog/his son/your friend/the gun out of your hand!" "I take the blow!" gives you d4 fallout (practically always, though I can see d6 fallout for "he shoots the gun out of your hand").

That's just how it works.

Would the game have been a better game if I'd designed it your way? Maybe, maybe not. It certainly would have been a more theoretically hardline game - but I figured the game was theoretically hardline enough already.

Finally, though, again, I totally encourage you to play your way if you prefer, and if you think I'm a simulationist-pandering weakling, I can't say you're unjustified.

-Vincent
who hopes everyone reads in this the easy tone I wrote into it.

lumpley wrote: who hopes everyone reads in this the easy tone I wrote into it.

lumpley wrote:
Tindalos, first of all, I fully endorse your way as a house rule. It's my favorite house rule ever.

But strictly speaking, "he shoots you!" "I take the blow!" is the only way to get d10 fallout. "He shoots your dog/his son/your friend/the gun out of your hand!" "I take the blow!" gives you d4 fallout (practically always, though I can see d6 fallout for "he shoots the gun out of your hand").

That's just how it works.

Would the game have been a better game if I'd designed it your way? Maybe, maybe not. It certainly would have been a more theoretically hardline game - but I figured the game was theoretically hardline enough already.

Finally, though, again, I totally encourage you to play your way if you prefer, and if you think I'm a simulationist-pandering weakling, I can't say you're unjustified.

-Vincent
who hopes everyone reads in this the easy tone I wrote into it.

In my example, Tom gets d4 fallout because his taking the blow didn't result in his character being shot.

Hey Kenyon.

"I dive behind the table, the bullets punching holes through it covering me in spliters of wood" is a dodge, not taking the blow.

So the answer is that no, if I raise that I shoot you, and you take the blow, you can't narrate it down to d4 fallout.

I don't have a copy of the rules handy either, or I'd give you page numbers.

-Vincent

Thank you very much.  I think I get it now.  That makes the specifics of a raise very important. 

"I shoot you!" is different from "I shoot you in the hand!" is different from "I shoot the gun out of your hand!" in terms of fallout? d10s for the first and d6s for the second and d6s maybe d4s for the third?

While stemming from a different starting point than your original question in the thread, you might find This Thread of some use.

Part of the issue is how to handle a Dog who originally wasn't in the Conflict but wants to jump in later when the Conflict turns into something they care about.

A suggested solution is to have the Bystander Dogs roll and participate in the Conflict anyway...They have to See both sides of the conflict to "stay in" as bystanders but never raise themselves until the point where they want to jump in (using at this point whatever dice they have left and not their full handful of new dice).

In other words if Jeb and Job are having a fist fight because Jeb was rude and Job took offence and John wants to stand and watch and make sure it doesn't get out of hand, all three roll.  

Jeb raises with  "I punch Job in the head"
Job Blocks with  "I slip out of his punch"
John "Blocks" with "I shake my head sadly at the sillyness of this fight"
Job Raises with "I kick Jeb in the groin"
Jeb Blocks with "I grab Jobs foot"
John Blocks thinking to himself "bad move, that's going to cost you"
Jeb Raises with "I toss Job over backwards"
Job has to take the Blow and so is on the ground.
John has to take the Blow and so takes d4 fallout which he'll later spend on a Trait like "Men who ain't polite wind up in the dirt"
Job's now low on dice so he escalates and draws his knife
Job Raises with "I slash Jeb's belly open"
Jeb's low on dice so he draws his knife and then blocks with "I catch the blade on mine"
John now draws his gun for more dice and decides to put an end to the fight with a Raise "I fire once in the air and shout 'Ok that's about enough!'"

If the fight never got out of hand, John would never raise and his sees and blocks are nothing but some mechanical book keeping to see what he has left when he does feel the need to get involved.  If John runs out of dice and doesn't want to escalate...he'll have to Give...which in this example might mean that he gets sick of it and walks away before the fight ends and isn't around to stop the bloody finish.  Other blocks and dodges would involve moving out of the way as the fight rolled towards him, and the like.  Fallout for John would be pretty minor at d4 but might involve trait's like "Job's a low down dirty fighter" or gaining a relationship with one of the combatants.

Its basically a way to let Dogs jump in mid-stream but not allow them to jump in with a full load of dice.

"I shoot you" and "I shoot you in the hand" would both result in d10s for Fallout. A bullet is still ending up in you, either way.

"I shoot the gun out of your hand" would result in d6s for Fallout. It's (what I would consider) a physical blow, but you don't end up being shot. Also, your narration for Taking the Blow should accept that you have been disarmed as well.

"I shoot your favorite pet puppy" would result in d4s for Fallout. It's a non-physical blow for you (the puppy gets the bullet,  you get to watch as it happens). Again, your narration for Taking the Blow should accept that you may well have an ex-puppy there too.

I think that a Raise like "I smack you on the back of the head with the butt of my pistol" would lead to d8 fallout. You've been hit with a weapon, but not a bullet.

This is all on the top of p36 of the original Dogs rulebook. Hope this helps!

Warren

Ok now with a copy of Dogs rules in my hand, and the insight from this thread.  It has become clear.  Thanks to everyone!

Oh - about: what counts as taking the blow, like how do you decide whether 'Ann's character takes the bullet for him' is taking the blow or a block or dodge?

One very good approach - and fully consistent with the rules - is to let the person who made the raise decide. So if you raise and I take the blow, you get to say whether my narration preserves the spirit of your raise, and ask me to try again if it doesn't.

-Vincent